If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Popular Science)   Global warming alarmists change some assumptions in their computer models and claim global warming twice as great as before. With bonus spiffy color graphs   (popsci.com) divider line 523
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

11058 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 May 2009 at 7:20 PM (5 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



523 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
2009-05-27 09:55:16 AM
chimp_ninja 2009-05-27 08:45:53 AM
Except one side has the overwhelming majority of scientific evidence,

You keep using that word, but I do not think it means what you think it means.

I know that if you repete a lie ofter enough people start to belive it, but a lie is still a lie. There are plenty of scientist who do not belive that Global Warming or Climate Change are man made. Check here:

http://www.campusreportonline.net/main/articles.php?id=1078

or

http://americanelephant.wordpress.com/2008/05/19/32000-scientists-dissent-from- g lobal-warming-consensus/

or

http://reversevampyr.blogspot.com/2008/12/rising-scientific-tide-of-global.html

or

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=825

and here:

http://www.feeblog.org/global-warming/global-warming-dissent/

Now, none of these are research papers, but since we are talking about the opinions of scientist they are relivant, not that you care to listen to anything other than your fellow travelers.
 
2009-05-27 09:58:28 AM
Mongo cut wood 2009-05-27 08:47:23 AM
Global Warming is not an imminent threat according to a greatest Scientist.

Manking faces Extinction in 4 years if we lose the Honey Bees according to Albert Einstein.

Source (new window)

Save the Honey Bees!!!!


Yet, we don't hear of a lot of research about that do we? At least Rum is good as long as we have bats.

/Yea Bats.
 
2009-05-27 10:02:18 AM
Zafler 2009-05-27 09:17:28 AM
baby_hewey


The Oregon petition is idiotic bullshiat.

The names of the signers are available on the OISM's website, but without listing any institutional affiliations or even city of residence, making it very difficult to determine their credentials or even whether they exist at all. When the Oregon Petition first circulated, in fact, environmental activists successfully added the names of several fictional characters and celebrities to the list, including John Grisham, Michael J. Fox, Drs. Frank Burns, B. J. Honeycutt, and Benjamin Pierce (from the TV show M*A*S*H), an individual by the name of "Dr. Red Wine," and Geraldine Halliwell, formerly known as pop singer Ginger Spice of the Spice Girls. Halliwell's field of scientific specialization was listed as "biology." Even in 2003, the list was loaded with misspellings, duplications, name and title fragments, and names of non-persons, such as company names. (new window)

What do REAL, published climatologists think of this idiocy? They found the rehash so laughably moronic, that they just make a wiki to point out the problems and idiocies.

Here is the wiki for it. (new window)

Now, go away Baby_hewey, I think people have smacked you around enough. I'd hate to get hauled off for picking on people with "special needs".

Anyone that wants to check into basic information on climate change, good places to start are royalsociety.org, NOAA.gov, NASA.gov, IPCC.ch, realclimate.org (run by published climatologists, includes citations to the publications under discussion), and here is a good general information page. (new window)


Ah, the "I have a wiki artical so you suck" argument. Go away until you can at least attempt to provide something legit you hoser.
 
2009-05-27 10:10:37 AM
I know that both chimp_ninja and JonSnow like to cite Science as a source for Peer Reviewed works, and I avoid it because of the cost of the full articals which is what you need to read inorder to learn anything as the cliff notes are sorely lacking in depth. However here is one that I think even the summery is worth while to make a point:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/sci;276/5314/914?maxtoshow=&HITS= 1 0&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=climate+change+disent&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&r esourcetype=HWCIT

Enhanced: Are We Seeing Global Warming?
K. Hasselmann

Measurements over the last century show that the global mean temperature has increased by about 0.5 degrees C. But how much, if any, of that increase can be attributed to human activity is uncertain and highly controversial. In his Perspective, Hasselmann discusses recent efforts to untangle anthropogenic climate change from natural climate variability. Improvements in computer modeling have reduced the scatter in climate change simulations from 50 to 20%, but significant differences remain. To resolve the contentious issues of anthropogenic warming, more work will be needed on the role of aerosols, clouds, and ocean-atmosphere coupling in climate change. ,


Enjoy
 
2009-05-27 10:24:01 AM
baby_hewey: Ah, the "I have a wiki artical so you suck" argument. Go away until you can at least attempt to provide something legit you hoser.

Completely missed the link to source watch that contains citations didn't you? Or the other link where REAL climatologists point out all the errors? Good job on your FAIL, I look forward to observing your next one.
 
2009-05-27 10:25:30 AM
Until science can conclusively and convincingly determine why the past cycles of warming and cooling occurred, and also why they seem to have begun and ended relatively suddenly in the past as well, then I don't see why this period of short-term warming (on a geologic scale) should be viewed as anything out of the ordinary. We can't even adequately explain why there was a 'little ice age' nor why the period prior to that was warmer than current averages. And since we're being told by the global warming 'experts' that variation in solar output is insufficient to cause global warming/cooling now, you can't use that excuse for prior warming/cooling either.
 
2009-05-27 10:33:57 AM
Every time someone says "HALF A DEGREE!??!!? HAW! HAW! Global warming indeed! You libz are so stupid!" I want to eliminate their entire genetic lineage.
 
2009-05-27 10:34:51 AM
Thallone1

Most of the past variations were due to Milankovitch Cycles, the forcings of which are trending either neutral or negative over all. Most sudden shifts in climate were due to large impacts or super-volcano eruption. The little ice age article in wikipedia contains answers to all those, and includes citations, enough to relieve your ignorance of the subject. THe reason solar variance is not enough to cause it now is because of how stable our Sun has been over the last 200 years or so, in addition, we can directly measure the temperature forcing that can be attributed to the sun and to human activity.

If you really want to learn more about, I had a link upthread to a good overview of it, and Jon Snow, chimp_ninja, and trofl have given links to primary literature on the subject.
 
2009-05-27 10:55:27 AM
Zafler 2009-05-27 10:34:51 AM
Thallone1


Most of the past variations were due to Milankovitch Cycles, the forcings of which are trending either neutral or negative over all. Most sudden shifts in climate were due to large impacts or super-volcano eruption. The little ice age article in wikipedia contains answers to all those, and includes citations, enough to relieve your ignorance of the subject. THe reason solar variance is not enough to cause it now is because of how stable our Sun has been over the last 200 years or so, in addition, we can directly measure the temperature forcing that can be attributed to the sun and to human activity.

If you really want to learn more about, I had a link upthread to a good overview of it, and
Jon Snow, chimp_ninja, and trofl have given links to primary literature on the subject.

I have also offered up links to primary lit, not that it matters to those who wish to claim that there are no opposing view points. If you look at the over all works that those three offer all of them work from the last 1000 years or so. My contention as well as many others is that using such a short time frame for referance is a failure to take into considerations of all variables. if you only look at 1009 till today then you see the Little Ice Age starting around 1300 and lasting till approx 1860. With in this time frame you do see what is known as the Medival Warm peorid, which is what the majority of AGW proponants see as the norm, yet they completly reject what the geologic record shows prior to 1000 AD or even what we know from records back to 1000 BC where it is evident that global temps were higher than today.

While I can build a model of a B-17 and even explain the basics of flight, it does not mean that I understand how to tear down and rebuild any of the four radial motors that keep the thing in the air. Problem is most of the idiots in this thread can't accecpt that they don't have enough information and as such they are accecpting much of what is called scientific fact on pure faith.

For the record, I belive in clean air, clean water, and a sustainable carbon neutral humanity, but I do not accecpt that any of those are needed to prevent Climate Change. There are more pressing issues at hand which are often dismissed such as the The Great Garbage Patch. If you want to make a positive impact on the world then do so, but don't push psuedo-scientific government agendas as fact.
 
2009-05-27 10:58:21 AM
Marcus Aurelius: I take comfort knowing that the really good seashore properties are in the heands of the wealthiest individuals who will scream the loudest the moment the sea rises up to cover them.

But we'll probably bail them out when the time comes.


I'd just like to point out that this was a great pun.
 
2009-05-27 10:58:21 AM
SVenus: chimp_ninja: Most scientists recommend a blend of techniques-- fission, wind, solar/photovoltaics, geothermal, conservation/efficiency, tidal, biomass/biodiesel, etc.

So, basically, there's no distinct plan by anyone with the money to accomplish this. Just a lot of pie charts and one hell of a taxation scheme.


Ummm - I have a plan. And it's working pretty well too; we will have made back all of our money from our investments within a couple years. I'm actually working now to implement it with the world's largest hotel chain, and laying the basework an affordable (aka, market rate) net-zero, 10,000 person community.

My Plan (new window)
 
2009-05-27 11:04:24 AM
Until you get China and India on board with limiting carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses (not very likely) it's useless to impose economy-killing guidelines on the rest of the world. That is, if man-made global climate change/disruption is in fact real.
 
2009-05-27 11:17:14 AM
baby_hewey: I know that both chimp_ninja and JonSnow like to cite Science as a source for Peer Reviewed works, and I avoid it because of the cost of the full articals which is what you need to read inorder to learn anything as the cliff notes are sorely lacking in depth. However here is one that I think even the summery is worth while to make a point:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/sci;276/5314/914?maxtoshow=&HITS= 1 0&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=climate+change+disent&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&r esourcetype=HWCIT


That's a 1997 perspective from Klaus Hasselmann. (As an aside, kudos to Science for being able to find an article despite you being unable to spell "dissent"... not that the word appears in Hasselmann's article.) If you read the full article, Hasselmann is basically saying that very soon he expects the resolution of climate predictions to surpass what is necessary to unequivocally confirm observations of anthropogenic climate change. The final paragraph of that article clearly contradicts what you're driving at here. ("However, the inherent statistical....") How the hell can you interpret it otherwise?

Moving forward, this is a 2008 article from the same author.

"Today, the reality and widespread implications of anthropogenic climate change are no longer seriously disputed."

"The question is no longer 'Are we experiencing a human-made change in climate?', but 'What must we do about it?'"
 
2009-05-27 11:20:15 AM
cburkard: Until you get China and India on board with limiting carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses (not very likely) it's useless to impose economy-killing guidelines on the rest of the world. That is, if man-made global climate change/disruption is in fact real.

Exactly. cap and trade or any other program will increase the cost of carbon-based energy for the United states, without a global increase in price.

This means any reduction in our demand will cause a reduction in price, making carbon-based energy an even more attractive option for the rest of the world- meaning they'll essentially 'take up the slack' for our reduction.
 
2009-05-27 11:21:01 AM
MrSteve007 2009-05-27 10:58:21 AM
Ummm - I have a plan. And it's working pretty well too; we will have made back all of our money from our investments within a couple years. I'm actually working now to implement it with the world's largest hotel chain, and laying the basework an affordable (aka, market rate) net-zero, 10,000 person community.

My Plan (new window)


Nice, I like your plan. At present my electric bill is less than $50 a month because of the solar panels I have at home. I also have windmills and solar panels at the farm where we are presently buying less than $250 a year in electricity from the grid. We also use no public water as our well can generate more than what we use and we typically convert that windmill to power production durring the evening. Also, at both home and farm we run a compost pile where 100% of the organic matter is processed with worms and other natural methods. The worms are harvested during the summer and donated to the local BSA troop for fishing at camp outs as well as used extensivly by my own boys for fishing. I have an old VW Golf TDI which with minor modifications still gets 50+ MPG even after 240,000 miles, a Ford Truck with a 302 which gets 26 MPG and a minivan that sucks gas, but is the newest of the three by 10 years. I don't do it to reduce CO2, I do it to save money and reduce my personal long term Carbon foot print.

, what are you doing to save the planet and reduce CO2? Driving a Prius is nothing special as it has a large carbon footprint due to the batteries.
 
2009-05-27 11:21:05 AM
baby_hewey: There are plenty of scientist who do not belive that Global Warming or Climate Change are man made. Check here: ... www.campusreportonline.net ... americanelephant.wordpress.com ... reversevampyr.blogspot.com ... www.capmag.com, www.feeblog.org...

See, this is kind of the problem. I'm pointing to articles in Science and you are pointing to articles in.... "reversevampyr.blogspot.com". Did you check what the Time Cube guy has to say?
 
2009-05-27 11:27:29 AM
baby_hewey: Ah, the "I have a wiki artical so you suck" argument. Go away until you can at least attempt to provide something legit you hoser.

As "legit" as "reversevampyre.blogspot.com"?
 
2009-05-27 11:27:47 AM
baby_hewey: I have also offered up links to primary lit, not that it matters to those who wish to claim that there are no opposing view points.

No, you have linked ONE primary research on it, and, as chimp_ninja pointed out, it does not say what you think it says.

The rest of your links are blogs, and only 1, as far as I can tell, by someone that has published on climatology. Publications which do not support his assertions in any way. In other words, you've got bunk, zilch, zero, nada. Now, stop with the deliberate obtuse idiocy and actually check the real scientific knowledge.

baby_hewey: . My contention as well as many others is that using such a short time frame for referance is a failure to take into considerations of all variables.

I know for a fact you've seen the temperature and carbon dioxide record that goes back 800k years. Our current state is NOT a normal warming trend, and is unprecedented in that time period.

Yeesh, do you try to be this wrong or what?

Anyone still following along, please see my 3rd post for names to check for scientific research data.
 
2009-05-27 11:34:17 AM
chimp_ninja 2009-05-27 11:21:05 AM
baby_hewey
: There are plenty of scientist who do not belive that Global Warming or Climate Change are man made. Check here: ... www.campusreportonline.net ... americanelephant.wordpress.com ... reversevampyr.blogspot.com ... www.capmag.com, www.feeblog.org...

See, this is kind of the problem. I'm pointing to articles in Science and you are pointing to articles in.... "reversevampyr.blogspot.com". Did you check what the Time Cube guy has to say?


Did you even look at the site or was the name enough to turn you away?
 
2009-05-27 11:37:28 AM
Zafler 2009-05-27 11:27:47 AM
No, you have linked ONE primary research on it, and, as chimp_ninja pointed out, it does not say what you think it says.

The rest of your links are blogs, and only 1, as far as I can tell, by someone that has published on climatology. Publications which do not support his assertions in any way. In other words, you've got bunk, zilch, zero, nada. Now, stop with the deliberate obtuse idiocy and actually check the real scientific knowledge.

baby_hewey: . My contention as well as many others is that using such a short time frame for referance is a failure to take into considerations of all variables.

I know for a fact you've seen the temperature and carbon dioxide record that goes back 800k years. Our current state is NOT a normal warming trend, and is unprecedented in that time period.

Yeesh, do you try to be this wrong or what?

Anyone still following along, please see my 3rd post for names to check for scientific research data.


I'm sorry, but you are new to this argument. I have in the past linked to peer reviewed research and chimp_ninja claims that I lie about the contents, so I offer up something a little differned that is at least interesting inorder to poke fun at him and all you see is the last few post. There is plenty of real research at www.co2science.org, but you won't accecpt that either.
 
2009-05-27 11:45:42 AM
baby_hewey: Did you even look at the site or was the name enough to turn you away?

I'm sorry. Only questions that have previously appeared on "reversevampyr.blogspot.com" are legitimate, because it has been revealed that it is in the elite circle of trustworthy sources, unlike journals like Science.
 
2009-05-27 11:49:53 AM
baby_hewey: There is plenty of real research at www.co2science.org, but you won't accecpt that either.

And again, that is not real research, it is a blog site run by, and paid for by, companies and organizations that have admitted to paying people to say what they wanted on this issue. Find something peer reviewed with multiple citations, or a site that summarizes findings and includes citations and is written by actual published climatologists. Realclimate.org is an very good example of such. None of your "sources" are. Hell that farcicle site you have there is run by some of the same people responsible for the laughably incorrect Oregon petition.
 
2009-05-27 11:50:30 AM
i would say that right now, N. Korea is a bigger threat to the environment.
 
2009-05-27 11:51:41 AM
baby_hewey: I'm sorry, but you are new to this argument.

Oh, and this I find particularly amusing, since I've been following and participating in climate change threads longer than you've had an account here.
 
2009-05-27 11:53:42 AM
baby_hewey: I have in the past linked to peer reviewed research and chimp_ninja claims that I lie about the contents

Technically, I claimed that sometimes you lie about the contents (scroll up for a gross distortion of Hasselmann 1997), sometimes you don't understand the article in question and just post poorly-spelled jumbles of random words (see... well.... any of your posts), sometimes you don't understand what a footnote is and claim the article doesn't exist, sometimes you point to "reversevampyr.blogspot.com" during a discussion of source reliability (see the word 'awesome' in the dictionary), and other times you claim that you would blow the lid off of climate change with your cutting-edge scientific insight except that you're the world's least literate government scientist who somehow has uniquely terrible job security and would be shipped off to Antarctica as a result.

As usual, you omit nuance whereas I embrace it.
 
2009-05-27 11:58:02 AM
colon_pow: i would say that right now, N. Korea is a bigger threat to the environment.

Oh, I don't know about that. Extreme dictatorship, economic devistation, and widespread famine are probably pretty good for the environment.
 
nfw
2009-05-27 11:58:23 AM
Jim_Callahan: nfw: If their model is so great, why can't they predict the temperature next week?

I know you're probably being sarcastic, but since there are people that seriously make this argument I'm gonna take a swing at it.

Large-scale systems are often easier to predict than small-scale ones. This is typically because boundary conditions are easier to set and complicated small-scale interactions can be averaged into a continuum model if you take your relsolution back a notch. I know that last bit might have made no goddamned sense to half of the internet, so here's some analogies:

Consider a reactor. It's got stuff flowing in at one end, it's being stirred by some blades, it's got stuff coming out the other end. Now, if I look at, say, a cubic cenimeter of this reactor (let's say it's industrial-sized, so a few cubic meters total) it's going to be next to impossible to know even the composition: it depends on the rather complicated flow pattern and all the concentrations around that cubic cenimeter (and the concentrations around are affected by the stirring pattern and the stuff around them, etc). However, if I take a step back and look at the whole reactor, I see that I can assume overall that everything in the reaction chamber is mixing pretty much evenly, and even though this isn't true it's close enough in this context that it works. So a problem that would require a few 1,000,000 coupled differential equations were I to do it centimeter by centimeter can be done with a single kinetic equation and addition/multiplication for the overall system. And it's fine, this is literally how we have designed certain reactor types for the last century. The "climate" can be easily predicted without being able to tell you the "weather" at a given point.

Or, for another example, say you're tossing a ball in the air and want to map its trajectory. Do you use quantum mechanics to describe its behavior, accounting for lattice vibrations and wave interactions and such? No, because that would be an extreme waste of effort. We find that for large masses quantum physics collapses into dp/dt = g*m1*m2/d^2. Simple differential equation. Easily understood for the large system, again, without knowing the state at an individual electron in your baseball.

There are issues with this approach when you want details and whether climate has this scaling simplification characteristic is certainly open to (limited) debate, but the idea that you need to understand every component part of something to comprehend the whole is counter to our experience in every way. Just because I don't know how much vapour the fuel injectors are inputting each cycle doesn't mean I can't understand that a car is about to run me over.


Do not try to understand, do not question, just accept. No wonder the chicken littles hate religion so much, it's taking away their business.
 
2009-05-27 12:06:01 PM
nfw: Do not try to understand, do not question, just accept. No wonder the chicken littles hate religion so much, it's taking away their business.

Someone else is already doing the deliberately obtuse troll shtick, try something different.

Once again, I lament the lack of real skeptics anymore, or at least being able to discuss the various possible severity predictions and means of reducing our own impact. Any such discussions that start get overwhelmed with having to try to address the people proudly trumpeting their ignorance and/or stupidity, if only to make sure the lurkers know that these people are, in fact, wrong.
 
2009-05-27 12:12:35 PM
baby_hewey: Nice, I like your plan. At present my electric bill is less than $50 a month because of the solar panels I have at home. I also have windmills and solar panels at the farm where we are presently buying less than $250 a year in electricity from the grid. We also use no public water as our well can generate more than what we use and we typically convert that windmill to power production durring the evening. Also, at both home and farm we run a compost pile where 100% of the organic matter is processed with worms and other natural methods. The worms are harvested during the summer and donated to the local BSA troop for fishing at camp outs as well as used extensivly by my own boys for fishing. I have an old VW Golf TDI which with minor modifications still gets 50+ MPG even after 240,000 miles, a Ford Truck with a 302 which gets 26 MPG and a minivan that sucks gas, but is the newest of the three by 10 years. I don't do it to reduce CO2, I do it to save money and reduce my personal long term Carbon foot print.

, what are you doing to save the planet and reduce CO2? Driving a Prius is nothing special as it has a large carbon footprint due to the batteries.


That sounds like a pretty cool setup - I'd love to hear more about it and see how it is put together. If I understand you properly, the windmill is used for water pumping during the day and changed over to electricity production at night? I've never come across a system like that.
 
2009-05-27 12:14:20 PM
chimp_ninja: the world's least literate government scientist who somehow has uniquely terrible job security and would be shipped off to Antarctica as a result.

Wow.

I mean, everything else that's crazy about that aside, I know scientists who jockey for position to be able to go to Antarctica for research.
 
2009-05-27 12:28:03 PM
Zafler:
Once again, I lament the lack of real skeptics anymore, or at least being able to discuss the various possible severity predictions and means of reducing our own impact.



So saying what if the severity predictions are overblown and taking a cui bono approach to determinations made by humans, who are after all not immune from bias and the prospect of personal gain is not "Real" scepticism?
 
2009-05-27 12:30:49 PM
By popular demand here are some peer reviewed works for chimp_ninja to lie about:

First, was the MWP global:

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2002/2001GL014580.shtml

And then:

http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/365/1860/2675.abstract?maxtoshow = &HITS=&hits=&RESULTFORMAT=1&andorexacttitle=and&fulltext=Medieval+AND+Warm+AND+P eriod+AND+Global&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevan ce&fdate=1/1/1665&tdate=5/31/2009&resourcetype=HWCIT

To quote:Based on projections from models validated against historical events, dramatic changes in ocean circulation appear unlikely. Ecosystem-climate feedbacks clearly have the potential to induce sudden change, but are relatively poorly understood at present.

Sounds like a little doubt there.

And another:

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2008GL034187.shtml

This one is important, to quote: The reconstructions show the temperatures of the mid-Holocene warm episode some 1-2 K above the reference level, the maximum of the MWP at or slightly below the reference level, the minimum of the LIA about 1 K below the reference level, and end-of-20th century temperatures about 0.5 K above the reference level.

The referance level was the 1961-1990 mean of the instrumental record. So as of this publication we were .5K above the mean of 1961-1990, the MWP was on par with this same time, and the mid-Holocene warm episode some 1-2 K above. Gee, it seems that this could be pretty normal when you look at the grand scale of the planet over time. And this one was published 4 July 2008.

Don't give up guys, I'm sure you can find something to biatch about from these links.
 
2009-05-27 12:34:05 PM
Zafler 2009-05-27 11:49:53 AM
baby_hewey
: There is plenty of real research at www.co2science.org, but you won't accecpt that either.

And again, that is not real research, it is a blog site run by, and paid for by, companies and organizations that have admitted to paying people to say what they wanted on this issue. Find something peer reviewed with multiple citations, or a site that summarizes findings and includes citations and is written by actual published climatologists. Realclimate.org is an very good example of such. None of your "sources" are. Hell that farcicle site you have there is run by some of the same people responsible for the laughably incorrect Oregon petition.


Yea for you, attack the messanger and ignore the message. The site typically links to the work discussed. Also, neither you or chimpy have offered any proof that the site is owned, run or funded by anyone, but neither have I.
 
2009-05-27 12:36:10 PM
communistsarestupid: So saying what if the severity predictions are overblown and taking a cui bono approach to determinations made by humans, who are after all not immune from bias and the prospect of personal gain is not "Real" scepticism?

How would faking the predictions benefit anyone? Scientists are far from super stars or even very wealthy, there is MORE accolades to be gotten in the scientific fields in having conclusive evidence that throws out an old conclusion, or even throws a SMALL amount of doubt onto it.

Even given that approach, the IPCC report is just about the most conservative estimate you can have, and it STILL indicates that not acting to mitigate the impact of human actions on the environment will be fairly damn disasterous. In addition, pretty close to every last method used to predict the impacts gives results exceeding those from the IPCC.

Honestly, that position does not appear to be founded on either logic or scientific knowledge. If you have such doubt about the predictions, read through the IPCC report. As I recall, it has the relevant citations as part of the PDF you can download. It is also, once again, the CONSERVATIVE predictions in pretty much every field.
 
2009-05-27 12:41:57 PM
img21.imageshack.us
 
2009-05-27 12:42:10 PM
MrSteve007 2009-05-27 12:12:35 PM
That sounds like a pretty cool setup - I'd love to hear more about it and see how it is put together. If I understand you properly, the windmill is used for water pumping during the day and changed over to electricity production at night? I've never come across a system like that.

It is not nearly as interesting as it sounds at first. I cheat by using the windmill to power an electric pump to fill tanks, and when the tanks are full the pump maintains pressure. Now the windmills are neat becuase I worked from a concept found here on a fark link. It uses old alternaters from cars, but they have to be what used to be called generators. All six of the ones I use came out of pre-1960 Cadillacs. These are then suplimented with one comercial unit that provides 1700 Watts at as little as 5 MPH breezes. All total I can run the house 85% of the time on my own power with leftovers. Over night I typically send a significan amount back to the grid. Now, if they paid the same that I am charged, then I would make money off of it, but it is not an even money exchange.
 
2009-05-27 12:46:44 PM
baby_hewey

And yet, this is what the American Geophysical Union has to say about anthropogenic climate change:

The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system--including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons--are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century.

So, this is 1 FAIL in 1 post ... ah ah ah.

Oh, and from your royal society abstract, which you apparently did not read:

More probable sudden changes are large increases in the frequency of summer heatwaves and changes resulting from feedbacks involving hydrology. These include ice sheet decay, which may be set in motion this century. The most devastating consequences are likely to occur further in the future, however. Reductions in subtropical precipitation are likely to be the most severe hydrologic effects this century, with rapid changes due to the feedbacks of relatively well-understood large-scale circulation patterns.

With the given understanding that these are from anthropogenic climate change, per the footnote.

So, 2 FAILs in one post ... ah ah ah.

Finally, the MWP is really not at issue, since we have exceeded all reconstructions for the approximate temperature during it. Given the documented increase to greenhouse gases solely due to man, and lacking any other factors to explain the increase in temperature, I really don't see why you bring it up.
 
2009-05-27 12:48:09 PM
baby_hewey: To quote:Based on projections from models validated against historical events, dramatic changes in ocean circulation appear unlikely. Ecosystem-climate feedbacks clearly have the potential to induce sudden change, but are relatively poorly understood at present.

Sounds like a little doubt there.


Where have I, chimp_ninja, or others proposed a consensus on "dramatic" changes in ocean circulation? The THC shutdown hypothesis is still a fresh (or fringe, if you prefer) topic within the climate community.

I'd like to see you refute ocean acidification, though.
 
2009-05-27 12:55:10 PM
Zafler:
How would faking the predictions benefit anyone? Scientists are far from super stars or even very wealthy, there is MORE accolades to be gotten in the scientific fields in having conclusive evidence that throws out an old conclusion, or even throws a SMALL amount of doubt onto it.


There is money to be had in government grants. The gain for the scientist is that he continues to be a scientist, his chosen profession. Producing a product is not always the end goal of science. For example, what practical application is there to advanced particle physics? String Theory? Has Gene Therapy cured any illnesses? How about Stem Cells?
 
2009-05-27 12:55:49 PM
Sorry, I forgot to offer up a link on how to build your own windmill:

http://www.homemade-wind-generator.com/plans/build-a-wind-generator-%E2%80%93-h o w-instructions

Home built can run anywhere from $120 up to $500 depending on how much you want to spend. Still significanly cheeper than the $1200 to $3000 you can spend on a comercial one.
 
2009-05-27 12:58:59 PM
baby_hewey

Why do you continually cite papers that directly contradict your argument?
 
2009-05-27 01:05:22 PM
Zafler 2009-05-27 12:46:44 PM
baby_hewey


And yet, this is what the American Geophysical Union has to say about anthropogenic climate change:

The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system--including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons--are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century.

So, this is 1 FAIL in 1 post ... ah ah ah.

Oh, and from your royal society abstract, which you apparently did not read:

More probable sudden changes are large increases in the frequency of summer heatwaves and changes resulting from feedbacks involving hydrology. These include ice sheet decay, which may be set in motion this century. The most devastating consequences are likely to occur further in the future, however. Reductions in subtropical precipitation are likely to be the most severe hydrologic effects this century, with rapid changes due to the feedbacks of relatively well-understood large-scale circulation patterns.

With the given understanding that these are from anthropogenic climate change, per the footnote.

So, 2 FAILs in one post ... ah ah ah.

Finally, the MWP is really not at issue, since we have exceeded all reconstructions for the approximate temperature during it. Given the documented increase to greenhouse gases solely due to man, and lacking any other factors to explain the increase in temperature, I really don't see why you bring it up.


Well, lets address this one fail at a time.

First, do you have a link where that lovely little quote came from? I'd like to see it to look at the rest of the work. Was it from a peer reviewed paper? Well, until you get back to me we will have to call this a fail on your part for posting with out referance.

Second, we have both pulled significant sections from a single paper and point to very differnet information. You point out what is listed as an expected outcome, while I point to this:
Ecosystem-climate feedbacks clearly have the potential to induce sudden change, but are relatively poorly understood at present. What do you think relatively poorly understood at present means? As for that matter what is the meaning of is? Come on and try a little harder in your next post.
 
2009-05-27 01:09:57 PM
mediablitz: How do you argue with someone that dead set in his denial?

Bevets/Tatsuma etc...


// nuf said ?
 
2009-05-27 01:12:06 PM
communistsarestupid: There is money to be had in government grants. The gain for the scientist is that he continues to be a scientist, his chosen profession. Producing a product is not always the end goal of science.

Wow, money in government grants? Seriously? That's pretty inane to believe scientists get these large chunks of cash to do with as they please. Also, if someone is a competent scientist, they will continue to be employed ... last I knew there is a relative dearth of qualified personnel for many positions at the top level of acadamia. I'm not up there myself, so I don't know for sure.

For example, what practical application is there to advanced particle physics?

Erm, particle physics and the underlying theories has already helped increase our understanding of the way energy and matter interact, and there are some indications that it may lead to viable energy sources.

String Theory?

If string theory turns out to be correct, and we can learn to harness the results (see particle physics to some extent), then we can manipulate space-time and be able to do things like make space travel realistic for our race.

Has Gene Therapy cured any illnesses? How about Stem Cells?

Gene therapy has the potential to cure damn near anything, and has already been used to cure skin cancer and a marrow disease. Since stem cells are essentially unassigned cells, they can eventually be used to create organs that the patient won't reject, as well as extending human life.

The potential of both those areas has barely been scratched.
 
2009-05-27 01:16:13 PM
Zafler: Erm, particle physics and the underlying theories has already helped increase our understanding of the way energy and matter interact, and there are some indications that it may lead to viable energy sources.

Not to mention blowing shiat up. Way up. Up in ways that no one thought possible before.

Zafler: Since stem cells are essentially unassigned cells, they can eventually be used to create organs that the patient won't reject, as well as extending human life.

Also, research into stem cells has immeasurably improved our understanding of cancers in general. You don't need to actually produce a cure; basic science improves treatment all the time.

So I haven't been in climate change threads in awhile: is baby_hewey a troll or just doesn't get how science works?
 
2009-05-27 01:22:40 PM
Obdicut 2009-05-27 12:58:59 PM
baby_hewey


Why do you continually cite papers that directly contradict your argument?

Because my argument is not what chimp_ninja, trofl, JonSnow, and Zafler seem to want it to be. I am only pointing out the issues in these works which all point to a doubt, or poor understanding of what current data tells us as well as the past cycles of this planet. These people as well as others want to portray AGW or Climate Change as a proven theory with no doubt, no disent, and refuse to consider any data that does not fit neatly with in the confines of "Man is killing the planet and we have to hae a knee jerk reaction to stop it".
I have no problem discussing this issue in a rational manner, and I will continually point out when they use half truths and out right lies to advance their agenda.

If you also fall with in this group that can not understand that everyone of these works includes these little disclaimers of doubt and lack of understanding then you have no idea what happens when these researchers are proven wrong. Even when that proof shows that the issue is worse than their data showed. It goes back to the concept of Hypotheses to Theory, to Scientific Law. It seems that over the last 30 years politics wants to take what ever ideas are out there that can lead to new controls and turn them into Laws, and it doesn't matter if there is any merit to those ideas or not.

A good example of this is the short lived use of Methyl tert-butyl ether(C5H12O), or better known as MTBE in gas. It was supposed to make gas cleaner buring, but infact caused an increase in emissions and had the added effect of contaminating ground water.

Call it unrealted if you wish, but I refuse to take anything on faith, unlike others in the thread.
 
2009-05-27 01:29:02 PM
baby_hewey: . These people as well as others want to portray AGW or Climate Change as a proven theory with no doubt, no disent, and refuse to consider any data that does not fit neatly with in the confines of "Man is killing the planet and we have to hae a knee jerk reaction to stop it".

No, that's not a good characterization of their position at all. Can't you try to be honest? It's pretty obvious to everyone reading the thread that their argument is, "Among the peer-reviewed literature on the subject, there is no dissent that AGW is occurring." That's all. You have cited papers to try to disprove that, but you either don't understand what they say, or are being disingenuous in citing them, because they actually contradict your points.

Call it unrealted if you wish, but I refuse to take anything on faith, unlike others in the thread.

You seem to take on faith that if someone says one statement in a paper that you can vaguely interpret to mean that one element of the system is poorly understood,that the rest of that paper doesn't matter and that the whole science of climatology is hazy guesswork.

And that's not even getting into the 'I'll be sent to Antartica' silliness.
 
2009-05-27 01:38:38 PM
Zafler: The potential of both those areas has barely been scratched.

Potential is the key word.

I have the potential to be a world boxing champion. If I only get 20 billion dollars from the government for training, diet, and equipment.

Gene Therapy has been around for how long now? And not a single cure for anything?

What is the point in continued public investement in things for which the benefit is nebulous?

And as far as scientists getting a ton of money to do whatever they want with. Can we say Large Hadron Collider? I'm sure the scientists on that one are not getting paid better than the ones testing better lip balm on lab rats...
 
2009-05-27 01:41:33 PM
baby_hewey: It is not nearly as interesting as it sounds at first. I cheat by using the windmill to power an electric pump to fill tanks, and when the tanks are full the pump maintains pressure. Now the windmills are neat becuase I worked from a concept found here on a fark link. It uses old alternaters from cars, but they have to be what used to be called generators. All six of the ones I use came out of pre-1960 Cadillacs. These are then suplimented with one comercial unit that provides 1700 Watts at as little as 5 MPH breezes. All total I can run the house 85% of the time on my own power with leftovers. Over night I typically send a significan amount back to the grid. Now, if they paid the same that I am charged, then I would make money off of it, but it is not an even money exchange.

Yeah, Texas isn't all that great for production credits/parity returns. In WA state, the state pays you between $0.15 - $0.56 (depending on if the components are made in-state) a kWh for any electricity you generate, even if you consume it onsite, a max of $5,000 annually, guaranteed till 2020. Meaning if you use in-state component, build a ~5-7 kw array, you'll be paid $55,000 by the state, on top of federal tax credits.

It's actually now quite profitable here to generate your own electricity from solar or wind.

We pay $0.08 a kWh, so we're always being paid double to seven times what we pay to buy regular power. The utilities are all for it, because that means they have less grid and generation infrastructure they need to invest in and maintain.

A recent article in Time Magazine goes into excellent detail on the how and why electrical generators in the rest of the nation are being pushed to generate as much electricity as they can to earn more money, vs. focusing on promoting conservation, to reduce the need to waste power - like the Northwest has been doing for the past three decades.

img.timeinc.net

Link (new window)
 
2009-05-27 01:42:58 PM
baby_hewey: Well, lets address this one fail at a time.

First, do you have a link where that lovely little quote came from? I'd like to see it to look at the rest of the work. Was it from a peer reviewed paper? Well, until you get back to me we will have to call this a fail on your part for posting with out referance.

Second, we have both pulled significant sections from a single paper and point to very differnet information. You point out what is listed as an expected outcome, while I point to this:
Ecosystem-climate feedbacks clearly have the potential to induce sudden change, but are relatively poorly understood at present. What do you think relatively poorly understood at present means? As for that matter what is the meaning of is? Come on and try a little harder in your next post.


Here is the statement fro AGU (new window)

here is an index of released statements from various scientific sources. (new window)

Finally, the fact that some systems are not fully understood is not a subject that is unknown. Drastic and ubrupt changes in this context means within weeks or months, possibly years. Your "point", quite honestly, is nonexistent.
 
Displayed 50 of 523 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report