login
Climate Change
-
No new posts
|
 2016-11-29 9:27 AM |
Pro  9391     Omaha, NE |  Subject: Climate ChangeWe seem to touch on this topic throughout the various political threads so might as well create a thread by itself. I just read this article on the land temperature drops and thought you guys might enjoy it. This drop is just a weather related drop, and not a long term trend thing, but I find it interesting how the media likes to pump the spikes up, but for some reason they completely ignore the spikes down. There was some interesting commentary towards the end of the article about Trump and potential climate science budgeting. I will be curious to see how the climate science changes now that the alarmism propagandists are going to be leaving office. It shouldn't change at all because science is supposed to be apolitical, but I have a sneaky suspicion the truth about the big scam is going to start coming out.
|
| 2016-11-29 11:39 AM in reply to: tuwood |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Climate Change Originally posted by tuwood We seem to touch on this topic throughout the various political threads so might as well create a thread by itself. I just read this article on the land temperature drops and thought you guys might enjoy it. This drop is just a weather related drop, and not a long term trend thing, but I find it interesting how the media likes to pump the spikes up, but for some reason they completely ignore the spikes down. There was some interesting commentary towards the end of the article about Trump and potential climate science budgeting. I will be curious to see how the climate science changes now that the alarmism propagandists are going to be leaving office. It shouldn't change at all because science is supposed to be apolitical, but I have a sneaky suspicion the truth about the big scam is going to start coming out.
Follow the grant money.....that's where the "science" goes. |
| 2016-11-29 12:40 PM in reply to: Left Brain |
Extreme Veteran 3025 Maryland | Subject: RE: Climate Change yes the grant money...because they only give you grant money when you give a certain answer! unlike the oil and coal money, they are paying for unbiased research.
Get. Real. |
| 2016-11-29 12:44 PM in reply to: dmiller5 |
Pro 6838 Tejas | Subject: RE: Climate Change Ahh. The old neener neener argument. Wins every time. |
| 2016-11-29 12:51 PM in reply to: 0 |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Climate Change Originally posted by dmiller5 yes the grant money...because they only give you grant money when you give a certain answer! unlike the oil and coal money, they are paying for unbiased research.
Get. Real. Just wait until you see what the "science" says now that the libs are out.......watch and learn. Can't get more real then that. I don't blame you for your stand......unlike me, you weren't around when the circus first came to town and put up the big tent. LOL Edited by Left Brain 2016-11-29 12:56 PM |
| 2016-11-29 1:46 PM in reply to: dmiller5 |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Climate Change Originally posted by dmiller5 yes the grant money...because they only give you grant money when you give a certain answer! unlike the oil and coal money, they are paying for unbiased research.
Get. Real. Do you believe the science will continue to be the same and politicians stoking alarmist fears if the money dries up? Do you feel that any scientist with an opposing point of view will continue to be shunned by the community? |
| 2016-11-29 1:58 PM in reply to: tuwood |
Extreme Veteran 3025 Maryland | Subject: RE: Climate Change Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by dmiller5 yes the grant money...because they only give you grant money when you give a certain answer! unlike the oil and coal money, they are paying for unbiased research.
Get. Real. Do you believe the science will continue to be the same and politicians stoking alarmist fears if the money dries up? Do you feel that any scientist with an opposing point of view will continue to be shunned by the community? that isn't how science works tony, it isn't religion. the people you speak of are shunned because they are crackpots that are manipulating and cherrypicking data to fuel political interests. |
| 2016-11-29 2:07 PM in reply to: 0 |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Climate Change Originally posted by dmiller5 Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by dmiller5 yes the grant money...because they only give you grant money when you give a certain answer! unlike the oil and coal money, they are paying for unbiased research.
Get. Real. Do you believe the science will continue to be the same and politicians stoking alarmist fears if the money dries up? Do you feel that any scientist with an opposing point of view will continue to be shunned by the community? that isn't how science works tony, it isn't religion. the people you speak of are shunned because they are crackpots that are manipulating and cherrypicking data to fuel political interests. LMAO - which side are you speaking of?? Follow the money!! Edited by Left Brain 2016-11-29 2:08 PM |
| 2016-11-29 2:26 PM in reply to: Left Brain |
Champion 10157 Alabama | Subject: RE: Climate Change I think it is a fool's errand to try to shop climate change. 7.4 billion people on the planet. The United Nations estimates it will increase to 11.2 billion by the year 2100. Some our kids and most of our grandkids will be still be here. That is a 50% increase. If tomorrow 7,499,999,999 people woke up and decided to change their way of life to reduce C O2 emissions the best we might do is reduce maybe 10% the frist year as you picked all the low hanging fruit. Then maybe 2 or 3 % reduction a year with diminishing returns. You are not even accounting for the increase in population!! We need to figure out how to harness the energy produce by global warming! We need to move entire societies to higher ground..... BTW, there was one guy left out of that scenario above, ME!! |
| 2016-11-29 2:35 PM in reply to: Rogillio |
Extreme Veteran 3025 Maryland | Subject: RE: Climate Change you literally just made up a bunch of percentages. wow, what an amazing argument. clap clap clap |
| 2016-11-29 2:43 PM in reply to: dmiller5 |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Climate Change Originally posted by dmiller5 you literally just made up a bunch of percentages. wow, what an amazing argument. clap clap clap Somebody's paying him......probably Tony. |
| 2016-11-29 3:09 PM in reply to: 0 |
Champion 10157 Alabama | Subject: RE: Climate Change Originally posted by dmiller5 you literally just made up a bunch of percentages. wow, what an amazing argument. clap clap clap Yes grassahoppa young engineer. It is the difference in mathematics and engineering. A mathematician and an engineer were put at the end of a hall. At the other end of the hall was a beautiful girl for each one of them. They were told every minute they could move one half the distance closer to their girl. The mathematician went home for he concluded the he would never actually reach he girl. The engineer started pacing off. He said with a wry grin, "I can get there.....but I can get close enough." Did I make estimates? You bet! It's called a Fermi technique. Let me illustrate. How many piano tuners are there in Chicago? No idea? Come, let us reason together.... 1.There are approximately 9,000,000 people living in Chicago. 2.On average, there are two persons in each household in Chicago. 3.Roughly one household in twenty has a piano that is tuned regularly. 4.Pianos that are tuned regularly are tuned on average about once per year. 5.It takes a piano tuner about two hours to tune a piano, including travel time. 6.Each piano tuner works eight hours in a day, five days in a week, and 50 weeks in a year. From these assumptions, we can compute that the number of piano tunings in a single year in Chicago is: (9,000,000 persons in Chicago) ÷ (2 persons/household) × (1 piano/20 households) × (1 piano tuning per piano per year) = 225,000 piano tunings per year in Chicago. We can similarly calculate that the average piano tuner performs: (50 weeks/year) × (5 days/week) × (8 hours/day) ÷ (2 hours to tune a piano) = 1000 piano tunings per year. Dividing gives: (225,000 piano tunings per year in Chicago) ÷ (1000 piano tunings per year per piano tuner) = 225 piano tuners in Chicago. The actual number of piano tuners in Chicago is about 290. It's has to do with compensating errors. Might be off on the number of people in Chicago but that can be offset by how long it takes to tune a piano. Class dismissed. Good day! Edited by Rogillio 2016-11-29 3:36 PM |
| 2016-11-29 3:17 PM in reply to: Rogillio |
| Deep in the Heart of Texas | Subject: RE: Climate Change Originally posted by Rogillio Originally posted by dmiller5 Yes grassahoppa young engineer. It is the difference in mathematics and engineering. A mathematician and an engineer were put at the end of a hall. At the other end of the hall was a beautiful girl for each one of them. They were told every minute they could move one step closer to the goal line. The mathematician went home for he concluded the he would never actually reach he girl. The engineer started pacing off. He said with a wry grin, "I can get there.....but I can get close enough." Did I make estimates? You bet! It's called a Fermi technique. Let me illustrate. How many piano tuners are there in Chicago? No idea? Come, let us reason together.... 1.There are approximately 9,000,000 people living in Chicago. 2.On average, there are two persons in each household in Chicago. 3.Roughly one household in twenty has a piano that is tuned regularly. 4.Pianos that are tuned regularly are tuned on average about once per year. 5.It takes a piano tuner about two hours to tune a piano, including travel time. 6.Each piano tuner works eight hours in a day, five days in a week, and 50 weeks in a year. From these assumptions, we can compute that the number of piano tunings in a single year in Chicago is: (9,000,000 persons in Chicago) ÷ (2 persons/household) × (1 piano/20 households) × (1 piano tuning per piano per year) = 225,000 piano tunings per year in Chicago. We can similarly calculate that the average piano tuner performs: (50 weeks/year) × (5 days/week) × (8 hours/day) ÷ (2 hours to tune a piano) = 1000 piano tunings per year. Dividing gives: (225,000 piano tunings per year in Chicago) ÷ (1000 piano tunings per year per piano tuner) = 225 piano tuners in Chicago. The actual number of piano tuners in Chicago is about 290. It's has to do with compensating errors. Might be off on the number of people in Chicago but that can be offset by how long it takes to tune a piano. Class dismissed. Good day! you literally just made up a bunch of percentages. wow, what an amazing argument. clap clap clap Professor... I think you screwed up the mathematician/engineer joke and it seems like the rest of your lecture came from wikipedia. |
| 2016-11-29 3:19 PM in reply to: dmiller5 |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Climate Change Originally posted by dmiller5 Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by dmiller5 yes the grant money...because they only give you grant money when you give a certain answer! unlike the oil and coal money, they are paying for unbiased research.
Get. Real. Do you believe the science will continue to be the same and politicians stoking alarmist fears if the money dries up? Do you feel that any scientist with an opposing point of view will continue to be shunned by the community? that isn't how science works tony, it isn't religion. the people you speak of are shunned because they are crackpots that are manipulating and cherrypicking data to fuel political interests. You just made a religious argument. Essentially you said all non-believers must be shunned, which isn't science. (from oxford dictionary) Science is the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. I don't think it said anything about shunning crackpots. The so called "crackpots" are the ones pointing out that the observations are not matching the CO2 driven studies. Due to the religion aspect of Climate Change the science deniers shun these scientists and label them as deniers and crackpots. That's how politics and religion is run, that's not how science works. |
| 2016-11-29 3:20 PM in reply to: Rogillio |
Veteran 1019 St. Louis | Subject: RE: Climate Change Originally posted by Rogillio Originally posted by dmiller5 Yes grassahoppa young engineer. It is the difference in mathematics and engineering. A mathematician and an engineer were put at the end of a hall. At the other end of the hall was a beautiful girl for each one of them. They were told every minute they could move one step closer to the goal line. The mathematician went home for he concluded the he would never actually reach he girl. The engineer started pacing off. He said with a wry grin, "I can get there.....but I can get close enough." Did I make estimates? You bet! It's called a Fermi technique. Let me illustrate. How many piano tuners are there in Chicago? No idea? Come, let us reason together.... 1.There are approximately 9,000,000 people living in Chicago. 2.On average, there are two persons in each household in Chicago. 3.Roughly one household in twenty has a piano that is tuned regularly. 4.Pianos that are tuned regularly are tuned on average about once per year. 5.It takes a piano tuner about two hours to tune a piano, including travel time. 6.Each piano tuner works eight hours in a day, five days in a week, and 50 weeks in a year. From these assumptions, we can compute that the number of piano tunings in a single year in Chicago is: (9,000,000 persons in Chicago) ÷ (2 persons/household) × (1 piano/20 households) × (1 piano tuning per piano per year) = 225,000 piano tunings per year in Chicago. We can similarly calculate that the average piano tuner performs: (50 weeks/year) × (5 days/week) × (8 hours/day) ÷ (2 hours to tune a piano) = 1000 piano tunings per year. Dividing gives: (225,000 piano tunings per year in Chicago) ÷ (1000 piano tunings per year per piano tuner) = 225 piano tuners in Chicago. The actual number of piano tuners in Chicago is about 290. It's has to do with compensating errors. Might be off on the number of people in Chicago but that can be offset by how long it takes to tune a piano. Class dismissed. Good day! you literally just made up a bunch of percentages. wow, what an amazing argument. clap clap clap For the life of me, I can't figure out your first analogy with the two guys in the hall. I take roughly a 2.5' step. If the hall is about 25', I'll be there in 10 minutes. 150', about an hour. No matter how long the hallway is, every minute I'm 2.5' closer to reaching a finite distance. Why does the mathematician give up? |
| 2016-11-29 3:22 PM in reply to: Bob Loblaw |
| Deep in the Heart of Texas | Subject: RE: Climate Change Originally posted by Bob Loblaw Because mathematicians have very low self esteem.Originally posted by Rogillio Originally posted by dmiller5 Yes grassahoppa young engineer. It is the difference in mathematics and engineering. A mathematician and an engineer were put at the end of a hall. At the other end of the hall was a beautiful girl for each one of them. They were told every minute they could move one step closer to the goal line. The mathematician went home for he concluded the he would never actually reach he girl. The engineer started pacing off. He said with a wry grin, "I can get there.....but I can get close enough." Did I make estimates? You bet! It's called a Fermi technique. Let me illustrate. How many piano tuners are there in Chicago? No idea? Come, let us reason together.... 1.There are approximately 9,000,000 people living in Chicago. 2.On average, there are two persons in each household in Chicago. 3.Roughly one household in twenty has a piano that is tuned regularly. 4.Pianos that are tuned regularly are tuned on average about once per year. 5.It takes a piano tuner about two hours to tune a piano, including travel time. 6.Each piano tuner works eight hours in a day, five days in a week, and 50 weeks in a year. From these assumptions, we can compute that the number of piano tunings in a single year in Chicago is: (9,000,000 persons in Chicago) ÷ (2 persons/household) × (1 piano/20 households) × (1 piano tuning per piano per year) = 225,000 piano tunings per year in Chicago. We can similarly calculate that the average piano tuner performs: (50 weeks/year) × (5 days/week) × (8 hours/day) ÷ (2 hours to tune a piano) = 1000 piano tunings per year. Dividing gives: (225,000 piano tunings per year in Chicago) ÷ (1000 piano tunings per year per piano tuner) = 225 piano tuners in Chicago. The actual number of piano tuners in Chicago is about 290. It's has to do with compensating errors. Might be off on the number of people in Chicago but that can be offset by how long it takes to tune a piano. Class dismissed. Good day! you literally just made up a bunch of percentages. wow, what an amazing argument. clap clap clap For the life of me, I can't figure out your first analogy with the two guys in the hall. I take roughly a 2.5' step. If the hall is about 25', I'll be there in 10 minutes. 150', about an hour. No matter how long the hallway is, every minute I'm 2.5' closer to reaching a finite distance. Why does the mathematician give up? |
| 2016-11-29 3:23 PM in reply to: Hook'em |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Climate Change Originally posted by Hook'em Originally posted by Bob Loblaw Because mathematicians have very low self esteem.Originally posted by Rogillio Originally posted by dmiller5 Yes grassahoppa young engineer. It is the difference in mathematics and engineering. A mathematician and an engineer were put at the end of a hall. At the other end of the hall was a beautiful girl for each one of them. They were told every minute they could move one step closer to the goal line. The mathematician went home for he concluded the he would never actually reach he girl. The engineer started pacing off. He said with a wry grin, "I can get there.....but I can get close enough." Did I make estimates? You bet! It's called a Fermi technique. Let me illustrate. How many piano tuners are there in Chicago? No idea? Come, let us reason together.... 1.There are approximately 9,000,000 people living in Chicago. 2.On average, there are two persons in each household in Chicago. 3.Roughly one household in twenty has a piano that is tuned regularly. 4.Pianos that are tuned regularly are tuned on average about once per year. 5.It takes a piano tuner about two hours to tune a piano, including travel time. 6.Each piano tuner works eight hours in a day, five days in a week, and 50 weeks in a year. From these assumptions, we can compute that the number of piano tunings in a single year in Chicago is: (9,000,000 persons in Chicago) ÷ (2 persons/household) × (1 piano/20 households) × (1 piano tuning per piano per year) = 225,000 piano tunings per year in Chicago. We can similarly calculate that the average piano tuner performs: (50 weeks/year) × (5 days/week) × (8 hours/day) ÷ (2 hours to tune a piano) = 1000 piano tunings per year. Dividing gives: (225,000 piano tunings per year in Chicago) ÷ (1000 piano tunings per year per piano tuner) = 225 piano tuners in Chicago. The actual number of piano tuners in Chicago is about 290. It's has to do with compensating errors. Might be off on the number of people in Chicago but that can be offset by how long it takes to tune a piano. Class dismissed. Good day! you literally just made up a bunch of percentages. wow, what an amazing argument. clap clap clap For the life of me, I can't figure out your first analogy with the two guys in the hall. I take roughly a 2.5' step. If the hall is about 25', I'll be there in 10 minutes. 150', about an hour. No matter how long the hallway is, every minute I'm 2.5' closer to reaching a finite distance. Why does the mathematician give up? But they find a lot of money on the floor looking down all the time |
| 2016-11-29 3:34 PM in reply to: Bob Loblaw |
Champion 10157 Alabama | Subject: RE: Climate Change Originally posted by Bob Loblaw Originally posted by Rogillio Originally posted by dmiller5 Yes grassahoppa young engineer. It is the difference in mathematics and engineering. A mathematician and an engineer were put at the end of a hall. At the other end of the hall was a beautiful girl for each one of them. They were told every minute they could move one step closer to the goal line. The mathematician went home for he concluded the he would never actually reach he girl. The engineer started pacing off. He said with a wry grin, "I can get there.....but I can get close enough." Did I make estimates? You bet! It's called a Fermi technique. Let me illustrate. How many piano tuners are there in Chicago? No idea? Come, let us reason together.... 1.There are approximately 9,000,000 people living in Chicago. 2.On average, there are two persons in each household in Chicago. 3.Roughly one household in twenty has a piano that is tuned regularly. 4.Pianos that are tuned regularly are tuned on average about once per year. 5.It takes a piano tuner about two hours to tune a piano, including travel time. 6.Each piano tuner works eight hours in a day, five days in a week, and 50 weeks in a year. From these assumptions, we can compute that the number of piano tunings in a single year in Chicago is: (9,000,000 persons in Chicago) ÷ (2 persons/household) × (1 piano/20 households) × (1 piano tuning per piano per year) = 225,000 piano tunings per year in Chicago. We can similarly calculate that the average piano tuner performs: (50 weeks/year) × (5 days/week) × (8 hours/day) ÷ (2 hours to tune a piano) = 1000 piano tunings per year. Dividing gives: (225,000 piano tunings per year in Chicago) ÷ (1000 piano tunings per year per piano tuner) = 225 piano tuners in Chicago. The actual number of piano tuners in Chicago is about 290. It's has to do with compensating errors. Might be off on the number of people in Chicago but that can be offset by how long it takes to tune a piano. Class dismissed. Good day! you literally just made up a bunch of percentages. wow, what an amazing argument. clap clap clap For the life of me, I can't figure out your first analogy with the two guys in the hall. I take roughly a 2.5' step. If the hall is about 25', I'll be there in 10 minutes. 150', about an hour. No matter how long the hallway is, every minute I'm 2.5' closer to reaching a finite distance. Why does the mathematician give up? Sorry, as noted above, I screwed it up. Every two minutes they could move 1/2 the distance to their girl. Should make more sense now. My bad. |
| 2016-11-29 3:36 PM in reply to: Rogillio |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Climate Change Originally posted by Rogillio Originally posted by dmiller5 Yes grassahoppa young engineer. It is the difference in mathematics and engineering. A mathematician and an engineer were put at the end of a hall. At the other end of the hall was a beautiful girl for each one of them. They were told every minute they could move one step closer to the goal line. The mathematician went home for he concluded the he would never actually reach he girl. The engineer started pacing off. He said with a wry grin, "I can get there.....but I can get close enough." Did I make estimates? You bet! It's called a Fermi technique. Let me illustrate. How many piano tuners are there in Chicago? No idea? Come, let us reason together.... 1.There are approximately 9,000,000 people living in Chicago. 2.On average, there are two persons in each household in Chicago. 3.Roughly one household in twenty has a piano that is tuned regularly. 4.Pianos that are tuned regularly are tuned on average about once per year. 5.It takes a piano tuner about two hours to tune a piano, including travel time. 6.Each piano tuner works eight hours in a day, five days in a week, and 50 weeks in a year. From these assumptions, we can compute that the number of piano tunings in a single year in Chicago is: (9,000,000 persons in Chicago) ÷ (2 persons/household) × (1 piano/20 households) × (1 piano tuning per piano per year) = 225,000 piano tunings per year in Chicago. We can similarly calculate that the average piano tuner performs: (50 weeks/year) × (5 days/week) × (8 hours/day) ÷ (2 hours to tune a piano) = 1000 piano tunings per year. Dividing gives: (225,000 piano tunings per year in Chicago) ÷ (1000 piano tunings per year per piano tuner) = 225 piano tuners in Chicago. The actual number of piano tuners in Chicago is about 290. It's has to do with compensating errors. Might be off on the number of people in Chicago but that can be offset by how long it takes to tune a piano. Class dismissed. Good day! you literally just made up a bunch of percentages. wow, what an amazing argument. clap clap clap I don't know what the hell the hallway was about.....but I spit my coffee out at the bolded. |
| 2016-11-29 3:39 PM in reply to: Hook'em |
Champion 10157 Alabama | Subject: RE: Climate Change Originally posted by Hook'em Originally posted by Rogillio Originally posted by dmiller5 Yes grassahoppa young engineer. It is the difference in mathematics and engineering. A mathematician and an engineer were put at the end of a hall. At the other end of the hall was a beautiful girl for each one of them. They were told every minute they could move one step closer to the goal line. The mathematician went home for he concluded the he would never actually reach he girl. The engineer started pacing off. He said with a wry grin, "I can get there.....but I can get close enough." Did I make estimates? You bet! It's called a Fermi technique. Let me illustrate. How many piano tuners are there in Chicago? No idea? Come, let us reason together.... 1.There are approximately 9,000,000 people living in Chicago. 2.On average, there are two persons in each household in Chicago. 3.Roughly one household in twenty has a piano that is tuned regularly. 4.Pianos that are tuned regularly are tuned on average about once per year. 5.It takes a piano tuner about two hours to tune a piano, including travel time. 6.Each piano tuner works eight hours in a day, five days in a week, and 50 weeks in a year. From these assumptions, we can compute that the number of piano tunings in a single year in Chicago is: (9,000,000 persons in Chicago) ÷ (2 persons/household) × (1 piano/20 households) × (1 piano tuning per piano per year) = 225,000 piano tunings per year in Chicago. We can similarly calculate that the average piano tuner performs: (50 weeks/year) × (5 days/week) × (8 hours/day) ÷ (2 hours to tune a piano) = 1000 piano tunings per year. Dividing gives: (225,000 piano tunings per year in Chicago) ÷ (1000 piano tunings per year per piano tuner) = 225 piano tuners in Chicago. The actual number of piano tuners in Chicago is about 290. It's has to do with compensating errors. Might be off on the number of people in Chicago but that can be offset by how long it takes to tune a piano. Class dismissed. Good day! you literally just made up a bunch of percentages. wow, what an amazing argument. clap clap clap Professor... I think you screwed up the mathematician/engineer joke and it seems like the rest of your lecture came from wikipedia. The 'class dismissed" and "good day" were mine! But the real brilliance was knowing what the Fermi technique is and how it applied to my global warning BS....I mean analysis. |
| 2016-12-06 11:44 AM in reply to: tuwood |
| 1502 Katy, Texas | Subject: RE: Climate Change I don't know what the answer is on climate change, I truly feel there is simply not enough data to know for sure. But what I will say is, that when speaking about climate change, the science community sounds like a religious group. For any other subject, the scientific community will say; XYZ is the current theory based on the following data. On climate change, you typically here; XYZ is the current theory because so-and-so said so...you're not going to argue with so-and-so are you??? To me, the big question comes down to something we learned in 8th grade science class...significant figures. I am so sick of seeing data presented where fractions of a degree in global temperature or fractions of an inch of sea level are discussed over 100+ years. You are only as good as your worst data. If you use temperature or sea level data that's any more than 50 years old, you'd be hard pressed to convince me that it has an accuracy of greater than 1.0 degree F or 1 inch. Yet we continually see data presented down to the 1/10th or 1/100th of a degree going back 100 years. You just can't do that. I don't care what kind of advanced modeling you use...a model is only as good as the data you put into it. Go do a google search and you will find 100's of examples. You just can't use data from 100 global sites 100 years ago and assume the same accuracy of the millions of data sites today. And if you only go back 50 years, you simply can't make any long term conclusions. If I have to see one more graph going back to 1900 showing 1/10ths of a degree, I'm going to lose my mind. I've seen some going back 1,000 years. It's insane. It's one model built on the output of another on the output of another and the great minds of the world think somehow they can make data out of nothing. You can't. Rant complete. |
| 2016-12-06 12:10 PM in reply to: 3mar |
Champion 10157 Alabama | Subject: RE: Climate Change Originally posted by 3mar I don't know what the answer is on climate change, I truly feel there is simply not enough data to know for sure. But what I will say is, that when speaking about climate change, the science community sounds like a religious group. For any other subject, the scientific community will say; XYZ is the current theory based on the following data. On climate change, you typically here; XYZ is the current theory because so-and-so said so...you're not going to argue with so-and-so are you??? To me, the big question comes down to something we learned in 8th grade science class...significant figures. I am so sick of seeing data presented where fractions of a degree in global temperature or fractions of an inch of sea level are discussed over 100+ years. You are only as good as your worst data. If you use temperature or sea level data that's any more than 50 years old, you'd be hard pressed to convince me that it has an accuracy of greater than 1.0 degree F or 1 inch. Yet we continually see data presented down to the 1/10th or 1/100th of a degree going back 100 years. You just can't do that. I don't care what kind of advanced modeling you use...a model is only as good as the data you put into it. Go do a google search and you will find 100's of examples. You just can't use data from 100 global sites 100 years ago and assume the same accuracy of the millions of data sites today. And if you only go back 50 years, you simply can't make any long term conclusions. If I have to see one more graph going back to 1900 showing 1/10ths of a degree, I'm going to lose my mind. I've seen some going back 1,000 years. It's insane. It's one model built on the output of another on the output of another and the great minds of the world think somehow they can make data out of nothing. You can't. Rant complete. Very good rant. I ranted the entire election that the margins of error said that the election was simply too close to call. But people had it in their heads that if you average 20 polls that are all +/- 3% the result would be a poll that is somehow more accurate than your best poll. That might be true with random numbers but not with polls. Poll use modeling of the demographics and assumptions about who will and who won't vote. They also make an assessment of their perceived accuracy. And of course no one wants to say 'my poll has a margin of error of 15%' because we simply don't know what people are really gonna do. Likewise, if climatologist are using the same modeling and generally the same assumptions they are gonna get the same results! They may all be wrong but at least they will be consistent....just like the election polls. Here is a funny accuracy story. One of my college EE professors talked about police radar detectors and how they can be beat. He said there is a requirement that they be calibrated by a certified metrology lab every x months and that you could challenge the validity of a speeding ticket by calling for the calibration data on the radar. Well a little knowledge is a dangerous thing....especially for a 24 yo kid who gets caught speeding in his new Z-28. I got pulled over for speeding out in BF Kansas. So, being a rebel, I asked for the serial number off the radar gun so I could see when the last time the things was calibrated. The cop got pizzed off and said I could come to court and ask for the data! ANd if I had a problem he'd take me to jail right then. He also said the radar is calibrated everyday. I did some checking and found there is a field calibration technique where they strike a tuning fork that vibrates at a certain frequency and from that you can see if the radar is reading accurately. I've never actually seen this, just read about it. Not sure if this would take the place of a metrology department calibration. Wouldn't matter anyway, judges do whatever they want anyway. |
| 2016-12-06 12:25 PM in reply to: Rogillio |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Climate Change I'm not a scientist or an engineer.....but I enjoy watching "scientists" come up with current data from 100 years or so of collection on a subject that has been around for billions of years and through numerous ice ages, warming periods, mass extinctions, etc. Hey, remember when the planet was covered mostly in water? Ice? Surely there are some "models" for how that happened, right? No? The Earth will be fine.......keep the line moving. LMAO
|
| 2016-12-06 1:21 PM in reply to: Left Brain |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: Climate Change Speaking of Climate Change, apparently, Ivanka, not Donald, invited Al Gore to Trump Tower to talk to her about global climate change, which, according to an article I saw today, Ivanka "plans to make global warming one of her key issues once [her dad] takes office". (Key issues as....what? The COO of Trump industries? I thought she was taking no role in the government? "Blind trust" and all...? Anywho...) At some point, Trump himself, who wasn't' originally scheduled to be at the meeting showed up and joined the discussion and Gore said he spent more time with Trump than with Ivanka. “I had a lengthy and very productive meeting about the transition with the president-elect,” said Gore. “It was a sincere search for areas of common ground. I found it an extremely interesting conversation and to be continued, and I’m just going to leave it at that.” Assuming Gore is being truthful, I suppose it's encouraging that Trump is at least willing to listen to people with a different viewpoint, especially considering it looks like he's about to appoint the former CEO of Exxon to a cabinet position . Curious to see what Ivanka's place in all this is. |
| 2016-12-06 1:23 PM in reply to: jmk-brooklyn |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Climate Change Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Speaking of Climate Change, apparently, Ivanka, not Donald, invited Al Gore to Trump Tower to talk to her about global climate change, which, according to an article I saw today, Ivanka "plans to make global warming one of her key issues once [her dad] takes office". (Key issues as....what? The COO of Trump industries? I thought she was taking no role in the government? "Blind trust" and all...? Anywho...) At some point, Trump himself, who wasn't' originally scheduled to be at the meeting showed up and joined the discussion and Gore said he spent more time with Trump than with Ivanka. “I had a lengthy and very productive meeting about the transition with the president-elect,” said Gore. “It was a sincere search for areas of common ground. I found it an extremely interesting conversation and to be continued, and I’m just going to leave it at that.” Assuming Gore is being truthful, I suppose it's encouraging that Trump is at least willing to listen to people with a different viewpoint, especially considering it looks like he's about to appoint the former CEO of Exxon to a cabinet position . Curious to see what Ivanka's place in all this is. I saw that with Gore as well. It's obviously hard to read into his words very much, but I would have loved to be a fly on the wall. I'd think if Trump were softening his tone he'd use words like "encouraging" or something like that to describe the conversation, but "extremely interesting" makes me feel he didn't. |
|
|
|
|
| ||||
|
| |||
|
| |||
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK