| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/17/2012 04:42:04 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by Cory:
First, the red line data that you question is a mathematical model that predicts the temperature based upon CO2 and Volcanic activity (CO2 traps heat in the atmosphere, volcanic activity causes cool-downs because of increased albedo.) |
Being an engineer, it annoys me to not see the basis of this mathematical model. It's easy for someone to draw a graph, or adjust variables to perfectly match another graph. I'd like to see more of how this model was defined. But, as engineers we often tend to be skeptical. New ideas and theories need to be thoroughly vetted.
I appreciate your well thought out answer and will continue to look deeper into some of your other answers on the subject. I do question if methane is a more critical part of the puzzle, why does the Berkeley data not take that into account? Shouldn't the CO2 model not match the temperature data if the methane is such a large factor? They have to be using some sort of scaling factors to assist their graphical matches.
Would also be nice to see the other models that he so readily dismissed. |
|
|
|
08/17/2012 04:47:25 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by JamesDowning:
Being an engineer, it annoys me to not see the basis of this mathematical model. It's easy for someone to draw a graph, or adjust variables to perfectly match another graph. I'd like to see more of how this model was defined. But, as engineers we often tend to be skeptical. New ideas and theories need to be thoroughly vetted.
I appreciate your well thought out answer and will continue to look deeper into some of your other answers on the subject. I do question if methane is a more critical part of the puzzle, why does the Berkeley data not take that into account? Shouldn't the CO2 model not match the temperature data if the methane is such a large factor? They have to be using some sort of scaling factors to assist their graphical matches.
...
|
The basis is simple:
Trees grow faster in warm conditions, especially at certain latitudes. Historical tree rings can tell us much about the conditions that were present at the time.
Ice cores have air bubbles that preserve ancient atmosphere, and can be directly tested.
Put the two together, bam! model.
As for why the methane isn't on that model? It may be, but it may not be, I agree that this could be more transparent... But that's why scientists tend to distrust anything that's not a peer-reviewed journal..
I know engineers don't do much modeling like this, since you guys have pretty easily specified variables, but in the geology game the number of variables is huge, and this is the same reason that any model is flawed - all models rely upon a limited scope of data, as it's impossible to put everything in the model - they simply drew the line at CO2 instead of all greenhouse gasses.
Message edited by author 2012-08-17 16:50:08. |
|
|
|
08/17/2012 04:48:47 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Anyway, this lunatic fringe topic is a digression from the lunatic fringe topic at hand. Start another thread if you want to continue so we can limit the crazy to one at a time. |
Gotta ask, why is topic digression a bad thing? I see no rules that state that discussion must follow the topic subject.
If you're going to start calling out topic digression as something that needs to be quelled, this site needs to develop a method to split topics. |
|
|
|
08/17/2012 04:54:17 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by Cory:
The basis is simple:
Trees grow faster in warm conditions, especially at certain latitudes. Historical tree rings can tell us much about the conditions that were present at the time.
Ice cores have air bubbles that preserve ancient atmosphere, and can be directly tested.
Put the two together, bam! model. |
So you're basing CO2 level data points on tree ring data, which is attributed to temperature, which you're trying to attribute to CO2? Seems like cyclic logic.
Or are you saying that tree ring data contributes to one side of the model, while the trapped air readings contribute to the other side? Your description of the model was less than basic. |
|
|
|
08/17/2012 04:59:14 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by JamesDowning:
Originally posted by Cory:
The basis is simple:
Trees grow faster in warm conditions, especially at certain latitudes. Historical tree rings can tell us much about the conditions that were present at the time.
Ice cores have air bubbles that preserve ancient atmosphere, and can be directly tested.
Put the two together, bam! model. |
So you're basing CO2 level data points on tree ring data, which is attributed to temperature, which you're trying to attribute to CO2? Seems like cyclic logic.
Or are you saying that tree ring data contributes to one side of the model, while the trapped air readings contribute to the other side? Your description of the model was less than basic. |
No, both are measurements. The tree ring data gives up temperatures. The ice cores give us atmospheric gas levels. Those are used to create a "model" or formula which can then give a temperature prediction based upon atmospheric gas levels... What sort of engineer are you again? ;) I'm starting to suspect you may wear a funny hat and operate trains. heh..
ETA: The above is a joke, and is intended to be good humored ribbing - don't take it too personally.
Message edited by author 2012-08-17 17:00:47. |
|
|
|
08/17/2012 05:04:22 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by JamesDowning:
If we could somehow graph historic CO2 content to the above graph, would there be any correlation? Maybe so. Maybe the atmospheric CO2 content follows temperature? Could be. Is there any evidence to the contrary? Maybe animals naturally increase output of CO2 as a function of temperature. I'm just saying, you can throw any sort of theory at it. |
Volcanoes have a dual effect on the atmosphere, CO2 emissions raise the greenhouse effect and increase temperature, and the discharged solids and dust reflect sunlight to lower surface temperature.
As far as CO2 rates in the distant past, the whole point of ice cores is to understand the historic CO2 rates. You can of course choose to deny any theory or fact you wish, but when you find yourself holding an opinion that is at odds with the scientist that study that area, you enter the fringe. In the last five years more Americans are being convinced to doubt global warming (72% of staunch conservatives see no evidence and 34% of all Americans see none) while in the same time period scientists studying climatology the trend is reversed; five years ago 92% agreed with the theory, today 97% agree.
Of course you may feel your understanding is more acute than 97% of PHDs who study the subject in universities around the world, and that is the reason $500 million dollars is being spent by CO2 producing industries yearly, to keep convincing you that you are right to doubt, to take no action, and to keep a consensus from building that we need to find a coherent strategy to reduce greenhouse gasses. |
|
|
|
08/17/2012 05:04:47 PM · #57 |
| And I resent my topic being called a "lunatic fringe topic ". |
|
|
|
08/17/2012 05:08:25 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by JamesDowning:
Gotta ask, why is topic digression a bad thing? |
It's a practical matter, so people doing a search next year for, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" don't wind up with, "People don't cause warming, CO2 causes warming" by mistake even though it's generally the same folks making both arguments. |
|
|
|
08/17/2012 05:09:29 PM · #59 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
And I resent my topic being called a "lunatic fringe topic ". |
Other than the .gov site, which of your cited links do not have "conspiracy theory" in their Google search terms?
Message edited by author 2012-08-17 17:10:38. |
|
|
|
08/17/2012 05:10:27 PM · #60 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
And I resent my topic being called a "lunatic fringe topic ". |
I'm sure loons would prefer being called ducks, but they are what they are. |
|
|
|
08/17/2012 05:16:29 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
...$500 million dollars is being spent by CO2 producing industries yearly, to keep convincing you that you are right to doubt, to take no action, and to keep a consensus from building that we need to find a coherent strategy to reduce greenhouse gasses. |
This is more damning than any scientific study. ;) |
|
|
|
08/17/2012 07:18:30 PM · #62 |
| Holiday Inn Express must have been running some great specials lately. |
|
|
|
08/17/2012 07:20:19 PM · #63 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Holiday Inn Express must have been running some great specials lately. |
LOL... :) |
|
|
|
08/17/2012 09:04:23 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by Cory:
No, both are measurements. The tree ring data gives up temperatures. The ice cores give us atmospheric gas levels. Those are used to create a "model" or formula which can then give a temperature prediction based upon atmospheric gas levels... What sort of engineer are you again? ;) I'm starting to suspect you may wear a funny hat and operate trains. heh..
ETA: The above is a joke, and is intended to be good humored ribbing - don't take it too personally. |
That was what I figured, but your explanation wasn't very clear. You simplified a very complex process into "bam". Those are the details I would like to see.
I do not know as much natural sciences as you, a geologist, but I tend to like to be convinced with empirical data. This is why I often hate politics because everything is so vaguely discussed... but that's another story altogether. However, because politics have become so entwined with climate change topics, its often difficult to get to the real data and facts. The dig, however, has been enjoyable.
Now, back to the Berkeley data, obviously there is some sort of function that has been applied to the CO2 data and the volcanic data to result in the red line in the Berkeley graphs. There are also a lot of theory that has to be applied to the tree ring data to result in temperature data. I'm sure there are a lot of other variables that contribute to tree rings, so how can all of those be taken into account? Again, this is the type of stuff geologists are going to need to divulge in more detail in order to convince me. I haven't found a good source for this explanation yet.
On the other hand, I also don't doubt that human existence has in some form affected the earth. I'm not that radical in my view. I am not however convinced that it is entirely causing the short term global warming that has been represented by the tree ring data.
However, I'll apply some quick thermodynamics to the Berkeley graph. Just like the graph of daily temperature does not exactly match the solar radiation curve from the sun, I would expect some sort of lag between any sort of climactic inputs and resulting earth heat energy levels. I don't see this in the data as represented. Are the effects really as instantaneous as the graphs indicate?
I have seen arguments that while CO2 levels may tend to mimic historic temperature changes, do we know which exactly causes which? From the numbers I have seen, humans contribute an extra 0.5% CO2 to the atmosphere per year. Has a mathematical model been created that takes into account the absorption spectra of the GHGs, the energy obtained from the sun, and attempted to interpolate the same temperature data that the tree rings indicate? I haven't found any mathematical models that take that route yet. Maybe they exist?
Regarding methane, maybe you can go into more detail on why it is worse than CO2. From the spetra graphs I have seen, the methane absorption is not as high in the infrared radiation range of earth as other GHGs. From the spetra alone, it doesn't seem to be a significant factor.
More issues revolve around the scientific calculation of GHG rise and it's relation to global temperature. Now, I have not done the math myself, but I see references to the Stefan-Boltzmann law, and that by performing the calculations of doubling CO2 atmospheric content from pre-industrial era levels, the net resulting increase should only be about 1.3 degrees C. Over the last century and a half, CO2 levels have risen from 280 ppm to around 380 ppm. At the same time global average mean temperature has risen somewhere between 1.0 degrees C. This implies that, once the CO2 level reaches 560 ppm, the doubling point, temperatures should rise by another 0.3 degrees C. So where do the IPCC estimates of 2.0 to 6.0˚C come from?
Anyways, in conclusion, I'm in agreement in the fact that it's much more complex than I can understand alone. My own snooping around has opened my eyes some, and I find myself less of a skeptic. However, my search for data remains. Any good data-based apolitical links you wish to throw my way, I'll take a gander. In the mean time, I suggest this as an interesting read from a skeptic's point of view: //www.theresilientearth.com/?q=content/why-i-am-global-warming-skeptic I haven't gotten fully through it, but getting there. I could read it and attempt to regurgitate some of it here, but instead I'll just leave the link.
Oh, and Mechanical Engineer. Room 311, holiday inn express. :) Head hurting... time for a break.
Message edited by author 2012-08-17 21:05:44. |
|
|
|
08/17/2012 09:23:27 PM · #65 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by David Ey:
And I resent my topic being called a "lunatic fringe topic ". |
I'm sure loons would prefer being called ducks, but they are what they are. |
No, they like being called Loons.
Message edited by author 2012-08-17 21:24:50.
|
|
|
|
08/17/2012 09:35:44 PM · #66 |
Originally posted by JamesDowning:
I tend to like to be convinced with empirical data. |
Et voila. |
|
|
|
08/17/2012 10:03:56 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
Originally posted by scalvert:
I'm sure loons would prefer being called ducks, but they are what they are. |
No, they like being called Loons. |
That must have been an interesting survey... assuming the results were not manipulated for power and money. |
|
|
|
08/18/2012 10:08:50 AM · #68 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
For what it's worth, this was posted a few hours ago:
The Social Security Administration posted a blog on Thursday to explain why it was planning to purchase 174,000 hollow point bullets.
SSA posted a "Request for Quote for Ammunition" on the FedBizOps.gov website on Aug. 7. The request listed the commodity that SSA desired as ".357 Sig 125 grain bonded jacketed hollow point pistol ammunition." The quantity listed was "174 TH."
The SSAâs Office of the Inspector Generalâs said it posted a new blog on the agencyâs website, âBeyond the Numbers,â âas we strive to be a transparent and accountable government organization for all of our stakeholders.
âWith those goals in mind, we thought it would be appropriate to address recent media reports regarding the organizationâs purchase of ammunition for our special agentsâ duty weapons,â the blog post states.
The blog states that the SSA has 295 special agents who work in 66 offices across the United States.
âThese investigators have full law enforcement authority, including executing search warrants and making arrests,â the blog post states. âOur investigators are similar to your State or local police officers.
âThey use traditional investigative techniques, and they are armed when on official duty,â the blog post states.
Concern expressed in some media reports about the type of ammunition ordered by the agency is unfounded, the blog states, explaining that the .357 Sig 125 grain bonded jacked hollow point pistol ammunition is âstandard issue for many law enforcement agenciesâ and is appropriate for the work agents perform.
âOur special agents need to be armed and trained appropriately,â the blog post states. âThey not only investigate allegations of Social Security fraud, but they also are called to respond to threats against Social Security offices, employees, and customers.â
The blog also links to another post about a fight that broke out near an SSA office in Massachusetts that required action by law enforcement officials.
âSSA is processing more applications than ever, which means more traffic in SSA office,â the blog states. âEmployee and visitor safety is the highest priority for OIG, which, together with the Federal Protective Services and local law enforcement, has jurisdiction over SSA workplaces.â
Prior to the blog being posted, CNSNews.com had asked the agency specific questions about its ammunition order. Although some of those questions were addressed by the information provided in the blog, the agency did not say why it needed 174,000 bullets and if that quantity was customary or had increased from previous orders.
How reliable CNSNews is, I do not know. |
Excellant Post Bear!!!!! Truly appreciate it.
The .357 Sig uses a .40 caliber case necked down to accept a .357 caliber bullet. This configuration in semi-automatic form closely approximates the ballistics of the renowned .357 magnum used by police agencies primarily throughout the 50's, 60's, 70's and 80's. The effectiveness of it are legendary. The .357 Sig is in my view the premium semi-automatic round for the intended purposes of law enforcement and self defense in a handgun. |
|
|
|
08/18/2012 10:14:29 AM · #69 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by EL-ROI:
This calc's to 278+ rounds per officer! |
Yawn. If the officers are required to take even quarterly target practice and use 50 rounds per session, there's 200 right there. "Hollow-point bullets are one of the most common types of civilian and police ammunition, due largely to the reduced risk of bystanders being hit by over-penetrating or ricocheted bullets, and the increased speed of incapacitation." It would not surprise me in the least if the agency was required to buy that type and quantity for standardization and mandated training. |
Spot on. Wish this was posted in another thread. |
|
|
|
08/18/2012 10:15:56 AM · #70 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by David Ey:
Originally posted by scalvert:
I'm sure loons would prefer being called ducks, but they are what they are. |
No, they like being called Loons. |
That must have been an interesting survey... assuming the results were not manipulated for power and money. |
Do you know what a Loon is? fyi it is a very beautiful duck. google it
Message edited by author 2012-08-18 20:32:16.
|
|
|
|
08/18/2012 01:56:26 PM · #71 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
Do you know what a Loon is? fyi it is a very beautiful duck. google it |
Sure, I've seen quite a few, kayaked around them and taken pictures of them as recently as this month. They are not ducks. Do you know what the lunatic fringe is? It's the members of a group who espouse the most extreme and irrational views. The wing nuts. The ones who think humans lived alongside dinosaurs, the moon landing was a hoax or that red M&Ms cause cancer. These are are unsupported claims that defy all evidence and make little sense. The people loudly proclaiming that global warming isn't caused by man or that the government is arming NOAA or fisheries personnel to suppress mass civic protests fall squarely into this category. That's why there are zero major scientific institutions or credible, peer-reviewed scientific abstracts anywhere in the world this millennium that deny man's role in global warming; and the alarmist explanations for a government ammunition purchase are only found on conspiracy theory sites. |
|
|
|
08/18/2012 02:47:49 PM · #72 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
Do you know what a Loon is? fyi it is a very beautiful duck. google it |
It's also another name for a boy, mostly used in Scotland
Loon
:-)
|
|
|
|
08/18/2012 06:32:18 PM · #73 |
You're right, tho they LOOK like a duck, they aren't. I fail to see what any of this has to do with the government purchase of ammo. Ever notice how some will get off topic to muddy things up when isn't going their way? Funny isn't it, especially when a SC does it. Cheers to ya clown.
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by David Ey:
Do you know what a Loon is? fyi it is a very beautiful duck. google it |
Sure, I've seen quite a few, kayaked around them and taken pictures of them as recently as this month. They are not ducks. Do you know what the lunatic fringe is? It's the members of a group who espouse the most extreme and irrational views. The wing nuts. The ones who think humans lived alongside dinosaurs, the moon landing was a hoax or that red M&Ms cause cancer. These are are unsupported claims that defy all evidence and make little sense. The people loudly proclaiming that global warming isn't caused by man or that the government is arming NOAA or fisheries personnel to suppress mass civic protests fall squarely into this category. That's why there are zero major scientific institutions or credible, peer-reviewed scientific abstracts anywhere in the world this millennium that deny man's role in global warming; and the alarmist explanations for a government ammunition purchase are only found on conspiracy theory sites. |
|
|
|
|
08/18/2012 08:03:37 PM · #74 |
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
I think volunteers should be able to carry....
All national parks now allow open carry.... |
Nope, can't agree with that one.
I well remember "Ride Along" programs and shudder to think at to what could have happened if some untrained and gung ho wanna be were issued a gun.
I also found from experience, that people with a gun (regardless of who they are) tend to be a lot more daring and that, unfortunately, can lead to some very grave situations.
Ray |
|
|
|
08/18/2012 08:31:31 PM · #75 |
You have a lot of good points Ray. I've seen some real boobs in concealed carry classes every time I take the course. They should be failed until they are proficient.
|
|
