Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com - Horse Racing Message Board

Go Back   Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com - Horse Racing Message Board > Off Topic > Off Topic - General


Reply
 
Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 6 votes, 4.33 average.
Old 03-24-2015, 08:57 AM   #31
hcap
Registered User
 
hcap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 30,398
Quote:
Originally Posted by rastajenk
Awful lot of variables in that description makes it a hard sell to us proles. We should sacrifice our way of life, and condemn the poorest of the planet to generations of poverty, (while observing our betters jet-setting to various events and appearances with little regard to their carbon footprints), based on that? I wouldn't call that a knockout by any stretch of the imagination.
This much less ambiguous than the so-called "peer reviewed" paper that launched this thread published by a very dubious Chinese journal.
Quote:
The team found recent changes in ocean circulation are “unprecedented” since at least the year 900 A.D., about as far back as these proxy data can reliably go. According to the paper, the probability of a similar circulation slowdown caused by natural variability alone (with no influence from human-caused climate change) was less than 0.5 percent."
BTW, I did say "This may be a knockout punch."
__________________
The inmates have taken over the asylum.
hcap is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 03-24-2015, 09:22 AM   #32
DJofSD
Screw PC
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,728
Quote:
Originally Posted by hcap
This much less ambiguous than the so-called "peer reviewed" paper that launched this thread published by a very dubious Chinese journal.

BTW, I did say "This may be a knockout punch."
You still don't understand how true scientific discovery is performed.

You must believe it's like hide-and-seek and "olly olly oxen free" means the science has been settled, no more questions or findings at apparent odds are allowed any longer.
__________________
Truth sounds like hate to those who hate truth.
DJofSD is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 03-24-2015, 09:45 AM   #33
hcap
Registered User
 
hcap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 30,398
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJofSD
You still don't understand how true scientific discovery is performed.

You must believe it's like hide-and-seek and "olly olly oxen free" means the science has been settled, no more questions or findings at apparent odds are allowed any longer.
Please, the "odds" presently are 97% climatologists, overwhelming numbers of universities, domestic and international scientific agencies both private and governmental,
Versus PA off topic climate deniers, The Heartland Institute, Exxon Mobile, and Anthony Watts and other unqualified tv weatherman caliber pseudo- sort of experts

Versus And let' not forget..

Attached Images
File Type: png New Powell-PM.png (21.3 KB, 44 views)
__________________
The inmates have taken over the asylum.

Last edited by hcap; 03-24-2015 at 09:48 AM.
hcap is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 03-24-2015, 10:00 AM   #34
DJofSD
Screw PC
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,728
Quote:
Originally Posted by hcap
Please, the "odds" presently are 97% climatologists, overwhelming numbers of universities, domestic and international scientific agencies both private and governmental,
Versus PA off topic climate deniers, The Heartland Institute, Exxon Mobile, and Anthony Watts and other unqualified tv weatherman caliber pseudo- sort of experts

Versus And let' not forget..
So what?

One of the tenants of the scientific method is being able to reproduce results of experiments. However, in this case, there are not any experiments, just a lot of data and computer models.

The computer models used by that 97% all assume critical aspects and it only takes 1 error in those assumptions to make the model and the extrapolations wrong. Since the models have yet to make correct predictions I believe there is still something wrong with the assumptions.
__________________
Truth sounds like hate to those who hate truth.
DJofSD is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 03-24-2015, 10:17 AM   #35
hcap
Registered User
 
hcap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 30,398
You can do better than simply "climate models suck"

Search for "Scholarly articles for success in climate models"

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=...ed=0CBwQgQMwAA

From the first pdf format paper:

http://pubman.mpdl.mpg.de/pubman/ite...1-chapter8.pdf

Climate Models and Their Evaluation
Executive Summary

This chapter assesses the capacity of the global climate models used elsewhere in this report for projecting future climate change. Confidence in model estimates of future climate evolution has been enhanced via a range of advances since the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR).

Climate models are based on well-established physical principles and have been demonstrated to reproduce observed features of recent climate (see Chapters 8 and 9) and past climate changes (see Chapter 6). There is considerable confidence that Atmosphere-Ocean General Circulation Models (AOGCMs) provide credible quantitative estimates of future climate change, particularly at continental and larger scales. Confidence in these estimates is higher for some climate variables (e.g., temperature) than for others (e.g., precipitation).

Also a search for "climate models accuracy"

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=...ed=0CBwQgQMwAA
__________________
The inmates have taken over the asylum.
hcap is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 03-24-2015, 10:40 AM   #36
HUSKER55
Registered User
 
HUSKER55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: MILWAUKEE
Posts: 5,285
AND what has the "10885 peer reviewed" people done about it except try and get other peoples money?


Where have these enlightened ones invested their money so we might follow and make ourselves rich as well.
__________________
Never tell your problems to anyone because 20% flat don't care and 80% are glad they are yours.

No Balls.......No baby!

Have you ever noticed that those who do not have a pot to piss in nor a window to throw it out of always seem to know how to handle the money of those who do.
HUSKER55 is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 03-24-2015, 10:42 AM   #37
PaceAdvantage
PA Steward
 
PaceAdvantage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Del Boca Vista
Posts: 88,165
This is such a settled science, and such a threat to humanity, that when Obama and the Dems had control of much of the US Gov't, did they concentrate on passing legislation that would reverse this impending Armageddon, or did they concentrate on passing the ACA?

That should tell you a lot.
PaceAdvantage is online now   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 03-24-2015, 10:51 AM   #38
DJofSD
Screw PC
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,728
I've taken a minimal amount of time to read some of the "hits" when plugging into my favorite search engine "climate models accuracy." What I see is an evolution of what GCM's are adding to help improve the accuracy of the models. I interpret this to mean the scientists realize they can do better, or, there are still problems with the models as the report from the 5th Assessment Report from the IPCC admits.
__________________
Truth sounds like hate to those who hate truth.
DJofSD is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 03-24-2015, 11:32 AM   #39
Clocker
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 17,095
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJofSD

The computer models used by that 97% all assume critical aspects and it only takes 1 error in those assumptions to make the model and the extrapolations wrong. Since the models have yet to make correct predictions I believe there is still something wrong with the assumptions.
The widely hyped 97% number is bogus. It was manufactured by a small group of global warming fan boys who looked through the abstracts (summaries) of about 4000 articles on climate change (peer reviewed, we assume) and determined by their own judgment that 97.2% of them assumed humans play a role in global warming.

Hard as it might be to believe, the fan boys that did this "scientific study" blog under the collective name of Skeptical Science.

From Scientific American:

Quote:
The point of contention is a peer-reviewed study published last year by Green, a chemistry professor at Michigan Technological University; John Cook, a research fellow at the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland in Australia; and 10 other scientists who blog under the collective name of Skeptical Science. The scientists examined 4,014 abstracts on climate change and found 97.2 percent of the papers assumed humans play a role in global warming (ClimateWire, May 16, 2013).

That statement quickly got boiled down in the popular media to a much simpler message: that 97 percent of scientists believe climate change is caused by humans. President Obama tweeted the 97 percent consensus. Comedian John Oliver did a segment on it that went viral on the Internet.
Later in the Scientific American story, it states that the 4,014 abstracts came from a review of nearly 12,000 abstracts that were looked at. These 4,014 were those that appeared to state a definite opinion on AGW. The other 8,000 were inconclusive.

The study of abstracts does not say what supporters claim, say critics.

Quote:
One of the problems with Cook's appeal to authority is this: So far, no one has quantified the consensus among natural scientists on global warming. In fact, it cannot be done easily, said Jon Krosnick, a social psychologist at Stanford University who has been studying communication strategies for decades.

While the Cook study may quantify the views expressed in published literature, it does not establish the beliefs of any defined group of scientists, Krosnick said.

"How do you determine who qualifies to be surveyed and who doesn't qualify?" he asked. "Personally, I haven't seen anyone accomplish that yet."
http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...lobal-warming/
__________________
A man's got to know his limitations. -- Dirty Harry
Clocker is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 03-24-2015, 11:49 AM   #40
DJofSD
Screw PC
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,728
Good stuff, Clocker.

At some point the lemmings will begin to understand their science and the methodology is no where close to what is required which would put it on the same footing as, oh, I don't know, let's say, the investigation of the Higgs boson at CERN?
__________________
Truth sounds like hate to those who hate truth.
DJofSD is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 03-24-2015, 11:51 AM   #41
PaceAdvantage
PA Steward
 
PaceAdvantage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Del Boca Vista
Posts: 88,165
Funny...left-leaners have the balls to accuse Rebublicans and Conservatives of using scare tactics to further their agendas...

Armageddon...the ultimate scare tactic...but let's pass health care instead...after all, climate-change-induced end of the world is going to see a lot of sick folks, and they need insurance!

PaceAdvantage is online now   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 03-24-2015, 01:54 PM   #42
tucker6
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 9,959
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage
This is such a settled science, and such a threat to humanity, that when Obama and the Dems had control of much of the US Gov't, did they concentrate on passing legislation that would reverse this impending Armageddon, or did they concentrate on passing the ACA?

That should tell you a lot.
even more telling is the fact that as Obama goes around talking about our impending doom, he is closing on a beachfront home in Hawaii. Guess sea level rise is for the little people.
tucker6 is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 03-24-2015, 01:59 PM   #43
tucker6
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 9,959
Quote:
Originally Posted by hcap
This may be a knockout punch.

Exceptional twentieth-century slowdown in Atlantic Ocean overturning circulation

Possible changes in Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC) provide a key source of uncertainty regarding future climate change. Maps of temperature trends over the twentieth century show a conspicuous region of cooling in the northern Atlantic. Here we present multiple lines of evidence suggesting that this cooling may be due to a reduction in the AMOC over the twentieth century and particularly after 1970. Since 1990 the AMOC seems to have partly recovered. This time evolution is consistently suggested by an AMOC index based on sea surface temperatures, by the hemispheric temperature difference, by coral-based proxies and by oceanic measurements. We discuss a possible contribution of the melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet to the slowdown. Using a multi-proxy temperature reconstruction for the AMOC index suggests that the AMOC weakness after 1975 is an unprecedented event in the past millennium (p > 0.99). Further melting of Greenland in the coming decades could contribute to further weakening of the AMOC.
Except that this study is entirely based on models. Following is what real life empirical evidence suggests ...

"Several recent studies have generated a great deal of publicity for their claims that the warming climate is slowing the pace of the Gulf Stream. They say that the Gulf Stream is decreasing in strength as a result of rising sea levels along the East Coast. However, none of the studies include any direct measurements of the current over an extended period to prove their point.

But this is exactly what has been underway at the University of Rhode Island and Stony Brook University for the last 20 years: measurement of the strength of the Gulf Stream. And according to a paper published in Geophysical Research Letters, the researchers find no evidence that the Gulf Stream is slowing down. These new results reinforce earlier findings about the stability of Gulf Stream transport based on observations from as far back as the 1930s.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...58636/abstract
tucker6 is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 03-24-2015, 05:17 PM   #44
ArlJim78
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 8,429
so much for the knockout punch.
That paper is being roundly criticized even by fellow warmists.

http://notrickszone.com/2015/03/24/d....UedzRNUe.dpbs

back to the drawing board.
ArlJim78 is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 03-24-2015, 06:10 PM   #45
burnsy
self medicated
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: toga
Posts: 3,077
[QUOTE=HUSKER55]That point is going to be mute.

in ten years, or less, the vast majority of cars are going to use batteries. There are some articles in car magazines that say 2016 maybe the last year gas cars are made. The shift to more efficient means of shipping will start making an impact. Cheaper and cleaner energy has an established and positive influence and as technology improves so will the potential of solar and wind power to name 2.

1. Common sense will tell anyone that's got any that the earth can not sustain an infinite amount of human activity. I heard more than one old religious crony spout that we "little humans" can not affect the life of Earth....dream on...are you freaking kidding me? I don't care what science you believe in treating the planet like a dump or toilet won't last forever with billions of humans doing so. The end most likely will come at our hands. Either due to the fact we treat it like scumbags or blow it up trying to kill each other. The religious nuts do everything but read the Bible where one is told to be a "good steward" of the planet. Its a warning fools.

2. People love to deny things, its a way of life. Plus, if you are old and won't be around if and when it happens......you can afford to deny because in all reality you don't give a crap......Its convenient to kick the can down the road when it has no affect on you personally......

3.Husker is right. Our generation is somehow "brainwashed" into the oil, coal and gas thing. It will change because the alternatives will eventually become more effective and cheaper. There's only so much you can drill out of ground. That's how progress works...Shit, if I listened to some of the "boneheadness" people spout we would all still be riding horses and space travel would still be a freaking dream.

4. As for the "left leaners" and "right leaners" they are pretty much tools of the political machine...I kind of get a kick out of listening (laughing at) to both. Both are adept at scare tactics but the real problem is the jokers that fall for it...it drives our retarded policies. People don't read or research these things for themselves and repeat the BS they hear.

The earth is burning up, the terrorist are going to take over and we are all doomed if "father govt." does not save us. Lets look at how this is working. In reality, we are in debt up to our assholes, we have our noses up every other countries ass....and the ones that hate us are "evil." Iran is the current whipping boy, but anyone that bothers to read can find out that the CIA recently admitted orchestrating a coup to remove their elected govt. before all the shit hit the fan decades ago......Gee, why wouldn't they like us after that?

Like I said, people are nationalistic and classic deniers. Wave the flag, we are all free, we don't have to work, there's hand outs for everyone and if we get into a war......its 100% the other guy...and you can tune into FOX news, MSNBC or CNN and hear about the half assed science behind all of this........

Just the way our great country was founded and based on........ .....not

Free everything for everyone........but we have to know what you are doing, saying or thinking to keep you safe from those "evil doers" out there and everyone else is out to get us so we gotta jam our noses up their asses too......Forget about the planet or "science" anyone that can think even a little bit can see we are on a bad trajectory in this country...but the "lefties" and "righties" will follow this ship right into the iceberg....classic denial mode is on....sheep are scared and following ..... Little do they know that its just probably speeding up the process towards the end. That's what people should really be afraid of, 2015 and we still don't know how to conduct ourselves...in fact, we have regressed as a country...that's the real scare. Echoes of the "Roman Empire" come to mind, cause right now, that's where this thing seems to be heading. Oh yeah, and they thought they were "smarter" than everyone else too so they "tried" to "rule the world"...it worked out splendidly.......

Last edited by burnsy; 03-24-2015 at 06:20 PM.
burnsy is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Reply




Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

» Advertisement
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:41 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 1999 - 2023 -- PaceAdvantage.Com -- All Rights Reserved
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program
designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.