Climate Change / Global Warming Discussion

[mspohr]

I'd stick with your grape seed oil. I'll stick with my California Olive oil and coconut oil. But, if he markets in the Seattle area, let me know the name, I'd love to try it. thanks.

If I really cared to use canola - here is what I'd research:
" Unfortunately, about two-thirds of the monounsaturated fatty acids in rapeseed oil are erucic acid, a 22-carbon monounsaturated fatty acid that had been associated with Keshan’s disease, which causes fibrotic lesions on the heart."

thanks again.

Here's an example of real science of erucic acid:
The stigma of the erucic acid (22:1 n-9) in rapeseed oil has lingered, despite firm evidence that this fatty acid is more of a threat to rats than to humans. It is sufficient to say that the discovery of a chain-shortening metabolic pathway reducing erucic acid to oleic acid by peroxisome enzymes was a fundamental breakthrough in the understanding of fatty acid metabolism in the past few decades. Once in the oleic acid form, the erucic acid residue is as readily catabolized by mitochondria as are palmitic and other fatty acids (Ackman, 1990). The decrease in the level of erucic acid in rapeseed oil resulted in a marked increase in C18 acids, which make up approximately 95% of all fatty acids present in canola oil (Table 7.4).
Plant breeders have also developed canola oil with the linolenic acid content reduced to 2% (Scarth et al., 2006) (Table 7.4).
Erucic acid - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics

 

[Brando]

Their website lists a few Seattle/Bellevue/Woodinville locations.

and just what website would that be ??

 

[barjohn]

At the risk of upsetting many of you, I will say that Man Made Global Warming is at best a theory and more realistically a hypothesis without proof. I have worked on math modeling of real world phenomena over numerous years with other scientists and mathematicians. For a model to accurately predict the future based on a theory, the variables must be well understood and known and the data must be extremely accurate. The earth's climate has many variables and they are not all well understood. The data is also generally poor and its accuracy is equally suspect. Perhaps, if they could model a predict a phenomena substantially simpler with a high degree of accuracy I could be persuaded that the theory has merit. For example, show me a model that can accurately predict the flow of gases in a working subway system with multiple routes and trains running and how the gases will disperse and when a gas released at point A will arrive at points B, C and D. By accurately, I mean the time within less than a minute of error (plus or minus 30 seconds). This is a vastly simpler problem than predicting climate change (formerly called global warming) 50 to 100 years from now to less than 5 degrees C of accuracy. If you have to play with the data (manipulate) or modify the model to get results that match the real world for any given historic period, then your model is worthless or your theory is wrong or both. The climate has changed multiple times over the Eons so telling me the climate is changing does not prove it is man made. It was changing before man was an influence of any significance on the planet. Frankly, I think we have a tendency to think we are a bigger influence than we actually are. Egos being our nature it is natural to ascribe ourselves with powers we don't actually possess. So far our ability to forecast the future in any area hasn't been to reliable. The most accurate predictions of the future have to be ascribed to science fiction writers but this may be more a phenomena of self fulfilling prophecy.

 

[WannabeOwner]

I will say that Man Made Global Warming is at best a theory and more realistically a hypothesis without proof

No doubt you'll get plenty of pushback on that ... here's mine:

Greenhouse Gases, generated by man, are known to generate / trap heat.

Even if that is not the problem, and there is some other significant [natural / unavoidable] phenomena - or you just plain don't believe it, then:

Fossil Fuels will run out. Maybe we have used up 50%, maybe not. Assuming straight line exponential growth of oil consumption (which, with a few economic downturns it has been) the consumption of the remaining 50% will take the length of time of the "doubling period". That is 70 divided by the percentage exponential growth. So if the growth rate is 7% then we will use up the remaining 50% in 10 years. (Pick your own growth rate figure, I've chosen mine purely for round-numbers and easy maths. Even at 1% its only a lifetime ...). Humans are particularly bad at visualising that aspect of exponential growth, so a very real risk that catches us out.

"But they are always discovering more oil"

OK. So assume we have used 50% of known reserves (or if we are not there yet, then imagine the time when that we will be), at that point in time, given 7% growth, there is 10 years left.

So you find a new reserve, as big as all the oil ever discovered in the past. That will get you just one more 10 year extension. To get another 10 year extension you have to find a deposit twice as big ...

My view is that if you want to ignore climate change that's fine, just consider how the primary fuel will be driven by the supply, and that alone I think is worthy of doing something about it. And if Climate Change turns out to be real well great, solved that problem too, and you will avoid your grandchildren telling you "Pops you KNEW there was a problem but you did NOTHING about it and look at the stew we are going to be in during our lifetime"

Nuclear is unpopular because of the decommissioning costs (and construction costs)

Imported oil brings with it risk of being held to ransom on price/supply, or huge sums of money accumulating in the hands of a foreign power, and risk of needing to go to war either to preserve the supply chain, or to solve a problem that money sloshing around can cause.

Here in UK, let alone the cost of Nuclear, the decommissioning of North Sea Oil seems to have become a tax payer's problem. Typically Government did a deal with Big Oil and got stitched up. Decommissioning of wind turbines, out of sea, particularly if using suction-buckets will be trivial by comparison.

Renewables look increasingly affordable, the ability to have a distributed grid, and many households being totally self-sufficient, will cause a useful disruption to Big Energy utilities - not to mention the convenience of not having power cuts, and locking in the purchase price.

 

[SageBrush]

@Brando
Regarding Keshan Cardiomyopathy, a quick googling says Selenium deficiency and possible infection with a unusual Coxsackie virus.

 

[JRP3]

At the risk of upsetting many of you, I will say that Man Made Global Warming is at best a theory and more realistically a hypothesis without proof. I

Let's pretend that's true. That means we are running an uncontrolled experiment on our environment with no idea of the outcome. Sound like a good idea to you?

 

[SageBrush]

At the risk of upsetting many of you, I will say that Man Made Global Warming is at best a theory and more realistically a hypothesis without proof

You can start by learning the meaning of hypothesis and theory in science.

Bottom line: your "opinion" is based on a foundation of ignorance and scientific illiteracy.

 

[Zythryn]

At the risk of upsetting many of you, I will say that Man Made Global Warming is at best a theory and more realistically a hypothesis without proof. I have worked on math modeling ...

Your first error is in not understanding two primary foundations of man made global warming.
First, you seem to pull out one tiny aspect (modeling) and treat that as it is the only indicator.
While it is supporting data, it isn’t a primary piece of evidence.
Second, you don’t seem to understand what hypothesis and theory mean.

The foundation of the theory was first arrived at back in the 1800’s. Well before computer models.

Here is a great article on the data points showing our role in climate change.
How Do We Know that Humans Are the Major Cause of Global Warming?

 

[barjohn]

Your first error is in not understanding two primary foundations of man made global warming.
First, you seem to pull out one tiny aspect (modeling) and treat that as it is the only indicator.
While it is supporting data, it isn’t a primary piece of evidence.
Second, you don’t seem to understand what hypothesis and theory mean.

The foundation of the theory was first arrived at back in the 1800’s. Well before computer models.

Here is a great article on the data points showing our role in climate change.
How Do We Know that Humans Are the Major Cause of Global Warming?

Like many, you fail to understand the science of measurement (Metrology). Every measurement has components of error. How the measuring instrument is calibrated (the reference standard used), the accuracy of the reference standard, the repeatability of the measurements, the external factors that can effect the accuracy all contribute to the reliability and accuracy of the measurements. Additionally, there are stacking errors where multiple small errors combine to create larger errors. Comparing measurements from 1850 to measurements made in 2010 with different instruments all having different degrees of accuracy and variability. The raw data has failed to support the theory or the models so the data is adjusted (always up and never down). Even using manipulated data the amount of change is within the error tolerance. For example if you have a voltage meter with a tolerance of plus or minus one volt, and you try and measure a 1.5 volt battery how much can you trust the reading you get? You could get a reading of 1.5V but the actual value is 0.5V or you could get a reading of 0.5V but the actual value is 1.5V. You don't know without a more accurate measuring device. If instead of a battery, you were trying to measure an alternating current source but unbeknown to you, there is a transformer in the area and its EMF field is close to your measurement source. It would influence the reading and add to the error. (By the way, having a theory and proving a theory are two different things.)

If you are a scientist, you view any theory with skepticism. If you look at Einstein's theory of relativity you will see that scientists have been looking to disprove it for years. That is the nature of true scientists. Consensus is a political action or a religious action (there was consensus in the church that the world was flat). Science has never been about consensus.

Here are a few articles you should examine:

Former NOAA Scientist Confirms Colleagues Manipulated Climate Records
And here is a counter:
No Data Manipulation at NOAA - FactCheck.org
The problem with the counter is that it rationalizes data adjustments and therefore concludes that there was no manipulation. A data adjustment is a manipulation irrespective of rationale for doing so.
Uncorrupted US Temperature Data Showed Cooling From 1930 To 1999
Why Hansen Had To Corrupt The Temperature Record
THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New Paper Says There's Little Empirical Evidence for AGW

To me, the moment you have to manipulate the data your conclusions become suspect. It may be true that the data is inaccurate but it should be consistently inaccurate. Changing it, no matter the rationale, is subject to potential bias or to create a desired result. So let's drop the religion of consensus by parties that have something to gain and put on the scientists skeptic glasses to examine the actual data.

P.S.
I was a Division Manager in the U.S. Navy's Metrology Research laboratory at NSWC Corona.

 

[nwdiver]

Like many, you fail to understand the science of measurement (Metrology). Every measurement has components of error. How the measuring instrument is calibrated (the reference standard used), the accuracy of the reference standard, the repeatability of the measurements, the external factors that can effect the accuracy all contribute to the reliability and accuracy of the measurements. Additionally, there are stacking errors where multiple small errors combine to create larger errors. Comparing measurements from 1850 to measurements made in 2010 with different instruments all having different degrees of accuracy and variability. The raw data has failed to support the theory or the models so the data is adjusted (always up and never down). Even using manipulated data the amount of change is within the error tolerance. For example if you have a voltage meter with a tolerance of plus or minus one volt, and you try and measure a 1.5 volt battery how much can you trust the reading you get? You could get a reading of 1.5V but the actual value is 0.5V or you could get a reading of 0.5V but the actual value is 1.5V. You don't know without a more accurate measuring device. If instead of a battery, you were trying to measure an alternating current source but unbeknown to you, there is a transformer in the area and its EMF field is close to your measurement source. It would influence the reading and add to the error. (By the way, having a theory and proving a theory are two different things.)

If you are a scientist, you view any theory with skepticism. If you look at Einstein's theory of relativity you will see that scientists have been looking to disprove it for years. That is the nature of true scientists. Consensus is a political action or a religious action (there was consensus in the church that the world was flat). Science has never been about consensus.

Here are a few articles you should examine:

Former NOAA Scientist Confirms Colleagues Manipulated Climate Records
And here is a counter:
No Data Manipulation at NOAA - FactCheck.org
The problem with the counter is that it rationalizes data adjustments and therefore concludes that there was no manipulation. A data adjustment is a manipulation irrespective of rationale for doing so.
Uncorrupted US Temperature Data Showed Cooling From 1930 To 1999
Why Hansen Had To Corrupt The Temperature Record
THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New Paper Says There's Little Empirical Evidence for AGW

To me, the moment you have to manipulate the data your conclusions become suspect. It may be true that the data is inaccurate but it should be consistently inaccurate. Changing it, no matter the rationale, is subject to potential bias or to create a desired result. So let's drop the religion of consensus by parties that have something to gain and put on the scientists skeptic glasses to examine the actual data.

P.S.
I was a Division Manager in the U.S. Navy's Metrology Research laboratory at NSWC Corona.

Dude.... it's simple physics... CO2 was understood to cause warming long before a trend was ever recorded. It's a great example of science. We predicted increasing CO2 in the atmosphere will cause warming (Though they didn't think humanity would ever be dumb enough to add the ~40B tons/yr annually to have an appreciable effect); WOW.... warming trend.... weird.... just like the math predicted....

.... or does this 'conspiracy' go all the way back to 1896...

But... you are correct.... AGW is 'just' a theory... like gravity and evolution are 'just' a theories. And like Gravity and Evolution it's passed nearly every test thrown at it...

Odd how you cherry pick trend data instead of explaining the physics of AGW.... perhaps not so odd since the physics doesn't support your narrative.....

 

[Brando]

Like many, you fail to understand the science of measurement (Metrology). Every measurement has components of error. How the measuring instrument is calibrated (the reference standard used), the accuracy of the reference standard, the repeatability of the measurements, the external factors that can effect the accuracy all contribute to the reliability and accuracy of the measurements. Additionally, there are stacking errors where multiple small errors combine to create larger errors. Comparing measurements from 1850 to measurements made in 2010 with different instruments all having different degrees of accuracy and variability. The raw data has failed to support the theory or the models so the data is adjusted (always up and never down). Even using manipulated data the amount of change is within the error tolerance. For example if you have a voltage meter with a tolerance of plus or minus one volt, and you try and measure a 1.5 volt battery how much can you trust the reading you get? You could get a reading of 1.5V but the actual value is 0.5V or you could get a reading of 0.5V but the actual value is 1.5V. You don't know without a more accurate measuring device. If instead of a battery, you were trying to measure an alternating current source but unbeknown to you, there is a transformer in the area and its EMF field is close to your measurement source. It would influence the reading and add to the error. (By the way, having a theory and proving a theory are two different things.)

If you are a scientist, you view any theory with skepticism. If you look at Einstein's theory of relativity you will see that scientists have been looking to disprove it for years. That is the nature of true scientists. Consensus is a political action or a religious action (there was consensus in the church that the world was flat). Science has never been about consensus.

Here are a few articles you should examine:

Former NOAA Scientist Confirms Colleagues Manipulated Climate Records
And here is a counter:
No Data Manipulation at NOAA - FactCheck.org
The problem with the counter is that it rationalizes data adjustments and therefore concludes that there was no manipulation. A data adjustment is a manipulation irrespective of rationale for doing so.
Uncorrupted US Temperature Data Showed Cooling From 1930 To 1999
Why Hansen Had To Corrupt The Temperature Record
THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New Paper Says There's Little Empirical Evidence for AGW

To me, the moment you have to manipulate the data your conclusions become suspect. It may be true that the data is inaccurate but it should be consistently inaccurate. Changing it, no matter the rationale, is subject to potential bias or to create a desired result. So let's drop the religion of consensus by parties that have something to gain and put on the scientists skeptic glasses to examine the actual data.

P.S.
I was a Division Manager in the U.S. Navy's Metrology Research laboratory at NSWC Corona.

Perhaps you'd tell us about geo engineering? geoengineeringwatch.org
Since weather is a main concern of the military - they must be working/doing on geo engineering, right?

 

[barjohn]

I'll put it to you very simply. It comes down to the ability to conduct accurate measurements. This requires calibrated instruments. These instruments must have their calibration traceable too NIST. This means that the standard used to perform the calibration measurement must be minimally 4 times more accurate than the instrument under test and this requirement continues until one reaches the NIST standard. There is also a periodicity requirement. All measurement instruments drift over time. Finding that time and ensuring that a new calibration is performed is critical to determine the accuracy (the range or tolerance within the instruments accuracy is predictable) and finding that periodicity is always challenging due to cost constraints. Space born instruments are very difficult to keep calibrated due to the high levels of radiation and large temperature swings. Land based instruments have to contend with other variables that influence the readings. Further instruments and instrument accuracy have changed over time so presumably a measurement made today will be much more accurate than one made in 1860. When measuring fractions of a degree these errors make a difference. Show me the data that the measurements taken were performed by calibrated instruments traceable to NIST and I will start to believe that you have a scientific basis for your theory.

 

[JRP3]

Let's pretend that's true. That means we are running an uncontrolled experiment on our environment with no idea of the outcome. Sound like a good idea to you?

I'd be very interested in an answer in case you missed this question.

 

[SageBrush]

I was a Division Manager in the U.S. Navy's Metrology Research laboratory at NSWC Corona.

You have done a fine job explaining the past tense.

As for your focus on accuracy, I suggest you ask your question over at realclimate.org.
They will probably suggest that you start with an understanding of precision. If you get past the grade school level, someone might recommend an introductory textbook on stats applied to climate change.

 

[S'toon]

Like many, you fail to understand the science of measurement (Metrology). Every measurement has components of error. How the measuring instrument is calibrated (the reference standard used), the accuracy of the reference standard, the repeatability of the measurements, the external factors that can effect the accuracy all contribute to the reliability and accuracy of the measurements. Additionally, there are stacking errors where multiple small errors combine to create larger errors. Comparing measurements from 1850 to measurements made in 2010 with different instruments all having different degrees of accuracy and variability. The raw data has failed to support the theory or the models so the data is adjusted (always up and never down). Even using manipulated data the amount of change is within the error tolerance. For example if you have a voltage meter with a tolerance of plus or minus one volt, and you try and measure a 1.5 volt battery how much can you trust the reading you get? You could get a reading of 1.5V but the actual value is 0.5V or you could get a reading of 0.5V but the actual value is 1.5V. You don't know without a more accurate measuring device. If instead of a battery, you were trying to measure an alternating current source but unbeknown to you, there is a transformer in the area and its EMF field is close to your measurement source. It would influence the reading and add to the error. (By the way, having a theory and proving a theory are two different things.)

If you are a scientist, you view any theory with skepticism. If you look at Einstein's theory of relativity you will see that scientists have been looking to disprove it for years. That is the nature of true scientists. Consensus is a political action or a religious action (there was consensus in the church that the world was flat). Science has never been about consensus.

Here are a few articles you should examine:

Former NOAA Scientist Confirms Colleagues Manipulated Climate Records
And here is a counter:
No Data Manipulation at NOAA - FactCheck.org
The problem with the counter is that it rationalizes data adjustments and therefore concludes that there was no manipulation. A data adjustment is a manipulation irrespective of rationale for doing so.
Uncorrupted US Temperature Data Showed Cooling From 1930 To 1999
Why Hansen Had To Corrupt The Temperature Record
THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New Paper Says There's Little Empirical Evidence for AGW

To me, the moment you have to manipulate the data your conclusions become suspect. It may be true that the data is inaccurate but it should be consistently inaccurate. Changing it, no matter the rationale, is subject to potential bias or to create a desired result. So let's drop the religion of consensus by parties that have something to gain and put on the scientists skeptic glasses to examine the actual data.

P.S.
I was a Division Manager in the U.S. Navy's Metrology Research laboratory at NSWC Corona.

Steven Goddard is a global warming skeptic, regular contributor to WattsUpWithThat (WUWT), and operator of ”The Deplorable Climate Science Blog.” The name “Steven Goddard” is a pseudonym used by Tony Heller, which he confirmed himself in June 2014. [3], [4], [2], [30], [32]

Tony Heller describes himself as “an independent thinker who is considered a heretic by the orthodoxy on both sides of the climate debate.” He has degrees in Geology and Electrical Engineering, and lives in Columbia, Maryland. He describes global warming as the “biggest scientific fraud in history.” [30], [9]

Steven Goddard is known for a 2008 article in The Register where he posited that Arctic Sea ice is not receding and claimed that data from the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) showing the opposite was incorrect. Goddard later issued a retraction on his statement. [5], [6]

Goddard operates a blog titled “Real Science”, originally located at Real-Science.com, then at Stevengoddard.wordpress.com (until May, 2016), and now at Realclimatescience.com. [7], [8]

<snip>

Steve Goddard does not have a background in climate science. He has primarily published his articles in blogs and newspapers using a pseudonym. A search of Google Scholar for “Tony Heller” returned no results.

Searches for “Steve Goddard” returned results by a Computer Science Professor at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln unlikely to be Tony Heller.

Full article at:
Steven Goddard

 

[Asymmetry]

If you are a scientist, you view any theory with skepticism.

Yes and yes

If you look at Einstein's theory of relativity you will see that scientists have been looking to disprove it for years. That is the nature of true scientists.

Yep falsification is part of science

Science has never been about consensus.

Yes but process of peer review is part of the process which might be confused with consensus.

I'll put it to you very simply. It comes down to the ability to conduct accurate measurements.

Not really empirical data still can be used support a hypothesis. You mentioned a flat earth, this was disproved by quite inaccurate and archaic instruments.

At the risk of upsetting many of you, I will say that Man Made Global Warming is at best a theory and more realistically a hypothesis without proof.

In purely scientific terms, DAFUQ.

Seriously? I did a unit of atmospheric chemistry in my undergrad, impact of CFCs can be measured by students pretty easily suing a IR telescope. How can polluting the atmosphere with not only fossil fuels but other chemicals that have well known destructive pathways that change the chemistry of our atmosphere have no effect? Honestly I can see why you were fired, a bad mechanic blames his tools...

 

[DriverOne]

...presumably a measurement made today will be much more accurate than one made in 1860.

Notice those ships managing to navigate north of Canada? Couldn’t do that in 1860. Some effects of climate change are so dramatic they don’t require high accuracy measurements; they’re bleedin’ obvious.

 

[roblab]

I'll put it to you very simply. It comes down to the ability to conduct accurate measurements. This requires calibrated instruments.....

To my limited knowledge, most instruments used in making careful measurements are calibrated daily, traceable to NIST. I don't see why you think science is unable to conduct accurate measurements. That's what science is.

 

[nwdiver]

Notice those ships managing to navigate north of Canada? Couldn’t do that in 1860. Some effects of climate change are so dramatic they don’t require high accuracy measurements; they’re bleedin’ obvious.

+1....

LOL; Are our calendars out of calibration too?

 

[SageBrush]

Even absent NIST, I would not stick my hand in fire for too long or jump off a cliff for example
Our intrepid (past) manager thinks differently.