Forums » Off-Topic
Funny you should mention satellites, my buddy climate scientist has some very nasty things to say about the data they collect as well. (Honestly, how do you expect a satellite to tell you what temperature it is at a certain altitude? Half the time they can't tell a cloud from a lake.)
Anyway, basically I think your fundamental error is in your contradictory view of scientists. On the one hand, they're geniuses who foresee changes in technology for decades ahead when it comes to weather balloons and make satellites that can measure wind speed and relative humidity. On the other, they're complete idiots who can't even build a model of the earth without an australian stratum-studying geologist spotting their mistake in somehow leaving the sun out of their model.
That or a bizarre misunderstanding of science that somehow confuses bug-collecting with actual scientific work.
Good luck building that bridge, Mr. "My past experience is that things fall toward the earth with an average acceleration of 9.83m/s^2, but there is a good deal of fluctuation in the empirical data that was collected by Mrs. Wilson's third grade science class, which implies that the acceleration due to gravity might not be the same as I expect in a few hours, which in turn makes me doubt the logic of spending money putting up a bridge that might collapse under its own weight when the gravitational shit hits the fan."
Anyway, basically I think your fundamental error is in your contradictory view of scientists. On the one hand, they're geniuses who foresee changes in technology for decades ahead when it comes to weather balloons and make satellites that can measure wind speed and relative humidity. On the other, they're complete idiots who can't even build a model of the earth without an australian stratum-studying geologist spotting their mistake in somehow leaving the sun out of their model.
That or a bizarre misunderstanding of science that somehow confuses bug-collecting with actual scientific work.
Good luck building that bridge, Mr. "My past experience is that things fall toward the earth with an average acceleration of 9.83m/s^2, but there is a good deal of fluctuation in the empirical data that was collected by Mrs. Wilson's third grade science class, which implies that the acceleration due to gravity might not be the same as I expect in a few hours, which in turn makes me doubt the logic of spending money putting up a bridge that might collapse under its own weight when the gravitational shit hits the fan."
The satellites work by measuring microwave radiation from oxygen in the atmosphere. Naturally, there are as many interpretations of the data as there are scientists interpreting it. A point of interest for me is how closely the satellite data matches weather balloon data. I don't know how they differentiate altitude, but it is encouraging that those two data agree. If one is wrong, they must both be wrong. I agree that they should both be scrutinized, as should the surface data. An advantage of satellite/balloon data is that it evenly covers the globe, and is not affected by the urban heat island (another factor that no two scientists agree on how much to compensate for). A disadvantage is that it does not measure surface temperature.
Speaking of surface temperature, that record is very suspect. John Daly wrote an excellent article about the difficulties in obtaining an accurate surface record. The type of paint used on the Stevenson Screens used as the official thermometers has changed over time. They used to be measured in person, by opening the box and reading the thermometer; now they're measured by remote, meaning no burst of air circulation at measuring time. Without constant maintenance they measure a warming creep as they get dirty, and not all are properly maintained. They were mostly originally placed far from urban influence; but cities, roads, parks, vegetation, etc. have surrounded many of them, altering the local climate drastically. (For example, boxes reporting from two different points near each other often report very different trends.) Reports in some countries (especially the former Soviet Union) are exaggerated for funding reasons. Sometimes these boxes are moved, and they are not all placed correctly to begin with. If the thermometers aren't recalibrated from time to time, they may accumulate error with age, and there may be discrepancies with calibration. Only recently has a convention been agreed on about when and how often to record temperatures, and how to average them. Sometimes stations close, and are no longer included in the data.
Any of these factors can affect the reliability of the data.
I like how you compare global warming skeptics with a third grade class. Too often, instead of debating the science, believers in anthropogenic global warming resort to ad hominem attacks. There are very intelligent, respectable scientists on both sides of the issue, but I find it amazing that people suggest "silencing" the "dangerous heretics." True science welcomes opposing opinions and debate, but global warming is a political issue now.
EDIT: genka, who is your climate scientist buddy? I'd like to see some of the stuff he's written, or if not then his sources. I welcome an opposing view.
Speaking of surface temperature, that record is very suspect. John Daly wrote an excellent article about the difficulties in obtaining an accurate surface record. The type of paint used on the Stevenson Screens used as the official thermometers has changed over time. They used to be measured in person, by opening the box and reading the thermometer; now they're measured by remote, meaning no burst of air circulation at measuring time. Without constant maintenance they measure a warming creep as they get dirty, and not all are properly maintained. They were mostly originally placed far from urban influence; but cities, roads, parks, vegetation, etc. have surrounded many of them, altering the local climate drastically. (For example, boxes reporting from two different points near each other often report very different trends.) Reports in some countries (especially the former Soviet Union) are exaggerated for funding reasons. Sometimes these boxes are moved, and they are not all placed correctly to begin with. If the thermometers aren't recalibrated from time to time, they may accumulate error with age, and there may be discrepancies with calibration. Only recently has a convention been agreed on about when and how often to record temperatures, and how to average them. Sometimes stations close, and are no longer included in the data.
Any of these factors can affect the reliability of the data.
I like how you compare global warming skeptics with a third grade class. Too often, instead of debating the science, believers in anthropogenic global warming resort to ad hominem attacks. There are very intelligent, respectable scientists on both sides of the issue, but I find it amazing that people suggest "silencing" the "dangerous heretics." True science welcomes opposing opinions and debate, but global warming is a political issue now.
EDIT: genka, who is your climate scientist buddy? I'd like to see some of the stuff he's written, or if not then his sources. I welcome an opposing view.
Global warming is a political issue? Thank God. Could you imagine the mess we'd be in if the politicians weren't taking care of this for us? If those danged scientists hadn't gone poking there noses where they shouldn't have been, there wouldn't even be a problem. Now, if we could just get some priests, a few lawyers (Lectorz, you busy?), and a couple unemployed IT guys who can do Power-Point to lend them a hand, we'll have this whole Global Warming thing fixed in no time at all.
I'm hesitant to buy into either extreme of the Global Warming argument. My personal experience with anthropogenic environmental impact is limited to knowing not to repeatedly piss in the same spot in the back yard, or the grass'll die.
But this is all rather a futile argument, anyway. In 50 to 100 years, there won't be any oil left to burn, thus the CO2 levels will begin to drop, and the planet will change once again.
I'm hesitant to buy into either extreme of the Global Warming argument. My personal experience with anthropogenic environmental impact is limited to knowing not to repeatedly piss in the same spot in the back yard, or the grass'll die.
But this is all rather a futile argument, anyway. In 50 to 100 years, there won't be any oil left to burn, thus the CO2 levels will begin to drop, and the planet will change once again.
Your post doesn't make a lot of sense, I couldn't understand your joke. I don't mean that politicians are taking care of it, but rather that it's a political struggle for power using climate change as a scapegoat for all problems and a catch-all excuse for the government to control our lives. If it were a scientific issue, no one would be clamoring to silence the dissenting heretics and their dangerous point of view.
Global warming is a fad that has come and gone before, even before the global cooling fad that was a scientific consensus before this one. Could you imagine if, as was suggested by some scientists, we had sprinkled black dust on the poles to make them melt and counter global cooling, and then the sun cycle changed to warming? What if now, as I've heard a couple scientists suggest, we pump sulphur compounds into the atmosphere to accelerate cloud growth and reflect more sunlight away, and then the sun goes (as it has now) into a cooling cycle? I'm not afraid that either suggestion will alter global climate, since we are not capable of doing that (it's arrogant to think we can). The sulfur suggestion, though, would create some nasty acid rain.
The real danger of global warming is that if we all buy into it we will find that socialists have taken control of our lives. They're trying; there have been carbon ration cards suggested in Europe, government control of thermostats in California, Bush signed that idiotic "energy" bill (which doesn't have any energy in it, just more harmful regulation) that will force us all to use expensive, poisonous, polluting compact fluorescent bulbs by 2012 or whenever (was it 2010?). Ethanol is driving up food costs (and many other costs, including gasoline itself) and will cause food shortages, while wasting huge amounts of water (4 gallons per gallon of ethanol produced) and providing no measurable reduction in "greenhouse" emissions. If we get on Kyoto or a similar treaty, we will spend hundreds of billions of dollars to merely postpone global warming by a decade or so. (Kyoto only promises that current projected 2100 temperatures will occur in 2105).
All the while we are distracted from real environmental problems, none of which are global, and all of which can be fixed if we don't waste our money on an imaginary problem. We can feed and educate all of Africa for what we are spending on global warming, or address water quality and over-fishing or whatever else you like. We could pursue nukular power! There's an irritating point; if we're so afraid of carbon emissions, why do we not pursue more vigorously a proven technology that has no such emissions? Don't give me any bullshit about heat pollution, which is easily dealt with, or radioactive waste. I we would forget the stupid treaty we signed with the now nonexistent USSR, which we are no longer bound to, there is plenty of opportunity to use different fuels, the by-products of which are the next generation of fuel rather than waste. This kind of hypocrisy really irritates me.
Global warming is a fad that has come and gone before, even before the global cooling fad that was a scientific consensus before this one. Could you imagine if, as was suggested by some scientists, we had sprinkled black dust on the poles to make them melt and counter global cooling, and then the sun cycle changed to warming? What if now, as I've heard a couple scientists suggest, we pump sulphur compounds into the atmosphere to accelerate cloud growth and reflect more sunlight away, and then the sun goes (as it has now) into a cooling cycle? I'm not afraid that either suggestion will alter global climate, since we are not capable of doing that (it's arrogant to think we can). The sulfur suggestion, though, would create some nasty acid rain.
The real danger of global warming is that if we all buy into it we will find that socialists have taken control of our lives. They're trying; there have been carbon ration cards suggested in Europe, government control of thermostats in California, Bush signed that idiotic "energy" bill (which doesn't have any energy in it, just more harmful regulation) that will force us all to use expensive, poisonous, polluting compact fluorescent bulbs by 2012 or whenever (was it 2010?). Ethanol is driving up food costs (and many other costs, including gasoline itself) and will cause food shortages, while wasting huge amounts of water (4 gallons per gallon of ethanol produced) and providing no measurable reduction in "greenhouse" emissions. If we get on Kyoto or a similar treaty, we will spend hundreds of billions of dollars to merely postpone global warming by a decade or so. (Kyoto only promises that current projected 2100 temperatures will occur in 2105).
All the while we are distracted from real environmental problems, none of which are global, and all of which can be fixed if we don't waste our money on an imaginary problem. We can feed and educate all of Africa for what we are spending on global warming, or address water quality and over-fishing or whatever else you like. We could pursue nukular power! There's an irritating point; if we're so afraid of carbon emissions, why do we not pursue more vigorously a proven technology that has no such emissions? Don't give me any bullshit about heat pollution, which is easily dealt with, or radioactive waste. I we would forget the stupid treaty we signed with the now nonexistent USSR, which we are no longer bound to, there is plenty of opportunity to use different fuels, the by-products of which are the next generation of fuel rather than waste. This kind of hypocrisy really irritates me.
terrorism is used more often than climate change to give the government more power to control our lives.
The global warming idea is a form of terrorism. The government has us afraid of a threat much more imaginary than terrorism. Anthropogenic global warming has not knocked down a single building, but terrorists kill people almost daily. Your statement, epadafunk, is very irresponsible, and I suggest you consider your words before typing them.
This is a much more serious and real problem than global warming.
You could say fear is used to give the government more power, and that is very true. The environmentalist movement has been hijacked by socialists who are using fear to gain control over our lives. It won't succeed in the end, but it will do a lot of damage before it fails. I predict that in ten to fifteen years, the global warming scam will be busted. Too bad that's not testable on these forums, since who knows if this game will even be around at that time (I hope it is).
This is a much more serious and real problem than global warming.
You could say fear is used to give the government more power, and that is very true. The environmentalist movement has been hijacked by socialists who are using fear to gain control over our lives. It won't succeed in the end, but it will do a lot of damage before it fails. I predict that in ten to fifteen years, the global warming scam will be busted. Too bad that's not testable on these forums, since who knows if this game will even be around at that time (I hope it is).
Uh, no, it won't be, unless the Devs toss whatever's left out into the open and someone like Miharu or the remnants of BLAK decide to host a few servers.
Haha, genka. Nice article. I'll check out that stuff, it's cool you have a friend at NOAA. What's his name, so I can search out stuff he's contributed to?
so PC, if terrorism is important because it kills people, why are we spending more money on it than on combating drunk driving, lung cancer caused by smoking, and cancer in general, among many other things that kill more people than terrorism.
terrorism is sensationalist and used to get the people used to being under surveillance so the government can control our lives and eventually our thoughts.
terrorism is sensationalist and used to get the people used to being under surveillance so the government can control our lives and eventually our thoughts.
Look at that list, epa. It's a real problem, and terrorism deaths have been way down since we attacked Al-Qaeda and Iraq.
We are spending money on all those things. They're different problems and require different approaches. Lung cancer caused by smoking in particular is 100% preventable, as is drunk driving.
I do agree that there is a problem in that in the process of doing what is necessary to fight terrorism, the government gets a lot of power that can be used to control our lives. This is a real problem, but so is national security. It is really hard to find the happy medium that is necessary, since the government really needs a lot of power in order to fight, but doesn't have a good track record for using power benevolently. I'm talking about any government ever, and not the Bush administration in particular. Government wants to grow, period; that's why we have a Bill of Rights.
I will say, however, that control over our lives is what the government is after in pursuing such things as the Kyoto Protocol, and other global warming legislation. They have actually tried, in California, to control people's thermostats remotely. Limiting companies' carbon footprints with a heavy fine is only a new tax, and is a scam. The whole thing is a scam, and sadly many well-intentioned people have fallen into it. Since socialism failed to take power by conventional methods, it is now taking the back door of environmental regulation. It has nothing to do with the environment, or science at all, when it tries to silence the opposition.
If you've ever read "Animal Farm," and you really should, it's incredibly short, Global Warming and George Bush are the scapegoats (Snowball the pig, in Animal Farm) on which everything is blamed. Socialism needs a common enemy to survive (which I realize terrorism fits), and it is Bush and Climate Change.
Terrorism will never be completely defeated. Then again, neither will murder, or drunk driving, or burglary. Should we pull out of the quagmire of trying to stop kidnappings? It really is a quagmire by the definition the media is using to apply to Iraq. We'll never eradicate it, so why not pull out now?
Here's another recent very good article about this war, written by a Democrat, and it makes an interesting valid point comparing our current situation to the electoral race between Lincoln and McClellan during the Civil War. Card puts this into much better words than I ever could. (The bit about Lincoln is pretty far down.)
We are spending money on all those things. They're different problems and require different approaches. Lung cancer caused by smoking in particular is 100% preventable, as is drunk driving.
I do agree that there is a problem in that in the process of doing what is necessary to fight terrorism, the government gets a lot of power that can be used to control our lives. This is a real problem, but so is national security. It is really hard to find the happy medium that is necessary, since the government really needs a lot of power in order to fight, but doesn't have a good track record for using power benevolently. I'm talking about any government ever, and not the Bush administration in particular. Government wants to grow, period; that's why we have a Bill of Rights.
I will say, however, that control over our lives is what the government is after in pursuing such things as the Kyoto Protocol, and other global warming legislation. They have actually tried, in California, to control people's thermostats remotely. Limiting companies' carbon footprints with a heavy fine is only a new tax, and is a scam. The whole thing is a scam, and sadly many well-intentioned people have fallen into it. Since socialism failed to take power by conventional methods, it is now taking the back door of environmental regulation. It has nothing to do with the environment, or science at all, when it tries to silence the opposition.
If you've ever read "Animal Farm," and you really should, it's incredibly short, Global Warming and George Bush are the scapegoats (Snowball the pig, in Animal Farm) on which everything is blamed. Socialism needs a common enemy to survive (which I realize terrorism fits), and it is Bush and Climate Change.
Terrorism will never be completely defeated. Then again, neither will murder, or drunk driving, or burglary. Should we pull out of the quagmire of trying to stop kidnappings? It really is a quagmire by the definition the media is using to apply to Iraq. We'll never eradicate it, so why not pull out now?
Here's another recent very good article about this war, written by a Democrat, and it makes an interesting valid point comparing our current situation to the electoral race between Lincoln and McClellan during the Civil War. Card puts this into much better words than I ever could. (The bit about Lincoln is pretty far down.)
Professor Chaos, you keep talking about socialism as if it's a bad thing.
It is.
Its only a bad thing when its improperly applied (regrettably, thats precisely the way it usually is!).
I believe that it is not possible to properly apply it. Even when everyone is well-intentioned, circumstances have to be exactly right all the time, and you can't have a single person in the system with an ounce of selfishness, which we are all born with as part of our survival instinct.
Sadly, all that Socialism can offer in any feasible way is to take wealth away from those who create it and give it to those who did not. Just because someone has wealth, doesn't mean it was at the expense of someone else; that is one of the biggest misconceptions about capitalism. How can a government ever manipulate money in any way nearly as efficient as simple supply and demand? When the government intervenes, for any reason no matter how well-intentioned, everyone suffers for it.
"America's abundance was created not by public sacrifices to the common good, but by the productive genius of free men who pursued their own personal interests and the making of their own private fortunes. They did not starve the people to pay for America's industrialization. They gave the people better jobs, higher wages, and cheaper goods with every new machine they invented, with every scientific discovery or technological advance- and thus the whole country was moving forward and profiting, not suffering, every step of the way."
- Ayn Rand, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal
Also, you should really read Animal Farm. It's really short and illustrates this point very nicely with an actual historical example (re-enacted by animals, of course!).
Sadly, all that Socialism can offer in any feasible way is to take wealth away from those who create it and give it to those who did not. Just because someone has wealth, doesn't mean it was at the expense of someone else; that is one of the biggest misconceptions about capitalism. How can a government ever manipulate money in any way nearly as efficient as simple supply and demand? When the government intervenes, for any reason no matter how well-intentioned, everyone suffers for it.
"America's abundance was created not by public sacrifices to the common good, but by the productive genius of free men who pursued their own personal interests and the making of their own private fortunes. They did not starve the people to pay for America's industrialization. They gave the people better jobs, higher wages, and cheaper goods with every new machine they invented, with every scientific discovery or technological advance- and thus the whole country was moving forward and profiting, not suffering, every step of the way."
- Ayn Rand, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal
Also, you should really read Animal Farm. It's really short and illustrates this point very nicely with an actual historical example (re-enacted by animals, of course!).
Here's a statement made by Barack Obama in 2007 that is truly frightening:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7o84PE871BE
I can hear terrorists all over the world cheering at this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7o84PE871BE
I can hear terrorists all over the world cheering at this.
i don't get it PC, why is this bad?
He basically said "I will disarm America." Do you really believe, that if we set down all our weapons, the rest of the world will, too? No, they'll take advantage of our weakness. This is what it means to be a "suicidal superpower."
i thought the terrorists hated us because we were a superpower, maybe we can't be kings of the world forever. people in america need to stop thinking that they have always been on top and will continue to stay on top forever, because they wont. when we have realized this, we can start to improve our situation again.