| Political Talk |
| Return to Board • Menu • Bottom |  Page 2 of 3  |
| Message |
| re: new data/theory on Antarctic ice shelf melting In terms of global average temperatures (or really anything climate related), looking at a graph that is zoomed in on less than 500 years of data is worthless IMO. Reply • Back to Top |
quote: the point of the graph is the last decade. Even though CO2 has risen, there HAS NOT BEEN A RISE IN TEMPERATURE. Reply • Back to Top |
| So the frick what. It could take 100 years. It may not even happen at all. It's not like you go to bed and wake up under 6 feet of water in the morning. That would be something to be alarmed about. Reply • Back to Top |
quote: blasphemy Reply • Back to Top |
quote: I am highly skeptical of this "16 feet" claim. I would like to see the assumptions for this calculation. I highly suspect that their key assumption is that melted sea ice will add to global sea levels. That is a fundamental error. The reason it is an error is because sea ice already displaces sea levels. Here is a simple experiment you can do in you kitchen. Take a cup and fill it with ice. Then fill it with water to the brim. At this point note that the ice is protruding above the brim of the cup. Let the ice melt...and voila, no spillage. Melted sea ice will not contribute to rising sea levels, however , melting land ice will. Reply • Back to Top |
quote:Further... Linear trending is poor (invalid?) way to analyze a known cyclical signal. This post was edited on 4/26 at 9:28 am Reply • Back to Top |
quote:Obama fixed it. Reply • Back to Top |
| Otto, if this is such a concern and you want to prove it to be true, then do us a favor. Become a "lobster" for humanity. Stay there until the hot water boils you. We'll then know that it's true, but you cannot ever leave the water. You have to stay to prove it's a real threat. It's for the sake of humanity and Mother Earth. This post was edited on 4/26 at 9:34 am Reply • Back to Top |
quote:100 years is a long time to find a new house. There were once people living on lands that are now below the Gulf of Mexico. And notice... Al Gore owns beach front property... Reply • Back to Top |
quote: Yeah, I can only imagine that if he believes this to be such a certainty, Otto must be funneling all his retirement money into scooping up future beachfront property in Dequincy. Someone check the property sales logs in that area, pronto. SlowFlow? This post was edited on 4/26 at 9:39 am Reply • Back to Top |
quote: This little tidbit of environmental propaganda has been more than debunked by the world's most prominent climatologists. The idea that a sea rise of 16 - 20 feet was proposed in Gore's Inconvienent Truth. Reliable experts from all fields have pointed out that this is not a likely scenario. Sea level rise over the next 100 years is estimated to be in the 1-3 ft. range. quote: United Nations Climate Panel In every instance I've seen of extreme sea level rise being used as a scientific certainty, the person(s) presenting the data has more to gain by using fear tactics to promote their careers, then by presenting more rational and scientific based information. Reply • Back to Top |
quote: When someone is talking about a field of study I no nothing about and don't have the time to get up to the forefront of, that is EXACTLY my line of thinking. And that is a perfectly rational thing to do. There are too many interesting ideas worthy of study to actually study them all. Reply • Back to Top |
| FWIW, I don't know a damn thing about climate science. But I do know something about statistics, and have a question maybe someone can answer seriously. Are the models built upon linear regressions? If so, do they suffer from the same problem with fat-tailed distributions that plagued Wall Street financial models? If yes, then these models could well be completely wrong - in either direction. Reply • Back to Top |
quote:Kind of a hard question to answer. Partially, yes they use linear regressions for initial conditions, and hindcasting calibration. Obviously there are only a few discrete number of data points (temperature measuring stations), but the modeling grid will be much smaller and granular. There are mutliple ways of *cough*cooking the books*cough* regressing the measured data to estimate the temperature at the unmeasured grids. We know from Cimategate I that the modelers chose those *cough*regressions very carefully with an eye to the results they produced. For example we know they "regressed" the measured temperature data to remove the 40s Bump from the temperature record to better fit their hindcasted datasets that their models did not successfully reproduce. IOW, there was something going on in the climate the models didn't produce, so they removed the data as anomolies, as if it didn't happen. As for solving the state equations... it depends on how you define linear. Nearly all numeric solvers linearize over some fininte time step. (although the time step may vary dynamically over modeled time interval depending on the transients) Naturally selection of those time steps are crucial to the solutions success, fidelity, and accuracy. quote:Have no idea. Don't know enough about the modesl you are referring to. Reply • Back to Top |
quote: this. quote: No. the distributions you are discussing don;t really show up in the models they used. The problem with the Wall Street models was classification of distributions that fit the data well for MOST of the points, but functionally weren't appropriate. For example, the Weibull distribution assumes a tail of infinity...something that doesnt exist in real life. Reply • Back to Top |
quote: Let me summarize Otto's position: GEE, I AM OVERWHELMED BY CONTRADICTORY DATA. I'LL ASSUME A RESULT WITH A P-VALUE OF 0.01 (ON THE NEGATIVE SIDE) IS IMMINENT AND PROFOUNDLY CHANGE MY EXISTENCE ACCORDINGLY. Reply • Back to Top |
| Katy you got it so wrong. I was paraphrasing some poster. This is one I would bet money on: If the water is warmer, its going to be warmer for a long time. Reply • Back to Top |
quote: surface, or bottom water. If bottom water are you describing the NADW, AABW, or AAIW? tia otto. I'm sure your post will live up to your 188 iq, went to law school while an undergraduate, flunked out and went back to being an undergraduate because I spent time at the track billing. Reply • Back to Top |
| cpt you read the link. that's all I saw on it. Reply • Back to Top |
| cpt you read the link. that's all I saw on it. also, I didnt flunk out. I corrected you previously on that. This post was edited on 4/26 at 2:35 pm Reply • Back to Top • Refresh |
| Return to Board | ||
 Page 2 of 3  | ||
on 4/26 at 8:21 am to 
on 4/26 at 8:23 am to