Jump to content
Canucks Community

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

hsedin33

NASA Graphic Shows Six Terrifying Decades Of Global Warming, Also, Swedish Marines Dance Video

Recommended Posts

and yet most reports and studies are completely biased going in, hunting for a certain viewpoint, and when that viewpoint is not proved either the data is manipulated , dropped, or explained away.

saying scientists are 100% objective is just foolish.

scientists aren't 100% objective, but the scientific method is. It's just that it's human nature not to follow the scientific method 100% of the time. It doesn't mean we should abandon the principle itself.

maybe some scientists are biased, but as a normal citizen the best we can do is to follow the scientific method as much as possible and the only way we can do that is either you are a scientist yourself or you sometimes have to trust or hope that the data from those scientist are right.

What you don't do tho, is to assume that all those data from scientists and labs are biased and unworthy to trust without any source to back you up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its not like 97% of all scientists are suddenly going to forego science for no good reason.

The scientific method dictates that science absolutely must be 100% objective or its useless.

however, what isn't usually mentioned is that we are still in the last stages of the last ice age. Of course the planet is going to be in a warming trend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

however, what isn't usually mentioned is that we are still in the last stages of the last ice age. Of course the planet is going to be in a warming trend.

However what is generally mentioned and often ignored is the amount of Carbon in our atmosphere due to burning of fossil fuels.

Even if these Carbon emissions are not the causative factor for the steady increase in temperatures across the globe, they still pose a serious health risk to human beings on this planet.

Not to mention it is pretty naive to think that the amount of Carbon being pumped into our atmosphere daily will not have some sort of repercussion on our weather patterns, air quality, various biomes, global temperatures etc.

The solution is so simple, it just takes money. Since money is something that is controlled by human beings, this problem is far from unsolvable. Unfortunately it seems that it will have to get really bad before solutions are implemented on a global scale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

however, what isn't usually mentioned is that we are still in the last stages of the last ice age. Of course the planet is going to be in a warming trend.

That's incorrect. The last glacial period ended about 12,000 years ago, the global temperature peaked 8,000 years ago and has been declining gradually since, until sharp reversal in 1900.

shakun_marcott_hadcrut4_a1b_eng.png?w=400&h=396

(Note there is a temperature projection until 2100 embedded into the graphics)

Here's what the past 10,000 or so years looked like (black is a temperature reconstruction. Blue is modern instrumental record)

regemcrufull.jpg?w=400&h=322

You are also forgetting the fact that the planet doesn't warm spontaneously, and any temperature change has to be driven by a forcing. The overwhelm evidence is that the current warming is driven by an increase in green house gases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

scientists aren't 100% objective, but the scientific method is. It's just that it's human nature not to follow the scientific method 100% of the time. It doesn't mean we should abandon the principle itself.

I think a more accurate characterization is an individual scientist can often be subjective, but collectively the scientific community is largely objective. This is for two reasons

1) Peer review: before a paper is published in a reputable journal it is reviewed by at least 2 (often 3) experts in your field. If your conclusion is not adequately supported by your data the reviewers will usually pick up on it. It also happens very often that at least one reviewer will hold a very different view than you do ( I experienced that personally), so the end product is usually far more objective.

2) Scientific discovery (other than perhaps theoretical physics and math) is not one person's work, but is a collection of hundreds of papers on the subject. Even in the case where lapses and frauds slip through peer review, they do not survive in the long run because people will attempt to reproduce your results.

Another issue is that determining the level of objectivity itself is a rather subjective exercise, and what is objective to scientists may appear subjective to an outsider. Perhaps an example is that a recent paper by Cowtan and Way (2013) showed that the HadCRUT4 data set underestimated the recent warming due to the lack of sampling in the arctic regions. An outsider/skeptic may interpret this as a biased study attempting to explain away the "pause" in global warming, but what they don't realize is that the motivation of the study itself is very much objective: the study is an attempt to understand how much bias can be introduced by inadequate sampling of the arctic region, it just so happens that the bias is quite significant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You do realize that NASA and NOAA are both government agencies right?

Now, what business are government agencies in again? Very good, they're in the business of getting more funding.

Yes, and the billion dollar businesses are above board and totally trustworthy. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The responses in the thread are just as terrifying

The responses in this thread tell you nothing will be done, and to move away from the coast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are also forgetting the fact that the planet doesn't warm spontaneously, and any temperature change has to be driven by a forcing. The overwhelm evidence is that the current warming is driven by an increase in green house gases.

My Question I was hinting at earlier is this;

Could 2400 or so nuclear bombs that have been tested since 1951 play into this? I just wonder why the governments all of a sudden quit testing around 1994. I would imagine that much radiation and such would not be good for the environment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My Question I was hinting at earlier is this;

Could 2400 or so nuclear bombs that have been tested since 1951 play into this? I just wonder why the governments all of a sudden quit testing around 1994. I would imagine that much radiation and such would not be good for the environment.

In terms of warming probably the energy released is trivial I think.

In order to permanently change the temperature of the earth, one has to change either the energy received or energy radiated back to space, both of which are measured in terms of watts per square meter. As of 2011, the estimated anthropogenic effect to the energy budget is at 2.2 W/m2.

According to wikipedia, the largest nuclear bomb detonated had energy of 50 megatons of TNT, or 2.1x1017 Joules of energy. Assume the 2400 bombs all have such yield (a gross exaggeration of course) gives 5x1020 J total energy. This energy is released over a period of 43 years (or 3.15x107 seconds). Averaging this over Earth's surface area of 5x1014m gives 0.03 W/m2, or 1% of the anthropogenic effect on climate.

Most nuclear devices are a lot smaller, so probably in reality it is closer to 0.1%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm always conflicted when MadMonk posts in these threads...first I'm thrilled that he comes and illustrated how misguided and wrong the deniers are...but then I haz a sad about how they still believe what they believe despite how many times he plainly, clearly refutes their idiocy :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a more accurate characterization is an individual scientist can often be subjective, but collectively the scientific community is largely objective. This is for two reasons

1) Peer review: before a paper is published in a reputable journal it is reviewed by at least 2 (often 3) experts in your field. If your conclusion is not adequately supported by your data the reviewers will usually pick up on it. It also happens very often that at least one reviewer will hold a very different view than you do ( I experienced that personally), so the end product is usually far more objective.

2) Scientific discovery (other than perhaps theoretical physics and math) is not one person's work, but is a collection of hundreds of papers on the subject. Even in the case where lapses and frauds slip through peer review, they do not survive in the long run because people will attempt to reproduce your results.

Another issue is that determining the level of objectivity itself is a rather subjective exercise, and what is objective to scientists may appear subjective to an outsider. Perhaps an example is that a recent paper by Cowtan and Way (2013) showed that the HadCRUT4 data set underestimated the recent warming due to the lack of sampling in the arctic regions. An outsider/skeptic may interpret this as a biased study attempting to explain away the "pause" in global warming, but what they don't realize is that the motivation of the study itself is very much objective: the study is an attempt to understand how much bias can be introduced by inadequate sampling of the arctic region, it just so happens that the bias is quite significant.

Still better than govt and / or corporate propaganda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However what is generally mentioned and often ignored is the amount of Carbon in our atmosphere due to burning of fossil fuels.

Even if these Carbon emissions are not the causative factor for the steady increase in temperatures across the globe, they still pose a serious health risk to human beings on this planet.

Not to mention it is pretty naive to think that the amount of Carbon being pumped into our atmosphere daily will not have some sort of repercussion on our weather patterns, air quality, various biomes, global temperatures etc.

The solution is so simple, it just takes money. Since money is something that is controlled by human beings, this problem is far from unsolvable. Unfortunately it seems that it will have to get really bad before solutions are implemented on a global scale.

Just money? Well, let's just print some up and be done with it then! Who knew it would be so easy?

While we're at it, let's solve world poverty and hunger at the same time! After all, that just takes money too!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The responses in the thread are just as terrifying

And so we go on with our lives we know the truth but prefer lies , lies are simple , simple is bliss, why go against tradition when we can, admit defeat live in decline, BE THE VICTIM OF OUR OWN DESIGN , the status quo built on suspect, why would anyone stick out their neck , fellow members of club "we've got our ours" I'd like to introduce you to our host , he's got his and I've got mine , meet the decline

Mike B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here we go again:

Greenpeace Co-Founder Tells U.S. Senate: Earth’s Geologic History ‘fundamentally contradicts’ CO2 Climate Fears: ‘We had both higher temps and an ice age at a time when CO2 emissions were 10 times higher than they are today’

'There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years.'

http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/02/25/greenpeace-co-founder-tells-u-s-senate-earths-geologic-history-fundamentally-contradicts-co2-climate-fears-we-had-both-higher-temps-and-an-ice-age-at-a-time-when-co2-emissions-were-10-times/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×