Ohh Nooo!!!

COMMENTS

Newest First | Oldest First | Threaded View

<< < Page 24 / 39 > >>

dljvjbsl 12/5/2012 | 3:01:32 AM

re: Ohh Nooo!!! From the article:
Not all scientists were convinced by the findings. Some said the changes in storms are part of natural variability.

Christopher Landsea, a meteorologist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, questioned the data showing an increase in major storms, saying the estimates of the wind speeds in storms in the 1970's might not be accurate.

"For most of the world there was no way to determine objectively what the winds were in 1970," he said. The techniques used today were invented later, he said.

So it appears that there are doubters in our midst who want evidence instead of failth. Do not be disheartened. The truth will prevail.

Do you believe? Dou you believe! Do you believe in global warming!!!!

Testify!

Reply | Post Message | MESSAGES LIST | START A BOARD

dljvjbsl 12/5/2012 | 3:01:32 AM

re: Ohh Nooo!!! This is old news.

It has been reported for years that hurricanes are cylcical. An increase in the number of hurricanes has been predicted by researchers who do not see a connection to global warming. So reports that the number of hurricanes is increasing comes as no great surprise.

So do you believe in global warming. If you do then you have comforting explanations for a great many things.

I believe! I believe! I believe!

Reply | Post Message | MESSAGES LIST | START A BOARD

whyiswhy 12/5/2012 | 3:01:32 AM

re: Ohh Nooo!!! Is the quality of the data such that anyone can make forecasts on the basis of it?

If so, then one can begin to speculate on the root cause. Global warming has been documented in the Earth's past, it's a perfectly valid hypothesis. Other completely un-related causes might be a sun / earth orbit cycle, or the sunspot cycle, also know to affect long term weather patterns.

The issue with Global warming is it has been politicized to say the West should stop burning oil and making greenhouse gasses. It's a pretty good bet the dinosaurs didn't burn gasoline, maybe belched and farted a lot, but I would say their influence on the global climate was about zero. Mega-volcanoe activity most definitely. Dino, no.

Meaning, it's most likely the influence of man and machines is a puny compared to Mother Nature. The eco-freaks would say that no matter how small it might be, we should try to "Save the Earth". The oil magnates would say "burn it all at let the market decide".

I say a couple of things:

1) It's most likely there is a global warming process in place. The polar icecaps are melting a bit, glaciers are receding a bit, the ocean is rising a bit. That's pretty convincing data.

2) It's even probable that greenhouse gasses contribute a tiny bit to the process. They might indeed accelerate it, a very tiny amount. But my bet (so far as I have read) is the "human" effect is in the noise.

3) I'd say the lilelihood is Mother Nature is pretty much out of our control, at that scale. Mt Pinatubo in the Phillipines belched more junk into the air in a few weeks than man has. And the Earth is still here and we are not crispy-fried.

-Why

Reply | Post Message | MESSAGES LIST | START A BOARD

Stevery 12/5/2012 | 3:01:30 AM

re: Ohh Nooo!!! FWIW: here was the output of the reading that was instigated by this board. It requires 2 hats to understand it all:

Science hat:
1. Average earth temperature has increased recently in a statistically significant way.

2. Hurricane frequency has not increased significantly.

3. Hurricane intensity has increased, but is not statistically significant for a high degree of certainty. The mechanisms for an increase of intensity with increasing ocean temperature exist as we currently understand them.

Policy hat:
1. Denial of global warming (increasing earth temperature) is tantamount to ignoring the science.

2. The effect of hurricanes is a low-certainty worry. Like giant meteors and similar disaster scenarios, it would be intelligent policy to investigate further.

3. By squarely addressing the general issue of global warming, you would automatically take care of the low-probability issue of hurricane intensity increase.

4. There might be nothing we can do.

As an aside, there was an article in the NYT by Ross Gelbspan, which distorted the scientific results above. Since his book titles were always mentioned in his bio/byline, one might reasonably suspect that he is trying to sell books.

While I understand that the present administration has seriously distorted the facts on global warming, I do not think the right answer is to then seriously distort the evidence for global warming.

From the dawn of science, it has always prevailed over irrationality in the long term.

Reply | Post Message | MESSAGES LIST | START A BOARD

fgoldstein 12/5/2012 | 3:01:27 AM

re: Ohh Nooo!!! Douggreen, your cynicism is overwhelming, but it fails a certain test of logic.

You correctly point out the distinction between causality and coincidence. You then draw a conclusion that global warming and greenhouse gases are merely coincidental, even though the mechanisms of causality have been clearly articulated and, especially if you accept Venus as one example, well demonstrated.

Gore, btw, did not want to ban cars. The Israeli/Palestinian dispute mainly dates to the British conquest of the Ottoman Empire. And George W still thinks Kurds go with whey on a tuffet. Sometimes reality does not support one's desire to drive a macho SUV.

Reply | Post Message | MESSAGES LIST | START A BOARD

douggreen 12/5/2012 | 3:01:27 AM

re: Ohh Nooo!!! A comment from the logic teacher:

A common fallacy is to assume that because one thing happened after another, there must be a cause and effect relationship, e.g. "I broke a mirror yesterday, then wrecked my car. That proves that breaking mirrors is bad luck." Never mind that I was drunk, which caused me both to drop the mirror and wreck the car :)

From everything I have read, evidence does show that we are poluting the air in a very unhealthy way, and that global warming is occuring. Evidence does NOT seem to show a cause and effect relation between the two.

Now, for the opinion...I think there are two reasons that people try so hard to argue, against the evidence, that human creation of greenhouse gases is causing global warming.

First, people want clean air, which is a noble pursuit. Why not just argue for clean air? Because it doesn't work. Our country only bothers with a crisis if we think the world is about to end, if planes fly into buildings, or if entire cities are wiped out by flood. Linking polution to the end of the world creates attention. Otherwise, our attention goes back to our reality TV shows and cable news.

Second, I think that many WANT to believe that the two are linked so that they believe we can do something about it. If humans are responsible, we can fix it. If our actions are just a drop in the bucket, we are helpless.

Whether it be Al Gore wanting to outlaw cars, Clinton thinking he can solve a 5000 year old conflict between Israelis and Palestinians on a weekend retreat, or George W believing he can get Shites, Sunis, and Kurds to sing Kum-ba-ya and get along, we humans like to have the illusion that we can control what goes on in the world around us. It makes us feel good...until reality catches up.

Reply | Post Message | MESSAGES LIST | START A BOARD

PO 12/5/2012 | 3:01:27 AM

Reply | Post Message | MESSAGES LIST | START A BOARD

dljvjbsl 12/5/2012 | 3:01:25 AM

re: Ohh Nooo!!! "Science hat:
1. Average earth temperature has increased recently in a statistically significant way."

Statistics has absolutely nothing to do with science, as any grade five student can tell you.

Statistics has to do with analysis of specific observations. It does nothing to create a hypothesis nor to prove the same in an experimental manner.

Statistics has a great deal to do with science. It can be used to determine the likelihood of one hypothesis over another if they can be differentiated by some measurable parameter

So statistics have shown the earth's average temperature is rising. This is not surprising since glaciers have been observed to have been retreating since the 19th century.

However there are a number of hypotheses which are compatible with this observation. One of these is that the earth's temperature is recovering from a cold spell called the Little Ice Age that was at its peak in the 15th and 16th centuries. During that time the Thames regularly froze over.

However in the 10th and 11th century, there was a very warm spell. The Vikings settled and set up farming communities in Greenland. As the world grew colder, these settlements died out.

So the issue is really not statistics but the purposes that they are put to and the skills with which they are used.

For example, the IPCC published a curve that plotted global temperatures against date. This showed the famous 'hockey stick' in which the recent temperature rise is unique. (this is used to get around the difficult fact that the Vikings were farming in Greenland when the world was supposed to be colder than now). However when these calculations were analyzed, it was found that the famous hockey stick was merely an artifact of how the statistics were set up. Indeed using the published system on random data also produced hockey stick curves.

As you can imagine, the response to this criticism was far from dispassionate scientific consideration. People had dared to challenge a major aspect of the global warming faith. They must be cast down.

An interesting aspect of this is that an analysis of the supporting evidence for the famous hockey stick curve showed a) that the data was incomplete and had errors, b) that the procedure described in the paper was not the procedure used and c) that the researchers had no particular expertise in the types of statistics used. The journal Science required the researchers to issue a correction to their original paper. Critics still contend that the paper contains more errors and more corrections are required. The researchers' response to this is now silence.

Reply | Post Message | MESSAGES LIST | START A BOARD

Stevery 12/5/2012 | 3:01:25 AM

re: Ohh Nooo!!! Statistics has absolutely nothing to do with science, as any grade five student can tell you.

And when those fifth graders learn about statistical mechanics, they will understand that there is a branch of science that is, in fact, statistical in nature.

If you are posting on the light reading board, then surely you are familar with shot noise? According to the above statement, either you don't consider it science, or you don't consider it statistical. (Random noise processes are in general statistical. Brownian motion was among the first statistical explanations; it put Einstein on the map.)

To the matter at hand, I would have argued that weather prediction is a statistical science. Do you know differently?

In any case, I'd love to hear more about why you think "Statistics has absolutely nothing to do with science."

Reply | Post Message | MESSAGES LIST | START A BOARD

dljvjbsl 12/5/2012 | 3:01:25 AM

re: Ohh Nooo!!! Here it is with, I hope, proper mark up.

"Science hat:
1. Average earth temperature has increased recently in a statistically significant way."

Statistics has absolutely nothing to do with science, as any grade five student can tell you.

Statistics has to do with analysis of specific observations. It does nothing to create a hypothesis nor to prove the same in an experimental manner.

Statistics has a great deal to do with science. It can be used to determine the likelihood of one hypothesis over another if they can be differentiated by some measurable parameter

So statistics have shown the earth's average temperature is rising. This is not surprising since glaciers have been observed to have been retreating since the 19th century.

However there are a number of hypotheses which are compatible with this observation. One of these is that the earth's temperature is recovering from a cold spell called the Little Ice Age that was at its peak in the 15th and 16th centuries. During that time the Thames regularly froze over.

However in the 10th and 11th century, there was a very warm spell. The Vikings settled and set up farming communities in Greenland. As the world grew colder, these settlements died out.

So the issue is really not statistics but the purposes that they are put to and the skills with which they are used.

For example, the IPCC published a curve that plotted global temperatures against date. This showed the famous 'hockey stick' in which the recent temperature rise is unique. (this is used to get around the difficult fact that the Vikings were farming in Greenland when the world was supposed to be colder than now). However when these calculations were analyzed, it was found that the famous hockey stick was merely an artifact of how the statistics were set up. Indeed using the published system on random data also produced hockey stick curves.

As you can imagine, the response to this criticism was far from dispassionate scientific consideration. People had dared to challenge a major aspect of the global warming faith. They must be cast down.

An interesting aspect of this is that an analysis of the supporting evidence for the famous hockey stick curve showed a) that the data was incomplete and had errors, b) that the procedure described in the paper was not the procedure used and c) that the researchers had no particular expertise in the types of statistics used. The journal Science required the researchers to issue a correction to their original paper. Critics still contend that the paper contains more errors and more corrections are required. The researchers' response to this is now silence

Reply | Post Message | MESSAGES LIST | START A BOARD

<< < Page 24 / 39 > >>