Hurricanes

[ATLAudio]

Right.... the same science that couldn't predict the path of this storm two days ahead. (It went from one side of the state to the other)
That's the science that's going to be accurate 10s of thousands of years ago?

LMAO You're clearly confusing statistical prediction with empirical evidence. Moreover, if you aren't using science as a problem-solving paradigm, then what are you using? Your gut? Astrology? A crystal ball perhaps? Let's take this logic to its obvious conclusion, science is why we have the technique to design and engineer use a car, do you now not believe in cars because "science" got it wrong the other day?

 

[roadwarrior]

Right.... the same science that couldn't predict the path of this storm two days ahead. (It went from one side of the state to the other)
That's the science that's going to be accurate 10s of thousands of years ago?

You know Florida's actually a peninsula right? I believe the technical term for that type of prediction is bullseye.

 

[ATLAudio]

Since you chose the usual ad hominem.
You mentioned in an earlier post about "Dependency on fossil fuels. Then in a later post also mention traveling across the state. Sounds like fossil fuels are a necessity for now and not really a dependency.

By calling your argument dumb, and not you, and further arguing against your argument, Gene in fact did not use an ad hominem. However, your argument is quite flawed.

 

[Steve81]

And what do they do on this "Audio" site?

OK guys, I guess the jig is up. Rick has finally realized that AH is really the re-education arm of the DNC.

There's a Sticky by the Mods at the top of the
Steam Vent calling for no political posts, since it's an Audio site.

Curious. I see you jumping into the fray, but no reports to the mods to let us know about this egregious rule-breaking. And if Gene's comments on this thread haven't clued you in yet, that rule fell by the wayside a while back.

I'd appreciate a little less of the "low road" that this thread took early on starting with post 4.

Perhaps instead of worrying about this thread, you would like to start another trying to organize/encourage your fellow AHers to donate to relief efforts?

 

[Pogre]

Right.... the same science that couldn't predict the path of this storm two days ahead. (It went from one side of the state to the other)
That's the science that's going to be accurate 10s of thousands of years ago?

They're not predicting anything with ice core samples. It already happened...

 

[Steve81]

LMAO You're clearly confusing statistical prediction with empirical evidence.

To put it another way: I can't tell you what my 2 year old will do in 10 seconds with any degree of certainty, but I can tell you his birth weight.

 

[roadwarrior]

I may be heading to Melbourne within the hour. I have family there with hurricane shutters on their house and a big supply food and more importantly Grappa

Good luck to you and yours Gene. That's my old stomping grounds there where you are and I have very fond Florida memories from growing up around Orlando. Mostly due to the people who lived there. Stay safe.

 

[Alex2507]

Rick has finally realized that AH is really the re-education arm of the DNC.

Give him some credit. That's been obvious for a long time.

Wow that's a really dumb argument.

Conservatives are full of dumb arguments.

The good news is that they post here less and less ...

 

[gene]

Right.... the same science that couldn't predict the path of this storm two days ahead. (It went from one side of the state to the other)
That's the science that's going to be accurate 10s of thousands of years ago?

If one cannot understand the difference between weather and climate then there is little chance for them to understand anthropological climate change.

 

[Rickster71]

If one cannot understand the difference between weather and climate then there is little chance for them to understand anthropological climate change.

I wasn't comparing weather to climate and you should know that.
I was comparing Science to Science.
If one cannot understand the difference between two Scientific Predictions, then there's little chance for them to understand much else.......

 

[ATLAudio]

I wasn't comparing weather to climate and you should know that.
I was comparing Science to Science.
If one cannot understand the difference between two Scientific Predictions, then there's little chance for them to understand much else.......

"I wasn't comparing weather to climate "

Of course you were. You were clearly comparing empirical observation to a predictive hypothesis. Or, as Gene correctly clarified, weather vs climate. Gene does know that, and you clearly do not.

"and you should know that."

What, oh please!?

"I was comparing Science to Science."

You are by definition not using the scientific method when you definitely dismiss a scientific argument because of any particular cherry picked historical failure in science; holding aside your ignorance of said failure. Strawman away, but you've not yet shown any proper scientific criticism of ice core research as it anthropological climate change. Just interference and misdirection, with barely coherent logic.

"If one cannot understand the difference between two Scientific Predictions, then there's little chance for them to understand much else......."

This again? What about when someone doesn't understand the structure of their own cited references? One is clearly predictive. The other is clearly empirical. You are double downing on this comparison of empirical evidence to predictive analysis even after others have given you easy examples. It's obvious why you feel others don't understand you. You're not making sense.

 

[lovinthehd]

@Rickster71 mostly I've laughed at your posts but if that's what keeps you away, don't let me get in your way for having a laughable position. Stand by the drumpf and his idiots denying science, great way to look towards the future. LOL.

 

[TheWarrior]

I may be heading to Melbourne within the hour. I have family there with hurricane shutters on their house and a big supply food and more importantly Grappa

Had you and I discussed grappa previously? It is one of my most cherished beverages, and makes my mafia Aunt very proud...

Ain't no disaster too big when you've got grappa! Stay safe!

 

[highfigh]

Exactly. Humans are the problem, all the above 'events' are just part of that bigger 'problem'. But we've got a few too many people in this country that seem to think our behavior is blameless. And an executive branch that gags scientists.

How does anyone get labeled as having an 'agenda' when caring about the air they breathe, is the same as caring about the air you breathe? (rhetorical)

One prediction now shows the hurricane engulfing FL and then heading straight for ATL. Yeehaw!!!

When their career and income depend on their view being accepted, it's an agenda.

 

[highfigh]

Not sure what your point is. Climate change is more complex than CO2 emissions. Volcanoes have been erupting for millions of years. Not sure what you consider to be a 'short time' but we've seen new records every year for over a decade, every year is hotter than the last. Storms are bigger, and the damage more expensive. It's a shame you claim arrogance to defend your apathy. We ALL need to change what we're doing, and the sooner the better!

Ten years is not enough time for any kind of climate analysis- it's only good for observations in the short term because the changes that are noticed now were caused by something that happened before the sample period began. The climate doesn't react quickly enough for a ten year study to be valid. Trends can continue for over a hundred years- what does ten years tell you in that case?

I'm not apathetic- I think humans have done incalculable damage to the planet but I'm realistic in that I don't think we can change it in a short time. China has been a terrible polluter and they finally seem to have changed their views- they want to stop using gasoline-fueled cars and Volvo will start including an electric motor in every car starting in 2019- I haven't seen anything about its purpose, but if that means they'll all be using less gas, it's a good thing. Ever look at a fish consumption list? Consumption of fish in most areas of the US is restricted or prohibited because of PCBs and Mercury- I'd love to be able to fish and eat what I catch, but not if it means growing more eyes or flippers.

The US has cleaned up its act considerably- ever been to LA? I was there in '66 and when we went to Griffith Observatory, our eyes burned and we could barely stand breathing the air and the last times I have been there, it was much better, even though the area has far more cars, industries and people. "Every year"? Look at the last ten years of Hurricanes- that alone says you're wrong, except for the 'more expensive' part- that can't be helped.

The Earth is a group of systems that self-correct, but it takes a long time. The only living beings that care about this is humans- the planet and the rest of the animals don't give a rat's butt if humans live or die, but if every human were to disappear, it would be better for the Earth. However, if that were to happen, extinctions in the animal population caused by humans would cause unnatural predation levels in the other species because and the food chain would be unbalanced.

 

[highfigh]

Nobody is saying we can reverse it. I honestly don't think we can. People are too dependent on fossil fuels and even if we shut down all C02 emissions tomorrow, its still built up in the atmosphere already. The best we can do now is have tighter regulations on how and where to build, protect coastal areas with natural barriers and synthetic where needed (this is already happenening in Europe and Australia), make a transistion away from fossil fuels to clean renewable energy and migrate when needed. I also think we should look into researching ways to diffuse hurricanes, perhaps with surfacing the ocean areas with corn oil or a non toxic reasonably easy substance to clean up afterwards or something else. If it's even remotely possible to combat them, then its a worthwhile effort and likely less costly effort than rebuilding destroyed areas.

The good and bad of CO2 is that it's heavier than air, so it's mainly present close to the Earth's surface. Bad, because we can't use so much of it and it causes warming, good because it can be used by plants and sequestered in the oceans. Eventually, the amount will decrease, but it will take a long time. If only the rain forests weren't being clear cut........

Cooler oceans prevents hurricanes from being as strong- maybe we could float some big icebergs to the Western coast of Africa.

 

[TheWarrior]

Ten years is not enough time for any kind of climate analysis- it's only good for observations in the short term because the changes that are noticed now were caused by something that happened before the sample period began. The climate doesn't react quickly enough for a ten year study to be valid. Trends can continue for over a hundred years- what does ten years tell you in that case?

I'm not apathetic- I think humans have done incalculable damage to the planet but I'm realistic in that I don't think we can change it in a short time. China has been a terrible polluter and they finally seem to have changed their views- they want to stop using gasoline-fueled cars and Volvo will start including an electric motor in every car starting in 2019- I haven't seen anything about its purpose, but if that means they'll all be using less gas, it's a good thing. Ever look at a fish consumption list? Consumption of fish in most areas of the US is restricted or prohibited because of PCBs and Mercury- I'd love to be able to fish and eat what I catch, but not if it means growing more eyes or flippers.

The US has cleaned up its act considerably- ever been to LA? I was there in '66 and when we went to Griffith Observatory, our eyes burned and we could barely stand breathing the air and the last times I have been there, it was much better, even though the area has far more cars, industries and people. "Every year"? Look at the last ten years of Hurricanes- that alone says you're wrong, except for the 'more expensive' part- that can't be helped.

The Earth is a group of systems that self-correct, but it takes a long time. The only living beings that care about this is humans- the planet and the rest of the animals don't give a rat's butt if humans live or die, but if every human were to disappear, it would be better for the Earth. However, if that were to happen, extinctions in the animal population caused by humans would cause unnatural predation levels in the other species because and the food chain would be unbalanced.

Still not sure what your point is. But if the trend of the last ten years were to continue for 100 years, I doubt many humans will be around to debate it.

 

[Steve81]

When their career and income depend on their view being accepted, it's an agenda.

Keep in mind that there are billions if not trillions of dollars of interests on the side of man-made climate change being overblown / a hoax. One expects that companies like Exxon, Shell, BP, etc. can afford to pay at least as well as the government.

I'm not apathetic- I think humans have done incalculable damage to the planet but I'm realistic in that I don't think we can change it in a short time.

I agree. The question is whether or not we try to minimize future damage. As is, the Earth's population is growing; we've gone from about 4.5 billion to roughly 7.5 billion so far in my relatively short lifetime. You can project out how that will go by 2050 or 2100. That's a lot of mouths to feed, and a lot more consumers of basics like electricity and transportation. What happens if we sit with the data we have today and do diddly squat?

 

[highfigh]

Still not sure what your point is. But if the trend of the last ten years were to continue for 100 years, I doubt many humans will be around to debate it.

The question that isn't being answered is "where, in the trend, is this ten year period?". Many trends last over a hundred years- if you pick the beginning, middle or end, you can't define what happened with any accuracy- it's like the saying about looking into a microscope and saying that you see an elephant. You can't define the climate by using a small sample.

Look at the graph for the Little Ice Age- if you choose 1640-1650 for your ten year sample, you could only conclude that the temperature was dropping but if you use 1655-1665, you would say it was unchanged. Wait until around 1720-1780 and you would know it was warming, but it's still not an accurate picture for the longer trend.

Look at the increase in World population- the number of people has quadrupled since 1920 and that includes the losses from wars & natural disasters.

 

[Pogre]

The good and bad of CO2 is that it's heavier than air, so it's mainly present close to the Earth's surface. Bad, because we can't use so much of it and it causes warming, good because it can be used by plants and sequestered in the oceans. Eventually, the amount will decrease, but it will take a long time. If only the rain forests weren't being clear cut........

Cooler oceans prevents hurricanes from being as strong- maybe we could float some big icebergs to the Western coast of Africa.

It would take more than that. In this video Kyle uses maths to figure out how big of a chunk of ice it would take to cool the earth.