Thread: GLOBAL WARMING/CLIMATE CHANGE TRUE/FALSE

I don't know, but my dog 'Glow Ball' is getting a worming.

Originally Posted by 59caddy

are we as mankind arrogant enough to think we are doing this much damage to our planet.
let me make one other statement. when MT SAINT HELENS erupted a few years back, all reports were that it put more matter and green house gas into the atmosphere than had been placed there by man since the industrial revolution. there are eruptions almost constantly by a volcano, either above ground and under oceans and seas.(not major outputs but most surely green house gas and matter)
as far as giving more facts. i think you can look this up fairly easy, as it would take up pages here to display all the real facts.

+1 you took the words right out of my mouth.

another thought, what happened to the hole in the ozone layer. it seems it mostly has closed up. we as man were supposed to have caused that. researchers also said that was a natural occurrence. everybody ran screaming the sky is falling, again another falsehood.
speaking of real science, when the automobile first came out, real science said that if we traveled at more than 45 mph we would lose our breath and could not recover until we slowed down. this is the main objective of this whole debate, we should slow down and find the facts first before we go running around trying to scare the bejeepers out of everyone.

Originally Posted by 59caddy

all the hype is based on computer models and not real science.

Like gugi noted, most these computer models are based on factual data. Real data is gathered and then a computer is used to map it. Just because a computer does all the crunching doesn't mean that the data is somehow fictional.

Originally Posted by 59caddy

just like the acid rain a few years back, which was proved to be just hype(no skin burns/paint peeling off cars/gravestones being dissolved).

Acid rain is real and will react with calcium. This affects limestone, sandstone, marble and granite. It can and has damaged gravestones so that the writing can no longer be seen, and it also increases the rate of oxidation in copper and bronze.
source

Originally Posted by 59caddy

another thought, what happened to the hole in the ozone layer. it seems it mostly has closed up.

Well actually I think it's a hole in the sense of a depression, not missing ozone. You say that it seems to have mostly closed up, yet in 2006 the largest hole ever was recorded at 11.4 million square miles.
source

Originally Posted by 59caddy

another thought, what happened to the hole in the ozone layer. it seems it mostly has closed up

If by "mostly has closed up" you mean it has stopped spreading and might close 10 years earlier than was originally expected... around 2070

Here is a Wiki article titled Global Warming Controversy for anyone that might want to read more than one side of the issue.

Originally Posted by JimmyHAD

for anyone that might want to read more than one side of the issue.

Sheesh, what a killjoy.

Originally Posted by mhailey

Climate change?? yeah, its called the changing of the seasons.

And another climate change would be called the ice age that arguably killed the dinosaurs.

Originally Posted by 59caddy

speaking of real science, when the automobile first came out, real science said that if we traveled at more than 45 mph we would lose our breath and could not recover until we slowed down.

I submit that you are just making stuff up. Which is fine with me, but you just lost my further contributions on this discussion.

Have fun, guys.

I agree with Gugi's first post - models are a part of real science, whether they be based upon theoretical considerations or empirical considerations. Models are just a set of assumptions which are typically, but not exclusively, written into mathematical form with varying degrees of approximation and success.

So a model is only as good as the set of assumptions that support it, and as good as the mathematical approximations needed to implement it. In my opinion, it is not the models you need to worry about - it is the underlying assumptions of a model that are the concern.

Added to that, a theoretical model usually needs to, at some point, be empirically tested using data collected for such a purpose. This introduces further issues such as measurement error, adequate sampling, and so on, which could be grouped generically into "data quality" concerns.

And getting back to the main thrust of the OP, my major professional concern with the Climate Change research industry is with the accumulated effects of the approximations and assumptions underlying the development of proposed theoretical models, but more importantly with the appropriateness and quality of the data collected to empirically test such models. The adequacy, or lack thereof, of data suitable to a specific purpose must be viewed in the overall context of the phenomenon under investigation and the current state of knowledge regarding factors that influence that phenomenon. In my opinion, having worked in this area for 6 years, the current state of empirical evidence is not adequate to draw the kinds of conclusions we are being asked to believe.

However, these are all purist and professional considerations.

James.

Two links for the naysayer's enjoyment: Global Warming Petition Project , and of course, our beloved George Carlin: YouTube - George Carlin - Saving the Planet