Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
I would like to hear some opinions on this.
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="wkmac" data-source="post: 270561" data-attributes="member: 2189"><p>AV8,</p><p> </p><p>As to post #33.</p><p> </p><p>What is confidence range? Well the exact definition I don't know but here's my stab at it anyway. Confidence range I would think means you have certain factors of knowns that show a certain range and then you can project some form of conclusion or theory if you like based on these knowns. Now this will be an example but it also gets in the historical temp records aspect.</p><p> </p><p>Obviously, until into the last century, we didn't have accurate temp. records but we have had those records for say the last 5 to 7 decades. Being that's the case, scientists have studied aspects of nature during these periods to learn and come to some conclusions to help them better estimate past weather conditions. 2 of those areas are ice layers and tree rings. If you have the known data of weather as we do these days and you look at ice and tree ring samples, you document the characteristics of such from year to year. If the weather is hot and dry the ring features for that year are one way, if wet and cool, it's another. But they even are more definded with specific temp. ranges based on ring features. Ice is the same way. It's taking a known factor to project a conclusion for an unknown period so to speak. Study of space is the same way. Certain chemical compounds burn and give off a certain spectrum of light so scientist studying the stars using this known project that some interstellar objects contain this or that compound because of the known here on earth. How accurate is it? It's the best we can do until we get to go there and it seems to make sense.</p><p> </p><p>Ice core and tree ring samples seems the best science can do and to be honest I think it is good science but can it be inaccurate? Sure, but it still seems an honest approach so for now I'm willing to go with it. Based on the knowns of our day, they project back in time a temp. range that they use to issue a more precise temp. for the purpose of trending data but it is not without the potential for error if you are looking for a committment of error free data. </p><p> </p><p>As to CO2 levels, again it's using modern day knowns in sceince to project backwards in time to establish a picture of what it was like. This is probably more from the ice core samples as the ice itself will have trace elements of atmospheric conditions of times including O2, N, CO2, CH4 and the presence of particulate matter. The presense of various volcanic gases along with volcanic ash in the ice core is used to not only measure the possible amount of ash cloud disbursment and with the geologic data, it places a estimated date in time of erruption. </p><p> </p><p>We use known data from Mount St. Helens when it errupted in 1980'. I remember well the scientific projections that the area would be a unlivable wasteland for years (I even heard a 1000 year projection) but the next year there were signs of life and within a couple of years it was exploding with life. Mount St. Helens proved a treasure trove of data that was used to gather hard facts in the current to project a possible picture of the past. Look science isn't perfect by any stretch and even though many scientist hates this comparsion, science shares a common ground with religion in that in some cases you have to come to it with some faith. Some religious leaders make projections off of biblical prophesy and are wrong but we still flock to their churches and absord every word they speak. Some folks justdo this with scientists on the idea they are "freethinkers" and way beyond the childish religious dogmas of the day. Little do they realize the very similar characteristics and yes I have a number of so-called "free thinkers" as friends and I love ragging them on it and they hate me to death when I do.<img src="/community/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/FeltTip/wink.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":wink2:" title="Wink :wink2:" data-shortname=":wink2:" /></p><p> </p><p>To accept the Garden of Eden story of creation, you have to come by it with faith. Same is just as true of Darwinism or the Big Bang Theory IMO. Now I happen to believe the Big Bang is possible but it also complies completely with my idea of a higher power, God if you will, as starting it all. A principle premise for me in physics is you can't get something from absolutely nothing. In others words, something or someone (if you need a personified power) had to lite that firecracker! Eden is still a part of that mix but I don't think of it as the absolute beginning point of all time nor the absolute beginning point of mankind. It is however a very important lesson in life that I think get's overshadowed but that's a whole other thread in itself.</p><p> </p><p>We are all free to accept, reject, condemn or whatever, the science behind what is called global warming. Simple fact is, temps, (although small) are going up but the real question is what is the specific cause and is human activity the root culprit? I do think historical scientific projections do question the "only caused by human action" camp but the real question is, what will our actions add to what is believed to be a known based on the data at this time and what can we do to find an answer? </p><p> </p><p>That honest question has been trampled by the political debate of the divide that exists in this country and IMO it's driven by egos more than a drive to assert a known truth and it goes both ways. We are all at fault here IMO and no one is left out. </p><p> </p><p>I never said one thing to you about believing what Al Gore sez is fact. If you go back and look at all my posts on this issue I've always suggested the cause if any was multi-fold. My post with all the links clearly show for one, that I believe this is a reoccuring cycle in the life of our planet. To my knowledge, Gore has never acknowledged this point as it would call into question the "only human activity" cause of Global Warming. I also pointed out several articles showing a solar connection to the warming problem as it's also being seen on other planets as well and unless someone can prove otherwise, there are no people living there. </p><p> </p><p>Or is this really just a case of ego and the fact that I'm just not completely and totally on your side on this issue? I guess Jones is mad at me to because I'm not on his side totally either and I guess we need to throw Diesel in this mix as well because I know he knows we don't agree.<img src="/community/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/FeltTip/wink.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":wink2:" title="Wink :wink2:" data-shortname=":wink2:" /> I would say Big Arrow too but the moment he saw you fencing with Jones and Diesel, he's on your side no matter what the issue is!</p><p><img src="/community/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/FeltTip/happy-very.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":happy-very:" title="Happy Very :happy-very:" data-shortname=":happy-very:" /> I'd bet a few others fall into that camp as well.</p><p> </p><p>I agree with you that some people are using this issue for the purpose of a political agenda, you are 100% correct on that and I'll stand with you against anyone who would deny otherwise. Even Patrick Moore, founder of GreenPeace who left the organization to found GreenSpirit agrees and advocates that point. There are responsible voices out there asking good questions and looking at the data with some honest eyes. Don't disregard them because you made a mistake like I did early on and prejudged them because they didn't walk and talk the exact same way you do. </p><p> </p><p>JMO</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="wkmac, post: 270561, member: 2189"] AV8, As to post #33. What is confidence range? Well the exact definition I don't know but here's my stab at it anyway. Confidence range I would think means you have certain factors of knowns that show a certain range and then you can project some form of conclusion or theory if you like based on these knowns. Now this will be an example but it also gets in the historical temp records aspect. Obviously, until into the last century, we didn't have accurate temp. records but we have had those records for say the last 5 to 7 decades. Being that's the case, scientists have studied aspects of nature during these periods to learn and come to some conclusions to help them better estimate past weather conditions. 2 of those areas are ice layers and tree rings. If you have the known data of weather as we do these days and you look at ice and tree ring samples, you document the characteristics of such from year to year. If the weather is hot and dry the ring features for that year are one way, if wet and cool, it's another. But they even are more definded with specific temp. ranges based on ring features. Ice is the same way. It's taking a known factor to project a conclusion for an unknown period so to speak. Study of space is the same way. Certain chemical compounds burn and give off a certain spectrum of light so scientist studying the stars using this known project that some interstellar objects contain this or that compound because of the known here on earth. How accurate is it? It's the best we can do until we get to go there and it seems to make sense. Ice core and tree ring samples seems the best science can do and to be honest I think it is good science but can it be inaccurate? Sure, but it still seems an honest approach so for now I'm willing to go with it. Based on the knowns of our day, they project back in time a temp. range that they use to issue a more precise temp. for the purpose of trending data but it is not without the potential for error if you are looking for a committment of error free data. As to CO2 levels, again it's using modern day knowns in sceince to project backwards in time to establish a picture of what it was like. This is probably more from the ice core samples as the ice itself will have trace elements of atmospheric conditions of times including O2, N, CO2, CH4 and the presence of particulate matter. The presense of various volcanic gases along with volcanic ash in the ice core is used to not only measure the possible amount of ash cloud disbursment and with the geologic data, it places a estimated date in time of erruption. We use known data from Mount St. Helens when it errupted in 1980'. I remember well the scientific projections that the area would be a unlivable wasteland for years (I even heard a 1000 year projection) but the next year there were signs of life and within a couple of years it was exploding with life. Mount St. Helens proved a treasure trove of data that was used to gather hard facts in the current to project a possible picture of the past. Look science isn't perfect by any stretch and even though many scientist hates this comparsion, science shares a common ground with religion in that in some cases you have to come to it with some faith. Some religious leaders make projections off of biblical prophesy and are wrong but we still flock to their churches and absord every word they speak. Some folks justdo this with scientists on the idea they are "freethinkers" and way beyond the childish religious dogmas of the day. Little do they realize the very similar characteristics and yes I have a number of so-called "free thinkers" as friends and I love ragging them on it and they hate me to death when I do.:wink2: To accept the Garden of Eden story of creation, you have to come by it with faith. Same is just as true of Darwinism or the Big Bang Theory IMO. Now I happen to believe the Big Bang is possible but it also complies completely with my idea of a higher power, God if you will, as starting it all. A principle premise for me in physics is you can't get something from absolutely nothing. In others words, something or someone (if you need a personified power) had to lite that firecracker! Eden is still a part of that mix but I don't think of it as the absolute beginning point of all time nor the absolute beginning point of mankind. It is however a very important lesson in life that I think get's overshadowed but that's a whole other thread in itself. We are all free to accept, reject, condemn or whatever, the science behind what is called global warming. Simple fact is, temps, (although small) are going up but the real question is what is the specific cause and is human activity the root culprit? I do think historical scientific projections do question the "only caused by human action" camp but the real question is, what will our actions add to what is believed to be a known based on the data at this time and what can we do to find an answer? That honest question has been trampled by the political debate of the divide that exists in this country and IMO it's driven by egos more than a drive to assert a known truth and it goes both ways. We are all at fault here IMO and no one is left out. I never said one thing to you about believing what Al Gore sez is fact. If you go back and look at all my posts on this issue I've always suggested the cause if any was multi-fold. My post with all the links clearly show for one, that I believe this is a reoccuring cycle in the life of our planet. To my knowledge, Gore has never acknowledged this point as it would call into question the "only human activity" cause of Global Warming. I also pointed out several articles showing a solar connection to the warming problem as it's also being seen on other planets as well and unless someone can prove otherwise, there are no people living there. Or is this really just a case of ego and the fact that I'm just not completely and totally on your side on this issue? I guess Jones is mad at me to because I'm not on his side totally either and I guess we need to throw Diesel in this mix as well because I know he knows we don't agree.:wink2: I would say Big Arrow too but the moment he saw you fencing with Jones and Diesel, he's on your side no matter what the issue is! :happy-very: I'd bet a few others fall into that camp as well. I agree with you that some people are using this issue for the purpose of a political agenda, you are 100% correct on that and I'll stand with you against anyone who would deny otherwise. Even Patrick Moore, founder of GreenPeace who left the organization to found GreenSpirit agrees and advocates that point. There are responsible voices out there asking good questions and looking at the data with some honest eyes. Don't disregard them because you made a mistake like I did early on and prejudged them because they didn't walk and talk the exact same way you do. JMO [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
I would like to hear some opinions on this.
Top