Canuks all nuts??
in [Motorcycles]
|
Prev: Me too!
Next: 'Lectro bike price drop
From: J. Clarke on 18 Nov 2009 15:43 turby wrote: > On Nov 18, 5:15 am, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.use...(a)cox.net> wrote: >> turby wrote: >>> ... >>> With regard to global warming, if it can be proved that humans >>> are not responsible, those studies would be welcomed just as much as >>> any other. If a study is skewed, followup studies will show it >>> because the results are not reproducible. In basic science, grants >>> are given to find answers, not to prove ideologies. >> >> So tell us how to design a study that proves that humans are not >> responsible. You're trying to prove a negative with that one and >> that's very hard to do. > > True, but if you can prove that something _else_ is responsible... Which will require more research, which will not happen if the political advocates are hogging all the funding. >> The first trouble is that the advocates aren't saying that what they >> want done is an experiment, they are asserting that they _know_ with >> _certainty_ what the results will be. > > You're falling into the same trap of failure to discriminate between > actual scientists and political advocates. The trouble is that the political advocates have portrayed themselves as scientists and policy is being made on the basis of their assertions. >> The fourth trouble is that the models on which the arguments are >> based are short term models of a very complex phenomenon. We only >> recently learned and developed the computing power to model with >> usable accuracy the 3d airflow around an airplane and its >> interactions with the structure, but the climatologists are claiming >> that they have an accurate validated model of the climate of an >> entire planet. If you look at the assertions they are making you >> will find that the model that started the global warming frenzy has >> been validated against data going back only to the '60s--it doesn't >> even pretend to be able to address a full glaciation cycle. > >> Here's a group that is working on validating models instead of >> playing politics--you never hear about them >> thoughhttp://pmip2.lsce.ipsl.fr/. >> >> If you google "hockey stick controversy" you'll find a lot about a >> guy named Mann, what's not mentioned there is that he's looking at >> 2000 years of data out of a 120,000 year cycle. > > I don't of anyone who claims their model is perfect, and if you go > back in time, virtually every scientific model seems incredibly crude > by today's standards, yet it was possible to get good results. > (Lofting an airfoil seems stone-age, but that's how we got jets to > fly.) However what is happening now is that the global warming advocates are telling us that we can build a plane based on their finite element analysis without first validating the analysis. If you've been in aerospace long enough to remember lofting with battens then you've also been in it long enough to remember how finicky FEA was in the early days. Would you design an airframe based on one of those early FEA models if the only test you had given it was a simply supported beam? > And I'm pretty certain Scripps data goes back several > glaciations. You keep mentioning this "Scripps data". Scripps has a _lot_ of data but most of it is oceanography. If they have climate data that goes back several glaciations I'm curious as to how they got it. The Vostok core belongs to the Russians and the EPICA core belongs to the ESF. And if they have a model that accurately fits to several glaciation cycles why aren't they crowing about it? That would be a major achievement. >> We're hearing that CO2 levels are the highest ever, but if you look >> at the data you'll find that they appear to have been as high in a >> previous interglacial--the folks who are saying "highest ever" seem >> to have amended that to "highest in the past 1000 years" or "past >> 2000 years" or the like. > > But the link you posted earlier, > http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/ > shows that CO2 levels fluctuated between 180 and 300ppmv for the last > 400,000+ years and in the last 200 years have risen to ~360. I've seen other sources that show the peak 3 cycles back as higher than at present.
From: S'mee on 18 Nov 2009 23:28 On Nov 18, 9:33 am, "Bob Myers" <nospample...(a)address.invalid> wrote: > S'mee wrote: > > Wait a minute, it was clear to me and well recorded in history that > > the poles shift sometimes many, many times in rapid succession. The > > rotational pole theoretically CAN'T shift...barring a catostrophic > > impact such as the one Uranus suffered (hope I got that right). So how > > could it NOT be the magnetic poles, for that matter are you aware the > > Earths magnetic field is weakening...since we started measuring it > > anyways. > > Exactly right. But (believe it or not) there ARE people out there > who think that "pole shifts" refer somehow to flipping of the > rotational axis, the Gospel According to St. Isaac notwithstanding. > I know, I've argued this very thing with 'em. > > Bob M. I've said it before Bob and I'll say it again... "They walk among us" <shudder> I'd rather deal with zombie hordes.
From: Stephen Cowell on 19 Nov 2009 00:16 "Road Glidin' Don" <d.langkd(a)gmail.com> wrote > And the change of the ocean current is > (most likely) totally unrelated to the (supposed) global warming. Hand waving == hard science? __ Steve ..
From: Twibil on 19 Nov 2009 22:09
On Nov 19, 5:17 pm, "Stephen!" <N...(a)spam.com> wrote: > > > >> > Hint: Mankind has a record of recording events via the mediums of > >> > painting, drawing, and engraving that stretches back well over 30,000 > >> > years. > > >> ÿ ...and artists *NEVER* embellish. ÿNever. ÿHa! > > > Says the guy who's never heard of Photoshop > > Thank you for helping to prove my point. Oh, dear. I didn't help you prove *anything*. You seem to be positing that there's no such thing as reliable graphic evidence, which is (A) insane, and (B) will come as a shock to both our court system and the world's history researchers. |