Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 301 guests, and 0 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4
#6783 05/05/06 09:16 PM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
... insects that carry disease are spreading into new areas, bringing the West Nile virus to Canada and malaria to high valleys.

Dr. Paul Epstein, who teaches at Harvard Medical School and once worked in Africa, said the shift is coming faster than physicians anticipated.

"Things we projected to occur in 2080 are happening in 2006," he told The Washington Post. "What we didn't get is how fast and how big it is, and the degree to which the biological systems would respond. Our mistake was in underestimation."

Source:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/index.ph...imatechange.xml

Another nail in the coffin of those that prefer fantasy over fact!


DA Morgan
.
#6784 05/06/06 01:35 AM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
thats what happens during a interglacerial period. what do you expect. more ice?


the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
#6785 05/06/06 05:21 AM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Amazing ... PhD meteorologists and geologists find the results surprising and you shrug them off.

I wonder why you haven't your own Nobel Prize by now given your great understanding of geophysics.


DA Morgan
#6786 05/06/06 04:14 PM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 540
U
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
U
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 540
http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/05/predict-your-climate.html

A random number generator gives results statistically indistinguishable from any and all climate models. Choose your conclusion beforehand, turn the crank, get your inarguable scholarly result without detectable error.

That doesn't happen in real science. It doesn't even happen in the soft sciences.


Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz3.pdf
#6787 05/06/06 05:46 PM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
Quote:
Originally posted by DA Morgan:
Amazing ... PhD meteorologists and geologists find the results surprising and you shrug them off.

I wonder why you haven't your own Nobel Prize by now given your great understanding of geophysics.
the problem with meteorlogist is that they dont look beyound the last few years.

most geologist are not surprised by it because they know we are in an ice age and in a interglacerial period. it does not take someone with a noble prize to be able to look at the big picture. it just takes the ability to look beyound your own nose.

medical doctors are often surprised because they believe that the way things are now is the way they should always be. after all the human body does not change that much, why should the world be any different.


the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
#6788 05/07/06 12:26 AM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
dehammer wrote:
"the problem with meteorlogist is that they dont look beyound the last few years."

And you know this how?

Show a bit of integrity and back up your mindless nonsense with facts.

If you can point to a link that shows that the vast majority of meteorologists have made their predictions based on "the last few years" data then lets see it.

Otherwise I'm calling this fabrication what it is ... a complete fabrication.

Didn't your mother teach you lying is a sin?


DA Morgan
#6789 05/07/06 01:22 AM
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 53
A
Member
Offline
Member
A
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 53
Quote:

Show a bit of integrity and back up your mindless nonsense with facts.

If you can point to a link that shows that the vast majority of meteorologists have made their predictions based on "the last few years" data then lets see it.
Morgan you are last person on this whole board who should EVER MENTION ANYONE LACKING FACTS.. you are great at running your mouth, calling people names, but you don't know jack about what you CLAIM is happening, it is obvious your just another political parrot, you know the lines, yet utterly lost when facts are needed, your basis of "facts" in science is the very definition of pseudointellectual, I have seen people, myself included asking you to post the facts, but we just get morgan name calling and telling us to go find it! LMAO.. what a moron.

And when it comes to facts on the net, its just like you full of crap everywhere you go, you can find a "fact" about anything on the net, that is why you need to add the who, what, when, where, and why, just because someone puts it on the net makes it so?

STUPIDITY

Post those names morgan, post when the studies were done, post who did them, you dont post nothing when it comes to facts.. you just TELL EVERYONE you are enlighened and hope we can catch up, then leave calling someone a name yet again.. post your facts, and not some www.internet.com address, you demanding facts, the person lacking the MOST FACTS on this whole board, is now telling others to post their facts?? LMAO.. now thats a good JOKE. I have a idea POST YOURS, now that would be a real change.

Unlike you, most of us post the who, when, what, why, and where of what we reference.. would you like me to show YOUR LACKING by quoting YOUR OWN POSTS.. I will galdly show you just how consistent YOU REALLY ARE in your posts.. care to see morgan contradicting morgan over and over again?


NEVER Underestimate the power of stupidity!
#6790 05/07/06 01:36 AM
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
I think we could do with a little more science and little less shouting.

Amaranth

#6791 05/07/06 03:21 PM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
Quote:
Originally posted by DA Morgan:
dehammer wrote:
"the problem with meteorlogist is that they dont look beyound the last few years."

And you know this how?

Show a bit of integrity and back up your mindless nonsense with facts.

If you can point to a link that shows that the vast majority of meteorologists have made their predictions based on "the last few years" data then lets see it.

Otherwise I'm calling this fabrication what it is ... a complete fabrication.

Didn't your mother teach you lying is a sin?
look at any weather stat and its always showing the last century, which in terms of glacieral periods and interglacerial periods, is the same thing as looking at yesterdays weather.

show me any site that using data more than 1 million years. 10000 years. 1000 years. they arent there. why? because there were no weather man and no scientific measurements. therefore as far as they are concerned, there is no data there that can be used to aid them. the closest you are going to get is the british naval data and that is not much more than 200 to 300 years old. most of that is ignored since it was taken out at sea and only where the ships happened to be. since they were sailing ships they were mostly in the northern hemisphere and mostly in the atlantic or near coast. since that is the oldest data there is, this is the farthest data most meteorologist use. there are some that use the data from ice cores, but that is limited to the current ice age. even this is argued over, with most having no interest in either side.

its only common sense that meteorologist are not going to use data that is not mearsured scientifically. since that is limited to the last century in most place, that is the limit of their data.

show me where common sense is wrong in this case instead of demanding that i give you the entire database of meteorologic knowledge.

meteorology is primarily concerned with predicting the weather for tomorrow and next week, with as much of a long term (read months) forcast as they can get a decent percentage chance of being right. few are concerned with years, unless they are being paid strickly to look for data, most of the time by ppl that demand they look for specific data. as an example, the ppl that fund the global warming trend research almost always demand that the researchers focus on man made warming. researchers paid by oil companies and such face demands to find non man made causes only. few are ever paid to look for anything and everything. this type of research results in two opposing groups, one that says that only man is responsible, and the other that says that man has not had any influence what so ever. there are few of us that are inbetween that are able and willing to look at both sides and see that both sides have good arguements and that they both have a part of the truth, but neither has all of it.


the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
#6792 05/07/06 04:27 PM
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 375
C
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
C
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 375
Quote:
show me any site that using data more than 1 million years. 10000 years. 1000 years. they arent there. why? because there were no weather man and no scientific measurements.
There are accurate temperature records that go back a few hundreds of thousands of years from ice cores in Antarctica and Greenland.

#6793 05/07/06 04:42 PM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
Quote:
Originally posted by Count Iblis II:
Quote:
show me any site that using data more than 1 million years. 10000 years. 1000 years. they arent there. why? because there were no weather man and no scientific measurements.
There are accurate temperature records that go back a few hundreds of thousands of years from ice cores in Antarctica and Greenland.
yes, but there are still arguements to the precision and most are not useable except to state that in a given year the tempature dropped to such and such a temperature. they are really not useable by meteorologist who are concerned with day to day highs and lows. those are good for long range patterns, but not things that the meteorologist need. how hot did it get on july 4 in the year 2000 years bc. for that matter how hot did it get on july 4 1705 in dallas tx. what was the low. what was the air pressure. wind speed, or direction. did it rain, or was it in the middle of a drought. yes there are scientist that are interested in these but not the majority of meteorologist.


the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
#6794 05/07/06 05:09 PM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
dehammer you are just plain wrong.

Measurements from tree rings correlated with measurements from ice cores correlated with measurements from the deep oceans correlated with measurements of ocean level correlated with temperature measurements correlated with many other factors over many years all substantiate the exact same thing.

The overwhelming majority of meterologists and other scientists have concluded that global warming is a fact and have found that a substantial part clearly correlates with human activities. Your argument floats like a lead balloon. Give it up as you are just looking laughably foolish.


DA Morgan
#6795 05/07/06 05:54 PM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
Quote:
Originally posted by DA Morgan:
dehammer you are just plain wrong.

Measurements from tree rings correlated with measurements from ice cores correlated with measurements from the deep oceans correlated with measurements of ocean level correlated with temperature measurements correlated with many other factors over many years all substantiate the exact same thing.

The overwhelming majority of meterologists and other scientists have concluded that global warming is a fact and have found that a substantial part clearly correlates with human activities. Your argument floats like a lead balloon. Give it up as you are just looking laughably foolish.
tree rings are only good for the life of the tree. since there are no trees from preice age, that doe not give a long enough time frame.

the thing about ice cores and tree rings is that they give only part of the picture. both are limited to the current ice age.

meteorologist that do study the long term ice cores will tell you that we are in a interglacerial period. geologist that study glaceral deposits will tell you that the ice age has had glacial periods (ice sheets extending) and interglacieral periods (ice sheets retreating). this is not the first time during this ice age that we have had a interglacieral period. nor is it the farthest that the ice sheet have melted. nor are they melting that much faster. the ones that say that man is the sole cause are not looking past the begining of this interglacerial period. most of them are not willing to note that the interglacerial period started before man was capable of doing that much damage to the enviroment.

as to all geologist not understanding what im saying. check this out

Lecture 24.
The Historical Geography & Biogeography of Tidal Salt Marshes
Key words: Geography, Biogeography: The Extent & Distribution of Marshlands (Distinctive Landscapes & Ecosystems)
The Extent & Distribution of Marsh Organisms
Historical
Past, Present, and Future
Tidal Marshes vs. Salt Marshes

Slide 1: Sea level fluctuations on varying timescales. In the last 20,000 years sea level has risen approximately 120 m.

http://geography.berkeley.edu/ProgramCourses/CoursePagesFA2002/Geog40/Geog40.Week10.html

it shows that in the past the sea lvls have been both lower and higher than they are now, and that covers times before man rising to two feet.

you will note, unless you refuse to see, that the sea change in the last 10 k years have actually been rather mild compared to the 10 k just before that. i do believe that was little pre industrialization period.

"There is no way of knowing for sure how many humans there were long ago, but there are estimates that we numbered about 4 to 5 million around the dawn of agriculture." http://www.sustreport.org/resource/es_timeline.html
less than 5 million ppl on the entire planet 10000 years ago. spread over the entire world, including the americas. much of them incapable of doing more tool working than putting flint on a shaft. while flint may be a good choise for an arrow head, it would have taken a long time to clear much from a forest to make a large farm. concidering that most of the space needed for farming was prairie anyway, why whould they have wasted their time cutting down trees for farm land. most of the trees cut down were use for home, which usually held large families. since most of the ppl before 8000 years go traveled year to year, their homes were generally made from light woods making them moveable. these trees would have been quick to be replaced by the forest.

in otherwords man did not creat the interglacerial period. he did not cause the majority of ocean rise. if he has acclerated it in the last 200 years, its hard to tell.


the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
#6796 05/07/06 11:50 PM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
dehammer wrote:
"tree rings are only good for the life of the tree. since there are no trees from preice age, that doe not give a long enough time frame."

I've already figure out that you are incapable of remembering what you wrote on a previous page. But you've sunk to a new low not even reading what you wrote on the same page. Here's a refresher:

"the problem with meteorlogist is that they dont look beyound the last few years."

Now lets try this again using very small words. Tree rings allow for tracking climate for more than "the last few years."

As Mark Twain said:
"It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt."


DA Morgan
#6797 05/09/06 06:47 PM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
show me a tree ring that shows day to day tempature changes and ill show you meteriologist that are interested in it. yes there are some meteorologic researchers looking at tree rings and even a few looking at ice cores. but most of those doing so are not meteorologis.

perhaps i should have said the vast majoity of them are not interested. the majority track the day to day weather patterns. the tree rings tell ppl what the growth patterns were like during that year's growth season. that tells them that it was very dry, wet, extreamly cold or not. it does not tell them the tempature of the days. it does not tell them if it rained on a specific day. these are the things most meteorologist are interested in. these are the things that meteorologist need for accuracy of forcast. these done exist in tree rings, nor in ice cores.

the only thing tree rings show is if there was a good growing season, or not. the tempature could have been great, but no water. or there could have been plenty of water, but the tempature was too low, or the skys could have been over cast much of the time. any of these would have cause a smaller than normal ring. they cant give you accurate climate data. only averages of good growth conditions or not.

in addition there are not many areas that have tree rings going back more than few years. there are some that can go back more than a thousand years, but there are not many areas with that kind of data. in terms of glaceral periods 1000 years is not that long ago. there is even one group of trees that go back as far as 4600 years, but they only tell you what it was like in that part of california. that still does not give accruate information on the climate beyound that time. in terms of glacerial period this is of no use since the last glacieral period ended 14000 years go.

the big problem with these is that none of them can tell you what happen before the ice age. meteorologist are not interested in that period (for the most part) because there is no data for it and because its useless in telling them what the weather is like during an ice age, or more specificly, what happens during an interglacerial period.

if you cant post without insulting ppl, dont post

you are still ignoreing the fact that the oceans have been rising for 20000 years, with the majority of it being done in the first half of that time frame. since man did not start burning off woods (when it was needed) until 8000 years ago (assuming that he did that much) he still did not cause the majority of the global warming in the last 20000 years. what is 200 years of acurate day to day information compaired to 20000 years of global warming.

show me the meteorologist that will give an explination of how man (who was a hunter gatherer at that time) was responsible for a 100 meter ocean rise between 20000 and 10000 years ago. not one of them can claim that industrialiazed nations caused that.


the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
#6798 05/09/06 07:19 PM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
here is something else to check out

"In conclusion, the totality of these several observations suggests that all of the hype surrounding the subject of a Gulf Stream shutdown due to a warming-induced increase in freshwater input to the Arctic Ocean is without a sound basis in either observation or theory."


http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V9/N19/C1.jsp

let me guess, these are not real scientist either?

your original statement indicated that doctors were surprised that insects were moving into an area that had been too cold for them before. when i pointed out that we were in an interglacieral period and that was to be expected, you turned into a discussion on meteorology, which is mainly the study of weather, and its prediction. for the most part meteologist arent concerned with if we are in an interglacerial period or not. they mostly are concerned with how hot is it going to be tomorrow, or if its going to rain. tree rings cant help them there, nor can ice cores.

the meteorologist that are concerned with tree rings, will tell you that there is no indications that there is a change in global warming to that lvl.

other meteorologist have this to say

"In light of these several observations, we suggest that the slight global warming evident in the satellite record of the past quarter-century was simply a natural consequence of El Ni?o activity, which will likely subside somewhat as the non-CO2-induced Modern Warm Period (which we believe to be a product of earth's natural millennial-scale oscillation of climate) becomes more firmly entrenched at a slightly higher temperature commensurate with that of the Medieval Warm Period.

Sherwood, Keith and Craig Idso

PS: For more information pertinent to the warming that produced the Little Ice Age to Modern Warm Period transition, see Climate Oscillations (Millennial Variability) in our Subject Index. "

http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V9/N19/EDIT.jsp

in otherwords the "global warming" is the result of mini ice age ending.

WHEN meteorologist look beyound the last century, they discover exactly what i said.


the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
#6799 05/09/06 09:10 PM
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 414
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 414
Maybe the science you should be arguing here is climatology?


When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross."
--S. Lewis
#6800 05/09/06 09:34 PM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
i agree. climatology would be more interested in long term than meteorologist.

here is another quote that might interest ppl

What it means
The results of this study add to the growing body of evidence that the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age were global phenomena. What is more, they indicate there is nothing unprecedented about Current Warm Period temperatures in this region, which according to the data presented in the authors' Figure 3, remain about a degree Celsius lower than the peak warmth of the Medieval Warm Period.

http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V9/N19/C2.jsp


the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
#6801 05/09/06 09:35 PM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Well I'm certainly blown away by the credentials of the fine people at co2science.org.

The chairman has a PhD in geology.
The president has a PhD in agriculture.
The vice presidnet has a PhD in botany.
The ops manager has a BS in finance.

And their advisory board is similarly unqualified.

I wondered whose payroll they're on as they don't indicate their source of funding. Then I did what a researcher should do ... did some research.

Here's who Craig Idso, Chairman of the group is:
"From 2001-2002, C. Idso served as Director of Environmental Science at Peabody Energy in St. Louis, MO. According to a newsletter from Basin Electric, a Western Fuels Association member company, Craig and Keith Idso produced a report, "The Greening of Planet Earth Its Progression from Hypothesis to Theory," in January 1998 for the Western Fuels Association. Western Fuels Association is the suspected tfunder of the Center, though there is nothing more than circumstantial evidence. The Center does not reveal its funding sources."

Yep he's a shill for the energy industry. Thanks dehammer. Great job of something or other.


DA Morgan
#6802 05/10/06 05:21 AM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
the point is that there is evidence of meteorologist that don't all agree with you. so what if the person that is president of the group that owns it is is in geology. they still have meteorologist doing the research.

most of the ppl you posted are paid by ppl that want to advance the idea that man is responsible for global warming. do you say "well their research is this because they are funded by ppl who what their research to claim this". no you claim that it is unbiased. i have said many times that their is few ppl that are not biased in one form or fashion. so what if one site i give you is funded by energy companies. does that mean their research is of no use. no. it is just as useful as the ones that are funded by pro global warming advocates. stick to the issues, if you can (you have shown a disturbing lack of this ability), instead of insulting everyone that is not in agreement with you. (are you sure your not a politician?) i have in other threads given you links to ppl that were not paid by either side that have given data that indicates that man is not responsible. yet you refuse to discuss them. why? cant find anything to insult or belittle them?

by the way, here is something you should get before you insult me

Climatology is the study of climate, and is a branch of the atmospheric sciences. In contrast to meteorology, which studies short term weather systems lasting up to a few weeks, climatology studies the frequency with which these weather systems occur. It does not study precise instances of atmospheric phenomena (for example cloud formation, rainfall and thunder), but rather their average occurrence over years to millennium, as well as changes in long-term average weather patterns, in relation to atmospheric conditions. Climatologists, those who practice climatology, study both the nature of climates - local, regional or global - and the natural or human-induced factors that cause climates to change. Climatology considers both past and potential future climate change.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatology ]

before you belittle ppl for not making mistakes you better clean up yours first.

as i stated before meteorologist are not concerned with more than a relatively short time period. climatologist are the ones that are interested in ice cores, and tree rings. i was correct the first time.


the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokW
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5