This was an eye opener - cont.

[ctenophors rule]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15398448#post15398448 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Dingo44
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

wow, do you think the scientist didn't anticipate that? becaue.....guess what......they did.

you see if you increase the temperature 20 degrees ferenheit, it will create a lot more percipitation.....and if the climate of cold regions were -50 before the increase in temp, even at negative 30 they still freeze the ice...and the excess percipitatin=more snow=more ice in super cold climates.....


.....good try , but the scientist understood that area of climatology better than you did.

 

[ctenophors rule]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15397212#post15397212 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by stugray
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

while i applaud your valiant attempt to get green bean back, i must say i see some serious flaws in your argument.

the fact is, in order to doubt them with that example, you are arragantly dismissing all their climatology training, which is likely more than any of us internet climatologist.

btw, which models are innacurate, dont just tell me why, show me the model that is innacurate and lets discuss the specifics instead of in vaugeness.

 

[ctenophors rule]

p.s. i will unveil the flaws i have found later in our convo.

 

[ctenophors rule]

and i think green bean isn't here because she is above this undignified conersation......i think i said that right.

 

[ScooterTDI]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15400146#post15400146 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ctenophors rule
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.

Like I said, I wasn't trying to make a counter arguement. It just puts things in perspective. Everyone thinks they truly know something until they find out that they don't.

I am a chemist and I am involved with a lot of atmospheric modeling. I am no expert, but I have more background on the subject than you do....

Scott

 

[ScooterTDI]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15401272#post15401272 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ScooterTDI


I am a chemist and I am involved with a lot of atmospheric modeling. I am no expert, but I have more background on the subject than you do....

Scott

I retract this statement. It is unfair of me to say something like that and I am sure it will be misinterpreted.

Be prepared for a long post in a little while.

Scott

 

[ScooterTDI]

Ok guys, I will try to explain some things here. Please read through all of it.

First, there is a recurring theme of the numbers of scientists that take particular viewpoints. This a pointless area of discussion. We can all cite a million contradictory references. The fact that we can do that only shows that, in fact, there is healthy dissention. The nature of science is skepticism. Plain and simple. NO TOPIC IS ABOVE DISCUSSION IN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY. Newton's theory of gravity was accepted by ALL physicists for a long time until a lowly patent clerk who dropped out of college demonstrated the theory to be incomplete.

Second, another recurring theme appears to be citing short-term local/regional changes in the climate as evidence for or against global warming. None of those arguements hold any merit. GLOBAL warming cannot be refuted or supported by this type of data because they are describing entirely different systems. Here is a link from NOAA that explains how the global climate models do very poorly at predicting the short-term local/regional effects of climate change:

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/rind_02/

Therefore, it is unfair to try to judge the validity of climate models on something that they are not intended to model accurately.

Third, I have repeatedly brought up some specific issues with modeling, such as the role of chaos, the error estimates in the data, the assumptions made by the models, the excessive degrees of freedom, etc. But noone has actually tried to discuss these. In fact, most of this conversation has not actually been about global warming. If we want to actually discuss climate change we do need to get to these sorts of specifics, but it won't help to simply go back and forth citing contradictory sources and taking citations out of context. That approach is just letting someone else do the thinking for you without really understanding the fundamental aspects that really do need to be questioned and discussed.

As a hypothetical example, one person can cite a document that uses one approach to reconstructing the past climate while another person can cite a source that uses a different method. That is pointless unless both parties are willing to discuss the merits/drawbacks and the specifics of using each method. Otherwise it just turns into a debate of who has a more credible source and the credibility of a source is a very subjective attribute.

I hope this helps get the discussion back on a productive path.

Scott

 

[Rossini]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15397374#post15397374 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Meisen
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!

:lol:

You are talking out of the wrong hole.

Volcanoes emmisions on average 200 million tonnes of co2.

Emmisions from burning fossil fuels total 27 billion tonnes of co2.

You do the math.


Evolution, gravity, "silly ideas"? Oh you americans are such funny people. You really have got the whole world laughing.

:lol:

 

[jdhuyvetter]

I seriously doubt it. The counter argument is consistently about 1000's of scientists (95% to be exact) without any actual backup. Infallible "prestigious institutes" with little or no comment regarding past errors by the same institute. And finally Nobel Prize winners. Interestingly enough, I posted links that had commentary from Nobel prize winners who were completely against man made global warming theory and others who were skeptical. The facts that none of these opinions matter or are completely wrong and an apparent unwillingness to accept alternative tells me that we should give up and wait until ctenophors has some real world experience (nothing personal, but your mind is obviously made up)

Reminds me of my cousin:

When he was in school, we got into an argument at a family reunion about the Everglades. According to his professor, the Everglades was losing 2-3 inches of peat every year as a result of man. I told him that I live about 20 miles from the NW corner of the Everglades and that I fish there all the time. I never saw this problem and asked where specifically it was occuring. Response, all over the Everglades. He continued to argue that his professor said this, and he said that (and therefore, it was true). I asked my cousin if he had ever been to the Everglades (No). I asked if he wanted to come down over spring break or the summer (4 years and still no visit). I asked if his professor had ever been to the Everglades. He didn't know. I closed my argument with facts (his and mine). By using his conservative number of 2 inches per year, for his time frame of 50 years, we came up with 100 inches lost. At that rate, the Everglades should be completely gone and the coastline would be up around Lake Okeechobee. What is professor wasn't telling them was that yes, peat is disappearing at 2-3 inches per year at specific, isolated locations. This loss has been going on for about 50 years, but not continuous and not at all locations. More of a some here and some there. Last, and probably the most important. The peats and mucks of the Everglades are regenerated every year with the rainy/dry season cycles. Some years more, some years less.

For some reason this discussion feels like the same argument I had with my cousin.

 

[ScooterTDI]

Everyone should read this:

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_08/

This article doesn't argue one way or another, though people may interpret it that way. It just puts everything in a frame of reference. I like this guys position, it is scientific and logical.

Scott

 

[Superstretch18]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15401613#post15401613 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ScooterTDI
Everyone should read this:

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_08/

This article doesn't argue one way or another, though people may interpret it that way. It just puts everything in a frame of reference. I like this guys position, it is scientific and logical.

Scott

^^^ That is a great read.

This arguement has been all over the place in the past five pages, but regardless of what any model suggests, or your local weather patterns, or what you heard on the news, the earth is getting warmer.

Interesting direct measurements (from reliable sources):

Trend in thickness and extent of ice at the North Pole:
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/essay_untersteiner.html

Trend in arctic ground temperatures:
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/essay_romanovsky.html

Surface ocean temperature trends:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

How said water temps directly impact US weather patterns:
http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/ESD-snowfall.html

Based on what we have seen, the earth as a whole is warming. We can either assume that we have nothing to do with this and hope we are not wrong (grasshopper), or we can assume that human impact is at least a partial cause and if we make changes we may improve the situation (ant).

I'm of the latter feeling; there are things that we can do to improve the situation. I won't be getting rid of my car or metal halides anytime soon, but I am making changes to help reduce my carbon footprint.

 

[stugray]

Superstretch18,

"Based on what we have seen, the earth as a whole is warming. We can either assume that we have nothing to do with this and hope we are not wrong (grasshopper), or we can assume that human impact is at least a partial cause and if we make changes we may improve the situation (ant)."

OR: We can all agree that the Earth goes through cyclic periods where the temperature rises then falls over periods of tens of thousands or millions of years.

MAYBE we are just in a natural warming cycle and humans have little effect on the cycle.

As I stated before: Antarctica used to be a rain forest.
Earth is in a cold period and its getting warmer, what a surprise!



ctenophors rule,

My examples were just more cases where "experts" KNOW they are correct until someone points out a flaw in their argument then they are proven to be wrong.

Do the current climate models take into account the variation in the cosmic radiation budget as the Sun moves around the milky way?

We thought we had a very good model of solar behavior then the last three years of virtually NO SUN SPOTS left the "experts" scratching their heads and mumbling "we didnt predict THAT".


OH and: "which is likely more than any of us internet climatologist. "
Do YOU currently have a badge that says LASP with your name on it?

Stu

 

[Superstretch18]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15402144#post15402144 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by stugray
Superstretch18,

"Based on what we have seen, the earth as a whole is warming. We can either assume that we have nothing to do with this and hope we are not wrong (grasshopper), or we can assume that human impact is at least a partial cause and if we make changes we may improve the situation (ant)."

OR: We can all agree that the Earth goes through cyclic periods where the temperature rises then falls over periods of tens of thousands or millions of years.

MAYBE we are just in a natural warming cycle and humans have little effect on the cycle.

As I stated before: Antarctica used to be a rain forest.
Earth is in a cold period and its getting warmer, what a surprise!

That's exactly what I posted as being option number 1: "...We can either assume that we have nothing to do with this (warming trend) and hope we are not wrong"

 

[ScooterTDI]

Superstretch, thank you for taking the time to read that article out of all the articles that have been linked on this thread. That article encompasses so much of the difficulty in discussing climate change. I was afraid everyone would read only the first few sentences and miss the point of the article entirely.

Scott

 

[ctenophors rule]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15401272#post15401272 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ScooterTDI
Like I said, I wasn't trying to make a counter arguement. It just puts things in perspective. Everyone thinks they truly know something until they find out that they don't.

I am a chemist and I am involved with a lot of atmospheric modeling. I am no expert, but I have more background on the subject than you do....

Scott

yes you have more background in the subje ct than i do, but the experts have more than you! so i should trust you because you know more than i d, when people who no more than you do tell you that your wrong!

 

[ctenophors rule]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15401373#post15401373 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ScooterTDI
I retract this statement. It is unfair of me to say something like that and I am sure it will be misinterpreted.

Be prepared for a long post in a little while.

Scott

whoops my bad......

 

[ctenophors rule]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15402144#post15402144 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by stugray


OH and: "which is likely more than any of us internet climatologist. "
Do YOU currently have a badge that says LASP with your name on it?

Stu

you argue well, far better than i can.....so i will keep this short....

do you mean to tell me that the fact that YOU believe it is false that i should disregaurd the statements of the VAST majority of your peer scientist?

oh and sorry if i called you an internet climatologist, i thought i was talking to everyone on a whole, which meant you could have been left out sinse you are an actual climatologist but......symantex symantex.

oh, and besides the badge, which i am sure is nice and shiny, what are your credentials....i have a shirt that says "stunt man" but i am actualy a lowely fish store employee.

 

[ctenophors rule]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15401613#post15401613 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ScooterTDI
Everyone should read this:

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_08/

This article doesn't argue one way or another, though people may interpret it that way. It just puts everything in a frame of reference. I like this guys position, it is scientific and logical.

Scott

yes excelent read...though i fear some people may take his third to last paragraph the wrong way.......

 

[ctenophors rule]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15400334#post15400334 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ctenophors rule
and i think green bean isn't here because she is above this undignified conersation......i think i said that right.

i meant to say that this level of convo was beneath her dignity....but now i am made aware he is a dude, so lets say his dignity.....

 

[ctenophors rule]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15400334#post15400334 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ctenophors rule
and i think green bean isn't here because she is above this undignified conersation......i think i said that right.

i meant to say that this level of convo was beneath her dignity....but now i am made aware he is a dude, so lets say his dignity.....