Global Warming?

[DarkBlack]

I think he meant 2 rocks plus 2 more rocks always equals four rocks, at least in this reality- be it put to human text as "4" base 10, or "100" base 2, or whatever.

 

[Egon]

FYI..The Earth was proven to be round hundreds (if not thousands) of years (if you believed in the experts of the day) before Columbus...(back to school (wikipedia) for you) :laughing:

Uh--The world is not Round!

Oblate Spheroid ?:thumbsup:

 

[IslandTractor]

Bwahahaha and yet you oh wise one can not dispute my pacts and yet I can dispute YOUR facts. So who is the one that is profoundly ignorant.

Oh I love your Liberal talking point, this one made me spit my coffee out my nose. "science moves forward" again another profoundly ignorant statement. Science MAY "move forward" BUT DATA STANDS STILL.

I'll typele slowly so you can understand it this time, let me know if you want me to print it in crayons. NO ONE CAN TAKE TWO EXACT SAME NUMBERS AND GET TWO POLAR OPPOSITE CONCLUSIONS. And all the liberal talking points or name calling won't win your argument. Even a a Moron like me knows 2+2 will always be 4, but Liberal math means 2+2 equals whatever they want, and will defend false numbers with name calling. YA, how's that workin out for ya.

OH wait it must be Bush's fault, or I'm a racist...there I just stole all your liberal talking points, now your out of any rebuttal ammunition.

Sorry, one more, When Liberals flip flop they are EVOLVING, Bwhahahahahhaha, you Koolaid drinkers are fun thanks for all the laughs.

You are embarrassing yourself here. Your question is really "how can the same data set be interpreted differently by different scientists?". Your false 2+2 paper tiger question just shows how little you understand about data sets in science. Data sets are almost always grouped, categorized or refined in some way during analysis and different approaches can indeed give different results. If I want to determine something as simple as how often it rains, I need to collect data on raining. I need to decide whether 0.01 inch is going to be counted as rain or not. Maybe I say 0.02" is rain but another guy only counts 0.05" per hour. Different data interpretation will result. I need to define whether I am going to count a day as rainy (or categorize it a drizzly, very rainy etc) if it rains for only one minute or only if it rains for 5 minutes or an hour at a certain rate. I need to decide how to group the data (minute,hour,week,month) and those decisions will have an impact on my analysis and possible on the interpretation and conclusions. Same data set, different reasonable interpretations. That is part of the methodological/analytic challenge in planning a scientific experiment. One doesn't cherry pick data and ideally one sets the parameters for how it will be managed and analyzed well before the data is actually collected or examined just to prevent bias from creeping in to analysis. And, data doesn't always stand still either. New instruments, new techniques might well be brought to bear on examining the same "data" or location etc with differing results. The Sun was always 93 million miles from earth when I was in school but that figure has recently been modified with improved measuring devices. Pluto was always defined as a planet until new findings and interpretations indicated otherwise. Was an astronomer in 1960 who thought it was a planet in error or did we later simple change definitions to come up with a different number of planets in the solar system. I don't think you understand that science is not as easy as 2+2 because if it was then even right wingnuts could do it (at least in base 10). Yes, that is a gratuitous jab but you had it coming. The integer 2 added to the integer 2 in base 10 always equals 4. We can agree on that. But we are not talking about numerals on a piece of paper. Numerals are representations of data, they are not data themselves. Nobody is challenging your long held belief that two apples plus two apples equals four apples. However in climate science we are talking about the interpretation of complex data sets. They aren't simply counting apples. Get that through your thick coffee spewing skull. Once you've got that straight then consider modern physics which is teaching us that 2 electrons plus 2 electrons doesn't always equal 4 electrons (if I understand that question myself, and I really don't claim to understand quantum mechanics at all, the answer could be anywhere from negative 4 to positive 4 and anywhere in between when discussing electrons). As an aside, quantum mechanics may help explain Romney who can have multiple opinions all at the same time. Two Romney's plus two Romney's can equal four teaparties or two teaparties and two centrists or four centrists.

"Science moves forward" is an ignorant statement??? Are you a member of the flat earth society? Me thinks you are just anti intellectual because you feel "elitists" are all lefties (wrong). Have you ever taken any class in science that required more thought than how to dissect a frog? Where do you get your ideas about science and the scientific process? I think your problem is that you are not considering what the scientific and experimental process really involves and are focusing, incorrectly, on believing that if two scientists disagree then one is cheating or lying. Not so. I referred you to Thomas Kuhn's book which I think you and others (both evil liberals and cuddly wingnuts) would really enjoy. It was written about forty years ago, well before the current climate debate, and has nothing specifically to do with climate science, it just discusses the scientific process and how theories are developed, experimentally tested and rejected over time as (wait for it....) science moves forward.

 

[Egon]

You believe in predestination? I always found that fascinating, my uncle was a Holiness preacher and had that belief.

Golly, my Great Grandfather was a Minister and he even built a church!:thumbsup:

 

[Egon]

AGW believers, and everyone else, please take a minute and read this article and tell me it isn't exactly what you hear today only cooling vs warming. The graph even "proves" the world was cooling, in the same period the graphs now show the world was warming. Dueling graphs but the same politics of control.

Nothing wrong with cooling and heating at the same time is there. It's just that they should meet somewhere.

Seems all that ice from the last Ice Age had stuff from warmer climates in it!:thumbsup:

 

[toppop52]

Golly, my Great Grandfather was a Minister and he even built a church!:thumbsup:

That's great!

 

[RobertBrown]

"Science moves forward" is an ignorant statement???

I told myself I was not going to post in this thread again, but after reading this, I have to jump in.......and out.
This is well spoken, unfortunetly it comes at the expense of another member, maybe he had it comming......if you can't stand the heat........
Other than than the slight, very slight, political connotations........I wish I'd said that.
I wish I was smart enough to get that out.
It's a frustrating complicated topic, made exasperating when oversimplified and scoffed at.
Now I'm done

 

[Egon]

That's great!

Yup!:dance1:

 

[Hillman314]

(To paraphrase a cartoon) "What if the threat of climate change causes us to develop clean, alternative energy; improve effciencies, quit bringing up lakes of oil to burn into the environment, stopped funding terrorists with oil money (Saudis = 9/11); pull our troops out of the mid-east, become energy self-reliant, and it turned out this whole global warming thing was a hoax?" -Boy, would we look silly!! (all that effort would as been about as usefull as putting a man on the moon!)

 

[2LaneCruzer]

You are embarrassing yourself here. Your question is really "how can the same data set be interpreted differently by different scientists?". Your false 2+2 paper tiger question just shows how little you understand about data sets in science. Data sets are almost always grouped, categorized or refined in some way during analysis and different approaches can indeed give different results. If I want to determine something as simple as how often it rains, I need to collect data on raining. I need to decide whether 0.01 inch is going to be counted as rain or not. Maybe I say 0.02" is rain but another guy only counts 0.05" per hour. Different data interpretation will result. I need to define whether I am going to count a day as rainy (or categorize it a drizzly, very rainy etc) if it rains for only one minute or only if it rains for 5 minutes or an hour at a certain rate. I need to decide how to group the data (minute,hour,week,month) and those decisions will have an impact on my analysis and possible on the interpretation and conclusions. Same data set, different reasonable interpretations. That is part of the methodological/analytic challenge in planning a scientific experiment. One doesn't cherry pick data and ideally one sets the parameters for how it will be managed and analyzed well before the data is actually collected or examined just to prevent bias from creeping in to analysis. And, data doesn't always stand still either. New instruments, new techniques might well be brought to bear on examining the same "data" or location etc with differing results. The Sun was always 93 million miles from earth when I was in school but that figure has recently been modified with improved measuring devices. Pluto was always defined as a planet until new findings and interpretations indicated otherwise. Was an astronomer in 1960 who thought it was a planet in error or did we later simple change definitions to come up with a different number of planets in the solar system. I don't think you understand that science is not as easy as 2+2 because if it was then even right wingnuts could do it (at least in base 10). Yes, that is a gratuitous jab but you had it coming. The integer 2 added to the integer 2 in base 10 always equals 4. We can agree on that. But we are not talking about numerals on a piece of paper. Numerals are representations of data, they are not data themselves. Nobody is challenging your long held belief that two apples plus two apples equals four apples. However in climate science we are talking about the interpretation of complex data sets. They aren't simply counting apples. Get that through your thick coffee spewing skull. Once you've got that straight then consider modern physics which is teaching us that 2 electrons plus 2 electrons doesn't always equal 4 electrons (if I understand that question myself, and I really don't claim to understand quantum mechanics at all, the answer could be anywhere from negative 4 to positive 4 and anywhere in between when discussing electrons). As an aside, quantum mechanics may help explain Romney who can have multiple opinions all at the same time. Two Romney's plus two Romney's can equal four teaparties or two teaparties and two centrists or four centrists.

"Science moves forward" is an ignorant statement??? Are you a member of the flat earth society? Me thinks you are just anti intellectual because you feel "elitists" are all lefties (wrong). Have you ever taken any class in science that required more thought than how to dissect a frog? Where do you get your ideas about science and the scientific process? I think your problem is that you are not considering what the scientific and experimental process really involves and are focusing, incorrectly, on believing that if two scientists disagree then one is cheating or lying. Not so. I referred you to Thomas Kuhn's book which I think you and others (both evil liberals and cuddly wingnuts) would really enjoy. It was written about forty years ago, well before the current climate debate, and has nothing specifically to do with climate science, it just discusses the scientific process and how theories are developed, experimentally tested and rejected over time as (wait for it....) science moves forward.

Although you and I don't always agree, I think your discussion of data and data interpretation is worthy of mention. I encourage everyone...whether of liberal or conservative orientation...to read it and try to appreciate the significance of what you were saying. I would add a footnote; that sometimes the effect we are trying to measure is made more difficult, and open to criticism, when the effect is minute, and must be measured indirectly. Accuracy and precision of instruments, calibration techniques,
standards, etc. all are factors that must be seriously considered, particularly when any compounded errors approach the quantity of the effect you are trying to measure. Some of the articles I have read on MGW point to these factors as serious shortcomings in the GW data; particularly when the projections are arrived at through modeling.

 

[Gator6x4]

Humans are pumping carbon dioxide into the air. The carbon dioxide is changing the acidity content of ocean waters. Shell fish, especially oysters have starting dying off as a result. It has ben said if we go to zero emissions of carbon dioxide tomorrow it would take fifty years for a course correction.Ocean Acidification Killing Off Oysters - Honolulu Civil Beat - Hawaii Land Blog

And here is one that says carbon dioxide is good for oysters and produces a larger oyster. Oysters' Future Imperiled as Oceans Acidify - Yahoo! News

Ocean acidification is reportedly killing coral reefs. A large area of the Great Barrier Reef has been killed. ocean acidification killing coral reefs - Google Search

Of course if you don't eat oyster or like the beauty of the coral reefs protecting the shorelines, full steam ahead and kick the can on down the road and let it become someones elses problem in the future.

 

[IslandTractor]

Some of the articles I have read on MGW point to these factors as serious shortcomings in the GW data; particularly when the projections are arrived at through modeling.

I could not agree more. I don't believe anyone thinks we have either the experimental data or theory to predict climate change with precision and there undoubtedly (see Kuhn's book) will be many incremental and perhaps revolutionary changes in macro climate concepts as "science moves forward" on this topic. The practical matter for those of us who are not on the cutting edge of climate science is when and how to act on existing best knowledge and understanding to avoid making matters worse. As the preponderance of evidence and interpretations by legitimate scientists and science bodies clearly makes man's contribution at the very least possible and more likely probable, then how do we act with that information.

If you see smoke rising from a home a block or two away (a farm or two away for you country boys), is it reasonable to sit and argue over whether it looks more like BBQ or a house fire? Or, would it be more reasonable to acknowledge the possibility of a house fire and consequences of delay in taking action? What is the downside of interrupting your porch argument, grabbing some tools and fire suppression materials and jumping in the truck or running over to the neighbors house ready for action? Would you really say that it is better to sit and wait for more data or argue about whether a slight odor you detect is burning pig or plastic? I strongly suspect that in such a scenario virtually all of us, libs and wingnuts together, would head out to see what was happening and be prepared to intervene. Considering the "cost" of not intervening early should clearly be part of the equation. Likewise, the cost of over reaction needs to be considered. It is not reasonable to get out your bulldozer and demolish a fire break through the neighborhood before you understand there is a real nightmare fire rather than delicious ribs on the grill. Based on that analogy I would certainly say it is time to get off the porch and prepare for action and clearly not time to get out the bulldozer. We don't need to ban fossil fuel cars etc but we might very reasonably insist that MPG standards double over ten years and that we look into alternative modes of transport and sources of energy. Why would anyone want to resist such preparations? If we end up cutting the use of fossil fuels over ten years, great, more left in the ground for my great grandchildren. Less money on imported fuel. NASA like benefits of investing in a long term technological search for better ways. Did every step NASA took to get us into space work as planned? Is that a reason not to take risks with solar, wind, tide etc alternatives? Some argue that it would hurt our economy. Baloney. Germany has a very strong economy and they are much more aggressive in use of alternative energy and policies to limit fossil fuels than we are. Time to pull our heads out of the sand and consider how to move forward rather than just sit around defending energy practices that we know, even without further climate data, are wasteful and harmful to all but a relatively few who work in the fossil fuel industry.

Wouldn't it be nice to find out the smoke is just a big BBQ? What do we lose by preparing and taking actions to put out a house fire just in case?

 

[houstonscott]

Making a human correction would be like subtracting one volcano eruption in 50 thousand years. Makes no difference in earths overall condition. Get real.

HS

 

[IslandTractor]

Making a human correction would be like subtracting one volcano eruption in 50 thousand years. Makes no difference in earths overall condition. Get real.

HS

And your credentials for such a conclusion at odds with the vast majority of relevant scientific organizations are what exactly?

How do you respond to the United States Geological Survey statement on the role of volcano vs man generated CO2: http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php

The USGS bottom line: Do the Earth’s volcanoes emit more CO2 than human activities? Research findings indicate that the answer to this frequently asked question is a clear and unequivocal, “No.” Human activities, responsible for a projected 35 billion metric tons (gigatons) of CO2 emissions in 2010 (Friedlingstein et al., 2010), release an amount of CO2 that dwarfs the annual CO2 emissions of all the world’s degassing subaerial and submarine volcanoes (Gerlach, 2011).

 

[IslandTractor]

Making a human correction would be like subtracting one volcano eruption in 50 thousand years. Makes no difference in earths overall condition. Get real.

HS

And your credentials for such a conclusion at odds with the vast majority of relevant scientific organizations are what exactly?

How do you respond to the United States Geological Survey statement on the role of volcano vs man generated CO2: Volcanic Gases and Climate Change Overview

The USGS bottom line: Do the Earth’s volcanoes emit more CO2 than human activities? Research findings indicate that the answer to this frequently asked question is a clear and unequivocal, “No.” Human activities, responsible for a projected 35 billion metric tons (gigatons) of CO2 emissions in 2010 (Friedlingstein et al., 2010), release an amount of CO2 that dwarfs the annual CO2 emissions of all the world’s degassing subaerial and submarine volcanoes (Gerlach, 2011).

 

[toppop52]

(To paraphrase a cartoon) "What if the threat of climate change causes us to develop clean, alternative energy; improve effciencies, quit bringing up lakes of oil to burn into the environment, stopped funding terrorists with oil money (Saudis = 9/11); pull our troops out of the mid-east, become energy self-reliant, and it turned out this whole global warming thing was a hoax?" -Boy, would we look silly!! (all that effort would as been about as usefull as putting a man on the moon!)

Good for the sake of good, is well, good. But there are holes in that theory, long before we used their oil the Barbary Pirates were enslaving and killing our sailors and stealing their cargo's. They were never completely benevolent towards us, they always had an agenda and knew their goals.

 

[toppop52]

And your credentials for such a conclusion at odds with the vast majority of relevant scientific organizations are what exactly?

How do you respond to the United States Geological Survey statement on the role of volcano vs man generated CO2: Volcanic Gases and Climate Change Overview

The USGS bottom line: Do the Earth’s volcanoes emit more CO2 than human activities? Research findings indicate that the answer to this frequently asked question is a clear and unequivocal, “No.” Human activities, responsible for a projected 35 billion metric tons (gigatons) of CO2 emissions in 2010 (Friedlingstein et al., 2010), release an amount of CO2 that dwarfs the annual CO2 emissions of all the world’s degassing subaerial and submarine volcanoes (Gerlach, 2011).

How about the credentials of all those scientists of the 70's that "proved" the earth was cooling? Showed us graphs of how much we had cooled between 1950 and 1972, now they show us graphs showing how much it warmed in the same period. Goes to ones credibility I would think. Did you bother to read the article on cooling? Just as compelling as any evidence today of warming.

 

[2LaneCruzer]

I could not agree more. I don't believe anyone thinks we have either the experimental data or theory to predict climate change with precision and there undoubtedly (see Kuhn's book) will be many incremental and perhaps revolutionary changes in macro climate concepts as "science moves forward" on this topic. The practical matter for those of us who are not on the cutting edge of climate science is when and how to act on existing best knowledge and understanding to avoid making matters worse. As the preponderance of evidence and interpretations by legitimate scientists and science bodies clearly makes man's contribution at the very least possible and more likely probable, then how do we act with that information.

If you see smoke rising from a home a block or two away (a farm or two away for you country boys), is it reasonable to sit and argue over whether it looks more like BBQ or a house fire? Or, would it be more reasonable to acknowledge the possibility of a house fire and consequences of delay in taking action? What is the downside of interrupting your porch argument, grabbing some tools and fire suppression materials and jumping in the truck or running over to the neighbors house ready for action? Would you really say that it is better to sit and wait for more data or argue about whether a slight odor you detect is burning pig or plastic? I strongly suspect that in such a scenario virtually all of us, libs and wingnuts together, would head out to see what was happening and be prepared to intervene. Considering the "cost" of not intervening early should clearly be part of the equation. Likewise, the cost of over reaction needs to be considered. It is not reasonable to get out your bulldozer and demolish a fire break through the neighborhood before you understand there is a real nightmare fire rather than delicious ribs on the grill. Based on that analogy I would certainly say it is time to get off the porch and prepare for action and clearly not time to get out the bulldozer. We don't need to ban fossil fuel cars etc but we might very reasonably insist that MPG standards double over ten years and that we look into alternative modes of transport and sources of energy. Why would anyone want to resist such preparations? If we end up cutting the use of fossil fuels over ten years, great, more left in the ground for my great grandchildren. Less money on imported fuel. NASA like benefits of investing in a long term technological search for better ways. Did every step NASA took to get us into space work as planned? Is that a reason not to take risks with solar, wind, tide etc alternatives? Some argue that it would hurt our economy. Baloney. Germany has a very strong economy and they are much more aggressive in use of alternative energy and policies to limit fossil fuels than we are. Time to pull our heads out of the sand and consider how to move forward rather than just sit around defending energy practices that we know, even without further climate data, are wasteful and harmful to all but a relatively few who work in the fossil fuel industry.

Wouldn't it be nice to find out the smoke is just a big BBQ? What do we lose by preparing and taking actions to put out a house fire just in case?

Good assessment...something I could have written myself. As I said in a previous post, the government and the politicians have stood around with their thumbs up their sphincters for the last 40 years, when they could have come up with a comprehensive and rational energy policy. The old coal burning plants should have been dealt with years ago, but for politics, and replaced with clean natural gas burning units that emit a lot less CO2 and very little of the other things like Sulfur and Mercury. Those measures in line with a cogent energy policy should have been taken years ago, and need to be taken now in a reasonable manner, with benefits that accrue whether GW is a myth or a reality. The crux of the matter, it seems to me, is what steps are reasonable under the circumstances...my fear is that hysteria will prevail over science and we will have implemented drastic governmentally mandated carbon reduction with carbon credits for sale on Craigslist. By the same token, if GW is a reality, and I think many more agree that the phenomenon is real than agree on the cause, we would be negligent if we didn't look at it and its effects and decide what, if anything can be done.

Intelligence, to a great extent, is the ability of an organism to predict outcomes...from the simple (what will happen if I fall off this cliff) to the complex (what will happen if I propel a kilogram of 40% U235 at high velosity into another kilogram of like material), or in this instance, what is the effect of anthropogenic carbon emissions, if any, on global warming and it's corrolary, what should we do about it? Let's use our collective intelligence and find out...or at least attempt to get our scientists to agree on something meaningful.

Additionally, as an afterthought, if there are other effects, such as increasing ocean acidity which can be attributed directly to man made CO2 emissions, and these effects can be shown to be deleterious, then we have another ball game.

 

[Gator6x4]

How about the credentials of all those scientists of the 70's that "proved" the earth was cooling? Showed us graphs of how much we had cooled between 1950 and 1972, now they show us graphs showing how much it warmed in the same period. Goes to ones credibility I would think. Did you bother to read the article on cooling? Just as compelling as any evidence today of warming.

Lets see, 62% said the earth was warming, 28% had no opinion and 10% said it was cooling. I think the 10% who said the earth was cooling changed the beverage they were drinking. What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?

 

[tcreeley]

Science adapts to new data. That is how it works. Sometimes it embarrasses when it does so.