carbon dioxide Posted January 8, 2016 Posted January 8, 2016 38 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said: 38 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said: See the graphFigure 1: Annual global temperature change (thin light red) with 11 year moving average of temperature (thick dark red). Temperature from NASA GISS. Annual Total Solar Irradiance (thin light blue) with 11 year moving average of TSI (thick dark blue). TSI from 1880 to 1978 from Krivova et al 2007 (data). TSI from 1979 to 2015 from PMOD (see the PMOD index page for data updates). See the graph Figure 1: Annual global temperature change (thin light red) with 11 year moving average of temperature (thick dark red). Temperature from NASA GISS. Annual Total Solar Irradiance (thin light blue) with 11 year moving average of TSI (thick dark blue). TSI from 1880 to 1978 from Krivova et al 2007 (data). TSI from 1979 to 2015 from PMOD (see the PMOD index page for data updates). Not really sure what you are getting at here. I believe when one is looking at data, one has to compare apples to apples. The type of equipment and the amount of date being collected today is far, far more and better than was being collected 100 years ago. Perhaps if we used the same equipment today with the same sensitivity and numbers as in the 1890, it would be more reliable. Plus there is the heat island effect is more pronounced today than 100 years ago. Lots of cities are hotter today not because of CO2 but all the concrete and other materials that raise temps. Collecting data from those places is basically worthless.
TheSkepticChristian Posted January 8, 2016 Author Posted January 8, 2016 (edited) 53 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said: Not really sure what you are getting at here. I believe when one is looking at data, one has to compare apples to apples. The type of equipment and the amount of date being collected today is far, far more and better than was being collected 100 years ago. Perhaps if we used the same equipment today with the same sensitivity and numbers as in the 1890, it would be more reliable. Plus there is the heat island effect is more pronounced today than 100 years ago. Lots of cities are hotter today not because of CO2 but all the concrete and other materials that raise temps. Collecting data from those places is basically worthless. Okay, let her explain. She is a climate scientist, she is also a conservative Republican Edited January 8, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian
thesometimesaint Posted January 8, 2016 Posted January 8, 2016 4 hours ago, Avatar4321 said: What temperature is the planet supposed to be? Depends on what if any life as we know it is supposed to be. Venus is too hot and Mars is too cold.
thesometimesaint Posted January 8, 2016 Posted January 8, 2016 1 hour ago, TheSkepticChristian said: Okay, let her explain. She is a climate scientist, she is also a conservative Republican KABOOM.
halconero Posted January 8, 2016 Posted January 8, 2016 7 hours ago, carbon dioxide said: I do believe that there is an effect on the climate with CO2. What I don't accept is this view that before the 19th century, the earth was in a perfect, stable climate for thousands and millions of years and then suddenly man has messed up the climate up by burning fossile fuels. Our actions may influence things but the earth is constantly in a state of change. There are periods of cooling and warming. Perhaps we are warming up a little bit more because of burning fossil fuels but there i no reason to believe we would not have warming even if we had not burned them over the last 100 years. My main opposition is not on cutting back but government forcing things on the people without the people being involved in the process. Since the people will be paying the cost, they should have a direct say on what happens. That does not happen by presidential executive orders or people in the EPA that were not elected by the people. Regulation without representation is just as anti-democratic as taxation without representation. Then we have the whole Paris crap where world leaders attempt to make decisions and declarations that does not reflect the will of the people they are over. The reality is a tiny group of people on the earth are trying to make decisions for everyone else on what needs to be done. Why would I not be upset? It might help to understand what worldviews we're coming from and why they might cause us to disagree. Canada (where I'm from), has a long heritage of "Peace, Order, and Good Govefnment" as its political mantra versus perhaps the American values of classical liberalism such as individual liberty, property rights, rebellion against tyranny, whether perceived or real. This partly comes from Canada being founded by classically conservative Loyalists moving into the Maritimes and Ontario, the bedrocks of Canadian Confederation. In contrast to the liberal Founding Fathers of the US, our conservative (I'm using the classical definition of these. Think John Locke and Adam Smith versus Edmund Burker) Fathers of Confederation valued strong social institutions, a communitarian ethos, strong government (with a focus on monarchy at the time), and social cohesion, and reluctance to engage violently except in dire circumstances. Though we share much culturally and linguistically with our neighbours to the south, the Canadian political mindset is profoundly different in my personal experience and political structure. A Westminster-style Parliament finds its check in a breakdown of informal consensus and confidence, with our wonky institutional check really being the power vested in the Crown to dissolve or call Parliament. The driving force in Canadian democratic institutions is consensus. So when we see something we don't like (as many Canadians did with our previous government), our being upset isn't in the same vein as being outrage against tyranny. We aren't mad at the Prime Minister because he's establishing a tyranny. We're mad because his stupid decision is disrupting the peace, order and good government in Canada. He's breaking down consensus, and destroying public unity. Furthermore, there has been (for the most part) a general assumption that different political parties aren't diametrically opposed ideological enemies bent on destroying the nation. Governments frequently function in minority situations wherein they have to gain the support of other parties to pass legislation. Even when they hold a majority of parliamentary seats they limit the scope of criticism to policies and practices rather than the character or intentions of their opponents, because our multi-party systems means that many Canadians will have voted for various parties throughought their lives and they don't want to drive away potential swing voters. So you end up having Justin Trudeau of the Liberal Party bringing the NDP, Conservative, Green, and Provincial Leaders of various stripes to Paris for the conference. Why? Because consensus in government is something to be strived for in Canada. Our ridings are smaller, many people know their personal representative personally. So even if the democracy is an indirect one, the local nature of it and the consensus-focus means that even if a law is passes which people don't like there aren't cries of tyranny or the sky-is-falling, but more of an attitude of "that was dumb, let's repeal it next election." Otherwise most laws are, if not liked, at least tolerated or palatable. So what does that have to do with a carbon tax? In the states the extreme political divide, the roots of rugged individualism, and other factors cause a law from the opposing party be viewed with the utmost fear and suspicion. Even though a law may be passed by your duelly elected indirect representatives there are cries of oppression. Perhaps even valid! Here? We look at it and if there's general consensus most of us will say "cool," or possibly "it's not exactly what I wanted...but it's better than nothing." There are usually only a very very few diametrically opposed to it. So I might not like a carbon tax because I favour the Cap-and-trade system of another party...but meh...it's better than the alternative. It isn't tyranny just because it doesn't line up with my exact worldview. Note: Yeah...I know this is incredibly political and will probably get deleted. I hope it doesn't...but whatever. My point isn't to say which system is better, or even to debate Canadian politics, but just to say why I might not view the same action as tyrannical where another might see it as such. 1
thesometimesaint Posted January 8, 2016 Posted January 8, 2016 I thought it was because Canadians are just so nice. 1
Zakuska Posted January 8, 2016 Posted January 8, 2016 11 hours ago, thesometimesaint said: KABOOM. More like... 'fizzle fizzle'... she really didn't say much at all. and what she did say we already knew.
Zakuska Posted January 8, 2016 Posted January 8, 2016 This one was a real "winner"... for the green agenda. Massive Solar Power Plant Emits 46,000 Tons of CO2http://news.investors.com/blogs-capital-hill/101915-776239-ivanpah-solar-plan-emits-greenhouse-gases.htm I thought these massive solar energy projects where supposed to reduce CO2 emmisions... not Increase them! Not to mention all the fried birds, insects and displaced desert tortoises!
thesometimesaint Posted January 8, 2016 Posted January 8, 2016 54 minutes ago, Zakuska said: More like... 'fizzle fizzle'... she really didn't say much at all. and what she did say we already knew. I already knew that the decay of orbits of measuring satellites. Obviously her opponent didn't.
thesometimesaint Posted January 8, 2016 Posted January 8, 2016 8 minutes ago, Zakuska said: This one was a real "winner"... for the green agenda. Massive Solar Power Plant Emits 46,000 Tons of CO2http://news.investors.com/blogs-capital-hill/101915-776239-ivanpah-solar-plan-emits-greenhouse-gases.htm I thought these massive solar energy projects where supposed to reduce CO2 emmisions... not Increase them! Not to mention all the fried birds, insects and displaced desert tortoises! Nothing is " Squeaky" clean. The primary source of power for that solar array is the sun. Which produces no CO2. Imagine the CO2 output if it was a coal fired power plant. A typical coal plant generates 3.5 million tons of CO2 per year SEE http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/coalvswind/c02c.html#.VpAJQ1kxPIU Insects fly into building, moving objects, even people we're not going to stop living because a few insects(deserts don't have a lot) will accidentally collide with us. Displaced tortoises are a problem to be solved. I don't know a solution, but it could be that a separate more congenial habitat can be built.
Zakuska Posted January 8, 2016 Posted January 8, 2016 (edited) Problem with wind farms?! Obama’s Wind-Energy Lobby Gets Blown Away http://www.wsj.com/articles/obamas-wind-energy-lobby-gets-blown-away-1439939347 Edited January 8, 2016 by Zakuska
thesometimesaint Posted January 9, 2016 Posted January 9, 2016 8 hours ago, Zakuska said: Problem with wind farms?! Obama’s Wind-Energy Lobby Gets Blown Away http://www.wsj.com/articles/obamas-wind-energy-lobby-gets-blown-away-1439939347 Get rid of all your windows first. SEE http://www.sibleyguides.com/conservation/causes-of-bird-mortality/
Cold Steel Posted January 9, 2016 Posted January 9, 2016 The struggle over the realities of global warming continue to be debated. The current warming trend began before the industrial revolution and there's evidence that we've had them before. But in the event man is causing it, there's nothing that can be done as long as all nations don't work together. As it stands, corrupt forces are attempting to tax Americans and siphon money to other nations in a major redistribution of wealth, all through international organizations. There are two major that's that are far greater than global warming. The first is an EMP event (caused by solar storms or weaponry). Such would send us immediately back to the 18th Century. We've already had one recent one. Fortunately the earth was not in that part of our orbit. We had another one in 1859 (the Carrington Event). Had that one happened last week, we'd be sending these messages by pigeon! The second major that we face is nuclear reactors and earthquakes. No one's talking about Fukashima, but that problem is still in its early stages. It's a full-fledged disaster and the media's silence is only making it worse. So pardon me if I feel overwhelmed. "For I, the Lord, knowing the calamity that will come upon the earth...."
thesometimesaint Posted January 9, 2016 Posted January 9, 2016 11 hours ago, Cold Steel said: The struggle over the realities of global warming continue to be debated. The current warming trend began before the industrial revolution and there's evidence that we've had them before. But in the event man is causing it, there's nothing that can be done as long as all nations don't work together. As it stands, corrupt forces are attempting to tax Americans and siphon money to other nations in a major redistribution of wealth, all through international organizations. There are two major that's that are far greater than global warming. The first is an EMP event (caused by solar storms or weaponry). Such would send us immediately back to the 18th Century. We've already had one recent one. Fortunately the earth was not in that part of our orbit. We had another one in 1859 (the Carrington Event). Had that one happened last week, we'd be sending these messages by pigeon! The second major that we face is nuclear reactors and earthquakes. No one's talking about Fukashima, but that problem is still in its early stages. It's a full-fledged disaster and the media's silence is only making it worse. So pardon me if I feel overwhelmed. "For I, the Lord, knowing the calamity that will come upon the earth...." That is the psychological function of deferred consequences. The pebble in our shoe is more important right then than the hungry lion around the corner. There is little to nothing any of us can do about a solar EMP or an earthquake. Global Warming is something we can do something about.
Zakuska Posted January 9, 2016 Posted January 9, 2016 (edited) 16 hours ago, Cold Steel said: Had that one happened last week, we'd be sending these messages by pigeon! Personally, I send all my mail by Owl. We better hope there's no wind farms or no one will be getting their mail. Edited January 9, 2016 by Zakuska
carbon dioxide Posted January 9, 2016 Posted January 9, 2016 55 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said: That is the psychological function of deferred consequences. The pebble in our shoe is more important right then than the hungry lion around the corner. There is little to nothing any of us can do about a solar EMP or an earthquake. Global Warming is something we can do something about. Even if you do something about it, getting the rest of the world to agree is pretty difficult. Even if governments agree to something, they will cheat. I see our climate having a role in last days events from droughts, floods, famines, cities being destroyed by the oceans, ect. So I don't look to climate change with fear. I see it as part of the events that will occur. Got to take the good with the bad as we go into the homestretch.
carbon dioxide Posted January 9, 2016 Posted January 9, 2016 A perhaps bigger problem people should be worried about is not climate change and Islamic terrorism but antibiotic resistant bacteria. As bacteria become more difficult to stop, it is going to cause serious disruption to the health care system. Those relatively safe procedures that we get today will become very dangerous if an infection occurs. But I don't expect the Church to come out with a statement on that either nor should it.
PeterPear Posted January 9, 2016 Posted January 9, 2016 On January 2, 2016 at 8:02 PM, The Nehor said: So we can be bad stewards because worse things are going to happen? 0.040% is a mimiscule amount of alcohol in the bloodstream but if you work in a safety sensitive transportation job and get that result you are pulled off the job. By small and simple things are great extinctions brought about. How politically-incorrect of you. It's not steward or stewardess; it's "flight attendant."
thesometimesaint Posted January 9, 2016 Posted January 9, 2016 4 hours ago, carbon dioxide said: Even if you do something about it, getting the rest of the world to agree is pretty difficult. Even if governments agree to something, they will cheat. I see our climate having a role in last days events from droughts, floods, famines, cities being destroyed by the oceans, ect. So I don't look to climate change with fear. I see it as part of the events that will occur. Got to take the good with the bad as we go into the homestretch. The world just signed an historic agreement to limit CO2 production. So far they haven't cheated. No need to wear seat-belts while in a car. We're all going to die anyway. Right? 1
The Nehor Posted January 10, 2016 Posted January 10, 2016 22 hours ago, PeterPear said: How politically-incorrect of you. It's not steward or stewardess; it's "flight attendant." How about "waitstaff with delusions of grandeur"?
halconero Posted January 11, 2016 Posted January 11, 2016 On January 9, 2016 at 11:27 AM, carbon dioxide said: A perhaps bigger problem people should be worried about is not climate change and Islamic terrorism but antibiotic resistant bacteria. As bacteria become more difficult to stop, it is going to cause serious disruption to the health care system. Those relatively safe procedures that we get today will become very dangerous if an infection occurs. But I don't expect the Church to come out with a statement on that either nor should it. Eh...currently in Canada and the US terrorism by far-right pseudo-anarchists, neo-Nazis, and Christian fundamental has been identified by both the RCMP and FBI as the larger threat. And as far as death tolls go, climate change will kill more than Islamic terrorism. Let me give you an illustration using something else to represent the two: People freak out over diseases like Ebola or Bubonic Plague, etc. They are awful, horrible, ugly diseases...but long term their lethality is limited by their high mortality rates. They are so visible, and kill so incredibly rapidly that they either are quarantined or kill their hosts. In contrast, TB (easily treatable with the right meds), kills millions every year. The disease doesn't kill most people it infects, but that same thing allows it to spread farther, as the infected act as carriers. Percentage wise, Ebola is more likely to kill the infected. Number wise, TB is outstripping it by far. Unfortunately the medication is expensive, the effects not visible, and the best long-term solutions involve the democratization and uplifting of the Global South, so the cost-effective conscious North probably won't fix it till it threatens them. So why is climate change more dangerous than Islamic terrorism? Yes, suicide bombings and shootings are ugly things which should be prevented and halted. Yet, for all their lethality they do not and will not kill as many as climate change related disasters related to glaciers melting, increased drought, fires, etc. And to bring back disease into the picture, including the downfall of antibiotics, there ARE direct ties to climate change and disease prevalence. Water-borne diseases, especially cholera, have been demonstrably shown to be tied in with climate change, along with other diseases including malaria. Yes, the 2nd Coming will be proceeded by horrible calamities, wars, disease, and famine. Yet I've found the ugly attitude of inaction as a consequence of such inevitability to be an ugly trend among some members of the church. The world war while we are under covenant to proclaim peace, the world may pollute the earth and accelerate emissions, while the Lord commands us to be good stewards of creation, and if we do neither of these we will be under condemnation.
Cold Steel Posted January 11, 2016 Posted January 11, 2016 On 1/9/2016 at 0:20 PM, thesometimesaint said: There is little to nothing any of us can do about a solar EMP or an earthquake. Global Warming is something we can do something about. No...Not necessarily. We can begin hardening our electrical power, computer systems, automobiles, farming and trucking. We can work on redundancy and burying key generating and power supply lines. It would cost a great deal, but we could do it. Global warming is a highly debatable topic, and it may be well beyond man's ability to prevent. The sun has become hotter and thermal conditions below the Arctic ice has been blamed for much of the ice melting -- conditions such as geologic thermal activity. People go to the Arctic and return with conflicting reports. The temperature is well below freezing there, but temperatures are rising beneath the ice. Global warming would be the least of our problems if we got hit by an EMP event. Also, looking at prophecy, the northern kingdom of the Beast will come down on Israel unopposed. This would not happen unless the United States had been rendered impotent and unable to respond militarily. According to the scriptures, the Beast will only be opposed by the southern kingdom, and it will be defeated and become part of the Beast's [Gog's] empire. I suspect something will take out the U.S. government and military. I doubt it will be global warming. Besides, I think we've done a lot to reduce greenhouse emissions. Yet the warming trends continue. At some time in the near future, the trend may turn into a cooling trend. It's happened before.
thesometimesaint Posted January 11, 2016 Posted January 11, 2016 10 hours ago, Cold Steel said: No...Not necessarily. We can begin hardening our electrical power, computer systems, automobiles, farming and trucking. We can work on redundancy and burying key generating and power supply lines. It would cost a great deal, but we could do it. Global warming is a highly debatable topic, and it may be well beyond man's ability to prevent. The sun has become hotter and thermal conditions below the Arctic ice has been blamed for much of the ice melting -- conditions such as geologic thermal activity. People go to the Arctic and return with conflicting reports. The temperature is well below freezing there, but temperatures are rising beneath the ice. Global warming would be the least of our problems if we got hit by an EMP event. Also, looking at prophecy, the northern kingdom of the Beast will come down on Israel unopposed. This would not happen unless the United States had been rendered impotent and unable to respond militarily. According to the scriptures, the Beast will only be opposed by the southern kingdom, and it will be defeated and become part of the Beast's [Gog's] empire. I suspect something will take out the U.S. government and military. I doubt it will be global warming. Besides, I think we've done a lot to reduce greenhouse emissions. Yet the warming trends continue. At some time in the near future, the trend may turn into a cooling trend. It's happened before. All worthy goals. There is no debate about Global Warming it is a simple fact of science. We are already set in place for a 2 degree rise in temperature. So there is nothing now that we do about that. What we can do is something about is further temperature rises. The total solar incidence has been about the same for many years now, the slight fluctuations have no appreciable impact on global temperatures. SEE https://www.skepticalscience.com/acrim-pmod-sun-getting-hotter.htm Geologic thermal conditions have had no relevance in the Arctic for a long time now. It was warmer at the North Pole than El Paso Texas few days ago. SEE http://news.discovery.com/earth/weather-extreme-events/huge-storm-may-raise-north-pole-temps-50-degrees-151229.htm God can do whatever he wants. The US military already sees Global Warming as a threat multiplier. SEE http://www.defense.gov/News-Article-View/Article/603440 We, as in the world, have not done nearly enough. Total CO2 emissions are still rising albeit it is hoped more slowly SEE http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34668957 I guess if you mean that 10,000-20,000 years is near future.
Zakuska Posted January 11, 2016 Posted January 11, 2016 (edited) 32 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said: There is no debate about Global Warming it is a simple fact of science. Ah yes the oft repeated Myth raises its ugly head once again. You keep forgetting about the "PAUSE" that every one keeps trying to cover up. NOAA Attempts To Hide The Pause In Global Warming: The Most Disgraceful Cover-Up Since Climategate The US government’s main climate research agency has refused a request by House Republicans to release key documents concerning the controversial issue of whether or not there has been a “pause” in global warming. Despite being a public, taxpayer-funded institution, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) insists that it is under no obligation to provide the research papers, as demanded in a subpoena by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX)60% (R-Texas). Gosh. What vital information of national secrecy importance could NOAA possibly have to hide? That question is entirely rhetorical, by the way. The answer is obvious – well known to every one within the climate change research community. And the whole business stinks. When these documents are released, as eventually they surely must be, what will become evident is that this represents the most disgraceful official cover-up by the politicized science establishment since the release of the Climategate emails. At the root of the issue is the inconvenient truth that there has been no “global warming” since January 1997. http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/10/29/noaa-attempts-hide-pause-global-warming-disgraceful-cover-since-climategate/ Edited January 11, 2016 by Zakuska 1
TheSkepticChristian Posted January 11, 2016 Author Posted January 11, 2016 (edited) 30 minutes ago, Zakuska said: The US government’s main climate research agency has refused a request by House Republicans to release key documents concerning the controversial issue of whether or not there has been a “pause” in global warming. LOL even if true, politicians will not understand the scientific data and the Math, the politicians are not interested in understanding climate science. Politicians are like most religious pastors that understand the Bible how they want to understand it. A new study finds no statistically significant deviation from the long-term global warming trend http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/aug/03/statistics-says-the-long-term-global-warming-trend-continues another paper was published by Stephan Lewandowsky, James Risbey, and Naomi Oreskes that comes to the same conclusion. http://www.nature.com/articles/srep16784 Edited January 11, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian
Recommended Posts