Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Linking climate change to the Japan quake/tsunami
03-25-2011, 08:01 PM, (This post was last modified: 03-25-2011, 09:49 PM by rsol.)
#31
RE: Linking climate change to the Japan quake/tsunami
Quote:When one litre of petrol is burned, 2.28kg of CO2 are produced

oh tad, you read but then dont think about the figures. how many litres of CO2 is in 2.28kg? you may find its a rather high figure.... you are looking at a ton of feathers.
Quote:Human respiration accounts for 2.2 Gt of CO2 combine that with the 18 to 28 Gt total (I get different numbers from everybody) and that is the human contribution ~30% (depending on where you are on the planet) of which is absorbed immediately.

absorbed by????

T
Quote:he atmosphere contains 3200 Gt of CO2 and makes up 0.039% of the atmosphere, tops. That's the 390 ppmv that is bandied about all the time. Comparably Nitrogen is 78% and Oxygen is around 20%, There is 24 times more Argon in the atmosphere than there is CO2. Water vapour sits at roughly 0.40% over the entire atmosphere. Methane and Nitrous Oxide are also greenhouse gases at 1.79 ppmv (0.000179%) and 0.3 ppmv (0.00003%) respectively.


[Image: co2_trend_gl.png]

Now if that was wavering about the 390 mark every year i could agree with you. but it isnt. these are facts. you cant blame the final straw for breaking the camels back. but if that all it takes.......
Quote:The target for a 50% (and some countries have an 80% target) reduction from year 2000 levels would cost $101,569,713,758,079 (101 Trillion). There are worse subsidy/ theft schemes though, like the Electric Vehicle scam, which would cost well over $1.9 Quadrillion to convert at the current cost with at least 50% of funding being from federal and state coffers to convert the American auto fleet to this so called Green.

Once again, lets keep things just as they are, where you pay through the nose for the fuel for your car. and you are saying that your reasoning is that you dont want to pay for another infrastructure? You are once again falling into this trap. the only alternatives you see cost MORE MONEY...... you can produce electricity AT HOME.


Quote:Im not really getting your point here. Him being a lefty, means what exactly? He doesnt really dispute any of the facts, And he seems to miss the point of the overall context and the possibilities of the warming being caused by natural cycles.

Perhaps i wasnt making myself clear. solar variation, which encompass all variations of the sun, including all orbital wobbles. has a variance of about 0.01% of the overall heat produced by the sun. in other words, at its worst the heat from the sun could be 100.01% and at its lowest 99.99%. this isnt enough to be called significant. on the scale of temperature we are talking less than 0.01C. the lefty righty thing is due to a large population on the global warming denial front voting red most of the time. its not easy to miss.

Those figure are actually even less as i have averaged towards decimalising the calcs for easy reading. my averages have favoured the more conservative so sort of "on your side" yet they still are next to insignificant. if it were exactly accurate id probs have to stick 1 or 2 more decimal points on there.

Quote:You asked for examples, and I provided some answers. I'm still waiting for the evidence you subscribe to.
ok if you read about all those links you gave me. there was a volcano on titan and from what they can gather, there could be one on pluto if not more. these tiny chunks of rock have their own little eco system. and by the looks of things, things are going back to normal temps AFTER volcanic eruptions have ceased and the shading dust clouds have diminished. the expression is...... red herring. The only things we share with the other planets is the same heat from the sun. its what is on those planets that defines the character of temperatures and such. the only evidence you really showed me is that global warming/dimming can happen on planets without humans..i agree. but volcanic eruptions ARE taken into account HERE. we also get much more defined and accurate readouts.

Also a final point on your use of other planets as examples. you say none of them have humans on them, how many CAN have humans on them? the eco system on earth is the most complicated, delicate and precious of ALL planets in the solar system for that very reason.

Quote:And as Al Gore is one of the many politicians at the forefront of this debate, its only fair to point out his view on faith and spirituality in regards to the discussion of moral or spiritual relevance in the debate.
only in the eyes of his opponents. you will find most anti-al-gore is republican based propaganda. however he is nowhere near the forefront. thats like saying david icke speaks for the entire truth movement. Its way more complicated than this wanker.


Btw tad and silva thankyou for bringing some ordered and grown up methods of discussion. long may it continue.

one of the reasons that im at odds with this is alot to do with ive seen how tides have shifted over time during this. before many were just trying to make sure they got it right. once they had that to hand it was years for anyone to understand never mind believe. now we find many stomping over these findings that have just exasperated many in the scientific community. me 2 and i dont even know these guys.

The real issue was what to do about it. many plans made by bastards usually involve someone filling their pockets. Thats a given. carbon credits, tax incentives, all exploitable. why? well it gets the money in. yes its a pretty obvious point. however the real people in green movements don't sign up to this bullshit any more than you. The reason this opposition will fail for its total disagreement. ive gone to far many debunking sites mainly as many have tried to convince me many times about this. the advice i find is heightened paranoia from the onset. as i get older maybe i feel a little less inclined to get excited about things. And I read peoples motivations very easily through their words and avoidances.


I would like to point out some things you guys may not know or perhaps dont care but it has interested me for quite a while.. how much would we need?

Ive been looking into electricity generation from fuel to generation and distribution.

In gas the main efficiencies are gained from a no-change state. this means that it can be at variable pressures ect and its still just gas at the end of the day.
Electricity generation is pretty good these days. As clean as it could be about 90% id say of possible clean without encasing the whole thing and collecting all emissions.
However there are more things against its distribution.

[Image: 1000px-Electricity_Grid_Schematic_English.svg.png]

basics for any viewers.

The real problem with the grid is.....the grid. it kills the electricity. as you change up/down any electricity you lose masses in heat and what some call "bent space" in the change overs. all this energy is also wasted in keeping every single wire just a touch warmer than its surroundings. ive been startled by some of the figures. id dare say 30% AT LEAST of energy is wasted by the grid.

Issues with solar power.

As stated above 1300-1400W per square meter.
not everyone has a roof. its hard to go single on some things. but possible for shared water and electric from buildings.

Using solar panels for electric is pointless as heating water vie electric means is very hard and heavy. storing hot water generated from roof heating, combined with phase change underground units(the earth is always about 10`c no matter the weather.) and you have an all year round hot water electricity saving self generating power plant.

Wind Power

The best by far. for obvious reasons. 2 small units could easily keep the average houshold running without storage but i would only need one.
Storage. most important

kinetic storage of energy has come a long way and by the use of magnetics some issues with friction have been avoided. these make excellent and cheap to make fly wheels. with these units you can have ac or dc being fed into this positively and energy taken out at whatever wattage or voltage...


TADDA!!!
Love005

two birds, one stone. bang. anyone got a light?

Reply
03-25-2011, 09:40 PM,
#32
RE: Linking climate change to the Japan quake/tsunami
I'd love to have a crack at the source data that fed the NOAA graph.

Quote:oh tad, you read but then don't think about the figures.

You know me better than that I had hoped of course I did, and I read the same talking points on the ref links but let's put it in the perspective of what that amount of Carbon Dioxide really is on a global scale wince we're talking about global warming.

Do the math (I've given you everything you need above but don't limit yourself to just that and cross reference all you wish) and figure out the correlative effect for kg or l of CO2's effect on the atmosphere and bear mind it is a system, not a cumulative bucket that. It would be more like a bucket that would have to account for the net yield of man made CO2.

Feel free to take a stab at debunking the urban heating effect while you're at it. For one, there are heavily weighted temperature stations that were run by Soviet state criminals that had shown a huge spike when they upgraded their furnace that may have had something to do with the meteoric rise in temperatures in that region in the past 30 years that feed the climate models.

Quote:you cant blame the final straw for breaking the camels back

I have yet to hear a good sound backing on the tipping point argument from human produced carbon being causal to a warming trend. In fact the historical record that I trust most ice core samples show that carbon increased after temperature rise as a symptom of warming which should have debunked the theory then and there alone. Even Al Gore's hockey stick graph proves this point if you zoom in close enough to see it.

The tipping point is a separate theory altogether, not that I want to limit debate but step up with something more than a camel analogy. If you can provide, I'll do the same in return.

I've heard the horror stories about the massive methane pockets. That's the best argument I've heard to date to support the tipping claims but it doesn't really provide anything but an estimate on the trapped methane and the effect of warming's EndGame whether it be the Day After Tomorrow or in 1000 years is not necessarily global disaster, drought and pestilence.

Quote:(CO2 is absorbed by????

Plants, they breathe it and produce oxygen.

Quote:only in the eyes of his opponents. you will find most anti-al-gore is republican based propaganda. however he is nowhere near the forefront. thats like saying david icke speaks for the entire truth movement. Its way more complicated than this wanker.

Touche - he's just such an easy irresistible target.

Parting shot from AGW proponent and Aussie and Kiwi bush legend, Tim Flannery ..

   
Credit: http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/3/25/more-flannel-josh-88.html
There are no others, there is only us.
http://FastTadpole.com/
Reply
03-25-2011, 09:54 PM, (This post was last modified: 03-25-2011, 11:04 PM by rsol.)
#33
RE: Linking climate change to the Japan quake/tsunami
tad.
Quote:Touche - he's just such an easy irresistible target.
this is the problem. these are just hate week figures. cant anyone here check their feet for the rug?

If i did the math with those figure id be agreeing with you. however im wondering where those facts spring from. btw i thought greenpeace were controlled opposition anyway....

first question to roll with.

your 4x4x4 metre cubed co2 bubble. is that mixed with anything? or is that a solid lump? pressurised? any clues? because im seeing some huge holes in this logic. im going to go down this one by one over the weekend.

Quote:Plants, they breathe it and produce oxygen.

and produce carbon dioxide as they use the sugars made to grow and survive. its not just a one way street with them. only with us.

Quote:The tipping point is a separate theory altogether, not that I want to limit debate but step up with something more than a camel analogy. If you can provide, I'll do the same in return.

ice contains a vast amount of various gasses including co2 we all know this. more co2 more heat more heat more co2. well done for almost spotting it. that happens until... its called NO GOING BACK.

The ice caps are melting. but hey whats everyone worried about... THERES LOADS LEFT..
Reply
03-26-2011, 06:57 AM,
#34
RE: Linking climate change to the Japan quake/tsunami
(03-25-2011, 10:46 AM)FastTadpole Wrote: * Industrial Pollution (Air, Water, Soil ..)
* Factory Animal Farming > Mixed Farming
* Monoculture Agriculture > Permaculture City Gardens, Hydroponic Greenhouses
* Energy Efficiency > Transmission
* Soil Nutrient Depletion > Rediscover the lost art of fallow, controlled burns and organic fertilizers
* Chemicals > Boycott DOW, Be aware of the entire production cycle, Don't Use them if you can help it

I'm not trying to chime in the reality of AGW one way or another because I, unlike many others, willingly admit that I haven't had time to look at the research behind it. I have seen much demagoguery pro and con but I can't really make a decision based on that. However, looking at climate change from strictly a PR perspective, I think it is a poor tactic that has done a disservice to environmentalism as a whole. Basically environmentalists have put all of their eggs in this one basket and the issue has been completely politicized. Furthermore, the trend in the PR war is working in favor of status quo particularly in the United States and Britain.

So why did I highlight this part of tad's post? Well, every one of those issues has implications on many areas of our lives. But additionally they also have impacts on greenhouse gas emissions and capture. So, addressing these issues has multifaceted positive impacts including mitigation of greenhouse gases. The debate has been framed on AGW at this point rsol and the framing is more and more about a global tax. You might not like that political reality but look at the numbers.

To contrast, the PR battle against industrial agriculture and energy cartels is going well for environmentalists. The reality is that even if this earthquake claim was some random tweet that doesn't represent the climate change proponents' position, it is indicative of the attempt to shoe horn way too many environmental issues (many like food production that have a wider appeal) into the climate change brand. That strategy is a failure and the fact that people can trawl and find these tweets as you said and use them effectively illustrates that. A couple of years ago it was 80/20 on AGW in the US. Now the numbers are 50/50 and the alarmist over branding is largely responsible IMO.

People are just going to knee-jerk one way or another based on the brand at this point. They even tried rebranding and that failed because it's still being pitched like a commodity based on some abstract and counter intuitive scientific claims. The truth matters less to most people than brand loyalty at this point (and yes that probably includes most people on this forum if they were honest about it.)
Reply
03-26-2011, 12:15 PM, (This post was last modified: 03-26-2011, 12:20 PM by rsol.)
#35
RE: Linking climate change to the Japan quake/tsunami
the global taxation is a fight that i stand shoulder to shoulder with all here. the problem is. The PR method of pushing AGW as a hoax is disingenuous, dangerous and will ultimately see global taxation come to be anyway. The tactic is unsound.

What i mean is this. what sentence sounds likes its coming from an adult?

"The taxation method does little to address the problem while lining the pockets of elites."
"Its not real, 90% of climate scientists/nasa are lying just to get paid."


The real danger is that while we all debate over who gets to pay for something we dont need. the needle keeps popping up. the argument is muddied while the the expensive oil prices make these fucks even more money.

Quote:People are just going to knee-jerk one way or another based on the brand at this point. They even tried rebranding and that failed because it's still being pitched like a commodity based on some abstract and counter intuitive scientific claims. The truth matters less to most people than brand loyalty at this point (and yes that probably includes most people on this forum if they were honest about it.)

I would very much agree there. many things have been said about environmentalism in the past and still echoed now. the new religion is the one i see mostly. its a shame when logic and reason are portrayed as some sort of cult.
Reply
03-26-2011, 02:19 PM,
#36
RE: Linking climate change to the Japan quake/tsunami
Quote:The PR method of pushing AGW as a hoax.

It's certainly digressed to an emotional argument. The statement The PR method of branding deniers is just as liable but we're past that here right?

I'm not down with the way it is being pushed either but it is an unproven theory IMO given the lack of reliable data and the cloak of secrecy preventing the full release and continuous audit of the billions in publicly funded research.

It is obviously being designed to be a polarized thing once the consensus wheels fell off during the climatgate fiasco and that didn't really help the debate too much but at least it shed some light on the collusion that was taking place with various players, institutions, governments and publications.

The only telling sign was the model programming script was quite telling in how they massaged the data to fit the theory. That said it left just enough of a hole to exploit since there was no source data to remodel since it was 'lost' no deleted -- yes deleted because of hard drive space constraints of an agency (CRU) that was given millions in taxpayer funding but not enough for some DVDs or an extra hard drive apparently.

I'm still on the fence and haven't totally decided on this one but it seems implausible at this point given their own figures and the limited scope of the causal effects.

Cheers to Melchor for emphasizing that the consensus goals and middle ground should be addressed first since we can (mostly) agree on them. The environmental movement has obviously been hijacked and needs to be set back on track instead of wasting all that spirit on a potential dead end, poor solutions, polarized debate and is a bastardization of science primarily in the compartmentalized peer review process.

It only supports the globalist agenda, creates a myriad of control legislation, detracts from other prevalent issues and is a giant waste of time, dollars and resources.

Worst of all it's being pitched to the children as science and now has been introduced to my sons' social studies curriculum as well.

Quote:the new religion is the one i see mostly.

On the Green religion..

The OTHER Holy War: Polarization of the Green Religious Movement
http://concen.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=32831

There are no others, there is only us.
http://FastTadpole.com/
Reply
03-26-2011, 02:31 PM,
#37
RE: Linking climate change to the Japan quake/tsunami
I'm not sure how the weather works, but I do know if the planet rotation changes or moves towards the sun or away, may cause a shift in planetary weather systems. I'm guessing it has moved away. Our winter is lasting longer than usual. We had warmer spring type weather before the quake and now more winter like after. Does not look good. This is the northern half of US, souther half looks to be warmer than usual. Just an observation. I could be wrong.
Reply
03-26-2011, 04:54 PM, (This post was last modified: 03-26-2011, 05:27 PM by Doc Holliday.)
#38
RE: Linking climate change to the Japan quake/tsunami
(03-25-2011, 08:01 PM)rsol Wrote:
Quote:When one litre of petrol is burned, 2.28kg of CO2 are produced

oh tad, you read but then dont think about the figures. how many litres of CO2 is in 2.28kg? you may find its a rather high figure.... you are looking at a ton of feathers.
Quote:Human respiration accounts for 2.2 Gt of CO2 combine that with the 18 to 28 Gt total (I get different numbers from everybody) and that is the human contribution ~30% (depending on where you are on the planet) of which is absorbed immediately.

absorbed by????

T
Quote:he atmosphere contains 3200 Gt of CO2 and makes up 0.039% of the atmosphere, tops. That's the 390 ppmv that is bandied about all the time. Comparably Nitrogen is 78% and Oxygen is around 20%, There is 24 times more Argon in the atmosphere than there is CO2. Water vapour sits at roughly 0.40% over the entire atmosphere. Methane and Nitrous Oxide are also greenhouse gases at 1.79 ppmv (0.000179%) and 0.3 ppmv (0.00003%) respectively.


[Image: co2_trend_gl.png]

Now if that was wavering about the 390 mark every year i could agree with you. but it isnt. these are facts. you cant blame the final straw for breaking the camels back. but if that all it takes.......
Quote:The target for a 50% (and some countries have an 80% target) reduction from year 2000 levels would cost $101,569,713,758,079 (101 Trillion). There are worse subsidy/ theft schemes though, like the Electric Vehicle scam, which would cost well over $1.9 Quadrillion to convert at the current cost with at least 50% of funding being from federal and state coffers to convert the American auto fleet to this so called Green.

Once again, lets keep things just as they are, where you pay through the nose for the fuel for your car. and you are saying that your reasoning is that you dont want to pay for another infrastructure? You are once again falling into this trap. the only alternatives you see cost MORE MONEY...... you can produce electricity AT HOME.


Quote:Im not really getting your point here. Him being a lefty, means what exactly? He doesnt really dispute any of the facts, And he seems to miss the point of the overall context and the possibilities of the warming being caused by natural cycles.

Perhaps i wasnt making myself clear. solar variation, which encompass all variations of the sun, including all orbital wobbles. has a variance of about 0.01% of the overall heat produced by the sun. in other words, at its worst the heat from the sun could be 100.01% and at its lowest 99.99%. this isnt enough to be called significant. on the scale of temperature we are talking less than 0.01C. the lefty righty thing is due to a large population on the global warming denial front voting red most of the time. its not easy to miss.

Those figure are actually even less as i have averaged towards decimalising the calcs for easy reading. my averages have favoured the more conservative so sort of "on your side" yet they still are next to insignificant. if it were exactly accurate id probs have to stick 1 or 2 more decimal points on there.

Quote:You asked for examples, and I provided some answers. I'm still waiting for the evidence you subscribe to.
ok if you read about all those links you gave me. there was a volcano on titan and from what they can gather, there could be one on pluto if not more. these tiny chunks of rock have their own little eco system. and by the looks of things, things are going back to normal temps AFTER volcanic eruptions have ceased and the shading dust clouds have diminished. the expression is...... red herring. The only things we share with the other planets is the same heat from the sun. its what is on those planets that defines the character of temperatures and such. the only evidence you really showed me is that global warming/dimming can happen on planets without humans..i agree. but volcanic eruptions ARE taken into account HERE. we also get much more defined and accurate readouts.

Also a final point on your use of other planets as examples. you say none of them have humans on them, how many CAN have humans on them? the eco system on earth is the most complicated, delicate and precious of ALL planets in the solar system for that very reason.

Quote:And as Al Gore is one of the many politicians at the forefront of this debate, its only fair to point out his view on faith and spirituality in regards to the discussion of moral or spiritual relevance in the debate.
only in the eyes of his opponents. you will find most anti-al-gore is republican based propaganda. however he is nowhere near the forefront. thats like saying david icke speaks for the entire truth movement. Its way more complicated than this wanker.


Btw tad and silva thankyou for bringing some ordered and grown up methods of discussion. long may it continue.

one of the reasons that im at odds with this is alot to do with ive seen how tides have shifted over time during this. before many were just trying to make sure they got it right. once they had that to hand it was years for anyone to understand never mind believe. now we find many stomping over these findings that have just exasperated many in the scientific community. me 2 and i dont even know these guys.

The real issue was what to do about it. many plans made by bastards usually involve someone filling their pockets. Thats a given. carbon credits, tax incentives, all exploitable. why? well it gets the money in. yes its a pretty obvious point. however the real people in green movements don't sign up to this bullshit any more than you. The reason this opposition will fail for its total disagreement. ive gone to far many debunking sites mainly as many have tried to convince me many times about this. the advice i find is heightened paranoia from the onset. as i get older maybe i feel a little less inclined to get excited about things. And I read peoples motivations very easily through their words and avoidances.


I would like to point out some things you guys may not know or perhaps dont care but it has interested me for quite a while.. how much would we need?

Ive been looking into electricity generation from fuel to generation and distribution.

In gas the main efficiencies are gained from a no-change state. this means that it can be at variable pressures ect and its still just gas at the end of the day.
Electricity generation is pretty good these days. As clean as it could be about 90% id say of possible clean without encasing the whole thing and collecting all emissions.
However there are more things against its distribution.

[Image: 1000px-Electricity_Grid_Schematic_English.svg.png]

basics for any viewers.

The real problem with the grid is.....the grid. it kills the electricity. as you change up/down any electricity you lose masses in heat and what some call "bent space" in the change overs. all this energy is also wasted in keeping every single wire just a touch warmer than its surroundings. ive been startled by some of the figures. id dare say 30% AT LEAST of energy is wasted by the grid.

Issues with solar power.

As stated above 1300-1400W per square meter.
not everyone has a roof. its hard to go single on some things. but possible for shared water and electric from buildings.

Using solar panels for electric is pointless as heating water vie electric means is very hard and heavy. storing hot water generated from roof heating, combined with phase change underground units(the earth is always about 10`c no matter the weather.) and you have an all year round hot water electricity saving self generating power plant.

Wind Power

The best by far. for obvious reasons. 2 small units could easily keep the average houshold running without storage but i would only need one.
Storage. most important

kinetic storage of energy has come a long way and by the use of magnetics some issues with friction have been avoided. these make excellent and cheap to make fly wheels. with these units you can have ac or dc being fed into this positively and energy taken out at whatever wattage or voltage...


TADDA!!!
Love005

two birds, one stone. bang. anyone got a light?
>>>>RS Great Illustrations on all of the Craziness of the matter as a whole, then the hole matter of where all the Money goes, Great work Dude!! Eatdrink007 Sincerely: Doc Holliday


(03-26-2011, 02:19 PM)FastTadpole Wrote:
Quote:The PR method of pushing AGW as a hoax.

It's certainly digressed to an emotional argument. The statement The PR method of branding deniers is just as liable but we're past that here right?

I'm not down with the way it is being pushed either but it is an unproven theory IMO given the lack of reliable data and the cloak of secrecy preventing the full release and continuous audit of the billions in publicly funded research.

It is obviously being designed to be a polarized thing once the consensus wheels fell off during the climatgate fiasco and that didn't really help the debate too much but at least it shed some light on the collusion that was taking place with various players, institutions, governments and publications.

The only telling sign was the model programming script was quite telling in how they massaged the data to fit the theory. That said it left just enough of a hole to exploit since there was no source data to remodel since it was 'lost' no deleted -- yes deleted because of hard drive space constraints of an agency (CRU) that was given millions in taxpayer funding but not enough for some DVDs or an extra hard drive apparently.

I'm still on the fence and haven't totally decided on this one but it seems implausible at this point given their own figures and the limited scope of the causal effects.

Cheers to Melchor for emphasizing that the consensus goals and middle ground should be addressed first since we can (mostly) agree on them. The environmental movement has obviously been hijacked and needs to be set back on track instead of wasting all that spirit on a potential dead end, poor solutions, polarized debate and is a bastardization of science primarily in the compartmentalized peer review process.

It only supports the globalist agenda, creates a myriad of control legislation, detracts from other prevalent issues and is a giant waste of time, dollars and resources.

Worst of all it's being pitched to the children as science and now has been introduced to my sons' social studies curriculum as well.

Quote:the new religion is the one i see mostly.

On the Green religion..

The OTHER Holy War: Polarization of the Green Religious Movement
http://concen.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=32831
>>Japan has been in a Quake pron area of the world to begin with, seems to me the Big factor is LOCATION location location! same as this one that people may have forgotten in taipei 300,000 Dead!! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Indian_Ocean_earthquake_and_tsunami we all have short memory's, the other factor is, the Earth has been in the Middle of it's magnetic poles flipping from North to South pole, this only happens every 23,000 year's, it will finish it's full flip next year, so keep this in mind. I feel that all of us will see more in the near future surly!! humankind has not lived threw this occurrence, 23,000 years?? think about it< Undecided sadly to say some Scientist feel that this occurrence may bring catastrophic events mankind has not yet experienced. Sincerely: Doc

Reply
03-27-2011, 02:16 AM, (This post was last modified: 03-27-2011, 08:49 AM by hubbabubba.)
#39
RE: Linking climate change to the Japan quake/tsunami
(03-26-2011, 06:57 AM)Melchor Wrote: I have seen much demagoguery pro and con but I can't really make a decision based on that.

I would like to add another perspective to the question at hand. The personal experience, or gnosis. Look outside your window. What's happening in your reality? Statistics and graphs, all fine in the scientific perspective, but can you trust the science? Maybe it's falsified or scewed. Best to check with your own reality first.

My reality is that I remeber very cold and snowy winters from my youth. Then I remeber some warmer winters with bare ground, and now recently I have had, outside my window, two record cold and white winters. I could ask my parents about what they remember about their childhood climate and the grandparents about theirs. That's reality, what's discussed in this thread are statistics and computer models, which both are very easily tailored to fit an agenda.

The AGW agenda hides that the real problem mother earth, and thus humanity, faces is not (a natural) climate change, but poisoning, in the form of BIG oil and radiation leakage into the land and sea and the more general slow chemical poisoning of our environment.

Cap and trade wont change any of that.

Reply
03-27-2011, 04:25 AM, (This post was last modified: 03-27-2011, 04:39 AM by Doc Holliday.)
#40
RE: Linking climate change to the Japan quake/tsunami
(03-27-2011, 02:16 AM)hubbabubba Wrote:
(03-26-2011, 06:57 AM)Melchor Wrote: I have seen much demagoguery pro and con but I can't really make a decision based on that.

I would like to add another perspective to the question at hand. The personal experience, or gnosis. Look outside your window. What's happening in your reality? Statistics and graphs, all fine in the scientific perspective, but can you trust the science? Maybe it's falsified or scewed. Best to check with your own reality first.

My reality is that I remeber very cold and snowy winters from my youth. Then I remeber some warmer winters with bare ground, and now recently I have had, outside my window, two record cold and white winters. I could ask my parents about what they remeber about their childhood climate and the granparents about theirs. That's reality, what's discussed in this thread is statistics and computer models, which both are very easily tailored to fit an agenda.

The AGW agenda hides that the real problem mother earth, and thus humanity, faces is not (a natural) climate change, but poisoning, in the form of BIG oil and radiation leakage into the land and sea and the more general slow chemical poisoning of our environment.

Cap and trade wont change any of that.
no I am sure you or I can haa ahaaa you are very familiar HUBBA, think I've seen you at one of my Home site's, I did read a bit more, Global could very well be a big part of what happened, the Earth was heading in that direction anyway, we just gave it one hell of a push for sure, and as oh well can't remember the poster's name, nor can I find it, seems I'll need to get use to the way the post are set up. anyway he had a Hillbilly kinda of guy, saying we can stop doing this or that, it will make a difference eons from now--sorta speak!! he is surly right, but!! I think what some folk's are mistaking Chemtrails -stay with me--are only planes seeding clouds to stave off the effect of global warming, make perfect sense, sun will bounce off cloud cover, less clouds more heat, more clouds less heat. the one thing still upcoming in 8 months more is the total reversal of the earths poles. oh well 8 months wont be too far off. Hubba!! what do you think the folk's in Taipei saw that day they looked out there window!! and said!, oh shet!! RUN BABY RUN. sorry could be very close to the truth??

Reply
03-27-2011, 07:04 AM,
#41
RE: Linking climate change to the Japan quake/tsunami
Ok home observations, I'll do mine ..

This is what was used in my province to create the ANALYSIS OF ALBERTA TEMPERATURE OBSERVATIONS AND ESTIMATES BY GLOBAL CLIMATE MODELS (PDF) report and was used to propogate the ClimateAB software program to educate students and compose national and international reports addressing climate change to set policy for governments both locally, provincially and globally.

Quote:Adjusted and Homogenized Canadian Climate Data (AHCCD)

This web site provides adjusted and homogenized climate data for many climatological stations in Canada. These data were created for use in climate research including climate change studies. They incorporate a number of adjustments applied to the original station data to address shifts due to changes in instruments and in observing procedures. Sometimes the observations from several stations were joined to generate a long time series.

* The program is based on the Alberta Climate Model (ACM): Alberta Environment. 2005. Alberta Climate Model (ACM) to provide climate estimates (1961- 1990) for any location in Alberta from its geographic coordinates. Publ. No. T/749. Alberta Environment. 35 pp. (available on-line)

* The 1961- 1990 baseline climate model for Alberta was developed by Dr. Gerald E. Rehfeldt according to methodology described in this paper: (Rehfeldt 2006 USDA Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-165). Note that slight modifications were made to how some derived variables were calculated for Alberta.

* The program further utilizes the Adjusted Historical Canadian Climate Database (AHCCD), scenario data from the Pacific Climate Impacts Consortium (PCIC), and the the CRU-TS and TYN-SC data sets of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research (Tyndall Centre) and a selection of scenario data by Barrow and Yu 2005.
http://www.ales.ualberta.ca/rr/Research/ClimateChange/ClimateDataforAlberta.aspx

So they use CRU modelling across the board for the The President of the University of Alberta whose Climate Change compiled the report and designed the software for Environmental Sciences Division
Alberta Environment, Indira Samarasekera, was an attendee at the latest Bildeberg Conference of the study which leads us here.. She is a devout green globalist in lock step with the global agenda.

Latest message from the president:

Quote:Earth Hour 2011

My recent trips to international meetings such as the WEF (World Economic Forum) in Davos are devoted to finding answers to some of the world’s grand challenges. Universities have a large role to play in developing solutions to these problems, not only through research and innovation, but also through community leadership and engagement.
http://www.president.ualberta.ca/en/MessageFromThePresident/2011/03/EarthHour2011.aspx

More on Samarasekera's attendance to the last Bilderberg meeting here..
http://concen.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=33327&highlight=Samarasekera

That said, only the puppets and proxies attend and is somewhat of a ruse IMO the real strings behind the scenes has likely never been mentioned publicly - they may not even have NAMES.

Pardon the tangent, next stop ..

Quote:Adjusted and Homogenized Canadian Climate Data (AHCCD)

This web site provides adjusted and homogenized climate data for many climatological stations in Canada. These data were created for use in climate research including climate change studies. They incorporate a number of adjustments applied to the original station data to address shifts due to changes in instruments and in observing procedures. Sometimes the observations from several stations were joined to generate a long time series.

These data are not the official Meteorological Service of Canada in situ station records and therefore should not be used for legal purposes. The official records can be obtained at the National Climate Data and Information Archive.

Users are strongly cautioned to determine the data suitability for their application. They should also be aware that ongoing research on adjustment techniques may result in future revisions of the datasets. The datasets are updated annually with the most recent data.

The adjusted and homogenized data are provided for four climate elements:

* Surface air temperature
* Precipitation
* Surface pressure
* Surface wind speed
http://ec.gc.ca/dccha-ahccd/default.asp?lang=En&n=B1F8423A-1

and finally here .. after a few forwards and dead links the raw data.

National Climate Data and Information Archive.
http://climate.weatheroffice.gc.ca/advanceSearch/searchHistoricData_e.html?timeframe=1&Prov=XX&StationID=9999&Year=2011&Month=3&Day=25

I looked through several in my area Edmonton and most were missing data for entire months and/or truncated. From what I could gather from the station data it's up and down, and up and down hardly a progressively upward trend. I also noticed an inordinate number of city stations which would give more weighting to any urban heating effect. Certain stations were discontinued, I won't speculate on the motive - it could be attributable to a number of things.

I don't want to get lost in the details but Alberta has high standards and resources for climate data historically and the record is hardly complete but it's the best we've got. Unfortunately they were using the same extrapolations for future climate models as the obviously rigged but legally whitewashed CRU at East Angila UK courtesy of pawns like Michael Mann; who is still doing work in the same position for the CRU.

One word on the ClimateGate emails and source code. I'm confident it was damage control / controlled opposition. 20,000 emails were carefully selected from the entire archive .. why not FULL disclosure? What else was sent along the CRU email pipe? Were any of those more incriminating or draw a line to other players? Was this really the worst of the emails or was it just a controlled leak to give the opposition just enough to keep them busy for awhile?

More on this here with links to resources:

Climategate: CRU Was But the Tip of the Iceberg - NASA, WWF, IPCC, NIWA, GISS & NOAA Evidence Mounts
http://concen.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=31158

Facts are facts and we can do our own study if we see merit in it. The current organizations, overall as a whole, has proven epic failure in it's cumulative research, reports and analysis of the situation.

Climate Change, The Gulf Oil Spill, The Trapped Coal Miners, The Japan Nuclear Power are all being used to choke off a human population dependant on energy. They fit with the Biodiversity (Land Use, Mines), GMO & Factory Farms (Food) and the Water Corporate/Government takeover (good thread on Water here) to stifle the means of production

Time to pass the ball or devote our time, talent and labour to more pertinent and productive endeavours.

Either way this can't continue the implementation, the players across the table have shown their hand.
There are no others, there is only us.
http://FastTadpole.com/
Reply
03-27-2011, 09:32 AM, (This post was last modified: 03-27-2011, 09:33 AM by hubbabubba.)
#42
RE: Linking climate change to the Japan quake/tsunami
I just want to add to my personal report that outside my window there have now been almost 6 months of uninterrupted winter climate (-2 - -30 C)with a snow cover. This compared to the last 10 winters, except last which also was record cold and snowy, being almost totally bare and quite warm (+6 - -15 C).

So even if it might be a trend it's a mighty change in a short timespan.
Reply
03-28-2011, 05:14 PM, (This post was last modified: 03-28-2011, 05:22 PM by rsol.)
#43
RE: Linking climate change to the Japan quake/tsunami
thank you for managing to say something of no consequence. after all of the data based information gathered by myself and Tad. You have managed to show a total lack of understanding and contempt for evidence.

Well done. you get snow where you live. what does that have to do with the rest of the planet? We got snow where we live, not normally too... so....what?


Quote:So they use CRU modelling across the board for the The President of the University of Alberta whose Climate Change compiled the report and designed the software for Environmental Sciences Division
Alberta Environment, Indira Samarasekera, was an attendee at the latest Bildeberg Conference of the study which leads us here.. She is a devout green globalist in lock step with the global agenda.
A climatolgist with a green agenda? really? ermm.... so you would of preferred a non climatologist? Oh i see, what you are saying is because she has a green agenda(most climatologists do) that she obviously HAS fiddled the figures and made models based on promoting doom and gloom for the climate.

Question. is there evidence that she has?

You know like bush and blair and the dodgy dosier? you can obviously see it. then there are people saying it, bringing evidence to support that it was made up? you know......

There is just saying it, speculation. and then there is proof that this has been done..
Reply
03-28-2011, 09:39 PM,
#44
RE: Linking climate change to the Japan quake/tsunami
(03-27-2011, 02:16 AM)hubbabubba Wrote:
(03-26-2011, 06:57 AM)Melchor Wrote: I have seen much demagoguery pro and con but I can't really make a decision based on that.

I would like to add another perspective to the question at hand. The personal experience, or gnosis. Look outside your window. What's happening in your reality? Statistics and graphs, all fine in the scientific perspective, but can you trust the science? Maybe it's falsified or skewed. Best to check with your own reality first.
That's really a bad argument. First, memory is much less reliable than you might think. Particularly when you are going by memories of early life when you didn't have perspective or experience. Additionally variability is a huge part of weather patterns so just making assumptions anecdotally over short time slices over specific locales is an extremely unsound form of empiricism. You are assuming that your experiential memory is reliable over time and that there is a uniform weather over space. Neither of those assumptions are reliable because your data set is much too small (over time and space) and based on extremely malleable subjective memory.
Reply
03-30-2011, 05:40 AM, (This post was last modified: 03-30-2011, 05:41 AM by hubbabubba.)
#45
RE: Linking climate change to the Japan quake/tsunami
(03-28-2011, 09:39 PM)Melchor Wrote: Neither of those assumptions are reliable because your data set is much too small (over time and space) and based on extremely malleable subjective memory.

Ok, so lets say that the winters are becoming colder and colder, even into the record numbers, for the next ten years, and media continues its every day/every hour nagging about global warming and earth hour etc. etc. You want me to believe a science that is obviously wrong "in my lifetime" before I belive myself and my environment. Talk about dark ages.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Another great video by Luke at we are change.org Sovereignman 2 551 02-14-2012, 04:10 AM
Last Post: Sovereignman
  Syria Regime Change PR in High Gear: More ‘Newborn Baby Slaughter’ Propaganda Solve et Coagula 0 382 02-11-2012, 01:36 PM
Last Post: Solve et Coagula
  Al Gore's and his New Partners Are Going to Change Things springhawk 1 658 05-06-2011, 04:45 PM
Last Post: yeti
  Japan earthquake an illuminati job? fl420sky 0 888 03-22-2011, 12:03 AM
Last Post: fl420sky
  The CIA's Role in Egypt's Regime Change? Who Is Omar Suleiman? Solve et Coagula 0 369 02-06-2011, 09:55 AM
Last Post: Solve et Coagula
  WikiLeaks: US military cannot find evidence linking Julian Assange to Bradley Manning TriWooOx 1 652 01-26-2011, 06:15 PM
Last Post: rsol
  Climate change game launched. Dunamis 5 1,078 11-30-2010, 08:50 AM
Last Post: rsol
  A neglected climate strategy: Empower women, slow population growth --- 1 846 11-23-2010, 03:06 PM
Last Post: FastTadpole
  The CIA as Executive Agent on Climate Change h3rm35 4 1,004 08-17-2010, 10:25 AM
Last Post: nik
  Crisis of America's Political System: An Easy Way to Dramatically Change Congress Solve et Coagula 0 412 06-23-2010, 10:19 PM
Last Post: Solve et Coagula

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)