Climate Science

Discussion in 'Science and Technology' started by RetiredGySgt, May 11, 2007.

  1. RetiredGySgt
    Offline

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,565
    Thanks Received:
    5,902
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +8,982
    Lets be honest, the science is limited. While it can and does predicted OBSERVED climate and projects it fairly accurately out several weeks the science is totally incapable of make realistic estimates out over any length of time.

    The claims as to what will happen in years are wild guesses, the science has NO ability to make reasoned informed scientifically backed estimates.

    There are so many unknowns that any estimate made without direct observation is no more than a guess.

    The claims that computer models can predict future weather and temperature is patently false. The models are real good at predicting based on information provided, the problem is no one knows the right information.

    Clouds, for example, play a crucial role in a lot of weather and even temperature levels and events. Yet no one can predict how or when clouds will form. The science knows what clouds are made of, but totally lacks any ability to determine why, when and what type of clouds will form. Except on observed data.

    No one knows IF man is contributing to global warming, and if he is how much. Yet they plug in wild guess into the computers and come up with wishful thinking estimates based not on science but the whims and prejuidices of the team that programed the computer. Furthermore no one knows exactly what is supposed to be contributing to Global warming. One theory being CO2, but that is in doubt based on a check of historical levels of CO2 in the past and the temperatures known to exist then.

    And then we have this....

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070510/ap_on_sc/hot_future
     
  2. Diuretic
    Offline

    Diuretic Permanently confused

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2006
    Messages:
    12,653
    Thanks Received:
    1,397
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    South Australia est 1836
    Ratings:
    +1,397
  3. RetiredGySgt
    Offline

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,565
    Thanks Received:
    5,902
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +8,982
    The point is still valid, symantics aside. No one has the science to accurately predict 2 months in the future much less 80 years. Computer models are only as good as the data inputted and only do what they are told. If you can't tell it the right information you wont get any realisticly sound prediction out of it.

    This was part and parcel of the problem in the 70's when our scientists were telling us we were all going to freeze.

    The argument that we can predict the "climate" in 10 years or 80 years is based on smoke and mirrors. Rather then waste money on these worthless predictions and pointless use of computer time we should be working on improving our abysmal lack of knowledge on what makes the "climate".

    Nature has already shown us that just because temperatures are apparently increasing ( at a miniscule rate I might add) now doesn't mean 10 years from now that will still be true.

    Nature has no "Normal" state. It is constantly in flux.
     
  4. Superlative
    Offline

    Superlative Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2007
    Messages:
    1,382
    Thanks Received:
    109
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +109
    Climate Science is basically fortune telling, instead of a crystal balls they use computers. Predicting climates so far in the future is futile to say the least.
     
  5. Diuretic
    Offline

    Diuretic Permanently confused

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2006
    Messages:
    12,653
    Thanks Received:
    1,397
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    South Australia est 1836
    Ratings:
    +1,397
    However despite the misgivings expressed by you both, scientists will continue to work on predicting climate change and governments will continue to discuss policy in the light of those findings.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  6. bobn
    Offline

    bobn Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2006
    Messages:
    94
    Thanks Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Ratings:
    +13
    Climate models are our best understanding of how climate works. They don't have to be run on computers - the physical processes and laws they are made up from are written in textbooks, it's not just numbers fed into a computer. Early climate models before computers existed were done with pen and paper. Computers are used as a tool simply to speed up the computation - models contain so many physical processes now that it would take far too long for even a team of people to do with pen and paper. As computer power has increased more realistic processes have been added to the models.

    There are lots of knowns, so it's not true that science has "no" ability to make reasoned informed scientifically backed estimates.
     
  7. red states rule
    Offline

    red states rule Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    16,011
    Thanks Received:
    571
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +572
    Leonardo DiCaprio Film Claims Global Warming Could Cause Human Extinction
    Posted by Noel Sheppard on May 20, 2007 - 00:32.
    Honestly, the arrogance of some Hollywood liberals knows no bounds. As they live in their million dollar mansions, and jet-set around the world in a manner that 99.99 percent of the population can’t fathom, these folks have the gall to tell others how they should alter their lives for the benefit of the planet.

    The most recent example is Leonardo DiCaprio, the 32-year-old actor that has absolutely no formal training in geology, climatology, meteorology, or anything in any way related to complex earth sciences.

    In fact, in the picture to the right, DiCaprio could easily be answering a question about just how much education he has in these or related subjects, as according to Wikipedia, Leo never attended college.

    Yet, he has the unmitigated audacity to claim in his new film that if we don’t listen to him and other scientifically uneducated folks like soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore, we’re all going to die.

    As reported by The London Paper (emphasis added throughout):

    Hollywood star Leonardo DiCaprio sent out a message about global warming at the Cannes Film Festival.

    The heartthrob has made a film, the 11th Hour, warning that human beings face extinction as a result of the environmental crisis.

    Imagine that. These alarmists haven’t been able to get enough attention by threatening famine, stronger hurricanes, droughts, floods, malaria, and all manner of unrest with their unwarranted hysteria. So, I guess the next step is to suggest that we’re all going to die if we don’t listen to them.

    Isn’t that special?

    Yet, the most delicious hypocrisy was still to come:

    DiCaprio defended Gore from criticism over the amount of energy he has been reportedly using to jet around the world and to run his home.

    "Don't shoot the messenger", he said. "This person is trying to relay a message to the public and the way that he travels should not be splayed out like that."

    Yes, Leo, but his message to the public is that we all should radically alter our lifestyles to save the planet. Why should we do that if the messenger appears not to be?

    Of course, given his apparent lack of advanced education, this hypocrisy is clearly eluding our boy Leo. But, it doesn’t end there:

    The US star said he took steps in his own life to reduce global warming, telling the famous film festival: "I do try to live my life in a green manner. I have installed solar panels in my house and the car that I drive is a hybrid one.”

    Sure, Leo. Here’s an overhead picture of your house in Bel Air, California. Can you tell the class how much energy you use to heat, light, and air condition it each year?

    Please, be precise, Leo, and tell us how many kilowatts of electricity you use each month, along with natural gas and/or heating oil, and don't forget to include the water to irrigate your intricate landscaping.

    Also, tell us how you’ve specifically altered your lifestyle since you took on this cause? What’s YOUR carbon footprint, and are you willing to take Senator Inhofe’s Personal Energy Ethics Pledge to reduce your energy use to that of the average American's in twelve months?

    If not, honestly Leo, regardless of your charm, your money, and your good intentions, you’re just another rich, “Do as I Say, Not as I Do” Hollywoodan who should be seen and not heard.

    http://newsbusters.org/node/12878
     
  8. onedomino
    Offline

    onedomino SCE to AUX

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,677
    Thanks Received:
    474
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Ratings:
    +476
    As ecosystems move up mountainsides, and climate scientists accumulate more data, the evidence for global climate warming continues to pile up. Important questions are whether the warming is caused or accelerated by human activity, and whether humans can do anything about it. Regarding the last question, a goofy idea has popped up recently. It involves cutting down the pine forests in Russia and Canada. The theory is that the resulting huge white areas of ice and snow would then reflect more solar radiation back into space, thereby cooling the planet. Here’s an article on the idea. Oh, check out the automated link at the bottom of the page. It says, “Save 50% on Global Warming...” http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=547482007

    BTW, long-term weather data seems to support the idea that global warming exists. Some insist this warming trend correlates well with increased CO2 emissions:

     
  9. SpidermanTuba
    Offline

    SpidermanTuba BANNED

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Messages:
    6,101
    Thanks Received:
    258
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    New Orleans, Louisiana
    Ratings:
    +258

    I'm going to hazard a guess that you know absolutely nothing about computational fluid dynamics.

    Or very much about science at all.
     
  10. Vintij
    Offline

    Vintij Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2007
    Messages:
    1,040
    Thanks Received:
    105
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Anaheim, CA
    Ratings:
    +105
    I dont think it is right to say that advocates of anthropogenic climate change have zero evidence. That is just a flat out lie. Try thousands of years of evidence, to make accurate predictions that can not be proven, but are the best predictions based on data that anyone can make.
     

Share This Page