User Tag List

Informational! Informational!:  0
Likes Likes:  0
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 17 to 24 of 35

Thread: New scientific study on the sun in global warming.

  1. #17
    Alien1099's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ USA
    Posts
    207
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Finch View Post
    While the "nobody knows better than anyone else/Experts dont know anything" is appealing, do you not take the word of an engineer when building a bridge, do you not take the word of a computer technician when you have computer problems? Climatologists study these things their whole professional careers, so it is prudent to assume they know more about climates workings than the average person. I know I assume that about the auto mechanics I bring my car to.

    If nobody knew better than anyone else, then why should I take what anybody here says about their own profession/line of work seriously, because your word doesnt count more than anyone else's. But wait, I assume you DO know quite a bit about the things you do for a living, more so than the average joe.

    Are exerts often wrong? Do bridges fail? Are there such things as design flaws? Yes, obviously. But because a profession can be wrong sometimes is no reason to assume that therefore they cant get anything right.

    Could global warming be wrong? Perhaps, but its a generally a consensus that it is true by climatologists, or, the people who study the effects in question for a living. Of course they could be wrong, but they know more about the stuff than anyone else also.

    The think about experts is you have to attack the position and the science itself to make points disputing the general scientific body of knowledge. What do we really know about the human body, modern medicine doesnt know anything more than a witch doctor. Or, what do invasive species biologists really know about ecosystems, they are so complex.


    Thats my two cents for this discussion. Please lets be civil... If things start to get nasty I will ask that this thread to be closed because we dont need another smashfest. I almost regret posting this already.
    Both side's experts have come up with data that contradicts the other side's data. Here's the way I look at it; the Earth has heated up and cooled down many times without human kind's help and will do so long after we're gone. CO2 composes an infinitesimal percentage of the gas that makes up the atmosphere and 90-95% of it that enters the atmosphere every year is created by nature itself. From what I've read, WATER VAPOR is a much bigger factor in the warming effect of the planet. Correlation does not necessarily equal causation.

    Many people want to feel like there's always something going on that they have to be a part of and they have to fix. They want to believe they are doing some sort of good or making a difference. Global warming or "climate change" as it is often now called is one of those feel good things that some people latch onto for whatever reason. The fact that of the top 10 hottest days in U.S. history, 6 occurred on or before 1953. 5 of them were in 1939 or before. That says something to me.

  2. #18
    herenorthere's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    almost Hartford
    Posts
    3,785
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Finch, my point is that an expert on climate forcing is an expert on that and, quite often, that alone. Experts have to be part of the solution, but society has to decide on the solution. Global warming is a scientific, social, economic, etc. problem. Involving essentially everything, it becomes a political problem. So scientists who want to be part of the solution have to act in part as a politician and at least pretend to listen, no matter how irritated they might get. Where did we get the word gadfly, after all?

    The reason I mentioned roads, by the way, is that they're a terrific example of professional hubris, since the experts (highway departments and engineers) made decisions for years without enough participation by people who didn't know how to design or build a road. They still do. Highways cut city neighborhoods and wetlands in half, with no consideration of them other than for their role to take the cars and water pouring off the highway somewhere else. A lot of the original opposition to rampant road construction was by urban activists and little old ladies in sneakers. They were emotional, few had any relevant education or experience and they annoyed the heck out of the experts. But they were reacting to something that bothered them and paved the way, as it were, for lots of other experts to become involved and try to rein in the roadhogs.

    Alien1099, the atmospheric modelers were already grappling with the role of water vapor, clouds, oceanic circulation etc. 20 years ago when I was last around people in that field. They still are because it's all so complex. They don't all agree with each other, but there's something of a consensus. As an aside, I've been thinking a lot about that word because of some things at work and here's a sentence I lifted from the Wikipedia definition - "A too-strict requirement of consensus may effectively give a small self-interested minority group veto power over decisions." Unfortunately, that describes the global warming debate pretty well.
    Bruce in CT

    Madness is something rare in individuals but in groups, parties, peoples, ages it is the rule. Friedrich Nietzsche

  3. #19

    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    427
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    What I find the most interesting about the pro-global warming crowd is that they are unwilling to look at other sources for climate change.
    Um, wrong. There is a difference between "haven't looked at" and "have looked at and ruled out". Guess which is actually applicable here.

    If people really, truly, cared about the climate change they wouldn't stop at CO2 and would welcome the possibility that it could be the entity that brings this planet heat to begin with. Unless I'm mistaken there isn't a set static variable that determines how hot the sun burns, so why is it out of the realm of possibility? Why are pro-global warming crowds so fast to hush anything that isn't relative to green house gases? I think the answer is obvious.
    Yes, the answer is obvious: in 40 years of direct satellite observation, the sun's energy output has not increased.

    You're article does not 100% denounce the Sun as being the culprit.
    Um, yes, it does. Read it again, particularly the second one. How can the sun be the source of warming when it hasn't changed output in 40 years (while temps have continued to increase)?

    Define reputable climatologists for me
    Not funded by oil companies or political groups.

    Have they successfully predicted a Global Warming in the past?
    Actually, not only have they done so, they've done so on computers less powerful than my iPod. The initial Global Warming climate models were run in the early 80's, and the temperature trends of the past 20 years are within the estimates of those models. Think about how models have been improved since then, and how much more computational power is behind them.

    Are any of these reputable climatologists the same climatologists who predicted Global Cooling?
    You mean the prediction which never enjoyed any consensus support?

    Read this: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...mole/#more-536

    To summarize, in the time of 1965-1979, there only 7 scientific articles that predicted cooling while there were 44 that predicted warming.

    The "Global Cooling Craze" is a myth created by the media and right-wing think-tanks which never actually existed. Global warming has been suggested since an article by Ahrenius in 1904, and has been steadily gaining support since then.

    We have 144,000 years of temperature recordings? That's news to me. So how warm was the Antarctic ocean 144,000 years ago? I would like to also know what tool was used to read this information, the date, the time and who did it. This is a perfect example of how unscientific the Global warming theory truly is.
    Ice cores, which not only record temperatures, but gas concentrations.

    But I did mis-state, and should correct myself - it's not 144,000 years of data. It's 400,000 years of data.

    Here's a graph:


    Yeah, mighty unscientific, taking direct measurements like that!

    I have a problem with people who try to dictate what is a universal indisputable truths with a grain of salt.
    Nobody is saying that. What is being said is that we have a mountain of data, all pointing to the same thing, and no data which contradicts it. Come up with data, real data, that supports your POV, and it'll be fairly considered. But don't just toss out incorrect ideas (sunspots and Global Cooling) and expect to be taken seriously.

    Both side's experts have come up with data that contradicts the other side's data.
    That's because one side's 'experts' are being paid vast sums of money by the oil company to say things which sound good on Faux News, but fall apart upon close examination.

    CO2 composes an infinitesimal percentage of the gas that makes up the atmosphere and 90-95% of it that enters the atmosphere every year is created by nature itself. From what I've read, WATER VAPOR is a much bigger factor in the warming effect of the planet. Correlation does not necessarily equal causation.
    Yes, 95%+ of CO2 is natural. But imagine a bucket with a value that lets out 99 drops of water an hour, and I start adding 100. What happens to the bucket's volume?

    Water vapor does warm Earth, but not in a simple fashion; it's more like an amp in a stereo system. More CO2, more warmth, more evaporation, more water vapor, more heat, more evaporation again, etc. The reverse is also true.

    Global warming or "climate change" as it is often now called is one of those feel good things that some people latch onto for whatever reason. The fact that of the top 10 hottest days in U.S. history, 6 occurred on or before 1953. 5 of them were in 1939 or before. That says something to me.
    That your data analysis is sloppy and poorly performed? Maxima are of trivial importance, what matters are general trends.

    Furthermore, Global warming has been happening since the 1850's. If you showed me that all the hottest days were in the 1700's, you might have something, but all your current (inferior) data does is support GW.

    Finch, my point is that an expert on climate forcing is an expert on that and, quite often, that alone. Experts have to be part of the solution, but society has to decide on the solution. Global warming is a scientific, social, economic, etc. problem. Involving essentially everything, it becomes a political problem. So scientists who want to be part of the solution have to act in part as a politician and at least pretend to listen, no matter how irritated they might get. Where did we get the word gadfly, after all?
    I disagree - one of the greatest flaws of our society is that we do not teach people that their opinions can be flat-out wrong.

    The best possible thing climate scientists can do is call these claims out as bull, publicly exposing the claimants as corporate or political hacks. You cannot make good decisions on false information, and as long as people's misconceptions are handled with kid gloves, we will continue wasting time on non-existent debates.

    Should biologists pretend to listen and care what creationists have to say? No. They should call a spade a spade and tell people they're just plain wrong.

    The reason I mentioned roads, by the way, is that they're a terrific example of professional hubris, since the experts (highway departments and engineers) made decisions for years without enough participation by people who didn't know how to design or build a road.
    A cute, but irrelevant story. This isn't about a group saying "I don't want them to bulldoze this old, pretty building". This isn't about conflicting values or interests. It's about basic facts.

    You want a better example, there's a reason I keep bringing up creationism (other than that it represents the peak of willful ignorance of science). The success of creationism in at least preventing any meaningful incorporation of evolutionary biology into the high-school classroom is entirely due to the contributions of the 'non-expert' public and people who are foolish enough to consider their opinions as somehow equally valid to those of experts.

    I'm all for involving the public in decisions over how to limit CO2 emissions and the like, but I draw the line at letting the uninformed try to claim the facts are other than they are.

    When it comes to establishing the factual nature of the world around us, the public needs to learn to sit down, shut up, and listen to the scientists.

    Mokele
    Last edited by Ozzy; 03-16-2008 at 10:14 AM.
    \"With malleus aforethought, mammals got an earful of their ancestor's jaw.\"
    --J. Burns, on the evolution of auditory ossicles.

  4. #20
    Composter losfreddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Katy,Tx
    Posts
    247
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    its obviously real thou as cars exhaust are constanly producing emmisions. If kept up, we will all be breathing nasty car exhuast
    Quit reading my mind!

  5. #21
    Outsiders71's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    1,005
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Finch View Post
    While the "nobody knows better than anyone else/Experts dont know anything" is appealing, do you not take the word of an engineer when building a bridge, do you not take the word of a computer technician when you have computer problems? Climatologists study these things their whole professional careers, so it is prudent to assume they know more about climates workings than the average person. I know I assume that about the auto mechanics I bring my car to.

    If nobody knew better than anyone else, then why should I take what anybody here says about their own profession/line of work seriously, because your word doesnt count more than anyone else's. But wait, I assume you DO know quite a bit about the things you do for a living, more so than the average joe.

    Are exerts often wrong? Do bridges fail? Are there such things as design flaws? Yes, obviously. But because a profession can be wrong sometimes is no reason to assume that therefore they cant get anything right.

    Could global warming be wrong? Perhaps, but its a generally a consensus that it is true by climatologists, or, the people who study the effects in question for a living. Of course they could be wrong, but they know more about the stuff than anyone else also.

    The think about experts is you have to attack the position and the science itself to make points disputing the general scientific body of knowledge. What do we really know about the human body, modern medicine doesnt know anything more than a witch doctor. Or, what do invasive species biologists really know about ecosystems, they are so complex.


    Thats my two cents for this discussion. Please lets be civil... If things start to get nasty I will ask that this thread to be closed because we dont need another smashfest. I almost regret posting this already.
    I don't have much time to respond so I'll keep it brief. People like Mokele want you to believe that the science community and climatologists as a whole support the Global Warming theory. That is quite untrue. This also shoots down your idea that I'm just plainly going against the whole grain of the science community.

    Too all those who respect expert opinions, watch this:

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...04746669786959
    James 1:17

    "Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows."

  6. #22
    Tropical Fish Enthusiast jimscott's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Western New York
    Posts
    18,768
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Why do all right wings believe that global warming is a lie? Why do left wings believe the world is ending?
    Why do the right believe that abortion is murdering a human? And the left believes that an embryo is just a group of cells?
    Right wing believes that everybody should have a gun and left wings think nobody should have them.
    Ozzy, There reason why those on the right side of the political spectrum say it's a lie, is because they tend to be wealthy and anything that has the potential to mess up their greed gets poo-pooed aside. So ya can't upset their applecart by slowing down the economy.

    Left wingers conveniently de-humanize life by calling a human embryo as something less upsetting as murder. They're just in denial of reality.

    Guns don't kill? Humans do? But what are they using to kill? Back in the day when the amendment was put in place, we had to worry about the British and the Indians and predatory critters. Now, Brits are our our allies and we pummeled the Indians into reservations. We have grocery stores and our cities & suburbs have forced the predatory critters into the countryside. All we have to protect ourselves from is ourselves.

    As far as I read and understand, our planet has ebbed and flowed for thousands, if not trillions of years. People crossed the Bering Straits to get to North America. The 15th century was supposed to have been a warm one. The 30's-50's was a warm spell. The 60's and 70's were colder and the experts were calling for an oncoming iceage. They changed their mind in the 80's and 90's.

    In my opinion, we have normal ebb and flow interacting with human activity. Both are occurring. Why does it have to be one or the other?

  7. #23
    herenorthere's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    almost Hartford
    Posts
    3,785
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Mokele, many environmental issues, not just the collateral damage of roads, were pioneered by outsiders who often were more emotional than informed and were criticized for not shutting up and listening to the scientists. Maybe the public in some parallel universe will "sit down, shut up, and listen to the scientists" but I think it would be a bad place and it certainly isn't that way here. Any scientist who wants to be listened to has to bend over backwards to play nice, even when the dissent is pure fiction pre-packaged for distribution by industry shills. It's impossible to convert the willfully ignorant, but ripping into them makes others sympathize with them.

    As for those who keep pointing out that some people were warning of an impending ice age 40 years ago, there's no comparison. Science evolves and we're way beyond their level of understanding, quality/quantity of data, and computing power. That's how science happens. The fact that geologists once said continents can't move doesn't mean geologists should be ignored now when they say continents do.
    Bruce in CT

    Madness is something rare in individuals but in groups, parties, peoples, ages it is the rule. Friedrich Nietzsche

  8. #24
    Outsiders71's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    1,005
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Mokele View Post
    Yes, the answer is obvious: in 40 years of direct satellite observation, the sun's energy output has not increased.
    Explain this:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...ixnewstop.html

    Or are those scientists not experts either.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mokele View Post
    Not funded by oil companies or political groups.
    Nor funded by climatologists looking for more grant money.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mokele View Post
    When it comes to establishing the factual nature of the world around us, the public needs to learn to sit down, shut up, and listen to the scientists.

    Mokele
    Then please do watch:
    http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...04746669786959

    And listen to the scientists...

    BTW unless you're a reputable climatologist, I believe you're included in the public realm and have no special insight in this matter.
    James 1:17

    "Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows."

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •