myiW Current Conditions and Forecasts Community Forums Windsurfing Videos Buy and Sell Services
 
Hi guest · myAccount · Log in
 SearchSearch   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   RegisterRegister 
Global cooling
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 258, 259, 260 ... 343, 344, 345  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 5248

PostPosted: Mon Jan 20, 2014 11:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Aha, but GT, many of the deniers, specifically Mike Fick on this forum, have argued that warming was not occurring. You don't have to take any bullets for him. I wouldn't consider you a denier, more a cranky skeptic pissed off about the British government's response.

I thought I asked for a peer reviewed reference on the Russian work? Surprised
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GURGLETROUSERS



Joined: 30 Dec 2009
Posts: 1354

PostPosted: Mon Jan 20, 2014 12:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well, you're certainly right about my being p****d off Mac, and not just at the government. This bloody weather doesnn't help. (I fell off my road bike on black ice!)

However, the only body with sufficient expertise to peer review Russian space research is NASA. I very much doubt that a) the Russians would tip up their research methods and findings to them, their direct competitors in space exploration, and b) that the Russians don't give a s**t what the rest of the world think of them anyway. So apart from infrequent press releases (as the mood takes them) I doubt we'll ever know what 'Ivan the Terrible' is really up to. (I would add in their favour that they did successfully land a working probe on Venus, which worked for over 20 minutes in that hellish acidic high temperature pressure cooker atmosphere, and sent back clear images .)

But, as one of our ex Prime Miniters (a conservative) once unflappably said as the country was falling apart about his ears, 'Events dear boy, events!'

If, in a couple of years time events decide our issues in your favour I shall grovel (metorphorically, of course) at your mercy but, until then, the warming circus can go and...(ahem, fill in your own description. I'm still sore as hell from my tumble!! Rolling Eyes )
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
isobars



Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 14226

PostPosted: Mon Jan 20, 2014 12:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

frederick, I'm not going to rehash the other "2,500 threads" with you. It would be nice if years of everyone's blood, sweat, time, and tears could be condensed into a few posts, but it's not possible. You may even be deceived by our left coasties' incessant -- for many years now -- complete fabrications of what the "deniers" have or have not posted. That's the risk of not doing one's own homework.

For example, one more click may have led you to this
http://real-agenda.com/2013/05/22/nasa-buries-myth-of-anthopogenic-global-warming/
and an endless stream of similar articles contradicting your source. This journaled article starts with "Practically everything you have been told by the mainstream scientific community and the media about the alleged detriments of greenhouse gases, and particularly carbon dioxide, appears to be false, according to new data compiled by NASA's Langley Research Center." and ends with “The shock revelation starkly contradicts the core proposition of the so-called greenhouse gas theory which claims that more CO2 means more warming for our planet,” write H. Schreuder and J. O’Sullivan tn their Principia Scientific International publication. “[T]his compelling new NASA data disproves that notion and is a huge embarrassment for NASA’s chief climatologist, Dr. James Hansen and his team over at NASA’s GISS.”

That's the risk of basing conclusions about something this big, this complex, and this expensive on any single article. NASA's self-proclaimed "consensus" has been hotly disputed by many of their own senior scientists. Asking doods on the internet, me or anyone else, is not the way to make a valid decision.

Look at the total NASA money-grubbing politics that produced the Challenger disaster as a classic example of NASA's politics.

The quality and length of my very life depend on some of the medical research homework I do. A reassuring scene in the movie "Apollo 13" illustrates one of many direct contributions I personally made to the Apollo program. I managed the development of high-energy laser weapons systems technology now peacefully used throughout space and atmospheric optical systems world-wide. That level of involvement, motivation, and achievement doesn't make my AGWA position inherently right, but it sure as hell gives me fairly strong confidence in my conclusions that those 30,000+ signatory "deniers", those dozens of nations with FAR bigger socioeconomic issues, and many world-class professional climatology experts are on the right track and that any nation or agency demanding reparations is playing 100% economic and ideological politics.

There is no quick or simple answer to your quest for resolution of the AGWA issue. I had hoped for one when I dived into it many years ago, but it's not available.


Last edited by isobars on Mon Jan 20, 2014 12:50 pm; edited 3 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 5248

PostPosted: Mon Jan 20, 2014 12:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

GT--you are certainly more determined, or crazier, than I am. I wait until temperatures are above 50 degrees F to ride my road bike!

While the circus goes on, the other complaint I have is that all the awfulizing about wrecking the economy is just so much horseshit from oil company public relations flacks. California has implemented a cap and trade system--and is leading the nation in job recovery. Correlation, not causation, but still. Obama's measures have resulted in sustainable electrical generation equivalent to about 4 nuclear plants--but much cheaper and with no long term waste. Technology advances are about as advertised. I can hear the gnashing of teeth from here.

Meanwhile, Chevron keeps fighting the carbon caps for their Richmond refinery. The higher sulfur and sourer crudes they need to retool for as oil supplies change and lowest cost sources are dirtier, take more energy to refine. Of course they argued that they weren't preparing for more damaging crudes, and they argued that we could trust their safety and maintenance programs.

With that track record, why in the world would we believe their flacks?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
youwindsurf



Joined: 18 Aug 2012
Posts: 599
Location: North Shore High School

PostPosted: Mon Jan 20, 2014 12:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

[quote="isobars"]A reassuring scene in the movie "Apollo 13" illustrates one of many direct contributions I personally made to the Apollo program. I managed the development of high-energy laser weapons systems technology now peacefully used throughout space and atmospheric optical systems world-wide. That level of involvement, motivation, and achievement doesn't make my AGWA position inherently right, but it sure as hell gives me fairly strong confidence in my conclusions that those 30,000+ signatory "deniers", those dozens of nations with FAR bigger socioeconomic issues, and many world-class professional climatology experts are on the right track and that any nation or agency demanding reparations is playing 100% economic and ideological politics.[quote]

Translation: I had a cool job, I was was really important and I am smarter than you so my opinion carries more weight than yours.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 5248

PostPosted: Mon Jan 20, 2014 1:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Whopper of the day:

Quote:
complete fabrications of what the "deniers" have or have not posted. That's the risk of not doing one's own homework.


Au contraire. I caught Isobars mis-stating the conclusions of his expert, Singer, in an interview with PBS. I also laughed at his use of an economist, Lord Monckton, as his go-to source for denier paranoia. He plonked me and quit citing his sources.

My wife asked me about a book she found in my library, from the mid-1980's, when I was in graduate school. A national Academy of Sciences publication on global warming. I've followed this issue since that time because of my work as a coastal engineer on sea level rise and shoreline change. Definitely not a climate guy--but I know who the reliable and honest scientists are. Like me, Mike Fick is an engineer. But capable of self-deception at an astonishing level!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pointster



Joined: 22 Jul 2010
Posts: 223

PostPosted: Mon Jan 20, 2014 2:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

isobars wrote:

For example, one more click may have led you to this
http://real-agenda.com/2013/05/22/nasa-buries-myth-of-anthopogenic-global-warming/
and an endless stream of similar articles contradicting your source. This journaled article starts with "Practically everything you have been told by the mainstream scientific community and the media about the alleged detriments of greenhouse gases, and particularly carbon dioxide, appears to be false, according to new data compiled by NASA's Langley Research Center." and ends with “The shock revelation starkly contradicts the core proposition of the so-called greenhouse gas theory which claims that more CO2 means more warming for our planet,” write H. Schreuder and J. O’Sullivan tn their Principia Scientific International publication. “[T]his compelling new NASA data disproves that notion and is a huge embarrassment for NASA’s chief climatologist, Dr. James Hansen and his team over at NASA’s GISS.”


Real-agenda.com completely misinterprets the NASA findings. The report was about a solar storm that generated a huge flux of particles that struck the outer atmosphere where the CO2 and NO heated and then radiated the heat back into space. This does not negate the role of CO2 and NO as greenhouse gasses in the lower atmosphere. See:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/28/a-misinterpreted-claim-about-a-nasa-press-release-co2-solar-flares-and-the-thermosphere-is-making-the-rounds/[url]


Last edited by pointster on Mon Jan 20, 2014 2:21 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pueno



Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 2676

PostPosted: Mon Jan 20, 2014 2:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

youwindsurf wrote:

Translation: I had a cool job, I was was really important and I am smarter than you so my opinion carries more weight than yours.


Mikey excels at self-importance and self-aggrandizement.
.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
isobars



Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 14226

PostPosted: Mon Jan 20, 2014 2:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

pointster wrote:
This does not negate the role of CO2 and NO as greenhouse gasses in the lower atmosphere.

And the beat goes on. Tit, tat, tit, tat, ad infinitum.
I can't believe any rational person or nation wants to commit trillions of dollars to this crap.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nw30



Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Posts: 1719
Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast

PostPosted: Mon Jan 20, 2014 3:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

isobars wrote:
pointster wrote:
This does not negate the role of CO2 and NO as greenhouse gasses in the lower atmosphere.

And the beat goes on. Tit, tat, tit, tat, ad infinitum.
I can't believe any rational person or nation wants to commit trillions of dollars to this crap.

Some don't want to anymore.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Green Fade-Out: Europe to Ditch Climate Protection Goals

By Gregor Peter Schmitz in Brussels


The EU's reputation as a model of environmental responsibility may soon be history. The European Commission wants to forgo ambitious climate protection goals and pave the way for fracking -- jeopardizing Germany's touted energy revolution in the process.

The climate between Brussels and Berlin is polluted, something European Commission officials attribute, among other things, to the "reckless" way German Chancellor Angela Merkel blocked stricter exhaust emissions during her re-election campaign to placate domestic automotive manufacturers like Daimler and BMW. This kind of blatant self-interest, officials complained at the time, is poisoning the climate.

But now it seems that the climate is no longer of much importance to the European Commission, the EU's executive branch, either. Commission sources have long been hinting that the body intends to move away from ambitious climate protection goals. On Tuesday, the Süddeutsche Zeitung reported as much.

At the request of Commission President José Manuel Barroso, EU member states are no longer to receive specific guidelines for the development ofrenewable energy. The stated aim of increasing the share of green energy across the EU to up to 27 percent will hold. But how seriously countries tackle this project will no longer be regulated within the plan. As of 2020 at the latest -- when the current commitment to further increase the share of green energy expires -- climate protection in the EU will apparently be pursued on a voluntary basis.

Climate Leaders No More?

With such a policy, the European Union is seriously jeopardizing its global climate leadership role. Back in 2007, when Germany held the European Council presidency, the body decided on a climate and energy legislation package known as the "20-20-20" targets, to be fulfilled by the year 2020. They included:

◾a 20 percent reduction in EU greenhouse gas emissions;

◾raising the share of EU energy consumption produced from renewable resources to 20 percent;

◾and a 20 percent improvement in the EU's energy efficiency.

All of the goals were formulated relative to 1990 levels. And the targets could very well be met. But in the future, European climate and energy policy may be limited to just a single project: reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The Commission plans also set no new binding rules for energy efficiency.

Welcome, Frackers

In addition, the authority wants to pave the way in the EU for the controversial practice of fracking, according to the daily Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. The report says the Commission does not intend to establish strict rules for the extraction of shale gas, but only minimum health and environmental standards.

The plans will be officially presented next Wednesday ahead of an EU summit meeting in March. Observers, however, believe that a decision is unlikely to come until the summer at the earliest. But action must be taken this year: At the beginning of 2015, a climate conference will take place in Paris at which a global climate agreement is to be hashed out.

The European Parliament is unlikely to be pleased with the Commission's plans. Just at the beginning of January, a strong parliamentary majority voted to reduce carbon emissions EU-wide by 40 percent by 2030 and to raise the portion of renewables to at least 30 percent of energy consumption.

Germany's Energy Goals at Risk

The Commission's move further isolates Germany. Merkel's government, a "grand coalition" of her conservatives and the center-left Social Democratic Party (SPD), seeks to increase the share of renewables in the country's energy mix to 60 percent by 2036. As reported in the latest issue of SPIEGEL, Sigmar Gabriel, SPD chair and minister of energy and economics, recently urged Climate Commissioner Connie Hedegaard and Energy Commissioner Günther Oettinger to put forth mandatory expansion targets for renewable energy in the EU by 2030. Europe "can't afford to pass up this opportunity," Gabriel wrote.

But within the Commission, the ambitious project has long been controversial. The same goes for EU member states, as Gabriel recently discovered. Prior to Christmas the minister, together with eight colleagues from throughout the EU, called for a "renewables target" in a letter to the Commission. But some countries, such as France, joined the appeal only hesitantly at the time. Paris might prefer instead to rely more heavily on nuclear power in order to meet stringent carbon emission requirements.

Energy Commissioner Günther Oettinger, a German from Merkel's Christian Democratic Union, has also shown reluctance. Rather than setting clear goals for the share of renewables, he wants fixed targets only for the reduction of carbon emissions -- and he is skeptical even of the 40 percent target proposed by Climate Commissioner Hedegaard.

The Berlin-based German Institute for International and Security Affairs (SWP) writes in a recent study that more moderate EU climate goals and less support for renewable energies could have a real impact on Germany's so-called Energiewende, or energy revolution. "In such a context," writes the nonpartisan think tank, "it will be increasingly difficult for Germany to successfully carry out pioneering policies."

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/european-commission-move-away-from-climate-protection-goals-a-943664.html

_________________
I don't drink the 'cool' aid, I drink tequila, it's more honest.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 258, 259, 260 ... 343, 344, 345  Next
Page 259 of 345

 
Jump to:  
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 vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

myiW | Weather | Community | Membership | Support | Log in
like us on facebook
© Copyright 1999-2007 WeatherFlow, Inc Contact Us Ad Marketplace

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group