YouTube Video Placeholder
Farmers Almanac More Accurate Than Climate Science |
||
Forum » Everything Else »
Politics and Religion
»
Farmers Almanac more accurate than climate science
Farmers Almanac more accurate than climate science
Offline
Posts: 35422
I drive a hybrid though I'm saving the planet!
YouTube Video Placeholder
YouTube Video Placeholder
YouTube Video Placeholder
I hope nobody expects anyone to understand what they were saying.
I've seen people in all sizes of vehicles be total ***, honestly around here it's more often than not the idiot inbred 20 somethings in the jacked up trucks, I just shake my head and let them go with it.
Asura.Kingnobody said: » Bismarck.Ihina said: » Friendly reminder that democrats were for the payroll tax cut that lowered taxes on lower/middle class people and republicans worked to get rid of it So, in your mind, that's a bad thing, even though it also helped the middle class and the poor, but if it at least looks like it helps the rich, it is an evil thing and must be destroyed. Besides, it was enacted bipartisan, and it was allowed to be expired bipartisan. Blaming the Republicans only just shows how ill-informed you truly are. Which, for you, is par for the course. Again, too stupid to realize they've bought into propaganda. By what you're saying, it doesn't even seem like you know what the payroll tax cut is. Payroll taxes disproportionately hits the lower/middle class and completely negligible for the upper class because it has a cap of about 100k or so. Any amount over that doesn't factor into payroll taxes at all. Do you make a 7+ figure salary? If not, go ahead, complain about taxes being too high, then continue protecting and defending people who try to raise your taxes, and attack people who try to lower your taxes. The whole fiasco over the payroll tax cut/bush tax cut was that the republicans threaten not to extend the payroll tax cut if the democrats didn't extend the bush tax cuts. The bush tax cuts disproportionately lowers taxes on the rich. Seriously. Google is a thing. Spend 5 minutes with it. Stop only taking in information from the mass mainstream media. It'll be a great day in America when you wing nuts finally wake up and realize that republicans don't care about lower taxes or small government overall. They want lower taxes for their donors and smaller government for their donors. If they wanted lower taxes for everyone, they wouldn't do things like attack the payroll tax cut or proposing we increase the sales tax. Believing anything other than that is just buying into propaganda. Stop looking at what the media tells you and start looking at what your so-called representatives are doing. Once your side does that, and our side gets rid of our corporatist, we can have a democracy again. honestly: both sides would have to change a good bit for us to have our Republic again, instead of our increasingly fascist corporatist nation.
Yeah, yeah, semantics.
Doesn't help the democratic image when the current leader of the democrats is currently pushing for the TTP along with the republicans. Only people who seem to be pushing back are some of the democrats in congress. Phoenix.Amandarius
Offline
Lakshmi.Deces said: » YouTube Video Placeholder This was about the most messed up thing I've ever seen. Hey Amandarius, do you mind answering a question I had last night for me?
Odin.Jassik said: » Asura.Kingnobody said: » Cerberus.Pleebo said: » I will point out that those two scientists don't dispute anthropogenic climate change just the severity of current models. They are saying that it is unknown as to why global warming is occurring, which throws into question that global warming is a man-made event. No credible scientist is saying that they don't know what's causing rapid climate change. The current consensus is anthropomorphic climate change among basically every climate scientist. Current models aren't perfect, of course, but you are attempting to cast a doubt net by blatantly misrepresenting the numerous sources that have been put under your nose. At this point, it's nothing more than trolling. Ok stepping in here. THERE IS NO CONSENSUS. Never has been. They got 600 scientists employed in the AGW field to sign a piece of paper saying they were "positive" it was caused by humans burning carbon based fuels. That's is less then 1% of the worlds scientists. Every AGW model produced to date has been proven wrong. The most famous of which required people to reverse engineer it because the creators "lost the code & data" when hit with a request to publish it. The result was that no matter the numbers you fed it, it always produced fireball earth scenario due to a forced positive increase in feedback loops that was hard coded in. Anyhow, science isn't ruled by consensus, it's not a democracy. Someone publishes a theory with empirical data backing it, someone else publishes a counter refuting it. They go back and forth with each side presenting information that either confirms or refutes the theory. Eventually the theory will be asserted via open reproducible experiments, or it'll be disproven by a failure to do so. AGW theory as a whole has been disproven. It's predictions and models have failed to be supported by empirical data. The world temperature has been flat for the past 17 years while all the models predicted a several C increase in temperature. Several years ago, one of the holy high priests of the order is on record of saying "there hasn't been statistically significant warming in 15 years". From a super liberal publication http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html The surest way that someone is trying to proselytize is the absolute refusal to acknowledge the opposing side has valid concerns. Only religious zealots enter into that state of mind. Valefor.Sehachan said: » Whether CO2 is responsible for climate change or not, it blows my mind that there's people who deny its effects on health. In Milan there are frequent no-cars days because the air becomes so polluted that people get sick just opening the window. And honestly all this talk of "personal agenda" that the usual paranoid characters make sounds really stupid. Unless we actually have oil industrialists here posting on this forum I sincerely doubt anyone of the posters has a personal agenda on the matter, they just give their honest opinion. That's not CO2, that's CO, know the difference. CO2 is a trace gas in our atmosphere and is created by all biological process's along with the current method of energy production. It's been targeted by progressives as a method to establish economic control. If you can control the CO2 level of an economy then you can control the entire economy as long as there isn't a viable alternative. Currently there is only one viable alternative to carbon based fuels for energy production and the same people pushing AGW are also blocking nuclear. This isn't a coincidence, by forcing people to scale back their lifestyles via economic disincentives you also force them to rely more on government and move a step closer to preventing the accumulation of wealth by individuals. There is now a new class of citizen in England known as "energy poor". In all cases current AGW theory violates the laws of thermodynamics. There is a finite limit to the amount of energy that can be back radiated due to the logarithmic scaling involved. We passed that limit back at ~250ppm and now any additional back radiation would be so insignificant that it would be lose in the noise. The real green house gas is H2O vapor in the atmosphere, which works in two ways. Consolidated H2O (clouds) in the upper atmosphere act as a mirror and reflect light back into space before it hits the surface, in the lower atmosphere they act as localized thermal blanket and reflect surface radiated heat back down into the immediate local area. Free H20 vapor in the atmosphere acts as a greenhouse gas and back radiates most of the energy back into the planet. The balance between consolidated and free H2O is the area of contention. AGW theory states that more CO2 in the atmosphere cause's more free H2O and less high formation clouds, they have never been able to prove this. The opponents state that thermodynamics has CO2 being a non-entity in cloud formation and that not enough is understood about Earth's climate cycles to remotely model CO2 as an actor. And for that assertion they get black listed, called names and labeled by the liberal media. I've been following this field closely for over a decade now, it started off as a college grads thesis that has since morphed into a progressive campaign of disinformation. The politics and money involved have ruined any hope of objective study and experimentation, every one of them now has the objective of increasing funding for their work (scientists measure their success by the amount of funding they can get for their projects). You know the Daily Mail is a perfectly acceptable science news source when you hear the Cover Girl autoplay ads. Is that a *** joke?
That article details a great example of cherry-picking data as explained here. Nothing you said was remotely correct. As much as I like talking about the science, these lazy attempts at discrediting viable research have gotten pathetic. You don't give a ***about the science, you just can't stand the fact that a cause (falsely) associated with liberalism may be correct. Now go find me an article from People magazine that proves me wrong. Edit: This was in response to your first post. Now as for the actual concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. Photosynthesis requires CO2 to produce energy inside plants, which powers the life cycle of every form of complex life on the planet. The CO2 concentration at which photosynthesis starts to shutdown is ~150ppm and the CO2 concentration during the last big ice age was ~180ppm. For most of Earth's post-Cambrian lifetime the CO2 concentration has been around 1000-2000 PPM with the occasional ice age spiking it down. Only the last few millenia have wee seen this incredibly small concentrations of sub 500ppm for prolonged periods.
Plants grow bigger, faster and stronger at higher concentrations of CO2, this is a face that greenhouse growers have been exploiting for years. ~1000PPM is typically the optimum range but is often tuned for individual plants with ~10000PPM being the range where plants start to experience CO2 toxicity. So more CO2 is actually a very good thing for our planet. Currently our atmosphere is CO2 deficient and results in slower plant growth rates and yields. Ya if it wasn't for the rising global temperature, more CO2 would be da ***.
Cerberus.Pleebo said: » That article details a great example of cherry-picking data as explained here. Not that I'm strictly arguing for anything here in regards to anthropogenic climate change, mind you. I'm just a student of how one can manipulate data and facts, especially in a non-scientific, non-peer-reviewed format like a blog or newspaper article. I remember a similar cute trick used when arguing about deforestation in that someone pointed out we have more forested land now (which would have been around 2005, as I recall) compared to a century ago while conveniently neglecting to mention that 1905 was the point when mindless clearcutting reached its peak. Have I mentioned how much I detest manipulative alarmism? Lakshmi.Saevel said: » Ok stepping in here. THERE IS NO CONSENSUS. Never has been. Saevel stepping in to regulate. Oh, except: In 3896 peer reviewed papers written with a stance on AGW, 97.1% of them endorsed AGE while 1.9% rejected it, with 1.0% uncertained. http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article Lakshmi.Saevel said: » So more CO2 is actually a very good thing for our planet. Oh lord, someone's been watching fox news. We don't need a lesson on plants and CO2, we've all been through 5th grade. Could anyone who keeps claiming that the climate models have been seriously wrong please provide a) the original link to that paper that had a model prediction and b) a link to what temperatures those models are being compared to now.
I came across this (slashdot discussion) the other day. Which, in a roundabout way, took me to the first IPCC report (1990). Quote: An average rate of increase of global mean temperature during the next century of about 0.3°C per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0.2—0.5°C per decade) assuming the IPCC Scenario A (Business-As-Usual) emission of greenhouse gases;.....This will likely increase the global mean temperature of about 1°C above the present value by 2025....and 3°C above today's value before the end of the next century...The rise will not be steady because of other factors. According to the 5th IPCC report (this is a preliminary summary full report not released until later this year after reviews are completed): Quote: The globally averaged combined land and ocean surface temperature data as calculated by a linear trend, show a warming of 0.85 [0.65 to 1.06] °C3, over the period 1880 to 2012, when multiple independently produced datasets exist. The total increase between the average of the 1850–1900 period and the 2003–2012 period is 0.78 [0.72 to 0.85] °C, based on the single longest dataset available I see a refinement in the models since 1990 to higher confidence levels and more precise estimations, but I would be concerned otherwise. I find it interesting that the climate models are highly scrutinized by some but financial modeling and forecasting, which is used on a daily basis to predict a variety of outcomes in the markets and within businesses, is not by those same people*. The failed financial models cost companies/investors/'main street' money everyday but climate modelling/science will doom people to poverty. *all modelling should be scrutinized Disclaimer: I like data analysis but I'm in no way qualified to correctly understand the intricate workings of climate science. Bahamut.Kara said: » Disclaimer: I like data analysis but I'm in no way qualified to correctly understand the intricate workings of climate science. And yet somehow, by that statement alone, I respect your opinion more than the opinion of the many know-it-alls in this thread. Oh yeah, huge mystery there.
Offline
Posts: 35422
Bahamut.Kara said: » Could anyone who keeps claiming that the climate models have been seriously wrong please provide a) the original link to that paper that had a model prediction and b) a link to what temperatures those models are being compared to now. I came across this (slashdot discussion) the other day. Which, in a roundabout way, took me to the first IPCC report (1990). Quote: An average rate of increase of global mean temperature during the next century of about 0.3°C per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0.2—0.5°C per decade) assuming the IPCC Scenario A (Business-As-Usual) emission of greenhouse gases;.....This will likely increase the global mean temperature of about 1°C above the present value by 2025....and 3°C above today's value before the end of the next century...The rise will not be steady because of other factors. According to the 5th IPCC report (this is a preliminary summary full report not released until later this year after reviews are completed): Quote: The globally averaged combined land and ocean surface temperature data as calculated by a linear trend, show a warming of 0.85 [0.65 to 1.06] °C3, over the period 1880 to 2012, when multiple independently produced datasets exist. The total increase between the average of the 1850–1900 period and the 2003–2012 period is 0.78 [0.72 to 0.85] °C, based on the single longest dataset available I see a refinement in the models since 1990 to higher confidence levels and more precise estimations, but I would be concerned otherwise. I find it interesting that the climate models are highly scrutinized by some but financial modeling and forecasting, which is used on a daily basis to predict a variety of outcomes in the markets and within businesses, is not by those same people*. The failed financial models cost companies/investors/'main street' money everyday but climate modelling/science will doom people to poverty. *all modelling should be scrutinized Disclaimer: I like data analysis but I'm in no way qualified to correctly understand the intricate workings of climate science. Make this a pie chart and you got a deal. Bahamut.Kara said: » I find it interesting that the climate models are highly scrutinized by some but financial modeling and forecasting, which is used on a daily basis to predict a variety of outcomes in the markets and within businesses, is not by those same people*. The failed financial models cost companies/investors/'main street' money everyday but climate modelling/science will doom people to poverty. Bahamut.Ravael said: » And yet somehow, by that statement alone, I respect your opinion more than the opinion of the many know-it-alls in this thread. That's nice and thanks but I would recommend listening to Pleebo as he has studied/works in this field. Milamber* has a strong background in physical sciences and a much better understanding of the interactions than I have, or will have since they don't really interest me. (besides the physics/engineering formulas economics/finance has commandeered) *we are married so I definitely have a bias Shiva.Onorgul said: » I would like to believe that most people know financial forecasting is flim-flam? I dunno; I habitually question both and more. Consultancy firms, finance firms, and others constantly sell financial modelling or forecasts to businesses/investors. Businesses that are international have to rely, to a large extent, on foreign exchange forecasting in order to hedge. Same with companies that rely heavily on market traded commodities. Global project finance ($500 million+ long-term projects) rely on multiple types of financial projections and forecasts. Entrepreneurs looking for venture capital have to present financial forecasts in order to get backing. Knowing how to create and run models in excel/R/matlab/etc is taught extensively in universities. These financial forecasts are easier to model than those modelling climate change and they can still have large failure rates. I just wish more newspapers that run with either side of these stories would a) cite the damn primary source and b) allow easy access to the data that is being used to construct models/graphs/etc. So really I just wish newspapers would do their job and check this information before publishing it. fonewear said: » Make this a pie chart and you got a deal. Offline
Posts: 35422
That reminds me of every Power Point presentation I've ever seen. (this is dumb but they used Power Point I'll listen)
In short, one of the main drivers of thermal feedback (for the earth) is water vapor; the amount of water vapor at any point in time is generally driven by ambient temperature.
The reason that most models have a feedback loop is the interaction between water vapor and temperature. Considering the hideously large amount of exposed water on earth, there is no direct means of controlling evaporation. An indirect measure of controlling temperature is controlling other gases (CO/CO2/N2O/SO2/CH4/O3). And regarding clouds, they have a variable albedo which depends on quite a few factors (altitude, sun angle/position, droplet size, etc). In other words, a simple increase in the amount of clouds won't necessarily help you (see Venus). In contrast, ice provides a very high albedo, which doesn't vary to the same extent as clouds. The impact of loss of ice has a higher factor in terms of change in albedo than the increase in cloud cover. Regarding fuel poverty in London, higher efficiency homes and centralized heating would go a long way towards helping that. It wouldn't be a small effort by any measure, but it would be an infrastructure project which would give significant gains, particularly if it was paired with other programs. But frankly, this isn't an engineering, scientific, or fiscal problem, but a political one. Lakshmi.Saevel said: » In all cases current AGW theory violates the laws of thermodynamics. There is a finite limit to the amount of energy that can be back radiated due to the logarithmic scaling involved. We passed that limit back at ~250ppm and now any additional back radiation would be so insignificant that it would be lose in the noise. The feedback loops are based on (relatively constant) overall energy input into the system, with an increasing proportion remaining trapped. Over time, temperature would increase until it reaches a new equilibrium. Cerberus.Pleebo said: » You know the Daily Mail is a perfectly acceptable science news source when you hear the Cover Girl autoplay ads. Is that a *** joke? That article details a great example of cherry-picking data as explained here. Nothing you said was remotely correct. As much as I like talking about the science, these lazy attempts at discrediting viable research have gotten pathetic. You don't give a ***about the science, you just can't stand the fact that a cause (falsely) associated with liberalism may be correct. Now go find me an article from People magazine that proves me wrong. Edit: This was in response to your first post. And the national enquirer was a joke too, until it broke the Clinton sex scandal. There is no consensus, the whole hysteria is a hoax with political motives to grab power and maintain control. The extent we've been warming up over the last few hundred years is of little to no concern. We just got out of a mini ice age. |
||
All FFXI content and images © 2002-2024 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD. FINAL
FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.
|