Scientific American, Mann hockey stick graph

Crick

Gold Member
Joined
May 10, 2014
Messages
15,043
Reaction score
1,435
Points
275
Location
N/A
REAL big scary deal. Someone's dumb enough to think that's a reason to not worry about overpopulation
 

bear513

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2012
Messages
60,129
Reaction score
8,960
Points
2,030

bear513

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2012
Messages
60,129
Reaction score
8,960
Points
2,030
REAL big scary deal. Someone's dumb enough to think that's a reason to not worry about overpopulation
Well that's now the third question a lefty won't answer:

1. What's a living wage?

2. What temperature does the earth need to be?

3. What's the maximum amount of people on earth?
 
OP
O

Old Rocks

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
59,345
Reaction score
7,231
Points
1,840
Location
Portland, Ore.
1. Are you talking about just being able to maintain life, or one that allows you to have a life?

2. A temperature at which we have a stable climate. Kind of like the last 10,000 years.

3. The number at which all the people on earth have a reasonable chance of having a real life. I would say less than the number we have right now.

Now, Mr. Bear, what are you proposals to make life better for all humans? Give the wealthy more money? Deny education to any but the wealthy? Have the population reach the point that a single catastrophe will result in hundreds of millions dying from starvation?
 

konradv

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
27,567
Reaction score
3,867
Points
280
Location
Baltimore
Big scary deal.... Every one in the world could fit in the state of texas. http://www.omgfacts.com/news/10333/...e-population-density-of-New-York-City-ab912-0
Yeah, but could you feed them?
Well you would have the rest of the planet and besides I bet we could do that in the U.S. alone and get rid of growing food for fuel. They wouldn't need the ethanol.
most of the rest of the world didn't suitable for growing food. That being said, we're living in the real world and everyone ISN'T going to live in Texas.
 

bear513

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2012
Messages
60,129
Reaction score
8,960
Points
2,030
1. Are you talking about just being able to maintain life, or one that allows you to have a life?

2. A temperature at which we have a stable climate. Kind of like the last 10,000 years.

3. The number at which all the people on earth have a reasonable chance of having a real life. I would say less than the number we have right now.

Now, Mr. Bear, what are you proposals to make life better for all humans? Give the wealthy more money? Deny education to any but the wealthy? Have the population reach the point that a single catastrophe will result in hundreds of millions dying from starvation?
Thanks for responding ....

1. I don't watch t.v. yet have a 50 inch in my living room and a 42 inch in my bedroom, I gave up on cable years ago, gave my step son my PlayStation 4 along with 30 games (his mom and I divorced 5 years ago) I went the entire summer with out turning on my A.C. in south Carolina..can I afford it yes...just don't need it anymore.

So we would have to define what it takes some one to live and some one to maintain life.

2. The climate has always changed the past 10,000 years, we just left an Ice age and had a mini one .... That's not stable...

I am going to be direct with you but won't hurl insults.

We got lucky but the earth will continue to change if we were here or not, to think man can keep it like it has been like for the past 10,000 years is insulting to science. Heck the earth flipped on her axis before.

We are just humans we can not control or stop mother nature, yes We can stop pollution and do little things but to control earths climate? No way.

3. Is easy like bono from U2 always says Africa needs capitalism.

The poor country's need capitalism not hand outs but a hand up.
 

flacaltenn

Diamond Member
Staff member
Senior USMB Moderator
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
58,202
Reaction score
12,858
Points
2,180
Location
Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
Big scary deal.... Every one in the world could fit in the state of texas.
http://www.omgfacts.com/news/10333/...e-population-density-of-New-York-City-ab912-0
Yeah, but could you feed them?
McDonalds and Safeway could figure it out.. Remember -- someday soon in the big scheme of things, the glaciers are gonna move right down to the Trump Wall anyway.. And we are gonna be crammed with Canucks and Yankees looking for a squat spot between Austin and the Rio Grande..
 

IanC

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2009
Messages
11,064
Reaction score
1,315
Points
245
Quark Soup by David Appell: Mark Steyn's Expert Comes Up Short

Here is a perfect example of the media protecting Mann against criticisms.

Appell contacts scientist, scientist responds, Appell ignores answers and asks the same questions again, scientist responds again, Appell ignores answers, scientist gets tired of talking to a stone wall, Appell claims victory while hurling ad homs at the scientist. Standard MO.
 

konradv

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
27,567
Reaction score
3,867
Points
280
Location
Baltimore
Big scary deal.... Every one in the world could fit in the state of texas.http://www.omgfacts.com/news/10333/...e-population-density-of-New-York-City-ab912-0
Yeah, but could you feed them?
McDonalds and Safeway could figure it out.. Remember -- someday soon in the big scheme of things, the glaciers are gonna move right down to the Trump Wall anyway.. And we are gonna be crammed with Canucks and Yankees looking for a squat spot between Austin and the Rio Grande..
Yeah, but global warming isn't a concern. Why talk about something that could happen this century when you've got something thousands of years in the future to worry about? :laugh2:
 

flacaltenn

Diamond Member
Staff member
Senior USMB Moderator
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
58,202
Reaction score
12,858
Points
2,180
Location
Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
Big scary deal.... Every one in the world could fit in the state of texas.http://www.omgfacts.com/news/10333/...e-population-density-of-New-York-City-ab912-0
Yeah, but could you feed them?
McDonalds and Safeway could figure it out.. Remember -- someday soon in the big scheme of things, the glaciers are gonna move right down to the Trump Wall anyway.. And we are gonna be crammed with Canucks and Yankees looking for a squat spot between Austin and the Rio Grande..
Yeah, but global warming isn't a concern. Why talk about something that could happen this century when you've got something thousands of years in the future to worry about? :laugh2:
Might not be "thousands" --- if you look the recent climatic cycles of the Earth during those Ice Ages, there were "thermal optimals" a lot shorter than ours..
 

jc456

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2013
Messages
88,142
Reaction score
7,913
Points
1,815
Atmospheric CO2 has almost doubled in the last 200 years.

The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is at its highest level in 600,000 years.

The Sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years, and yet the ice cap and the glaciers continue to melt.

We continue to pump billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year.

These are the facts.
me thinks you don't know what a fact is. according to the records 280 PPM was the reading, and for it to have doubled would have to be 560 PPM, now please show me where anyone states there 560 PPM of CO2 in the atmosphere?
 

jc456

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2013
Messages
88,142
Reaction score
7,913
Points
1,815
Atmospheric CO2 has almost doubled in the last 200 years.

The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is at its highest level in 600,000 years.

The Sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years, and yet the ice cap and the glaciers continue to melt.

We continue to pump billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year.

These are the facts.
And yet NO ONE can actually connect them with any real scientific data, GO FIGURE. But hey thanks for playing.
The boys at MIT can....

The most comprehensive modeling yet carried out on the likelihood of how much hotter the Earth's climate will get in this century shows that without rapid and massive action, the problem will be about twice as severe as previously estimated six years ago - and could be even worse than that.

The study uses the MIT Integrated Global Systems Model, a detailed computer simulation of global economic activity and climate processes that has been developed and refined by the Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change since the early 1990s. The new research involved 400 runs of the model with each run using slight variations in input parameters, selected so that each run has about an equal probability of being correct based on present observations and knowledge. Other research groups have estimated the probabilities of various outcomes, based on variations in the physical response of the climate system itself. But the MIT model is the only one that interactively includes detailed treatment of possible changes in human activities as well - such as the degree of economic growth, with its associated energy use, in different countries.

Study co-author Ronald Prinn, the co-director of the Joint Program and director of MIT's Center for Global Change Science, says that, regarding global warming, it is important "to base our opinions and policies on the peer-reviewed science," he says. And in the peer-reviewed literature, the MIT model, unlike any other, looks in great detail at the effects of economic activity coupled with the effects of atmospheric, oceanic and biological systems. "In that sense, our work is unique," he says.

The new projections, published this month in the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate, indicate a median probability of surface warming of 5.2 degrees Celsius by 2100, with a 90% probability range of 3.5 to 7.4 degrees.

Climate change odds much worse than thought
when are you warmers ever going to figure out that models are not fact:

"The most comprehensive modeling yet"
 

Weatherman2020

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
61,036
Reaction score
17,298
Points
2,250
Location
Left Coast, Classified
Hmmm........ Every time someone does a serious study on this, the Hockey Stick Graph just gets more confirmation.


Novel Analysis Confirms Climate "Hockey Stick" Graph: Scientific American

The “hockey stick” graph has been both a linchpin and target in the climate change debate. As a plot of average Northern Hemisphere temperature from two millennia ago to the present, it stays relatively flat until the 20th century, when it rises up sharply, like the blade of an upturned hockey stick. Warming skeptics have long decried how the temperatures were inferred, but a new reconstruction of the past 600 years, using an entirely different method, finds similar results and may help remove lingering doubts.

The hockey stick came to life in 1998 thanks to the work of Michael Mann, now at Pennsylvania State University, and his colleagues (and many other climate scientists who subsequently refined the graph). Reconstructing historical temperatures is difficult: investigators must combine information from tree rings, coral drilling, pinecones, ice cores and other natural records and then convert them to temperatures at specific times and places in the past. Such proxies for temperature can be sparse or incomplete, both geographically and through time. Mann’s method used the overlap, where it exists, of recent proxy data and instrument data (such as from thermometers) to estimate relations between them. It calculates earlier temperatures using a mathematical extrapolation technique [see “Behind the Hockey Stick,” by David Appell, Insights; Scientific American, March 2005].
This thread didn’t age well.

Michael Mann Refuses to Produce Data, Loses Case
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top