New England Patriots Forums - PatsFans.com Patriots Fan Messageboard
Page 1 of 2 1 2
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

New England Patriots Forums - PatsFans.com Patriots Fan Messageboard (http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/)
-   Political Discussion (http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/12/political-discussion.html)
-   -   Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us (http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/12/52103-pentagon-tells-bush-climate-change-will-destroy-us.html)

Holy Diver 03-06-2007 10:52 AM
Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us
 
As a lot of people have said on this board, Climate change is the #1 threat to human life. Its comforting that this has been surpressed, and a feel-good story that the administration has done nothing aside from mentioning alternative fuel in the SOTU address......

WAKE UP!

do we really have the leadership in place that is after human life's best interest?


http://observer.guardian.co.uk/inter...153513,00.html

Climate change over the next 20 years could result in a global catastrophe costing millions of lives in wars and natural disasters..
A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a 'Siberian' climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world.

The document predicts that abrupt climate change could bring the planet to the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies. The threat to global stability vastly eclipses that of terrorism, say the few experts privy to its contents.

Patters 03-06-2007 11:04 AM
Re: Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us
 
Some will describe release of this report as seditious behavior by the press; others will say, never mind the press, let's instead worry about the likelihood that global warming is a real and imminent danger.

patsfan13 03-06-2007 11:05 AM
Re: Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us
 
The biggest abrupt climate change to be worried about would be an ice age.

The model that are relied upon by the alarmist are not very good. Here is an article on attempting to model the climate. I hope some here will learn something from it.:

Quote:
Global warming theory is a prediction based on complex mathematical models developed to explain the dynamics of the atmosphere. These models must account for a myriad of factors, and the resultant equations are so complex they cannot be solved explicitly or "analytically" but rather their solutions must be approximated "numerically" with computers. The mathematics of global warming should not be compared with the explicit calculus used, for example, by Edmund Halley to calculate the orbit of his eponymous comet and predict its return 76 years later.

....

A much better analogue to climate science is found in the semiconductor industry. Integrated circuits and many other building blocks of modern electronics are manufactured by creating artificial atmospheres or "climates" within which chemical vapor deposition (CVD) forms nanometer-scale thin solid films on silicon wafer surfaces. In CVD, metal vapor precursors entrained in carrier gases are used to deposit metal films on surfaces in a condensation process not unlike formation of dew or frost on a lawn. In such CVD processes, premature formation of metal particles is unwanted and needs to be controlled and prevented; such particle formation is akin to precipitation of rain drops in the atmosphere

The semiconductor process industry uses numerical models to predict the behavior of gases and vapors in order to deposit these substances on substrates, and thereby manufacture integrated circuits. I am not a climatologist or meteorologist but I have studied fluid mechanics and gasdynamics and have a general understanding of computer models used in process engineering. Such models are used to analyze industrial processes with which I am familiar. Indeed the mathematics for such models is generalized. And industry's experience with numerical process models sheds light on their strengths and limitations.

...

Almost all semiconductor manufacturing processes occur in closed vessels. This permits the engineers to precisely control the input chemicals (gases) and the pressure, temperature, etc. with high degree of precision and reliability. Closed systems are also much easier to model as compared to systems open to the atmosphere (that should tell us something already). Computer models are used to inform the engineering team as the design the shape, temperature ramp, flow rates, etc, etc, (i.e. the thermodynamics) of the new reactor.

Nonetheless, despite the fact that 1) the chemical reactions are highly studied, 2) there exists extensive experience with similar reactors, much of it recorded in the open literature, 3) the input gases and materials are of high and known purity, and 4) the process is controlled with incredible precision, the predictions of the models are often wrong, requiring that the reactor be adjusted empirically to produce the desired product with quality and reliability.

...

As with all fluid mechanics models, the flow field of a climate model (i.e. the entire atmosphere) is divided into three-dimensional grids of small volume elements designated by latitude, longitude and altitude. Each volume element of the grid is then characterized with parameters such as pressure, temperature, wind velocity, etc., and equations that relate these factors. Air and energy that leave one volume element enters the adjacent one. When summed across all volume elements, the model keeps track of the flows of air and energy in the entire atmosphere. Many factors must be accounted (see below). Boundary conditions must be set: in this case, the boundary of the atmosphere is land or ocean surface on the bottom, and some boundary in space on the top; these yield rules (e.g. air cannot flow into the surface of the earth). Then, Initial Conditions must be set: this means that the grid's equations are "populated" with the known values of the parameters characterizing the atmosphere such as pressure, temperature, and humidity profiles measured today.

Finally, the computer calculation can commence: A unit of time (a second, minute, day) is assumed to pass and the computer calculates the next "state" of the model based on the initial conditions, the boundary conditions and the other equations of the model. This process is repeated again and again, with the new state being the initial condition for calculating the subsequent state, until e.g. 100 years has passed.

Errors can accumulate rapidly. Let's list some of the factors that must be included (by no means an exhaustive list):

Solar flux
Gravity, Pressure
Temperature
Density
Humidity
Earth's rotation
Surface temperature
Currents in the Ocean (e.g., Gulf Stream)
Greenhouse gases
CO2 dissolved in the oceans
Polar ice caps
Infrared radiation
Cosmic rays (ionizing radiation)
Earth's magnetic field
Evaporation
Precipitation
Cloud formation
Reflection from clouds
Reflection from snow
Volcanoes
Soot formation
Trace compounds
And many, many others

Even if mathematics could be developed to accurately model each of these factors, the combined model would be infinitely complex requiring some simplifications. Simplifications in turn amount to judgment calls by the modeler. Can we ignore the effects of trace compounds? Well, we were told that trace amounts of chlorofluoro compounds had profound effects on the ozone layer, necessitating the banning of their use in refrigerators and as aerosol spray propellants. Can we ignore cosmic rays? Well, they cause ions (electrically charged molecules) which affect the ozone layer and also catalyze formation of rain-drops and soot particles.

As with all models, it is perilous to ignore factors in the absence of complete experimental data which might have otherwise have significant effect.

Perhaps most critically, the role of precipitation in climate seems to be understated in the numerical global climate models. Roy W. Spencer, principal research scientist at the Global Hydrology and Climate Center of the National Space Science and Technology Center in Huntsville, AL, writes that the role of precipitation is not fully accounted for in global warming models. In my view, that's like an economist admitting his theory of the money supply doesn't fully account for the role of the Federal Reserve.

Unless we know how the greenhouse-limiting properties of precipitation systems change with warming, we don't know how much of our current warmth is due to mankind, and we can't estimate how much future warming there will be, either. To solve the global-warming puzzle, we first need to learn much more about the precipitation-system puzzle.

What little evidence we now have suggests that precipitation systems act as a natural thermostat to reduce warming.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/..._ci.html<br />


THere is far to this fascinating anyone with an open mind who is imterested in what is involved should go to the article and read the whole thing. The author has been involved in semiconduction manfacturing for 25 years and knows this type of computer modeling quite well.

patsfan13 03-06-2007 11:06 AM
Re: Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patters (Post 364266)
Some will describe release of this report as seditious behavior by the press; others will say, never mind the press, let's instead worry about the likelihood that global warming is a real and imminent danger.
Naive and uninformed perhaps but not seditious. I will continue to attempt to dispell you confusion on these topics. ;)

All_Around_Brown 03-06-2007 12:33 PM
Re: Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by patsfan13 (Post 364268)
Naive and uninformed perhaps but not seditious. I will continue to attempt to dispell you confusion on these topics. ;)
Hey pf13, I was curious whether you came across the IPCC report? It was a big story a few weeks ago. Apparently you somehow missed it.

It basically concludes the science of over 2000 climatologists that all say the same thing. THAT YOU DON'T KNOW WTF YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT

patsfan13 03-06-2007 01:22 PM
Re: Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by All_Around_Brown (Post 364393)
Hey pf13, I was curious whether you came across the IPCC report? It was a big story a few weeks ago. Apparently you somehow missed it.

It basically concludes the science of over 2000 climatologists that all say the same thing. THAT YOU DON'T KNOW WTF YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT
Actually the report hasn't been issued and they haven't given a date for the release. Only the summary written by politicians has been released.

Perhaps the reason is that they have cut their latest estimates by 1/2 compared to the last IPCC report and also lowered their estimate of rises in ocean levels by 1/2 also.

You wouldn't know that from the press coverage would you??

You should look a little deeper than the headlines.

How did you like the article on the limitation of the fluid dynamics models they are using for these projections???

BTW here is a 30 page document that reviews the available data from the IPCC report showing the UN backing off in a big way on their predictions, I guess if we wait for their next report the GW issue will have been solved ;)

patsfan13 03-06-2007 01:43 PM
Re: Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us
 
Hey AAB here is another PDF with errors in the summary the IPCC has been quietly correcting, in all cases the errors made their claims look stronger than they are in fact.

In a couple of cases they were off by a factor of 10, guess they were in curturial sensitivity classes the day they covered fractions in 4th grade. Some peer review huh?

They exaggerated the effects of CO2 on global warming by a factor of 20! and the effects of melting ice sheets on sea level by a factor of 10!

Wonder why there was no press conference to correct the public record?????

http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20070226_monckton.pdf

All_Around_Brown 03-06-2007 02:00 PM
Re: Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us
 
I can't argue with the Lord. :rolleyes: I'll leave that to the 2500 climate scientists that prepared the report. I would expect revisions; but the summarized conclusions should not dramatically change.

If they do, well then we have something. Until then, I'll go not with what you assume I read somewhere but with what I saw with my own two eyes: 2 hours of testimony before congress on C-Span, direct to the source, not some liberal media translation of the science.

Lets see 2500 say one thing, you and the Lord and a bunch of oil executives say something else. hmmmm...interesting.

PressCoverage 03-06-2007 02:12 PM
Re: Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by All_Around_Brown (Post 364562)
I can't argue with the Lord. :rolleyes: I'll leave that to the 2500 climate scientists that prepared the report. I would expect revisions; but the summarized conclusions should not dramatically change.

If they do, well then we have something. Until then, I'll go not with what you assume I read somewhere but with what I saw with my own two eyes: 2 hours of testimony before congress on C-Span, direct to the source, not some liberal media translation of the science.

Lets see 2500 say one thing, you and the Lord and a bunch of oil executives say something else. hmmmm...interesting.

lol... classic... pwned

patsfan13 03-06-2007 02:17 PM
Re: Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by All_Around_Brown (Post 364562)
I can't argue with the Lord. :rolleyes: I'll leave that to the 2500 climate scientists that prepared the report. I would expect revisions; but the summarized conclusions should not dramatically change.

If they do, well then we have something. Until then, I'll go not with what you assume I read somewhere but with what I saw with my own two eyes: 2 hours of testimony before congress on C-Span, direct to the source, not some liberal media translation of the science.

Lets see 2500 say one thing, you and the Lord and a bunch of oil executives say something else. hmmmm...interesting.
Cutting the estimates by 50% is dramatic to me.

How would you classify dramatic?


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:28 PM.
Page 1 of 2 1 2
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2013, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2

© Copyright 2000-2012. PatsFans.com Is a Partner of USA TODAY Sports Digital Properties.
The opinions posted in this forum do not necessarily reflect the opinions of our staff at PatsFans.com or USA Today.
We are not affiliated with the New England Patriots™ or the NFL™. The Photo Used In the header was taken by Ian Logue.

This site is owned and operated by I&K Internet Design Enterprises, LLC


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95