Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 67

Thread: Climate Change

  1. #46
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    right here
    Posts
    17,260
    I've seen this. it's a 30 page pdf. I haven't read the entire thing, but I read the conclusion. I will post that.

    https://thsresearch.files.wordpress....ort-062717.pdf

    VII. SUMMARY & CONCLUSIONS

    In this research report, the most important surface data adjustment issues are identified and past changes in the previously reported historical GAST data are quantified. While the notion that some “adjustments” to historical data might need to be made is not challenged, logically it would be expected that such historical temperature data adjustments would sometimes raise these temperatures, and sometimes lower them. This situation would mean that the impact of such adjustments on the temperature trend line slope is uncertain. However, each new version of GAST has nearly always exhibited a steeper warming linear trend over its entire history.

    That was accomplished by systematically removing the previously existing cyclical temperature pattern. This was true for all three entities providing GAST data measurement, NOAA, NASA and Hadley CRU.

    As a result, this research sought to validate the current estimates of GAST using the best available relevant data. This included the best documented and understood data sets from the U.S. and elsewhere as well as global data from satellites that provide far more extensive global coverage and are not contaminated by bad siting and urbanization impacts. Satellite data integrity also benefits from having cross checks between UAH and RSS as well as with Balloon data.

    The conclusive findings of this research are that the three GAST data sets are not a valid representation of reality. In fact, the magnitude of their historical data adjustments, that removed their cyclical temperature patterns, are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data. Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published GAST data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever – despite current claims of record setting warming.

    Finally, since GAST data set validity is a necessary condition for EPA’s GHG/CO2 Endangerment Finding, it too is invalidated by these research findings.
    the link to this pdf came from a link I can't post, so I can't post what that site said about this study.



  2. #47
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Pittsbruh
    Posts
    68,771
    The question I'm always interested in is WHY do people on the right so passionately not want it to be true?
    this my sig

  3. #48
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    born and raised on the south side of Chicago.
    Posts
    10,472
    Quote Originally Posted by ManRam View Post
    The question I'm always interested in is WHY do people on the right so passionately not want it to be true?
    Because the right's agenda is simply Cut taxes, oppose anything else.

    Quote Originally Posted by MrPoon
    man with hair like fire can destroy souls with a twitch of his thighs.

  4. #49
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    280
    Quote Originally Posted by ManRam View Post
    The question I'm always interested in is WHY do people on the right so passionately not want it to be true?
    Does anyone really want it to be true? Climate change is about facing hard truths and not sticking your head in the sand. Some people have the stones to face the truth, and some don't.

  5. #50
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    23,959
    Quote Originally Posted by ManRam View Post
    The question I'm always interested in is WHY do people on the right so passionately not want it to be true?
    My guess is there is a shitload of money to be lost in certain venues the further the studies and research go.

    It still floors me that we (USA) are dependent on oil when you look at the technological advances that have been made over the past 10, 20, 30, 40, etc years.
    Come Be The Apple Of The PWW Owner's Eye!






    *PSD Wrestling Wars Link* http://forums.prosportsdaily.com/sho...restling-Wars!

  6. #51
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    4,982
    One of our biggest industries is energy. To some degree, as energy goes, so goes our economy. Some of the citizenry is not willing to see their family and other people starve just to promote a climate change agenda.

    There has to be a compromise.

    Vegans want everyone to not eat meat, Mini-Cooper drivers want minivan production to cease, Bicyclists want everyone to stop driving to work and environmentalist don't even know whether they want to build windmills, because they might kill an unsuspecting bird every few months or so. The point is that there are people employed in coal mines and coal plants and uranium mines and uranium plants and natural gas companies and natural gas plants and electric plants and oil drilling companies and refineries and water treatment plants and sewer plants and on and on and on. Until new industries are mature enough, we can't reduce consumption down to nothing and we also can't throw all these people out on the street nor should we take away their rights to work and feed their families by over regulating their industries and handing them all social welfare.

  7. #52
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    76,320
    I know plenty of vegans and they might or might not want people to not eat meat, but none of them are out there doing anything to make me not eat meat. So I suspect that the rest of that isn't true and over generalized since I don't know anyone that drives a Mini-Cooper to compare.

    The fact is that we need to start forcing industry to work in ways that are more efficient. We can't just keep the job going because it's a job. Climate change is real and is doing long lasting damage to the planet's ability to sustain our life (I include that because the planet will long survive anything that we might be doing...it's just that whole breathing thing that we like to do so much).

  8. #53
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    23,959

    Climate Change

    Kudos to France with their 2040 initiative.
    Come Be The Apple Of The PWW Owner's Eye!






    *PSD Wrestling Wars Link* http://forums.prosportsdaily.com/sho...restling-Wars!

  9. #54
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    20,207
    Quote Originally Posted by johnnyi View Post
    One of our biggest industries is energy. To some degree, as energy goes, so goes our economy. Some of the citizenry is not willing to see their family and other people starve just to promote a climate change agenda.

    There has to be a compromise.

    Vegans want everyone to not eat meat, Mini-Cooper drivers want minivan production to cease, Bicyclists want everyone to stop driving to work and environmentalist don't even know whether they want to build windmills, because they might kill an unsuspecting bird every few months or so. The point is that there are people employed in coal mines and coal plants and uranium mines and uranium plants and natural gas companies and natural gas plants and electric plants and oil drilling companies and refineries and water treatment plants and sewer plants and on and on and on. Until new industries are mature enough, we can't reduce consumption down to nothing and we also can't throw all these people out on the street nor should we take away their rights to work and feed their families by over regulating their industries and handing them all social welfare.
    I agree with your overall point that there needs to be compromise (even if I disagree with some of your generalizations).

    The problem I see in this debate is those against doing anything to combat climate change seem to believe the only outcomes of our decision is either keep people employed now or make them unemployed.

    We have to remember that any decision now to not do anything about climate change will have profound negative consequences not just environmentally, but economically in the future. People seem to not believe their are going to be any repercussions later for our decisions and so the decision is easy.

    Of course someone's going to say "do nothing to combat global warming" if they don't think it's going to cause any problems in the future.

  10. #55
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    4,982
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    I agree with your overall point that there needs to be compromise (even if I disagree with some of your generalizations).

    The problem I see in this debate is those against doing anything to combat climate change seem to believe the only outcomes of our decision is either keep people employed now or make them unemployed.

    We have to remember that any decision now to not do anything about climate change will have profound negative consequences not just environmentally, but economically in the future. People seem to not believe their are going to be any repercussions later for our decisions and so the decision is easy.

    Of course someone's going to say "do nothing to combat global warming" if they don't think it's going to cause any problems in the future.
    I think that there are radical agendas on both sides of the issue. However, I do believe that innovation sparks change. For instance, Tesla is working on a super battery. That super battery, similar to computer chips will get smaller and more powerful over time. Then, it will be small enough to put in cars, would have greater storage, a longer charge life and be less of a hassle. Plus infrastructure to charge it will automatically develop over time, possibly utilizing the existing gas station infrastructure. Costs will drop dramatically and the majority of newly built cars would be electric. Costs will drop significantly for electric vehicles, etc. On the one hand, we should nourish that development, but on the other, we shouldn't penalize and tax the crap out of the owners of gasoline based vehicles or make the regulations so strict that the auto industry goes out of business in the US and has to make all its cars in South America and Asia.

    When it comes to coal, I don't really like it so much because it's dirty, but the US coal is produced cleaner than the coal mined in other countries. To the extent that there is still a demand for it and until the world is weaned off it, I believe that the US should utilize the cleaner coal technologies rather than have a foreign government use the dirtiest version.

    I love solar power the best and there may possibly come a day when it is cheaper than anything else. At that time, every home should have solar shingles or solar glass or other materials providing energy and it will because it would be so cheap and plentiful and with battery improvements (see above), it would be able to be stored longer in less tropical climates.

    The point is that we should always strive for improvement, but we should also use whatever is needed to become energy independent.

  11. #56
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    20,207
    Quote Originally Posted by johnnyi View Post
    I think that there are radical agendas on both sides of the issue. However, I do believe that innovation sparks change. For instance, Tesla is working on a super battery. That super battery, similar to computer chips will get smaller and more powerful over time. Then, it will be small enough to put in cars, would have greater storage, a longer charge life and be less of a hassle. Plus infrastructure to charge it will automatically develop over time, possibly utilizing the existing gas station infrastructure. Costs will drop dramatically and the majority of newly built cars would be electric. Costs will drop significantly for electric vehicles, etc. On the one hand, we should nourish that development, but on the other, we shouldn't penalize and tax the crap out of the owners of gasoline based vehicles or make the regulations so strict that the auto industry goes out of business in the US and has to make all its cars in South America and Asia.

    When it comes to coal, I don't really like it so much because it's dirty, but the US coal is produced cleaner than the coal mined in other countries. To the extent that there is still a demand for it and until the world is weaned off it, I believe that the US should utilize the cleaner coal technologies rather than have a foreign government use the dirtiest version.

    I love solar power the best and there may possibly come a day when it is cheaper than anything else. At that time, every home should have solar shingles or solar glass or other materials providing energy and it will because it would be so cheap and plentiful and with battery improvements (see above), it would be able to be stored longer in less tropical climates.

    The point is that we should always strive for improvement, but we should also use whatever is needed to become energy independent.
    It sounds a little like you're saying the problem will resolve itself therefore we don't need to do anything about it. Perhaps I'm reading too much into it, is that what you were saying?

  12. #57
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Rockford IL
    Posts
    2,702
    One theory I heard was that climate change is real, but it's being caused by Earth's natural cycle instead of human activity. This idea claims that this cycle happens every 30,000 to 40,000 or so years, which is why most people don't know about it (since the last time a climate shift happened was before recorded history). If this is true, I don't think we should attempt to reverse the process; it might screw things up. Any thoughts on this?

  13. #58
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    20,207
    Quote Originally Posted by MidwestJimmy View Post
    One theory I heard was that climate change is real, but it's being caused by Earth's natural cycle instead of human activity. This idea claims that this cycle happens every 30,000 to 40,000 or so years, which is why most people don't know about it (since the last time a climate shift happened was before recorded history). If this is true, I don't think we should attempt to reverse the process; it might screw things up. Any thoughts on this?
    It's not a theory that has gained much traction in the scientific community for a number of reasons:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ry?wprov=sfsi1

    1. 40,000 years ago were in the middle of an ice age. We should be swinging back to a colder climate based on a 30,000-40,000 year cycle yet we are warming.

    2. As you can see from the opening charts, the hot or cold of the climate had a strong correlation with the amount of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere. We can measure the amount of CO2 in the air as well as how much we are contributing, so we know we are causing part of the change.

  14. #59
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Pittsbruh
    Posts
    68,771
    Quote Originally Posted by MidwestJimmy View Post
    One theory I heard was that climate change is real, but it's being caused by Earth's natural cycle instead of human activity. This idea claims that this cycle happens every 30,000 to 40,000 or so years, which is why most people don't know about it (since the last time a climate shift happened was before recorded history). If this is true, I don't think we should attempt to reverse the process; it might screw things up. Any thoughts on this?
    What a laughable defense for doing nothing.

    I'll try to skip the science (which overwhelmingly disagrees with that hypothesis) and try to apply so common sense.

    How the **** do you screw things up by trying to lower the emissions of things that up until about ~100/150 years ago weren't being shot into the atmosphere a fraction as much, or even at all?

    How many humans were there 30,000 years ago? How many humans are there today? How anyone pretends that our growing existence and industrial transformation has no impact on the environment is incomprehensible to me.

    How much sulfur hexafluoride, the most potent greenhouse gas, was emitted 30,000 years ago? Hint: it was invented in 1901. Think of the dangers that might happen if we tried to curtail those emissions!!!

    How much do you think global carbon emissions have increased since the population boomed and industry took off? Or methane? Or ozone? Or any greenhouse gas? Any graph you'll look at will start out at near zero around the 1850s and slowly build, and then skyrocket. So if you're talking about 30,000 years ago, you're simply talking about a completely unrelated era that just doesn't compare. Yes, there are natural cycles, but it's not hard to see that what we're presently seeing falls outside of those cycles. Here's a good resource.

    http://ossfoundation.us/projects/env.../natural-cycle

    Just apply some common sense.
    this my sig

  15. #60
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    76,320
    When it comes to common sense or freedom, we know where 'Murcia is going to go. And it ain't common sense.

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •