Author Topic: Global Warming (Read 14834 times)

tedrbr · « **Reply #75 on:** January 24, 2007, 02:55:26 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
ah tedbr... now I see... the predicted horrific hurricane season did not come about because the people who predicted it could not predict el nino?

What the hell can they predict?

lazs

More likely, they were looking the previous two year's hurricane/typoon/storm seasons in the Atlantic, Pacific, and even Indian Ocean, and what got reported in news reports were the "doom and despair" predictions, .... after all, when it comes to main stream news, "if it bleeds, it leads"......with no thought put toward the effects of El Nino would have on the season.

Better to have news stories warning of another potential "Katrina", than.... oh, no, gonna be a quiet season. Those predicting a horrific season got air time after all, did they not?

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #76 on:** January 24, 2007, 03:01:21 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Yeager
man, Ive heard that somewhere else before............was that a tom cruise movie?

Jurassic Park.

tedrbr · « **Reply #77 on:** January 24, 2007, 03:07:21 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Yeager
could El Nino be influenced by global greenhouse effect?

El Nino is a build up of warm water in the mid to eastern Pacific when the trade winds fail to push it all to the western Pacific. It's effects are felt world-wide.

Global warming's effects on it could change the trade winds to result in more or fewer El Ninos periods happening...... the increase in air and sea temperatures might make the occurrence of an El Nino stronger than what we normally experience, or the effects of a La Nina (cold ocean waters) less pronounced.

Again, a very complex system.... with everything having an effect on everything else, so very hard to nail down predictions.

The current El Nino started in February of 2006, and hit it's stride in April of 2006, and is predicted to continue through March to May of 2007. So, why hurricane forecasters were looking at a strong hurricane season in 2006 is beyond me...... but maybe next year, eh?

john9001 · « **Reply #78 on:** January 24, 2007, 03:18:47 PM »

every spring in florida we get the "annual hurricane prediction", they ALWAYS say "this will be a bad year, be prepared, stock up on......"

they try to scare people into being "prepared".

the forecasters who cried wolf.

lukster · « **Reply #79 on:** January 24, 2007, 03:31:56 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lasersailor184
Jurassic Park.

Being responsible for maintenance of weather radar I heard it from a weather observer long before that movie was made.

Casca · « **Reply #80 on:** January 24, 2007, 03:57:00 PM »

The Crichton article was a great piece. I amost forgive him for Airframe.

FastFwd · « **Reply #81 on:** January 24, 2007, 04:34:10 PM »

I´m sure the government will come up with a fix...

midnight Target · « **Reply #82 on:** January 24, 2007, 04:44:11 PM »

Not that it will matter much in here but....

over 900 papers puplished in peer review publications over the period 1993 to 2003 refered to Climate Change. NONE... read that as ZERO ... NADA... GOOSE EGG... ZIP ... disagreed with the position that Global warming is due in significant measure to human activity.

Keep on saying we don't know. It just sounds foolish.

Oh, and here is a link and a quote.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

Quote

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

Gunston · « **Reply #83 on:** January 24, 2007, 04:45:39 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by stantond
Those that believe that "science" is immune from politics are very ignorant. From the days of Galileo up to the present, there has and always will be science to support the status quo. That's why there is inconsistency and contradiction. All scientific theory is biased towards a specific belief. It is repeatable experimental evidence that demonstrates the validity (or truth) of that theory. Often in the past, experimental evidence generated new 'modern' theories because the accepted theory contradicted experiments.

Adding politics to pseudo science is a very volitile mixture. Taking scientific data and spinning a new "theory" to fit the data is nothing new. It's how work is funded. Not that all science is tainted, but for a very complex subject such as global warming that involves not only our planet but also our moon and sun it's not hard to make up a theory that coincides with a short term (~100 year) trend.

I am not saying scientist supporting this are intentionally being vague or untruthfull. However, if they believe in global warming, most if not all of their data will support that position until something conclusive is found. Even after something conclusive has been recognized, some will still look for 'loopholes' or chinks in the evidence to re-establish their belief.

The problem comes in when governments make sweeping changes based on inconclusive science. However, (and I am not sure global warming fits in this category) sometimes the risk described by scientific evidence warrants consideration of changes. Nuclear weapons fits in that category.

Not to stray too far off topic, but this reminds me of a chapter from "Gullivers Travels" by Johathan Switft. In one land, "learned" scientist locked themselves away in a ministry of science then came up with ideas which were made into law throughout the land. While this is extreme, the notion of goverments making stupid decisions based on "science" is not new.

Regards,

Malta

Stantond

I should have mentioned when I poseted the link to Michael Crichton that you can go to his website from that article and find other speeches from him including the one at the following link when he testified before Congress concerning Science and Politics. It's a good read you should check it out.

http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote09.html

Gunston · « **Reply #84 on:** January 24, 2007, 05:01:37 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by midnight Target
Not that it will matter much in here but....

over 900 papers puplished in peer review publications over the period 1993 to 2003 refered to Climate Change. NONE... read that as ZERO ... NADA... GOOSE EGG... ZIP ... disagreed with the position that Global warming is due in significant measure to human activity.

Keep on saying we don't know. It just sounds foolish.

Oh, and here is a link and a quote.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

midnight target rather than another link just a quote from Michael Crichton

"Okay. With this as a preparation, let’s turn to the evidence, both graphic and verbal, for global warming. As most of you have heard many times, the consensus of climate scientists believes in global warming. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had. "

"Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science, consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus."

"And furthermore, the consensus of scientists has frequently been wrong. As they were wrong when they believed, earlier in my lifetime, that the continents did not move. So we must remember the immortal words of Mark Twain, who said, “Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.”

midnight Target · « **Reply #85 on:** January 24, 2007, 05:09:33 PM »

Of course science is not a matter of votes for or against, but you completely misunderstand the article I posted. All of those 900 reports were scientific experiments or an afirmation of scientific experiments. They aren't votes or a consensus, they are just a whole bunch of people who came to the same freakin conclusion. And NONE of them came to the opposite conclusion. You can choose of course to believe whomever you want. I choose to believe 900 plus scientists in agreement while you choose to believe one guy.

Shrug... heh... whatever.

Gunston · « **Reply #86 on:** January 24, 2007, 05:18:00 PM »

I looked at the link you provided and could not find anywhere that it pointed to the actual science that was used by any of the 900+ papers. it only reported about "the consenses" of the papers. and had quotes such as the following

"The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it."

"Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen."

Debonair · « **Reply #87 on:** January 24, 2007, 05:26:55 PM »

i think if somehow the superbowl became politicized, then even women & homosexuals would watch it.
the NFL could make some sirius $ on that...

john9001 · « **Reply #88 on:** January 24, 2007, 06:53:03 PM »

i thought women & homosexuals already watched football, men in tights and pretty uniforms grabbing each other and rolling on the ground.

tedrbr · « **Reply #89 on:** January 24, 2007, 07:40:04 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Gunston
Stantond

I should have mentioned when I posted the link to Michael Crichton that you can go to his website from that article and find other speeches from him including the one at the following link when he testified before Congress concerning Science and Politics. It's a good read you should check it out.

I miss something here? Last I checked, Mikey Crichton was writer, film producer, film director, and television producer, and held an MD from medical collage. Works with techno-thrillers and IIRC wrote an introductory book on BASIC programming language.

Some good works, some not-so-good.

But since when has he become a scientific expert in any field, much less be the person to testify before Congress on any issue beyond Hollyweird?