myiW Current Conditions and Forecasts Community Forums 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 ... 351, 352, 353 ... 571, 572, 573  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
coboardhead



Joined: 26 Oct 2009
Posts: 4303

PostPosted: Thu Jan 22, 2015 9:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message
LHDR



Joined: 22 Jun 2007
Posts: 528

PostPosted: Thu Jan 22, 2015 9:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message
J64TWB



Joined: 24 Dec 2013
Posts: 1685

PostPosted: Thu Jan 22, 2015 9:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message
boggsman1



Joined: 24 Jun 2002
Posts: 9118
Location: at a computer

PostPosted: Thu Jan 22, 2015 10:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message
mrgybe



Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Posts: 5180

PostPosted: Thu Jan 22, 2015 10:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message
mrgybe



Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Posts: 5180

PostPosted: Thu Jan 22, 2015 10:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message
mrgybe



Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Posts: 5180

PostPosted: Thu Jan 22, 2015 11:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message
J64TWB



Joined: 24 Dec 2013
Posts: 1685

PostPosted: Thu Jan 22, 2015 11:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Let's see, who should I trust? Some decent windsurfers or the fine folks who routinely drive on Mars?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
boggsman1



Joined: 24 Jun 2002
Posts: 9118
Location: at a computer

PostPosted: Thu Jan 22, 2015 11:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message
GURGLETROUSERS



Joined: 30 Dec 2009
Posts: 2643

PostPosted: Thu Jan 22, 2015 12:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
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 ... 351, 352, 353 ... 571, 572, 573  Next
Page 352 of 573

 
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