Your Attention Please! There are now 4 kinds of lies!

hycamguy07 · Sep 12, 2007

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Sep 11 2007, 09:49 PM) [snapback]510959[/snapback]</div>

Climate science is often reported as if a 'run' of a computer model is an experiment (it is not!). A computer model can not discriminate theories into true and false because it is not measuring reality. (Such models may give one an idea where to experiment, but to claim they "prove" anything is pure fiction and should lead one to discount the source. At best you can use a computer model to disprove a theory.) Computer models are sometimes used to simulate electronic circuits for engineers - in an electronics circuit (which is a closed system) - these computer models sometimes predict behavior quite different from the real circuit. If such a model is adjusted until the results give the expected result, it is often to the folly of the engineer. The proof of such a circuit must wait until a real circuit is built: reality must be tested, not a model. (Common electronic circuits can be modeled quite well, and these models are of practical use, yet these models still can mislead engineers at times. Be aware that circuit models, besides being a closed system, are several magnitudes less in complexity and size compared to the simplest climate models.)

Freeman Dyson, professor of physics at the Institute for Advanced Study, in Princeton has this to say about the computer models:

"... I have studied the climate models and I know what they can do. The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in. The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand. It is much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models, than to put on winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside in the swamps and the clouds. That is why the climate model experts end up believing their own models."

The full text of the above quote is worth a read.

To infer a connection between man emissions of CO2 and warming
is not an easy jump for the scientifically minded
First, you have to prove that the increase in CO2 is caused by humans - the venting of CO2 by volcanoes (including those under the ocean) and geysers and other natural sources (and also the natural absorption or sinking of CO2) is a estimate that defies error analysis. To what error band are we certain of the amount of emission of CO2 by natural causes?

Second, the elevation of CO2 needs to be shown to be historically real, but there were no analytical tools to measure even crudely thousands of years ago - the best work has been done with ice samples, but there is a great problem with how to calibrate such measurements. What size should the error bands be? I believe that man is responsible for a small increase in CO2 - this is supported by a lot of historical data.

Third, there has to be a hypothesis that can predict the past (only then can we start guessing about the future) including the temperatures in the upper atmosphere. Any model that can't fit past data has to be called wrong.

Fourth, as this is an open system where we can't build several earths and vary only one constant, any conclusion at best is still just a theory - a educated guess - it is not scientific fact. Science is more than looking scientific; just because things are measured to several decimal points means naught when there is no control or false logic.

Fifth, to look at the past temperatures honestly, one would have to show no past periods of higher temperature. The idea that we 'know' the inferred data - is simply wrong. We only have accurate records of solar output from the recent past and we are ignorant of the magnitude of long term historic variations that are possible. Explaining the small drift (less than what appears to be the noise in the system) can be accomplished with a solar output theory. It might help to remember that 10,000 years ago Milwaukee was under 40' of ice, so we really do know that temperature can vary on its own. See http://web.dmi.dk/solar-terrestrial/space_weather/ We also have reason to believe that glaciers world wide have been shrinking for the last 300 years - this means that things other than CO2 change our climate.

There we go now we have more ways to lie!

Wildkow
[/b]
Click to expand...

Another Quality thread by Mr. Wildkow!

Water Vapor Rules
the Greenhouse System

Just how much of the "Greenhouse Effect" is caused by human activity?

It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account-- about 5.53%, if not.

This point is so crucial to the debate over global warming that how water vapor is or isn't factored into an analysis of Earth's greenhouse gases makes the difference between describing a significant human contribution to the greenhouse effect, or a negligible one.

Table 3, shows what happens when the effect of water vapor is factored in, and together with all other greenhouse gases expressed as a relative % of the total greenhouse effect.

TABLE 3.

Role of Atmospheric Greenhouse Gases
(man-made and natural) as a % of Relative
Contribution to the "Greenhouse Effect"

Of course, even among the remaining 5% of non-water vapor greenhouse gases, humans contribute only a very small part (and human contributions to water vapor are negligible).

Constructed from data in Table 1, the charts (below) illustrate graphically how much of each greenhouse gas is natural vs how much is man-made. These allocations are used for the next and final step in this analysis-- total man-made contributions to the greenhouse effect. Units are expressed to 3 significant digits in order to reduce rounding errors for those who wish to walk through the calculations, not to imply numerical precision as there is some variation among various researchers.

http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/...house_data.html[/b]
Click to expand...

Hurricane forecaster: Oceans, not CO2, cause global warming

04:44 PM MST on Monday, April 30, 2007

Dan Elliott / Associated Press

DENVER -- Hurricane forecaster William Gray said Friday that global ocean currents, not human-produced carbon dioxide, are responsible for global warming, and the Earth may begin to cool on its own in five to 10 years.
[url="http://www.fox11az.com/news/topstories/stories/kmsb-20070430-wwljc-globalwarming.2485b657.html"]http://www.fox11az.com/news/topstories/sto...g.2485b657.html[/url]

hycamguy07 · Sep 12, 2007

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Sep 11 2007, 09:49 PM) [snapback]510959[/snapback]</div>

Climate science is often reported as if a 'run' of a computer model is an experiment (it is not!). A computer model can not discriminate theories into true and false because it is not measuring reality. (Such models may give one an idea where to experiment, but to claim they "prove" anything is pure fiction and should lead one to discount the source. At best you can use a computer model to disprove a theory.) Computer models are sometimes used to simulate electronic circuits for engineers - in an electronics circuit (which is a closed system) - these computer models sometimes predict behavior quite different from the real circuit. If such a model is adjusted until the results give the expected result, it is often to the folly of the engineer. The proof of such a circuit must wait until a real circuit is built: reality must be tested, not a model. (Common electronic circuits can be modeled quite well, and these models are of practical use, yet these models still can mislead engineers at times. Be aware that circuit models, besides being a closed system, are several magnitudes less in complexity and size compared to the simplest climate models.)

Freeman Dyson, professor of physics at the Institute for Advanced Study, in Princeton has this to say about the computer models:

"... I have studied the climate models and I know what they can do. The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in. The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand. It is much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models, than to put on winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside in the swamps and the clouds. That is why the climate model experts end up believing their own models."

The full text of the above quote is worth a read.

To infer a connection between man emissions of CO2 and warming
is not an easy jump for the scientifically minded
First, you have to prove that the increase in CO2 is caused by humans - the venting of CO2 by volcanoes (including those under the ocean) and geysers and other natural sources (and also the natural absorption or sinking of CO2) is a estimate that defies error analysis. To what error band are we certain of the amount of emission of CO2 by natural causes?

Second, the elevation of CO2 needs to be shown to be historically real, but there were no analytical tools to measure even crudely thousands of years ago - the best work has been done with ice samples, but there is a great problem with how to calibrate such measurements. What size should the error bands be? I believe that man is responsible for a small increase in CO2 - this is supported by a lot of historical data.

Third, there has to be a hypothesis that can predict the past (only then can we start guessing about the future) including the temperatures in the upper atmosphere. Any model that can't fit past data has to be called wrong.

Fourth, as this is an open system where we can't build several earths and vary only one constant, any conclusion at best is still just a theory - a educated guess - it is not scientific fact. Science is more than looking scientific; just because things are measured to several decimal points means naught when there is no control or false logic.

Fifth, to look at the past temperatures honestly, one would have to show no past periods of higher temperature. The idea that we 'know' the inferred data - is simply wrong. We only have accurate records of solar output from the recent past and we are ignorant of the magnitude of long term historic variations that are possible. Explaining the small drift (less than what appears to be the noise in the system) can be accomplished with a solar output theory. It might help to remember that 10,000 years ago Milwaukee was under 40' of ice, so we really do know that temperature can vary on its own. See http://web.dmi.dk/solar-terrestrial/space_weather/ We also have reason to believe that glaciers world wide have been shrinking for the last 300 years - this means that things other than CO2 change our climate.

There we go now we have more ways to lie!

Wildkow
[/b]
Click to expand...

Another Quality thread by Mr. Wildkow!

Water Vapor Rules
the Greenhouse System

Just how much of the "Greenhouse Effect" is caused by human activity?

It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account-- about 5.53%, if not.

This point is so crucial to the debate over global warming that how water vapor is or isn't factored into an analysis of Earth's greenhouse gases makes the difference between describing a significant human contribution to the greenhouse effect, or a negligible one.

Table 3, shows what happens when the effect of water vapor is factored in, and together with all other greenhouse gases expressed as a relative % of the total greenhouse effect.

TABLE 3.

Role of Atmospheric Greenhouse Gases
(man-made and natural) as a % of Relative
Contribution to the "Greenhouse Effect"

Of course, even among the remaining 5% of non-water vapor greenhouse gases, humans contribute only a very small part (and human contributions to water vapor are negligible).

Constructed from data in Table 1, the charts (below) illustrate graphically how much of each greenhouse gas is natural vs how much is man-made. These allocations are used for the next and final step in this analysis-- total man-made contributions to the greenhouse effect. Units are expressed to 3 significant digits in order to reduce rounding errors for those who wish to walk through the calculations, not to imply numerical precision as there is some variation among various researchers.

http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/...house_data.html[/b]
Click to expand...

Hurricane forecaster: Oceans, not CO2, cause global warming

04:44 PM MST on Monday, April 30, 2007

Dan Elliott / Associated Press

DENVER -- Hurricane forecaster William Gray said Friday that global ocean currents, not human-produced carbon dioxide, are responsible for global warming, and the Earth may begin to cool on its own in five to 10 years.
[url="http://www.fox11az.com/news/topstories/stories/kmsb-20070430-wwljc-globalwarming.2485b657.html"]http://www.fox11az.com/news/topstories/sto...g.2485b657.html[/url]

F8L · Sep 12, 2007

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hycamguy07 @ Sep 12 2007, 08:35 AM) [snapback]511297[/snapback]</div>

Another Quality thread by Mr. Wildkow!
[/b]
Click to expand...

Gooooooooo hycam!

F8L · Sep 12, 2007

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hycamguy07 @ Sep 12 2007, 08:35 AM) [snapback]511297[/snapback]</div>

Another Quality thread by Mr. Wildkow!
[/b]
Click to expand...

Gooooooooo hycam!

hycamguy07 · Sep 12, 2007

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Sep 12 2007, 11:45 AM) [snapback]511306[/snapback]</div>

Gooooooooo hycam!

[/b]
Click to expand...

LOL thats too funny! :lol: :lol:

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Sep 12 2007, 11:45 AM) [snapback]511306[/snapback]</div>

Gooooooooo hycam!

[/b]
Click to expand...

LOL thats too funny! :lol: :lol:

hycamguy07 · Sep 12, 2007

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Sep 12 2007, 11:45 AM) [snapback]511306[/snapback]</div>

Gooooooooo hycam!

[/b]
Click to expand...

LOL thats too funny! :lol: :lol:

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Sep 12 2007, 11:45 AM) [snapback]511306[/snapback]</div>

Gooooooooo hycam!

[/b]
Click to expand...

LOL thats too funny! :lol: :lol:

F8L · Sep 12, 2007

I thought you would like that.

As for the data you posted. Do you have any from reputable sources? Fox news doesn't cut it for me.

Do not make the mistake of belittling anthropogenic % numbers. The percentages make them look small but the actually #s are quite large.

"Burning fossil fuels, making cement, burning forests and grasslands, and other human activities release nearly 30 billion tons of CO2 every year, on average, containing some 8 billion tons of carbon. (Burning Fossil Fuels 49%, Industrrial Processes 24%, Deforestation 14%, Agriculture 13% source ~ World Resources Institute). About 3 billion tons of this excess carbon is taken up by terrestrial ecosystems, and around 2 billion tons are absorbed by the oceans, leaving an annual atmospheric increase of some 3 billion tons per year. If current trens continue, CO2 concentrations could reach about 500ppm (appraoching twice the preindustrial level of 280ppm) by the end of the twenty-first century." [/b]
Click to expand...

F8L · Sep 12, 2007

I thought you would like that.

As for the data you posted. Do you have any from reputable sources? Fox news doesn't cut it for me.

Do not make the mistake of belittling anthropogenic % numbers. The percentages make them look small but the actually #s are quite large.

"Burning fossil fuels, making cement, burning forests and grasslands, and other human activities release nearly 30 billion tons of CO2 every year, on average, containing some 8 billion tons of carbon. (Burning Fossil Fuels 49%, Industrrial Processes 24%, Deforestation 14%, Agriculture 13% source ~ World Resources Institute). About 3 billion tons of this excess carbon is taken up by terrestrial ecosystems, and around 2 billion tons are absorbed by the oceans, leaving an annual atmospheric increase of some 3 billion tons per year. If current trens continue, CO2 concentrations could reach about 500ppm (appraoching twice the preindustrial level of 280ppm) by the end of the twenty-first century." [/b]
Click to expand...

Darwood · Sep 12, 2007

I still say, who the hell cares?
The political, economic, and military costs will cause changes to our energy situation long before environmental costs will. I just wish we'd make the major investment sooner, rather than watch the cost of the investment grow exponentially with the rise in the energy needed to produce the change. (the investment is inevitable, why not make it now when it is affordable?) It will reduce the environmental costs right along with it.

I guess it's easier to bitch about the why we need to change...

That pic is hilarious!

Darwood · Sep 12, 2007

I still say, who the hell cares?
The political, economic, and military costs will cause changes to our energy situation long before environmental costs will. I just wish we'd make the major investment sooner, rather than watch the cost of the investment grow exponentially with the rise in the energy needed to produce the change. (the investment is inevitable, why not make it now when it is affordable?) It will reduce the environmental costs right along with it.

I guess it's easier to bitch about the why we need to change...

That pic is hilarious!

vtie · Sep 12, 2007

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Sep 12 2007, 03:49 AM) [snapback]510959[/snapback]</div>

Fourth, as this is an open system where we can't build several earths and vary only one constant, any conclusion at best is still just a theory - a educated guess - it is not scientific fact.
[/b]
Click to expand...

From a scientific viewpoint, that's a subtle, but relevant remark. From a society perspective, this argument can also be read in reverse and becomes much more important: we indeed only have one Earth, so do we really want to take any chances of spoiling it? It's simply perverse to claim that the fact that we only have one Earth to model should lead to inconclusiveness and hence no action.

Personally, I am not 100% sure neither that human CO2 emission is the main cause of the climate change that we currently observe. And I am the first to agree that computer models often are very very suspicious (having used and built quite a few of them myself).

But do we really need to be 100% about a global threat to civilisation itself to take actions? That would be an attitude that would lead to self-destruction in the long run. Ultimately, it is some kind of risk analysis.

In addition, it is very important to realise that, in many cases, reducing CO2 emissions also has other direct, positive consequences: the conservation of natural resources. If anything, by consuming less energy and using renewable sources, our economy becomes less dependent on non-renewable sources such as Middle East oil. That fact alone got me sold on the whole CO2 reduction thing.

vtie · Sep 12, 2007

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Sep 12 2007, 03:49 AM) [snapback]510959[/snapback]</div>

Fourth, as this is an open system where we can't build several earths and vary only one constant, any conclusion at best is still just a theory - a educated guess - it is not scientific fact.
[/b]
Click to expand...

From a scientific viewpoint, that's a subtle, but relevant remark. From a society perspective, this argument can also be read in reverse and becomes much more important: we indeed only have one Earth, so do we really want to take any chances of spoiling it? It's simply perverse to claim that the fact that we only have one Earth to model should lead to inconclusiveness and hence no action.

Personally, I am not 100% sure neither that human CO2 emission is the main cause of the climate change that we currently observe. And I am the first to agree that computer models often are very very suspicious (having used and built quite a few of them myself).

But do we really need to be 100% about a global threat to civilisation itself to take actions? That would be an attitude that would lead to self-destruction in the long run. Ultimately, it is some kind of risk analysis.

In addition, it is very important to realise that, in many cases, reducing CO2 emissions also has other direct, positive consequences: the conservation of natural resources. If anything, by consuming less energy and using renewable sources, our economy becomes less dependent on non-renewable sources such as Middle East oil. That fact alone got me sold on the whole CO2 reduction thing.

Lywyllyn · Sep 12, 2007

Wow humans exasperate an already natural cycle swinging to one extreme. Now that is news NOT!

I agree the article has a bit too much cheekiness flavouring.

Darwood, I am afraid you are correct, change will come purely due to financial reasons. However, one can still aim for the ideal and hope that *some* change will come about due to just being in tune with ones impact and mindful of the changes it can bring about.

Lywyllyn · Sep 12, 2007

Wow humans exasperate an already natural cycle swinging to one extreme. Now that is news NOT!

I agree the article has a bit too much cheekiness flavouring.

Darwood, I am afraid you are correct, change will come purely due to financial reasons. However, one can still aim for the ideal and hope that *some* change will come about due to just being in tune with ones impact and mindful of the changes it can bring about.

hill · Sep 12, 2007

I don't know. Kow may have a point. Maybe we oughta just do the status quo "wait & see" thingie that humanity is so good at. You know, like we were all doing on December 6th 1941 ... or on September 10th just a few years ago ... or like the 2004 Tsunami in malaysia ... folks just standing around with the good ol' "wait n see" mentality.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2M-pHOIpwo&NR=1

Plenty of time to act, later. Yea. Let's just wait and see

hill · Sep 12, 2007

I don't know. Kow may have a point. Maybe we oughta just do the status quo "wait & see" thingie that humanity is so good at. You know, like we were all doing on December 6th 1941 ... or on September 10th just a few years ago ... or like the 2004 Tsunami in malaysia ... folks just standing around with the good ol' "wait n see" mentality.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2M-pHOIpwo&NR=1

Plenty of time to act, later. Yea. Let's just wait and see

Darwood · Sep 12, 2007

"If anything, by consuming less energy and using renewable sources, our economy becomes less dependent on non-renewable sources such as Middle East oil. That fact alone got me sold on the whole CO2 reduction thing."

EXACTLY!

"However, one can still aim for the ideal and hope that *some* change"

Full agreement. I may not think GW is something we can do anything about, but I am still glad to see people use it as their reason for supporting change. I don't understand why all the denialists spend so much time, money, and emotion calling GW a fraud, if it leads people to the same end point of removing the grip OPEC has on our balls!

Darwood · Sep 12, 2007

"If anything, by consuming less energy and using renewable sources, our economy becomes less dependent on non-renewable sources such as Middle East oil. That fact alone got me sold on the whole CO2 reduction thing."

EXACTLY!

"However, one can still aim for the ideal and hope that *some* change"

Full agreement. I may not think GW is something we can do anything about, but I am still glad to see people use it as their reason for supporting change. I don't understand why all the denialists spend so much time, money, and emotion calling GW a fraud, if it leads people to the same end point of removing the grip OPEC has on our balls!

Wildkow · Sep 12, 2007

Thank you HyCamguy.

<div align="center">[attachmentid=11388]!!.28%!![attachmentid=11388]</div>

Are those numbers large enough for you F8L? Sorry but it's the best I can do on this board.

Wildkow

Wildkow · Sep 12, 2007

Thank you HyCamguy.

<div align="center">[attachmentid=11388]!!.28%!![attachmentid=11388]</div>

Are those numbers large enough for you F8L? Sorry but it's the best I can do on this board.

Wildkow

Your Attention Please! There are now 4 kinds of lies!

hycamguy07 New Member

hycamguy07 New Member

F8L Protecting Habitat & AG Lands

F8L Protecting Habitat & AG Lands

hycamguy07 New Member

hycamguy07 New Member

F8L Protecting Habitat & AG Lands

F8L Protecting Habitat & AG Lands

Darwood Senior Member

Darwood Senior Member

vtie New Member

vtie New Member

Lywyllyn New Member

Lywyllyn New Member

hill High Fiber Member

hill High Fiber Member

Darwood Senior Member

Darwood Senior Member

Wildkow New Member

Attached Files:

banana.gif

Wildkow New Member

About PriusChat

Quick Navigation

Like us on Facebook

Buy us a beer!

Useful Searches

Your Attention Please! There are now 4 kinds of lies!

hycamguy07 New Member

hycamguy07 New Member

F8L Protecting Habitat & AG Lands

F8L Protecting Habitat & AG Lands

hycamguy07 New Member

hycamguy07 New Member

F8L Protecting Habitat & AG Lands

F8L Protecting Habitat & AG Lands

Darwood Senior Member

Darwood Senior Member

vtie New Member

vtie New Member

Lywyllyn New Member

Lywyllyn New Member

hill High Fiber Member

hill High Fiber Member

Darwood Senior Member

Darwood Senior Member

Wildkow New Member

Attached Files:

banana.gif

Wildkow New Member