OT: Climate sensibility

Here's a bit of intelligent opinion on the subject (as opposed to most
of what appears here). Presented without further comment.
formatting link
,0,2096153.column
Reply to
jo4hn
In article ,
Unfortunately the two other databases cited used the UK database for "calibration" it was the master. The space instruments were all calibrated on the East Anglia data and unedited data from East Anglia is still missing.
Reminds me of the situation where everyone was sure that power lines caused cancer. The study was very clear on that. Scientist all agreed the data presented showed it. Three different databases all came to the same answer. They were all calibrated from the same (altered) baseline.
The author of the cancer study should be getting out of prison about now. He "cleaned up" the data to make it easier for others to see the link between cancer and power lines.
While I think there are things going on with the climate, I am scientifically literate enough to know that if the calibration data set is altered, all the others are...
Think of it this way - cut one stud 1 inch short without noticing (we will call this the calibration stud) and mark all the others with that stud. No matter what you do, if you use that calibrated stud to cut the rest they will also all be 1 inch too short.
Reply to
Doug Houseman
Well, the first sentence reveals you to be mistaken.
Why MUST we accept that global warming is real?
And really, citing the LA Times as authoritative on anything is a stretch at best...
Reply to
Dave Balderstone
formatting link
,0,2096153.column
"Intelligent"? Too bad that the clearly stated basic premise of this "opinion" piece (when they finally get to it) just happens to be misleading spin: "Doubters insist that the Earth is not warming."
Nothing could be further from the truth.
What "doubters" are insisting is that politics and science do not mix, and any result that mix is to be viewed with suspicion.
There is simply too much that is "non-scientific" between the data and the conclusions that fosters "doubt" in the minds of those of us who have had at least a modicum of training in scientific method.
"Doubters" DO believe that it is this unresolved "doubt" that exists, possibly in either direction, which makes it imprudent as a basis for proposed massive government intervention.
Not to mention, IMNSHO, that a warm bucket of spit has more currency than any "opinion" piece from the LA Times, fercrissakes!
Reply to
Swingman
meaning:
"And the fact is that, in the end, neither they nor the IPCC suppressed anything: when the assessment report was published in 2007 it referenced and discussed both papers."
The "facts" are that the modeling data, which was the basis of the above statement, appears to have been destroyed/"misplaced", making peer review, if not impossible, too difficult to pursue.
This is very dubious "scientific method", and invites suspicion and doubt.
Are they that sloppy in their scientific method? Or do they have something to hide?
Come now, if they can't do a better job than this, "respect" does enter into the discussion.
Reply to
Swingman
Hmmm. An earlier post on this subject denigrated the peer-reviewed articles in SciAm. Now you knock one that isn't peer-reviewed. Doesn't leave much, does it?
Reply to
Larry Blanchard
I guess we will just have to wait and see what happens! =93Prediction is very difficult =96 especially if it is about the future.=94 - Niels Bohr
Kevin
Reply to
Kevin
And, for us "doubters" (sic)- "...we would rather you gain us by persuasion, than silence us by power."
Reply to
Swingman
A couple of interesting (at least, to me) analyses. I like number crunching!
formatting link
Reply to
Kevin
Or call us stupid for wanting proof there is a connection between man's activity which contributes a small part of the atmospheric CO2, and the cyclic phenomena of climate change.
Reply to
Keith Nuttle
------------------------------------- I guess we will just have to wait and see what happens! ?Prediction is very difficult ? especially if it is about the future.? - Niels Bohr ---------------------------------------- When you by them books and they eat the covers............
Lew
Reply to
Lew Hodgett
ummm... do you know how much carbon dioxide we have been pumping into the atmosphere on an annual basis? It's in the billions of tons.
Tons of a GAS. Billions.
According to some sources: "It is estimated that volcanoes release about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere each year. This is about a factor of 1000 smaller than the sum of the other natural sources and about factor of about 100 smaller than the sources from human activity."
So we are pumping 13 - 23 BILLION TONS of co2 into the atmosphere on an annual basis, in addition to that naturally produced. Huh. That's an excess of the naturally occurring amount by about 10%. Annually and rising. Frightened yet? Let's do the math and figure out what that volume of co2 is.
Let's see, at 1.977 g/L at 1 atm and 0 degrees C (let's call that 0.5 atm as most of it is not at the surface of the planet), the human contribution works out to: round up to 2 g/l, 221 liters/lb X 2000 lb/ ton X 18,000,000,000 tons (average of 13 and 23) =3D
7,956,000,000,000,000 liters of co2. Every freakin' year. And increasing.
Before I go further into discussing what this volume of gas means to our globe, I want everyone to think about that number. Try to wrap your head around it, kay?
I will be back with more.
D'ohBoy
Reply to
D'ohBoy
Whoops! pv=3D nrt. Forgot to factor in the 0.5 atm. Double that number to:
15,912,000,000,000,000 liters.
Really, when you are talking numbers this large, is a doubling really noticeable?
Ummm.... yes.
D'ohBoy
Reply to
D'ohBoy

Site Timeline Threads

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.