Online Now 665

Online now 629
Record: 11761 (2/27/2012)

Boards ▾

Inside Scoop

The Web's No. 1 forum for coverage and discussion of Terps sports

Terps Sports

Visitor discussion of University of Maryland and college sports

General Sports Water Cooler

A place for lively discussion for all other sports unrelated to Maryland athletics

Off-Topic

Test/Feedback Forum

Feedback for IMS and 247Sports

The Ticket Exchange

Reply

Global warming....again

  • Totally. Just like that damn airline industry that has required subsidies every step of the way. People should stick to traditional gas motor vehicles and boats for transportation. And that damn oil industry, with their subsidies. I mean, if you can't make gas without subsidizing it at every level, then we should just rely on horses.

  • I'm not a lib and I just believe in science. Even when I don't like what science has to say. I don't know what saying "you go girl" does for you but I do find curious people who deny science based on religious or political dogma.

  • SATerp

    Then we should be in substantial agreement - I believe in science, too. But any movement that says there is a "consensus" about something, then tries to paint those who disagree based on equally valid scientific data as "deniers," sounds more like theology to me.

    And off topic, your screen name brings back a lot of memories, as well as some blank spots. blank

  • No problema, senor,just hook the dead brick up to one of these badass HEMI engine's below.

  • What makes you think that we old people don't actually believe in science? I've been following the Green Revolution since I was in college a hundred years ago, and in truth, the economic realities of a Global Economy has done nothing but increase the demand for and use of fossil fuels.

    I object to charlatans like Obama and Gore who have enriched themselves and/or their cronies by forwarding an agenda that the USA is responsible for this global problem and also responsible for paying for cleaning it up. Follow the money.

  • I agree with you. But none of this changes the reality or science of global warming. And I don't know what qualifies as old people around here, I'm 46.

    No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion regarding AGW. Not one.

  • So a chart that shows almost 30% of federal subsidies going to renewable energy when renewable energy accounts for about 8% of energy production is supposed to show that we unfairly favor fossil fuels with government programs?

  • An energy infrastructure that has what, 92% of the market and has been in place for decades should not need ANY subsidies to be able to compete.

  • I'm curious - what degree of "consensus" pushes something over the line from theory to scientific fact? 80%? 90%? 95%? What if 25% of the members of every scientific body "of national or international standing" disagreed with the AGW conventional wisdom, but the official policy of the body only requires 2/3 of the membership to agree? In any case, I always thought the validity of any scientific theory rose and fell on the evidence that has been shown to prove it (or not), not on a show of hands from the world's scientific bodies.

  • I don't know where that chart came from, so I don't know what specific tax breaks and spending it's talking about, but I suspect that most of the "subsidies" granted to the American fossil fuel industry are designed to help it compete against fossil fuel producers from other countries or replace imports of fossil fuels from other countries, not compete against renewable energy.

  • I wanted to post your chart because it makes my point. It is political and convenient even diabolical of Obama to pour money into carbon sequestration in ILLINOIS to the tune of over $2 billion when that technology has ZERO chance of working and was doomed to fail by science before a dime was spent. But it was in ILLINOIS.

    It's just this type of political hand out to attempt to discredit carbon fuels that this prick Obama is willing to WASTE money on when the alternative was to grow algae to eat CO2 while growing reeds to be used in combination with fossil fuels to fire traditional boilers. I voted for the guy, but he hasn't a clue about building anything in this economy. Without subsidies, green energy is just a money pit that will enrich some, like Gore, at the expense of everyone else including the general public and the oil companies.

    We don't need to subsidize fossil fuels, but we don't need to destroy existing infra-structures and the systems that gave us cheap power in the past. Shit, if we had any political will, we'd eliminate gasoline in favor of natural gas for our cars. But, hey, we have all those gas stations, and it would probably take some subsidies for infra-structure. But wait..........

  • TheRawDogg

    Funniest quote for February.

    Love "subject to market forces." Don't forget to check in every once in a while to let me know how life is in SATerp Wonderland.

  • SATerp

    Like the Big Three of the domestic auto industry?

  • SATerp

    If you don't think that the petroleum industry is subject to market forces, well, I don't know what to tell you.

  • SATerp

    Uh oh, Global Warming (tm) can cause EARTHQUAKES AND VOLCANOES!!!!11one

    These people are freaking idiots.

    Climate change is set to shake the earth

    http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/climate-change-is-set-to-shake-the-earth-20120228-1tzr2.html#ixzz1nfxZ70bx

    http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/climate-change-is-set-to-shake-the-earth-20120228-1tzr2.html#ixzz1nfxZ70bx
  • We live in a complicated world where we rely on experts to get through our lives. When something is wrong with us phyiscally we consult with a doctoe not a lawyer. When we have a legal issue we see a lawyer not an engineer, and so forth. I've never seen a black hole but I believe they exist because astrophysicists say they do. I'm not a climate scientist, I haven't studied ice core samples or done temperature reconstructions nor analyzed solar radiation. All I have to go on is what the experts have to say.

    To answer your question, 25% or researchers do not disagree with AGW. In fact 97% agree with it unless you think Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences is some rag pushing a left wing agenda. Here is a link to the peer-reviewed paper:
    http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.full.pdf+html

    Here is the abstract: "Although preliminary estimates from published literature and expert surveys suggest striking agreement among climate scientists on the tenets of anthropogenic climate change (ACC), the American public expresses substantial doubt about both the anthropogenic cause and the level of scientific agreement underpinning ACC. A broad analysis of the climate scientist community itself, the distribution of credibility of dissenting researchers relative to agreeing researchers, and the level of agreement among top climate experts has not been conducted and would inform future ACC discussions. Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental
    Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers."

    The experts have an unambigous position on this subject and I have no expertise to challenge it. Folks who disagee with this either think they know more about the climate than the world's climate scientists or believe there is a world-wide conspiracy where 97% of the climate scientists are selling a lie. I find both positions equally whacky.

  • This is why I asked you what % it takes for you to take something as fact. Because even if the 97% figure is correct, that means 3% don't agree with AGW. I would think if something were truly "unambiguous" and scientifically unassailable the number of scientists that would disagree would be 0%, not 3%. So when you talk about going with "what the experts have to say," you're talking about some experts but not others. And you credit the opinions of the former over the latter, not because you have independently examined their opinions and found them to be more credible, but simply because there are a lot more of them.

    I'm not a climate scientist either, but that doesn't mean I simply have to credit anything they say about their field because I don't have as much expertise as they do. If I had doubts about whether black holes exist, I wouldn't simply believe they do because astrophysicists say they do, I'd ask astrophysicists HOW they know, and if the evidence is convincing enough (which they should be able to explain in layman's terms), then I would accept it. It's interesting to think about, since you gave the example of a black hole, how many astronomers and astrophysicists would disagree that black holes exist? I would suggest it's a lot closer to 0% than 3%. When I seek the answer to the question "How do you know?' in regards to AGW, at bottom the answer I get is, "We built these really great computer models and that's the answer we get." And yet those computer models have failed to accurately predict temperature trends even 5-10 years into the future, so I'm supposed to trust them for what they say is going to happen in 50-75 years? Especially when the IPCC itself says things like this?

    "The climate system is particularly challenging since it is known that components in the system are inherently chaotic; there are feedbacks that could potentially switch sign, and there are central processes that affect the system in a complicated, non-linear manner. These complex, chaotic, non-linear dynamics are an inherent aspect of the climate system. As the IPCC WGI Second Assessment Report (IPCC, 1996) (hereafter SAR) has previously noted, "future unexpected, large and rapid climate system changes (as have occurred in the past) are, by their nature, difficult to predict. This implies that future climate changes may also involve ‘surprises'. In particular, these arise from the non-linear, chaotic nature of the climate system."

    I look at the AGW "consensus" like this - because of the difficulties involved in predicting climate, everybody is just offering their best guess. There is a large majority of scientists who agree on one story as their "best guess," but it's still just that - an educated guess, not "settled science." If that's enough for you to want to embark on a project to completely overhaul how we use energy in this country and around the world to the tune of trillions of dollars, that's fine. I want more than somebody's "best guess."

    I do find it interesting that AGW supporters use these kinds of studies saying 97% of climate researchers agree when the Climategate e-mails show clearly that AGW researchers conducted an aggressive campaign to blacklist AGW skeptics and keep them from publishing. I also would be interested to see what the statistics are, not just for climate researchers, but for other professional scientists in physics, climate and earth sciences, and other related fields, who may not conduct climate research themselves but are more than qualified to evaluate the results and findings published by those who do.

  • There is no such thing as settled science or scientific theories becoming fact. This is not how science works. Secondly scientist don't sit around a table and make guesses to each other. This is not how science works either. They are not guessing that the global temperatures are rising, they are not guessing that CO2 has a greenhouse effect, they are not guessing that temperatures have been rising with the increases in CO2 concentrations and they are not guessing that the excess CO2 is coming from the burning of fossil fuels. NASA has a good thumbnails on the evidence and causes.
    http://climate.nasa.gov/

    These are not guesses, these are conclusions drawn from vast amounts of evidence and research. I'm not surprised that the response to the 97% paper is to point to a global conspiracy. For many reasons, a conspiracy of this magnitude is beyond preposterous. But to each his own. And the the emails you reference do not clearly show what you say they clearly show.

  • No such thing as settled science? You might want to tell that to Al Gore, who told Congress in 2007 that the science is settled on global warming.

    All the things you cite about not being guesses (global temps rising, CO2 having a greenhouse effect, temp rises being correlated with increased CO2 emissions, etc.) are really not that controversial, and are not at the heart of the global warming debate. The key questions are (1) what portion of the observed increase in global temps is due to human causes; (2) how much warming can we expect in the future at various levels of greenhouse gas emissions; and (3) what environmental effects can be expected from various levels of warming? On those key questions, the AGW answers are essentially educated guesses based on computer models.

    I don't think there is some vast global conspiracy by climate researchers to sell people a lie. I think they really believe the AGW story. I simply think they overstate and exaggerate the confidence level with which we should view that story. To hear AGW proponents talk, you'd think that the AGW story is on the level of Newton's law of gravity, and that anybody who questions that story is akin to a flat-earther. The fact is that climate science is still a relatively young field in which significant discoveries are constantly being made that cause scientists to revise what they previously thought. You want to know how science works? You propose a theory and then test every possible reason for why that theory may be wrong. Only when you can definitively exclude every other possible explanation can you conclude with any level of certainty that your theory is correct. You try with all your might not to confirm your theory, but to discredit it. AGW proponents have done the opposite, so in my view they have no right to preach to those who do question about "science" and how it works.

  • Ok, now you are just making stuff up as you go along. If not please show me the evidence from which this conclusion is drawn. Thanks in advance.

    As for your questions, first I have one. Do you really think you have come up with issues not considered by climate scientists? As for question 1, carbon decays from one isotope to another. This is how carbon dating works. When we exhale we put young carbon in the air of course. Natural sources of carbon are the young isotopes, the only way to get old carbon into the air is to dig it up form the earth and burn it. Scientist have measured not only the amount of carbon in the air but also the ratio of old isotopes to young isotopes. At the same time that atmospheric carbon concentrations started increasing, so did the ration of old isotopes to young isotopes. This is how scientists know that the increase in greenhouse gases comes from human activities. Now couple that with your admission that CO2 is a grennhouse gas, that the earth is warming and that temp increases are coorelated with CO2 levels and what conclusion do we come to?

    Also your assertion that scientists are exaggerating is false. Actual satellite temperature measurments track along the very upper bounds of the IPCC projections from 1995. See graph.

    Further reading: http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate.htm

  • Al Gore is a putz just like 99.99% of the climate scientists in the world.

  • All this paragraph says is that we can measure increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere, and that we know that much of the increase is due to burning of fossil fuels. You seem to think that because CO2 has a greenhouse effect and CO2 levels are correlated with increasing temperatures, that's the end of the argument. It's not. Correlation is not the same as causation. CO2 may be causing 10% of the warming, 50% of the warming, 100% of the warming, or anything in between. The answer AGW provides is based on a computer model, not on direct observation.

    Now I have some graphs for you. The blue and red one shows global temperature since about 1850. Now we have been steadily increasing our emissions of greenhouse gases since then, but the data show a funny pattern. From 1850 until the mid-1920s, a period of about 75 years coinciding with the Industrial Revolution, there was no warming whatsoever. Then you had a short burst of warming until about 1940, when temperature peaked. Then you had another FORTY YEARS or so of essentially flat temperatures, again coinciding with a period when greenhouse gas emissions were on a steady march upward. Then, since 1980, we've had another burst of warming, which has leveled off in recent years. If CO2 is a primary determinant of global temperature changes, why have we seen such long periods of flat or declining temperatures, when CO2 has been steadily increasing throughout this period?

    The second graph is a comparison of the IPCC's temperature predictions since 1990 with observed temperatures. We see that the 1990 IPCC predicted that temperatures would rise by at least 0.6 degrees Celsius by 2011. In fact, global average temperature was less than 0.1 degrees higher in 2011 than in 1990. The 1995 model appears to do better, on average (notably, it is the most conservative of the four models). The 2001 model? Predicted 0.2 degrees of warming by 2011. Temperatures in 2011 were in fact about 0.05 degrees cooler than 2001. The 2007 model is similar in that it predicted about 0.1 degrees of warming by 2011, while 2011 temperatures were in fact lower than 2007. Given that the IPCC's past predictive record hasn't exactly been perfect, I think some degree of skepticism of their predictions is warranted until they prove themselves consistently, with a high degree of accuracy, over a long period of time.

    This post was edited by MisterNiceGuy 2 years ago

  • Polar Bears are jerks anyway.

    And don't get me started on penguins.