Visit the Ironworks Gaming Website Email the Webmaster Graphics Library Rules and Regulations Help Support Ironworks Forum with a Donation to Keep us Online - We rely totally on Donations from members Donation goal Meter

Ironworks Gaming Radio

Ironworks Gaming Forum

Go Back   Ironworks Gaming Forum > Ironworks Gaming Forums > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 07-29-2011, 02:37 PM   #21
SpiritWarrior
Jack Burton
 

Join Date: May 31, 2002
Location: Ireland
Posts: 5,854
Default Re: New NASA Data Debunks Global Warming

^_-
__________________
Still I feel like a child when I look at the moon, maybe I grew up a little too soon...
SpiritWarrior is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2011, 02:47 PM   #22
Azred
Drow Priestess
 

Join Date: March 13, 2001
Location: a hidden sanctorum high above the metroplex
Age: 54
Posts: 4,037
Ironworks Forum Re: New NASA Data Debunks Global Warming

I forgot to mention that any Ironworks member will be warmly welcomed over at the Oasis. The boards have a shared history.
__________________
Everything may be explained by a conspiracy theory. All conspiracy theories are true.

No matter how thinly you slice it, it's still bologna.
Azred is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2011, 02:48 PM   #23
SecretMaster
Apophis
 

Join Date: October 19, 2001
Location: New York
Age: 37
Posts: 4,666
Default Re: New NASA Data Debunks Global Warming

Quote:
Originally Posted by Azred View Post
I don't care about the Heartland Group or their political leanings whatsoever because they are not the ones who did the research. NASA did the research and I don't think any rational person could claim that that organization engages in "junk science".

On this topic I have raised these points for the past several years:
1) alarmists overestimate our ability to impact global climate. According to the reports and predictions that were coming out 20 years ago, by now there should be no ice in the Arctic and the oceans should have risen at least a foot...neither of which has happened. Also, the predictions typically claimed 0.1 degree rise in average temperature each year...which also has not happened. Finally, when one large volcanic eruption can alter global temperatures by an average of 2 degrees then our importance is clearly minimized.
2) climate science does not follow the Scientific Method because a) there is no "control" Earth containing no human begins against which to measure experimental results, b) the studies begin with the same flawed premise of "human beings are disrupting global climate" rather than reaching conclusions afterwards--this is backwards.
3) alarmists want to enact legislation based on their faulty findings because they think the United States is the only country hurting the planet. I would like to see them try to go force carbon dioxide emissions on China--that would be funny.
Whoah whoah whoah. Take some time to write something well thought out and not written in the heat of passion. It leads to a much more healthy debate.

1. Which reports/papers are you referring to when you say "they got it wrong 20 years ago!"? Specific examples are necessary so we can thoroughly examine them and what they have to say, and indeed figure out whether in fact they got it wrong, or were taken out of context. Don't just respond with "you know... the reports!" What reports? Who said this? It's highly misleading to make a blanket statement like that (which might not even be true).

2. So because we do not have a separate planet, identical to earth (except no humans), climate science isn't a science? That is a really bad argument, one that doesn't make much sense. Your other point, scientists "assume" human impact going in and shape data to match their conclusion, is also by and large not true. You do realize that science is sort of culmulative; it builds off of the work done by other individuals. The whole field of climate change has been building off of research that has been done for the past 160 years or so.

Let's try to start at the beginning. 1827, Fourier. He notices something funky; if the Earth is only warmed by solar radiation (the sun!), the planet (given it's size and distance from the Sun) should be much colder. He devises a bunch of experiments involving paned vases, and suggests the possibility that gases are responsible for maintaining heat on the planet.

Several others are inspired by Fourier's work, most notably Arrhenius. He thinks "could gases explain why the earth can retain its heat? What about specific gases, do they have different heat retaining properties?" He eventually derives numbers for both Carbon Dioxide and Water Vapor, and in fact postulates increases in carbon dioxide could lead to a "warming" of the earth. Probably the first guy to make such a bold prediction (and is turning out to be right).

Others continue to take the work of Arrhenius in different directions. Some come up with their own numbers for CO2, H2O, others use the ideas Arrhenius presented to explain the geologic past of the earth.

Most notably, Callendar in the late 1930's tried to estimate the amount of CO2 that had been released into the atmosphere since the industrial era, and used Arrhenius's numbers to calculate the hypothetical increase in temperature. Big leap forward in terms of direction.

At the same time (1900-1950 or so) there was a lot of interest in the role of CO2 diffusing into the oceans. How much diffusion can occur, how much of a sink do the oceans play. A lot of individuals rejected the idea of temperature increases solely because they thought the oceans would uptake most of the carbon.

Now we are in the 50's. Technology and scientific instruementation is getting better. The whole idea of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the role it plays with regards to climate has been around for 50+ years, with lots of rich discussion. It is still something to make a career out of because with every paper, there are more questions, more unknowns. Scientists are able to better replicate what happens to CO2 emissions. With a better understanding of the chemistry, scientists agree the oceans aren't capable of uptaking all the carbon, and it could lead to problems.

So here we are in the 1960's. Going back nearly 130 years ago, when Fourier first postulated the notion of a "greenhouse effect", the snowballing based on that one idea has led scientists to say "CO2 might be a problem." This is based off of the many calculations by different individuals of how well each gas (mainly CO2, H2O) retains heat, and by the understanding of how CO2 diffuses into the oceans.

I'm going to stop here because the story gets much more thorough and longer, but you can see the general idea. One idea blossomed into a whole field to study. Individuals weren't going in with conclusions and trying to match data to them. Instead they noticed discrepancies based on the given level of knowledge and tried to address those discrepancies. This in turn leads to more discrepancies to be addressed which lead to more discrepancies... you get the idea. You will also notice that all of these contributing individuals had to devise experiments to properly answer the question they had. All of these individuals followed the scientific method to a T, complete with controls and such.

I have advocated that fundementally, what makes the scientific method so important/useful is replicability. The ability to take someone else's work, and generate the same or similiar results. All of the advances up to the 60's were also based on this replicability, it had to be otherwise everyone would have achieved vastly different results and conclusions. The fact that to that point, people were reaching similiar values tells you that they are accurately matching reality.

3. You do touch upon a good point, underneath a huge ramble. The policy side of the argument is much more complicated than the science. I shy away from policy decisions and politics because it is so mucked up with different idealogies. I can understand the hostility towards legislation that tries to curb CO2 emissions, because it ultimately becomes a question of "economic growth vs. the environment". Most people do not want to hear "we're going to weaken our economy deliberately."
SecretMaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2011, 02:54 PM   #24
SecretMaster
Apophis
 

Join Date: October 19, 2001
Location: New York
Age: 37
Posts: 4,666
Default Re: New NASA Data Debunks Global Warming

Quote:
Alarmists want us to believe that because a small group of climate scientists, not all of whom agree with themselves, say that something is true then it is true. Besides, which version of the alarmists should we believe? The ones from the late 70s and early 80s who predicted a mini-ice age or the ones from the late 80s and early 90s who predicted the end of all polar ice caps and vast reaches of deserts?
False. False false false false. There is an overwhelming consensus with regards to climate change, especially amongst scientists.

http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

"...the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes"

Also, in regards to the claims of an Ice-Age in the 1970's? That was an extreme minority belief published by a few individuals, and the majority of the scientific body back then agreed in a warming trend.
SecretMaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2011, 03:00 PM   #25
machinehead
Drizzt Do'Urden
 

Join Date: April 9, 2001
Location: Massachusetts
Age: 68
Posts: 630
Default Re: New NASA Data Debunks Global Warming

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chewbacca View Post
Yeah we need more political "im right your wrong 'cause I said so"-type debates in the enviromental discussions.
Well that's what the first post was like. Normally I wouldn't have gone to such lengths to rebut it but I didn't care for the holier then thou attitude.
machinehead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2011, 03:02 PM   #26
Chewbacca
Zartan
 

Join Date: July 18, 2001
Location: America, On The Beautiful Earth
Age: 50
Posts: 5,373
Light Bulb Re: New NASA Data Debunks Global Warming

It's pretty basic that analyzing weather is little helpful in understanding climate and that Climate records go way, way, way, way back.

Azred your analysis of fallacy one uses a modified version of fallacy two. That the true cause of climate change is by natural cycles, regardless of what human put into the enviroment has not been proven false so you say it is true. However it has not been proven true anymore than it has not been proven false.

The whole simple reason we oughta research the issue is we dont know, we really do. not. know.

Oh and calling people alarmists over and over again is a modified version of fallacy four using methods of fallacy three. You make it popular to dimiss enviromentalists as crazy alarmists by publishing papers and articles saying as much.

Extremists on both sides really are alot alike.
__________________
Support Local Music and Record Stores!
Got Liberty?

Last edited by Chewbacca; 07-29-2011 at 03:05 PM. Reason: Blue Dreams
Chewbacca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2011, 03:33 PM   #27
Micah Foehammer
Ma'at - Goddess of Truth & Justice
 

Join Date: November 15, 2001
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 3,253
Default Re: New NASA Data Debunks Global Warming

Here's a link that's worth reading.

http://www.climatechangefacts.info/

This article does appear to take a fairly comprehensive and balanced look at both sides of the issue.
__________________
“Every tavern’s an opportunity, I say.”

http://www.ironworksforum.com/forum/image.php?type=sigpic&userid=3793&dateline=1187636  783

Last edited by Micah Foehammer; 07-29-2011 at 03:39 PM.
Micah Foehammer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2011, 04:38 PM   #28
Azred
Drow Priestess
 

Join Date: March 13, 2001
Location: a hidden sanctorum high above the metroplex
Age: 54
Posts: 4,037
Ironworks Forum Re: New NASA Data Debunks Global Warming

Quote:
Originally Posted by SecretMaster View Post
Whoah whoah whoah. Take some time to write something well thought out and not written in the heat of passion. It leads to a much more healthy debate.
I never write anything in the heat of passion.

The central focus of that whole "doctored data" scandal from two years ago was precisely because the researchers edited their data to highlight and support their conclusion that human beings are causing the global climate to destabilize in heat up.

My whole fight against climate change believers has always been the poor methods the researchers use and weak-minded politicians trying to enact legislation based on inaccurate and shoddy pseudo-science.

Our climate records do not go "way way back". 350 years (and I am being generous here, because there aren't records for climate or weather patterns in South America from the mid 1700s, for example) compared to the entire lifespan of the planet is most definitely insignificant. Incomplete data gives incomplete results.

Now...as far as my use of Happy Kitten--how can you not love him?--in my first post is because I am the original elitist here, something I gladly admit from time to time. Am I correct all the time? Of course not. However, I am correct much more often than not which is simply one of the extra benefits of being me.

My other claim about climate change has also been that its adherents believe in it with almost religous fervor. They can't prove to anyone else that what they believe is true but they do try to proseletyze to anyone who will listen. *shrug*

This discussion also highlights a point I was making elsewhere--for every scientific study I can find that disproves global warming someone else can find a scientific study that supports it. Which study do we believe? As with most things, we all have to choose for ourselves what we will believe.
__________________
Everything may be explained by a conspiracy theory. All conspiracy theories are true.

No matter how thinly you slice it, it's still bologna.
Azred is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2011, 04:48 PM   #29
machinehead
Drizzt Do'Urden
 

Join Date: April 9, 2001
Location: Massachusetts
Age: 68
Posts: 630
Tongue Out Re: New NASA Data Debunks Global Warming

Quote:
Originally Posted by Azred View Post
I never write anything in the heat of passion.

Now...as far as my use of Happy Kitten--how can you not love him?--in my first post is because I am the original elitist here, something I gladly admit from time to time. Am I correct all the time? Of course not. However, I am correct much more often than not which is simply one of the extra benefits of being me.

LMAO!!!
Elitist - horse's rear end - not much difference. :p
machinehead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2011, 05:38 PM   #30
Azred
Drow Priestess
 

Join Date: March 13, 2001
Location: a hidden sanctorum high above the metroplex
Age: 54
Posts: 4,037
Ironworks Forum Re: New NASA Data Debunks Global Warming

It all depends upon your point of view.

I don't take myself as seriously as I used to, so why should anyone else?
__________________
Everything may be explained by a conspiracy theory. All conspiracy theories are true.

No matter how thinly you slice it, it's still bologna.
Azred is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Talk about global warming, eh? Link General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005) 19 07-16-2004 12:25 PM
Global Warming: Who's to blame? Avatar General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005) 31 09-03-2003 10:50 AM
News for anyone interested in Global Warming. MagiK General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005) 56 09-27-2002 10:17 PM
Global Warming (time to stir the pot) MagiK General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005) 22 05-16-2002 09:28 AM
Global Warming! Please read and answer Moridin General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005) 51 04-11-2001 08:01 AM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:00 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
©2024 Ironworks Gaming & ©2024 The Great Escape Studios TM - All Rights Reserved