Reply With Quote
Link?
Link?It's hard to trust NASA/GISS. They are just another arm of the political structure to control us through fear.
You have some form of proof of this conspiracy and their motives?
You have to remember. Two of the AGW activists work for NASA/GISS and have already been shown to manipulate past temperature data.
James Hansen heads the NASA/GISS in New York City.
Gavin Schmidt is a climatologist and climate modeler at the NASA/GISS. He is also is a founding member of the propaganda site RealClimate.
It's hard to trust NASA/GISS. They are just another arm of the political structure to control us through fear.
Link?
Link?It's hard to trust NASA/GISS. They are just another arm of the political structure to control us through fear.
You have some form of proof of this conspiracy and their motives?
I'm not going to look up past data we already covered, a year or two ago. Don't you remember the threads covering temperature being wrong? That was manipulation by James Hansen. Remember, something like 1938 is again the hottest year rather than something like 1998...
Believe as you will anyway. Another reason I will not bother reopening information we all have already seen is because no matter the proof, you don't care. You will find reason to disagree anyway.
"manipulation" with some evil intent was never anything you proved, if memory serves.
(shrugs) Maybe some climate scientists are greedy, and falsify data. It would not surprise me if one out of the thousands do.
The overall weight of evidence still points to a pretty fair possibility that our actions are starting to markedly affect our climate systems.
You have always in the past declined to admit there may be some tipping points out there where some systemic feedback loop might cause some pretty disasterous effects.
You will find a reason to disagree no matter how good the proof or science you are presented with, because that is your bias.
The reason my mind remains unchanged, is because, for all the picking around the edges you make and all the unsubstantiated claims of evil conspiracies out there, what I understand as the bulk of the data still tilts towards the AGW theory, and the real potential of rather nasty outcomes.
We have a fair possibility of some pretty bad outcomes, and taking some reasonable steps to mitigate those risks is the best, most logical course.
The fact that taking those steps now is better for our economy in the long run, quite the opposite of what people like you claim, simply makes it a slam dunk in my mind.
Ultimately the real weakness in your policy position is that you can't support the claim that the economy will be harmed by taking steps to limit CO2.
Maybe new information like this will help:
Crisis in New Zealand climatology
They seem to have some fairly good weight of scientific background there.
They have though, a very specific agenda as well, being people "who are concerned at the misleading information being disseminated about climate change and so-called anthropogenic (man-made) global warming.'"
They have made up their minds and are finding data to support their thesis.
You tell me not to believe the IPCC because they "have an agenda", but this group does too.
I think their calls for more openness in the data gathered by the NZ SSS is a good thing, but you can't tell me that the group that puts a quote at the front of every article that suggests that environmentalists are out to enslave everybody is going to give me an objective look at any data.
I am still left with the same conclusion.
If that group gets some solid data, and does some solid research supporting their theory that gets some modi of peer review, let me know.
Ocean Warmed Significantly Over Past 16 Years
"The new study, detailed in the May 20 issue of the journal Nature, revealed that the top 2,300 feet (700 meters) of the world's oceans warmed 0.64 watts per square meter from 1993 to 2008. That's equal to adding the energy from 100 million atomic bombs to the ocean each year during the 16-year period, "
http://www.livescience.com/environme...ng-100519.html
Are you serious?
One of the pillars of this economy is based on the strength of the energy sector... non-attainable CO2 caps impose greater operating strains on production facilities (refineries, electrical plants, waste-water treatment plants, manufacturing plants, etc...) strains which are then passed on to the consumers: us... simply because the operational costs for producing electricity are inherently driven much, much higher. Transportation prices will go up, food costs will go up, manufacturing costs will go up, product prices will follow suit... ultimately, the price of everything is driven up... simply because misdirected policies are forcing added inefficiencies to their processes...
You'd have to be blind not to see that domino effect...
All the while, countries who don't give an iota of crap about the environment will cash in...
All for what? Bad science, and political meandering...
Please tell us how man shrunk the ice caps on Mars? No AGW supporter can legitimately answer this question without debasing the premise for their own earth-based anthropomorphic beliefs.
Last edited by Phenomanul; 05-22-2010 at 12:29 PM.
If we keep eliminating temperature sensing buoys from higher la udes year after year after year why should anyone be surprised?
This trend had been going on for maybe 100 years of more. There is no way that the atmosphere is going to warm the ocean that much. The ocean however, absorbs about 90% of the solar radiation it receives, and the sun got sronger over the course of about fifty years starting about 1900.
0.64 watts over 15 years is just over 0.04 watts per year. In the 1800's, the average solar radiation was about 1364.7 watts. From 1950 to 2000. we had an average of about 1366.2 watts. This is a 0.11% increase. Apply that to the 168 watts average (year 2000) that makes it to the earths source, at 90% absorption of the oceans, you get a 167.834 watt figure for 1900, or a 0.166 watt increase annually. This indicates we have balanced to about the 75% point of the increase since are 15 year average was 0.04 annually of the 0.166 watt increase.
Please note, as the oceans increase in temperature, their ability to absorb CO2 is diminishes, and the equilibrium changes. Otherwise, the oceans would have absorbed well over 95% of the CO2 man has added to the atmosphere.
It doesn't matter much how much CO2 we output. Even if we didn't add any to the atmosphere, CO2 levels would have increased. Anyone who understands the sciences that include gas solubility in fluids know this.
Note: all my reference to "watts" is watts per square meter.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions