Ohio Chatter DEV

dlazz

Mohican00;1499552 wrote:Two things....

1. Global Warming - there's that phrase again. Discontinued since early 2000's

2. Climate model is wrong. - models can be wrong. This is nothing new in science

At least note that period of warming/cooling cycles are nothing new. That is substantiated.

I gave your mom a glacial last night.

I Wear Pants

dlazz;1499569 wrote:I gave your mom a glacial last night.

Odd, I did the same to your dad.

QuakerOats

I Wear Pants;1499553 wrote:You're mixing messages. You say they're faking climate change to get people to spend money on solar and wind and other green measures yet at the same time say they're anti-capitalist. Those are contradictory.

Incorrect; there is, has been, and always will be gradual climate change; the earth's climate has been changing for millions of years. The fallacy, as you know, is that humans have any effect on that change; they never have and never will.

And, there is absolutely nothing capitalistic about the government squandering hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars on solar and wind boondoggles; that would be the exact opposite.

O-Trap

I Wear Pants;1499586 wrote:Odd, I did the same to your dad.

lol

dlazz

I Wear Pants;1499586 wrote:Odd, I did the same to your dad.

WAIT UR GAY? IM DRUNJ LOL TIME TO TELL EVERYONE WAIT UR GAY

-etb'd

Fly4Fun

QuakerOats;1499632 wrote:Incorrect; there is, has been, and always will be gradual climate change; the earth's climate has been changing for millions of years. The fallacy, as you know, is that humans have any effect on that change; they never have and never will.

Ya, humans have never had any ecosystem altering impact on our environment...

Classyposter58

I think it's all hilarity as do most people in meteorology. It's not my major but taking many of those classes you basically learn that the daily computer models are very inaccurate outside of 84 hours, I don't know why these people who are so called experts would think you could develop one that accurately predicts future temps years from now. The CPC is usually off on their seasonal forecasts, the fact is we have no clue what is happening. It seems common sense that the Earth coming off of a major ice age would continue to heat up, and the major reduction in aerosols will encourage a warming environment. But the temps will not keep going up and up, in fact 30 year averages are only seeing a nice rise since now they don't take the 70s into consideration which were incredibly cool

QuakerOats

Fly4Fun;1499761 wrote:Ya, humans have never had any ecosystem altering impact on our environment...

An ecosystem is worlds apart from climate change. Has man polluted rivers; yes. Did that pollution cause an ice age, or a warming period; no.

Get in the game.

I Wear Pants

Classyposter58;1499872 wrote:I think it's all hilarity as do most people in meteorology. It's not my major but taking many of those classes you basically learn that the daily computer models are very inaccurate outside of 84 hours, I don't know why these people who are so called experts would think you could develop one that accurately predicts future temps years from now. The CPC is usually off on their seasonal forecasts, the fact is we have no clue what is happening. It seems common sense that the Earth coming off of a major ice age would continue to heat up, and the major reduction in aerosols will encourage a warming environment. But the temps will not keep going up and up, in fact 30 year averages are only seeing a nice rise since now they don't take the 70s into consideration which were incredibly cool

http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/2012climatechange.html
http://www.amos.org.au/publications/cid/3/t/publications
http://www.cmos.ca/ClimateChangeLetter_26Nov09.pdf
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2006/sbsta/eng/misc15.pdf

Doesn't seem to be the case.

Fly4Fun

QuakerOats;1499884 wrote:An ecosystem is worlds apart from climate change. Has man polluted rivers; yes. Did that pollution cause an ice age, or a warming period; no.

Get in the game.

It's not different, it's the same principal on a larger scale. You believing that there is no way human kind has or ever will have an impact is ridiculous and downright scary.

O-Trap

Fly4Fun;1499934 wrote:It's not different, it's the same principal on a larger scale. You believing that there is no way human kind has or ever will have an impact is ridiculous and downright scary.

I think the question is, is the scale at which humans currently do so sufficient to suggest that we play a relevant role.

I Wear Pants

Most of the people with letters beside their names seem to think so.

fish82

I Wear Pants;1500197 wrote:Most of the people with letters beside their names seem to think so.

Well, there ya go.

A lot of those guys predicted that the arctic ice would be gone by 2013 as well, instead of being at it's highest level in 7 years.

O-Trap

I Wear Pants;1500197 wrote:Most of the people with letters beside their names seem to think so.

That's fine with me. I was just clarifying what I believed the intent behind the question was.

And to be fair, given how little those people with letters behind their names say we know about the earth yet, I ultimately find the degree at which they seem to think we affect it odd.

That isn't to suggest I don't think we affect it. I do. I just don't understand the intensity with which people seem to believe it, though I admit that I can't shake the notion that some of that intensity is politically and/or economically motivated, and not scientifically motivated.

I Wear Pants

O-Trap;1500241 wrote:That's fine with me. I was just clarifying what I believed the intent behind the question was.

And to be fair, given how little those people with letters behind their names say we know about the earth yet, I ultimately find the degree at which they seem to think we affect it odd.

That isn't to suggest I don't think we affect it. I do. I just don't understand the intensity with which people seem to believe it, though I admit that I can't shake the notion that some of that intensity is politically and/or economically motivated, and not scientifically motivated.

My problem is that all of the intensity of the notion that we don't have any effect on the environment/temps/whatever is politically and economically motivated.

O-Trap

I Wear Pants;1500380 wrote:My problem is that all of the intensity of the notion that we don't have any effect on the environment/temps/whatever is politically and economically motivated.

I think, as far as the intensity is concerned, all of it is, whichever side.

I Wear Pants

O-Trap;1500385 wrote:I think, as far as the intensity is concerned, all of it is, whichever side.

So you think there's no scientists that actually believe what they say?

O-Trap

I Wear Pants;1500386 wrote:So you think there's no scientists that actually believe what they say?

I think EVERYONE believes what they say, for the most part.

cruiser_96

O-Trap;1500401 wrote:I think EVERYONE believes what they say, for the most part.

I believe 5% of what FWK says.

O-Trap

cruiser_96;1500550 wrote:I believe 5% of what FWK says.

Well, that's 5% your fault.

gut

O-Trap;1500401 wrote:I think EVERYONE believes what they say, for the most part.

Along those same lines, IMO most of this research involves trying to prove a conclusion rather than testing assumptions. That is something we are seeing increasingly as politics hijack science. Just last night on Politically Incorrect Bill Nye (the science guy) was giddy over how it's now kosher for scientists to be political, even activists. And that becomes problematic in terms of lowering the bar to promote dubious results, because where's the harm in a good idea?

When you look at the CI's and model predictions, it points to manufactured conclusions, i.e. the struggle to prove truly significant effects of man (both literally and scientifically) would be reflective of a significant impact that just doesn't exist. Perhaps one day they will actually prove an effect, but all the revisions to the theories and models over just the last 10-15 years should scream that they really don't yet have a good handle on all the climate factors and interactions.

QuakerOats

Fly4Fun;1499934 wrote:It's not different, it's the same principal on a larger scale. You believing that there is no way human kind has or ever will have an impact is ridiculous and downright scary.

It is not the same principle whatsoever. And what is truly scary is that you think it is; no wonder so many small minds have been brainwashed.

“Climate’s always been changing and it’s been changing rapidly at various times, and so something was making it change in the past,” he told us in an interview this past winter. “Before there were enough people to make any difference at all, two million years ago, nobody was changing the climate, yet the climate was changing, okay?”<o

></o

>

“All this argument is the temperature going up or not, it’s absurd,” Bryson continues. “Of course it’s going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we’re coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we’re putting more carbon dioxide into the air.”

--------- Reid A. Bryson holds the 30th PhD in Meteorology granted in the history of American education. Emeritus Professor and founding chairman of the University of Wisconsin Department of Meteorology—now the Department of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences—in the 1970s he became the first director of what’s now the UW’s Gaylord Nelson Institute of Environmental Studies. He’s a member of the United Nations Global 500 Roll of Honor—created, the U.N. says, to recognize “outstanding achievements in the protection and improvement of the environment.” He has authored five books and more than 230 other publications and was identified by the British Institute of Geographers as the most frequently cited climatologist in the world

<o

></o

>

jmog

gut;1500578 wrote:Along those same lines, IMO most of this research involves trying to prove a conclusion rather than testing assumptions. That is something we are seeing increasingly as politics hijack science. Just last night on Politically Incorrect Bill Nye (the science guy) was giddy over how it's now kosher for scientists to be political, even activists. And that becomes problematic in terms of lowering the bar to promote dubious results, because where's the harm in a good idea?

When you look at the CI's and model predictions, it points to manufactured conclusions, i.e. the struggle to prove truly significant effects of man (both literally and scientifically) would be reflective of a significant impact that just doesn't exist. Perhaps one day they will actually prove an effect, but all the revisions to the theories and models over just the last 10-15 years should scream that they really don't yet have a good handle on all the climate factors and interactions.

This is the smartest thing said by anyone on either side of this discussion.

The only change I would make is that science should be used to prove or disprove hypothesis, not assumptions. Other than that you are spot on. Many scientists on both sides of this debate are so politicized that they are set to prove a conclusion that they already "know" instead of testing a hypothesis.

It is deeply inbedded in their models, for sure.

QuakerOats

^^ Yes, and that is much of what Climate Science Int'l does, as alluded to previously. Great organization that mathematically and statistically destroys the conclusions reached by the hoax profiteers.

http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/

Devils Advocate

QuakerOats;1501537 wrote:^^ Yes, and that is much of what Climate Science Int'l does, as alluded to previously. Great organization that mathematically and statistically destroys the conclusions reached by the hoax profiteers.

http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/

I thought profiteering was good???

Archive

Arctic Ice Cap (Global Warming)