Scientists Prove AGW Caused by Man

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]Eli B wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[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.[/quote]

O.k. But just because something works on a computer with enough manipulation to achieve a desired effect does not mean that those manipulations will occur naturally.

There is also a question of scale. A large majority of formula that describe behaviors of materials and substances are not linear. The formulas used to describe the aspiration of gases like oxygen and co2 from water and evaporation or their effects in a closed system and controlled environment are not only not analogous to what happens to our planet, they can’t even come close. The orders of magnitude of difference is just way too big.

And before some policy makers or other people with dubious and unclear intentions make some very broad and sweeping changes to the policies of energy production and the way billions of people live, they better come up with some better arguments, substantiated by actual fact, than a general concept applied to a scale that is exponents of trillions of times larger than a model or assumptions that amount to a foregone conclusion argumentation fallacy.

But don’t take my word for it. I don’t understand science.

42

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]Eli B wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[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.[/quote]

O.k. But just because something works on a computer with enough manipulation to achieve a desired effect does not mean that those manipulations will occur naturally.

There is also a question of scale. A large majority of formula that describe behaviors of materials and substances are not linear. The formulas used to describe the aspiration of gases like oxygen and co2 from water and evaporation or their effects in a closed system and controlled environment are not only not analogous to what happens to our planet, they can’t even come close. The orders of magnitude of difference is just way too big.

[/quote]

source?

43

[quote]Eli B wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]Eli B wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[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.[/quote]

O.k. But just because something works on a computer with enough manipulation to achieve a desired effect does not mean that those manipulations will occur naturally.

There is also a question of scale. A large majority of formula that describe behaviors of materials and substances are not linear. The formulas used to describe the aspiration of gases like oxygen and co2 from water and evaporation or their effects in a closed system and controlled environment are not only not analogous to what happens to our planet, they can’t even come close. The orders of magnitude of difference is just way too big.

[/quote]

source?[/quote]

Aside from the basic understanding of the limits and accuracy of non linear equations, you could start here (yeah, I know, it’s wikipedia. but it gives a decent overview of the subjects)-

Psychrometrics - Wikipedia (notice the lack of linearity in the charts)

Then there is the first paragraph of this-

and you could learn more on the subjects at any college or university that has an engineering department.

Given the scope and size of our planet, I’m sure there are other disciplines which would also need to be incorporated into calculating the rate of absorption, retention, and dissipation of heat energy that occurs constantly on our planet, but I think that those two should at least be adequate support for my statement about the non linear nature of our eco-system, the complexity of it, and the limits of functions. But those combinatorials are tricky. Some of them just don’t work out the way we think that they should.

And that is a gross oversimplification of the subject. If you can find anything on solving unlimited order equations of infinite variables, then that would certainly be a helpfull contribution to develop the body of knowledge required to accurately model the fluctuations of global temperatures.

But don’t listen to me. I don’t understand science.

44

Fuck global warming. Man isn’t nearly as big and bad as it thinks to be able to cause a large enough climate change to see any effect. Fuck’s sake the climate is going to shift over time - its nothing less than arrogance to assume your the cause of it. “Oh look that big bright ball in the sky says hi and goes by everyday. Im so glad it revolves around us!!!” Grow up people.

45

[quote]siouxperman wrote:
[…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.[/quote]
Pumping CO2 in to the atmosphere definitely makes the plants grow better. If we want less CO2, let’s plant more trees and grass. It’s really that simple.

46

[quote]Eli B wrote:
Cold fusion dude? Is the funding for a highly dubious technology going to come flowing from the private sector?[/quote]

Cold fusion is undergoing a renaissance under the name LENR, as described in the Wikipedia entry. LENR is an accepted field of study among physicists. The scientists all agree something is going on there, enough so to keep getting money from the DoD and DoE, but they still don’t know exactly what, or how to scale it.

47

Who would have thought that bright orange thing in the sky controls temperature.

48

For the lol

49

[quote]siouxperman wrote:

[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]

The ensuring our energy future thing is always interesting to me. I wouldn’t call it left wing nutjob stuff, but I would call it overly optimistic.

Energy commodities are traded on an open market. Just because something is produced here doesn’t mean we will be the beneficiaries of local production. Pennsylvania is in the beginning of a massive natural gas boom. That doesn’t mean that my gas bill is going to go down. It means that the gas produced is going to a depository where it will be sold at the highest price the market will bear.

50

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]Eli B wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]Eli B wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[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.[/quote]

O.k. But just because something works on a computer with enough manipulation to achieve a desired effect does not mean that those manipulations will occur naturally.

There is also a question of scale. A large majority of formula that describe behaviors of materials and substances are not linear. The formulas used to describe the aspiration of gases like oxygen and co2 from water and evaporation or their effects in a closed system and controlled environment are not only not analogous to what happens to our planet, they can’t even come close. The orders of magnitude of difference is just way too big.

[/quote]

source?[/quote]

Aside from the basic understanding of the limits and accuracy of non linear equations, you could start here (yeah, I know, it’s wikipedia. but it gives a decent overview of the subjects)-

Psychrometrics - Wikipedia (notice the lack of linearity in the charts)

Then there is the first paragraph of this-

and you could learn more on the subjects at any college or university that has an engineering department.

Given the scope and size of our planet, I’m sure there are other disciplines which would also need to be incorporated into calculating the rate of absorption, retention, and dissipation of heat energy that occurs constantly on our planet, but I think that those two should at least be adequate support for my statement about the non linear nature of our eco-system, the complexity of it, and the limits of functions. But those combinatorials are tricky. Some of them just don’t work out the way we think that they should.

And that is a gross oversimplification of the subject. If you can find anything on solving unlimited order equations of infinite variables, then that would certainly be a helpfull contribution to develop the body of knowledge required to accurately model the fluctuations of global temperatures.

But don’t listen to me. I don’t understand science.
[/quote]

Roger.

I talked to a friend of mine about your point and he agreed about orders of magnitude. Hes getting his masters in environmental remdiation btw. However he argues that scientists are able to factor in orders of magnitude.

I didn’t press the issue as I wouldn’t really fully understand it.

51

[quote]Eli B wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]Eli B wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]Eli B wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[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.[/quote]

O.k. But just because something works on a computer with enough manipulation to achieve a desired effect does not mean that those manipulations will occur naturally.

There is also a question of scale. A large majority of formula that describe behaviors of materials and substances are not linear. The formulas used to describe the aspiration of gases like oxygen and co2 from water and evaporation or their effects in a closed system and controlled environment are not only not analogous to what happens to our planet, they can’t even come close. The orders of magnitude of difference is just way too big.

[/quote]

source?[/quote]

Aside from the basic understanding of the limits and accuracy of non linear equations, you could start here (yeah, I know, it’s wikipedia. but it gives a decent overview of the subjects)-

Psychrometrics - Wikipedia (notice the lack of linearity in the charts)

Then there is the first paragraph of this-

and you could learn more on the subjects at any college or university that has an engineering department.

Given the scope and size of our planet, I’m sure there are other disciplines which would also need to be incorporated into calculating the rate of absorption, retention, and dissipation of heat energy that occurs constantly on our planet, but I think that those two should at least be adequate support for my statement about the non linear nature of our eco-system, the complexity of it, and the limits of functions. But those combinatorials are tricky. Some of them just don’t work out the way we think that they should.

And that is a gross oversimplification of the subject. If you can find anything on solving unlimited order equations of infinite variables, then that would certainly be a helpfull contribution to develop the body of knowledge required to accurately model the fluctuations of global temperatures.

But don’t listen to me. I don’t understand science.
[/quote]

Roger.

I talked to a friend of mine about your point and he agreed about orders of magnitude. Hes getting his masters in environmental remdiation btw. However he argues that scientists are able to factor in orders of magnitude.

I didn’t press the issue as I wouldn’t really fully understand it.[/quote]

I wouldn’t belabor the point, as I don’t have any formal schooling in the subject either (other than math up to pre-calc). Environmental clean up and watershed monitoring are just a hobby for me.

The little tag line is just a jab at that goofy kid that believes I don’t understand anything about the environment.

52

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]Eli B wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]Eli B wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]Eli B wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[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.[/quote]

O.k. But just because something works on a computer with enough manipulation to achieve a desired effect does not mean that those manipulations will occur naturally.

There is also a question of scale. A large majority of formula that describe behaviors of materials and substances are not linear. The formulas used to describe the aspiration of gases like oxygen and co2 from water and evaporation or their effects in a closed system and controlled environment are not only not analogous to what happens to our planet, they can’t even come close. The orders of magnitude of difference is just way too big.

[/quote]

source?[/quote]

Aside from the basic understanding of the limits and accuracy of non linear equations, you could start here (yeah, I know, it’s wikipedia. but it gives a decent overview of the subjects)-

Psychrometrics - Wikipedia (notice the lack of linearity in the charts)

Then there is the first paragraph of this-

and you could learn more on the subjects at any college or university that has an engineering department.

Given the scope and size of our planet, I’m sure there are other disciplines which would also need to be incorporated into calculating the rate of absorption, retention, and dissipation of heat energy that occurs constantly on our planet, but I think that those two should at least be adequate support for my statement about the non linear nature of our eco-system, the complexity of it, and the limits of functions. But those combinatorials are tricky. Some of them just don’t work out the way we think that they should.

And that is a gross oversimplification of the subject. If you can find anything on solving unlimited order equations of infinite variables, then that would certainly be a helpfull contribution to develop the body of knowledge required to accurately model the fluctuations of global temperatures.

But don’t listen to me. I don’t understand science.
[/quote]

Roger.

I talked to a friend of mine about your point and he agreed about orders of magnitude. Hes getting his masters in environmental remdiation btw. However he argues that scientists are able to factor in orders of magnitude.

I didn’t press the issue as I wouldn’t really fully understand it.[/quote]

I wouldn’t belabor the point, as I don’t have any formal schooling in the subject either (other than math up to pre-calc). Environmental clean up and watershed monitoring are just a hobby for me.

The little tag line is just a jab at that goofy kid that believes I don’t understand anything about the environment.

[/quote]

I got that. I get things.

53

[quote]yorik wrote:

[quote]siouxperman wrote:
[…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.[/quote]
Pumping CO2 in to the atmosphere definitely makes the plants grow better. If we want less CO2, let’s plant more trees and grass. It’s really that simple.[/quote]

Rainforests are the best protection, but they cut it down and its nothing you
plant back in our lifettime or longer! + it doesnt help with does guys who cuts
down forests to make crops for biodiesel( oh the irony lol )