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.
All the Arctic water is apparently migration to the Antartic and the resulting imbalance is going to turn the workd upside down.
How else do you explaine the reversed magnitic fiels recorded on the ocean floor. The magnetic poles didn't shift but imbalance shifted the crust on the core. It was a great tragedy as many animals wound up upside down and fell into space.
Very funny, but seriously there may be some correlation between the two, though obviously not direct. I remember reading some research a while back that concerned the currents and their shifts as well as many other factors they hypothesized. Point is, we can not eliminate there being some relation there.
The record breaking weather events can not be argued with, cause the data is there for all to see. South is getting warmer, north is getting warmer, Storm's are more intense effecting the above also. I will noy put lables on anything other than what I see.
I wonder a few years back when there was a big debate on air and water pollution, did it ever get resolved ? I think for many who see a profit increase is leaving well enough alone, why spend the money for clean up when nature will cover it all up in a hundred years or so, does make for a confusing answer or argument . We never cleaned up the air quality problem in big cities and coal fired power plants all over the country as of today. Depending on who is in power the left or the right we usually just get started on a long term environmental project, only to find a change in administration and the resulting lack of funding to go ahead with the clean-up. Now we have all the questions about deep water/land drilling and Fracking practices, which have already resulted in many very bad outcomes.
I don't see why , for the good of the People, that when one needed project remains unfunded, nothing happens., its getting old and I am tired of it ! The bottom line boils down to those who are in touch with nature and natural surroundings against those who think nature will take care of everything, in time, so why spend money on foolish things like mans destruction of the Planet. Whats a few hundred years give or take anyway ?
The record breaking weather events can not be argued with, cause the data is there for all to see. South is getting warmer, north is getting warmer, Storm's are more intense effecting the above also. I will noy put lables on anything other than what I see.
I wonder a few years back when there was a big debate on air and water pollution, did it ever get resolved ? I think for many who see a profit increase is leaving well enough alone, why spend the money for clean up when nature will cover it all up in a hundred years or so, does make for a confusing answer or argument . We never cleaned up the air quality problem in big cities and coal fired power plants all over the country as of today. Depending on who is in power the left or the right we usually just get started on a long term environmental project, only to find a change in administration and the resulting lack of funding to go ahead with the clean-up. Now we have all the questions about deep water/land drilling and Fracking practices, which have already resulted in many very bad outcomes.
I don't see why , for the good of the People, that when one needed project remains unfunded, nothing happens., its getting old and I am tired of it ! The bottom line boils down to those who are in touch with nature and natural surroundings against those who think nature will take care of everything, in time, so why spend money on foolish things like mans destruction of the Planet. Whats a few hundred years give or take anyway ?
You make a lot of claims that are not founded, then use anecdotal remedy to justify them.
I am tired of people who are easily mislead and easily emotionalized into a position because the conclusion shores up with their ignorant self interested perception.
You are the one selling speculation as if it was conclusive, I am not. If you are doing such, you are wrong, period. Science isn't a process of speculation without validation.
If I am speculating as if it was conclusive then you are doing the exact same thing.
Quote:
Establishing a known from mostly unknowns is the issue. Look into models, how many unknowns they make assumptions of.
Ah, now you are modifying your defintion to mostly unknowns. LOLZ. You do realize models can analyze the interaction between knowns?
Quote:
Look up the Drake equation, it is entirely based on "unknowns" and tell me, how can you establish a known from all unknowns?
My goodness, you've already tried this Drake Equation argument before. You really need to take your Namenda to help with memory. Remeber the Drake Equation is used to estimate the number of technological civilizations in the milky way galaxy.
Quote:
Now, consider the number of unknowns in any given evaluation, specifically the complexity of climate models. How many aspects of the system are they making assumptions about compared to that which they do know? Statistical evaluation is always a tricky process and it is highly subject to bias in all stages of its application. This is why the models consistently fail, why they are surprised often when events like the current Arctic's melt happens.
Blah blah blah. So going back to your well used Drake Equation, that equation is based on the BEST INFORMATION AVAILABLE. That's what models use, the best information available. Therefore, the Drake Equation gives us the best answer possible with the best information available.
Stop starting with the premise that models are based on unknowns, that is false.
Quote:
The simple fact is that models can be useful tools for exploration, but they are not a validation mechanism and so making scientific conclusions based on models is foolish.
Fantastic.
Quote:
Making conclusions based on speculation without proper validation is not science, it is stupidity. The models are nowhere near being validated in their assumptions and yet you go on and on about how they are conclusive. /boggle
Why do you assume that only models are used to explore and study climate change?
Quote:
Then your education failed you, because you argue against the scientific method. You argue that validation is not required, that statistical speculation is conclusive. That does not bode well for your "qualifications".
No I'm not arguing that. You just can't comprehend how models are used in today's science.
Quote:
I didn't capitalize, it is Deep Thought, a reference to a computer in the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy where they input a question concerning the meaning of life and obtained the answer "42". The point is, you think a machine is magical and can simply create that which does not exist. You can not statistically establish a known from an unknown. You can hypothesis a certain result and model it, but you need to validate it otherwise all you are doing is "creating" an answer that is meaningless since you didn't understand the what you were evaluating.
Then how do you validate to your standard that humans are causing climate change then? Or not causing it.
Quote:
Look up the scientific method, what are the steps? Can you establish a conclusion without the consistent validation, verification, and replication stages? Explain to me how a model establishes those three requirements and give an example of where this has been shown empirically? Oh that is right, its "complex" and we can't do that, but we can sure punch numbers in a shiny computer and all will come out well right?
You argue about being a communist. Seriously, how can you be so obtuse? You make arguments that identify your position as such, then go on claiming you aren't such. So either you are clueless as to what you actually are supporting or a liar. /shrug
Yes because the only logical explanation based upon my positions I've identified is that I am a communist here in 2012.
Is there any possibility that you are clueless or incorrect about communism in 2012?
Because you have redefined the meaning to be something else. This is a common tactic to evade dealing with a particular position being identified. Someone says, hey, that has four equal sides, that is a square and you respond with, no, it isn't... because I don't define it by such words.
I haven't redefined the meaning, I just don't think of it as that. Like I said, if it is in case wealth redistribution, then why the worry since we've been doing it and continue to do it without the aid of climate change policies.
Quote:
It is the decaying of logical and intelligent communication and it is why you think a model does more than it is capable of. You are so busy redefining the meaning of things to fit your own subjective view that you make everything you evaluate meaningless.
No that is you with your assumptions that models "establish knowns from mostly unknowns". Still haven't found your definition of models any where on the internet.... Interesting, but not surprising. But please lead me to where you are getting your information about how models work.
You make a lot of claims that are not founded, then use anecdotal remedy to justify them.
I am tired of people who are easily mislead and easily emotionalized into a position because the conclusion shores up with their ignorant self interested perception.
Listen, you are so quick to put labels on people and posts that do not fit with your agenda . I said the weather has been breaking all records , everywhere. So soon you forget this Summer, and the last 3 winters which were much warmer than normal We normally get a lot of snow, sometimes 300 inches, not happened for several winters so, when I say that's happened, well it was . I do not make any conclusions, just stating a fact in this area near the Canadian border. We get our weather directly from the NWT, so what goes on in Yellowknife will come to us in short order.
Now when I talk about air and water , I do know of what I say. I spent over 40 years in logistics distributing environmental equip. I have seen my business go up and down, a lot blamed on politics . I am aware of many Coal fired power plants that remain without proper clean up.I think these things are well kown, just what's wrong with other than what I have experienced ?
I make no conclusions or no long term effects , just what's public knowledge I would like to know your reason for dismissing 40 years of experience. I could just as easy talk about Alaska and the Yukon. They got hammered this past winter. We have a gold claim in the Yukon, this year everyone had to be lifted in by air because of the long winter with more than normal snow. It was a late summer with all the access roads impassable.
We still are distributing the power plant clean up of their smokestacks.. So many have bought a lot of time, when now they have run out of time.. The claim is that the cost could be greater than the value of some Plants, or so they say. Same goes for the nuke Plants here in Michigan, way too many spent fuel rods and no place to put them..... I have said more than intended, so I exit Stage left. The show goes on with out your "facts" , or mine. I just wanted everyone to know what's going on in the field., been there done that many times.
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.
