Global Warming & Climate Change Discussion

[CAPSLOCKSTUCK]

If you genuinely want your money (pennies per day) to pay for proper science, crunch for TPU or any other epic team

http://www.worldcommunitygrid.org/

takes a couple of minutes to set up.

plenty of info here
http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/forums/world-community-grid-wcg.68/

 

[dorsetknob]

Out of Curiosity Sulfur dioxide one of the worst green house gasses how much does man pump into the Atmosphere each year
and in contrast how much does Nature pump into the Atmosphere each year

AND AS A GREEN HOUSE GAS explain this
Volcanoes releasing sulfur dioxide in the atmosphere are the reason behind the temperature not rising as high as expected between years 2000 and 2010, according to a new study.

Ryan Neely, lead author of the study, said that sulfur dioxide emissions rise up to some 12 to 20 miles into the stratospheric aerosol layer of the atmosphere. Here, the gas reacts with other compounds in the aerosol and forms sulfuric acid and water, which later fall back to earth. These water particles reflect sunlight and cool the earth.

WEl WELL well ain't that confusing a green house gas that cools and not raises temps
AIN'T SCIENCE WONDERFUL

 

[CAPSLOCKSTUCK]

I blame God.

 

[dorsetknob]

I blame God.

Wrong one the other guy is the one smelling of Fire and brimstone
OR to be Political Correct which God ???
( God's)

 

[dorsetknob]

How many of the worlds Volcano's are what they call Sulfur dioxide emmiters
there is Mt Erebus in Antarctica Popocatepetl in mexico. some in the Philippines
the Ring of fire
Nature is its Own polluter each of those volcano's are major Sulfur dioxide emmiters with outputs measuring 10's thousands of TONS each year

 

[CAPSLOCKSTUCK]

from Wiki...

The element's largest commercial use (after mostly being converted to sulfuric acid) is to produce sulfate and phosphate fertilizers, because of the relatively high requirement of plants for sulfur and phosphorus. Sulfuric acid is also a primary industrial chemical outside fertilizer manufacture. Other well-known uses for the element are in matches, insecticides and fungicides.

sulphur is pretty useful stuff, another one of natures miraculous balancing acts.
it is more amazing that we are here in the first place rather than we "possibly" fukd it all up.

 

[Schmuckley]

Umm..
Carbon Dioxide makes plants grow.
If you were say..trying to grow some kind of unspecified plants..
They would need Carbon Dioxide, and the more they got,the better they'd grow and the more oxygen they would produce.
There is no global warming;Contrary to the "green-oriented" "kids" shows that replaced Saturday morning cartoons.The facts say it's not happening.

 

[dorsetknob]

Umm..
Carbon Dioxide makes plants grow.
If you were say..trying to grow some kind of unspecified plants..
They would need Carbon Dioxide, and the more they got,the better they'd grow and the more oxygen they would produce.
There is no global warming;Contrary to the "green-oriented" "kids" shows that replaced Saturday morning cartoons.The facts say it's not happening.

Illegal growers of pot/maryjane/weed/reefer have been known to grow in sealed polytunnels with elevated levels of CO2 to promote higher and faster growth with a Better end Product.

Just saying not recommending

 

[qubit]

I don't know where everyone gets the idea that money meddles with science.

http://arstechnica.com/science/2011...sts-push-the-consensus-its-not-for-the-money/

That is a bit of an older article but it helps explain the insanity of claiming such a position.

Claiming money corrupts science is insanity is it? Really? How naive.

That article explains why the scientists are in it for the money, but I never said they were. However, money, politics and especially, power over others, go hand in hand, so it's in the politician's interests to push this crap down our throats and claim it's man-made so they can peddle austerity measures of one kind or another at us, including being extremely anti-car (emissions). I don't claim to know the mechanics of how all this goes on, but one way or another people are profiting off the "climate change" hype.

All I do know for certain is that the climate does seem different and it does seem warmer than I remember. Also, I keep hearing of weather extremes records being broken in the weather news, so something is happening all right.

Why exactly it's happening, whether totally man-made, totally natural, or more likely, a blend of the two, I don't know. From what I understand, no scientist can definitively tell you that it's man doing it either, so I certainly can't make that claim.

 

[rtwjunkie]

@qubit, you're correct. Until Scientists can all be self-funded, the results will always be skewed toward the government, political group, foundation, or university which funds the research through grants. Unless someone has worked in the field of grant writing and approval, they would have no idea that yes, researchers do indeed write up their requests for money to support their research by aligning with the goals of the person or persons with the money strings. Otherwise, they shan't part with the money.

In addition, in no way shape or form, should we attribute a neutral, altruistic mentality on all scientists. Many of them have their own theories, ideas and beliefs, and research tends to support that direction, so even being self-funded would not end any bias in research.

 

[magibeg]

@qubit, you're correct. Until Scientists can all be self-funded, the results will always be skewed toward the government, political group, foundation, or university which funds the research through grants. Unless someone has worked in the field of grant writing and approval, they would have no idea that yes, researchers do indeed write up their requests for money to support their research by aligning with the goals of the person or persons with the money strings. Otherwise, they shan't part with the money.

In addition, in no way shape or form, should we attribute a neutral, altruistic mentality on all scientists. Many of them have their own theories, ideas and beliefs, and research tends to support that direction, so even being self-funded would not end any bias in research.

There's too much to respond to here in this thread so I'm just picking this as it's the most recent.

Quite often people misunderstand what is actually being researched while research is being done. If I was working at my local university in the earth sciences I would propose something along the lines of "CO2 tracking between the periods of x to y". Depending on the results maybe I then do more research "Possible causes for CO2 changes at z location between periods x and y". Granted at each step of the progression my work is being peer reviewed to check for errors in methodology. You then get dozens, possibly hundreds of similar studies on the matter, in which case you start getting more collaborative works that reference the prior works.

With the exception of a few large international/multi-institution collaborative mega studies such as the IPCC the vast majority of support comes from smaller studies with data points all going in the same direction.

The system isn't perfect, but it works no way like the people here imply it does as far as the scopes of studies that are usually done, and it is greatly underplayed how difficult it would be to get that many scientists and that many studies in that many different areas to agree on approximately the same thing.

 

[rtwjunkie]

@magibeg, you are correct, all research is going in the direction that the climate is changing. It is on the issue of why that said research is subject to the whims and beliefs of who is funding it, and thus the "why" is not conclusive. It could be man made. It could be one of the thousands of up and down climate changes the Earth has always gone through. Or it could be a combination.

Also, I would not spoken about the influence of grant suppliers if I didn't have some insight into the subject. Suffice it to say, the holders of the money only rarely support research for the purposes of finding an answer, no matter what it may be.

 

[magibeg]

@magibeg, you are correct, all research is going in the direction that the climate is changing. It is on the issue of why that said research is subject to the whims and beliefs of who is funding it, and thus the "why" is not conclusive. It could be man made. It could be one of the thousands of up and down climate changes the Earth has always gone through. Or it could be a combination.

Also, I would not spoken about the influence of grant suppliers if I didn't have some insight into the subject. Suffice it to say, the holders of the money only rarely support research for the purposes of finding an answer, no matter what it may be.

This is true. Though I would still argue about where the influences lie. The fossil fuel industry is orders of magnitude larger than green energy, and I would argue based on policy that the government itself isn't bias towards global warming being real so much as it's trying to react to it now. I'm just not understanding what the government incentive would be if global warming existed that wouldn't upset the also held belief that the same governments are also in the pocket of big oil.

 

[broken pixel]

Scientific data is always fudged when it has to do with climate change, GMOs, cancer research, alternative energy technology, etc. When it effects giant coporations pocket books they pay scientists to lie, omit and delete data.

Our society in a whole is ruled by sociopath oligarchs. :*(

 

[magibeg]

Scientific data is always fudged when it has to do with climate change, GMOs, cancer research, alternative energy technology, etc. When it effects giant coporations pocket books they pay scientists to lie, omit and delete data.

Our society in a whole is ruled by sociopath oligarchs. :*(

So what you're telling me is that all the worlds scientists are in on this and the data is always fudged. So in your opinion what would it take to prove anything to you? It appears you just discounted effectively all research done on nearly any topic.

 

[broken pixel]

Not all but many are seduced by money. When it has to do with effecting big corporations they will find a way even though other scientific data that goes against the bough data is overlooked. Monsanto bought out Bill Nye to be on the side of GMOs.

You really need to grasp the reality that money and greed are a very dangerous thing when it effects the planet that sustains our very lives.

Do some research on a guy called Royal Rife & the AMA. Also look at the Pharmaceutical Industry that will release a drug deemed to be safe then later have to recall that product. The world we all live in is full of lies and deseption on the part of the big players that effect everything.

 

[magibeg]

Not all but many are seduced by money. When it has to do with effecting big corporations they will find a way even though other scientific data that goes against the bough data is overlooked. Monsanto bought out Bill Nye to be on the side of GMOs.

You really need to grasp the reality that money and greed are a very dangerous thing when it effects the planet that sustains our very lives.

Do some research on a guy called Royal Rife & the AMA. Also look at the Pharmaceutical Industry that will release a drug deemed to be safe then later have to recall that product. The world we all live in is full of lies and deseption on the part of the big players that effect everything.

I'm actually PRO GMO's to be honest. Royal Rife didn't have a cure for cancer and his methods don't make sense.

You are much more conspiracy theory than you realize.

 

[broken pixel]

Enjoy the poison & you need to research out side the box for a change.

I guess you enjoy modified food from a chemical corporation? You do know Monsanto is responsible for many, many bad things.

Why do you think Monsanto spends so much money lobbying congress so they dont have to lable there franken foods to the public?

Agent Orange, PCBs, the list goes on.

 

[magibeg]

Enjoy the poison & you need to research out side the box for a change.

I guess you enjoy modified food from a chemical corporation? You do know Monsanto is responsible for many, many bad things.

Why do you think Monsanto spends so much money lobbying congress so they dont have to lable there franken foods to the public?

Agent Orange, PCBs, the list goes on.

We can't have a meaningful discussion on this. By your very nature anything i bring to the table you will claim is falsified data. If GMO's were good for you for example, what proof could i even possibly bring to the table that you would accept anyway?

 

[broken pixel]

You can't because the long history of Monsanto plus all the data that proves they harm the environment and its inhabitants. The fact that nature is better off without humans farking with it is a good argument plus the horrible things Monsanto has developed and been a part off and has willingly ignored the health of millions for their chemical profiteering. You would make a good lobbyist or politician.

Why did Congress do this? Why would Monsanto need protection?
http://www.ibtimes.com/monsanto-pro...ng-things-know-about-hr-933-provision-1156079

http://bestmeal.info/monsanto/company-history.shtml

http://www.chemicalindustryarchives.org/dirtysecrets/annistonindepth/toxicity.asp

http://earthjustice.org/features/ourwork/timeline-monsanto-s-chemical-romance#

Go find some good stuff about Monsanto, I doubt you can.

Monsanto, killing softly since the 1900s.

 

[silkstone]

We can't have a meaningful discussion on this. By your very nature anything i bring to the table you will claim is falsified data. If GMO's were good for you for example, what proof could i even possibly bring to the table that you would accept anyway?

Golden rice is a pretty good thing. That's GMO.

 

[SK-1]

Psssst...the debate on GMO is over.

Estimates of the numbers of meals consumed by feed animals since the introduction of GM crops 18 years ago would number well into the trillions. By common sense alone, if GE feed were causing unusual problems among livestock, farmers would have noticed. Dead and sick animals would literally litter farms around the world. Yet there are no anecdotal reports of such mass health problems.

As Dr. Steven Novella notes

We now have a large set of data, both experimental and observational, showing that genetically modified feed is safe and nutritionally equivalent to non-GMO feed. There does not appear to be any health risk to the animals, and it is even less likely that there could be any health effect on humans who eat those animals.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonenti...-is-over-thanks-to-a-new-trillion-meal-study/

Here is a comprehensive list of animal feeding studies.

 

[magibeg]

Psssst...the debate on GMO is over.



As Dr. Steven Novella notes

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonenti...-is-over-thanks-to-a-new-trillion-meal-study/

Here is a comprehensive list of animal feeding studies.

Omg.... it has happened. We are in agreement lol

 

[SK-1]

Omg.... it has happened. We are in agreement lol

Oh I know we agree on several things. It's just that one little issue that we're gonna have to say that old saying..."We'll just have to agree to agree that I'm right." XD Or something like that.

 

[R-T-B]

"Britain braced for mini-ice age as temperatures are set to drop to a 300-year low" reports a news article.

But it won't save us from global warming, apparently.

Have a read and see what you think. With so much politics and money meddling with the science, I still don't know what to believe when it comes to global warming. All I can say with some certainty, is that the weather seems a bit different to what I remember as a kid and that can happen by natural weather changes as well as man made.



http://home.bt.com/news/uk-news/bri...-set-to-drop-to-a-300-year-low-11363988285992

It's better phrased as "Climate change"

Washington state seems to be getting the warming bit of it though. It was 100F here the other day, and 90F today. That's sick and wrong on a level that should only be reserved for Californians.