Banjo Hangout Logo
Banjo Hangout Logo

Premier Sponsors

242
Banjo Lovers Online


Page:  First Page   Previous Page   1   2  3  4   5   6  ...   Next Page   Last Page (83) 

Jun 17, 2016 - 2:16:37 PM

2367 posts
Joined Oct 17, 2009

I thought YOU said you have all of that and you understand it (better than PIOMAS)

But if some other sites - where... all I see is those work from scientists that you state are  AGW rubbish...  that don't confirm what you say...


 

Jun 17, 2016 - 2:46:09 PM

nakigreengrass

New Zealand

3565 posts
Joined May 16, 2012

quote:
Originally posted by banjoak
 

I thought YOU said you have all of that and you understand it (better than PIOMAS)

But if some other sites - where... all I see is those work from scientists that you state are  AGW rubbish...  that don't confirm what you say...


 


No...I said all that information is on my PC.    Anything I find interesting I save to a folder. I've got hundreds of folders on all the myriad of CC subjects. ......  It's like ALL subjects, the more you learn, the better you are able to separate the wheat from the chaff, or in this case...the BS from the truth.  

  AH.....do you think I'm going to do all the work for you?   Tried that with SJ Mike.....doesn't work for me.   Do your own study...formulate your view and we will discuss the subject.

Jun 17, 2016 - 10:42 PM

nakigreengrass

New Zealand

3565 posts
Joined May 16, 2012

quote:
Originally posted by banjoak
 
quote:
Originally posted by nakigreengrass
 

latest Arctic data....Notice the hit from the cooling Al Nina, and low sun spot activity.  My predictions right on track banjoak.  

                Another D E A T H   S P I R A L  averted.


Looking at your data there and what you posted about anomaly - and how you plugged in knowledge of La Nina cooling - then your Sept prediction for these graphs would be the recovering climate should be something around 5.2 to maybe 5.4 (x10^6 km2) - this although doesn't seem that impressive recovery given La Nina... or hardly enough to debunk a Death Spiral they are speaking of;  so possibly you are suggesting it will recover to the 2010 levels of about 6?  Trying to figure out which is closer to your predictions, and why? Can YOU spell out the prediction and why?


OK...this seems a reasonable question...So I'll give it a shot.      If you look at ALL past data of Arctic ice extents, you can see it's happened many times before, so we know it happens.

So....the combination of......Rising ( to the North ) Jet stream latitudes, La Nina phase of the ENSO oscillation,  low Sun spot activity and high Cosmic ray count, cooling off sea surface temperatures from the El Nino and the coming July Sun Aphelion is quite unusual..... and one might call it a "   perfect storm "   of conditions.   Any one of the above conditions can have a cooling effect...so the combination should give quite a negative kick to global temperature.   It is a similar set up to the Maunder Minimum. 

 So you should get something like this graph to about about 2030.....Of course remember, we know now,  we still have to deal with the Sulfide Aerosol problems, so i don't think i would get quite as excited as the Easterbrook people.  There's a lot of informed people that are more sure there will be Global Cooling than GW.    

  I believe at least...cooling is far more dangerous for mankind, than warming.   This is because, although atmospheric H2O can cool things down,  it is rubbish at warming things up, as past ice ages can attest.


 

Edited by - nakigreengrass on 06/17/2016 22:44:31

Jun 18, 2016 - 7:59:48 PM

Drivel

USA

1020 posts
Joined Apr 17, 2009

Jun 19, 2016 - 1:23:33 PM
like this

3296 posts
Joined Jun 26, 2007

I always get a kick out of these discussions. One of our old moderators used to lock threads like this on the grounds that they were arguing religion. One thing has occurred to me. So much of climate theory is based on ice cores and counting the layers to determine age. So, if during the years when the Earth warms up, layers and layers of ice melt, then frozen over with more layers, or if one year there are a couple of warm spells which melt the ice and then refreeze a new layer over it so there are two or three layers, then what does that do to the accuracy of your climate "record" and forecasts based upon it.

It's like assuming a massive increase in human carbon emissions without taking into account the annual prairie fires which used to consume areas the size of a couple of states before humans started putting them out and preventing all that smoke from turning the skies gray over a quarter of the planet with pollution? 

For some reason there is a large group of folk who want the Earth to never change. They don't want the seas to rise and fall, the ice to expand and contract or the weather to change. The Earth is an amazingly complex, self-regulating machine. It has incredible mechanisms for cleaning up messes that we and other massive concentrations of living creatures make. The herds of buffalo that covered thousands and thousand of acres used to strip the prairie bare at one time. Earth recovered. When the buffalo left, the plow followed, stripping the soil bare. Earth made the crops grow and we went on. When we messed up and didn't take care of things we got dust bowls and smog. We seem to have successfully reduced the smog and planted trees on the prairie where no trees grew before in order to protect the soil so we could continue to grow food. There are more trees in North America today than there were in Columbus' time thanks to our stubborn efforts to put out forest fires before they destroy millions of acres of timber. AND we go back in after the fires that do get out of hand and we don't leave the land bare and vulnerable to erosion. We plant new trees and vegetation.

Humans were placed here to tend the Earth. We do it almost instinctively. Most of us don't run around wringing our hands and making absurd claims about destroying the planet. Most of us do something about it. We make people and companies clean up after themselves or at least that's what we should do. Instead you get a bunch of goobers running around talking about building more powerful governments to protect ourselves from ourselves and we all we get for that is genocide, collective misery and oppression.

Look at how well free nations take care of the land vs. how poorly these powerful collectivist governments care for the environment. Remember the Aral Sea?  Not much of it left after Russia and China got through "fixing" the environment there in Asia. These pictures should be kind of an object lesson in the dangers of humans trying to fix the Earth. It's a dangerous thing with all sorts of unintended consequences.



Here's the harbor of a charming Aral Sea fishing village



This is what it looks like when big governments try to do big things to "help" the Earth be better.

Tom King - Keeper of the Earth

Jun 19, 2016 - 1:46:51 PM
likes this

banjoy

USA

8605 posts
Joined Jul 1, 2006

The entire premise just laid out is true within a natural world. Every description is of a natural world and is correct.

However, the imbalance comes when we create things that have never existed before in nature. Its fine to do so, for example, plastics. Plastics do not exist in nature. We created them, an invention of man.

Where we fall off the cliff is creating these things, which nature never did, then throwing them back to nature do deal with for us.

Everything, living or inanimate, has a point of creation, use, and after, returning to which it came. Think of anything in the natural world and it will fit this natural pattern. I don't think anyone came come up an example of something that deviates from this. Even rocks and boulders break down to sand and eventually, their elements. A living thing is born, lives, and dies and returns. Anything taken from the natural world returns to the natural world. It is a never ending cycle.

Yet, we create things that are not natural. Plastic is not natural. Many of the chemicals we create are not natural (meaning, the natural world would never come up with that without our help.)

As mentioned, this is all well and good, only if we were to recognize that the things we create, we are also responsible for returning to the earth.

So you hear these arguments that "nothing is created or destroyed" which is fact. However, when we unnaturally alter creation to come up with something new and cool (we are creative beings, after all), we must also accept the responsibility for breaking these things back down, because nature cannot do it.

This is where we have gone off the rails. We have as a species failed to fully understand that we are responsible for our own mess. This sloughing off our responsibility to the earth because to deal with our mess, because it's always been like that no longer can be our excuse. It was true and relevant, until the industrial revolution. Literally, a little over 150+/- years now. Until then, the eaerth and natural world has never had to deal with the likes of thie before.

We already know that these unnatural things we create may take hundreds, thousands or millions of years for nature to absorb them back, depending on what it is we created. We can pull natural resources from the earth, create something in a matter of days that will now take an indeterminate amount of time to be absorbed back at the natural rate.

And this is where we have been LOUSY caretakers of the earth. We create this stuff in no time that the earth must take a long time. So, this crap becomes concentrated. A backlog. The earth has become constipated with all teh crap we throw at it to deal with for us.

I will state again: it's perfectly okay to create anything we can think of that would otherwise would never exist. We are creative beings. It's all cool up to that point. It's time for us to recognize as a species that we bear the responsibility for breaking these things down, and putting them back, when we're done with them, and stop dumping it on the earth to do for us. This no longer can be an excuse.

It's really that simple. We can be far better caretakers of this earth that just using it as a prostitute. I think our mother deserves more respect than this.

Frank Eastes -- Keeper of The Earth

Edited by - banjoy on 06/19/2016 13:54:19

Jun 19, 2016 - 2:14:31 PM

nakigreengrass

New Zealand

3565 posts
Joined May 16, 2012

quote:
Originally posted by twayneking
 

 So much of climate theory is based on ice cores and counting the layers to determine age. So, if during the years when the Earth warms up, layers and layers of ice melt, then frozen over with more layers, or if one year there are a couple of warm spells which melt the ice and then refreeze a new layer over it so there are two or three layers, then what does that do to the accuracy of your climate "record" and forecasts based upon it.


 

Good post Tom.      I'm with you on the accuracy of ice proxies.   I believe they can be dodgy.  Tree ring proxies can be as well, for the same reason as ice proxies.   You can often get " several " seasons in a year....not necessary just four. 

A good example of this was when 6..... P38 Lighting fighter planes crashed in Greenland in 1942.    When the expedition in 1988 went to find them, they where told they would be found within 20 feet of the surface.  They found them at 75 metres down. They reported drilling through multiple strata of ice... far exceeding the 46 year proxies that should have been evident.    

Trees (like ice )  will only record " yearly " records if they are " set " by one only cold spell in that year.  

 On my property, because we have yet not had a frost...the trees ( native evergreens ) are still growing new growth.  If we don't get a decent frost soon, they likely will keep doing that till spring, and then will continue into the next growing season.   On the other hand if we get a few frosts a month or so apart.  They will go into their hibernate state and reawaken in the warmth several times in that year.

Sometimes you do really wonder whether some of these researches ever go outside and look at the world around them.

Edited by - nakigreengrass on 06/19/2016 14:23:11

Jun 19, 2016 - 2:47:27 PM
like this

3296 posts
Joined Jun 26, 2007

Plastic is relatively benign stuff, that's why I don't wring my hands about it being buried in the Earth. The Earth is patient. Tossing it in the sea, however is wrong and cities that do that should be stopped. Solutions to cleaning up after ourselves can be applied like a scalpel in a surgery. The trouble is that the alarmists are suggesting massive solutions to try to control the Earth's rising and falling temperatures without really understanding what the consequences of that might be.  We were meant to be the Earth's gardeners, not the Earth's overlords.

The trouble with the alarmist approach is that when people panic, bad things tend to happen and poor decisions tend to be made. We must keep out wits about us and not fall for someone's scheme to grab power in order not to "let a good crisis go to waste". Scientists are particularly vulnerable to target fixation in their own fields. Thomas Kuhn in his ground-breaking book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" pointed out the tendency of scientists to get hung up on a commonly shared pet theory and stick to it despite increasing evidence that the theory is bogus. Finally when so much evidence says the original theory is wrong that it can no longer be ignored the new generation of scientists lead a sudden revolution to accommodate the new data. Science pretends to be a smooth rising accumulation of knowledge and it really isn't. Science progresses in a series of jerky steps with long periods of frantic theorists seeking to defend their ideas for as long as possible. We've seen the climate science alternate back and forth between global warming and global cooling and back to global warming and finally settling on "global climate change" in an attempt to prevent anyone from arguing with them.

Just because a science guy does a study that supports his theory doesn't mean that the study wasn't flawed or deliberately altered. When you're trying to get tenure, you'll do things that would make a mafia don blush.

What we need to do is take a step back from the doomsday prophecies of the political climate change advocates and try and see what's really happening. Temperatures on Mars and Venus seem to rise and fall in concert with Earth. This would seem to me to indicate an extra-terrestrial source for global warming. So, unless someone can figure out how to hang a thermostat on the side of the sun, I don't think there's a lot we can do about global climate change.  Pollution?  Yes, of course. But the big stuff is pretty much out of our control. All we need to cool things down, perhaps catastrophically is another Krakatoa or a big fat asteroid whacking us upside our continents to make a mess of things. The Earth seems to handle all of it pretty well. The folks who live here just have to be very flexible with regard to their living conditions and how they obtain food, water and shelter. We have to adapt to the Earth. The idea that we can force the Earth to adapt to us for our comfort and profit is pretty ludicrous. We can exploit the Earth's resources to some extent, but in the end the Earth will either kill us all and absorb the detritus we leave behind or we will find a way to adapt to her changing moods and survive. 

As Gandalf once said, "You are only quite a little fellow in a wide world after all."

Jun 19, 2016 - 3:02:42 PM

Mullie

USA

4343 posts
Joined Oct 6, 2009

Well said Tom, that is why I love this place! We all definitely need to be in more of a gardening mode than trying to change things. Poor decisions might be made should we act in an alarming fashion. I'm sure it will all work itself out.

Jun 19, 2016 - 3:05:29 PM

Mullie

USA

4343 posts
Joined Oct 6, 2009

Jun 19, 2016 - 3:24:21 PM

banjoy

USA

8605 posts
Joined Jul 1, 2006

I agree, well stated. But may I expand, that alarmists come from three man-made institutions, in equal shares? Which are, the realm of politics, the realm of religion, and the scientific realm. (No this is not a thread drift, or attempt to lock, I am making a point worth considering in the mix...)

I could put forth an argument that all three are failing us, on many levels, offering no real solutions to the problems we face as human beings in balance, and a share of alarmist overreaction from all corners. On that I definitely agree.

You make very good well reasoned points. I think much of the existential crisis we find ourselves in at this very moment, is that all these institutions are failing us. I think we can come up with something better, who knows what it is or can be. Human growth is a natural process too, and it seems to me we're self centered teenagers at best, in our overall development. Others will disagree of course, but look at where we're at overall, on this planet. Arguing amongst ourselves over who is better, who is right and who is wrong, who has more, and being king of the hill. Can this really continue?

Maybe it's time to re-examine a whole lot more. Maybe macroscope out, rather than microscope in, as these threads seem to wont to do to our attention.

It's not an end-sum game where "this specific projection didn't happen no it's all hooey." That's not the way to approach an understanding. Past all the puffery and posturing, there actually is evidence of something going on.

My personal sense is, whatever the politics or science, or religion, by the time we "figure it out" it may be too late to do anything. Really, by many accounts, the food chain is near collapse as it is. It's there too, the science. It's been there for a while.

But then, figuring it out ... that's a natural process too...

If this is a thread drift, my apologies. But it seems relevant to the discussion, and I just wanted to insert these thought for consideration. Many thanks.

Edited by - banjoy on 06/19/2016 15:39:14

Jun 19, 2016 - 3:51:52 PM

nakigreengrass

New Zealand

3565 posts
Joined May 16, 2012

Good second post also....Tom.  once again I'm of the same opinion...Nothing man made is really a long term problem for mother earth.  I also, hate to see plastic in the sea, because of the immediate danger to wild life...but....even in the ocean, it soon ( earth time scale ) breaks down with bacteria.   If Human beings were to suddenly disappear from the face of the earth,  It would not take much time to erase every single sign of us ever being here.  You may will find it might only be several thousand years......not even a heartbeat in the life of this planet.

Edited by - nakigreengrass on 06/19/2016 15:53:19

Jun 19, 2016 - 5:48:36 PM

banjoy

USA

8605 posts
Joined Jul 1, 2006

I'll make one more post to this thread then move on (to the relief and delight of many I'm sure clown).

One matter which skews the debate is how it's presented. This brief clip from John Oliver's show presents the problem in the unique way only he can.

I'm not posting in directly here because he uses some racy language briefly in his comedy, but the overall presentation is worthy of consideration as part of the overall conversation, he raises some excellent points. So I offer this:

Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Climate Change Debate

Jun 19, 2016 - 10:28:27 PM

nakigreengrass

New Zealand

3565 posts
Joined May 16, 2012

quote:
Originally posted by That Banjo Glossary Guy
 

I'll make one more post to this thread then move on (to the relief and delight of many I'm sure clown).

One matter which skews the debate is how it's presented. This brief clip from John Oliver's show presents the problem in the unique way only he can.

I'm not posting in directly here because he uses some racy language briefly in his comedy, but the overall presentation is worthy of consideration as part of the overall conversation, he raises some excellent points. So I offer this:

Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Climate Change Debate


 

The reason one in four Americans don't believe in global warming..... is,  because those are,  the one in four,  that have informed themselves of the facts......obviously unlike  John Oliver, himself.    The idea that 97% of scientists believe the science is settled, is debunked rubbish and also  makes one ask the question, why then,  does weekly  research papers still keep flooding into academia, backed by heavy weight unbiased scientific institutions that are now taking a serious look at it.?  

The 30,000 or so scientists that came out against the 97% propaganda nonsense,  have at last organized themselves to counter the political induced IPCC, NASA and other institutions.   Most of the current independent research is being done on....other than the CO2 warming mechanism.  

Jun 20, 2016 - 12:16:22 AM

nakigreengrass

New Zealand

3565 posts
Joined May 16, 2012

Some information on my above post and why the 97% consensus is nonsense......


http://www.heartland.org/sites/default/files/12-04-15_why_scientists_disagree.pdf

Jun 20, 2016 - 10:23:43 AM

Mullie

USA

4343 posts
Joined Oct 6, 2009

Bill (Drivel) - that John Oliver clip perfectly portrays the current denialist false equivalency argument. The denier mindset, whether it be for religious, political, or energy industry affiliation reasons, is that should they shout loud enough (or post often enough) then their irresponsible viewpoint might garner credibility. The science IS settled and now the question is how do we all best work toward solving the huge problems ahead....including dealing with the national security implications.

Jun 20, 2016 - 1:42:46 PM

nakigreengrass

New Zealand

3565 posts
Joined May 16, 2012

Here is a brand new study done by Greenpeace ex boss, Patrick Moore about CO2 in the atmosphere...(.click PDF at bottom of page for report )  Which also shows the science is far from settled.
 

        http://fcpp.org/positive-impact-of-human-co2-emissions

Jun 20, 2016 - 1:46:12 PM

nakigreengrass

New Zealand

3565 posts
Joined May 16, 2012

quote:
Originally posted by Mullie
 

Bill (Drivel) - that John Oliver clip perfectly portrays the current denialist false equivalency argument. The denier mindset, whether it be for religious, political, or energy industry affiliation reasons, is that should they shout loud enough (or post often enough) then their irresponsible viewpoint might garner credibility. The science IS settled and now the question is how do we all best work toward solving the huge problems ahead....including dealing with the national security implications.


 

Do you really believe that Mullie ?  it is a lot out of date, superseded and debunked nonsense.   Pick out the most convincing ( to you )    fact in that clip and I'll tell you why it's nonsense.

Jun 20, 2016 - 2:00:08 PM

dawgdoc

USA

8468 posts
Joined Aug 25, 2004


Just because a science guy does a study that supports his theory doesn't mean that the study wasn't flawed or deliberately altered. When you're trying to get tenure, you'll do things that would make a mafia don blush.
 

Rubbish. This is where Richard and I had a massive, massive fall out.  He kept claiming that statement.  Have you, or have you known, anyone going through the tenure process?  Have you ever chaired a tenure committee?  By the time that poor human gets through, you pretty much know everything except (and quite possibly) the size of their underwear. 

Jun 20, 2016 - 2:14:57 PM
like this

Drivel

USA

1020 posts
Joined Apr 17, 2009

quote:
Originally posted by nakigreengrass
 

Some information on my above post and why the 97% consensus is nonsense......


http://www.heartland.org/sites/default/files/12-04-15_why_scientists_disagree.pdf


About the authors,

Dr. Robert M. Carter    was paid a monthly fee of $1,667 from big oil.

Dr. Craig D Idso           was paid a monthly fee of $11,600 from big oil.

Dr, D. Fred Singer        was paid a monthly fee of $5,000 from big oil

Jun 20, 2016 - 2:55:30 PM

nakigreengrass

New Zealand

3565 posts
Joined May 16, 2012

quote:
Originally posted by dawgdoc
 


Just because a science guy does a study that supports his theory doesn't mean that the study wasn't flawed or deliberately altered. When you're trying to get tenure, you'll do things that would make a mafia don blush.
 

Rubbish. This is where Richard and I had a massive, massive fall out.  He kept claiming that statement.  Have you, or have you known, anyone going through the tenure process?  Have you ever chaired a tenure committee?  By the time that poor human gets through, you pretty much know everything except (and quite possibly) the size of their underwear. 


 

     I wonder if they know the size of Michael Manns underwear ?   What about Professor Richard Mullers underwear ?   I could give many examples to prove you are wrong dawgdoc and........ Richard was right.

Edited by - nakigreengrass on 06/20/2016 15:08:45

Jun 20, 2016 - 2:59:16 PM

nakigreengrass

New Zealand

3565 posts
Joined May 16, 2012

quote:
Originally posted by Drivel
 
quote:
Originally posted by nakigreengrass
 

Some information on my above post and why the 97% consensus is nonsense......


http://www.heartland.org/sites/default/files/12-04-15_why_scientists_disagree.pdf


About the authors,

Dr. Robert M. Carter    was paid a monthly fee of $1,667 from big oil.

Dr. Craig D Idso           was paid a monthly fee of $11,600 from big oil.

Dr, D. Fred Singer        was paid a monthly fee of $5,000 from big oil


 

Even if that is so....how does that change the research ?   Many other independent research results agrees..... Even NASAs green planet research says about the same thing.....are they all working for the oil companies too ? 

Edited by - nakigreengrass on 06/20/2016 15:13:47

Jun 20, 2016 - 4:40:48 PM

dawgdoc

USA

8468 posts
Joined Aug 25, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by nakigreengrass
 
quote:
Originally posted by dawgdoc
 


Just because a science guy does a study that supports his theory doesn't mean that the study wasn't flawed or deliberately altered. When you're trying to get tenure, you'll do things that would make a mafia don blush.
 

Rubbish. This is where Richard and I had a massive, massive fall out.  He kept claiming that statement.  Have you, or have you known, anyone going through the tenure process?  Have you ever chaired a tenure committee?  By the time that poor human gets through, you pretty much know everything except (and quite possibly) the size of their underwear. 


 

     I wonder if they know the size of Michael Manns underwear ?   What about Professor Richard Mullers underwear ?   I could give many examples to prove you are wrong dawgdoc and........ Richard was right.


'prove' away.  Richard behaved as a rube.  The same tired, obnoxious arguments keep getting brought up.  So what?  You have 4 examples and they cant defend themselves here.  There are hundreds of thousands of professors out there who don't deal with that.  I have reviewed a bunch of proposals with NDAs on them.  I get really sensitive when people lump 'Drs' into this sordid affection for prostitution and money.  You are simply wrong. 

Jun 20, 2016 - 4:43:19 PM

dawgdoc

USA

8468 posts
Joined Aug 25, 2004

By the way, my question wasn't answered.  Do you know anything about the tenure process?

Jun 20, 2016 - 5:56:30 PM

nakigreengrass

New Zealand

3565 posts
Joined May 16, 2012

quote:
Originally posted by dawgdoc
 

By the way, my question wasn't answered.  Do you know anything about the tenure process?


yeah......that would be contracted  institutionalism....  Never the words can ever pass yours lips..." I don't thing you guys are getting this right."      It is also contrary to how every other industry operates and it's main purpose is to give sleepy old  Academics a place to park their irrelevant butts for their entire careers....... as long as they keep  saying the right things......of course.    ( there's plenty of them in my family ) .....

Edited by - nakigreengrass on 06/20/2016 17:58:51

Page:  First Page   Previous Page   1   2  3  4   5   6  ...   Next Page   Last Page (83) 

Hangout Network Help

View All Topics  |  View Categories

0.515625