Page 82 of 111 FirstFirst ... 3272777879808182838485868792 ... LastLast
Results 1,621 to 1,640 of 2209
  1. #1621  
    Quote Originally Posted by logmein View Post
    The McCain video highlights the position of most Americans on the matter. Clearly the climate is changing and we have to minimize, if not eliminate, our contributions to the problem. However, this is not the sole responsibility of the US, of course. China, India and many other countries which ALSO exhaust astronomical levels of pollution must be held to the same accountability in order to make this a concerted, genuine effort.
    Completely agree!

    Now to go a step further, as we are still the biggest carbon emitters on the planet, by far, what would have a more negative impact on China and India's efforts on global warming:

    1) for us to refuse to do anything ourselves until they participate?
    2) for us to take our own actions on global warming regardless.

    To me, approach 1 simply says to China and India, we are not serious about this problem, so why should you be? while approach 2 shows America is leading world efforts at this problem by our own example.

    Regardless of what you or I think, approach 1 will be replaced by approach 2 come 2009, no matter who wins the election and I believe this is the right course of action.
  2. #1622  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix View Post
    Completely agree!

    Now to go a step further, as we are still the biggest carbon emitters on the planet, by far, what would have a more negative impact on China and India's efforts on global warming:

    1) for us to refuse to do anything ourselves until they participate?
    2) for us to take our own actions on global warming regardless.

    To me, approach 1 simply says to China and India, we are not serious about this problem, so why should you be? while approach 2 shows America is leading world efforts at this problem by our own example.

    Regardless of what you or I think, approach 1 will be replaced by approach 2 come 2009, no matter who wins the election and I believe this is the right course of action.
    At the pace these two countries are on, they will surpass us BY FAR very soon.

    1) Please.
    2) Obviously, since we are taking the initiative with this problem, we will be setting standards in emission reductions. However, China and India would be just as likely to feel we are not serious about the issue if the same pressure is not applied to them at the same time. There is no guarantee that they will follow suit simply because we do.

    Should that scenario occur, you might say, well, at least WE cut down on our role in the problem. But that is not enough.
  3. #1623  
    Quote Originally Posted by logmein View Post
    The McCain video highlights the position of most Americans on the matter.
    I don't think so.
  4. #1624  
    Quote Originally Posted by logmein View Post
    At the pace these two countries are on, they will surpass us BY FAR very soon.

    1) Please.
    2) Obviously, since we are taking the initiative with this problem, we will be setting standards in emission reductions. However, China and India would be just as likely to feel we are not serious about the issue if the same pressure is not applied to them at the same time. There is no guarantee that they will follow suit simply because we do.

    Should that scenario occur, you might say, well, at least WE cut down on our role in the problem. But that is not enough.
    I completely agree. And I would argue that this is best served by a concerted enforcement of mandatory emissions reductions, not by voluntary emissions standards that the Bush administration is pushing.
  5. #1625  
    Yet another peer reviewed top tier science article, published recently in the journal Science, showing the effects of man-made global warming.

    Summary
    Recently, more winter rain and less snow has fallen in the western United States than previously, and more snow has melted earlier in the year. These changes have increased river flows in the spring and decreased them in the summer. Barnett et al. (p. 1080, published online 31 January) conducted a multivariate climate change detection and attribution study of the western United States from 1950 to 1999 and found that up to 60% of the trends of river flow, winter air temperature, and snow pack reflect anthropogenic climate change despite high variability throughout the records. These results suggest that a crisis in water supply for the western United States, which relies heavily on a late spring snow melt for agriculture, may be looming.

    Link to full article
    Abstract of article
    Observations have shown that the hydrological cycle of the western United States changed significantly over the last half of the 20th century. We present a regional, multivariable climate change detection and attribution study, using a high-resolution hydrologic model forced by global climate models, focusing on the changes that have already affected this primarily arid region with a large and growing population. The results show that up to 60% of the climate-related trends of river flow, winter air temperature, and snow pack between 1950 and 1999 are human-induced. These results are robust to perturbation of study variates and methods. They portend, in conjunction with previous work, a coming crisis in water supply for the western United States.
  6. #1626  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix View Post
    Yet another peer reviewed top tier science article, published recently in the journal Science, showing the effects of man-made global warming.
    That's really weird as the following information came my way this morning:

    "No more than anecdotal evidence, to be sure. But now, that evidence has been supplanted by hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously."

    http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature...ticle10866.htm
    No problem should ever be solved twice.

    Verizon Treo650 W/Custom ROM
  7. #1627  
    Quote Originally Posted by DL.Cummings View Post
    That's really weird as the following information came my way this morning:

    "No more than anecdotal evidence, to be sure. But now, that evidence has been supplanted by hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously."

    http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature...ticle10866.htm
    You go ahead and trust what Michael's blog tells you (whoever Michael is), and I will instead listen to what all the top science journals and all the major scientific organizations tell me, such as Nature, Science, Scientific American, National Geographic, The American Association for the Advancement of Science, The Joint Academy of Sciences, The United States National Academy of Sciences, etc. etc. etc.
  8. #1628  
    Is that how scientific rigor works these days--determining truth merely on the basis of reputation and not actual data?

    Got it.
    No problem should ever be solved twice.

    Verizon Treo650 W/Custom ROM
  9. #1629  
    Quote Originally Posted by DL.Cummings View Post
    Is that how scientific rigor works these days--determining truth merely on the basis of reputation and not actual data?

    Got it.
    nope, scientific rigor works through peer review. Meaning that all data is critically reviewed by the top experts in the field, and all conflicts of interest are revealed, prior to publication. And if there are any problems at all with the data, it is not published (FYI only about 10% of articles in the top journals survive review rigorous peer review, 90% of the articles are sent back). So, no offense to Michael, I am sure he is a swell guy and all , but thats the difference between the original research articles I have been posting, and Michael's blog.
  10. #1630  
    No, no I get it; really I do.

    What matters is the standing of the blog writer in the scientific community--not the actual information brought to the table.
    No problem should ever be solved twice.

    Verizon Treo650 W/Custom ROM
  11. #1631  
    Quote Originally Posted by DL.Cummings View Post
    No, no I get it; really I do.

    What matters is the standing of the blog writer in the scientific community--not the actual information brought to the table.
    Nope, what matters is that the data are verified in a rigorous way, and that any conflicts of interests are disclosed. This does not occur on a blog. The scientific rigor (as you put it) between a blog and a peer reviewed scientific article in a high impact journal is quite different.
  12. #1632  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix View Post
    Nope, what matters is that the data are verified in a rigorous way, and that any conflicts of interests are disclosed. This does not occur on a blog. The scientific rigor (as you put it) between a blog and a peer reviewed scientific article in a high impact journal is quite different.
    I told you, I get it. I present information from a blog (which was actually collected from established organizations) and because it didn't have peer review status people such as yourself feel quite comfortable in dismissing the information--be it actualy true or not--based merely on the standing the author's work has in the scientific community.

    Seriously, you don't get it do you?

    So far, you have ONLY addressed the issue of where the author's work stands within the scientific community. By that alone, you have managed to dismiss the information--which makes for quite a convenient attitude shared among many members within the scientific community.

    Before you go rambling on an on about how great the peer review system is, let me quote something for you:

    "The reporting of scientific results is based on trust."

    - Donald Kennedy, editor-in-chief of Sciencehttp://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/311/5758/145

    It isn't fool-proof, the organizations you cite aren't always right and careful scrutiny of the facts is ALWAYS the best method--regardless of who says what.
    Last edited by DL.Cummings; 02/27/2008 at 05:51 PM.
    No problem should ever be solved twice.

    Verizon Treo650 W/Custom ROM
  13. #1633  
    Quote Originally Posted by DL.Cummings View Post
    people such as yourself
    Quote Originally Posted by DL.Cummings View Post
    Seriously, you don't get it do you?
    Quote Originally Posted by DL.Cummings View Post
    quite a convenient attitude shared among many members within the scientific community.
    Quote Originally Posted by DL.Cummings View Post
    Before you go rambling on an on
    I still don't believe the blog disproves global warming, so I guess I should expect further insults?
    Last edited by cellmatrix; 02/27/2008 at 09:31 PM.
  14. #1634  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix View Post
    If I say I still don't believe the blog, then should I expect further compliments?

    That depends, do you ever plan on actually addressing the information that was actually in the blog?

    If it has not been apparent by now, my issue with people in the scientific community (up to and including the researchers themselves) is the haughty attitude that information needn't consideration based merely on its source.

    While I don't totally disagree with dismissal based on its source, in this particular case you indeed had the opportunity to clarify why what I was reading and presenting was factually incorrect.

    You have, as of yet to do so. All you've done was dismiss information based on the lacking reputation the author has within the scientific community.

    Look back through your posts, not one mention on your part of any of the information in the blog--all you did was take potshots at the blogger's reputation. And really, you didn't even accomplish that much (as you would have needed to show a disparity in getting the facts right over a certain amount of time or quantitative articles) .
    No problem should ever be solved twice.

    Verizon Treo650 W/Custom ROM
  15. #1635  
    Quote Originally Posted by DL.Cummings View Post
    my issue with people in the scientific community (up to and including the researchers themselves) is the haughty attitude
    Quote Originally Posted by DL.Cummings View Post
    all you did was take potshots
    Quote Originally Posted by DL.Cummings View Post
    And really, you didn't even accomplish that much
    Sorry but I am not writing a treatise analyzing your friend's blog, so if you feel that entitles you to brow beat me for it, so be it.
  16. #1636  
    I'd recommend analyzing data from ALL sources. There has been some "peer reviewed/approved" crap that's been totally discounted at least once or twice.
  17. #1637  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix View Post
    Sorry but I am not writing a treatise analyzing your friend's blog, so if you feel that entitles you to brow beat me for it, so be it.
    He's baaacck.

    Too bad. Just when I thought the forum was becoming more civilized.
  18. #1638  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix View Post
    Sorry but I am not writing a treatise analyzing your friend's blog, so if you feel that entitles you to brow beat me for it, so be it.
    1: Not my friend's blog, nor do I even know the writer.
    2: Didn't ask for a treatise or even a full analyzation.
    3: You are earning every bit of your "brow beating" by your actions (or lack of)


    Obviously this conversation isn't going anywhere and I've gave it enough.
    No problem should ever be solved twice.

    Verizon Treo650 W/Custom ROM
  19. #1639  
    If you want to try to make this a conversation about blogs and call me arrogant for insisting on peer reviewed articles, then perhaps I am being out of line here. At any rate I do not want to squelch discussion here. I will back off and let others say what they want to. If I offended anyone, I apologize.
  20. #1640  
    Quote Originally Posted by DL.Cummings View Post
    That's really weird as the following information came my way this morning:

    "No more than anecdotal evidence, to be sure. But now, that evidence has been supplanted by hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously."

    http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature...ticle10866.htm
    The article on dailytech is misleading. If you go back to the sources they quote, you will see that, for instance, the NASA GISS data show that last years mean temperature was 0.55 degrees warmer than the 1880 - 2007 mean. The temperature anomaly for 2007 was smaller than previous years this decade, but still it was a positive anomaly, that is, the mean temperature was higher than the 1880-2007 mean.

    Look at

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

    Quoted from the NASA GISS site:

    The year 2007 tied for second warmest in the period of instrumental data, behind the record warmth of 2005, in the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) analysis. 2007 tied 1998, which had leapt a remarkable 0.2°C above the prior record with the help of the "El Niņo of the century". The unusual warmth in 2007 is noteworthy because it occurs at a time when solar irradiance is at a minimum and the equatorial Pacific Ocean is in the cool phase of its natural El Niņo-La Niņa cycle.

    Figure 1 shows 2007 temperature anomalies relative to the 1951-1980 base period mean. The global mean temperature anomaly, 0.57°C (about 1°F) warmer than the 1951-1980 mean, continues the strong warming trend of the past thirty years that has been confidently attributed to the effect of increasing human-made greenhouse gases (GHGs) (Hansen et al. 2007). The eight warmest years in the GISS record have all occurred since 1998, and the 14 warmest years in the record have all occurred since 1990.
    for the HadCRUT data the blog is so fond of, please look at

    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/te...ure/nhshgl.gif

    from the HadCRUT site.

    This second graph is interesting as it clearly shows the cooling due to particulates from 1940 through 1970, when the Clean Air Act was passed and the aerosol effects were lessen compared to the effects of CO2 and other GHGs

    Some information on why the HadCRUT data differs from IPCC and others can be found here.

    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/#faq

    A nice page of full plots for RSS-MSU is found here:

    http://www.remss.com/msu/msu_data_description.html

    It is interesting in that it shows stratospheric cooling, which thermodynamically makes sense, as is expected. We should be most interested in the TLT channel, which shows data representative of the lower troposhere.
    Last edited by jaytee; 02/28/2008 at 04:28 PM. Reason: update and add info

Posting Permissions