Speaking Out About Climate Change

[waldo]

Tim Ball has no credibility. The article speaks of an "astonishing NASA announcement"... but never really states what that announcement is - let alone offering a citation reference for that supposed NASA announcement. Hey GostHacked, can you help out here? (/snarc)

the BS article draws reference to a "study"... a study that doesn't exist. What does exist, what the denier article presumes to leverage, is a workshop gathering that, presumably, caused NASA to make it's "astonishing announcement"! This workshop:

On September 8-9, 2011, experts in solar physics, climate models, paleoclimatology, and atmospheric science assembled at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colorado for a workshop to consider the Sun's variability over time and potential Sun-climate connections.

While it does not provide findings, recommendations, or consensus on the current state of the science, The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth's Climate: A Workshop Report briefly introduces the primary topics discussed by presenters at the event. As context for these topics, the summary includes background information on the potential Sun-climate connection, the measurement record from space, and potential perturbations of climate due to long-term solar variability. This workshop report also summarizes some of the science questions explored by the participants as potential future research endeavors.

Waldo, I noticed that you went for the Tim Ball thing but not for the two videos I posted. I suggest checking them out as this guy has done a lot of work so far to show that the sun has a major influence on our planet. More so that people like you think or care to admit.

I simply called attention to Tim Ball having no credibility... he's a charlatan, at best. His denier antics have been on display throughout several past MLW climate related threads. Equally, I note you didn't bother to respond to my bringing forward proper perspective/understanding on the reference your linked article was taking liberties with; i.e., the (year and a half dated) workshop event.

as for your referenced videos... I didn't bother playing them. I did bring one up, but bailed when I looked across only to see an Alex Jones Channel video in the selection sidebar! Your video guy's youtube handle is also a nice touch: "Suspicious Observers". Clearly, this is a recurring theme with you, on many topics, not just this climate related one. That is to say, you continue to bring forward somewhat non-conventional source references... perhaps being non-conformist for the sake of... not being perceived as accepting mainstream thought/convention - being, "the rebel"! I'm clearly making a distinction here from you being a thoughtful legitimate skeptic.

Eventually the IPCC and their 'consensus' style science will fall apart and become exposed. I don't want consensus, I want some facts for a change.

no - you simply want "facts" tailored to your predisposition. Railing against the IPCC is hardly new (for you)... but it does afford me a point of departure to showcase (another) example of your narrow and skewed thinking. In that regard, I'll simply bring your attention back to the workshop you thought to leverage via your linked article. The/your underlying denier premise was that a smoking gun NASA announcement/revelation had been made - that scientists favouring the sun as the principal causal tie to global warming had suddenly been gathered (and unshackled) to speak freely and to announce "the truth" about the sun's principal influence... to (finally) reveal the grand hoax concerning CO2 emissions!!!

of course, that workshop brought together mainstream scientists (including climate scientists), many who have researched and published papers about the sun and its influences over their entire careers. The sun, of course, has been and continues to be one of the most researched entities. None of this fits with your narrative that presumes on a conspiracy of ignoring/negating the work and research of scientists investigating the sun and its influences. None of this fits with your position that has you favouring some obscure and anonymous, youtube video jockey, over formal scientific methodology and related peer-review publication.

perhaps nothing says it sweeter than offering you another quote from that same workshop report I quoted from earlier/above... particularly given another of your unfounded rants against the IPCC... you know, the workshop report you made initial linked reference to:

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment and the recent National Research Council report on climate choices agree that there is no substantive scientific evidence that solar variability is the cause of climate change in the last 50 years.

... so, in this single sentence we have a statement showing agreement between both the IPCC (your boogeyman) and the U.S. NRC (National Research Council) - the NRC being the sponsor of the workshop... that you brought attention to. It appears you will need to extend your boogeyman reach beyond the IPCC, to also include the NRC. Oh... wait now... the USGCRP, with its latest draft release of its iterative series of Climate Assessment Reports, has also offered similar agreement. So, GostHacked, you will need to further expand your boogeyman reach to include the IPCC, the NRC, and the USGCRP... and easily another dozen+ scientific related organizations that hold to the same understanding (agreement) on the limited influence of solar variability on (relatively) recent climate change.

and, meanwhile... you want me to look at a couple of your anonymous authored videos! Really now...

[waldo]

I'm just trying to provide a little balance.

no - your purposeful misinformation pursuits are not providing balance

[GostHacked]

I didn't bother playing them. I did bring one up, but bailed when I looked across only to see an Alex Jones Channel video in the selection sidebar!

Lol really?? Because Jones was in a video on the side bar which you nor I can control, you ditched watching the videos? Now I really know what I am dealing with here.

Your video guy's youtube handle is also a nice touch: "Suspicious Observers". Clearly, this is a recurring theme with you, on many topics, not just this climate related one.

Yes I am skeptical of many things. But it's nice of you to bash the name of that user without even watching the videos. Then bash me at the same time. You are still quite hostile to any other evidence that goes against your line of thinking. You are also very hostile to the posters who are countering your arguments.

That is to say, you continue to bring forward somewhat non-conventional source references... perhaps being non-conformist for the sake of... not being perceived as accepting mainstream thought/convention - being, "the rebel"! I'm clearly making a distinction here from you being a thoughtful legitimate skeptic.

Well as you know I have stated that the sun has more effect than us humans. Then I discovered S0's work and after watching his daily uploads for a couple months, he is on to something in my view.

and, meanwhile... you want me to look at a couple of your anonymous authored videos! Really now...

Well I posted them, and if you don't want to watch them, that is up to you.

Let me give you a gist of what he is doing. Tracking sunspots and CME space weather that impacts our planet. Part of his hypothesis (yes I will admit it is a hypothesis without even being a dick about it) is that the sun's longer than expected minimum is causing our atmosphere to collapse. Certain types of solar flares have a benefit to our atmosphere. S0 also seems to have some background in all this, but screw it, watch what you want so it does not challenge your views.

[waldo]

Lol really?? Because Jones was in a video on the side bar which you nor I can control, you ditched watching the videos? Now I really know what I am dealing with here.

what you're dealing with!!! I kept it subdued/tempered in my initial reply to you, playing up your non-conformist bent... I didn't play upon what forms a significant influence in many of your posts - conspiracy. Apparently, you've now moved off of contrails and have a new toy!

yes, I didn't give your videos the time of day... yes, as soon as I brought the one up, saw your guys youtube handle, I recognized what I was dealing with, immediately. This is not the first time you've flogged a video from this 'anonymous source'... I watched a part of an earlier one you linked to and immediately my 'spidey senses' were alerted! Seeing the Alex Jones video was simply a bonus driver to bail!

Yes I am skeptical of many things. But it's nice of you to bash the name of that user without even watching the videos. Then bash me at the same time. You are still quite hostile to any other evidence that goes against your line of thinking. You are also very hostile to the posters who are countering your arguments.

legitimate evidence isn't bundled in a slick (video) package from an anonymous geek hosting a youtube channel. There is no hostility being presented to you - quit playing the victim card.

Well as you know I have stated that the sun has more effect than us humans. Then I discovered S0's work and after watching his daily uploads for a couple months, he is on to something in my view.

Let me give you a gist of what he is doing. Tracking sunspots and CME space weather that impacts our planet. Part of his hypothesis (yes I will admit it is a hypothesis without even being a dick about it) is that the sun's longer than expected minimum is causing our atmosphere to collapse. Certain types of solar flares have a benefit to our atmosphere.

longer than expected minimum??? Oh, you mean the year's 2008, 2009? Those 2 years? And what does this have to do with... anything related to the past relatively recent 50+ years of global warming/climate change? You must have thought it meant something --- after all... it was your response to me showcasing the failed FoxNews attempt to incorrectly and falsely raise the influence of the sun on GW/CC. Now here's a thought - you could step beyond your anonymous videos and embrace/interpret legitimate sourced science presentations. Do you really believe there are no scientists actively engaged in sunspot analysis/research? ... on the (overall) extended 'shrinking' of the outer atmosphere, whether caused by GHGs, a reduction in sun radiation, or both... or what any of this means in terms of influencing GW/CC?

S0 also seems to have some background in all this, but screw it, watch what you want so it does not challenge your views.

'seeming' to have some background, from some anonymous youtube jockey, apparently, is all you require.

[Shady]

no - your purposeful misinformation pursuits are not providing balance

I'm not sure how you know that the earlier referenced unfinished study is going to be false. Maybe you're the Ms. Cleo of the forum? Or because your rigid, partisan ideology forbids you to keep open about any new information related to earth science. You're the flat-earthers of centuries ago. Insisting that we've learned as much as we'll ever learn about the earth, and anything new is heresy.

[GostHacked]

'seeming' to have some background, from some anonymous youtube jockey, apparently, is all you require.

By that I should take anything you put here as fact? Awesome.

[Mighty AC]

This sounds promising: Thin-Film Solar Power To Be Sold For Less Than Coal Power

[GostHacked]

This sounds promising: Thin-Film Solar Power To Be Sold For Less Than Coal Power

Good stuff, as the technology gets better this will only improve in efficiency.

[waldo]

I'm not sure how you know that the earlier referenced unfinished study is going to be false. Maybe you're the Ms. Cleo of the forum? Or because your rigid, partisan ideology forbids you to keep open about any new information related to earth science. You're the flat-earthers of centuries ago. Insisting that we've learned as much as we'll ever learn about the earth, and anything new is heresy.

you haven't the wherewithal to understand your 'unfinished' study's premise isn't bringing forward something... "new"... you haven't the understanding to actually recognize this and consider it within the broader context of like scientific study on climate sensitivity. You're pissed cause I busted your bubble on the legitimacy of your reference; again, it's nothing more than a student's thesis... it hasn't even been accepted by the student's adviser, let alone been published within a formal scientific journal (it hasn't gone through any semblance of formal peer-review/response rigour).

you're so beyond understanding what you're even talking about, that when you're challenged, you resort to your tried & true... labeling the challenge to you as one founded in, as you say, 'rigid, partisan ideology... flat-eartherism!'. In your zeal to present, as you say, a "balanced (misinforming) news ticker", you're quite content to link to anything/everything that speaks to your own quite evident, "rigid, partisan ideology"; i.e., your self-avowed AGW/CC denier position.

you, as many, live in a state of perpetually looking/waiting for the next great 'silver bullet' - the one missing piece that will do away with decades of solid scientific pursuit and results that your, as you say, "rigid, partisan ideology", won't accept today. Let me take the liberty of attempting to ground you in reality by simply repeating a statement from my earlier reply to you: "Even if it was legitimate, it would simply represent yet another study, of many, looking at climate sensitivity. No single paper is/will be the determiner - no matter how hard the denialsphere and it's acolytes push their agenda."

[waldo]

By that I should take anything you put here as fact? Awesome.

anything I, "put here", is information/detail within the mainstream scientific understanding. If you feel inclined, if you feel there is something I haven't sourced/cited adequately, the onus is on you to challenge it... again, if you feel inclined. I encourage you to reach beyond simply dropping youtube videos without even bothering to personally qualify your "challenge"... I encourage you to bring forward legitimate skeptical countering science (as you interpret it), properly sourced from formal avenues. However, if you can't rise above a conspiracy theme, one that has you resorting to stating/implying that scientists are stifling "free thought"... if you can't seem to rise above your "seeking truth" outside the scientific mainstream, well.....

[Shady]

anything I, "put here", is information/detail within the mainstream scientific understanding. If you feel inclined, if you feel there is something I haven't sourced/cited adequately, the onus is on you to challenge it... again, if you feel inclined. I encourage you to reach beyond simply dropping youtube videos without even bothering to personally qualify your "challenge"... I encourage you to bring forward legitimate skeptical countering science (as you interpret it), properly sourced from formal avenues. However, if you can't rise above a conspiracy theme, one that has you resorting to stating/implying that scientists are stifling "free thought"... if you can't seem to rise above your "seeking truth" outside the scientific mainstream, well.....

You're wrong. The sun's impact on the climate is very much in the so-called mainstream. It's a matter of studying the degree of its impact. You're not interested in the truth. Just maintaining a stubborn ideology.

[waldo]

You're wrong. The sun's impact on the climate is very much in the so-called mainstream. It's a matter of studying the degree of its impact. You're not interested in the truth. Just maintaining a stubborn ideology.

nice strawman Shady! Along with your purposeful misinformation... you can't read what I wrote. The sun's influence is not the principal forcing causal tie for the relatively recent global warming/climate change. You just read sillier than ever when you resort to labeling someone a, 'stubborn ideological driven truth denier'!

[Shady]

nice strawman Shady! Along with your purposeful misinformation... you can't read what I wrote. The sun's influence is not the principal forcing causal tie for the relatively recent global warming/climate change. You just read sillier than ever when you resort to labeling someone a, 'stubborn ideological driven truth denier'!

That's being studied. You don't know that.

[waldo]

That's being studied. You don't know that.

huh??? Is there a translator in the house? Why hide behind obscurities... just say it plainly, clearly and straight-up. Or is this a problem for you?

[Mighty AC]

Good stuff, as the technology gets better this will only improve in efficiency.

And it doesn't saddle us with the additional billions in health and environmental costs like coal.

[GostHacked]

And it doesn't saddle us with the additional billions in health and environmental costs like coal.

And yet there is still a huge push for nuclear.

[Bonam]

And yet there is still a huge push for nuclear.

Because solar energy has significant limitations, such as not being available at night and during cloudy periods, thus requiring either backup conventional generating capacity, or energy storage on a scale that dwarfs what is currently technologically feasible. Nuclear energy is clean and safe, and also eliminates the health costs associated with coal and other fossil fuel power plants.

[GostHacked]

Because solar energy has significant limitations, such as not being available at night and during cloudy periods, thus requiring either backup conventional generating capacity, or energy storage on a scale that dwarfs what is currently technologically feasible. Nuclear energy is clean and safe, and also eliminates the health costs associated with coal and other fossil fuel power plants.

Nuclear energy is not clean by any means in my view. And safe is a relative term, as you are trying to control a nuclear reaction. And they can and do get quickly out of hand when shit hits the fan. Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and Fukishima Daiichi have proven beyond a doubt that they are not as clean or safe as we think.

A coal plant , if it looses power, what happens? Compare that to an example like Fukushima.

I can burn some coal and I get pollutants.

I can burn nuclear materials and have to think about storing radioactive material for centuries.

[Bonam]

Nuclear energy is not clean by any means in my view. And safe is a relative term, as you are trying to control a nuclear reaction. And they can and do get quickly out of hand when shit hits the fan. Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and Fukishima Daiichi have proven beyond a doubt that they are not as clean or safe as we think.

A coal plant , if it looses power, what happens? Compare that to an example like Fukushima.

I can burn some coal and I get pollutants.

I can burn nuclear materials and have to think about storing radioactive material for centuries.

This is all hysterics based on an incorrect valuation of risks. Laymen are scared by words like "radiation", while ignoring the reality that tens of thousands of people die from lung cancer caused by pollution from coal plants. The numbers are clear:

Such comparisons include ALL deaths, direct and indirect, linked to the events you mention.

Nuclear is in the same category of safety (in terms of deaths per amount of energy produced) as hydro and wind, despite the hysterical unreasoning fear people have of nuclear energy.

[Mighty AC]

I don't like nuclear as a grid power source. It is expensive, labour intensive, still has to be continuously fed a mined resource, produces radioactive waste and a radioactive plant site that must be stored for a very long time. I think it is ridiculous to decommission viable plants like Germany has done, but I don't like the idea of building new ones. Still, nukes are a better solution than coal so, until we have updated smart grids coupled to EV storage we are stuck with it.

[GostHacked]

This is all hysterics based on an incorrect valuation of risks. Laymen are scared by words like "radiation", while ignoring the reality that tens of thousands of people die from lung cancer caused by pollution from coal plants. The numbers are clear:

I don't think we should be stricktly looking at deaths. Chernobyl facilitated in high numbers of birth defects. Other health problems were never taken into account either. We are hearing about the low number of deaths related to Fukushima, and they also indicate that cancer rates would not rise by much if at all. Somehow I think that is just a load of crap. Because two years later and Fukushima is still spewing out as much radiation as the day the disaster started. Many of their robots end up frying because of the high levels of radiation. So in a sense they have no idea how bad it is because their current standard of testing equipment can't tolerate the high levels of radiation.

But what else causes lung cancer, how many carcinogenic items do you encounter on a daily basis? Cancer seems to be one of those things that can be caused by almost anything. Personally I just can't see the benefit to using nuclear over anything else. Someone who develops cancer from nuclear radiation and dies 30 years later I don't think are counted in the overall deaths from nuclear generation. I guess in a way since there is no way to cleanly link the two, it's hard to count.

However, I shall take the blame here for slightly derailing this thread.

[Shady]

Clean coal can be a good alternative. Even Waldo is ok with that, like they do in China

[waldo]

hey now... have you finally come up with that definition for 'clean coal'? What are you waiting for?

[waldo]

a dinosaur response, from a dinosaur political party!... full on climate change denial ("can't control the weather") and anti-clean energy --- As stated within the official U.S. Republican Party's response to last night's Obama SOTU... from the Republican's 'next one'... the Republican party "Saviour":

When we point out that no matter how many job-killing laws we pass, our government can't control the weather - he accuses us of wanting dirty water and dirty air.....

But God also blessed America with abundant coal, oil and natural gas. Instead of wasting more taxpayer money on so-called "clean energy" companies like Solyndra, let's open up more federal lands for safe and responsible exploration.

[Guest]

It's just a clumsy way of putting it. What he meant to say was, no matter how many job-killing laws we pass, our government can't affect climate change. That's not denial, it's commom sense.