...Predicting the distribution of favorite colors in a large group of people....
This assumes that you know something about the people in the group. Are they Europeans, are they Africans, are they Asians? I happen to know for example that we Americans associate the color green with envy. The Germans however think that green represents hope. Blue is generally associated with feeling sad by Americans whereas Germans think that if someone is blue he/she is simply drunk.
Therefore, your analogy does not apply to climate science, because we know nothing or very little of what is really going on and what the underlying causes are for what we observe.
What the pilfered e-mails show, is that so-called scientists with an agenda consider it a "travesty" that the data to not support their conclusions.
In the 1970s, climatologist told us that we're in for another ice age. They did this also in 1932. About all we know is that weather has always and will always be a little warmer sometimes and sometimes be a little colder. It has always been this way in all of recorded history. Man's activity on this earth has always been minimal or irrelevant to the climate on this planet.
...That there was no ice in Greenland a 800 years ago?...
Yes, ice cores show that at the bottom of the ice sheet, 8000 feet down, there are pollen grains and microscopic plant remains very similar to the plants, specifically trees, that are found on the East Coast of North America.
The ice cores show thousands of layers, but it is erroneously assumed(believed) that each layer represents a season or year. In World War II some planes went down and were buried under ice and snow. Through radar images, the planes were found 40+ years later under about 250 feet of ice. The ice to the depth at which the planes were found showed layering for many hundreds of layers. This shows very clearly that the annual layering assumption in ice cores is false. The layering simply represents successive freezes, thaws and storms, recurring numerous times throughout the year.
I am sure that you know how to use Google just as well as I, but here is an entry you may look at:
I will leave it to you as a simple arithmetic exercise, given 250 feet of ice in about 40 years, how deep an ice pack you might get from about the year 800 until now.
These so-called climate scientists were exposed as having an agenda and they manipulated data to give evidence of a foregone conclusions. The e-mails clearly showed that these people who call themselves scientists were not interested in truth in the least bit.
...And more interesting, where does the current CO2 in our atmosphere come from?....
Where did the CO2 come from that is now locked up in fossil fuels? Before there were fossil fuels, locking up all that CO2 which we are now liberating, where was that CO2? We call them fossil fuels, because supposedly they came from living plants and animals. Does that mean that the earth was really hot in those days? It might have been much warmer, but obviously not too warm for abundant life on the entire planet from pole to pole. Additionally, there is evidence from the continental shelves, that ocean levels were much lower at one time.
...If the greenland ice is melting (all of it) the sea level will rise roughly 11 meters...
When Greenland was a green land at the time of the Vikings, all that ice WAS melted. There was also no ice in the Northwest passage. What evidence do you have, that the sea level was 11 m higher in the time of the Vikings?
...The scientific argument is simple: the Earth will grow warmer in the next century,....
This is conjecture, but suppose the models are correct. So what? In most things of life there are advantages as well as disadvantages. The global warming prognosticators almost unanimously think that global warming is bad, mostly because they think if all the ice in the world melts, the ocean levels will rise. Most of the ice in the world is already floating on the water. If it ALL melts, that ice will not add 1 mm to the ocean levels. It is possible, that if all the ice on land melts, there will be a slight rise in the ocean.
When Greenland was still a green land, at the time of the Vikings, is there any evidence that the ocean levels were that much higher than today? The Northwest passage was also ice free at that time.
What are the advantages of global warming? Less energy use will result in less fuel burned. Are lower utility bills not an advantage for everybody? There would be longer growing seasons. A warmer Earth would mean a more humid earth in many places. More moisture in a warmer atmosphere would even out the daily and seasonal temperature swings.
It also means more rain in places that get little or none right now. How much money is spent each year in clearing snow? Would the ability to grow food on northern areas now under snow and ice not be a good thing?
In short, there are a lot of advantages to a warmer Earth with the possible disadvantage of a slightly higher sea level.
I can test prayer, and I have, and it works also, but it's not science. People are healed of their diseases all the time by prayer. My mother was one of them with terminal cancer. She was prayed for and the cancer went away. Still, most scientists don't believe in prayer, but it works and nobody knows why.
So, assuming their black magic models work and are correct, then why is global warming almost universally looked at in a negative light? So-called global warming scientists, rarely if ever have anything good to say about global warming. Why doesn't anybody ever talk about the advantages, such as longer growing seasons, less energy use and less snow to shovel.
Yes of course that's real science, to make assumptions (beliefs). Faith is for religion not for science. Scientists are supposed to work with what they KNOW or can observe. This problem that you purport to solve is not that simple. You have to know the water content of the ice, it's average depth and its average area. Accurately knowing the water content alone is a biggie. Has it ever been determined in a number of places all over Greenland? Once you have the volume of water this ice is equivalent to, you have to add it to the volume of the oceans, not the area. Then you have to calculate how much that volume of water will raise the sea level.
Is there any evidence that the ocean levels were 20 feet higher when Greenland was still a green land? That would have been during the time of the Vikings who also explored the Northwest passage at the time because there was no ice there either.
Another question I have in this whole global warming scenario, is why everybody only ever talks about the detrimental effects of global warming. In almost everything in this life, there are advantages and disadvantages to things. Nobody, especially in the global warming, the world is ending crowd, does anybody ever speak of what benefits there might be in global warming. There is evidence that the earth was once a warm, humid, global paradise. What would be so bad if that happened again?
...Climate forecasts are 100 times simpler than weather forecasts.....
That is one of the stupidest statements I have ever heard anyone make. Are you a politician? What are climate forecasts? Are they not simply long-term weather forecasts?
Human beings are notoriously bad at predicting the future. If we were good at it, we wouldn't be in the economic mess we're in right now would we?
That is pure unadultereted BS. Most of the ice both in the north and south Arctic regions of the earth is floating on water. If all of that melted, it would not raise the oceans 1 mm.
You can prove that to yourself with a scientific experiment, yay, real science. Just fill a water glass with as many ice cubes as will fit. Make sure though that no ice extends higher than the rim of the glass. Now fill the glass with water to the rim and observe what happens as the ice melts. Does the water level rise? Even after all the ice is melted is the level still the same or has the glass overflowed?
Compared to the size and depth of the oceans, the ice on land is miniscule. If all of that melted, it would not make enough difference so that they would NOT have to increase the height of the dikes in Holland.
Why is Greenland called that? Could it be that it once was a green land? Ice cores give evidence of that by the finding of pollen and other plant evidence. The land was forested with similar vegetation as we find in North America on the East Coast.
Besides that, why is global warming always portrayed in a negative light? What are the benefits of a warmer Earth? If all the northern ice melted, the ocean levels would not rise at all, because most of that ice is already floating in the ocean. Even in Antarctica, much of the ice is on the ocean, that if melted would also not make ocean levels go up at all. It's every bit of ice melted on LAND, both in the north and south, how much would the ocean levels actually go up?
...And indeed has been scrutinized, by other experts in the field....
As long as experts are chosen who agree with the opinions of those who espouse global warming caused by people. I suggest you watch the movie "Expelled", as a model of what is going on here.
....convince/trick Icelandic settlers to go to this glacier-covered land....
That is why he put pollen and other evidence of North American forests at the bottom of the ice sheets so they could be discovered when people drilled for ice cores.
that the earth may be getting warmer. SO WHAT? I am sure there are many people in the northern hemisphere who wouldn't mind shoveling less snow or no snow at all and having lower utility bills. I don't think the people of Edmonton would object if they could grow orange trees. Temperature change has been noticed mostly in the Arctic regions of the earth. Temperatures in tropical places have hardly changed. Thus it is not a given that global warming will result in a torrent, uninhabitable Earth.
.. correction factors... More likely, they are FUDGE factors to support mathematical conclusions that the data does not support.
Greenland was once a GREENland with vegetation very similar to what we still find on the East Coast of North America today. Ice core samples clearly proves this. In the times of the Vikings, the Northwest passage was ice free. It is always made out as if global warming were a BAD thing. That is an assumption (belief). If all the ice in the northern ocean melted, the ocean levels would not rise enough to measure. Even if all the ice on land melted, the ocean levels would not rise appreciably. Temperature measurements in the tropical areas of the earth show virtually no rise at all. Would orange trees growing in Edmonton, Canada, really be that bad?
..This is also true of good cameras and mp3/media players...
Indeed, I have a DSLR to take pictures, an iPod to play music, a video camera, a cheap pay-as-you-go TRACPhone, and regular landline phone and a computer to surf the web and e-mail, as well as manage pictures, videos and documents. Oh yes, I still have a wristwatch too and a Swiss Army knife. However, I don't use the Swiss Army knife to slice cheese and I wouldn't use a cell phone to take pictures. There will always be dedicated tools.
Tracfone sells a pay-as-you-go phone for $14.99. One hour/3 months service sells for $20. I think it will be a while before landline phones go the way of the dodo. They are far more reliable than any cell phone ever thought of being. If you have DSL, you need to have a landline anyway, might as well get the phone service too.
I will use my landline phone at home and my pay-as-you-go Tracfone if/when I have to make a call when out and about. It is used almost exclusively for for outgoing calls only.
Why do you disagree? When someone is on trial in the court, it matters not whether something could happen or not, but whether in fact it DID happen. In the Gospel writers, we have four witnesses who were there. They gave written depositions of what they saw and heard. They all agree that Jesus was resurrected from the dead.
I think that/. should have a "disagree" mod with a value of zero.
Slashdot Mirror
...Predicting the distribution of favorite colors in a large group of people....
This assumes that you know something about the people in the group. Are they Europeans, are they Africans, are they Asians? I happen to know for example that we Americans associate the color green with envy. The Germans however think that green represents hope. Blue is generally associated with feeling sad by Americans whereas Germans think that if someone is blue he/she is simply drunk.
Therefore, your analogy does not apply to climate science, because we know nothing or very little of what is really going on and what the underlying causes are for what we observe.
What the pilfered e-mails show, is that so-called scientists with an agenda consider it a "travesty" that the data to not support their conclusions.
....While a climate forecast won't tell ....
In the 1970s, climatologist told us that we're in for another ice age. They did this also in 1932. About all we know is that weather has always and will always be a little warmer sometimes and sometimes be a little colder. It has always been this way in all of recorded history. Man's activity on this earth has always been minimal or irrelevant to the climate on this planet.
...That there was no ice in Greenland a 800 years ago?...
Yes, ice cores show that at the bottom of the ice sheet, 8000 feet down, there are pollen grains and microscopic plant remains very similar to the plants, specifically trees, that are found on the East Coast of North America.
The ice cores show thousands of layers, but it is erroneously assumed(believed) that each layer represents a season or year. In World War II some planes went down and were buried under ice and snow. Through radar images, the planes were found 40+ years later under about 250 feet of ice. The ice to the depth at which the planes were found showed layering for many hundreds of layers. This shows very clearly that the annual layering assumption in ice cores is false. The layering simply represents successive freezes, thaws and storms, recurring numerous times throughout the year.
I am sure that you know how to use Google just as well as I, but here is an entry you may look at:
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/1992-05-26/news/9205260356_1_war-ii-buried-fighter
I will leave it to you as a simple arithmetic exercise, given 250 feet of ice in about 40 years, how deep an ice pack you might get from about the year 800 until now.
These so-called climate scientists were exposed as having an agenda and they manipulated data to give evidence of a foregone conclusions. The e-mails clearly showed that these people who call themselves scientists were not interested in truth in the least bit.
...And more interesting, where does the current CO2 in our atmosphere come from?....
Where did the CO2 come from that is now locked up in fossil fuels? Before there were fossil fuels, locking up all that CO2 which we are now liberating, where was that CO2? We call them fossil fuels, because supposedly they came from living plants and animals. Does that mean that the earth was really hot in those days? It might have been much warmer, but obviously not too warm for abundant life on the entire planet from pole to pole. Additionally, there is evidence from the continental shelves, that ocean levels were much lower at one time.
...If the greenland ice is melting (all of it) the sea level will rise roughly 11 meters...
When Greenland was a green land at the time of the Vikings, all that ice WAS melted. There was also no ice in the Northwest passage. What evidence do you have, that the sea level was 11 m higher in the time of the Vikings?
...The scientific argument is simple: the Earth will grow warmer in the next century,....
This is conjecture, but suppose the models are correct. So what? In most things of life there are advantages as well as disadvantages. The global warming prognosticators almost unanimously think that global warming is bad, mostly because they think if all the ice in the world melts, the ocean levels will rise. Most of the ice in the world is already floating on the water. If it ALL melts, that ice will not add 1 mm to the ocean levels. It is possible, that if all the ice on land melts, there will be a slight rise in the ocean.
When Greenland was still a green land, at the time of the Vikings, is there any evidence that the ocean levels were that much higher than today? The Northwest passage was also ice free at that time.
What are the advantages of global warming? Less energy use will result in less fuel burned. Are lower utility bills not an advantage for everybody? There would be longer growing seasons. A warmer Earth would mean a more humid earth in many places. More moisture in a warmer atmosphere would even out the daily and seasonal temperature swings.
It also means more rain in places that get little or none right now. How much money is spent each year in clearing snow? Would the ability to grow food on northern areas now under snow and ice not be a good thing?
In short, there are a lot of advantages to a warmer Earth with the possible disadvantage of a slightly higher sea level.
...But I can test to see if it works...
I can test prayer, and I have, and it works also, but it's not science. People are healed of their diseases all the time by prayer. My mother was one of them with terminal cancer. She was prayed for and the cancer went away. Still, most scientists don't believe in prayer, but it works and nobody knows why.
So, assuming their black magic models work and are correct, then why is global warming almost universally looked at in a negative light? So-called global warming scientists, rarely if ever have anything good to say about global warming. Why doesn't anybody ever talk about the advantages, such as longer growing seasons, less energy use and less snow to shovel.
...make a few assumptions...
Yes of course that's real science, to make assumptions (beliefs). Faith is for religion not for science. Scientists are supposed to work with what they KNOW or can observe. This problem that you purport to solve is not that simple. You have to know the water content of the ice, it's average depth and its average area. Accurately knowing the water content alone is a biggie. Has it ever been determined in a number of places all over Greenland? Once you have the volume of water this ice is equivalent to, you have to add it to the volume of the oceans, not the area. Then you have to calculate how much that volume of water will raise the sea level.
Is there any evidence that the ocean levels were 20 feet higher when Greenland was still a green land? That would have been during the time of the Vikings who also explored the Northwest passage at the time because there was no ice there either.
Another question I have in this whole global warming scenario, is why everybody only ever talks about the detrimental effects of global warming. In almost everything in this life, there are advantages and disadvantages to things. Nobody, especially in the global warming, the world is ending crowd, does anybody ever speak of what benefits there might be in global warming. There is evidence that the earth was once a warm, humid, global paradise. What would be so bad if that happened again?
...Climate forecasts are 100 times simpler than weather forecasts.....
That is one of the stupidest statements I have ever heard anyone make. Are you a politician? What are climate forecasts? Are they not simply long-term weather forecasts?
Human beings are notoriously bad at predicting the future. If we were good at it, we wouldn't be in the economic mess we're in right now would we?
...when they say debate is over, well that raises my bullshit alarm. ...
If you want your alarm triggered by another debate, look at the movie "Expelled", to see whether that triggers your alarm in that issue.
...It's a lot of black magic...
So, black magic is what policy decisions costing trillions of dollars are supposed to be based on?
...based on rising waters....
That is pure unadultereted BS. Most of the ice both in the north and south Arctic regions of the earth is floating on water. If all of that melted, it would not raise the oceans 1 mm.
You can prove that to yourself with a scientific experiment, yay, real science. Just fill a water glass with as many ice cubes as will fit. Make sure though that no ice extends higher than the rim of the glass. Now fill the glass with water to the rim and observe what happens as the ice melts. Does the water level rise? Even after all the ice is melted is the level still the same or has the glass overflowed?
Compared to the size and depth of the oceans, the ice on land is miniscule. If all of that melted, it would not make enough difference so that they would NOT have to increase the height of the dikes in Holland.
....the integrity of scientists...
is clearly illustrated by the movie "Expelled".
...the Earth is round - like a circle. The Bible clearly states that....
Except that the Hebrew word translated as "circle" can also be used to describe a ball i.e.. a sphere.
...the glaciers esp. Greenland ...
Why is Greenland called that? Could it be that it once was a green land? Ice cores give evidence of that by the finding of pollen and other plant evidence. The land was forested with similar vegetation as we find in North America on the East Coast.
Besides that, why is global warming always portrayed in a negative light? What are the benefits of a warmer Earth? If all the northern ice melted, the ocean levels would not rise at all, because most of that ice is already floating in the ocean. Even in Antarctica, much of the ice is on the ocean, that if melted would also not make ocean levels go up at all. It's every bit of ice melted on LAND, both in the north and south, how much would the ocean levels actually go up?
...And indeed has been scrutinized, by other experts in the field ....
As long as experts are chosen who agree with the opinions of those who espouse global warming caused by people. I suggest you watch the movie "Expelled", as a model of what is going on here.
....convince/trick Icelandic settlers to go to this glacier-covered land....
That is why he put pollen and other evidence of North American forests at the bottom of the ice sheets so they could be discovered when people drilled for ice cores.
...There already are *mountains* of evidence...
that the earth may be getting warmer. SO WHAT? I am sure there are many people in the northern hemisphere who wouldn't mind shoveling less snow or no snow at all and having lower utility bills. I don't think the people of Edmonton would object if they could grow orange trees. Temperature change has been noticed mostly in the Arctic regions of the earth. Temperatures in tropical places have hardly changed. Thus it is not a given that global warming will result in a torrent, uninhabitable Earth.
.. correction factors...
More likely, they are FUDGE factors to support mathematical conclusions that the data does not support.
Greenland was once a GREENland with vegetation very similar to what we still find on the East Coast of North America today. Ice core samples clearly proves this. In the times of the Vikings, the Northwest passage was ice free. It is always made out as if global warming were a BAD thing. That is an assumption (belief). If all the ice in the northern ocean melted, the ocean levels would not rise enough to measure. Even if all the ice on land melted, the ocean levels would not rise appreciably. Temperature measurements in the tropical areas of the earth show virtually no rise at all. Would orange trees growing in Edmonton, Canada, really be that bad?
...It's easy to come up with $0.50 for a call, but $30-40/month is beyond a lot of people's budgets around here....
Tracfone sells a phone for $14.99 and a $20 airtime card will buy 60 minutes of talk in three months of service.
...They're needed for..
You forgot Superman/Clark Kent.
..This is also true of good cameras and mp3/media players...
Indeed, I have a DSLR to take pictures, an iPod to play music, a video camera, a cheap pay-as-you-go TRACPhone, and regular landline phone and a computer to surf the web and e-mail, as well as manage pictures, videos and documents. Oh yes, I still have a wristwatch too and a Swiss Army knife. However, I don't use the Swiss Army knife to slice cheese and I wouldn't use a cell phone to take pictures. There will always be dedicated tools.
...It's going to be a lot more than $10....
Tracfone sells a pay-as-you-go phone for $14.99. One hour/3 months service sells for $20. I think it will be a while before landline phones go the way of the dodo. They are far more reliable than any cell phone ever thought of being. If you have DSL, you need to have a landline anyway, might as well get the phone service too.
I will use my landline phone at home and my pay-as-you-go Tracfone if/when I have to make a call when out and about. It is used almost exclusively for for outgoing calls only.
Why do you disagree? When someone is on trial in the court, it matters not whether something could happen or not, but whether in fact it DID happen. In the Gospel writers, we have four witnesses who were there. They gave written depositions of what they saw and heard. They all agree that Jesus was resurrected from the dead.
I think that /. should have a "disagree" mod with a value of zero.
....Simply put - pirates suck....
No kidding, that's why it is more profitable to be in Apple's walled garden.