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

[SpaceBlues]

The importance of statistics, probability, and risk in the climate change discussion was also raised by Penn State University researchers at the AAAS meeting on Friday.

In a statement, they called statistics “an important tool in sorting through information on how human activities are affecting the climate system, as well as how climate change affects natural and human systems… As more research is conducted and more data are gathered… scientists are gaining a better understanding of current and future climate conditions, as well as predicting the risk of the dramatic and costly affects of this change.”

“We have a better understanding of the climate now than we have ever had before. With greater availability of data and more sophisticated climate models, our knowledge continues to increase,” said associate professor of statistics Murali Haran.“[But] we still don’t know everything there is to know about the climate… Hence it is vitally important to account for our uncertainties about the system – what we know and what we don’t know. Statisticians can provide the language and methods to quantify these uncertainties in a rigorous fashion.”

http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/11127855...

[Brian_G]

There are no experimental tests of climate change mitigation, that's how you can tell its a hoax and the theory that man made greenhouse gas emissions are causing catastrophic climate change is pseudoscience.

[PHD]

Brian_G wrote:

There are no experimental tests of climate change mitigation, that's how you can tell its a hoax and the theory that man made greenhouse gas emissions are causing catastrophic climate change is pseudoscience.

AKA scientific science fiction.

[ChristineM]

Shubee wrote:

<quoted text>Never.

Correct so why lie about it? Why make BS suggestions and then prove yourself to be a liar?

Shubee wrote:

<quoted text>You can put it that way, except that I don't speak for them. They do an excellent job of speaking for themselves.

You made a statement and I responded to it, you don’t want people to respond then don’t make stupid statements

Shubee wrote:

<quoted text>Your whining is meaningless since accomplished scientists are saying that the peer-review process in climate science has been co-opted by delusional pseudo-science.

Funny how the godbots always accuse their opposition of “whining” and then go on to cite years out of date ideas but never bother giving references to that idea.

No “whining” involved, unlike you I provided links to valid scientific data. You have done nothing but complain that you don’t agree with that scientific data but never even considered supplyi9ng your own evidence. Nuff said.

Shubee wrote:

<quoted text>And they do all your thinking for you. The problem is that accomplished scientists are saying that your faith is flawed.

Weeelll here you go again with the godbot excuses. I PROVIDED links to valid scientific evidence. All you have done is rant about outdated material and past errors, which funnily enough were spotted and highlighted by the very science you are condemning

[PHD]

SpaceBlues wrote:

Awww ph'd lies because it is degreeless per admission.
Are you going to call yourself bottle or kettle now that you are exposed again? Maybe mathless???

Take that new pill and wake up feeling your--self with the wallop10 AKA walloped again and again.

[ChristineM]

SpaceBlues wrote:

<quoted text>Interesting. I used craft for ff's "skill in evasion or deception, guile." What's your craft?
:-)
Otherwise I agree with you. NM happens to be the home of many climate scientists but maybe they don't go to Santa Fe for lectures.

Yes I realised this, that’s why I pointed out the deliberate deceit (given up to date data) of what he claims, just another point of view on your post.

My skill is nothing to do with the environment other than creating animations based on scientific data. Some of that data is quite frightening, particularly for coastal dwellers.

I’m a 3D Artist specialising in animation, mimic diagrams and training videos

[ChristineM]

Fun Facts wrote:

<quoted text>
If this is a graphic of CO2 distribution, then there's a whole lot more blue and green than there is red or yellow.
Actually, CO2 is currently approx 400ppm, that means there is not CO2 everywhere in the atmosphere. Of every million parts of the atmosphere, only 400 parts in each million are CO2. Without a descritpion of the graphic, we don't know what the colors represent.
The reference for your graphic would be appreciated, I would like to see how the graphic was developed and the data set used. Maybe they have similar graphics for different times of the year, that would be interesting too.

My link was provided as an example of colour coding, it is not relevant to climate change but the technology and processes to provide the results. The data used was CMB data from the Wmap satellite (as specified). Years are not relevant in the context of the CMB, billions of light years are. Just do a google for CMB and/or WMAP

No it does not mean that at all, you are once again attempting to obfuscate with irrelevancies. Approximately 400ppm means approximately 400ppm. That figure makes no reference to “everywhere” funnily enough it does not even make reference to anywhere. Where is co2 approximately 400ppm? Is this approximately 400ppm at sea level, 1000ft, 10,000ft etc?

CO2 is heavier than air, the lower the altitude the higher the concentration, quoting a concentration without the altitude is just one more of your irrelevancies. Same applies to wind data and many other variables.

The difference is that the graphic I linked to was created for the job in hand and relevant as an example of colour coding The graphic you produced was not relevant to the measured CO2 levels spanning thousands of years.

[ChristineM]

Brian_G wrote:

There are no experimental tests of climate change mitigation, that's how you can tell its a hoax and the theory that man made greenhouse gas emissions are causing catastrophic climate change is pseudoscience.

Modern temperature records (last 100 years or so)
Paleoclimatic temperature data (last few thousand years or so)
Satellite data
Borehole analysis
Glacial melt observations
Sea ice melt
Sea level rise
Permafrost melt
All show climate change, those representing older data show a rapid and unprecedented rise coexisting with the human emission of co2.

Here are some of the organisations that accept human instigated global warming is real and scientifically well-supported, NASA, NAS, RS, NOAA, IPCC, EPA, AGU, AMS, AIP, CMOS, NCAR, etc, etc

Every major scientific institution dealing with climate, ocean, and/or atmosphere agrees that the climate is warming rapidly and the primary cause is human CO2 emissions

[Nuggin]

Brian_G wrote:

There are no experimental tests of climate change mitigation, that's how you can tell its a hoax and the theory that man made greenhouse gas emissions are causing catastrophic climate change is pseudoscience.

There have been plenty of experimental tests, just not global scale tests.

Making this claim is like saying we've done no tests to verify that two points are on opposite sides of the Earth because we haven't drilled a hole between them.

[Gillette]

ChristineM wrote:

<quoted text>
Every major scientific institution dealing with climate, ocean, and/or atmosphere agrees that the climate is warming rapidly and the primary cause is human CO2 emissions

And BrianG has admitted elsewhere that he is PAID to come on the Internet and sow the seeds of doubt about that scientific consensus.

Really despicable. Shame on him.

[litesong]

Gillette wrote:

And BrianG has admitted elsewhere that he is PAID to come on the Internet and sow the seeds of doubt about that scientific consensus.

'brian_g stumble butt dumpster diver' has a two-bit oil can job around computers(truck dispatcher?). Thus, he needed little money to get him to type for AGW denier oily pumpers.

'brian_g stumble butt dumpster diver' got a raise to a 2-&-a-half-bit oil can job.

[Brian_G]

Nuggin wrote:

There have been plenty of experimental tests, just not global scale tests.

Please cite the most compelling experimental test you've found for climate change mitigation.

.

Nuggin wrote:

Making this claim is like saying we've done no tests to verify that two points are on opposite sides of the Earth because we haven't drilled a hole between them.

Nobody is suggesting mitigating the Earth's geography; if you did then I'd ask for experimental tests too.

[Nuggin]

Brian_G wrote:

<quoted text>Please cite the most compelling experimental test you've found for climate change mitigation.

Basic chemistry at the high school level shows that reducing the amount of carbon leaving facilities like coal plants reduces the amount of carbon being put in the atmosphere.

[MAAT]

Gillette wrote:

<quoted text>
And BrianG has admitted elsewhere that he is PAID to come on the Internet and sow the seeds of doubt about that scientific consensus.
Really despicable. Shame on him.

Maybe he should ask a raise, in case he missed reading about the economic effects.

Global? The USA is frankly the greatest polluter.
But lets make a start. Oceans are all de-iced connected now (almost unprecedented) But therefore we can allready say we cover about 60-70% of the earth. A list of indicators:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/

[MAAT]

For some reason unbeknownst to me they also discount the effect of the earths defence mechanisms as a response mechanism.
And as an aside, you do not need longterm studies. If too much CO2 get's in the ocean and the temperature raises just a few degrees we allready could have an serious problem with added methane being released and reduced capacity to absorb CO2. So the spikes worry me more, honestly. Though in the long term you would get the same scenario.
This site get's technical especially in the comment section.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/earth-albedo-...
The gist is that the CERES data was not properly processed.

[MAAT]

http://skepticalscience.com/foster-and-rahmst...

[MAAT]

Indeed global. Here a science journal published paper from Nigeria. Boreholes etc. and see the post by Christine M for the full summation. 100-150 year data.
https://docs.google.com/viewer...

[MAAT]

The economics of global warming. Cline.
The starting point of his analysis is the point of no return reached by about 2050, after that the economic effects of bad harvest, droughts, population movement a.s.o will at least be present for 300 years. Yes...300 years.
http://books.google.nl/books...

So a bit of warped religion (aren't they suppposed to make the world holy-whole/healing) and a quick profit now is the rationalisation of suffering for 300 years!
We haven't even invented the accounting system to deal with such a global feat, let alone the resources, so everyone is going to feel it.
It's not like we have that much farmland, and algea in the seas will be of the wrong kind, so forget about that as resource.

[MAAT]

Nuggin wrote:

<quoted text>
Basic chemistry at the high school level shows that reducing the amount of carbon leaving facilities like coal plants reduces the amount of carbon being put in the atmosphere.

I keep forgetting we are talking America. Carbon scrubbers are obligated in Europe. As well as many other emission reducing means.
CO 2 is just part of the problem.

[MAAT]

THE subject of climatic and environmental changes that result from human activity has been much in the news recently. Discussions of the greenhouse effect, thinning of the ozone layer, rising levels of carbon dioxide, global warming, chlorofluorocarbons, and acid rain have made the terms common in print. Atmospheric physicists and other scientists have examined the physical consequences of these effects, but the impact of environmental change on the health and survival of humans has received relatively little direct attention, with some notable exceptions.1 Although the direction of environmental change seems clear, much uncertainty remains about its magnitude and tempo. When ...

Source Information
From the Department of Preventive Medicine, Harvard Medical School, and the Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

cited in 35 other articles.