DC Tom Posted July 8, 2012 Share Posted July 8, 2012 But ALGORE says there's a consensus! A consensus! Anytime somebody declares the debate is over is when you have to start raising questions. If the evidence is so rock solid and everybody and their mother has reached a consensus, why are they unwilling to debate their conclusion? The editor for Scientific American was on the radio yesterday, talking about how there's "thousands" of research papers all saying the same thing, and only a handful of credible ones that disagree, that all the deniers quote to prove that there's disagreement in the science community...which there isn't, because there's a consensus, and while the little bit of contrary research can't be ignored, it actually can be because...y'know, consensus! There's a reason I cancelled my subscription to SciAm. I'm extremely tempted to write a letter to the editor pointing out that there were probably hundreds, at least, of papers proving the existence of the lumineferous aether. It only took one paper by Michelson and Morley to prove that wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted July 8, 2012 Share Posted July 8, 2012 First part... No, your wrong and you know it... It is the "progressive" communities that have been cutting fire, rescue and police, as an " I told you so!!!" when the people of the community won't let them confiscate any more of their money, they make those cuts instead of all their pet projects... CA is the latest example. Facing massive deficits, they have threatened repeatedly, and have done so, cut police and fire service. But "here we go again" as they just voted to spend even more money they don't have on this bullet train to no where... How the heck can you justify this sort of ridiculous spending??? To the next part... I'd be interested to learn, how do you do that? How do you measure the temperature of a waterway in past years? Can you tell me what the average temp of Lake Erie is today, and say, this day in 1776??? I was thinking about Colorado springs and I assure you there is not a Progressive anywhere near their government- As for the bullet train I'd rather see LA to Las Vegas be the first one but San Fran is hardly nowhere and if they need more money for police maybe they should spend the Billions they are spending on Drones for California police to do more hiring. Lake temperatures records go back to 1927, Ocean surface temperatures records go back to around 1850. You know the green house effect is not hard to understand, more greenhouse gases and all other things being equal the earth is going to retain more heat. I could talk to you about albedo, tilt, wobble, precessional cycle, orbital eccentricity, solar output or positive and negative feedback loops but of course it's all a big conspiracy from those lib scientist who want to take your Hummer away. So I repeat my heartfelt advice to the south and Mid-west to pray harder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smears Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 So who's the douche that made up a new handle to start ridiculous threads around here? It is the return of an old douche, or a current douche trying to be funny? +1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 As for the bullet train I'd rather see LA to Las Vegas be the first one You mean because it's too hard to get from LA to Las Vegas? It's a freakin' $59 flight or an easy 4 hour drive. Way to solve a problem that doesn't exist with billions of dollars you don't have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2171973/Tree-ring-study-proves-climate-WARMER-Roman-Medieval-times-modern-industrial-age.html Heretics!!! Burn them!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMadCap Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 (edited) First part... No, your wrong and you know it... It is the "progressive" communities that have been cutting fire, rescue and police, as an " I told you so!!!" when the people of the community won't let them confiscate any more of their money, they make those cuts instead of all their pet projects... CA is the latest example. Facing massive deficits, they have threatened repeatedly, and have done so, cut police and fire service. But "here we go again" as they just voted to spend even more money they don't have on this bullet train to no where... How the heck can you justify this sort of ridiculous spending??? To the next part... I'd be interested to learn, how do you do that? How do you measure the temperature of a waterway in past years? Can you tell me what the average temp of Lake Erie is today, and say, this day in 1776??? Disclaimer: This is a VERY simplistic explaination. I will not go back into Thermohaline Circulation again, I've beaten that to death, so if you want to understand why the theory of more CO2 input to the atmosphere could lead to shutdown of the conveyor (leading to dramatic impacts to Earth's climate, e.g, next Ice Age) then any Environmental Chemisty text can bring you up to speed. The Ocean is a natural sink for carbonates. So one way that historical temperatures have been estimated is by measuring the Ocean's calcium carbonate deposits. Concentration of CaCO3 can be somewhat correlated to temperature (or more correctly, concentration of C02 in the atmosphere which has been used as an metric for how warm the environment was at that point in time). For calcium carbonate, there is an inverse relationship between solubility and temperature, so more CO2 in the atmosphere - warmer atmopsheric temps - warmer seawater temperatures - less solubility of C02 in seawater - less CaCO3 build-up. The Carbonate system is VERY complicated, as CO2 dissolved in water exists as carbonic acid, pH of seawater may decrese as CO2 is taken up by the oceans. Another big unknown is the rate at which the Ocean can handle additional inputs of CO2, say from combustion engines or other anthropogenic sources... Edited July 11, 2012 by TheMadCap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 Disclaimer: This is a VERY simplistic explaination. I will not go back into Thermohaline Circulation again, I've beaten that to death, so if you want to understand why the theory of more CO2 input to the atmosphere could lead to shutdown of the conveyor (leading to dramatic impacts to Earth's climate, e.g, next Ice Age) then any Environmental Chemisty text can bring you up to speed. The Ocean is a natural sink for carbonates. So one way that historical temperatures have been estimated is by measuring the Ocean's calcium carbonate deposits. Concentration of CaCO3 can be somewhat correlated to temperature (or more correctly, concentration of C02 in the atmosphere which has been used as an metric for how warm the environment was at that point in time). For calcium carbonate, there is an inverse relationship between solubility and temperature, so more CO2 in the atmosphere - warmer atmopsheric temps - warmer seawater temperatures - less solubility of C02 in seawater - less CaCO3 build-up. The Carbonate system is VERY complicated, as CO2 dissolved in water exists as carbonic acid, pH of seawater may decrese as CO2 is taken up by the oceans. Another big unknown is the rate at which the Ocean can handle additional inputs of CO2, say from combustion engines or other anthropogenic sources... Or, for the past few centuries, you just ask the Royal Navy. They've had a worldwide presence for 400 years, and their logbooks are very thorough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMadCap Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 (edited) I will add that one of the biggest sources of disagreement in the scientific community around impact of anthropogenic sources of C02 from combustion lies in what I briefly mentioned before: that is, the Ocean is a sink for carbonates, but no one knows what the equilibrium point is for the rate of uptake. If you consider that all the factors for the carbonate system (pH and speciation, temperature, salinity, etc.) and how they are all inter-related, it becomes nearly impossible to predict how much the Ocean can take before it reaches its tipping point. I suspect that the anthropogenic sources could be handled by the Ocean, but at what rate? How long will it take? These are some of the important questions that must be addressed SCIENTIFICALLY, not politically. Just because there is a consensus, or even if there is NOT one, does not mean that that a correlation does not exist. It means you can't prove it one way or the other yet. So when you hear one side claim that it's all "junk science" and the other saying that we are heading for a for sure global disaster, both are being somewhat simplistic and misleading. I would say that just about everyone could agree that we should limit our CO2 and other greenhouse gas inputs to the atmosphere, but we need to do it responsibly from an economic standpoint... Edited July 11, 2012 by TheMadCap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 Direct link to the Nature study. Orbital forcing of tree-ring data A new study published in the journal Nature Sunday completely debunks all previous claims that temperatures in recent decades are in any way historic, demonstrating instead that things were much hotter on this planet during Roman times. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 I will add that one of the biggest sources of disagreement in the scientific community around impact of anthropogenic sources of C02 from combustion lies in what I briefly mentioned before: that is, the Ocean is a sink for carbonates, but no one knows what the equilibrium point is for the rate of uptake. If you consider that all the factors for the carbonate system (pH and speciation, temperature, salinity, etc.) and how they are all inter-related, it becomes nearly impossible to predict how much the Ocean can take before it reaches its tipping point. I suspect that the anthropogenic sources could be handled by the Ocean, but at what rate? How long will it take? These are some of the important questions that must be addressed SCIENTIFICALLY, not politically. Just because there is a consensus, or even if there is NOT one, does not mean that that a correlation does not exist. It means you can't prove it one way or the other yet. So when you hear one side claim that it's all "junk science" and the other saying that we are heading for a for sure global disaster, both are being somewhat simplistic and misleading. I would say that just about everyone could agree that we should limit our CO2 and other greenhouse gas inputs to the atmosphere, but we need to do it responsibly from an economic standpoint... Well, 80% of it IS junk science, because you have too many idiots running around dismissing just those unknowns with "But there's a consensus!" Some of the scientists (yes, Hansen, I'm talking about you) abandoned science a long time ago for activism, but still like to pretend they're doing responsible research ("Because there's a consensus!") Direct link to the Nature study. A new study published in the journal Nature Sunday completely debunks all previous claims that temperatures in recent decades are in any way historic, demonstrating instead that things were much hotter on this planet during Roman times. . Except that no one with half a brain (e.g. not the IPCC) argues that the world has never been this warm. They argue that it's warming because of greenhouse gasses. That doesn't preclude other sources of warming at other points in history causing even warmer temperatures. At best, that study allows the rebaselining of historical climate and changes estimates of the magnitude of the current warming. It doesn't debunk a damned thing, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMadCap Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 (edited) Direct link to the Nature study. A new study published in the journal Nature Sunday completely debunks all previous claims that temperatures in recent decades are in any way historic, demonstrating instead that things were much hotter on this planet during Roman times. . Fascinating. I am not in any way competent in the modeling simulation technology they are using, but I would be hesitant to accept a trend with that much error and noise in the background. To me, and again, I have no knowledge of their modeling technology, the best that you could say from that with the amount of error I am seeing is that the data suggest that global temperatures predicted by using tree ring data appear to be stable. One other thing I did not see, although I did not pour over this document with the scrutiny of a peer reviewer: how did they establish significance or degree of confidence for this trend? I think this reinforces what I was saying earlier: the Earth has feedback mechanisms to handle influx/out flux and keep temperatures relatively stable, but note that this study means F-all to what would be expected to happen moving forward. Still pretty cool though! Edited July 11, 2012 by TheMadCap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMadCap Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 sigh....looks like I killed another one... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 sigh....looks like I killed another one... Nobody likes you, lizard-face. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMadCap Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 Nobody likes you, lizard-face. But my eyes are so dreamy and sparkly! I should trademark a fancy catchphrase to smite the morans! What should I go with? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SDS Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 Well, 80% of it IS junk science, because you have too many idiots running around dismissing just those unknowns with "But there's a consensus!" Some of the scientists (yes, Hansen, I'm talking about you) abandoned science a long time ago for activism, but still like to pretend they're doing responsible research ("Because there's a consensus!") Except that no one with half a brain (e.g. not the IPCC) argues that the world has never been this warm. They argue that it's warming because of greenhouse gasses. That doesn't preclude other sources of warming at other points in history causing even warmer temperatures. At best, that study allows the rebaselining of historical climate and changes estimates of the magnitude of the current warming. It doesn't debunk a damned thing, though. I don't read PPP much anymore, and I know your opinion on the politics behind all this, etc... but if you have a moment could you briefly recap what your actual opinion is on climate change? Are we heading off a cliff or not? Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 I don't read PPP much anymore, and I know your opinion on the politics behind all this, etc... but if you have a moment could you briefly recap what your actual opinion is on climate change? Are we heading off a cliff or not? Thanks. You'd have to define "cliff". "We," humanity...probably. "We," the planet? Hardly. The planet couldn't give a ****. And you want me to briefly post about a science topic? Basically: the planet is warming. Less clear is our contribution to that warming, but I think it's probably significant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 You'd have to define "cliff". "We," humanity...probably. "We," the planet? Hardly. The planet couldn't give a ****. And you want me to briefly post about a science topic? Basically: the planet is warming. Less clear is our contribution to that warming, but I think it's probably significant. I drove past Deleware park today and the grass is all brown. I've never seen it like that before. The whole city is basically suffering from brown grass Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SDS Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 You'd have to define "cliff". "We," humanity...probably. "We," the planet? Hardly. The planet couldn't give a ****. And you want me to briefly post about a science topic? Basically: the planet is warming. Less clear is our contribution to that warming, but I think it's probably significant. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 I drove past Deleware park today and the grass is all brown. I've never seen it like that before. The whole city is basically suffering from brown grass Fascinating. Dormant grass. Absolutely fascinating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 Fascinating. Dormant grass. Absolutely fascinating. It was like he was looking in a mirror. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts