Maybe it would have been better worded: "I doubt if either political party would have sided differently on this issue..."
My original objection was to the ever-growing pattern of slashdotters assuming everyone here is a left-winged, christian hating, disgusted by anyone Republican... well, you get the idea. Typical close-minded collegiate America.
When I was just a wee geek lad, our kind clung to the idea that NO political party was good enough for our high ideals. Alas, I miss those days.
"There are only two ways to reduce the CO2 from burning fuel: either reduce the combustion efficiency or use less fuel. The carbon has got to go somewhere. Therefore something like tons/year would be more appropriate, since any concentration can be achieved by dilution with ambient air"
Yes you are correct. But the carbon isn't coming out in the emissions. In a hazardous waste incinerator, the permit granted by the EPA is most specific on the emissions limits. If the sensors go above a certain level, an interlock shuts off the burner. (Which actually increases "bad gases" in the short term, due to VERY inefficient combustion). Each facility typically declared it's own emissions limits, and then spent money to prove that these particular concentrations weren't harmful to downstream inhabitants...
So I'm sure that my numbers are correct... and yes, flow rate is required to calculate the total mass of incomplete combustion and CO2. And if the units are strange... well you're correct there also. One would think that you would want to measure mass. But the EPA doesn't ever make sense. We argued with them on EVERY regulation, stating that they don't scientifically prove anything. But the federal goevernment isn't run by geeks it seems, but by burecrats and politicians. No matter how well you explain something, they don't want to change. Oh well. Now I know why people vote Republican.... ick.
Back to the topic: Fed requires that the combustion equation be monitored COMPLETELY... meaning measure everything that goes in, and everything that goes out.
We have found that most of the nasties wind up in the precipitator and bag house dusts. Samples of these are sent to the lab and must be logged... disposal is always a pain. BUT, there are no interlocks connected to these levels. We can produce as much chlorintated/mecury filled crap as we like... and we can keep burning. but these numbers don't ever get turned over to anyone, unless there's a question to the facilities' operating under permit. then the inspectors come in, level a fine for everything... and typically settle for a smaller settlement and a compromise. Nothing changes, no numbers go anywhere.
My gut tells me that for the numbers of which you speak to represent TOTAL industrial production on average, then they must be estimates. The actual monitors' data doesn't go anywhere. Hell, most opacity is still measured by eyeball... a "trained" professional comes in, stands beneath the stack, and by shielding his eyes looks up and says, "you look like you're running at 8% today."
So even though I see people flashing credentials and showing me equations, my belief is that the raw data is very RAW. We have the means to dump the data from all of these sensors (which are already required by law) to a facility for number crunching... it just isn't there. Which means people are measuring the atmosphere gases and working the equations BACKWARDS to estimate the industrial emissions. But, I haven't seen the numbers to validate the estimates. And I would be very surprised if corporations would voluntarily offer up these numbers on the basis that someone might find out that they're dumping TONS of hazardous wastes (although legally) under people's noses... while most people are looking to the skies.
by the way... the worse emissions gas that I have seen is SO2. Coal is a NOTORIOUS producer. But, when I was desigining these babies, the Fed had NO LAWS to regulate SO2 emissions. It just kind of makes me chuckle to hear people fixate on CO2 when there's TONS of the really nasty stuff being dumped legally every year.
So, I'm very concerned... but the people taking the reigns don't seem to have the same goals or experience that I do. If it was up to me, I would go after SO2, Mercury and the really nasty organics before I'd spend billions on CO2 emissions.
Which was part of my original point about the "scientific method." Although it was just a comment, I had no idea that I would go this in depth about my feelings here.... sheesh.
good discussion. thank you. I appreciate your input.
The thread is all tangled now since everyone is "Anonymous Coward." With my settings, most of the replies are beneath my current threshhold, so I'm typically replying to the wrong messages...
Thanks for the support. It's funny how all I was originally trying to say was that I'd love to see science be improved, especially in this field. oh well....
You keep going around in circles. You are talking in terms of... never mind... turn on your courier font and let me show you:
____________________________|___________________
That blip is what I want measured. You are looking at grand sweeps of periods of thousands of years:
_________----------__________-----------________
That's what you're measuring. And with an accuracy that you feel comfortable with. I want the GOD DAMN blip! You're not saying anything to argue with that... you just keep going around in circles.
Now the reason we don't take ice sample from the pole is very simple... it's the same reason that the Nautilus' flag isn't there today... BECAUSE THE DAMN THING MOVES!!! The ice at the pole is forced South... and eventually melts. I'm surprised an expert like yourself wouldn't know that.
Now for Greenland ice to be measured is fine... it's been around awhile. But again... and I hate to keep this conversation going because you simply don't get it... you can't see blips of warming like I described... you're think in terms of thousands of years. Which means the warming has to last for thousands of years to see it. So if the warming was only for a few hundred years... and occurs cyclically every few thousand, you won't see it. Period. Finito. The end. No more. God you're dense.
What's odd in this "debate" is that so many people choose sides without knowing anything about the field. All of the others in this thread spout off all the stuff that they learned in school without actually going out and "discovering" for themselves... which I find very disheartening. This was the point of my very first post. I believe that something this important deserves more investigation and study then what it is currently getting.
Oddly enough, when I say that we need more "scientific method" most people assume that it will take longer and we'll never find any results beacuse we can never be 100% sure... when all I had in mind really was more bodies to throw at the problem.
Now, as for my personal experience, I have found that most plants want to burn efficiently as possible. Which means that you try to produce as much water and CO2 as you can... that way you know you're squeezing every pennies worth out of your fuel. What we have found is that even at full production, most of our CO2 rates fall WELL under 200 ppm. These are on hazardous waste incinerators, power plants, cement kilns, etc...
So if global warming is being produced by greenhouse gases, these gases aren't coming from my plants. So the question is, who's producing them? Everyone who responded to htis post immediately assumed that the greenhouse gases were man made. I've even seen studies that showed power plants as the chief producer of these emissions. But what I'm saying is that of all the people that I know that have monitored emissions for the federal government, NONE have ever given their data to any UNIVERSITY study on greenhouse gas production. So from where are the Universities getting their data?
Again, I think several steps are being skipped here. And these doofuses (or is it doofusii?) are too quick to jump on the bandwagon without questioning the validity of the preceding studies.
THAT, is what I understand the scientific method's purpose is. Yes/no?
That was my frigging point! I do reject geology, but not as a whole.
This is because I know... with absolute certainty, that carbon dating CAN NOT be so precise as to measure to a specific year. You even said that. So... and I hesitate saying this ONCE AGAIN.... how do you know that we haven't had melt offs like this if they only last a few years when your precision is limited to several hundred?
What's so hard to understand?
You CAN'T USE GEOLOGY THE WAY YOU'RE USING IT!
YOU DON'T KNOW THE RECORD IS MISSING. EVEN IF THE CARBON DATA APPEARS TO BE CONSECUTIVE PER STRATUM... IT ISN'T PRECISE TO THIS LEVEL OF RESOLUTION!
aaaagggghhhh!
in any case, I'm sick of this... go blow it out your ear. this is like arguing religion. You have your priests... go pay homage to the geology gods... I'm telling you carbon dating is totally inadequate for this level of precision, you're telling me that carbon dating knows all. There are no gaps +/- a few thousand years.
you haven't given any concrete examples of anything in this post. You refer to the greenhouse effect which is "known and measurable." Yet you don't produce any equations or data. Why? Because you don't know anything about what you're saying. You heard the buzz phrase on TV first. Then it was repeated in your pathetic undergraduate classes as an attempt to keep "in touch" with the younger generations.
I on the other hand have dealt with these equations. The ones in particular are the emission dissapation acceptable to the federal goevernment in proportion to the height of the stack, flow rate through it... and typical wind forces. We have to determine how much gas is dissapated to any individual downstream of our stacks. We also spend MILLIONS of dollars just to calibrate our monitors... so this isn't something on which you can make mistakes without getting fired.
This is REALLY STARTING TO PISS ME OFF! If you don't know what you're talking about, shut up already.
You are chicken littles. You are not in the field... with the possible exception of spondylus, who's comments are actually constructive... most of you are mindless collegiate dweebs whose self-images apparently are defined by how well you regurgitate psuedo-scientific morality IN SPITE of people in the field telling you that you MAY BE wrong.
This was my point to begin with. You are not listening to people in the field. You've made up your minds... which is NOT SCIENTIFIC!
Read the frigging original post again! Stop wasting our time.
PS. Nobody debates the greenhouse effect... what is in debate here is how scientific the effect's effects are being determined. The fact is, no one knows. But God forbid that the baby boomers can live with themselves if we don't stir up enough emotions so that the 6:00 newscast is interesting...
you're not listening. you're thinking cyclical as in a 50% duty cycle. That's not what I said.
I said it before... what if every 45,000 years we have a global warming of one hundred years. I have no idea where you got your every hundred years crap. Re-read my comments moron.
Your science can't see my less than 1% duty cycle if it can blow away 45,000 years. (I'm so sick of know-it-alls... get a life) It knows that it's missing, but it can't tell me what was there....
I don't care that you can see 45,000 years is missing... I want to know what's in those 45,000 years.
Why is this so difficult for you to understand?
In my job, we see TONS of periodic effects that happen for VERY SHORT DURATIONS... and they don't seem to be cyclic. The harmonics are summed on thousands of different frequencies... so they don't appear periodic at first. Using your methods, I'm not getting 100% of the data... so I would never be able to see ALL of the occurances, which is vital to predicting the next one.
"I shouldn't have to. I pay to have someone do it for me."
wow... what a wonderful understanding you have of democracy.
The patent office has a board. they compare patents against already existing patents. That's it. Yes, these patents shouldn't have been approved... and yes, they're behind the times.
But if you want it changed, talk to them. Write them letters. Get a non-profit organization together to fix it.
Stop whining about it.
And my patents went through the typical domestic AND overseas comparison that all patents go through. And I had to go through over 100 pages of why I shouldn't be entitled to these patents presented to me by the patent office... so they're not my friends.
But, I jumped through the hoops, played by the rules and won. Apparently, unlike you.
Oh, and the patents were mechanical in nature, and not computer related in any fashion. And I never wanted them, it was insisted on by the company for which I worked. I would have been happy simply publishing my ideas non-profit.
and if the ocean's floors were eroded for a period of 45,000 years (which compared to 60 millions years is a drop in the bucket)... and in that 45,000 year period the earth's emissions had risen to TWICE the CO2 levels they are today?...
Your argument is solely based on that one fact. That one fact isn't scientifically sound down at this level. We are measuring in the range of a few years here people. NOT 20 MILLION. No apparatus created has a range or precision that can work in the MILLIONS of YEARS, yet can be so precise as to show last April. Please.
Fact is, you have no idea what happened over the last 20 million years. Due to sea floor evidence, you'd like to believe that CO2 emissions are the highest ever... but you can't prove it.
so before I sign off on BILLIONS of dollars of spending on YOUR theories... I'd like a little more substantial proof first, if that's ok by you.
Peary's claims were disputed. Unlike the South Pole expeditions, he had no evidence that he had actually been there. American history points to him, because he's an American. But there was another (who's name escapes me.... help anyone?) that came down first with claims of being the first. Add to the mix the African-American contingency that it was the black assistant that actually got there....we have no idea who actually got to the North Pole first.
The only confirmed arrival to the north pole was bu Nuclear submarine in the 1950's. I bleieve it was the Nautilus?
My first job was designing/installing CEMs under the 29 and 40 CFRs. In english: Continuous Emissions Monitors under the Code of Federal Regulations dealing with Hazardous Wastes Disposal (and Transportation).
Which means, that I was responsible for monitoring the levels of industrial STACK EMISSIONS. CO2, NOx, SO2, Hydro-Carbons, etc...
This gives me some insight into at least some of the global warming claims. You can believe what you want, I'm basing my decisions on what I'VE SEEN!
There is no scientific evidence that the primary contributor to global warming is (or even could be) man-made. Sorry.
If you want to argue that cutting down the rain-forests is a cheif contributor... your call, I know nothing about the lumber industry. But I can guarantee it is highly unlikely due to industrial emissions.
If the ice cap melts for a duration of 100 years every 45,000 years, WE WOULD NOT SEE IT ACCORDING TO YOUR THEORY
sheesh.
I liked geology class, thanks. I just didn't agree with most of it being applied to SPECIFIC and possibly LIMITED situations. Read Asimov's Foundations series. Apply his socialogical rules to geology... and you have something workable.
But if you use them the way you do, (applying broad bursh strokes to periods less than 50 FRIGGING YEARS) you run around changing things that MAY MAKE THINGS WORSE!
God, I wish I could moderate your comments up. Alas, I took part in this conversation and do not have the means.
This reply is THE ONLY one that understood my point so far. Albeit, we disagree, at least the reply was on target.
Thank you for responding.
-----------------------------
That being said, I see your points... but where you added your paranthetical "not likely" and "most likely", on what do you base this weighting system? The climate could change cyclically every 2000 years like this. How would you know? Why did you assume most likely for the "combination of causes" over just "nature"?
My belief obviously is that nature couldn't give a crap if we were here or not. She will establish an equlibrium and fight for it tooth and nail. If we add more CO2, she'll give us more plants to consume it. If we burn forests, she'll starve us until we're reduced to numbers that aren't as offensive. But in the long term, we can't make a dent in the earth's ecosystems.
that's just it. All of your "known mechanism of action" and "is proven" isn't based on anything tangible. You believe these things exist. And they may exist... I'm not arguing that.
What I was saying is that it's all theory. And by "theory" I mean completely hypothetical, emotional based, media enforced, scientifically unproven, perspective limited HYPE.
We DON'T HAVE any mechanisms established that can actually measure... with any certainty, precision or accuracy... any of the "global warming claims." They are based on the findings of one generation's nature-centered mindset.
In other words: if global warming destroys the earth, the "chicken littles" will be right out of sheer luck, and not out of any scientific foresight.
Your analogy is that global warming is like a gun being pointed at you. What I'm saying is there IS NO ANALOGY for the change in climate conditions. In order to have an analogy, you have to have an understanding of what it is you're describing.
Let me give you an example. Give me an analogy for what I have in my pocket right now.
(most people would take the cheap shot and make fun of me... my fault for leaving myself so open. But I hope you get my point.)
Of course we should change our attitudes, IF you want to preserve the Earth the way SHE is. However, there are millions of people that want it to be one large city. Nothing but concrete and greenhouses. Oxygen is to be generated if needed, and all wastes recycled for consumption.
My point is that we have no idea how the earth is changing. You just ASSUME that ALL these changes are detrimental, and we should do something about it NOW!
I was simply saying that we don't know what is really happening, and any changes we make in order to fend off something that we don't know anything about may indeed make things worse. How can we be scientific if we don't make any effort to determine the problem first?
The data you collected is specific to THAT tree. Even if you collected samples across an area, there's no way to extrapolate that data to an ENTIRE CLIMATE with any reliable precision.
For instance, I have tomatoes in my yard that seeded themselves from last year's crop. Oddly enough, they only grew in one small portion of the yard... where there were no tomatoes last year. Was it the wind that carried the seeds? Deer? Who knows... all I know is that using geologist methods, it would be determined that my yard produced Tomatoes during that period +/- a few hundred years.
So (a million years from now) the question is: "did they grow tomatoes in North America in the twentieth century?" I can say "Yes" using your methods with SOME reliablility.
But if your question is "were the tomato crops being destroyed by pollution during the year 2000" then there's no way to tell. If you grab one spot of my yard, the answer is yes. In another, my data shows increased growth. IT'S NOT HOMGENEOUS! Add to the mix erosion deleting some of the tomato record, contamination from other sources (tornados, floods)... and you have a DAMN good method for getting BROAD determination of the tomato (or squash... we're not sure) record that might have grown (or reproduced sexually... we can't tell), during the information epoch (approximately 1950-2080), somewhere within a few hundred miles of what used to be the Mississippi or Ohio river valleys....
so we're missing the climate patterns for 45,000 years. We don't know what they were... but now with the latest technology we can at least determine that they're missing.
This would prove or disprove what I was saying?
Plus carbon dating can't get you to the year. If it's accurate to a few hundred years then it's completely useless in this context. The example you gave would be like doing brainsurgery with a back hoe.
how do you know how much of something isn't there?
The ice core samples assume predictable amounts of erosion. They carbon date, or compare plankton levels, or salt concentrations.... who cares. In any case they START with the assumption that the caps have always been there, they have grown on average a few inches a year...blah, blah, blah.
But if the ice caps melted every three hundred years or so, who would know? How would your core samples help then?
Slashdot Mirror
I thought that AOL/Netscape merger was going to TEAR DOWN Microsoft. Wasn't that their main goal?
How does removing one of their only useful services from Linux help accomplish this?
then perhaps I misunderstood your statement.
... well, you get the idea. Typical close-minded collegiate America.
Maybe it would have been better worded: "I doubt if either political party would have sided differently on this issue..."
My original objection was to the ever-growing pattern of slashdotters assuming everyone here is a left-winged, christian hating, disgusted by anyone Republican
When I was just a wee geek lad, our kind clung to the idea that NO political party was good enough for our high ideals. Alas, I miss those days.
"it hardly seems fair to lay the blame at the political party involved here."
Why the hell not?
Why do people always insulate their chosen parties?
"There are only two ways to reduce the CO2 from burning fuel: either reduce the combustion efficiency or use less fuel. The carbon has got to go somewhere. Therefore something like tons/year would be more appropriate, since any concentration can be achieved by dilution with ambient air"
Yes you are correct. But the carbon isn't coming out in the emissions. In a hazardous waste incinerator, the permit granted by the EPA is most specific on the emissions limits. If the sensors go above a certain level, an interlock shuts off the burner. (Which actually increases "bad gases" in the short term, due to VERY inefficient combustion). Each facility typically declared it's own emissions limits, and then spent money to prove that these particular concentrations weren't harmful to downstream inhabitants...
So I'm sure that my numbers are correct... and yes, flow rate is required to calculate the total mass of incomplete combustion and CO2. And if the units are strange... well you're correct there also. One would think that you would want to measure mass. But the EPA doesn't ever make sense. We argued with them on EVERY regulation, stating that they don't scientifically prove anything. But the federal goevernment isn't run by geeks it seems, but by burecrats and politicians. No matter how well you explain something, they don't want to change. Oh well. Now I know why people vote Republican.... ick.
Back to the topic: Fed requires that the combustion equation be monitored COMPLETELY... meaning measure everything that goes in, and everything that goes out.
We have found that most of the nasties wind up in the precipitator and bag house dusts. Samples of these are sent to the lab and must be logged... disposal is always a pain. BUT, there are no interlocks connected to these levels. We can produce as much chlorintated/mecury filled crap as we like... and we can keep burning. but these numbers don't ever get turned over to anyone, unless there's a question to the facilities' operating under permit. then the inspectors come in, level a fine for everything... and typically settle for a smaller settlement and a compromise. Nothing changes, no numbers go anywhere.
My gut tells me that for the numbers of which you speak to represent TOTAL industrial production on average, then they must be estimates. The actual monitors' data doesn't go anywhere. Hell, most opacity is still measured by eyeball... a "trained" professional comes in, stands beneath the stack, and by shielding his eyes looks up and says, "you look like you're running at 8% today."
So even though I see people flashing credentials and showing me equations, my belief is that the raw data is very RAW. We have the means to dump the data from all of these sensors (which are already required by law) to a facility for number crunching... it just isn't there. Which means people are measuring the atmosphere gases and working the equations BACKWARDS to estimate the industrial emissions. But, I haven't seen the numbers to validate the estimates. And I would be very surprised if corporations would voluntarily offer up these numbers on the basis that someone might find out that they're dumping TONS of hazardous wastes (although legally) under people's noses... while most people are looking to the skies.
by the way... the worse emissions gas that I have seen is SO2. Coal is a NOTORIOUS producer. But, when I was desigining these babies, the Fed had NO LAWS to regulate SO2 emissions. It just kind of makes me chuckle to hear people fixate on CO2 when there's TONS of the really nasty stuff being dumped legally every year.
So, I'm very concerned... but the people taking the reigns don't seem to have the same goals or experience that I do. If it was up to me, I would go after SO2, Mercury and the really nasty organics before I'd spend billions on CO2 emissions.
Which was part of my original point about the "scientific method." Although it was just a comment, I had no idea that I would go this in depth about my feelings here.... sheesh.
good discussion. thank you. I appreciate your input.
cool
my apologies
The thread is all tangled now since everyone is "Anonymous Coward." With my settings, most of the replies are beneath my current threshhold, so I'm typically replying to the wrong messages...
Thanks for the support. It's funny how all I was originally trying to say was that I'd love to see science be improved, especially in this field. oh well....
wow.
_
_
You keep going around in circles. You are talking in terms of... never mind... turn on your courier font and let me show you:
____________________________|__________________
That blip is what I want measured. You are looking at grand sweeps of periods of thousands of years:
_________----------__________-----------_______
That's what you're measuring. And with an accuracy that you feel comfortable with. I want the GOD DAMN blip! You're not saying anything to argue with that... you just keep going around in circles.
Now the reason we don't take ice sample from the pole is very simple... it's the same reason that the Nautilus' flag isn't there today... BECAUSE THE DAMN THING MOVES!!! The ice at the pole is forced South... and eventually melts. I'm surprised an expert like yourself wouldn't know that.
Now for Greenland ice to be measured is fine... it's been around awhile. But again... and I hate to keep this conversation going because you simply don't get it... you can't see blips of warming like I described... you're think in terms of thousands of years. Which means the warming has to last for thousands of years to see it. So if the warming was only for a few hundred years... and occurs cyclically every few thousand, you won't see it. Period. Finito. The end. No more. God you're dense.
What's odd in this "debate" is that so many people choose sides without knowing anything about the field. All of the others in this thread spout off all the stuff that they learned in school without actually going out and "discovering" for themselves... which I find very disheartening. This was the point of my very first post. I believe that something this important deserves more investigation and study then what it is currently getting.
Oddly enough, when I say that we need more "scientific method" most people assume that it will take longer and we'll never find any results beacuse we can never be 100% sure... when all I had in mind really was more bodies to throw at the problem.
Now, as for my personal experience, I have found that most plants want to burn efficiently as possible. Which means that you try to produce as much water and CO2 as you can... that way you know you're squeezing every pennies worth out of your fuel. What we have found is that even at full production, most of our CO2 rates fall WELL under 200 ppm. These are on hazardous waste incinerators, power plants, cement kilns, etc...
So if global warming is being produced by greenhouse gases, these gases aren't coming from my plants. So the question is, who's producing them? Everyone who responded to htis post immediately assumed that the greenhouse gases were man made. I've even seen studies that showed power plants as the chief producer of these emissions. But what I'm saying is that of all the people that I know that have monitored emissions for the federal government, NONE have ever given their data to any UNIVERSITY study on greenhouse gas production. So from where are the Universities getting their data?
Again, I think several steps are being skipped here. And these doofuses (or is it doofusii?) are too quick to jump on the bandwagon without questioning the validity of the preceding studies.
THAT, is what I understand the scientific method's purpose is. Yes/no?
That was my frigging point! I do reject geology, but not as a whole.
This is because I know... with absolute certainty, that carbon dating CAN NOT be so precise as to measure to a specific year. You even said that. So... and I hesitate saying this ONCE AGAIN.... how do you know that we haven't had melt offs like this if they only last a few years when your precision is limited to several hundred?
What's so hard to understand?
You CAN'T USE GEOLOGY THE WAY YOU'RE USING IT!
YOU DON'T KNOW THE RECORD IS MISSING. EVEN IF THE CARBON DATA APPEARS TO BE CONSECUTIVE PER STRATUM... IT ISN'T PRECISE TO THIS LEVEL OF RESOLUTION!
aaaagggghhhh!
in any case, I'm sick of this... go blow it out your ear. this is like arguing religion. You have your priests... go pay homage to the geology gods... I'm telling you carbon dating is totally inadequate for this level of precision, you're telling me that carbon dating knows all. There are no gaps +/- a few thousand years.
Who the fuck is the ignorant one here?
oh bull shit
you haven't given any concrete examples of anything in this post. You refer to the greenhouse effect which is "known and measurable." Yet you don't produce any equations or data. Why? Because you don't know anything about what you're saying. You heard the buzz phrase on TV first. Then it was repeated in your pathetic undergraduate classes as an attempt to keep "in touch" with the younger generations.
I on the other hand have dealt with these equations. The ones in particular are the emission dissapation acceptable to the federal goevernment in proportion to the height of the stack, flow rate through it... and typical wind forces. We have to determine how much gas is dissapated to any individual downstream of our stacks. We also spend MILLIONS of dollars just to calibrate our monitors... so this isn't something on which you can make mistakes without getting fired.
This is REALLY STARTING TO PISS ME OFF! If you don't know what you're talking about, shut up already.
You are chicken littles. You are not in the field... with the possible exception of spondylus, who's comments are actually constructive... most of you are mindless collegiate dweebs whose self-images apparently are defined by how well you regurgitate psuedo-scientific morality IN SPITE of people in the field telling you that you MAY BE wrong.
This was my point to begin with. You are not listening to people in the field. You've made up your minds... which is NOT SCIENTIFIC!
Read the frigging original post again! Stop wasting our time.
PS. Nobody debates the greenhouse effect... what is in debate here is how scientific the effect's effects are being determined. The fact is, no one knows. But God forbid that the baby boomers can live with themselves if we don't stir up enough emotions so that the 6:00 newscast is interesting...
you're not listening. you're thinking cyclical as in a 50% duty cycle. That's not what I said.
I said it before... what if every 45,000 years we have a global warming of one hundred years. I have no idea where you got your every hundred years crap. Re-read my comments moron.
Your science can't see my less than 1% duty cycle if it can blow away 45,000 years. (I'm so sick of know-it-alls... get a life) It knows that it's missing, but it can't tell me what was there....
I don't care that you can see 45,000 years is missing... I want to know what's in those 45,000 years.
Why is this so difficult for you to understand?
In my job, we see TONS of periodic effects that happen for VERY SHORT DURATIONS... and they don't seem to be cyclic. The harmonics are summed on thousands of different frequencies... so they don't appear periodic at first. Using your methods, I'm not getting 100% of the data... so I would never be able to see ALL of the occurances, which is vital to predicting the next one.
Sorry if this is too difficult for you.
um....it's not there to Carbon date moron. It's missing.
him: we can tell when 45,000 years of carbon dating history is missing.
me: what if the essential data is in those 45,000 years.
are you all complete idiots or what?
yawn
add to the mix reliability centered maintenance, and you got yourself enough buzzwords for one hell of an infomercial.
"I shouldn't have to. I pay to have someone do it for me."
wow... what a wonderful understanding you have of democracy.
The patent office has a board. they compare patents against already existing patents. That's it. Yes, these patents shouldn't have been approved... and yes, they're behind the times.
But if you want it changed, talk to them. Write them letters. Get a non-profit organization together to fix it.
Stop whining about it.
And my patents went through the typical domestic AND overseas comparison that all patents go through. And I had to go through over 100 pages of why I shouldn't be entitled to these patents presented to me by the patent office... so they're not my friends.
But, I jumped through the hoops, played by the rules and won. Apparently, unlike you.
Oh, and the patents were mechanical in nature, and not computer related in any fashion. And I never wanted them, it was insisted on by the company for which I worked. I would have been happy simply publishing my ideas non-profit.
and if the ocean's floors were eroded for a period of 45,000 years (which compared to 60 millions years is a drop in the bucket)... and in that 45,000 year period the earth's emissions had risen to TWICE the CO2 levels they are today?...
Your argument is solely based on that one fact. That one fact isn't scientifically sound down at this level. We are measuring in the range of a few years here people. NOT 20 MILLION. No apparatus created has a range or precision that can work in the MILLIONS of YEARS, yet can be so precise as to show last April. Please.
Fact is, you have no idea what happened over the last 20 million years. Due to sea floor evidence, you'd like to believe that CO2 emissions are the highest ever... but you can't prove it.
so before I sign off on BILLIONS of dollars of spending on YOUR theories... I'd like a little more substantial proof first, if that's ok by you.
no.
Peary's claims were disputed. Unlike the South Pole expeditions, he had no evidence that he had actually been there. American history points to him, because he's an American. But there was another (who's name escapes me.... help anyone?) that came down first with claims of being the first. Add to the mix the African-American contingency that it was the black assistant that actually got there....we have no idea who actually got to the North Pole first.
The only confirmed arrival to the north pole was bu Nuclear submarine in the 1950's. I bleieve it was the Nautilus?
For the record:
My first job was designing/installing CEMs under the 29 and 40 CFRs. In english: Continuous Emissions Monitors under the Code of Federal Regulations dealing with Hazardous Wastes Disposal (and Transportation).
Which means, that I was responsible for monitoring the levels of industrial STACK EMISSIONS. CO2, NOx, SO2, Hydro-Carbons, etc...
This gives me some insight into at least some of the global warming claims. You can believe what you want, I'm basing my decisions on what I'VE SEEN!
There is no scientific evidence that the primary contributor to global warming is (or even could be) man-made. Sorry.
If you want to argue that cutting down the rain-forests is a cheif contributor... your call, I know nothing about the lumber industry. But I can guarantee it is highly unlikely due to industrial emissions.
aaaaaaaaaagggggghhhh!
If the ice cap melts for a duration of 100 years every 45,000 years, WE WOULD NOT SEE IT ACCORDING TO YOUR THEORY
sheesh.
I liked geology class, thanks. I just didn't agree with most of it being applied to SPECIFIC and possibly LIMITED situations. Read Asimov's Foundations series. Apply his socialogical rules to geology... and you have something workable.
But if you use them the way you do, (applying broad bursh strokes to periods less than 50 FRIGGING YEARS) you run around changing things that MAY MAKE THINGS WORSE!
Do you get it now? Man, how thick can you be?
God, I wish I could moderate your comments up. Alas, I took part in this conversation and do not have the means.
This reply is THE ONLY one that understood my point so far. Albeit, we disagree, at least the reply was on target.
Thank you for responding.
-----------------------------
That being said, I see your points... but where you added your paranthetical "not likely" and "most likely", on what do you base this weighting system? The climate could change cyclically every 2000 years like this. How would you know? Why did you assume most likely for the "combination of causes" over just "nature"?
My belief obviously is that nature couldn't give a crap if we were here or not. She will establish an equlibrium and fight for it tooth and nail. If we add more CO2, she'll give us more plants to consume it. If we burn forests, she'll starve us until we're reduced to numbers that aren't as offensive. But in the long term, we can't make a dent in the earth's ecosystems.
that's just it. All of your "known mechanism of action" and "is proven" isn't based on anything tangible. You believe these things exist. And they may exist... I'm not arguing that.
What I was saying is that it's all theory. And by "theory" I mean completely hypothetical, emotional based, media enforced, scientifically unproven, perspective limited HYPE.
We DON'T HAVE any mechanisms established that can actually measure... with any certainty, precision or accuracy... any of the "global warming claims." They are based on the findings of one generation's nature-centered mindset.
In other words: if global warming destroys the earth, the "chicken littles" will be right out of sheer luck, and not out of any scientific foresight.
I always thought we could do better than that.
wow
I'm trying not to laugh. So what you're saying is, our actions have effects.
Very philosophical of you.
I don't agree.
Your analogy is that global warming is like a gun being pointed at you. What I'm saying is there IS NO ANALOGY for the change in climate conditions. In order to have an analogy, you have to have an understanding of what it is you're describing.
Let me give you an example. Give me an analogy for what I have in my pocket right now.
(most people would take the cheap shot and make fun of me... my fault for leaving myself so open. But I hope you get my point.)
oh, that's so insightful of you.
Of course we should change our attitudes, IF you want to preserve the Earth the way SHE is. However, there are millions of people that want it to be one large city. Nothing but concrete and greenhouses. Oxygen is to be generated if needed, and all wastes recycled for consumption.
My point is that we have no idea how the earth is changing. You just ASSUME that ALL these changes are detrimental, and we should do something about it NOW!
I was simply saying that we don't know what is really happening, and any changes we make in order to fend off something that we don't know anything about may indeed make things worse. How can we be scientific if we don't make any effort to determine the problem first?
this doesn't work at all.
The data you collected is specific to THAT tree. Even if you collected samples across an area, there's no way to extrapolate that data to an ENTIRE CLIMATE with any reliable precision.
For instance, I have tomatoes in my yard that seeded themselves from last year's crop. Oddly enough, they only grew in one small portion of the yard... where there were no tomatoes last year. Was it the wind that carried the seeds? Deer? Who knows... all I know is that using geologist methods, it would be determined that my yard produced Tomatoes during that period +/- a few hundred years.
So (a million years from now) the question is: "did they grow tomatoes in North America in the twentieth century?" I can say "Yes" using your methods with SOME reliablility.
But if your question is "were the tomato crops being destroyed by pollution during the year 2000" then there's no way to tell. If you grab one spot of my yard, the answer is yes. In another, my data shows increased growth. IT'S NOT HOMGENEOUS! Add to the mix erosion deleting some of the tomato record, contamination from other sources (tornados, floods)... and you have a DAMN good method for getting BROAD determination of the tomato (or squash... we're not sure) record that might have grown (or reproduced sexually... we can't tell), during the information epoch (approximately 1950-2080), somewhere within a few hundred miles of what used to be the Mississippi or Ohio river valleys....
so we're missing the climate patterns for 45,000 years. We don't know what they were... but now with the latest technology we can at least determine that they're missing.
This would prove or disprove what I was saying?
Plus carbon dating can't get you to the year. If it's accurate to a few hundred years then it's completely useless in this context. The example you gave would be like doing brainsurgery with a back hoe.
nah
how do you know how much of something isn't there?
The ice core samples assume predictable amounts of erosion. They carbon date, or compare plankton levels, or salt concentrations.... who cares. In any case they START with the assumption that the caps have always been there, they have grown on average a few inches a year...blah, blah, blah.
But if the ice caps melted every three hundred years or so, who would know? How would your core samples help then?
Anyone a geologist here?