Global Warming works to within an order of magnitude, too. Add CO2 and the planet will fry. Or blossom. Or plunge into an Ice Age.
Give or take.
Cheers, James Arthur ~~~~~~ Four legs good, CO2 baadddd.
Economists are mostly idiots. Their predictive value is zero or worse, and their influence, if any, is often self-serving and destabilizing. The more economists manage an economy, the worse things get.
-- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc lunatic fringe electronics
In most people, fear easily overpowers reasoning.
This is cool:
I have long thought that the left/right population split was dominated by peoples fear reactions, with leftists more dominated by fear.
"Ninety-one percent of Democrats and 33% of Republicans say they worry a great deal or fair amount about global warming, but 67% of Republicans worry only a little or not at all."
Left/right isn't about theories of management: it's about being afraid, or not.
We evolved in a very dangerous world, and live in a relatively safe one, but the influence of fear is still huge. It's like our immune systems: when we are no longer assaulted by plagues and parasites and infections, we AGC our sensitivity and become allergic to pollen and peanuts.
-- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc lunatic fringe electronics
You may not be able to find such records.
-- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc lunatic fringe electronics
I haven't combed through all the postings on this thread so please forgive if the movie "Downsizing" has already been mentioned.
Fuzzy Logic is thankfully gone. For some strange reason, Neural Networks linger.
-- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc picosecond timing precision measurement jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com http://www.highlandtechnology.com
An anonymous mystery source? The Oracle at Delphi can go you one better, she gets it from Apollo. I hope you aren't believing on faith, because that's a problem.
Members of a complex society do rely on specialists. That's not a bad thing. And, it's not 'faith'.
But it often is faith. Entire fields of specialists are sometimes all wrong. Just because a few thousand self-declared experts agree doesn't make them right.
-- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc picosecond timing precision measurement jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com http://www.highlandtechnology.com
Not at all. Renewables or Thorium Molten Salt reactors can do a better job.
You don't seem to have any links to support your claims, so I decided to help you out. Climate Depot has a lot of informative links. Here's some others:
Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations At 400 PPM Are Still Dangerously Low For Life On Earth
CO2 Nears 400 ppm. Relax! It's Not Global Warming 'End Times', But Only A 'Big Yawn'
More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims
There's a ton of info available. Take your pick.
In the sciences, it's 'few thousand observations' or 'few thousand experiments'. Not persons, phenomena. You're thinking of some other 'expert' field, I guess.
Climate experiments? Macroeconomic experiments? Nutrition experiments?
-- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc picosecond timing precision measurement jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com http://www.highlandtechnology.com
I never said the science was settled. The other side is that it's all BS. These days you can't have a middle position; Gee, things seem to be warming. CO2 abosrbs in the near IR*. Maybe there's some connection, it certainly seems like something we should study. I don't have time for it, but Muller seems to have had the time. He started as a skeptic of the temperature data and so did his own analysis. (Well 'his' most likely included grad students and other help.)
Anyway, it's seems impossible to have a real discussion about it these days... On the left, every storm is GW and on the right every cold spell no GW.
I still like this idea of looking at the noise in the temperature data, that would get rid of any "DC" offsets. (Which seems to be John's biggest objection.)
George H.
*(That I do know, I did an IR lab in college, part of it was looking at CO2 absorption... it had this old clunky, tube (i think) lockin and a rotating blocker, thermopile detector IIRC, so real slow.)
Right, that can certainly happen. Sometimes there're nudges from industry... "The case against sugar" (kinda a tedious book) talks about the sugar industry, and how nutritional science got focused on 'fat' as the problem in our diet.
Typically what happens is the old farts die, and new kids look at the data and ask different questions. That's the hope anyway.
Hey let's look at the noise in the temperature data. Oh, by noise I mean the variation in daytime highs and lows With gobal warming we should be getting more variation, I guess if we've only warmed one degree out of 300 it might be a hard signal to see.... you need a lot of averaging.
George H.
No, I think you can find lots of examples of two or three (or one) big guys in a field, getting an idea, and that idea can dominate the field for a long time. It probably happens more in medicine and nutrition.
George H.
We can certainly have fruitful discussions about GW, as long as participants post the links that support their claims. Otherwise it's useless.
One of the things about the warming ocean temperatures is water can support lower concentrations of CO2 and it is released into the atmosphere, thus contributing to global warming. A positive feedback loop.
I can verify that. I have a high pressure CO2 tank to make carbonic acid for drinks. I refrigerate the bottles, but if I run out and use tap water, all the CO2 bubbles out and I have to use up much more from the tank.
That costs me money!
"Science progresses one funeral at a time."
-- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc picosecond timing precision measurement jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com http://www.highlandtechnology.com
Max Karl Ernst Ludwig Planck
"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."
Give credit where credit is due. That illuminates the world.
Provocative, but why does that apply to science? There aren't any quorums, votes, or polls in scientific method. A PhD expertise is always self-declared, right before being vigorously defended. That'll continue to be the system until a better one appears.
What two examples can you offer, from history, of 'entire fields of specialists' being 'all wrong'?
No, it's certainly not gone. Democrats have fully embraced it.
led > >> >> to glaciation."
ed
Physicists do concentrate on problems where simple mathematical models work . As an approach, it has produced impressive results, but a lot of the real w orld is more complicated than that.
Human beings are remarkably complicated constructions. The models of what's going on inside our bodes and our brains are grossly over-simplified (as t hey have to be if they are to be manipulable enough top be useful). Chemist ry had phlogiston theory at one point ...
ame.
Half of it has below average intelligence, and quite a few of the bright pe ople prefer beliefs they like to belief's that are evidence-based. John Lar kin's rejection of anthropogenic global warming is a prime example.
Weather predictions aren't too bad these days - but the butterfly effect me ans that they can't be much good for more than about ten days.
The solar system has the same problem, but it only starts showing up when y ou try to predict more than a million years in advance.
The US public's aversion to climate predictions is largely due to what is b eing predicted - the predictions are too long term for their rejection to b e evidence-based.
Economics is a special case. Anybody with enough money can buy the kind of prediction they want, and endow a chair at some university to give their ta me prophet academic respectability. "Social engineering" is merely tinkerin g by ideologically motivated nut-cases. Social science is strictly in the o bservational evidence-collecting phase at the moment.
Statins are useful drugs, with side-effects. Nobody went around saying that they were "healthy", and more than they say that penicillin is healhty.
Margarine is a food, and the people who sold it made all sorts of claims ab out it. Advertising claims aren't science, even if the actors in the advert isements put on white coats to make their claims.
John Larkin is a gullible twit, and his understanding of the world is corre spondingly shallow and frequently inadequate. Naturally, he doesn't appreci ate quite how little he knows, or quite how much of what he thinks he knows has been inculcated to make him a more profitable customer.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.