Skull Valley lawmaker wants both sides of climate change taught to students

Feb 5, 2013 Full story: Verde Independent 1,644

Saying students are getting only one side of the debate, a state senator wants to free teachers to tell students why they believe there is no such thing human-caused "global warming.' The proposal by Sen.

Full Story

Since: Nov 12

Elk Grove, CA

#1157 May 9, 2013
The USA in the last 12 months has seen the fewest number of tornadoes since at least 1954, and the death tolls from the dangerous storms have dropped dramatically since 2011.

"it's just got to be the warming"...LOL

“I'm Your Huckleberry ”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

That's Just My Game

#1158 May 9, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah. How could we possibly have reached the moon. It was all based on COMPUTER MODELS. So I guess you are one of those 'conspiracy theorists' that believe it was a Hollywood production?
OF course, you don't really show EVIDENCE of any defects in the current models or the models used to reach the moon.
In fact, you don't say ANYTHING meaningful.
You are an idiot. yes we reached the moon all based on guesses. A computer model is just guesses of the "what if's" it is fed. And the model only knows to analyze what is put it to it by,, wait for it,,, wait for it,,, Yes just guesses put into it by who,,, OH yeah that would be us humans. For if we have never been to the moon, then no facts could have been put into that computer model. just guesses were put in. TADA!!!!!!!!!!
Level 1

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#1159 May 10, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Computer models are rarely accurate when it comes to nature, weather, storms, volcanoes, hurricanes ect.
The models (the same ones used for climate predictions) and used to give increasing accurate weather predictions.

In 1964 the first operational pictures from satellites became available. But it was not until 1973 that the biggest single increase in accuracy was seen. A new and more powerful computer producing a detailed 10-level numerical model of the Earth's atmosphere doubled the accuracy of the three-day forecast. Information was now arriving regularly from satellites and the forecaster's world was expanding.

...

These huge changes in processing speed and computer power, have continued to improve the accuracy of the weather forecasts. Some measures of accuracy showed an improvement from 79% before 1980 to 86% in 1996.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/weather/hi/about/newsid...
Level 1

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#1160 May 10, 2013
One area where 2012 wins hands down over 1962 is weather forecasting. Michael Fish, who began working at the Met Office six weeks before the Big Freeze struck, says forecasts were of limited use back then.

"A four or five day forecast now is as accurate as a 24 hour forecast was back then. A 10-day forecast was absolutely impossible in those days."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20785406
Level 1

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#1161 May 10, 2013
The Met Office Hadley Centre model is unique among climate models in that it is used with more regional detail to produce the weather forecasts every day

Two critical factors have helped us to improve these models over the years. First, our knowledge of the real world has improved, which allows us to improve the models.

Second, the speed and power of computers has increased dramatically, allowing us to represent more detail in the models.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6320515.s...

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#1162 May 10, 2013
RiccardoFire wrote:
The USA in the last 12 months has seen the fewest number of tornadoes since at least 1954, and the death tolls from the dangerous storms have dropped dramatically since 2011.
"it's just got to be the warming"...LOL
Link?

Here's mine:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/severewea...

"Today, nearly all of the United States is reasonably well populated, or at least covered by NOAA's Doppler weather radars. Even if a tornado is not actually observed, modern damage assessments by NWS personnel can discern if a tornado caused the damage, and if so, how strong the tornado may have been. This disparity between tornado records of the past and current records contributes a great deal of uncertainty regarding questions about the long-term behavior or patterns of tornado occurrence. Improved tornado observation practices have led to an increase in the number of reported weaker tornadoes, and in recent years the number of EF-0 and EF-1 tornadoes have become more prevelant in the total number of reported tornadoes. In addition, even today many smaller tornadoes still may go undocumented in places with low populations or inconsistent communication facilities.

With increased national Doppler radar coverage, increasing population, and greater attention to tornado reporting, there has been an increase in the number of tornado reports over the past several decades. This can create a misleading appearance of an increasing trend in tornado frequency. To better understand the true variability and trend in tornado frequency in the U.S., the total number of strong to violent tornadoes (EF3 to EF5 category on the Enhanced Fujita scale) can be analyzed. These are the tornadoes that would have likely been reported even during the decades before Doppler radar use became widespread and practices resulted in increasing tornado reports. The bar chart below indicates there has been little trend in the frequency of the strongest tornadoes over the past 55 years."

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#1163 May 10, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
There seem to be a lot of people with comments regarding computer models. Most of this information I am very aware of. What seems to be missing is actually addressing the original point. That seems to be an issue of contention not only on this thread but in this forum. I see that you have at least tacitly agreed that computer models are experiments.
No, you misunderstand; computer models are in no way 'experiments'. Computer models produce the results they are programmed to produce and nothing more. We've seen computer models of hobbits, dragons and interstellar space ships, that doesn't validate their existence.

“I have upset the hand of god”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

#1164 May 10, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>No, you misunderstand; computer models are in no way 'experiments'. Computer models produce the results they are programmed to produce and nothing more. We've seen computer models of hobbits, dragons and interstellar space ships, that doesn't validate their existence.
I believe it is you that does not understand. A computer model produces a result, but what it sounds like you are saying is that they are basically programs that produce a predetermined outcome no matter what information is inputted into them. This is not true.

What is an experiment? Isn't an experiment just a model? How about a theory? Do these not have underlying assumptions? If you put garbage into an experiment, you will get garbage results back out. If the underlying assumptions are wrong, then conclusions based on traditional experiments will be wrong.

Your last statement does not any real value to this debate unless you somehow think video games are examples of in silico research. It makes as much sense as claiming alchemy is a real science.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#1165 May 11, 2013
An experiment is: "A test under controlled conditions that is made to demonstrate a known truth, examine the validity of a hypothesis, or determine the efficacy of something previously untried."
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/experiment

The scientific method requires experimental tests:

1. Make observations.
2. Propose a hypothesis.
3. Design and perform an experiment to test the hypothesis.
4. Analyze your data to determine whether to accept or reject the hypothesis.
5. If necessary, propose and test a new hypothesis.

http://chemistry.about.com/od/lecturenotesl3/...
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#1166 May 11, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
An experiment is: "A test under controlled conditions that is made to demonstrate a known truth, examine the validity of a hypothesis, or determine the efficacy of something previously untried."
Correct. Science CAN use the results of experiment as evidence of a theory. But an experiment is neither necessary nor sufficient to support a theory.

Science can also uses statistical inferences, modeling studies, observations, prior science, though experiments, etc. Experiment is one tool in the toolbox and not a very good one on some subjects such as planetary atmospheres which are just too large to put up on the lab bench or twiddle the inputs.

They can and do use a wide variety of other tools. Experiment is dependent on validity for the assumptions it is based on, the accuracy it is carried out with, and the feasibility of the method along with 'mistakes' which is why experiment in rarely considered 'proof' of anything. See 'cold fusion' or 'Neutrinos exceeding speed of light'..

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#1167 May 12, 2013
Climate change mitigation is more than mere observation, it's manipulation and control of climate. I'm not disputing global warming, climate always changes. I'm calling climate change mitigation a hoax because it's never been demonstrated.

“I have upset the hand of god”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

#1168 May 12, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Climate change mitigation is more than mere observation, it's manipulation and control of climate. I'm not disputing global warming, climate always changes. I'm calling climate change mitigation a hoax because it's never been demonstrated.
How do you know climate always changes. You don't accept the methodologies that illustrate those changes. You have stated as much on numerous occassions. What are you basing your acceptance on? Readings of bones and tea leaves?

“I have upset the hand of god”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

#1169 May 12, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
An experiment is: "A test under controlled conditions that is made to demonstrate a known truth, examine the validity of a hypothesis, or determine the efficacy of something previously untried."
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/experiment
The scientific method requires experimental tests:
1. Make observations.
2. Propose a hypothesis.
3. Design and perform an experiment to test the hypothesis.
4. Analyze your data to determine whether to accept or reject the hypothesis.
5. If necessary, propose and test a new hypothesis.
http://chemistry.about.com/od/lecturenotesl3/...
And computer modelling and in silico research is not part of this why? You have failed so far to provide any substantive evidence that in silico research methods fall outside of such parameters.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#1170 May 13, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
And computer modelling and in silico research is not part of this why?
Climate science didn't always require computers. Modelling isn't the only problem, I've questioned the use of ice cores to measure sudden CO2 increases. Using an instrument made of ice to make a case that rapid global warming doesn't happen seems problematic at best.

.
DanFromSmithville wrote:
You have failed so far to provide any substantive evidence that in silico research methods fall outside of such parameters.
Direct measurement of outcomes under controlled conditions (see Scientific Method) will always be more reliable than modelled estimates of outcomes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_model...

.
DanFromSmithville wrote:
And computer modelling and in silico research is not part of this why? You have failed so far to provide any substantive evidence that in silico research methods fall outside of such parameters.
One application of scientific modelling is the field of "Modelling and Simulation", generally referred to as "M&S". M&S has a spectrum of applications which range from concept development and analysis, through experimentation, measurement and verification, to disposal analysis. Projects and programs may use hundreds of different simulations, simulators and model analysis tools.
[ibid]

“I have upset the hand of god”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

#1171 May 13, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Climate science didn't always require computers. Modelling isn't the only problem, I've questioned the use of ice cores to measure sudden CO2 increases. Using an instrument made of ice to make a case that rapid global warming doesn't happen seems problematic at best.
.
<quoted text>Direct measurement of outcomes under controlled conditions (see Scientific Method) will always be more reliable than modelled estimates of outcomes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_model...
.
<quoted text>One application of scientific modelling is the field of "Modelling and Simulation", generally referred to as "M&S". M&S has a spectrum of applications which range from concept development and analysis, through experimentation, measurement and verification, to disposal analysis. Projects and programs may use hundreds of different simulations, simulators and model analysis tools.
[ibid]
Science itself has not always used computers. That really isn't a solid critique of the application of computer technology.

I don't understand where you are going with the statements regarding ice cores. Based on your position, wouldn't something that refutes global warming be right up your alley regardless of how robust the techniques are?

See. Even your last statement included modelling as experimentation. I am not saying that climate models are the most robust example. I am just saying that they are a form of experiment. Apparently, we are now in agreement.

If you aren't experienced in experimentation or in silico research that kind of global conclusion is baseless and has little or no merit.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#1172 May 14, 2013
I don't think we're in agreement about computer models. Good models can be reconciled against "Direct measurement of outcomes under controlled conditions", experiments. Climate models have never been reconciled that way.

I'd like to learn more about experimentation; what's the most compelling experiment you've found for man made catastrophic climate change or climate change mitigation?
Level 1

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#1173 May 14, 2013
What does it mean when a climate model gets it right?

03 Apr 2013, 14:30
Roz Pidcock

Do climate models do a good job of forecasting global temperature? Recent coverage in the more climate skeptic press has suggested reasons to be doubtful. But a new paper shows a forecast the Met Office made more than 15 years ago has been "remarkably accurate" in predicting global temperature rise. So what does the fact that some models do better than others tell us about the way climate scientists use them?

A couple of weeks ago, we covered an article in the Mail on Sunday which poured heavy criticism on climate models' ability to forecast global temperature rise.

The piece argued that because projections of temperature rise made by an important set of climate models are somewhat higher than than we've seen in the past decade, climate models are "catastrophically flawed".

Global temperature is currently tracking the lower end of the temperature range predicted by the latest generation of climate models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)- and scientists have speculated about the reasons why.

But as a counter-example, research just published in the journal Nature Geoscience provides an example of one model getting it spot-on. The paper compares a Met Office climate forecast made in 1999 against actual temperature data up to 2012 - and shows they match to within a few hundredths of a degree.

http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2013/04/what-...
Level 1

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#1174 May 14, 2013
According to radiative physics and decades of laboratory measurements, increased CO2 in the atmosphere is expected to absorb more infrared radiation as it escapes back out to space. In 1970, NASA launched the IRIS satellite measuring infrared spectra. In 1996, the Japanese Space Agency launched the IMG satellite which recorded similar observations. Both sets of data were compared to discern any changes in outgoing radiation over the 26 year period (Harries 2001). What they found was a drop in outgoing radiation at the wavelength bands that greenhouse gases such as CO2 and methane (CH4) absorb energy. The change in outgoing radiation was consistent with theoretical expectations. Thus the paper found "direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect". This result has been confirmed by subsequent papers using data from later satellites (Griggs 2004, Chen 2007).

http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evi...

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#1175 May 14, 2013
Physics can't discriminate man made greenhouse gas emissions from natural emissions. That's another reason an experimental test on man made climate change is required before adopting the policy.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#1176 May 14, 2013
A critique of Fair Game's citation is found here:
http://landshape.org/enm/interpretation-bias/

The phrase “evidence of a change in the clear-sky greenhouse radiative forcing” is a much weaker claim than the previous “experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth’s greenhouse effect”. After all, they did not perform an experiment in the usually understood sense, nor did they directly measure the Earth’s greenhouse effect, which relates to radiation across the whole infrared spectrum, from the surface to top of atmosphere.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 18 min Dogen 173,852
Can the universe be God's brain? (Jun '07) 45 min susanblange 65
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 48 min dirtclod 116,731
It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 4 hr thewordofme 137,101
Difficulty Loading Topix Pages 7 hr Gillette 11
New review critical of "Origins" 8 hr MikeF 23
The problem of evil and hate (Oct '13) 8 hr hpcaban 348
•••

Evolution Debate People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••