Sciencemadness Discussion Board
Not logged in [Login ]
Go To Bottom

Printable Version  
 Pages:  1  ..  3    5    7  ..  9
Author: Subject: Say Goodbye to Global Warming
IrC
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 2710
Registered: 7-3-2005
Location: Eureka
Member Is Offline

Mood: Discovering

[*] posted on 17-11-2011 at 17:12


"petition site currently lists more than 31,000 signatories"

From the very Wiki page you linked to. What you are saying is I am a liar because these people are not 'reputable'? Then you put the burden of proof as to their so called 'reputability' on me? Bull, I merely reported what I had read. If you can prove they are not 'reputable' then shut up and do so one by one, all you need to do is prove 30,000 of them are not 'reputable' on a case by case basis to prove I am a liar. I live in America and the premise here is 'innocent until proven guilty'. I could not care less how things run in the country you reside in. By the way implying distortion on my part is calling me a liar just in case you are going to further twist things playing with semantics. Lying implies I was purposely altering truth as opposed to merely reporting what I have read in many reports which is actually the case. Next you claim you caught me distorting facts somewhere else. Vain words without proof. If you have an accusation the burden of proof is on you the accuser. State specifically, precisely, what 'lies' you claim I make and prove your case.

It would be helpful for you to mature to the point that you could refute an opinion by others especially if all they were doing was reporting things they have read without resorting to attack tactics such as calling people 'distorter's of truth' otherwise known as 'liars'.

Of course this is only possible for those who do not have the personality of a rope as seen by the need to say this "Edit: Added quote from original claim to prevent post-hoc editing:". Why would you feel this statement necessary? Is it because this is what you would do and to justify the manner in which you would behave it is needed to imply this is what I would do? I have long known from observation the left always accuses the right of the very things the left do as a matter of normal procedure, while these actions are never taken by the right. Also normal activity is when the left cannot win a debate on it's merits they invariably resort to character assassination as evidenced by so many of your words in this thread. You are claiming 31,000 people are all liars so therefore I am also a liar to bring up the subject of their petition. Of course you are claiming that out of the 31,001 people only you are the bringer of truth. One thing you have accomplished is you have removed all desire on my part to ever waste my time replying to your posts in the future. "I caught you distorting scientific facts" again I say before you can call me a liar prove it. I asked you to state these comments by me that you are claiming as lies and prove it, but you have yet to do so. All I see is rather than defend properly your position in this thread you prefer to turn it into this argument full of your endless character attacks in an effort to destroy the thread. I will only carry this quagmire you are creating out so far, to exercise the right I have to defend myself from the very large number of accusations and insults you are spewing out against me.

Yes I added these last few lines after the post below as this is where these observations fit. But no I did not remove any words as you imply I would likely do in yet another one of your endless false accusations.


[Edited on 11-18-2011 by IrC]




"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" Richard Feynman
View user's profile View All Posts By User
watson.fawkes
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 2793
Registered: 16-8-2008
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 17-11-2011 at 17:47


Quote: Originally posted by IrC  
By the way implying distortion on my part is calling me a liar just in case you are going to further twist things playing with semantics.
Distortion can be the result of misplaced political idealism. The ordinary meaning of "lie" requires forming an intent to deceive. So sure, you're either a dupe or a liar. Whatever. You still don't get to have your own facts.

Argue with this page criticizing the completely inflated numbers associated with this study: http://www.skepticalscience.com/scrutinising-31000-scientists-in-the-oism-petition-project.html.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
IrC
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 2710
Registered: 7-3-2005
Location: Eureka
Member Is Offline

Mood: Discovering

[*] posted on 17-11-2011 at 19:39


You are the one turning this thread into a name calling character assassinating argue fest so if you have a link you want argued with I suggest you go argue with yourself. I am not going to be dragged into whatever it is you are trying to turn this debate into. Go waste someone Else's time.




"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" Richard Feynman
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Polverone
Now celebrating 17 years of madness
Thread Split
19-11-2011 at 13:50
bquirky
National Hazard
****




Posts: 316
Registered: 22-10-2008
Location: Perth Western Australia
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 21-11-2011 at 00:47


falsification people


its not science if its not falsifiable.

This is the key flaw in AGW. Any result will be made to confirm it.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
watson.fawkes
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 2793
Registered: 16-8-2008
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 21-11-2011 at 05:59


Quote: Originally posted by bquirky  
falsification people

its not science if its not falsifiable.
How is this situation any different from astronomy and evolution? Both are situations where you cannot put the system in a lab, put it into some desired initial condition, and watch to see what happens. There are rather a lot of things people study scientifically where you don't have this notion of experimentation. Sometimes the inability to perform a lab experiment arises because of impossibility, as with astronomy. Sometimes it arises because of ethical concerns, as with physiology; see any number of medical experiment review boards.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you believe astronomy is a science.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Mr. Wizard
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 1040
Registered: 30-3-2003
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 21-11-2011 at 08:08


Quote: Originally posted by watson.fawkes  
Quote: Originally posted by bquirky  
falsification people

its not science if its not falsifiable.
How is this situation any different from astronomy and evolution? Both are situations where you cannot put the system in a lab, put it into some desired initial condition, and watch to see what happens. There are rather a lot of things people study scientifically where you don't have this notion of experimentation. Sometimes the inability to perform a lab experiment arises because of impossibility, as with astronomy. Sometimes it arises because of ethical concerns, as with physiology; see any number of medical experiment review boards.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you believe astronomy is a science.


I almost wonder if you are serious with this.

There are many facets to astronomy, but let's just pick one.The theory that gravity is the dominant force responsible for predicting where objects will be a short time into the future. Every prediction is a test of that theory. There were discrepancies , such as the position of Mercury. New theories were proposed, and tested, yielding closer results. Predictions were made about the positions of stars near the edge of the solar disk being moved by the curvature of space by gravity. These were tested, and found closer to the truth than the previous non relativistic theories.

The whole point about science is it CAN be tested, just as the latest CERN neutrinos arriving ahead of schedule throw doubt on the speed of light being the fastest possible. There won't be anybody thrown in jail or burned at the stake if experimental results don't conform to predictions. The opposite of theoretical science is a dogmatic religious or cultural idea that resists inspection or testing or change.

Evolution does a much better job of understanding, predicting and explaining than does 'intelligent design'. For starters, if intelligent design is the source of life, what is the explanation of it's source? What test can we do that would cast doubt on it?

View user's profile View All Posts By User
ScienceSquirrel
Super Moderator
*******




Posts: 1863
Registered: 18-6-2008
Location: Brittany
Member Is Offline

Mood: Dogs are pets but cats are little furry humans with four feet and self determination! :(

[*] posted on 21-11-2011 at 08:25


According to the news today it is unlikely that a new treaty will be in place to curb global emissions of carbon dioxide before 2020 and emissions are likely to increase in this period.
Should there be a link between the amount of carbon dioxide and global temperature then I think this will be a good test.
It should be noted that this is a one time shot as an experiment and if there is a strong positive link then we may be in the shit up to our pits.
The postion of Mercury has no effect on life on Earth at all but a couple of degrees Centigrade added to global temperatues will have a huge effect.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
bquirky
National Hazard
****




Posts: 316
Registered: 22-10-2008
Location: Perth Western Australia
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 21-11-2011 at 10:00



"According to the news today it is unlikely that a new treaty will be in place to curb global emissions of carbon dioxide before 2020 and emissions are likely to increase in this period.
Should there be a link between the amount of carbon dioxide and global temperature then I think this will be a good test."

This is __exactly__ what i mean.

if a measurement of choice goes up it will be considered proof of AGW
if nothing happens no one will consider AGW Falsified.

its not science !

astronomy,geology,evolutionary biology,paleontology, just because you cant put the whole earth in a lab or you don't have a time machine doesn't get you off the hook.


View user's profile View All Posts By User
watson.fawkes
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 2793
Registered: 16-8-2008
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 21-11-2011 at 10:06


Quote: Originally posted by Mr. Wizard  
The theory that gravity is the dominant force responsible for predicting where objects will be a short time into the future. Every prediction is a test of that theory. There were discrepancies , such as the position of Mercury. New theories were proposed, and tested, yielding closer results.
I think you miss the point I was making, which is exactly that there's a whole class of science that works by successive refinements of models to observations made outside of a laboratory. Climate science is exactly such a science.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Rosco Bodine
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 6334
Registered: 29-9-2004
Member Is Offline

Mood: analytical

[*] posted on 21-11-2011 at 11:02


There is a transitional realm between science and philosophy where reasonable persons may reasonably disagree. Indeed there are or at least were formerly
many scientists whose higher degrees were in philosophy rather than mathematics. Even for a scientist having no faith, then philosophy becomes the
proxy as a "god of the gaps" to fill in those blanks where mathematics and physics has not adequately described prerceived or theorized "reality".

Science does have its "gray areas" and weather prediction even week to week, sometimes even day to day is definitely an inexact science. Global climate modeling involves complexities which are profound so this entire business of analysis and planning should never be "oversimplified" when it may not even be possible to be reduced to simplest terms for easy human comprehension.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Polverone
Now celebrating 17 years of madness
*********




Posts: 3149
Registered: 19-5-2002
Location: The Sunny Pacific Northwest
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 21-11-2011 at 11:10


Quote: Originally posted by bquirky  
falsification people


its not science if its not falsifiable.

This is the key flaw in AGW. Any result will be made to confirm it.


If over the next few decades atmospheric GHG levels continue to rise but global average temperatures stay stable or decline, I would say that IPCC predictions have been falsified. It looks falsifiable to me.




PGP Key and corresponding e-mail address
View user's profile Visit user's homepage View All Posts By User
Vogelzang
Banned





Posts: 662
Registered: 26-4-2008
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 21-11-2011 at 14:49


Climate Refugees, Not Found

In 2005, the U.N. Environment Program (UNEP) published a color-coded map under the headline "Fifty million climate refugees by 2010." The primary source for the prediction was a 2005 paper by environmental scientist Norman Myers.

Six years later, this flood of refugees is nowhere to be found, global average temperatures are about where they were when the prediction was made and the U.N. has done a vanishing act of its own, wiping the inconvenient map from its servers.

The map, which can still be found elsewhere on the Web, disappeared from the program's site sometime after April 11, when Gavin Atkins asked on AsianCorrespondent.com: "What happened to the climate refugees?" It's now 2011 and, as Mr. Atkins points out, many of the locales that the map identified as likely sources of climate refugees are "not only not losing people, they are actually among the fastest growing regions in the world."

View the UNEP's climate-refugee prediction map .The program's spokesman tells us the map vanished because "it's not a UNEP prediction. . . . that graphic did not represent UNEP views and was an oversimplification of UNEP views." He added that the program would like to publish a clarification, now that journalists are "making hay of it," except that the staffers able to do so are "all on holiday for Easter."

The climate-refugee prediction isn't the first global warming-related claim that has turned out to be laughable, and everyone can make mistakes. More troubling is the impulse among some advocates of global warming alarmism to assert in the face of contrary evidence that they never said what they definitely said before the evidence went against them.

These columns have asked for some time how anyone can still manage to take the U.N.-led climate crowd seriously. Maybe the more pertinent question is whether the climateers have ever taken the public's intelligence seriously.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870465870457627...


View user's profile View All Posts By User
IrC
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 2710
Registered: 7-3-2005
Location: Eureka
Member Is Offline

Mood: Discovering

[*] posted on 21-11-2011 at 17:22


http://dailycaller.com/2011/04/16/the-un-disappears-50-milli...



[file]16611[/file]

Since the Scientists and organizations responsible for this report and the following deletion/cover up are not on the petition does that make them 'reputable' even though the 31,000 who disagree are not (according to at least one person here)?

This time it’s the coral – the latest failed climate prediction

http://asiancorrespondent.com/53552/this-time-it%E2%80%99s-t...

After all how dare those petition signers exist when there is nothing but truth from all those defending the 'science' of GW? As for myself I think it is time for any who purport to be scientists to take a hard look at their GW 'science'.


"Notorious" Bias Affects IPCC Climate Models - Unable To Successfully Predict Abrupt Climate Changes

http://www.c3headlines.com/predictionsforecasts/

http://www.c3headlines.com/2011/10/notorious-bias-affects-ip...


Abrupt Climate Change Simulations

http://www.co2science.org/articles/V14/N43/C1.php


[Edited on 11-22-2011 by IrC]

un_50million800x600.jpg - 61kB




"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" Richard Feynman
View user's profile View All Posts By User
francis
Hazard to Self
**




Posts: 72
Registered: 1-4-2011
Location: Australia
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 22-11-2011 at 10:28


Hey IrC,

From February to July of 2012, I am taking my third year analytical chemistry subject, CHEM327, at the University of Wollongong, in Australia.

The subject coordinator is a guy named Dr Stephen Wilson. Here is his Uni page:
http://www.uow.edu.au/science/chem/academics/UOW040180.html

He is an atmospheric chemist.

He is also the Head of the School of Chemistry at UOW.

He works at the Cape Grim Baseline Air Pollution station, in Tasmania:

http://www.bom.gov.au/inside/cgbaps/

From that site:

Quote:

The Cape Grim Baseline Air Pollution Station was established in 1976 to monitor and study global atmospheric composition. It measures: greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide. Measurements have shown more than a 15% increase in carbon dioxide since first taken in 1976 stratospheric ozone depleting chemicals, such as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs)


Dr. Clare Murphy is the subject coordinator for another subject I'll take next session, called Instrumental Analysis. She's also the subject coordinator for second year physical chemistry.

You can see a picture of herself, and Steve Wilson on this page:

http://www.greenhouse2011.com/UserFiles/Presentation/present...

(Steve Wilson is wearing the green jumper, he has a beard and glasses, number 6 from the left. Clare Murphy is the short-haired women, immediately to his left - that is she's 7th from the left).

The Cape Grim station is operated jointly by the CSIRO and the Australian Bureau of Meteorology.

Here is the data that's obtained from Cape Grim: it is a graph showing, as you'll be able to see, the measured concentration of CO2 at that station from 1976 to 2011.
http://www.csiro.au/greenhouse-gases/

They refer to various Greenhouse gases, and define them, as being measured:

Most GHGs (for example carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, HFCs, PFCs, sulfur hexafluoride) have shown continuous increases in concentration since the mid-to-late 1970s. The growth of some GHGs (for example methane) has slowed recently and some are in decline (CFCs and halons for example). Since the station first began measurements in 1976, carbon dioxide levels have increased by more than 15 per cent. Concentrations of methane and nitrous oxide at Cape Grim have also increased significantly since 1978 by about 20 and 8 per cent respectively. These increases are mostly likely caused by human activities such as fossil fuel consumption and various agricultural practices.

There's a list of the gases, and their measurements since the station began operation.

They refer to pre-industrial concentrations of CO2:


Quote:

Comparison to pre-industrial concentrations Carbon dioxide concentrations in the air were reasonably stable (typically quoted as 278 ppm) before industrialisation (in the timeframe of human existence). Since industrialisation (typically measured from the mid-18th century), carbon dioxide concentrations have increased by about 40 per cent, based on measurements from Cape Grim and on air samples collected from Antarctic ice at Law Dome.



All the instrumental methods are listed; ie the instruments they've use to measure the greenhouse gases.

The quote from the CSIRO-BOM page, referring to greenhouse gas increases, and their causes:

"Since the station first began measurements in 1976, carbon dioxide levels have increased by more than 15 per cent. Concentrations of methane and nitrous oxide at Cape Grim have also increased significantly since 1978 by about 20 and 8 per cent respectively. These increases are mostly likely caused by human activities such as fossil fuel consumption and various agricultural practices.


I'm 25 years old, I am studying my third year of a chemistry degree.

I don't watch the news, nor do I read the Daily Caller (aside from today when I checked the links you posted...it seems like a political website).

Should I disregard what my lecturers tell me? I don't have the time, knowledge and instrumentation to go and measure greenhouse gases on my own.

In Australia, for most young scientists soon to graduate, the CSIRO has a pretty high reputation.

Are they not telling the truth? I am being as earnest as I can possibly be:

Do I ignore what the Head of the schoool of the subject I am studying is teaching me, do I ignore the statements of the scientists who work at the CSIRO, do I ignore a third of the CHEM327 subject matter?

I don't like politics. I dislike it, because it seems like a sports game where people pick a team, or have their team picked, and they back that team no matter what....they change or disregard the facts, they slam the other team, they make up these fantastic stories that maybe true, may not be true - but can never be proved or disproved as true.

But what they never do, what they NEVER do, is sit back and say, "Hm. Maybe that guy, despite that he's on the other team, maybe he is right. Let me think about that."

They always say he's wrong. Flat out wrong - and that's that.

How often do you read the news? How often do you read atmospheric chemistry journals?

I never read either - but I'm enrolled in a course taught by an atmospheric chemist, who is also the Head of School of the subject that I study.

But you think he's lying? Or it's all made up? Some sort of political agenda?

So put yourself in my shoes - I dunno how old you are, but now you're a 25 year old, 3rd year chemistry student who is about to study a subject about atmospheric chemistry, of which one of the components is greenhouse chemistry.

Do you stay home and miss those lectures because you already know the answer?

Do you put politics and news aside, just for an hour, and go to the lecture, keeping an honest and open mind....and after the lecture is done, go speak to the lecturer, and say, "I know you're involved in a cover up!'

What do you do?



---------

Quote: Originally posted by IrC  
http://dailycaller.com/2011/04/16/the-un-disappears-50-milli...


Since the Scientists and organizations responsible for this report and the following deletion/cover up are not on the petition does that make them 'reputable' even though the 31,000 who disagree are not (according to at least one person here)?

This time it’s the coral – the latest failed climate prediction

http://asiancorrespondent.com/53552/this-time-it%E2%80%99s-t...

After all how dare those petition signers exist when there is nothing but truth from all those defending the 'science' of GW? As for myself I think it is time for any who purport to be scientists to take a hard look at their GW 'science'.


"Notorious" Bias Affects IPCC Climate Models - Unable To Successfully Predict Abrupt Climate Changes

http://www.c3headlines.com/predictionsforecasts/

http://www.c3headlines.com/2011/10/notorious-bias-affects-ip...


Abrupt Climate Change Simulations

http://www.co2science.org/articles/V14/N43/C1.php


[Edited on 11-22-2011 by IrC]
View user's profile View All Posts By User
497
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 778
Registered: 6-10-2007
Member Is Offline

Mood: HSbF6

[*] posted on 22-11-2011 at 14:59


Francis, I don't think there was much disagreement with the CO2 measurements. Nobody was saying they were falsified. The assumption that CO2 must be the main cause of climate change is what many people are skeptical about. Can your professor show you the irrefutable evidence for that?

Nobody said miss your lectures. Just don't take it as fact without doing your own investigating. Getting all your information from one source is never going to reveal reality.

I really do agree with your assessment of politics though.




A word to the wise: NEUROFEEDBACK

http://citizenworks.org/corp/dg/s2r1.pdf
http://www.newscientist.com/mobile/article/mg21228354.500-re...
http://www.shadowstats.com/article/no-414-hyperinflation-spe...

"To expose a 15 Trillion dollar ripoff of the American people by the stockholders of the 1000 largest corporations over the last 100 years will be a tall order of business."
Buckminster Fuller

"No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it."
Albert Einstein
View user's profile View All Posts By User
IrC
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 2710
Registered: 7-3-2005
Location: Eureka
Member Is Offline

Mood: Discovering

[*] posted on 22-11-2011 at 15:04


francis what I think is it should not be needed for you to ask me whether or not to listen to a lecture assuming you are being taught critical thinking skills. Assuming you are being taught reading comprehension you would have been able to tell from my posts that nowhere have I ever once uttered words to the effect you should not listen to your teachers. Therefore your questions directed to me are without basis in reality. Critical thinking would have shown several things at once. Reading comprehension would have prevented you from directing your questions at me for anything I have said.

One aspect of critical thinking is: it is not the measurements being made but rather the predictions being put forth from those numbers that is in question in either the stories or in my posts. One would think if you kept getting all the answers on your tests wrong you would not be doing well in school. Likewise with predictions which endlessly come forth and endlessly fail. Critical thinking would show that just because a story is on a news site with a political orientation you are biased against and/or being taught to be biased against does not mean the story is untrue. You see like others here due to political bias you shoot the source having never once critically reviewed the story nor any of the evidence it puts forth. Shoot the messenger to hell with the truth. Critical thinking would lead one to wonder why it is always the right putting forth these stories and give due consideration to the fact that the bias from the left causes the left to cover up the truth of their errors, and the reason you only read these stories on sites you are being taught bias against is in reality due to the simple fact that these sites are the only ones out there uncovering the truth.

Or does the story of the U.N. organization 'scrubbing' the site with their errors in prediction mean nothing to you? Is it not a glaring example of hiding errors, one of so many there is not enough time in an average persons day to find them all.

If the scientific community were policing themselves to eliminate errors, lies, agendas aimed at protecting grant money offered by organizations famous for their bias towards one political line of reasoning, and so on; then possibly there would not be a need for investigative reporting aimed at showing the world the real truth behind these predictions. Instead the failed predictions are hidden, whitewashed, ignored, and buried in history. Or have you forgotten these same scientists or in general the entire global scientific community was just as positive and just as loud in proclaiming to the world that we were heading into an ice age during the 1970's. Were they liars then or are they liars now? Were they simply this ignorant then yet they are so smart now? If we could not trust them then why should we trust them now?

I will bet you right now your teachers have not taught you in depth any of the history behind this have they. In fact I have no doubt zero mention has been made of any of this.

The simple answer to your question is listen to the lectures keeping an open mind as to any conclusions. If you trust the people making measurements are both honest and accurate then trust the readings but try with a purely open scientific mind to ascertain what the data is telling you. It is not untrue that the predictions in the stories I linked were made and it is not untrue that all of these predictions were in error. Either in time or in totality or both.

What you are doing is focusing on who told the story and therefore completely discounting it while never once actually researching the facts put forth. If this is what you are being taught to do and this is how you are being taught to think then might I suggest you are in the wrong place of to learn? For all of the time and money your teachers are costing you is this the extent of the critical thinking and reading comprehension skills you have gained? Instead of hoping all knowledge will be handed to you, try learning what you can with an open mind and at the same time applying yourself to broaden your knowledge outside of the classroom you spend time in. 30 years from now you will be amazed at how much you thought you knew now but did not.

Reading this post again it does sound like I am coming off a little harsh or judgmental towards you but this is not my intent. I am not on the attack but rather pointing out what I see from reading your post in terms of biased thinking. If not biased then at minimum the lack of using a broader outlook on the issue. Not to be overcritical of you specifically, rather I see this in virtually everyone I talk to in your age group especially when they are still in the middle of their college years. While it is true any politically orientated news source is going to have their own view on a subject this does not mean you cannot look at the specific facts in each story and judge based upon the merits of each case in question. For example we know the UN had that map posted and we know they erased it from existence, or at least they tried. This leads one to think they have something to hide which implies at worst bias and at least a lack of credibility. Leaving your mistakes out there and putting forth corrections showing you are trying to be honest in my mind gives you greater credibility than trying to bury your mistakes. To me this means you are trying to be honest and are not afraid to admit your mistakes, and are therefore equally honest when you put forth new, more accurate information. This to me increases your credibility whereas going too far in CYA mode in the other direction destroys credibility. Of course the 'your' in this case is the U.N. and their scientists. On the issue of biased thinking in posts previous concerning the petition, a perfect example of this bias is seen in the person or groups attacking the way the petition was circulated and calling this all the evidence needed to discount all signers (and all facts therein).

The only correct way to discount the petition (or in general any other message) is in examining each fact in it as well as the credentials of each individual bringing forth these facts.

Anyone discounting a message based solely upon their dislike of the messenger and/or the way the message was written is without either credibility or wisdom.







[Edited on 11-23-2011 by IrC]




"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" Richard Feynman
View user's profile View All Posts By User
497
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 778
Registered: 6-10-2007
Member Is Offline

Mood: HSbF6

[*] posted on 22-11-2011 at 16:47








A word to the wise: NEUROFEEDBACK

http://citizenworks.org/corp/dg/s2r1.pdf
http://www.newscientist.com/mobile/article/mg21228354.500-re...
http://www.shadowstats.com/article/no-414-hyperinflation-spe...

"To expose a 15 Trillion dollar ripoff of the American people by the stockholders of the 1000 largest corporations over the last 100 years will be a tall order of business."
Buckminster Fuller

"No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it."
Albert Einstein
View user's profile View All Posts By User
DerAlte
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 779
Registered: 14-5-2007
Location: Erehwon
Member Is Offline

Mood: Disgusted

[*] posted on 22-11-2011 at 21:51


With apologies for yet again posting a long comment.

Since 1750, WMO says, atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have risen 39 percent, those of nitrous oxide have gone up 20 percent and concentrations of methane jumped 158 percent....

Who was measuring Nitrous oxide and Methane levels in 1750? Oh, I forgot -
they come from tiny bubbles in ancient ice cores if Greenland, don't they? How many tiny bubbles are nedded to obtain a reliable count of 200 parts in 10^9? Accuracy?

............
Quoting E.M. Smith from the Chiefio website:

"This isn't that much of a surprise to me. I'd figured out some time ago that trees and bamboo could consume far more CO2 than I 'produce' via burning oil and gas. I've also pointed out that The West is largely letting trees grow, while mowing our lawns and having the clippings 'sequestered' in land fills (along with an untold tonnage of phone books and junk mail?) while the 3rd world is busy burning and cutting down their forests.

The simple fact is that 'jungle rot' will beat out my 'gallon a day' of Diesel any time. Basically, we in the west grow far more wheat, corn, soybeans, wood, lawns, shrubs, etc. than we burn oil. In the 3rd world, they burn their sequestering plants. (And it takes one heck of a lot more wood to cook a meal than it does coal via a highly efficient furnace / electric generator / microwave oven.) But it's nice to see it documented in aggregate in the 'facts in the air'."
.........
WRT this I have on a roughly one acre plot several large oaks and other trees which I (or my wife) have planted and grown since 1983. They grow fast in the subtropical climate of Florida!

The accumulated biomass in these trees alone, in dried wood, I estimate as > 25 metric tons, bar the wood we have used as firewood, forgetting all the grass clippings, etc., which are mulched or composted and returned to the land. Since wood is mainly cellulose (C6H10O5)n and the C comes from atmospheric CO2 six moles CO2-> 1 mole cellulose unit, I get that 162 parts cellulose comes from 264 parts CO2. So my 25 tons wood used up about 41 tons CO2. Since gasoline is approx. Cn H(2n+2) it produces n CO2 molecules per Molecule gasoline, if properly burned. The weight ratio is thus about 14 to 44. So my 41 tons is equivalent to 13 tons gasoline. Assuming density of gasoline is about 0.85 this is 13/0.85 = 15.3 m^3 in volume = 15.3*10^3 liter = 4042 US Gallons; about 13 years at a gallon/day.

I claim carbon credit for those years; damn, I think that idea fizzled out!
.........
@Francis:

Quote:
But you think he's lying? Or it's all made up? Some sort of political agenda?

No to all. The data, from 1972 onward, would be accepted and has been repeated at numerous stations worldwide. CO2 increase is real. The big arguement is what causes it. As to whether you lecturer has a political bias, if he is a true scientist he does not. Even if he has a political bias, he should be able to compartment it - at least while acting in his scientific mode.

Quote:
So put yourself in my shoes - I dunno how old you are, but now you're a 25 year old, 3rd year chemistry student who is about to study a subject about atmospheric chemistry, of which one of the components is greenhouse chemistry.

I'm three times your age. At your age you are probably at your intellectual peak. It would be sad to get brainwashed (either way) at that age.

Quote:
Do you stay home and miss those lectures because you already know the answer?

Never! Neither you nor (possibly) your lecturer knows the answer. He does probably know more than you do, however, don't you think?

Quote:
Do you put politics and news aside, just for an hour, and go to the lecture, keeping an honest and open mind....and after the lecture is done, go speak to the lecturer, and say, "I know you're involved in a cover up!'


By all means "go to the lecture, keeping an honest and open mind" and "after the lecture is done, go speak to the lecturer" if you have questions re the course material. But "and say, "I know you're involved in a cover up!"???
Good god no!!! You do not know that! If you think you do, be prepared to prove it (and maybe flunk his course). Other wise you gratuitously insult pointlessly. Civility seems to be a dying grace in today's world.

I do not intend to be condescending in the above; I realize you are presenting an extreme case, a strawman.

.......
For the sceptics view, see http://vimeo.com/8865909
1 1/2 hr, don't watch if you have attention deficit or are either a denier or completely convinced already. I admit personal bias: the presenter says he is an engineer, has a knowledge of statistics ( very important!) and is a libertarian - all plusses for me!

......

@Polverone
Your even handed moderation of this thread, and others, has my complete admiration. I may not always agree... but this is the only site I ever bother to post on.

Regards,
Der Alte

Edit: Thanks IRC

[Edited on 23-11-2011 by DerAlte]
View user's profile View All Posts By User
fledarmus
Hazard to Others
***




Posts: 187
Registered: 23-6-2011
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 23-11-2011 at 05:08


The problem is that nobody has any real idea what the global effect of human activity will be, in any field. We don't have a system we can test hypotheses on. And over the last few decades, risk prevention has been a major driver in our economy, legal system, and politics. As a society, we have made a conscious decision to spend whatever it takes to avoid any hypothetical injury.

What is driving the climate change debate now is a forecast of the worst imaginable scenarios of climate change, and the demand to prevent that outcome at all costs, on the grounds that regardless of how unlikely the scenario is, the consequences of allowing it to come to pass would be too horrendous to allow any other course of action. Unfortunately, just as we cannot predict with any certainty what our activities will do to the environment without taking remedial action, we cannot predict with any certainty what effect any remedial action might have.

How much of our standard of living, economic productivity, and personal freedom should be sacrificed to prevent any human effect on the environment? The politics of climate change provide positions from "You can't prove we're doing anything at all" to "No sacrifice is too great if it might prevent this future catastrophe from occurring". Where people are in that spectrum largely determines both what they present about climate change, and what presentations they believe.

Note - this is written totally from a US-centric point of view. I really don't have the knowledge to comment about what people in other countries may believe about this issue.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
DerAlte
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 779
Registered: 14-5-2007
Location: Erehwon
Member Is Offline

Mood: Disgusted

[*] posted on 23-11-2011 at 09:13


@fledarmus

Absolutely agree. It's the old problem of what zero X infinity equals. Damned if you do and damned if you don't, the political dilemma. Scientifically one ought to be a sceptic, case not proven; but politically you flip the coin and suffer the consequences, either way.

But, having lived through WWII in the UK, threats of 'nuclear winter' , 'a new ice age', the cold war, etc., one gets a bit tired of alarmists.

I have a suspicion that man over-rates his importance to this globe-

Regards
Der Alte
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Rosco Bodine
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 6334
Registered: 29-9-2004
Member Is Offline

Mood: analytical

[*] posted on 24-11-2011 at 07:51


Warren Meyer is among the rational scientists who when considering global warming would seem to be sensibly referring to the same water planet as is somewhat counterintuitively called Earth, which is the same planet where most humans live, mostly on that smaller part of the planet that isn't under water,.....even though curiously in another sense too many of the land inhabitants houses are still under water even while on dry land :D I laughed out loud at the part of that presentation where Meyer pointed out that the IPCC had correctly predicted 20 times zero events having occurred as predicted. Now there's a perfect record :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6q9C7BgLCqg Fields Of Gold

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfyrhQSwK24 Moment Of Peace

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ge73ajtFV5Q Watermark

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-32dBx3dXA Winter Light
View user's profile View All Posts By User
IrC
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 2710
Registered: 7-3-2005
Location: Eureka
Member Is Offline

Mood: Discovering

[*] posted on 26-11-2011 at 15:38


Yet another one bites the dust. If I ever own this car or one like it I am keeping it outside away from the house. Does not always have to involve a crash imagine if one of these batteries were poorly constructed to begin with. Not all that uncommon of an event if they start mass producing them.

2nd electric car battery fire involving Chevy Volt

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/nov/25/2nd-electric-...





"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" Richard Feynman
View user's profile View All Posts By User
White Yeti
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 816
Registered: 20-7-2011
Location: Asperger's spectrum
Member Is Offline

Mood: delocalized

[*] posted on 26-11-2011 at 18:56


Quote: Originally posted by IrC  
Yet another one bites the dust. If I ever own this car or one like it I am keeping it outside away from the house. Does not always have to involve a crash imagine if one of these batteries were poorly constructed to begin with. Not all that uncommon of an event if they start mass producing them.

2nd electric car battery fire involving Chevy Volt

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/nov/25/2nd-electric-...



The idea behind the Chevy volt is really good you have to admit. The design allows for the most efficient use of fuel to date. By running the generator at a constant RPM and delivering constant power, the generator can run at the highest possible efficiency rating for that engine.

I think the mistake they made with the design is that they should have made the battery smaller and incorporated the latest supercaps to optimise battery discharge. The problem with plug-ins is that they are not made for accelerating from a halt. The electric motor can easily take hundreds of amps, but the battery gets damaged every time it is discharged above a certain threshold.

The result: Low battery life.




"Ja, Kalzium, das ist alles!" -Otto Loewi
View user's profile View All Posts By User
497
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 778
Registered: 6-10-2007
Member Is Offline

Mood: HSbF6

[*] posted on 27-11-2011 at 08:12


Flow batteries may replace the traditional ones soon.
http://www.nanowerk.com/news/newsid=21619.php
About time really.




A word to the wise: NEUROFEEDBACK

http://citizenworks.org/corp/dg/s2r1.pdf
http://www.newscientist.com/mobile/article/mg21228354.500-re...
http://www.shadowstats.com/article/no-414-hyperinflation-spe...

"To expose a 15 Trillion dollar ripoff of the American people by the stockholders of the 1000 largest corporations over the last 100 years will be a tall order of business."
Buckminster Fuller

"No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it."
Albert Einstein
View user's profile View All Posts By User
White Yeti
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 816
Registered: 20-7-2011
Location: Asperger's spectrum
Member Is Offline

Mood: delocalized

[*] posted on 27-11-2011 at 10:20


Quote: Originally posted by 497  
Flow batteries may replace the traditional ones soon.
http://www.nanowerk.com/news/newsid=21619.php
About time really.


That's true, battery chemistry has not drastically changed for 200 years. Nanotechnology has enabled us to pack more punch into a given mass and volume, but the basic principles are the same. It's about time we make batteries that differ from the usual obsolete designs.

The future depends on how well we develop battery technology, or fuel cell technology for that matter. Generating electricity is one thing, storing it is another story altogether. How can we claim to be an advanced civilisation if we cannot store the energy we produce for future use?




"Ja, Kalzium, das ist alles!" -Otto Loewi
View user's profile View All Posts By User
 Pages:  1  ..  3    5    7  ..  9

  Go To Top