Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever
37 views
Skip to first unread message
slider
Feb 9, 2015, 7:58:20 AM2/9/15
to
When future generations look back on the global-warming scare of the past
30 years, nothing will shock them more than the extent to which the
official temperature records – on which the entire panic ultimately rested
– were systematically “adjusted” to show the Earth as having warmed much
more than the actual data justified.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html
Two weeks ago, under the headline “How we are being tricked by flawed data
on global warming”, I wrote about Paul Homewood, who, on his
Notalotofpeopleknowthat blog, had checked the published temperature graphs
for three weather stations in Paraguay against the temperatures that had
originally been recorded. In each instance, the actual trend of 60 years
of data had been dramatically reversed, so that a cooling trend was
changed to one that showed a marked warming.
This was only the latest of many examples of a practice long recognised by
expert observers around the world – one that raises an ever larger
question mark over the entire official surface-temperature record.
Following my last article, Homewood checked a swathe of other South
American weather stations around the original three. In each case he found
the same suspicious one-way “adjustments”. First these were made by the US
government’s Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN). They were then
amplified by two of the main official surface records, the Goddard
Institute for Space Studies (Giss) and the National Climate Data Center
(NCDC), which use the warming trends to estimate temperatures across the
vast regions of the Earth where no measurements are taken. Yet these are
the very records on which scientists and politicians rely for their belief
in “global warming”.
Homewood has now turned his attention to the weather stations across much
of the Arctic, between Canada (51 degrees W) and the heart of Siberia (87
degrees E). Again, in nearly every case, the same one-way adjustments have
been made, to show warming up to 1 degree C or more higher than was
indicated by the data that was actually recorded. This has surprised no
one more than Traust Jonsson, who was long in charge of climate research
for the Iceland met office (and with whom Homewood has been in touch).
Jonsson was amazed to see how the new version completely “disappears”
Iceland’s “sea ice years” around 1970, when a period of extreme cooling
almost devastated his country’s economy.
One of the first examples of these “adjustments” was exposed in 2007 by
the statistician Steve McIntyre, when he discovered a paper published in
1987 by James Hansen, the scientist (later turned fanatical climate
activist) who for many years ran Giss. Hansen’s original graph showed
temperatures in the Arctic as having been much higher around 1940 than at
any time since. But as Homewood reveals in his blog post, “Temperature
adjustments transform Arctic history”, Giss has turned this upside down.
Arctic temperatures from that time have been lowered so much that that
they are now dwarfed by those of the past 20 years.
Homewood’s interest in the Arctic is partly because the “vanishing” of its
polar ice (and the polar bears) has become such a poster-child for those
trying to persuade us that we are threatened by runaway warming. But he
chose that particular stretch of the Arctic because it is where ice is
affected by warmer water brought in by cyclical shifts in a major Atlantic
current – this last peaked at just the time 75 years ago when Arctic ice
retreated even further than it has done recently. The ice-melt is not
caused by rising global temperatures at all.
Of much more serious significance, however, is the way this wholesale
manipulation of the official temperature record – for reasons GHCN and
Giss have never plausibly explained – has become the real elephant in the
room of the greatest and most costly scare the world has known. This
really does begin to look like one of the greatest scientific scandals of
all time.
### - another wallyworld mass-scam perpetrated upon the public... exposed
:P
reckon we can all get our money back then?
riiight :)))
30 years, nothing will shock them more than the extent to which the
official temperature records – on which the entire panic ultimately rested
– were systematically “adjusted” to show the Earth as having warmed much
more than the actual data justified.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html
Two weeks ago, under the headline “How we are being tricked by flawed data
on global warming”, I wrote about Paul Homewood, who, on his
Notalotofpeopleknowthat blog, had checked the published temperature graphs
for three weather stations in Paraguay against the temperatures that had
originally been recorded. In each instance, the actual trend of 60 years
of data had been dramatically reversed, so that a cooling trend was
changed to one that showed a marked warming.
This was only the latest of many examples of a practice long recognised by
expert observers around the world – one that raises an ever larger
question mark over the entire official surface-temperature record.
Following my last article, Homewood checked a swathe of other South
American weather stations around the original three. In each case he found
the same suspicious one-way “adjustments”. First these were made by the US
government’s Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN). They were then
amplified by two of the main official surface records, the Goddard
Institute for Space Studies (Giss) and the National Climate Data Center
(NCDC), which use the warming trends to estimate temperatures across the
vast regions of the Earth where no measurements are taken. Yet these are
the very records on which scientists and politicians rely for their belief
in “global warming”.
Homewood has now turned his attention to the weather stations across much
of the Arctic, between Canada (51 degrees W) and the heart of Siberia (87
degrees E). Again, in nearly every case, the same one-way adjustments have
been made, to show warming up to 1 degree C or more higher than was
indicated by the data that was actually recorded. This has surprised no
one more than Traust Jonsson, who was long in charge of climate research
for the Iceland met office (and with whom Homewood has been in touch).
Jonsson was amazed to see how the new version completely “disappears”
Iceland’s “sea ice years” around 1970, when a period of extreme cooling
almost devastated his country’s economy.
One of the first examples of these “adjustments” was exposed in 2007 by
the statistician Steve McIntyre, when he discovered a paper published in
1987 by James Hansen, the scientist (later turned fanatical climate
activist) who for many years ran Giss. Hansen’s original graph showed
temperatures in the Arctic as having been much higher around 1940 than at
any time since. But as Homewood reveals in his blog post, “Temperature
adjustments transform Arctic history”, Giss has turned this upside down.
Arctic temperatures from that time have been lowered so much that that
they are now dwarfed by those of the past 20 years.
Homewood’s interest in the Arctic is partly because the “vanishing” of its
polar ice (and the polar bears) has become such a poster-child for those
trying to persuade us that we are threatened by runaway warming. But he
chose that particular stretch of the Arctic because it is where ice is
affected by warmer water brought in by cyclical shifts in a major Atlantic
current – this last peaked at just the time 75 years ago when Arctic ice
retreated even further than it has done recently. The ice-melt is not
caused by rising global temperatures at all.
Of much more serious significance, however, is the way this wholesale
manipulation of the official temperature record – for reasons GHCN and
Giss have never plausibly explained – has become the real elephant in the
room of the greatest and most costly scare the world has known. This
really does begin to look like one of the greatest scientific scandals of
all time.
### - another wallyworld mass-scam perpetrated upon the public... exposed
:P
reckon we can all get our money back then?
riiight :)))
allreadygone
Feb 9, 2015, 10:27:54 AM2/9/15
to
feelin' lucky slides?
come to america today
and play powerball
top prize is 450 million
($450,000,000)
insane huh when you consider
that uncle same will collect
about 50% of that cheese .
come to america today
and play powerball
top prize is 450 million
($450,000,000)
insane huh when you consider
that uncle same will collect
about 50% of that cheese .
slider
Feb 9, 2015, 12:05:10 PM2/9/15
to
slider
Feb 9, 2015, 12:05:16 PM2/9/15
to
Jeremy H. Denisovan
Feb 9, 2015, 1:47:44 PM2/9/15
to
The source of that critique is some climate skeptic blogger dude.
Already there's a credible and reasonable refutation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRFz8merXEA
Already there's a credible and reasonable refutation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRFz8merXEA
slider
Feb 9, 2015, 2:31:29 PM2/9/15
to
Jeremy wrote...
> The source of that critique is some climate skeptic blogger dude.
>
> Already there's a credible and reasonable refutation:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRFz8merXEA
### - (cracking up:))) got that out there pretty damn quick didn't they
tho?? lol:)
of course, it would have all been tons better, not to mention ultimately
far 'more' convincing, if the 'original' data *hadn't* ever been... FUCKED
WITH! (sorry: 'adjusted' heh:) ever or at all, and which IS kinda unlucky,
i suppose, for the warming TB's involved having to then rapidly 'rush' to
quickly cover their asses in some manner (yeah, certainly is/was rather
indeed unfortunate and all that heh:) than IF the 'original' data had
'never' been FUCKED WITH at ALL! and/or never NEEDED to be FUCKED WITH
(oop's sorry, there i go again: 'adjusted' grinz:) in the 'first' place...
but then: them's the breaks!
so then, it's all down to 'calibration' problems then was it huh?
well, that could happen to just about 'anyone' innit!
i believe it! i really do! you'd be mad not to!
riiight :)))
> The source of that critique is some climate skeptic blogger dude.
>
> Already there's a credible and reasonable refutation:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRFz8merXEA
tho?? lol:)
of course, it would have all been tons better, not to mention ultimately
far 'more' convincing, if the 'original' data *hadn't* ever been... FUCKED
WITH! (sorry: 'adjusted' heh:) ever or at all, and which IS kinda unlucky,
i suppose, for the warming TB's involved having to then rapidly 'rush' to
quickly cover their asses in some manner (yeah, certainly is/was rather
indeed unfortunate and all that heh:) than IF the 'original' data had
'never' been FUCKED WITH at ALL! and/or never NEEDED to be FUCKED WITH
(oop's sorry, there i go again: 'adjusted' grinz:) in the 'first' place...
but then: them's the breaks!
so then, it's all down to 'calibration' problems then was it huh?
well, that could happen to just about 'anyone' innit!
i believe it! i really do! you'd be mad not to!
riiight :)))
Jeremy H. Denisovan
Feb 10, 2015, 10:30:48 AM2/10/15
to
Right. The blogger dude didn't get that sometimes
weather station data is adjusted, for a valid reason.
That's the problem with being an alarmist critic,
in fields where you're not really an expert,
so you don't really understand, innit?
weather station data is adjusted, for a valid reason.
That's the problem with being an alarmist critic,
in fields where you're not really an expert,
so you don't really understand, innit?
slider
Feb 10, 2015, 11:21:59 AM2/10/15
to
Jeremy wrote...
### - smile... 'acting' on an idea that isn't correct or that one doesn't
really/fully understand, is technically a belief-system, yet that's
precisely what scientists do every day when they discover that something
they 'thought' was correct today turns out tomorrow not to be, and so on
and so on... they 'believe' they're correct (at the time) and act on it
even though it always turns out to be wrong in the long run - they have
'faith' in their... system!
iow: afaic there's still a right bunch of 'cults' on this planet!
modern society (wallyworld) being the biggest 'cult' of 'em all :)
really/fully understand, is technically a belief-system, yet that's
precisely what scientists do every day when they discover that something
they 'thought' was correct today turns out tomorrow not to be, and so on
and so on... they 'believe' they're correct (at the time) and act on it
even though it always turns out to be wrong in the long run - they have
'faith' in their... system!
iow: afaic there's still a right bunch of 'cults' on this planet!
modern society (wallyworld) being the biggest 'cult' of 'em all :)
Bob
Feb 11, 2015, 12:46:46 AM2/11/15
to
sixties and owns a Farm. He reported to me that all! crops are ripe at
least one month earlier these days than when he was young!
Greetings
slider
Feb 11, 2015, 12:29:34 PM2/11/15
to
Bob wrote...
> Slider, sadly the global warming is the truth. My uncle is in his
> sixties and owns a Farm. He reported to me that all! crops are ripe at
> least one month earlier these days than when he was young!
> Greetings
### - greetings to you too :)
global warming per se isn't really in dispute, it is man's influence upon
it that is being debated
i.e. i am kinda arguing that the planet warms up and cools down, by
itself, over very long periods of geological time due to many factors
(e.g. it is accepted that we are currently living in the warm (and
warming) period right in the middle of an ice age) life naturally
thrives/increases under conditions of warming, and Co2 + other gases like
methane rises accordingly... that the rise in temperature is a natural one
sometimes it gets a bit too hot on this planet and sometimes it gets a bit
too cold, but for the last 10,000 years there has been mild weather, there
has been a kind of goldilocks zone of 10,000 years that is probably coming
to an end, and there's nothing anyone can do about it...
complex mechanisms of cooling and warming that are still not fully
understood by science, there are, for example, 23,000 year cycles as the
earth wobbles on its axis, possibly combined with variations in the orbit
of the planet around the sun + the fluctuating output of the sun itself +
probably at least 10 other things we don't even know about yet that are
influencing it (grin, so it might be fun to invent some then no? heh like
maybe gravitational effects/sheer from the moon (and maybe beyond)
occasionally getting in-sync with other cycles, causing the planet to bend
and flex and warm up internally maybe! who knows!;)
otoh haha, if the GAIA theory/idea is correct and the planet is actually a
sentient living being (could be) then maybe it's true that mankind is
making it feel unwell and the planet is running a slight temperature...
that in going 'against' nature mankind has become a kind of cancer that is
making the world sick! (it certainly makes 'me' feel sick sometimes!;) in
which case GAIA is merely in the process of getting rid of us! it gets
hotter for a while and we all go away: the infection dies!;)
i just think it's all a big con? there are probably 'facets' of truth in
it, measurable effects, but it's being used/hyped by the 'gods of
science' to hypnotise everyone into becoming obedient 'recycling morons'
(thou shalt be more afraid! thou shalt recycle! thou shalt obey! work
harder! eat less! pay more for shite lightbulbs!:) plus while you are
there don't forget to adopt polar bears, dolphins, tigers, donkeys 'and'
little virgin black girls in africa! which all comes with a free cuddly
toy! yeeea! lol they are earning a fucking fortune!
what do 'you' think? :)
> Slider, sadly the global warming is the truth. My uncle is in his
> sixties and owns a Farm. He reported to me that all! crops are ripe at
> least one month earlier these days than when he was young!
> Greetings
global warming per se isn't really in dispute, it is man's influence upon
it that is being debated
i.e. i am kinda arguing that the planet warms up and cools down, by
itself, over very long periods of geological time due to many factors
(e.g. it is accepted that we are currently living in the warm (and
warming) period right in the middle of an ice age) life naturally
thrives/increases under conditions of warming, and Co2 + other gases like
methane rises accordingly... that the rise in temperature is a natural one
sometimes it gets a bit too hot on this planet and sometimes it gets a bit
too cold, but for the last 10,000 years there has been mild weather, there
has been a kind of goldilocks zone of 10,000 years that is probably coming
to an end, and there's nothing anyone can do about it...
complex mechanisms of cooling and warming that are still not fully
understood by science, there are, for example, 23,000 year cycles as the
earth wobbles on its axis, possibly combined with variations in the orbit
of the planet around the sun + the fluctuating output of the sun itself +
probably at least 10 other things we don't even know about yet that are
influencing it (grin, so it might be fun to invent some then no? heh like
maybe gravitational effects/sheer from the moon (and maybe beyond)
occasionally getting in-sync with other cycles, causing the planet to bend
and flex and warm up internally maybe! who knows!;)
otoh haha, if the GAIA theory/idea is correct and the planet is actually a
sentient living being (could be) then maybe it's true that mankind is
making it feel unwell and the planet is running a slight temperature...
that in going 'against' nature mankind has become a kind of cancer that is
making the world sick! (it certainly makes 'me' feel sick sometimes!;) in
which case GAIA is merely in the process of getting rid of us! it gets
hotter for a while and we all go away: the infection dies!;)
i just think it's all a big con? there are probably 'facets' of truth in
it, measurable effects, but it's being used/hyped by the 'gods of
science' to hypnotise everyone into becoming obedient 'recycling morons'
(thou shalt be more afraid! thou shalt recycle! thou shalt obey! work
harder! eat less! pay more for shite lightbulbs!:) plus while you are
there don't forget to adopt polar bears, dolphins, tigers, donkeys 'and'
little virgin black girls in africa! which all comes with a free cuddly
toy! yeeea! lol they are earning a fucking fortune!
what do 'you' think? :)
Bob
Feb 14, 2015, 2:34:02 PM2/14/15
to
Jeremy H. Denisovan
Feb 19, 2015, 10:57:42 AM2/19/15
to
From Factcheck.org:
Nothing False About Temperature Data:
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/02/nothing-false-about-temperature-data/
A few quotes:
"...the latest data manipulation charges are a mischaracterization of standard and well-validated methods for adjusting temperature records to eliminate factors that could produce inaccurate readings."
"The homogenization methods used have been validated and peer-reviewed. For example, a 2012 paper in the Journal of Geophysical Research confirmed the effectiveness of the homogenization processes for NOAA's network of stations, and even noted that "it is likely that maximum temperature trends have been underestimated." In other words, there may have actually been more warming than NOAA has reported."
Another paper, from 2010, looked into the siting of U.S. monitoring stations in particular, and again found no problem with the homogenization methods. "[T]he adjusted [U.S. Historical Climatology Network] temperatures are extremely well aligned with recent measurements. ... In summary, we find no evidence that the [conterminous United States] average temperature trends are inflated due to poor station siting."
Berkeley Earth, a climate science nonprofit founded in early 2010 by scientists expressing skepticism at the time about global warming, has also found no undue manipulation of temperature data in its own analyses. Its page specifically on the Paraguayan Puerto Casado station that Homewood mentioned shows the adjusted readings do in fact show a rise in temperature over time.
An October 2011 paper in the Journal of Geophysical Research provides an overview of the entire Global Historical Climatology Network's temperature data set, including detailed information about adjustments. In total, at least one "bias correction" was applied to 3,297 of the 7,279 stations in use at some point since 1801, though most of these occurred from the 1950s through the 1980s. As the chart below shows, there are approximately equal numbers of adjustments in the positive and negative directions.
Specifically regarding Homewood's (and Booker's) claims:
' A subsequent paper by a NASA climate scientist highlighted the problems with this finding, most notably a very limited set of correlations (primarily the U.S., Japan and Western Europe). He concluded that "there is no compelling evidence from these correlations of any large-scale contamination."
Scientists have criticized the Telegraph's Booker (and by extension Homewood) for spreading misinformation on climate science. In a post on RealClimate.org, Norwegian Meteorological Institute senior researcher Rasmus Benestad quickly debunked the details of Booker's and Homewood's claims. He said of the Telegraph story, "a person who writes such a misleading story shows little respect for his readers." '
And finally:
"Even as these claims of data manipulation have resurfaced, there is now a general consensus that 2014 was the hottest single year since temperature record keeping began. This same conclusion has been reached by NOAA and NASA, the Japan Meteorological Agency, and the World Meteorological Organization. The United Kingdom's Met Office said that 2014 was among the warmest along with 2010, but it is impossible to say for sure that 2014 was hotter. According to NASA, nine of the 10 warmest years have all occurred since 2000, with 1998 the lone exception."
***
The original Booker column relied upon the work of a charlatan
who wasn't qualified to say anything about the temperature data.
Nothing False About Temperature Data:
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/02/nothing-false-about-temperature-data/
A few quotes:
"...the latest data manipulation charges are a mischaracterization of standard and well-validated methods for adjusting temperature records to eliminate factors that could produce inaccurate readings."
"The homogenization methods used have been validated and peer-reviewed. For example, a 2012 paper in the Journal of Geophysical Research confirmed the effectiveness of the homogenization processes for NOAA's network of stations, and even noted that "it is likely that maximum temperature trends have been underestimated." In other words, there may have actually been more warming than NOAA has reported."
Another paper, from 2010, looked into the siting of U.S. monitoring stations in particular, and again found no problem with the homogenization methods. "[T]he adjusted [U.S. Historical Climatology Network] temperatures are extremely well aligned with recent measurements. ... In summary, we find no evidence that the [conterminous United States] average temperature trends are inflated due to poor station siting."
Berkeley Earth, a climate science nonprofit founded in early 2010 by scientists expressing skepticism at the time about global warming, has also found no undue manipulation of temperature data in its own analyses. Its page specifically on the Paraguayan Puerto Casado station that Homewood mentioned shows the adjusted readings do in fact show a rise in temperature over time.
An October 2011 paper in the Journal of Geophysical Research provides an overview of the entire Global Historical Climatology Network's temperature data set, including detailed information about adjustments. In total, at least one "bias correction" was applied to 3,297 of the 7,279 stations in use at some point since 1801, though most of these occurred from the 1950s through the 1980s. As the chart below shows, there are approximately equal numbers of adjustments in the positive and negative directions.
Specifically regarding Homewood's (and Booker's) claims:
' A subsequent paper by a NASA climate scientist highlighted the problems with this finding, most notably a very limited set of correlations (primarily the U.S., Japan and Western Europe). He concluded that "there is no compelling evidence from these correlations of any large-scale contamination."
Scientists have criticized the Telegraph's Booker (and by extension Homewood) for spreading misinformation on climate science. In a post on RealClimate.org, Norwegian Meteorological Institute senior researcher Rasmus Benestad quickly debunked the details of Booker's and Homewood's claims. He said of the Telegraph story, "a person who writes such a misleading story shows little respect for his readers." '
And finally:
"Even as these claims of data manipulation have resurfaced, there is now a general consensus that 2014 was the hottest single year since temperature record keeping began. This same conclusion has been reached by NOAA and NASA, the Japan Meteorological Agency, and the World Meteorological Organization. The United Kingdom's Met Office said that 2014 was among the warmest along with 2010, but it is impossible to say for sure that 2014 was hotter. According to NASA, nine of the 10 warmest years have all occurred since 2000, with 1998 the lone exception."
***
The original Booker column relied upon the work of a charlatan
who wasn't qualified to say anything about the temperature data.
slider
Feb 19, 2015, 11:40:52 PM2/19/15
to
Jeremy wrote...
### - global warming per se wasn't ever really in question anyway? more
like mankind's contribution to it, or not
i reckon data should just be allowed to speak for itself? instead of all
this accusation and counter-accusation, not to mention character
assassination (all totally unnecessary), i mean so what if someone
suspects the 'whatever' figures and demands a re-check... good! data
SHOULD be checked and re-checked anyway! if only just to 'make sure'
people actually know wtf they're talking about! then if people 'do'
falsify things, or even just get it plain wrong sometimes, then it'll all
come out when it gets challenged, eventually, and thus less people will be
speaking out their ass, and that's a good thing!
the whole 'point' in the above/original argument about data figures not
being correct and/or having been altered for 'whatever' reasons, genuine
or bogus etc etc, anyway; being that figures do in fact 'get' altered (i
said 'fucked' with to particularly emphasise the point of deliberate human
intervention) at which point it then becomes possible for people to
'massage' the figures/stats to say just about anything they damn well want!
and don't say it can't happen, or hasn't in fact already happened many
times before, it happens all the time! HAS happened all the time! and will
continue to happen just so long as someone can still get something out of
it!(usually political and/or financial gains)
and because there's basically 3 types of lies: (quote)
"there's lies, damn lies, and then there's statistics!"
(unquote) :)
yes there's global warming! but not necessarily because of anything
mankind's been particularly doing, even though there may indeed be
'measurable' effects, 'everything' has measurable effects these days due
to the increasing sophistication of the tools used to measure stuff with!
'cows farting' has a 'measurable' + lol probably quantifiable effect too,
big deal! mankind's (and cows) effect in 'geological' terms is literally
still a joke! hardly anything at all! a mere extra but otherwise still
tiny blip compared to what the planet (and nature itself) is doing!
but 'why' would they 'say' that if it ain't true! why all the... hysteria!
why? why?? coz they literally just invented a fucking whole new
money-earning/cash-cow industry out of absolutely nothing but rumours,
that's why!
it comes with 'tons' of other benefits too! for instance: like just 'how
many' hours per week do you personally now spend 'recycling' - 2 or 3
maybe? well conversely, that's also 2 or 3 hours LESS per week for you to
be doing things for 'yourself' straight away! (you probably already work
40 hours per week, so now they gots ya working 42 hours per week, 2 of
those hours: unpaid!)
they also used to have to 'pay' people at the garbage depot to sift and
sort all that shit out, only now they don't have to pay anyone a damn
thing coz *you're* doing it all for 'em! for them it's a win-win situation
but for you it's all lose-lose! (i may speak in extremes for the sake of
clarity but you know what am saying)
basically... by playing on people's emotions they've merely come up with a
clever (highly imaginative) new + 'extra' way to 'milk' people of their
time and money! an hour here, another hour there, it all adds up you know!
lol they've got the wallyjobs literally 'throwing' their money away on
saving polar bears and the like! (aww the poor-poor polar bears haven't
got enough ice anymore to walk on! aww send 'em some money! or rather:
send it to 'us' and we'll send you an ultimately very fucking expensive
cuddly toy, only $60 a year for cute little teddy bears that, incidentally
lol, are prolly manufactured in kiddie-based sweatshops in india or
someplace for fuck all! the people/kids there working/living like rats in
a shithole for a dollar or day, or less! and grateful for it! (it's the
trickle-down system in action:)))
i mean, come on be honest peeps... just 'how much' did ya's all
personally, in one way/form or another part with (cash-wise/hours etc) in
total last year on 'recycling' and/or on the results of global warming
so-called - what was the price of YOUR conscience for 2014?? (con-science
heh, how appropriate!:)))
and THAT's precisely just how much you were literally: conned out of! :)
i.e. it's not 'snake-oil' anymore they's selling ya peeps, they's come a
long-long way since thems times! it's all far more cleverer, sophisticated
and upgraded these days lol, and no, they didn't go away! they just moved
with the times!
ya know?
anyway: getcher-cute an' cuddly stuffed polar bears folks! be heroes for a
good cause!
only $5 a month... each :)
corporate question... how to sell 2-dollar teddies for... $60
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDflbF4NO54
heh :)
like mankind's contribution to it, or not
i reckon data should just be allowed to speak for itself? instead of all
this accusation and counter-accusation, not to mention character
assassination (all totally unnecessary), i mean so what if someone
suspects the 'whatever' figures and demands a re-check... good! data
SHOULD be checked and re-checked anyway! if only just to 'make sure'
people actually know wtf they're talking about! then if people 'do'
falsify things, or even just get it plain wrong sometimes, then it'll all
come out when it gets challenged, eventually, and thus less people will be
speaking out their ass, and that's a good thing!
the whole 'point' in the above/original argument about data figures not
being correct and/or having been altered for 'whatever' reasons, genuine
or bogus etc etc, anyway; being that figures do in fact 'get' altered (i
said 'fucked' with to particularly emphasise the point of deliberate human
intervention) at which point it then becomes possible for people to
'massage' the figures/stats to say just about anything they damn well want!
and don't say it can't happen, or hasn't in fact already happened many
times before, it happens all the time! HAS happened all the time! and will
continue to happen just so long as someone can still get something out of
it!(usually political and/or financial gains)
and because there's basically 3 types of lies: (quote)
"there's lies, damn lies, and then there's statistics!"
(unquote) :)
yes there's global warming! but not necessarily because of anything
mankind's been particularly doing, even though there may indeed be
'measurable' effects, 'everything' has measurable effects these days due
to the increasing sophistication of the tools used to measure stuff with!
'cows farting' has a 'measurable' + lol probably quantifiable effect too,
big deal! mankind's (and cows) effect in 'geological' terms is literally
still a joke! hardly anything at all! a mere extra but otherwise still
tiny blip compared to what the planet (and nature itself) is doing!
but 'why' would they 'say' that if it ain't true! why all the... hysteria!
why? why?? coz they literally just invented a fucking whole new
money-earning/cash-cow industry out of absolutely nothing but rumours,
that's why!
it comes with 'tons' of other benefits too! for instance: like just 'how
many' hours per week do you personally now spend 'recycling' - 2 or 3
maybe? well conversely, that's also 2 or 3 hours LESS per week for you to
be doing things for 'yourself' straight away! (you probably already work
40 hours per week, so now they gots ya working 42 hours per week, 2 of
those hours: unpaid!)
they also used to have to 'pay' people at the garbage depot to sift and
sort all that shit out, only now they don't have to pay anyone a damn
thing coz *you're* doing it all for 'em! for them it's a win-win situation
but for you it's all lose-lose! (i may speak in extremes for the sake of
clarity but you know what am saying)
basically... by playing on people's emotions they've merely come up with a
clever (highly imaginative) new + 'extra' way to 'milk' people of their
time and money! an hour here, another hour there, it all adds up you know!
lol they've got the wallyjobs literally 'throwing' their money away on
saving polar bears and the like! (aww the poor-poor polar bears haven't
got enough ice anymore to walk on! aww send 'em some money! or rather:
send it to 'us' and we'll send you an ultimately very fucking expensive
cuddly toy, only $60 a year for cute little teddy bears that, incidentally
lol, are prolly manufactured in kiddie-based sweatshops in india or
someplace for fuck all! the people/kids there working/living like rats in
a shithole for a dollar or day, or less! and grateful for it! (it's the
trickle-down system in action:)))
i mean, come on be honest peeps... just 'how much' did ya's all
personally, in one way/form or another part with (cash-wise/hours etc) in
total last year on 'recycling' and/or on the results of global warming
so-called - what was the price of YOUR conscience for 2014?? (con-science
heh, how appropriate!:)))
and THAT's precisely just how much you were literally: conned out of! :)
i.e. it's not 'snake-oil' anymore they's selling ya peeps, they's come a
long-long way since thems times! it's all far more cleverer, sophisticated
and upgraded these days lol, and no, they didn't go away! they just moved
with the times!
ya know?
anyway: getcher-cute an' cuddly stuffed polar bears folks! be heroes for a
good cause!
only $5 a month... each :)
corporate question... how to sell 2-dollar teddies for... $60
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDflbF4NO54
heh :)
Jeremy H. Denisovan
Feb 22, 2015, 7:03:48 PM2/22/15
to
meteorological organizations such as in Norway and Japan are
the scientific groups who have real "data".
These organizations, and many others like them,
all agree that climate change since around 1880
is primarily man made.
You probably don't realize this, since you so seldom pay attention,
but international scientific organizations often challenge
each others' results if they think there might be a problem.
But among credible scientific organizations internationally,
there is no disagreement on this issue.
It's exactly like it was with you and smoking -
You're dead wrong, in denial, and the real data
massively contradicts your stance.
[...snip, irrelevant cynical opining...]
slider
Feb 23, 2015, 9:38:08 AM2/23/15
to
jeremy wrote...
>> ### - global warming per se wasn't ever really in question anyway? more
>> like mankind's contribution to it, or not
>>
>> i reckon data should just be allowed to speak for itself?
>
> NASA, the NOAA, the UK Met Office, and numerous international
> meteorological organizations such as in Norway and Japan are
> the scientific groups who have real "data".
>
> These organizations, and many others like them,
> all agree that climate change since around 1880
> is primarily man made.
>
> You probably don't realize this, since you so seldom pay attention,
> but international scientific organizations often challenge
> each others' results if they think there might be a problem.
> But among credible scientific organizations internationally,
> there is no disagreement on this issue.
>
> It's exactly like it was with you and smoking -
> You're dead wrong, in denial, and the real data
> massively contradicts your stance.
>
> [...snip, irrelevant cynical opining...]
### - yeah well (yawn) scientology 'also' used to furnish you with
so-called "real data" too whilst 'also' being in the business of actively
'creating' it! castaneda too! both cults being entirely man-u-factured
(man-made) 'realities' which you 'also' swallowed hook, line and sinker
and then even went around 'preaching' and 'testifying' + 'upholding' as
being 'Truth', while at the same time castigating + no doubt punishing
anyone who didn't 'believe' in all that bs too! both times! all of it
being (basically) complete bullshit! and NOW you're doing EXACTLY the same
thing with Scientism, and an authority on that too! and you STILL actually
expect to be taken seriously!?!?
you didn't 'learn' and you didn't 'change' after your first 2 cult
experiences (at least the 2 we know about heh, coz there's probably more)
but have continued-on just as though absolutely nothing whatsoever
happened to you! and are, YET AGAIN, applying the same old same old tried
and tested methods and formulas you've applied all along but which have
TWICE let you down! only NOW it's all about science and scientism instead??
iow: you're obviously 'determined' to make those 'unquestioned' (and
apparently 'unquestionable' + 'sacrosanct') methods work! and if it all
falls apart (as it has at least 'twice' already!) then it's definitely
only the 'subject matter' that's ever at fault, never the method! (nah
never the method, not that! anything BUT that! coz 'no way' could you ever
be wrong about that!)
basically: your mind is totally closed jeremy! you've got this 'one'
single 'tool/method' and you're absolutely 'determined' to make it/that
work! anything else just isn't... convenient!
you wont even 'examine/debate' the possibility! it doesn't exist!
well okay so be it: ya can't say i didn't 'try' to get through to ya! :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kPXw6YaCEY
the guy was a Genius-Jammer! - no 'Method' at all! ;)
(gotta love the way, after getting off to a somewhat shaky start, he
'pulls' 'em all together (to keep up) and then 'in' (to the meld) the
abstract starts to flow and leaves the (rational) world behind, the
keyboards playing only chords at one point geeezus! to the point a (short)
return to the rational actually comes-in like a welcome respite! before
again literally going 'out of this world'
like... don't tell me ya'd actually wanna 'write that all down', note for
note, and turn it all into: 'data'
do ya?? that really 'would' be insane!
(slider rests his case. last msg btw. :)
>> ### - global warming per se wasn't ever really in question anyway? more
>> like mankind's contribution to it, or not
>>
>> i reckon data should just be allowed to speak for itself?
>
> NASA, the NOAA, the UK Met Office, and numerous international
> meteorological organizations such as in Norway and Japan are
> the scientific groups who have real "data".
>
> These organizations, and many others like them,
> all agree that climate change since around 1880
> is primarily man made.
>
> You probably don't realize this, since you so seldom pay attention,
> but international scientific organizations often challenge
> each others' results if they think there might be a problem.
> But among credible scientific organizations internationally,
> there is no disagreement on this issue.
>
> It's exactly like it was with you and smoking -
> You're dead wrong, in denial, and the real data
> massively contradicts your stance.
>
> [...snip, irrelevant cynical opining...]
so-called "real data" too whilst 'also' being in the business of actively
'creating' it! castaneda too! both cults being entirely man-u-factured
(man-made) 'realities' which you 'also' swallowed hook, line and sinker
and then even went around 'preaching' and 'testifying' + 'upholding' as
being 'Truth', while at the same time castigating + no doubt punishing
anyone who didn't 'believe' in all that bs too! both times! all of it
being (basically) complete bullshit! and NOW you're doing EXACTLY the same
thing with Scientism, and an authority on that too! and you STILL actually
expect to be taken seriously!?!?
you didn't 'learn' and you didn't 'change' after your first 2 cult
experiences (at least the 2 we know about heh, coz there's probably more)
but have continued-on just as though absolutely nothing whatsoever
happened to you! and are, YET AGAIN, applying the same old same old tried
and tested methods and formulas you've applied all along but which have
TWICE let you down! only NOW it's all about science and scientism instead??
iow: you're obviously 'determined' to make those 'unquestioned' (and
apparently 'unquestionable' + 'sacrosanct') methods work! and if it all
falls apart (as it has at least 'twice' already!) then it's definitely
only the 'subject matter' that's ever at fault, never the method! (nah
never the method, not that! anything BUT that! coz 'no way' could you ever
be wrong about that!)
basically: your mind is totally closed jeremy! you've got this 'one'
single 'tool/method' and you're absolutely 'determined' to make it/that
work! anything else just isn't... convenient!
you wont even 'examine/debate' the possibility! it doesn't exist!
well okay so be it: ya can't say i didn't 'try' to get through to ya! :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kPXw6YaCEY
the guy was a Genius-Jammer! - no 'Method' at all! ;)
(gotta love the way, after getting off to a somewhat shaky start, he
'pulls' 'em all together (to keep up) and then 'in' (to the meld) the
abstract starts to flow and leaves the (rational) world behind, the
keyboards playing only chords at one point geeezus! to the point a (short)
return to the rational actually comes-in like a welcome respite! before
again literally going 'out of this world'
like... don't tell me ya'd actually wanna 'write that all down', note for
note, and turn it all into: 'data'
do ya?? that really 'would' be insane!
(slider rests his case. last msg btw. :)
allreadygone
Feb 23, 2015, 10:24:58 AM2/23/15
to
slides points out:
you know what is funny is that i've heard that piece
a bunch of times but never knew what it was called.
and i ask does it matter?
you know what is funny is that i've heard that piece
a bunch of times but never knew what it was called.
and i ask does it matter?
slider
Feb 23, 2015, 10:40:50 AM2/23/15
to
Jeremy H. Denisovan
Feb 23, 2015, 11:04:06 AM2/23/15
to
It's hard to imagine even you do not realize how weak
your own 'arguments' are.
> you didn't 'learn' and you didn't 'change' after your first 2 cult
> experiences (at least the 2 we know about heh, coz there's probably more)
> but have continued-on just as though absolutely nothing whatsoever
> happened to you! and are, YET AGAIN, applying the same old same old tried
> and tested methods and formulas you've applied all along but which have
> TWICE let you down! only NOW it's all about science and scientism instead??
that have been well refuted.
> iow: you're obviously 'determined' to make those 'unquestioned' (and
> apparently 'unquestionable' + 'sacrosanct') methods work! and if it all
> falls apart (as it has at least 'twice' already!) then it's definitely
> only the 'subject matter' that's ever at fault, never the method! (nah
> never the method, not that! anything BUT that! coz 'no way' could you ever
> be wrong about that!)
As if there is "international conspiracy" among the world's
major scientific organizations. That idea is utterly stupid.
Those organizations compete, as much as they cooperate.
> you wont even 'examine/debate' the possibility! it doesn't exist!
And you have made no real points to examine or debate.
> well okay so be it: ya can't say i didn't 'try' to get through to ya! :)
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kPXw6YaCEY
>
> the guy was a Genius-Jammer! - no 'Method' at all! ;)
with the topic at hand. You're not even arguing ethically.
It's hard to see you as anything but a troll.
The climate change issue is REALLY important,
and you're on the wrong side of history on it.
By all the real data you're just plain wrong.
But okay, you want to use your famous (utterly crappy) intuition?
Well, then ... how could our massive amounts of pollution
NOT be creating a huge problem? Just open your eyes and LOOK at it!
How could we possibly do shit like this (below) all over the world
for a hundred years and expect it NOT to affect our climate?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1DNjJd2YfA
Even intuitively, which is all you got, your stance makes
no sense whatsoever. You're totally in denial, and yours
are the eyes that must be closed. Anyone with any real intuition
KNOWS we must do something about this.
slider
Feb 23, 2015, 11:41:38 AM2/23/15
to
jeremy wrote...
> But okay, you want to use your famous (utterly crappy) intuition?
> Well, then ... how could our massive amounts of pollution
> NOT be creating a huge problem? Just open your eyes and LOOK at it!
> How could we possibly do shit like this (below) all over the world
> for a hundred years and expect it NOT to affect our climate?
### - it's causing a problem for 'us humans' yes! after all, we're having
to live, breath and eat all that shite on a daily basis! pure,
scientifically, man-made poisons! and yes it's literally killing, not only
us, but nearly everything else as well! there's no 'debate' about that
whatsoever! other than to perhaps deliberately shift the blame onto
smoking and other scapegoats like that!
so much so one in two of us (probably more coz they're such fucking liars
with their precious 'manipulated' data!) WILL actually get cancer from it!
whereas man-made 'warming' is another matter altogether! another
scapegoat! a very fucking 'commercial' one!
heh, personally i reckon you're probably just pissed coz i critisised your
growing collection of $60 stuffed teddies, dolphins, donkeys, tigers + god
knows what? and thus you naively think you're 'actually' helping the
world??
riiight! (lol if you bought/adopted even just 'one' you're a mug! :)))
> But okay, you want to use your famous (utterly crappy) intuition?
> Well, then ... how could our massive amounts of pollution
> NOT be creating a huge problem? Just open your eyes and LOOK at it!
> How could we possibly do shit like this (below) all over the world
> for a hundred years and expect it NOT to affect our climate?
to live, breath and eat all that shite on a daily basis! pure,
scientifically, man-made poisons! and yes it's literally killing, not only
us, but nearly everything else as well! there's no 'debate' about that
whatsoever! other than to perhaps deliberately shift the blame onto
smoking and other scapegoats like that!
so much so one in two of us (probably more coz they're such fucking liars
with their precious 'manipulated' data!) WILL actually get cancer from it!
whereas man-made 'warming' is another matter altogether! another
scapegoat! a very fucking 'commercial' one!
heh, personally i reckon you're probably just pissed coz i critisised your
growing collection of $60 stuffed teddies, dolphins, donkeys, tigers + god
knows what? and thus you naively think you're 'actually' helping the
world??
riiight! (lol if you bought/adopted even just 'one' you're a mug! :)))
Jeremy H. Denisovan
Feb 23, 2015, 12:13:42 PM2/23/15
to
Hey, 'Mr. Intuitive', for the last 20 years I've lived in
'the Southland' - the greater metropolitan LA area - which holds
about THREE times the population of the entire London metro area.
For several decades, large portions of this practically
unimaginably large and populous area often looked like this:
http://tinyurl.com/osh4s3e
And that's just one such area, worldwide.
How could this NOT create dramatic changes in climate??
This isn't like "London Fog". It's CO2 and methane and ozone.
And there have been DOZENS of giant metro areas worldwide
pumping out massive amounts of this crap for over 100 years.
You have the gall to refer to 'natural' cycles of climate change.
Sure, they exist, but they take place over tens of thousands or
in some cases millions of years. The scientists are totally aware
of that too. What all the data shows is that in less than 150 years
humans have *significantly* warmed the earth. That's the blink
of a fuckin' eye in geological time! If we keep doing that for another
100 years, we'll be roundly fucked. And it's intuitively obvious,
Notice, scientists are fully aware of the natural cycles:
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
But they're irrelevant, because humans are accelerating the problem.
Also, this is all obvious to people in many different fields:
* People who track endangered species
* People who monitor plant growth and blooming cycles
* People who study the oceans and sea levels
* People who study weather patterns
* Space scientists
* Geographers
For example, National Geographic has issued repeated warnings
over all the different kinds of problems we're already facing
due to global warming:
http://tinyurl.com/26pypnn
President Obama has repeatedly called for action on it,
as governments as diverse and often at odds as the U.S.
and China's have agreed to work *together* on solutions.
http://tinyurl.com/n8jdw3o
But some dickhead deniers like you supposedly know better??
You shit-slingers must be smokin' crack... :)
'the Southland' - the greater metropolitan LA area - which holds
about THREE times the population of the entire London metro area.
For several decades, large portions of this practically
unimaginably large and populous area often looked like this:
http://tinyurl.com/osh4s3e
And that's just one such area, worldwide.
How could this NOT create dramatic changes in climate??
This isn't like "London Fog". It's CO2 and methane and ozone.
And there have been DOZENS of giant metro areas worldwide
pumping out massive amounts of this crap for over 100 years.
You have the gall to refer to 'natural' cycles of climate change.
Sure, they exist, but they take place over tens of thousands or
in some cases millions of years. The scientists are totally aware
of that too. What all the data shows is that in less than 150 years
humans have *significantly* warmed the earth. That's the blink
of a fuckin' eye in geological time! If we keep doing that for another
100 years, we'll be roundly fucked. And it's intuitively obvious,
Notice, scientists are fully aware of the natural cycles:
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
But they're irrelevant, because humans are accelerating the problem.
Also, this is all obvious to people in many different fields:
* People who track endangered species
* People who monitor plant growth and blooming cycles
* People who study the oceans and sea levels
* People who study weather patterns
* Space scientists
* Geographers
For example, National Geographic has issued repeated warnings
over all the different kinds of problems we're already facing
due to global warming:
http://tinyurl.com/26pypnn
President Obama has repeatedly called for action on it,
as governments as diverse and often at odds as the U.S.
and China's have agreed to work *together* on solutions.
http://tinyurl.com/n8jdw3o
But some dickhead deniers like you supposedly know better??
You shit-slingers must be smokin' crack... :)
slider
Feb 23, 2015, 12:39:11 PM2/23/15
to
jeremy wrote...
> You have the gall to refer to 'natural' cycles of climate change.
> Sure, they exist, but they take place over tens of thousands or
> in some cases millions of years. The scientists are totally aware
> of that too. What all the data shows is that in less than 150 years
> humans have *significantly* warmed the earth. That's the blink
> of a fuckin' eye in geological time! If we keep doing that for another
> 100 years, we'll be roundly fucked. And it's intuitively obvious,
### - blah blah blah.... clear geological evidence suggests that the ice
sheets have melted before, several times, and that each it happens it
happens surprisingly rapidly, and that that's ALL that's happening this
time as well! that if humans have actually contributed to it this time
around, the influence is minimal!
e.g. 'so fucking what' if we've hastened a perfectly natural process by
about 10/20 years in an overall longer 300-500 year long cycle (kinda
thing, coz i don't have the exact figures) it's gonna happen anyway! it's
happening! and there's fuck all anyone can do about it! including you! so
get used to it!
everything else is BS!!! :)
that said... why now don't you 'fess-up' as to just how many 'teddies' you
were actually conned into signing up for and let's all have a damn good
hearty laugh about it! (you'll actually earn my respect if ya can:)
odds for that ain't very good tho' lol...
in fact i'll give 100 to 1 action on it!
crsds? :)))
> You have the gall to refer to 'natural' cycles of climate change.
> Sure, they exist, but they take place over tens of thousands or
> in some cases millions of years. The scientists are totally aware
> of that too. What all the data shows is that in less than 150 years
> humans have *significantly* warmed the earth. That's the blink
> of a fuckin' eye in geological time! If we keep doing that for another
> 100 years, we'll be roundly fucked. And it's intuitively obvious,
sheets have melted before, several times, and that each it happens it
happens surprisingly rapidly, and that that's ALL that's happening this
time as well! that if humans have actually contributed to it this time
around, the influence is minimal!
e.g. 'so fucking what' if we've hastened a perfectly natural process by
about 10/20 years in an overall longer 300-500 year long cycle (kinda
thing, coz i don't have the exact figures) it's gonna happen anyway! it's
happening! and there's fuck all anyone can do about it! including you! so
get used to it!
everything else is BS!!! :)
that said... why now don't you 'fess-up' as to just how many 'teddies' you
were actually conned into signing up for and let's all have a damn good
hearty laugh about it! (you'll actually earn my respect if ya can:)
odds for that ain't very good tho' lol...
in fact i'll give 100 to 1 action on it!
crsds? :)))
Jeremy H. Denisovan
Feb 23, 2015, 1:42:01 PM2/23/15
to
Here's a pretty good summary of the evidence, from some real skeptics:
http://tinyurl.com/krf9vzu
Quotes:
The proof that man-made CO2 is causing global warming is like the chain of evidence in a court case. CO2 keeps the Earth warmer than it would be without it. Humans are adding CO2 to the atmosphere, mainly by burning fossil fuels. And there is empirical evidence that the rising temperatures are being caused by the increased CO2.
***
One way of measuring the effect of CO2 is by using satellites to compare how much energy is arriving from the sun, and how much is leaving the Earth. What scientists have seen over the last few decades is a gradual decrease in the amount of energy being re-radiated back into space. In the same period, the amount of energy arriving from the sun has not changed very much at all. This is the first piece of evidence: more energy is remaining in the atmosphere.
***
What can keep the energy in the atmosphere? The answer is greenhouse gases. Science has known about the effect of certain gases for over a century. They 'capture' energy, and then emit it in random directions. The primary greenhouse gases - carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), water vapour, nitrous oxide and ozone - comprise around 1% of the air.
This tiny amount has a very powerful effect, keeping the planet 33°C (59.4°F) warmer than it would be without them. (The main components of the atmosphere - nitrogen and oxygen - are not greenhouse gases, because they are virtually unaffected by long-wave, or infrared, radiation). This is the second piece of evidence: a provable mechanism by which energy can be trapped in the atmosphere.
***
We know from bubbles of air trapped in ice cores that before the industrial revolution, the amount of CO2 in the air was approximately 280 parts per million (ppm). In June 2013, the NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory in Hawaii announced that, for the first time in thousands of years, the amount of CO2 in the air had gone up to 400ppm. That information gives us the next piece of evidence; CO2 has increased by nearly 43% in the last 150 years.
***
Confirmation that rising carbon dioxide levels are due to human activity comes from analyzing the types of carbon found in the air. The carbon atom has several different isotopes (eg - different number of neutrons). Carbon 12 has 6 neutrons, carbon 13 has 7 neutrons. Plants have a lower C13/C12 ratio than in the atmosphere. If rising atmospheric CO2 comes fossil fuels, the C13/C12 should be falling. Indeed this is what is occurring and the trend correlates with the trend in global emissions.
***
Further confirmation comes by measuring oxygen levels in the atmosphere. When fossil fuels are burned, the carbon in the fossil fuels are joined to oxygen, creating carbon dioxide. As CO2 increases in the atmosphere, oxygen decreases. Observations show oxygen levels are falling at a rate consistent with the burning of fossil fuels.
***
Satellites measure infrared radiation as it escapes out to space. A comparison between satellite data from 1970 to 1996 found that less energy is escaping to space at the wavelengths that greenhouse gases absorb energy (Harries 2001). Thus the paper found "direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect". This result has been confirmed by more recent data from several different satellites.
***
That less heat is escaping out to space is confirmed by surface measurements that find more infrared radiation returning to earth. Several studies have found this is due to an increased greenhouse effect (Philipona 2004, Wang 2009). An analysis of high resolution spectral data allows scientists to quantitatively attribute the increase in downward radiation to each of several greenhouse gases (Evans 2006). The results lead the authors to conclude that:
"this experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming."
***
Another human fingerprint can be found by looking at temperature trends in the different layers of the atmosphere. Climate models predict that more carbon dioxide should cause warming in the troposphere but cooling in the stratosphere. This is because the increased "blanketing" effect in the troposphere holds in more heat, allowing less to reach the stratosphere. This is in contrast to the expected effect if global warming was caused by the sun which would cause warming both in the troposphere and stratosphere. What we observe from both satellites and weather balloons is a cooling stratosphere and warming troposphere, consistent with carbon dioxide warming.
***
If an increased greenhouse effect was causing warming, we would expect nights to warm faster than days. This is because the greenhouse effect operates day and night. Conversely, if global warming was caused by the sun, we would expect the warming trend to be greatest in daytime temperatures. What we observe is a decrease in cold nights greater than the decrease in cold days, and an increase in warm nights greater than the increase in warm days (Alexander 2006). This is consistent with greenhouse warming.
***
Current Statement from the NOAA:
"Many lines of scientific evidence show the Earth's climate is changing... Several independent measures of observed climate change illustrate an overwhelmingly compelling story of a planet that is undergoing global warming. It is worth noting that increasing global temperature is only one element of observed global climate change. Precipitation patterns are also changing; storms and other extremes are changing as well.
***
Current Statement from NASA:
"The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is very likely human-induced and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300 years."
The 7 types of Evidence NASA utilized in drawing their conclusion:
* 3 different global temperature reconstructions
* Measures of warming oceans
* Measures of shrinking global ice sheets
* Measures of declining Arctic ice
* Measures of glacial retreat worldwide
* Measures of increasing ocean acidification
* Changes in extreme weather patterns
* Satellite observations revealing decreased snow cover worldwide
***
Current Statements of the IPCC (58 counties, 235 authors):
"The human influence on the climate system is clear and is evident from the increasing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, positive radiative forcing, observed warming, and understanding of the climate system."
"Scientific evidence for warming of the climate system is unequivocal."
***
Current Statement from the United Nations:
"There is a strong scientific consensus that the global climate is changing and that human activity contributes significantly to this trend."
***
Current Statement Excerpt from National Geographic:
Evidence of a human role in climate change keeps piling up. Recent studies of record-breaking temperatures, rising sea levels, and high levels of heat-trapping carbon dioxide in the atmosphere all point to an Earth under stress from a rapidly expanding human presence.
We are burning record levels of coal, oil, and natural gas to fuel modern society. As a result, we are producing record levels of greenhouse gases that warm the atmosphere, melt the planet's ice, and cause the oceans to become more acidic-threatening marine life.
And as our numbers and appetites keep growing, we also keep cutting down tropical forests to expand cropland and decimating native ocean fish populations with industrial-scale fishing. We pollute waterways and coastal regions with nitrogen and phosphate fertilizer runoff from those croplands.
Scientists say it's as if the gauges on Earth's environmental dashboard are flashing yellow and red as we put the planet under increasing stress.
***
This is a fact:
The Japanese Meteorological Agency (JMA) recently joined NASA, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in the US, and the UK Met Office, in announcing that 2014 was the hottest year ever recorded.
All 4 organizations make their readings separately - and all
individually came to the same conclusion that last year was
the hottest since records began in the late 19th century.
***
But you Slider, an uninformed troll, must continue to disagree. :)
I doubt if you even have the attention span to read all the above,
or anything but tabloid columns and fringe bloggers. Oh, and let's
not forget that right-winger comprise the majority of climate science
deniers. And you claim to be 'left of center'! You side with
right-wing idiots on this most crucial issue!
Stop wasting everyone else's time with all your bullshit trolling.
http://tinyurl.com/krf9vzu
Quotes:
The proof that man-made CO2 is causing global warming is like the chain of evidence in a court case. CO2 keeps the Earth warmer than it would be without it. Humans are adding CO2 to the atmosphere, mainly by burning fossil fuels. And there is empirical evidence that the rising temperatures are being caused by the increased CO2.
***
One way of measuring the effect of CO2 is by using satellites to compare how much energy is arriving from the sun, and how much is leaving the Earth. What scientists have seen over the last few decades is a gradual decrease in the amount of energy being re-radiated back into space. In the same period, the amount of energy arriving from the sun has not changed very much at all. This is the first piece of evidence: more energy is remaining in the atmosphere.
***
What can keep the energy in the atmosphere? The answer is greenhouse gases. Science has known about the effect of certain gases for over a century. They 'capture' energy, and then emit it in random directions. The primary greenhouse gases - carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), water vapour, nitrous oxide and ozone - comprise around 1% of the air.
This tiny amount has a very powerful effect, keeping the planet 33°C (59.4°F) warmer than it would be without them. (The main components of the atmosphere - nitrogen and oxygen - are not greenhouse gases, because they are virtually unaffected by long-wave, or infrared, radiation). This is the second piece of evidence: a provable mechanism by which energy can be trapped in the atmosphere.
***
We know from bubbles of air trapped in ice cores that before the industrial revolution, the amount of CO2 in the air was approximately 280 parts per million (ppm). In June 2013, the NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory in Hawaii announced that, for the first time in thousands of years, the amount of CO2 in the air had gone up to 400ppm. That information gives us the next piece of evidence; CO2 has increased by nearly 43% in the last 150 years.
***
Confirmation that rising carbon dioxide levels are due to human activity comes from analyzing the types of carbon found in the air. The carbon atom has several different isotopes (eg - different number of neutrons). Carbon 12 has 6 neutrons, carbon 13 has 7 neutrons. Plants have a lower C13/C12 ratio than in the atmosphere. If rising atmospheric CO2 comes fossil fuels, the C13/C12 should be falling. Indeed this is what is occurring and the trend correlates with the trend in global emissions.
***
Further confirmation comes by measuring oxygen levels in the atmosphere. When fossil fuels are burned, the carbon in the fossil fuels are joined to oxygen, creating carbon dioxide. As CO2 increases in the atmosphere, oxygen decreases. Observations show oxygen levels are falling at a rate consistent with the burning of fossil fuels.
***
Satellites measure infrared radiation as it escapes out to space. A comparison between satellite data from 1970 to 1996 found that less energy is escaping to space at the wavelengths that greenhouse gases absorb energy (Harries 2001). Thus the paper found "direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect". This result has been confirmed by more recent data from several different satellites.
***
That less heat is escaping out to space is confirmed by surface measurements that find more infrared radiation returning to earth. Several studies have found this is due to an increased greenhouse effect (Philipona 2004, Wang 2009). An analysis of high resolution spectral data allows scientists to quantitatively attribute the increase in downward radiation to each of several greenhouse gases (Evans 2006). The results lead the authors to conclude that:
"this experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming."
***
Another human fingerprint can be found by looking at temperature trends in the different layers of the atmosphere. Climate models predict that more carbon dioxide should cause warming in the troposphere but cooling in the stratosphere. This is because the increased "blanketing" effect in the troposphere holds in more heat, allowing less to reach the stratosphere. This is in contrast to the expected effect if global warming was caused by the sun which would cause warming both in the troposphere and stratosphere. What we observe from both satellites and weather balloons is a cooling stratosphere and warming troposphere, consistent with carbon dioxide warming.
***
If an increased greenhouse effect was causing warming, we would expect nights to warm faster than days. This is because the greenhouse effect operates day and night. Conversely, if global warming was caused by the sun, we would expect the warming trend to be greatest in daytime temperatures. What we observe is a decrease in cold nights greater than the decrease in cold days, and an increase in warm nights greater than the increase in warm days (Alexander 2006). This is consistent with greenhouse warming.
***
Current Statement from the NOAA:
"Many lines of scientific evidence show the Earth's climate is changing... Several independent measures of observed climate change illustrate an overwhelmingly compelling story of a planet that is undergoing global warming. It is worth noting that increasing global temperature is only one element of observed global climate change. Precipitation patterns are also changing; storms and other extremes are changing as well.
***
Current Statement from NASA:
"The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is very likely human-induced and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300 years."
The 7 types of Evidence NASA utilized in drawing their conclusion:
* 3 different global temperature reconstructions
* Measures of warming oceans
* Measures of shrinking global ice sheets
* Measures of declining Arctic ice
* Measures of glacial retreat worldwide
* Measures of increasing ocean acidification
* Changes in extreme weather patterns
* Satellite observations revealing decreased snow cover worldwide
***
Current Statements of the IPCC (58 counties, 235 authors):
"The human influence on the climate system is clear and is evident from the increasing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, positive radiative forcing, observed warming, and understanding of the climate system."
"Scientific evidence for warming of the climate system is unequivocal."
***
Current Statement from the United Nations:
"There is a strong scientific consensus that the global climate is changing and that human activity contributes significantly to this trend."
***
Current Statement Excerpt from National Geographic:
Evidence of a human role in climate change keeps piling up. Recent studies of record-breaking temperatures, rising sea levels, and high levels of heat-trapping carbon dioxide in the atmosphere all point to an Earth under stress from a rapidly expanding human presence.
We are burning record levels of coal, oil, and natural gas to fuel modern society. As a result, we are producing record levels of greenhouse gases that warm the atmosphere, melt the planet's ice, and cause the oceans to become more acidic-threatening marine life.
And as our numbers and appetites keep growing, we also keep cutting down tropical forests to expand cropland and decimating native ocean fish populations with industrial-scale fishing. We pollute waterways and coastal regions with nitrogen and phosphate fertilizer runoff from those croplands.
Scientists say it's as if the gauges on Earth's environmental dashboard are flashing yellow and red as we put the planet under increasing stress.
***
This is a fact:
The Japanese Meteorological Agency (JMA) recently joined NASA, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in the US, and the UK Met Office, in announcing that 2014 was the hottest year ever recorded.
All 4 organizations make their readings separately - and all
individually came to the same conclusion that last year was
the hottest since records began in the late 19th century.
***
But you Slider, an uninformed troll, must continue to disagree. :)
I doubt if you even have the attention span to read all the above,
or anything but tabloid columns and fringe bloggers. Oh, and let's
not forget that right-winger comprise the majority of climate science
deniers. And you claim to be 'left of center'! You side with
right-wing idiots on this most crucial issue!
Stop wasting everyone else's time with all your bullshit trolling.
Jeremy H. Denisovan
Feb 23, 2015, 1:50:16 PM2/23/15
to
Slider, you're an obsessive-compulsive troll.
***
Mega-droughts predicted in the US will last decades
12 February 2015 by Andy Coghlan
Droughts lasting decades that make the dust bowls of the 1930s look like a picnic will begin to hit south-western and central regions of the US within the next 50 to 100 years. And the primary cause of the droughts will be global warming.
The impact on agriculture could be huge, say the researchers who made the predictions, and could trigger "water wars" as farmers and large settlements squabble over water resources that become ever more scarce.
"Instead of lasting maybe 10 years, these mega-droughts will last 20, 30, maybe even 40 years," says Benjamin Cook at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, who led the analysis.
"Most importantly, they are droughts that, once started, will last a really long time, longer than ever seen in the US," says Cook. "It's not going to be transient either. There will be new average drier conditions."
Cook and his colleagues made their predictions after analysing drought conditions in the US over the past 2000 years, based on tens of thousands of tree-ring samples collected throughout the country. "If there's a wide ring, it was wet, and a narrow one shows it was dry," explains Cook.
Parched projections
The team used this to evaluate the probability of droughts and their likely severity over the next 100 years. Their work factored in 17 different climate projections, and compared two global warming scenarios - a "business-as-usual" scenario and one in which moderate action is taken to curb emissions of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide.
To predict the severity of future droughts, the team also estimated soil moisture levels, and used the Palmer Drought Severity Index - which reflects how soil moisture content varies with rainfall and how much moisture the soil retains.
A PDSI score of zero means that soil moisture is in perfect balance. Positive scores indicate flooding or waterlogging, while negative scores indicate drought. "Once you're below -1, that's a hard, serious drought," says Cook.
The analysis suggests things will get much worse than that before 2100 - even with moderate action to reduce emissions. Under many of the 17 climate projections, PDSI scores are predicted to plummet inexorably downward to -3 for both the Central Plains and the Southwest US, with the latter particularly hard hit. Scores for soil moisture are equally precipitous, closely tracking the collapse in PDSI.
If the predictions are correct, the droughts will be worse than anything seen over the past millennium, including a 200-year period of intense drought between 1100 and 1300, called the Medieval Climate Anomaly.
"The paper sounds very plausible, and sounds an ominous warning," says Kevin Trenberth of the US National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado. "In the absence of moisture, drought is exacerbated, plants wilt, the risk of heatwaves increases and the odds of wildfires sky-rocket," he says.
Water = tight
And the key cause will be global warming. "It will still rain, but what's driving a lot of the drought is drying of the soils through evaporation," says Cook.
This makes sense, says Trenberth. "What is very robust is the expected increase in drying, through evapotranspiration, simply because there's more heat available from global warming that has to go somewhere."
"As scientists develop better ways to uncover the occurrence of such events in distant history, while also improving models capable of projecting future climate conditions, both threads of research are saying the same thing... that we are likely underestimating the risks," says Douglas Kenney of the University of Colorado at Boulder. "It's sobering news, but it deserves our attention."
Worst hit will be agriculture. "It's the dominant user of water in North America," says Cook. "It may be necessary to give up on some areas, and there will be decisions about drought-resistant crops, and whether to import water from elsewhere," he says.
The omens from the current drought across much of the south-west are not good. Aquifers are being depleted at unsustainable rates, and surface reservoirs are already down to historically low levels. "Much of the groundwater is non-renewable, so once you use it, it's gone," says Cook. Likewise the snowpack on the Sierra mountains is only a quarter of its usual volume.
Conflict could mount over the water sources still available. It may mean coastal cities turning to solutions like desalination of seawater, which is highly energy-intensive.
"The question is, to what extent will these current strategies work with the much more serious droughts that are outside our experience?" says Cook.
***
Mega-droughts predicted in the US will last decades
12 February 2015 by Andy Coghlan
Droughts lasting decades that make the dust bowls of the 1930s look like a picnic will begin to hit south-western and central regions of the US within the next 50 to 100 years. And the primary cause of the droughts will be global warming.
The impact on agriculture could be huge, say the researchers who made the predictions, and could trigger "water wars" as farmers and large settlements squabble over water resources that become ever more scarce.
"Instead of lasting maybe 10 years, these mega-droughts will last 20, 30, maybe even 40 years," says Benjamin Cook at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, who led the analysis.
"Most importantly, they are droughts that, once started, will last a really long time, longer than ever seen in the US," says Cook. "It's not going to be transient either. There will be new average drier conditions."
Cook and his colleagues made their predictions after analysing drought conditions in the US over the past 2000 years, based on tens of thousands of tree-ring samples collected throughout the country. "If there's a wide ring, it was wet, and a narrow one shows it was dry," explains Cook.
Parched projections
The team used this to evaluate the probability of droughts and their likely severity over the next 100 years. Their work factored in 17 different climate projections, and compared two global warming scenarios - a "business-as-usual" scenario and one in which moderate action is taken to curb emissions of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide.
To predict the severity of future droughts, the team also estimated soil moisture levels, and used the Palmer Drought Severity Index - which reflects how soil moisture content varies with rainfall and how much moisture the soil retains.
A PDSI score of zero means that soil moisture is in perfect balance. Positive scores indicate flooding or waterlogging, while negative scores indicate drought. "Once you're below -1, that's a hard, serious drought," says Cook.
The analysis suggests things will get much worse than that before 2100 - even with moderate action to reduce emissions. Under many of the 17 climate projections, PDSI scores are predicted to plummet inexorably downward to -3 for both the Central Plains and the Southwest US, with the latter particularly hard hit. Scores for soil moisture are equally precipitous, closely tracking the collapse in PDSI.
If the predictions are correct, the droughts will be worse than anything seen over the past millennium, including a 200-year period of intense drought between 1100 and 1300, called the Medieval Climate Anomaly.
"The paper sounds very plausible, and sounds an ominous warning," says Kevin Trenberth of the US National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado. "In the absence of moisture, drought is exacerbated, plants wilt, the risk of heatwaves increases and the odds of wildfires sky-rocket," he says.
Water = tight
And the key cause will be global warming. "It will still rain, but what's driving a lot of the drought is drying of the soils through evaporation," says Cook.
This makes sense, says Trenberth. "What is very robust is the expected increase in drying, through evapotranspiration, simply because there's more heat available from global warming that has to go somewhere."
"As scientists develop better ways to uncover the occurrence of such events in distant history, while also improving models capable of projecting future climate conditions, both threads of research are saying the same thing... that we are likely underestimating the risks," says Douglas Kenney of the University of Colorado at Boulder. "It's sobering news, but it deserves our attention."
Worst hit will be agriculture. "It's the dominant user of water in North America," says Cook. "It may be necessary to give up on some areas, and there will be decisions about drought-resistant crops, and whether to import water from elsewhere," he says.
The omens from the current drought across much of the south-west are not good. Aquifers are being depleted at unsustainable rates, and surface reservoirs are already down to historically low levels. "Much of the groundwater is non-renewable, so once you use it, it's gone," says Cook. Likewise the snowpack on the Sierra mountains is only a quarter of its usual volume.
Conflict could mount over the water sources still available. It may mean coastal cities turning to solutions like desalination of seawater, which is highly energy-intensive.
"The question is, to what extent will these current strategies work with the much more serious droughts that are outside our experience?" says Cook.
Jeremy H. Denisovan
Feb 23, 2015, 1:56:09 PM2/23/15
to
Slider, all 3 major political parties in your own country
have now agreed that Britain will fight to halt global warming.
But you think you know better? :)
What a total bullshitter you are...
Read below:
"This goal is above party politics."
But it can't get through to Slider...
Nothing can, it would seem.
***
UK party leaders unite on climate change
7 February 2015 by Andy Coghlan
PARTY politics meets climate change. Leaders of the UK's three major parties have agreed that whoever wins the general election this May, Britain will carry through its obligations to try and halt global warming.
The cross-party pact, signed by the leaders of the Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, and Labour, represents an unprecedented show of party unity. It comes in the same week that officials from 194 countries met in Geneva, Switzerland, to finalise an initial negotiating text for the upcoming UN climate summit in Paris, France, in December.
The trio vowed to seek a deal in Paris restricting global temperature rises to 2°C, a threshold beyond which climate would be likely to have catastrophic consequences.
"They've agreed this goal is above party politics," says Matthew Spencer, director of the Green Alliance, the pressure group that brokered the cross-party deal. But, he says, they are still to confirm dates and details for their pledges, such as ending emissions from coal and transitioning to an energy efficient economy.
have now agreed that Britain will fight to halt global warming.
But you think you know better? :)
What a total bullshitter you are...
Read below:
"This goal is above party politics."
But it can't get through to Slider...
Nothing can, it would seem.
***
UK party leaders unite on climate change
7 February 2015 by Andy Coghlan
PARTY politics meets climate change. Leaders of the UK's three major parties have agreed that whoever wins the general election this May, Britain will carry through its obligations to try and halt global warming.
The cross-party pact, signed by the leaders of the Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, and Labour, represents an unprecedented show of party unity. It comes in the same week that officials from 194 countries met in Geneva, Switzerland, to finalise an initial negotiating text for the upcoming UN climate summit in Paris, France, in December.
The trio vowed to seek a deal in Paris restricting global temperature rises to 2°C, a threshold beyond which climate would be likely to have catastrophic consequences.
"They've agreed this goal is above party politics," says Matthew Spencer, director of the Green Alliance, the pressure group that brokered the cross-party deal. But, he says, they are still to confirm dates and details for their pledges, such as ending emissions from coal and transitioning to an energy efficient economy.
slider
Feb 23, 2015, 2:42:50 PM2/23/15
to
jeremy wrote...
> Mega-droughts predicted in the US will last decades
> 12 February 2015 by Andy Coghlan
>
> Droughts lasting decades that make the dust bowls of the 1930s look like
> a picnic will begin to hit south-western and central regions of the US
> within the next 50 to 100 years. And the primary cause of the droughts
> will be global warming.
### - again blah blah blah! coz global warming *isn't* in question here"
whereas 'what exactly' is *causing* it, IS!
'obviously' there's gonna be 'consequences' as the planet warms up! only
'one' of which is drought! so fucking what!
the only difference 'this' time around (in a far-far longer cycle of
cooling/warming, of which 2000 years is too small a sample anyway) being
the presence of humanity in large numbers and the 'effect' these 'changes'
(multiple changes in the environment because of warming) will have on...
us!
the record of how 'other' life is affected by such things already existing
in the fossil records! life having evolved on this planet under many such
rises and falls in temperature, over billions of years, probably takes all
that into consideration anyway! (at least to a point kinda thing, it
bends, and where it can't bend it becomes extinct, 99% of everything that
ever lived having 'gone' extinct kinda indicating that those swings are
often severe if not extreme!) whereas humanity, otoh, has only been around
for about a minute in similar geological time! one argument even
suggesting that it's only because of warming one time that we even evolved
at all! (something about being forced down from the trees out on to
growing/expanding savannas or something combined with increasingly
isolated groups as forests shrank to become small islands surround by
those savanna)
(snip just more waffling/evasion about drought)
> Conflict could mount over the water sources still available. It may mean
> coastal cities turning to solutions like desalination of seawater, which
> is highly energy-intensive.
>
> "The question is, to what extent will these current strategies work with
> the much more serious droughts that are outside our experience?" says
> Cook.
### - duh, humans having to 'adapt' to such warming + how it's gonna
affect us short/long term, is another subject altogether... the 'topic' is
about human contribution (or not) TO 'current' warming, NOT about how
we're all gonna (of course, duh) be affected by it post-warming and/or
during that warming!
stop changing the subject! (laffing :)))
> Mega-droughts predicted in the US will last decades
> 12 February 2015 by Andy Coghlan
>
> Droughts lasting decades that make the dust bowls of the 1930s look like
> a picnic will begin to hit south-western and central regions of the US
> within the next 50 to 100 years. And the primary cause of the droughts
> will be global warming.
whereas 'what exactly' is *causing* it, IS!
'obviously' there's gonna be 'consequences' as the planet warms up! only
'one' of which is drought! so fucking what!
the only difference 'this' time around (in a far-far longer cycle of
cooling/warming, of which 2000 years is too small a sample anyway) being
the presence of humanity in large numbers and the 'effect' these 'changes'
(multiple changes in the environment because of warming) will have on...
us!
the record of how 'other' life is affected by such things already existing
in the fossil records! life having evolved on this planet under many such
rises and falls in temperature, over billions of years, probably takes all
that into consideration anyway! (at least to a point kinda thing, it
bends, and where it can't bend it becomes extinct, 99% of everything that
ever lived having 'gone' extinct kinda indicating that those swings are
often severe if not extreme!) whereas humanity, otoh, has only been around
for about a minute in similar geological time! one argument even
suggesting that it's only because of warming one time that we even evolved
at all! (something about being forced down from the trees out on to
growing/expanding savannas or something combined with increasingly
isolated groups as forests shrank to become small islands surround by
those savanna)
(snip just more waffling/evasion about drought)
> Conflict could mount over the water sources still available. It may mean
> coastal cities turning to solutions like desalination of seawater, which
> is highly energy-intensive.
>
> "The question is, to what extent will these current strategies work with
> the much more serious droughts that are outside our experience?" says
> Cook.
affect us short/long term, is another subject altogether... the 'topic' is
about human contribution (or not) TO 'current' warming, NOT about how
we're all gonna (of course, duh) be affected by it post-warming and/or
during that warming!
stop changing the subject! (laffing :)))
Jeremy H. Denisovan
Feb 23, 2015, 9:52:51 PM2/23/15
to
On Monday, February 23, 2015 at 11:42:50 AM UTC-8, slider wrote:
> jeremy wrote...
>
> > Mega-droughts predicted in the US will last decades
> > 12 February 2015 by Andy Coghlan
> >
> > Droughts lasting decades that make the dust bowls of the 1930s look like
> > a picnic will begin to hit south-western and central regions of the US
> > within the next 50 to 100 years. And the primary cause of the droughts
> > will be global warming.
>
> ### - again blah blah blah! coz global warming *isn't* in question here"
> whereas 'what exactly' is *causing* it, IS!
Blah blah blah yourself. Virtually all major scientific
> jeremy wrote...
>
> > Mega-droughts predicted in the US will last decades
> > 12 February 2015 by Andy Coghlan
> >
> > Droughts lasting decades that make the dust bowls of the 1930s look like
> > a picnic will begin to hit south-western and central regions of the US
> > within the next 50 to 100 years. And the primary cause of the droughts
> > will be global warming.
>
> ### - again blah blah blah! coz global warming *isn't* in question here"
> whereas 'what exactly' is *causing* it, IS!
organizations with genuine credentials agree that
*human beings are causing it*, and also that the rate
of climate change is now unprecedented and dangerous.
In fact, thanks mainly to backwards a-holes like you, many
major scientific organizations now fear it's already too late
to prevent an overload of greenhouse gases, to the point that
in order to stop a lot of really horrific shit from happening
we'll need to REMOVE gases from the atmosphere and the ocean,
and sequester it in the earth.
Read these again dumb-ass, since apparently you skipped them before:
Skeptical Science:
"Confirmation that rising carbon dioxide levels are due to *human* activity
comes from analyzing the types of carbon found in the air."
"Another *human* fingerprint can be found by looking at temperature
trends in the different layers of the atmosphere."
The U.N.:
"There is a strong scientific consensus...that *human* activity
contributes significantly to this trend."
National Geographic:
"Evidence of a *human* role in climate change keeps piling up."
The IPCC:
"The *human* influence on the climate system is clear..."
For kicks, let's do a few more U.S. Organizations...
American Association for the Advancement of Science:
"The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change
caused by *human* activities is occurring now, and it is a
growing threat to society."
American Geophysical Union:
"*Human‐induced* climate change requires urgent action.
Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change
observed over the past 50 years."
American Meteorological Society:
"It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the
dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past
half century is *human-induced*..."
Geological Society of America:
"...global climate has warmed and *human* activities
(mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most
of the warming since the middle 1900s."
U.S. Global Change Research Program:
"The global warming of the past 50 years is due primarily
to *human-induced* increases in heat-trapping gases."
Below is a list of 200 major international scientific organizations
all officially stating that recent climate change has been
caused by HUMANS. Duh.
http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php
And you don't know shit about it. :)
slider
Feb 23, 2015, 11:57:17 PM2/23/15
to
jeremy intones :)
> Below is a list of 200 major international scientific organizations
> all officially stating that recent climate change has been
> caused by HUMANS. Duh.
>
> http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php
>
> And you don't know shit about it. :)
### - riight... keep telling yourself that and you'll be just fine! :)
“Not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things in
rationality.”
― Bertrand Russell
“The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever
that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the
majority of mankind, a widely spread belief is more likely to be foolish
than sensible.” ― Bertrand Russell
yeah you're well safe jer, after all you're in the majority!
riiight :)
> Below is a list of 200 major international scientific organizations
> all officially stating that recent climate change has been
> caused by HUMANS. Duh.
>
> http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php
>
> And you don't know shit about it. :)
“Not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things in
rationality.”
― Bertrand Russell
“The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever
that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the
majority of mankind, a widely spread belief is more likely to be foolish
than sensible.” ― Bertrand Russell
yeah you're well safe jer, after all you're in the majority!
riiight :)
Jeremy H. Denisovan
Feb 24, 2015, 12:14:45 AM2/24/15
to
On Monday, February 23, 2015 at 8:57:17 PM UTC-8, slider wrote:
> jeremy intones :)
>
> > Below is a list of 200 major international scientific organizations
> > all officially stating that recent climate change has been
> > caused by HUMANS. Duh.
> >
> > http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php
> >
> > And you don't know shit about it. :)
>
> ### - riight... keep telling yourself that and you'll be just fine! :)
>
> "Not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things in
> rationality."
> -- Bertrand Russell
> jeremy intones :)
>
> > Below is a list of 200 major international scientific organizations
> > all officially stating that recent climate change has been
> > caused by HUMANS. Duh.
> >
> > http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php
> >
> > And you don't know shit about it. :)
>
> ### - riight... keep telling yourself that and you'll be just fine! :)
>
> "Not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things in
> rationality."
>
> "The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever
> that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the
> majority of mankind, a widely spread belief is more likely to be foolish
> than sensible." -- Bertrand Russell
> "The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever
> that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the
> majority of mankind, a widely spread belief is more likely to be foolish
>
> yeah you're well safe jer, after all you're in the majority!
>
> riiight :)
Only you seemingly fail to realize that in scientific pursuits
> yeah you're well safe jer, after all you're in the majority!
>
> riiight :)
nothing is ever "absolutely certain", and that it doesn't matter
if an opinion is merely "widely held" - rather, what matters is
that the views which are widely held are based on the EVIDENCE.
That is totally the case here, and Russell would agree with me,
not you.
So once again, you said nothing and yet do not realize it.
This has been the case with you for a long, long time.
slider
Feb 24, 2015, 12:50:33 AM2/24/15
to
jeremy wrote...
### - think i'd much rather 'say nothing' and be 'totally wrong' than to
be merely 'parroting' science coz i ain't got any friggin' ideas of my
own ha! :)
----------
"first they laugh at you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you,
then you win" --gandhi :)
be merely 'parroting' science coz i ain't got any friggin' ideas of my
own ha! :)
----------
"first they laugh at you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you,
then you win" --gandhi :)
Jeremy H. Denisovan
Feb 24, 2015, 9:25:58 PM2/24/15
to
no one's going to fight you, since you have no power or data,
and you aren't going to win. The UK IS going to fight to
halt global warming. And that's good, and it's about fucking time.
slider
Feb 24, 2015, 10:42:18 PM2/24/15
to
the above quote being said (and quoted) entirely in the 'past' tense! :)
fact is, and that might be of 'some' consolation to you, is that there
isn't *any* 'wallyworld-derived' pov that can possibly stand (or hold-up)
in the presence of... an outsider! (think south africa)
something i've tried several times in several ways and from many different
angles to explain to you (and others too) but you's only ever hear your
'own' side of the argument! (just because one doesn't immediately
understand an opposing argument in its entirety doesn't automatically mean
it's wrong) only you're perpetually + permanently so ardently + instantly
'dismissive' of anything that you don't 'want' to hear that you never even
'try' to make sense of it!
it's also quite normal to do that (to 'automatically' (reflexly) defend an
'already' adopted pov, i mean) same as they do in scientific and/or
virtually any rational circle, even to the point of ridiculing any new
idea! even though time and time again it turns out that the already
adopted + already accepted/established pov was actually in error and/or
had become (or turned into) dogma!
something that occurs not only in rational and/or scientific circles, but
also in the field of art! a certain 'style' holds sway for a while only to
be challenged by some kinda innovation and/or update that throws the
establishment and their current pov into disarray! first they laugh at it,
then they ridicule it, then they fight it, then the new style takes hold
and often completely displaces the former understanding/way of looking at
things! it really being nothing even to do with the subject matter itself,
whether it be art 'or' science, but actually indicative of the way in
which our minds work and/or is something to do with the way we humans
learn/expand our awareness + grasp of things! (very slowly/awkwardly!)
this 'alone' being the reason i've been able, fairly successfully over the
last 17 years lol:) to best/oppose virtually any argument! and,
incidentally, why i'm so detached about it all/laughing heh ;)
The UK IS going to fight to
> halt global warming. And that's good, and it's about fucking time.
that originally 'refused' to sign the kyoto accord until just 'very'
fucking recently, NOT the uk??
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol
lol you do-narf' talk a load of old shit to get yourself out of trouble
sometimes ya know jeremy!
something we common peeps here in london often refer to as: 'waffle' or
'waffling' :)
whenever your inventory fails... you try to 'waffle' your way out of it!
:)))
(it's actually pretty dumb innit, but you're not alone in that coz the
whole of humanity does it!)
welcome to... waffle-world?
damn straight :)
Jeremy H. Denisovan
Feb 24, 2015, 11:05:28 PM2/24/15
to
No, you just misinterpret what I say
(usually, er, better make that constantly).
I didn't mean to imply the U.S. is a shining star.
It's about fucking time we did something too.
(usually, er, better make that constantly).
I didn't mean to imply the U.S. is a shining star.
It's about fucking time we did something too.
slider
Feb 25, 2015, 12:26:11 AM2/25/15
to
Jeremy wrote...
### - imho there's nothing 'anyone' can actually 'do' about it! hence the
usa initially refusing to agree to comply + if they're actually starting
now to chime in then it's probably only because of a growing public
resentment/opinion to the contrary... meanwhile, everyone's been turned
into recycling fanatics! (shit, they're even fining people over here for
putting the wrong waste in the wrong trash bins lol:)
fuck global warming as a motive! 'most' of the things they're 'starting'
to change (IF they're even really + actually doing anything at all, which
i seriously doubt) are only 'common sense' to be stopping doing and
cleaning up anyway!: like all that plastic shit floating around by the ton
in our oceans! there's literally 100's of things like that that have
basically 'bugger-all' to do with 'global warming' and more to do with our
own stupidity and greed!
that's what i think anyway heh... am 'fucked' if am gonna let 'em
hypnotise me with so-called 'global warming' when there's tons and tons of
things that CAN be done and that absolutely NEEDS doing anyway!
:-)
usa initially refusing to agree to comply + if they're actually starting
now to chime in then it's probably only because of a growing public
resentment/opinion to the contrary... meanwhile, everyone's been turned
into recycling fanatics! (shit, they're even fining people over here for
putting the wrong waste in the wrong trash bins lol:)
fuck global warming as a motive! 'most' of the things they're 'starting'
to change (IF they're even really + actually doing anything at all, which
i seriously doubt) are only 'common sense' to be stopping doing and
cleaning up anyway!: like all that plastic shit floating around by the ton
in our oceans! there's literally 100's of things like that that have
basically 'bugger-all' to do with 'global warming' and more to do with our
own stupidity and greed!
that's what i think anyway heh... am 'fucked' if am gonna let 'em
hypnotise me with so-called 'global warming' when there's tons and tons of
things that CAN be done and that absolutely NEEDS doing anyway!
:-)
Jeremy H. Denisovan
Feb 25, 2015, 11:59:21 AM2/25/15
to
On Tuesday, February 24, 2015 at 9:26:11 PM UTC-8, slider wrote:
> Jeremy wrote...
>
> > No, you just misinterpret what I say
> > (usually, er, better make that constantly).
> >
> > I didn't mean to imply the U.S. is a shining star.
> > It's about fucking time we did something too.
>
> ### - imho there's nothing 'anyone' can actually 'do' about it! hence the
> usa initially refusing to agree to comply + if they're actually starting
> now to chime in then it's probably only because of a growing public
> resentment/opinion to the contrary... meanwhile, everyone's been turned
> into recycling fanatics! (shit, they're even fining people over here for
> putting the wrong waste in the wrong trash bins lol:)
Of course there are things that can be done about it.
> Jeremy wrote...
>
> > No, you just misinterpret what I say
> > (usually, er, better make that constantly).
> >
> > I didn't mean to imply the U.S. is a shining star.
> > It's about fucking time we did something too.
>
> ### - imho there's nothing 'anyone' can actually 'do' about it! hence the
> usa initially refusing to agree to comply + if they're actually starting
> now to chime in then it's probably only because of a growing public
> resentment/opinion to the contrary... meanwhile, everyone's been turned
> into recycling fanatics! (shit, they're even fining people over here for
> putting the wrong waste in the wrong trash bins lol:)
Just as recycling can be done (and is only one thing
that can be done).
> fuck global warming as a motive! 'most' of the things they're 'starting'
> to change (IF they're even really + actually doing anything at all, which
> i seriously doubt) are only 'common sense' to be stopping doing and
> cleaning up anyway!: like all that plastic shit floating around by the ton
> in our oceans! there's literally 100's of things like that that have
> basically 'bugger-all' to do with 'global warming' and more to do with our
> own stupidity and greed!
good way of helping clean that up, now in prototype stage.
http://tinyurl.com/mc3ps8k
> that's what i think anyway heh... am 'fucked' if am gonna let 'em
> hypnotise me with so-called 'global warming' when there's tons and tons of
> things that CAN be done and that absolutely NEEDS doing anyway!
>
> :-)
But it is potentially one of our most serious problems.
It will be a long damn time before we get another planet. :)
So we need to be really fucking careful with this one.
And we haven't been...
Some solutions we need to pursue:
* Improve energy efficiency and vehicle fuel economy
* Improve vehicle fuel economy
* Increase the use of alternate power: wind, solar, hydrogen, etc.
* Capture carbon dioxide and store it underground (sequestration)
* Plant billions of new trees and plants everywhere
* Change our farming methods to more effectively regulate CO2.
If you're interested in more detail on solutions,
read this, it is a good approach:
http://www.climatecentral.org/blogs/wedges-reaffirmed
Jeremy H. Denisovan
Feb 25, 2015, 2:03:04 PM2/25/15
to
Here's a better description of 15 steps to take:
***
Each of the 15 strategies below has the potential to reduce global
carbon emissions by at least 1 billion tons per year by 2060,
or "1 wedge". A combination of strategies is needed to stabilize
the climate worldwide.
Efficiency
1. Double fuel efficiency of 2 billion cars from 30 to 60 mpg.
2. Decrease the number of car miles traveled by half.
3. Use best practices in all residential and commercial buildings.
4. Produce coal-based electricity with twice today's efficiency.
Fuel Switching
5. Replace 1400 coal electric plants with natural gas-powered facilities.
Carbon Capture and Storage
6. Capture AND store emissions from 800 coal electric plants.
7. Produce hydrogen at six times today's rate AND store the captured CO2.
8. Capture carbon from 180 coal-to-synfuels plants AND store the CO2.
Nuclear
9. Add double the current global nuclear capacity
Wind
10. Increase wind electricity capacity by 10 times
Solar
11. Install 100 times the current capacity of solar electricity.
12. Use 40,000 square kilometers of solar panels to produce hydrogen.
Biomass Fuels
13. Increase ethanol production 12 times by creating biomass plantations
Natural Sinks
14. Eliminate tropical deforestation.
15. Adopt conservation tillage in all agricultural soils worldwide.
***
Each of the 15 strategies below has the potential to reduce global
carbon emissions by at least 1 billion tons per year by 2060,
or "1 wedge". A combination of strategies is needed to stabilize
the climate worldwide.
Efficiency
1. Double fuel efficiency of 2 billion cars from 30 to 60 mpg.
2. Decrease the number of car miles traveled by half.
3. Use best practices in all residential and commercial buildings.
4. Produce coal-based electricity with twice today's efficiency.
Fuel Switching
5. Replace 1400 coal electric plants with natural gas-powered facilities.
Carbon Capture and Storage
6. Capture AND store emissions from 800 coal electric plants.
7. Produce hydrogen at six times today's rate AND store the captured CO2.
8. Capture carbon from 180 coal-to-synfuels plants AND store the CO2.
Nuclear
9. Add double the current global nuclear capacity
Wind
10. Increase wind electricity capacity by 10 times
Solar
11. Install 100 times the current capacity of solar electricity.
12. Use 40,000 square kilometers of solar panels to produce hydrogen.
Biomass Fuels
13. Increase ethanol production 12 times by creating biomass plantations
Natural Sinks
14. Eliminate tropical deforestation.
15. Adopt conservation tillage in all agricultural soils worldwide.
slider
Feb 26, 2015, 2:40:00 AM2/26/15
to
still has to be done)
point being: it's us HUMANS that need fixing! 'all of the above' merely
being 'symptomatic' of the real causing agent... meaning: you can tell a
tree by it's fruit, kinda thing... and that 'tree' is fucking sick! well
sick! so very sick that it can't help but produce all this... shit!
everywhere it goes it makes shit! plus, since the industrial revolution,
that sick man(kind) has been making 'shit' on an industrial scale at
ever-increasing rates! but he's sick, see? so sick, he imagines that one
of these days some of that 'shit' he's creating will actually be capable
of cleaning up its own mess! iow: no need to 'do' anything about it now
coz it'll all get cleaned up in the future by amazing shit he haven't even
invented yet! cool!
denial! that's called... denial!
only one alternative really, and thats: fix the 'man' and then ya fix all
the (future) problems that man is creating!
don't fix the man: and he's just gonna carry on fucking everything up
farther and farther in advance of his own ability to clean it all up...
i.e. when a nutter is going around doing damage ya don't just follow that
fucker around clearing up the mess he makes and leave it at that, ya fix
the man! (or at least lock the fucker up lol:)
that while dyson is vacuuming up all that shit in the oceans, the 'man' is
actively tipping millions and millions of tons more even 'worse' shit into
them that can't even 'be' vacuumed (e.g. trillions of tiny plastic balls
etc) and/or he's dumping tons of radioactive waste from fuck-you-sheema
into the Pacific while lying about the actual amounts!)
guess what am saying is i can't really see any 'hope' of any of these
'efforts' (laudable though they are) of doing any 'real' good' while the
person responsible for doing it all in the first place is still so fucking
sick (in his head) that he just keeps adding more and more to it?
it's a recipe for disaster is it not? let's face it: he's 'insane' jeremy!
besides which, he's probably gonna blow us all to kingdom fucking come any
minute now anyway!
picture the scene... a ruined world, everything on that planet sick and
dying... mushroom clouds in the background and everything... and there's
some (hopeful/idealistic) guy on the shoreline straining bits of plastic
out of the water with a kid's shrimping net while everything around him is
literally going to hell! it's too late!
(sorry to be so direct but i dunno how else to tell ya)
basically then... these ARE the last days! the eve of destruction! (it's
been a long evening: 200/300 years or longer)
it would literally take a miracle to stop it all now!
i really don't think we're gonna... make it!
i know it's sad but that's the reality!
(what say we watch the end... together)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOO4ROO_sPM (jazz)
Jeremy H. Denisovan
Feb 26, 2015, 2:14:17 PM2/26/15
to
> don't fix the man: and he's just gonna carry on fucking everything up
> farther and farther in advance of his own ability to clean it all up...
> i.e. when a nutter is going around doing damage ya don't just follow that
> fucker around clearing up the mess he makes and leave it at that, ya fix
> the man! (or at least lock the fucker up lol:)
You really want to fix the man? Well, we evolved this way.
If you want to change it dramatically, we're talking not only
about extensive cultural modifications but also about...
extensive genetic modifications.
And if the race survives, I predict that this WILL happen.
It has already begun.
> that while dyson is vacuuming up all that shit in the oceans, the 'man' is
> actively tipping millions and millions of tons more even 'worse' shit into
> them that can't even 'be' vacuumed (e.g. trillions of tiny plastic balls
> etc) and/or he's dumping tons of radioactive waste from fuck-you-sheema
> into the Pacific while lying about the actual amounts!)
>
> guess what am saying is i can't really see any 'hope' of any of these
> 'efforts' (laudable though they are) of doing any 'real' good' while the
> person responsible for doing it all in the first place is still so fucking
> sick (in his head) that he just keeps adding more and more to it?
>
> it's a recipe for disaster is it not? let's face it: he's 'insane' jeremy!
>
> besides which, he's probably gonna blow us all to kingdom fucking come any
> minute now anyway!
>
> picture the scene... a ruined world, everything on that planet sick and
> dying... mushroom clouds in the background and everything... and there's
> some (hopeful/idealistic) guy on the shoreline straining bits of plastic
> out of the water with a kid's shrimping net while everything around him is
> literally going to hell! it's too late!
The hopeful guy who's doing something is still the only one...
doing something.
> (sorry to be so direct but i dunno how else to tell ya)
>
> basically then... these ARE the last days! the eve of destruction! (it's
> been a long evening: 200/300 years or longer)
>
> it would literally take a miracle to stop it all now!
>
> i really don't think we're gonna... make it!
>
> i know it's sad but that's the reality!
>
> (what say we watch the end... together)
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOO4ROO_sPM (jazz)
I'll still be one of the hopeful guys trying to do something -
while still listening to good music and having fun, if I still can,
nothing wrong with that. :)
These albums below were recently released by the Zappa estate,
and for the moment are all on YouTube.
'Road Tapes'. First volume (of multiple volumes):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JD11Aj83eQw
'Roxy By Proxy'. First cut:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lSg9pj3H4o
slider
Feb 26, 2015, 9:51:46 PM2/26/15
to
people being shoveled into gas ovens and breeding-programs and shit no?
not only completely disastrous but also horrible beyond belief!
i guess what i was saying/implying was that there's not gonna BE any
'fixing the man' wholesale, that in terms of practical reality: only
'individuals' can be 'fixed' (humanity en-mass can't be fixed beyond a
point, plus then only the least damaged ones among them even stand a
chance in hell)
any 'actual' effect upon the whole, then isn't he, in reality, just being
delusional? only really making himself 'feel' better about things?
something which is ultimately only just another form of denial?
>> (sorry to be so direct but i dunno how else to tell ya)
>>
>> basically then... these ARE the last days! the eve of destruction! (it's
>> been a long evening: 200/300 years or longer)
>>
>> it would literally take a miracle to stop it all now!
>>
>> i really don't think we're gonna... make it!
>>
>> i know it's sad but that's the reality!
>>
>> (what say we watch the end... together)
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOO4ROO_sPM (jazz)
>
> If the whole thing does go down...
> I'll still be one of the hopeful guys trying to do something -
> while still listening to good music and having fun, if I still can,
> nothing wrong with that. :)
uncomfortable) for others etc, then there's probably no harm in it, where
it's wrong though might be in that person denying 'themselves' that
ultimate view of reality as it really + actually is? and that 'without'
that ultimately clear view, the things one does would be necessarily never
be as 'effective' as they 'could' be perhaps?
> These albums below were recently released by the Zappa estate,
> and for the moment are all on YouTube.
>
> 'Road Tapes'. First volume (of multiple volumes):
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JD11Aj83eQw
>
> 'Roxy By Proxy'. First cut:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lSg9pj3H4o
was alright heh, he had that 'clear view' (of all our/humanity's shit) for
sure! lol no one could take the piss out of wallyworld (by highlighting
it) like he could, save for very rare peeps like bill hicks that is
hehehe; 'real' artists with 'something' to actually say! + said it so
well, so memorably:)))
(will get back to ya on the above zappa, cheers :)
thang ornerythinchus
Feb 27, 2015, 7:57:19 PM2/27/15
to
On Mon, 23 Feb 2015 10:42:00 -0800 (PST), "Jeremy H. Denisovan"
<david.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Here's a pretty good summary of the evidence, from some real skeptics:
>http://tinyurl.com/krf9vzu
>
>Quotes:
>
>The proof that man-made CO2 is causing global warming is like the chain of evidence in a court case. CO2 keeps the Earth warmer than it would be without it. Humans are adding CO2 to the atmosphere, mainly by burning fossil fuels. And there is empirical evidence that the rising temperatures are being caused by the increased CO2.
>
>***
>
>One way of measuring the effect of CO2 is by using satellites to compare how much energy is arriving from the sun, and how much is leaving the Earth. What scientists have seen over the last few decades is a gradual decrease in the amount of energy being re-radiated back into space. In the same period, the amount of energy arriving from the sun has not changed very much at all. This is the first piece of evidence: more energy is remaining in the atmosphere.
To be more specific refer to NASA:
<david.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Here's a pretty good summary of the evidence, from some real skeptics:
>http://tinyurl.com/krf9vzu
>
>Quotes:
>
>The proof that man-made CO2 is causing global warming is like the chain of evidence in a court case. CO2 keeps the Earth warmer than it would be without it. Humans are adding CO2 to the atmosphere, mainly by burning fossil fuels. And there is empirical evidence that the rising temperatures are being caused by the increased CO2.
>
>***
>
>One way of measuring the effect of CO2 is by using satellites to compare how much energy is arriving from the sun, and how much is leaving the Earth. What scientists have seen over the last few decades is a gradual decrease in the amount of energy being re-radiated back into space. In the same period, the amount of energy arriving from the sun has not changed very much at all. This is the first piece of evidence: more energy is remaining in the atmosphere.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance/page7.php
"The absorption of outgoing thermal infrared by carbon dioxide means
that Earth still absorbs about 70 percent of the incoming solar
energy, but an equivalent amount of heat is no longer leaving. The
exact amount of the energy imbalance is very hard to measure, but it
appears to be a little over 0.8 watts per square meter. The imbalance
is inferred from a combination of measurements, including satellite
and ocean-based observations of sea level rise and warming.
When a forcing like increasing greenhouse gas concentrations bumps the
energy budget out of balance, it doesn’t change the global average
surface temperature instantaneously. It may take years or even decades
for the full impact of a forcing to be felt. This lag between when an
imbalance occurs and when the impact on surface temperature becomes
fully apparent is mostly because of the immense heat capacity of the
global ocean. The heat capacity of the oceans gives the climate a
thermal inertia that can make surface warming or cooling more gradual,
but it can’t stop a change from occurring.
The changes we have seen in the climate so far are only part of the
full response we can expect from the current energy imbalance, caused
only by the greenhouse gases we have released so far. Global average
surface temperature has risen between 0.6 and 0.9 degrees Celsius in
the past century, and it will likely rise at least 0.6 degrees in
response to the existing energy imbalance."
Slider this is NASA - the epitome of scientific reason and logic. CO2
*is* adding to the retention of heat energy by the atmosphere. Simple
as that, and it *will* set the thermostat higher, and the more CO2 is
ejected into the atmosphere, the higher will the thermostat be set.
Take a look at the scholarly references at the foot of this page. NASA
put man on the moon. I wouldn't doubt what they say.
who can disagree with science?)
>
>I doubt if you even have the attention span to read all the above,
>or anything but tabloid columns and fringe bloggers. Oh, and let's
>not forget that right-winger comprise the majority of climate science
>deniers. And you claim to be 'left of center'! You side with
>right-wing idiots on this most crucial issue!
conclusion) for climate change due to manmade emissions. This goes
against his "grain" - I thought he was a lefty, spiritual type. I
guess this is inferential evidence itself that he *is* trolling (ie
throwing in spurious commentary with the intention only of eliciting
angry responses).
thang ornerythinchus
Feb 27, 2015, 8:15:54 PM2/27/15
to
> Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change
> observed over the past 50 years."
>
>American Meteorological Society:
>"It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the
> dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past
> half century is *human-induced*..."
>
>Geological Society of America:
>"...global climate has warmed and *human* activities
> (mainly greenhouse?gas emissions) account for most
> observed over the past 50 years."
>
>American Meteorological Society:
>"It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the
> dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past
> half century is *human-induced*..."
>
>Geological Society of America:
>"...global climate has warmed and *human* activities
> of the warming since the middle 1900s."
>
>U.S. Global Change Research Program:
>"The global warming of the past 50 years is due primarily
> to *human-induced* increases in heat-trapping gases."
>
>Below is a list of 200 major international scientific organizations
>all officially stating that recent climate change has been
>caused by HUMANS. Duh.
>
>http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php
>
>And you don't know shit about it. :)
Removing the emotional content, I think what he is saying in this
>
>U.S. Global Change Research Program:
>"The global warming of the past 50 years is due primarily
> to *human-induced* increases in heat-trapping gases."
>
>Below is a list of 200 major international scientific organizations
>all officially stating that recent climate change has been
>caused by HUMANS. Duh.
>
>http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php
>
>And you don't know shit about it. :)
sub-thread is that in terms of geological time (or perhaps cosmic
time, the earth has only been around for slightly less than 5 bny)
swings in atmospheric temperature are frequent.
He's missing the point. And he is again showing his disdain for his
own species and our future on this planet.
Climate change affects us here and now. He knows this. You don't need
to ram more evidence down his throat, he knows it. He just doesn't
give a shit how it affects humanity. He hates humanity. Something
happened to him once (or perhaps more than once, perhaps it's *still*
happening) which caused him to become a recluse glowing with hatred
for all other humans and perhaps with hatred for himself being the
strongest.
I don't think slider likes himself much.
This trolling of his is at least partly about his hatred for his own
damn species. A bitter, bitter man. You will never win against such
hatred and self-loathing.
thang ornerythinchus
Feb 27, 2015, 8:20:49 PM2/27/15
to
On Tue, 24 Feb 2015 04:57:22 -0000, slider <sli...@aanashram.org>
wrote:
>jeremy intones :)
>
>> Below is a list of 200 major international scientific organizations
>> all officially stating that recent climate change has been
>> caused by HUMANS. Duh.
>>
>> http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php
>>
>> And you don't know shit about it. :)
>
>### - riight... keep telling yourself that and you'll be just fine! :)
>
>“Not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things in
>rationality.”
>? Bertrand Russell
More than anything else, Russell was a mathematician, that most
pragmatic and logical discipline. The facts don't lie. More energy
now is being retained in our atmosphere than in the recent geological
past. The only reason for this, based on the wavelengths absorbed by
different atmospheric molecules, is increased CO2. The only reason
for the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is human emissions.
Russell would have found no uncertainty in this. You specialise in
taking citations out of context.
>
>“The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever
>that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the
>majority of mankind, a widely spread belief is more likely to be foolish
>than sensible.” ? Bertrand Russell
wrote:
>jeremy intones :)
>
>> Below is a list of 200 major international scientific organizations
>> all officially stating that recent climate change has been
>> caused by HUMANS. Duh.
>>
>> http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php
>>
>> And you don't know shit about it. :)
>
>### - riight... keep telling yourself that and you'll be just fine! :)
>
>“Not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things in
>rationality.”
More than anything else, Russell was a mathematician, that most
pragmatic and logical discipline. The facts don't lie. More energy
now is being retained in our atmosphere than in the recent geological
past. The only reason for this, based on the wavelengths absorbed by
different atmospheric molecules, is increased CO2. The only reason
for the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is human emissions.
Russell would have found no uncertainty in this. You specialise in
taking citations out of context.
>
>“The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever
>that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the
>majority of mankind, a widely spread belief is more likely to be foolish
slider
Feb 28, 2015, 7:19:37 AM2/28/15
to
thang writes...
>> “Not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things
>> in rationality.” --Bertrand Russell
anymore thang
you're a completely 'discredited' witness :)
>> “Not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things
>
> More than anything else, Russell was a mathematician, that most
> pragmatic and logical discipline. The facts don't lie. More energy
> now is being retained in our atmosphere than in the recent geological
> past. The only reason for this, based on the wavelengths absorbed by
> different atmospheric molecules, is increased CO2. The only reason
> for the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is human emissions.
>
> Russell would have found no uncertainty in this. You specialise in
> taking citations out of context.
### - heh absolutely 'no one' listens to your 'ideas' or 'judgements'
> More than anything else, Russell was a mathematician, that most
> pragmatic and logical discipline. The facts don't lie. More energy
> now is being retained in our atmosphere than in the recent geological
> past. The only reason for this, based on the wavelengths absorbed by
> different atmospheric molecules, is increased CO2. The only reason
> for the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is human emissions.
>
> Russell would have found no uncertainty in this. You specialise in
> taking citations out of context.
anymore thang
you're a completely 'discredited' witness :)
0 new messages