Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Im sure they will just trash the information because of their deep seeded hate for science
I'm a Chemical Engineer with a masters degree, so I think when it comes to science I have knowledge above your average person.
its not a hate of science, is a distrust of people who try to use science for poltical change.
Im sure they will just trash the information because of their deep seeded hate for science
I'm a Chemical Engineer with a masters degree, so I think when it comes to science I have knowledge above your average person.
its not a hate of science, is a distrust of people who try to use science for poltical change.
Given the absorption specta of GHGs has no political affiliations, I fail to see it as a political subject except as those that would lose money from decreasing our GHG production influence the politics in order to ignore the reality of what is happening.
You might note that I make very few statements without backing them up from scientific literature. I am not a scientist, I am a millwright. So my opinion, with no backing from people who are scientists, has no weight, nor should it have.
OK, Marty, I see where you are coming from. However, at some point, a point far too late given the lead time on the effects of GHGs, we are going to wake up to the fact that our effect is creating conditions that are destroying the life that we are trying to build for ourselves.
In and of itself, this extreme event proves nothing. However, given the drumbeat of weather related disasters in the last few years, I think we are seeing a pattern. A pattern that was predicted in many of the papers by the scientists that study climate and weather.
OK, Marty, I see where you are coming from. However, at some point, a point far too late given the lead time on the effects of GHGs, we are going to wake up to the fact that our effect is creating conditions that are destroying the life that we are trying to build for ourselves.
In and of itself, this extreme event proves nothing. However, given the drumbeat of weather related disasters in the last few years, I think we are seeing a pattern. A pattern that was predicted in many of the papers by the scientists that study climate and weather.
Thus far we have about 950 tornados sited in April. A resounding record for the month. A confirmation of the predictions in the Copenhagen Diagnosis;
The Copenhagen Diagnosis 2009
Correction. 600+ for April, over 950 for the total year for the US. Still a record, considering the previous high was about 250.
OK, Marty, I see where you are coming from. However, at some point, a point far too late given the lead time on the effects of GHGs, we are going to wake up to the fact that our effect is creating conditions that are destroying the life that we are trying to build for ourselves.
In and of itself, this extreme event proves nothing. However, given the drumbeat of weather related disasters in the last few years, I think we are seeing a pattern. A pattern that was predicted in many of the papers by the scientists that study climate and weather.
If and when that point comes, we will adjust. Humanity has adjusted through far worse disasters, with a fraction of the knowledge and technology we have today.
My skepticism on AGW comes from my familiarity and use of modeling for wastewater treatment plant design. Those are far simpler models and even then they spit out absolute crap unless you define the parameters very stringently. For AGW climate models, the system is infintely more complex, as is the system.
While I know you have an issue with skeptics such as myself, my issue with some supporters is that they treat skeptcism as almost a form of heresy. Couple that with the common tactic of blaming every warm streak or storm season on AGW, even cooler weather in some places, it almost seems supporters will try anything to make you beleive they are right. i am not saying you do this, it is what I see in the media.
If the price we have to pay to maybe prevent what may be happening is regulating how we live down to the smallest detail, giving government more control to tell us how to live our lives, then maybe I want the super duper bad crap to happen first, so I know we have no other option. It would be tragic comedy if we did all this crap to find out we were wrong.
Thus far we have about 950 tornados sited in April. A resounding record for the month. A confirmation of the predictions in the Copenhagen Diagnosis;
The Copenhagen Diagnosis 2009
Correction. 600+ for April, over 950 for the total year for the US. Still a record, considering the previous high was about 250.
Another blog? Is that all you have? Here, have a look at some peer reviewed material that gives an entirely different picture than your wacko hand wringing.
http://www.jpands.org/vol14no4/goklany.pdf
MIT Press Journals - Review of Economics and Statistics - Abstract
tech7sabs
Access : No upward trends in the occurrence of extreme floods in central Europe : Nature
Can We Detect Trends in Extreme Tropical Cyclones?
Multi-Science Publishing - Journal Article
AMS Journals Online - Human Factors Explain the Increased Losses from Weather and Climate Extremes<sup>*</sup>
Thus far we have about 950 tornados sited in April. A resounding record for the month. A confirmation of the predictions in the Copenhagen Diagnosis;
The Copenhagen Diagnosis 2009
Correction. 600+ for April, over 950 for the total year for the US. Still a record, considering the previous high was about 250.
Another blog? Is that all you have? Here, have a look at some peer reviewed material that gives an entirely different picture than your wacko hand wringing.
http://www.jpands.org/vol14no4/goklany.pdf
MIT Press Journals - Review of Economics and Statistics - Abstract
tech7sabs
Access : No upward trends in the occurrence of extreme floods in central Europe : Nature
Can We Detect Trends in Extreme Tropical Cyclones?
Multi-Science Publishing - Journal Article
AMS Journals Online - Human Factors Explain the Increased Losses from Weather and Climate Extremes<sup>*</sup>
You are overdoing the part of playing the village idiot, Bender, old boy.
The Copenhagen Diagnosis is written by 26 leading scientists in this field.
You can get the most recent update here for $50. You can get the orginal at the site at the end of this post for free.
Elsevier: The Copenhagen Diagnosis by 26 Leading Scientists Earth and Environmental Science Books and ebooks Online
A synthesis of more than 200 timely, up-to-date, and peer-reviewed papers that serves as an interim evaluation of climate science midway through the IPCC Assessment Report cycle
Authored by 26 of the world’s leading climate scientists, most of whom are also contributing authors to the IPCC Assessment Reports.
Covers a broad range of topics evaluated by the IPCC, including greenhouse gas emissions, the global carbon cycle, sea level rise, and future climate projections.
Topical boxes summarize each chapter and address commonly held misconceptions surrounding the science of climate change.
The Copenhagen Diagnosis
Thus far we have about 950 tornados sited in April. A resounding record for the month. A confirmation of the predictions in the Copenhagen Diagnosis;
The Copenhagen Diagnosis 2009
Correction. 600+ for April, over 950 for the total year for the US. Still a record, considering the previous high was about 250.
Another blog? Is that all you have? Here, have a look at some peer reviewed material that gives an entirely different picture than your wacko hand wringing.
http://www.jpands.org/vol14no4/goklany.pdf
MIT Press Journals - Review of Economics and Statistics - Abstract
tech7sabs
Access : No upward trends in the occurrence of extreme floods in central Europe : Nature
Can We Detect Trends in Extreme Tropical Cyclones?
Multi-Science Publishing - Journal Article
AMS Journals Online - Human Factors Explain the Increased Losses from Weather and Climate Extremes<sup>*</sup>
You are overdoing the part of playing the village idiot, Bender, old boy.
The Copenhagen Diagnosis is written by 26 leading scientists in this field.
You can get the most recent update here for $50. You can get the orginal at the site at the end of this post for free.
Elsevier: The Copenhagen Diagnosis by 26 Leading Scientists Earth and Environmental Science Books and ebooks Online
A synthesis of more than 200 timely, up-to-date, and peer-reviewed papers that serves as an interim evaluation of climate science midway through the IPCC Assessment Report cycle
Authored by 26 of the worlds leading climate scientists, most of whom are also contributing authors to the IPCC Assessment Reports.
Covers a broad range of topics evaluated by the IPCC, including greenhouse gas emissions, the global carbon cycle, sea level rise, and future climate projections.
Topical boxes summarize each chapter and address commonly held misconceptions surrounding the science of climate change.
The Copenhagen Diagnosis
Well, Walleyes, the Nobel Committee certainly has a differant opinion of their work. Have you considered submitting any of your work to them?
You are overdoing the part of playing the village idiot, Bender, old boy.
Authored by 26 of the worlds leading climate scientists, most of whom are also contributing authors to the IPCC Assessment Reports.
Covers a broad range of topics evaluated by the IPCC, including greenhouse gas emissions, the global carbon cycle, sea level rise, and future climate projections.
Well, Walleyes, the Nobel Committee certainly has a differant opinion of their work. Have you considered submitting any of your work to them?
OK, Marty, I see where you are coming from. However, at some point, a point far too late given the lead time on the effects of GHGs, we are going to wake up to the fact that our effect is creating conditions that are destroying the life that we are trying to build for ourselves.
In and of itself, this extreme event proves nothing. However, given the drumbeat of weather related disasters in the last few years, I think we are seeing a pattern. A pattern that was predicted in many of the papers by the scientists that study climate and weather.
If and when that point comes, we will adjust. Humanity has adjusted through far worse disasters, with a fraction of the knowledge and technology we have today.
My skepticism on AGW comes from my familiarity and use of modeling for wastewater treatment plant design. Those are far simpler models and even then they spit out absolute crap unless you define the parameters very stringently. For AGW climate models, the system is infintely more complex, as is the system.
While I know you have an issue with skeptics such as myself, my issue with some supporters is that they treat skeptcism as almost a form of heresy. Couple that with the common tactic of blaming every warm streak or storm season on AGW, even cooler weather in some places, it almost seems supporters will try anything to make you beleive they are right. i am not saying you do this, it is what I see in the media.
If the price we have to pay to maybe prevent what may be happening is regulating how we live down to the smallest detail, giving government more control to tell us how to live our lives, then maybe I want the super duper bad crap to happen first, so I know we have no other option. It would be tragic comedy if we did all this crap to find out we were wrong.
Sceptics I welcome. In fact, I would love to see one of you prove the projections of what is now happening wrong.
As for the rest of what you said, the super dooper bad crap is reserved for your children and grandchildren.
If and when that point comes, we will adjust. Humanity has adjusted through far worse disasters, with a fraction of the knowledge and technology we have today.
My skepticism on AGW comes from my familiarity and use of modeling for wastewater treatment plant design. Those are far simpler models and even then they spit out absolute crap unless you define the parameters very stringently. For AGW climate models, the system is infintely more complex, as is the system.
While I know you have an issue with skeptics such as myself, my issue with some supporters is that they treat skeptcism as almost a form of heresy. Couple that with the common tactic of blaming every warm streak or storm season on AGW, even cooler weather in some places, it almost seems supporters will try anything to make you beleive they are right. i am not saying you do this, it is what I see in the media.
If the price we have to pay to maybe prevent what may be happening is regulating how we live down to the smallest detail, giving government more control to tell us how to live our lives, then maybe I want the super duper bad crap to happen first, so I know we have no other option. It would be tragic comedy if we did all this crap to find out we were wrong.
Sceptics I welcome. In fact, I would love to see one of you prove the projections of what is now happening wrong.
As for the rest of what you said, the super dooper bad crap is reserved for your children and grandchildren.
The problem is that most of the projections made are vague, and often include terms like "may" and "could". We "may" see more storms, It "Could" lead to droughts. Add in the fact that you cannot truly separate natural occurances with certainty and you get where we are today. The results you are trying to warn people about are trends, averages and scenarios. it would be far easier to warn a person on an asteriod hurtling towards us, as it has a defintive timeframe. "The rock is going to smack us at 7:55 AM tuesday".
As for future generations, maybe they need something to rally around, besides seeing who can beat who on the latest call of duty XI virtua-game-cube-360-station.
Honestly I am more afraid of overreaching, but well intended people than the planet. At least for the planet its not personal, its business. If fighting AGW means giving up freedoms we take for granted, then fit me with waders for when the oceans start rising.