71
   

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

 
 
parados
 
  2  
Reply Mon 27 Apr, 2015 09:22 am
@rosborne979,
I read somewhere they decided to use the term instead of the percentage range because they didn't want to give a false impression by using statistical probability. But they do give the numbers in the IPCC report.

https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch1s1-6.html

"very likely" means it is greater than 90% probability.
parados
 
  3  
Reply Mon 27 Apr, 2015 09:23 am
@Ionus,
Water suddenly takes up less volume than it did in the past? Perhaps you need to rethink your ability to think.
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Mon 27 Apr, 2015 09:30 am
@Ionus,
Ionus wrote:

German mathematician and astronomer Johannes Kepler who was best known for his theories explaining the motion of planets, said the Universe was created, on Apr 27, 4977 BC.
J. Usher said, it was 6,000 years old - that's what many think to be true, but quite a few scientists think the earth has to be older than 6,000 years.

Kepler might have been wrong, but since he even didn't know how to use the internet - that's quite a good guess.
0 Replies
 
raprap
 
  2  
Reply Mon 27 Apr, 2015 10:25 am
@Ionus,
Kepler was a bit of a rouge. He had a silver nose to replace the one he lost in a drunken brawl and it was said he took up astronomy because he needed something to do after the pub closed

Kepler had a bit of a social problem with Copernicus. Copernicus was a devout Lutheran and he found Kepler to be too much of a libertine.

Interesting feign of that myth to attribute Kepler instead of Usher.

Rap

Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Apr, 2015 11:30 am
@Ionus,
Ionus wrote:

I'm on the other side, Frank . Am I being irrationally and illogically dismissive of the idea ?


If you are not keeping an open mind...and are irrationally and illogically dismissing the notion out-of-hand...YES...you are being irrational and illogical...and dismissive.
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Mon 27 Apr, 2015 12:54 pm
@Ionus,
Quote:
Your knowledge of history has let you down . Galileo was a dickhead who continually humiliated the Pope . He was locked up more for that then his ideas which the Pope agreed with when he was presented with them earlier . The Church was a skeptic . Other scientists were denialists to save their own skin .


The Ionus view of hitory is unique. So Galileo was a "dickhead" and the Church merely acted as a skeptic, BUT the scientists who followed the Church's "skepticism" were actually DENIALISTS.

I like your attempt at reason. Its as water tight as a colander.
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Mon 27 Apr, 2015 01:06 pm
@farmerman,
Also ,(Ionus), are you even conversant in how the planets annual temperature is measured?

Gimme a hint what you think is involved.
hingehead
 
  0  
Reply Mon 27 Apr, 2015 04:15 pm
Did you guys see the Obama thing with Luther the anger translater?

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/president-obama-reveals-surprise-guest-white-house-correspondents/

LMAO
0 Replies
 
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Apr, 2015 07:00 pm
@rosborne979,
rosborne979 wrote:

FBM wrote:

Quote:
Consensus: 97% of climate scientists agree

Consensus: 97% of climate scientists agreeMultiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities...


To me, that last sentence in the quote is revealing in its absence of detail.

We already know the climate is warming, it has been for over 10k years, well before humans had any hope of impacting anything. And logically we can assume that humans are contributing to the warming lately.

But what is going unsaid is "the relative contribution" of human activity to the natural increase. And its very unsatisfying to me to hear scientific statements end with sentences like "trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities...".

Until someone can come up with even a reasonable estimate of "relative contribution" then that type of statement if of little use, and even dubious as to its accuracy.


Scientific knowledge is inferential and therefore 100% certainty isn't even theoretically possible. That degree of certainty is only possible when doing deduction, maths, symbolic logic, definitions, etc. It seems appropriate to me for them to report the direction the signs are pointing without waiting for a 100% certainty that will never come.
rosborne979
 
  2  
Reply Mon 27 Apr, 2015 07:16 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:
"very likely" means it is greater than 90% probability.

The degree of "probability" is not the relative contribution I'm talking about.

For example, before people were ever around, there was a long term average warming trend already taking place. There is a rate to that increase over a selected period of time.

What I would like to see in a scientific report is the change in that rate of that increase, due to human activity. THAT is the relative contribution by humans which I would like to understand.

If you look at the ice core data it's very clear from the near vertical slope of the increases that some key factor (or combination of factors) happened many thousands of years ago (and has happened just like this many times before) which triggers a cataclysmic spike in global warming which peaks out at the next major factor which results in a return to glaciation (which on average is the nominal temperature range of the planet in recent geologic time).
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/400000yearslarge1.gif

Then after all that is said and done, and someone can finally say with some degree of accuracy just how much humans have increased the already headlong rush toward the next inevitable peak... just what we should do about it. Because even if we stopped all our carbon activity immediately the previous warming effects would still be there. And they alone are sufficient to repeat the cycle from the ice cores.

I believe that we are much closer to the next oceanic thermohaline cycle breakdown than anyone realizes, and that once that happens warming is going to be the last thing any one worries about for the next 50,000 years.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  2  
Reply Mon 27 Apr, 2015 07:18 pm
@FBM,
FBM wrote:
Scientific knowledge is inferential and therefore 100% certainty isn't even theoretically possible. That degree of certainty is only possible when doing deduction, maths, symbolic logic, definitions, etc. It seems appropriate to me for them to report the direction the signs are pointing without waiting for a 100% certainty that will never come.

Again, it's not the degree of certainty or probability that I'm asking for (as detailed in my previous post).

I'm surprised more people aren't asking the same question I'm asking. It seems like a reasonable thing to ask for.
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Apr, 2015 09:09 pm
@parados,
Quote:
Water suddenly takes up less volume than it did in the past
Why would you say that ? I asked if something that happened in the past had to be happening now...can you read English ? Or do you think anyone reading this loves you so much they will ignore your stupidity ? Dont just ignore the question "Does something that happened in the past have to be happening now ?" , give it your best shot . What's the answer...
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Apr, 2015 09:10 pm
@raprap,
Quote:
Interesting feign of that myth to attribute Kepler instead of Usher.
It was Kepler .
Ionus
 
  0  
Reply Mon 27 Apr, 2015 09:13 pm
@Frank Apisa,
How's this for an open mind...I think the planet is warming...I think humans are contributing but to a very very small degree...I can also tell you that there is no factual evidence or scientific study that proves Global Warming, let alone man made GW . Perhaps I do have a closed mind...I have after all researched this .
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Apr, 2015 09:18 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
The Ionus view of hitory is unique.
Do the research . Tell me who says Galileo was not an arrogant fool who kept humiliating the Pope publicly . Just because you dont know it doesnt make it unique .

The Pope was aware of Galileo's observations and was a bit of an amateur scientist himself . If it wasnt for Galileo being a dickhead, the Pope would have supported him . But there has never been an arrogant 'scientist' has there ? Lovely people, scientists, God Bless 'em !
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  0  
Reply Mon 27 Apr, 2015 09:20 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
Also ,(Ionus), are you even conversant in how the planets annual temperature is measured?
If you mean how a guess is made, you will have to put that in a time frame as they keep changing methodology . But you knew that didnt you .
farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Mon 27 Apr, 2015 09:52 pm
@Ionus,
youre trying to posture your way around answering a question again . You are quite predictable with your attempts at "scientistic" schtick.



Youre next trick will be to, no doubt, cast insults at the questions as if beneath you





Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Apr, 2015 09:56 pm
"climate change denialists Vs myth debunkers" .... Very Happy Can the Global Warming Thuggees get any more obvious ? Why dont they just say the evil baby eating Hun versus good decent men who will get sexy attractive women for fighting the noble cause ! Or imperialist running dogs versus the freedom loving people of the republic...
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Apr, 2015 10:00 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
youre trying to posture your way around answering a question again
Clearly you dont understand your own question so I dont know what good an answer will do you . I asked for a definite period and you went into 'dont know, avoid at all costs' mode . I ask again...during what time period do you want an answer to 'how do they measure the Earth's temp' because it has continuously changed . Can you clarify your question or do you not understand enough of the subject ?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Apr, 2015 10:43 pm
@Ionus,
Ionus wrote:

Quote:
Interesting feign of that myth to attribute Kepler instead of Usher.
It was Kepler .
As a German I must admit that Kepler knew nothing about geochronology, but Newton did neither.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.12 seconds on 06/18/2024 at 03:36:01