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.
Not a valid argument for dire actions. You could take that very argument and apply it to many things to which you could then demand massive changes and expenses in society to prepare for it.
We stopped basing our decisions on "Who knows?" when we developed a process of empirical scientific discovery (became civilized) and used it as a means to establish what is simply wild guesses based on fears and emotions and that of reasonable certainty determined through strict tests that provided verification, validation, and replication in results.
If by safe you mean spending trillions of dollars that we do not have to do something we cannot do, I do not call that safe.
The one big solution to reducing CO2 has been cap and trade. Every expert and scientist has stated that the cap and trade scheme will cost trillions of dollars that will show up in the cost of goods and services but will not reduce CO2 in the atmosphere.... it will just slightly slow down the rate that CO2 is growing. It is akin to spitting in the ocean to dilute the salt content.
on the other hand if by safe you mean we allow the free market to go where it wills and we back the scientic research being done that will give us the new energy economy that is certainly on the way and will be here in our lifetimes, then by all means I am for it!
But honestly someone needs to show me what I need to be safe about because not one single prediction ( and there have been many) have been remotely accurate.
Therein lies the problem with predictions, that is all they are.
I would agree with a cap in some trades, but that’s just due to a deep understanding of what’s being messed up by them, and the problems being caused as a result.
What I object to is Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming being anywhere near conclusive. We were warming for a while, but that has flat lined for the last 10 years. Even if we continued to warm, it doesn't validate CAGW.
So, how much warming would you AGW "skeptics" (since that the politically correct term for them) need to see before you would believe it is from unnatural causes? Btw, I object to Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming as making AGW supporters sound like alarmists. One could believe anthropogenic global warming is happening without being catastrophic, or merely unpleasant. I feel the evidence for AGW is fairly conclusive but how negative the consequences will be I feel is fairly uncertain, so I can't say I believe in CAGW.
Anyhow, I don't think the flat lining (and it's only flat if you pick an unusually warm year in the 90s as your starting point rather than take say, a 5 year running mean) of the last 10 years refutes global warming. It may not support it; but the year to year variation is much larger than the estimated global warming trend, so the warmer trend is pretty clear.
Looking at the temperature data since 1975, it looks like it's fairly clear we're on a warming trend...
If you think global warming has stopped, we should be able to tell soon whether temperatures in future years are continuing to fit the dash line or if they've moved. In the future, if the earth continues to warm at the current rate we should see the temperatures stay within the red lines. If the earth stopped warming, we should see the temperatures stay with the blue lines in this figure below. The figure shows previous temperatures as dots on the graph.
(The lines are two standard deviations above and below the best fit for 1975-2000 warming trend and for a constant temperature trend. If you don't know what a standard deviation is, you should, and I suggest you look it up.) The graph doesn't show the most recent temperatures, but I checked and they all fit in the white zone fitting within both the blue and red lines. So, if the future earth's temperature stay within the blue lines and leave the area in between the red lines, I will no longer believe in AGW. Will some of the skeptics here change their minds if the temperatures stay in between the red lines.
I guess you could honestly argue that all the warming we see is natural. But if it continues at the current trend how much would be enough for you to start to wonder "maybe this isn't natural".
Sorry, I couldn't get the jpegs to show up in my post, so you'll have to click on the lick if you're interested.
So, how much warming would you AGW "skeptics" (since that the politically correct term for them) need to see before you would believe it is from unnatural causes? Btw, I object to Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming as making AGW supporters sound like alarmists. One could believe anthropogenic global warming is happening without being catastrophic, or merely unpleasant. I feel the evidence for AGW is fairly conclusive but how negative the consequences will be I feel is fairly uncertain, so I can't say I believe in CAGW.
Anyhow, I don't think the flat lining (and it's only flat if you pick an unusually warm year in the 90s as your starting point rather than take say, a 5 year running mean) of the last 10 years refutes global warming. It may not support it; but the year to year variation is much larger than the estimated global warming trend, so the warmer trend is pretty clear.
Looking at the temperature data since 1975, it looks like it's fairly clear we're on a warming trend...
If you think global warming has stopped, we should be able to tell soon whether temperatures in future years are continuing to fit the dash line or if they've moved. In the future, if the earth continues to warm at the current rate we should see the temperatures stay within the red lines. If the earth stopped warming, we should see the temperatures stay with the blue lines in this figure below. The figure shows previous temperatures as dots on the graph.
(The lines are two standard deviations above and below the best fit for 1975-2000 warming trend and for a constant temperature trend. If you don't know what a standard deviation is, you should, and I suggest you look it up.) The graph doesn't show the most recent temperatures, but I checked and they all fit in the white zone fitting within both the blue and red lines. So, if the future earth's temperature stay within the blue lines and leave the area in between the red lines, I will no longer believe in AGW. Will some of the skeptics here change their minds if the temperatures stay in between the red lines.
I guess you could honestly argue that all the warming we see is natural. But if it continues at the current trend how much would be enough for you to start to wonder "maybe this isn't natural".
Sorry, I couldn't get the jpegs to show up in my post, so you'll have to click on the lick if you're interested.
Not a valid argument for dire actions. You could take that very argument and apply it to many things to which you could then demand massive changes and expenses in society to prepare for it.
We stopped basing our decisions on "Who knows?" when we developed a process of empirical scientific discovery (became civilized) and used it as a means to establish what is simply wild guesses based on fears and emotions and that of reasonable certainty determined through strict tests that provided verification, validation, and replication in results.
Who knows, is totally valid, if you don't know the motives of the Scientific Community, or who is pulling their strings.
I have to wish you all a Good Night now, it's been fun.
So, how much warming would you AGW "skeptics" (since that the politically correct term for them) need to see before you would believe it is from unnatural causes? Btw, I object to Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming as making AGW supporters sound like alarmists. One could believe anthropogenic global warming is happening without being catastrophic, or merely unpleasant. I feel the evidence for AGW is fairly conclusive but how negative the consequences will be I feel is fairly uncertain, so I can't say I believe in CAGW.
It isn’t the warming that is the issue for us. It is a need for some proof that CO2 warming (we agree it exists) will lead to a positive feedback loop.
Sans that evidence the actual amount of warming or lack thereof means nothing... because any warming or cooling can be natural variation without that evidence.
So, how much warming would you AGW "skeptics" (since that the politically correct term for them) need to see before you would believe it is from unnatural causes?
That could not be determined on the warming alone. So, I don't understand the relevance of the question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei
Btw, I object to Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming as making AGW supporters sound like alarmists.
Well, blame your own side of the fence for that. It is an accurate description of the position. It is not simply AGW, as this simply means man contributes which is not objected to, rather the extent that they do. Since the claims made by the CAGW position is that MAJOR events (often referred to by your position as "catastrophic") will happen causing seas to rise at extreme rates, tempertures to soar to unlivable standards, violent and abnormal super storms, droughts, fires, famine, etc... well... are you honestly going to argue this point?
Now contrast that with someone trying to liken the objection to the conclusiveness of a particular claim with that of a Nazi claiming a certain event never happened in the face of the direct evidence that it did? To attempt to claim that is a skeptical position... well... its devious, ignorant, and arrogantly antagonistic, but then it was meant to be so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei
One could believe anthropogenic global warming is happening without being catastrophic, or merely unpleasant. I feel the evidence for AGW is fairly conclusive but how negative the consequences will be I feel is fairly uncertain, so I can't say I believe in CAGW.
Then you argue over the significance of its effect, which is a major argument out there and why there are even what are referred to as "lukewarmers". People who do not hold the position of the CAGW crowd in terms of severity, but think that mans contribution is more than what a skeptic might accept.
My position on the matter is simply, its inconclusive through the science and that is all that really concerns me as the rest is political and personal motivation to a particular point of view, which is irrelevant to the scientific position.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei
Anyhow, I don't think the flat lining (and it's only flat if you pick an unusually warm year in the 90s as your starting point rather than take say, a 5 year running mean) of the last 10 years refutes global warming. It may not support it; but the year to year variation is much larger than the estimated global warming trend, so the warmer trend is pretty clear.
Here is the thing. The divergence from trend can't be explained. It may not "disprove" the position, but it doesn't need to. The position must stand against all tests and the current observational trends aren't supporting its hypothesis. This causes the hypothesis to fail until it can be properly explained.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei
Looking at the temperature data since 1975, it looks like it's fairly clear we're on a warming trend...
And that is a rather small selection of climate trends. Especially when you look at historical trends and other sources which show the signal may be much larger than a 30 year window can reasonably provide. What makes 30 years more significant than 10? What about 100 years compared to the 30 year? Some would say, it all depends on who is doing the analysis as to what is considered "significant". /shrug
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei
If you think global warming has stopped, we should be able to tell soon whether temperatures in future years are continuing to fit the dash line or if they've moved. In the future, if the earth continues to warm at the current rate we should see the temperatures stay within the red lines. If the earth stopped warming, we should see the temperatures stay with the blue lines in this figure below. The figure shows previous temperatures as dots on the graph.
(The lines are two standard deviations above and below the best fit for 1975-2000 warming trend and for a constant temperature trend. If you don't know what a standard deviation is, you should, and I suggest you look it up.) The graph doesn't show the most recent temperatures, but I checked and they all fit in the white zone fitting within both the blue and red lines. So, if the future earth's temperature stay within the blue lines and leave the area in between the red lines, I will no longer believe in AGW. Will some of the skeptics here change their minds if the temperatures stay in between the red lines.
Maybe, if all the data was proper and correct, yet there are major discrepancies between them and it also depends on the baselines used to evaluate (which there is no standard between which is why the same information often looks different between different agencies).
that also isn't even getting into the major problems we have with our surface stations, how various agencies homogenize that data, how they handle grid ceiling, and a slew of other issues to which are points of contingency within the field.
If we had perfect data to pull from, that was accurate, not adjusted or fit to an agencies method, etc... we might be able to see "maybe", but in the end, we won't be sure as we would just be guessing about the trends from samples to which we think are significant and may not be. That is, we would be rolling the dice and as much as we tried to use more and more clever models to account for that which we do not know or understand, we would still be "guessing" as to what will happen.
They didn't expect this flat line when the models "projected" the trends and this is why they are a bit baffled. So, as much as we would like to "believe" we could accomplish such, we just don't have the means to honestly achieve it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei
I guess you could honestly argue that all the warming we see is natural. But if it continues at the current trend how much would be enough for you to start to wonder "maybe this isn't natural".
I would be more inclined to agree with the position if it had consistent and verifiable support, but it doesn't. So far, we are like tribesmen looking to signs in the sky and claiming the next prophecy. I mean really, until we can properly establish the links through observational data, then... well... I refuse to accept it. It has to be shown as such, but they can't keep playing with the data and adjusting it each year to keep it within their claims (Hansen revises his data every year and his work oddly tends to get closer to his claims even though the observation initially diverged drastically from it). Post revision is not science, but unfortunately, it happens all the time.
Heck, the actual raw numbers for the TOPEX data greatly differs from the revised data that is displayed. I understand the need for some adjustments, but the data tends to get adjusted in the favor of certain positions, the same is with surface station data. Hansen was found early on to be doing this with his 1998 et al to which he was caught and forced to revise his claims, which changed the results of his work.
Honestly, I would have to say I am a bit disappointed in the field at the moment and this has only made me become more and more skeptical at any claims made.
Who knows, is totally valid, if you don't know the motives of the Scientific Community, or who is pulling their strings.
I have to wish you all a Good Night now, it's been fun.
Well, that is a problem... but as you can see, such issues are being dealt with now. That is, the scientists who are doing poor studies, using politics to push their work and relying on secrecy to hide their data and methods are being found out.
The beauty of science is that when it is done properly, which can be easily ascertained, you can't fake it. Either your work adds up or it does not; hence those who refuse to release their data and methods because they know that their applications aren't proper and will be shown lacking. So, its FOIA... Deny, deny, deny... and attack those who ask for it.
wind is the worst
1. wind is not a constant, like solar is
Except for that other half of the 24 hour cycle. What do they call it? Night? Winds are pretty constant to have a 36% average power output from a 1MW turbine.
Quote:
2. the turbines create seismic rumbles that effect animal life (especially fish)
3. it kills birds
Citation?
Quote:
4. turbines are constantly have to be replaced, and have shreded areas when a malfunctions happens
And coal doesn't have to be replaced? This is a nonsense argument you're making. Physical damage occurs when any plant malfunctions, and the difference between throwing a blade (as rare as it is) and having a coal plant light on fire?
Quote:
wind energy costs more to produce than it gets
Citation?
Quote:
and wind turbines cause siesmic anomillies
Statistically significant? Citation?
Quote:
wind turbines kill birds and fish
Citation....
Quote:
the ''wind' turbine,,,very dirty to make, and the magnetic field created by thm is dangerous
Citation...
Quote:
at least solar has a slim chance....slim chance...solar: the panels are very dirty(to make),
Photovoltaic panels are electronic in design, and all electronics are somewhat hazardous to make. However, the wastes are easy to control, unlike, say, the 2.2 billion pounds of CO2 we release from coal plants.
And this doesn't even include other solar plants, like Nevada Solar One, which don't use PV cells.
Quote:
and only have a life span of 15-20 years, and the BATTERIES are(currently(they are improving though)) lead/acid batteries that need to be replaced every 7-10 years(very expensive)
Less expensive than you think, and the materials used in batteries are recyclable, if people actually recycled.
Quote:
if our liberal government was serious about 'renewable' energy, instead of spending nearly 3 trillion on bailing out FAILED companies, and an unstimulating stimulus bills, and failed 'jobs' bills..., they could have put a solar electric system on every single family house, thereby ELIMINATING the need for electric companies at the residental level( a 200-300 a month savings to everybody)....but the liberals dont care about solutions....all there care about is can they TAX IT
An obvious non-sequitur. Climate change has nothing to do with taxation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander
And I have answered to many of them. In fact, I have answered to this issue for a couple of years now on this forum. Your position is based on speculation, it is not validated by any proper scientific means. A model is not evidence of anything other than a guess as to what should be happening.
You keep ignoring the point I am making, as well as the Eisenstein quote I provided which summed it up. The fact is, it only takes a single fact to show your hypothesis is invalid. Science isn't a process of pretty sure, it is a process of having your hypothesis never fail and after others have attempted to find failure with it and can not, you conclude that for as much as has been tested and known, it is a fact.
You don't have a clue what the scientific method is--no wonder you've stood around grandstanding.
Quote:
Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming has NOT established such. Whether it is the divergence from the expected trends of the sea ice, the loss of heat in the oceans and the dropping of sea levels to the arguments of forcing and Co2's effects in the atmosphere, these have not been properly established. Hence, the failure of the AGW hypothesis to this date. Just because you take a piece here and there and show it "possibly" having a link, is not enough to establish the validity of the hypothesis.
Instead of accepting this and continuing on, you disregard it an ignorantly claim it is fact. This is not only foolish, but it is beyond absurd and arrogantly driven to a specific bias.
Lastly, you continue to make this political and apply insulting use of words like "denialist" which IS a known reference of attack that attempts to try an associate anyone who does not agree with CAGW as being of the same level as the Nazi's. It is childish political rhetoric and has no place in these discussions.
Knock off your garbage hate speak or I will report you. Got it?
I've seen this kind of argumentation before, in the religion forums. No amount of evidence is enough, it's all about the faith.
Its not, it is actually diverging from the standard increasing trend rate.
You might know this if you were keeping up with NASA on the issue, they admit it, but go on to "claim" it is because it is a loss due to land mass retention (which isn't verified and validated).
[quote=http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2011-262]But for those who might argue that these data show us entering a long-term period of decline in global sea level, Willis cautions that sea level drops such as this one cannot last, and over the long-run, the trend remains solidly up. Water flows downhill, and the extra rain will eventually find its way back to the sea. When it does, global sea level will rise again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander
Why would I deny global warming? where did you ever get the idea that I deny such an occurrence?
What I object to is Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming being anywhere near conclusive. We were warming for a while, but that has flat lined for the last 10 years. Even if we continued to warm, it doesn't validate CAGW.
Co2 has an effect in warming, nobody in the science disagrees with this, what is argued over is the contribution and if it is sustaining warming. CAGW proponents claim that Co2 causes warming, but reaches an extremely high level before it is released into space. CERN showed that the previous position on such is incorrect as the empirical study showed the release was FAR earlier than what was assumed by the CAGW position, which creates complications for their position as it is contingent on that release being much much later than what we found.
I've definitely seen this kind of argumentation in the religion forums. "Of course CO2 causes warming, but it'll never cause rapid climatic change."
Or, from the creationist POV, "Of course genes mutate, but they'll never result in dramatic physiological changes."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ferd
Some time ago, I saw something on the internet that showed the rise of Piracy in the 20th century. That rise was plotted on a graph with the global temperature record.
Global Piracy on the plot showed to be a "cause" of warming as it rose just before temperature.
Not one single person on this planet would believe that Piracy caused climate change but we can plot these two very different things and show correlation.
correlation does not equal causation
Pirates and Ice Cream. It's how we understand the nature of correlation studies. Correlation can show causation. The "Pirates" example is two unrelated variables. In the ice-cream example, higher ice-cream consumption results in higher drownings, introduces the third-variable--ice-cream consumption increases during summer-time, and more people swim during the summer time. Related variables. We have unequivocal evidence of an number of variables, all of which are related to warming, and we can empirically show the warming effects of CO2, and the radically increased level of CO2 humans produce versus what nature accommodates. The correlation, along with the science of the variables involved, results in causation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by davehalo
OP posts just a few days ago and already 25 pages....
CO2 is a known chemical quantity including its thermodynamic properties.
Have CO2 concentrations increased as human population, development, mfg, etc etc increased? YES
but correlation does not equal causation.
however, the flip side is should not be how can we stop the process of CC...pretty much impossible over the short to mid term (or even 2-3 generations of human life time long-term)....better question is how do we adapt if the climate is changing.
this is where both sides are banging their heads...if it wasnt so sad i might laugh
If you've just cut your left wrist and are hemorrhaging blood, do you patch up the left wrist, or do you patch up the left wrist while continuing to make other cuts?
You can't exacerbate the problem and expect that do any good.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eric3781
Too long. Did not read.
Has anyone addressed dihydrogen monoxide, sunspots, the carbon cycle, volcanic eruptions, and bovine flatulence yet?
Yes. At least two of those. I'm playing Bingo with 'em
So, how much warming would you AGW "skeptics" (since that the politically correct term for them) need to see before you would believe it is from unnatural causes? Btw, I object to Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming as making AGW supporters sound like alarmists. One could believe anthropogenic global warming is happening without being catastrophic, or merely unpleasant. I feel the evidence for AGW is fairly conclusive but how negative the consequences will be I feel is fairly uncertain, so I can't say I believe in CAGW.
Anyhow, I don't think the flat lining (and it's only flat if you pick an unusually warm year in the 90s as your starting point rather than take say, a 5 year running mean) of the last 10 years refutes global warming. It may not support it; but the year to year variation is much larger than the estimated global warming trend, so the warmer trend is pretty clear.
Looking at the temperature data since 1975, it looks like it's fairly clear we're on a warming trend...
If you think global warming has stopped, we should be able to tell soon whether temperatures in future years are continuing to fit the dash line or if they've moved. In the future, if the earth continues to warm at the current rate we should see the temperatures stay within the red lines. If the earth stopped warming, we should see the temperatures stay with the blue lines in this figure below. The figure shows previous temperatures as dots on the graph.
(The lines are two standard deviations above and below the best fit for 1975-2000 warming trend and for a constant temperature trend. If you don't know what a standard deviation is, you should, and I suggest you look it up.) The graph doesn't show the most recent temperatures, but I checked and they all fit in the white zone fitting within both the blue and red lines. So, if the future earth's temperature stay within the blue lines and leave the area in between the red lines, I will no longer believe in AGW. Will some of the skeptics here change their minds if the temperatures stay in between the red lines.
I guess you could honestly argue that all the warming we see is natural. But if it continues at the current trend how much would be enough for you to start to wonder "maybe this isn't natural".
Sorry, I couldn't get the jpegs to show up in my post, so you'll have to click on the lick if you're interested.
You said that you have an undergrad degree in physics? Go to one of your faculty members who is tenured and who has published extensively (preferably not a far left wing loon). Ask him about his perception of the concept of man-made, CO2 induced "global warming".
Perhaps he can open your eyes. While you are at it there in grad school, ask your preceptor if you can take a stats class as well. It will certainly help you understand the concept of "garbage in- garbage out" and the slight of hand of poor statistical evaluation of data.
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.
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.
