Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Ripsnort on October 02, 2007, 08:56:29 AM
-
Put your mouth where the money is! :)
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=9127
-
Yep... what they are saying is...
cut the crap. No more phony charts and no more hand wringing and beating around the bush... show us the math. don't show us how good your computer models are at predicting what has already happened... show us next year based on your science.
The fact is that more and more scientists are speaking out and saying that the whole thing is, if not a complete hoax... at the very least highly overstated and hysterical. Only 6% of all recent peer reviewed scientific papers think that man made co2 will cause a catastrophic rise in temperature.
lazs
-
don't show us how good your computer models are at predicting what has already happened... show us next year based on your science.
You seem to fundamentally misunderstand how science works. Theories are based on what is observed to happen, in order to predict future outcomes. "Your science" has to based on what has already happened. All science works that way.
-
"Good" or "bad" are subjective values and are not really scientifically based.
If "science" is based only on what has happened, the theoretical areas of it are not possible.
In other words there is room in "science" for the deductive as well as the observation side.
-
Theoretical science must eventually be able to explain observable phenomena. It has to be supported by empirical data to be validated. As new data becomes available, a particular theory may be discarded or further validated or modified.
This is a constant, organic process. This is science.
"Good" or "bad" are subjective values and are not really scientifically based.
I'm not really sure who you are aiming this at.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
You seem to fundamentally misunderstand how science works. Theories are based on what is observed to happen, in order to predict future outcomes. "Your science" has to based on what has already happened. All science works that way.
I think you might be missing Lazs point, i.e. that so far the predictive power of climate modeling has been poor to dismal. If a scientific theory (or model) makes predictions and those predictions consistantly fail to materialize, or things happen that are directly contradictory to the predictions, than the theory (or the model) must be disgarded.
-
Disregarding the model because you have collapsed the scope of the observation down to an infinitesimally small view compared to the typical, is not really grounds for dismissing the model.
Following that path would have had us disregarding Newtonian physics completely when it was shown to be breaking down at the nanoscopic level. Or at relativistic speeds for that matter. Yet it is useful within the frame of reference it was intended for.
A year in the life of planet Earth could be said to be a nanoscopic observation, if you humour the analogy.
I'm sceptical of man-made global warming as a set-in-stone theory, by the way. But it should not be dismissed because it cannot necessarily predict tomorrows's weather.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Put your mouth where the money is! :)
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=9127
Entrants acknowledge that the concepts and terms mentioned and referred to in the UGWC hypotheses are inherently and necessarily vague, and involve subjective judgment. JunkScience.com reserves the exclusive right to determine the meaning and application of such concepts and terms in order to facilitate the purpose of the contest.
Doesn't look like it's possible to win...
-
Originally posted by Maverick
"Good" or "bad" are subjective values and are not really scientifically based.
If good and bad means "not harmful to X" and "harmful to X" then I find it to be rather scientifically based values.
However I'd be interested to know what kind of an X they have in mind in this conjuction. Should it be proven that the human induced global warming is harmful (a.k.a bad) to human or to the current environment. The subject matters here, then it's all down to the science to determine whether it could be good or bad to the subject.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Theoretical science must eventually be able to explain observable phenomena. It has to be supported by empirical data to be validated. As new data becomes available, a particular theory may be discarded or further validated or modified.
This is a constant, organic process. This is science.
I'm not really sure who you are aiming this at.
Go back and read what you posted in response to Laz. Here I'll simply paste it here.
"Your science" has to based on what has already happened. All science works that way."
If there is no way to make an observation, is it still science to be investigating a theoretical concept, even mathematically? If it has not happened yet and you are trying to make it happen or just thinking about it, is it still science while you are making the attempt?
Going back to what I said earlier, I believe there is more than simple observation and that the deductive is as applicable to science as the mere observation and description of a phenomenon. No major big deal. If you disagree that's fine.
As to the good vs bad issue. I thought it was pretty self explanatory. No value judgements over a scientific observation. You did read the title of the thread didn't you?
FWIW nothing I posted was meant as a dig or sarcasm but a participation of the discussion. If you chose to take it negatively that way it's something you need to deal with.
-
well... I have no problem with the scientists saying that they have adjusted the models so that they match what has already happened a few years or a few decades back..
What I have a problem with is them saying that the model works now for what happened in the past so therefore it is a good predictor of the future.
A good for instance is... they had to add el nino to get the blip... they had to adjust the parameters... they leave out clouds for instance or... they have a model that "works" for predicting the past but... when it doesn't pan out for now or a few years ahead... they claim it is 'aerosols" which they admit they don't understand but... somehow... will not only get right next time but... somehow... are the only thing they "forgot".
Truth is.. the earth is too complicated and too unpredictable to get long range predictions any more than it is to get short range ones.
neither is possible at this time.
lazs
-
If there is no way to make an observation, is it still science to be investigating a theoretical concept, even mathematically? If it has not happened yet and you are trying to make it happen or just thinking about it, is it still science while you are making the attempt?
You are describing theoretical physics, if you take theoretical science in its most pure form.
Ultimately, theoretical physicists have to validate their theories - they have to go from mathematical derivation to supporting evidence. This happened with relativity. It happened with quantum physics. They have been validated through repeatable experiment. However, the theories are not 'perfect'. Science isn't by its own definition. There will be adjustments. There will be corrections. There will be complete re-writes.
The problem with Global Warming (TM) is that both sides maintain the other is absolutely wrong. I find both those positions unscientific. Global warming by human activity is a theory still looking for the corroborating evidence. This work needs to continue.
-
Dowding, I have empirical evidence that you are gay. There is historical evidence.
There, that's science for ya.
-
Originally posted by Yknurd
Dowding, I have empirical evidence that you are gay. There is historical evidence.
There, that's science for ya.
Lol..empirical evidence huh? Empirical means directly observable... so that means you got johnny corn-holed by him? Or did you just stand there and watch? Interesting use of a word you don't understand.
-
Global warming is causing the extinction of many types of coral due to an increase in the temperature of the ocean. I would like my $125,000 now please.
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
Lol..empirical evidence huh? Empirical means directly observable... so that means you got johnny corn-holed by him
rof!!
-
sorry aqua... the ocean is heating faster than the air temp would cause. therefore.. it is not co2.. at the least... the contest asks you to prove that man is causing global warming. how is man heating the ocean?
lazs
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
Lol..empirical evidence huh? Empirical means directly observable... so that means you got johnny corn-holed by him? Or did you just stand there and watch? Interesting use of a word you don't understand.
I have to admit that was a good one.
Now, I perfectly understand what empirical evidence means. And in this case it does exist, if one would search for it.
-
Atmospheric methane levels:
(http://zebu.uoregon.edu/2003/es202/ch4c.gif)
Methane is released from the anaerobic decomposition of human and animal wastes. Methane is currently at 1.5ppm in the atmosphere. It is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than co2.
-
Actually I believe it is more in the line of an admission rather than evidence.
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
Lol..empirical evidence huh? Empirical means directly observable... so that means you got johnny corn-holed by him? Or did you just stand there and watch? Interesting use of a word you don't understand.
Your not much of a shade if you do not know what he is talking about.
Seems to be a big issue for you, the whole not knowing what your talking about thing.
You should work on that. :D
-
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
Atmospheric methane levels:
Methane is released from the anaerobic decomposition of human and animal wastes. Methane is currently at 1.5ppm in the atmosphere. It is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than co2.
And the majority of Methane comes from cows, so to combat global warming we should all eat more beef. So from this I am going to blame global warming on vegetarians! Can I have my reward in Quarters?
-
Originally posted by Tiger
And the majority of Methane comes from cows, so to combat global warming we should all eat more beef. So from this I am going to blame global warming on vegetarians! Can I have my reward in Quarters?
They are one step ahead of you. Their response? Ban beef and milk cows.
**** that though, no way I am giving up steak.
-
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
Atmospheric methane levels:
(http://zebu.uoregon.edu/2003/es202/ch4c.gif)
Methane is released from the anaerobic decomposition of human and animal wastes. Methane is currently at 1.5ppm in the atmosphere. It is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than co2.
I like how the chart cuts off at 1985, when the 1998 NOAA report says that methane levels has slowed quite a bit, and could stabilize within another decade or 2.
-
Dowding, I have empirical evidence that you are gay. There is historical evidence.
There, that's science for ya.
You seem quite obsessed by this. Two posts on the same subject in the space of a few days. Let it all out big guy.
If it helps for the newcomers, let me just clarify that I am not teh ghey, incidentally.
Maverick is still crying into his beer about Goose. Shaven chested volleyball will never be the same for him. It's a good job he has his manly transvestite, Charlie, to keep him company.
:aok
-
Indeed, I believe there was a time where you professed differently.
Several years ago in fact, perhaps even during the month of April if memory serves.
-
Pssst... I think it may have been said in jest. Just between you and me. ;)
-
Excuse me, but there shall be no jesting in this thread, this is a serious topic, ... carry on...
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Pssst... I think it may have been said in jest. Just between you and me. ;)
It's okay. We still love.
But MORAY37 might love you more than others will.
-
i've noticed that the incremental shift of wildlife pushing northward has risen to leaps and bounds and same for the migratory routes, also more parasites and diseases in fish and fowl due to higher water temperatures.
it's the big bang theory with wildlife.
-
The answer is obvious, it's our lack of pirates!
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e5/FSM_Pirates.jpg)
Where is my 125 grand?
-
The biggest problem in blaming global warming on CO2 is that they're trying to prove global warming with correlation (projection theories and probable cause) , not causation (actual undeniable proof, in which hard evidence and theories align 99.999% of the time).
It's like arriving at the scene of an accident and saying "I think the kid in the Camero may have been going too fast. Look at the skid marks." (correlation)
Vs.
At the scene, with a radar detector. "The dude in the Camero was doing 49.1 mph in a 50mph zone. It was the person in the green honda who clipped him here at this point in the road that caused the accident. See here, his tires were smoking because he was going sideways." (causation)
Is the earth warming? perhaps
Is it man made? depends. we've only been treating meteorology as science for 40 years. lots to learn. lots still we don't know.
Is there anything we can do to stop it? don't think so. see the second answer.
Now what? Look at other more issues, like air toxicity and pollutants from manufacturing and waste.
-
Dowding,
I don't know what your issue is and frankly don't much care. I don't recall having ever shown you my chest and I'm a bit concerned as to why you are interested in it. I believe it says more about you however. Perhaps you should find another interest as I have absolutely no interest in you. I don't go that way, I like women.
FWIW I had no position on the situation regarding your activities, just making a comment regarding the evidentiary comment that had been made.
-
Originally posted by Yknurd
It's okay. We still love.
But MORAY37 might love you more than others will.
Lol.. Don't invite me into you gay pride parade. You still selling those rainbow colored lolipops online?
-
Originally posted by Torque
i've noticed that the incremental shift of wildlife pushing northward has risen to leaps and bounds and same for the migratory routes, also more parasites and diseases in fish and fowl due to higher water temperatures.
it's the big bang theory with wildlife.
I tried this argument before, with the heathens, and it was surprisingly, simply ignored. They can't figure out another way to disprove it, so they conveniently pretend they didn't read it. (Of course the websites they visit, that spout climate change is a farce, don't say a word about this very point, so they don't know what to even say about it.)
There are many species currently moving their ranges to expand into newly warmed areas, which are now suitable to them.
-
moray.. and this is somehow a bad thing? the earth heating and cooling no matter what causes it is a bad thing? species dieing out and starting up is a bad thing? what we want is some temp that man decides is the ideal and we must fight nature to keep that?
mister fork.. I seldom agree with you but I think you have stated the case very well.. I will also admit that the whole co2 issue is clouding the real issues of real pollution.
I am sure that from that point on.. we will not agree on much tho. I am sure that your and my ideas for solutions would be pretty much at odds with each other.
you are not alone tho... many rabid environmentalists are seeing that the focus of real problems is being diverted by the phony co2 scam.
lazs
-
Species dying out is always bad if it is your own Lazs :D
I'd hate to see that happen due to rabid anti-environmentalists.
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
I tried this argument before, with the heathens, and it was surprisingly, simply ignored. They can't figure out another way to disprove it, so they conveniently pretend they didn't read it. (Of course the websites they visit, that spout climate change is a farce, don't say a word about this very point, so they don't know what to even say about it.)
There are many species currently moving their ranges to expand into newly warmed areas, which are now suitable to them.
it's not an argument just an observation, for me global warming is a positive.
-
Species dying is out is bad for humans. Even if it were totally natural for mass extinctions to happen every so often, that doesn't mean we (as humans) should not fight it.
Just from an agricultural standpoint, we need an ecosystem that is healthy. The ocean still accounts for a large portion of our food. We need flying insects to pollinate our vegetables. South American nut producing trees need an extensive amount of insects and even mammals to be able to produce nuts.
What are we going to do if it gets too hot to grow wheat? Some biologists estimate the Earth's carrying capacity to about about 50 billion humans. Others 30 billion. We better be stretching and conserving our resources as best we can. When we reach that carrying capacity, as one my ecology instructors once said "Things are going to get real ugly".
-
Too hot to grow wheat? LOL... food production is up 15% because of increased co2 and temp. We now have 4 crops of hay a year in some areas and they are much better.
global warming, as opossed to an ice age, means slightly warmer summers and slightly milder winters with longer growing seasons. Temps have leveled off for at least the last 7 years.. even gone down in some cases... this of course.. does not fit the co2 disaster scenario.
lazs
-
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
Methane is released from the anaerobic decomposition of human and animal wastes. Methane is currently at 1.5ppm in the atmosphere. It is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than co2.
(http://icp.giss.nasa.gov/education/methane/intro/methanesources.gif)
Wetlands are the source of more than twice the methane of human and animal waste.
Rice cultivation the source of more than the methane of human and animal waste.
Coal mining and Natural Gas is the source of more twice than the methane of human and animal waste.
source (http://icp.giss.nasa.gov/education/methane/intro/cycle.html)
-
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
Global warming is causing the extinction of many types of coral due to an increase in the temperature of the ocean. I would like my $125,000 now please.
source (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/08/030818071208.htm)
Science Daily — GAINESVILLE, Fla. --- Global warming and pollution are among the modern-day threats commonly blamed for decline of coral reefs, but new research shows the downfall of those resplendent and diverse signatures of tropical oceans actually may have begun centuries ago.
Sorry...
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Too hot to grow wheat? LOL... food production is up 15% because of increased co2 and temp. We now have 4 crops of hay a year in some areas and they are much better.
global warming, as opossed to an ice age, means slightly warmer summers and slightly milder winters with longer growing seasons. Temps have leveled off for at least the last 7 years.. even gone down in some cases... this of course.. does not fit the co2 disaster scenario.
lazs
Hehe, I live where it is too cold to grow wheat. If it gets hot enough, you probably still won't be able to grow it, since it would be too dry.
There are many places on earth where you will not be able to grow wheat due to exactly that. Too dry, not too hot. Just too dry because it's too hot.
However I can grow Barley.
Increased CO2 actually increases crops. - if it's coming into the effect as a single factor. Greenhouse growers actually use CO2 (from flasks) to increase crops. Up here, where the air is rather clean they can actually save their usage of CO2 when we get the air in from Europe (southern winds), - CO2 ppm is so much more from there than in the arctic air.
As for Lazs:
"Too hot to grow wheat? LOL... food production is up 15% because of increased co2 and temp. We now have 4 crops of hay a year in some areas and they are much better."
AND;
"Temps have leveled off for at least the last 7 years.. even gone down in some cases"
So did it warm up or not? You are claiming increased crops because of the warming, which you then deny.
By the way, "We" have lower crops on dry land due to the warmth, - water expires too fast.
-
nooo... I am "claiming" that the co2 levels have increased crop production... it is you who claim increased co2 in the laughable parts per million that is ours is making the planet hotter.
I also "claim" that the GLOBAL temp has not increased for at least 7 years. the biggest spike was of course.. in the 1930's and then one short el nino year in 98.
nothing contradictory about what I said or the data. co2 has increased.. so has crop production... bad thing? of course not.
We have been in a warming period for a about a century with some spikes here and there just like always.. it has nothing to do with man tho. Bad thing? nooo.. not really. no one is being hurt.
Too dry? LOL.. deserts grow crops when you irrigate. Plus... the doomsday man made global warming scenario includes increased precipitation sooo.. you should be good either way.
lazs
-
"I also "claim" that the GLOBAL temp has not increased for at least 7 years. the biggest spike was of course.. in the 1930's and then one short el nino year in 98."
You forget 2005 which levels 1998 without the aid of El Nino.
You also forget the massive shrinking of the N polar cap.
You forget the raise of Sl
And you forger the raised temperature of the oceans.
These are all parts of global temperature. The Icecaps alone have more mass than the atmosphere, as well as you have a simple equation for the temp in the atmosphere vs the sea.
760 mm hg is the weight.....calculate that to water.
Have a nice day :D
-
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
What are we going to do if it gets too hot to grow wheat? Some biologists estimate the Earth's carrying capacity to about about 50 billion humans. Others 30 billion. We better be stretching and conserving our resources as best we can. When we reach that carrying capacity, as one my ecology instructors once said "Things are going to get real ugly".
Two words for ya:
SOILENT GREEN
(http://l.yimg.com/img.tv.yahoo.com/tv/us/img/site/43/36/0000034336_20061020191519.jpg)
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
Lol.. Don't invite me into you gay pride parade. You still selling those rainbow colored lolipops online?
Yes I am. And you order should be delivered on Tuesday.