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 04-19-2011, 04:50 PM
 
13,072 posts, read 11,429,892 times
Reputation: 2608

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rosinante View Post
New support for the proponents of Global Warming...


Charles Manson Speaks Out About Global Warming | Gather
Interesting, now the 10:10 commercial "No Pressure" begins to make sense.

 
Old 05-06-2011, 03:42 AM
 
23 posts, read 14,557 times
Reputation: 22
Is 450ppm C02 acceptable? What do Paleoclimates of the past say?
In the Eemian interglacial 120,000 years ago (a warmer interglacial then today's temperatures where about 1 degree C warmer then today, and sea levels where 1-3 meters higher.
 
Old 05-06-2011, 04:17 AM
 
23 posts, read 14,557 times
Reputation: 22
let me stand corrected on my above post- actually during the Eemian, temperatures where slightly below what they are now in the Holocene (which is now at its warmest).
 
Old 05-06-2011, 07:22 AM
 
13,072 posts, read 11,429,892 times
Reputation: 2608
Quote:
Originally Posted by Five Degrees View Post
let me stand corrected on my above post- actually during the Eemian, temperatures where slightly below what they are now in the Holocene (which is now at its warmest).
It all depends on what you are using for your record. Ice cores and plant stomata differ in their evaluation of past levels. There is also the issues of the record being evaluated and the manner to which they evaluate it.
 
Old 05-06-2011, 08:17 AM
 
23 posts, read 14,557 times
Reputation: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander View Post
It all depends on what you are using for your record. Ice cores and plant stomata differ in their evaluation of past levels. There is also the issues of the record being evaluated and the manner to which they evaluate it.

Is there 'bad data' or 'good data' - how can one judge? Also on evaluation- who is and what where those evaluations made by? Can one say that the evaluation is consensus- or ?

Peer review, should cover the ability to differentiate between the two.
 
Old 05-06-2011, 08:41 AM
 
13,072 posts, read 11,429,892 times
Reputation: 2608
Quote:
Originally Posted by Five Degrees View Post
Is there 'bad data' or 'good data' - how can one judge? Also on evaluation- who is and what where those evaluations made by? Can one say that the evaluation is consensus- or ?
I wouldn't say data is "good" or "bad" in this specific focus, it is more so the issues with how that data is used and to what extent of meaning it is believed to have. You can have poorly selected sampling for its intended purpose to which will give misleading results if consideration is not given to its source and makeup.

An important thing to consider is that none of this evidence is definitive. There are "facts" within the data, but the issues are not those separate individual facts, rather it is the culmination of facts to present a conclusion, something that can not be done with any certainty at present. There are constant objections, conflicts, and differing opinions on what the data represents and how it relates to various theories on climate.

As for "who" and "where" it all depends on who is using the data collected and how they are applying it to any specific position or conclusion they are making. What you often see in graphs is a combination of many methods comparing the samples to suggest a pattern or relationship to climate process. How that is done is often a strong point of contention and the methods used may be what is "good" or "bad" in any issue.

Consensus is really irrelevant to the issue as consensus neither proves nor disproves a hypothesis. It should never be something considered or even respected in the process of scientific evaluation as it is not a component of its result.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Five Degrees View Post
Peer review, should cover the ability to differentiate between the two.
Peer review is simply the process of a hypothesis being checked and replicated by others, yet it is not an infallible process and in this field specifically it has been compromised by the "belief" that peer review somehow means validity. This we know not to be the case as many "peer reviewed" papers to which were believed to be validated turned out to have severe deficiency in their methods of evaluation to which escaped proper verification and validation processes.
 
Old 05-06-2011, 09:33 AM
 
23 posts, read 14,557 times
Reputation: 22
Would you consider data collected by the NOAA, NASA, EPA to be flawed? And what source in your opinion is more 'objective' or has data that disagrees with the mainstream consensus.

Considering that the IPCC in 2007 said there was a 95% chance that planetary warming was human induced, and the Heartland Institute has said its is basically a 'hoax' which organization has the most to lose if they are wrong? Just curious.
 
Old 05-06-2011, 11:01 AM
 
13,072 posts, read 11,429,892 times
Reputation: 2608
Quote:
Originally Posted by Five Degrees View Post
Would you consider data collected by the NOAA, NASA, EPA to be flawed? And what source in your opinion is more 'objective' or has data that disagrees with the mainstream consensus.
It depends on the data, the method, and conclusions being made. Those organizations by name are irrelevant as they do not prove or disprove a claim by their namesake. Sources are only important when we must consider something without all of the evidence present. Such a case is not a scientific endeavor as validity of ones position is not contingent on their reputation, but rather of the complete and whole evidence of the process to which they arrive at their conclusion. If one proceeds to lay claim to a specific position and fails to provide the evidence of that process, then they have not properly attended to their claim, a key requirement to the establishment of validity.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Five Degrees View Post
Considering that the IPCC in 2007 said there was a 95% chance that planetary warming was human induced, and the Heartland Institute has said its is basically a 'hoax' which organization has the most to lose if they are wrong? Just curious.
The devil is in the details. What exactly is their claim (hypothesis)? What do they use to come to such a claim (data)? How do they test their claim (method)? How was their claim verified within their results and do they explain all divergence from their initial hypothesis properly (verification)? How was their claim validated and was that validation able to recreate their results (replication)?

Administrations say lots of things, but what an administration summarizes and what is actually a result often conflict.

I am unsure what the Heartland Institutes position is specifically, but I do know that the IPCC 2007 report has many flaws in its presentation. There are numerous cases of citation to peer reviewed literature which turned out to actually be simply assumptive grey literature.

If you are interested, read up on how the IPCC calculates its certainty statements (likely, unlikely, etc...) and also read into exactly what it is they are claiming with their 95% certainty and to which that conclusion is validated. That is, how are they 95% certain and how do they come to such a conclusion?

This is where you begin to see the problems in this issue and why many are upset that politics have driven the science of the issue.
 
Old 05-06-2011, 04:45 PM
 
23 posts, read 14,557 times
Reputation: 22
Well it seems you believe from what you have said thus far- the position of the Heartland Institute. Which is total denial that a problem exists- which is opposite of what the scientific consensus says.
 
Old 05-07-2011, 07:28 AM
 
13,072 posts, read 11,429,892 times
Reputation: 2608
Quote:
Originally Posted by Five Degrees View Post
Well it seems you believe from what you have said thus far- the position of the Heartland Institute. Which is total denial that a problem exists- which is opposite of what the scientific consensus says.
I never stated what I "believe", we were talking about science to which I outlined the requirements of the scientific process and its relevance to the field we were discussing.

It is unfortunate you use the word denial, it really is immature.

Maybe you can answer me this question?

At what stage of the scientific method is consensus a requirement?

Lastly, if you are contesting something I mentioned, quote me properly and support your position. That is, if you have a position at all and are not simply attacking fallaciously.
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 08:34 PM.

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

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