Orbiter-Forum  

Go Back   Orbiter-Forum > Far Side of the Moon > Brighton Lounge
Register Blogs Orbinauts List Social Groups FAQ Projects Mark Forums Read

Brighton Lounge General off-topic discussions. Political or religious topics may only be posted in The Basement forum.

View Poll Results: Does Global Warming Exist?
Yes GW exists, and is a problem. 43 64.18%
Yes GW exists, and is not a problem 13 19.40%
No GW does not exist. 11 16.42%
Voters: 67. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 11-20-2008, 05:27 PM   #136
Eagle
The Amazing Flying Tuna Can
 
Eagle's Avatar
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pete.dakota View Post
OMG! GW causes earthquakes?

I bet California wild fires and heat waves are probably included in the 'events' along with a lot of other things.

Oh, and notice how there seems to be a drop off in disasters at the years of 2000, 1996, 1992, 1988, 1984, 1980.
Eagle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2008, 05:31 PM   #137
Bj
Donator
 
Bj's Avatar

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eagle View Post
 OMG! GW causes earthquakes?



Quote:
Originally Posted by Eagle View Post
 Oh, and notice how there seems to be a drop off in disasters at the years of 2000, 1996, 1992, 1988, 1984, 1980.
True there are drop offs, but the drop is never as low as the increase is high.
Bj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2008, 06:57 PM   #138
Moonwalker
Orbinaut
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pete.dakota View Post
 Current research (which, of course, you don't believe) indicates that an increased CO2 concentration in the atmosphere will decrease cyclone (hurricane) frequency, but increase intensity.
The research, which is based on computer models and predictions, shows that an increased CO2 concentration in a virtual atmosphere increases virtual hurricane intensity. No more, no less.

Do not use the word "will", since those scientists who publish their results don't use it too. They tend to use "may" and "we think", because the results of computer simulations are no scientific data, nor are they evidence for anything. Computer models are just used to help understand and gain knowledge, but not to proof anything. Also, compared to the real atmosphere, a computer based virtual atmosphere is not that much complex like the real atmopshere, which is very well known.
Moonwalker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2008, 07:15 PM   #139
simonpro
Beta Tester
Default

Moonwalker, could you point us towards some peer-reviewed scientific literature that supports any of the claims you're making in this thread?
I'm not interested in the opinions of individuals, individuals don't know enough to be able to discuss this as a whole, hence the need for peer reviewed data and modelling.
simonpro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2008, 07:31 PM   #140
pete.dakota
Donator
 
pete.dakota's Avatar
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonwalker View Post
 The research, which is based on computer models and predictions, shows that an increased CO2 concentration in a virtual atmosphere increases virtual hurricane intensity.
OK, well short of building a working time machine, how else are we to make predictions outside of 'virtual' simulations? What better solution is there to predict climate change? The data used to create these virtual systems is very scrutinised, thoroughly researched, and routinely updated using the latest, and most credible, scientific findings. You got a better idea?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonwalker View Post
 Do not use the word "will", since those scientists who publish their results don't use it too. They tend to use "may" and "we think", because the results of computer simulations are no scientific data, nor are they evidence for anything. Computer models are just used to help understand and gain knowledge, but not to proof anything.
It was perfectly OK for me to use 'will'. As the sentence was still a postulation: "Current research (which, of course, you don't believe) indicates that an increased CO2 concentration in the atmosphere will decrease cyclone (hurricane) frequency, but increase intensity."

The research indicates that hurricane intensity WILL increase. I'm not saying it WILL; but the evidence indicates it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonwalker View Post
 Also, compared to the real atmosphere, a computer based virtual atmosphere is not that much complex like the real atmopshere, which is very well known.
Global model forecasting systems use some of the most powerful supercomputers in the world. Including a NOAA system for which the back-up is hosted by NASA.
pete.dakota is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2008, 07:45 PM   #141
Eagle
The Amazing Flying Tuna Can
 
Eagle's Avatar
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pete.dakota View Post
 OK, well short of building a working time machine, how else are we to make predictions outside of 'virtual' simulations? What better solution is there to predict climate change? The data used to create these virtual systems is very scrutinised, thoroughly researched, and routinely updated using the latest, and most credible, scientific findings. You got a better idea?
A computer model is a bunch of equations that somebody thought might give an interesting result when run with certain parameters. A computer model will always give you the result you expected, even on unexpected data.

Well outside the realm of transformational math equations, there is experimental data. Its very difficult to have a planet sized controlled experiment, however parts can be simulated.

Just remember to manage your error. Increased temperature and CO2 concentrations on algae and krill, but there are other fish in the sea, vertebrate and otherwise.
Eagle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2008, 07:49 PM   #142
Moonwalker
Orbinaut
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by simonpro View Post
 Moonwalker, could you point us towards some peer-reviewed scientific literature that supports any of the claims you're making in this thread?
I'm not interested in the opinions of individuals, individuals don't know enough to be able to discuss this as a whole, hence the need for peer reviewed data and modelling.
It's not a claim that computer based models are no proof for anything. Even IPCC lead authors mention that often enough.

Well, for what exactly dou you like to get peer-reviewed scientific literature? Or is it just the usual try to silence down "individuals"?
Moonwalker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2008, 08:08 PM   #143
Urwumpe
Not funny anymore
 
Urwumpe's Avatar

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonwalker View Post
 It's not a claim that computer based models are no proof for anything. Even IPCC lead authors mention that often enough.
That is right and wrong. Computer models are no scientific proof. But they are a way to validate models, based on scientific proof. And predictions done by computer models, which are predictions based on a scientifically developed theory. Which means: If the model is correct, the predictions are correct. They are no proof of anything, as future predictions are no proof of anything: But if the predictions of the theory are correct, the theory has improved it's score.

And predictions of a scientific theory are much better as predictions of crackpots.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonwalker View Post
 Well, for what exactly dou you like to get peer-reviewed scientific literature? Or is it just the usual try to silence down "individuals"?
Peer-review is a quality assurance system, commonly used in science. This system works very good, is tested and reliable. Of course, it punishes people who do not want to see their work reviewed. very often crackpot scientists, who claim to be the keepers of the holy grail of science.
Urwumpe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2008, 08:41 PM   #144
simonpro
Beta Tester
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonwalker View Post
 It's not a claim that computer based models are no proof for anything. Even IPCC lead authors mention that often enough.
As Urwumpe says, computer models aren't supposed to be proof of any scientific theory. Orbiter is merely a computer model, and it too comes with limits to it's accuracy, just like climate models, but I very rarely hear of people complaining that these uncertainties somehow contradict the theory of gravity.

It is a stone cold fact that the planet is currently experiencing rising mean temperatures. It's a stone cold fact that greenhouse gas concentrations are (globally) rising. It's a well known theory that these gases can cause localised climate change. It's a superbly validated theory that these localised changes can be extended to a global scale. The only thing we're not certain about is how much of an effect we are having. That we are having an effect is as close to a fact as you can ever get in scientific theory.

Quote:
Well, for what exactly dou you like to get peer-reviewed scientific literature? Or is it just the usual try to silence down "individuals"?
I am attempting to find some aspect of your thoughts that stand up to scrutiny by the scientific community. I'm not trying to silence anyone, people can make as much noise as they want. Even if they - in my opinion - make themselves look like fools in the process. All I'm trying to do is find some basis in reality for what you're saying. Some scientific theory on which you're generating your conclusions.
simonpro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2008, 12:51 PM   #145
Moonwalker
Orbinaut
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by simonpro View Post
 As Urwumpe says, computer models aren't supposed to be proof of any scientific theory.
Not supposed to be proof by scientists. But some journalists and news articles imply that computer models are proof. Some people take it too much conclusively.

Quote:
Originally Posted by simonpro View Post
 Orbiter is merely a computer model, and it too comes with limits to it's accuracy, just like climate models, but I very rarely hear of people complaining that these uncertainties somehow contradict the theory of gravity.
The theory of gravity is practically replicable for anybody, especially in case my glas of water next to my keypad should fall off my desk.

Predictions of potential future climate changes, based on our input of limited current knowledge, is just data and values with less certainty of realism. Although we try to do so, climate is not predictable, based on our limted possibilities, compared to all natural forces and influences. Weather is also not really predictable, less than ever on the long run.

Quote:
Originally Posted by simonpro View Post
 It is a stone cold fact that the planet is currently experiencing rising mean temperatures.
Not each stone is cold...

I'm aware that some of our current measurements of mean temperatures show a slight rise above "average" (depends on what you measure; deep sea level temperature on the Antarctica for example, do not show a rise). I do not disagree to that. But I do not jump on the bandwagon of alarmism, just because some of our measurements show slight increase beyond the comma or because some climatologists think one or two things about their data. Nicely colored graphics and diagrams are easy to read. People love it very much. But paper doesn't blush.

Quote:
Originally Posted by simonpro View Post
 It's a stone cold fact that greenhouse gas concentrations are (globally) rising. It's a well known theory that these gases can cause localised climate change. It's a superbly validated theory that these localised changes can be extended to a global scale. The only thing we're not certain about is how much of an effect we are having. That we are having an effect is as close to a fact as you can ever get in scientific theory.
I do not disagree that the CO2 level has risen up to 380 ppm. And I'm also aware of the children's book theory "greenhouse effect" (while the term itself is rather old and not really valid to current physics). How much of an effect we are having is not known indeed. But it can possibly turn out to be less than very minor in future, but also contrariwise.

Well, let's say the next decades would not show a significant increase of mean temperature, or even a slight decrease. What would your superbly validated theories look like? I think they would become much elastic. Six month ago, German scientists of the Max Planck Institute have calculated, based on current sea temperatures, that the global mean tempearture may stagnate within the next ten years, followed by a warming again in 15 to 20 years. While the latest IPCC report assumes a rise of 0,2C within the next 20 years (which already is much less than predicted in the 1990's and the early 2000's), followed by a rise.

I still have an old schoolbook (geography) from 1994, which says that the global mean tempearture has risen by 0,75C since industrialization. Today, almost 15 years later, the value still is almost the same.

PS: I have to mention that beside my scepticism of climate predictions and knowledge regarding climate change causes and climate driving factors, I do not disagree to reduce anthropogenic "greenhouse" gas emissions, pollution, as well as deforestation and other man-made altering effects significantly.
Moonwalker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2008, 01:29 PM   #146
Urwumpe
Not funny anymore
 
Urwumpe's Avatar

Default

Moonwalker: Do you have a theory that works better as the existing theories? Instead of using unqualified polemics, like "childbook theory", can you show, by pure skills, that you are better as the "alarmists" you attack? you have to admit, that the theories became more accurate over the last decades. And don't even think about starting "in the 1950, scientists predicted a new ice age" - until 600 AD, it was accepted scientific theory, that we see by using eye rays. If I remember correctly, the predictions from 1990 for our present became pretty much true within the still large error bars. While you search in a thesaurus for a new word to ridicule science, which is not fitting in your world view, newer theories will appear, with smaller error bars.

And I think, there is a nice quotation about your situation:

Quote:
Perhaps there will be babblers who claim to be judges of astronomy although completely ignorant of the subject and, badly distorting some passage of Scripture to their purpose, will dare to find fault with my undertaking and censure it. I disregard them even to the extent of despising their criticism as unfounded. For it is not unknown that Lactantius, otherwise an illustrious writer but hardly an astronomer, speaks quite childishly about the Earth's shape, when he mocks those who declared that the Earth has the form of a globe. Hence scholars need not be surprised if any such persons will likewise ridicule me. Astronomy is written for astronomers.
Nicolaus Copernicus... 1543. Some things on this planet will never change.
Urwumpe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2008, 04:03 PM   #147
Moonwalker
Orbinaut
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Urwumpe View Post
 ...Some things on this planet will never change.
Which is our fear of natural forces and their incalculability.

I don't ridicule science on the whole. I comment my concerns about some parts of climatology, which obviously causes a few people to become nervous a little bit.

I do not have any different theory as the existing ones. I also don't think that I'm "better" (whatever that means) as people who are convinced that the IPCC has conclusive material, which consists basically of paper and pdf files.

Beside paper and guesswork, there is not much left which points to a dramatic climate change. Not even just because some glaciers melt and winters become slightly warmer at some regions. We always saw and still see any kind of climate change as a threat. No matter if it's about cooling or warming. It is for sure that we have to adapt. We have no right of a constant climate. Harvests will be destroyed here and there, people have to resettle and such things. Just look at the past only in Europe. The Earth is not a nice place on the whole, for any species, at any time.

The global warming debate actually is rather young (just a little bit younger than me). It directly follwed the global cooling debate as we looked more accurately to the climate by satellites and other equipment and methodes. It's still the beginning. But all we do is to obeserve. We can't do any practical against the climate change. We can't prevent our thermometers to show a slight increase of the average temperatures on some parts of the world. We can't prevent that glaciers melt and so on. We're just pretty much helpless bystanders. All we can do, which could influence the climate change slightly (but maybe it would not even be measurable), is to reduce anthropogenic gas emissions, pollution and to alter the surface by deforestation and so on. I'm very much in favour of it. But after that, there is not much left. The climate probably continues to behave like a lot of people would not like still.

In any case, we have to learn how to adapt to climate changes. There is nothing for it as the past shows. Even if we stop all our pollutions. The IPCC even concludes that it is not possible to stop global warming after all.
Moonwalker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2008, 05:25 PM   #148
pete.dakota
Donator
 
pete.dakota's Avatar
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonwalker View Post
 
I do not have any different theory as the existing ones. I also don't think that I'm "better" (whatever that means) as people who are convinced that the IPCC has conclusive material, which consists basically of paper and pdf files.
Prove it's inconclusive.. Don't talk down at scientific theory if you don't have a countering theory of your own. Simply doubting and badgering current theory is not enough - especially for this crowd. If you can't provide conclusive evidence of your own to counter the IPCC's findings, don't bate it as being wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonwalker View Post
 Beside paper and guesswork,
Will you be printing your conclusive, non-guesswork findings on another material, then? Should the IPCC not use paper?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonwalker View Post
 there is not much left which points to a dramatic climate change. Not even just because some glaciers melt and winters become slightly warmer at some regions.
Downplaying the ramifications of warming by putting 'some' or 'slightly' at the beginning of words does not constitute scientific argument. Equally, I could say, "Gun crime, so what? So some people die... We still need guns." Your mentality toward this matter bears resemblance to that of 9/11 truthers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonwalker View Post
 We always saw and still see any kind of climate change as a threat. No matter if it's about cooling or warming.
Everyone knows the climate changes itself; that is not the issue here. The problem lies in human's influence on this change - for which the evidence suggests, is not only notable, but massive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonwalker View Post
 It is for sure that we have to adapt.
Is measuring and accounting for man made global warming not adaptation? Are we supposed to adapt in the same way birds do? Fly south when it's cold, and north when it's warm? Humans have the perspicacity to notice our influence on our planet, therefore it is our adaption that allows us to change that influence. What would you rather have man do? Nothing? Let it be?..

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonwalker View Post
 The IPCC even concludes that it is not possible to stop global warming after all.
No one claims that stopping global warming is possible.
pete.dakota is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2008, 06:18 PM   #149
Omhra
Orbinaut
 
Omhra's Avatar
Default

Moonwalker wrote;
[Meteorologists say that a thunderstorm releases energy which corresponds to about....]

So you do believe scientists!... ?

Moonwalker wrote
[our technologies and sciences have created the misbelief that we are the center of everything.]

No it hasn't Science has broken that geocentric view figuratively and literally. Science tries to find our place in the universe not invent one.

Moonwalker wrote
[I also don't think that I'm "better" (whatever that means) as people who are convinced that the IPCC has conclusive material,]

You fail to see that it IS NOT the IPCC we believe... is the data... who ever gathers the DATA is inconsequential... WE DO NOT BELIEVE THE IPCC; WE ASSESS THE DATA!!!! :chair:

The IPCC only gathered a set of DATA and presented it to the UN...
Most of us gather Data where ever it is found. The IPCC is only one source and a good one because so much of it was gathered... we read and we check with varied sources...
Omhra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2008, 07:07 PM   #150
Moonwalker
Orbinaut
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pete.dakota View Post
 Prove it's inconclusive.
As already mentioned, computer models are never proof at the time they are calculated. The proof if the data may become conclusive or not, will be the future behaviour of the climate. I don't neet to throw around any evidences for that, although it is popular to do so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pete.dakota View Post
 Don't talk down at scientific theory if you don't have a countering theory of your own.
I don't overrate climatology and all of it's theories. I don't have to kneel down in front of the IPCC just because I don't have to offer counter theories. Numbers and values is one thing, daily live is another one. I personally don't need theories and counter theories for almost everything. I have very well working sense organs, and, you may have your doubt, a very well working brain

Quote:
Originally Posted by pete.dakota View Post
 Will you be printing your conclusive, non-guesswork findings on another material, then? Should the IPCC not use paper?
The material and its presentation actually would be the atmosphere and its behaviour, rather than paper and computer models.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pete.dakota View Post
 Downplaying the ramifications of warming by putting 'some' or 'slightly' at the beginning of words does not constitute scientific argument. Equally, I could say, "Gun crime, so what? So some people die... We still need guns." Your mentality toward this matter bears resemblance to that of 9/11 truthers.
It may seem so in your point of view. But it is not nearly the case. 9/11 is a very young historic event. The facts are on the table, no matter what the so called 9/11 truthers say about, while ignoring millions of witnesses in New York, Wahsington and in front of the TV around the globe. But it has absolutely nothing to do with climate science, a few of its outcomes and my point of view on it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pete.dakota View Post
 Everyone knows the climate changes itself; that is not the issue here. The problem lies in human's influence on this change - for which the evidence suggests, is not only notable, but massive.
If and how much man caused a global mean temperature rise of 0,75C is assumed but not known, all papers aside.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pete.dakota View Post
 Is measuring and accounting for man made global warming not adaptation? Are we supposed to adapt in the same way birds do? Fly south when it's cold, and north when it's warm? Humans have the perspicacity to notice our influence on our planet, therefore it is our adaption that allows us to change that influence. What would you rather have man do? Nothing? Let it be?..
I have already mentioned what we can do. We certainly won't prevent ice ages, nor won't we prevent global warming. In the worst case, adapting would mean to resettle, if all our reductions of pollution and surface altering would not take much effect to a global warming or cooling in the wide future. What else would you prefer?


-----Post Added-----


Quote:
Originally Posted by Omhra View Post
 Moonwalker wrote;
[Meteorologists say that a thunderstorm releases energy which corresponds to about....]

So you do believe scientists!... ?
Well, I did not say that I don't believe in scientists, less than ever scientists on the whole.
Moonwalker is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

  Orbiter-Forum > Far Side of the Moon > Brighton Lounge

Tags
global, warming


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:19 PM.

Quick Links Need Help?


About Us | Rules & Guidelines | TOS Policy | Privacy Policy

Orbiter-Forum is hosted at Orbithangar.com
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2017, Orbiter-Forum.com. All rights reserved.