Where is good ole Al Gore

[MRH]

Not sure if i wanted to chime in with this one but what the heck lol. Gore is a peahead, however i do not believe you cant keep burning and putting massive amounts of carbon into the atmosphere without it having some effect. We have done a lot to reduce the emissions, especially here in CA, but i think the burning of fossil fuels is no where near an end and will continue to increase the amount of carbon in the atmosphere. One day when they figure out how to put a meter on sunlight then Solar will be everywhere and be 10x as effective as it is now. The sun puts out more energy in 1 minute than all humanity has used since the beginning of time. Sure we only get 1% or whatever directed at the earth but that 1% i am sure can power most the world but unless they can charge you monthly instead of a one time fee we wont have it.

In this case, there is no "them". To my understanding, solar companies compete with other forms of power.

I'm not saying that those in power may not try to slow down the process, but technology always finds a way (like the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park).

 

[Dan_Ashley]

Ignorance running rampant in this thread! Of course, Climate Change deniers know more than the scientists that study such things...

Two PhD degrees here. Taught statistics at the university. If you use Gausian statistics to predict outcomes of a non-gausian system, you get erroneous results. This is why Gaussian statistics do so poorly when predicting the stock market. Climate change is a non-Gausian system. It is either mandlebrot or fractal. Climate scientists have been using Gaussian statistics in their models. Moreover, they cannot model the effect of clouds. Also, climate "warming" has received $35 BILLION in Federal grants. Other climate studies have received 0.1% of that ($35 million). If you were a researcher, where would you put your conclusions? (Hint: Follow the money)

 

[Princeau99]

Almost afraid to ask,

Two PhD degrees here. Taught statistics at the university. If you use Gausian statistics to predict outcomes of a non-gausian system, you get erroneous results. This is why Gaussian statistics do so poorly when predicting the stock market. Climate change is a non-Gausian system. It is either mandlebrot or fractal. Climate scientists have been using Gaussian statistics in their models. Moreover, they cannot model the effect of clouds. Also, climate "warming" has received $35 BILLION in Federal grants. Other climate studies have received 0.1% of that ($35 million). If you were a researcher, where would you put your conclusions? (Hint: Follow the money)

I agree Al Gore is a peahead, but a very rich peahead. he has certainly "followed the Money"
Seems the last time I went to Yosemite, standing at the canyon floor, was 1000 feet under ice years ago.
For someone who had been out of school for many years, can you give a simple explanation for the difference between "mandlebrot or fractal"? I always thought they were similar.

 

[wyliec]

Now my head is hurting.

 

[Bob Denman]

:agree: :shocked::hun:

 

[Nor-Cal Spyder]

but here are a few.

• David Bellamy, botanist.
• Judith Curry, Professor and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.
• Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society
• Steven E. Koonin, theoretical physicist and director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University
• Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan emeritus professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences
• Craig Loehle, ecologist and chief scientist at the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement.
• Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics Department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003)
• Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow Australian National University
• Denis Rancourt, former professor of physics at University of Ottawa, research scientist in condensed matter physics, and in environmental and soil science
• Peter Stilbs, professor of physical chemistry at Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm
• Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London
• Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute
• Anastasios Tsonis, distinguished professor at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
• Fritz Vahrenholt, German politician and energy executive with a doctorate in chemistry
• Zbigniew Jaworowski, physician and ice core researcher.

These believe GW is a natural occurrence with humans having no effect

• Khabibullo Abdusamatov, astrophysicist at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences
• Sallie Baliunas, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
• Timothy Ball, professor emeritus of geography at the University of Winnipeg
• Robert M. Carter, former head of the school of earth sciences at James Cook University
• Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
• Chris de Freitas, associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland
• David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester
• Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University
• William M. Gray, professor emeritus and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University
• William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy, Princeton University
• Ole Humlum, professor of geology at the University of Oslo
• Wibjörn Karlén, professor emeritus of geography and geology at the University of Stockholm.
• William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology
• David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware
• Anthony Lupo, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Missouri
• Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
• Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.
• Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of mining geology, the University of Adelaide.
• Arthur B. Robinson, American politician, biochemist and former faculty member at the University of California, San Diego
• Murry Salby, atmospheric scientist, former professor at Macquarie University
• Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University
• Tom Segalstad, geologist; associate professor at University of Oslo
• Nir Shaviv, professor of physics focusing on astrophysics and climate science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem
• Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia
• Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
• Roy Spencer, meteorologist; principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville
• Henrik Svensmark, physicist, Danish National Space Center
• George H. Taylor, retired director of the Oregon Climate Service at Oregon State University
• Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa

MidTNDAWG

Now your statement has some validity. See, that wasn't so hard.

 

[ARtraveler]

Now my head is hurting.

But...In a nice way for me. :yes::yes::yes:

 

[Dan_Ashley]

I agree Al Gore is a peahead, but a very rich peahead. he has certainly "followed the Money"
Seems the last time I went to Yosemite, standing at the canyon floor, was 1000 feet under ice years ago.
For someone who had been out of school for many years, can you give a simple explanation for the difference between "mandlebrot or fractal"? I always thought they were similar.

by "mandlebrot" I intended to include Levy Distributions, scaling laws, non-Gausian (paretian ) as well as fractals. Mandlebrot developed only two of those, the Levy and fractal.

What is interesting is that much social science is non-Gausian, whereas most pure physical science is Gaussian. Climatology is not a pure physical science. It incorporates chemistry, physics, atmospheric studies, geology, astronomy, and possibly others. As a result of this complexity the temperature observations taken on land, at sea and in the atmosphere are not independent events.

Since the observations are inter-related--even in a minor degree--Gaussian statistics is not appropriate for the analysis of the climate data.

there is a very good study published in 2002 which describes in fairly readable English--if you have had college algebra and introductory statistics--what I am talking about. Let me know if you want the reference and I'll look it up. I just can't remember the journal, date and author off the top of my head. Sorry--retirement brain, you know.

 

[Firefly]

Seems many are confusing weather and climate.... Two entirely different things. We all trust science every time we go for a ride, yet many still think there's some kind of 'fix' by 90+% of the worlds scientists. Ugh.
Okay... Fine.. Don't want to accept the factual data backing up climate change..... How about getting behind solar and wind energy just because it's good for our planet? Why not reduce emissions just because it's nice to breathe clean air? If that doesn't do it.... How about for saving tons of money?
Who are you really going to believe on all of this..... Scientists.... Or big oil?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Bob Denman]

Dan,
Glad to see you again!! :clap:

*BING*

 

[grumpybob]

Climate Change! When it increases my Spyder Ryding Time I will be happy.

 

[Dan_Ashley]

Dan,
Glad to see you again!! :clap:

*BING*

Thanks. I had taken kind of a hiatus because I was ryding and working out, and writing. I don't know how I ever had time for a job. Thank God for retirement!

 

[Dan McNally]

there are equally qualified scientists who agree with weather info in this thread I am sure.

Your sure, really. Let's hear you name a few...

Since you asked - this is part of a list from Wikipedia:

[h=2]Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections[/h]These scientists have said that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the next century. They may not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.

• David Bellamy, botanist.
• Judith Curry, Professor and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.
• Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society
• Steven E. Koonin, theoretical physicist and director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University
• Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan emeritus professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences
• Craig Loehle, ecologist and chief scientist at the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement.
• Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics Department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003)
• Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow Australian National University
• Denis Rancourt, former professor of physics at University of Ottawa, research scientist in condensed matter physics, and in environmental and soil science
• Peter Stilbs, professor of physical chemistry at Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm
• Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London
• Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute
• Anastasios Tsonis, distinguished professor at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
• Fritz Vahrenholt, German politician and energy executive with a doctorate in chemistry
• Zbigniew Jaworowski, physician and ice core researcher.[SUP][[/SUP]

 

[IdahoMtnSpyder]

Here's my theory. The climate is changing. Man is a major factor in causing that change. In 50,000 years we will have damaged the earth to the point it won't support humankind any more and all humanity dies off. Everything lies quiescent for 1 billion years while Mother Nature restores earth to its once pristine condition. Then slowly, inexorably, humans begin to evolve again. And the cycle begins again. After about another 1 million years humanity will again die off due to its destruction of the earth. But has man really destroyed the earth? No, he has simply rearranged it to the point Mother once again gets PO'd, says enough is enough, and pushes the reset button. And the cycle repeats.

I don't know why we get so all fired uptight about the environment. After all we aren't getting out of here alive and in the end Mother Nature will win anyway. The best we can hope for is to delay the ultimate demise of humanity by what, 5000 years!

LET THE UPROAR BEGIN!!!!

 

[Dan_Ashley]

Here's my take:
We don't understand the science of
1. The Sun
2. The earth
3. The atmosphere
4. The land

We do not have adequate measurements.
We do not know how to do statistics with the existing measurements.
We do not know if man's contribution to greenhouse gas is significant. We really do not know what significant means in this context.

We do know that conservation is a good thing, generally speaking.
We do know that major shifts in the legal structure of energy use could cause world wide famine
We do know that neither side of the debate is "trustworthy"

therefore, the science is not settled--it is still being developed.

As a result of all the above one thing we should NOT do is make quick and significant changes in our energy laws--doing so will mess up commerce all over the planet and will cause millions to die. We need to take slow, deliberate steps, and closely monitor the outcomes of each step as we take them. Then be willing to de-implement some steps as we find ones that don't work. Meanwhile we need to aggressively fund research into both sides of the debate.

 

[Firefly]

Um. Dan.... We actually know about all the things you're mentioning...and the evidence is overwhelming that climate change is happening and man is responsible for much of it.
WasWinger... Do you have kids?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Dan_Ashley]

Um. Dan.... We actually know about all the things you're mentioning...and the evidence is overwhelming that climate change is happening and man is responsible for much of it.
WasWinger... Do you have kids?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We? Who is "we"?

 

[IdahoMtnSpyder]

WasWinger... Do you have kids?

Yeah, why? Two grandkids and a great one almost here.

 

[dndfindley]

The world has been much colder than it is now, and it has been warmer than it is now. All long before 'Industrialization' took place.

If you do a study that supports Man Made Climate Change, then it gets published, you get pats on the back and opportunities for grant money.

If you do a study and find that Climate Change is not Man Caused, it will not get published, you will be ostracized from the 'Scientific' community, and you can forget any grant money.

Science based on RESULTS and not Method is propaganda, not science.

Therefore, Man Made Climate Change is a Mantra, not a scientific endeavor to find the truth.

Right on!

 

[BajaRon]

Um. Dan.... We actually know about all the things you're mentioning...and the evidence is overwhelming that climate change is happening and man is responsible for much of it.
WasWinger... Do you have kids?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

At one time there was "Overwhelming" evidence that the world was flat, that the 'Recapitulation' theory was true and that Finches on the Galapagos islands were evidence of evolution.

It seems more likely that what is 'Overwhelming' about this whole debate is the manipulation of the data to fit the intended outcome.