A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Sigma's euphemistic name for "plastic"



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old January 6th 17, 04:45 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default Sigma's euphemistic name for "plastic"

On Thu, 05 Jan 2017 21:34:29 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

I quite agree. Despite the claims of "climate change" doomsayers, a strong
case can be made that global cooling is worse than global warming and that
if
human activity is forestalling the latter, that's a good thing.

it's very clear that there is no global cooling nor will there be any
time soon and that global warming may spell the end of life as we know
it.


********


nope.

for a timeline:
http://xkcd.com/1732/


That was constructed for the purpose of fooling children.


cite proof that was the goal.


Look where it first was published
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/earth_te...e_timeline.png - xkcd
Comics. Look at the carefully tailored inaccuracies in the
presentation of the data ...

Here is a
much more accurate representation constructed in answer to the first:
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpr..._timeline2.jpg
When you bring up the image click on it to bring it up to its full
size.


'peer reviewed cartoon' ???

seriously??


Read to the bottom and you will see the attributions, all of which
have been peer reviewed.

and it also shows a warming trend.


And so it should.

But it also shows the Medieval Warm period, the Roman Warm Period and
the Minoan Warm Period. The last two of the above three are totally
ignored by the cartoon you cited. That cartoon had to admit the
existence of the Medieval Warm Period following the failure of Michael
Mann et al to eliminate it from the record so instead the cartoon
tries to mimise it "Too regional to affect the global average much".

Before you are tempted to believe that claim you should read about the
'Mapping Project for the Medieval Warm Period' by Leuning and
Varenholt which makes use of over 900 independent site studies by
other. See
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/01/...l-warm-period/
or http://tinyurl.com/jpakayz for a discussion. The site also includes
a link to the complete map and list of data sources.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #12  
Old January 6th 17, 05:37 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Sigma's euphemistic name for "plastic"

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


for a timeline:
http://xkcd.com/1732/

That was constructed for the purpose of fooling children.


cite proof that was the goal.


Look where it first was published
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/earth_te...e_timeline.png - xkcd
Comics. Look at the carefully tailored inaccuracies in the
presentation of the data ...


what inaccuracies are those?

they had some fun with it and threw in a few amusing bits, such as
pokemon. that doesn't mean the factual part is bogus.

Here is a
much more accurate representation constructed in answer to the first:
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpr..._timeline2.jpg
When you bring up the image click on it to bring it up to its full
size.


'peer reviewed cartoon' ???

seriously??


Read to the bottom and you will see the attributions, all of which
have been peer reviewed.


by whom? bugs bunny?

if you're going to discard a timeline because it mentions pokemon, i'm
going to discard a timeline because it calls itself a 'peer reviewed
cartoon'.

and it also shows a warming trend.


And so it should.


global warming confirmed.

But it also shows the Medieval Warm period, the Roman Warm Period and
the Minoan Warm Period. The last two of the above three are totally
ignored by the cartoon you cited. That cartoon had to admit the
existence of the Medieval Warm Period following the failure of Michael
Mann et al to eliminate it from the record so instead the cartoon
tries to mimise it "Too regional to affect the global average much".


check again.

Before you are tempted to believe that claim you should read about the
'Mapping Project for the Medieval Warm Period' by Leuning and
Varenholt which makes use of over 900 independent site studies by
other. See

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/01/...tent-of-the-me
dieval-warm-period/
or http://tinyurl.com/jpakayz for a discussion. The site also includes
a link to the complete map and list of data sources.


that looks like a more detailed way of saying the same thing.
  #13  
Old January 6th 17, 11:20 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default Sigma's euphemistic name for "plastic"

On Thu, 05 Jan 2017 23:37:17 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


for a timeline:
http://xkcd.com/1732/

That was constructed for the purpose of fooling children.

cite proof that was the goal.


Look where it first was published
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/earth_te...e_timeline.png - xkcd
Comics. Look at the carefully tailored inaccuracies in the
presentation of the data ...


what inaccuracies are those?

they had some fun with it and threw in a few amusing bits, such as
pokemon. that doesn't mean the factual part is bogus.


Look at how smooth is the temperature history, the absence of
temperature variation. This is nothing like the published data.

Here is a
much more accurate representation constructed in answer to the first:
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpr..._timeline2.jpg
When you bring up the image click on it to bring it up to its full
size.

'peer reviewed cartoon' ???

seriously??


Read to the bottom and you will see the attributions, all of which
have been peer reviewed.


by whom? bugs bunny?


Yes, in some cases. The rest of them were reviewed by Elmer Fudd.

if you're going to discard a timeline because it mentions pokemon, i'm
going to discard a timeline because it calls itself a 'peer reviewed
cartoon'.


Fortunately, I didn't discard it for that reason. I discarded it
because I know something about paleoclimate and can see immediately
that the history depicted by that cartoon is spurious.

and it also shows a warming trend.


And so it should.


global warming confirmed.


There is no dispute about that. There is dispute about the cause.
There is considerable pressure to blame it all on mankind and one of
the techniques that is used is to attempt to minimise the historical
temperature variation. Denying the existence of the Medieval, Roman
and Minoan warm periods is but one of the techniques.

But it also shows the Medieval Warm period, the Roman Warm Period and
the Minoan Warm Period. The last two of the above three are totally
ignored by the cartoon you cited. That cartoon had to admit the
existence of the Medieval Warm Period following the failure of Michael
Mann et al to eliminate it from the record so instead the cartoon
tries to mimise it "Too regional to affect the global average much".


check again.


I quoted accurately.

Before you are tempted to believe that claim you should read about the
'Mapping Project for the Medieval Warm Period' by Leuning and
Varenholt which makes use of over 900 independent site studies by
other. See

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/01/...tent-of-the-me
dieval-warm-period/
or http://tinyurl.com/jpakayz for a discussion. The site also includes
a link to the complete map and list of data sources.


that looks like a more detailed way of saying the same thing.


There is evidence of warming from all over the globe.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #14  
Old January 7th 17, 12:04 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,640
Default Sigma's euphemistic name for "plastic"

On 2017-01-06 17:20, Eric Stevens wrote:

There is no dispute about that. There is dispute about the cause.
There is considerable pressure to blame it all on mankind and one of
the techniques that is used is to attempt to minimise the historical
temperature variation. Denying the existence of the Medieval, Roman
and Minoan warm periods is but one of the techniques.


Nobody denies their existence - they question that they are relevant to
what has happened over the past 200 years.

If you look at the population change and carbon emissions over the
history of mankind on the planet, to not ascribe a significant amount of
atmospheric warming to human emissions over the past 2 centuries is
nothing short of willful ignorance.

Not only has the industrial age allowed economies to flourish, but also
enabled the population to explode. The same 200 years of emissions
output correspond to human population exploding from less than 1B to
over 7B. All while using carbon emitting fuels like there was no
tomorrow. (oops).

The naysayers desperately search for those warm periods in the past
while ignoring rate-of-change over short periods as we've experienced
over the last century as CO2 and other gases buildup. Now with
permafrost failure in the north, massive amounts of methane are leaking
and it is a far worse GH gas than CO2 - the feedback effect will simply
accelerate things. Of course those deniers will point to that as a
"natural cause" while ignoring the system that exposed all that
permafrost locked gas in the first place. Such is human folly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUwm...ature=youtu.be
Puts the human population aspect clearly as a function of time.

--
"If war is God's way of teaching Americans geography, then
recession is His way of teaching everyone a little economics."
..Raj Patel, The Value of Nothing.
  #15  
Old January 7th 17, 03:02 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default Sigma's euphemistic name for "plastic"

On Fri, 6 Jan 2017 18:04:43 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2017-01-06 17:20, Eric Stevens wrote:

There is no dispute about that. There is dispute about the cause.
There is considerable pressure to blame it all on mankind and one of
the techniques that is used is to attempt to minimise the historical
temperature variation. Denying the existence of the Medieval, Roman
and Minoan warm periods is but one of the techniques.


Nobody denies their existence - they question that they are relevant to
what has happened over the past 200 years.


They certainly try to ignore their existence. You should also read Dr
David Demings statement to a US Senate Committee:
http://www.epw.senate.gov/hearing_st....cfm?id=266543

"I received an astonishing email from a major researcher in the area
of climate change. He said, "We have to get rid of the Medieval
Warm Period."

....

In 1769, Joseph Priestley warned that scientists overly attached to
a favorite hypothesis would not hesitate to "warp the whole course
of nature." In 1999, Michael Mann and his colleagues published a
reconstruction of past temperature in which the MWP simply
vanished. This unique estimate became known as the "hockey stick,"
because of the shape of the temperature graph."

If you look at the population change and carbon emissions over the
history of mankind on the planet, to not ascribe a significant amount of
atmospheric warming to human emissions over the past 2 centuries is
nothing short of willful ignorance.


Atmospheric warming started well before mankind's contribution to
atmospheric CO2 became noticeable. I agree you can draw a parallel
between the current rise in atmospheric CO2 and global temperature but
correlation is not causation. In fact, when you examine the historical
record everything from the Vostok cores to the current detailed daily
records shows that the atmospheric CO2 concentration lags behind
temperature which surely demonstrates temperature changes cause CO2
changes and not vice versa (unless the source of the temperature
chages is telepathic).

Not only has the industrial age allowed economies to flourish, but also
enabled the population to explode. The same 200 years of emissions
output correspond to human population exploding from less than 1B to
over 7B. All while using carbon emitting fuels like there was no
tomorrow. (oops).


I agree with you (I think). The rate of population increase is a major
factor in the rate at which we are currently adding CO2 to the
atmosphere. Even though I am not convinced that CO2 is the cause of
the present temperature rise, I do not believe that we can go on
pouring CO2 into the atmosphere indefinitely. Both China and India are
planning to add a large number of coal fired plants and China may even
be planning to supply Europe with power by overland power lines.

The naysayers desperately search for those warm periods in the past
while ignoring rate-of-change over short periods as we've experienced
over the last century as CO2 and other gases buildup. Now with
permafrost failure in the north, massive amounts of methane are leaking
and it is a far worse GH gas than CO2 - the feedback effect will simply
accelerate things. Of course those deniers will point to that as a
"natural cause" while ignoring the system that exposed all that
permafrost locked gas in the first place. Such is human folly.


There is far more methane locked in, in submarine hydrates.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUwm...ature=youtu.be
Puts the human population aspect clearly as a function of time.


You may be interested in reading
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/...al-bottleneck/
or http://tinyurl.com/j5sxp5l
CO2 is not all bad and quite recently, for a long time, the earth was
on the verge of having too little of it in its atmosphere.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #16  
Old January 7th 17, 03:13 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Ron C
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 415
Default Sigma's euphemistic name for "plastic"

On 1/6/2017 8:05 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article wrednUseBPwWv-3FnZ2dnUU7-
,
says...

On 2017-01-06 17:20, Eric Stevens wrote:

There is no dispute about that. There is dispute about the cause.
There is considerable pressure to blame it all on mankind and one of
the techniques that is used is to attempt to minimise the historical
temperature variation. Denying the existence of the Medieval, Roman
and Minoan warm periods is but one of the techniques.


Nobody denies their existence - they question that they are relevant to
what has happened over the past 200 years.

If you look at the population change and carbon emissions over the
history of mankind on the planet, to not ascribe a significant amount of
atmospheric warming to human emissions over the past 2 centuries is
nothing short of willful ignorance.

Not only has the industrial age allowed economies to flourish, but also
enabled the population to explode. The same 200 years of emissions
output correspond to human population exploding from less than 1B to
over 7B. All while using carbon emitting fuels like there was no
tomorrow. (oops).

The naysayers desperately search for those warm periods in the past
while ignoring rate-of-change over short periods as we've experienced
over the last century as CO2 and other gases buildup. Now with
permafrost failure in the north, massive amounts of methane are leaking
and it is a far worse GH gas than CO2 - the feedback effect will simply
accelerate things. Of course those deniers will point to that as a
"natural cause" while ignoring the system that exposed all that
permafrost locked gas in the first place. Such is human folly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUwm...ature=youtu.be
Puts the human population aspect clearly as a function of time.


And a few years down the road the glaciation
trigger will be pulled and everybody will be
wishing for the global warming back.


Every bio-population's bloom and collapse has had an impact on
the terrasphere. We are but the next in line to effect the climate of
the planet earth. The difference is that "we" are aware, and as such
MAY be able to modify our impact on the biosphere in our favor.
Are our human egos up to the task? Only time will tell.
[YMMV]
==
Later...
Ron C
--

  #17  
Old January 7th 17, 04:42 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Robert Coe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,901
Default Sigma's euphemistic name for "plastic"

On Fri, 06 Jan 2017 15:01:31 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:
: On Thu, 05 Jan 2017 09:39:47 -0500, Robert Coe wrote:
: ...
: However, there is the uncomfortable example of Venus. It's not at all
: far-fetched to conclude, as most reputable scientists do, that the reason
: Venus is uninhabitable today is global warming due to the greenhouse effect.
: It's a lesson we may choose to ignore at our peril.
:
: But the atmosphere of Venus is most unlike that of the earth (see
: www.space.com/18526-venus-temperature.html ) Recent discoveries show
: that the temperature of parts of Venus's atmosphere are way below that
: of the earth's atmosphere. See
: http://www.iflscience.com/space/deat...et-not-so-hot/
: or http://tinyurl.com/hrm2ugl

The fact that the temperature of the upper atmosphere of Venus is lower than
expected would be cold comfort to anyone trying to survive on the planet's
surface.The surface is where the greenhouse effect is felt, and the
temperature of its upper atmosphere is irrelevant to Venus's ability to
support life.

Bob
  #18  
Old January 7th 17, 04:44 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default Sigma's euphemistic name for "plastic"

On Fri, 6 Jan 2017 20:05:49 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article wrednUseBPwWv-3FnZ2dnUU7-
,
says...

On 2017-01-06 17:20, Eric Stevens wrote:

There is no dispute about that. There is dispute about the cause.
There is considerable pressure to blame it all on mankind and one of
the techniques that is used is to attempt to minimise the historical
temperature variation. Denying the existence of the Medieval, Roman
and Minoan warm periods is but one of the techniques.


Nobody denies their existence - they question that they are relevant to
what has happened over the past 200 years.

If you look at the population change and carbon emissions over the
history of mankind on the planet, to not ascribe a significant amount of
atmospheric warming to human emissions over the past 2 centuries is
nothing short of willful ignorance.

Not only has the industrial age allowed economies to flourish, but also
enabled the population to explode. The same 200 years of emissions
output correspond to human population exploding from less than 1B to
over 7B. All while using carbon emitting fuels like there was no
tomorrow. (oops).

The naysayers desperately search for those warm periods in the past
while ignoring rate-of-change over short periods as we've experienced
over the last century as CO2 and other gases buildup. Now with
permafrost failure in the north, massive amounts of methane are leaking
and it is a far worse GH gas than CO2 - the feedback effect will simply
accelerate things. Of course those deniers will point to that as a
"natural cause" while ignoring the system that exposed all that
permafrost locked gas in the first place. Such is human folly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUwm...ature=youtu.be
Puts the human population aspect clearly as a function of time.


And a few years down the road the glaciation
trigger will be pulled and everybody will be
wishing for the global warming back.

The Russians consider we may be heading for another mini-ice-age

--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #19  
Old January 7th 17, 04:54 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Ron C
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 415
Default Sigma's euphemistic name for "plastic"

On 1/6/2017 10:44 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 6 Jan 2017 20:05:49 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article wrednUseBPwWv-3FnZ2dnUU7-
,
says...

On 2017-01-06 17:20, Eric Stevens wrote:

There is no dispute about that. There is dispute about the cause.
There is considerable pressure to blame it all on mankind and one of
the techniques that is used is to attempt to minimise the historical
temperature variation. Denying the existence of the Medieval, Roman
and Minoan warm periods is but one of the techniques.

Nobody denies their existence - they question that they are relevant to
what has happened over the past 200 years.

If you look at the population change and carbon emissions over the
history of mankind on the planet, to not ascribe a significant amount of
atmospheric warming to human emissions over the past 2 centuries is
nothing short of willful ignorance.

Not only has the industrial age allowed economies to flourish, but also
enabled the population to explode. The same 200 years of emissions
output correspond to human population exploding from less than 1B to
over 7B. All while using carbon emitting fuels like there was no
tomorrow. (oops).

The naysayers desperately search for those warm periods in the past
while ignoring rate-of-change over short periods as we've experienced
over the last century as CO2 and other gases buildup. Now with
permafrost failure in the north, massive amounts of methane are leaking
and it is a far worse GH gas than CO2 - the feedback effect will simply
accelerate things. Of course those deniers will point to that as a
"natural cause" while ignoring the system that exposed all that
permafrost locked gas in the first place. Such is human folly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUwm...ature=youtu.be
Puts the human population aspect clearly as a function of time.


And a few years down the road the glaciation
trigger will be pulled and everybody will be
wishing for the global warming back.

The Russians consider we may be heading for another mini-ice-age

Via intelligence gathered by a GOP hack? G
==
Later...
Ron C cynic-in-training
--

  #20  
Old January 7th 17, 05:01 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Ron C
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 415
Default Sigma's euphemistic name for "plastic"

On 1/5/2017 9:36 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 05 Jan 2017 10:40:05 -0500, Davoud wrote:

RichA:
:
: Global warmers can't have it both ways. Either the Earth is still coming
: off the last ice-age which is why it's warming...


The idiot gets it wrong yet again, preserving his perfect record. We
have ways of measuring the rate of warming and the rate since we began
pouring large quantities of particulates and CO2 into the atmosphere at
the beginning of the Industrial Revolution is unprecedented in geologic
time. The curves, warming vs. emission rates, match to an amazing
degree, pointing to one conclusion: human-caused global climate change.


1. Correspondence is not causation.

2. Apart for the last 60 years or so, atmospheric CO2 follows
temperatu CO2 fluctuations are not the cause of temperature
fluctuations.

Yet all but a blink in the geological time line. [Regardless of causation.]
==
Later...
Ron C
--

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Cheap PLASTIC used in D600 is "shedding" all over the inside! Bowser Digital SLR Cameras 5 March 15th 13 12:33 PM
Cheap PLASTIC used in D600 is "shedding" all over the inside! nospam Digital SLR Cameras 1 March 12th 13 06:07 PM
You know all that talk of "strong" reinforced plastic? Ray Fischer Digital SLR Cameras 3 July 17th 09 04:08 AM
"Corset-Boi" Bob "Lionel Lauer" Larter has grown a "pair" and returned to AUK................ \The Great One\ Digital Photography 0 July 14th 09 12:04 AM
"Fi-fi-fo-fum, I smell the blood of another plastic camera..." Me Digital SLR Cameras 4 March 27th 09 04:08 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:29 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.