22 replies to this topic

[Doug1o29]

docyabut2, on 03 February 2013 - 12:14 PM, said:

Doug most of  these experts on global warming have been proven wrong:),

A bald-faced statement like that begs for some evidence to back it up.  Please post some references.

Quote

The CO2 levels were higher in the dino ages when man was even around, so how can one say its only man that causing global warming, allthough I agree man does add to the pollution

Both O2 and CO2 levels were a lot higher.  Higher CO2 levels supports the concept that CO2 affects temperature.
There are a lot of variables that statement completely ignors.

Quote

You know the experts stopped calling it Global Warming and now are calling it Climate Changes.

The ones I know use the terms pretty much interchangably when they're not trying to be real precise.  "Global warming" now pretty much refers to human-caused warming, while "climate change" is a more generic term, refering to any type of change.  Besides, it doesn't make much sense to say "global warming" when you're talking about changes in precip or numbers of storms, or floods, or any of scores of climate measurements that do not involve measuring temperature.

Br Cornelius, on 03 February 2013 - 02:08 PM, said:

The anthropocentric causes of climate change have been verified by multiple interlocking strands of evidence so it matters little if the actual details change as a consequence of continued research.
Br Cornelius

Couldn't have said it better.
Doug

Edited by Doug1o29, 03 February 2013 - 08:28 PM.

[Babe Ruth]

Thanks Doug.

I'm not that interested, mostly because there is nothing I can do about it, and I have plenty of other things to learn about.

I am totally at the mercy of the elements and the climate.  Try to avoid bad areas and situations, but there is not much one can do about the weather.

[Doug1o29]

Babe Ruth, on 03 February 2013 - 08:32 PM, said:

Thanks Doug.

I'm not that interested, mostly because there is nothing I can do about it, and I have plenty of other things to learn about.

I am totally at the mercy of the elements and the climate.  Try to avoid bad areas and situations, but there is not much one can do about the weather.

That kind of thinking has to change.  My local city council refuses to address the city's water issues because they don't think they can do anything about the weather.  They could:

1.  Repair our obsolete and degraded water mains (We lose about 30% of our water to leaky pipes.).
2.  Pipe water in from a large reservoir 40 miles north of us.
3.  Allow the use of rain barrels (They're illegal because some folks don't like the way they look.).
4.  Allow the use of cisterns, guttering and rain pipes so natural rainfall can be harnessed, stretching water supplies.
5.  Promote xeriscape (That's illegal; same reason as #3..).
6.  Put in shallow wells to supplement reservoir water.
7.  Examine desalinization and the use of deep water as a long-term solution.

These don't sound like global warming issues, but they mitigate the results of warming-induced precip changes.

New York and New Orleans were not ready for the storms that hit them (The Weather Channel had been broadcasting a disaster scenario about a major huricane hitting New York for two years before Sandy.).  Neither Katrina, nor Sandy, were that much stronger than storms of the past 30 years.  But just getting ready for "normal" disasters would go a long way toward mitigating climate damage.

Just cleaning up pollution doesn't sound like a climate issue, but soot is a siginifcant driver of warming.  Tighter emission standards for diesel engines would mitigate that.

The US has an aging electrical grid that is badly in need of modernization and repair.  Federal low-interest loans to power companies would make the system more efficient (cutting down on carbon emissions) and make it less-susceptible to an electro-magnetic pulse (From a solar flare or an atomic bomb.).  Just writing letters to Congressmen (those that can read) could help.

The bottom line:  nearly every natural resource issue is also a global warming issue.  Get involved.
Doug

[Zaphod222]

docyabut2, on 02 February 2013 - 02:37 AM, said:

The Earth has been getting warmer -- but how much of that heat is due to greenhouse gas emissions and how much is due to natural causes
Read more: http://www.foxnews.c.../#ixzz2JhmEOWJc

It is pretty obvious that solar activity has a lot to do with climate, but the the business of taxing and allocating ressources in the name of the pseudo-scientific CO2 theory is too tempting for governments to give up, so don´t expect it it stop anytime soon.

[Br Cornelius]

Zaphod222, on 04 February 2013 - 09:44 AM, said:

It is pretty obvious that solar activity has a lot to do with climate, but the the business of taxing and allocating ressources in the name of the pseudo-scientific CO2 theory is too tempting for governments to give up, so don´t expect it it stop anytime soon.

The policy response is not the science - people find it impossible to understand the difference between evidence and what people do with that evidence.

Br Cornelius

[Little Fish]

talking of evidence, what does this tell you?
if it was a done deal why would they need to manipulate the data?

[Doug1o29]

Little Fish, on 04 February 2013 - 10:27 AM, said:

talking of evidence, what does this tell you?
if it was a done deal why would they need to manipulate the data?

The guy who "discovered" the "manipulation" was our good friend Anthony Watts.

Back in 1969 I attended Kent State.  I saw a "news" crew from WEWS Channel 5 (Cleveland) stage a "riot" for the cameras.  It was blatantly unethical and a deliberate distortion of events.  I have been at several events that were deemed "newsworthy" and had trouble recognizing the report as covering the same event.  This article does nothing to enhance my opinion of TV "news" shows.

If there is some kind of conspiracy, why didn't they get East Anglia in on it?  You don't need NCDC data to demonstarte that the world is getting warmer.
Doug

[Doug1o29]

I just got curious, so I decided to test whether the NCDC dataset was real or not.  I took the NCDC list of global temperature anomalies and used them to predict the mean annual temperature for Mena, Arkansas.  I chose Mena because I already have the data for that city.  As far as I know, I am the only person who has ever combed through the records and compiled a comprehensive set of mean annual temperatures for Mena.  The records run from January 1906 when the station opened to 2012.  There were two gaps of two years.  One was 1910-1911 and the other was 1979-1980.  Both times the volunteers who ran the station died and it was quite awhile before the Weather Bureau could replace them.  At any rate, the model is:

Mean Annual Temperature (Mena, Arkansas) in degrees F. =  -0.0166 (NCDC Global Temperature Anomaly in hundredths of a degree Celsius) +60.7309

The model accounts for 22.6% of temperature variation.

About two times out of three, the error of the prediction is less than 1.35 degrees Farenheit.

For you statisticians:  F(1,98) = 28.68.  The probability of accepting a false conclusion is less than one in ten thousand.

Try this for any city you like.  It won't work on all of them, but it should work on those that are on the edge of a dry desert, like Mena, Arkansas.  I also tryed it with Fort Smith and Subiaco, AR.  Works for them, too.

If the NCDC list is false, this correlation shouldn't exist.  But it does.

Time to engage your brains, people.
Doug

Edited by Doug1o29, 04 February 2013 - 07:58 PM.