|
|
|
|
            |
 |
|
|
|
05/18/2009 12:12 PM
|
Deech56
Posts: 12249
Joined: 07/28/2005
|
quote:
Originally posted by: keough
Deech,
You are played a tired game. Sources and evidence have been given.
I have seen nothing posted that supports your argument that scientists state that climate is static or that natural occurrences cannot change climate.
quote:
You do one of two things:
[...]
What I do find very interestesting is, the science of human made global warming has been government funded - worse scenarios, more funding.
This is true for any science, but you reserve your smear for climate science.
quote:
Now, other scientists ( some government funded - many privately funded ) are catching up and showing the serious errors in these scenarios.
Where are their publications? You've linked only to that one paper. Show me the publications that show that dispute the "consensus" view that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, that it's causing warming now and that warming will continue as long as CO2 levels rise.
-------------------------
The climate system is an angry beast and we are poking it with sticks. - Wallace S. Broecker Nature isn't just the final authority, Nature is the Only authority. - Charles B. Paul Elitist windbag since 2004.
|
|
05/22/2009 12:38 PM
|
Deech56
Posts: 12249
Joined: 07/28/2005
|
More good news (if the sarcasm toggle is in the "on" position): Climate change odds much worse than thought
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
MIT News
New analysis shows warming could be double previous estimates.
The most comprehensive modeling yet carried out on the likelihood of how much hotter the Earth's climate will get in this century shows that without rapid and massive action, the problem will be about twice as severe as previously estimated six years ago - and could be even worse than that. The study uses the MIT Integrated Global Systems Model, a detailed computer simulation of global economic activity and climate processes that has been developed and refined by the Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change since the early 1990s. The new research involved 400 runs of the model with each run using slight variations in input parameters, selected so that each run has about an equal probability of being correct based on present observations and knowledge. Other research groups have estimated the probabilities of various outcomes, based on variations in the physical response of the climate system itself. But the MIT model is the only one that interactively includes detailed treatment of possible changes in human activities as well - such as the degree of economic growth, with its associated energy use, in different countries.
[...]
The new projections, published this month in the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate, indicate a median probability of surface warming of 5.2 degrees Celsius by 2100, with a 90% probability range of 3.5 to 7.4 degrees.
[...]
Because vehicles last for years, and buildings and powerplants last for decades, it is essential to start making major changes through adoption of significant national and international policies as soon as possible, Prinn says. "The least-cost option to lower the risk is to start now and steadily transform the global energy system over the coming decades to low or zero greenhouse gas-emitting technologies."
First: a temperature increase of 5.2°C (9.4°F) is absolutely catastrophic.
Second: based on recent studies of ocean warming, the news may be a bit better. From the abstract: "However, if recently published data, suggesting stronger 20th century ocean warming, are used to determine the input climate parameters, the median projected warning at the end of the 21st century is only 4.1°C." "Only" 4.1°C (7.4°F) is still catastrophic.
Third: these projections are based not only on atmospheric physics, but on "business as usual" economic and emissions forecasting. This is basically what could happen if we continue to do little (kind of like the ghost of Christmas yet to come).
Fourth: at these projections, catastrophe would hit earlier than 2100 - either people would do something, or part of the problem would go away (population or economic crash due to unsustainability).
Fifth: like saving for retirement, it's much more effective to start now, rather than wait until things get bad.
The abstract is here.
-------------------------
The climate system is an angry beast and we are poking it with sticks. - Wallace S. Broecker Nature isn't just the final authority, Nature is the Only authority. - Charles B. Paul Elitist windbag since 2004.
Edited: 05/23/2009 at 06:28 AM by Deech56
|
|
05/22/2009 01:21 PM
|
lazarus
Posts: 9296
Joined: 08/12/2005
|
quote:
Originally posted by: Deech56
I have seen nothing posted that supports your argument that scientists state that climate is static or that natural occurrences cannot change climate.
Its an assumption made with those that are pushing GW. We apparently know 100% the earth is getting warmer and we are the cause....as if the earth never warmed nor cooled in the past...unless humans did it. So obviously there are no natural occurences in climate change.
I do remember you saying "science isnt logical".....
-------------------------
"My good friends, for the second time in our history a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time." - Neville Chamberlain...September 30, 1938 Spectemur Agendo - "Let us be judged by our acts." No more rules. We now defer decision making because its too hard and too risky.
|
|
05/22/2009 01:37 PM
|
keough
Posts: 8767
Joined: 02/01/2007
|
quote:
Originally posted by: lazarus
quote:
Originally posted by: Deech56
I have seen nothing posted that supports your argument that scientists state that climate is static or that natural occurrences cannot change climate.
Its an assumption made with those that are pushing GW. We apparently know 100% the earth is getting warmer and we are the cause....as if the earth never warmed nor cooled in the past...unless humans did it. So obviously there are no natural occurences in climate change.
I do remember you saying "science isnt logical".....
I can't seem to get more than the Abstract without paying, but I do believe Laz makes a very valid point. I would like to see what was not included as possible driving factors...
-------------------------
I wasn't born stupid, I had to study. Expelled - No Intelligence Allowed The United States has 5% of the world’s population and 66% of the world’s lawyers.
|
|
05/22/2009 02:03 PM
|
Deech56
Posts: 12249
Joined: 07/28/2005
|
quote:
Originally posted by: lazarus
Its an assumption made with those that are pushing GW. We apparently know 100% the earth is getting warmer and we are the cause....as if the earth never warmed nor cooled in the past...unless humans did it. So obviously there are no natural occurences in climate change.
Science is data driven. Why does the fact that natural climate changes have occurred in the past mean that humans cannot cause climate changes? What data are there to support primarily natural causes for current warming?
-------------------------
The climate system is an angry beast and we are poking it with sticks. - Wallace S. Broecker Nature isn't just the final authority, Nature is the Only authority. - Charles B. Paul Elitist windbag since 2004.
|
|
05/22/2009 02:06 PM
|
Deech56
Posts: 12249
Joined: 07/28/2005
|
quote:
Originally posted by: keough
I can't seem to get more than the Abstract without paying, but I do believe Laz makes a very valid point. I would like to see what was not included as possible driving factors...
Of the foreseeable climate modifiers, we know that CO2 will be at least undergoing a doubling (and a quadrupling) under current growth rates. What other changes would you be expecting?
-------------------------
The climate system is an angry beast and we are poking it with sticks. - Wallace S. Broecker Nature isn't just the final authority, Nature is the Only authority. - Charles B. Paul Elitist windbag since 2004.
|
|
05/22/2009 02:29 PM
|
lazarus
Posts: 9296
Joined: 08/12/2005
|
quote:
Originally posted by: Deech56
Science is data driven.
No, Science is driven by the interpretation of that data. Some people who call science "science" do such interpretation improperly, IMO.
quote:
Why does the fact that natural climate changes have occurred in the past mean that humans cannot cause climate changes?
Proving the negative?
quote:
What data are there to support primarily natural causes for current warming?
Again, you are not looking at this logically. I get the feeling, to you, science is "assumption driven" and "consensus driven".....the method be dam*ed.
-------------------------
"My good friends, for the second time in our history a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time." - Neville Chamberlain...September 30, 1938 Spectemur Agendo - "Let us be judged by our acts." No more rules. We now defer decision making because its too hard and too risky.
Edited: 05/22/2009 at 02:30 PM by lazarus
|
|
05/22/2009 03:23 PM
|
Deech56
Posts: 12249
Joined: 07/28/2005
|
quote:
Originally posted by: lazarus
quote:
Originally posted by: Deech56
Science is data driven.
No, Science is driven by the interpretation of that data. Some people who call science "science" do such interpretation improperly, IMO.
Where are the publications with "alternative" interpretations of the data?
quote:
quote:
Why does the fact that natural climate changes have occurred in the past mean that humans cannot cause climate changes?
Proving the negative?
No, you are stating that natural climate change has occurred in the past, and that somehow, the scientists who study past climate changes are not aware of that fact. The fact that past climate changes were naturally-driven in the past does not mean that it is impossible for the burning fossil fuels to result in global warming.
quote:
quote:
What data are there to support primarily natural causes for current warming?
Again, you are not looking at this logically. I get the feeling, to you, science is "assumption driven" and "consensus driven".....the method be dam*ed.
No, science is empirical. I'm merely asking you to provide data to support your position.
-------------------------
The climate system is an angry beast and we are poking it with sticks. - Wallace S. Broecker Nature isn't just the final authority, Nature is the Only authority. - Charles B. Paul Elitist windbag since 2004.
Edited: 05/22/2009 at 03:23 PM by Deech56
|
|
05/23/2009 10:39 PM
|
lazarus
Posts: 9296
Joined: 08/12/2005
|
quote:
No, you are stating that natural climate change has occurred in the past, and that somehow, the scientists who study past climate changes are not aware of that fact. The fact that past climate changes were naturally-driven in the past does not mean that it is impossible for the burning fossil fuels to result in global warming.
But it doesnt mean it is occuring due to those means, if that is the case. You assume it is.
quote:
Where are the publications with "alternative" interpretations of the data?
quote:
No, science is empirical. I'm merely asking you to provide data to support your position.
No, I am using logic to support my position based on your position. Since that continues to elude you, you insist on asking for support of my position not realizing its based in opposition to yours.
Hello?
-------------------------
"My good friends, for the second time in our history a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time." - Neville Chamberlain...September 30, 1938 Spectemur Agendo - "Let us be judged by our acts." No more rules. We now defer decision making because its too hard and too risky.
|
|
05/24/2009 06:31 AM
|
Deech56
Posts: 12249
Joined: 07/28/2005
|
quote:
Originally posted by: lazarus
quote:
No, you are stating that natural climate change has occurred in the past, and that somehow, the scientists who study past climate changes are not aware of that fact. The fact that past climate changes were naturally-driven in the past does not mean that it is impossible for the burning fossil fuels to result in global warming.
But it doesnt mean it is occuring due to those means, if that is the case. You assume it is.
No, I base this on data. Here's a chart showing the global and regional temperatures and predictions based on factoring in either natural forcings only or natural and anthropogenic forcings. If temperatures were driven only by natural forcings, they would not have changed over the last century. Stratospheric cooling in the face of troposheric warming is one fingerprint of a reduction of energy escape due to the presence of greenhouse gases. If the sun were hotter, then all layers of the atmosphere would warm. This predication has been verified by satellite observations. These are observations, not assumptions. I see the assumption being, "Natural causes occurred in the past; therefore, natural causes must account for current and future conditions." If you have data to support this, then show it.
quote:
quote:
Where are the publications with "alternative" interpretations of the data?
quote:
No, science is empirical. I'm merely asking you to provide data to support your position.
No, I am using logic to support my position based on your position. Since that continues to elude you, you insist on asking for support of my position not realizing its based in opposition to yours.
Hello?
But data beats "using logic" every time. It's like arguing by coming up with an alternative hypothesis and not testing the hypothesis. Science doesn't work that way. You cannot make an argument by looking for semantic weaknesses in message posts and misinterpreting what is written. Primary sources are always better.
-------------------------
The climate system is an angry beast and we are poking it with sticks. - Wallace S. Broecker Nature isn't just the final authority, Nature is the Only authority. - Charles B. Paul Elitist windbag since 2004.
Edited: 05/24/2009 at 06:31 AM by Deech56
|
|
05/24/2009 08:08 AM
|
lazarus
Posts: 9296
Joined: 08/12/2005
|
quote:
Originally posted by: Deech56
No, I base this on data.
So where have you published in the Scientific literature on the subject? Its the typical fallback argument to justify someone else's analysis that you agree with.
If not, your opinion has as much weight as mine.....no matter how much data you ask for. Where did you get this from? Realclimate?
quote:
But data beats "using logic" every time.
Absolutely not. data is not the algorithm. And the algorithm helps in gathering the data. You, apparently, dont know what logic is.
If you dont know what the data represents, then data is simply an inert number that has no intrinsic value.
-------------------------
"My good friends, for the second time in our history a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time." - Neville Chamberlain...September 30, 1938 Spectemur Agendo - "Let us be judged by our acts." No more rules. We now defer decision making because its too hard and too risky.
Edited: 05/24/2009 at 08:12 AM by lazarus
|
|
05/24/2009 08:09 AM
|
lazarus
Posts: 9296
Joined: 08/12/2005
|
The straight dope
-------------------------
"My good friends, for the second time in our history a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time." - Neville Chamberlain...September 30, 1938 Spectemur Agendo - "Let us be judged by our acts." No more rules. We now defer decision making because its too hard and too risky.
|
|
05/24/2009 01:31 PM
|
Deech56
Posts: 12249
Joined: 07/28/2005
|
quote:
Originally posted by: lazarus
quote:
Originally posted by: Deech56
No, I base this on data.
So where have you published in the Scientific literature on the subject? Its the typical fallback argument to justify someone else's analysis that you agree with.
If not, your opinion has as much weight as mine.....no matter how much data you ask for. Where did you get this from? Realclimate?
Nope - a large peer-reviewed publication by the IPCC. It's derived from Chapter 9 (pdf) (Figure 9.12) of the report* from Working Group I ("The Physical Basis of Climate Change").
quote:
quote:
But data beats "using logic" every time.
Absolutely not. data is not the algorithm. And the algorithm helps in gathering the data. You, apparently, dont know what logic is.
If you dont know what the data represents, then data is simply an inert number that has no intrinsic value.
And you, apparently, don't know what science is. The data are the way that hypotheses are tested. They are always considered in the context of laws, theories and other (often independent) observations; they are always a part of the big picture. An explanation without data is simply a hypothesis. You cannot support a position without data. It's that simple. Supporting data are essential to any scientific argument.
* The context of the figure is in the FAQ.
-------------------------
The climate system is an angry beast and we are poking it with sticks. - Wallace S. Broecker Nature isn't just the final authority, Nature is the Only authority. - Charles B. Paul Elitist windbag since 2004.
Edited: 05/24/2009 at 01:33 PM by Deech56
|
|
05/25/2009 05:59 PM
|
keough
Posts: 8767
Joined: 02/01/2007
|
quote:
Originally posted by: lazarus
The straight dope
This is very good. He lays out the pro's and con's - realities versus fiction - in a very precise fashion.
-------------------------
I wasn't born stupid, I had to study. Expelled - No Intelligence Allowed The United States has 5% of the world’s population and 66% of the world’s lawyers.
|
|
05/25/2009 07:14 PM
|
Deech56
Posts: 12249
Joined: 07/28/2005
|
quote:
Originally posted by: keough
quote:
Originally posted by: lazarus
The straight dope
This is very good. He lays out the pro's and con's - realities versus fiction - in a very precise fashion.
"Of course I'm an expert about climatology; I'm an engineer."
-------------------------
The climate system is an angry beast and we are poking it with sticks. - Wallace S. Broecker Nature isn't just the final authority, Nature is the Only authority. - Charles B. Paul Elitist windbag since 2004.
|
|
05/25/2009 07:19 PM
|
lazarus
Posts: 9296
Joined: 08/12/2005
|
quote:
Originally posted by: Deech56
And you, apparently, don't know what science is.
Well, as you said, science isnt logical.
quote:
The data are the way that hypotheses are tested. They are always considered in the context of laws, theories and other (often independent) observations; they are always a part of the big picture. An explanation without data is simply a hypothesis. You cannot support a position without data. It's that simple. Supporting data are essential to any scientific argument.
And you did nothing to refute the argument that data needs logic to represent said data. You NEED logic to give data representation.
Apparently, you must not use logic...hence you use data incorrectly.
-------------------------
"My good friends, for the second time in our history a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time." - Neville Chamberlain...September 30, 1938 Spectemur Agendo - "Let us be judged by our acts." No more rules. We now defer decision making because its too hard and too risky.
Edited: 05/25/2009 at 07:20 PM by lazarus
|
|
05/25/2009 07:20 PM
|
lazarus
Posts: 9296
Joined: 08/12/2005
|
quote:
Originally posted by: keough
quote:
Originally posted by: lazarus
The straight dope
This is very good. He lays out the pro's and con's - realities versus fiction - in a very precise fashion.
Yes, the reality of the situation. Better than "just use less carbon" and arbogate responsibility.
-------------------------
"My good friends, for the second time in our history a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time." - Neville Chamberlain...September 30, 1938 Spectemur Agendo - "Let us be judged by our acts." No more rules. We now defer decision making because its too hard and too risky.
Edited: 05/25/2009 at 07:20 PM by lazarus
|
|
05/25/2009 07:30 PM
|
Deech56
Posts: 12249
Joined: 07/28/2005
|
quote:
Originally posted by: lazarus
quote:
Originally posted by: Deech56
And you, apparently, don't know what science is.
Well, as you said, science isnt logical.
quote:
The data are the way that hypotheses are tested. They are always considered in the context of laws, theories and other (often independent) observations; they are always a part of the big picture. An explanation without data is simply a hypothesis. You cannot support a position without data. It's that simple. Supporting data are essential to any scientific argument.
And you did nothing to refute the argument that data needs logic to represent said data. You NEED logic to give data representation.
Apparently, you must not use logic...hence you use data incorrectly.
You are missing the point. Here's the question: "What data are there to support primarily natural causes for current warming?" What "logic" are you using to support your position? Why do you feel that we should ignore the data?
-------------------------
The climate system is an angry beast and we are poking it with sticks. - Wallace S. Broecker Nature isn't just the final authority, Nature is the Only authority. - Charles B. Paul Elitist windbag since 2004.
|
|
05/25/2009 07:36 PM
|
lazarus
Posts: 9296
Joined: 08/12/2005
|
quote:
Originally posted by: Deech56
You are missing the point. Here's the question: "What data are there to support primarily natural causes for current warming?" What "logic" are you using to support your position? Why do you feel that we should ignore the data?
Here is where you defy logic: If you can't prove the negative, it must be true. You havent proven the "non-natural causes" IMO. You should turn the question around and prove based on the data that its man-driven (if it exists).
You need to prove to us that we need to change our ways, and you need to provide viable alternatives to what we currently do. If you can't, you are speaking on deaf ears. Its not up to me to prove the negative, therefore you are right.
Non-Sequitir
You need to prove its man-driven. All i have seen is: since CO2 is rising, and we drive cars......
Sorry, not buying it.
-------------------------
"My good friends, for the second time in our history a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time." - Neville Chamberlain...September 30, 1938 Spectemur Agendo - "Let us be judged by our acts." No more rules. We now defer decision making because its too hard and too risky.
Edited: 05/25/2009 at 07:38 PM by lazarus
|
|
05/25/2009 07:42 PM
|
keough
Posts: 8767
Joined: 02/01/2007
|
quote:
Originally posted by: Deech56
quote:
Originally posted by: keough
quote:
Originally posted by: lazarus
The straight dope
This is very good. He lays out the pro's and con's - realities versus fiction - in a very precise fashion.
"Of course I'm an expert about climatology; I'm an engineer."
LOL! Back to that, huh?
Well, I guess you can no longer comment on Global Warming...
-------------------------
I wasn't born stupid, I had to study. Expelled - No Intelligence Allowed The United States has 5% of the world’s population and 66% of the world’s lawyers.
|
|
FuseTalk Basic Edition - © 1999-2010 FuseTalk Inc. All rights reserved.
|
|
|
Advertisements
|
|
Home | Sitemap | Customer Service | Electronic Edition | Subscribe
Please send comments to webmaster or contact us at 301-662-1177.
Copyright 1997-10 Randall Family, LLC. All rights reserved. Do not duplicate or redistribute in any form.
The Frederick News-Post Privacy Policy. Use of this site indicates your agreement to our Terms of Service.
|
|
new topic
search
help
home
login
