View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
coboardhead
Joined: 26 Oct 2009 Posts: 4303
|
Posted: Thu Jan 22, 2015 9:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
frederick23 wrote: | I fail to see how reading 6000 thermometers can result in a 68% uncertainty.
At that rate NASA couldn't fly a paper airplane. |
Frederick
It is how the data is presented more than anything else. I have written a number of technical evaluations (not really "scientific"). But, the presentation is similar. No engineer or scientist will present something as absolute certainty...there are always variables that should be considered including potential errors (strong word) in reading and interpreting data points.
So, NASA produced an honest summary of their data, including potential uncertainties. Of course, both sides grab the parts of the presentation that fit into their political agenda or bias...nothing new here.
GT...I have not read NASA's report, but, I would not be too quick to accuse the agency of deception. One take...
http://mashable.com/2015/01/20/climate-skeptics-warmest-year/
Last edited by coboardhead on Thu Jan 22, 2015 9:35 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
LHDR
Joined: 22 Jun 2007 Posts: 528
|
Posted: Thu Jan 22, 2015 9:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
Come on GT, "making political points out of any objections", "neglecting to mention uncertainties", are you sure you are describing reality? I understand your position, and it is true that global warming is not quite as black and white as, let's say, whether 2 plus 3 equals 4 or 5. I still consider your position reckless. Most of us wear seat belts even though it is very unlikely we will ever need them, and most of us would choose to have health insurance even as young, healthy adults. The reason is of course that a small chance of something very bad happening makes it worth dealing with, and everyone I know agrees that not wearing a seat belt and not having health insurance is stupid or worse. Global warming easily belongs in this category. Your arguments about freezing Vikings and Russian/GT solar cooling have a non-zero chance to be relevant, and CO2 driven global warming may be wrong, but even if the chances were relatively low, let's say 38%, wouldn't it be reckless not to address the risk of CO2 driven global warming? And additional benefits from burning fewer fossil fuels should make this a clear decision; there would be less pollution (other than CO2), it would address ocean acidification (which is, admittedly, even easier to ignore than warming, but as far as I can tell this could become a big problem, too), there would be less conflict potential with the oil-producing middle east and gas-rich Russia, and, who knows, perhaps all this oil, gas and coal we leave in the ground will become useful to future generations.
The argument that, without absolute proof that global warming and its costly consequences could be ameliorated by reducing CO2, nothing should be done is false. Nobody has absolute proof that they will need seat belts or health insurance, only some likelihood of costly consequences when not using these things, but no certainty. Yet, I suspect that most people who make this argument wear their seat belts every day and like to have health insurance, and are happy to pay for them. It is understandable that people with a stake in the fossil fuel business selfishly make this argument, so I get the oil people here; GT and others I don't get.
Last edited by LHDR on Thu Jan 22, 2015 9:32 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
J64TWB
Joined: 24 Dec 2013 Posts: 1685
|
Posted: Thu Jan 22, 2015 9:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yes cobo, it's called margin of error, not uncertainty. In this case it's .02 degrees C. How you get from 2/100 of a degree to 68% uncertainty is total BS. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
boggsman1
Joined: 24 Jun 2002 Posts: 9120 Location: at a computer
|
Posted: Thu Jan 22, 2015 10:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
I know all of you guys are mini Steven Hawkings, but I will tell you something.... This is FOURTH straight year that Pacific high pressure has CRUSHED the ski season in the sierras. I forgot what a Sierra winter looks like, and I blame Global Warming. Its been 65 and sunny everyday in january, and its going to be 75 this weekend in NorCal. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
mrgybe
Joined: 01 Jul 2008 Posts: 5180
|
Posted: Thu Jan 22, 2015 10:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
LHDR wrote: | It is understandable that people with a stake in the fossil fuel business selfishly make this argument |
As someone with prior connections to the oil and gas business, please enlighten me as to why I would "selfishly make this argument" |
|
Back to top |
|
|
mrgybe
Joined: 01 Jul 2008 Posts: 5180
|
Posted: Thu Jan 22, 2015 10:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
coboardhead wrote: | So, NASA produced an honest summary of their data, including potential uncertainties. Of course, both sides grab the parts of the presentation that fit into their political agenda or bias...nothing new here. |
However, the overwhelming TV and print reporting simply cited the NASA study to state that 2014 was the warmest year on record. Failing to mention the huge amount of uncertainty in that study indicates that the journalists on whom we rely for information are either incompetent or biased. It's probably both. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
mrgybe
Joined: 01 Jul 2008 Posts: 5180
|
Posted: Thu Jan 22, 2015 11:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
boggsman1 wrote: | I know all of you guys are mini Steven Hawkings, but I will tell you something.... This is FOURTH straight year that Pacific high pressure has CRUSHED the ski season in the sierras. I forgot what a Sierra winter looks like, and I blame Global Warming. |
Thanks Professor. I just added Syracuse to the "do not hire" list. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
J64TWB
Joined: 24 Dec 2013 Posts: 1685
|
Posted: Thu Jan 22, 2015 11:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
Let's see, who should I trust? Some decent windsurfers or the fine folks who routinely drive on Mars? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
boggsman1
Joined: 24 Jun 2002 Posts: 9120 Location: at a computer
|
Posted: Thu Jan 22, 2015 11:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
mrgybe wrote: | boggsman1 wrote: | I know all of you guys are mini Steven Hawkings, but I will tell you something.... This is FOURTH straight year that Pacific high pressure has CRUSHED the ski season in the sierras. I forgot what a Sierra winter looks like, and I blame Global Warming. |
Thanks Professor. I just added Syracuse to the "do not hire" list. |
Outside of TV Broadcasting , its a wise move. We are just a bunch of bums who like hacky sack , and occasional beat downs of Georgetown hoops. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
GURGLETROUSERS
Joined: 30 Dec 2009 Posts: 2643
|
Posted: Thu Jan 22, 2015 12:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
LHDR. I do not claim that atmospheric CO2 has NO effect on global temperatures, but that it has NOT had the effect that all previous IPCC reports claimed (with 95% certainty) that it would. A very different argument.
I also find the claim of holding a political position on global warming ironic, when it is not I who keep introducing Murdoch and the right wing into almost every dismissive reply. The fact that right wingers are also sceptical of warming claims is not my fault, but I won't hesitate to quote those printed articles which I think are factual.
Lastly, to dismiss the Russian Academy scientists as irrelevant may seem to smack of such certainty and arrogance on your part as to make me enquire what do you know that they do not?
Frederick. Your position doesn't make sense. You claim those brilliant folk from NASA know best, yet ridicule their spokesman's claim of only 37% certainty! Who are you arguing against? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|