heckler73
Well-Known Member
I'm pretty sure Doer understands the math, at least, but does anyone else?
Satellite data proves Earth has not been warming the past 18 years - it's stable
- Thread starter sheskunk
- Start date
I'm pretty sure Doer understands the math, at least, but does anyone else?
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
For me it really is not about *the math* as the climate model is still far too complex for us to be able to duplicate on a computer reliably. And that has been proven to the unhappiness of liberals that simply state that reality is not conforming to their predictions.
What it comes down to is that we simply do not (and cannot) have reliable enough data to even make a prediction of what our impact on global warming actually is. We know the earth has been warmer and cooler in the past but that is not a guaranteed predictor of the future. The sun has phases that it goes through and we cannot even know what some of those are.
The earth has been hotter and cooler in the past, that is documented. If we spend more time trying to learn to adapt to various climate models then we would actually be doing something to benefit mankind. As it is, we seem bent on trying to stop the normal fluctuation of temperature on the planet.
heckler73
Well-Known Member
You are looking at the product, not the theory, though.
I have a text on the principles involved with developing models of climate science, too. But the problems of modeling tell you what is wrong with the method, not the theory itself. Or in other words, trying to fix a model based on faulty premises won't solve the problem.
In order to find the faulty premises, one must look at the underlying structure. To understand the structure requires a certain familiarity with the key sciences and math, and that is what I'd like to gauge; to what extent can a general participant comprehend the fundamental material?
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
If you do not have a representative data set, what does math and modeling have to do with it?
Doer
Well-Known Member
It is all over the news! We called off the Ice Age and we still suck.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-16439807
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-16439807
Human emissions of carbon dioxide will defer the next Ice Age, say scientists.
The last Ice Age ended about 11,500 years ago, and when the next one should begin has not been entirely clear.
Researchers used data on the Earth's orbit and other things to find the historical warm interglacial period that looks most like the current one.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/09/us-ice-age-emissions-idUSTRE80814T20120109
"(Analysis) suggests that the end of the current interglacial (period) would occur within the next 1,500 years, if atmospheric CO2 concentrations do not exceed (around) 240 parts per million by volume (ppmv)," the study said.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/09/us-ice-age-emissions-idUSTRE80814T20120109
But now, because of humans, the committee says, the next ice age has been "delayed indefinitely."
Seems like great news......in 1500 years we would have so much sea locked up the harbors would be useless.
Instead, in 150 years, the water level will be so high, the harbors are useless.
Great news.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-16439807
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-16439807
Human emissions of carbon dioxide will defer the next Ice Age, say scientists.
The last Ice Age ended about 11,500 years ago, and when the next one should begin has not been entirely clear.
Researchers used data on the Earth's orbit and other things to find the historical warm interglacial period that looks most like the current one.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/09/us-ice-age-emissions-idUSTRE80814T20120109
"(Analysis) suggests that the end of the current interglacial (period) would occur within the next 1,500 years, if atmospheric CO2 concentrations do not exceed (around) 240 parts per million by volume (ppmv)," the study said.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/09/us-ice-age-emissions-idUSTRE80814T20120109
But now, because of humans, the committee says, the next ice age has been "delayed indefinitely."
Seems like great news......in 1500 years we would have so much sea locked up the harbors would be useless.
Instead, in 150 years, the water level will be so high, the harbors are useless.
Great news.
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
Let me give this a shot because there may be someone paying attention out there...
The scientific method is a specific set of steps used to test a hypothesis or theory.
You start with a hypothesis. In this case, I will attempt to properly frame the question although most people screw it up. The hypothesis is that man made emissions in the form of green house gasses are having a significant effect on the warming of the planet AND that this warming is detrimental.
To attempt to prove a hypothesis you need to have a baseline. You need to know what would happen without the influence of the object stated in your hypothesis. And this is the first problem. We do not have enough data to form a baseline. The earth has been around for millions upon millions of years and we have less than 100 years of global temperature data. If we knew exactly how warm and cold the earth was in the past, why do we set THOUSANDS of hot and cold temperatures across the globe every year??
The second issue with the attempt to prove or disprove the global warming hypothesis is if we knew the exact temperature of every region of the globe from the moment of it's creation until present day, it would not be a perfect indicator of future conditions. At some point the sun will go nova and it will grow so large that it will encompass the earth in it's sphere. Now, that will be real global warming right there... The earth will be destroyed and humans will not have been responsible no matter what the liberals want to tell you.
This is just two in the multiple issues that I have with what is called science regarding the global warming issue.
It isnt math and it isnt science.
The scientific method is a specific set of steps used to test a hypothesis or theory.
You start with a hypothesis. In this case, I will attempt to properly frame the question although most people screw it up. The hypothesis is that man made emissions in the form of green house gasses are having a significant effect on the warming of the planet AND that this warming is detrimental.
To attempt to prove a hypothesis you need to have a baseline. You need to know what would happen without the influence of the object stated in your hypothesis. And this is the first problem. We do not have enough data to form a baseline. The earth has been around for millions upon millions of years and we have less than 100 years of global temperature data. If we knew exactly how warm and cold the earth was in the past, why do we set THOUSANDS of hot and cold temperatures across the globe every year??
The second issue with the attempt to prove or disprove the global warming hypothesis is if we knew the exact temperature of every region of the globe from the moment of it's creation until present day, it would not be a perfect indicator of future conditions. At some point the sun will go nova and it will grow so large that it will encompass the earth in it's sphere. Now, that will be real global warming right there... The earth will be destroyed and humans will not have been responsible no matter what the liberals want to tell you.
This is just two in the multiple issues that I have with what is called science regarding the global warming issue.
It isnt math and it isnt science.
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
I did not mean to imply I was defining the entire process. Direct observation is definitely part of it.
Doer
Well-Known Member
And you have it backwards. You set out to ruthlessly disprove, un-cross trails, tighten variables, etc, in order to be extremely suspicious of any result that does not rule out a possibility.
If you have direct observation of the Ice Shelves failing exponential, you just keep watching.
We are already Doing Something, don't worry. We are spending Billions to get ready to get ready.
If you have direct observation of the Ice Shelves failing exponential, you just keep watching.
We are already Doing Something, don't worry. We are spending Billions to get ready to get ready.
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
I am getting told that the ice shelves will never form again while there is a 30% increase in the ice at the other pole.
The global warming movement is not about saving the planet it is about controlling every human on the planet.
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
You have no proof only scary stories...
I have no knowledge on whether the ice shelves will or will not fall and whether humans might have anything to do with it.
I do know however that all extinction level events on the planet resulted from lower temperatures, not higher ones. And that is pretty mathematical and scientific right there...
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
Direct observation shows current melting.
What evidence do you have that this melting has deviated from the baseline for the climate?
What evidence do you have that it will continue?
What evidence do you have that it will actually be detrimental to the earth and/or humans?
DonAlejandroVega
Well-Known Member
http://www.iflscience.com/environment/canadian-weather-forecasters-forbidden-discussing-climate-change
follow the laser sight on the gun of the state.........for all truths.................
follow the laser sight on the gun of the state.........for all truths.................
kinetic
Well-Known Member
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene–Eocene_Thermal_Maximum
Go down to the section that says 'Life'. It refutes what's the second part of what you posted.
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
No it doesnt. I said global extinction event. What you posted describes a general extinction of certain types of sea life over 1000's of years while other life FLOURISHED.
What I am talking about is almost everything dying across the entire planet. It happens when the earth gets cold... That can occur due to normal global cycles, meteor strike, and/or other general disaster.
DonAlejandroVega
Well-Known Member
Bobby.......are humans messing up the planet?
Bobby, the 9 year old retarded boy: "uh-huh........"
thank you, Bobby; that's all.
Bobby, the 9 year old retarded boy: "uh-huh........"
thank you, Bobby; that's all.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Plants are much more susceptible to changes in the climate, a few degrees difference could lead to problems with agriculture which could lead to food shortages, and since animals need plants to survive, you do the math..
Animals are much better at adapting, plants not so much..