What Do We Think About Climate Change

From http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02745c.htm:
"Climate
Covering so large an extent of territory, Brazil naturally has variations of climate. In the lowlands of the north, which are within the tropics, there is great heat, and the year is divided between the rainy and dry seasons of tropical regions. The rainy season begins in December or January and lasts until May or June. The rest of the year is generally dry. However, dry periods frequently occur during the rainy season, and rainy periods during the dry season. In the highlands of the central and southern portions there are four fairly well marked seasons. The vast Amazon basin is remarkable for its small seasonal variation of temperature; the thermometer rarely rises above 90° or falls below 75°. In the two southernmost States, Rio Grande do Sul and Sao Paulo, the temperature at times goes to the freezing point, especially in the highlands. The prevailing winds are the trade winds from the east. These are the strongest in the valley of the Amazon from July to November, and thus the heat of the dry season is somewhat mitigated. The country is generally healthful, with the exception of the marshy banks of some of the rivers, the swamps, and regions where drainage is poor; in these places intermittent fevers are very common. Yellow fever has appeared at times, but has always been confined to the coast."
Since the mountains are to the west, the winds are forced uphill which "squeezes" the water out of the air due to adiabatic cooling, and leaving the land west of the mountain peaks much drier, but dumping a lot of rain on the Amazon Basin.

 

Its happening and nobody at all questions the fact . Why its happening and maybe the rate its happening are debatable .

All i am saying is use the money wasted on debate to assist nature in positive ways . if (or when) the Sahara covers a full quarter of the earth maybe someone will look and say "why didn't anybody think to stop this when it was possible"

 

As a theoretical question, if we were able to surmount the financial and technological challenges how would we get past the political questions. A measurable percentage of the same people who approach the topic of global warming with a religious fervor would protest the destruction of the desert habitat.

 

It is folly to think that we can stop a process of nature by reducing the 10.5ppm of anthropogenic C02. The Sahara was there at the dawn of man made fire. It wasn't created by human activity if indeed it is expanding, actually real evidence shows it is not, so attempts to mitigate it's expansion when we do not know what is or is not causing it would be ludicrous.

Climate change is indeed happening, but human activity isn't causing it and wasting money and efforts in a godlike attempt to control it is a exercise of futility.

 

Eddy, you are not listening to dear old Boston. Its the rate of change that is needed. SO, lets instantaneously remove that 10.5ppm and all will be well. How to do it? Well, what if all the people who believe in man-made climate change held their breath for an hour, and did not exhale any of that bad CO. That should fix everything...

 

And its that type of comment that makes it hard to take deniers seriously.

 

Too late at night for you to be able to laugh? Hope the sun shines for you in the morning!
Not denying climate change. But to say that its mostly man-made, ergo man can fix it is definitley worthy of denial. Rate of change as the only thing that matters? Well, time x (high) rate of change gets you there sooner but doesn't change the maximum. And once you reach the maximum, the levels fall. That was the point of graphs back to 65my in my earlier post.

 

CO2 was over 400ppm mid 19th century. There was also a nice spike in the mid 20th century, which coincided nicely with the pesky, inexplicable warming (inexplicable because it came before the big increase in anthropogenic CO2 emissions) that occurred around the same time, the one that the 'climategate' fools keep trying to hide. The fraud of the "stable 280ppm CO2 pre-industrial baseline" has already been exposed and explained to you, but you seem unable to form any new memories since your unfortunate brain damaging incident



Jimbo

 

Here's a sobering opinion on the warming controversy that ought to be explained by our alarmist friends who so solidly have the science behind them.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc3902.htm

 

brain damaging incident ?
care to elaborate
Im always up for a good fiction novel

the denier crowd would love to invent there own data however the cold hard truth is that co2 was stable at ~280 for almost the entire history of human existence
if you have data to the contrary then please feel free to present it to the scientific community at large and get ready to win a Pulitzer in best fiction novel cause frankly you would be the only one to come up with such data

97% of scientists are kinda hard to argue with

 

Tolly Wolly

round these parts evidence obtained by theft is inadmissible

probably because evidence from such unsavory sources is most likely to be doctored or cherry picked and could easily be made to misrepresent the facts

not only that but there is no telling the authenticity of the information either

I mean if the folks who stole it are without morals enough to have stolen it are they not also low enough to fake or doctor the information they are trying to pass off and most likely for profit

seems like just a mater of time before the thief's who stole the mail of those few scientists are prosecuted

 

Boston,
Science isn't furthered by whether the data is legally admissible in a court of law. Law ain't science so to speak. Data's value is in it's accuracy and transparency. Peer review isn't a popularity contest or a democratic vote, it's hanging your *** out and inviting the world to critique your findings.

Much of the data and charts you are prone to display, at their foundation, rest upon research that was not performed with adequate adherence to the scientific method.

This is troubling. While it does not prove the theories wrong, it certainly has to be reassessed in a forthright and transparent manner. Something that did not happen the first time.

Your case is not made stronger when you refuse to address the issues brought up by the Institute of Physics reporting to parliment but instead bring up the red herring of admissabillity because of theft. Your position would be much more credible if instead you addressed the points in the link.

But on the subject of legality, note that the scientists involved actively thwarted the law and engaged in deception. It is far more likely that some of them may face prosecution of some sort before the stalwarts who announced the deception to the world do.

 

silly as it sounds I really like this post
something to the point that I can sink my teeth into so to speak

yes there are likely flaws in all science
no there is not any greater level of error in the IPCC work than any other realm of science

lets go point by point

Actually the legitimacy of the discovery process is just as valid in the sciences as in legal matters. Why do you think I place such a high standard on the premise of all studies before I consider the data collected

much to the chagrin of the deniers its a valid analysis of the process that speaks to the character of the scientists involved
competing interest do mater

and you have some evidence to back this up
say the NASA or the JPL lab stuff
maybe the Ice Data Center or the NOAA work you can show is somehow garnered from processes outside of the typical scientific process

feel free to present your evidence and I will pas it on to them directly next time Im up at the university
Im sure it will make for some entertaining conversation in the cafeteria

theft is always troubling
the idea that stolen and most likely falsified data must be reassessed though I can agree with
we should all reevaluate the veracity of these wild claims being made by thieves

what issues
wild claims being made by people of seriously questionable character who broke into a private secured system and picked through someone elses mail
and from the thousands of pieces of correspondence found what
a half dozen that may or may not be taken in context or may not even be authentic

thieves are not likely going to be your best source of info and if it is then your questions concerning the quality of my data seem a little silly given the sources you are willing to accept

who actively thwarted the law
the thieves or the victims

seems you have an exceptionally skewed view of right and wrong on this one

thieves are now referred to as stalwarts

thats new

how about if you guys start including the last say ten or twenty years of data in your arguments and maybe use graphs of a resolution to show the rate of change in both atmospheric chemistry as well as the pertinent parameters
then maybe we can start having an honest conversation about what the climate is up to lately

instead of referring to thieves as stalwarts and the victims as defendants

my bet is if I rooted through your mail I might find a few things you'd rather I didnt as well

funny how every trick in the book is being thrown about rather than just a simple honest look at the data
or is it that from the data no comprehensive or coherent counter theory can be derived
and so instead of addressing the data you guys would prefer to illegally root through someone elses mail hoping to find a fish
ridiculous argument if I might say
completely ridiculous

lets at least rise above the diatribe of the typical deniers and make some effort to address the data
or could this be the exact reason there is no scientific debate concerning the deniers views
that the veracity of there claims is simply so week that is begs this latest kind of argument as its basic tenants are obviously unable to stand on there own merits

Im sure the readers are loving this one as it denotes an obvious abdication from any attempt to discuss the actual science involved or the data collected and instead begs that we consider the word of thieves

hardly an argument worthy of consideration by myself or any other reasonable person

 

Agreed, just look at China and Vietnam with all their "communism, corruption and party favoritism, they will grow out of misery purely on the back of capitalism and free market.

There are two kinds of people. Those who jump up and down for the governemt to "do something" for them, and the others who want to be left alone by the government and work towards their own prosperity.

Last year I looked into installing a solar panel on my roof for electricity generations since our governemt is throwing money out the window with both hands for people to install them.
So (last year) I had to fork out $10,000, the governemt would fork out $15,000 for me to have enough power to save $50 a quarter in electricty. I told the guy that he needed professional help urgent, if he thought I would spend 10 grands and let the governemt pay him 15 from my tax money in order to save $50, that this was not a sound proposition and that perhaps he could make business in the bizarro world.
His reply was clear. He told me "No one installs this panels for business, or I would install them in long rows in paddocks and sit back and get the dividends, this is for PEOPLE WHO WANT TO BE GREEN.
I can not write down the exact words with wich I dispached him permanently from my office without offending a whole array of people.

So the governemt now changed tacktics to sweeten the deal for those like me. They are now buying all the electricity generated by this expensive inefficient amateurish panels and buy all the electricity generated not only the surplus, at 4 TIMES THE GOING RATE, and re-selling to me what I need at the going rate..
FANTASTIC !!!! THAT IS SO SUSTAINABLE< MAKES A LOT OF SENSE>>>Please tell me who to kill first......

 

I am part of the environment, I am not an alien. My family has been part of this environment for many tens of thausands of years. I am not a weed that needs erradicating. Weeds are green...I am not.

CO2 is life, no life no CO2
Do you like CO2? Good for you.
Do you want to reduce it?
Stop breathing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!