I agree with you that it could be a problem if the Earth warms (or cools) too rapidly. Hopefully the increased atmospheric CO2 will lead to larger brains so we can figure something out!jaa said:
Last edited by a moderator:
-
By using this site you agree to the terms, rules, and privacy policy.
-
Charlie's Restoration Giveaway #2 (Entire Home EMF Mitigation & Protection Along With Personal Protection) - Click Here To Enter
-
Dear Carnivore Dieters, A Muscle Meat Only Diet is Extremely Healing Because it is a Low "vitamin A" Diet. This is Why it Works so Well...
Rest the rest of this post by clicking here
-
The Forum is transitioning to a subscription-based membership model - Click Here To Read
Click Here if you want to upgrade your account
If you were able to post but cannot do so now, send an email to admin at raypeatforum dot com and include your username and we will fix that right up for you.
German Professor: NASA Has Fiddled Climate Data On ‘Unbelievable’ Scale
- Thread starter charlie
- Start date
Richiebogie
Member
The Australian Government were caught out deleting record hot days from the 1930's temperature records. The son of the guy who took the records said his father meticulously took the readings in all sorts of harsh conditions!
I guess it is easy for a lone researcher to massage his own data.
When you start altering already published data you need a fancy name to explain your 'improvements'!
I guess it is easy for a lone researcher to massage his own data.
When you start altering already published data you need a fancy name to explain your 'improvements'!
michael94
Member
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2015
- Messages
- 2,419
The thing about climate change experts is that their expertise apparently doesn't allow them to predict the future accurately. How are you an expert if you can't predict any better than a random person guessing and often worse so-called 'deniers'? Same goes for large portion of the economists in the world.
relevant https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg ... QSss47F9u0
relevant https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg ... QSss47F9u0
Gl;itch.e
Member
How about thinking about it this way:narouz said:
Truth is truth regardless of who agrees or disagrees with it.
or...
My opinion is still my opinion whether backed by morons or geniuses. I'm not going to go disregarding my own beliefs/theories every time someone I dislike might pop-up accidentally "on my side".
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2014
- Messages
- 696
I don't trust anything once politicians get their hands on it.
frankfranks
Member
- Joined
- May 15, 2015
- Messages
- 33
The whole carbon fuels panic seems like a bit a moot concern considering it's well over half gone. Maybe burning all that oil and coal in the 20th century was a bad idea. Well, that's over now and won't happen again.
Most of the oil and coal and natgas in the ground now will stay there forever. The credit expansion necessary to fund the extraction can't happen at the escalating costs.
http://www.economic-undertow.com/
Most of the oil and coal and natgas in the ground now will stay there forever. The credit expansion necessary to fund the extraction can't happen at the escalating costs.
http://www.economic-undertow.com/
frankfranks
Member
- Joined
- May 15, 2015
- Messages
- 33
narouz said:
What's wrong with Trump, our savior? To think otherwise you must be some sort of authoritarian. Only Trump proposes to check the power of the establishment fascists.
FYI, this board has been thoroughly subverted by authoritarians. They're deleting my posts.
Last edited by a moderator:
milk_lover
Member
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2015
- Messages
- 1,909
What is wrong with Donald Trump? I enjoy listening to him more than any american politiciannarouz said:
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't know the detail about how the NASA data was analysed, but it's not as though the general scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change depends on it. There is lots of data from lots of different sources, and there is lots of evidence of the effects of the climate change that is already happening. Every time the thousands of scientists contributing to the IPCC reassess the situation, they report that it is changing faster than they last predicted.
The sea level rise is already beginning to affect some inhabited islands. Increased temperature increases the volume of sea. There are people on some of the islands who have already lost the ability to grow food on their own land because the salt water is encroaching. Some islands are expected to be uninhabiltable in the next few decades, even if we do everything know how to do as fast as we can.
The increase in frequency and destructiveness of severe cyclones, floods, droughts, etc, is not just a future threat - it has already begun. More heat in the atmosphere generates more extreme weather.
The acidification of the oceans by increased CO2 levels has already begun. If the world changes course rapidly, and contains temperature rise to no more than 2 deg C, it seems likely that this can be averted. This goal has not been accepted by the major powers. Continuing on with business as usual, predictions or f the marine scientists say that the coral reefs will be getting significantly bleached by mid-century. Coral reefs are breeding grounds for a lot of fish. It doesn't have to go all that far before it undermines the basis of the marine ecosystem. If the littlest creatures can't build their exoskeletons because the pH is too low, every living thing further up the food chain has a problem.
People in the US, where most people know less about global climate change than the rest of the world, have been suffering and increase in extreme weather events in the last few years too.
The US military take it seriously as one of the biggest threats to future security. Insurance companies don't all take it as a hoax, either. Locally, our councils are already having to think about how to make unpopular and/or costly decisions about how to handle vulnerable coastal land, property and infrastructure. If you live in low lying towns/cities near the coast, and your local bodies are not addressing this, they are being irresponsible.
There is uncertainty about the science, but the uncertainty is in the speed and order and scope of changes, not about whether there will be significant ecosystem disruption. There is always more to learn.
I just heard Naomi Klein observe that one of the common features of the countries with the least knowledge about global climate change - US, UK, Aus - is that they (coincidentally?) all have Murdoch as a major factor of mainstream media.
Overall, there is a tiny fraction of profits being made from investing in sustainable resources and climate-neutral energy compared to the vast majority coming from continued extraction and pollution, including green house gases (not just CO2). The global profit system mostly pushes to keep making super-profits from rapid and unsustainable extraction, and to block effective responses. There continues to be a great deal of pressure from business interests to prevent tackling this serious global climate threat. These motives are based on chasing short-term profits, not long-term survivability of the planet. If the powers that be wanted to take climate change seriously, they would commit to effective binding targets at a level supported by the IPCC. It hasn't happened yet. And they look like they will do what they can to squirm out of doing it in Paris this month too.
I too recently saw some video with evidence from scientists who were in involved in Exxon's early climate change measurement program. Then Exxon stopped the research and switched to denial, against the evidence of their own scientists.
I agree that permaculture and related technologies have an important role to play, for both reasons.
To me, ignoring the the consequences of increasing GHGs is not a rational or hopeful approach. It is a species-threatening issue, and there is a limited amount of time available. I think it is possible to resolve it without losing too many more species, including the human species. What hope and possibility there is depends on facing reality and devising and implementing effective plans. It will require a lot of cooperation, and putting human needs before extreme profits and consumerism. Other environmental and social justice issues will have to be tackled too, for their own sake, but also because otherwise we can't solve this one fast enough.
The sea level rise is already beginning to affect some inhabited islands. Increased temperature increases the volume of sea. There are people on some of the islands who have already lost the ability to grow food on their own land because the salt water is encroaching. Some islands are expected to be uninhabiltable in the next few decades, even if we do everything know how to do as fast as we can.
The increase in frequency and destructiveness of severe cyclones, floods, droughts, etc, is not just a future threat - it has already begun. More heat in the atmosphere generates more extreme weather.
The acidification of the oceans by increased CO2 levels has already begun. If the world changes course rapidly, and contains temperature rise to no more than 2 deg C, it seems likely that this can be averted. This goal has not been accepted by the major powers. Continuing on with business as usual, predictions or f the marine scientists say that the coral reefs will be getting significantly bleached by mid-century. Coral reefs are breeding grounds for a lot of fish. It doesn't have to go all that far before it undermines the basis of the marine ecosystem. If the littlest creatures can't build their exoskeletons because the pH is too low, every living thing further up the food chain has a problem.
People in the US, where most people know less about global climate change than the rest of the world, have been suffering and increase in extreme weather events in the last few years too.
The US military take it seriously as one of the biggest threats to future security. Insurance companies don't all take it as a hoax, either. Locally, our councils are already having to think about how to make unpopular and/or costly decisions about how to handle vulnerable coastal land, property and infrastructure. If you live in low lying towns/cities near the coast, and your local bodies are not addressing this, they are being irresponsible.
There is uncertainty about the science, but the uncertainty is in the speed and order and scope of changes, not about whether there will be significant ecosystem disruption. There is always more to learn.
I just heard Naomi Klein observe that one of the common features of the countries with the least knowledge about global climate change - US, UK, Aus - is that they (coincidentally?) all have Murdoch as a major factor of mainstream media.
Overall, there is a tiny fraction of profits being made from investing in sustainable resources and climate-neutral energy compared to the vast majority coming from continued extraction and pollution, including green house gases (not just CO2). The global profit system mostly pushes to keep making super-profits from rapid and unsustainable extraction, and to block effective responses. There continues to be a great deal of pressure from business interests to prevent tackling this serious global climate threat. These motives are based on chasing short-term profits, not long-term survivability of the planet. If the powers that be wanted to take climate change seriously, they would commit to effective binding targets at a level supported by the IPCC. It hasn't happened yet. And they look like they will do what they can to squirm out of doing it in Paris this month too.
I agree.jaa said:
I too recently saw some video with evidence from scientists who were in involved in Exxon's early climate change measurement program. Then Exxon stopped the research and switched to denial, against the evidence of their own scientists.
On the contrary, there is nowhere near an agreement amongst the major players to take action to limit GHGs to levels that would even prevent a 2 deg C temp rise. And 2deg is likely to be catastrophic. I don't mean it is hopeless - fortunately there are many people who are tackling it. But it certainly hasn't been turned around yet. We won't know for sure whether it will be possible to avoid crossing irreversible tipping points until after we have reversed the trend. So far, the only dips in GHG production have been associated with the financial crises, not planned replacement technologies. The tar sands are still being mined. There are intentions to open the Arctic for oil drilling. Off-shore drilling in increasingly hazardous area is still being planned.jaa said:
Soil erosion, as well as it's obvious effects on short-term food supply and quality, is also a major contributor to GHGs. There is a lot of carbon bound up in soil, where it needs to stay.Brian said:
I agree that permaculture and related technologies have an important role to play, for both reasons.
I like this quote.Westside PUFAs said:
To me, ignoring the the consequences of increasing GHGs is not a rational or hopeful approach. It is a species-threatening issue, and there is a limited amount of time available. I think it is possible to resolve it without losing too many more species, including the human species. What hope and possibility there is depends on facing reality and devising and implementing effective plans. It will require a lot of cooperation, and putting human needs before extreme profits and consumerism. Other environmental and social justice issues will have to be tackled too, for their own sake, but also because otherwise we can't solve this one fast enough.
Last edited by a moderator:
There is some dispute over whether peak oil has passed - it may have. But if we burn half of the known remaining reserve, we are probably gone. The fossil fuel companies have not stopped exploring and extracting. They are taking dirtier and more polluting options as the easier sources are exhausted. Scarcity of fuel in a world that has not bothered to switch to renewable energy is likely to raise the price, profitability and available credit, as long as the system continues to allow and support it.frankfranks said:
Losing soils, prairies, forests, etc is also critical. Methane from agriculture is more potent than CO2.
Last edited by a moderator:
icecreamlover said:
You can predict that gravity will make things fall long before you can calculate the exact rate of a particular object.
Scientists have predicted a great deal of what is happening. They don't have to be completely a certain and precisely accurate to be valuable. Adding energy to a weather system will cause more intense weather. That doesn't mean we know exactly when the and where the next storm will hit.
Do you have to know the exact date or identity of the person who will steal your car before insuring it? Do you have to know exactly which bone will break before fastening your seat belt? Science gives a whole lot of information about probabilities. Do you have to know which of your systems will fail first, and when, before lowering PUFA intake? Do you have to know when and where the next fault line will move to want a house that will be safe in an earthquake? Do we sack all the geologists, because they didn't perfectly predict?
icecreamlover said:
I don't see evidence of this. A number of the predictions are happening now. Acidification, coral bleaching, extreme weather events, ocean encroaching on islands, reduced sea ice, melting arctic tundra. Do you want to wait till the Gulf Stream reverses before you recognise there might be a problem?
The global climate system is extremely complex.
Larger trends are in some ways easier to predict than short-term and local effects like weather.
PS. Why were economists invented?
To make weather forecasters look good.
Economics is mostly not a science.
Last edited by a moderator:
I would be interested in learning more about this! Great information tara.tara said:
Last edited by a moderator:
michael94
Member
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2015
- Messages
- 2,419
That's literally what I am talking about. Certain authorities don't give valuable information on average. And it's not just that the future is too hard to predict ( which I get is difficult), but many 'experts' are predicting worse than climate change 'deniers'.
tara said:
I was referring to global warming predictions done by the IPCC, which was/is generally regarded as a major authority on climate change.
I don't doubt humans can have a huge impact on the environment through various poisons but saying we're causing a major rise in temperature or extreme weather events is unfounded.
Last edited by a moderator:
Blossom said:
350.org set goal of limiting atmospheric CO2 to 350 ppm, ie about 0.035%, in order to avoid more severe destruction. We are currently at about 400ppm. You probably know more than I do about what happens when we breath more, but I would have expected there might be noticable differences around 1%, or maybe a bit less, but probably not much at, say 0.1%?
“If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, paleoclimate evidence and ongoing climate change suggest that CO2 will need to be reduced from [current levels] to at most 350 ppm.”
Dr. James Hansen
"Since the beginning of human civilization, our atmosphere contained about 275 ppm of carbon dioxide. That is the planet “on which civilization developed and to which life on earth is adapted.” "
...
"Right now we’re at 400 ppm, and we’re adding 2 ppm of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere every year. Unless we are able to rapidly turn that around and return to below 350 ppm this century, we risk triggering tipping points and irreversible impacts that could send climate change spinning truly beyond our control."
...
"So far, we’ve experienced about 1 degree (Celsius) of warming, and the impacts are frightening. Glaciers everywhere are melting and disappearing fast, threatening the primary source of clean water for millions of people. Mosquitoes, who like a warmer world, are spreading into lots of new places, and bringing malaria and dengue fever with them. Drought is becoming much more common, making food harder to grow in many places. Sea levels have begun to rise, and scientists warn that they could go up as much as several meters this century."
http://350.org/about/science/
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm not sure what the units of that graph are, but I see that both the predictions and the measurements showed an increasing trend.icecreamlover said:
The recent explanation I heard for the explanation of atmospheric temps not climbing as fast a some of the earlier predictions was that the sea was absorbing more of the heat than previously expected. That is not necessarily reassuring.
That may be the case. Profiting parties' studies on estrogen, for instance. But the global climate science network is quite diverse.icecreamlover said:
This is not just in the realm of prediction now - it is already happening.icecreamlover said:
Last edited by a moderator:
michael94
Member
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2015
- Messages
- 2,419
Kelvin
The point of the graph is to show how 'experts' having constantly ( and quietly ) been adjusting their predictions down to increases that are either non-existent or far from alarming and within regular variations. Our global temperature has constantly been going up and down over billions of years so it's not crazy to think it could warm up, but humans being the major cause of recent observed variations? I just don't see it. There's lot of examples of areas in the world that have been experiencing cooling as well
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/09/c ... ntarctica/
As always I'm still open to being convinced.
EMF Mitigation - Flush Niacin - Big 5 Minerals