U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 08-19-2010, 07:03 AM
 
13,072 posts, read 11,393,109 times
Reputation: 2608

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by CrownVic95 View Post
LOL!!!!!! Well done, Nomander

They are down..on the canvas..struggling but unable to get up before the last count. So in an act of hysterical desperation, they attempt a diversion of our attention to the evils of tobacco companies as a foundation for their argument! It just doesn't get any more comical!!
Yeah, it is unfortunate that this style of discussion has become more frequent in this topic.

If you want to see if the person actually knows something about the issue or is simply mass linking opinion sites, you simply go to the original data and start discussing it in your own words.

By doing so, it requires them to read what you write and then think about what it is your are saying. What you are saying might be brought up elsewhere, but because it is not attached to a title that talking point sites write rebuttals to, it is very difficult for them to simply counter link a position.

My hopes were that this approach would require them to drop the facade and start talking about the issues themselves rather than simply posting talking point rebuttal links one after the other.

Apparently this attempt has failed in its main goal, but has achieved success in showing people the level to which these posters are involved in understanding the topic itself. Which unfortunately is to say, very little.

People need to be very careful looking at information on AGW (from both sides) as there is a lot of agenda out there pushing political view.

If one can not go to the source and look at the original data, discuss it in their own words, or provide something that does without appeals to authority, then it is likely they are selling something.

 
Old 08-19-2010, 07:19 AM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
8,476 posts, read 6,096,953 times
Reputation: 8354
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander View Post
Yeah, it is unfortunate that this style of discussion has become more frequent in this topic.

If you want to see if the person actually knows something about the issue or is simply mass linking opinion sites, you simply go to the original data and start discussing it in your own words.

By doing so, it requires them to read what you write and then think about what it is your are saying. What you are saying might be brought up elsewhere, but because it is not attached to a title that talking point sites write rebuttals to, it is very difficult for them to simply counter link a position.

My hopes were that this approach would require them to drop the facade and start talking about the issues themselves rather than simply posting talking point rebuttal links one after the other.

Apparently this attempt has failed in its main goal, but has achieved success in showing people the level to which these posters are involved in understanding the topic itself. Which unfortunately is to say, very little.

People need to be very careful looking at information on AGW (from both sides) as there is a lot of agenda out there pushing political view.

If one can not go to the source and look at the original data, discuss it in their own words, or provide something that does without appeals to authority, then it is likely they are selling something.
You nailed it here
Quote:
These people believe stretching the truth or ignoring the facts is to your benefit. They actually believe they are saving your lives by doing so. They are holding a position that says they know what is best for you and facts, truth, or proper evidence will not sway them from their goal. You need to be regulated, you need to be told how to live, it is best for the world.
That has been their aim from day one and "Global Warming" is nothing but a tool - a tactic - a means to an end.
 
Old 08-19-2010, 07:22 AM
 
13,072 posts, read 11,393,109 times
Reputation: 2608
This is the kind of thing that worries me.

We know that models are not conclusive tools. Often they are completely wrong and can not account for many unknowns to which use sloppy methods to account for such. Think in lines of the Drake equation that takes no known values and then attempts to calculate a result.

N=N*fp ne fl fi fc fL

N is the number of stars in the Milky Way galaxy;
fp is the fraction with planets;
ne is the number of planets per star capable of supporting life;
fl is the fraction of planets where life evolves;
fi is the fraction where intelligent life evolves;
fc is the fraction that communicates;
fL is the fraction of the planet's life during which the communicating civilizations live.

Nifty little equation, but since none of the variables are known, what you get is "assumptions in, assumptions out", or rather a more common term "garbage in, garbage out"

Even though it is clear that we can not know something from nothing, this form of approach is being pushed as the latest breakthroughs in climate science modeling.

Granted, climate science models have some actual known data to an extent, the bulk of their data is estimated and a process of assuming relation and interaction.

For example, NCAR's new modeling system:

New computer model advances climate change research | UCAR

Quote:

The new modelís advanced capabilities will help scientists shed light on some of the critical mysteries of global warming, including:
  • What impact will warming temperatures have on the massive ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica?
  • How will patterns in the ocean and atmosphere affect regional climate in coming decades?
  • How will climate change influence the severity and frequency of tropical cyclones, including hurricanes?
  • What are the effects of tiny airborne particles, known as aerosols, on clouds and temperatures?
Interesting no? You see, we are going to take something that we do not know, many things that we do not understand, and a lot of things that we partially understand and the result will be plugging it into the "Magic Model Maker 3000" which will give us all the above answers.

They have strayed from the field of traditional science, one that must attend to the proper evaluation of observed data and insure their results stay consistent with what is evident and what can be shown, tested, and replicated to a theoretical direction where not even the math used must conform to any principal of solidity.

Presto! Deep Thought has spoken!

Personally, I think we are devolving in our scientific endeavors. That is, we are not improving our knowledge and understanding, we are simply "creating" what we believe.
 
Old 08-19-2010, 01:08 PM
 
108 posts, read 113,931 times
Reputation: 32
Normander

what CO2 level has the atmosphere had since the late Neolithic (10,000bc to the start of the Industrial revolution (1750)?
What is the Keeling Curve?

How much has CO2 increased from 1958 to today?

From climate models- what happens with a sustained level C02 amount of 450ppm?
 
Old 08-19-2010, 01:35 PM
 
39,184 posts, read 40,562,971 times
Reputation: 16066
Quote:
Originally Posted by shelby93 View Post
How much has CO2 increased from 1958 to today?
Note the scale is only 1%

50 Years of CO2: Time for a Vision Test ę Roy Spencer, Ph. D.



If the atmosphere was money it would equal $10K and we would have added 1 cent worth of CO2 in that time. Note that is not to say the 1 cent can't make difference but it's just easier to understand the amounts.
 
Old 08-19-2010, 02:47 PM
 
108 posts, read 113,931 times
Reputation: 32
Roy Spencer & John Cristy are among the 3% of the scientific community who say global warming is a hoax. Spencer has also been an advocate of 'intelligent Design' over evolution- his views are to say the least controversial in most of the scientific community. The above graph by the way theCoalman is not an accepted measurement of CO2.

The Keeling Curve from Scripps in La Jolla is (from 1958-1974) & Mauna Loa Observatory in HI from 1974 to present (NOAA) is the recognized measurement of CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere- nice try though... --interesting name "Thecoalman' are you for the burning of unrestricted coal for electricity?

Last edited by shelby93; 08-19-2010 at 03:01 PM..
 
Old 08-19-2010, 03:59 PM
 
13,072 posts, read 11,393,109 times
Reputation: 2608
Quote:
Originally Posted by shelby93 View Post
Normander

what CO2 level has the atmosphere had since the late Neolithic (10,000bc to the start of the Industrial revolution (1750)?
What is the Keeling Curve?

How much has CO2 increased from 1958 to today?

From climate models- what happens with a sustained level C02 amount of 450ppm?
Go back and answer the questions I asked you several posts ago...

And I will answer yours.
 
Old 08-20-2010, 03:59 AM
 
108 posts, read 113,931 times
Reputation: 32
Your questions are long, have little scientific validity- my questions are brief and to the point- no fussing about- the answers are straight forward based on empirical knowledge.

what CO2 level has the atmosphere had since the late Neolithic (10,000bc to the start of the Industrial revolution (1750)? 280ppm


What is the Keeling Curve?

The Keeling Curve is a graph showing the variation in concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide since 1958. It is based on continuous measurements taken at the Mauna Loa Observatory...



How much has CO2 increased from 1958 to today?

1958- 315ppm
2010-390ppm

From climate models- what happens with a sustained level C02 amount of 450ppm?

3 degree C rise in global temperatures likely
Probable threshold for carbon-cycle feedback.

Action needed in controlling CO2 emissions.
Reduce global emissions after
peaking no later than 2030.

Amazon rain-forest have collapsed.
Greenland's ice sheet disappears.
Desertification across the Midwestern USA and southern Africa.
 
Old 08-20-2010, 05:34 AM
 
39,184 posts, read 40,562,971 times
Reputation: 16066
Quote:
Roy Spencer & John Cristy are among the 3% of the scientific community who say global warming is a hoax. Spencer has also been an advocate of 'intelligent Design' over evolution- his views are to say the least controversial in most of the scientific community.
You're attacking the graph because of who compiled it or because it's false?


Quote:
Originally Posted by shelby93 View Post
The above graph by the way theCoalman is not an accepted measurement of CO2.
Within the scientific community I'm sure it isn't, it's meant for public consumption. Both sides on this debate are more than willing to play with the scales to provide dramatic effect for the general public.

Quote:
... Mauna Loa Observatory in HI from 1974 to present (NOAA) is the recognized measurement of CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere- nice try though...
Not sure if you realize it but that graph was compiled from this very same source.


Quote:
--interesting name "Thecoalman' are you for the burning of unrestricted coal for electricity?
My Great Grandfather was a "Coalman" delivering coal with a horse and wagon. I "retired" a few years back. I've been using this name on forums since about 2003.

What I'm for is practical solutions that make economic sense. For example I burn coal for heat, my environmental foot print is going to be much less than most people. It's a local product, it's anthracite which is nearly pure carbon and doesn't have the impurites in soft coal, I use a high efficiency boiler... all these things add up to less pollution and less CO2 from myself because of the overall efficiency start to finish. As an added benefit I can heat a 4000 sq ft. home and provide domestic hot water in Northeastern Pennsylvania for about $1500 a year.

About the only thing that might have less of an impact that I would consider a reasonable cost is natural gas or Geo Thermal. I'm beginning to wonder if that is the case with the NG because of all the problems they are starting to have as they extract it locally from the Marcellus Shale. As far as Geo Thermal goes I really wouldn't consider it unless I was building a new home.
 
Old 08-20-2010, 09:54 AM
 
Location: Nort Seid
5,288 posts, read 7,585,919 times
Reputation: 2453
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander View Post
If one can not go to the source and look at the original data, discuss it in their own words, or provide something that does without appeals to authority, then it is likely they are selling something.
You are going to the Internet for your data, as opposed to collecting it yourself and submitting it for publication so it can be peer-reviewed, correct? So did you have a real point?

The problem is you've been repeatedly caught parroting long-debunked poor interpretations of cherry-picked data. Literally, we go a list of climate skeptic arguments, and far from "explaining things in your own words," you're just parroting a party line.

To address the "but in 19xx we had a horrible storm!" argument, it's the same thing - the problem is the frequency of these events, and the fact we're looking at the entire planet's temperature/health as it pertains to our species.

1934 is the hottest year on record

The year 1934 was a very hot year in the United States, ranking third behind 2006 and 1998. However, global warming takes into account temperatures over the entire planet. The U.S. accounts for only 2% of the earth's total land area.


Despite the U.S. heat in 1934, the year was not so hot over the rest of the planet, and is barely holding onto a place in the hottest 50 years in the global rankings (today it ranks 47th).


Climate change skeptics like to point to 1934 in the U.S. as proof that recent hot years are not unusual. However, this is another example of "cherry-picking" a single fact that supports a claim, while ignoring the rest of the data. Globally, the ten hottest years on record have all occurred since 1998, with 2007 as the hottest. Right now 2010 is on track to join the top ten, which will knock 2004 off of the list.

The fact that there were hot years in some parts of the world in the past is a weak argument against climate change. There will always be regional temperature variations as well as variations from year to year. These happened in the past, and they will continue. The problem with climate change is that on average, when looking at the entire world, the long term trend shows an unmistakable increase in global surface temperatures, in a way that is likely to dramatically alter the planet.


And regarding an "agenda," that's just ludicrous. I have no vested financial interest in recognizing global warming. Heck, if they can make some technological breakthrough that will truly get the CO2 in the atmosphere down to levels we can live with, I'll be the first to cheer.

But that's wishful thinking. Society as a whole needs to follow the "hope for the best, prepare for the worst," model.

If we want to identify a clear agenda, follow the money as they say:

Exxon Mobil profit nearly doubles - Jul. 29, 2010

July 29, 2010:
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Exxon Mobil Corp. reported quarterly earnings Thursday that easily beat analysts' expectations on higher crude prices.
The world's largest public energy company reported net income of $7.56 billion, or $1.60 a share, in the second quarter, up 91% from $3.95 billion, or 81 cents a share, in the same period in 2009.
I posted on the tobacco industry as it shows what a corporation will do to protect itself.

Far from being an act of desperation, it's called showing a precedent.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:24 PM.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. | Please obey Forum Rules | Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top