IH3444
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2004
- Messages
- 2,466
Global Warming News
- Thread starter KB9UDE
- Start date
- Views: 108148
- Status
20 20
Elite Member
Our mid-winter thaw is over, back down were it should be 20f or less. We are even getting some snow. This weekend is suppose to be a high in the low teens. I like winter and don't mind the cold. When the cold sucks is when the wind hits, seems like it just drrriiives the cold into everything, especially the machinery.
Oooops was this thread about health insurance? Air planes? wind mills? solar electric? corporate take over? or climate, I can't remember?
Oooops was this thread about health insurance? Air planes? wind mills? solar electric? corporate take over? or climate, I can't remember?
Loren49
Veteran Member
Don't know that anyone is doubting that there was misinformation. Does this have anything to do with the years of greenhouse gas science? Do we throw out the ointment because we found a fly in it?
What is the down side of being more fuel efficient and finding alternatives for when fossil fuels become more scarce?
Loren
What is the down side of being more fuel efficient and finding alternatives for when fossil fuels become more scarce?
Loren
turbo36
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2004
- Messages
- 1,523
- Location
- Michigan
- Tractor
- JD X739 AWS (3), 2016 Toolcat, JD 2038R
Our mid-winter thaw is over, back down were it should be 20f or less. We are even getting some snow. This weekend is suppose to be a high in the low teens. I like winter and don't mind the cold. When the cold sucks is when the wind hits, seems like it just drrriiives the cold into everything, especially the machinery.
Oooops was this thread about health insurance? Air planes? wind mills? solar electric? corporate take over? or climate, I can't remember?
Maybe we should change the thread title to "potpourri around the cracker barrel".
Your point is valid if one accepts your premise (i.e., that there was a viable useful ointment prior to the fly landing in it). However, to use your analogy, please understand that for some of us (at least for me), the ointment was never acceptably documented as a worthwhile remedy to start with, and what has been found in it is far more than a fly. Your post implies you think this a minimal issue (and I'm not criticizing you....this is opinion stuff for all of us), while I think it is a very major issue; you think the issue (ointment) was valid before this discovery, and I have never accepted it as much more than snake oil. Given those differences of thought, yes, for me we throw it out.
20 20
Elite Member
Turbo36; LMAO
LMAOLoren49
Veteran Member
LMTC,
Thanks for the thoughtful response. It was refreshing to read especially compared to the "I don't believe in that and therefore I don't care to look at the facts" (health or greenhouse gas or government involvement or conspiracy theory) (Its clear that what are facts to one are deceptions to others)(I believe that many on both sides are passionate because it is what they believe is right, not because they are part of an organized conspiracy) I can live with our difference of opinion.
Loren
Thanks for the thoughtful response. It was refreshing to read especially compared to the "I don't believe in that and therefore I don't care to look at the facts" (health or greenhouse gas or government involvement or conspiracy theory) (Its clear that what are facts to one are deceptions to others)(I believe that many on both sides are passionate because it is what they believe is right, not because they are part of an organized conspiracy) I can live with our difference of opinion.
Loren
Pilot
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2004
- Messages
- 1,224
- Location
- Oregon
- Tractor
- JD 770, Yanmar 180D, JD 420 (not running), had a Kubota B6200
There has been so much conflicting and erroneous information on both sides that I don't think anyone really "knows" what is going on with global warming (or cooling?).
Here is what I know--or at least think I know:
1. We have a theory that looks good on paper.
2. The climate system is extremely complex.
3. Models, by their nature simplify the real world and in doing so cut corners and use assumptions where real knowledge is scant or non-existent. Example, water vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas, but they know little about it, so they have made assumptions of a positive feedback, i.e., the warmer it gets, the warmer water vapor will make it. But they really don't know.
4. Some of those assumptions are likely wrong and may be very important.
5. Historic records of temps are non-existent for much of the world and even where they exist they only cover a few hundred years, so "proxies" have to be used. The validity of these proxies (ice cores, tree rings) is questionable, especially for tree rings which are produced only during the growing season.
6. There has been a lot of fiddling with the data and fudging of information in the IPCC reports, including using advocacy group publications as references (just came out that the IPCC repeatedly cited World Wildlife Fund pubs that were not peer reviewed).
7. Temperature data bases are invalid, with 90% of US weather stations having siting errors that produce evidence of warming just because of where they have located the station. Examples: Nearby air conditioners added after the station was located, they paved formerly grassed areas near or even under the stations. Stations were relocated to rooftops. Most of these changes have happened during the period when the data began to show warming. Errors can skew results as much as 5 deg. C.
8. There is a huge amount of money involved.
9. If human caused global warming is actually happening, the proposed solutions will have little effect--about 1/2 degree C by the year 2100 and the cost to our economy will be very high for little benefit.
11. If human caused warming is not happening and we believe it is, we really screw things up unnecessarily.
12. Global warming "science" has become a huge industry with 10's of millions of dollars going to researchers whose jobs depend on producing evidence of warming or impacts of warming.
12. The IPCC report for 2001 showed the medieval warming period and the little ice age that followed, but the 2004 report erased that data so they could show the "hockey stick" that has since been discredited. This is not honest, straightforward science.
13. Climate models assume CO2 produced today will reside in the atmosphere for 100 or 300 years, depending on who you listen to, but studies following atmospheric atom bomb tests showed carbon 14 to last about 25 years. Overstatement of CO2 residence time can skew model results and overstate warming tremendously. And by golly, they have sent satellites up to find the "missing" CO2. Hmmm. Are they missing something in their models?
14. I have probably forgotten lots of relevant points. Oh, yes, the "models all agree". Of course they do. There are 3 databases, 2 of which are based on a third, so they are all using almost the same database. And since there are so few studies of the necessary factors to put into the models, they use pretty much the same inputs. I drive a 2005 Toyota Tacoma, you drive a 2006 Tacoma. They look pretty much alike, don't they? Same with the models.
15. The latest IPCC report is 2500+ pages long. Citations are just as important as the text, but you have to know the science to evaluate the citations. This I don't "know', but would give odds on: Very few, if any, reporters have read the report, much less looked at the citations. They read the executive summary and leafed thru the text, looked at the pretty graphs and wrote up their story. Hardly anyone in the world has actually carefully read and evaluated the report and it's references. You can download it. Anyone here, advocate or skeptic want to take a look? I thought not.
Here is what I know--or at least think I know:
1. We have a theory that looks good on paper.
2. The climate system is extremely complex.
3. Models, by their nature simplify the real world and in doing so cut corners and use assumptions where real knowledge is scant or non-existent. Example, water vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas, but they know little about it, so they have made assumptions of a positive feedback, i.e., the warmer it gets, the warmer water vapor will make it. But they really don't know.
4. Some of those assumptions are likely wrong and may be very important.
5. Historic records of temps are non-existent for much of the world and even where they exist they only cover a few hundred years, so "proxies" have to be used. The validity of these proxies (ice cores, tree rings) is questionable, especially for tree rings which are produced only during the growing season.
6. There has been a lot of fiddling with the data and fudging of information in the IPCC reports, including using advocacy group publications as references (just came out that the IPCC repeatedly cited World Wildlife Fund pubs that were not peer reviewed).
7. Temperature data bases are invalid, with 90% of US weather stations having siting errors that produce evidence of warming just because of where they have located the station. Examples: Nearby air conditioners added after the station was located, they paved formerly grassed areas near or even under the stations. Stations were relocated to rooftops. Most of these changes have happened during the period when the data began to show warming. Errors can skew results as much as 5 deg. C.
8. There is a huge amount of money involved.
9. If human caused global warming is actually happening, the proposed solutions will have little effect--about 1/2 degree C by the year 2100 and the cost to our economy will be very high for little benefit.
11. If human caused warming is not happening and we believe it is, we really screw things up unnecessarily.
12. Global warming "science" has become a huge industry with 10's of millions of dollars going to researchers whose jobs depend on producing evidence of warming or impacts of warming.
12. The IPCC report for 2001 showed the medieval warming period and the little ice age that followed, but the 2004 report erased that data so they could show the "hockey stick" that has since been discredited. This is not honest, straightforward science.
13. Climate models assume CO2 produced today will reside in the atmosphere for 100 or 300 years, depending on who you listen to, but studies following atmospheric atom bomb tests showed carbon 14 to last about 25 years. Overstatement of CO2 residence time can skew model results and overstate warming tremendously. And by golly, they have sent satellites up to find the "missing" CO2. Hmmm. Are they missing something in their models?
14. I have probably forgotten lots of relevant points. Oh, yes, the "models all agree". Of course they do. There are 3 databases, 2 of which are based on a third, so they are all using almost the same database. And since there are so few studies of the necessary factors to put into the models, they use pretty much the same inputs. I drive a 2005 Toyota Tacoma, you drive a 2006 Tacoma. They look pretty much alike, don't they? Same with the models.
15. The latest IPCC report is 2500+ pages long. Citations are just as important as the text, but you have to know the science to evaluate the citations. This I don't "know', but would give odds on: Very few, if any, reporters have read the report, much less looked at the citations. They read the executive summary and leafed thru the text, looked at the pretty graphs and wrote up their story. Hardly anyone in the world has actually carefully read and evaluated the report and it's references. You can download it. Anyone here, advocate or skeptic want to take a look? I thought not.
Last edited:
mostly_gas
Super Member
Pilot don't forget that most of the sea temp data is from ship cooling sensors. The data from them has not been verified, and did not match up well when temps from buoys were available.
- Status
