Speaking of Climate Change Data

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Famines are always found in underdeveloped countries or command economies.

the change now is that it's not a famine because of lack of local production. There is corn to be bought. But thanks to demand (and misguided ethanol politics), the price is higher, and poorer regions are much more price sensitive.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

You have a reading problem today?
Must be the wind

A theory that matches the data... looks like you owe .

Link
"Nghiem said the rapid decline in winter perennial ice the past two years was caused by unusual winds. "Unusual atmospheric conditions set up wind patterns that compressed the sea ice, loaded it into the Transpolar Drift Stream and then sped its flow out of the Arctic," he said. When that sea ice reached lower latitudes, it rapidly melted in the warmer waters. "

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[lawrocket 3]

I've $ong reiterated that sea ice extent is determinewd by winds. This I picked up from the guys at Real Climate who say the same things.

In the past Kallend has asked why the winds are changing. A good question that I believe is best explained by oscillations. Many will allege global warming/climate change/climate variability and anthropofenic causes therefor.

Who is correct - if either? We won't know for a long long time.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rushmc 18]

Now this!!!

Follow the money, right?

Quote

NASA Scientist Accused of Using Celeb Status Among Environmental Groups to Enrich Himself

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/06/22/nasa-scientist-accused-using-celeb-status-among-environmental-groups-to-enrich/

Quote

Hansen's office appears to be somewhat of a rogue operation. It's clearly a taxpayer-funded global warming advocacy organization," said Chris Horner, a co-founder of The American Tradition Institute, which filed the lawsuit. "The real issue here is, has Hansen been asking NASA in writing, in advance, for permission for these outside activities? We have reason to believe that has not been occurring."

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Now this!!!

Follow the money, right?

Quote

NASA Scientist Accused of Using Celeb Status Among Environmental Groups to Enrich Himself

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/06/22/nasa-scientist-accused-using-celeb-status-among-environmental-groups-to-enrich/

Quote

Hansen's office appears to be somewhat of a rogue operation. It's clearly a taxpayer-funded global warming advocacy organization," said Chris Horner, a co-founder of The American Tradition Institute, which filed the lawsuit. "The real issue here is, has Hansen been asking NASA in writing, in advance, for permission for these outside activities? We have reason to believe that has not been occurring."

Oh.. so you really do think capitalism is bad... got it.

[kallend 1,672]

Quote

So, then, how do you suggest this problem get solved? Those who say that the earth is too populated point only to genocide as a solution. So whom do you think should be destroyed? It's a good exercise in whom you think is unworthy of continued existence.

There is but one solution. A final solution, shall we say...

Henry VI (Part 2) Act IV Scene II

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 2,463]

>We won't know for a long long time.

True, we won't know with 100% certainty until it happens.

Of course, you also don't know with 100% certainty if smoking will give you lung cancer until it does. Still, that's not a great argument to continue smoking.

[lawrocket 3]

Well of course! But the argument is not about a zero social utility activity like smoking. It's about "well, we don't know the answer, so quit using energy. Electricity. Fossil fuels. Stop using them." There is a significant difference between smoking and energy use.

On the flip side, it's not certain that I will get a stomach ailment by eating fresh fruits and vegetables, but that's not a great argument to continue eating raw vegetables. Would you suggest that fresh fruits and vegetables be avoided because of the risk of food-borne illness?

Different perspectives of the same statement.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

I'm familiar with it.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 2,463]

>On the flip side, it's not certain that I will get a stomach ailment by eating fresh fruits
>and vegetables, but that's not a great argument to continue eating raw vegetables.

?? Uh, right. But you do have to eat, and so the intelligent person would ask the question "what should I eat?" rather than take the strawman position of "if I don't eat I'll be safe from stomach ailments." And you choose food with lower risks if you're smart.

We also have to generate energy to sustain anything close to our current society. The intelligent person asks the question "what is the best way to do that?" And again, you choose the one with lower risks if you're smart.

[futuredivot 0]

Quote

>We won't know for a long long time.

True, we won't know with 100% certainty until it happens.

Of course, you also don't know with 100% certainty if smoking will give you lung cancer until it does. Still, that's not a great argument to continue smoking.

You don't know with 100% certainty that keeping a magic rock in your pocket won't let you live forever-but most of us are not carrying one.

You are only as strong as the prey you devour

[billvon 2,463]

>You don't know with 100% certainty that keeping a magic rock in your pocket won't
>let you live forever-but most of us are not carrying one.

And it would be silly to carry it, because there's no evidence that a magic rock helps.

If, on the other hand, your doctor told you you had a serious hormone deficiency and prescribed a "magic pill" that would replace those hormones and allow you to live a longer life - I suspect you'd start taking those "magic pills" even if someone on the Internet made fun of you for doing it.

What's the difference between those two? One has science to back it up.

[winsor 187]

Quote

>We won't know for a long long time.

True, we won't know with 100% certainty until it happens.

Of course, you also don't know with 100% certainty if smoking will give you lung cancer until it does. Still, that's not a great argument to continue smoking.

With nitwits like Gore leading the charge, we stand a very good chance of maintaining our high standard of effecting cures much worse than the the diseases.

Even if we agree that there is a down side to drinking heavily or living in a drug-addled haze, only a moron could conclude that Prohibition or the War on Drugs were anything close to beneficial overall.

One could make a strong point that Malaria, West Nile and Yellow Fever are carried by mosquitos, and that killing mosquitos is thus a good thing. The Al Gore approach is akin to using shotguns to kill mosquitos.

I am not pro "climate change" so much as I am anti-moron. Whatever the problem you wish to address, please keep the stupidity on a leash.


BSBD,

Winsor

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

The intelligent person asks the question "what is the best way to do that?" And again, you choose the one with lower risks if you're smart.

And therein lies the big issue. The political issue. And, above all, the subjective issue. What is "best?" We also know with certainty that there is no such thing as "best for everyone." Or "best for the planet."

First - let's look at the "shrinking" sea ice pack in the Arctic. First - is it a problem, as in, "what are the negative consequences to humans if there is a permanent Northwest Passage?" If there is no problem, then let's not worry about it. If there IS a problem, then move on to step 2.

Step two: What is the cause of the shrinking ice pack? Answer - wind. Not the answer - warming of the Arctic Ocean. Herein lies the problem - "ice is shrinking because it's warmer up there." No, it isn't. Ice is shrinking because winds are pushing it out.

How do we solve the problem of winds coming off of Siberia and pushing east? If we can engineer a high-pressure system over Greenland it would help, but that's difficult. Or, if we could extend the cold water down south a bit in order to form ice that it pushed to the North Pole then we can have an easier time. The problem is that when ice extent is really high it's albedo effect is minimal because it's really dark up there all the time.

So, what is the "best" way of dealing with the ice problem? There's the issue - get rid of the winds! Ironically, from a physics standpoint, the best way to do it would be to WARM the Arctic in the winter and cool Siberia. This would mitigate the heat and energy transfer (energy flows from heat to cold. Winds also flow from high pressure to low pressure).

The problem with this is twofold: (1) Technological prowess; and (2) money. I do find a great deal of scientific merit, however, in performing a terrforming operation on the North Pole as a test bed for terraforming Mars. We could practice there.

What is the best solution? Neither of those are affordable options, really. Preventing temperature increase in the Arctic won't do any more. I've got ice cubes in my freezer and it's 103 outside right now. If I remove the ice cubes from the freezer they melt. Making the freezer colder won't make any difference.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[KidWicked 0]

Quote

Quote

The intelligent person asks the question "what is the best way to do that?" And again, you choose the one with lower risks if you're smart.

And therein lies the big issue. The political issue. And, above all, the subjective issue.

You think science is subjective?

Coreece: "You sound like some skinheads I know, but your prejudice is with Christians, not niggers..."

[billvon 2,463]

>First - let's look at the "shrinking" sea ice pack in the Arctic. First - is it a problem . . .

I'd argue from first level effects - not at all. Heck, it means we can use the Arctic for shipping. Second level effects can be a problem (i.e. the increased heat absorption from change in albedo) but again, they are secondary.

>So, what is the "best" way of dealing with the ice problem?

There is no "ice problem." It's a symptom, not a problem in and of itself.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Quote

The intelligent person asks the question "what is the best way to do that?" And again, you choose the one with lower risks if you're smart.

And therein lies the big issue. The political issue. And, above all, the subjective issue.

You think science is subjective?

No
And the AGW science is not even that bad

It is manipulative science

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 1,672]

Quote

What is the cause of the shrinking ice pack? Answer - wind. . Ice is shrinking because winds are pushing it out.

OK, so the climate is changing as reflected in a long term atmospheric change over a huge ocean and major part of the Asian landmass..

Quote

How do we solve the problem of winds coming off of Siberia and pushing east? .

Don't confuse symptoms with causes.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

What is the cause of the shrinking ice pack? Answer - wind. . Ice is shrinking because winds are pushing it out.

OK, so the climate is changing as reflected in a long term atmospheric change over a huge ocean and major part of the Asian landmass..

Quote

How do we solve the problem of winds coming off of Siberia and pushing east? .

Don't confuse symptoms with causes.

Warming? Climate change.
Cooling? Climate change.
More storms? Climate change.
Less storms? Climate change.
More wind? Climate change.
Less wind? Climate change.

Gee...is there ANYthing that 'climate change' doesn't do, perfesser?

Besides show any correlation to CO2 levels, that is.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Amazon 7]

I dont think climate change goes to the Jeff Gannon Ass Pirate parties after doing interviews at the White House.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

Quote

The intelligent person asks the question "what is the best way to do that?" And again, you choose the one with lower risks if you're smart.

And therein lies the big issue. The political issue. And, above all, the subjective issue.

You think science is subjective?

Yep. Ask George LeMaître (well, he's dead) or Fred Hoyle whether subjective beliefs play into science. "Big Bang" was Hoyle's own term intended to deride the theory of the creation of the universe. Even when he died he still held on to the idea. Gee - a Nobel Prize winning physicist who had a subjective impression. How about asking whether or not Einstein and Bohr had any differences in subjective opinion? How about Einstein's distaste for an expanding universe leading him to not only NOT make the position of an expanding universe (which was glaring him in the face) but, when shown, searched for a cosmological constant to fit the universe into his prejudices?

Ever hear the term "paradigm?" It's pretty arrogant and ignorant to suggest that the limits of our scientific understanding are "fact."

But that's beside the point. I ask yoy - is there an objective "best?" Nope. If you disagree, I'll give you an honest opinion of the best car on the road. Or about who is the best running back in the NFL.

What is the best way to keep the climate unchanging? It calls for an opinion. You may provide an answer based on a science. Which science would you choose? Climatology? Chemistry? Physics? Economics? Statistics? Mathematics?

Yep. Opinion. Subjective. Guess what vlimate policy is. If you answered "making choices based on subjective preference" then you are correct. And this is really what the debate is so based on - competing interests seeking money and power. By now, there are hardcore interests. There are climate scientists who have built careers on global warming. Anything but costs them their reputations, jobs, money. Their very way of life vanishes. Hence NASA gets a bunch of budget cuts except atmospheric sciences. Their budgets keep growing and growing.

On the other side you have people whose jobs, carrers, livelihoods wil be destroyed. They are dealing with a world where anthropogenic global warming is an established POLITICAL fact. Ask the Iraq WMD's whether actual fact is as important as political fact.

Like it or not, we've got policies based on computer models. The models make predictions for the year 2100, etc. The models won't be validated until, um, 2100. Scientific progress isn't made through models. The science of black holes was well establisged but did not take off until they were actually detected.

Climate modeling is the "string theory" of today. Boy, was it promising. And how incredible and amazing. And the theories that just explain everything. Sucj an advance in theoretical physics where any day now the dicoveries will pop up confirming it.

String Theory has lost signifdicant steam since the Dubya Administration. Not because of any Bush policy but because science has grown impatient with it. The expected results just lack the promise that String Theory had 15 years ago.

Opinion? Yep. Public opinion on AGW is important because opinions determine whether or not it remains a political fact. Like it or not, it's all politics.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[KidWicked 0]

Your claim that science is "all politics" is... amusing.

Coreece: "You sound like some skinheads I know, but your prejudice is with Christians, not niggers..."

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Your claim that science is "all politics" is... amusing.

And your claim (based on your quoted post) that it is not, is enlightening.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Your claim that science is "all politics" is... amusing.

I didn't say that. I didn't write that. Your response is misguided.

You asked whether I thought science is subjective. I opined that it can be and listed examples of where scientists disagreed.

I DID say that the reason why there are such strong feelings about AGW is that there are policy implications. People on one side of the policy advocacy will fight tooth and nail against the other side. Period.

And by the way - if science was not subjective then statisticians wouldn't have such a role in eliminating selection bias. Because like it or not scientists are human, and it'd take a real asshole to suggest they don't have opinions or biases.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 1,672]

Quote

Quote

Your claim that science is "all politics" is... amusing.

I didn't say that. I didn't write that. Your response is misguided.

You asked whether I thought science is subjective. I opined that it can be and listed examples of where scientists disagreed.

I DID say that the reason why there are such strong feelings about AGW is that there are policy implications. People on one side of the policy advocacy will fight tooth and nail against the other side. Period.

And by the way - if science was not subjective then statisticians wouldn't have such a role in eliminating selection bias. Because like it or not scientists are human, and it'd take a real asshole to suggest they don't have opinions or biases.

At least scientists recognize the existence of selection bias and try to eliminate it. Unlike, say, politicians and religious fundies.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.