Climate Change

[Hoofbite]

You cannot time travel and check what the temperature actually was back then. Surprised even you cannot figure that out.

Do you have the thermometers used back then? NO. Do you even have a detailed description of most of them back then? NO. Therefore your claims are a joke.

And beyond that how many places were even taking daily temps 100 years ago? How much of the world was covered? How much of the oceans were covered? Just a little hint- not that much. So any claims of anything 100 years ago are a joke for any real scientific study.

You don't need to time travel. Believe it or not, inanimate objects stick around for a while. Beyond that, you don't need an antique thermometer or even the plans. So long as the person taking the measurements has calibrated the thermometer to two very easily identifiable constants, their measurements wouldn't be expected to be so dramatically different from what someone would get by using the exact same calibration today.

You mark out the boiling point of water, and you mark out the melting point of ice. You can now measure everything in between because the heat capacity of whatever liquid you choose is constant, therefore each additional degree registered requires the same amount of heat as the previous degree.

You might as well just cut to the chase and say you don't believe in math because all the measurements have some sort of equation built in behind them. Even the most simple measurement out there can be quantified by an equation.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

The subject of Climate Change and it's relation to Man reminds me of discussions one might have with young Teens. It is very common for Teens to think they know much more then they actually do about life. They have enough experience to think and to learn and all too often, once they develop these congnitive skills, they begin to think they know more then they actually do. It is only much later in life that teens begin to realize just how much they didn't know and they begin to mature as adults. This is how I see mans relation to Climate Change.

We are, essentially young teens. At some point, we will hopefully graduate into a much more evolved person. At that point, I believe we will be in a much better position to understand our own environment and maybe start to develop some true scientific data that can be used in an effective manner.

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

Tempered safety glass panels, solar power needs light, glass panels being driven on with god knows hat crap is in the tires will eventually get scratched to the point of either breaking or reducing light transmission to he solar panel.

They are fixed solar panels which are the most inefficient so they will not have enough ability to draw a power surplus to handle overcast days or nights.

The LEDS in the panels would draw too much power, for the LEDs to do what they say they can do they would have to be high power LEDs to compensate for the sun. Again net power gain is not there.

They talk about a heating element in it to keep the roads ice and snow free again it goes to they cannot draw that much power and keep the panels working around the clock.

Proclaim to be lower maintenance but if one panel goes bad one panel has to be replaced, we are talking about 3ft by 3ft panel, think your x-mas lights.

Thank you.

 

[BigStar]

The subject of Climate Change and it's relation to Man reminds me of discussions one might have with young Teens. It is very common for Teens to think they know much more then they actually do about life. They have enough experience to think and to learn and all too often, once they develop these congnitive skills, they begin to think they know more then they actually do. It is only much later in life that teens begin to realize just how much they didn't know and they begin to mature as adults. This is how I see mans relation to Climate Change.

We are, essentially young teens. At some point, we will hopefully graduate into a much more evolved person. At that point, I believe we will be in a much better position to understand our own environment and maybe start to develop some true scientific data that can be used in an effective manner.

That is one of the better and well thought out arguments to counter evidence of Climate Change from a general logic perspective (without using hard data and easier to convey for laymen discussion purposes) and my general approach as well. The argument scientists would hold is that they have accounted for this unbridled optimism and are consistently modifying their testing instruments to protect against such group think and even accounting for this, the data still supports their initial hypothesis. I find it a little backwards that board members questions science so adamantly to the point that it personally offends them.

 

[Tabascocat]

I don't know what to think about all of this "thermometer" stuff, but I find it hard to believe that someone can calibrate them the same from today and a hundred years ago. They aren't that precise(different than accurate) today and you can put 10 different thermometers in the same spot and I bet you see five different readings, not in terms of a degree or two but in tenths.

Heck, I have three of them around the house(not including the cars) and they never match up.

There is just not enough data recorded yet to make any assumptions one way or the other IMO. As technology gets better, so do the instruments. Humans have been on this planet for a microsecond in the grand scheme of things and we(scientists) have just scratched the surface on understanding our climate.

We could be in a normal cycle that has been going on for millions and millions of years or this could be a first time phenomena, no one knows for sure. The Earth does have its ways of cleansing itself but has man hindered that in any way? I don't know and I am pretty sure no one else does either......yet.

 

[BrAinPaiNt]

Thermometers and science...who knew they were so confusing.

 

[joseephuss]

Thermometers and science...who knew they were so confusing.

Fact: Most people don't know which end to put the thermometer.

 

[Wheeltax]

I didn't read the whole thread so I may be trumpeting things already stated, but here's what I think as an uneducated layperson:

When there is a scientific consensus, I tend to agree with it since I have a modicum of trust in science, but I don't have first-hand knowledge of the subject matter. That said, I am not convinced that the consensus on global climate change is as absolute as many claim because the issue is, for some reason, so political in nature.

I believe that the climate is always changing, and that it is important to curb pollution no matter what even if only for our own quality of life.

What makes me skeptical of climate change being man-made is not so much that I don't believe it's happening, but more because it seems like the goal posts keep moving. It wasn't that long ago that everyone was worried about dropping ocean levels...then it was rising ocean levels due to temps rising...then it was temps falling so we had to change it to 'climate change' instead of 'global warming...etc.

So basically I have no idea and I don't really understand why the issue is a political one. All that does is hurt its legitimacy.

 

[Denim Chicken]

Fact: Most people don't know which end to put the thermometer.

Not sure if talking about the thermometer's end or the people's end.

 

[zrinkill]

Not sure if talking about the thermometer's end or the people's end.

Why not both?

 

[BrAinPaiNt]

Why not both?

lol

 

[TwoCentPlain]

To paraphrase Dennis Miller, do you really think Homer and Elmer gave a rat's rear end about the accuracy of measurements for future generations, all while they were walking to the outhouse in freezing cold weather, a thermometer in one hand and the Sears Roebuck catalog in the other?

 

[jrumann59]

Finds this thread interesting

He sort of looks like a plumper version of Bob Newhart there.

 

[Rogah]

And of course you are the first person to have ever figured this out so there's no possible way they could have factored that in, amirite?

Seriously, do you really think that they have not accounted for this?

I was just pointing out the silliness of your proposed solution as well as the absurdity of the notion that a whole buncha mercury thermometers can take accurate readings on a global scale.

 

[Rogah]

You may as well be saying you don't trust scales or rulers before a certain date because there's no way to check the equipment.

I wouldn't trust a ruler to measure accuracies down to the thousandth of an inch.

 

[Hoofbite]

I was just pointing out the silliness of your proposed solution as well as the absurdity of the notion that a whole buncha mercury thermometers can take accurate readings on a global scale.

There's an equation to correct for atmospheric differences.

Just google "boiling point determination".

 

[burmafrd]

There's an equation to correct for atmospheric differences.

Just google "boiling point determination".

you do realize you are getting owned here, right?

 

[burmafrd]

the more 'factoring in, extrapolating, making allowances for, etc" the larger the margin of error. Yet they claim they are right when talking about fractions of a degree.

only someone with either an agenda or truly blind to reality would not realize that that is science speak for "this is a guess."

 

[BigStar]

I didn't read the whole thread so I may be trumpeting things already stated, but here's what I think as an uneducated layperson:

When there is a scientific consensus, I tend to agree with it since I have a modicum of trust in science, but I don't have first-hand knowledge of the subject matter. That said, I am not convinced that the consensus on global climate change is as absolute as many claim because the issue is, for some reason, so political in nature.

I believe that the climate is always changing, and that it is important to curb pollution no matter what even if only for our own quality of life.

What makes me skeptical of climate change being man-made is not so much that I don't believe it's happening, but more because it seems like the goal posts keep moving. It wasn't that long ago that everyone was worried about dropping ocean levels...then it was rising ocean levels due to temps rising...then it was temps falling so we had to change it to 'climate change' instead of 'global warming...etc.

So basically I have no idea and I don't really understand why the issue is a political one. All that does is hurt its legitimacy.

Omissions regulations, safety regulations ($) drilling permits for designated locations nationally and globally, government subsidies, foreign policy, controlling the supply(price) of oil, etc. Current energy (coal and oil) monopolies made this a political debate because they couldn't confute the science. The current structure goes much deeper than being a simple primary energy resource. A lot of effort ($) has been invested in ensuring its place within the economy and foreign relations.

 

[Hoofbite]

you do realize you are getting owned here, right?

You simply saying something doesn't mean anything is happening other than you blowing hot air.

Do you believe in math? That's what the atmospheric difference aspect boils down to.

Here. This is undergraduate level work. Albeit "organic chemistry" which would typically be someone's 3rd semester here in the US.

http://www.chem.ucalgary.ca/courses/351/laboratory/boilingpoint.pdf

Heres a collaborative high school project measuring temperature differences at sea level and at altitude. Just their data collection procedures but the point is - high school students are undertaking the task and know what to record and look for.

http://mvhs.shodor.org/mvhsproj/projects/boiling.html

This isn't sorcery, it's algebra. Provided historical temperature readings didn't include atmospheric pressure in the equation (I'm not sure if they did or didn't) it could be factored in right now.