Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Jun 23, 2011 - 10:18pm PT
|
No, the US military and security apparatus being involved in preparing for the results of global warming doesn't necessarily 'prove' anything. Still, it's interesting circumstantial evidence.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
|
Jun 23, 2011 - 10:24pm PT
|
I'm not thrilled to see the luxurious lifestyle of the rich and superrich, but if somebody who is superrich (the Al Gores and George Soros) wants to support progressives causes even as they live a lifestyle commensurate with their wealth, I think that is preferable than the alternatives.
Even an American making an average to below average income of $25,000~$50,000 has a luxurious and wastefull life compared to the say 2 billion people in this world living on a few dollars a day.
If you ride your bike to work, great. But however, green your choices, most Americans find a way to essentially spend everything they make consuming resourses that are not sustainable in the long run.
peace
What a bunch of bullshit that is!
I think the bottom line is that you feel that whether MMGW is real or not, it makes you (et al.) feel really good about yourself because you're a self-important, arrogant fool. "I'm doing my part!"
And yet you give a pass to Gore and Soros for 'spewing' CO2 in the name of decreasing it??? Is that right?
In my world or ignorance and 'anti-science', that's what we used to call hypocrisy.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
|
Jun 23, 2011 - 10:26pm PT
|
Oh yeah, and Hansen at GISS is totally busted.
Talk about politicizing an issue for profit??? Haha!!!
The house of cards known as MMGW.....
Isn't Hansen the Genesis of the Hockey Stick Theory?
|
|
corniss chopper
climber
breaking the speed of gravity
|
|
|
Jun 23, 2011 - 10:52pm PT
|
Difficult to avoid falling into the 'Grass is greener' syndrome thinking
the super rich are enjoying life more than we are because
they are able to buy happiness.
Just another urban myth.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
|
Jun 23, 2011 - 11:23pm PT
|
Ed, using wikipedia for Soros beta is not really credible. C'mon...
Maybe I'll bump my Communists thread for better beta. It IS better.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Jun 23, 2011 - 11:58pm PT
|
Soros...NPR...you forgot ACORN! (LOL!)
|
|
slayton
Trad climber
Here and There
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2011 - 12:02am PT
|
Fuk science. Let's party!!
|
|
corniss chopper
climber
breaking the speed of gravity
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2011 - 12:34am PT
|
Carbon dioxide accounts for only one in every 4000 molecules in the air;
water vapor accounts for one in every 20. Carbon dioxide absorbs only a
quarter as much energy from sunlight as water vapor, molecule for molecule;
water vapor is responsible for atmospheric heat retention.
CO2 can be ignored. Its insignificant....unless we lose the climate change
debate and these Warmists manage to trick enough voters into believing their
hell-on-earth scenario thus giving governments a taxation stick with which to beat us.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2011 - 02:25am PT
|
TGT since you've thrown your hat into the ring here demanding that you "won't believe it until you see the math," I offered the Boeing 777 as an example of an aircraft designed and built entirely by computer model, faster and better than doing it "the old way." While the math is there, it is contained in the complex computer code that allowed the engineers to fully design the aircraft, fly it in simulation exploring the most rigorous flight training regime, designing the parts and manufacturing them, then fabricating the entire product. You might not "believe" in complex computer codes, but there is one that worked brilliantly. I hope you won't be hypocritical the next time you fly and actually get on that aircraft without first verifying that the computer model "got the math right."
I take this is, in particular, to be a scientific anomaly when compared to MMGW. Ed, designing an aircraft to fly through our (lower) atmosphere based on computers models that direct efficiency is much different than the "weather". Basing models on weather involves, probably, many variables that are f*#king guesses.
Solar Flares come to mind immediately. Very unpredictable in frequency and in magnitude. Wouldn't that devastate a model potentially? Especially with all the recent solar activity?
Also, if it isn't a solar problem, why are all of the measurable planets in our system getting warmer as well?
|
|
TGT
Social climber
So Cal
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2011 - 11:43am PT
|
Chief stands on Hartouni's shoulders. Calls himself tall.
A bit of background on the paraphrased quote.
Newton didn't originate it. It was in common use at the time.
His use of it was really an attempt to insult Hooke who was a short little guy with a crooked nose who had done original work Newton wanted the credit for.
(Hooke originated the inverse square law for gravity.)
|
|
justin01
Trad climber
sacramento
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2011 - 12:02pm PT
|
ED, please do not compare the empirical knowledge of the mechanics of materials to the lack of empirical knowledge regarding climate change. One is testable (empirical), the other is a giant untestable pile of assumptions and adjustments. In mechanics schientists can isolate one characteristic to test, limiting all other variables. There is not classical testing in climate science, in which one can limit variables.
They are not even near the same in terms of understanding. Any engineer knows how poorly we even understand the fatigue of aluminum, let alone the forcing of CO2.
They are not akin.
|
|
justin01
Trad climber
sacramento
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2011 - 01:37pm PT
|
I understand that scientists do reductionist studies on different global components which may or may not effect global climate. But this is far from the models that engineers use to design and airplane or a car bumper. And at the end of the day, those computer models are grounded by testing. Ford can design a car in a solid modeler, give each component a material property and boundary constraint. Assembly the model, and crash the virtual car into a wall. That model is worthless, completely ungrounded from reality, until they take their physically built car and crash it into a wall to see how the material deforms and responds. Climate models do not have that level of test-ability. It is the reactions of components that also matter, not just the material properties. In the FEA model of a car, we must set the relationships and interactions correctly, and they are not useful until the model is grounded. If you have ever made an FEA or CFD model, you will know how sensitive these things are to going off the rails. How one must constantly put things in perspective, and step back. Things like tipping points seem indicative of models "blowing up" not necessarily indicative of how things will actually be. Models always blow up, when subject to circumstances input data was not derived for. You can not take data from elastic deformation and apply it to plastic deformation.
Maybe I am taking the analogy too far, but I just wanted to point out that the science of materials is light years ahead in terms of understanding. The models employed in this field are only as good as the macro test the engineers used to ground their models.
|
|
justin01
Trad climber
sacramento
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2011 - 02:53pm PT
|
In some respects, the climate science is better known than that...
wow. There is nowhere to go from here. Are you really saying that climate scientists understand the climate better than aerospace engineers understand aerodynamics, or materiel engineers understand materials? Your delusion has clouded your self doubt. I am going to go back to leaving this thread alone, because the most reasonable of the pro AGW crowd here appears to be delusional. Where can one go from here?
|
|
justin01
Trad climber
sacramento
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2011 - 03:06pm PT
|
Bruce you are missing something crucial here.
Tipping points are highly suspect without testing. Just like you can not take elastic deformation response data to find the effects of a force capable of producing plastic deformation. You will get erroneous results. You would not know this of course unless you tested the scenario, and found the useful bounds of your model.
The climate models know no useful bounds. Climate scientists do test, by trying to predict future climate, they are proposing a hypothesis, and waiting for what happens. Fortunately for mankind and Unfortunately for the credibility of the models the results of these tests have not validated their hypothesis.
Tipping points usually show you were your model is no longer valid, and are not indicative of real world results given your inputs.
In the study of controls, engineers make models of physical systems and then tune their model according to where they were wrong after testing the system. It is valid if used appropriately, but often the word "tuning" is another way of saying..."screwing with your data to match results." You run into real problems when you then take your existing model tuned to your present input range, and apply it to data outside of your tested/tuned input range.
My point in all of this is that prudence may be the best way forward, but don't delude yourself into thinking that this thing we call climate science approaches the rigor that other fields of science achieve.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2011 - 03:42pm PT
|
So please stop with demeaning BS. I too can get nasty. Very nasty to be sure. But have done well to not lower myself to such BS tactics as some of your AGW amigos here on ST.
That last sentence is a joke, right?
|
|
Gary
climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2011 - 03:44pm PT
|
So please stop with demeaning BS. I too can get nasty. Very nasty to be sure. But have done well to not lower myself to such BS tactics as some of your AGW amigos here on ST.
Thanks for the laugh at lunch, Chief. However, I think Ed has out-trolled you here.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2011 - 04:17pm PT
|
I can't wait for you to get nasty... The Chief...
You're also a sheep and Fort Mental and others are apparently kissing your hiney, or something else.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2011 - 04:26pm PT
|
Actually, I was just quoting/paraphrasing some of your insults, Chief. "Sheep" is one of your faves you've thrown at Ed, me and others, or have you spewed so many that you've already forgotten that?
I'm about as much a Sheep, DIRT BAG, as you are a permanently embeded tick on ED's ass.
Now who's being a hyporcite?
Chastise us again for throwing insults...go on, please!
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2011 - 04:35pm PT
|
The climate models know no useful bounds. Climate scientists do test, by trying to predict future climate, they are proposing a hypothesis, and waiting for what happens. Fortunately for mankind and Unfortunately for the credibility of the models the results of these tests have not validated their hypothesis.
I'd like to be able to believe the deniers and see some evidence there is no AGW. However whenever I follow up on what they say it invariably turns out to be B.S. So I just believe more and more that it's not about controversy in the science but about their agenda and self delusion.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!