“The research directly links rising greenhouse-gas levels with the growing intensity of rain and snow in the Northern Hemisphere”
&
“Here we show that human-induced increases in greenhouse gases have contributed to the observed intensification of heavy precipitation events”
AGW people will see cause & effect.
Anti-AGW people will see it as exogenous correlation.
Nothing new here. The tone of the article just assumes everyone is onboard with AGW theory; which is pretty much the case internationally. Butthurt ensues.
[quote]PAINTRAINDave wrote:
“The research directly links rising greenhouse-gas levels with the growing intensity of rain and snow in the Northern Hemisphere”
&
“Here we show that human-induced increases in greenhouse gases have contributed to the observed intensification of heavy precipitation events”
AGW people will see cause & effect.
Anti-AGW people will see it as exogenous correlation.
Nothing new here. The tone of the article just assumes everyone is onboard with AGW theory; which is pretty much the case internationally. Butthurt ensues. [/quote]
I thought global warming caused it to be drier, not wetter.
Based on the reportage the study is based on computer simulations, not a complete data set so it is pretty worthless. Basically they decided their computer model fit what they think happened but they don’t have enough data to even confirm the accuracy.
This is not science people, it is a test of the computer modeling. No conclusions can be drawn from it other than either the reporters or scientists or both are biased.
Well if it’s science we’re talking about, I’d be remiss if I didn’t post this. Anyone who is concerned about the environment is clearly retarded. According to Mike Beard (R) Minnesota, “God is not capricious. He’s given us a creation that is dynamically stable,” Beard told MinnPost. “We are not going to run out of anything.” Point being, our environmental actions have zero consequences cause the father the son and the holy ghost got our backs. Think I’ll go start a up a whole mess of leach mines since it’s all good now.
[quote]PAINTRAINDave wrote:
“The research directly links rising greenhouse-gas levels with the growing intensity of rain and snow in the Northern Hemisphere”
&
“Here we show that human-induced increases in greenhouse gases have contributed to the observed intensification of heavy precipitation events”
AGW people will see cause & effect.
Anti-AGW people will see it as exogenous correlation.
Nothing new here. The tone of the article just assumes everyone is onboard with AGW theory; which is pretty much the case internationally. Butthurt ensues. [/quote]
Poor science breeds poor science, internationally, that is why America, until it became over run with EU finatiscist was the major innovator. Now we have the people spewing this garbage to students and spew garbage back.
Popular majority does not make good science, the global warming, climate change crowd is the present day version of the catholic church, when Galileo was trying to demonstrate the earth was not the center of the universe.
[quote]siouxperman wrote:
Well if it’s science we’re talking about, I’d be remiss if I didn’t post this. Anyone who is concerned about the environment is clearly retarded. According to Mike Beard (R) Minnesota, “God is not capricious. He’s given us a creation that is dynamically stable,” Beard told MinnPost. “We are not going to run out of anything.” Point being, our environmental actions have zero consequences cause the father the son and the holy ghost got our backs. Think I’ll go start a up a whole mess of leach mines since it’s all good now.
[quote]siouxperman wrote:
Well if it’s science we’re talking about, I’d be remiss if I didn’t post this. Anyone who is concerned about the environment is clearly retarded. According to Mike Beard (R) Minnesota, “God is not capricious. He’s given us a creation that is dynamically stable,” Beard told MinnPost. “We are not going to run out of anything.” Point being, our environmental actions have zero consequences cause the father the son and the holy ghost got our backs. Think I’ll go start a up a whole mess of leach mines since it’s all good now.
[quote]siouxperman wrote:
Well if it’s science we’re talking about, I’d be remiss if I didn’t post this. Anyone who is concerned about the environment is clearly retarded. According to Mike Beard (R) Minnesota, “God is not capricious. He’s given us a creation that is dynamically stable,” Beard told MinnPost. “We are not going to run out of anything.” Point being, our environmental actions have zero consequences cause the father the son and the holy ghost got our backs. Think I’ll go start a up a whole mess of leach mines since it’s all good now.
Except if you are following the bible for this information, God also tells us to be good stewards of what we are given. [/quote]
And I’m no bible scholar, but I do recall God being capricious at one time or another.[/quote]
Oh Sorry if it comes off as derogatory towards you, I am saying if he is going to the bible for information he should know what the heck he is talking about. Considering much of his base believes in it.
[quote]siouxperman wrote:
Well if it’s science we’re talking about, I’d be remiss if I didn’t post this. Anyone who is concerned about the environment is clearly retarded. According to Mike Beard (R) Minnesota, “God is not capricious. He’s given us a creation that is dynamically stable,” Beard told MinnPost. “We are not going to run out of anything.” Point being, our environmental actions have zero consequences cause the father the son and the holy ghost got our backs. Think I’ll go start a up a whole mess of leach mines since it’s all good now.
Except if you are following the bible for this information, God also tells us to be good stewards of what we are given. [/quote]
And I’m no bible scholar, but I do recall God being capricious at one time or another.[/quote]
Oh Sorry if it comes off as derogatory towards you, I am saying if he is going to the bible for information he should know what the heck he is talking about. Considering much of his base believes in it.
[/quote]
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
Please try not to mix the religious with scientific discussion.
Oops. This is global warming. Too late.[/quote]
Back to the topic at hand, I think everyone just ends up spinning their tires by calling it “global warming”. I don’t think it’s been proven that that’s what is happening. However, I don’t think anyone (I’m sure someone will though just for the hell of it) would argue that pumping CO2, methane, etc. into the atmosphere is doing anything positive. And the most paramount issue is energy independence and national security. The more energy we produce in America, the less we worry about volatility in the middle east and OPEC and so forth. Of course volatility will still effect the overall price of goods in the short term, but lets think long term here. What if, when peak oil really does hit, America already has a solid infrastructure of alternative energy? We will be buffered from the volatility, and it may actually shift manufacturing and production back to the US. If other countries are still completely dependent on oil when it the price of it skyrockets, it may become cheaper to produce goods here even with the higher labor wages. Of course this is all speculation, but my point is that we need to separate alternative energy from “global warming” and look at it more in terms of energy independence. I’m sure this will get called out as left wing nutjob stuff, but so be it.
I would love an alternative to burning fuels for energy but solar and wind are not it for almost every application. They are just big boondoggles and should receive no subsidies. Stop it with pretending ancient technologies like windmills are effective. Pursue next generation technology like cold fusion.
As I said in the other thread if you are concerned about AGW you should support intelligent geoengineering.
If you are against geoengineering like Al Gore then you are using fear of AGW as a weapon but are not concerned about the realities.
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
Please try not to mix the religious with scientific discussion.
Oops. This is global warming. Too late.[/quote]
Back to the topic at hand, I think everyone just ends up spinning their tires by calling it “global warming”. I don’t think it’s been proven that that’s what is happening. However, I don’t think anyone (I’m sure someone will though just for the hell of it) would argue that pumping CO2, methane, etc. into the atmosphere is doing anything positive. And the most paramount issue is energy independence and national security. The more energy we produce in America, the less we worry about volatility in the middle east and OPEC and so forth. Of course volatility will still effect the overall price of goods in the short term, but lets think long term here. What if, when peak oil really does hit, America already has a solid infrastructure of alternative energy? We will be buffered from the volatility, and it may actually shift manufacturing and production back to the US. If other countries are still completely dependent on oil when it the price of it skyrockets, it may become cheaper to produce goods here even with the higher labor wages. Of course this is all speculation, but my point is that we need to separate alternative energy from “global warming” and look at it more in terms of energy independence. I’m sure this will get called out as left wing nutjob stuff, but so be it.[/quote]
there is no way to prove, we do not have a control to run experiments with.
But here is the thing, most people don’t realize this, but with all our forest and plant projects, more of the US is currently vegetative then in recorded history and with all the production of C02 all these plants are balancing it out. The gaseous composition of the atmosphere on average has not shown any significant shifts, since we started measuring.
But no one will show this data which is actually what matters in this discussion. sure there maybe brief localized spikes, but that is the great thing about an ecosystem it is self sustainable.
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
I thought global warming caused it to be drier, not wetter.
Based on the reportage the study is based on computer simulations, not a complete data set so it is pretty worthless. Basically they decided their computer model fit what they think happened but they don’t have enough data to even confirm the accuracy.
This is not science people, it is a test of the computer modeling. No conclusions can be drawn from it other than either the reporters or scientists or both are biased.
I am embarrassed for all involved.[/quote]
Air temperature increases cause much more atmospheric water retention.
Therefore if global warming continues this will cause two sensitive things to happen:
1.) Larger and more precipitous storms
2.) More atmospheric water (humidity etc…)
3.) Redistribution or limited fresh water by those means
Also the study is based on models, but I don’t understand how that diminishes the accuracy or pertinence or the information. Do you disregard financial models? economic models?
Some fields use models to predict this future, but this study only uses them to plot trends in events that have already occurred. Looks pretty accurate to me.
Modeling as simple as mechanical loading on a structure is a million times simpler, is orders of magnitude more in studied, it is a system that can be isolated and manipulated with actual scientific testing, and it still has margins of error that many times require safety factors of 2 or 3.
I honestly believe climate models should be taken with all the salt of the ocean. I put very very very little stock in them, much less when all the data/scientists/organizations are tied in with political bodies with agendas.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Modeling is inherently in-exact.
The more complicated the less accuracy.
Modeling as simple as mechanical loading on a structure is a million times simpler, is orders of magnitude more in studied, it is a system that can be isolated and manipulated with actual scientific testing, and it still has margins of error that many times require safety factors of 2 or 3.
I honestly believe climate models should be taken with all the salt of the ocean. I put very very very little stock in them, much less when all the data/scientists/organizations are tied in with political bodies with agendas.[/quote]
Weren’t there a number of structural failures in the beginning of CAD use that earned it the nickname “Computer Aided Disaster” ?
I can’t help but think of the discussion we had on that very topic in a 101 seminar when these global warming computer mock-ups are released to the public as fact.
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
I would love an alternative to burning fuels for energy but solar and wind are not it for almost every application. They are just big boondoggles and should receive no subsidies. Stop it with pretending ancient technologies like windmills are effective. Pursue next generation technology like cold fusion.
As I said in the other thread if you are concerned about AGW you should support intelligent geoengineering.
If you are against geoengineering like Al Gore then you are using fear of AGW as a weapon but are not concerned about the realities.
[/quote]
Cold fusion dude? Is the funding for a highly dubious technology going to come flowing from the private sector?
Geoengineering? So we can’t possibly inelligently predict weather patterns but we can alter them with our infinite wisdom? Would we use existing models for this or would we go with our gut instinct?
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Modeling is inherently in-exact.
The more complicated the less accuracy.
Modeling as simple as mechanical loading on a structure is a million times simpler, is orders of magnitude more in studied, it is a system that can be isolated and manipulated with actual scientific testing, and it still has margins of error that many times require safety factors of 2 or 3.
I honestly believe climate models should be taken with all the salt of the ocean. I put very very very little stock in them, much less when all the data/scientists/organizations are tied in with political bodies with agendas.[/quote]
Weren’t there a number of structural failures in the beginning of CAD use that earned it the nickname “Computer Aided Disaster” ?
I can’t help but think of the discussion we had on that very topic in a 101 seminar when these global warming computer mock-ups are released to the public as fact.
[/quote]
Yeah but increased levels of greenhouse gases are accruing. You don’t really need to plug variables in a computer to know that this will have an effect. The specific regional climate changes may be subject to error but the general concept is not flawed.