(Lake Martin Specific)
111,139 messages
Updated 4/21/2024 6:43:43 PM
Lakes Online Forum
83,597 messages
Updated 4/23/2024 10:46:22 AM
Lakes Online Forum
5,193 messages
Updated 4/3/2024 3:47:36 AM
(Lake Martin Specific)
4,169 messages
Updated 4/16/2024 3:16:57 AM
Lakes Online Forum
4,169 messages
Updated 4/15/2024 11:05:05 PM
Lakes Online Forum
4,260 messages
Updated 3/24/2024 9:24:45 AM
Lakes Online Forum
2,976 messages
Updated 3/20/2024 11:53:43 PM
(Lake Martin Specific)
169 messages
Updated 5/31/2023 1:39:35 PM
Lakes Online Forum
98 messages
Updated 4/15/2024 1:00:58 AM
|
|
|
|
Name:
|
MartiniMan
- 
|
|
Subject:
|
Glad to help you understand
|
|
Date:
|
3/1/2013 9:20:35 AM
|
|
Archie, I'm glad to help you understand this better because you do seem to have an open mind about this and that is a good thing. The first thing you have to come to grips with is the time frame that you are looking at. Less than 10,000 years ago the state of Ohio was under a sheet of ice one mile in thickness. Since then we have been in a warming period that, while waxing and waning in natural cycles, has continued unabated. And when I say natural cycles I am referring to relatively shorter periods of time, as in the tens to hundreds of years. Hence, we had in the middle ages a warming period with no CO2, no industrialization, nothing anthropogenic that could explain it. That was followed by a cooling period during the time when Dickens wrote Scrooge (recall all the snow they were getting then?). And even more recently, the dire predictions in the 1970s of a coming ice age claimed to be a result of, yes, you guessed it, CO2 emissions. But the ice age didn't happen, the global climate warmed, the prognosticators of doom that don't understand climate science were wrong, and bingo, CO2 is now suddenly causing the warming. That brief history of getting so very wrong alone should be enough to at least make you skeptical.
But here's the problem with the AGW and it is significant. The entire theory of AGW is predicated on models (and even worse, only those models that supported the theory...all others that did not were discarded). I know you live in the world of equations and emperical data as to how to design a structure but the world of modeling is entirely different. You try to predict future outcomes by modeling a complex system using mathematical equations using as many input parameters as you can possibly develop and assign values to. Then you calibrate the model to past results and if that works, to hopefully predict the future. But a model is only as good as the ability to mimic a complex system and to determine the right input parameters and then correctly select them. But the proof of a model at the end of the day is its ability to be calibrated to the past data and its performance into the future. On these two fronts the AGW models have been awful and the AGW proponents know it.
None of the models have been able to account for the warming in the middle ages. They have simply ignored it, hence the scandal of hiding data to manipulate Algore's famous hockey stick picture (which is another issue in itself). More importantly, how have the models done in predicting the last 15 years? Again, it has been abysmal. All of the models predicted a rise in global temperatures over the last 15 years and actually underestimated the CO2 emissions that have occurred. So CO2 emissions were higher than expected and yet for the last 15 years global climates have not gone up. The models upon which AGW is based are flat out wrong and that is the elephant in the room that no one wants to talk about except us neanderthal skeptics that are apparently no better than the holocaust deniers (by the way, I've been to a concentration camp, have seen the evidence, read the stories and I believe them).
If the basis for an entire theory is proved to be wrong, one would assume that an intelligent, thoughtful person would question the validity for the theory. So what explains a large group of otherwise intelligent people still grasping solidly to what is clearly a failed concept? My opinion is that it is a combination of being a low information person with little real intellectual curiosity, to follow the money (i.e., grants that AGW scientists need to live on), to the spread the wealth crowd that actually thinks the way to raise underdeveloped countries up is by dropping the standard of living of developed and developing countries, to radical environmentalists that will seize any idea, no matter how hair brained, if it can be used to attack fossil fuels (read Cool It by Bjorn Lomborg), to politicians looking for their next crisis upon which to seize more power and taxpayer money to the well intentioned, environmentally conscious person that really doesn't understand or want to understand the truth but thinks we should do something just in case.
Now as for those orders of architecture, of that I know very little but it sounds interesting. Perhaps start a new thread and I can learn something. Or do you have a good book written for the layman that I can read?
|
|
Reply
Back
Search
Off-Topic Forum
»
Alabama Lakes
»
Lake Martin
Login
|
Home
