General [M]ayhem

Go Back   General [M]ayhem > Real Time Sub-Forums > The Pit
Register Members List Mark Forums Read [M]erchandise Calendar

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Tex Arcana
I am a mean disrespectful person hiding anonymously and need an attitude adjustment.
 
Tex Arcana's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by apaininthebutt View Post

__________________
People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.--V


Men heap together the mistakes of their lives, and create a monster they call destiny.
--John Hobbs


~~~ ~~~ Tea[m] Pyratex ~~~ ~~~
Old 02-19-2013, 12:45 PM Tex Arcana is offline  
Reply With Quote
#106  

Advertisement [Remove Advertisement]

Gibonius
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tex Arcana View Post
Yes, agreed. It's the cause that's at question.

From about the 1300s thru the 1800s, there are a Little Ice Age, where The melting of the polar caps caused the Gulf Stream (and the corresponding southern and other northern ones) to shut down due to the influx of cold melting glaciers and ice pack, leading to a planet-wide cold snap that caused a great deal of famine and death. The causes of the melting are variable, with a combo of sunspot activity and orbital perturbations being the favored ones, along with a spike in volcanic activity, which could be linked to the orbital wobble.

During that period, there were quite a few humans on the planet, all burning wood and coal to try to keep warm. There are some theories that say that's the cause of the LIA, but I'm not so sure, because it takes a LONG time to cool the surface down enough to cause such a huge change as that. But we really don't have alot of solid data there, so it's all supposition.

It is certainly interesting that we can't say exactly why that temperature decreased happened. It's not really an argument against the possibility of anthropogenic warming now though.

Sound familiar?? It should.
Huh, sure does:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/comi...le-ice-age.htm

Pretty in-depth article there. Believe it hits all of your points. Turns out you can use C-14 as a measure of historical solar flux (which is neat, didn't know how that worked).

As far as the bit about burning wood/coal causing the LIA, there's been some studies on that. Most of them revolve around a decrease in human population caused by plagues, decrease in burning stuff, then an increase in forest growth, and then a commensurate decrease in temperature. Doesn't seem likely though, would only be ~0.15C decrease (from a study cited in that link).

Quote:
Originally Posted by apaininthebutt View Post

http://www.skepticalscience.com/incr...rn-sea-ice.htm

Answer: increases in ice aren't necessarily because temperatures have decreased.



edit; it's actually kind of sad that you guys think no one in science has thought of these issues and discussed them. Like, really, you think people who spend their lives doing this shit miss things that are obvious enough that people in the media or random Joes can find them? 15 seconds on Google and you can find a hundred articles addressing basically any issue that you think is a "gotcha." I've got a big bookmark folder full of them.

Last edited by Gibonius; 02-19-2013 at 02:13 PM..
Old 02-19-2013, 01:33 PM Gibonius is offline  
Reply With Quote
#107  

Gibonius
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamFarber View Post
I
Oh, what were the controls?

There is no "science" because there is no controlled experimentation going on. You can have a theory all you like - but when you call it "science" and act like it is proven you debase science itself.
Quote:
It is the scientific method. You have abandoned that for political science method bases on emotionalism and "what ifs." Stop calling it science if you don't follow it the method.

Yes, you do if you want to claim it is scientific. Just stop lying about that - it is supposition.

Doesn't work that way - typical juvenile reductionism. This idiocy is the reason science has become a joke - bad methodology. Garbage in, garbage out. But so long as they keep getting their palms crossed with silver they don't really care.
Here's a quote from a website on science for elementary schoolers (since that appears to be about your level of understanding)

Quote:
Controls are rarely necessary in observational studies, when youre studying naturally-occurring variation. They are also not always needed in experimental studies, but if you are subjecting living organisms to extreme conditions of any kind, you should always include a control group that is not exposed to these conditions.

The fact that not all experiments need controls is illustrated by the following example. If you want to find out if the earthworm density is the same under pine trees as deciduous trees, you can simply measure the density in the two soils and compare them. There is no need to have a separate control treatment in which earthworms arent under either pine trees or deciduous trees. However, you do want to hold other conditions constant. For example, you wouldnt want to sample the earthworms under the pine trees just after a rainy day unless you also sampled the deciduous tree worms on the same day.
So, uh........yeah. You're a dumbass. Proven wrong by elementary school.
Old 02-19-2013, 02:09 PM Gibonius is offline  
Reply With Quote
#108  

SamFarber
 
SamFarber's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

So, uh........yeah. You're a dumbass. Proven wrong by elementary school.

So, is observing there is always a lot of crime involving Blacks mean racism is scientifically proven?
Old 02-19-2013, 03:02 PM SamFarber is offline  
Reply With Quote
#109  

Gibonius
 
That your way of dodging that fact that you were hilariously wrong? Can only keep you away from racism for so long, I guess.
Old 02-19-2013, 04:30 PM Gibonius is offline  
Reply With Quote
#110  

apaininthebutt
Master of my heart <3 DopeKitchen
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post
http://www.skepticalscience.com/incr...rn-sea-ice.htm

Answer: increases in ice aren't necessarily because temperatures have decreased.



edit; it's actually kind of sad that you guys think no one in science has thought of these issues and discussed them. Like, really, you think people who spend their lives doing this shit miss things that are obvious enough that people in the media or random Joes can find them? 15 seconds on Google and you can find a hundred articles addressing basically any issue that you think is a "gotcha." I've got a big bookmark folder full of them.
I haven't actually said what i think yet. all i did was a reply to a link with a link. Antarctic temperatures have gone up, 2*c in the last 50 years (1.3*c over the last 11000 though)

What i find annoying is that the vast majority of what google turns up is so dumbed down and full of opinions that i can't be bothered to read all of it. It's surprisingly difficult to find actual numbers with explainations of what they mean, but very easy to find scientists (and quite a few non-scientists for that matter)that will tell you "facts" and will then answer questions by telling you they're right because they're scientists and nobody else will understand (Before you respond to that, i'm NOT saying that's you)
Old 02-19-2013, 05:13 PM apaininthebutt is offline  
Reply With Quote
#111  

Tex Arcana
I am a mean disrespectful person hiding anonymously and need an attitude adjustment.
 
Tex Arcana's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post
Huh, sure does:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/comi...le-ice-age.htm

Pretty in-depth article there. Believe it hits all of your points. Turns out you can use C-14 as a measure of historical solar flux (which is neat, didn't know how that worked).

As far as the bit about burning wood/coal causing the LIA, there's been some studies on that. Most of them revolve around a decrease in human population caused by plagues, decrease in burning stuff, then an increase in forest growth, and then a commensurate decrease in temperature. Doesn't seem likely though, would only be ~0.15C decrease (from a study cited in that link).



http://www.skepticalscience.com/incr...rn-sea-ice.htm

Answer: increases in ice aren't necessarily because temperatures have decreased.



edit; it's actually kind of sad that you guys think no one in science has thought of these issues and discussed them. Like, really, you think people who spend their lives doing this shit miss things that are obvious enough that people in the media or random Joes can find them? 15 seconds on Google and you can find a hundred articles addressing basically any issue that you think is a "gotcha." I've got a big bookmark folder full of them.

Oh, it's obvious someone has discussed them, it's just plain statistics.

The problem I have is a group banding together and screaming disaster from the data they cherry picked to make their points look good (a HUGE point Crichton makes in his book, btw), and then they shout down everyone else until they get their way (the "CO2 is a greenhouse gas" thing the stupid politicians passed).

You know: what the republicans did when they turned our nation into a totalitarian police state after 911 because of TERRORISM!!!

Actually, what I skimmed in that Wikipedia article, and what I've believed since I first read about the LIA, they mentioned that there's a lot of evidence that supports the volcanic activity theories (Mt Pinitubo in the early 90s, anyone?), as a contributing cause of the LIA.

But my point stands: there is ALOT of shit going on simultaneously, that makes blaming one thing a ridiculous and shortsighted way of thinking. And it's THAT kind of thinking that bothers me.
__________________
People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.--V


Men heap together the mistakes of their lives, and create a monster they call destiny.
--John Hobbs


~~~ ~~~ Tea[m] Pyratex ~~~ ~~~
Old 02-19-2013, 06:19 PM Tex Arcana is offline  
Reply With Quote
#112  

SamFarber
 
SamFarber's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by apaininthebutt View Post
I haven't actually said what i think yet. all i did was a reply to a link with a link. Antarctic temperatures have gone up, 2*c in the last 50 years (1.3*c over the last 11000 though)

How do you measure if the temperatures have "gone up"? What is the methodology used? Do they measure at a specific point at a specific minute of a specific day? Temperatures change minute to minute, day to day, week to week, etc... If this was a controlled environment (VERY far from the truth but when controls are abanonded this all becomes a guessing game anyway - like I said, they say coffee is good for you one day and bad for you the next - if they can't figure THAT out....) then even if all conditions were the same on terra firma it just might be a change in SOLAR ACTIVITY. Now, if you see higher temperatures on the same day, same minute, same location...and it is due to increased solar activity....but you are pre-disposed to be a Chicken Little and blame everything on CO2....well....

They aren't even close to being able to say if the temperature is changing at all like they want to IMPLY. They want to grossly oversimplify - yeah the ENTIRE EARTH is increasing in temperature? Prove it. They don't have any way of measuring that.

Further, we have proof they actually manipulate data (Climategate) to make it what they WANT it to be!
Old 02-19-2013, 06:27 PM SamFarber is offline  
Reply With Quote
#113  

Gibonius
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamFarber View Post
How do you measure if the temperatures have "gone up"? What is the methodology used? Do they measure at a specific point at a specific minute of a specific day? Temperatures change minute to minute, day to day, week to week, etc... If this was a controlled environment (VERY far from the truth but when controls are abanonded this all becomes a guessing game anyway - like I said, they say coffee is good for you one day and bad for you the next - if they can't figure THAT out....) then even if all conditions were the same on terra firma it just might be a change in SOLAR ACTIVITY. Now, if you see higher temperatures on the same day, same minute, same location...and it is due to increased solar activity....but you are pre-disposed to be a Chicken Little and blame everything on CO2....well....

They aren't even close to being able to say if the temperature is changing at all like they want to IMPLY. They want to grossly oversimplify - yeah the ENTIRE EARTH is increasing in temperature? Prove it. They don't have any way of measuring that.

Further, we have proof they actually manipulate data (Climategate) to make it what they WANT it to be!
Read up on the temperature monitoring network.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cmb-faq/tem...onitoring.html

All the raw data is available if you really want to go through it. Measuring global temperatures is not trivial, but it nowhere near the impossibility you seem to want it to be.


It's not solar intensity. We can measure solar intensity, measure the effect it's having on other planets. It's not causing the increase in temperatures.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/sola...al-warming.htm


Gotta say you came up with a new one. I've seen "the Earth is not warming before," but never seen "we can't measure temperatures."
Old 02-19-2013, 06:39 PM Gibonius is offline  
Reply With Quote
#114  

Gibonius
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tex Arcana View Post
The problem I have is a group banding together and screaming disaster from the data they cherry picked to make their points look good (a HUGE point Crichton makes in his book, btw), and then they shout down everyone else until they get their way
Ironically Crichton cherrypicked sources far worse than the people he's decrying. Not exactly surprising, considering he went into the book with a motive: prove AGW is wrong. Not hard to see how he'd lean one way.

As far as cherry-picked data goes, the Koch brothers along with prominent skeptic Richard Muller funded a study to independently assess the quality of the data being used and make sure everything was kosher. The study's results were dead in line with the consensus standards, despite being independently funded and having scientists handpicked by the skeptics. It was intended to blow up the whole "scam", and instead just reinforced all the existing findings.

Link:
http://berkeleyearth.org/

Muller's summary statement:
Quote:
"Call me a converted skeptic... humans are almost entirely the cause."

"My total turnaround, in such a short time, is the result of careful and objective analysis by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project... Our results show that the average temperature of the earth’s land has risen by two and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases."


Quote:
(the "CO2 is a greenhouse gas" thing the stupid politicians passed).
What exactly do you think is controversial about calling CO2 a greenhouse gas? It is, there's really no debate about it. CO2 absorbs infrared light, and can cause heat to be retained in a planet's atmosphere. That makes it a greenhouse gas.

Quote:
But my point stands: there is ALOT of shit going on simultaneously, that makes blaming one thing a ridiculous and shortsighted way of thinking. And it's THAT kind of thinking that bothers me.
I posted a figure earlier in this thread showing all the different major climate forcing factors, complete with error bars. Some are positive, some are negative. CO2 is a large positive factor. It is not the cause, but it is a major one. It also happens to be the biggest component of human alteration of the climate.

Honestly, what's so hard to believe about burning millions of years worth of fossil carbon having an impact on the climate? How is that "ridiculous and shortsighted"? If anything, ignoring the effects of such pollution would be shortsighted.
Quote:
You know: what the republicans did when they turned our nation into a totalitarian police state after 911 because of TERRORISM!!!
Honestly, what point do you think you're making with this kind of rant? You don't like the possible implications of climate regulation. Ok. Great. That really has fuck all with the physical (scientific) explanations, unless you have some real evidence the scientific process is being corrupted by politicians.
Old 02-19-2013, 06:54 PM Gibonius is offline  
Reply With Quote
#115  

apaininthebutt
Master of my heart <3 DopeKitchen
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamFarber View Post
How do you measure if the temperatures have "gone up"? What is the methodology used? Do they measure at a specific point at a specific minute of a specific day? Temperatures change minute to minute, day to day, week to week, etc... If this was a controlled environment (VERY far from the truth but when controls are abanonded this all becomes a guessing game anyway - like I said, they say coffee is good for you one day and bad for you the next - if they can't figure THAT out....) then even if all conditions were the same on terra firma it just might be a change in SOLAR ACTIVITY. Now, if you see higher temperatures on the same day, same minute, same location...and it is due to increased solar activity....but you are pre-disposed to be a Chicken Little and blame everything on CO2....well....

They aren't even close to being able to say if the temperature is changing at all like they want to IMPLY. They want to grossly oversimplify - yeah the ENTIRE EARTH is increasing in temperature? Prove it. They don't have any way of measuring that.

Further, we have proof they actually manipulate data (Climategate) to make it what they WANT it to be!

Holy fuck you're stupid.
Old 02-19-2013, 08:30 PM apaininthebutt is offline  
Reply With Quote
#116  

BlisterDick
boobie poo bear luv hugs
 
BlisterDick's Avatar
 
your mom was WRONG
__________________
(╯□)╯︵ ┻━┻
Old 02-19-2013, 08:57 PM BlisterDick is offline  
Reply With Quote
#117  

SamFarber
 
SamFarber's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post
... The policy recommendations from various groups don't change the validity of climate science, .....

Asking "climate scientists" who look to retire on creating hysteria about boogeyman global warming is like asking Phrenologists about the validity of Phrenology.
Old 02-19-2013, 09:44 PM SamFarber is offline  
Reply With Quote
#118  

SamFarber
 
SamFarber's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post
....but never seen "we can't measure temperatures."

Again, scientists can't say if coffee is good for bad for you. You expect them to know about something as vast and unmeasurable as this? Especially when they have a VESTED INTEREST in saying there is a "crisis" so they get more money? That is truly naive.
Old 02-19-2013, 09:46 PM SamFarber is offline  
Reply With Quote
#119  

Tex Arcana
I am a mean disrespectful person hiding anonymously and need an attitude adjustment.
 
Tex Arcana's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post
Ironically Crichton cherrypicked sources far worse than the people he's decrying. Not exactly surprising, considering he went into the book with a motive: prove AGW is wrong. Not hard to see how he'd lean one way.

As far as cherry-picked data goes, the Koch brothers along with prominent skeptic Richard Muller funded a study to independently assess the quality of the data being used and make sure everything was kosher. The study's results were dead in line with the consensus standards, despite being independently funded and having scientists handpicked by the skeptics. It was intended to blow up the whole "scam", and instead just reinforced all the existing findings.

Link:
http://berkeleyearth.org/

Muller's summary statement:





What exactly do you think is controversial about calling CO2 a greenhouse gas? It is, there's really no debate about it. CO2 absorbs infrared light, and can cause heat to be retained in a planet's atmosphere. That makes it a greenhouse gas.


I posted a figure earlier in this thread showing all the different major climate forcing factors, complete with error bars. Some are positive, some are negative. CO2 is a large positive factor. It is not the cause, but it is a major one. It also happens to be the biggest component of human alteration of the climate.

Honestly, what's so hard to believe about burning millions of years worth of fossil carbon having an impact on the climate? How is that "ridiculous and shortsighted"? If anything, ignoring the effects of such pollution would be shortsighted.

Honestly, what point do you think you're making with this kind of rant? You don't like the possible implications of climate regulation. Ok. Great. That really has fuck all with the physical (scientific) explanations, unless you have some real evidence the scientific process is being corrupted by politicians.

Crichton: point taken. Iirc, there was an afterword he wrote where he stated that there needs to be ALOT more study and caution taken on that, and that there are (and I believe still are) way too many "groups" using fearmongering to help fund themselves.

Koch bros.: the same motherfuckers trying to shove KeystoneXL down out throats and make us swallow their tard sands jizz. And I'm not surprised at all, that whole boondoggle is only about them making more money, period. I've read that, if the pipeline goes thru (and I just read that they've got leaking seam welds all over the place already), it's more than likely gas prices will go UP, mainly because they will take their refinery down there at the bottom end, set it up to refine tar sands ONLY (taking its present production completely out of the production pool), and then sell the shit overseas. So, yeah, even their study needed to be immediately suspect; I find it hilarious it went to opposite direction (watch for the authors to die in a gas main "accident", coming soon to an Atmos-served neighborhood near you).

My issue with co2 is that it's an important part of the balance because of plants and their ability to create oxygen with it. More co2 will actually encourage more plant growth (I *think* that was proven a long time ago), and the extra plant growth will help clear the excess out--note I said "help", it's not 100% and I recognize there's no way it can be otherwise. But, until we find better ways to power our stuff that doesn't involve fossil fuels, it's gonna be awhile yet. We might be okay, if we can stomp the corprats into playing ball, but that'll take some serious regulation and enforcement.

Corrupted science: you already provided proof, of a study that was supposed to be biased the other way, but backfired, thankfully because someone there had some integrity. The Forbes article posted earlier was another example against the Eco-people; so (based on the "smoke/fire principle), we have clear indications that shit is being manipulated to fit what the groups want them to be---and it's on both sides of the issue.

I really don't have anything at all against cleaning up after ourselves, it's just good sense, both for us now and our descendants later. I just don't like alarmists using scare tactics on the issues (you know, like the republicans after 911) to ramrod something through they don't entirely understand, ESPECIALLY if their conclusions are based upon flawed or biased research.

In other words: pick up after yourself; clean up your messes; try not to make any messes later; and be excellent to each other. It's not that difficult, if you try.

As for the "rant": it's actually more apropos than you realize, because the same kind of alarmist crowing we heard/hear from the "conservatives" (who really aren't), is the same kind we're hearing from the environazis (and I use that term to delineate the wackjobs who will do anything to force everyone to fall in line).

Oh, one other point: waaaaaaayyyy back when, after a trip in Sherman and Peabody's Way-Back-Machine, when I was reading Scientific American for fun, there was a very important article about a climate researcher who was setting off shitbombs in the climate pond, with hard data and an interesting set of conclusions: that not only are the temps not rising, both on the ground and in the troposphere; they are FALLING, and a heckuva lot faster that anyone realized. He did his measurements AWAY from populations, away from airports (where NWS takes theirs), away from any form of man-made structures. And his average temps were a couple-three deg F lower than the average. And his tropospheric measurements were bearing that out.

And, of course, the Eco-nazis of the time were decrying and shunning him, to the point where they made him a pariah. (gee, where have we heard THAT before??) even the corpowhores weren't liking him, because he was saying that some of the cooling was being accelerated by industry (smoke=haze=heat reflected back out, iirc), which pissed them off as well. And don't ask me to find it, it was nearly 20 years ago.

Corporations corrupt their data all the time: DuPont did it with R12, R22, and now with R134a. It's interesting that this "data" only comes to light when the compounds' reach the end of their patent life, and it's time to put out a new one they can overcharge for. Even pharmaceuticals are getting nailed, as well as the likes of Monsanto et al, who are actively bribing politicos and the FDA to force thru their unhealthy profitmongering. And as long as these companies are run by psychosociopaths, it won't change, unless WE THE PEOPLE take our government back, and lay down the law.

And that ain't gonna happen any time soon.
__________________
People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.--V


Men heap together the mistakes of their lives, and create a monster they call destiny.
--John Hobbs


~~~ ~~~ Tea[m] Pyratex ~~~ ~~~
Old 02-19-2013, 09:48 PM Tex Arcana is offline  
Reply With Quote
#120  

Reply


Thread Tools

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 Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:04 AM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.