Climategate

1118119121123124153

Comments

  • finetunesfinetunes Posts: 2,065member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post


    You missed the point. Extremist anthropogenic global warming zealots can no longer tell me that I am causing Kilimanjaro's ice to melt by using an incandescent light bulb in my desk lamp instead of a CFL.



    What if the trees that were cut down were used to produce steam to power a generator to produce electricity to refine the tungsten filament that is used in your incandescent light bulb?



    If you reduce the amount of energy that you consume, whether its by using less or becoming more efficient or you become more "green", there is less environmental impact in the long run. Whether you believe in Global Warming or not, it makes sense for using less energy and becoming more efficient use of energy.
  • wormholewormhole Posts: 864member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post


    You missed the point. Extremist anthropogenic global warming zealots can no longer tell me that I am causing Kilimanjaro's ice to melt by using an incandescent light bulb in my desk lamp instead of a CFL.



    It must be hard to type with one foot in the mouth.



    Human activity made a glacier disappear PERIOD. That's what you said.

    I do not care if you want to pay a lot for a little light.



    I now got LEDS because they really look frigging cool and last for years.



    You do believe that if your are a good boy and don't play with your dick too much you will get to rule your own planet right? That's extreme. Extremely stupid.
  • hands sandonhands sandon Posts: 5,270member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post


    You missed the point. Extremist anthropogenic global warming zealots can no longer tell me that I am causing Kilimanjaro's ice to melt by using an incandescent light bulb in my desk lamp instead of a CFL.



    I can't read the whole thing because I don't have a subscription, but from what I could read they're saying that the effect of the deforestation explains why there is less snow than their otherwise would be given the rise in the temperature.



    Oh and I think you need more than a green desk lamp!

    http://climateprogress.org/2010/09/1...ng/#more-33025
  • brbr Posts: 8,253member
    Wait, are you telling me that Jazz misinterpeted a nuanced, qualifying statement as some sort of harsh rebuke against a thing he is predisposed against?



    SHOCKING.
  • jazzgurujazzguru Posts: 6,435member
    Read the following carefully:



    An increase in CO2 did not cause Kilimanjaro's ice to melt.



    People cut a bunch of trees down around Kilimanjaro which - according to the study referenced in the link I posted - is believed to be the cause of the ice melting.



    I was not one of those people who cut down said trees, nor did I advocate for their removal.



    I am not responsible for Kilimanjaro's ice melting.



    Therefore, you can no longer use Kilimanjaro's ice melting as an excuse to take away my freedom to choose.



    Please let me know if this is too difficult for you to understand.
  • hands sandonhands sandon Posts: 5,270member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post


    Read the following carefully:



    An increase in CO2 did not cause Kilimanjaro's ice to melt.



    People cut a bunch of trees down around Kilimanjaro which - according to the study referenced in the link I posted - is believed to be the cause of the ice melting.



    I was not one of those people who cut down said trees, nor did I advocate for their removal.



    I am not responsible for Kilimanjaro's ice melting.



    Therefore, you can no longer use Kilimanjaro's ice melting as an excuse to take away my freedom to choose.



    Please let me know if this is too difficult for you to understand.



    It says "AGGRESIVE tree-felling on mount Kilimanjaro could partly be to blame for its vanishing ice cap." But you think climate change is for commies so I guess you must be right.
  • wormholewormhole Posts: 864member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post


    Read the following carefully:



    An increase in CO2 did not cause Kilimanjaro's ice to melt.



    People cut a bunch of trees down around Kilimanjaro which - according to the study referenced in the link I posted - is believed to be the cause of the ice melting.



    I was not one of those people who cut down said trees, nor did I advocate for their removal.



    I am not responsible for Kilimanjaro's ice melting.



    Therefore, you can no longer use Kilimanjaro's ice melting as an excuse to take away my freedom to choose.



    Please let me know if this is too difficult for you to understand.



    Read the following carefully.

    Trees consume CO2.

    Global warming is not just about CO2 but all factors combined. If you live on earth, which I have come to doubt, you are responsible for it. God said so.

    They took away your freedom to drive with leaded gas as well. If they tell you to use different light bulbs you'll still have light.

    You want to take a woman's right to choose what she can or can not do with her body, you want to prevent gay people from getting married, freedom to choose my ass, you are a complete ... (censored by AI) ç(
  • finetunesfinetunes Posts: 2,065member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post


    Read the following carefully:



    An increase in CO2 did not cause Kilimanjaro's ice to melt.



    People cut a bunch of trees down around Kilimanjaro which - according to the study referenced in the link I posted - is believed to be the cause of the ice melting.



    I was not one of those people who cut down said trees, nor did I advocate for their removal.



    I am not responsible for Kilimanjaro's ice melting.



    Therefore, you can no longer use Kilimanjaro's ice melting as an excuse to take away my freedom to choose.



    Please let me know if this is too difficult for you to understand.



    http://www.newscientist.com/article/...eefelling.html



    Quote:

    AGGRESSIVE tree-felling on mount Kilimanjaro could be partly to blame for its vanishing ice cap.



    The ice on Kilimanjaro's summit has shrunk to just 15 per cent of its extent in 1912, leading campaigners to hold it up as a symbol of climate change. But other factors are also at play. For instance, the air at the summit is getting drier, reducing the snowfall that replenishes the ice and reflects solar radiation.



    Although the article does state that the aggressive tree felling is a possible contributing factor for the ice cap shrinking, it does not rule out global warming and changing weather patterns.



    One example that seems to controvert Global Warming does not make the theory incorrect. This is not an exact science. To illustrate this point:



    Himalayan Melting: How a Climate Panel Got It Wrong

    By BRYAN WALSH



    Quote:

    [A] new scandal broke over climate science. Faced with criticism of a widely quoted piece of analysis from its 2007 climate assessment that warned that Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035, the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was forced to admit to relying on dubious scientific sources, apologized and retracted its earlier estimate. That estimate of the rate of Himalayan glacier loss because of warming, which appeared in the same assessment that earned the global body a share of the Nobel Peace Prize, was "poorly substantiated," the IPCC said.



    To say the least. The controversy stems from a single paragraph in Chapter 10 of the report's second section, which claimed that glaciers in the Himalayas were receding faster than in any other part of the world, and that "if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 or perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at its current rate." Glaciologists have been doubtful of that 2035 date since the report came out.



    It turns out the 2035 estimate came not from a peer-reviewed scientific paper but from an interview conducted in 1999 by New Scientist magazine with the Indian glaciologist Syed Hasnain. The article, which included a "speculative" claim by Hasnain that the Himalayan glaciers could vanish by 2035, then became part of a 2005 report by the World Wildlife Fund ? and that report, apparently, became the source for the IPCC claim.



    It's still not clear exactly how the error made it into the IPCC's assessment, though climate scientists point out that the document was thousands of pages long and that the Himalaya claim wasn't included in the summary of the report, which was boiled down for policymakers and received the most attention from reviewers. "Honest mistakes do happen," admits Benjamin Santer, a climate modeler at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. "The bulk of the science is clear and compelling and rests on multiple lines of evidence," he says, not just one case.



    Indeed, while Himalayan ice will almost certainly still be here in 2035, it is definitely melting ? and that will have a serious impact on the billions of people in Asia who depend at least partially on Himalayan meltwater. Yao Tandong, head of China's Institute of Tibetan Plateau Research, has done on-the-ground research on the Chinese side of the Himalayas ? the world's biggest collection of ice outside the two poles ? and reported last year that by the end of the century, as much as 70% of the mountain range's glaciers could disappear. And far from providing evidence against climate change, nearly all alpine glaciers worldwide that have been tracked have shown significant melting over the past several decades ? often documented in photographs. "It's happening globally, in Europe, North America, China and the Himalayas," says Lonnie Thompson, a glacier expert at Ohio State University. "More than 90% of the world's glaciers are retreating. Glaciers have no political agenda."



    However, while climate scientists have built a nearly airtight case that climate change is happening and that manmade greenhouse-gas emissions are the primary cause, the IPCC's error demonstrates that it is still difficult to make tight predictions about the future ? especially on a regional or local level.



    Beyond that, the mere appearance of scientific impropriety might be enough to turn off those who are doubtful about global warming or just doubtful that the case is strong enough to warrant passing cap and trade.



    http://www.time.com/time/health/arti...955405,00.html



    The Himalayan along with the Kilimanjaro examples might be used by the anti Global Warming lobby to prove that the theory is rift with errors, but the above article does point out that the theory is correct.



    Quote:

    [W]hile climate scientists have built a nearly airtight case that climate change is happening and that manmade greenhouse-gas emissions are the primary cause, the IPCC's error demonstrates that it is still difficult to make tight predictions about the future.



    But for the sake of argument, let's say that the Global Warming--Climate Change Theory is wrong---what would be the damage in implementing some of the policies? Using less fossil fuels would clean up the environment, and the petroleum could be used to make plastics, fertilizers, etc. More efficient use of energy and conversion to alternate energy will also clean up the environment and save some rivers.
  • jazzgurujazzguru Posts: 6,435member
    I guess it was too difficult for Wormhole to understand.
  • jazzgurujazzguru Posts: 6,435member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by FineTunes View Post


    But for the sake of argument, let's say that the Global Warming--Climate Change Theory is wrong---what would be the damage in implementing some of the policies? Using less fossil fuels would clean up the environment, and the petroleum could be used to make plastics, fertilizers, etc. More efficient use of energy and conversion to alternate energy will also clean up the environment and save some rivers.



    Specify the policies you want to implement and I will tell you whether I think they would do more harm than good.



    Did you know that I believe we should reduce our dependency on oil - especially foreign oil? I also believe we should be responsible stewards of the earth and do our best to have as little as possible negative impact on the environment.



    And guess what? I do use CFLs in my home.



    I am somewhat concerned about the total impact that hybrid cars have on our environment - from manufacture to junk yard. But I do plan to own at least one in the future.



    I am typing this post on a custom built Intel Atom box that I built myself. The Atom CPU only consumes 29 Watts at idle - less than half of what a standard 60 watt incandescent light bulb consumes.



    I assure you, I am very interested in doing more with less. Maybe for slightly different reasons than those who believe that every time they exhale they are killing the planet. You'd think they'd be happy that I'm trying to do my part, but that's not enough for them. For some reason, it is imperative that I believe exactly as they do and agree with whatever radical measures they propose, such as Cap and Tax, er..."Trade".
  • wormholewormhole Posts: 864member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post


    I guess it was too difficult for Wormhole to understand.



    Someone called you "guru" and you didn't know what it meant. Now I am pretty sure you got that title for a reason that is the exact opposite of what it means to be a guru. You got punk'd.



    Yeah. I it was too difficult for me to understand. You are correct. Oh guru.
  • jazzgurujazzguru Posts: 6,435member
    Sea Level Falling In 2010



    Quote:

    We are constantly being told that 2010 is the hottest year ever, and that the polar ice caps are melting down at a record rate. Dr. Hansen tells us to expect 3-6+ metres of sea level rise this century. That would be a minimum of 30 mm/year.



    Quote:

    Only problem is, since the start of the hottest year ever, sea level has fallen 10 mm.



  • jazzgurujazzguru Posts: 6,435member
    Splattergate – the new Climategate?



    The Eco-Fascists have nobody to blame but themselves for this one.
  • finetunesfinetunes Posts: 2,065member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post


    Specify the policies you want to implement and I will tell you whether I think they would do more harm than good.



    Gee, that's awfully kind of you.



    I used to drive a lot in LA. Recently, I have been going from where I live to the LA Co. Law Library. Used to take me 30-40 minutes to drive to downtown and find parking. Parking cost $7-$20 depending where you park. For less you have to walk from Alvarado about 10 minutes walk to LACoLL.



    Now I take public transportation--the LA Metro Subway--takes me 12-15 minutes and a 5 minute walk to the LACoLL and cost me $0.25- $0.55 one way. Less gas and if more people use the Metro, less parking spaces in downtown that can be used for parks and buildings--housing.



    Also used the Express to Santa Monica Court House--no more freeway driving for me to SM.
  • finetunesfinetunes Posts: 2,065member
  • camp davidcamp david Posts: 692member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post


    Sea Level Falling In 2010



    Quote:

    Only problem is, since the start of the hottest year ever, sea level has fallen 10 mm.



    Don't try to apply common sense to a leftist talking point...



  • jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Camp David View Post


    Don't try to apply common sense to a leftist talking point...







    If you really believed in common sense you be asking why there are a few people who still think GW is just a conspiracy by the left with so much evidence available.



    If you don't get the facts believe your own eyes!



    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6041360.ece
  • finetunesfinetunes Posts: 2,065member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post


    Sea Level Falling In 2010



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Camp David View Post


    Don't try to apply common sense to a leftist talking point...









    The data doesn't support your contention. Appears long term sea levels on the rise.















    Since August 1992 the satellite altimeters have been measuring sea level on a global basis with unprecedented accuracy. The TOPEX/POSEIDON (T/P) satellite mission provided observations of sea level change from 1992 until 2005. ason-1, launched in late 2001 as the successor to T/P, continues this record by providing an estimate of global mean sea level every 10 days with an uncertainty of 3-4 mm. The latest mean sea level time series and maps of regional sea level change can be found on this site. http://sealevel.colorado.edu/wizard.php



    http://sealevel.colorado.edu/maps.php



    Quote:

    The blue line in the graph below clearly shows sea level as rising, while the upward curve suggests sea level is rising faster as time goes on. The upward curve agrees with global temperature trends and with the accelerating melting of ice in Greenland and other places.



    Various technical criticisms are mounted against satellite altimeter measurements by skeptics. Indeed, deriving millimeter-level accuracy from orbit is a stunning technical feat so it's not hard to understand why some people find such an accomplishment unbelievable. In point of fact, researchers demonstrate this height measurement technique's accuracy to be within 1mm/year. Most importantly there is no form of residual error that could falsely produce the upward trend in observations.



    As can be seen in an inset of the graph above, tide gauge and satellite altimeter measurements track each other with remarkable similarity. These two independent systems mutually support the observed trend in sea level. If an argument depends on skipping certain observations or emphasizes uncertainty while ignoring an obvious trend, that's a clue you're being steered as opposed to informed. Don't be mislead by only a carefully-selected portion of the available evidence being disclosed.



    Current sea level rise is after all not exaggerated, in fact the opposite case is more plausible. Observational data and changing conditions in such places as Greenland suggest if there's a real problem here it's underestimation of future sea level rise. The IPCC synthesis reports offer conservative projections of sea level increase based on assumptions about future behavior of ice sheets and glaciers, leading to estimates of sea level roughly following a linear upward trend mimicking that of recent decades. In point of fact, observed sea level rise is already above IPCC projections and strongly hints at acceleration while at the same time it appears the mass balance of continental ice envisioned by the IPCC is overly optimistic ( Rahmstorf 2010 ).



    http://www.skepticalscience.com/sea-level-rise.htm
  • finetunesfinetunes Posts: 2,065member


    Quotes from jg's article



    Quote:

    Until now it has been assumed that less activity from the Sun equates to less warming of the Earth.



    But the new research, which focuses on a three-year snapshot of time between 2004 and 2007, suggests the opposite may be true.



    If the new findings apply to long as well as short time periods, this could translate into a small degree of cooling rather than the slight warming effect shown in existing climate models. It would effectively turn received wisdom on its head.



    Sceptics are likely to say the results further undermine the reliability of climate change science, especially with regard to solar effects.



    Professor Joanna Haigh, from Imperial College London, who led the study, said:
    Quote:

    These results are challenging what we thought we knew about the Sun's effect on our climate.



    However, they only show us a snapshot of the Sun's activity and its behaviour over the three years of our study could be an anomaly.



    'We cannot jump to any conclusions based on what we have found during this comparatively short period and we need to carry out further studies to explore the sun's activity and the patterns that we have uncovered on longer timescales.



    'However, if further studies find the same pattern over a longer period of time, this could suggest that we may have overestimated the sun's role in warming the planet, rather than underestimating it.'



    'I think it doesn't give comfort to the climate sceptics at all,' she said.



    'It may suggest that we don't know that much about the Sun. It casts no aspersions at all upon the climate models.'



    Quote:

    'At face value, the data seem incredibly important,' Michael Lockwood, a space physicist at the University of Reading, told Nature.com.



    'If solar activity is out of phase with solar radiative forcing, it could change our understanding of how processes in the troposphere and stratosphere act to modulate Earth's climate.'



    'The findings could prove very significant when it comes to understanding, and quantifying, natural climate fluctuations,' he added.



    'But no matter how you look at it, the Sun's influence on current climate change is at best a small natural add-on to man-made greenhouse warming.'



    'All the evidence is that the vast majority of warming is anthropogenic. It might be that the solar part isn't quite working the way we thought it would, but it is certainly not a seismic rupture of the science.'

    'It may suggest that we don't know that much about the Sun.





    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete....html?ITO=1490
Sign In or Register to comment.