|
|
|
|
#51
12/19/2006, 12:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
A Model T weighed 1400 pounds, had a top speed of 44 mph and its engine turned out a whopping 20 hp. A better comparison would be to compare a Model T's fuel effeciency with my lawn mower.
Plus the engine did not run a large generator and air conditioning unit and had no emmission requirements. No mufflers or cataletic converters. Quote:
Mike |
|
#52
12/19/2006, 03:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
The declining ice shelfs of Greenland and Antarctica are fact. Where do you think that water is going to go? Thermal expansion will also play a smaller part in rising the oceans. Two thirde of the world population live within 80km of the ocean. In Bangladesh 10 million people live within 1m of the ocean. Where do they go? |
|
#54
12/20/2006, 03:02 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#55
12/20/2006, 03:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Here's the problem: Quote:
John Daly: Quote:
Nature recently published a study that found the Antarctic has actually been cooling since 1966. Another study in Science recently found the West Antarctic Ice Sheet has been thickening rather than thinning. (See “New studies throw cold water on warming theory,” Environment & Climate News, March 2002.) Even though it is often said that a consensus of scientists believe in Global Warming, doomsday senerios of interupted ocean currents and huge sea level rises are only held by a few. Scientists are even backing off the Global Warming idea since most predictions have fell short by as much as 1100% and instead have adopted the term "Global Climate Change" They can then claim success by siting a changing weather pattern rather than a temperature. Mike Last edited by MCary; 12/20/2006 at 04:07 PM. |
|
#56
12/20/2006, 11:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Please, oh please, don't tell me you're dredging John Daly up from his grave. That guy is dubious at best.
The Western ice sheet is apparently THICKENING, as is the ice at the center of Greenland (but melting at the coast). Warming oceans will provide more moisture, and moisture at the poles will freeze (it is below freezing after all). If it snows in the middle of the arctic, the snow pushes outward to form the ice shelves. More snow creates thicker shelves, but not necessarily a larger RANGE for the ice. It actually helps support GW, not disprove it, so thanks. This is a nice article and video to show the range of arctic ice since the 70's. http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/env..._meltdown.html http://www.nasa.gov/mpg/157179main_mm4_320x240.mpg
__________________
The Sand People are easily startled, but they will soon be back, and in greater numbers. All statements have been peer reviewed. |
|
#58
12/21/2006, 01:02 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Leave it to you to ignore everything that doesn't fit into your model. The only place that it might be cooling is the Antarctic, hardly a GLOBAL measure. Remember, it's called the "global warming" theory, not "if it's cooling in one area it must not be warming globally, I mean that's just silly to think that Earth would be so inconsistent" theory.
__________________
The Sand People are easily startled, but they will soon be back, and in greater numbers. All statements have been peer reviewed. |
|
#59
12/21/2006, 11:21 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
The topic of my post was Antartica not global warming. I was pointing out that the information on the Antartic shelf was inaccurate stemming mostly from a hyped story in the media linking the breakup to Global Warming where no link was being claimed by the scientists. We also have to remember that Antartica is a continent. The pennisula in question has seen warming but it is a very minute section of the entire continent. And as had been made very clear ad naseum, localized weather phenomenons neither supports nor negates global warming.
Quote:
Mike |
|
#60
12/21/2006, 12:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
The Sand People are easily startled, but they will soon be back, and in greater numbers. All statements have been peer reviewed. |
|
#61
12/21/2006, 01:39 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Whatever, like I said this a dogma for you. It's like trying to prove the Earth is more than 5000 years old to a Southern Baptist.
I have an open mind. I look at data and put it in the pro and con column. I ask myself these questions: Is Global Warming real? Is it bad? Are we causing it? Can it be reversed? What is the cost of reversing it vs the damage it does? What can I do personally besides worry about it? The data breaks pretty evenly on both sides, where I end up leaning against is when I get lied to. Then suddenly all data becomes suspect. I also gt a little suspect when the contrary data is reworked until it fits. And like I said before, I hold 3 science degrees and a masters. I know how to read data. Mike |
|
#62
12/21/2006, 01:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
This is real science. Do you claim that Global Warming theory follows these scientific guidlines?
1. Strength (is the evidence so large that we can easily rule out other factors?) 2. Consistency (have the results been replicated by different researchers and under different conditions?) 3. Specificity (is the evidence associated with a very specific cause as opposed to a wide range of causes?) 4. Temporality (did the observed condition precede the problem?) 5. Gradient (are increasing levels associated with increasing temps?) 6. Plausibility (is there a credible scientific mechanism that can explain the association?) 7. Coherence (is the association consistent with the natural history.) 8. Experimental evidence (does a physical intervention show results consistent with the association?) 9. Analogy (is there a similar result that we can draw a relationship to?) |
|
#63
12/21/2006, 02:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
__________________
The Sand People are easily startled, but they will soon be back, and in greater numbers. All statements have been peer reviewed. |
|
#64
12/21/2006, 03:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Of course data is going to lean your way if you discount all opposing data by contributing it to "right wing think tanks". I sited science and nature magazine this time and you ignored that. All of my other post had links to nasa and other various scientific organizations. Whenever I do read right wing organizations I follow their links to the source. I never take their word for it.
You make comments like John Daly is Dubious at best. I don't know anything about the guy. So once I read your post I looked him up. Where do you get the impression that he is dubious? Do you have some information or site you can send me too or do you just not like what he says? Mike |
|
#65
12/21/2006, 04:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Gentleman,
We seem to be starting to head down that slippery path of the argument going from arguing the point to getting personal, and we all know what happens then. So perhaps it's a good idea to step back from the keyboards for a bit
__________________
Bill "LOL, well I have no brain apparently. " - dc (Debi) |
|
#66
12/21/2006, 11:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hi Bill. Yeah, time to step back for a bit. No hard feelings Mike, here's a good ol' eHug for ya.
 Merry Christmas, happy holidays, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, Festivus, or whatever label of celebration you choose. Personally, I'm just glad the winter solstice is here, I need more sunlight.
__________________
The Sand People are easily startled, but they will soon be back, and in greater numbers. All statements have been peer reviewed. |
|
#67
12/22/2006, 11:59 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bill, You mistook the tenor of my post. I feel no anger or aggrevation. I enjoy a good back and forth with Hippy. And I was trying not to get into the merits of Global Warming. I believe the Global Warming debate breaks people into two camps. Those that believe the Global Warming theory and those that aren't sure yet. Those that believe absolutely that there is no possibility of Global Warming are, to be kind, uninformed.
The only reason I broke in to this debate at all was to be informative. A poster was concerned that melting polar ice was going to flood coastal areas. I was merely pointing out that this wasn't happening. This does not reflect on the validity of Global Warming as I pointed out. It only informs of the weather pattern on the continent of Antartica. Just as occasion floods and droughts here in the US do not negate or support the theory. I believe if someone is going to be an activist or "warrior" for a cause, they need to have a complete understanding of what they are fighting for. Hippie of course seems well informed, but other tend to parrot what they've heard form a sensational media or a friend of a friend. Last year after the devestating hurricanes I remember one of the first interviews on TV where they talked to a scientist at the national hurricane center. They asked if the hurricanes were a result of Global Warming. He stated quite clearly, no. They were a cyclical event that were easily predicted. He showed graphs of previous events to illustrate his point. Following that event, I heard numerous claims by scientists outside the hurricane field, activists, and celebrities using the hurricanes to site the dangers of global warming. Many of them claimed that this year would even be more devestating. Of course this year we had none. My point is, before someone worries themselves into a thrombo, get a clear understanding of what you're talking about. Do not accept things because the great George Clooney or Bill Maher said it. Me and Hippie may disagree on alot of things, but I give him credit for one thing. He never sites Fox news or Rosie O'Donnell as one of his sources. ok, I'm done Mike |
|
#68
12/24/2006, 02:48 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#69
01/17/2007, 01:57 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
ask yourselves this:
in the absence of certainty, doesn't it make sense to choose the path that is safest? In other words...it can't hurt to reduce greenhouse emissions etc. if we are wrong, but it can hurt if we ignore the possibility of climate change, and it turns out to be real. So the only smart path is the safe one regardless of outcome. and, doesn't it make sense to let the best scientific minds on the planet figure out the predominant theory, ajd not a bunch of aquarium nerds like us? The best minds in the worldwide scientific community have declared climate chang eot be a plausable risk, so who are we to question them from our couches? Lets leave the climate science to the actual climatologists at Harvard and Cornell. At least this is a welcome topic here at RC, and it's nice to see responsible reefkeeping get its own forum. TRT is another story unfortunately.
__________________
Our participation in the marine ornamental trade inherently makes us hypocrites. The least we can do is promote trade reform. Pressure your peers and LFS's to make it a priority. |
|
#70
01/17/2007, 08:03 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"So the only smart path is the safe one regardless of outcome."
So show me a "safe" way to reduce o2 emissions by 75% in 10 years. Show me the plan and lets see how many jobs are lost and how many companys close. But before you do that, show me the proof that man is causing global warming. I am educated enough to know the difference in a decision made by voting and one that is based on data. Why don't we need a consensus on the theory of gravity? |
|
#71
01/17/2007, 01:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
well I think you completely missed the point, and judging by that response we're not going to get anywhere, but I'll try once more.
1) The potential cost of being wrong is much greater than the potential cost of being right. 2) Leave the real climate science to the real climatologists....don't be naive enough to believe some fish geeks on their computers have the answers that the best minds in the worldwide scientific community missed. This blog cites lots of articles and studies on climate change and coral reefs. use the search feature. www.reeflabs.com
__________________
Our participation in the marine ornamental trade inherently makes us hypocrites. The least we can do is promote trade reform. Pressure your peers and LFS's to make it a priority. |
|
#72
01/17/2007, 04:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
__________________
The Sand People are easily startled, but they will soon be back, and in greater numbers. All statements have been peer reviewed. |
|
#73
01/17/2007, 06:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
discussion is fine. Independent thought and critical analysis is good. In fact its what science is about....but keep things in perspective....nobody here is a climatologist from Cornell. We can guess, we can speculate, we can imagine, but we're not trained to even try and make actual judgments based on anything. Professional climatologists are qualified, not reefgeeks, lol. What makes you think any of the armchair scientists here know anything that the entire worldwide scientific community missed?
It's just plain naive to think we know more than the best scientific minds across the globe over the past 40 years...and the global scientific community in climate science have stated the predominant theory....so i don't know what you mean by 'blindly' following, if we're listening to the best minds on the subject. re: the 'ivory tower' generalization - casual stereotyping and over-generalizations like this tend to be a big indicator of perspective, or a lack thereof, and can only bog down effective debate, imo.
__________________
Our participation in the marine ornamental trade inherently makes us hypocrites. The least we can do is promote trade reform. Pressure your peers and LFS's to make it a priority. Last edited by ReefBuddha; 01/17/2007 at 06:46 PM. |
|
#74
01/17/2007, 06:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
So, I suppose researchers should simply stop publishing their work in popular publications? I mean, what's the point, none of the readers have climatology degrees from Cornell. And 'blindly' following means going along with an idea without understanding the idea. So yes, join the herd by all means, but leave me out of your humble apathy movement, 'buddha'.
Excuse me if I sound harsh, but you pushed my buttons by jumping in and basically telling me and everyone else that we're stupid and that we should just listen to our 'betters'.
__________________
The Sand People are easily startled, but they will soon be back, and in greater numbers. All statements have been peer reviewed. |
|
#75
01/17/2007, 06:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
stop publishing? I'm sorry but I'm not following your logic. In fact the open publication of data allows the scientific community the opportunity for critical analysis. Your responses are steeped in sarcasm and are making less and less sense to me unfortunately.
Compared to professional climatologists, YES, we're all relatively 'stupid' here on that subject. I don't see why that's a problem. But I gotta move on. I bid you all good day.  new scientist site . * Wikipedia Entry *he debate Behind Global Warming * end of the debate * All about climate change * Climate science by Climate Scientists plenty more too..
__________________
Our participation in the marine ornamental trade inherently makes us hypocrites. The least we can do is promote trade reform. Pressure your peers and LFS's to make it a priority. Last edited by ReefBuddha; 01/17/2007 at 07:01 PM. |
|
|
Linear Mode
