Earth on the Brink of an Ice Age

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Every time I see a sentence like this, "Make up your mind already....", I get the strong feeling that we need to do a better job teaching science in schools. Changing theories to fit new facts or new ideas is the hallmark of GOOD science...it's only political tools with an agenda that demand and present absolute certainty in all situations. I think climate scientists should "make up their mind" when they have the facts and evidence to support it, NOT because people who want to argue politics are unable to deal with issues that aren't black and white.

Scientist should also have the smarts to look at the data and see that they don't have enough data to come to a conclusion.

That IS what they are doing. You're using the current debate to judge the scientists studying the issue, but the problem is that our current debate really doesn't involve many scientists. It's Al Gore and Bill O'Reilly screaming at each other, and while Al Gore is closer than old Bill to having a scientific perspective, don't confuse EITHER of them with actual climate scientists.

If people were listening, what they'd see is scientists studying the data and saying "...BASED ON WHAT WE KNOW RIGHT NOW, this is the issue as we see it." Science doesn't wait for absolute certainty, because there IS no such thing. And that would be fine if both sides of the debate didn't treat science like it SHOULD BE (or already is) at that point.

Really they base their opinion on the data they have today? And Here I was think they had a time machine. Like I said they should know enough to look at the data and come to the conclusion they don't have enough data to come to a conclusion.

Circulism! Saying that "we don't have enough data" when it comes to GW amounts to the same hill of beans that it does when it is applied to evolution. If you want to argue semantics, science is not designed to reach true "conclusions" as new data will ALWAYS be available to be obtained. Science advances hypothesis based on available data, which if backed up/reviewed enough are generally accepted as solid scientific theory. The theories that hold to the best available data and experimentation are what we should base policy on. Scientists don't have a time machine to see the ultimate conclusions humanity makes about the universe from ALL the available data it will obtain as they don't yet have enough information to rule out time travel as a pollibility. :laugh:

The only one intent on arguing semantics is you. Global warming is being advanced sole by publish or parish, not sound science.

 

[MovingTarget]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Every time I see a sentence like this, "Make up your mind already....", I get the strong feeling that we need to do a better job teaching science in schools. Changing theories to fit new facts or new ideas is the hallmark of GOOD science...it's only political tools with an agenda that demand and present absolute certainty in all situations. I think climate scientists should "make up their mind" when they have the facts and evidence to support it, NOT because people who want to argue politics are unable to deal with issues that aren't black and white.

Scientist should also have the smarts to look at the data and see that they don't have enough data to come to a conclusion.

That IS what they are doing. You're using the current debate to judge the scientists studying the issue, but the problem is that our current debate really doesn't involve many scientists. It's Al Gore and Bill O'Reilly screaming at each other, and while Al Gore is closer than old Bill to having a scientific perspective, don't confuse EITHER of them with actual climate scientists.

If people were listening, what they'd see is scientists studying the data and saying "...BASED ON WHAT WE KNOW RIGHT NOW, this is the issue as we see it." Science doesn't wait for absolute certainty, because there IS no such thing. And that would be fine if both sides of the debate didn't treat science like it SHOULD BE (or already is) at that point.

Really they base their opinion on the data they have today? And Here I was think they had a time machine. Like I said they should know enough to look at the data and come to the conclusion they don't have enough data to come to a conclusion.

Circulism! Saying that "we don't have enough data" when it comes to GW amounts to the same hill of beans that it does when it is applied to evolution. If you want to argue semantics, science is not designed to reach true "conclusions" as new data will ALWAYS be available to be obtained. Science advances hypothesis based on available data, which if backed up/reviewed enough are generally accepted as solid scientific theory. The theories that hold to the best available data and experimentation are what we should base policy on. Scientists don't have a time machine to see the ultimate conclusions humanity makes about the universe from ALL the available data it will obtain as they don't yet have enough information to rule out time travel as a possibility. :laugh:

The only one intent on arguing semantics is you. Global warming is being advanced sole by publish or parish, not sound science.

FAIL. I may argue semantics, but only because you dont' seem to understand what sound science is. It is a dynamic process that never gaurantees 100% certainty. Is GW the ONLY possible thing that could be going on? No. It could be pirates, solar activity, natural climate cycles, etc. However, current scientific data points to man-made activities affecting our climate either by inducing GW or accellerating the natural process of GW beyond the natural rate. For the most part, there is consensus on this. There will be detractors, but this type of dissent is an attribute of a healthy scientific community. Seriously, stop reading bumper stickers to get your scientific news.

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: smack Down
I think your confused about the scientific method. It is:
1. Pick a topic that might have grant money
2. Write grant proposal.
3. Write paper, making sure to cite any paper write by anyone approving said grant or may approve next grant.
4. Publish.
Repeat.

If you think university academics are getting rich you are living in magic fairly land. Oil execs on the other hand...

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: EndGame

Originally posted by: Atheus

Make up your mind already.........

The whole point of science is that you don't make up your mind but follow wherever the data takes you. As technology and methods improve theories are proved wrong, replaced, refined, and then proved wrong again. It's the only way to make progress towards the truth. At the moment most of the data points to Earth's continued warming, but maybe this theory will be proved wrong just as the 70s cooling theory was. Lets hope so.

Having said that, your article has nothing to do with science, and has clearly been taken from some laughable propeganda website, which is why you have provided no link to the original source. No good scientist would ever speak with that kind of certainty - nobody knows the future for sure. All we have are our scientific theories but hey, those got us as far as the moon, and they got us these computer thingies here, so they're good enough for me.


/edit: Rainsford beat me to it by 1 minute

Really? Hmm, well, it's a WSJ/BBC article today and it originated from PRAVDA Earth on the Brink of an Ice Age

Pravda?! Pravda is owned by the russian communist party you poor fool! you know? The ones with the huge oil wells? Goddam, I was expecting a poor source, but that really takes the prize.

And you show me that shit on the BBC or WSJ sites - I searched and I did not find.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Every time I see a sentence like this, "Make up your mind already....", I get the strong feeling that we need to do a better job teaching science in schools. Changing theories to fit new facts or new ideas is the hallmark of GOOD science...it's only political tools with an agenda that demand and present absolute certainty in all situations. I think climate scientists should "make up their mind" when they have the facts and evidence to support it, NOT because people who want to argue politics are unable to deal with issues that aren't black and white.

Scientist should also have the smarts to look at the data and see that they don't have enough data to come to a conclusion.

That IS what they are doing. You're using the current debate to judge the scientists studying the issue, but the problem is that our current debate really doesn't involve many scientists. It's Al Gore and Bill O'Reilly screaming at each other, and while Al Gore is closer than old Bill to having a scientific perspective, don't confuse EITHER of them with actual climate scientists.

If people were listening, what they'd see is scientists studying the data and saying "...BASED ON WHAT WE KNOW RIGHT NOW, this is the issue as we see it." Science doesn't wait for absolute certainty, because there IS no such thing. And that would be fine if both sides of the debate didn't treat science like it SHOULD BE (or already is) at that point.

Really they base their opinion on the data they have today? And Here I was think they had a time machine. Like I said they should know enough to look at the data and come to the conclusion they don't have enough data to come to a conclusion.

Circulism! Saying that "we don't have enough data" when it comes to GW amounts to the same hill of beans that it does when it is applied to evolution. If you want to argue semantics, science is not designed to reach true "conclusions" as new data will ALWAYS be available to be obtained. Science advances hypothesis based on available data, which if backed up/reviewed enough are generally accepted as solid scientific theory. The theories that hold to the best available data and experimentation are what we should base policy on. Scientists don't have a time machine to see the ultimate conclusions humanity makes about the universe from ALL the available data it will obtain as they don't yet have enough information to rule out time travel as a possibility. :laugh:

The only one intent on arguing semantics is you. Global warming is being advanced sole by publish or parish, not sound science.

FAIL. I may argue semantics, but only because you dont' seem to understand what sound science is. It is a dynamic process that never gaurantees 100% certainty. Is GW the ONLY possible thing that could be going on? No. It could be pirates, solar activity, natural climate cycles, etc. However, current scientific data points to man-made activities affecting our climate either by inducing GW or accellerating the natural process of GW beyond the natural rate. For the most part, there is consensus on this. There will be detractors, but this type of dissent is an attribute of a healthy scientific community. Seriously, stop reading bumper stickers to get your scientific news.

Did I say 100% in my post. I know the science and it is junk. Just read some of paper's and use some common scene. The papers use 4100 weather stations around the world to calculate the whooping 0.74 ± 0.18 °C change in mean temperature.

 

[MovingTarget]

Originally posted by: smack Down
/snip

Did I say 100% in my post. I know the science and it is junk.

Global warming is being advanced sole by publish or parish, not sound science.

Really? Care to explain that? You know the science and it is junk? What part of it is junk? Is the data being gathered from unreliable sources using outdated methods? Are the records/equipment flawed? Are the scientists simply not versed in logical extrapolation? Seems to me that your "sound science" is what conforms to your predetermined conclusions. The article itself does make some good points, but then proceeds to make MAJOR jumps in reasoning to get to its "conclusions" without much to back it up.

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: smack Down
I know the science and it is junk.

Whew! Glad to hear that - I was worried for a while there! Now we just have to send your research to all right people and we can all have a big tire fire to celebrate.

 

[MovingTarget]

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: smack Down
I know the science and it is junk.

Whew! Glad to hear that - I was worried for a while there! Now we just have to send your research to all right people and we can all have a big tire fire to celebrate.

I'll bring the marshmellows! I'm glad we can finally put this GW thing to rest! :thumbsup:

 

[XZeroII]

Welcome to 1975

 

[Ozoned]

Coffee futures.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

Originally posted by: smack Down
/snip

Did I say 100% in my post. I know the science and it is junk.

Global warming is being advanced sole by publish or parish, not sound science.

Really? Care to explain that? You know the science and it is junk? What part of it is junk? Is the data being gathered from unreliable sources using outdated methods? Are the records/equipment flawed? Are the scientists simply not versed in logical extrapolation? Seems to me that your "sound science" is what conforms to your predetermined conclusions. The article itself does make some good points, but then proceeds to make MAJOR jumps in reasoning to get to its "conclusions" without much to back it up.

As I said they lack enough data to come to their conclusions. Their is simple no data with significant accuracy over a significant period of time to say what we are seeing is able normal or abnormal. Then there are the modals that predict doom of either a 1.1 degree change to 6.6 degree change. In other words garbage in garbage out.

 

[heyheybooboo]

For those who may be interested this compelling piece of journalism was published in PRAVDA.Ru and appears to be written by a guy from Portland, Oregon who voluntarily surrendered his license ""for failing to conform to the essential standards of acceptable nursing practice"" in July of 2008.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

Originally posted by: smack Down
/snip

Did I say 100% in my post. I know the science and it is junk.

Global warming is being advanced sole by publish or parish, not sound science.

Really? Care to explain that? You know the science and it is junk? What part of it is junk? Is the data being gathered from unreliable sources using outdated methods? Are the records/equipment flawed? Are the scientists simply not versed in logical extrapolation? Seems to me that your "sound science" is what conforms to your predetermined conclusions. The article itself does make some good points, but then proceeds to make MAJOR jumps in reasoning to get to its "conclusions" without much to back it up.

As I said they lack enough data to come to their conclusions. Their is simple no data with significant accuracy over a significant period of time to say what we are seeing is able normal or abnormal. Then there are the modals that predict doom of either a 1.1 degree change to 6.6 degree change. In other words garbage in garbage out.

Says who?

You are not a climate scientist, yet you're making incredibly bold claims about their work, up to and including accusing them of publishing something sensationalistic in order to keep getting funding. It's pretty ironic that you accuse scientists of not being sufficiently rigorous in their work, when your theories about what they are doing are based on nothing at all.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
For those who may be interested this compelling piece of journalism was published in PRAVDA.Ru and appears to be written by a guy from Portland, Oregon who voluntarily surrendered his license ""for failing to conform to the essential standards of acceptable nursing practice"" in July of 2008.

That's as good as Peer Reviewed!!

 

[2Xtreme21]

Global Warming = fresh water level in oceans rise = slowing of the North Atlantic Current = less heat to Europe = ice age.

Educate yourselves.

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Lemon law

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Obviously man has changed his ways and thus staved off GW for a couple more decades...

Hey... it's just a theory...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry Cad, in science speak, what you have is best described as a hypothesis. Missing in action is anything to advance that hypothesis into a barely supported
theory.

But I love it anyway, lets see, if anti global warming folks can just generate enough hot air, global warming can be staved off forever, please try your next trick at the nearest
ocean you can find, stand by the seashore and will the tides not to come in or out for a extended period of time longer than 3 hrs.

If you can do that, I will sing your name and declare you the greatest scientist of all time.

Do you not read? I did not state I had a scientific theory so try again junior.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What part of total denial do you not understand Cad?

You stated "it was just a theory" Your words not mine.

And then you come back with " Do you not read? I did not state I had a scientific theory so try again junior.[/quote]"

What part of the word theory do you not understand Mr. Crawfish?

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: 2Xtreme21
Global Warming = fresh water level in oceans rise = slowing of the North Atlantic Current = less heat to Europe = ice age.

Educate yourselves.

The day after tomorrow is not a documentary despite what Al gore may say.

 

[2Xtreme21]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: 2Xtreme21
Global Warming = fresh water level in oceans rise = slowing of the North Atlantic Current = less heat to Europe = ice age.

Educate yourselves.

The day after tomorrow is not a documentary despite what Al gore may say.

Right, because heating ice actually doesn't create liquid water.

 

[NeoV]

and in either case - the USA getting rid of, or at least lowering it's dependence on foreign oil is a good thing, combined with less-polluting technologies

 

[Lemon law]

So 2Xtreme21 asserts the absurd with "Right, because heating ice actually doesn't create liquid water. "

The point is, when glacial ice melts, it creates mostly 100% fresh water, with a quite radically different density than sea water with its dissolved admixture of salts acquired over billions of years of time.

The 1,000,000 dollar question is how gradual the process is, Fresh water added to a much larger world oceans will slowly become identical to the larger Oceans, too much at one time can reach a tipping point that is non reversal.

 

[2Xtreme21]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
So 2Xtreme21 asserts the absurd with "Right, because heating ice actually doesn't create liquid water. "

The point is, when glacial ice melts, it creates mostly 100% fresh water, with a quite radically different density than sea water with its dissolved admixture of salts acquired over billions of years of time.

The 1,000,000 dollar question is how gradual the process is, Fresh water added to a much larger world oceans will slowly become identical to the larger Oceans, too much at one time can reach a tipping point that is non reversal.

Psh, stop your logic...

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

This is also brought to you by Gregory F. Fegel

Not only is he an expert on climate, but he knows 9/11 was a conspiracy by the Bush administration.

An excellent fellow indeed.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
So 2Xtreme21 asserts the absurd with "Right, because heating ice actually doesn't create liquid water. "

The point is, when glacial ice melts, it creates mostly 100% fresh water, with a quite radically different density than sea water with its dissolved admixture of salts acquired over billions of years of time.

The 1,000,000 dollar question is how gradual the process is, Fresh water added to a much larger world oceans will slowly become identical to the larger Oceans, too much at one time can reach a tipping point that is non reversal.

Which begs the question, where did the glacial ice come from in the 1st place? Wasn't like it has always existed. Wouldn't the cause of the glacial melt also be responsible for more fresh water leaving the ocean in the form of evaporation. Wouldn't that eventually equate to more rain over land mass and eventually result in more salt being put into the ocean, fixing the problem?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: Lemon law
So 2Xtreme21 asserts the absurd with "Right, because heating ice actually doesn't create liquid water. "

The point is, when glacial ice melts, it creates mostly 100% fresh water, with a quite radically different density than sea water with its dissolved admixture of salts acquired over billions of years of time.

The 1,000,000 dollar question is how gradual the process is, Fresh water added to a much larger world oceans will slowly become identical to the larger Oceans, too much at one time can reach a tipping point that is non reversal.

Which begs the question, where did the glacial ice come from in the 1st place? Wasn't like it has always existed. Wouldn't the cause of the glacial melt also be responsible for more fresh water leaving the ocean in the form of evaporation. Wouldn't that eventually equate to more rain over land mass and eventually result in more salt being put into the ocean, fixing the problem?

I don't know if it would fix the problem. It would cause more Rain, which maybe a problem in itself.

 

[manowar821]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Obviously man has changed his ways and thus staved off GW for a couple more decades...

Hey... it's just a theory...

Actually, that isn't a Theory.

Actually it is. I theorize that man has staved off GW due to changing his ways.

Not scientifically speaking. AKA, you missed quite a few steps, Data gathering, Paper Writing, and Peer Reviewing

Here is a perfect example of one of the biggest problems with our society, today. Knuckleheads who live in the past, thrive on superstition, and don't understand the first thing about the scientific method think their lame-brained ideas are as legitimate as scientific theory.

Also... Make up their minds? What an astonishingly ignorant and idiotic thing to say. The education system really has failed you.