February 13, 2009 at 6:52 am
bear in a box (2/13/2009)
if anyone of you grew beside the sea, if anyone of you had a river beside your family's farm?my location is close to the equator, i am close to my fourth decade now.
my grandfather's beach we used to go to during weekends, its halfway eaten up by the sea now.
How precise is your error-check for errosion?
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon
February 13, 2009 at 7:29 am
If you're interested in the science behind the theory, have a look here (plenty of references if you click on any of the links at the bottom).
February 13, 2009 at 8:33 am
cgreen (2/13/2009)
If you're interested in the science behind the theory, have a look here (plenty of references if you click on any of the links at the bottom).
Thank you for the excellent reference.
February 13, 2009 at 8:48 am
For those critical of Crichton & the amalgamation of the literature, I suggest you not rely on partisans, but read the aritcles. For your convenience:
Good BI will do little to help us get to the truth, because the truth doesn't matter very much. The IPCC is not a scientific organization, it is a political organization.
Something as important as the future of mankind oughtn't be relegated to politics. Unfortunately, good science is taking a back seat to--no, getting stuffed into the trunk--when it comes to the political agendas being promulgated by devotees of global warming.
Here are two interesting articles. The first is a review of the scientific literature:
Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
http://www.michaelcrichton.com/speech-ourenvironmentalfuture.html
The next is by the late, great scientist, physician, author, & producer Michael Crichton:
The Case for Skepticism on Global Warming
http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/GW_Article/GWReview_OISM600.pdf
I invite you to print it in color & read it carefully. In this article, Crichton asks:
Is global warming happening?
Is it anthropogenic?
Is it harmful?
Can we do anything about it?
Should we?
My thing is, for something in such dispute, can mankind afford to "invest" trillions of dollars in remediation? Especially when so many of the AGW advocates just happen to be socialists? No judgment here, but a fact.
Raise your hand if you trust the decisions of the UN? The European Union? The US government? Etc.
It's a shame it's so politicized. Because it is, the *real* science is hard to know.
February 13, 2009 at 10:05 am
Is that Michael Crichton, journalist and author of Jurassic Park?
I would rather look at scientific papers rather than the opinions of a journalist to get a balanced view.
Remember, Michael Crichton has his own agenda too and makes (well, made) money from doing speeches etc.
February 13, 2009 at 10:15 am
Michael Crichton was first & foremost a scientist. He also graduated from Harvard Medical School.
The fact that he was able to leverage his knowledge & talents to obtain popular critical acclaim oughtn't be held against him. 😉
Agenda? He was well-known for his liberal tendencies. However, when he examined the AGW challenge, intellectual integrity demanded he rail against it. Right or wrong, he made the arguments accessible--including the intellectual outrages.
He did so BEFORE the data from the 90s was shown to be flawed & we learned--surprise!--that the hottest years in the 20th century were found to be in the 40s, not the 90s.
Now in the 21st century, we've had almost a decade of stasis. Imagine that!
Please examine everyone's agenda, not merely Crichton's. Ask yourself the five questions he asks. Read his speech, read the review I also provided.
February 13, 2009 at 10:20 am
"Computers help us get more work done, but they also allow us to make mistakes very, very fast."
That line reminds me of a button I used to have outside my cubicle. It said: "I make tomorrow's mistakes today." Yeah computers make mistakes fast, but it also means we learn fast, and move on.
February 13, 2009 at 11:37 am
Does anyone remember when global cooling was the problem? Remember the coming ice age? Popular science is NOT good science. Science does not work by consensus. If it did we would still believe the world was flat and that the next ice age was just around the corner.
The real question is if we adopt protocols that kill economies and reduce human greenhouse gasses to the absolute minimum, will it make a significant difference? The question is NOT will it make any difference. Would one volcanic eruption swamp our efforts? Are there mechanisms at work here that we don't completely understand? Could our attempts to change long term temperature cycles cause more harem than good?
The idea of trading carbon credits is ridiculous, another pop sci project. That is what happens when you get politicians in science. "Let's pay someone else to be green for us."
Every action we take has an unintended consequence. Take compact florecents, for example. Save energy and trash the environment.
February 13, 2009 at 11:38 am
I understand that those samples also show a considerable melting period in the past. What caused that?
February 13, 2009 at 11:56 am
Steve Holle (2/13/2009)
Take compact florecents, for example. Save energy and trash the environment.
Remember when batteries were the bogeyman of the day? They were bad because of mercury. Has anyone looked at CFLs? They're the next ones. Word of caution, I wouldn't be quick to call that 800 number on the box in case of breakage. Can you say Environmental Mitigation?
Honor Super Omnia-
Jason Miller
February 13, 2009 at 2:57 pm
Steve Holle (2/13/2009)
Does anyone remember when global cooling was the problem? Remember the coming ice age?
Are you talking about stuff like the movie "The Day After Tomorrow"? That was actually premised upon global warming causing a desalination of the northern end of the Gulf Stream, stopping the Atlantic Ocean's heat pump. So, it was global cooling caused by global warming. I'm not sure, but I think the theory was based partly on the finding of extraordinarily well-preserved mammoth corpses in old glaciers, that seemed to have been flash-frozen. (Anyone for mammoth burgers?)
Steve Holle (2/13/2009)
Popular science is NOT good science. Science does not work by consensus.
I agree there.
I still think we'd make the same technological moves, for different reasons, that yield more easily to analysis... such as the ROI on alternative energy sources.
(I wouldn't know how to analyze the political benefits, but they are there, too.)
February 13, 2009 at 5:07 pm
Michael D'Andrea (2/12/2009)
I am disheartened by the responses to this topic. There is plenty of climate change denialism going on here, and for people purportedly in the higher percentile of intelligence, that really goes a long way to demonstrating something. Most of you seem to forget that Climate Science is actually backed by science. Denialism is backed by speculation, conjecture, conspiracy, hearsay, opinion... sweet nothings by scientific comparison.Here are some facts:
**CO2 IS A GREENHOUSE GAS**. It re-radiates infrared/thermal radiation. This has been scientifically replicated and has been known for at least the last 100 years. The Swedish physicist/chemist Svante Arrhenius first put forward the idea that CO2 has a blanketing effect. In a sense, we are lucky because without it, life as we know it on this planet would not exist.
**WE HAVE BEEN BURNING FOSSILS FOR OVER 150 YEARS**. Fossils are a high source of CO2. Not only have we been burning them but the amount we have been burning has increased exponentially. We are altering the chemical composition of the atmosphere and are seriously disturbing the natural carbon cycle (which takes centuries or millenia to do a round trip). History has demonstrated that when things are altered without a clear understanding of repercussions we set ourselves up for failure (we can all draw parallels to the computer industry here).
**SCIENCE NEVER PROVES ANYTHING**. Proof is a property of mathematics, not science. Accepted science is that which holds a majority view from scientifically related peers. With that said, there will always be dissenters to any theory but the way we measure certainty of a theory is by the process of peer review. This theory has an overwhelmingly strong level of peer support, whereas the opposing viewpoint has no such consensus or peer support.
**9.6 OUT OF 10 CLIMATOLOGISTS AGREE WE ARE SHAPING OUR CLIMATE**. So which side of the experts will you sit? Do you go with the opinions of the majority of domain experts, or will you side with the fringe scientists, non-related scientists, journalists, deniers, shills, lobbyists and conspiracy theorists? To put that another way, would you go to a mechanic to fix a toothache?
**THERE IS NO PEER REVIEWED SCIENCE THAT REFUTES ACC**. If there were, it would be all over the media like a rash and the scientists involved would be governmental poster-people. For the conspiracy theorists, governments would save more money demonstrating that climate change theory is wrong and hence stopping any preventative action, than they would by agreeing with it and going down their respective chosen paths.
**BELIEF SYSTEMS DON'T REFUTE THE SCIENCE**. What is arrogant is believing we have no net effect on our environment. We work in tandem with natural processes not in place of them. There is no doubt that climate works in cycles, but the chemical composition of the atmosphere plays a strong role. This can be seen by the chemical analysis of the Vostok ice cores which go back 800k years. Believing that we don't have an effect is just not enough, you need to back it with something of substance.
Steve, sell the Porsche. Your children will love you for it.
I am not living my life based on the fact that my children are going to love me or not for what I do. What they do, hopefully legal only, is their business when they grow up. While their in my home and under my control, they do what I say. What I do is my business. What my parents do is their business. What you do is yours. If I want to drive a particular car, I am driving it. Live is not a television show or a commercial on TV... I am **NOT** going to become brainwashed by fruity commercials that show 7 year old children dictating how their parents should behave. Sorry. Our society has gone backward, upside down and reversed enough that we dont need to be taking orders from our children. Thats a poor excuse for believing in the hoax that is global warming.
February 15, 2009 at 5:36 pm
TJ (2/13/2009)[br]
I am not living my life based on the fact that my children are going to love me or not for what I do. What they do, hopefully legal only, is their business when they grow up. While their in my home and under my control, they do what I say. What I do is my business. What my parents do is their business. What you do is yours. If I want to drive a particular car, I am driving it. Live is not a television show or a commercial on TV... I am **NOT** going to become brainwashed by fruity commercials that show 7 year old children dictating how their parents should behave. Sorry. Our society has gone backward, upside down and reversed enough that we dont need to be taking orders from our children. Thats a poor excuse for believing in the hoax that is global warming.
That's almost funny. You've demonstrated your (lack of) reasoning for accepting a thoroughly backed scientific theory by addressing my very last sentence which is nothing but subjective banter. You have not addressed or even inadequately responded to any of my other points.
You also demonstrate the mindset that has bought about this crisis in the first instance. "This world is mine and I'll treat it how I want". The truth is that this world owes you nothing, inversely it is you who owes it your very existence and that of your children. I don't and never have avocated letting kids run wild but I'm damn sure your kids aren't badgering you to cut your carbon footprint.
You may choose to get your science from the TV. I choose to get mine from scientists. This is not about being brainwashed, it's about being educated by the right sources. As I said, you don't get a toothache fixed by your mechanic.
If you think it's a hoax then demonstrate it, where and how is any of the current theory incorrect, misguided, improperly researched. Let me guess, you have nothing? Vapid conspiracy theories are immaterial and dismissable, unless you have evidence to support them. And I mean real evidence, not conjecture, not hearsay, not lies, not misrepresentation of data, not cherry-picking of data and definitely nothing from the TV.
February 15, 2009 at 5:48 pm
Michael, I don't know TJ, but I do know the science isn't conclusive, not even close. Even if you think Crichton doesn't count as a scientist, read the review of the literature I've cited twice.
February 15, 2009 at 6:04 pm
AspiringGeek (2/13/2009)
Michael Crichton was first & foremost a scientist. He also graduated from Harvard Medical School.The fact that he was able to leverage his knowledge & talents to obtain popular critical acclaim oughtn't be held against him. 😉
Agenda? He was well-known for his liberal tendencies. However, when he examined the AGW challenge, intellectual integrity demanded he rail against it. Right or wrong, he made the arguments accessible--including the intellectual outrages.
He did so BEFORE the data from the 90s was shown to be flawed & we learned--surprise!--that the hottest years in the 20th century were found to be in the 40s, not the 90s.
Now in the 21st century, we've had almost a decade of stasis. Imagine that!
Please examine everyone's agenda, not merely Crichton's. Ask yourself the five questions he asks. Read his speech, read the review I also provided.
Mr Crichton has no more expertise in climate science that a blow-in from the street. To put an appropriate analogy on that, cancer is best treated by an oncologist, not a neurosurgeon. I don't seek climatology advice from a medical doctor/Sci Fi author
NASA's "data from the 90's" was marked as provisional - once the error was made clear it was modifieded appropriately. There was indeed a spike in average global surface temps in the 40's (as we all know, climate is chaotic) however by 1945 it had returned to a 0 deg C temperature anomaly. Since then it has been rising until a slight plateau during the last decade which is not expected to stay in "stasis". Having said "stasis", our surface temperature anomaly is still well above where we were 50 years ago.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2007/ann/global-jan-dec-error-bar-pg.gif
Viewing 15 posts - 76 through 90 (of 95 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply
