Zappa.com

The Official Frank Zappa Messageboards
It is currently Wed Aug 20, 2014 4:42 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 333 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 4:12 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 04, 2003 2:54 am
Posts: 2899
Location: Sydney, OZ
Plook wrote:
There is actually a lot of research leaning towards the sun causing the warming (it has been going on a lot longer the fossil fuel studies) and this may be part of a normal cycle which could have devastating effects if extreme solar flares are part of this cycle as the research suggests. This could be the actual cause of the end of the last Ice Age, unfortunately the scientific establishment frowns on research that does not meet the accepted paradigm they have set.


The argument about the sun causing global warming is bullshit. Here's why...

http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-basic.htm

Plook wrote:
Again the cause is irrelevant since the man made carbon will multiply the problem when the naturally occurring carbon is released, the man made carbon has to go. Keep in mind that would help elevate the green house effect, but will not slow the natural processes of the sun. The long and short of it, there is enough naturally occurring carbon in the ice and ocean that eliminating the man made carbon may not stop the effect.


Naturally occurring carbon isn't the problem. It's our emissions that are accelerating the pace of climate change. We can't "eliminate" our emissions...the world is too industrialised for that. The best we can do is reduce them to a level that reduces the worst impacts of climate change. that means using less energy (moving to renewable energy sources) and reducing the waste of finite resources. Of course, how we do it gets more complex, but that's the simplistic version.

BRAVO SIERRA wrote:
Again I agree climate change does happen, but to what degree does man contribute?


Latest scientific estimates are that it could be as much as 50%. I bet Joe Bastardi didn't know that.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 4:27 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 9:11 am
Posts: 3469
there you go man.... other experts refute that, and the debate should go on, which is my point ,the issue is not final.

_________________
Confusion will be my epitaph


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 4:38 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 04, 2003 2:54 am
Posts: 2899
Location: Sydney, OZ
they aren't climate scientists, so they ain't fuckin' experts. don't you get that? what peer-reviewed papers have they published in scientific journals? what are their scientific credentials? having an opinion doesn't qualify people as experts. my local bus driver has an opinion, but that doesn't make him an expert.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 7:09 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2003 2:41 pm
Posts: 14807
Uncle Bernie wrote:
they aren't climate scientists, so they ain't fuckin' experts. don't you get that? what peer-reviewed papers have they published in scientific journals? what are their scientific credentials? having an opinion doesn't qualify people as experts. my local bus driver has an opinion, but that doesn't make him an expert.


A friend of my cousin's grandfather's brother told me it isn't happening. There's your goddamn proof right there.

_________________
One of the sanest, surest, and most generous joys of life comes from being happy over the good fortune of others.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 3:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 9:11 am
Posts: 3469
Lets review, who was put to death due to his theory that earth revolves around the sun? Maybe leave your learning possibilities open. My god man you have such faith in your "scientists"

_________________
Confusion will be my epitaph


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 15, 2012 5:03 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 04, 2003 2:54 am
Posts: 2899
Location: Sydney, OZ
BRAVO SIERRA wrote:
Lets review, who was put to death due to his theory that earth revolves around the sun? Maybe leave your learning possibilities open. My god man you have such faith in your "scientists"


and you have faith in a tv celebrity weatherman? who's the boofhead here?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 15, 2012 5:17 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 9:19 am
Posts: 4724
Location: in deepest, darkest Germany
BRAVO SIERRA wrote:
Lets review, who was put to death due to his theory that earth revolves around the sun?

I know it's pedantic, but the answer to your question, if you're referring to Galileo (or even Copernicus), is no-one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair

_________________
"I have learned from my mistakes, and I am sure I can repeat them exactly."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 15, 2012 7:08 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 9:11 am
Posts: 3469
Uncle Bernie wrote:
BRAVO SIERRA wrote:
Lets review, who was put to death due to his theory that earth revolves around the sun? Maybe leave your learning possibilities open. My god man you have such faith in your "scientists"


and you have faith in a tv celebrity weatherman? who's the boofhead here?

You really should educate yourself on the science of meteorology, I dare say you know nothing of the degree.

_________________
Confusion will be my epitaph


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 15, 2012 5:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2010 11:55 pm
Posts: 2204
Quote:
BRAVO SIERRA wrote:
Lets review, who was put to death due to his theory that earth revolves around the sun? Maybe leave your learning possibilities open. My god man you have such faith in your "scientists"

Uncle Bernie wrote:
and you have faith in a tv celebrity weatherman? who's the boofhead here?

BRAVO SIERRA wrote:
You really should educate yourself on the science of meteorology, I dare say you know nothing of the degree.

Wait a minute. Is this debate about global warming or is it about forum members trying to show how much they have read or watched about global warming? Because there is a difference and I don't want to be off topic.






Experts. The world is full of them.

ImageExperts


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 17, 2012 8:27 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 5:48 pm
Posts: 19259
Location: Somewhere in time
Uncle Bernie wrote:
Plook wrote:
There is actually a lot of research leaning towards the sun causing the warming (it has been going on a lot longer the fossil fuel studies) and this may be part of a normal cycle which could have devastating effects if extreme solar flares are part of this cycle as the research suggests. This could be the actual cause of the end of the last Ice Age, unfortunately the scientific establishment frowns on research that does not meet the accepted paradigm they have set.


The argument about the sun causing global warming is bullshit. Here's why...

http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-basic.htm

Plook wrote:
Again the cause is irrelevant since the man made carbon will multiply the problem when the naturally occurring carbon is released, the man made carbon has to go. Keep in mind that would help elevate the green house effect, but will not slow the natural processes of the sun. The long and short of it, there is enough naturally occurring carbon in the ice and ocean that eliminating the man made carbon may not stop the effect.


Naturally occurring carbon isn't the problem. It's our emissions that are accelerating the pace of climate change. We can't "eliminate" our emissions...the world is too industrialised for that. The best we can do is reduce them to a level that reduces the worst impacts of climate change. that means using less energy (moving to renewable energy sources) and reducing the waste of finite resources. Of course, how we do it gets more complex, but that's the simplistic version.



Both your statements are absolutely incorrect, and I would appreciate it if you at least look into the research of many Scientists that support sunspot and solar flare activity, and the naturally occurring Carbon being locked in the ice and water is "Scientific Fact" and if released would virtually turn our planet into Venus.

The fact that Carbon caused Global Warming has become a grant funded cottage industry has taken a life on of it's own and due to the amount of money up for grabs, anyone with opposing facts must be squashed.

Very unfortunate to see the scientific process compromised and with the zeal of a religious zealot makes it ironic…
:smoke:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 17, 2012 11:51 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 9:11 am
Posts: 3469
Well said

_________________
Confusion will be my epitaph


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 18, 2012 4:19 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 04, 2003 2:54 am
Posts: 2899
Location: Sydney, OZ
Plook wrote:
Uncle Bernie wrote:
Plook wrote:
There is actually a lot of research leaning towards the sun causing the warming (it has been going on a lot longer the fossil fuel studies) and this may be part of a normal cycle which could have devastating effects if extreme solar flares are part of this cycle as the research suggests. This could be the actual cause of the end of the last Ice Age, unfortunately the scientific establishment frowns on research that does not meet the accepted paradigm they have set.


The argument about the sun causing global warming is bullshit. Here's why...

http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-basic.htm

Plook wrote:
Again the cause is irrelevant since the man made carbon will multiply the problem when the naturally occurring carbon is released, the man made carbon has to go. Keep in mind that would help elevate the green house effect, but will not slow the natural processes of the sun. The long and short of it, there is enough naturally occurring carbon in the ice and ocean that eliminating the man made carbon may not stop the effect.


Naturally occurring carbon isn't the problem. It's our emissions that are accelerating the pace of climate change. We can't "eliminate" our emissions...the world is too industrialised for that. The best we can do is reduce them to a level that reduces the worst impacts of climate change. that means using less energy (moving to renewable energy sources) and reducing the waste of finite resources. Of course, how we do it gets more complex, but that's the simplistic version.



Both your statements are absolutely incorrect, and I would appreciate it if you at least look into the research of many Scientists that support sunspot and solar flare activity, and the naturally occurring Carbon being locked in the ice and water is "Scientific Fact" and if released would virtually turn our planet into Venus.

The fact that Carbon caused Global Warming has become a grant funded cottage industry has taken a life on of it's own and due to the amount of money up for grabs, anyone with opposing facts must be squashed.

Very unfortunate to see the scientific process compromised and with the zeal of a religious zealot makes it ironic…
:smoke:


So what's with the smokin' smilie? is that like a "so there" to every post you make? ok, i'll pretend you've hit me with the coup de grace...
but in reality you've just used another bogus skeptic argument, which has been overwhelmed by scientific studies. then you denigrate scientists with the old argument about them being only in it for the money.
religious zealot eh? hmm, maybe, but i see myself as just presenting the case for the vast majority of climate scientists.
you seem to want to swallow the alternative "opinions" foisted upon the world by Fox News, the Coal Industry and any other lobby group whose vested interests are under threat.

you've been sitting on the fence for a while plook. does it feel better now that you're out of the closet?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 18, 2012 7:46 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 5:48 pm
Posts: 19259
Location: Somewhere in time
I'm not on the fence and I do not get my info from Fox news either, I believe we must reduce the man made carbon as much as you, I am approaching this from a third angle, one that is not talked about. I believe my position makes the need for change more imperative, surely the man made carbon can only make a naturally occurring process worse and therefore justifies the research into man made carbon. Your zeal to protect your position has not allowed you to thoroughly understand my point.

I will have some time off over the next couple of weeks and I will try to post some of the information that backs my position so you can look into it, you may find it actually supports your position.

This guy :smoke: means nothing, I am a smoker and I have been using him for a sort of signature for a while, for some reason people thinks he somehow is there to support my point or make a point, its not.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 28, 2012 5:33 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 04, 2003 2:54 am
Posts: 2899
Location: Sydney, OZ
Plook wrote:
surely the man made carbon can only make a naturally occurring process worse and therefore justifies the research into man made carbon.


exactly. which is why climate scientists have been researching this shit for years. the naturally occurring carbon cycle adds and removes CO2 to keep a balance. humans add extra CO2 without removing any. that's where the problem is.

before the industrial revolution, the CO2 content in the air remained quite steady for thousands of years. natural CO2 is not static, however. it is generated by natural processes, and absorbed by others.

human CO2 emissions upset the natural balance of the carbon cycle. man-made CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by a third since the pre-industrial era, creating an artificial forcing of global temperatures which is warming the planet. while fossil-fuel derived CO2 is a very small component of the global carbon cycle, the extra CO2 is cumulative because the natural carbon exchange cannot absorb all the additional CO2.


BRAVO SIERRA wrote:
You really should educate yourself on the science of meteorology, I dare say you know nothing of the degree.

i don't need to, mate. i know how to read and critically evaluate the various pros and cons i read about. let's hear about your qualifications then, eh?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 28, 2012 6:12 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 8:52 pm
Posts: 1785
...and because of new laws and new taxes mankind will magically "go green" and save the planet!

Yay!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 28, 2012 4:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 9:11 am
Posts: 3469
Uncle Bernie wrote:
Plook wrote:
surely the man made carbon can only make a naturally occurring process worse and therefore justifies the research into man made carbon.


exactly. which is why climate scientists have been researching this shit for years. the naturally occurring carbon cycle adds and removes CO2 to keep a balance. humans add extra CO2 without removing any. that's where the problem is.

before the industrial revolution, the CO2 content in the air remained quite steady for thousands of years. natural CO2 is not static, however. it is generated by natural processes, and absorbed by others.

human CO2 emissions upset the natural balance of the carbon cycle. man-made CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by a third since the pre-industrial era, creating an artificial forcing of global temperatures which is warming the planet. while fossil-fuel derived CO2 is a very small component of the global carbon cycle, the extra CO2 is cumulative because the natural carbon exchange cannot absorb all the additional CO2.


BRAVO SIERRA wrote:
You really should educate yourself on the science of meteorology, I dare say you know nothing of the degree.

i don't need to, mate. i know how to read and critically evaluate the various pros and cons i read about. let's hear about your qualifications then, eh?

Oh No you have it all figured out I am very impressed with your knowledge of the topic, it is just great the the world has so many people that know all the answers and all of the data, to bad you and your sources weren't around when ice age was predicted in 73, as well as the world economic situation, lastly your humbleness is refreshing.

_________________
Confusion will be my epitaph


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 29, 2012 5:22 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 04, 2003 2:54 am
Posts: 2899
Location: Sydney, OZ
A rope leash wrote:
...and because of new laws and new taxes mankind will magically "go green" and save the planet!

Yay!


does this non information require a response, or is it part of another conspiracy theory?

BRAVO SIERRA wrote:
Oh No you have it all figured out I am very impressed with your knowledge of the topic, it is just great the the world has so many people that know all the answers and all of the data, to bad you and your sources weren't around when ice age was predicted in 73, as well as the world economic situation, lastly your humbleness is refreshing.


ok, so you want to bring up the old argument about an ice age being predicted in the 70's? here's a response, if you have the attention span required to follow it...

In the thirty years leading up to the 1970s, available temperature recordings suggested that there was a cooling trend. As a result some scientists suggested that the current inter-glacial period could rapidly draw to a close, which might result in the Earth plunging into a new ice age over the next few centuries. This idea could have been reinforced by the knowledge that the smog that climatologists call ‘aerosols’ – emitted by human activities into the atmosphere – also caused cooling. In fact, as temperature recording has improved in coverage, it’s become apparent that the cooling trend was most pronounced in northern land areas and that global temperature trends were in fact relatively steady during the period prior to 1970.

At the same time as some scientists were suggesting we might be facing another ice age, a greater number published contradicting studies. Their papers showed that the growing amount of greenhouse gasses that humans were putting into the atmosphere would cause much greater warming – warming that would a much greater influence on global temperature than any possible natural or human-caused cooling effects.

By 1980 the predictions about ice ages had ceased, due to the overwhelming evidence contained in an increasing number of reports that warned of global warming. Unfortunately, the small number of predictions of an ice age appeared to be much more interesting than those of global warming, so it was those sensational 'Ice Age' stories in the press that so many people tend to remember.

The fact is that around 1970 there were 6 times as many scientists predicting a warming rather than a cooling planet. Today, with 30+years more data to analyse, we've reached a clear scientific consensus: 97% of working climate scientists agree with the view that human beings are causing global warming.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 11:56 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 04, 2003 2:54 am
Posts: 2899
Location: Sydney, OZ
This may be of interest to some of you...

http://climaterealityproject.org/2013/01/16/the-face-of-climate-change-in-america/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 1:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 9:19 am
Posts: 4724
Location: in deepest, darkest Germany
Thanks, Bernie. Looks interesting, particularly for someone like me, who knows little about the science of this subject.

_________________
"I have learned from my mistakes, and I am sure I can repeat them exactly."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2013 4:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 3:22 am
Posts: 913
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Edwm3YFG ... e=youtu.be


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2013 5:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 04, 2003 2:54 am
Posts: 2899
Location: Sydney, OZ
you're using one instance of a scientist (again, not a climate scientist) being sacked for not supporting a dam removal decision, as the basis for denying the overwhelming world consensus about global warming. is this part of the conspiracy by world governments and the military/industrial complex?

it's bullshit, but we love it don't we, kids.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2013 5:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 5:48 pm
Posts: 19259
Location: Somewhere in time
Uncle Bernie wrote:
you're using one instance of a scientist (again, not a climate scientist) being sacked for not supporting a dam removal decision, as the basis for denying the overwhelming world consensus about global warming. is this part of the conspiracy by world governments and the military/industrial complex?

it's bullshit, but we love it don't we, kids.




I do not think that Global Warming is the crux of the biscuit, the over riding argument seems to be cause, the effect if not slowed or stopped is obvious.

The problem with the Global Warming being caused by man made carbon crowd is, they will not allow any talk of a natural cause. The research into solar activity and its potential to cause Global Warming far outdates the more recent Man made carbon research.

Those researchers have been pushed out of the arena and defunded over the past 10 to 20 years. Their research is well vetted and bedded in strong science and the funny thing is requires as a fix, that man made carbon be reduced, the same goal as the man caused group.

:smoke:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2013 11:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 04, 2003 2:54 am
Posts: 2899
Location: Sydney, OZ
Plook wrote:
I do not think that Global Warming is the crux of the biscuit, the over riding argument seems to be cause, the effect if not slowed or stopped is obvious.

The problem with the Global Warming being caused by man made carbon crowd is, they will not allow any talk of a natural cause. The research into solar activity and its potential to cause Global Warming far outdates the more recent Man made carbon research.

Those researchers have been pushed out of the arena and defunded over the past 10 to 20 years. Their research is well vetted and bedded in strong science and the funny thing is requires as a fix, that man made carbon be reduced, the same goal as the man caused group.


Yes, carbon is emitted by natural causes throughout earth. but this is offset through natural causes also, as the world tends to balance it out naturally (check out the "gaia principle" on wikipedia). the problem with excessive man-made carbon emissions is that the planet can't cope with balancing it out and humans aren't doing enough to offset the emissions. obviously if there's no balancing, things will keep tipping too far in the wrong direction. don't you think there may be consequences involved?

As for the "solar activity" argument, over the last 30 years of global warming, the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. Sun and climate are going in opposite directions. This has led a number of scientists independently concluding that the sun cannot be the cause of recent global warming.

One of the most common and persistent climate myths is that the sun is the cause. This argument is made by cherry picking the data - showing past periods when sun and climate move together but ignoring the last few decades when the two diverge.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2013 2:51 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 5:48 pm
Posts: 19259
Location: Somewhere in time
Uncle Bernie wrote:
Plook wrote:
I do not think that Global Warming is the crux of the biscuit, the over riding argument seems to be cause, the effect if not slowed or stopped is obvious.

The problem with the Global Warming being caused by man made carbon crowd is, they will not allow any talk of a natural cause. The research into solar activity and its potential to cause Global Warming far outdates the more recent Man made carbon research.

Those researchers have been pushed out of the arena and defunded over the past 10 to 20 years. Their research is well vetted and bedded in strong science and the funny thing is requires as a fix, that man made carbon be reduced, the same goal as the man caused group.


Yes, carbon is emitted by natural causes throughout earth. but this is offset through natural causes also, as the world tends to balance it out naturally (check out the "gaia principle" on wikipedia). the problem with excessive man-made carbon emissions is that the planet can't cope with balancing it out and humans aren't doing enough to offset the emissions. obviously if there's no balancing, things will keep tipping too far in the wrong direction. don't you think there may be consequences involved?

As for the "solar activity" argument, over the last 30 years of global warming, the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. Sun and climate are going in opposite directions. This has led a number of scientists independently concluding that the sun cannot be the cause of recent global warming.

One of the most common and persistent climate myths is that the sun is the cause. This argument is made by cherry picking the data - showing past periods when sun and climate move together but ignoring the last few decades when the two diverge.


The simple fact is if the ice melts were done, the amount of carbon housed in it wil kill almost everything on the planet, man will be an afterthought as he should be... :smoke:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 07, 2013 11:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 6:01 am
Posts: 1264
Location: Bordeaux, France
I'm bringing this one back to life because there's been a flare up at the random photo thread.

Bravo Sierra is making some heavy claims that go against the Status quo of Climate change theory and global warming. I for one had the chance and pleasure to go up to Nunavut a couple of years ago. On the ice melting, most Innu I spoke with said that there have been periods of a few years when the ice melted far out to sea. As far as they are concerned the opening of the Northwest Passage is a godssend. It was explained to me that the artic is a very active place with changes on quite a short time scale. Our view from down south is skewed however. We see the artic as a perpetually frozen wasteland (like the Antartic). This is far from reality of the place.

My own take on global warming. In 1989 our fear of being blown to oblivion vanished, so we've had to invent ourselves another "end of times" story to cover our species shortcomings.

_________________
"You can fly like a Penguin when you're dealing with Turkeys."


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 333 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot], Yahoo [Bot] and 8 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group