<<   <   Page 25 / 39   >   >>
dljvjbsl 12/5/2012 | 3:01:23 AM
re: Ohh Nooo!!! From an Internet blog:

Scientists now know that the 60GÇÖs, 70's and 80GÇÖs were a lull period in a normal 40 year period of storm intensity. Several researchers predict that since 1995 , Atlantic hurricanes will be more frequent and severe - lasting for a period of up to 20-45 years.

So this is a statement of the theory that huricanes are cyclical. It is a theory that as the blog points out has been in exisitence for quite a period of time.

It seems to be in opposition to the global warming theory.

It isn't.

Politically, the global warming and the cyclical hurricane theories are identical. Both require that leaders take measures to ameliorate the effect of hurricanes on vulnerable communities. In the case of New Orleans, this means the now familiar improved levees or perhaps moving the city.

So the political apsects of scientific theories can, if accepted as political, be made to serve a useful purpose.
stephencooke 12/5/2012 | 3:01:23 AM
re: Ohh Nooo!!! Stevery,

Statistics alone (ie: as mathematical constructs), make sense (mainly because we wrote the rules of mathematics). It is their application to anything other than pure mathematics that causes problems, mainly of the human kind. dljvjbsl mentioned some scientists' incorrect application of statistics to the highly political issue of global warming. I have found one of the worst offending areas to be medicine. A group of Danish researchers published a study a year or so ago saying that diabetes was passed to infants via breastfeeding therefore mothers should feed their babies with formula. Unfortunately for their careers it was discovered that their 'study' was funded by a formula company (along with a long list of poor, possibly political, judgements in their data).

Here is the rub: statistics, in themselves, can be used for whatever purpose the user wants and can be made to reflect whatever result the user wants. If this was not the case it would not matter who funded a study... One scientist actually told me that you can prove, statistically, that life cannot exist.

Bottom line: there is nothing wrong with pure statistics, it is their application to real world situations that should always be questioned.

RazulSunaam 12/5/2012 | 3:01:22 AM
re: Ohh Nooo!!! Doug is absolutely correct on the point about logic.

This debate reminds me of the larger "save the environment" argument, which I have always thought was rather silly. The environment operates according to physical laws. Rain will fall, snow will fall, the elevation of rivers and lakes will rise and decline, and days will be windy, hot, or cold. The environment can take care of itself quite nicely, thank you.

What we really need to worry about most are the people that live in our environment. So, "saving the people" makes a whole lot more sense than "saving the environment." If all the folks complaining about global warming would put their politics aside and simply focus on cleaning up the water and the air, prudently managing resources, and preparing for predictable and potentially surprising disasters, we would all be much better.

On the cause of hurricanes and the severity of hurricanes, I bet my Jefferson $2 bill there were hurricanes before we had trains, planes, automobiles, and lawn mowers.

CoolLightGeek 12/5/2012 | 3:01:22 AM
re: Ohh Nooo!!! Any mechanical engineers out there that can weigh in on this debate?

What is the average air temperature 1 meter off the surface of the earth?

How is it measured accurately?


Many glacial advances and retreats have occurred during the last billion years of Earth history. These glaciations are not randomly distributed in time.Instead, they are concentrated into four time intervals. Large, important glaciations occurred during the late Proterozoic (between about800 and 600 million years ago), during the Pennsylvanian and Permian (between about 350 and 250 million years ago), and the late Neogene toQuaternary (the last 4 million years). Somewhat less extensive glaciations occurred during parts of the Ordovician and Silurian (between about 460 and 430 million years ago).

During each of these periods, many glacial advances and retreatsoccurred. For example, over 20 glacial advances and retreats have occurred during the last 2 million years.

If "ice age" is used to refer to long, generally cool, intervals during which glaciers advance and retreat, we are still in one today. Our modern climate represents a very short, warm period between glacial advances.

How will humans combustion of forests and fossil fuel and use of fertlizers impact the inevitable encroachment of the next glacial advance that will destroy 80% of the land mass used to sustain vegatation and animal life ?

I think we need to learn alot more about long term climate theory before we know if humans are on trajectory to keep the world as inhabitable as possible.

Adding an extra log to the wood stove before the outside temperature drops below -40 is a good idea even if your house is already warm.
ironccie 12/5/2012 | 3:01:21 AM
re: Ohh Nooo!!! Wouldn't a swarm of nanobots protect us from both?

ironccie 12/5/2012 | 3:01:21 AM
re: Ohh Nooo!!! Hi Larry the Monkey,

I have a question for you: Do you really believe that global warming is a bigger threat than the reversal of the earth's magnetic poles? If we hit 0 Guass we will find out what happenned to the dinosaurs first hand I would think.

dljvjbsl 12/5/2012 | 3:01:20 AM
re: Ohh Nooo!!! http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09...

The above points to a vision of the reconstruction of New Orleans of someone who was described in an article not a hundred miles away from here as dumber than dirt. Perhaps dirt is smarter than we think or perhaps politics make people say very odd things.
Larry, Monkey 12/5/2012 | 3:01:19 AM
re: Ohh Nooo!!! No. I will not worry myself about the reversal of Earth's polarity.
I will not.
I will not...

What will it do to my decorative refrigerator magnets?
Oh God...
dljvjbsl 12/5/2012 | 3:01:17 AM
re: Ohh Nooo!!! http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09...

The review of a book by the Dalai Lama. The Dalai Lama tries to reconcile modern scicne and Buddhist philosophy. He accepts that religious doctrine must be rationalized against scientitfic theories and abandoned if found to be inconsistent. This should be manadatory reading for adherents of the ID and global warming faiths.

However he has difficulty accepting that evolutionary change is based on random mutation and posits a Buddhist form of ID. This does tend to show that even with the best of good will, science is always mixed with faith.
douggreen 12/5/2012 | 3:01:13 AM
re: Ohh Nooo!!! fgoldstein,

You stated: "mechanisms of causality have been clearly articulated and, especially if you accept Venus as one example, well demonstrated."

Really? I was not aware that humans had contributed significantly to the greenhouse gas effect on Venus. After all, it is the human contribution that we are arguing about, not whether or not huge amounts of gases in general can cause global warming.

The arguement seems to go like this:

Human contribute to Greenhouse Gases, which is an undeniable fact.
Greenhouse Gases contribute to Global Warming
Therefore, human emissions have a significant effect on global warming.
Venus is a good example of how this might work.

Here's another arguement following the same logic:
If I throw a cup of water into New Orleans, it will contribute to the flooding. That is a fact.
Flooding is causing the destruction of New Orleans, which is an undeniable fact.
Therefore, if we want to keep New Orleans from being destroyed, we need to quit throwing cups of water. (Never mind that there might be other sources of water that make our cups insignificant).
Oh, by the way, water has been shown to cause flooding on Venus, which proves that water can cause flooding in new Orleans. This is further evidence that we need to quit throwing cups of water.

Articulating a possible cause-effect relationship does not prove it. That is the starting point. Proof requires either experimental or statistical evidence, not just a workable theory.

I don't draw a conclusion that global warming and HUMAN CREATED greenhouse gases are not linked. I simply don't draw the conclusion that they are linked because I have not seen the evidence (not just workable theories) to support it. Nearly all of the arguments that I have seen simply assume that global warming is linked to human emmissions. After all, they MUST be, right?

You might be surpised to find that I also dislike Americans fascination with big SUVs and would like to see us get away from the burning of fossil fuels, but not because of global warming (which I believe is happening regardless of human conduct). I want clean air for our health, and I believe that our dependence on oil is a a national security issue.

<<   <   Page 25 / 39   >   >>
Sign In