| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/18/2007 11:30:40 PM · #101 |
Originally posted by eamurdock:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
As an engineer of aircraft, I would not let you fly on a plane if I had to add a fudge factor to my data because I knew it was flawed. |
Gotta call BS on this one. Engineers know their data have uncertainty, and make an effort to quantify that uncertainty, and then add a "safey factor" (read fudge factor) just in case.
No data is perfect. Nor is perfect data necessary. What is necessary is to understand the errors in data, and to know what it can and can't say.
Speaking as an environmental scientist, I can assure you that a great deal of work goes into doing that, and that it takes pages to explain the analysis, and if you don't do that analysis you'll be shredded for not understanding your own data. And rightfully so. |
I call BS to your BS. Safety factor is above and beyond, not fudge. Example, if I design a wing with a 300% safety factor it will break at 3 times the forseeable load, which is exactly where I designed it to break. The safety factor isn't there because we may have made an error, it's there in case something unforseeable happens. i would not fly in a plane if the engineer said, "ehh, I'm not sure that joint is strong enough so I'm going to add a few more rivets just in case."
My original point, if a I had stress gauges that I knew were faulty and I had to add a factor to them to get what I thought was accurate results, I'd throw the gauges away and replace them with gauges that were accurate. Sorry if I wasn't clear on that.
|
|
|
|
11/18/2007 11:30:41 PM · #102 |
Sure, I believe climate change happens all the time, but I do not believe in the Global Hype of Global Warming. I remember just 20 or so years ago we were all scared to death of the impending Ice Age. We were told that we were entering into a phase of global cooling that would be devastating to the planet, and to the human race.
Bottom line is that global weather patterns change all of the time. If mankind had been asked to create a global climate change, the answers throughout time would have been that we are not capable of doing so.
I think Al Gore should be prosecuted for his lies and scare tactics, just to create a false emergency to allow him to earn more money. He is well invested in the global warming scare cash cow. I can't believe they have dishonored so many Nobel prize winners in history by giving one to Al Gore.
We have been hearing all of this BS for a number of years, and I am so happy that the other side of the debate is starting to get some press. I think we will begin hearing more and more of a balanced debate about this subject over the next few years.
JD
|
|
|
|
11/18/2007 11:31:10 PM · #103 |
Actually the ice age thing has happened a few time over the past couple of hundred years. Each time proven wrong.
I just find it amazing the over and over the global warming crowd issues some prediction of impending disaster such as the increase in quantity and ferocity of hurricanes hitting North America that simply does not come true (see the last 2 years). Yet it seems to be ignored when their predictions are shown to be false. I guess the old computer model screwed that one up, eh. The fact that the majority of the hyperventilating over this issue is coming from long term computer model projections that have proven to be questionable at the very least is amusing.
Oh, and since when is CO2 a pollutant? And to think I've been exhaling it for years :)
The insanity of it all is further compounded by articles about cow flatulence and other pile on theories that make the news. We're all DOOOOMED! DOOOOOMED I say unless we cut cattle numbers dramatically. Puh-leaze.
A law is a universally agreed upon fact. Scientific laws must be universal, and absolute. Yes they are very narrow but are in essence fact without question.
Exactly how much dissent must there be to turn a theory into a non-theory? |
|
|
|
11/18/2007 11:46:47 PM · #104 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
My original point, if a I had stress gauges that I knew were faulty and I had to add a factor to them to get what I thought was accurate results, I'd throw the gauges away and replace them with gauges that were accurate. Sorry if I wasn't clear on that. |
Does your stress gauge read exactly the same if you took 10 readings of the same object or is there a variance? If not a stress gauge, then how about all the other instruments you use? I'm taking a guess here, but I'm fairly sure the equipment you use is not both 100% accurate and 100% precise. |
|
|
|
11/18/2007 11:51:36 PM · #105 |
Originally posted by eamurdock:
Originally posted by vtruan:
I'm a very real skeptic. Not enough data and what there is maybe being miss read for political reasons. The meterologist who started the Weather Channel in an interview last week said the data is being miss read and believes that this interpretation is way off.
Also, why is Mars ice caps melting too? CO2?
I am skeptical, and if we are having global warming, are we sure it is bad. Maybe warmer means more crops, more fresh water, the west coast of Colorado, etc..
Mars ice capsare melting too |
Mars is really neither here nor there, just as the fact that the climate has changed before on earth isn't significant. What's more is that the mechanisms for mars' warming are completely different than those going on on earth.
The fact is that our current way of life is possible because of our current climate, and that we are (almost unquestionably) changing that climate in ways we don't understand.
Trees fall down all the time; does that mean it doesn't matter if I cut one down and it lands on your house? |
The connection between the ice caps on earth and the ice caps on mars is the sun. Both planets are members of our solar system. If the sun gets hotter, it will melt ice caps on both planets. Since global warming is evident on both planets, it takes mankind off the hook as the cause. Since heating and cooling have happened countless times on our planet, I can dismiss this minor warming that we are having as nothing more than a natural variation. It sure beats another ice age, which unfortunately is far more likely in the future than run away warming. |
|
|
|
11/18/2007 11:55:11 PM · #106 |
Originally posted by cloudsme:
The connection between the ice caps on earth and the ice caps on mars is the sun. Both planets are members of our solar system. If the sun gets hotter, it will melt ice caps on both planets. Since global warming is evident on both planets, it takes mankind off the hook as the cause. Since heating and cooling have happened countless times on our planet, I can dismiss this minor warming that we are having as nothing more than a natural variation. It sure beats another ice age, which unfortunately is far more likely in the future than run away warming. |
A great theory except there isn't one iota of evidence the sun has increased its thermal output (and it's not that we aren't looking). Doh! |
|
|
|
11/18/2007 11:55:24 PM · #107 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
My original point, if a I had stress gauges that I knew were faulty and I had to add a factor to them to get what I thought was accurate results, I'd throw the gauges away and replace them with gauges that were accurate. Sorry if I wasn't clear on that. |
Does your stress gauge read exactly the same if you took 10 readings of the same object or is there a variance? If not a stress gauge, then how about all the other instruments you use? I'm taking a guess here, but I'm fairly sure the equipment you use is not both 100% accurate and 100% precise. |
That's why GR&R's are done on all gauge types.
|
|
|
|
11/18/2007 11:57:38 PM · #108 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
My original point, if a I had stress gauges that I knew were faulty and I had to add a factor to them to get what I thought was accurate results, I'd throw the gauges away and replace them with gauges that were accurate. Sorry if I wasn't clear on that. |
Does your stress gauge read exactly the same if you took 10 readings of the same object or is there a variance? If not a stress gauge, then how about all the other instruments you use? I'm taking a guess here, but I'm fairly sure the equipment you use is not both 100% accurate and 100% precise. |
That's why GR&R's are done on all gauge types. |
I don't know what GR&R means... |
|
|
|
11/19/2007 12:01:31 AM · #109 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by cloudsme:
The connection between the ice caps on earth and the ice caps on mars is the sun. Both planets are members of our solar system. If the sun gets hotter, it will melt ice caps on both planets. Since global warming is evident on both planets, it takes mankind off the hook as the cause. Since heating and cooling have happened countless times on our planet, I can dismiss this minor warming that we are having as nothing more than a natural variation. It sure beats another ice age, which unfortunately is far more likely in the future than run away warming. |
A great theory except there isn't one iota of evidence the sun has increased its thermal output (and it's not that we aren't looking). Doh! |
Actually it wouldn't take but a very minute fluctuation in solar activity to affect global temperature change over time. Although we are watching the gauges I question if we have the precision or temporal perspective to measure any fluctuation in solar output.
|
|
|
|
11/19/2007 12:02:05 AM · #110 |
Originally posted by eamurdock:
Originally posted by cloudsme:
Global warming is no longer a scientific issue but a political issue. Scientific funding for scientist supporting the global warming hypothesis is much greater than for scientists who don't support it. Media reports scientific findings that support global warming much more than they report studies that don't support it.
Global warming is just another tool that can shift wealth. (if you don't believe it, look at the proposed "solutions" to global warming)
For me, this is the real test to see if man made global warming is real. There is a simple solution to global warming. We could build a few thousand nuclear plants and be done with carbon based energy sources. This could be done in 5 years. As a side benefit, we wouldn't be giving billions of dollars to radical religious fundamentalists. I'm not saying nuclear energy is perfect, it has it risks. But the risks of nuclear energy don't include the so called risks of global warming (the end of life on earth). So why aren't all you true believers in global warming not screaming for us to go nuclear? I know why. It doesn't fit into your political agenda. I told you global warming was a political issue. |
Actually, a lot of environmentalists (myself included) are taking a long hard look at nuclear again. The plant engineering has (to my understanding) come a long way, meltdowns like Three Mile and Chernobyl are simply not possible in modern plants (passive stability inherent to the design). The big problems is that a single nuclear plant takes (a) more than five years to build, (b) a TON of cooling water (~1,000,000 gallons per minute) and (c) represents a capitolization of around 5 billion dollars.
So to suggest this could happen in 5 years is a joke. |
It is ironic that environmentalist killed the nuclear industry 35 years ago and now we have to revive it to save the environment. If you really believe in this global warming stuff, you can blame the environmentalists. I myself, do not believe in global warming, so I won't blame you. However, if we had a solid nuclear program at this time, we wouldn't be so dependent on middle eastern oil, and probably wouldn't be at war in Iraq now.
I do believe if the world was really coming to an end, we could come up with the money and the water and do it very quickly. |
|
|
|
11/19/2007 12:04:14 AM · #111 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by cloudsme:
The connection between the ice caps on earth and the ice caps on mars is the sun. Both planets are members of our solar system. If the sun gets hotter, it will melt ice caps on both planets. Since global warming is evident on both planets, it takes mankind off the hook as the cause. Since heating and cooling have happened countless times on our planet, I can dismiss this minor warming that we are having as nothing more than a natural variation. It sure beats another ice age, which unfortunately is far more likely in the future than run away warming. |
A great theory except there isn't one iota of evidence the sun has increased its thermal output (and it's not that we aren't looking). Doh! |
Actually it wouldn't take but a very minute fluctuation in solar activity to affect global temperature change over time. Although we are watching the gauges I question if we have the precision or temporal perspective to measure any fluctuation in solar output. |
So we can't measure the change but it's enough to warm the earth? Just making sure that's what you are saying. |
|
|
|
11/19/2007 12:06:05 AM · #112 |
Originally posted by krafty1:
Oh, and since when is CO2 a pollutant? And to think I've been exhaling it for years :)
The insanity of it all is further compounded by articles about cow flatulence and other pile on theories that make the news. We're all DOOOOMED! DOOOOOMED I say unless we cut cattle numbers dramatically. Puh-leaze.
|
I don't participate in these forums or spend much time in them, but this is an interesting one because it is something I am actually studying (the Ph.D in my sn is for a degree in biochemistry). I won't participate past this post, but the first line here: "since when is CO2 a pollutant?" is just humorous. Based on the "and to think I've been exhaling it for years" comment, I would be more inclined to tell you to start by googling, or even checking wikapedia on this one, as you will probably not understand primary literature (not taking a shot. Scientific journals are difficult to understand if you aren't in the field or interested or don't have a background in the subject).
As for the second part about the cow flatulence: look into methane and its effects on the troposphere, effects on the atmospheres oxidative capacity, tropospheric ozone, stratosphere ozone and Cl- concentrations, as well as stratospheric H20. If you are actually inclined to learn about the effects of methane, take a step further and look into "methanogenesis" (which I personally work on). If you look into methanogenesis you will definitely come across cattle as a significant source of anthropogenic methane, after rice paddies, which is another anthropogenic source. That is all from me. I will go back to being a scientist. |
|
|
|
11/19/2007 12:10:51 AM · #113 |
Smackdown!
One interesting thing about methane that seems to possibly be the case is that the levels are actually decreasing because we are balancing the increased production from domesticated animals by destroying wetlands (which are a natural source of methane). |
|
|
|
11/19/2007 12:13:28 AM · #114 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
So we can't measure the change but it's enough to warm the earth? Just making sure that's what you are saying. |
That's exactly what I'm saying. We've had solar measurement and observation tools for how long? Seriously, 3-4 decades? As I stated clearly, it's a matter of not only precision, but temporal perspective.
It's not that I doubt we do affect some environmental change with our bad stewardship, but realistically, we just don't have the technology or the perspective to make the call as to how much.
Remember the micro-environment Biosphere 1? Remember how miserably it failed, due mostly to carbon monoxide emitting microbes in the soil? We can't manage a dome. Do you seriously believe we know what is happening globally?
Message edited by author 2007-11-19 00:36:08.
|
|
|
|
11/19/2007 12:39:43 AM · #115 |
| Look at the effect of the dead and dying trees in the swath of Hurricane Katrina. They are emitting tremendous amounts of CO2 contributing a lot to climate change. |
|
|
|
11/19/2007 12:54:30 AM · #116 |
|
|
|
11/19/2007 01:15:02 AM · #117 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
74 Posts - citations of primary literature....1
Business as usual. I'm out. |
What was the primary literature cited? And, because I am assuming you cited it, should I further assume that you actually understand it (more than just what someone else wrote about it, an actual understanding of the methodology and its merits/pitfalls), or just that you can cite it? Otherwise, I must confess, the merit of citing things that are, by themselves, not understood in any scientifically meaningful way is nearly completely lost on me. |
|
|
|
11/19/2007 02:29:51 AM · #118 |
Originally posted by JohnnyPhD:
...As for the second part about the cow flatulence: look into methane and its effects on the troposphere, effects on the atmospheres oxidative capacity, tropospheric ozone, stratosphere ozone and Cl- concentrations, as well as stratospheric H20. ... |
Good thing our ancestors killed off those MILLIONS of buffalo before they could effect the environment. Those thousand some years they existed before, must have been HELL on THE earth.
|
|
|
|
11/19/2007 03:25:06 AM · #119 |
Ok, I'll bite. I'm assuming this post is a response to mine, if I am wrong then I apologize. However, if you reread my post it was more in response to your apparent idea that CO2 and cows don't pollute rather than a stance on global warming. I would love to know what your definition of a pollutant is though. CO2 is a pollutant, whether it is from nature or man. Methane released from cattle is a pollutant, as is the methane from rice paddies, as is the methane from natural wetlands (the source? methanogenic archaea). CO2 and methane have the same effect whether it is man made or natural, so to say that the release of these gases by man has no environmental effect is incorrect, regardless of whether or not you think it will ultimately cause ice caps to melt and New York City to be flooded by 2030, or whatever the projections are (NYC is my real home, although having Staten Island under water isn't a bad idea).
As for your links: I don't consider them a source of good information.
The first one I won't read because, unless I am wrong, it is from a politician. I'm not into politics.
The second I found amusing for a number of reasons, but mostly:
Quoting: "Basic physics is great for understanding CO2 in lab jars and planets in space, but it has no complete accounting for a wooden kitchen chair, because wood is far too complex a material. Nobody has a complete physical understanding of wood..." ..."We only know the genomes for a few plants, and we don't know how their genes are expressed in cells and proteins. So forget about applying basic physics and chemistry to kitchen chairs. Plants and trees are hypercomplex, like the climate."
So a wooden chair is hypercomplex, as are plants and trees, but not planets in space? I'm sure Steven Hawkings would roll out of his wheelchair if he read that. I stopped reading after that. Oh, and we don't know how their genes are expressed? True to some extent, but proteomics and genomics are doing a good job at answering those questions. Also, as a side note, genes aren't "expressed in proteins." Cells-yes, but genes aren't expressed "in proteins," the expressed genes are proteins. Sorry, that just bothered me.
Your third link I won't read cause it says "Blog" which, to me, is an awesome indication of bad information an opinions.
Your forth is my favorite, aside from the courier new font (it's more fun to read if you copy and paste into Word and change the font to "wingdings") Quoting: "5) that human deaths will be reduced with warming because cold kills twice as many people as heat; and 6) that corals, trees, birds, mammals, and butterflies are adapting well to the routine reality of changing climate." Yes, humans move to Florida because of #5.
You are probably an intelligent person (you did, infact, buy a D80), but I would be weary of your choice of literature.
I am not an environmentalist or any kind of activist against global warming. I still have a lot more studying to do, as do most people who appear to be grounded in their view, before I can confidently say that humans do, infact, greatly impact the climate (although if I were a betting man I would say yes). However, if you think about it, can 6 billion people polluting the earth on a daily basis really have no impact? And what do you lose by becoming more respectful of nature?
Message edited by author 2007-11-19 03:27:42. |
|
|
|
11/19/2007 03:41:11 AM · #120 |
Originally posted by dacrazyrn:
Originally posted by JohnnyPhD:
...As for the second part about the cow flatulence: look into methane and its effects on the troposphere, effects on the atmospheres oxidative capacity, tropospheric ozone, stratosphere ozone and Cl- concentrations, as well as stratospheric H20. ... |
Good thing our ancestors killed off those MILLIONS of buffalo before they could effect the environment. Those thousand some years they existed before, must have been HELL on THE earth. |
Read above. CH4 does have an impact on the atmosphere, therefore cows do as well, perhaps significantly. I don't think there is one person that is arguing infavor of the global warming theory that will say that the earth has natural cycles or fluctuations in climate. That is true. Also, I doubt any of those people will argue that there are natural occurances that have great impacts, such as volcanos or natural disasters. I think the argument is whether or not man is altering the natural changes that would take place in a way that could ultimately be detrimental to ourselves. As for your buffalo remark, although not as witty as you probably tried for, maybe you have something of a point. Maybe the buffalo were producing methane and killing them off "helped" save the atmosphere from it. However, free roaming buffalo is natural where as cattle and livestock are not so much (yes, they are animals too, but look at how they are raised and handled and fed. For those reasons their methane productions is considered anthropogenic). Also, and this is a complete guess, but I have a feeling that the rumens of cattle have a higher concentration of methanogens then free buffalo.
Ok, I have posted two more times then I wanted to. Sorry. |
|
|
|
11/19/2007 09:00:01 AM · #121 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I don't know what GR&R means... |
I'd explain it to you, but you'd probably just call me ignorant because I would not need to cite primary literature to explain it, so look it up yourself.
|
|
|
|
11/19/2007 09:24:05 AM · #122 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
My original point, if a I had stress gauges that I knew were faulty and I had to add a factor to them to get what I thought was accurate results, I'd throw the gauges away and replace them with gauges that were accurate. Sorry if I wasn't clear on that. |
Does your stress gauge read exactly the same if you took 10 readings of the same object or is there a variance? If not a stress gauge, then how about all the other instruments you use? I'm taking a guess here, but I'm fairly sure the equipment you use is not both 100% accurate and 100% precise. |
That's why GR&R's are done on all gauge types. |
Doesn't matter. They're still not 100% accurate. They come with an estimated error, which, I hope, you take into account when designing your airplanes.
Every scientific measurement has error. Engineering and physics tend to have lower errors (sometimes spectacularly low) but they're there and they have to be quantified. As others have pointed out, the uncertainties in environmental sciences are much higher (for a host of reasons) but that's not the same as saying we know nothing. We have an estimate and an uncertainty analysis, exactly the same way an engineer does.
Your wing will not break "exactly where you designed it to." The design point is simply the estimated mean point of failure over a large sample of pieces. The variance around the mean is important, and if you're an engineer you know this. |
|
|
|
11/19/2007 09:29:44 AM · #123 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I don't know what GR&R means... |
Google is your friend, Doc:
Gauge Repeatability and Reproducibility (GR&R)
Gauge Repeatability and Reproducibility, or GR&R, is a measure of the capability of a gauge or gage to obtain the same measurement reading every time the measurement process is undertaken for the same characteristic or parameter. In other words, GR&R indicates the consistency and stability of a measuring equipment. The ability of a measuring device to provide consistent measurement data is important in the control of any process.
Mathematically, GR&R is actually a measure of the variation of a gage's measurement, and not of its stability. An engineer must therefore strive to minimize the GR&R numbers of his or her measuring equipment, since a high GR&R number indicates instability and is thus undesirable.
//www.siliconfareast.com/grr.htm
|
|
|
|
11/19/2007 09:48:20 AM · #124 |
Originally posted by eamurdock:
Doesn't matter. They're still not 100% accurate. They come with an estimated error, which, I hope, you take into account when designing your airplanes. |
Before running a test or measuring a part we define how accurate we need to be to get the desired information. The variation of the gauge has to be less the 10% of the allowable tolerance on the results. Thus, if I'm measuring temperature and I know I need to be within .1 degrees to have useable data, the variation of my gauge has to be less then .01 degrees.
Originally posted by eamurdock:
Your wing will not break "exactly where you designed it to." The design point is simply the estimated mean point of failure over a large sample of pieces. The variance around the mean is important, and if you're an engineer you know this. |
Go to youtube, type in 777 wing load in the search box. That was 12 years ago. If that's not enough, check out the same test on the A380 (even though they failed, they were amazingly close to their target as well). True I probably should not have used the word exact, but it will break pretty damn close to our designed load.
|
|
|
|
11/19/2007 10:01:07 AM · #125 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Before running a test or measuring a part we define how accurate we need to be to get the desired information. The variation of the gauge has to be less the 10% of the allowable tolerance on the results. Thus, if I'm measuring temperature and I know I need to be within .1 degrees to have useable data, the variation of my gauge has to be less then .01 degrees.
|
Exactly! You know how accurate you need to be to say this is safe/this isn't safe.
So do we. But for some reason environmental scientists are expected to eliminate all uncertainty before we can act. "We need further study" is a DELIBERATE strategy to postpone action, a delay we can ill afford.
We don't know exactly where or how it will fail. We can make estimates, however, and we know that the current load far exceeds what the system can handle.
It's really frustrating having to fight this battle over and over, and I don't do it because I get paid to (remember, all you "follow the funding" people that for job security I would want a controversy, yet I argue against one) but because I've seen the evidence and it's overwhelming, and we truly have a very short time to act. I want kids, and I want them to have an inhabitable world, and I certainly don't want them to lack that because I didn't try. |
|
