Go Back   Airline Pilot Central Forums - Find your next job as a Pilot > >
Hangar Talk For non-aviation-related discussion and aviation threads that don't belong elsewhere
 

Welcome to Airline Pilot Forums - Connect and get the inside scoop on Airline Companies

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ. Join our community today and start interacting with existing members. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free.


User Tag List

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 05-01-2009, 02:41 PM   #41  
With The Resistance
 
jungle's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Burning the Agitprop of the Apparat
Posts: 6,055
Default

"In the troposphere (the lowest layer of the atmosphere) greenhouse gases trap infrared radiation, causing the well-known "global warming" effect "


It is indeed "well known" but for some crazy reason it just isn't happening. Checked the temperature over the last few years?

And if you would, please let us know what the thermostat should be set to for best effect. During the planet's history it has been both warmer and cooler, I'm just trying to get a feel for the correct temperature here. Can you help me out? Can you tell us how to get there?

This heat being shed by the upper atmosphere, any idea where that originates?

I find your motion to control my avatar amusing, but wonder if it is a symptom of something else.

Last edited by jungle; 05-01-2009 at 03:00 PM.
jungle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2009, 07:37 PM   #42  
Line Holder
 
agrinaut's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Oct 2008
Posts: 27
Default

<------------ Some of those people reallly don't like me because this is what I fly.
agrinaut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2009, 03:41 PM   #43  
Banned
 
Joined APC: Apr 2009
Position: electron wrangler
Posts: 371
Default Re: Happy Earth Day

Quote:
Originally Posted by jungle View Post
Then of course there is this little monkey wrench:
Temperature Monitors Report Widescale Global Cooling Michael Asher (Blog) - February 26, 2008 12:55 PM
I think your little monkey wrench is a bust.

- It's a blog entry trying to pass for science. To me, it showcases why peer reviewed science is still the gold standard.

Quote:
All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA’s GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously...
- He starts out claiming the above so I went to the GISS paper and, honest to Jeebus, it starts with the following sentence:

Quote:
The year 2007 tied for second warmest in the period of instrumental data, behind the record warmth of 2005, in the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) analysis.
I got the impression that Asher isn't even reading the data he's referencing.

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailin...14_GISTEMP.pdf
Quote:
Summary. The Southern Oscillation and the solar cycle have significant effects on year-to-year global temperature change. Because both of these natural effects were in their cool phases in 2007, the unusual warmth of 2007 is all the more notable. It is apparent that there is no letup in the steep global warming trend of the past 30 years (see 5-year mean curve in Figure 1a).

“Global warming stopped in 1998” has become a recent mantra of those who wish to deny the reality of human-caused global warming. The continued rapid increase of the five-year running mean temperature exposes this assertion as nonsense. In reality, global temperature jumped two standard deviations above the trend line in 1998 because the “El Nino of the century” coincided with the calendar year, but there has been no lessening of the underlying warming trend.

Strike two.

-Then there's the graphs he passes off as global temperature averages, when in fact they are global temperature anomaly graphs. While it may appear to track the temperature for the whole year from Jan 07 to Jan 08, it isn't. I believe it's tracking the average temperature of Jan 07 and comparing it to Jan 08. At any rate, I'd want confirmation from the people who provided the data.

- Finally, I can't find anywhere on the Hadley site where it talks about global cooling. However, it does say this:

Quote:
Climate change goes on. Average global temperatures are now some 0.75 °C warmer than they were 100 years ago and since the mid-1970s average global temperatures have increased at a rate of more than 0.15 °C per decade. Yet over the last 10 years temperatures have risen more slowly, causing some to claim that global warming has stopped. Here we explain why this is not the case and explains that observed changes are entirely consistent with our understanding of natural fluctuations of the climate within a trend of continuing long-term warming. The evidence is very clear that global temperatures are rising and that humans are largely responsible.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatec...e/projections/

This is where I packed it in. I think Asher is a hack.

Last edited by N2264J; 05-02-2009 at 05:56 PM.
N2264J is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2009, 03:49 PM   #44  
Working Class Dog
 
11Fan's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Position: Spares Pusher
Posts: 1,625
Default

Wow, this thread is really heating up….. Get it? …..hahaha ….heating up…..

God I crack myself up.

Hmm.

……well, it sounded funny to me, but then again, I'm freezing my butt off right now.

Shouldn't it be warmer in May?
11Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2009, 05:17 PM   #45  
Retired
 
DYNASTY HVY's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: whale wrangler
Posts: 3,449
Default

I heard a little rumor that some of the temperature tracking devices were in some real interesting places - on airport properties where heat was registered from a/c . I found that bit of information too be very interesting .
I think Fred has touched on this and I agree with him about what we are told by people we don't really know .
How do you as a individual know if an individual who is informing you of so-called climate change is really telling you the truth?
Like I posted in a previous post on here and that is the fact that I am from Russia and propaganda was the order of the day everyday so what makes the American people think that propaganda is not being used to put forth an agenda that has very drastic consequences for all concerned.
Think about what is being said and think for yourself because if this come' s to pass life as we know it here in America will change drastically .

Ally
DYNASTY HVY is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2009, 06:26 PM   #46  
With The Resistance
 
jungle's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Burning the Agitprop of the Apparat
Posts: 6,055
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by N2264J View Post
I think your little monkey wrench is a bust.

- It's a blog entry trying to pass for science. To me, it showcases why peer reviewed science is still the gold standard.



This is where I packed it in. I think Asher is a hack.
Well there is certainly no shortage of gas in the air on this subject. Peer reviewed. I like that. Let's see what the peers say on the UN report you think so highly of:

The over 700 dissenting scientists are now more than 13 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers. The 59 additional scientists hail from all over the world, including Japan, Italy, UK, Czech Republic, Canada, Netherlands, the U.S. and many are affiliated with prestigious institutions including, NASA, U.S. Navy, U.S. Defense Department, Energy Department, U.S. Air Force, the Philosophical Society of Washington (the oldest scientific society in Washington), Princeton University, Tulane University, American University, Oregon State University, U.S. Naval Academy and EPA.

The explosion of skeptical scientific voices is accelerating unabated in 2009. A March 14, 2009 article in the Australian revealed that Japanese scientists are now at the forefront of rejecting man-made climate fears prompted by the UN IPCC.

Prominent Japanese Geologist Dr. Shigenori Maruyama, a professor at the Tokyo Institute of Technology’s Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences who has authored more than 125 scientific publications, said in March 2009 that “there was widespread skepticism among his colleagues about the IPCC's fourth and latest assessment report that most of the observed global temperature increase since the mid-20th century ‘is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.” Maruyama noted that when this question was raised at a Japan Geoscience Union symposium last year, ‘the result showed 90 per cent of the participants do not believe the IPCC report.” [Also See: The prestigious International Geological Congress, dubbed the geologists' equivalent of the Olympic Games, was held in Norway in August 2008 and prominently featured the voices of scientists skeptical of man-made global warming fears. [ See: Skeptical scientists overwhelm conference: '2/3 of presenters and question-askers were hostile to, even dismissive of, the UN IPCC' & see full reports here & here –More analyses of recent developments see report’s introduction here. ]

200 plus more pages of peer dissent here:.: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page :.

Latest NASA data:The temperature in the United States in 2008 was not much different than the 1951-1980 mean, which makes it cooler than all the previous years this decade.

NASA - 2008 Was Earth's Coolest Year Since 2000


I'm sure you won't like my sources, but it is hard to argue with official testimony far removed from grant grubbing and the political motives of the UN.
jungle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2009, 07:27 PM   #47  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Lowtimer77's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: C-172
Posts: 115
Default

I'll admit, I used to buy into global warming because I heard that supposedly the vast majority of scientists believed it to be true. Whether or not that is correct, I really dont know, I havent researched the subject a great deal. In recent years, I have just decided to remain neutral on the subject because it seems like there isnt a clear cut answer.

I just look at it like this--Would it be healthy to stand behind my car and breathe in the exhaust? Obviously not. Whether or not emissions contribute to global warming or whether "global warming" is even true is irrelevent to me. Have you ever be to Los Angeles? Sometimes it seems like you cant see 100 yards ahead of you because the smog is so bad. Now do I think we need to go crazy with emissions controls and outlaw every SUV/Truck on the road? Definitely not. But do I think it might be a good idea to atleast be conscious of the amount of pollution we are puting into the air? Absolutely.
Lowtimer77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2009, 07:41 PM   #48  
With The Resistance
 
jungle's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Burning the Agitprop of the Apparat
Posts: 6,055
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lowtimer77 View Post
I'll admit, I used to buy into global warming because I heard that supposedly the vast majority of scientists believed it to be true. Whether or not that is correct, I really dont know, I havent researched the subject a great deal. In recent years, I have just decided to remain neutral on the subject because it seems like there isnt a clear cut answer.

I just look at it like this--Would it be healthy to stand behind my car and breathe in the exhaust? Obviously not. Whether or not emissions contribute to global warming or whether "global warming" is even true is irrelevent to me. Have you ever be to Los Angeles? Sometimes it seems like you cant see 100 yards ahead of you because the smog is so bad. Now do I think we need to go crazy with emissions controls and outlaw every SUV/Truck on the road? Definitely not. But do I think it might be a good idea to atleast be conscious of the amount of pollution we are puting into the air? Absolutely.

No argument there, and we are polluting much less than before, but even so cramming millions of vehicles into a small basin area can be unpleasant.
Air quality across the US is much better than it used to be and that is true in most industialized western countries.
Living without emissions right now is an impossible dream, possibly at some point in the future it can be done.
jungle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2009, 11:33 PM   #49  
With The Resistance
 
jungle's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Burning the Agitprop of the Apparat
Posts: 6,055
Default

Just a few more thoughts for our gentle readers who may have come in late or don't want to muddle through the previous pages.

Carl Sagan presented his baloney detection kit as a way to evaluate new ideas.

He introduced it this way:

“If you’re so inclined, if you don’t want to buy baloney even when it’s reassuring to do so, there are precautions that can be taken; there’s a tried-and-true, consumer-tested method.

“What’s in the kit? Tools for skeptical thinking.

“What skeptical thinking boils down to is the means to construct and to understand, a reasoned argument and—especially important—to recognize a fallacious or fraudulent argument. The question is not whether we like the conclusion that emerges out of a train of reasoning, but whether the conclusion follows from the premise or starting point and whether the premise is true.” (The Demon-Haunted World, p. 210)

Here are some of the tools Sagan suggested.

• Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the facts.

• Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.

• Arguments from authority carry little weight (in science there are no "authorities,” at best there may be experts).

• Spin more than one hypothesis—don't simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy. If there’s something to explain, try to think of all the different ways it could be explained, then think of the tests whereby you might disprove each of the alternatives.

• Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it's yours. Try to think of ways to prove it false. What are the best arguments against it?

• Quantify, wherever possible. Being able to assign numerical values to whatever you are attempting to explain makes it easier to evaluate and to choose among competing hypotheses. In the absence of the ability to make quantifiable measurements, the task becomes much more difficult.

• If there is a chain of argument every link in the chain must work, including the premise.

• Occam's razor - if there are two hypothesis that explain the data equally well choose the simpler.

• Ask whether the hypothesis can, at least in principle, be falsified (shown to be false by some unambiguous test). In other words, it is testable? Can others duplicate the experiment and get the same result?

Additional issues are:

Conduct control experiments - especially "double blind" experiments where the person taking measurements is not aware of the test and control subjects.

Check for confounding factors—separate the variables.

Common fallacies of logic and rhetoric

Ad hominem - attacking the arguer and not the argument.

Argument from "authority." Authorities have been wrong in the past and will be wrong in the future.

Argument from adverse consequences (putting pressure on the decision maker by pointing out dire consequences of an "unfavorable" decision).

Appeal to ignorance (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence). This is the claim that whatever has not been proven false must be true, and vice versa.

Special pleading (typically referring to god's will). This is done to rescue a proposition that is in trouble. One of the classic examples is the appeal to divine mysteries to explain how a perfect deity who is good could allow evil to exist.

Begging the question (assuming an answer in the way a statement or a question is phrased). For example: “How did ‘God’ create the universe?”

Observational selection (counting the hits and forgetting the misses). This is a favorite trick of psychics and others who claim paranormal powers. They always remind us of any prediction that is even close to the mark. They never mention those that miss wildly.

Statistics of small numbers (such as drawing conclusions from inadequate sample sizes).

Misunderstanding the nature of statistics (President Eisenhower expressing astonishment and alarm on discovering that fully half of all Americans have below average intelligence!)

Inconsistency (e.g. military expenditures based on worst case scenarios but scientific projections on environmental dangers thriftily ignored because they are not "proved").

Non sequitur—"it does not follow"—the logic falls down. “America has prospered because we are a ‘Christian’ nation.”

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc - "it happened after so it was caused by" - confusion of cause and effect.

Meaningless question (“What happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?”). If there is such a thing as an irresistible force, there cannot be such a thing as an immovable object. The opposite is also true.

Excluded middle—considering only the two extremes in a range of possibilities (making the "other side" look worse than it really is). Example: Either morality comes from ‘God’ or it’s based on individual whims and wishes.

Short-term v. long-term—a subset of excluded middle ("why pursue fundamental science when we have so huge a budget deficit?").

Slippery slope - a subset of excluded middle - unwarranted extrapolation of the effects (give an inch and they will take a mile).

Confusion of correlation and causation.

Straw man—caricaturing (or stereotyping) a position to make it easier to attack. Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection must be false because it fails to explain the origins of life. In fact, Darwin never claimed to explain the origins of life and the subject is not part of the theory of evolution at all. Theories about the origin of life are classified as theories of abiogenesis.

Suppressed evidence or half-truths.

Weasel words—for example, use of euphemisms for war such as "police action" to get around limitations on Presidential powers. Talleyrand said, “An important art of politicians is to find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the public.”
(From The Demon-Haunted World, p210-216)






The argument starts:

- global climate change is happening
- mankind is causing it
- it's going to be bad

The defense is full of errors. How many can you spot?


One side starts with a set of foregone conclusions. One side admits doubt about the conclusions and the possibility of other explanations.
jungle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2009, 07:08 AM   #50  
Banned
 
Joined APC: Apr 2009
Position: electron wrangler
Posts: 371
Default Re: Happy Earth Day

Quote:
Originally Posted by jungle View Post
Well there is certainly no shortage of gas in the air on this subject. Peer reviewed. I like that. Let's see what the peers say on the UN report you think so highly of...
Instead of just carping about one report, let these hundreds of dissenters
defend their arguments in writing and show their work.

Peer reviewed science is supposed to be rigorous - that's the whole point.
N2264J is offline   Reply With Quote
 
 
 

 
Reply
 



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Airline Pilot Pay - Beyond the #s, NO QUESTIONS PLEASE!!!!! JetJock16 Regional 63 04-08-2016 05:05 PM
Pizza Day SkyHigh Hangar Talk 5 02-26-2009 05:16 PM
Is loving “it” enough? If not, what else is there? CosmoKramer Regional 58 01-28-2009 07:01 AM
Happy New Year!!!!! BoeingTanker Hangar Talk 8 01-01-2009 09:58 AM
Labor Day Message jsled Major 5 09-02-2008 09:35 AM


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:57 AM.


vBulletin® v3.9.3.5, Copyright ©2000-2019, MH Sub I, LLC dba vBulletin
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Website Copyright ©2000 - 2017 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands

Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.1