"Climate change is accelerating beyond expectations"; Americans' belief declines

[IrezumiKiss]

Funny how that works . . .

Perfect, just perfect.

 

[RightField]

I believe you're associated with air travel aren't you? The cap-n-trade will significantly cut back on air travel and cause significant layoffs in air travel related industries. Are you willing to trade your income and livelihood on the certainty that global warming is bad and that it's the fault of people?

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Scientists at the University of East Anglia have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.
The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit CRU was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.

The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,577746,00.html?test=latestnews

The theory is dead, no longer science even anymore. If the data cannot be accessed for true peer review and replication than it is just as likely to be a hoax as "settled" science.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

The forecasts of global warming are based on the mathematical solutions of equations in models of the weather. But all of these solutions are inaccurate. Therefore no valid scientific conclusions can be made concerning global warming. The false claim for the effectiveness of mathematics is an unreported scandal at least as important as the recent climate data fraud. Why is the math important? And why don't the climatologists use it correctly?

Mathematics has a fundamental role in the development of all physical sciences. First the researchers strive to understand the laws of nature determining the behavior of what they are studying. Then they build a model and express these laws in the mathematics of differential and difference equations. Next the mathematicians analyze the solutions to these equations to improve the understanding of the scientist. Often the mathematicians can describe the evolution through time of the scientist's model.

The most famous successful use of mathematics in this way was Isaac Newton's demonstration that the planets travel in elliptical paths around the sun. He formulated the law of gravity (that the rate of change of the velocity between two masses is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them) and then developed the mathematics of differential calculus to demonstrate his result.

Every college physics student studies many of the simple models and their successful solutions that have been found over the 300 years after Newton. Engineers constantly use models and mathematics to gain insight into the physics of their field.

However, for many situations of interest, the mathematics may become too difficult. The mathematicians are unable to answer the scientist's important questions because a complete understanding of the differential equations is beyond human knowledge. A famous longstanding such unsolved problem is the n-body problem: if more than two planets are revolving around one another, according to the law of gravity, will the planets ram each other or will they drift out to infinity?

Fortunately, in the last fifty years computers have been able to help mathematicians solve complex models over short time periods. Numerical analysts have developed techniques to graph solutions to differential equations and thus to yield new information about the model under consideration. All college calculus students use calculators to find solutions to simple differential equations called integrals. Space-travel is possible because computers can solve the n-body problem for short times and small n. The design of the stealth jet fighter could not have been accomplished without the computing speed of parallel processors. These successes have unrealistically raised the expectations for the application of mathematics to scientific problems.

Unfortunately, even assuming the model of the physics is correct, computers and mathematicians cannot solve more difficult problems such as the weather equations for several reasons. First, the solution may require more computations than computers can make. Faster and faster computers push back the speed barrier every year. Second, it may be too difficult to collect enough data to accurately determine the initial conditions of the model.*** Third, the equations of the model may be non-linear. This means that no simplification of the equations can accurately predict the properties of the solutions of the differential equations. The solutions are often unstable. That is a small variation in initial conditions lead to large variations some time later. This property makes it impossible to compute solutions over long time periods.

As an expert in the solutions of non-linear differential equations, I can attest to the fact that the more than two-dozen non-linear differential equations in the models of the weather are too difficult for humans to have any idea how to solve accurately.* No approximation over long time periods has any chance of accurately predicting global warming. Yet approximation is exactly what the global warming advocates are doing. Each of the more than 30 models being used around the world to predict the weather is just a different inaccurate approximation of the weather equations. (Of course this is only an issue if the model of the weather is correct. It is probably not because the climatologists probably do not understand all of the physical processes determining the weather.)

Therefore, logically one cannot conclude that any of the predictions are correct. To base economic policy on the wishful thinking of these so-called scientists is just foolhardy from a mathematical point of view. The leaders of the mathematical community, ensconced in universities flush with global warming dollars, have not adequately explained to the public the above facts.**

President Obama should appoint a Mathematics Czar to consult before he goes to Copenhagen.

Peter Landesman mathmaze@yahoo.com is the author of the 3D-maze book Spacemazes for children to have fun while learning mathematics.
American Thinker

* I've been telling you that for ten fucking years now!

** I've tried to but been shouted at and had cherries thrown at me with every effort because I'm a math major NOT A CLIMATE expert, who, btw, ARE NOT MATH EXPERTS!!!

*** What the fuck do I keep telling you about modeling chaotic systems and initial conditions? You'll never know if you have the right model because you'll never have the initial condition even if you HAVE identified the strange attractor which is NOT CO2, it's THE SUN, DUMMY!!!

 

[Slowlane]

Yay, more useless drivel.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,577746,00.html?test=latestnews

The theory is dead, no longer science even anymore. If the data cannot be accessed for true peer review and replication than it is just as likely to be a hoax as "settled" science.

Wait, weren't you and Ishmael just the other day berating the scientific method of peer review as not only useless and unreliable but actually responsible for pressing the issue of AGM? Now suddenly it's lack is proof that the theory is unsound?

You don't actually read the scree you C&P here from 'Mericun Thinker do you?

 

[IrezumiKiss]

Yay, more useless drivel.

Irony, meet thy maker.

 

[Slowlane]

Irony, meet thy maker.

Even more, wow.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

Even more, wow.

Yeah, wow...irony continues. Wow. Gosh. Gee whillikers.

 

[castagnus]

Whatever they charged you for that degree on the Internet, you should ask for your money back.

"Envirornmental earth scientist."

I heart this place.

What a cheap shot !

Don't you have any shame ?

 

[firespin]

What a cheap shot !

Don't you have any shame ?

You must be new here.

 

[castagnus]

Oh, God, another one.

I really hope this is just the same dumbass posting over and over. I prefer to pretend people on the whole aren't this dumb.

"Well in point of fact, there is a debate, and here are the non-reasons, for which I will employ a lot of vaguely scientific-sounding terms that mean nothing."

Hoo boy.

You are not honest and not worth responding to.

Goodbye.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Wait, weren't you and Ishmael just the other day berating the scientific method of peer review as not only useless and unreliable but actually responsible for pressing the issue of AGM? Now suddenly it's lack is proof that the theory is unsound?

You don't actually read the scree you C&P here from 'Mericun Thinker do you?

No. Provide some evidence of any such a thing.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

How did we react to Big Tobacco when they altered data, suppressed information harmful to them, and perverted the peer review process?





Did we not RICO them?

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

No. Provide some evidence of any such a thing.

You don't actually read any of the shit you C&P do you? Sunday was soooo long ago.. In this very thread even.

http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=32605308&postcount=242
and your "bro" responds..

You notice how they wave that phrase around as if it's some magic talisman? "Peer Reviewed', which it is turning out to be nothing more than a compact between theives. The phrase is science speak for, "You lie and I'll swear to it."

Ishmael

Nah, you weren't both acting as if the peer review process was meaningless.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

How did we react to Big Tobacco when they altered data, suppressed information harmful to them, and perverted the peer review process?

Did we not RICO them?

The same should be done to Oil Companies pushing the status quo, using the very same tactics that the tobacco companies you're talking about used.

Deny, deny, question the scientific studies, deny some more.

 

[trysail]

The same should be done to Oil Companies pushing the status quo, using the very same tactics that the tobacco companies you're talking about used.

Deny, deny, question the scientific studies, deny some more.

Are you fuckin' kiddin' me? You are so clueless it boggles the mind.

BP has been the largest producer of solar panels for more than 30 years ( Solarex Corporation, Rockville, Maryland ). Shell rolled over almost a decade ago. Chevron is the world's largest owner of geothermal electricity generation. They're all covering their political backsides for fear of what the thundering herd of dumbasses ( a/k/a politicians ) might do in a fit of ignorance.

The common untruth wholly swallowed, promoted and endorsed by the meddling class is that the fossil fuel industry has provided gargantuan amounts of funding to skeptics of the hypothesis of AGW. Nothing could be further from the truth. Not only is this line of attack baseless and unsupported, it flies in the face of the fact that the promoters of the AGW hypothesis and the "sky is falling" crowd have vastly larger funds at their disposal courtesy of the built-in funding by the U.S. government, General Electric, Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley et al ( all of whom stand to derive enormous financial benefits ). ExxonMobil— quite understandably— is not the least bit interested in becoming the poster child and favorite whipping boy of the United States Congress.

"Nothing is more frightening than ignorance in action."
-Goethe

 

[SAILOR954]

Are you fuckin' kiddin' me? You are so clueless it boggles the mind.

BP has been the largest producer of solar panels for more than 30 years ( Solarex Corporation, Rockville, Maryland ). Shell rolled over almost a decade ago. Chevron is the world's largest owner of geothermal electricity generation. They're all covering their political backsides for fear of what the thundering herd of dumbasses ( a/k/a politicians ) might do in a fit of ignorance.

The common untruth wholly swallowed, promoted and endorsed by the meddling class is that the fossil fuel industry has provided gargantuan amounts of funding to skeptics of the hypothesis of AGW. Nothing could be further from the truth. Not only is this line of attack baseless and unsupported, it flies in the face of the fact that the promoters of the AGW hypothesis and the "sky is falling" crowd have vastly larger funds at their disposal courtesy of the built-in funding by the U.S. government, General Electric, Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley et al ( all of whom stand to derive enormous financial benefits ). ExxonMobil— quite understandably— is not the least bit interested in becoming the poster child and favorite whipping boy of the United States Congress.

"Nothing is more frightening than ignorance in action."
-Goethe

Trysail (Nice screen name by the way),, you can't let U/D push your buttons. The guy is a true believer and nothing,,, NOTHING,, anyone says is going to change that.

The whole world is getting hip to this scam. The only ones still clinging to this lost cause / scam are the true believers in lost Liberal causes.

But yes,, you're right,, most of the largest energy companies have been for years heavily invested in alternative energy sources and their development. You don't hear about it that much because,, just like the Global Warming hoax,,, the truth flies in the face of the left's vision for the world.

But really man.... U/D and the other one with the angry hippie on his posts,,, I forget his name,,,, let it go. They're not interested in the facts,, just the politics.

 

[TurdFergeson]

Trysail (Nice screen name by the way),, you can't let U/D push your buttons. The guy is a true believer and nothing,,, NOTHING,, anyone says is going to change that.

The whole world is getting hip to this scam. The only ones still clinging to this lost cause / scam are the true believers in lost Liberal causes.

But yes,, you're right,, most of the largest energy companies have been for years heavily invested in alternative energy sources and their development. You don't hear about it that much because,, just like the Global Warming hoax,,, the truth flies in the face of the left's vision for the world.

But really man.... U/D and the other one with the angry hippie on his posts,,, I forget his name,,,, let it go. They're not interested in the facts,, just the politics.

The argument could be made that oilcos are the dominant solar panel and alternative energy producers to deliberately keep their prices high enough and their efficiency low enough to offset too much actual consumer use of them.

If not, why hasn't every new home built in the past decade had solar panels and geothermal installed?

If there was an actual "left wing conspiracy" to change the world, why haven't the Democrats pushed through massive subsidies and new laws for just that purpose?

They don't want decentralization of power generation?

Or is it just more economically viable to make centralized solar or wind farms rather than have each unit generate their own?

Just asking questions, not making accusations.

 

[SAILOR954]

The argument could be made that oilcos are the dominant solar panel and alternative energy producers to deliberately keep their prices high enough and their efficiency low enough to offset too much actual consumer use of them.

If not, why hasn't every new home built in the past decade had solar panels and geothermal installed?

If there was an actual "left wing conspiracy" to change the world, why haven't the Democrats pushed through massive subsidies and new laws for just that purpose?

They don't want decentralization of power generation?

Or is it just more economically viable to make centralized solar or wind farms rather than have each unit generate their own?

Just asking questions, not making accusations.

Don't know all of the answers but here's what I have. Big oil is heavily invested in solar panels but they aren't the only ones on the playing field. The competition is strong for the best performance vs cost ratio. The result is actually pretty impressive. One year ago I installed two Kyocera panels aboard the boat. At the time, they were the best performers on the market at 16%. My son is involved in building a solar energy farm for a local power company. He told me the other day that cutting edge technology is now up to about 35% and the panels they're using on their solar farm are about 25%. This in just the one year.

Now even at 35%, the things are not cost effective for the individual home. That kicks in at around 50% which is evidently still a few years away. Even then, it will always be cheaper to have a centeralized power source but at about 50% it becomes cheaper enough to have a "Back-up" system in the home. Sort of like many do down here in Miami with the home generators.

As for the Dems pushing through legislation to "MAKE" us abandon oil,,, witness "Cap & Trade".

Keep in mind that these energy sources can not replace the traditional power plant. The wind doesn't blow all the time, hardly ever in some places,, and the sun only shines at acceptable levels for about 8 hours a day.

 

[TurdFergeson]

Don't know all of the answers but here's what I have. Big oil is heavily invested in solar panels but they aren't the only ones on the playing field. The competition is strong for the best performance vs cost ratio. The result is actually pretty impressive. One year ago I installed two Kyocera panels aboard the boat. At the time, they were the best performers on the market at 16%. My son is involved in building a solar energy farm for a local power company. He told me the other day that cutting edge technology is now up to about 35% and the panels they're using on their solar farm are about 25%. This in just the one year.

Now even at 35%, the things are not cost effective for the individual home. That kicks in at around 50% which is evidently still a few years away. Even then, it will always be cheaper to have a centeralized power source but at about 50% it becomes cheaper enough to have a "Back-up" system in the home. Sort of like many do down here in Miami with the home generators.

As for the Dems pushing through legislation to "MAKE" us abandon oil,,, witness "Cap & Trade".

Keep in mind that these energy sources can not replace the traditional power plant. The wind doesn't blow all the time, hardly ever in some places,, and the sun only shines at acceptable levels for about 8 hours a day.

Then again, this hhydrogen fuel cell generates enough electricity to power the entire Space Shuttle:

My mistake, it actually takes 3 of these units. Two running, and one for backup.

 

[Karen Kraft]

Then again, this hhydrogen fuel cell generates enough electricity to power the entire Space Shuttle:

My mistake, it actually takes 3 of these units. Two running, and one for backup.

But NASA is telling us that, on our little camp on the moon, we will be producing enough Helium-3 (He-3) to have nice cold friendly fusion everyplace.

Hahahahahahahahaha.

 

[TurdFergeson]

But NASA is telling us that, on our little camp on the moon, we will be producing enough Helium-3 (He-3) to have nice cold friendly fusion everyplace.

Hahahahahahahahaha.

Well, 3He is the perfect fusion isotope, because fusing it produces no Bremsstrahlung radiation or reactor damaging neutron flux.

But really, I think a space elevator is needed before that, and subsequent deployment of "solar power satellites" which convert sunlight to microwave energy and beam it down to terrestrial receiving stations.

Plus, such a system could be easily militarized in to a giant space-based death ray.

 

[Karen Kraft]

Well, 3He is the perfect fusion isotope, because fusing it produces no Bremsstrahlung radiation or reactor damaging neutron flux.

But really, I think a space elevator is needed before that, and subsequent deployment of "solar power satellites" which convert sunlight to microwave energy and beam it down to terrestrial receiving stations.

Plus, such a system could be easily militarized in to a giant space-based death ray.

... death ray, eh?

I love it when you talk like that.

* gasp *

 

[rosco rathbone]

Well, 3He is the perfect fusion isotope, because fusing it produces no Bremsstrahlung radiation or reactor damaging neutron flux.

But really, I think a space elevator is needed before that, and subsequent deployment of "solar power satellites" which convert sunlight to microwave energy and beam it down to terrestrial receiving stations.

Plus, such a system could be easily militarized in to a giant space-based death ray.

I hope I'm around to see all that.