How do the new speedometer/odometers work? Same computer as the engine perhaps? I know I can push a button and instantly change all the gauges from English to metric and the speedometer needle pops right up to the new number. .
Natural Gas is now a large component.
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
---------------------------------------------------------- ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
Splorf! I 'discoverd' Malloy back when I was working support for one of the TOMS missions. At the time he was 'debunking' ozone studies published in peer-reviewed journals citing letters to the editors from newspapers.
'Just scientist' he is, no doubt of that.
...
This is the sort of nonsense one reads from junk scientists. There is no doubt that humans have an effect on Global Climate. The issue in controversy is the magnitude and direction.
Typical of the junk scientist is a tendency to try to reduce all questions as a dichotomy and to claim (contary to fact) that statistics can determine which answer is correct.
...
In general I tend to doubt stories presented without references. In the instant case this sounds like it might be a misrepresentation of some published work by a junk scientist (like Malloy) who most likely didn't understand it in the first place.
... snip
... alright fred, present a credible source for how global temperature change in tenths of a degree (which is the amount and rate being cited for global warming evidence) can be identified for periods before accurate weather records were kept. Deconvolve any other potential causes for the evidence so cited such as cyclical rain cycles and other climate phenomena. Unfortunately peer reviewed journals aren't what they once were. In the past, peer reviewed journals meant that the peer reviewers questioned assumptions, required substantiating experiments and repeatability in measurements. This does not seem to be true today; statistical correlation techniques are often substituted for root-cause phenomenological analysis. Finally, the other thing missing is identifying causality; even when long term trends are identified, showing that human activity is the cause for said phenomena has thus far been highly speculative. To derail an entire culture on such speculative evidence should make people question the underlying motives of those demanding such actions. Again, note that I am not saying that human activity cannot mess up local environments; ample evidence for this exists. However, scaling that evidence to a global scale is far from a proven fact.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Yes, the places where those fish live. The stocks of tuna, for example, remeain undiminished in parts of the ocieans where tuna do not live.
Google is your friend.
Google re: clorinated hydrocarbon.
Not likely any of the above will shorten your life. I assume you don't care about anything beyond your demise.
Why should I? You haven't presented any credible source indicating that anyone claims to be able to do so.
Regardless, letters to the editor for the Washinton Post remain pretty much what they always were, eh?
You can show this some way?
Non sequitor.
Any local effect IS part of a global effect. As tricial example, if you raise the temperature of a city by one degree, that has an effect on a 'global average temperature.' The issue is the magnitude and direction of the cumulative global effects.
I think that the scientific community is pretty heavily (95% vs 5% ??) on the side of human causation of at least a great deal of the global warming.
But you're right, there is no absolute proof. But can we afford to wait till there is?
And it is pretty well established that human produced CFCs are responsible for the loss of some of the protective ozone layer. That's pretty global :-).
As you are so fond of saying, Google is your friend. Try to hearken back to various debates in which the infamous "hockey stick" chart is shown that attempts to show departures from average temperatures in 1961 to 1990 for the years 1000 AD to current time, showing this sudden jump of +.5C when the other tempertures were below. The difference is less than 0.5 C. The "measurements" from tree rings, corrals, ice cores and "historical records" (remember that no calibrated met stations existed in 1000 AD) are all being pegged at less than 0.5 C increments.
Yes, but it wouldn't be worth it, would it?
Fine, you are right. By rasing the average temperature of the area of a city by one degree, you will have raised the "average" temperature of the earth (depending, of course upon whether that city area is one of the regions in which you take measurements to compute the average). Now, let's see, a city on the order of 1000 square miles will contribute to the overall average for the Earth's surface area of 197,000,000 square miles by
1/197,000, or a total influence of 5 microKelvin. Now, given that a fair amount of that will be re-radiated into space, depending upon season, cloud cover, etc, this amount is typically what most people would call "negligible". +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
I believe that in some of my other postings I indicated that there is no doubt that one can screw up one's local environment and that conclusive evidence for this exists.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If, on the other hand, we allowed the forests to burn once in a while, like they did of old, we'd sweeten those granite-bottomed lakes. Instead we have acid pine needles and black water.
Uh, you suggest that I should search for something I don't think exists, in order to show it doesn't exist? Logic would not seem to be your strong point.
...
Do you understand what sorts of conclusions are possible from statistics and what sorts are not?
Uh, you suggest that I should search for something I don't think exists, in order to show it doesn't exist? Logic would not seem to be your strong point.
...
Do you understand what sorts of conclusions are possible from statistics and what sorts are not?
I believe you are the first person I have ever heard suggest that acid rain produced by polution local to the rainfall in question.
If I am mistaken about this, please elaborate a bit on what you think is causing acidic rain in the Northeastern US.
-- FF
1) Fire was never common or widespread over large areas in the Eastern US the way it is in some other parts of the world. Succession was more often set back by beaver and ice storms. 2) Much of the forst surrounding the lakes to which OP referred is Deciduous.
But I do agree that more of the forest should be left for Mother Nature to manage. But she does have a lot of management tools besides fire.
Well, why didn't you say "it's accepted by almost everyone" right away. That is certainly one compelling statement. Some people might expect a concept with near-universal agreement to be easy to back up. But don't worry...I've done your work for you and found a report of falling oxygen levels. Apparently, an Australian study
But hey, don't the let the absence of your ability to locate a fact keep you (and "almost everyone" else) from believing it.
todd
My first response was snide and I've deleted it.
What cuaght my eye was your statement "The idea that by measuring tree ring size, one can determine the average temperature of an area to within tenths of a degree is ludicrous."
A quick google search using the search terms "tree ring" and "average temperature" does not yield anyoone making such a claim.
So, I remain skeptical that such a claim has been made.
A Google search for "hockey stick chart" yields a few pages that come up 404, perhaps due ot the NHL strike, and a few that criticize "the hocky stick chart" but I haven't found any explanation of the chart itself.
One example is found here:
It looks to me like the error bars (in grey--if those are not error bars I don't know what they are) are about +/- .5 degree for observations prior to about 1600, perhaps +/- .3 degrees from 1600 - 1900 and I won't hazard a guess as to what they are in the more recent data.
So, what again is your objection? Do you feel the the variance in the data prior to 1600 was underestimated? If so, what do you allege has been mishandled in the error estimation?
What do you mean by "pegged at less than 0.5 C increments"?
"Pegged" is usually used to mean a hard limit, for example met sensor data showing relative humidity inexcess of 100% may be arbitrarily adjusted to ("pegged" at) 100% at ingest, though the term more often refers to a hard limit on the measurement device itself (e.g. "pegging the meter").
The only 0.5 degree C increments I see are the major tick spacing on the vertical (temperature) axis. Again, like the choice of origin, that is arbitrary.
IOW, I don't see anything here to the effect of "that by measuring tree ring size, one can determine the average temperature of an area to within tenths of a degree is ludicrous."
If it is your intent to make another point, that point is lost on me.
But people who use statistics know that statistics cannot answer yes/no questions nor tell you how large an effect there is.
Statistics can only estomate the probability that the true value of some measurable lies within some arbitrary amount from a specific value.
That seems to frustrate a lot of people but Nature doesn't really care.
One supposes that if the online article was based on published papers the error you wonder about will be estimated therein.
I think the longest running record of direct measurement of atmospheric
CO2 is from teh Mauna Loa observatory. Here is one paper addressing it:
Thoning, K.W., P.P. Tans and W.D. Komhyr. 1989. Atmospheric carbon dioxide at Mauna Loa Observatory, 2, Analysis of the NOAA/GMCC data,
1974 - 1985, J. Geophys. Res., 94, 8549-8565.
... snip
You have the correct chart. This is the chart that various ("Earth in the Balance") former presidential candidates have used to highlight the future devastation to be caused by the alarming increase in temperature in only the past several years. The 1961 to 1990 average temperature was taken as a baseline and is the zero bar of said chart. The numbers below zero indicate average temperatures below the reference bar and those above indicate average temperatures greater than the reference. The large spike at the end of the chart is intended to cause alarm due to a) it's large slope and b) the fact that it is fully 0.5 C above the average from the previous 30 years and well above the average for the past millenia.
Given that the grey bars are error bars, then the overall exercise and alarmism raised by the presentation of said chart are beyond simple hysterics and border on fraud. The blue and red lines are those focused upon the by the Chicken Little crowd. The error bars indicate that this entire exercise is attempting to extrapolate future climate from noise. Having spent the last 15 years of my career in various development projects that rely heavily upon integration and test and data collection, I can categorically state that attempting to extrapolate performance from noise measurements is a fool's errand.
That the error bars are only 0.5C is the first part that anyone with some degree of skepticism should focus upon. The second is the deltas that are being extrapolated for periods before the advent of the thermometer are being assessed at less than 0.5C, when the exact causes for tree ring size, ice core sample depth, and other "indicators" are hardly precise enough to estimate global average temperature to such a degree of precision.
Oh please, let's not play games with semantics, you know darned well what I meant, i.e. that the error bars shown are at best 0.5C, the attempt to show increments of less than 0.1C are simply ludicrous. Substitute "represented", or "reported" for "pegged" if that makes you feel any better.
Take a closer look a the graph, the numbers for the era before the thermometer was invented are being estimated based upon tree ring measurements, ice core samples and historical records (i.e, some current era literati writing, "dang, it's cold this winter!" or "We had to order 5 more pairs of longjohns this winter"). Now, look at the blue lines, look at the zero reference line, this graph is trying to tell you that global average temperature was moving around 0.2 to 0.5C below the global average reference line.
The point is that this is the kind of evidence that is "widely accepted" and "peer reviewed" and critically acclaimed as showing the coming environmental disaster that is global warming. It is also the kind of evidence to which people are referring when they say, "it has been proven that global warming is occuring."
... snip
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
That's a common misconception. Plants "inhale" CO2 and "exhale" O when light is falling on their leaves. When it is dark, the process is reversed. O in and CO2 out. That's why aquarium keepers like me, with heavily planted tanks, install an air bubbler that comes on when the lights go out and off when the lights go on.
It is true that deciduous trees have their leaves in seasons where daylight hours exceed night hours, so they do produce a net increase in O, but this does go down somewhat on cloudy days.
Since evergreens have "leaves" the whole year, their O vs CO2 tends to be pretty much a wash.
HomeOwnersHub website 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.