This was an eye opener - cont.

Status
Not open for further replies.
stugray

stugray

Premium Member
The most important information from that article comes in these two quotes:

"But all this CO2 can only account for between one and 3.5 C (1.8-6.3 F) of PETM's warming if the models for climate sensitivity are right , the team found."

"Our results imply a fundamental gap in our understanding about the amplitude of global warming associated with large and abrupt climate perturbations,"


This is a perfect example of the folly in assuming that modeling is an accurate representation of reality. The good news is that modelers will play with their models until they fit this type of data and this process will hopefully result in a slightly better model. Though, there will always be something else that the model doesn't adequately account for.

Scott
 
No, the second from last paragraph is the most important.


****
Man-made global warming, driven mainly by the burning of oil, gas and coal, has amounted to around 0.8 C (1.12 F) over the past century.
****


It does make me the mind boggle that while all the huge amount of evidence accumulates, there are still so many people intent on not accepting it.

WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE

:bum:
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15366935#post15366935 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Rossini

****
Man-made global warming, driven mainly by the burning of oil, gas and coal, has amounted to around 0.8 C (1.12 F) over the past century.
****
Click to expand...

How do you think they came to that conclusion? Its derived mainly from modeling. The article demonstrates exactly why you can't make definitive conclusions like that based upon modeling results.

The "evidence" that does exist demonstrates a correlation, but again I will state that a correlation doesn't imply causality.

Scott
 
CO2

CO2

I agree, Scott.

If all humanity would stop breathing, say for just an hour a day, our global warming problem would be solved immediately... :rolleyes:

But that's not going to happen, anymore than developing countries are going to cut back on "carbon use"

Good grief.


LL
 
i would like to bring up a few miscelaneuos pieces of evidence.

noaa

nasa

nas

aas,

and ipcc all agree that global warming, which is a more descriptive term than climate change, is caused by man, further more, they all agree that it will cause great harm in many different ways, from environmental to economical.

so, what pieces of information do you guys have that these most prestigious scientific institutions are unaware of? oh and why haven't you told anyone yet????

these organisations have the more to loose from being wrong than anyone else, so why would they make such a strong stance on the situation if they didn't believe it within 99.999999% truth?

to not believe in this phenomenon simply because the models could be wrong, means that you should doubt all science, and shouldn;t even be using this computer, because for a reason that science is yet naive, it could transform into a mutant seaurchin and spear you with its long fiber optic spines. science is never certain. never. it may seem ironic that the most precise of all human endevours is the least likely to pronounce certainty, but it is true, their is a nasa probe still studying gravity.

the models are in abundant corelation, and are almost always right, they are very accurate.

i may not be a genious, but i know quite a bit about this, and conspiracy theorist need to get off the media so we can do something about this problem.

i now stand for cross( ironic? or just punny?) examinations, after that last statement. lol

let me know if you got it!!!!! i am tired and it may only make sense to me.
 
I'm going to offer two comments and then let the "modelers" in this forum go over the finer points.

1: After the last Ice Age, there was global warming. You state than global warming is manmade. How did man cause that? Or in more recent history, how did man cause the global warming after the last "mini Ice Age"

2: As a Florida resident, I'm sure you follow NOAA during hurricane season. I like to look at the "spaghetti page". This is the page that shows all of the different projected paths. These are calculated by "very accurate models". They usually agree very closely for the first 24 hours. Yet, at 5 or 6 days out, they are literally "all over the map". Take Katrina. Long before Katrina moved into the Gulf of Mexico, she was due to hit the gulf coast of Florida around Naples (as a much weaker storm!)
 
I couldn't find the model pages (didn't look too hard). But here is the archive page from NOAA for the 5 day cones. Look at the "cone" from days 1 through 3 compared to the actual path the storm/hurricane took. If you select the model from Day1 of the tropical depression, then the model is wildly innaccurate. Look at the drastic change of direction on August 24, 5pm model vs. August 24, 11 pm model. Big change in one day! Two days later, they almost get the final path right, but the intensity is still wrong. Still, this is they predicted path with a huge "cone" of variability.

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/KATRINA_graphics.shtml
 
One more comment, then I have to go play in the hot sun.

This is not a model. The cone is developed from a series of models. The black line is more of a "consensus" of models. If you based all of you assumptions off of one or two models....who knows how far off you would be.
 
Nobody has mentioned the fact that global temperatures have leveled out since 2001. I was under the impression that the rise in CO2 levels is an effect of global warming, not the cause. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but I haven't seen precipitation accounted for in any modeling either.

A lot of motivation for the global warming supporters, at least the political ones, is tax money. What better way to to increase taxes without protest from citizens than to tell the masses that these taxes are to save the planet? You would be guilted into paying and supporting.

Say goodbye to the free market and capitalism, now that we might have cap and trade, more like tax and spend.

If I have stepped over the line, I apologize, this is a touchy subject.

Good day to all, and if you disagree, it don't matter to the Jesus! (Labowski)
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15378575#post15378575 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Dingo44
Nobody has mentioned the fact that global temperatures have leveled out since 2001. I was under the impression that the rise in CO2 levels is an effect of global warming, not the cause. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but I haven't seen precipitation accounted for in any modeling either.

A lot of motivation for the global warming supporters, at least the political ones, is tax money. What better way to to increase taxes without protest from citizens than to tell the masses that these taxes are to save the planet? You would be guilted into paying and supporting.

Say goodbye to the free market and capitalism, now that we might have cap and trade, more like tax and spend.

If I have stepped over the line, I apologize, this is a touchy subject.

Good day to all, and if you disagree, it don't matter to the Jesus! (Labowski)
Click to expand...

it may have leveled off slightly, but it has not decreased, the decrease in temp myth is derived from the fact that in 1998 the temp was realy high. they are basing that assumption on an outlier, and nuthing more.

the fact is that the largest scientific organisations in the world support man made global warming, the support the idea that it will become a catstrophy, to list a few, the NAS and the AAAs. if you don't believe them who will you believe? these are the best scientist in the world. 1 out of ten are nobel prize winning scientist at the nas for someones sake! if you wont believe them than who will you believe. an organisation like this wont lie for any political reason, they are strictly scientific. the evidence is more powerful than ro filtration, but you use that? right?

did yo0u know that their are onl;y theories as to how the ro filter works? some think it srains the DS out of the water, others think it takes it out through being charged. are you gonna stop r/o filtering your water just because scientist aren't certain? truth is science is never certain, their still testing gravity with a probe in space.

tell me how you can not believe?
 
Reply to ctenophors rule:

I know RO works because I can see and test the result for myself right away. That's not how the global warming science debate is working right now. I understand a little about theories and such matters, I am in school right now to become a mechanical engineer, still def. a novice though.

I never said the temps were decreasing, I said they've been leveling off for about 8 or 9 years now.

There is so much data supporting both sides of the arguement from very distinguished scientists on both sides that's it's become very hard to make a decision. I def. think we should do all we can to make our environment a better place, but not at the costs of quality of life and massive tax increases. My beef with the GW crowd is the fact that they want to tax us to death and regulate every little aspect of our lives based on science that has a long way to go to come up with anything conclusive.

The largest scientific communites in the world have the most to gain from man made global warming. The political wind in Washington right now is blowing in the direction of man-made global warming, and there is a lot of tax revenue to be gained. So if you are a US government agencey, than you better play along or they'll find someone else to take your place who agrees with them, and if you get grant money, then there's a motivation right there to keep at the man-made angle. Since when do you ask "do you beleive?" when asking about supposedly scientifically settled debates? Shouldn't we "know" before making such drastic and lasting changes with very real consequences to our way of life?

I just want the politicians to stop killing the economy, taxing us everytime we sneeze, and telling us that unless we all drive little put-put cars everywhere we'll kill the polar bears. I'm sick of very important decisions being made based on science that hasn't been shown to be indisputable.

I do have a question in all this babble, why do people get so emotional/worked up about this subject?(not you ctenophors rule, you made a valid, concise reply). Is it because there seems to be so much at stake? Or is it because global warming is so unfortuneatly intertwined with politics? Or has it become a religion of sorts?

I'm skeptical on the Nobel commitee, anyone who gives any type of award to Al Gore for any reason has to have their motivations called into question.

.02 cents
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15379036#post15379036 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ctenophors rule
truth is science is never certain, their still testing gravity with a probe in space.
Click to expand...

Thank you for making my point for me. Your own argument shoots down your theory.
 
Dingo44,

Got keep the politics out of the discussion ;)

BTW Gore was only part of that Nobel Prize as a highly visible hitchhiker, the real people behind that were the actual scientists.
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15379266#post15379266 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Dingo44
Reply to ctenophors rule:

I know RO works because I can see and test the result for myself right away. That's not how the global warming science debate is working right now. I understand a little about theories and such matters, I am in school right now to become a mechanical engineer, still def. a novice though.

I never said the temps were decreasing, I said they've been leveling off for about 8 or 9 years now.

There is so much data supporting both sides of the arguement from very distinguished scientists on both sides that's it's become very hard to make a decision. I def. think we should do all we can to make our environment a better place, but not at the costs of quality of life and massive tax increases. My beef with the GW crowd is the fact that they want to tax us to death and regulate every little aspect of our lives based on science that has a long way to go to come up with anything conclusive.

The largest scientific communites in the world have the most to gain from man made global warming. The political wind in Washington right now is blowing in the direction of man-made global warming, and there is a lot of tax revenue to be gained. So if you are a US government agencey, than you better play along or they'll find someone else to take your place who agrees with them, and if you get grant money, then there's a motivation right there to keep at the man-made angle. Since when do you ask "do you beleive?" when asking about supposedly scientifically settled debates? Shouldn't we "know" before making such drastic and lasting changes with very real consequences to our way of life?

I just want the politicians to stop killing the economy, taxing us everytime we sneeze, and telling us that unless we all drive little put-put cars everywhere we'll kill the polar bears. I'm sick of very important decisions being made based on science that hasn't been shown to be indisputable.

I do have a question in all this babble, why do people get so emotional/worked up about this subject?(not you ctenophors rule, you made a valid, concise reply). Is it because there seems to be so much at stake? Or is it because global warming is so unfortuneatly intertwined with politics? Or has it become a religion of sorts?

I'm skeptical on the Nobel commitee, anyone who gives any type of award to Al Gore for any reason has to have their motivations called into question.

.02 cents
Click to expand...

thank you for the complement, buti like how you say no to politics, then say anyone who gives al gore a medel need s to be questioned. lol. did i take that the wrong way?

the main thing i am saying, is...well....to be entirely frank....who the hell are you? i don't mean this is a mean way. but what info do you have that the top scientist of the world don't have. if i want to know when it is the right time to buy a house, do i need to become an expert on the subject first? or do i need to understand the way that gas makes a car move? no! all i need is to know that the experts believe it will work. if you can't trust an expert, than you can't trust anyone.

also, we are going to run out of coal and oil soon. the coal in the us is only equal to the amoun that we have ever used in us history. well let me give you an example. if you add a bacteria to a bottle a single bacteria, and it splits every minute, and in one hour you come back and it is completely full. then the time we are at right now is one minute away from the end of the hour. because the bottle is half full only one minute before the end of the hour.

now factor in the 3% growth trand, and do the math, the coal will only last for 60 years, at the most 90 but that is only if we use every last drop of coal, and that is impossible.

so if you can't trust experts.....then you can atleast concede to the fact that we will have to do something soon, instead of half assing it at the last minute, why not start now and make more jobs to boost the economy?
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15379319#post15379319 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by jdhuyvetter
Thank you for making my point for me. Your own argument shoots down your theory.
Click to expand...

i'm sorry, if this proves your argument, why are you using the computer now, it could transform into a mutant sea anemone and ingest you alive in its gastric cavity, right? no scientist has disproved that?

and for the r/o, you see it working, well who says that all of the sudden it wont change? or whos to say that the r/o isn't creating a deadly chemical that is slowly being bioaccumulated in organisms?( i don't remember if the r/o was you just wanted to bring that up)
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15379266#post15379266 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Dingo44
Reply to ctenophors rule:

1) I know RO works because I can see and test the result for myself right away. That's not how the global warming science debate is working right now. I understand a little about theories and such matters, I am in school right now to become a mechanical engineer, still def. a novice though.

2)I never said the temps were decreasing, I said they've been leveling off for about 8 or 9 years now.

3)There is so much data supporting both sides of the arguement from very distinguished scientists on both sides that's it's become very hard to make a decision. I def. think we should do all we can to make our environment a better place, but not at the costs of quality of life and massive tax increases. My beef with the GW crowd is the fact that they want to tax us to death and regulate every little aspect of our lives based on science that has a long way to go to come up with anything conclusive.

4)The largest scientific communites in the world have the most to gain from man made global warming. The political wind in Washington right now is blowing in the direction of man-made global warming, and there is a lot of tax revenue to be gained. So if you are a US government agencey, than you better play along or they'll find someone else to take your place who agrees with them, and if you get grant money, then there's a motivation right there to keep at the man-made angle. Since when do you ask "do you beleive?" when asking about supposedly scientifically settled debates? Shouldn't we "know" before making such drastic and lasting changes with very real consequences to our way of life?

5)I just want the politicians to stop killing the economy, taxing us everytime we sneeze, and telling us that unless we all drive little put-put cars everywhere we'll kill the polar bears. I'm sick of very important decisions being made based on science that hasn't been shown to be indisputable.

6)I do have a question in all this babble, why do people get so emotional/worked up about this subject?(not you ctenophors rule, you made a valid, concise reply). Is it because there seems to be so much at stake? Or is it because global warming is so unfortuneatly intertwined with politics? Or has it become a religion of sorts?

I'm skeptical on the Nobel commitee, anyone who gives any type of award to Al Gore for any reason has to have their motivations called into question.

7).02 cents
Click to expand...

1) whyan't ro be leaching deadly bioaccumulatable chemicals into the water at trace levels?

2) the temp is leveling off, but still rising, btw the leveling off was to be expected, it was predicted in the models and by nasa.

3)did you just say you are waiting for the evidence to be conclusive?science is never conclusive. can you give me some of the data from the disbelieving side, i sware i can deconstruct it down to nuthingness, so just pick any one and try me. the logner we wait, the more it will cost,according to NAS, so the longer we wait, the more of a lifestyle detriment it will be. also, the coal will not last, niether will the oil, so why not start developing now, before it is too late. what happened to preventative care? why do we only need to fix it if it is broken? can we afford to wait till this is broken?

4) do you know our understanding of gravity is corrct? because nasa sure doesn't.

5) give me one scientific fact that is indisputable, in your oppinion, and please allow me to dispute it with you:D :D :D

6) for many this has become a religion, for others they follow those who need this fight, their are many reasons why, but to discuss them may be against the rules.

.02 cents, so you will have 9 more posts of equal length to this to equal your full 2 cents, or your .02$, right? lol
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15376930#post15376930 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ctenophors rule
i would like to bring up a few miscelaneuos pieces of evidence.

noaa

nasa

nas

aas,

and ipcc all agree that global warming, which is a more descriptive term than climate change, is caused by man, further more, they all agree that it will cause great harm in many different ways, from environmental to economical.

so, what pieces of information do you guys have that these most prestigious scientific institutions are unaware of? oh and why haven't you told anyone yet????

these organisations have the more to loose from being wrong than anyone else, so why would they make such a strong stance on the situation if they didn't believe it within 99.999999% truth?

to not believe in this phenomenon simply because the models could be wrong, means that you should doubt all science, and shouldn;t even be using this computer, because for a reason that science is yet naive, it could transform into a mutant seaurchin and spear you with its long fiber optic spines. science is never certain. never. it may seem ironic that the most precise of all human endevours is the least likely to pronounce certainty, but it is true, their is a nasa probe still studying gravity.

the models are in abundant corelation, and are almost always right, they are very accurate.

i may not be a genious, but i know quite a bit about this, and conspiracy theorist need to get off the media so we can do something about this problem.

i now stand for cross( ironic? or just punny?) examinations, after that last statement. lol

let me know if you got it!!!!! i am tired and it may only make sense to me.
Click to expand...

What really bothers me about discussions like this is that people start making it a black and white issue. From your comments, it seems like you think I am either totally with you or totally against you. I have repeatedly said that addressing global warming/climate change is a GOOD thing. There are many reasons besides just global warming to try to reduce emmisions and utilize sustainable energy sources. I just think it should be done in a realistic way. The limitations of modeling to to be considered in the decisions that we make. Modeling can be used to partially INFORM a decision, but it should not be used as the BASIS of a decision.

THe following two paragraphs may verge on "political", but I feel that people who haven't worked in research science should understand:

Scientists/Modelers/Researchers in all of the organizations listed (and every other academic/research institution) produce results that get misinterpreted by the non-scientific community all the time. Part of that problem is that the non-scientific community never reads the fine print in a study (or the researcher isn't very good at explicitly stating the limitations/assumptions). The general public just reads the abstract/executive summary and assume they understand what the study is saying. They never get to the part where all of the limitations, assumtions, etc. are stated and they probably wouldn't understand the significance of them even if they did read that part. I've seen happen with my own work MANY MANY times.

Furthermore, scientists/modelers/researchers need funding. They get funding by portraying their chosen field/topic to be important. It isn't lying, it is putting there field of research in the proper light to get the funding they need to continue their work. I have no doubt that the researchers working in the climate change field believe very strongly that climate change is an important issue. It is an important issue, but when publishing something they are more likely to emphasize certain parts and downplay other parts in order to produce a product that people will think is very important. I've seen this happen quite a bit also.

As a completely hypothetical example, a modeler in climate change might emphasize that they project that the sea levels will rise by 10 feet, but might not emphasize that the uncertainty in that result is +/- 15 feet. Certainly, that result is something that should be examined and considered because it might be a big problem, but given the level of uncertainty, you can't have much confidence in the result.

Scott
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Paul B
IMO How to set up a tank to stay healthy and immune
2
Replies
20
Views
702
Paul B
Paul B
Fiish
Nitrites and nitrate toxicity
Replies
10
Views
519
Fiish
Fiish
Paul B
Earthworms as fish food
Replies
4
Views
323
xLennie
xLennie
3
Ammonium Chloride and oxidizer (KMnO4), to grow corals, less water changes, and very low organo-phosphates:
2
Replies
24
Views
2K
JCOLE
JCOLE
Noah_Reefing
An essay on sustainable fishing
2
Replies
24
Views
2K
jamsymaz
J
Back
Top