Democrats care more about global warming than security!

[JohnnyBz00LS]

Yes, they r pretty accurate at predicting the weather a day or two out, but if they r off by even a small margin (which they always r), then the farther out u predict, the more it magnifies the error (doesn't just add to it, it multiplies it) to the point of being irrelevant. When it comes to global warming, the models are (without fail) always wrong. According to the earliest ones, we should have used up all fossil fuels, used up the worlds food supply, ect... all before I was born in 1980!

You are ignoring the fact that there have been major technology advancements in weather data gathering since the '70s and much more long-term trend data exists now than there was in 1980 (ha). FYI, the very first weather satellite was launched in the early '60s, and it was essentially a TV camera that took pictures of clouds. It had very little capability to capture useful science data for predicting climate change, let alone creating useful any trending data. It wasn't until the late '70s that weather satellites became truly useful tools for scientists to develop long term trending data and accurate science data. I won't even mention the advancements in computer processing power advancements since the '70s. Why would you think that climate models in the '70s were as accurate as they are today, and since they were not accurate back then, then they can't possibly be accurate today??

I won't even mention advancements in oil exploration and food production, but you are ignoring those too. But since you might be able to now understand that technology can help solve the worlds problems, why are you taking a position of resisting to apply technology to help solve global warming?

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

Some scientists claim it's too late to do anything about global warming. One reason is that technology does not yet exist to decrease CO2 emissions to the degree that scientists and global warming alarmists, like Al Gore, view as necessary to stop or even substantially decrease the rate of increases in temperatures. Until solar energy advances another step or two it will not be utilized to the satisfaction of global warming advocates. So ultimately, until effective and efficient clean technology is developed it's really just about politics rather than substance.

"The technology doesn't yet exist" excuse to avoid addressing global warming is a cop-out. Do you think that this technology is just going to appear out of thin air? The free market isn't going to develop technology on their own unless there is $$ to be made. And as long as our government discourages making $$ on clean technology, it isn't going to happen. That is all they (the greenies) want to do, is to change our government's policies from a mode of "discouragement" to "encouragement" so that the free market will step up with the technology we need.

 

[shagdrum]

You are ignoring the fact that there have been major technology advancements in weather data gathering since the '70s and much more long-term trend data exists now than there was in 1980 (ha). FYI, the very first weather satellite was launched in the early '60s, and it was essentially a TV camera that took pictures of clouds. It had very little capability to capture useful science data for predicting climate change, let alone creating useful any trending data. It wasn't until the late '70s that weather satellites became truly useful tools for scientists to develop long term trending data and accurate science data. I won't even mention the advancements in computer processing power advancements since the '70s. Why would you think that climate models in the '70s were as accurate as they are today, and since they were not accurate back then, then they can't possibly be accurate today??

I won't even mention advancements in oil exploration and food production, but you are ignoring those too. But since you might be able to now understand that technology can help solve the worlds problems, why are you taking a position of resisting to apply technology to help solve global warming?

What I am saying is that the technique of using computer models is flawed, for a huge number of reasons that I don't have time to go into now (if u want me to I can at a later time, I am about to walk out the door for an appointment right now). The better satalites, faster computers, ect don't fix that. What models do is take a snapshot of the world and try to predict the future. If u r missing even one variable (and the number of variables involved in predicting climate change is huge, and we aren't even sure we know all the variables) then the model is flawed, and inaccurate. The shear number of variables involved also severely limits the models to the point of being irrelevant.

 

[MAC1]

You are ignoring the fact that there have been major technology advancements in weather data gathering since the '70s and much more long-term trend data exists now than there was in 1980 (ha). FYI, the very first weather satellite was launched in the early '60s, and it was essentially a TV camera that took pictures of clouds. It had very little capability to capture useful science data for predicting climate change, let alone creating useful any trending data. It wasn't until the late '70s that weather satellites became truly useful tools for scientists to develop long term trending data and accurate science data. I won't even mention the advancements in computer processing power advancements since the '70s. Why would you think that climate models in the '70s were as accurate as they are today, and since they were not accurate back then, then they can't possibly be accurate today??

I won't even mention advancements in oil exploration and food production, but you are ignoring those too. But since you might be able to now understand that technology can help solve the worlds problems, why are you taking a position of resisting to apply technology to help solve global warming?

You can refer to all the technological advancements you want but that don't make predictions accurate. Today for example, NASA said that long-term computer models indicate that by the year 2080 the eastern United States will be about 10 degrees hotter than temperatures in the 1990s. Well, that's nice and a bag of chips and all that, but computer predictions are based on data that can ultimately prove useless in predicting long-term trends. Just like the impending ice age predicted in the mid-70s turned out to be incorrect, it can also be that NASA's prediction of 10-degree hotter temps by 2080 will end up in the scrap heap.

 

[Marcus]

Just like the impending ice age predicted in the mid-70s turned out to be incorrect...

It is a myth that scientists were predicting an "impending" ice age in the 70's. People have been spreading this myth with near impunity because most people only have a faint recollection of news stories from 30 years ago. Yes, some scientists were talking about a coming ice age, but not for SEVERAL THOUSAND YEARS. Unfortunately there were some in the MSM, notably Time and Newsweek, that went overboard with cover stories about "The Coming Ice Age" that didn't actually give you the fine details until you'd read the entire article. After all, adding "...in ten thousand years" to the cover doesn't sell as many issues. The point is, the actual scientists doing the work did their best to downplay the hype, but all people remember are the headlines. Even more importantly, those same researchers admitted in their papers at the time that the science behind the predictions was still in its infancy and that the margins of error were large.

 

[Marcus]

What I am saying is that the technique of using computer models is flawed, for a huge number of reasons that I don't have time to go into now (if u want me to I can at a later time, I am about to walk out the door for an appointment right now). The better satalites, faster computers, ect don't fix that. What models do is take a snapshot of the world and try to predict the future. If u r missing even one variable (and the number of variables involved in predicting climate change is huge, and we aren't even sure we know all the variables) then the model is flawed, and inaccurate. The shear number of variables involved also severely limits the models to the point of being irrelevant.

Not only is it unnecessary to know every last variable to come to a valid prediction, it is a hinderance. See Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. For example, if one were designing a new piece of explosive weaponry, one could make an accurate prediction of its yield based on the proportions of each chemical used in making it. We'd use observations of past experiments using different proportions of chemicals to come up with those numbers. It is not necessary to know the exact state of each molecule at the time of ignition to determine the yield.

Same goes for climate models. Local weather conditions at a given moment have zero impact on the climate as a whole. What we care about are average readings over a given region. Average temperatures, rainfall, wind patterns. etc. Knowing that it's raining in Omaha at this very second is useless information, except for use a datapoint in the averages.

It is true that we do not yet have all the relevant data to make 100% accurate models. For instance, the nature of the upper atmosphere and its interaction with the lower atmosphere is still not well understood. This is something that has the potential to effect climate models.

But be careful when stating that there are too many variables to consider. The number of variables and data that we need to make an accurate prediction is indeed finite. Once you get to a certain level of detail, the remainder adds nothing but useless noise.

 

[Vitas]

Yes, that is the question(s); yes, it [man's role] hasn't been proven. I never claimed otherwise. But to ignore it and not be willing to at least research the issue further is down right "retarded", considering "Global Warming" is factual.

Wannna take a shot?

Vitas

 

[Joeychgo]

I would agree in as far as all news is a business. But so many news sources r losing ad revenue due to their bias, while Fox is gaining marketshare due to people prefering their news coverage. Money isn't the chief motivator in the mainstream media, though it is a large factor. I would say, secondary only to politics. Spin first, money second.

Since FOX is clearly biased toward the conservative, doesnt this blow a hole in the 'liberal media' comments you all love to make???

 

[Joeychgo]

Never said it shouldn't be researched.
Action, in the form of restrictive policy isn't yet justified, until it is proved conclusively that global warming is a large threat that is caused in large part by certian actions by man. I actually think more research needs to be done, as well as open, honest debate. Models need to be thrown out, as they r unreliable. More concrete research methods need to be used.

Basically, before we start enacting restrictive policy, healthy skepticism is called for in the justifying of that policy.

WHy is it that when it comes to Global warming... healthy skepticism is the buzz phrase. When it comes to GW or IRAQ, then healthy skepticism = being un-patrotic and weak?

 

[MAC1]

It is a myth that scientists were predicting an "impending" ice age in the 70's. People have been spreading this myth with near impunity because most people only have a faint recollection of news stories from 30 years ago. Yes, some scientists were talking about a coming ice age, but not for SEVERAL THOUSAND YEARS. Unfortunately there were some in the MSM, notably Time and Newsweek, that went overboard with cover stories about "The Coming Ice Age" that didn't actually give you the fine details until you'd read the entire article. After all, adding "...in ten thousand years" to the cover doesn't sell as many issues. The point is, the actual scientists doing the work did their best to downplay the hype, but all people remember are the headlines. Even more importantly, those same researchers admitted in their papers at the time that the science behind the predictions was still in its infancy and that the margins of error were large.

Regardless, the point is that predictions in the mid-70s of an impending ice age were WRONG. Back then, scientists took scant data and projected long-term trends. Global warming advocates are ostensibly doing the same thing. They take temperature data from a short period of time and therefrom extrapolate a global warming trend and an impending global disaster caused by CO2 emissions. Yet, human produced CO2 emissions they contend will ultimately cause disastrous consequences only account for approximately 4% of the total worldwide CO2 produced—That means 96% of worldwide CO2 is produced naturally.

Interestingly, the so-called Medieval Warm Period could not have possibly been caused by human produced CO2 emissions. Similarly, the warming period after the Little Ice Age, which ended in the mid-1940s also, was not a product of CO2 emissions. Moreover, there is absolutely no historical data supporting the theory that CO2 emissions can increase Earth’s worldwide temperatures. To the contrary, there is historic scientific evidence proving that Earth's temperatures have fluctuated greatly over the centuries going back thousands of years. Just historic scientific evidence alone over the last one-thousand years is sufficient to impeach the credibility of the so-called scientific consensus that human produced CO2 is causing global warming.

 

[Joeychgo]

If I recall correctly..... historic scientific evidence shows we have never warmed this much this fast in such a short period of time as in recent history.

 

[Vitas]

Source for what?

The fact of the matter is that you can not substantiate any of your claims.
If you think that you can, please do so.

Vitas

 

[shagdrum]

WHy is it that when it comes to Global warming... healthy skepticism is the buzz phrase. When it comes to GW or IRAQ, then healthy skepticism = being un-patrotic and weak?

That is the point I was making! The liberal argument for restrictive econ policy to counter global warming is a hypocritical inverse of the exact same argument they use against war in Iraq!

 

[TheDude]

The fact of the matter is that you can not substantiate any of your claims.
If you think that you can, please do so.

Vitas

Which claims(?)... that Global Warming is happening? Guess what genius, it is, the planet is warming. The question is whether it's man caused or not; if so, how much and how far will it go. But please, continue with your typical idiocy.

 

[Joeychgo]

That is the point I was making! The liberal argument for restrictive econ policy to counter global warming is a hypocritical inverse of the exact same argument they use against war in Iraq!

Huh????

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

It is a myth that scientists were predicting an "impending" ice age in the 70's. People have been spreading this myth with near impunity because most people only have a faint recollection of news stories from 30 years ago. Yes, some scientists were talking about a coming ice age, but not for SEVERAL THOUSAND YEARS. Unfortunately there were some in the MSM, notably Time and Newsweek, that went overboard with cover stories about "The Coming Ice Age" that didn't actually give you the fine details until you'd read the entire article. After all, adding "...in ten thousand years" to the cover doesn't sell as many issues. The point is, the actual scientists doing the work did their best to downplay the hype, but all people remember are the headlines. Even more importantly, those same researchers admitted in their papers at the time that the science behind the predictions was still in its infancy and that the margins of error were large.

YES! Thank you for pointing this out. It's amazing how facts are convieniently twisted to fit an argument.

Regardless, the point is that predictions in the mid-70s of an impending ice age were WRONG.

You don't know that and neither will anybody for at least several thousand years. (re-read above).

*owned*

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

What I am saying is that the technique of using computer models is flawed, for a huge number of reasons that I don't have time to go into now (if u want me to I can at a later time, I am about to walk out the door for an appointment right now). The better satalites, faster computers, ect don't fix that. What models do is take a snapshot of the world and try to predict the future. If u r missing even one variable (and the number of variables involved in predicting climate change is huge, and we aren't even sure we know all the variables) then the model is flawed, and inaccurate. The shear number of variables involved also severely limits the models to the point of being irrelevant.

You have revealed how little you know about dynamic modeling and their use for predictions. Models don't use "a snapshot of the world" to predict the future, they are developed using factual data gathered over a long period of time, then model behavior is tuned and tweek to emulate the historical facts over a period of time. Only then when a "model" is tuned and tweeked to behave similar to the historical record is it used for future predictions. And in case you didn't know, back in the late '70s local weather predictions were lucky to get close 2-3 days out, now 5-7 days out is the norm. This is a result of better data gathering (weather satellites) and better models (more historical data used to "tune and tweek" behavior, and better computers to account for more variables). If you think that weather models are "irrelevant", you better let NOAA and all the meterologists around the world know they are wasting their time. :bowrofl:

WRT climate models used to assess global warming, similar techniques are used, but on a different scale (years instead of days, across the globe vs across the country). But the same holds true, that technology advancements since the late '70s has increased accuracy of those models by orders of magnitude. They are not perfect (and never will be), but their accuracy and reliability are ever improving.

 

[MonsterMark]

You have revealed how little you know about dynamic modeling and their use for predictions. Models don't use "a snapshot of the world" to predict the future, they are developed using factual data gathered over a long period of time, then model behavior is tuned and tweek to emulate the historical facts over a period of time. Only then when a "model" is tuned and tweeked to behave similar to the historical record is it used for future predictions.

I have studied tons of historical data and have concluded the sun will come up in the east tomorrow, it will get warmer over the next several months, then the daylight hours will get shorter and it will get colder than it is today.

This achievement in forecasting prediction must make me a brilliant global warming theorist.:shifty:

 

[MAC1]

YES! Thank you for pointing this out. It's amazing how facts are convieniently twisted to fit an argument.

You don't know that and neither will anybody for at least several thousand years. (re-read above).

*owned*

During the mid-70s scientists were wrong about their predictions of an impending ice age based on the model they used which was of orbit variations of Earth and an exponential-response model projected over a 20,000-year period. Apparently, thier model was incorrect. Likewise, the alledged scientific concensus stating that global warming is being cause by anthropogenic effects due to burning of fosil can also be wrong.

 

[MonsterMark]

You don't know that and neither will anybody for at least several thousand years. (re-read above).

Sounds like an inconvenient lie.

Here is an excerpt from the Newsweek article. I love the last paragraph.

"The Cooling World" - by Peter Gwynne
April 28, 1975 Newsweek
[snip]
Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

You could change the words around a little and it will sound just like 2007's version called "global warming" except now we are going to put billions of umbrellas in space to block the sun and shove methane filters up cow's behinds to cut down on emissions :bowrofl:

If only you environmentalist wackos could see how silly you look.

 

[MonsterMark]

I have graphs too.

 

[MonsterMark]

You have revealed how little you know about dynamic modeling and their use for predictions.

Fortunately I figured out how they work...