Climate Change

[jim cooper]

Re: Climate Change

Whoa there yourself Hank! This SCIENTIST and his compatriots, who spent these many years studying the ice at both poles might have saved themselves many many years of study by simply consulting .....HANK! (Logical?) Imagine how greatful they would be if they had done this instead of braving such inclement weather, polar bears, frost bite, etc. They could have had all the answers simply by visiting HANK, in Virginia! The article seemed perfectly logical to me, explained in a very logical, step by step way. By processing these cores they were able to breakdown not only temperature variations, (Over MANY YEARS) but what was in the air at certain times and when it was there. He likened it to studying tree rings so that the average reader would get the idea. I admit that the oil and coal lobby have spent billions to convince the gullible public that global warming is a liberal commie plot but there is too much evidence now that we should at least read up on it and not depend on Roger Ailes ....or Hank for the final word. JC

[Hank Jarrett]

Re: Climate Change

You completely miss the point Jim. I don't have the final word. THERE IS NO FINAL WORD in science. There is only what we believe until something better replaces it. It is the Al Gores who say the debate is over, not us. It is Michael Mann who claims the hockey stick graph of global warming is the final word (and STILL has not released the raw data or his algorithm). Hey, TRUST him, why would he lie?
I SAID that the scientific data from ice cores is VERY valuable, and we get a lot of science from it. Now YOU tell me how ICE tells you how cold it was thousands of years ago (same hint, the answer is still it was 32*F when the ice froze). That IS NOT WHAT ICE CORES ARE FOR. If you could make up any conclusion you wanted from any data without showing your work, I would have put a man on Mars by now. It DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY. REAL scientists SHOW THEIR WORK to other scientists who DOUBT THE CONCLUSIONS. It proves NOTHING to peer review your work only with those who already agree with you. THAT IS NOT SCIENCE.
I don't have the answers on global warming, I have QUESTIONS. Questions that a lot of better climate scientists than I ever will be are asking too. What we have in common is the flat out REFUSAL of the Climate Change crowd to share their models, methods or raw data. All they provide is the CONCLUSIONS.
Keith Briffa did the “hockey stick” graph based on tree rings from Yamal, Russia. That "data" was used in a dozen other temperature reconstructions that the UN climate panel claimed validated Mann’s original graph. But Briffa, Mann and his boss, Phil Jones, refuse to release the data on which he based his graph. You trust them, they have lied too many times for me to. In 2009 (I think) the data was reconstructed and found to have been FILTERED to only show trends that agreed with their conclusions. Briffa used only a small, biased, fraction of the raw data. Steve McIntyre re-ran an analysis based on the complete data, and the hockey stick upturn of temperatures in the 20th century was GONE. There is NO SIGNIFICANT TEMPERATURE TREND IN THE 20th CENTURY. Temperature trends over short periods of time are called WEATHER, not climate change.
The warming trend from 1910 to 1940, is well documented. It was a WEATHER trend (remember, short time of warming followed by a cool period, sort of like we are having now. You can’t ignore that "hockey stick", because it is well-documented (it's a WEATHER hockey stick, not a climate hockey stick, but so is the recent one). Want to explain how CO2 fed that one? Atmospheric CO2 didn't increase over this time period, AND WE WERE MEASURING IT THEN.
There are HUNDREDS of other examples of fudging data and refusing to show work as well as unqualified "believers" making unsubstantiated claims. If you believe we are destroying the planet, fine, PROVE IT. SHOW YOUR WORK. RELEASE YOUR RAW DATA. Until then, I will look at you with as much concern as the guy with the sandwich board. You have no credibility. This isn't your field, it is your belief, and that don't cut it in science.
Hank

By the way. The world DIDN'T end, did it? Sandwich guy was wrong.
I'm glad you are still here, me too. Now can we restrict our conversation to Taylorcrafts. I like it a lot better when you talk about what you actually know, not junk science. I hate to see a friend get sucked in by hucksters and nut cases.

Unless this is all REALLY entertaining to everyone else I think I am through. Global warming is a waste of my time till the "warming crowd" starts doing real science. I read the horoscopes too, for entertainment.

[skyboltone]

Re: Climate Change

Topic change topic change. Building on Hank's observation re:THERE IS NO FINAL WORD in science", take a brief look at "Standard Model" in particle physics. Now, I can go on for pages and pages in order to help folks build a basic understanding of what's at issue here, but I won't. The material is available from a multitude of sources in your library and on the net. Suffice it to say that in Classical Physics, the kind practiced by Albert Einstein for instance, light is a particle. We can observe this because when it strikes a (say) metallic surface, electrons pop off. But, on the other hand the quantum physicists say that light is a wave. This can be observed by passing a light beam through a pair of narrow slits placed close to each other so that the light "beam" is projected onto a screen. So light is a wave. It demonstrates self interference in a way that can't be explained by reference to particles. The problem is, that light can't be both a particle and a wave, because it means that the particle aspect of light requires that the particle divide into several pieces so that it can be both "here" and "there" at the same time, like a wave. Now, this argument (is light a particle or a wave) has been going on for almost a hundred years. It has not been resolved. So, some physicists got together in Copenhagen in (I think) about 1960 and called it a draw. Light is BOTH a particle and a wave. Now, the problem is, that any attempt to measure it as a wave dissolves instantly the moment an attempt at measurement is made. It pops right back into it's particle form. This is called odd. So the scientific community simply decided "to hell with it" we don't need to measure it or even observe what's happening. We'll just proceed with our calculations so that we can "get on with it". This agreement to ignore the data occurred at a conference in Copenhagen. So it's called the Copenhagen convention. It's an agreement to ignore a thorny problem No observable data has accumulated. The problem remains. What it boils down to is this; Einstein's theory of General Relativity and Quantum Physics are at odds with each other. They cannot both be right. The Scientific Community is ignoring this basic, fundamental problem. It's in the way. Screw it. We don't care.

So now, at CERN, we are now looking for the Hicks Boson. Also called the God particle. It's hidden in the Hadron we think, so we're banging hadrons together at high speed to see what pops out. If we find the Hicks Boson, Hicks will get the Nobel and it's existence will help our understanding as to why 98% of the matter in the universe (or so they say) is invisible. See, the problem with "The Standard Model" is that it leaves out a very important and fundamental principle: Gravity. We have been down this path before. Each new particle is hoped to represent the final breakthrough that will allow us to formulate a "Theory of Everything". Each particle has been hailed as the God particle in some sense. But then, all of a sudden, the new particle reveals more problems in mathematical physics, so that after further calculation, another particle is proposed, and the hunt begins. I'm not kidding. This is not a parody of mathematical physics, it IS mathematical physics.

Ok, so here's the punch line. In a brave attempt to resolve the difficulties that the Copenhagen Convention set up, a whole new theoretical framework arose called, "The Landscape". A complete understanding of "The Landscape" theory can be summarized by a couple of words; dimensional overflow. We have 3 dimensions here on Earth, maybe 4 if you count time, but in the Landscape you can have as many as you want. However many are needed to make the theory work, that's how many you get to have. Never mind that NONE OF THIS IS OBSERVABLE. So though we have problems understanding how light can be both a particle and a wave here on Earth, there are countless other Universes now where there is no difficulty with it at all. We propose these other universes even though we can't see them by claiming, against all empirical understanding and even logical inference, that they exist because if they can exist then they must exist. I'm not kidding. It's like the magician explaining how one trick works by performing another.

So along with "The Landscape" and dimensional overflow, we also got a branch of physics called "String Theory". The best minds of an entire generation, maybe 50 years and immense resources were spent in universities around the world exploring "String Theory". And then the entire pursuit turned out to be a colossal waste of time. The entire field and all of it's crackpot equations have been dropped. Completely discredited. We are now off on other tangents. Like Climate change "science". Well, it keeps the wheels turning anyway.

So, don't count your chickens before they are hatched. NOTHING has been settled.

[skyboltone]

Re: Climate Change

Double double.

[Ron Coleman]

Re: Climate Change

or to put it another way (I hinted at it before) the unrest among the natives is because of a common perception that our mechanical power grid has become unsustainable. The current paradigm evolved somewhere around the 1400's with the evolution of machines that could be substitutes for muscle (people, mule, horse, etc.,). Muscle was not efficient, too costly, not enough control, too slow, and so on. So the machine age evolved into the mess we have now. Ill considered attemps to economize the system with wind, solar energy are more religious in nature than scientific and result in fluctuations of group endevors that resemble the vacillations of schools of fish or flocks of birds. The groupe sense that the paradigm is nearing it's end is probably correct .
Signs of other models are appearing. One example:
Suppose that we took the legs of a kangaroo, hooked them to a tricycle and a computer and used them to transport us around. You would have to have a stomach and park it over a toilet in your garage. Too crude for you? Well, how about if we genetically engineer the muscle (organic engine) to fit in a module in the trunk of the car and run that off a computer "brain". If we look at some of the examples found in nature (the rotifer has an end that spins like a wheel) it might be possible to evolve a system much more efficient and more versitile than the one ending now. Imagine feeding your car a bowl of Shredded Wheat then driving off to the airport. Just be sure to park over the toilet or the scooper police might get you.
At least, being an artist, that how I see it!
RonC
For the sake of brevity, I left out a lot. Use your imagination and fill in the blanks.

[rammon3]

Re: Climate Change

I think I'll just get a 3' wrecking bar and prepare for the zombie apocolypse. That's just easier to deal with.

[Mark Julicher]

Re: Climate Change

Golly Gee.

And I thought man made global warming must all be true because Coca Cola has a save the polar ears theme on their new cans and they wouldn't lie --would they?

Carbon dioxide is tree food, so I'm saving trees.

[Hank Jarrett]

Re: Climate Change

Clean water, clean air, low pollution energy and transportation. All things I have supported for decades (I live on a river that empties into the Chesapeake Bay).
The key is to recognize when the law of diminishing returns has kicked in. You can spend nothing, only changing your habits, and get a 25% improvement. You can spend very little and get a 50% improvement, you can spend a LOT and get a 75% improvement. You can destroy your economy, put people out of jobs and wreck your whole infrastructure and pick up another 10%. Everybody has to die or go back to living in caves to get 10% more. The last 5% is impossible to get no matter WHAT you do. That was what we found on the Elisabeth River where I live. We decided to go with the 50 to 75% solution.
When we built our house here ~25 years ago, you could look into the water and see fish with huge cancerous lesions. The ducks and geese were sick. Lots of rabbits, quail and squirrels, but no shell fish at all. Now we have Bald Eagles across the river (breading pairs), every kind of wild life you can imagine and the fish are supposed to be safe to eat again (haven't tried it yet, I remember those fish that looked like they were from a horror movie). We made MAJOR changes without breaking the bank. The environmentalist "wackos" screamed and protested that we "HAD TO GO ALL THE WAY!" to "save the planet". It was the 100% solution or we were all doomed. We couldn't afford to dredge the river to clear out the old industrial polutants on the bottom. We couldn't afford to all just abandon our homes and move away from the river. We COULD afford to STOP dumping polutants in the river. We COULD stop over fertilizing our lawns. We COULD make sure the shore line was replanted with natural sea grasses and plants to filter the water. Turns out that over 25 years the river started (with our help) to clean itself out. Now we find out that if we HAD dredged, we would have raised all of the polutants at once and killed everything in the river. This way the polutants were digested by microbes over a long time and the river bed is now pretty clean. Every year it gets better.
There is a RIGHT way to make changes, and a STUPID way to make changes. If we are going to say we need to go with clean transportation, make sure you understand what that really means. Zero emission cars are NOT POLUTION FREE. They just don't polute at the use location. A power plant somewhere else is poluting to make the electricity to charge the batteries. Add to that the HORRIBLE mess battery manufacturing makes and the problems with disposal of the batteries after they wear out. Recycle the materials? Sure, but THAT polutes too, and uses LOTS of energy. Don't be misled by people who give simplistic solutions and claim theirs is the only way to save us all. You can bet SOMEONE up their line of communications is getting rich from the concept.
The "global Warming", then "Climate Change" soon to be "who knows what" crowd is populated by some of the worst offenders. They DON'T have the "facts" right, they use alarmist methods to suck in un-educated and uninformed supporters and THEY are getting rich with scams like "Carbon Credits" and islands sinking into the sea. Ocean levels ARE NOT RISING. WE MEASURE THEM. Island in the Pacific ARE sinking, but they are going DOWN, the water is NOT going up. Other areas of land are rising at the same time islands are sinking. A perfect example is the Hawaiian islands. On the south end a new island is rising, and may break the surface in our lives. On the north end there are underwater islands that are slowly sinking into the ocean. The water lever IS NOT CHANGING.
Hank

[Larry Lyons]

Re: Climate Change

Ah the crazies. I remember in the 70's when we had our first "supposed" energy shortage. A clown came telling everyone, to save the earth, we had to do as Hank says, go for the 100% even doing little things like using battery powered shavers to save electricity! True story, I saw the article and the papers had the guts to publish such nonsense.

By the way during that gasoline shortage I had a half brother that owned several convenience stores and the fuel suppliers told him to sell all the gas he wanted as they could not find any more barges to store the gas they were not selling. That shortage was 100% manipulation by the suppliers. I was involved in the oil fields at the time and we in the industry knew it was all fake but the Al Gores of the day had the ear of politicians, news papers, news services, and Hollywood.
Larry

[Dick Huish]

Re: Climate Change

You're right Hank. Back in 1963-1964 I was stationed in Newfoundland and made numerous trips to Iceland. I got to watch the island of Surtsey being born. Weird how it came out of the water. Dick

[Hank Jarrett]

Re: Climate Change

The one they seem to always claim is being drowned by rising sea levels is the Maldives islands. problem with their theory is the islands are on a subverting tectonic plate (the one that goes down while the other plate roll on top). Satellite measurement of the altitude of the islands shows they are going DOWN and the seal level is only changing by the amount of the tides. The islands will eventually sink away but it isn't from global warming or melting polar ice.
Hank

[flyguy]

Re: Climate Change

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-are-past-temperatures

DC