Interesting Climate Model - Page 6 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

dippin · 12-04-2009, 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Shakespeare would put it this way: "what is past is prologue". The only thing that makes forecasting long-term patterns appear "easier" than short-term patterns is the assumption that the broader patterns of the past will continue into the future. The real challenge is figuring out when or what can cause long-term patterns to change. Looking at a, 24 minute, 24 hour period, 24 day period, 24 year period, or 24 million year period the challenge is the same, the only change is in how quickly you find out if your assumptions are wrong.

---------- Post added at 05:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:24 PM ----------

So, what is your point? What makes study or understanding the climate so difficult? Measuring temperature is easy. Understanding the variables that affect temperature is easy. What gets difficult is understand how those variables inter-play with each other. Given the variables a scientist can not do controlled "global" experiments, so the basis of what they do is grounded in assumptions. We have a right to know and to be able to challenge and test these assumptions, I don't understand what all the mystical type, we can't possible understand stuff comes from.

You have so little understanding of how knowledge creation works it is not even worth discussing it with you. But you should be aware that if what you said holds true, every single piece of knowledge would have to be discovered anew every day, right?

After all, just because we've consistently estimated that at certain pressures and certain temperatures water becomes vapor doesn't mean that it will be like that in the future.

And you have every right to know, challenge and test any assumptions scientists make:

Here's all the data you could wish for on temperature
NCDC: * National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) *
get to it. If it's so easy, you should have no problems debunking all the science that points to global warming.

aceventura3 · 12-04-2009, 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dippin

You have so little understanding of how knowledge creation works it is not even worth discussing it with you. But you should be aware that if what you said holds true, every single piece of knowledge would have to be discovered anew every day, right?

You miss the point.

If I take 1,000,000 measurements:

Within 24 seconds to predict the next second the prediction is based on past results.
Within 24 hours to predict the next 24 hours the prediction is based on past results.
Within 24 days to predict the next 24 days the prediction is based on past results.
or if my measurements are used to predict increments that don't match the period of my data collection the prediction is based on past results, however the key is getting a meaningful match and then the accuracy of the prediction is based on either the consistency in the past results or in nailing any assumptions I make.

Quote:

After all, just because we've consistently estimated that at certain pressures and certain temperatures water becomes vapor doesn't mean that it will be like that in the future.

There are some known predictable constants and there are variables. to understand how the variables interplay with the constants and with the other variables is a challenge.

Quote:

And you have every right to know, challenge and test any assumptions scientists make:

Here's all the data you could wish for on temperature
NCDC: * National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) *
get to it. If it's so easy, you should have no problems debunking all the science that points to global warming.

I have not debunked anything, nor have I tried. I simply believe climate changes have more to do with natural phenomenon than with human activity. My believe is primarily based on what we think we know about the history of this planet, not 100 years of data.

dippin · 12-04-2009, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

You miss the point.

If I take 1,000,000 measurements:

Within 24 seconds to predict the next second the prediction is based on past results.
Within 24 hours to predict the next 24 hours the prediction is based on past results.
Within 24 days to predict the next 24 days the prediction is based on past results.
or if my measurements are used to predict increments that don't match the period of my data collection the prediction is based on past results, however the key is getting a meaningful match and then the accuracy of the prediction is based on either the consistency in the past results or in nailing any assumptions I make.

Yes, and people try to generate knowledge try to go through a great deal of trouble to ensure consistency. So again, the outcome of your position is that knowledge has to be generated anew every moment.

Quote:

There are some known predictable constants and there are variables. to understand how the variables interplay with the constants and with the other variables is a challenge.

I have not debunked anything, nor have I tried. I simply believe climate changes have more to do with natural phenomenon than with human activity. My believe is primarily based on what we think we know about the history of this planet, not 100 years of data.

Ah, so again, as always, this thread becomes a discussion about how you "feel" about things.

At least you are consistent in your radical relativism.

Willravel · 12-04-2009, 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

First, you set me up asking for a yes or no answer to your question, then you make your assumption without seeking clarification. So, you think I have lost my objectivity.

First, let's understand that the basis of your question requires a subjective response but that aside for now let's explore the basis of my response.

First, let's understand that the basis of your question requires a subjective response but that aside for now let's explore the basis of my response.

In football there are the expressed "rules" of the game. Simple enough and not complicated.

Then we have things like the:

bio-mechanics of football.
physics of football.
social science of football.
business of football.
biology involved in football.
strategy of football.
physical science of football.
psychology of football.
language of football.

Oh, and we have the science of the weather, or the climate, and it's impact on football.

Then we have things like the engineering in football venues, have you seen the new Cowboy's stadium?

All I asked was:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

Do you really think the most advanced climate science known to man is as simple as the rules to football?

I did not mention the social science of football or the business of football, I specifically said "the rules of football", to which you glibly answered in the affirmative. The correct answer would be "no", of course, as climate science is substantially more complex than the rules of football.

Oddly enough, this demonstrates to me only further that you've lost your objectivity on the issue, but more broadly on the entire situation.

aceventura3 · 12-07-2009, 08:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dippin

Yes, and people try to generate knowledge try to go through a great deal of trouble to ensure consistency. So again, the outcome of your position is that knowledge has to be generated anew every moment.

I have no understanding how you are interpreting my comments, and I am having difficulty understanding your responses. All I can say is that your comment about my position is incorrect.

Quote:

Ah, so again, as always, this thread becomes a discussion about how you "feel" about things.

At least you are consistent in your radical relativism.

I almost never give as my initial response on an issue my"feelings" , and I did not do that here. I have my "feelings" and you have yours, so what?!?

---------- Post added at 04:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:01 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

All I asked was:

I did not mention the social science of football or the business of football, I specifically said "the rules of football", to which you glibly answered in the affirmative. The correct answer would be "no", of course, as climate science is substantially more complex than the rules of football.

Oddly enough, this demonstrates to me only further that you've lost your objectivity on the issue, but more broadly on the entire situation.

Then what are the "rules of football" what is "advance climate science"? You presented a trap question based on il defined, non-compatible concepts with no true objective measure and then you drew an erroneous conclusion from an answer you did not take the time to understand. I see this clearly, just as I see problems with this "advance climate science" that has been settled in the minds of some people.

But getting back to your original point a thought came to mind over the weekend. In the form of an analogy to music. We can have people with accredited degrees in music but that does not make those people any more or less qualified to to understand or predict what music will create certain emotional responses in the hearts and mind of the general public, it is possible that all that they really understand is the impact of music of the past has had, and may be incapable of applying that knowledge to the future, just like a "climate scientist". You don't need a degree in music to understand and or to make great music. In fact some of my favorite artists did not even read sheet music. I think you should revisit your thoughts on this issue.

rahl · 12-09-2009, 07:27 AM

But getting back to your original point a thought came to mind over the weekend. In the form of an analogy to music. We can have people with accredited degrees in music but that does not make those people any more or less qualified to to understand or predict what music will create certain emotional responses in the hearts and mind of the general public, it is possible that all that they really understand is the impact of music of the past has had, and may be incapable of applying that knowledge to the future, just like a "climate scientist". You don't need a degree in music to understand and or to make great music. In fact some of my favorite artists did not even read sheet music. I think you should revisit your thoughts on this issue.[/QUOTE]

Only your analogy is irrelevant and has no bearing on Climate science expertise. You are in no way qualified to make any judgements about the scientific data that has been collected or the conclusions drawn from them. Neither am I or most of the people here unless they are in the field.

aceventura3 · 12-09-2009, 08:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rahl

Only your analogy is irrelevant and has no bearing on Climate science expertise. You are in no way qualified to make any judgements about the scientific data that has been collected or the conclusions drawn from them. Neither am I or most of the people here unless they are in the field.

Speak for yourself. The questions on the table are simple and if you don't think you have the capacity to understand, that is you, not me or the millions of others who are simply asking questions. The questions are simple, other than a political agenda I don't understand why we don't get answers.

the hits keep coming, from IBD editorial pages today.

Quote:

Global Warming: On Day 2 of the Copenhagen climate conference, the United Nations announced that the current decade is the warmest on record. Please allow us to unravel this web of deception.

The U.N.'s World Meteorological Organization released Tuesday a preliminary report that claims the 10-year period from 2000 to 2009 is the warmest since records began in 1850. We find the claim to be, well, a bit silly.

How, for instance, can serious scientists compare data from record keeping in 1850 to modern record-keeping? The report says the data are culled "from networks of land-based weather and climate stations, ships and buoys, as well as satellites."

It might be rude to challenge the leaders of the faith, but we have to ask: How many satellites, ships and buoys were used in 1850? Whatever the answer is, the WMO needs to explain to the public how adding data sources in later years skews the overall picture.

Furthermore, how do the land-based weather stations match up? Are they the same set of stations used since 1850, or have stations been added and dropped through the decades? Have there always been enough stations to adequately represent the global temperature?

A global map of weather stations shows they are highly concentrated in the U.S. and Europe. Their presence in Asia, Africa and South America is almost nonexistent. How can their readings from only a portion of the globe be indicative of the entire planet?

And what about the placement of weather stations? Developed areas create heat islands that register higher temperatures, which aren't relevant to climate or global temperatures. How many stations located in undeveloped areas 150 years ago are now surrounded by growth and are recording distorted temperatures?

There is, as well, a cherry-picking problem. The record-keeping period the U.N. is using is 159 years. But a look at temperatures over the last 10,000 years as determined by ice cores, not weather stations, shows that the planet has gone through much warmer eras than it is now experiencing.

Also inconvenient to the U.N.'s report is the scandal at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, one of three climate data analysis centers. E-mails between researchers recently made public reveal: a pattern of manipulation of the data; an effort to crush scientists who dissented from the "consensus" that man is warming the planet; and the possible defrauding of the taxpayers who have funded their research.

The global warming alarmists won't admit it publicly, but their campaign is in trouble. The truth is catching up to them.

Investors.com - Untrustworthy Data

Sorry, but I don't need a Phd. to understand that!

P.S. - I am importing some stuff from Nigeria worth a lot of money can you send me a cashiers check to get the stuff cleared through customs and I will split the profits with you?

ASU2003 · 12-09-2009, 05:54 PM

So, what is your prediction for what will happen to the planet temperature wise in the next 50 years? You can't use any previous temperature data before satellites were launched that can measure surface temperature globally (I don't trust ice core temps because I think there are variables they don't account for).

If it gets warmer will things just adapt to the higher temperatures, or will major numbers of people and animals (that you may or may not care for) not be able to live in the new environment? Will something like the dust bowl happen again in the midwest/Southern CA/AZ?

Be sure to include what will happen if there are major droughts and flooding, or don't you think they will happen. What happens when the fish die off because algae have grown too fast or diseases kill off trees because the winters don't kill them? How should the human population deal with or not deal with the increasing solar radiation, volcanos, and sun spots that might really cause a heat wave? How much of an impact will the other pollutants that get released through the burning of fossil fuels have on the world?

Should we just do nothing and give money to oil, coal, and other polluting companies? And hope that our stock investments go up 1% more because they saved a little bit of money, but have prices on the goods we buy go up because they have to continuously buy energy instead of a one time large cost.

cementor · 12-09-2009, 07:01 PM

With the recent controversy of the IPCC and other esteemed "Scientists" and the doctored data, the lack of transparency of methodology, the obvious collusion shown by the emails which were leaked to the public and sequestration of non coroborating data, I have ZERO faith in any of these so called GW "facts" or for that matter those that poopoo GW. I believe we need a group of folks on both sides of the fence to review all the data and give us the non spin version. Frankly the idea that manmade CO2 emmissions which according to both sides of the arguement add up to 6% are solely responsible for making these moves in the "average temps" as some folks would have us believe, does not make any sense. Science just as politics and anything else to do with humankind is influenced by the perspective of those making the claim. EGO is a huge factor in the scientific community ( don't believe it go attend one of these conferences and get a dose of the hubris) and unfortunately money is an even bigger inluence. How do we remove these influences and get to the truth???? Beats hell out of me. In the mean time I distrust them all. In the interest of all of us I am making moves to reduce my carbon footprint, not because I believe the sky is falling, but because I believe it is the right thing to do. However, to wipe out economies and return mankind to the stoneage is not the proper move either.

aceventura3 · 12-10-2009, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ASU2003

So, what is your prediction for what will happen to the planet temperature wise in the next 50 years? You can't use any previous temperature data before satellites were launched that can measure surface temperature globally (I don't trust ice core temps because I think there are variables they don't account for).

I am not in the business of predicting the weather. I expect climate conditions on this planet today will be similar to the climate conditions 50 years from now regardless of our attempts to control CO2.

There are many questions regarding the focus on CO2 in the atmosphere. Our atmosphere is 99% nitrogen and oxygen. The remaining 1%, greenhouse gases, is mostly comprised of H2O or water ranging between 40% to 70%. CO2 is next ranging between 9% and 26% of the greenhouse gases, but the planet has seen bigger percentage increases in other greenhouse gases, such as methane. So, assuming we could control for these variables and develop a predictive model - why do we believe manipulating CO2 will have a bigger impact than manipulating the other variables. Perhaps the fact that we irrigate deserts has a bigger impact on climate change than all the CO2 output caused by industrial use. We don't know and some of us ask questions. And some of us don't ask questions for some reason. I think we want to get it right if we do have the control we think we have.

Quote:

If it gets warmer will things just adapt to the higher temperatures, or will major numbers of people and animals (that you may or may not care for) not be able to live in the new environment? Will something like the dust bowl happen again in the midwest/Southern CA/AZ?

The Dust Bowl was a localized phenomenon caused in part by short-sighted farming techniques, however it serves as an example of how the earth can recover. Nature requires adaptability.

Quote:

Be sure to include what will happen if there are major droughts and flooding, or don't you think they will happen.

The planet in localized areas has a history of these things happening for many reasons not related to human activities. Beavers have caused large areas of land to flood, but through those floods a different ecosystem develops. I don't see these conditions as the "doom and gloom" predictions by people like Al Gore. If the climate is going to change I suspect the change to be gradual, unless there is a true catastrophic event.

Quote:

What happens when the fish die off because algae have grown too fast or diseases kill off trees because the winters don't kill them? How should the human population deal with or not deal with the increasing solar radiation, volcanos, and sun spots that might really cause a heat wave? How much of an impact will the other pollutants that get released through the burning of fossil fuels have on the world?

I tend not to watch those kind of movies.

If you get snow bound over the next few days - I recommend "The Maltese Falcon" with Humphrey Bogart and some of his other movies. I also suggest warm freshly baked brownies with nuts, comfy couch, wood fire in the fire place, a soft comfortable blanket, and your favorite person. Oh, and unplug the phone. Then you won't care if increasing solar radiation, volcano, and sun spots cause a heat wave that will cause polar bears to mutate and attack the people of Japan causing them to call on Godzilla once again to save the planet.

Quote:

Should we just do nothing and give money to oil, coal, and other polluting companies?

No, no, no, please send your money to me.

dippin · 12-10-2009, 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cementor

With the recent controversy of the IPCC and other esteemed "Scientists" and the doctored data, the lack of transparency of methodology, the obvious collusion shown by the emails which were leaked to the public and sequestration of non coroborating data, I have ZERO faith in any of these so called GW "facts" or for that matter those that poopoo GW. I believe we need a group of folks on both sides of the fence to review all the data and give us the non spin version. Frankly the idea that manmade CO2 emmissions which according to both sides of the arguement add up to 6% are solely responsible for making these moves in the "average temps" as some folks would have us believe, does not make any sense. Science just as politics and anything else to do with humankind is influenced by the perspective of those making the claim. EGO is a huge factor in the scientific community ( don't believe it go attend one of these conferences and get a dose of the hubris) and unfortunately money is an even bigger inluence. How do we remove these influences and get to the truth???? Beats hell out of me. In the mean time I distrust them all. In the interest of all of us I am making moves to reduce my carbon footprint, not because I believe the sky is falling, but because I believe it is the right thing to do. However, to wipe out economies and return mankind to the stoneage is not the proper move either.

No one, other than pundits on either side, claims that global warming is due solely to CO2 emissions.

And CRU aside, academia is actually doing pretty well when it comes to estimating the effects of man made CO2 on temperatures.

The academic debate is, of course, on how big an influence that CO2 has. Because, believe it or not, it does have an influence. Pundits may deny it, but in order to deny that CO2 has an impact on warming one would have to claim that CO2 is the perfect conductor, letting temperatures and radiation go through without any loss.

And, again, believe it or not, there are plenty of people within academia who claim that the impact of CO2 is negligible. One of these people is a full professor at MIT. Just about one of the highest ranks in academia one can achieve. If academia was part of this sort of conspiracy to trump up these claims, how can one explain this dissension within academia? He is in the minority, but it is obvious that the picture painted by most deniers regarding academia is false.

---------- Post added at 12:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:56 AM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

There are many questions regarding the focus on CO2 in the atmosphere. Our atmosphere is 99% nitrogen and oxygen. The remaining 1%, greenhouse gases, is mostly comprised of H2O or water ranging between 40% to 70%. CO2 is next ranging between 9% and 26% of the greenhouse gases, but the planet has seen bigger percentage increases in other greenhouse gases, such as methane. So, assuming we could control for these variables and develop a predictive model - why do we believe manipulating CO2 will have a bigger impact than manipulating the other variables. Perhaps the fact that we irrigate deserts has a bigger impact on climate change than all the CO2 output caused by industrial use. We don't know and some of us ask questions. And some of us don't ask questions for some reason. I think we want to get it right if we do have the control we think we have.

1- we can't control water and water vapor
2- we can, to a degree, control CO2

We don't know the impact of CO2, and there are many who claim it to be small. But the fact that CO2 makes up a small part of the atmosphere doesn't preclude it from being a major factor. If green house effects have any sort of "feedback loop" where things reinforce each other, indicating some sort of multiplicative effect, as the majority seems to believe, then CO2 can have huge impacts. Doubling even the smallest multiplier in a multiplicative model doubles the overall outcome.

Im sure you don't "feel" that way, but thankfully policy is implemented regardless of how you "feel."

aceventura3 · 12-10-2009, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dippin

1- we can't control water and water vapor
2- we can, to a degree, control CO2

The atmosphere is a whole, CO2 and water vapor make up a part of the whole. If you manipulate one component of the whole it affects the other components assuming those components are not constants. So, unless there is evidence that water vapor is a constant, which I have not seen any evidence of, a manipulation of CO2 can impact the amount water vapor in the atmosphere. So, in theory if you can control one you can control other variables. A reduction in CO2 with an increase in other green house gases may off-set each other in terms of climate change or they may interact in a pendulum fashion when one component goes to far to one extreme it swings back seeking equilibrium. When science knows the answer to these questions then we can properly conclude if our quest for CO2 reductions is a worthy goal. There is absolutely no legitimate reason to withhold or to manipulate data, without honest and open disclosures.

And again for the record, I support efforts to reduce environmental pollution and for humans being responsible stewards of this planet. I think we have learned a lot since the beginning of the industrial revolution and I think continued innovation and incremental approaches to controlling pollution is our best choice at this point in human history.

dippin · 12-10-2009, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

The atmosphere is a whole, CO2 and water vapor make up a part of the whole. If you manipulate one component of the whole it affects the other components assuming those components are not constants. So, unless there is evidence that water vapor is a constant, which I have not seen any evidence of, a manipulation of CO2 can impact the amount water vapor in the atmosphere. So, in theory if you can control one you can control other variables. A reduction in CO2 with an increase in other green house gases may off-set each other in terms of climate change or they may interact in a pendulum fashion when one component goes to far to one extreme it swings back seeking equilibrium. When science knows the answer to these questions then we can properly conclude if our quest for CO2 reductions is a worthy goal. There is absolutely no legitimate reason to withhold or to manipulate data, without honest and open disclosures.

And again for the record, I support efforts to reduce environmental pollution and for humans being responsible stewards of this planet. I think we have learned a lot since the beginning of the industrial revolution and I think continued innovation and incremental approaches to controlling pollution is our best choice at this point in human history.

Talk about faulty logic. You don't need evidence that water vapor is a constant. You just need evidence that it is independent from CO2. As long as reducing CO2 doesn't directly lead to an increase in the other gases, a reduction in CO2 will reduce temperatures relative to that which would have been in case the reduction didn't take place.

And so far, there is absolutely no evidence that a reduction in CO2 actually increases water vapor. Quite the opposite. Which is in fact where part of the feedback loop comes in.

aceventura3 · 12-11-2009, 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dippin

Talk about faulty logic. You don't need evidence that water vapor is a constant. You just need evidence that it is independent from CO2.

If water vapor is independent from CO2 doesn't that make water vapor a constant relative to CO2? I agree that is is possible that relative to other factors that both CO2 and water vapor may be variables. But I think the base question is how these factors interact with each other.

I write as I think and I feel being brief in a forum like this is important, don't mistake imprecision in my words, or the limitations in my writing skills for faulty logic. I try to seek clarification before making certain assumptions here. On a side note I am amazed by the opposition I get when simply trying to seek clarification, I don't take questions personally and I actually enjoy the give and take of questions.

Quote:

As long as reducing CO2 doesn't directly lead to an increase in the other gases, a reduction in CO2 will reduce temperatures relative to that which would have been in case the reduction didn't take place.

This assumes other factors not related to the atmosphere don't have a bigger impact than greenhouse gasses. If we are making that assumption, why and what is the basis?

Quote:

And so far, there is absolutely no evidence that a reduction in CO2 actually increases water vapor. Quite the opposite. Which is in fact where part of the feedback loop comes in.

What is the opposite? Are you saying a reduction in CO2 decreases water vapor? Are you saying a reduction in water vapor increases CO2? Are you saying they are independent of each other? I am saying we don't know or I simply have not seen the unqualified proof. Again, in my mind there is nothing wrong with scientist standing up and answering questions. They need to stop with the "just trust us" line or "it is settled", or you are simply an idiot if you challenge their assumptions b.s..

It is not clear to me where you stand on the issue. Do you hold Al Gore's position, that this issue is settled and no more questions be asked?

dippin · 12-11-2009, 01:33 PM

Whether other factors not related to the atmosphere have a bigger impact is irrelevant. The only question that matters for this issue is whether man made global warming, independent of everything else, is enough to trigger catastrophic events.

And what I meant by opposite is that part of the feedback loop that would lead to such catastrophe is that marginal increases caused by CO2 lead to increases in water vapor, which leads to higher temperatures again, and so on.

My position is simple: We know, with absolute certainty, that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. That much is not up for debate. We also know that climatologists have estimated the effects of increase in CO2 as going from very small to very significant. This is really where the academic debate and the questions are, not on whether there is global warming. We know that there is man made global warming, the debate is over whether it matters. I think a safe approach is to treat it as it matters, especially because global warming is far from being the only negative effect of pollution.

And whatever Al Gore's position is, it is disingenuous to suggest that you are merely "asking question," or that those who don't agree with you are trying to stop others from "asking questions."

Lasereth · 12-11-2009, 01:45 PM

In 1989 when I was in Kindergarten, my teachers told us we would be frying in 2000 because of Global Warming. Now it's 20 years later and there is no difference. Oh gosh the earth is 0.5% warmer in the past 100 years. Man we're cooking here.

No I have nothing of scientific value to add to this thread, but if anything, the effects of Global Warming so far, and to humans, is exaggerated more than anything I've ever seen. I am no expert and I don't claim to be and I definitely admit that I could be wrong, but going by pure observation, the earth changing 1 degree in 100 years seems a bit....natural to me. Not unnatural.

aceventura3 · 12-11-2009, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dippin

Whether other factors not related to the atmosphere have a bigger impact is irrelevant.

Not to me.

Quote:

The only question that matters for this issue is whether man made global warming, independent of everything else, is enough to trigger catastrophic events.

Not only does the first issue relevant in my view but so is the definition of "catastrophic events".

I certainly like the thought that polar bears thrive on this planet, but species come and go, species evolve, and I have a bigger concern regarding the quality of human life. So, what may be catastrophic to polar bears and the people who love them, may not be catastrophic to me.

Quote:

And what I meant by opposite is that part of the feedback loop that would lead to such catastrophe is that marginal increases caused by CO2 lead to increases in water vapor, which leads to higher temperatures again, and so on.

And this is the key question. I don't think there would be a "feedback loop" as you describe. I think, all other things being equal, that there is a theoretical maximum CO2 level in our global atmosphere, and that as CO2 levels reach that theoretical maximum the interplay with other variables would cause CO2 level to decrease seeking a equilibrium.

I don't know if the theory I hold is correct or if yours is. But to me the question is not settled.

Quote:

My position is simple: We know, with absolute certainty, that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. That much is not up for debate. We also know that climatologists have estimated the effects of increase in CO2 as going from very small to very significant.

It has gone to very small from less very small. "very significant" is not how I would describe it. And if what we think we know about this planet is true, CO2 level have been significantly higher than they are now, without a direct correlation to what we think were average global temperatures.

Quote:

This is really where the academic debate and the questions are, not on whether there is global warming.

Do you agree that looking at temperatures over 100 years or so, compared to the length of time this planet has been here, is a problem?

For example if I decided to go to an unknown planet and study the climate it is obvious that a sun up to sun up (one day) study is virtually meaningless. A one season study would be meaningless. A one year study would be less meaningless but still could lead to erroneous conclusions. Then given that most orbits are not circular, that most spinning objects spin in a gyroscopic manner, and the affects of other orbiting objects that vary in distance from time to time, it seems to me that data collection will be on going and that the more time studied the more confidence we can have in the study of the climate. So 100 years is better than nothing but not better than 1,000 years.

But, we can study all the variables, plug in our assumptions and come up with models. The assumptions should always be challenged. We should never accept "it is settled". For example the earth's motion has more than a 24 hour, 12 month cycle based on how the earth rotates.

Quote:

This polar motion has multiple, cyclical components, which collectively are termed quasiperiodic motion. In addition to an annual component to this motion, there is a 14-month cycle called the Chandler wobble. The rotational velocity of the Earth also varies in a phenomenon known as length of day variation

Earth's orbit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Is it safe to say the sun may have similar cyclical components, if so what are they and what impact do they have on earths temperature?

Quote:

We know that there is man made global warming, the debate is over whether it matters. I think a safe approach is to treat it as it matters, especially because global warming is far from being the only negative effect of pollution.

We disagree. You say we know, I would say we suspect. But at this point there is still too much conflicting data for me to even say with confidence that I suspect. Climate scientist were saying there was a mini ice age in our future not to long ago, at a time when we were spewing out CO2 at very high levels.

Quote:

And whatever Al Gore's position is, it is disingenuous to suggest that you are merely "asking question," or that those who don't agree with you are trying to stop others from "asking questions."

What is disingenuous about what I have posted on this subject. I have my view, I have questioned the views of others, I have provided support and reasons for my views and questions.

It is indeed a fact, that as a "denier", I am subject to ad-hominem arguments, name calling, dismissive attitudes and the current email controversy is centered around silencing those who challenge the "settled science" of man made global warming. It is amazing to me that this is not clear.

matthew330 · 12-11-2009, 08:43 PM

Ace, it's clear. To you and everyone else, its clear. They know that, you know that. What's amazing to me is you keep trying, with a ridiculous amount of patience. It entertains me, i love it, but i said it before and I'll say it again....you are a saint, and I hate brownies...from what I'm told.

dippin · 12-11-2009, 09:04 PM

Ace, Im done. Im not going back to discussing your "feelings." But once again, it is disingenuous to suggest you are merely "asking questions." You are presenting your view. And it is disingenuous that anyone is trying to prevent anyone from asking questions.

Willravel · 12-11-2009, 09:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lasereth

In 1989 when I was in Kindergarten, my teachers told us we would be frying in 2000 because of Global Warming. Now it's 20 years later and there is no difference. Oh gosh the earth is 0.5% warmer in the past 100 years. Man we're cooking here.

I'm not entirely sure your Kindergarden teacher was qualified to interpret advanced climate data.

BTW, about 6,000 years ago, when the planet was about one degree Fahrenheit warmer than it is now, Nebraska was a desert. There aren't a lot of people alive today that remember the dust-bowl years of the 1930s, but I can't imagine they would be something positive for food production, especially considering that demand is rising exponentially.

Edit: I'm not saying that would necessarily happen, but doesn't that put the 1 degree into perspective?

Seaver · 12-12-2009, 06:13 AM

Well I hate to break it to you, but Nebraska almost classifies as a desert as it is. It does not receive much rain outside of the seasonal storm fronts that move down from the north. It's the grain belt simply because of the enormous aquifers that lay below it. You don't have to go back 6,000 years, only go back 150 (pre-industrialization) and many people were using camels as transportation in order to get across much of the land.

sprocket · 12-12-2009, 08:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

The atmosphere is a whole, CO2 and water vapor make up a part of the whole. If you manipulate one component of the whole it affects the other components assuming those components are not constants. So, unless there is evidence that water vapor is a constant, which I have not seen any evidence of, a manipulation of CO2 can impact the amount water vapor in the atmosphere. So, in theory if you can control one you can control other variables. A reduction in CO2 with an increase in other green house gases may off-set each other in terms of climate change or they may interact in a pendulum fashion when one component goes to far to one extreme it swings back seeking equilibrium.

The warmer the temperature, the higher the dew point.. which means the air can hold more moisture without condensation occuring. If C02 at all causes warming, a likely effect will be an INCREASE in the atmosphere's capacity to store water vapor, which in turn will cause more warming.

aceventura3 · 12-14-2009, 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by matthew330

Ace, it's clear. To you and everyone else, its clear. They know that, you know that. What's amazing to me is you keep trying, with a ridiculous amount of patience. It entertains me, i love it, but i said it before and I'll say it again....you are a saint, and I hate brownies...from what I'm told.

TFP is a great way to get my mind off of work a little bit each day.

---------- Post added at 04:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:35 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by dippin

Ace, Im done.

Are you super cereal?

YouTube - Al Gore is Cereal...

---------- Post added at 04:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:37 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by sprocket

The warmer the temperature, the higher the dew point.. which means the air can hold more moisture without condensation occuring. If C02 at all causes warming, a likely effect will be an INCREASE in the atmosphere's capacity to store water vapor, which in turn will cause more warming.

Why stop? what is next?

How about with increased temperatures and water vapor in the atmosphere creating more of a "greenhouse", what happens in "greenhouses"? Plants thrive. What do plants do? They consume Co2! And what do they release? Oxygen!

My point has been that our ecosystem has measures in place where equilibrium is sought.

Lasereth · 12-14-2009, 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

I'm not entirely sure your Kindergarden teacher was qualified to interpret advanced climate data.

BTW, about 6,000 years ago, when the planet was about one degree Fahrenheit warmer than it is now, Nebraska was a desert. There aren't a lot of people alive today that remember the dust-bowl years of the 1930s, but I can't imagine they would be something positive for food production, especially considering that demand is rising exponentially.

Edit: I'm not saying that would necessarily happen, but doesn't that put the 1 degree into perspective?

Where in the article does it prove that Nebraska was a desert because of the 1 degree difference? It just states that there was a 1 degree difference and that it was a desert but it never even comes close to stating why. In the late 1930s and early 1940s WWII happened and it was 1 degree warmer. Oh god. WWIII is coming!

Also, if it was 1 degree warmer in the 1930s, and if the greenhouse effect is getting worse, not better, then why was it 1 degree warmer then but not now?

sprocket · 12-14-2009, 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Why stop? what is next?

How about with increased temperatures and water vapor in the atmosphere creating more of a "greenhouse", what happens in "greenhouses"? Plants thrive. What do plants do? They consume Co2! And what do they release? Oxygen!

My point has been that our ecosystem has measures in place where equilibrium is sought.

Well, even if many global warming proponents are a little unjustifiably alarmist, this is unjustifiably optimistic. If at all you suggest their dire predictions are unjustified, you are guilty of the same here.

Historical evidence brings to bear periods of mass extinctions and radical ecosystem changes from relatively minor climate blips when compared with some predictions of global warming. So there's plenty of good evidence to suggest that its not just going to be more roses and sunshine, even if global warming causes a temporary swing of the pendulum that eventually gets brought back to equilibrium. The faster the changes, the less able the ecosystems we depend on will be able to adapt, and will be potentially wrecked in the process.

aceventura3 · 12-15-2009, 08:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sprocket

Well, even if many global warming proponents are a little unjustifiably alarmist, this is unjustifiably optimistic. If at all you suggest their dire predictions are unjustified, you are guilty of the same here.

I am not making predictions, I am just pointing something out that many seem to ignore regarding the "feed back loop". My position is - we don't know - take an incremental approach to controlling pollutants - we have made significant improvements and we should continue putting in the effort without the fear mongering.

Quote:

Historical evidence brings to bear periods of mass extinctions and radical ecosystem changes from relatively minor climate blips when compared with some predictions of global warming. So there's plenty of good evidence to suggest that its not just going to be more roses and sunshine, even if global warming causes a temporary swing of the pendulum that eventually gets brought back to equilibrium. The faster the changes, the less able the ecosystems we depend on will be able to adapt, and will be potentially wrecked in the process.

One mass extinction involved dinosaurs. We don't know the cause of that, with the most popular theory being the Asteroid Theory, which may have been a sudden event. What are "minor climate blips", I am not clear on that, but if you measure the "blips" in millions of years we may be talking about species evolving rather than extinctions,

Derwood · 12-15-2009, 08:40 AM

Threads like this remind me of this:

Quote:

These criticisms sound like they make sense. But I think they are a little off-base. The problem not only with fundamentalist Christians but with Republicans in general is not that they act on blind faith, without thinking. The problem is that they are incorrigible doubters with an insatiable appetite for Evidence. What they get off on is not Believing, but in having their beliefs tested. That's why their conversations and their media are so completely dominated by implacable bogeymen: marrying gays, liberals, the ACLU, Sean Penn, Europeans and so on. Their faith both in God and in their political convictions is too weak to survive without an unceasing string of real and imaginary confrontations with those people — and for those confrontations, they are constantly assembling evidence and facts to make their case.

But here's the twist. They are not looking for facts with which to defeat opponents. They are looking for facts that ensure them an ever-expanding roster of opponents. They can be correct facts, incorrect facts, irrelevant facts, it doesn't matter. The point is not to win the argument, the point is to make sure the argument never stops. Permanent war isn't a policy imposed from above; it's an emotional imperative that rises from the bottom. In a way, it actually helps if the fact is dubious or untrue (like the Swift-boat business), because that guarantees an argument. You're arguing the particulars, where you're right, while they're arguing the underlying generalities, where they are.

Once you grasp this fact, you're a long way to understanding what the Hannitys and Limbaughs figured out long ago: These people will swallow anything you feed them, so long as it leaves them with a demon to wrestle with in their dreams.

Bush Like Me : Rolling Stone

sprocket · 12-16-2009, 09:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I am not making predictions, I am just pointing something out that many seem to ignore regarding the "feed back loop". My position is - we don't know - take an incremental approach to controlling pollutants - we have made significant improvements and we should continue putting in the effort without the fear mongering.

I'm not advocating any particular political policies here... one can make the case for the science, without endorsing partisan political "solutions".

Not to be rude, but bringing up the whole "plant food" anti-global warming meme de jour, suggests to me you arent approaching the issue with honest skepticism, or at least are only consulting one-sided sources. It certainly isnt any point that science has neglected, at all. There's a lot of science on the topic if you care to take a look, and a lot of it suggests that increases in C02 can have harmful effects on many plants, much same way even minor changes in the levels of O in the atmosphere could hurt us (but hey, how can that be, O is people food!)

aceventura3 · 12-21-2009, 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sprocket

...you arent approaching the issue with honest skepticism, or at least are only consulting one-sided sources.

I am intrigued with the concept of "honest skepticism". There is no doubt to me that I am a skeptic on this and many issues and I am a self acknowledged cynic, but how is a person a honest or a dishonest skeptic. Are you suggesting that I am pretending to be a skeptic?

Regarding one-sided sources, my basic approach is to read the arguments/proof/studies of those making the case for man made global warming and then I challenge what was presented. I mostly do it through questions.

Quote:

It certainly isnt any point that science has neglected, at all. There's a lot of science on the topic if you care to take a look, and a lot of it suggests that increases in C02 can have harmful effects on many plants, much same way even minor changes in the levels of O in the atmosphere could hurt us (but hey, how can that be, O is people food!)

All I did was make a point by asking a few questions regarding the "feedback loop". I was not trying to prove or disprove anything. Outside of how you look at the "feedback loop", the general tendency is for people to look only at a portion of the "feedback loop". One of my common themes on this subject is we need to know and understand the assumptions used by those creating and using climate models to mold public policy. If some have made the assumption that CO2 levels may approach a point where irreversible damage to the climate occurs and that it is preventable, I think understand the "feed back loop is critically important. If you have a source to studies on this question, I am interested in reading them and would love a source.

12-09-2009, 07:27 AM	#206 (permalink)
rahl Junkie Location: Ohio	But getting back to your original point a thought came to mind over the weekend. In the form of an analogy to music. We can have people with accredited degrees in music but that does not make those people any more or less qualified to to understand or predict what music will create certain emotional responses in the hearts and mind of the general public, it is possible that all that they really understand is the impact of music of the past has had, and may be incapable of applying that knowledge to the future, just like a "climate scientist". You don't need a degree in music to understand and or to make great music. In fact some of my favorite artists did not even read sheet music. I think you should revisit your thoughts on this issue.[/QUOTE] Only your analogy is irrelevant and has no bearing on Climate science expertise. You are in no way qualified to make any judgements about the scientific data that has been collected or the conclusions drawn from them. Neither am I or most of the people here unless they are in the field. __________________ "Your life is Yours alone...Rise up and live it"

12-09-2009, 05:54 PM	#208 (permalink)
ASU2003 immoral minority Location: Back in Ohio	So, what is your prediction for what will happen to the planet temperature wise in the next 50 years? You can't use any previous temperature data before satellites were launched that can measure surface temperature globally (I don't trust ice core temps because I think there are variables they don't account for). If it gets warmer will things just adapt to the higher temperatures, or will major numbers of people and animals (that you may or may not care for) not be able to live in the new environment? Will something like the dust bowl happen again in the midwest/Southern CA/AZ? Be sure to include what will happen if there are major droughts and flooding, or don't you think they will happen. What happens when the fish die off because algae have grown too fast or diseases kill off trees because the winters don't kill them? How should the human population deal with or not deal with the increasing solar radiation, volcanos, and sun spots that might really cause a heat wave? How much of an impact will the other pollutants that get released through the burning of fossil fuels have on the world? Should we just do nothing and give money to oil, coal, and other polluting companies? And hope that our stock investments go up 1% more because they saved a little bit of money, but have prices on the goods we buy go up because they have to continuously buy energy instead of a one time large cost. Last edited by ASU2003; 12-09-2009 at 06:00 PM..

12-09-2009, 07:01 PM	#209 (permalink)
cementor Crazy Location: Denver	With the recent controversy of the IPCC and other esteemed "Scientists" and the doctored data, the lack of transparency of methodology, the obvious collusion shown by the emails which were leaked to the public and sequestration of non coroborating data, I have ZERO faith in any of these so called GW "facts" or for that matter those that poopoo GW. I believe we need a group of folks on both sides of the fence to review all the data and give us the non spin version. Frankly the idea that manmade CO2 emmissions which according to both sides of the arguement add up to 6% are solely responsible for making these moves in the "average temps" as some folks would have us believe, does not make any sense. Science just as politics and anything else to do with humankind is influenced by the perspective of those making the claim. EGO is a huge factor in the scientific community ( don't believe it go attend one of these conferences and get a dose of the hubris) and unfortunately money is an even bigger inluence. How do we remove these influences and get to the truth???? Beats hell out of me. In the mean time I distrust them all. In the interest of all of us I am making moves to reduce my carbon footprint, not because I believe the sky is falling, but because I believe it is the right thing to do. However, to wipe out economies and return mankind to the stoneage is not the proper move either. __________________ Cementor If I was any better I'd have to be twins!

12-11-2009, 01:45 PM	#216 (permalink)
Lasereth Knight of the Old Republic Location: Winston-Salem, NC	In 1989 when I was in Kindergarten, my teachers told us we would be frying in 2000 because of Global Warming. Now it's 20 years later and there is no difference. Oh gosh the earth is 0.5% warmer in the past 100 years. Man we're cooking here. No I have nothing of scientific value to add to this thread, but if anything, the effects of Global Warming so far, and to humans, is exaggerated more than anything I've ever seen. I am no expert and I don't claim to be and I definitely admit that I could be wrong, but going by pure observation, the earth changing 1 degree in 100 years seems a bit....natural to me. Not unnatural. __________________ "A Darwinian attacks his theory, seeking to find flaws. An ID believer defends his theory, seeking to conceal flaws." -Roger Ebert

12-12-2009, 06:13 AM	#221 (permalink)
Seaver Junkie Location: Fort Worth, TX	Well I hate to break it to you, but Nebraska almost classifies as a desert as it is. It does not receive much rain outside of the seasonal storm fronts that move down from the north. It's the grain belt simply because of the enormous aquifers that lay below it. You don't have to go back 6,000 years, only go back 150 (pre-industrialization) and many people were using camels as transportation in order to get across much of the land. __________________ "Smite the rocks with the rod of knowledge, and fountains of unstinted wealth will gush forth." - Ashbel Smith as he laid the first cornerstone of the University of Texas

12-11-2009, 01:33 PM	#215 (permalink)
dippin Crazy, indeed Location: the ether	Whether other factors not related to the atmosphere have a bigger impact is irrelevant. The only question that matters for this issue is whether man made global warming, independent of everything else, is enough to trigger catastrophic events. And what I meant by opposite is that part of the feedback loop that would lead to such catastrophe is that marginal increases caused by CO2 lead to increases in water vapor, which leads to higher temperatures again, and so on. My position is simple: We know, with absolute certainty, that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. That much is not up for debate. We also know that climatologists have estimated the effects of increase in CO2 as going from very small to very significant. This is really where the academic debate and the questions are, not on whether there is global warming. We know that there is man made global warming, the debate is over whether it matters. I think a safe approach is to treat it as it matters, especially because global warming is far from being the only negative effect of pollution. And whatever Al Gore's position is, it is disingenuous to suggest that you are merely "asking question," or that those who don't agree with you are trying to stop others from "asking questions."

12-11-2009, 08:43 PM	#218 (permalink)
matthew330 Banned	Ace, it's clear. To you and everyone else, its clear. They know that, you know that. What's amazing to me is you keep trying, with a ridiculous amount of patience. It entertains me, i love it, but i said it before and I'll say it again....you are a saint, and I hate brownies...from what I'm told.

12-11-2009, 09:04 PM	#219 (permalink)
dippin Crazy, indeed Location: the ether	Ace, Im done. Im not going back to discussing your "feelings." But once again, it is disingenuous to suggest you are merely "asking questions." You are presenting your view. And it is disingenuous that anyone is trying to prevent anyone from asking questions.