Terry Adams

The opinions generated at concerts by politicians, rock stars and celebrities are not necessarily more scientific than those generated here. My incoming TT will get 25 mpg on the road (where I plan to be a lot), and will be 85% recyclable when I am done with it.

Yet it would be banned by that idiot ****** socialist British politician because it goes too fast. More likely because it costs too much; he just won't say so. And I should listen to those opinions?

blake

No you have pissed me off. My apologies for being slow, but I do not understand your point. I did type that post rather quickly, and it should have read:

"All of our atmospheric/weather "data" is a little more than 100 years old... This is just a rounding ERROR when considering the age of the planet and solar system. Is this "data" statistically significant?"

The National Weather Service was created in 1870. Do you disagree?

As THE self proclaimed resident scientist, you have still not answered my question... Let me repeat: Is this data statistically significant?

I think not, but can be convinced otherwise with a well thought out explanation.

-B

blake

I presume you are referring to desalinization efforts. I think my knowledge on that topic is limited to Time Magazine, but I would think that the real issue is the current cost per liter or gallon. That in turn could affect their business model (new costs such as shipping, treatment plants, etc.)

So how does this relate to the real question at hand: Is this recent rise in temperature due to man's impact on the environment, or is it a macro shift that can be attributed to macro cycles???

Please - enlighten us. I will be the first to change sides if you can express a well conceived argument.

Thanks,
-Blake

Adrienne

Sorry for pissing you off...maybe I should have said it this way: having formed your opinion that it is a rounding error, yet asking about statistical signifance tells me that you do not understand the data, even though you have have already decided to discount it. That tells me that you are not making an informed decision, and that's the crux of the matter here. Lots of folks are jumping to conclusions without regard to the scientific data. People are getting their information from the mass media, such as Time Magazine. That is not a scientific journal.

I wasn't referring directly to de-salination plants. But that is a good example of efforts underway, yes. Most of the companies around here are simply trying to tap more local sources (ground water, surface water, building lakes, etc.) and considering de-sal as a last resort due to high costs.

Regarding statistical significance...you lumped "all of our atmospheric/weather data" together, which no study is ever going to do, as data quality varies substantially and translates directly into the data's usage. Speaking generally, you have to look at the source of the data and the metadata associated with it. Any reputable journal will include the statistical signifance values with their data analysis. Peer groups will also determine the scientific validity of the article and the data before the article can be published. Time Magazine will not publish that info, so you have no way of checking its validity. If you question the data, go to a reputable source. Statistical significance is determined by many factors, such as accuracy and precision of the monitoring device, the number of data points per timeframe, etc.

If your question regards the timeframe, ie, earth's been here billions of years and our data only cover 100...here's the deal: the projections and predictions determined by the climatological models go out about 100 years or so, right? That's well within the data capabilities and the subsequent model's capabilities. Now that's speaking generally, about all data, and not about a specific model. Each prediction needs to be analyzed separately, which scientific journals will do. Time Magazine will not. The preponderance of scientific studies is proving that the predictions of rising temperatures are accurate.

I hope that explains my point to you. I didn't mean to offend.

blake

I appreciate the clarifications Adrienne. Your comments makes sense. I think the real issue comes down to the quality of the source and the content of the message. As we have become inundated with information through multiple levels of media (print, tv, internet) and have no measure of truth versus mere opinion, we as a society have developed an inherent filter for information. Of course, that filter will not be perfect and more often than not we will discredit quality sources and accept as fact inaccurate sources. (The popularity of the show "The X Files" speaks to this IMHO) Anyway, my point is that as a person without any domain expertise, it becomes very hard to know *who* to trust. When I have a legal question, I confide in my friends who are lawyers. When a medical question, I confide in my friends who are doctors. I trust that they will lead me to the best and *correct* answer available. In this case, I do not have any friends in the scientific community who can give me a view that passes through my filters and I can *trust*. I'll now go back and reread your posts on this thread and hopefully come up with a few inciteful questions.... I appreciate you taking the time to respond to my rant. Thanks.

(Personally, I'd rather talk Porsches but now I am intrigued...)

Keep those thoughts coming...

-B

Adrienne

Just checked my mailbox, and the American Society of Civil Engineers Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management came in. Guess what the lead article is about? And about 3 of the 7 articles address similar. Anybody care for a copy of the articles? I'd be more than happy to scan them in. But be forewarned, they are rather techy, and very long. But lots and lots of references.

Just a little quote from it, that pretty much says it all: "The civil engineering profession has an obligation to understand the cause of global warming and to take a leadership role in mitigating and adapting to future changes. Professionallly, we would be foolish and irresponsible not to identify the impacts that climate change will have on water supply, water demand..."blah blah blah...you see where it's going...

kev

I guess in theory that makes sense but the problem is that humans consume water and remove it from the water cycle. It is returned as waste (urine, brackish, etc.), but the time it takes to treat that waste so it is consumable again, either by natural percolation or mechanically/chemically, is much greater than the rate that humans consume water, not to mention water treatment costs. Nevermind that as populations increase we progressively degrade our water sources and reduce natural percolation zones.

I am not Adrienne, but as she knows, I am in the water business (engineer).

I am not sure whether to laugh or cry at some of the ignorance of some people here.

I will look out for that latest ASCE journal...

jimbo3

THAT'S EXACTLY MY POINT!!!! Water shortage is fundamentally a POPULATION and/or INDUSTRIAL issue and not an evaporation issue as Adrienne asserts. Water simply does NOT disappear from Earth even if evaporation is accelerated due to a higher global temperature. Going out on a limb here, but I would speculate that an increasing evaporation rate would result in an equally increasing rainfall rate.

kev

Population growth may be the root problem, but intuitively I would guess that warmer climate change is only going to have negative effects to water supplies - i.e., speed up water deficits. In Texas, for planning purposes it is assumed that each person uses 100 gallons of water a day. Think about the time it would take rainfall to make up such differences.

Wilder

Are you talking about those judgemental, narrow-viewed, overinflated egos purporting their opinions as fact??? I hear ya. It's more of an interesting study in human behavior than an intelligent discussion and one that is better suited for OT.

jimbo3

So, we're agreed then that population growth and high per capita water use is the cause of water shortages, that the Water Cycle is still intact, and that we'd only be guessing that the earth's global warming cycle we may now be in might have some minor undetermined indirect impact on the water supply.

Welcome to the Dark Side.

BTW- What was the purpose of the "Live Earth" promotion this past weekend and where did all the money go?

jimbo3

Personally, I don't doubt this conclusion much. The earth has warmed and cooled many times and will continue to do so long after everyone here is dead and gone, so the chance that the globe is currently warming is 50/50 just on pure odds alone. But, can you blame those that aren't buying into global warming now when, just 30 years ago, the same science was wanting everyone to believe that there was catastrophic global cooling? Is Science saying that Earth's warming/cooling cycle is 30 years?

The issue for me, though, is how much Man is responsible for the warming this time around, if at all. Man didn't have a carbon footprint the last thousand times the earth heated and cooled, so somehow I suspect Man is but a bit player this time. Is this not reasonable in the absence of data?

kev

Cool...can we count on your support for more development regulations and contraceptive sex ed?

Adrienne

Conceptually there is some validity to population being part of the problem. However, as I said pages ago, the amount of resources used per capita varies substantially and cannot be discounted as a factor. The example I used initially is this: a child raised in the US consumes about as many resources as 100 Ethiopian children. So to say that population growth is the problem disregards increased consumption rates of industrialized nations. If we got our consumption under control, population wouldn't be as much of a problem. But if you think we can control population while disregarding consumption, feel free to explain how. It's far more complex an issue than just having fewer babies. Population control was considered a potential control, back in the days of Paul Ehrlich. No doubt, it would help.

Rather than continue down the bunny trail on evaporation and the assumption that rain will balance us back out, I would ask you to do some research on desertification. I would also point you towards studies regarding mis-managing water resources. A good starting point would be Egypt during the Mesopotamian era. It's one of the basic studies in Ecology and Environmental Sciences. You'll find it quite interesting, because the crux of the issues with water resources during that period were due to overpopulation and over-use of their water resources, which caused salination of the soils that were no longer arable.

I have no idea what the "Live Earth" promotion is about. I don't even know what it is. But why are you expecting a car forum to answer your question? I would bet there is a "Live Earth" website that would answer your question.

jimbo3

I interpreted you saying in an earlier post that global warming was causing a net loss of water on the planet due to evaporation and my point was simple- the planet doesn't lose water. Period. If I interpreted your post incorrectly, my apologies. I never remotely touched on the subject of water management, much less suggest that water management was inappropriate. All resources require management in one form or another. Living in South Texas for my entire adult life, water management practically becomes a daily issue.

I also never brought up the fact that most Ethiopian children are severely under-resourced, which is a whole 'nother kettle of fish that has absolutely nothing to do with water evaporation or global warming, but alot to do with their political, social and geographical problems. Reducing industrialized nation's consumption rate will not help even a single Ethiopian baby, either now or at any time in the future. Period. It's a noble idea, but equal distribution of resources to all people on this planet can not and will not happen, no matter how much one may wish.

With respect to "Live Earth", it was noted for the past month 'ad nauseum' in virtually every media for the past month. Everything from late-night TV shows to news shows (radio and TV) to talk shows (radio and TV) to newspapers to news magazines to web news. Can't imagine why you hadn't heard of it.