The Sun affects our weather??? Oh Noooooo!

[grapeman]

"a clinton tactic" i love it! while i would never take any well deserved credit from any politician, old slick willy was not the first to use that tactic and he sure as hell was not the last.

got a link for the CFC thing grape? sounds interesting ......

Oh no, Clinton did not invent that tactic. He just made it an art form.
Do you remember his "bimbo eruption" response team led by none other then Hillery?

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

^^^Proof positive you politicize science discussions.^^^

 

[Sgt.Stedenko]

Riddle me this.
CFC-12 which was outlawed in by the Montreal Protocol has a life expectancy of 80-100 years in our atmosphere (according to the EPA). Shouldn't we see it's ill effects on the antarctic ozone hole for another 50-70 years? Shouldn't the hole be getting bigger, and not smaller.
More junk science brought to you by the agenda driven EPA.
Cosmic radiation is the primary source of ozone depletion and creation.
CFC's were scapegoated as a revenue producer for EPA. Do you really think EPA didn't line their pockets from that?
Now CO2 is their sugar daddy, even though most experts agree an increase in CO2 concentrations would be beneficial to the planet.

 

[grapeman]

got a link for the CFC thing grape? sounds interesting ......

http://www.ourcivilisation.com/ozone/index.htm

http://www.ourcivilisation.com/ozone/king.htm

The point being that this was another false emergency hysteria crisis

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Then why did they remove CFCs from spray cans? Sounds like the sun is the root of all our earthly evils. Lets buy stock in all the industrial-scale environmental... uh, inhibitors because it's just the sun doing all the inhibiting.

I think it's kind of funny to suggest the sun depletes ozone so CFCs can't.

 

[greenmatter]

Oh no, Clinton did not invent that tactic. He just made it an art form.
Do you remember his "bimbo eruption" response team led by none other then Hillery?

damage control, and raw bullshit slinging has long been an art form in and around politics........ i can't recall a single administration that did not have a go to guy or fall guy for this "area of expertise". any press secretary you have ever listened to would fit in that box.

getting any further into that subject will get your thread binned, so i am gonna leave it alone...


so do you have a link for the CFC thing? ( sorry i was typing when you posted the link)

 

[dagnabit]

reading through i had a vision!!!

a new economic bubble!

carbon credit derivatives trading!!!!

maybe a carbon credit default swap?
bundle multiple carbon credit "loans" based on projected sellable carbon credit annual surplus. hedging against carbon credit deficits. then sell these "bundled" derivatives.

 

[Sgt.Stedenko]

Dont give Moody's any ideas, dagnabit.

Edit. Too late dag. Looks like someone beat you to the punch. In fact, it could be the next financial meltdown.
http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2009/12/woman-who-invented-credit-default-swaps.html

Speaking of damage control, how about Operation Fast and Furious?
Makes Iran Contra look like someone cheating on their SATs.

 

[trichrider]

Dont give Moody's any ideas, dagnabit.

Edit. Too late dag. Looks like someone beat you to the punch. In fact, it could be the next financial meltdown.
http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2009/12/woman-who-invented-credit-default-swaps.html

Speaking of damage control, how about Operation Fast and Furious?
Makes Iran Contra look like someone cheating on their SATs.

a whole 'nother can, and this one is sure to bin this thread!
oh i got it...gun and sun rhyme!

the topic is global warming and the sun does a splendid job of maintaining equilibrium, with a bit of help from our seas.

there are too many variables to say that mankind has fucked up this planet. it would be ludicrous to suggest that Mother Earth cannot deal with our paltry litter...there have been many episodes of much worse devastation than the cancer called man. the Earth will survive man, but probably not the other way around.

considering the length of eternity (or a fascimle thereof) how pompous of us to think we are so important as to rise above creation and be it's master.

so mankind as we know it will disappear, probably for the better.
what is left will definitely be more in tune with nature than what evolution/technology has provided us.

This is my personal opinion, don't need links, don't accept other arguments, and it don't matter that there are.

i am guilty as the next person in behaving like this rock were my personal playground, and knowing that i will eventually grow out of it and begin trying to care for it, i will find redemption.

what intrigues me most is the widely divergent opinions that create the angst and embarassment i feel when trying to wrap my head around this problem. were we to agree and plod toward a solution we might justify our existence.

 

[greenmatter]

http://www.ourcivilisation.com/ozone/index.htm

http://www.ourcivilisation.com/ozone/king.htm

The point being that this was another false emergency hysteria crisis

read for about 4 minutes before i ran into this off of the top link .....

"a stance which contradicts the Christian belief that the Almighty created the creatures of the earth for man's use, and is a declared hatred of humanity."

i am not saying that religion makes any point invalid, i just think pure science and religious viewpoints are like mixing oil and water.

"philosophy is useless theology is worse" knopfler

it just seems to me that large groups and the lobby clowns find more ways to cloud the water than we ever could on our own. without all the special interest groups involved , this could be solvable....... but i doubt any of them are going away soon.

now there is one i think we could all agree on ....... NO MORE LOBBYISTS! if our leaders can't make a decision without someone whispering in their ear,then they should get out of the game... JMHO

 

[grapeman]

The 'study' is a Heartland baby. If you took the same data and offered you own study, I'd call it a grape baby.

Typical liberal hogwash. The article was written by a senior fellow at heartland, but like I said, the DATA was from NASA.

Can you read ok?
NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.

Study co-author Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA's Aqua satellite, reports that real-world data from NASA's Terra satellite contradict multiple assumptions fed into alarmist computer models.

NASA DATA. Got it now? You read that OK? Understand Now? You read that OK NOW?

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

If this study has any merit, it'll be subject to peer review. If their study is accurate, it'll influence our prognoses. These two 'scientists' will be referenced in future studies and credited for honing the process of climate monitoring.

If this study doesn't pass peer review, it's just another example of your ends justifying the means. After all, you believe two individuals yet dismiss 97% of the community they belong.

I can read just fine, grapeman. Can read you in a New York minute. I hear Exxon stock is doing great these days. So's Wackenhut.

 

[High Country]

I work at night in our Oz winters....I get home at 1.00 AM...stay awake till about 4.00 AM....wake at 1.00 PM....go to work a couple of hours later and receive no sunlight....maybe a little bit.

Guessing I'm missing vitamin B.....sunlight.

Life of a vampire I guess.

 

[Bionic]

Vitamin D.

 

[dagnabit]

97% LMAO!!!!!!!

97% of the scientific community can't agree on causation of gravity.

97% bullshit

 

[Weird]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/30/richness-of-life-on-earth_n_913958.html


Despite rapid and substantial growth in the amount of land and sea designated as protected habitat over the last four decades, the diversity of species the world over is plummeting, a new study has found.

Over 100,000 so-called "protected areas" representing some 7 million square miles of land and nearly 1 million square miles of ocean have been established since the 1960's, noted the analysis, published Thursday in the journal Marine Ecology Progress Series.

And yet, according to a widely cited index used to track planetary biodiversity, the wealth of terrestrial and marine species has seen steady decline over roughly the same period, suggesting that simply protecting swaths of land and sea -- a common conservation strategy worldwide -- is inadequate for preventing the steady disappearance of earth's creatures.

"The problem is bigger than one we can realistically solve with protected areas -- even if they work under the best conditions," said Camilo Mora, an assistant professor in the Department of Geography at the University of Hawaii at Manoa and lead author of the study. "The protected area approach is expensive and requires a lot of political and human capital," Dr. Mora continued in an email message to The Huffington Post. "Our suggestion is that we should redirect some of those resources to deal with ultimate solutions."

The steady loss of biodiversity -- defined roughly as the rich variety of living things -- can, in turn, have profound implications for human civilization, which relies on healthy, variegated ecosystems to provide a host of ecological services from water filtration and oxygen generation to food, medicine, clothing and fuel.

The precise value of such services is difficult to quantify, but one economic analysis estimated they were worth as much as $33 trillion globally.

While the study concedes that individual protected areas that are well-designed and well-managed can be successful in preventing the imminent extinction of species and ecosystems, a variety of other forces conspire to further reduce biodiversity overall.

"Protected areas, as usually implemented, can only protect from over-exploitation, and from habitat destruction due to exploitation and other direct human actions within their borders. They are a tool for regulating human access and extraction," said Peter F. Sale, assistant director of the United Nations University Institute for Water, Environment and Health, and the study's co-author. "Biodiversity loss is also caused by pollution, by arrival of invasive species, by decisions to convert habitat to other uses -- farms, villages, cities -- and by various components of climate change," he told HuffPost. "None of these are mitigated by the creation of protected areas except, possibly, the removal of habitat to other uses."


In other words, the researchers, who based their analysis on a broad range of global data and a review of existing literature, suggest that the implementation of habitat protection is unable to keep pace with other stressors contributing to species loss overall.

This is partly due to lack of enforcement. Only about 5.8 percent of terrestrial protected areas and 0.08 percent of marine sanctuaries see reliable and consistent enforcement.

Further, the authors note most research suggests that between 10 percent and 30 percent of the world's ecosystems need to be protected to preserve optimal biodiversity. But despite what appears to be a rapid increase in protected lands, the pace is too slow to achieve those targets anytime soon. On land, the 10 percent target, under the best of circumstances, would not be reached until 2043, the study estimated. The 30 percent target would not be achieved until 2197. The same target percentages for marine sanctuaries would be reached by 2067 and 2092, respectively.

And these projections are almost certainly too optimistic, the authors note, because the rate of establishment of new protected areas would be expected to slow considerably as conservation efforts runs up against the needs of a rapidly expanding human population.

From the study:

Demand on marine fisheries is projected to increase by 43 percent by 2030 to supply ongoing food demands, while projected CO2 emissions by 2050 are expected to severely impact [more than] 80 percent of the world's coral reefs and affect marine fish communities globally, causing local extinctions and facilitating invasions resulting in changes in species composition of up to 60 percent. On land, the growing human population and demand for housing, food and energy are expected to substantially increase the intensity of stressors associated with the conversion of land cover to agriculture and urbanization, e.g. the release of nutrients and other pollutants, climate warming and altered precipitation. In short, the extent of coverage by [protected areas] is still limited and is growing at a slower rate than that at which biodiversity threats are developing.

Global population is expected to pass 7 billion in October, according to new estimates from the population division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs at the United Nations. That's an increase of 1 billion people in about a dozen years.

Other challenges include the size of protected areas -- which are often too small for larger species to survive -- and the lack of connectivity between protected areas, which is needed for healthy genetic dispersal.

The authors of Thursday's analysis suggest that reversing biodiversity losses will require a vast rethinking of conservation strategy -- one that redirects limited resources toward more holistic solutions. This would include efforts to reduce human population growth -- and its attending consumption patterns -- as well as the deployment of technologies that would increase the productivity of agriculture and aquaculture to meet human needs.

Also needed, the authors wrote: a continued "restructuring of world views to bring them in line with a world of finite resources."

Dr. Sale said, "In the final analysis, we have to recognize that we are pushing up against limits set by the way the biosphere functions. Biodiversity loss is one sign of this."

 

[grapeman]

If this study has any merit, it'll be subject to peer review. If their study is accurate, it'll influence our prognoses. These two 'scientists' will be referenced in future studies and credited for honing the process of climate monitoring.

If this study doesn't pass peer review, it's just another example of your ends justifying the means. After all, you believe two individuals yet dismiss 97% of the community they belong.

I can read just fine, grapeman. Can read you in a New York minute. I hear Exxon stock is doing great these days. So's Wackenhut.

Come on with your BS discoman. Peer review?? Phfft. Bullshit.

You mean the same peer review that gave us the FLAWED computer models that this data CORRECTS? The same peer review that NEVER allowed contrary scientists to review or correct the flawed IPCC models? Yeah, that kind of peer review.

Yeah, that's what you mean. You are fast exposing yourself as a joke. Peer review from the bunch of scam artists such as the IPCC and Mann who's own emails explained why they denied peer reviews from well respected scientists with differing opinions on data and warned of the skewed climate models.
THEIR OWN FUCKING EMAILS !!!
You are a joke.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

...You are a joke.

says the parrot

 

[grapeman]

says the parrot

You left out all the good parts that showed the idiocy of your thinking.

Sigh. It's like talking to algore.

 

[grapeman]

Article from Dr. Roy Spencer.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/01/rise-of-the-1st-law-deniers/


"If I’m a “denier” of the theory of dangerous anthropogenic climate change, so be it. But as a scientist I’d rather deny that theory than deny the 1st Law of Thermodynamics."

Nice quote don't ya think discoman?