If this is global warming...

Page 15 of 16  
Lobby Dosser wrote:

Another cynical assumption with little proof to back it up. Sure scientists can be influenced--but are you suggesting that the thousands around the world who know about global warming have all been paid off? Or would take the money if offered in every case? That's ridiculous.
Bob
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Three years academic research.

Nobody gets 'paid off'. The Process ensures that the available funds will be spent on the research du jour. It also ensures that more and more people will jump on the wagon, because they can get grants and keep their jobs.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robatoy wrote:

BS, pure and simple. Doesn't happen--or, if it sdoea, it's in exbtremely isolated cases like the tobacco fiasco. The "scientists" who found for the companies were mostly employees of the companies. The implication that all scientists are for sale is ridiculous. And who, exactly, is paying them to find in favor of global warming? The international liberal conspiracy?
Bob
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Swingman wrote:

Nice terminology, but the evidence I mentioned is established: the world is getting warmer. You can argue causation, and I'll be with you on the cyclic vs. human causation argument (although I suspect that there is no dichotomy here), but please don't insinuate that there is no evidence. Conclusions drawn for evidence are arguable, but the evidence is indisputable.

And your point is? Computer modeling based on scientific evidence is an extremely valuable tool. Your assumption that GIGO applies is just that--an assumption.

Are you suggesting that every single scientist is motivated by the "rush to publish?" That every one of the thousands of trained scientists who support the idea of global warming are doing it for personal advancement? If that's the case, then no scientist anywhere can be trusted on any issue.

Sorry--that's short-term prediction of weather, as opposed to long-term climate. They were wrong, of course, but that does not invalidate the long-term evidence. As someone pointed out, ice cores reveal climate for the past millions of years, and show a CO2 level that is unprecedented.

I'm hardly gullible, nor do I have my head in the sand as some people seem to have. And you give not one single fact yourself.
Bob
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Bob Schmall" wrote in message

and
You would do well to understand it.

Examples of this "indisputable" evidence, please.

take
not
qualify
upon
There is NO scientific evidence at this point. Zero, zip, nada. Nothing but an attempt at correlating cause and effect.

refined;
publish.
You obviously do not comprehend that to which you are replying.
Once again ... those who do not use establised "scienctific method", but misuse "statistics" parading as "scientific method", and they abound on this issue, do not deserve to be trusted.

Once again, there is NO long term evidence ... 70 years at best.

"Someone"? ... to the contrary, there is much geologic evidence that CO2 levels have been far higher in the planets history than at present.

the
LOL ... I don't need to. It is you, and the GW "opinionist" who are trying to prove mankind induced GW, who must provide "facts".
We're still waiting ...
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 2/07/07
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

If the average temperature is rising, which it is over the period examined, then it's warming. What's so difficult to comprehend? Don't even have to debate over "what _is_ is," to figure this out.
Cause? Could be coincidence, could be the carbon. It's the only thing most people will research, lest they fall afoul of the current religion. So far we only have two rising.
Solution? Certainly not the crap from Kyoto, where some, like the two most populous nations get to make gas without restriction, others must restrict. That's plain stupid. Politically it's a club to use, but the club-wielding caveman Algore is not about to suggest anything as unpopular as mandating taking the bus and leaving the car at home, or making electricity differently, or any of the other sure ways to drop emissions. You don't blame the voters, lest ye die. Let "them" do it. The ones who can't vote and will do anything to make a buck, and are therefore willing to comply.
Effect? When the models can predict the next day's weather, or even agree between NOAA and the European model, I'll regard the "predictions" as more than the hot air they predict.
Now go out and take some carbon out of the cycle and make it into furniture. The tree you cut will make room for another to grow. Ooops, that's not PC either....
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Correct, however the period examined has been picked. I pick the period from March to August in the southern hemisphere. The result of those temperatures shows global cooling. Or take the period from the ice age until now. Global warming. You can make any thing look the way you want it to with the right time frame and figures.

Models predictions are just that, predictions. My guess is usually closer to what happens than what the predictions are. Models called for a winter that was going to be warmer and wetter than normal in SE Texas. When it started cooling off in August I said that it would probably be colder this winter, one month before the September prediction. Today we broke a 56 year "low" record. We have had a much colder winter than in the last 10 years. It has also been wetter, a guess that happened to be right by the models. Hurricane number and intensity models for 2006 were slightly lower than the actual occurrences in 2005 but higher than the 2005 models. The predictions were changed 2 or 3 times after we were well into the season and had only fulfilled about 15% of the predictions. The weather bureau is basically clueless more than a few days out.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

BINGO. Give that man a cigar.
Mark Twain said that there are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
George wrote:

But it's nice.
Why should this whole debate be defined by a couple of dichotomies: 1. Global warming is. Global warming isn't. 2. If it is, it's the fault of human beings. No, it's a natural phenomenon.
1. It is--that's beyond doubt. Even the stupidest president in our history got it through his wooden head.
2. Why should it be one or the other, separated by our political convictions? It may be both, or maybe there are undiscovered causes. I'll supply four:     a. The solar system in its journey around the center of the Milky Way galaxy occasionally passes through clouds of gas and dust that block a bit of the Sun's heat.     b. The Earth's orbit is not perfectly stable and occasionally becomes more eccentric, i.e., a longer ellipse.     c. The Earth's poles don't maintain their 23.5 degree orientation to the plane of the ecliptic.     d. Rec. Woodworking did not produce hot air until about 15 years ago.
Scientists have proposed the first three, but I'll go with (d) Bob
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

As a sawdust producer, I'd like to agree on choice D, but the current rational is to get a 'consensus'. You need more people on board with this. And the question should read " Is choice D the answer?". And the answer must surely be "yes".
Pete
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Banalities?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robatoy wrote:

No, thanks, I've just had some.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I was not aware that Carter had any say in this. Regardless, if you think the dumbest president agrees with you, what does that say about your opinion?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Leon wrote:

It says that he's getting smarter.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Wasn't it you, a few posts back, who was decrying the ad hominem comments? .. and now you're making them.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Doug Miller wrote:

Saying the dumbest president is getting smarter isn't ad hominem.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bob Schmall wrote:

That's exactly what the "righteous right" would have us believe :-).
--
It's turtles, all the way down

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

How many wrong predictions does it take, before a theory should be considered wrong?
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

As someone who makes his living using, in part, computer simulations I can also tell you that one of the other things no one has touched on here yet is the absolute uncertainty of the validity of the models being used. I know how hard it is to validate results comparing a simulation with a test when I have significant control over many (but not all) of the variables going into that test. To be able to predict specifics of a test event with certainty is a fool's errand. To come close statistically is possible, and we work to narrow the uncertainty of those statistics, but that requires a strong knowledge of the variables and interdependencies of those variables in the tests. Now, compound the complexity by taking the fact that one has absolutely no control over the variables going into weather tests and further, the fact that we may not even *know* the dependencies or interdependencies of many of the variables being simulated means that the models may not even have all of the contributors to climate prediction incorporated. What that gets you is a huge uncertainty region -- a model that is predicting warming or cooling at a rate of tenths of a degree over periods of years is nothing more than simulation noise in that instance.
In order for a skeptic like myself to believe that these people have their models right, they are going to have to establish a track record. Since they insist that this isn't about predicting weather, but climate, that is going to take some time. I'm patient, I'll wait. Especially before supporting implementation of draconian, economy-shaking legislation based upon models with,thus far, no established credibility.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Absolutely correct.
The models do not use enough of the correct data that actually caused weather changes to be accurate. The average person can guess as accurately as the models.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.