Sponsored

Science is now cancelled? [USERS NOW BANNED FOR POLITICS]

CJJon

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2020
Threads
34
Messages
3,535
Reaction score
3,809
Location
Port Orchard
Vehicle(s)
2020 Mustang GT/CS Convertible - Race Red
Here is what really isn't in dispute (as simple as one can make it):

  • The planet is getting warmer.
  • The warming pattern is extreme and not entirely due to natural processes or patterns.
  • Human activity is contributing to the warming.
  • Extreme global warming is bad.
  • The data is not perfect.
Sponsored

 

CJJon

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2020
Threads
34
Messages
3,535
Reaction score
3,809
Location
Port Orchard
Vehicle(s)
2020 Mustang GT/CS Convertible - Race Red
Hello; Yes we will adapt. This has been the hallmark of humans. We have been able to adapt to a very wide range of environments so far. I saw some years ago an estimation of how parts of Russian might become productive crop land with warming.
I enjoyed your participation in the thread.
Could we not try and do something before there is mass global crop failure? You know, ADAPT?
 

RPDBlueMoon

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 16, 2020
Threads
15
Messages
1,239
Reaction score
1,318
Location
California
Vehicle(s)
GT350 Heritage Edition, Civic Type R
It may be 150 ppm.

Still other evidence shows Co2 levels far higher than today. Ice core samples.

Why would they teach in the 1970's that Co2 levels were higher in the past?
Now they teach the levels are higher.

Roman warming period;
They keep rewriting history and science journals.

I'll give you the last word because although this was a fun thread I am now bored with it.

Warmer climate? Longer growing seasons. If the oceans rise, we will move inland.
We will adapt.
What ice core lol and what evidence? As I previously stated, one of the oldest one is 800,000 years old from Antarctica and its never been 400ppm in the past 800,000 years but okay.

air_bubbles_historical.jpg


It was universally taught? Thats a big statement to make lol. High schools are trash, didn't know you held high schools to such a high standard. Not sure about that because what I see is different. My father wasn't taught it in the 70s.

Lol okay well I can see why you'd be bored. I'd get bored too if all I did was get into useless political arguments and just spread misinformation. Not sure why you even bothered coming here other than to trigger people lol

Yeah nice oversimplification again 😃
 
OP
OP
Burkey

Burkey

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2016
Threads
87
Messages
5,541
Reaction score
3,520
Location
Australia
Vehicle(s)
2016 Mustang GT
Vehicle Showcase
1
Semantics now?

Here is the quote...where does it say it was dismissed, effectively or otherwise? He is just cautioning not to be conclusive until we have more data.

'Others point to the short time scale over which observations were used to draw conclusions. Among them is Mark Cane, a climate scientist at Columbia University and an El Niño expert.

“Intuition should warn you that roughly 60 years of data is not enough to tell you anything conclusive about a 22-year cycle,” he wrote." '

Sheesh!
I suspect the issue is that the dichotomy he’s using looks like this:
“Rejected is the opposite of accepted. Therefore, if it hasn’t been accepted, it must have been rejected.“

It‘s not a reading comprehension issue, it’s an issue in reasoning.
 
OP
OP
Burkey

Burkey

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2016
Threads
87
Messages
5,541
Reaction score
3,520
Location
Australia
Vehicle(s)
2016 Mustang GT
Vehicle Showcase
1
Here was a study which put sun cycles up as a potentially significant factor of climate effect on earth.
What do you mean by “potentially”? It’s well recognised that solar cycles impact the Earth.

“The entire Sun from North Pole to South Pole is a giant magnet, but it's not a simple one. The Sun's magnetic fields are on the move, so that approximately every 11 years the entire field flips, and the north and south magnetic poles switch. Another 11 years and the poles switch back again. In between flips, the total radiation from the Sun – known as total solar irradiance – waxes and wanes in a semi-regular cycle by up to 0.15%. The short term changes in solar irradiance are not strong enough to have a long term influence on Earth's climate. Sustained changes in solar radiance – that is changes that occur over decades or centuries – could potentially have an effect on Earth's climate system, which is why such information is included, along with a variety of other natural and human-driven influences, in climate models.“

“While there have only been highly accurate, space-based measurements of solar irradiance since 1979, humans have been recording the solar cycle by monitoring the increase and decrease of magnetically active sunspots – which can be used to estimate longer term changes in solar irradiance – since the beginning of the 1600s. Prior to that there are indirect measures of solar activity available from ice core and tree ring records.

These longer-term records suggest that the cycle can vary dramatically from cycle to cycle. Indeed, from 1645 to 1715 – an era now known as the Maunder Minimum – there were almost no sunspots recorded. Anomalies like this show that magnetic activity and energy output from the Sun can vary over decades, though the space-based observations of the last 35 years have seen little change from one cycle to the next in terms of total irradiance. Solar Cycle 24, which began in December 2008 and which is likely to end in 2020, was smaller in magnitude than the previous two.”

Do we now know “everything”? Of course not. That’s why we need to continue funding these scientists.

Would you like to discuss Milankovitch cycles?

“Eccentricity measures the departure of this ellipse from circularity. The shape of the Earth's orbit varies between nearly circular (with the lowest eccentricity of 0.000055) and mildly elliptical (highest eccentricity of 0.0679). Its geometric or logarithmic mean is 0.0019. The major component of these variations occurs with a period of 413,000 years (eccentricity variation of ±0.012). Other components have 95,000-year and 125,000-year cycles (with a beat period of 400,000 years). They loosely combine into a 100,000-year cycle (variation of −0.03 to +0.02). The present eccentricity is 0.017 and decreasing.“

Seems to me that computer models would be a lot easier than a pen and paper when doing these types of calculations.

The paper you’re citing as evidence of the failure of science is EXACTLY the kind of research we should be funding.
It’s extremely unlikely that the research you cited will completely overturn the current understanding. What it’s likely to do is to further refine the theory, making those models that you object to even more precise than they are now.

Meanwhile, our other mate asserted that because CO2 is only 0.4% of our atmosphere, it can only have a 1% influence on warming. Using his own inductive reasoning against him, it would seem that the Sun could only have the potential to change the Earth‘s temp by 0.15%
Most people couldn’t make a more profoundly ignorant statement if they tried.
 

Sponsored

OP
OP
Burkey

Burkey

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2016
Threads
87
Messages
5,541
Reaction score
3,520
Location
Australia
Vehicle(s)
2016 Mustang GT
Vehicle Showcase
1
Still other evidence shows Co2 levels far higher than today. Ice core samples.
Yup. That’s part of the picture. Now go look at TSI and average global temp for those same periods. The correlations might surprise you. You do know that these charts exist right?
Why would they teach in the 1970's that Co2 levels were higher in the past?
Because there are points in geologic history where that was the case, along with times when it was lower... this isn’t a problem if you understand the issue.

Now they teach the levels are higher.
Not if they’re doing it properly. What they should be teaching is that the CURRENT levels are higher than ANY point in the past 800,000 years or thereabouts. They should also be showing the drastic rate of increase that occurred around the era of the industrial revolution.
Having said that, there’s schools in the US teaching kids that evolution isn’t science, so I can’t comment directly as to the quality of education people may or may not be receiving over there.

Roman warming period;
They keep rewriting history and science journals.
Erm, no they don’t. The “Roman“ warming period refers to ONE geographic region on Earth. It’s understood and accounted for.
By analogy, America had a warm period in the middle of the last century (IIRC). What does that tell us about the rest of the world? Not much right?

Warmer climate? Longer growing seasons. If the oceans rise, we will move inland.
Longer growing seasons for which parts of the planet? Hard to grow food when there’s a drought.
Do you happen to to know much about the Indian Ocean dipole (as one example)?
 

sk47

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2020
Threads
27
Messages
4,968
Reaction score
2,334
Location
North Eastern TN
First Name
Jeff
Vehicle(s)
Chevy Silverado & Nissan Sentra SE
These longer-term records suggest that the cycle can vary dramatically from cycle to cycle. Indeed, from 1645 to 1715 – an era now known as the Maunder Minimum – there were almost no sunspots recorded. Anomalies like this show that magnetic activity and energy output from the Sun can vary over decades, though the space-based observations of the last 35 years have seen little change from one cycle to the next in terms of total irradiance. Solar Cycle 24, which began in December 2008 and which is likely to end in 2020, was smaller in magnitude than the previous two.”

“Eccentricity measures the departure of this ellipse from circularity. The shape of the Earth's orbit varies between nearly circular (with the lowest eccentricity of 0.000055) and mildly elliptical (highest eccentricity of 0.0679). Its geometric or logarithmic mean is 0.0019. The major component of these variations occurs with a period of 413,000 years (eccentricity variation of ±0.012). Other components have 95,000-year and 125,000-year cycles (with a beat period of 400,000 years). They loosely combine into a 100,000-year cycle (variation of −0.03 to +0.02). The present eccentricity is 0.017 and decreasing.“

Seems to me that computer models would be a lot easier than a pen and paper when doing these types of calculations.

The paper you’re citing as evidence of the failure of science is EXACTLY the kind of research we should be funding.
It’s extremely unlikely that the research you cited will completely overturn the current understanding. What it’s likely to do is to further refine the theory, making those models that you object to even more precise than they are now.
Hello; First I am pleased you did not resort to name calling or other such personal attacks.

I knew of the Maunder Minimum. I know questions have been around as to what it meant for some time. A correlation is not necessarily causation sort of questioning.

I also knew of the slight difference of the earths orbit. Not in the detail you cite. The way I recall it is the earth can be closer to the sun during winter than in the summer. Not by a great deal, but maybe a million miles more or less. I use to point out during demonstrations with a model globe that it is the 23 1/2 degree tilt of the earth's axis which determines the seasons.
I also had a simple demonstration using a filmstrip projector and a sheet of poster paper to show how the light becomes more spread out when it comes in at an angle. Of course the tilt changes the length of day/night.

I do not wish to do away with computer generated models. They can be a useful tool. What I have found to be problematic is the way such a synthetic construction can be taken for fact. I do understand how the daily TV weather forecasts have become much better in the last decades. They are fairly accurate within a short future prediction time frame. The further out the forecast gets the less reliable it will be.
I guess the hurricane tracks are the better example to illustrate what I mean. Several models can be and often are used for the same storm system. A few hours out they tend to stay in a general agreement. Go out a day and the cones of potential predicted tracks start to diverge. Out two days and they diverge even more. And so on.
The way I understand it is the sheer amount of data points is huge. On top of that the potential interactions between the measured parameters starts to be exponential. ( maybe a butter fly sort of effect) After a while the random chance variables which cannot be predicted start to play out.
Anyway a few days out storm models begin to diverge to the point of no longer being of value. I can recall seeing some storm projections being allowed to play out for many days. The predicted paths can wind up going in dramatically different directions.

I will trust weather models for a day or two out in terms of planning outside work for things such a painting. I did so yesterday and almost got caught out. I looked at the forecast for Saturday and Sunday on a Friday. I mixed and poured some cement yesterday afternoon and it then clouded up and began to spit rain. The conditions had changed. I covered the cement with a a tarp and was OK. It rained hard last night. I should have checked the weather on Sunday.

Last item. Yes the research ought to continue . I was not saying it should be stopped. My comments were twisted/spun to something I did not intend. What I was trying to point out is the comment of the author will displace confidence in the outcome of the study for another few 22 year cycles. So in "effect" whatever value the observation/study may have will not be considered for a few decades. When some authority or power group tells you they plan to study something or plan to form a committee to study something you know that will take some time.
 

CJJon

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2020
Threads
34
Messages
3,535
Reaction score
3,809
Location
Port Orchard
Vehicle(s)
2020 Mustang GT/CS Convertible - Race Red
Hello; First I am pleased you did not resort to name calling or other such personal attacks.

I knew of the Maunder Minimum. I know questions have been around as to what it meant for some time. A correlation is not necessarily causation sort of questioning.

I also knew of the slight difference of the earths orbit. Not in the detail you cite. The way I recall it is the earth can be closer to the sun during winter than in the summer. Not by a great deal, but maybe a million miles more or less. I use to point out during demonstrations with a model globe that it is the 23 1/2 degree tilt of the earth's axis which determines the seasons.
I also had a simple demonstration using a filmstrip projector and a sheet of poster paper to show how the light becomes more spread out when it comes in at an angle. Of course the tilt changes the length of day/night.

I do not wish to do away with computer generated models. They can be a useful tool. What I have found to be problematic is the way such a synthetic construction can be taken for fact. I do understand how the daily TV weather forecasts have become much better in the last decades. They are fairly accurate within a short future prediction time frame. The further out the forecast gets the less reliable it will be.
I guess the hurricane tracks are the better example to illustrate what I mean. Several models can be and often are used for the same storm system. A few hours out they tend to stay in a general agreement. Go out a day and the cones of potential predicted tracks start to diverge. Out two days and they diverge even more. And so on.
The way I understand it is the sheer amount of data points is huge. On top of that the potential interactions between the measured parameters starts to be exponential. ( maybe a butter fly sort of effect) After a while the random chance variables which cannot be predicted start to play out.
Anyway a few days out storm models begin to diverge to the point of no longer being of value. I can recall seeing some storm projections being allowed to play out for many days. The predicted paths can wind up going in dramatically different directions.

I will trust weather models for a day or two out in terms of planning outside work for things such a painting. I did so yesterday and almost got caught out. I looked at the forecast for Saturday and Sunday on a Friday. I mixed and poured some cement yesterday afternoon and it then clouded up and began to spit rain. The conditions had changed. I covered the cement with a a tarp and was OK. It rained hard last night. I should have checked the weather on Sunday.

Last item. Yes the research ought to continue . I was not saying it should be stopped. My comments were twisted/spun to something I did not intend. What I was trying to point out is the comment of the author will displace confidence in the outcome of the study for another few 22 year cycles. So in "effect" whatever value the observation/study may have will not be considered for a few decades. When some authority or power group tells you they plan to study something or plan to form a committee to study something you know that will take some time.
How can so many words say so little?

So weather on a micro scale is hard to predict, therefore global warming studies are flawed and should generally be discounted.

That is illogical on its face.

Also, your interpretation of the quote is flawed by your bias. Here it is one last time;

“Intuition should warn you that roughly 60 years of data is not enough to tell you anything conclusive about a 22-year cycle,”

How do you get that it will not be considered out of that? Or that whatever value the study may have it won’t be considered for a few decades? Nonsense. Abject nonsense.

“Authority” “Power group” - More of your bias.
 

VTECSAUCE

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2015
Threads
18
Messages
1,112
Reaction score
245
Location
FL panhandle
First Name
Steve
Vehicle(s)
2015 DIB PP GT w/ RECARO's & ITR swapped '94 hatch
As I finish up a degree in mechanical engineering, it’s very foundations being science based, i cannot stand how the term “science” is thrown around these days. People whom haven't a clue how scientific method is employed or what scientific method even is, are going around spouting off “facts” “proven by science” without even having the slightest clue how some scientists arrived at that (key word here) THEORY. That said, many scientific topics are often strongly debated. Especially ones that don’t have a lot of supporting evidence. Dinosaurs for example, it’s strongly debated about the existence of feathers on many. It is coming to light that many dinosaurs were also likely warm blooded. The fact of the matter is, science is very fluid. It changes as new evidence comes to light. To take a stance and whole heartedly agree to something that most scientists are still debating, is foolish.

Here’s my take on global warming. I think since the industrial Revolution, dumping literal tons of waste into the air, into the earth and into the oceans every year for over 100 years is not good...at all. I am sure we are making a negative impact on the environment. The real question is, how much of a negative impact? We cannot prove this quickly or confidently. That does not mean we should just continue to degrade our environment and give zero fucks. As a gear head, it hurts to see cars getting neutered and the fun aspects removed, but i also understand the reason why. I think that politics are also strongly invested in it which utterly disgusts me. I understand both sides to this debate and unfortunately both sides have been corrupted by the negative inputs of politics which leads to personal bias. (Which is likely why this was deleted to begin with)

The point is, people are corruptible. People come in all forms, scientists, celebrities, doctors, etc. They can be swayed to make a statement that maybe false. Don’t blindly believe that because an “expert” claims X, then that is the end all be all. Examine both sides to the debate. Understand to the fullest why the opposite side exists, despite the fact that you may completely think they are wrong and stupid for it. Learn every perspective and find the best arguments for their stance. It’ll only make yours stronger.
 

Sponsored

sk47

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2020
Threads
27
Messages
4,968
Reaction score
2,334
Location
North Eastern TN
First Name
Jeff
Vehicle(s)
Chevy Silverado & Nissan Sentra SE
Hello; Yes congrats to @VTECSAUCE on becoming an engineer. One of my good friends is a "dirt " engineer. His company does studies of the ground conditions before a building or some such is built.
You have an excellent chance for promising career ahead.
Good luck.
 
Last edited:

CJJon

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2020
Threads
34
Messages
3,535
Reaction score
3,809
Location
Port Orchard
Vehicle(s)
2020 Mustang GT/CS Convertible - Race Red
As I finish up a degree in mechanical engineering, it’s very foundations being science based, i cannot stand how the term “science” is thrown around these days. People whom haven't a clue how scientific method is employed or what scientific method even is, are going around spouting off “facts” “proven by science” without even having the slightest clue how some scientists arrived at that (key word here) THEORY. That said, many scientific topics are often strongly debated. Especially ones that don’t have a lot of supporting evidence. Dinosaurs for example, it’s strongly debated about the existence of feathers on many. It is coming to light that many dinosaurs were also likely warm blooded. The fact of the matter is, science is very fluid. It changes as new evidence comes to light. To take a stance and whole heartedly agree to something that most scientists are still debating, is foolish.

Here’s my take on global warming. I think since the industrial Revolution, dumping literal tons of waste into the air, into the earth and into the oceans every year for over 100 years is not good...at all. I am sure we are making a negative impact on the environment. The real question is, how much of a negative impact? We cannot prove this quickly or confidently. That does not mean we should just continue to degrade our environment and give zero fucks. As a gear head, it hurts to see cars getting neutered and the fun aspects removed, but i also understand the reason why. I think that politics are also strongly invested in it which utterly disgusts me. I understand both sides to this debate and unfortunately both sides have been corrupted by the negative inputs of politics which leads to personal bias. (Which is likely why this was deleted to begin with)

The point is, people are corruptible. People come in all forms, scientists, celebrities, doctors, etc. They can be swayed to make a statement that maybe false. Don’t blindly believe that because an “expert” claims X, then that is the end all be all. Examine both sides to the debate. Understand to the fullest why the opposite side exists, despite the fact that you may completely think they are wrong and stupid for it. Learn every perspective and find the best arguments for their stance. It’ll only make yours stronger.
Oooh, a mechanical engineer! Maybe you will fly to space!

1620706238062.jpeg
 
 




Top