Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: No consensus on global warming


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: No consensus on global warming Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: No consensus on global warming - 9/12/2007 10:03:29 PM   
SuzanneKneeling


Posts: 233
Joined: 8/31/2005
Status: offline 		Thank you, Dr. Popeye. Your PhD was in which field again?

(in reply to popeye1250)
Profile   Post #: 21
RE: No consensus on global warming - 9/12/2007 10:06:53 PM   
CuriousLord


Posts: 3911
Joined: 4/3/2007
Status: offline 		Please, I mean no offense.. but I'm going to avoid responding to you for a while.   Just.. the conspiracy theories and the hate I sense in you.. well, it's a bit much.  Peace, for now.

(in reply to Owner59)
Profile   Post #: 22
RE: No consensus on global warming - 9/12/2007 10:15:07 PM   
Owner59


Posts: 17033
Joined: 3/14/2006
From: Dirty Jersey
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

quote:

ORIGINAL: SuzanneKneeling

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord
Yeah, global warming's just an idea in the scientific community.


Yeah. Like nucleotide-based inheritance of characteristics, mass law-governed orbital mechanics, and isotope decay-facilitated dating. Just ideas that scientists have. Why put any stock in the ideas of scientists? We don't need no stinking civilization. Ah kin see wit ma own ahhs everthing ah needs to no.


Heh.  Smart ass.  ;)

Science makes theories, then tests 'em for accuracy to see if they make accurate predictions.  It's the scientific method.

Now, you see.. nucelotide-based inheritance of characteristics (you could've just said "genetics", you know), mass law-governed orbital mechanics (you really could've said "gravity"), and isotope decay-facilitated dating ("carbon dating" would've gotten the point across, though I'll give you that this one wasn't quite unnecessarily esoteric).. all of these things are readily observed and consistently conform to what we expect.  This moves them to the "theory" part of the scientific method.

Global warming, on the other hand?  No, not quite yet.  We're still getting the numbers together; interest groups have an interesting way of spinning them.

But, whatever the case, please, don't tell me that my beloved science is so easy as to adopt ideas we scientists have before empiracle observation.
 

So we should wait till the earth burns out,before "in-Curious" people,like yourself  are convinced? How about if we don`t? lol

Tell you what,we`ll just save the earth and it`s ability to sustain life,without you or the other flat-earthers.

You don`t have to thank us,but please move your ass out of the way,so that curious,interested,thoughtful people, can get to work.

< Message edited by Owner59 -- 9/12/2007 10:16:38 PM >

_____________________________

"As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals"

President Obama

(in reply to CuriousLord)
Profile   Post #: 23
RE: No consensus on global warming - 9/12/2007 10:19:38 PM   
popeye1250


Posts: 18104
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SuzanneKneeling

Thank you, Dr. Popeye. Your PhD was in which field again?


Suzanne, I didn't say that, *Nasa scientists* made that observation.
How else could you explain the similar warming rates of the other planets other than by increased solar activity?
(I have a lowly B.S. in Bus Admin.)

< Message edited by popeye1250 -- 9/12/2007 10:20:37 PM >

_____________________________

"But Your Honor, this is not a Jury of my Peers, these people are all decent, honest, law-abiding citizens!"

(in reply to SuzanneKneeling)
Profile   Post #: 24
RE: No consensus on global warming - 9/12/2007 10:22:13 PM   
CuriousLord


Posts: 3911
Joined: 4/3/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

So we should wait till the earth burns out,before "in-Curious" people,like yourself  are convinced? How about if we don`t? lol

Tell you what,we`ll just save the earth and it`s ability to sustain life,without you or the other flat-earthers.

You don`t have to thank us,but please move your ass out of the way,so that curious,interested,thoughtful people, can get to work.


Didn't read the "the conspiracy theories and the hate I sense in you" comment before saying this, did you?  Sort of walked into making my point there.  =/

Well, my apologies for commenting- I guess I just.. thought it was interesting.  I do hope you find some peace.

(in reply to Owner59)
Profile   Post #: 25
RE: No consensus on global warming - 9/12/2007 10:44:43 PM   
SuzanneKneeling


Posts: 233
Joined: 8/31/2005
Status: offline 		"We scientists"? You've yet to be conferred your bachelor's, I gather from your profile. Though you're clearly a bright young'un (not meant to be condescending), do you know yet, for instance, what peer review is (I actually didn't as an undergrad)? You're probably too busy with exams to hang out at the library and pour through climatology-related journals, so you've no sense for how far out of date your take on this consensus is. You might, as a proxy test, just drop in to your school's geology/environmental sciences department, and let them know that you don't think the science is "there yet" on anthropogenic (sorry, "human caused", don't want to press your sensitive pretension buttons) climate change. You are going to be laughed out of their offices, I promise you. If you aren't, I shudder in anticipatory sympathy for your school's next acreditation audit.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

Edit: Actually, I saw you tell someone else you're pretty educated, and I'll admit you seem to know your fair share. So I'd like to ask.. incase you know..
Do you know of an open-source "green house effect" model? The particulars of locations with their specific atmospheric composition functions aren't necessary, I'd just like the mathematical model.


I thought we had that thread a month or two ago. I don't know offhand of one specifically designed for the greenhouse effect in isolation. You understand I assume that a complete climate model would have dozens of other processes in it as well, with some complex nonlinear interactions amongst them. There are lots of places to go to on the web to get relative absorption data for different GH gases - though not, perhaps, broken down much in the way of spectral resolution. Why exactly are you after this - a project?

Decent wiki page here, but no differential equation-laden model for you, sorry. I take it you've probably searched for this already.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect


< Message edited by SuzanneKneeling -- 9/12/2007 10:46:24 PM >

(in reply to CuriousLord)
Profile   Post #: 26
RE: No consensus on global warming - 9/12/2007 10:48:15 PM   
Lordandmaster


Posts: 10943
Joined: 6/22/2004
Status: offline 		Christ, what a bore.  The only place on earth where there's no consensus on global warming is the Collarme forums.

Oh, well, that and right-wing think tanks like the Hudson Institute (author of cyberdude's precious study):

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Hudson_Institute

I mean really, what do you expect from an outfit that paid $163,626 to the neo-con wingnut Norman Podhoretz last year?

(in reply to cyberdude611)
Profile   Post #: 27
RE: No consensus on global warming - 9/12/2007 10:54:22 PM   
NorthernGent


Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Estring

Actually, it is pretty easy to understand that inhaling smoke into your lungs is not a good idea. Do you need the tobacco industry to tell you that? I don't. And the fact is, that most smokers know that smoking is bad for them. They do it because they enjoy it. Regardless of the facts.



Your "facts" are bordering on opinions and ill-conceived assumptions.

People understand smoking damages health because of various studies conducted by scientific groups; pre 1950s, there was no understanding of the impact smoking has on health: you may not need the tabacco industry to tell you this, but you do need (and they have done) scientific bodies.

I doubt very much that everyone smokes because they enjoy it. 

_____________________________

I have the courage to be a coward - but not beyond my limits.

Sooner or later, the man who wins is the man who thinks he can.

(in reply to Estring)
Profile   Post #: 28
RE: No consensus on global warming - 9/12/2007 11:01:11 PM   
SuzanneKneeling


Posts: 233
Joined: 8/31/2005
Status: offline 		Popeye, there are solar radiation cycles, and they do contribute to temperature cycles on all of the planets (not just Earth and Mars). Contrary to what the screaming ostriches on the web seem to want to think, these cycles (along with many others) are well understood and they are factored into the current models of climate change. What they're left with after they remove those effects, is a recent temperature spike that correlates almost perfectly with the carbon we've put into the atmosphere since the start of the industrial age.

Mars is an entirely different "ecosystem". Their climate is going to be governed by an entirely different set of equations than ours. The fact that it heated up there without the help of SUVs is, honestly, about as relevant as citing a change in the red eye of Jupiter as being related to red tide here on earth. It sounds nice, if you don't think at all, but it's irrelevant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Mars

As a last note, be very careful when reading what someone with a political agenda on some website says that NASA scientists are saying. Twisting the conclusions of scientific studies is easy fodder for those with an axe to grind.

(in reply to popeye1250)
Profile   Post #: 29
RE: No consensus on global warming - 9/12/2007 11:05:59 PM   
SuzanneKneeling


Posts: 233
Joined: 8/31/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent
but you do need (and they have done) scientific bodies.


I've done scientific bodies myself from time to time!

(in reply to NorthernGent)
Profile   Post #: 30
RE: No consensus on global warming - 9/12/2007 11:06:13 PM   
slaveboyforyou


Posts: 3607
Joined: 1/6/2005
From: Arkansas, U.S.A.
Status: offline 		I'll be the first here to say that I don't understand global warming completely.  I am not a scientist, and mathematics and sciences were the subjects I avoided in school.  I got my degrees in history and criminal justice, and I leave science to those smarter than me.  I believe it's happening, but my question is what are we supposed to do about it?  According to the things I have read, alternative fuels seem like a good idea.  But there is the problem in the amount of energy required to produce those fuels.  Solar power sounds great, but again it takes a lot of energy and money to make those panels.  I've read that factory farming produces a lot of greenhouse gasses, but I am not ready to become a vegan and most people aren't either.  What are we supposed to do about 2nd and 3rd world countries like China that are contributing to this?  Are we supposed to reduce our production capacity, while poorer countries increase theirs?  There is plenty of blame to go around, and most of it lies on our own doorsteps.  We all like our cars, we like our air conditioning, and our other conveniences.  Yet we bitch loudly and in unison when we have to pay more for them. 

(in reply to Lordandmaster)
Profile   Post #: 31
RE: No consensus on global warming - 9/12/2007 11:14:37 PM   
CuriousLord


Posts: 3911
Joined: 4/3/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SuzanneKneeling

"We scientists"? You've yet to be conferred your bachelor's, I gather from your profile. Though you're clearly a bright young'un (not meant to be condescending), do you know yet, for instance, what peer review is (I actually didn't as an undergrad)?  You're probably too busy with exams to hang out at the library and pour through climatology-related journals, so you've no sense for how far out of date your take on this consensus is. You might, as a proxy test, just drop in to your school's geology/environmental sciences department, and let them know that you don't think the science is "there yet" on anthropogenic (sorry, "human caused", don't want to press your sensitive pretension buttons) climate change. You are going to be laughed out of their offices, I promise you. If you aren't, I shudder in anticipatory sympathy for your school's next acreditation audit.


Meh, standards have changed with time. We get our fair share of peer-reviewed research for fun.  I'll grant you, though, that I can't recall any of mine being involved with climentology, nor have I do as much as one might outside of an under-grad program.

It's entirely possible new numbers have been collected.  I'd appreciate it if you can point out some you may know of off-handedly.  I can check the school's catalogs later for articles on it, but it'd be easier if I knew a specific work to look for.

I hope you understand that my teasing you about the pretentiousness was entirely a joke.  But, for the record, "anthropogenic" wouldn't have done it- that's a good term, like "genetics" would've been.  Now, if you used "homosapien-driven contributions to the positive derivative of the average micromerically squared function of the molecular velocity relative to the average intertial frame of the surrounding environment" instead of "antropogenic climate change", then I'd have had an excuse to tease you again. ;)
For me, teasing's a sign of affection.  Well, good-natured teasing, anyhow.  Also, you must excuse the massive number of typos I'm sure I've made.  I manage the research at the cost of sleep.  =/

quote:

ORIGINAL: SuzanneKneeling
quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

Edit: Actually, I saw you tell someone else you're pretty educated, and I'll admit you seem to know your fair share. So I'd like to ask.. incase you know..
Do you know of an open-source "green house effect" model? The particulars of locations with their specific atmospheric composition functions aren't necessary, I'd just like the mathematical model.


I thought we had that thread a month or two ago. I don't know offhand of one specifically designed for the greenhouse effect in isolation. You understand I assume that a complete climate model would have dozens of other processes in it as well, with some complex nonlinear interactions amongst them. There are lots of places to go to on the web to get relative absorption data for different GH gases - though not, perhaps, broken down much in the way of spectral resolution. Why exactly are you after this - a project?


Blah, I've forgotten about that thread until you've mentioned it.  It's mostly for the sake of interest.

My primary mode of learning is tearing such things apart.  If presented with one, I could rip it apart, understand its mechanisms and the mathematics and scientific theories involved in it, and simply have grown far more.  I'm not entirely sure why normal education seems to revolve around baby steps, but it's far too slow to be practical.  The human mind, when applied in earnest, strikes me as capable of so much more.

In any case, I do not consider myself a member of my peer group.  I do not see why they can't just tell us to go beyond the examples that they demand we practice.  One of my classes is demanding I learn Van deer Waal's equations.  Why?!  We're just applying instances of a greater concept!  An old concept, and we'll have so much more to do after this!  Why do they just not give us the most difficult thing that they can muster, break it down, and allow us to do the same with the ...

Okay.  You know what?  I haven't slept in about a week now, and I've just noticed I have a propencity to rant aimlessly.  If I can this damn busy work out of the way, I might get a couple hours in tonight, and I won't be such an irritated, dysjuctive mind.

Also, my apologies if I was condescending earlier.  My perceptions aren't quite up to an admirable level; it's a bit embarrasing.

(in reply to SuzanneKneeling)
Profile   Post #: 32
RE: No consensus on global warming - 9/12/2007 11:17:33 PM   
popeye1250


Posts: 18104
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SuzanneKneeling

Popeye, there are solar radiation cycles, and they do contribute to temperature cycles on all of the planets (not just Earth and Mars). Contrary to what the screaming ostriches on the web seem to want to think, these cycles (along with many others) are well understood and they are factored into the current models of climate change. What they're left with after they remove those effects, is a recent temperature spike that correlates almost perfectly with the carbon we've put into the atmosphere since the start of the industrial age.

Mars is an entirely different "ecosystem". Their climate is going to be governed by an entirely different set of equations than ours. The fact that it heated up there without the help of SUVs is, honestly, about as relevant as citing a change in the red eye of Jupiter as being related to red tide here on earth. It sounds nice, if you don't think at all, but it's irrelevant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Mars

As a last note, be very careful when reading what someone with a political agenda on some website says that NASA scientists are saying. Twisting the conclusions of scientific studies is easy fodder for those with an axe to grind.


Suzanne, if *all* the planets are warming up *at the same rate* how can there be a *spike* on Earth?

I still think the "Warming People" should be wearing uniforms like the "UFO People."

_____________________________

"But Your Honor, this is not a Jury of my Peers, these people are all decent, honest, law-abiding citizens!"

(in reply to SuzanneKneeling)
Profile   Post #: 33
RE: No consensus on global warming - 9/13/2007 3:33:14 AM   
orfunboi


Posts: 1223
Joined: 10/22/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

Please, I mean no offense.. but I'm going to avoid responding to you for a while.   Just.. the conspiracy theories and the hate I sense in you.. well, it's a bit much.  Peace, for now.


Smartest post i have read so far....have a great day

(in reply to CuriousLord)
Profile   Post #: 34
RE: No consensus on global warming - 9/13/2007 4:07:53 AM   
YesMistressIrish


Posts: 1135
Joined: 5/1/2007
From: Calif
Status: offline 		IMO The Bottom Line:
Stem cell research saved the life of a woman I know and she is able to continue a full life as a wife and mother. I am pro stem cell research.
 
Global warming: Pollution is destructive on a massive scale. As responsible human beings it is our duty to stand up and do something about it, regardless. I belong to conservation groups that actually do something about it.
 
Tobacco and oil: Greed destroys, and power corrupts. Vested interests combined with greed and power makes for a nasty pot of earthly stew. I try to 'walk the high road' in every area of my life. It's a work in progress.
 
IMO of course
 
Irish
 
"In ancient Greek, the word ethos, from which we get our term ethics, actually meant character, not rules or regulations. Ethos has to do with the integrity of a person’s character. Our term integrity comes from the same root word as integer, which means whole number, and the word integrate, which means to bring together into a greater unity or wholeness. "

http://www.realtor.org/Rmomag.Nsf/Pages/Feature2may05?Opendocument

(in reply to cyberdude611)
Profile   Post #: 35
RE: No consensus on global warming - 9/13/2007 4:11:12 AM   
seeksfemslave


Posts: 4011
Joined: 6/16/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: asyouwish72
The physics behind the action of greenhouse gases (principally CO2) is straightforward and not a matter of debate. These gases are permeable to shortwave energy (light and UV from the sun) but capture a portion of re-radiated longwave energy (infrared emissions from the ground surface that normally are lost back to space). The concentration of these gases therefore impacts the earth's radiative balance. A record of atmospheric CO2 over the last several glacial cycles appears here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png

Note the vertical increase during the industrial revolution, at the edge of the graph.

All very well but dont we need to see a plot of temperature changes over the same period.?
One was "published" here and showed quite clearly temperature rise preceding CO2 rise.
The poster just didnt notice that fact lol

< Message edited by seeksfemslave -- 9/13/2007 4:15:11 AM >

(in reply to asyouwish72)
Profile   Post #: 36
RE: No consensus on global warming - 9/13/2007 4:31:39 AM   
seeksfemslave


Posts: 4011
Joined: 6/16/2006
Status: offline 		http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?a=7

How about this then ?
Which comes first +CO2 or +Temp is not as clear cut as hysterical Global Warmers would have us believe.
I've got a feeling I might be going to get "shot down" here so I'm searching for a parachute just in case lol

< Message edited by seeksfemslave -- 9/13/2007 4:39:10 AM >

(in reply to seeksfemslave)
Profile   Post #: 37
RE: No consensus on global warming - 9/13/2007 4:50:07 AM   
LadyEllen


Posts: 10931
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: Stourport-England
Status: offline 		My thoughts on global warming and the hoo hah to do with it

1) I'm not entirely unconvinced that much of the warming effect is the result of heated debate on the subject
2) Clearly and obviously it would be a good idea to reduce pollution as much as we can, regardless of warming
3) Clearly and obviously it would be a good idea to become as fuel efficient as we possibly can, regardless of warming
4) Clearly and obviously it would be a good idea to move away from fossil fuels from the point of view of geo-political strategy, if nothing else
5) If a reasonably large volcano or larger should go off, then little of anything we do to reduce our emissions and so on is going to make much difference. If the super volcano known as Yellowstone National Park goes off, as apparently it is due to soon (geological soon), then we're all fucked anyway


E

_____________________________

In a test against the leading brand, 9 out of 10 participants couldnt tell the difference. Dumbasses.

(in reply to seeksfemslave)
Profile   Post #: 38
RE: No consensus on global warming - 9/13/2007 5:02:54 AM   
seeksfemslave


Posts: 4011
Joined: 6/16/2006
Status: offline 		Whereve ya bin LadyE lol

How about this then....
Solar radiation impinging on the Earth varies but never below some minimum level. Thus an input is always present.
CO2 caused Global warming involves positive feed back  ie re radiated infra red which raises temperature which creates more CO2 which raises temperature and so on.

Why therefore has not Global warming spiralled upwards and stayed there long long ago ?
Only arskin'

I have examined your point 1 very carefully LadyE 'cos I thought it was wrong due to the negatives ie not... unconvinced.....is the cause.
After a bit of a boggle I think it says what you intended lol


< Message edited by seeksfemslave -- 9/13/2007 5:07:55 AM >

(in reply to LadyEllen)
Profile   Post #: 39
RE: No consensus on global warming - 9/13/2007 5:06:07 AM   
LadyEllen


Posts: 10931
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: Stourport-England
Status: offline 		I did let you know I'd be away Seeks; last week was 13 business meetings in 3 countries in 5 days. week before was UK business travelling, week before was holiday.

I'm not that educated on it all, but I think the scenario you mention happened in the earlier history of the Earth and the CO2 rich atmosphere was soaked up by the vegetation that went wild on it, laying down a lot of the coal etc we have now?

E

_____________________________

In a test against the leading brand, 9 out of 10 participants couldnt tell the difference. Dumbasses.

(in reply to seeksfemslave)
Profile   Post #: 40
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: No consensus on global warming Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.094