Home Mail MemberMap Chat (0) Wallpapers
Go Back   ChiefsPlanet > The Lounge > D.C.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-16-2013, 07:05 PM  
AustinChief AustinChief is online now
Administrator
 
AustinChief's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Austin
Casino cash: $1701322
Oh no Henny Penny! Here is a REASONABLE report concerning climate change!

Article about the report...
http://www.natureworldnews.com/artic...al-warming.htm

Quote:
they believe, "A potential global warming issue has been identified that should be treated as a potential problem for which root cause is not definitely known."
For this reason, they argue, the U.S. government is "over-reacting" to the concerns of the media, scientists and activists and that a more "rational process for allocation of research funds without the constant media hype of an AGW crisis is needed."
The actual report...
http://www.therightclimatestuff.com/...ss%20Rpt-1.pdf

And here is another article showing how little we know and how it's BAD SCIENCE to keep claiming with certainty that our models are correct when they continue to be proven wrong EVERY SINGLE TIME.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...93F0AJ20130416

Quote:
"The climate system is not quite so simple as people thought," said Bjorn Lomborg, a Danish statistician and author of "The Skeptical Environmentalist" who estimates that moderate warming will be beneficial for crop growth and human health.

Some experts say their trust in climate science has declined because of the many uncertainties. The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had to correct a 2007 report that exaggerated the pace of melt of the Himalayan glaciers and wrongly said they could all vanish by 2035.

"My own confidence in the data has gone down in the past five years," said Richard Tol, an expert in climate change and professor of economics at the University of Sussex in England.
Suck it you smug assholes who crow as if you know with certainty how the global climate functions. The models are horrendously flawed and always have been, a ton more research is needed before we even approach a clue.
Posts: 14,312
AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-2013, 05:46 PM   #76
tiptap tiptap is offline
Is this it?
 
tiptap's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Casino cash: $21316
Quote:
Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco View Post
The fact that they use "models" tells you they we can't determine what the problem is.
Let's start with this. Ever hear of the Kinetic Theory of the Ideal Gas Law.
It states the relationship between the movement of molecules or atoms and the associated temperature and pressure in a given volume.

The ideal law is predicated upon these two of several assumptions. !. the collisions are 100% elastic (no loss) 2. the particles are infinitely small and spherical.

Both of these assumptions are false for all real gases and yet this model is the starting point for the whole of thermodynamics. We get very good agreement with the ideal gas law when we are at low pressures. We actually get information about the real gases, such as shape and chemical interactions due to non elastic collisions noting the divergence of readings from ideal behavior. It is a statistical/mathematical model of newtonian collisions.

The hypothesis of little balls, atoms, was just that up until the 20th Century.
The reason why the theory has a statistical nature is because there are are such a ridiculously large number of atoms or molecules associated with even small quantities of a substance. Only a statistical representation of the zillion of collisions can be used. And yet because of the Conservation Law of Energy we are absolutely confidence of this model.

So of course the model of the temperature of Earth is equally involved with statistical necessities and yet we have confidences in the determination because of The Conservation Law. The simplest model uses the thermodynamic relationship that treats the whole of the earth as represented by one number, a single temperature, based upon solar flux, reflection and interaction of radiant energy. What this simple model does give us is the change in temperature one should expect from changes in solar flux holding everything else constant. Or the change in temperature from changes in Albedo (reflection) holding everything else constant. (At this point one would point out the we know with certainty the sensitivity of temperature change do to Solar Flux changes and Albedo changes. And since we have very accurate satellite measurements as well as ground measurements of solar flux hitting the earth, we know that the Sun is not the cause of the increase in temperatures. One could still point to Albedo by showing some physical reason for a change in the Albedo to reflects less solar flux.)

But all models that attempt to represent the actual temperatures at different points on earth have to model wind flow and rains and such so quite quickly become very large but no less thermodynamically correct. It is just that more of the statistical averaging (such as a single temperature or a single flux number for the whole of the earth's surface) is replaced by newtonian representations of mass movement across the surface of the earth and the radiative interaction of solar flux with local albedo and quantum absorption of radiative energy (read greenhouse interaction). Which by thermodynamics gives us a temperature over some finite curved area of the surface. That all these temperatures together from all the surfaces when averaged gives essentially the same earth average number that is given by the much simpler model above. The difference is that we get information about the movement and fluxes of material including water through the atmosphere.

And it is important to note here that as opposed to AustinChiefs complaint that Hansens' model was off 30 %, which is true if one is comparing the real temperatures to his model predictions, that being less than a few degrees here. That Hansens' model, as a physical representation of the atmosphere, DOES NOT give us 0 degrees KELVIN or even 0 degrees Fahrenheit or 0 degrees Celsius but delivers a number right at the measured temperatures in our atmosphere. He is not off the temperature by 81 degrees Celsius, which would then be a 30% miss.
__________________
Even a superstitious man has certain inalienable rights. He has a right to harbor and indulge his imbecilities as long as he pleases. . . He has a right to argue for them as eloquently as he can, in season and out of season. He has a right to teach them to his children. But certainly he has no right to be protected against the free criticism of those who do not hold them. He has no right to demand that they be treated as sacred. He has no right to preach them without challenge." -H.L. Mencken
Posts: 4,976
tiptap is not part of the Right 53.tiptap is not part of the Right 53.tiptap is not part of the Right 53.tiptap is not part of the Right 53.tiptap is not part of the Right 53.tiptap is not part of the Right 53.tiptap is not part of the Right 53.tiptap is not part of the Right 53.tiptap is not part of the Right 53.tiptap is not part of the Right 53.tiptap is not part of the Right 53.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-2013, 06:20 PM   #77
tiptap tiptap is offline
Is this it?
 
tiptap's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Casino cash: $21316
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xanathol View Post
Spoken like a person who knows not what they are talking about. Step into the field sometime and see how the real world works, buddy.

As for your diatribes, did you even read them ( we know the answer... )?!

The first is no 'peer review' in the commonly accepted sense - all they did was review the findings for affirmations, conclusions, etc - NOT the data or methods used! The second makes a completely unsubstantiated claim that the concentration of C02 at that point in Hawaii will reach levels is has not in, quote, "millions of years"... The last makes just as ridiculous claims that we've basically already killed our oceans pH balance...

Its called bullshit and there's no debating what bullshit is - its bullshit. The freakin' Russians have even called bullshit.

All that aside, naturally you've read this, right? As Climatedepot highlights:

Blackboard would fail a Venn Diagram of what is being talked about. Shollenberger enter the phrase "that human activity is a dominant influence or has caused most of recent climate change (>50%)" and gets spit out 65 articles. There are a whole lot of other ways to state that phrase including talking about sensitivity and reference to actual temperature rise as representation of human activity. And then Blackboard quotes the study itself for the number of papers rejecting AGW (78). Different criteria. If you do a search saying humans are responsible for <50% you get about 9 papers depending on how you carefully set the parameters of the search.

By the way I get 84 articles that match the first search.
__________________
Even a superstitious man has certain inalienable rights. He has a right to harbor and indulge his imbecilities as long as he pleases. . . He has a right to argue for them as eloquently as he can, in season and out of season. He has a right to teach them to his children. But certainly he has no right to be protected against the free criticism of those who do not hold them. He has no right to demand that they be treated as sacred. He has no right to preach them without challenge." -H.L. Mencken
Posts: 4,976
tiptap is not part of the Right 53.tiptap is not part of the Right 53.tiptap is not part of the Right 53.tiptap is not part of the Right 53.tiptap is not part of the Right 53.tiptap is not part of the Right 53.tiptap is not part of the Right 53.tiptap is not part of the Right 53.tiptap is not part of the Right 53.tiptap is not part of the Right 53.tiptap is not part of the Right 53.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2013, 12:15 PM   #78
tiptap tiptap is offline
Is this it?
 
tiptap's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Casino cash: $21316
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xanathol View Post
Spoken like a person who knows not what they are talking about. Step into the field sometime and see how the real world works, buddy.

As for your diatribes, did you even read them ( we know the answer... )?!

The first is no 'peer review' in the commonly accepted sense - all they did was review the findings for affirmations, conclusions, etc - NOT the data or methods used! The second makes a completely unsubstantiated claim that the concentration of C02 at that point in Hawaii will reach levels is has not in, quote, "millions of years"... The last makes just as ridiculous claims that we've basically already killed our oceans pH balance...

Its called bullshit and there's no debating what bullshit is - its bullshit. The freakin' Russians have even called bullshit.

All that aside, naturally you've read this, right? As Climatedepot highlights:
Data and Methods used for the original published articles used in this study, would have been reviewed for the methodology and their data reviewed for error by peer review before being published in the first place. Thereafter other scientist would try and duplicate the results as well. If equal number of scientist were finding just the opposite, those views should be showing up in the count for those who reject AGW. The data generated in this paper was specifically about what was being concluded in relation to establishing or refuting AGW. That was the data and survey collection and discovery is and has been for a long time part of all science fields.
__________________
Even a superstitious man has certain inalienable rights. He has a right to harbor and indulge his imbecilities as long as he pleases. . . He has a right to argue for them as eloquently as he can, in season and out of season. He has a right to teach them to his children. But certainly he has no right to be protected against the free criticism of those who do not hold them. He has no right to demand that they be treated as sacred. He has no right to preach them without challenge." -H.L. Mencken

Last edited by tiptap; 05-19-2013 at 12:25 PM..
Posts: 4,976
tiptap is not part of the Right 53.tiptap is not part of the Right 53.tiptap is not part of the Right 53.tiptap is not part of the Right 53.tiptap is not part of the Right 53.tiptap is not part of the Right 53.tiptap is not part of the Right 53.tiptap is not part of the Right 53.tiptap is not part of the Right 53.tiptap is not part of the Right 53.tiptap is not part of the Right 53.
  Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:03 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.