Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Forums
Non-Cattle Specific Topics
Every Thing Else Board
How did you get into cattle business?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Help Support CattleToday:
Message
<blockquote data-quote="gman4691" data-source="post: 1831818" data-attributes="member: 43107"><p>Where to begin? The earth's climate has been much warmer and much cooler than anything mankind has ever experienced as indicated by ice cores, ocean sediment, coral reefs, etc. That gives a natural maximum and a natural minimum inasmuch as we know currently. In the history of humans on earth, the climate has never even approached either. The warmest period we know of would have been around 250 million years ago...the second warmest would have been about 40-60 million years ago when most of the North American continent was under sea water. Additionally, since 1979 temperature measurements of the lower troposphere have been made by Tiros-N satellites using microwave radiometry (Microwave Sounding Units - MSU). These are the only precision measurements of global temperature available for direct comparison with temperature predictions from General Circulation Models (GCMs). Unlike ground monitoring stations, the satellites cover the whole earth, measuring and averaging the temperature of the lower troposphere. This is the same region modelled by the GCMs. The accuracy of the radiometer measurements is 0.1 °C, which is considerably better than the accuracy of thermometer measurements made on the surface of the earth. And the satellites are not influenced by activity at the earth's surface, the urban heat island effect, for example. The satellite (MSU) temperature data set is the only one that is truly global, highly accurate, and uses a completely homogeneous measurement over the entire planet. It also measures the part of the lower atmosphere that, according to the climate models, should be experiencing the greatest warming due to the allegedly enhanced greenhouse effect. But satellite data since 1979 show no significant warming trend.</p><p></p><p>I could go into detail on major problems with the predictive algorithms used by the IPCC...if you are having trouble sleeping. In short, the assumptions made by the principle components algorithms are just that - assumptions...a number of very significant factors are left out from the get-go (e.g. cosmic radiation, sun spots, etc.). The largest and most erroneous problem is that CO2 is ASSUMED to be the primary driver of the global climate and that just isn't the case (they are getting the cart before the horse, as it were). The infamous hockey stick graph has been thoroughly disproven as it is simply an artifact of very questionable statistical methodology. If I turned in something like that to my stats professors, they would have either laughed at me and told me to do it again or just given me an "F". Issues with data selection (cherry-picking) and proxies (esp. tree ring data) used in the IPCC's GCMs remain problematic as does the "peer review" process at the IPCC. The Summaries for Policy Makers (which is what the public, politicians, and press mostly see) are constructed through an almost totally political process having very little to do with science and contain only the most dire predictions. One delegate out of over 500 (not a scientist) from one country can say they want a sentence removed from the SPM and it will be removed without any scientific discussion or justification at all. The actual assesment reports turned out do have some good climate science in them but they, too, are subject to questionable peer reviews...making substantive changes subsequent to the peer review process without having it "re-reviewed" (that's a huge no-no in scientific research - read academic malpractice), for instance - as seen in the First Assessment Report completed in 1990 if I'm remember correctly. The whole thing is a political and financial football but catastrophic anthropogenic climate change is not supported by the data or the science. The "97% consensus" that gets tossed around so much has been shown to be nothing of the sort as demonstrated by Dr. David Legates when he reviewed John Cook's 2011 study cited by most people who throw the 97% number out there (I doubt that most of them even know where it comes from - if they did, they wouldn't throw it out there quite so casually). I find the whole thing frustrating because it puts us nerds in a bad light. The planet is just fine and will continue to go through its cycles as it always has...glaciers have retreated and advanced and oceans have transgressed and regressed for a few billion years and will continue to do so. A better use of time, effort, energy, and money would be working on cleaner water, air, and soil. Or cleaning up watersheds...a real difference can be made there that matters. The doomsday stuff has gotten old and tiresome. Incidentally, a true 97% number was published in the journal "Nature - Climate Change" where 117 climate predictions made since 1970 were studied...the study found that 97.4% of those predictions never materialized. <- true story that gave me a bit of a chuckle.</p><p></p><p>I've gone on longer than I intended but this has been of interest to me since college (had my "Save the Planet" t-shirt and wore it proudly) and I have looked over more research on both sides of the issue than I care to remember. When the UN and government money got involved, the whole thing went down the toilet - scientifically speaking - as is commonly the case...unfortunately. Fear not...in the words of Mother Julian of Norwich, ""All shall be well, and all shall be well, and all manner of things shall be well".</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="gman4691, post: 1831818, member: 43107"] Where to begin? The earth's climate has been much warmer and much cooler than anything mankind has ever experienced as indicated by ice cores, ocean sediment, coral reefs, etc. That gives a natural maximum and a natural minimum inasmuch as we know currently. In the history of humans on earth, the climate has never even approached either. The warmest period we know of would have been around 250 million years ago...the second warmest would have been about 40-60 million years ago when most of the North American continent was under sea water. Additionally, since 1979 temperature measurements of the lower troposphere have been made by Tiros-N satellites using microwave radiometry (Microwave Sounding Units - MSU). These are the only precision measurements of global temperature available for direct comparison with temperature predictions from General Circulation Models (GCMs). Unlike ground monitoring stations, the satellites cover the whole earth, measuring and averaging the temperature of the lower troposphere. This is the same region modelled by the GCMs. The accuracy of the radiometer measurements is 0.1 °C, which is considerably better than the accuracy of thermometer measurements made on the surface of the earth. And the satellites are not influenced by activity at the earth's surface, the urban heat island effect, for example. The satellite (MSU) temperature data set is the only one that is truly global, highly accurate, and uses a completely homogeneous measurement over the entire planet. It also measures the part of the lower atmosphere that, according to the climate models, should be experiencing the greatest warming due to the allegedly enhanced greenhouse effect. But satellite data since 1979 show no significant warming trend. I could go into detail on major problems with the predictive algorithms used by the IPCC...if you are having trouble sleeping. In short, the assumptions made by the principle components algorithms are just that - assumptions...a number of very significant factors are left out from the get-go (e.g. cosmic radiation, sun spots, etc.). The largest and most erroneous problem is that CO2 is ASSUMED to be the primary driver of the global climate and that just isn't the case (they are getting the cart before the horse, as it were). The infamous hockey stick graph has been thoroughly disproven as it is simply an artifact of very questionable statistical methodology. If I turned in something like that to my stats professors, they would have either laughed at me and told me to do it again or just given me an "F". Issues with data selection (cherry-picking) and proxies (esp. tree ring data) used in the IPCC's GCMs remain problematic as does the "peer review" process at the IPCC. The Summaries for Policy Makers (which is what the public, politicians, and press mostly see) are constructed through an almost totally political process having very little to do with science and contain only the most dire predictions. One delegate out of over 500 (not a scientist) from one country can say they want a sentence removed from the SPM and it will be removed without any scientific discussion or justification at all. The actual assesment reports turned out do have some good climate science in them but they, too, are subject to questionable peer reviews...making substantive changes subsequent to the peer review process without having it "re-reviewed" (that's a huge no-no in scientific research - read academic malpractice), for instance - as seen in the First Assessment Report completed in 1990 if I'm remember correctly. The whole thing is a political and financial football but catastrophic anthropogenic climate change is not supported by the data or the science. The "97% consensus" that gets tossed around so much has been shown to be nothing of the sort as demonstrated by Dr. David Legates when he reviewed John Cook's 2011 study cited by most people who throw the 97% number out there (I doubt that most of them even know where it comes from - if they did, they wouldn't throw it out there quite so casually). I find the whole thing frustrating because it puts us nerds in a bad light. The planet is just fine and will continue to go through its cycles as it always has...glaciers have retreated and advanced and oceans have transgressed and regressed for a few billion years and will continue to do so. A better use of time, effort, energy, and money would be working on cleaner water, air, and soil. Or cleaning up watersheds...a real difference can be made there that matters. The doomsday stuff has gotten old and tiresome. Incidentally, a true 97% number was published in the journal "Nature - Climate Change" where 117 climate predictions made since 1970 were studied...the study found that 97.4% of those predictions never materialized. <- true story that gave me a bit of a chuckle. I've gone on longer than I intended but this has been of interest to me since college (had my "Save the Planet" t-shirt and wore it proudly) and I have looked over more research on both sides of the issue than I care to remember. When the UN and government money got involved, the whole thing went down the toilet - scientifically speaking - as is commonly the case...unfortunately. Fear not...in the words of Mother Julian of Norwich, ""All shall be well, and all shall be well, and all manner of things shall be well". [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Non-Cattle Specific Topics
Every Thing Else Board
How did you get into cattle business?
Top