ctenophors rule
New member
and i believe rosini might have been trying to say, comparing the accuracy of hurricane models to climate models is like comparing the dinoflagellates and dinosaurs.
This was an eye opener - cont.
- Thread starter stugray
- Start date
- Status
and i believe rosini might have been trying to say, comparing the accuracy of hurricane models to climate models is like comparing the dinoflagellates and dinosaurs.
ScooterTDI
New member
Can you link something on this? I am highly skeptical of this one. You need energy to compress a gas. Where would that energy come from?
Scott
ScooterTDI
New member
Fair enough, but you can't argue a point by saying "more scientists believe this, so thats what I believe".
From what I've seen, politics comes in on both sides and both are usually wrong.
Scott
ScooterTDI
New member
What I mean by "reactionary" is making rash decisions out of an unfounded/irrational/uninformed fear.
Example:
The push for ethanol in the U.S. a couple years ago was a reactionary measure. It just doesn't make any sense. We are beginning to see that now, but, at the time, everyone was buying into the whole E85 craze.
My point is not that global warming doesn't exist or that man isn't significantly contributing. I don't have a definitive answer to those questions. I do know something about modeling and I do know that modeling is not able to predict the future. People need to take modeling results with a grain of salt. Don't ignore them, but you have to understand what they can and what they cannot tell you.
Scott
jdhuyvetter
SWFMAS Event Coordinator
Again, my points are.......It is relatively easy to compare the accuracy of a hurricane model. You can see the life of a hurricane play out in a few days or weeks. How do you compare the accuracy of a climate model or models? Never been done before.
Oh, and so far, NOAA's projections (as well as others) for this years hurricane season are off......again.
As for dinoflagellates and dinosaurs. Which is which? The dinosaur is a much more complex being (or was anyway). I would think that since any type of modeling is in its infancy, that the more complex it is, the more prone to error it will be. Again goes back to the point I was trying to make. Nobody has been around long enough to "correlate" the model to the actual event.
As for the other comments regarding our responsibities with regards to pollutants and the need to find alternative fuels or energy, I am totally behind the science of those endeavors. Further, from a political standpoint (sorry mods, gotta do it), I have no problem with the government using MY TAX DOLLARS in a responsible way to support clean up and research. I have a major problem when they try to cram it down my throat.
Oh, and so far, NOAA's projections (as well as others) for this years hurricane season are off......again.
As for dinoflagellates and dinosaurs. Which is which? The dinosaur is a much more complex being (or was anyway). I would think that since any type of modeling is in its infancy, that the more complex it is, the more prone to error it will be. Again goes back to the point I was trying to make. Nobody has been around long enough to "correlate" the model to the actual event.
As for the other comments regarding our responsibities with regards to pollutants and the need to find alternative fuels or energy, I am totally behind the science of those endeavors. Further, from a political standpoint (sorry mods, gotta do it), I have no problem with the government using MY TAX DOLLARS in a responsible way to support clean up and research. I have a major problem when they try to cram it down my throat.
ScooterTDI
New member
I would agree with others that said hurricane models and climate models are completely different beasts, but I would also agree with jdhuyvetter that the hurricane models demonstrate the issues associated with modeling in general.
Scott
Scott
Dingo44
New member
I just got done reading the entire first half of this thread, the one that was closed (REAL slow day at work) and I think the modeling aspect of this arguement has been dealt with by ScooterTDI. He has elaborated multiple times his point on the inherant inaccuraccies of modeling and the warping of their conclusions by people on both sides.
To ctenophors rule, I hate to diverge from the topic, that seems to be the trend, but peak oil is a myth, and your numbers on coal are way wrong. Quit using that 12:00 bacteria in a glass analogy, it makes no sense. I noticed in the closed thread you were very active, yet you still ignore what ScooterTDI has repeated again and again. The oxygen powered car you mentioned, sounds like a perpetual motion device, which is impossible.
Where's greenbean36191? I liked his technical take on all of this, and reading him and ScooterTDI going back and forth was a pleasure.
Rossini seems to be, according to all his/her posts, a complete faithful believer in what the UK and the BBC has been telling him/her and not even considering other arguements. What do you even say to someone like that?
You can probably tell that I don't buy man-made GW, but these two threads have def. been an "eye opener" for me and has made me do a lot more research, along with expanding my horizons on the subject.
To ctenophors rule, I hate to diverge from the topic, that seems to be the trend, but peak oil is a myth, and your numbers on coal are way wrong. Quit using that 12:00 bacteria in a glass analogy, it makes no sense. I noticed in the closed thread you were very active, yet you still ignore what ScooterTDI has repeated again and again. The oxygen powered car you mentioned, sounds like a perpetual motion device, which is impossible.
Where's greenbean36191? I liked his technical take on all of this, and reading him and ScooterTDI going back and forth was a pleasure.
Rossini seems to be, according to all his/her posts, a complete faithful believer in what the UK and the BBC has been telling him/her and not even considering other arguements. What do you even say to someone like that?
You can probably tell that I don't buy man-made GW, but these two threads have def. been an "eye opener" for me and has made me do a lot more research, along with expanding my horizons on the subject.
ctenophors rule
New member
thatrs the problem, right now the energy comes from gasoline, but if they can become more efficient, as one prototype is very close to doing, it will run entirely oni compressed gas, once the gas chambers are full of course.
just google air powered car, it should show up.
ctenophors rule
New member
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15384223#post15384223 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ScooterTDI
Fair enough, but you can't argue a point by saying "more scientists believe this, so thats what I believe".
From what I've seen, politics comes in on both sides and both are usually wrong.
Scott
why can't i argue that point? i trust that my broker knows what he is doing, and as such i won't learn everything he knows before buying a house, why would we need experts if before we did anything we became an expert in the subject?
do you realy believe that the scientist aren't aware of the arguements the nay sayers throw at them? of course they are! so their must be something they know that you don't that makes them all agree ion the subject, right?
even if the projections aren't accurate, they all point towards a heating trend, right? not one of them suggest a cooling trend. right?
ctenophors rule
New member
well scooter, maybe i am too young to understand your modeling argument, maybe i don't want to hear it, but their are just fundamental flaws in it, i don't understand how you choose which models to believe and which you choose not to....but i concede, at least for now.
dingo, what about the bacteria glass analogy doesn't make sense? i am serious this is new to me....i never heard a good counter argument.
dingo, what about the bacteria glass analogy doesn't make sense? i am serious this is new to me....i never heard a good counter argument.
ScooterTDI
New member
Because you aren't actually discussing the topic when you say that. You are just closing your mind to differing viewpoints.
I am not a NAY-SAYER!!!!!! What do I have to do to get that across?
I don't mean to be rude, but you said that you need to refine your arguement before returning to school. Let me give you a pointer: Listen to the person you are discussing things with and try to understand their viewpoint. Tailor your arguement to your opponents viewpoint.
Scott
ScooterTDI
New member
What are the flaws? I don't choose to believe some and not believe others. I view ALL models with some skepticism. I do a lot of modeling and I don't even believe the own models I create.
Explain the bacteria/glass thing. Thats something I haven't heard of apparently.
Scott
ScooterTDI
New member
Thats not an energy source, that sounds like energy storage device. Sorry, no free energy, it has to come from somewhere.
Scott
Dingo44
New member
well, if you take it literally I think the math works out to be 2^60= 1.1592 X 10^18 would be the amount of bacteria in the glass. That's a real big number but I don't think that'll fill a glass, I guess it depends on the volume of the bacteria and the glass... but I digress.
I know that's not the point to the analogy, the point was that we're on the precipice of a potential disaster and unless we act now (reactionary) then we're all doomed and the world as we know it will end, at 12:01, tuesday, the 29th... it will be raining, with a slight breeze from the west.
That's an irresponisible analogy that's only meant to grab people's attention like a headline. The problem is, if there really is man made GW, then what exactly do we do to stop it? Statements like this imply action be taken for action's sake. What if that action makes things worse? Or has unintended concequences that affect millions of people? Doing something just to do something is never a good idea, no matter what the situation.
ScooterTDI
New member
Yea, thats a flawed analogy. The bacteria will never fill the bottle. They'll be limited by the resources available inside the bottle, just like we are limited by our energy resources.
The analogy implies that we will experience unlimited exponential growth in our energy usage. That won't happen.
Scott
ctenophors rule
New member
but is doing nuthing bec ause you don't want to make lifestyle sacrifices any better? we can't afford to wait anymore, and if we do, it will cost more, according to the ipcc and NAS. the longer we wait the more it will inconveniece us.
who said their was nothing that could be done? their are certaintly ways that we can better the environment while simultaneuosly bettering the economy.
plasma lighting for spot lights. more ecofriendly planning for bulding, and the best solution, at least for now as it is the most feasible, increased energy efficiency.
also, their is my science experament which will create energy and increase the h of the oceans.......yeah
ctenophors rule
New member
i wasted the quote post, i re read it and now i see the true meaning of the post, sorry, taking a speed reading class.....
the action could make things worse, but that seems to b e a horrible argument, and here is why. remember when their was the possibility that germany could have WMD's? remember how we reacted? was every scientist sure that a weapon like that was even possible? no. but did we wait until every single scientist surveyed agreed? i even think that then less cientist believed that a WMd of that caliber could be created, than scientist now believe that global warming is anthropogenic.
can ia sk you something? what would it take for you to believe that global warming is anthropogenic? top scientific organisations approval? exxon like bbuissinesses switching from normal biass and frcing more ecofriendly equipment and technolgies on their many stores? a governmental commitee? a 95% agreement between scientist? hundreds of thousands of advocacy groups( though they don't realy count, not very high up on the sources list)
and that is my main problem, their are no great sources who doubt AGW, not a single NAS or AAAS caliber scientific organisation that doesn't believe. not one.
but anyway i am rambling.
the action could make things worse, but that seems to b e a horrible argument, and here is why. remember when their was the possibility that germany could have WMD's? remember how we reacted? was every scientist sure that a weapon like that was even possible? no. but did we wait until every single scientist surveyed agreed? i even think that then less cientist believed that a WMd of that caliber could be created, than scientist now believe that global warming is anthropogenic.
can ia sk you something? what would it take for you to believe that global warming is anthropogenic? top scientific organisations approval? exxon like bbuissinesses switching from normal biass and frcing more ecofriendly equipment and technolgies on their many stores? a governmental commitee? a 95% agreement between scientist? hundreds of thousands of advocacy groups( though they don't realy count, not very high up on the sources list)
and that is my main problem, their are no great sources who doubt AGW, not a single NAS or AAAS caliber scientific organisation that doesn't believe. not one.
but anyway i am rambling.
- Status
Similar threads
