[quote]Vegita wrote:
Am I the only one who thinks a warmer planet is a better planet? Shit I mean some scientists just uncovered the bones of a super snake which weighed a ton and was 43 feet long. it lived 50 to 60 million years ago and they estimate the temperature at the equator where is was to be 5-6 degrees C higher than now. Warmer temps mean bigger plants and animals. More life, not less. Huge forests with huge beasts. That sounds awsome to me. Maybe birds will turn back into dinosaurs.
V
[/quote]
Didn’t it have a lot to do with the oxygen levels, as well?
[quote]lou21 wrote:
I’d say that scientists are sheilding the general public from the true extent of the possible problems rather than exagerating them.
[/quote]
Were those same benevolent, gracious scientists shielding the general public from the true extent of global cooling in the 1970’s? I mean, it was a “known, factual, and real” danger that the whole Earth was going to freeze into a new ice age.
Glad all those gas guzzling Chryslers were around to save us from that immediate threat.[/quote]
Do you understand anything at all about how science works? Experimental data and measurements upon the real world are facts. These are real. Computer modelling when done using quantum mechanics can start to be thought of as giving near real answers.
NOTHING else is fact. It is always conjecture. Sometimes as in the case of for example evolution to evidence is so strong that the word theory is merely a nod to the scientific method. Sometimes as with most climate issues the evidence isn’t so strong.
BUT I never said scientists were sheilding you from a known future merely from the realities of how the Earth has been in the past. Just because we currently live on a not too warm not too cool pleasent enough planet doesn’t mean it’s always been like that.
Maybe we aren’t causing climate change. Maybe the climate isn’t even changing. I’d say the only way to find out is to take a small planet - say I dunno Earth- and add lots of CO2 to the atmosphere. Wow we’re doing that already! I guess in 100 odd years time we’ll have a fact to build better thoeries. Either our kids kids will laugh at our stupidity OR they’ll be cursing us as they fight wars and starve in huge numbers. Too late by then though.
The beauty of this is helping cut CO2 emissions doesn’t have to conflict with the US’s own needs. Burning less oil could help cut dependence on the Saudis…
[quote]lou21 wrote:
Do you understand anything at all about how science works? [/quote]
Me? No, I don’t know how science works, so I’ll just take my MS in Geology/Geophysics (ie modelling tectonic systems) and go home. I’ll just blindly follow the media reports, because, you know, the talking heads on CBS are the real deal.
“Computer modelling” is only as good as the model, which are inherently flawed. I once went to AGU meeting (American Geophysical Union) where some PhD had this INCREDIBLE model of a mantle flow system based on ‘experimental data and measurements’. The only way to make it work was to model the Earth as a homogeneous cube.
Question for you: Is the Earth a homogeneous cube? Would you stake your dollars and freedoms on some unknown that was hinged on the Earth being a homogeneous cube?
What is your background in Lou?? I am not trying to be a smart ass I just want to know what your background is.
I am a business guy I dont know shit about science…I do know when people are trying to get rich out of the fear they are shoving down your throat ala Al Gore.
Is global warming real…yes. Is it going to kill us…I dont know. Do we need law allowing us to trade in “pollution credits” fuck no! Allowing big business to pay to pollute while smaller business gets taxed is wrong. Many scientists knowing the truth about global warming lie…lie…lie. We as a society are not smart enough to know the difference when the scientists themselves are not being truthful.
Also, some believe the world bank and the euro was the first step in the global warming sharade!
BTW tonight at nine Conspiracy theory is on with Jesse Ventura…watch it and let me know your thoughts on the global warming crisis
[quote]lou21 wrote:
Do you understand anything at all about how science works? [/quote]
It’s pretty obvious that you certainly don’t. WTF does quantum mechanics have to do with climate modeling? REAL science invloves real data, studied in a bias-free environment. Computer models written by people whose careers depend on the model having a certain outcome are NOT good science. In addition, the data fed into those models has significant problems. There is no real long-term global climate data. Accurate collection stations haven’t existed across the globe for more than a few decades. On top of that, the climategate emails show that the data has been MANIPULATED prior to running the models! How in hell can you call that good science?
Let me give you an example of computer modeling at its best: I work on air permitting in CA. We are required to use the latest modeling software to predict pollutant concentrations emitted from a source at receptors in the surrounding area. These modeling algorithms have been run and refined for decades, much longer than your vaunted climate models. Also, the problem they model is MUCH LESS COMPLEX than global climate. Guess what the accuracy is? In a best case, it is around 50% accurate. In a typical scenario, it is much less accurate than that. So you are going to tell me that a model of something more complex, less refined, with worse data and built-in bias is going to give accurate results? I’m not stupid enough to buy that truckload of shit.
Can’t anyone separate Al Gore from the scientists who know what they are talking about? The guy seems to really like the spotlight, this statement isn’t very surprising from him.
Fact: An overwhelming majority of the scientific community sees that the earth is warming at an alarming rate. Also, there is no respected evidence that the earth has been cooling for 11 years, can everyone please drop that bullshit?
Fact: The majority of scientists believe their is some correlation with mans co2 emissions and the temperature of the earth based on how rising co2 levels have matched rising temperatures precisely. It’s definitely not certain, but it is probable.
Fact: Taking reasonable steps toward environmentally sound practices is the only way to ensure that our planet will be a great place to live for many generations. It’s also a GREAT way for people to save money on energy, something the bleating fox pundits who cry about environmentalism crippling business don’t realize. If you have more money, you will spend it.
That said I like where I live very much, and it would bother me a great deal if years of other peoples reckless use of energy and disrespect for the environment trashed my planet.
Fact: An overwhelming majority of the scientific community sees that the earth is warming at an alarming rate. Also, there is no respected evidence that the earth has been cooling for 11 years, can everyone please drop that bullshit? [/quote]
Fact: Your “fact” is untrue. Most of the climate change studies have been done by the same small group of scientists at the behest of the IPCC. Dissenting opinions are stifled, as evidenced by the Climategate emails, among other things.
Fact: Actually, CO2 levels lag temperature increase by 800-1000 years. And I don’t know how you can say “a majority” believe something. Was there some fucking climate election I didn’t know about?
Fact: None of the AGW loons are proposing anything resembling “reasonable steps”. They ARE proposing:
100s of billions of dollars paid from western nations to “developing” nations as part of some “climate debt” we supposedly owe them.
Limiting supply of energy. I have on my desk the draft of the CA cap-and-trade scheme, which I am analyzing for my clients. It EXPLICITLY talks about limiting energy supply to consumers. Econ 101, supply decrease = price increase.
Mandating “renewable” energy sources. Which cost roughly 3X more per kwH. So, again, where is this more money you speak of?
Fact: An overwhelming majority of the scientific community sees that the earth is warming at an alarming rate. Also, there is no respected evidence that the earth has been cooling for 11 years, can everyone please drop that bullshit? [/quote]
Fact: Your “fact” is untrue. Most of the climate change studies have been done by the same small group of scientists at the behest of the IPCC. Dissenting opinions are stifled, as evidenced by the Climategate emails, among other things.
Fact: Actually, CO2 levels lag temperature increase by 800-1000 years. And I don’t know how you can say “a majority” believe something. Was there some fucking climate election I didn’t know about?
Fact: None of the AGW loons are proposing anything resembling “reasonable steps”. They ARE proposing:
100s of billions of dollars paid from western nations to “developing” nations as part of some “climate debt” we supposedly owe them.
Limiting supply of energy. I have on my desk the draft of the CA cap-and-trade scheme, which I am analyzing for my clients. It EXPLICITLY talks about limiting energy supply to consumers. Econ 101, supply decrease = price increase.
Mandating “renewable” energy sources. Which cost roughly 3X more per kwH. So, again, where is this more money you speak of?[/quote]
Most of the dissenting opinions you mention come from largely uncredited scientists, or people that really have no business analyzing the validity of global warming. On the daily show a man rejecting global warming in copenhagen was interviewed, he wasn’t a Dr. of any kind! In any case, i can look at pages and pages of analysis’ of global warming on any good scientific database that more or less summarize the same thing: global warming is real. Here’s one study that makes my point,
I don’t know where your getting the Co2 lag idea either, can you tell me? the chart in this study clearly shows a link between Co2 and temp. They admit that c02 emissions are the probable culprit of global warming.
And by the way, who cares who requests research? The Ipcc has no clandestine motive for creating a myth about global warming.
As for your comment about a small group of scientists heading the research, The Ipcc is simply supporting the elite scientists in a particular field of study. Nothing out of the ordinary. Not everyones trains to be an astronaut, not everyone has the credentials to be a leading climatologist.
[quote]lou21 wrote:
Do you understand anything at all about how science works? [/quote]
It’s pretty obvious that you certainly don’t. WTF does quantum mechanics have to do with climate modeling? REAL science invloves real data, studied in a bias-free environment. Computer models written by people whose careers depend on the model having a certain outcome are NOT good science. In addition, the data fed into those models has significant problems. There is no real long-term global climate data. Accurate collection stations haven’t existed across the globe for more than a few decades. On top of that, the climategate emails show that the data has been MANIPULATED prior to running the models! How in hell can you call that good science?
Let me give you an example of computer modeling at its best: I work on air permitting in CA. We are required to use the latest modeling software to predict pollutant concentrations emitted from a source at receptors in the surrounding area. These modeling algorithms have been run and refined for decades, much longer than your vaunted climate models. Also, the problem they model is MUCH LESS COMPLEX than global climate. Guess what the accuracy is? In a best case, it is around 50% accurate. In a typical scenario, it is much less accurate than that. So you are going to tell me that a model of something more complex, less refined, with worse data and built-in bias is going to give accurate results? I’m not stupid enough to buy that truckload of shit.[/quote]
OK I’ll start here. I know all about bad computer modeling- there is one paper in my field where the author (a very respected geologist) slips in a 10x fudge factor on some input data. He does so in the introduction in the middle of a paragraph and doesn’t mention it again… People quote the paper at me until I point out the paragraph. Then they go silent.
I quoted quantum mechanics as the only modelling which can give results which are comparible to actual experimental data. Of course it only works on things at the molecular level eg simple chemical reactions and simple mineralogy. There is indeed absolutely no relation to climate modelling. The point is that the results of climate models CANNOT be seen as being anywhere on the same level as real experimental data. If you’d actually read my post you’ll see we probably agree… I’ll probably not have to refute your first comment because you’ll withdraw it.
I would just to love to be able to go 500 years into the future for a day and see how much of the hysterical bullshit that passes for science today is then snickered at as pre-scientific political ignorance.
[quote]robmartinez09 wrote:
What is your background in Lou?? I am not trying to be a smart ass I just want to know what your background is.
I am a business guy I dont know shit about science…I do know when people are trying to get rich out of the fear they are shoving down your throat ala Al Gore.
Is global warming real…yes. Is it going to kill us…I dont know. Do we need law allowing us to trade in “pollution credits” fuck no! Allowing big business to pay to pollute while smaller business gets taxed is wrong. Many scientists knowing the truth about global warming lie…lie…lie. We as a society are not smart enough to know the difference when the scientists themselves are not being truthful.
Also, some believe the world bank and the euro was the first step in the global warming sharade!
BTW tonight at nine Conspiracy theory is on with Jesse Ventura…watch it and let me know your thoughts on the global warming crisis[/quote]
I’m British. My earlier comment about US needs is just based around a fairly well agreed on idea that you guys need more energy independence for stable economic conditions.
My background is as an active scientist in a geology field unrelated to climate. I took climate courses throughout my BSc and MSc and interact with climate scientists often- seminars, talks, coffee breaks etc. Their stuff is more interesting than mine so we tend to talk about it!
I don’t know how to respond though. I agree that the likes of Al Gore are trying to make some dirty cash out of the whole thing. I hate that. I agree that big business will do better out of carbon taxes and carbon trading than small. In fact I’d guess that carbon credits will merely be a give away to industries and companies that lobby well. I hate this as well- this stuff makes me furious- don’t even get me started on paying China to not pollute.
HOWEVER climatewise something has to be done- even if we are wrong the stakes are too huge. Now one key things are burn less oil and gas. Europe is held to ransom every winter by the Russians over gas. (Normally just after Christmas so look out next week.) British foreign policy is largely about securing oil (Iraq, Falklands, giving that murdering terrorist guy back to Libia etc). I see both goals as being compatible. New nuclear reactors, new hydro, solar on roofs, wind where possible. The energy balence of Europe and the USA could fit both targets fairly quickly. This might even be good for the economy…
The elephant in the room is of course global population.
[quote]lou21 wrote:
Do you understand anything at all about how science works? [/quote]
Me? No, I don’t know how science works, so I’ll just take my MS in Geology/Geophysics (ie modelling tectonic systems) and go home. I’ll just blindly follow the media reports, because, you know, the talking heads on CBS are the real deal.
“Computer modelling” is only as good as the model, which are inherently flawed. I once went to AGU meeting (American Geophysical Union) where some PhD had this INCREDIBLE model of a mantle flow system based on ‘experimental data and measurements’. The only way to make it work was to model the Earth as a homogeneous cube.
Question for you: Is the Earth a homogeneous cube? Would you stake your dollars and freedoms on some unknown that was hinged on the Earth being a homogeneous cube?[/quote]
Another geologist on these boards? AWESOME!
You know the one about the genetisist, the sport scientist and the geophysist at the horse racing? You know where the geophysist says I’ll start with a spherical horse on an infinite track…
I know about bad modelling! That was my point about QM. Only this can be considered predictive modelling. Everything else has to be taken rather carefully. Esentially we probably agree if you re-read my first post!
Fact: An overwhelming majority of the scientific community sees that the earth is warming at an alarming rate. Also, there is no respected evidence that the earth has been cooling for 11 years, can everyone please drop that bullshit? [/quote]
Fact: Your “fact” is untrue. Most of the climate change studies have been done by the same small group of scientists at the behest of the IPCC. Dissenting opinions are stifled, as evidenced by the Climategate emails, among other things.
Fact: Actually, CO2 levels lag temperature increase by 800-1000 years. And I don’t know how you can say “a majority” believe something. Was there some fucking climate election I didn’t know about?
Fact: None of the AGW loons are proposing anything resembling “reasonable steps”. They ARE proposing:
100s of billions of dollars paid from western nations to “developing” nations as part of some “climate debt” we supposedly owe them.
Limiting supply of energy. I have on my desk the draft of the CA cap-and-trade scheme, which I am analyzing for my clients. It EXPLICITLY talks about limiting energy supply to consumers. Econ 101, supply decrease = price increase.
Mandating “renewable” energy sources. Which cost roughly 3X more per kwH. So, again, where is this more money you speak of?[/quote]
HG Thrower
Wikipedia “PETM” (Paleocene- Eocene Thermal Maximum). Please. In fact all of you please do!
Yes there was a climate election. In peer reviewed journals… Now if you want to debate the validity of the process behind publishing scientific articles I’d love to but we’d need a new thread!
I don’t know where your getting the Co2 lag idea either, can you tell me? the chart in this study clearly shows a link between Co2 and temp. They admit that c02 emissions are the probable culprit of global warming.
more later…[/quote]
He has a point about the lag- some real scientist say it does exist. Not everything is as clear cut as it looks at first glance!
Sorry for the many posts. I do wish people could seperate their hatred for Al Gore from a real danger and gain some perspective. I hate anyone trying to make easy money from human suffering (real or potential) as much as anyone else!
I don’t know where your getting the Co2 lag idea either, can you tell me? the chart in this study clearly shows a link between Co2 and temp. They admit that c02 emissions are the probable culprit of global warming.
more later…[/quote]
He has a point about the lag- some real scientist say it does exist. Not everything is as clear cut as it looks at first glance![/quote]
i figured at was at least a legitimate concern, although that doesn’t mean it debunks the theory of global warming.
I don’t know where your getting the Co2 lag idea either, can you tell me? the chart in this study clearly shows a link between Co2 and temp. They admit that c02 emissions are the probable culprit of global warming.
more later…[/quote]
He has a point about the lag- some real scientist say it does exist. Not everything is as clear cut as it looks at first glance![/quote]
i figured at was at least a legitimate concern, although that doesn’t mean it debunks the theory of global warming.[/quote]
The point is, you state something as a fact, which clearly is not. The evidence of the lag is clear. The CAUSE is not. Again, pointing to the fact that we have only a very basic inkling of how climate works, and definitely not enough certainty that I am willing to give up my standard of living.
[quote]lou21 wrote:
Do you understand anything at all about how science works? [/quote]
It’s pretty obvious that you certainly don’t. WTF does quantum mechanics have to do with climate modeling? REAL science invloves real data, studied in a bias-free environment. Computer models written by people whose careers depend on the model having a certain outcome are NOT good science. In addition, the data fed into those models has significant problems. There is no real long-term global climate data. Accurate collection stations haven’t existed across the globe for more than a few decades. On top of that, the climategate emails show that the data has been MANIPULATED prior to running the models! How in hell can you call that good science?
Let me give you an example of computer modeling at its best: I work on air permitting in CA. We are required to use the latest modeling software to predict pollutant concentrations emitted from a source at receptors in the surrounding area. These modeling algorithms have been run and refined for decades, much longer than your vaunted climate models. Also, the problem they model is MUCH LESS COMPLEX than global climate. Guess what the accuracy is? In a best case, it is around 50% accurate. In a typical scenario, it is much less accurate than that. So you are going to tell me that a model of something more complex, less refined, with worse data and built-in bias is going to give accurate results? I’m not stupid enough to buy that truckload of shit.[/quote]
OK I’ll start here. I know all about bad computer modeling- there is one paper in my field where the author (a very respected geologist) slips in a 10x fudge factor on some input data. He does so in the introduction in the middle of a paragraph and doesn’t mention it again… People quote the paper at me until I point out the paragraph. Then they go silent.
I quoted quantum mechanics as the only modelling which can give results which are comparible to actual experimental data. Of course it only works on things at the molecular level eg simple chemical reactions and simple mineralogy. There is indeed absolutely no relation to climate modelling. The point is that the results of climate models CANNOT be seen as being anywhere on the same level as real experimental data. If you’d actually read my post you’ll see we probably agree… I’ll probably not have to refute your first comment because you’ll withdraw it.[/quote]
I guess Bill and I both misinterpreted your original post. After another read, I see what you were trying to get at. One of my problems with the global warming crowd is that they rely so heavily on modeling to predict their doomsday scenarios. I think we can both agree that modeling isn’t good science, and shouldn’t be the basis for making world-changing decisions.