myiW Current Conditions and Forecasts Community Forums Windsurfing Videos Buy and Sell Services
 
Hi guest · myAccount · Log in
 SearchSearch   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   RegisterRegister 
Global cooling
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 322, 323, 324 ... 347, 348, 349  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 5360

PostPosted: Mon Jul 21, 2014 7:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The problems with cherry-picking data are discussed here: http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2012/01/how-the-bbcs-more-or-less-confused-the-climate-argument/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
reinerehlers



Joined: 25 Jul 2001
Posts: 1003

PostPosted: Mon Jul 21, 2014 7:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Off topic slightly, but you think this has changed the amount of wind? It sure has been sad here lately.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 5360

PostPosted: Mon Jul 21, 2014 8:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

RR. Seriously? Not unless they put a windmill upwind of the sailing site. The overall increase in average temperature is about 1.2 degrees, which is not enough to alter the thermal cycle that drives most wind systems. In the Bay area, the ocean is at about 55 degrees F or less in the summer, and Sacramento gets to 110 degrees.

With that said, the amount of heat stored in the oceans probably increases the intensity of hurricanes a bit, right now. Measurements and analysis reveal an astonishing amount of energy in the ocean, where it is expected to affect the climate for over a hundred years. The other phenomenon predicted by climate scientists is that weather will get more variable, and storms more intense. They think they have seen both, and my opinion is, probably but not yet certainly.

Not sure exactly where you sail in Canada, or what drives the cycles. If you rely on fronts, it might have had an effect. The more variable thing.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
isobars



Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 14321

PostPosted: Mon Jul 21, 2014 10:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

reinerehlers wrote:
Off topic slightly, but you think this has changed the amount of wind?

Absolutely. It has generated enough hot air to power the sun.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
reinerehlers



Joined: 25 Jul 2001
Posts: 1003

PostPosted: Tue Jul 22, 2014 6:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mac wrote:
RR. Seriously?


Yup, seriously. There are places here that twenty years ago you could count on being windy, but not now. I wonder if it is perception at times. I swear it used to be much windier here, but then it may just be that I'm not too interested in sailing in anything under 20 knots now.

Here we sail mostly frontal winds, but the eastern end of Lake Ontario used to draw thermals all the time. That never happens now.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
isobars



Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 14321

PostPosted: Tue Jul 22, 2014 11:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

TriCityHerald, letters to the editor, July 21, 2014

Before anyone buys into the opinion expressed by Richard Badalamente regarding a carbon tax to fight global warming (In Focus, July 13), I encourage them to read the scientific studies available at www.look-to-the-skies.com/global_warming.htm. The scientific information at this site is far too voluminous to include here, but a few things stand out.

First, recent temperature fluctuations are within the historical fluctuations experienced over the last 1,500 years.

Second, changes in the Earth's temperature correlate with changes in the sun's energy output, rotation of the Earth, revolution of the Earth, and debris from comets, meteors, asteroids and volcanoes.

Third, there is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature. In fact, during the ice age 450 million years ago, CO2 levels were more than ten times higher than they are now.

Fourth, man-caused CO2 is less than 3 perecent of the amount produced naturally.

Fifth, virtually none of the predictions by climate alarmists have actually materialized.

We all want a clean planet, but before we create a tax on CO2 emissions, let's be sure the science behind it is sound, that our efforts would make a difference and there are no "unintended" impacts on our economy or quality of life.

GENE GOLTZ

Read more here: http://www.tri-cityherald.com/2014/07/21/3072723/letter-global-warming.html?sp=/99/1426/#storylink=cpy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 5360

PostPosted: Tue Jul 22, 2014 6:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Too funny. Mike's go to guy posts a bunch of bogus "facts", based on a personal web site of a guy named Steven LJ Russo. Do you think you can find a CV or a list of peer-reviewed publications by Russo?

From the make it up world.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
coboardhead



Joined: 26 Oct 2009
Posts: 1960

PostPosted: Tue Jul 22, 2014 6:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mac

We have already heard that, at least NW, does not believe in "peer review".

You have an advanced engineering degree, as do I. Without being exposed to a rigorous academic environment, I can see how many people believe that the scientific community is a back slapping club. No clue how cut throat and competitive it really is.

I completed the course work for a Phd in Solid Mechanics. I decided not to pursue the research for the dissertation. It was just too damn consuming...and competitive. When I presented my Master's thesis for peer review, it was like being in front of a firing squad. Phd is even more intense. Colleagues look for weaknesses in the research to advance their positions.

I think what happens is that research results get politicized by those with agendas and THAT is what has caused the distrust of the scientific community. I have seen this in evaluations I have generated. I have picked up local papers with headlines that read "Engineering Study Determines (the subject building of my evaluation) is Unsafe". An extremely exaggerated interpretation of my investigation.

We have the Al Gore's making $100's of millions on opportunistic ventures and many see the science as part of the "scam".
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
isobars



Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 14321

PostPosted: Tue Jul 22, 2014 6:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

coboardhead wrote:
Mac ... We have already heard that, at least NW, does not believe in "peer review".

And IIRC, it was mac who parroted my earlier observation that peer review is tainted to the point of uselessness. But it's still the best we have other than reading the studies themselves and deciding whom to believe.

I do exactly that when making cancer treatment decisions. For the crap we discuss here, life's too short for that.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 5360

PostPosted: Tue Jul 22, 2014 8:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

CB--Peer review, or any editing, can be very tough. I am on my 5th version of a paper for a symposium, and had to learn legal foot noting. Some of the criticism reflects someone's personal style or biases. But the process is valuable (if deflating), and everyone needs an editor.

In any scientific community, peer review is the key to improvement, better research, and credibility. I served on the Board of the San Francisco Estuary Institute with Fred Nichols, one of the lions in research on San Francisco Bay. He, and others, with my support, insisted that much of the work of the Institute go through peer review. The work of the scientists, and their influence, improved.

The world of grey literature, including work for clients, is often very valuable. There are scientists with integrity, no matter who their client is. But there are also those who will shade their recommendations for the client; Singer will never live down working for the tobacco companies and spinning uncertainties while they were hiding information about health impacts. The unscrupulous do very poorly in the regulatory community because they are not credible.

The current round of Fox news reports, with no peer reviewed work--but a bet based on cherry-picked data--about the Russian duo, has no scientific value. When they publish work outside of Russia, and people look at their data, and they have to deal with critiques, maybe it will matter. Russo? A joke.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 322, 323, 324 ... 347, 348, 349  Next
Page 323 of 349

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

myiW | Weather | Community | Membership | Support | Log in
like us on facebook
© Copyright 1999-2007 WeatherFlow, Inc Contact Us Ad Marketplace

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group