Page 2 of 6 [ 93 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

09 Dec 2009, 11:25 am

Ambivalence wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Someday we will have real climate science and figure this out.


We have plenty of real climate science, it's just a bloody complicated problem. :) You can know how parts of things work in great detail but still not be able to predict the behaviour of a whole system!



No we don't. We have models, which are as good as the data used to feed them and that is not all that good. Write us when we have something in climatology like quantum electrodynamics in the physics of atoms and molecules. We are at the stage of Boyle's Law prior to the creation of statistical mechanics. We have formulas to fit our data curves. But what if the data is wrong? What if other processes are involved (other than CO2 emission) and are being ignored or not properly weight? Hmmm?


In addition to the genuine epistemological problems which would be tough to solve in the best of conditions, we also have political corruption hindering the progress of climate science.

Governments want an Emergency so they can gain even more power over us so they co-opt, bribe and corrupt scientists to pursue this policy goal of more regulation and more power.

I would not trust the Anthropogenic Global Warming Cabal further than I could throw the lot of them.

The latest e-mail scandal is just the tip of the rapidly melting iceberg exposing the corruption below.

ruveyn



Scientist
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Nov 2009
Age: 48
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 1,524
Location: The Netherlands

09 Dec 2009, 2:48 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Ambivalence wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Someday we will have real climate science and figure this out.
We have plenty of real climate science, it's just a bloody complicated problem. :) You can know how parts of things work in great detail but still not be able to predict the behaviour of a whole system!
No we don't. We have models, which are as good as the data used to feed them and that is not all that good. Write us when we have something in climatology like quantum electrodynamics in the physics of atoms and molecules. We are at the stage of Boyle's Law prior to the creation of statistical mechanics. We have formulas to fit our data curves. But what if the data is wrong? What if other processes are involved (other than CO2 emission) and are being ignored or not properly weight? Hmmm?
Data can't be wrong. Measurements or tests can be not very good, if they are not valid or not reliable.


_________________
1975, ASD: Asperger's Syndrome (diagnosed: October 22, 2009)

Interests: science, experimental psychology, psychophysics, music (listening and playing (guitar)) and visual arts

Don't focus on your weaknesses, focus on your strengths


Tim_Tex
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Jul 2004
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 45,539
Location: Houston, Texas

09 Dec 2009, 3:08 pm

I think we're heading for a new ice age.


_________________
Who’s better at math than a robot? They’re made of math!

Now proficient in ChatGPT!


southwestforests
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jul 2009
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,138
Location: A little ways south of the river

09 Dec 2009, 4:53 pm

Scientist wrote:
Data can't be wrong. Measurements or tests can be not very good, if they are not valid or not reliable.


Wait a minute, I'm having trouble with the way that is phrased.
data can't be wrong - measurements or tests can be not very good
Isn't the recorded data the results obtained from those tests?
This though as it is literally written isn't making sense to me.

Quote:
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/datum#Latin
datum (plural data or datums)
1. (plural: data) a single piece of information
2. (philosophy) (plural: data) a fact known from direct observation
3. (philosophy) (plural: data) a premise from which conclusions are drawn
4. (cartography)(engineering) (plural: datums) a fixed reference point


Now, if "data can't be wrong" is using the word data as meaning what things physically exist in the world as they really exist, before we observe and interpret them, then the sentence makes sense.


_________________
"Every time you don't follow your inner guidance,
you feel a loss of energy, loss of power, a sense of spiritual deadness."
- Shakti Gawain


CloudWalker
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Mar 2009
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 711

09 Dec 2009, 6:19 pm

Scientist wrote:
Data can't be wrong. Measurements or tests can be not very good, if they are not valid or not reliable.


Measurements for recent decades are pretty accurate, but how do you incorporate all the data to make the global temperature? There are thousands of weather stations distributed unevenly all over the world, just averaging them will make certain locations over represented. So simply using different selection criteria will give different results.

The local condition of the stations will change over time and some are even relocated. That's why an adjustment call homogenization is used on the raw data. Again different adjustments produce different results.

Both NASA and CRU have been refusing to release the details of both processes repeatedly.
The recent leaked code from CRU shows that at least the CRU ones are biased beyond reason.



southwestforests
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jul 2009
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,138
Location: A little ways south of the river

09 Dec 2009, 7:15 pm

Oregon wrote:
Global warming or not.. it's not good to live in a garbage dump. We need to learn to clean up after ourselves. Living in a toxic environment is not healthy for us or the 'little white bunny rabbits"

Air pollution is responsible for a number of heath conditions, and at times in our past was so bad it killed people.

Just look at the number of 'superfund' clean-up sites around our country to see how bad we were (and still are). Out of the 600,000+ contaminated site listed with the EPA, almost 2,000 post an immediate public risk and are scheduled for clean-up.

You mom does live here, so let's clean up after ourselves.


Yep.

Look at the 'island' of trash collecting in the Pacific Ocean.
http://www.greatgarbagepatch.org/
http://www.inhabitat.com/2009/08/28/great-pacific-garbage-patch-is-worse-than-we-thought/

As for the global warming climate change thing, my attitude is just that, an attitude, since I don't have firsthand science knowledge of all the infinite factors affecting climate to use.

My attitude:
Mankind thinks quite highly of mankind in expecting mankind can alter the action of a system huge and complex beyond understanding.
Arrogance, to be blunt.

Heard a news report that the understanding of how local variations in cloud cover affect climate in the overall aggregate is barely begun.
Or, are local variations in cloud cover a result of the overall climate?
Or, is it a mix of the two - what percentage of what?

Bunches of stuff out there we don't know for sure and need to keep researching.

Researching, honestly.
And openly.

:arrow: climate and environmental research needs to be "open source".


_________________
"Every time you don't follow your inner guidance,
you feel a loss of energy, loss of power, a sense of spiritual deadness."
- Shakti Gawain


Scientist
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Nov 2009
Age: 48
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 1,524
Location: The Netherlands

09 Dec 2009, 9:44 pm

southwestforests wrote:
Scientist wrote:
Data can't be wrong. Measurements or tests can be not very good, if they are not valid or not reliable.
Wait a minute, I'm having trouble with the way that is phrased.
data can't be wrong - measurements or tests can be not very good
Isn't the recorded data the results obtained from those tests?
This though as it is literally written isn't making sense to me.
Quote:
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/datum#Latin
datum (plural data or datums)
1. (plural: data) a single piece of information
2. (philosophy) (plural: data) a fact known from direct observation
3. (philosophy) (plural: data) a premise from which conclusions are drawn
4. (cartography)(engineering) (plural: datums) a fixed reference point
Now, if "data can't be wrong" is using the word data as meaning what things physically exist in the world as they really exist, before we observe and interpret them, then the sentence makes sense.
No, data reflect what you measured, obtained by measurements or from tests. But what you measure can never be wrong. Data are just the result of what you measured and how you measured it. It can only be that your measurement instrument or your test or your method doesn't measure what you meant it to measure, in that case the measurement instrument or the test is invalid, and / or it can be that you can't reproduce those data by remeasuring or retesting, in that case the measurement instrument or your test is unreliable. In those cases the data don't reflect the process(es) you were interested in and the data may not be very useful. But they are not wrong.
Quote:
data pl.n. (used with a sing. or pl. verb) Factual information, especially information organized for analysis
that is the best definition of data I found.


_________________
1975, ASD: Asperger's Syndrome (diagnosed: October 22, 2009)

Interests: science, experimental psychology, psychophysics, music (listening and playing (guitar)) and visual arts

Don't focus on your weaknesses, focus on your strengths


just-me
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Mar 2008
Age: 37
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,178

09 Dec 2009, 11:39 pm

Ambivalence wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Someday we will have real climate science and figure this out.

I am absolutely convinced that reducing dependence on oil will be extremely beneficial to humanity as a whole, by removing money and influence from religious eejits.


I agree with this one . I do not want my country buying oil from a country that harbors terrorists. And i do not want that money going to a country that believes oppression of women.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

10 Dec 2009, 4:46 am

just-me wrote:
Ambivalence wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Someday we will have real climate science and figure this out.

I am absolutely convinced that reducing dependence on oil will be extremely beneficial to humanity as a whole, by removing money and influence from religious eejits.


I agree with this one . I do not want my country buying oil from a country that harbors terrorists. And i do not want that money going to a country that believes oppression of women.


Even if the Mullahs and Imams were as sweet as the Amish I do not want to see my country depending on a foreign power for its basic energy needs.

Split atoms.

ruveyn



Inventor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,014
Location: New Orleans

10 Dec 2009, 2:07 pm

The data for the last hundred years projected for the next hundred years does not fit the last thousand years, and climate cycles ran ten thousand years long before humans were a factor.

That is , considering that even today, different results come from current conditions, measured by different groups.

The same groups crunch numbers gathered from the last 150 years, some chosing one set some another, and make predictions. As for 150, there is no way to adjust the data, calibrated measure starts less than a hundred years ago, and none want to go 200 years, and include 1815, the year without summer. Killing frosts and snowfall through the summer months.

The best long term I have heard of was the harvest dates of wine grapes in France, which have been recorded for 500 years, but seem left out of modern science.

It used to be accepted that sea level has been rising one foot .3 Meters, per hundred years, much slower than the last 10,000 years, but now that is suddenly shocking news?

Since 10,000 years ago sea level has risen 150 meters. Sometimes it stopped, the record was 18 meters higher in a year, but the trend is upward, 15 meters per thousand years. 1.5 meters per hundred years. That is about five times the rate measured in the last few hundred years. Humans were not a factor.

The recent high point was before the last wave of ice, 25,000 years ago, with sea level 7 meters higher, and Scandinavia having trees like the south of England or France. That lasted 5,000 years, and then it started snowing.

From current trends, it will take several thousand years to reach 7 meters higher, the last peak lasted 5,000 years, which points to a return of the ice in 7,000 years.

The glaciel period before, sea level only declined 100 meters, in the preceeding warm period it did not get as warm as today, then the ice returned. Measured by that period, the return of the ice is several thousand years overdue.

It is either early or late to panic.

Modern science says it was one degree warmer last year, so it will be 100 degrees warmer in a hundred years, modern science is bunk.

Only NASA Brand orbital devices at $1,000,000,000 can save you! Insurance rates going up on beachfront condos! Cap and trade and bait and switch are needed to generate more government income! Terrorist Climate attacks Freedom!

Government science, like goverment religion, will always call for more government power.

First it is, "You will all burn in the fire!", when the numbers do not support that, it is Acid from CO2 will kill the oceans!, then acid oceans will come on land to hunt you down! Now it has become a litter cleanup program, which will save banks from underwater mortgages.

This is the same government that does not want to talk about 50% unemployment in the under 25 group, two mindless endless wars, and their loan of all the money in the banks at zero interest to their friends at Goldman Sachs.

The interest payments on the national debt are nearing One Trillion a year, at two trillion it would take twenty years to pay it off, at one fifth of GDP, and to the payers, the under 25 set, you must also do something about the mess we left behind.

You have been sold into debt servitude.



southwestforests
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jul 2009
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,138
Location: A little ways south of the river

10 Dec 2009, 4:05 pm

Inventor wrote:
You have been sold into debt servitude.

Naawww, my government cares about me so much they would never do that kind of thing.

They just want to take care of me so I will be happy.

Hmm, why does that thought bring this song to mind: Jackson Browne - "The Pretender" and something in there about being a "happy idiot"???????????

And how much would I like to invest in seaside property on Mercury?
:P :P :P :P

:arrow: and don't ice core samples from Antarctica have tropical plant and animal remains at the bottom? And there's dinosaur fossils?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/03/0309_040309_polardinos.html
Quote:
Two New Dinosaurs Discovered in Antarctica
John Pickrell
for National Geographic News
March 9, 2004



http://www.livescience.com/environment/080722-antarctic-warmer.html

Quote:
Environment
Fossil Suggests Antarctica Much Warmer in Past

By Andrea Thompson, Senior Writer

posted: 22 July 2008 07:23 pm ET

Quote:
"Present conditions in this Antarctic region show mean annual temperatures of minus 25 degrees C (Celsius) [minus 13 degrees Fahrenheit]," said Mark Williams of the University of Leicester, co-author with Ashworth of the fossil-find report in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B. "These are impossible conditions to sustain a lake fauna with ostracods."

The authors think the ostracods and the habitat they lived in were the last vestiges of a tundra ecosystem, similar to those found in Patagonia, that once thrived in Antarctic coastal regions, before an intense period of cooling gave rise to the Antarctic environment we see today.

While geologists theorize that the land that now makes up Antarctica was once a part of other continents closer to the equator—hundreds of millions of years ago—the warmer climate that supported the ostracods would have existed "when Antarctica was pretty much in its current location," said study co-author David Marchant of Boston University.

Marchant estimated that the summer temperatures in Antarctica would have been about 30.6 degrees F (17 degrees C) warmer than they are now.

This warmer period started to end when the first continent-sized ice sheets began appearing on Antarctica around 34 million years ago, around the end of the Eocene epoch. These ice sheets expanded and contracted until around 14 million years ago, during the Miocene epoch, when a dramatic cooling took place and transformed the tundra into an environment "that today looks like Mars," Marchant told LiveScience.

Marchant said climatologists are uncertain exactly what caused this intense period of cooling.


Well gee, if life was THRIVING in ANTARCTICA in the past, why is it WRONG to go back to those kinds planetary temperatures?

Having Antarctica warm enough to grow plants could solve world hunger, and people from overpopulated places could move there, so 'global warming' would then be good, no?

Quote:
Marchant said climatologists are uncertain exactly what caused this intense period of cooling.
And science doesn't know that but does know exactly what will cause the future action of warming?
I have trouble making that connection with any confidence.

I'm not convinced WE are the cause of climate change.
I think We are not that powerful.
Yet.


_________________
"Every time you don't follow your inner guidance,
you feel a loss of energy, loss of power, a sense of spiritual deadness."
- Shakti Gawain


Last edited by southwestforests on 10 Dec 2009, 4:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.

southwestforests
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jul 2009
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,138
Location: A little ways south of the river

10 Dec 2009, 4:19 pm

Proven beyond argument that we do alter local geography and local ecosystems via strip mining, dam building, dredging, deforestation, over-farming, overfishing, over-building, import of non-local species, and the like.

Even cumulative effects of those I don't see as likely to affect climate on a global scale.
Affect local micro-climates, highly likely.
But global climate?

That has had too many big, huge, changes before we ever showed our faces.


_________________
"Every time you don't follow your inner guidance,
you feel a loss of energy, loss of power, a sense of spiritual deadness."
- Shakti Gawain


southwestforests
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jul 2009
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,138
Location: A little ways south of the river

10 Dec 2009, 4:28 pm

Next:

:arrow: If there's too much CO2 in the atmosphere, why does this do this:

Quote:
Carbon dioxide is one of the essential ingredients in green plant growth and is a primary environmental factor in greenhouses. CO2 enrichment at 2, 3 or four times natural concentration will cause plants to grow faster and will improve plant quality.
www.advancegreenhouses.com/use_of_co2_in_a_greenhouse.htm -

Quote:
By adding CO2 to the atmosphere around the plant, a 40% crop increase was ...

www.homeharvest.com/carbondioxideenrichment.htm

And what we are demanding be done is to do is REMOVE what really is plant food from the planet :?:

Okay, so we want to feed the hungry millions but starve the plants they're going to eat.

This is rational how?

Or is there something I missing in this?


_________________
"Every time you don't follow your inner guidance,
you feel a loss of energy, loss of power, a sense of spiritual deadness."
- Shakti Gawain


southwestforests
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jul 2009
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,138
Location: A little ways south of the river

10 Dec 2009, 5:06 pm

If someone is able to document the quotes I have highlighted in bold as being non-factual or otherwise incorrect, I will listen to their side.

Otherwise their argument will be dismissed even before it is given: that practice appearing to be the generally accepted protocol in climate change debate.


_________________
"Every time you don't follow your inner guidance,
you feel a loss of energy, loss of power, a sense of spiritual deadness."
- Shakti Gawain


Wombat
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Oct 2006
Age: 75
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,051

10 Dec 2009, 10:58 pm

There are "snap frozen" Mammoths in Russia. 20,000 years ago they were wandering around eating grass and then zap, they froze solid.

They say that the original natives of Britain and Australia walked there over land bridges.
The Gulf of Mexico was a fertile plane.

Can you imagine the stone age guys who lived in Britain saying "wow if this climate change keeps up the seas will rise and we will be living on an island"?

During the last ice age North Africa was a paradise. Then it turned into the Sahara desert.

In the "Medieval warm period" the Vikings grew wheat in Greenland and the English grew grapes in London.

Then came the "little ice age" which killed millions and people ice skated on the Thames in London.

Then in the mid 1800s it started warming again.

But wait! the warming ended ten years ago and now it is cooling again.

Wake up. You are being conned big time.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

11 Dec 2009, 2:23 am

Wombat wrote:
There are "snap frozen" Mammoths in Russia. 20,000 years ago they were wandering around eating grass and then zap, they froze solid.

They say that the original natives of Britain and Australia walked there over land bridges.
The Gulf of Mexico was a fertile plane.

Can you imagine the stone age guys who lived in Britain saying "wow if this climate change keeps up the seas will rise and we will be living on an island"?

During the last ice age North Africa was a paradise. Then it turned into the Sahara desert.

In the "Medieval warm period" the Vikings grew wheat in Greenland and the English grew grapes in London.

Then came the "little ice age" which killed millions and people ice skated on the Thames in London.

Then in the mid 1800s it started warming again.

But wait! the warming ended ten years ago and now it is cooling again.

Wake up. You are being conned big time.


Not this time. The Evil Mega Corporations are going to turn earth into Venus. Carl Sagan said so.

ruveyn