ctenophors rule
New member
ok, i am googling chaos theory now then....good night....
This was an eye opener - cont.
- Thread starter stugray
- Start date
- Status
ScooterTDI
New member
Here are some interesting quotes from the first reference on the Chaos theory wiki page:
"The existence of a chaotic component in the evolution of x is thus obvious here. Of course, it should not be discounted that in longer developments this chaotic component would appear to
be linked to a longer range regularity. However, the results found for the considered climatological series, suggesting that the perturbation of any regularity by chaotic components is an intrinsic property for each particular level of time or space scales, mean accepting the fact that the evolution of such series remains practically out of control, making validation of any [climate] model
statistical or stochastic, practically impossible."
"For all the climatological interest of these results, particularly with the apparent limitation to the region of the 50 deg latitude for the recent warming, which weakens the hypothesis of the major infuence on the climate evolution of the CO2 air concentration increases, their statistical value seems to be too
poor for the elaboration of an efficient statistical climate model. The same answer is valid for the adjustment of eventual stochastic ones."
Sneyers, R. "Climate Chaotic Instability: Statistical Determination and Theoretical Background" Environmetrics, 8, 1997. p. 517-532
So, there you have a scientist who isn't so sure. That reference is a detailed and thorough examination of climate change and climate modeling with an emphasis on the role of chaos theory.
Scott
"The existence of a chaotic component in the evolution of x is thus obvious here. Of course, it should not be discounted that in longer developments this chaotic component would appear to
be linked to a longer range regularity. However, the results found for the considered climatological series, suggesting that the perturbation of any regularity by chaotic components is an intrinsic property for each particular level of time or space scales, mean accepting the fact that the evolution of such series remains practically out of control, making validation of any [climate] model
statistical or stochastic, practically impossible."
"For all the climatological interest of these results, particularly with the apparent limitation to the region of the 50 deg latitude for the recent warming, which weakens the hypothesis of the major infuence on the climate evolution of the CO2 air concentration increases, their statistical value seems to be too
poor for the elaboration of an efficient statistical climate model. The same answer is valid for the adjustment of eventual stochastic ones."
Sneyers, R. "Climate Chaotic Instability: Statistical Determination and Theoretical Background" Environmetrics, 8, 1997. p. 517-532
So, there you have a scientist who isn't so sure. That reference is a detailed and thorough examination of climate change and climate modeling with an emphasis on the role of chaos theory.
Scott
jdhuyvetter
SWFMAS Event Coordinator
Your whole argument seems to rely on this 95% of scientists believe in global warming theory.
Just out of curiousity, what conference was this "poll" conducted?
Just out of curiousity, what conference was this "poll" conducted?
jdhuyvetter
SWFMAS Event Coordinator
You totally missed the point on this one! There is no coincidence or 5%!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The point is that in 1975, Nobel scientists and prestiguous institutes (your words, not mine) were calling for global cooling. Many of the people that you claim to be experts have done a 180.
We really are trying to help you. You've got blinders on. I posted links for you to get the OPPOSING side of the story. I'm hoping that you are responsible enough to do research and stop relying on what someone else tells you to think. You keep relying on scientists and Nobel prize winners and prestigous institutes. Yet, except for the institutes you haven't listed any names. I posted the link to the Newsweek article because it was based on research done by NOAA (one of your prestigous institutes). I wanted you to see how NOAA has done a 180. I commented on NOAA's hurricane models as an example of how their hurricane models are flawed. These are models that they can modify every hurricane season based on ACTUAL results.
Further, I posted a link that actually has both sides of the story on the same website. (Although, to be fair, I just found it last night and haven't had time to look at it very closely)
I have not told you that I believe in global cooling (I don't) or that I believe in global warming (I don't).
ctenophors rule
New member
i haven't got blinders on, green bean showed that the percentage of scientist who believed in it was less than 5% in the orriginal, and yues noaa scientist performed the strudy, tell me, was their a formal statement by noaa saying this is real, we must do everything in our poewr to stop the catastrophies that will follow, and these catstrophies are.....?
and i think it is purely coincidental that the 2 number allign.
jdhuyvetter
SWFMAS Event Coordinator
Please show me green beans comments. I looked, but couldn't find any point where he stated 95%......The only reference to scientist by number was anecdotal (30,000 scientists and the sun rising in the north)
As for NOAA making a statement, did you read the link to the article I posted? Have you looked at other statements by NOAA in the 1970's?
ScooterTDI
New member
At some point in the past, 95% of scientists believed that the Earth was flat....
Thats not really a counter arguement, it is just food for thought.
Seriously though, Ctenophors has stated that it is arrogant to have skepticism about the claims of these scientists. I would argue that it is arrogant to believe that we have such an utterly complete understanding of the climate that we can't be wrong about global warming.
Scott
Thats not really a counter arguement, it is just food for thought.
Seriously though, Ctenophors has stated that it is arrogant to have skepticism about the claims of these scientists. I would argue that it is arrogant to believe that we have such an utterly complete understanding of the climate that we can't be wrong about global warming.
Scott
jdhuyvetter
SWFMAS Event Coordinator
Was that before or after the sun orbited the Earth?
Dingo44
New member
Chaos theory.... didn't you see Jurassic Park? Remember when Jeff Goldblum did the demonstration in the car with the drops of water rolling off his hand when he was hitting on Dr. Sattler?
I think I know what conference Ctenophor is talking about. I think the scientists who were invited to the conference were all like minded, so of course 95% of those scientists would agree on man made global warming. When you read polls like that, you must be aware of the sample population that is being polled in order to put the results in the proper light.
There was a petition passed around awhile ago where something like 30,000 scientists signed it saying they were unsure of the causes of global warming. Granted not all the scientists who signed it were climatologists, but neither are all the scientists who agree on man made GW.
This site shows a poll where only 56% of scientists agree on man made global warming. So if you're are sure the experts are always right, then why the discrepancy?
http://www.opposingviews.com/arguments/scientific-consensus-overstated
I think I know what conference Ctenophor is talking about. I think the scientists who were invited to the conference were all like minded, so of course 95% of those scientists would agree on man made global warming. When you read polls like that, you must be aware of the sample population that is being polled in order to put the results in the proper light.
There was a petition passed around awhile ago where something like 30,000 scientists signed it saying they were unsure of the causes of global warming. Granted not all the scientists who signed it were climatologists, but neither are all the scientists who agree on man made GW.
This site shows a poll where only 56% of scientists agree on man made global warming. So if you're are sure the experts are always right, then why the discrepancy?
http://www.opposingviews.com/arguments/scientific-consensus-overstated
jdhuyvetter
SWFMAS Event Coordinator
Chaos theory......
A butterfly flaps it's wings in China and we get a hurricane in the US (or vica versa)
(That was my favorite chaos theory analogy...in a very short form)
A butterfly flaps it's wings in China and we get a hurricane in the US (or vica versa)
(That was my favorite chaos theory analogy...in a very short form)
stugray
Premium Member
Should we always trust the "scientists"?
When some scientists proposed launching rockets into the vacuum of space MOST ( lets say 95% ) said IT WILL NOT WORK!
They assumed that once you left the atmosphere, the rocket plume would have "nothing to push on" and therefore could not generate any thrust.
Only ~30 years ago, a bunch of mechanical engineers & scientists were asked the following question:
" If a Gymnast leaves a trampoline with the intention of doing a triple layout backflip, Is it POSSIBLE for him to do a straight flip on the first flip, a full twist on the second flip, and no twist on the third flip?"
They ALL said "NO! - due to the conversation of momentum, the gymnast cannot twist only the middle flip while not twisting the first & third."
What does everyone here think?
( The answer is in the fact that for a gymnast that can manipulate his body in flight - momentum is not necessarilly conserverd in all axes )
They mistakenly applied physics of a RIGID body to that of an intelligent gymnast.
As for some of GreenBeans comments on the other thread about how we have climate temperature data that goes back millions of years...
I gave it some thought and guess what? MOST of the data that was given as examples - REQUIRES a MODEL to get the data out.
Slightly circular reasoning if you ask me.
How do we know our climate model is accurate?
Because we have data that goes back millions of years that validates the model.
Where did we get the data that goes back millions of years?
From core samples, etc.
And the core samples have stripcharts in them?
NO, but after applying the climate model, we can infer the temperature....
( if that doesnt get him back nothing will ;-)
Stu
When some scientists proposed launching rockets into the vacuum of space MOST ( lets say 95% ) said IT WILL NOT WORK!
They assumed that once you left the atmosphere, the rocket plume would have "nothing to push on" and therefore could not generate any thrust.
Only ~30 years ago, a bunch of mechanical engineers & scientists were asked the following question:
" If a Gymnast leaves a trampoline with the intention of doing a triple layout backflip, Is it POSSIBLE for him to do a straight flip on the first flip, a full twist on the second flip, and no twist on the third flip?"
They ALL said "NO! - due to the conversation of momentum, the gymnast cannot twist only the middle flip while not twisting the first & third."
What does everyone here think?
( The answer is in the fact that for a gymnast that can manipulate his body in flight - momentum is not necessarilly conserverd in all axes )
They mistakenly applied physics of a RIGID body to that of an intelligent gymnast.
As for some of GreenBeans comments on the other thread about how we have climate temperature data that goes back millions of years...
I gave it some thought and guess what? MOST of the data that was given as examples - REQUIRES a MODEL to get the data out.
Slightly circular reasoning if you ask me.
How do we know our climate model is accurate?
Because we have data that goes back millions of years that validates the model.
Where did we get the data that goes back millions of years?
From core samples, etc.
And the core samples have stripcharts in them?
NO, but after applying the climate model, we can infer the temperature....
( if that doesnt get him back nothing will ;-)
Stu
stugray
Premium Member
" I think the scientists who were invited to the conference were all like minded,"
Yeah that's like saying: 85% of all people surveyed said that Star Wars was the best movie in history.
Where was this survey taken?
At the national Star Wars conference......
Statistics can always be manipulated to tell the story that you want.
I CAN PROVE using statistics that Ambulances are the #1 most dangerous vehicles in the world.
How? - WELL...... more than 90% of people who ride in ambulances end up in the hospital!
Stu
Yeah that's like saying: 85% of all people surveyed said that Star Wars was the best movie in history.
Where was this survey taken?
At the national Star Wars conference......
Statistics can always be manipulated to tell the story that you want.
I CAN PROVE using statistics that Ambulances are the #1 most dangerous vehicles in the world.
How? - WELL...... more than 90% of people who ride in ambulances end up in the hospital!
Stu
ScooterTDI
New member
Yea, the term "reconstruction" is used quite frequently.
If you look at the error bars on data from before the recorded observations, they are so huge that you could make any claim you want about the trend.
Scott
Meisen
Premium Member
Very clearly its the scientists who stand to gain (grant money and expensive "junkets" to Greenland and Antartica) from all this pseudoscience hokery that are cooking the data in their favor. Its a really common practice amongst real scientists to just make the data fit their proposed "models". Again, most people dont know that b/c its a huge media coverup as they stand to gain too (lots of dramatic chicken little/doomsday reporting ups ratings you know). They make up these silly ideas (evolution, climate change, gravity etc) and then hold out their hands to grab all the money that falls from the sky! If I were really smart thats what I would do at least.
Anyway, the tiny amount of CO2 humans have put into the atmosphere compared to volcanoes, natural fires and deep sea vents is pitiable and will have NO EFFECT based on my down to earth, commonsense approach to "science". Clearly releasing most of the accessible, sequesterd carbon into the atmosphere in what amounts to a mouse fart of time wont have any impacts, I can feel it. I mean just look how stable the earth's atmosphere was 3-4 billion years ago when more carbon was free!
Anyway, the tiny amount of CO2 humans have put into the atmosphere compared to volcanoes, natural fires and deep sea vents is pitiable and will have NO EFFECT based on my down to earth, commonsense approach to "science". Clearly releasing most of the accessible, sequesterd carbon into the atmosphere in what amounts to a mouse fart of time wont have any impacts, I can feel it. I mean just look how stable the earth's atmosphere was 3-4 billion years ago when more carbon was free!
Last edited:
Dingo44
New member
Keep in mind that the IPCC was set up by the United Nations and is full of political appointees. They have an agenda and are definitely bias. Remember that the UN is the type of organization that puts human rights violating countries on the panel in charge of human rights, they are a political paper tiger who needs the US for muscle and money to exist.
Dingo44
New member
Here's a quote regarding ice core samples in Greenland:
"In late 2006, researchers at the Danish Meteorological Institute and the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (UK) correlated Greenland's surface temperature readings and ice core data dating back to 1784.
They made a remarkable discovery. The past two decades were the coldest decades for Greenland since the 1910s. Average annual temperatures during the past two decades were colder than in any of the previous six decades. Greenland's temperatures during the 1980s and 1990s averaged a full 1.5 degrees Celsius lower than average annual temperatures during the 1930s and 1940s."
Presentation Delivered to the Minnesota Climate Science Symposium
March 8, 2007
http://www.heartland.org/policybot/...ience_and_Global_Warming_What_Do_We_Know.html
"In late 2006, researchers at the Danish Meteorological Institute and the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (UK) correlated Greenland's surface temperature readings and ice core data dating back to 1784.
They made a remarkable discovery. The past two decades were the coldest decades for Greenland since the 1910s. Average annual temperatures during the past two decades were colder than in any of the previous six decades. Greenland's temperatures during the 1980s and 1990s averaged a full 1.5 degrees Celsius lower than average annual temperatures during the 1930s and 1940s."
Presentation Delivered to the Minnesota Climate Science Symposium
March 8, 2007
http://www.heartland.org/policybot/...ience_and_Global_Warming_What_Do_We_Know.html
jdhuyvetter
SWFMAS Event Coordinator
Global warming in Nashville!!!!
I just saw on the news, this mornings low was 58. Three days in a row where the set or tied the record.
I just saw on the news, this mornings low was 58. Three days in a row where the set or tied the record.
ctenophors rule
New member
who said anything about being infallable, so your either 50/50 wrong or write, wron g, or infallable? no!
and what kind of scientist were those? that theory came from reading the bible......
the fact that the vast majority of scientist believe in this, and we are talking true science, not bible science, adds credibility to the claim. yes they could be wrong, but not doing anything because their is a risk the EXPERTS could be wrong would mean nuthing would ever get done, because, any EXPERT will know that they are not innfallable.
this comment is entirely civil, do not take it in any other context....what the hell are your credentials to discount this theory? are you a climatologist? do you have a nobel peace prize? were you drafted out of thousands of scientist to join a prestigous community? you need to tell me more than....well models can't pretell the future, because we already know that, but if the experts agree with the models....then maybe...just maybe...they know something you, i and many others here don't.
ctenophors rule
New member
are we speaking in tatologies now?
well my argument to that is it will rain or it wont! jk, but seriously, are comparing star wars fanatics to the scientist?
prove that they are likeminded? do you realy thin kthey all went to the meeting with the same preconcieved notions? a physicist and a climatologist and a chemist all had the same take on life? well in that case, all scientist must be like minded, and their fore we shouldn't trust any of them.
it is arragant to believe that you are know better than all of those scientist, it is absulutely arragant. these guys devoted their entire lives to this specific subject, us average joes just read about it on the internet and in newspapers or scientific journals, they have lived it! if you wont trust them, then why trust doctors.......oh they devoted their career to studying medical sciences, but they could be wrong! in fact they are often wrong, and sometimes it turens out bad.....so better to just leave the tumor in my brain, and hope to someone it is benign.
- Status
Similar threads
