InstantForum.NET v2.9.0SQLServerCentralhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/notifications@sqlservercentral.comTue, 21 May 2013 11:45:56 GMT20http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic655386-263-1.aspxI agree with the Michael Crichton's point that there are some things that science won't be able to determine (perhaps whether God exists, the influence of Yin and Yang on the universe, what I dreamed last night are examples of such things) but I disagree that global warming is one of them. We don't deal with iterative processes much in database land (sounds a bit too much like a cursor, *shudder*) but that's what science is. Some data is gathered, conclusions are drawn. Maybe some more data is gathered which contradicts the first experiment. So you do more experiments. Though time, the methods and instruments you are using improve, you are able to analyse data with more powerful computers/taking into account previously unrecognised processes. Eventually, as more and more experiments are done, one conclusion will become more and more apparent.Michael Crichton's point is that if there's one contradictory study then you can't rely on any of the evidence as it's possible that the theory could be wrong (he uses the example of pellagra in 1920s America). If this were the case, Guine$$ would still be good for us, herion and cigerettes would be good for a cough and no pharmaceutical product would ever get taken off the shelves for causing fatal side effects as the pharmaceutical companies are sure to have some data that says they don't.Remember, just because a fool doesn't believe in the existence of gravity doesn't mean that gravity doesn't exist...What I really don't understand is WHY YOU CONSPIRACY-THEORY GUYS REGARD THIS AS A POLITICAL ISSUE?I read scientific evidence that demonstrates convincingly that the world is warming.I can reduce my carbon footprint by1) not using my car too much2) insulating my house3) recycling4) not eating beefThis has the multiple effect of reducing my bills, helping the environment and reducing our dependancy on oil so we don't have to have stupid wars which are expensive and kill people.No politicians told me to implement points 1 to 4, not even Al Gore (who's film I haven't actually seen, incidentally) and frankly, I don't see how me doing any of the above is going to benefit him in the slightest.Also, none of the above is really a great effort at all - walking keeps me fit, separating my rubbish takes seconds. I can't afford a Porsche but I don't mind some of my taxes going to help the environment.It's naive to think that nothing we do has an effect on the atmosphere of our planet - consider the effect of CFCs on the ozone layer or methanobacteria - they might only be tiny but they account for over a third of the man-made sources of methane (total of man-made sources of methane = 330 Tg/a compared to 270 Tg/a for all natural sources).All I can suggest is that you stop listening to political (or anti-political) orators and start listening to the vast body of scientists who have expertise in the relavent fields.Mon, 16 Feb 2009 08:11:56 GMTcgreen-568768http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic655386-263-1.aspxthere was a painting of the beach from the 60s. the distance from the water's edge to the cemented platform tree was considerable. in my childhood, the sea already reached the cemented platform on high tide.now, the sea has overtaken it. there are islands way ahead, which has time again, minimized tsunamis. if you knew wave dynamics, then countless big waves has been dissipated before reaching our beach. it also means, the beach is not facing any ocean shelf by itself to explain where the sands are falling. ** it should have been relatively stable over the decades **i also noticed changes in the weather. when i was a child, when it rained, it rained hard. now it rains like the way it rains in the northern lands thousands of kilometers away, sometimes strong or weak. summer is hotter and a lot longer. it is difficult to sleep at night with just an electric fan.---i have come to realize that the more we attack or defend each other position's, the more entrenched either side is. i do believe there is a serious climate change going on. it is felt a lot more in the tropics because it has lively weather.and oh yes, i noticed there were dead coral reefs when i was child. seeing images of the australian reef over decades convinced me also. You Cannot Tell A Coral To Lie.Sun, 15 Feb 2009 23:54:09 GMTOpen Mindedhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic655386-263-1.aspxImagine this scenario. You are a developer with a query that is performing slowly. Luckily you have several thousand DBA's at your disposal. They look into it and tell you that you need an index on a field to fix the problem. But then some dude from marketing barges into the room and loudly exclaims 'It is a conspiracy of DBA's - they are just trying to boost their funding and keep control of the database. Dont listen to what they are saying'Who do you believe?Now replace DBA's with climate scientists, and the marketing guy with global warming deniers.Sun, 15 Feb 2009 21:43:34 GMTmtucker-732014http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic655386-263-1.aspx[quote][b]TJ (2/15/2009)[/b]Simple: The planet is 4 billion years old. It has heated up, cooled down and back and forth over and over without this so-called human intervention. Is the climate changing? YES! Its always changing and when the planet explodes or the Universe gives up and everything in existence quits - then we can calculate averages and mins and maxes and know the deviations. [/quote]Mate, you were asked to provide some evidence to back your claim that global warming is a hoax. Simply repeating your amateur ideas about climate science is not adequate. You clearly have no evidence of a conspiracy, or of a hoax.No doubt you believe the moon landings were a hoax as well (cant trust NASA can we?)Sun, 15 Feb 2009 21:32:49 GMTmtucker-732014http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic655386-263-1.aspx[quote][b]GSquared (2/13/2009)[/b][hr][quote]Here are some facts:**CO2 IS A GREENHOUSE GAS**. It re-radiates infrared/thermal radiation. This has been scientifically replicated and has been known for at least the last 100 years. The Swedish physicist/chemist Svante Arrhenius first put forward the idea that CO2 has a blanketing effect. In a sense, we are lucky because without it, life as we know it on this planet would not exist.[/quote]Cite the experiments that were used to prove this. How has this been "scientifically replicated". You're asserting as proven fact something that every scientist I've ever read anything about has stated is unprovable.I want the names and publications of the papers, the dates of the experiments, and the names of the researchers.[/quote]GSquared, I've always asserted that science can never prove anything. Proof is a property of mathematics, not science. What I'm implying is that at this point in time climatologist opinions are almost unanimously beyond reasonable doubt.P. E. Martin and E. F. Barker (University of Michigan) - The Infrared Absorption Spectrum of Carbon DioxidePublished by The American Physical Society, June 1932.Moeller, F. (University of Munich) - ON THE INFLUENCE OF CHANGES IN THE CO2 CONCENTRATION IN AIR ON THE RADIATION BALANCE OF THE EARTH`S SURFACE AND ON THE CLIMATEPublished by Journal of Geophysical Research, July 1963Syukuro Manabe and Richard T. Wetherald (Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory/NOAA, Princeton University, Princeton) - The Effects of Doubling the CO2 Concentration on the climate of a General Circulation Model.Published by The Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, August 1974Dates of experiments are not available but I'd imagine that in most cases they won't be far from the dates of publication. To explicitly find what experiments were used you'll need to pay (in the order of US$20 per research paper), which I am not prepared to do to satisfy your curiousity.Here is an article that I think you'll find interesting with links to associated primary peer-reviewed research and articles:[url=http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686]http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686[/url]IR spectroscopy experiments have been replicated by adoption in other related scientific areas. For example the development of an IR absorption spectroscopy device used to measure CO2 and H2O in soils. The creation of such technology RELIES on the assumption that CO2 and H2O molecules absorb and re-radiate different wavelengths of infrared radiation. Another example in biomedical engineering is blood glucose measurement by multiple attenuated total reflection and IR absorption spectroscopy. The use of this technology vindicates past science being well grounded and peer supported.In modern science, it is given that CO2 and all other GHGs absorb and re-radiate thermal radiation across various wavelengths. What is up for contention is the answer to the question "Are humans responsible for the additional CO2 causing the current period of warming?" This is what is not able to be proven. As an extention to that question, "Is there anything we can/should do about it?" In response to that, we are cumulatively and increasingly adding to the atmospheric chemical mix of GHGs. There is no such "hydrological cycle" that removes CO2 at high atmospheric concentrations, so we really are rolling dice with our future by carrying on with our current business as usual, CO2 out the chimney stack type of mentality. One hopes that you don't roll the dice in the same context at work, or at home, yet when it comes to the environment at large it seems to be both socially and politically acceptable! Personally, I can't reconcile that dichotomy.Sun, 15 Feb 2009 21:12:44 GMTMichael D'Andreahttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic655386-263-1.aspx[quote][b]Michael D'Andrea (2/15/2009)[/b][hr][quote][b]TJ (2/13/2009)[/b][br]............If you think it's a hoax then demonstrate it, where and how is any of the current theory incorrect, misguided, improperly researched. Let me guess, you have nothing? Vapid conspiracy theories are immaterial and dismissable, unless you have evidence to support them. And I mean real evidence, not conjecture, not hearsay, not lies, not misrepresentation of data, not cherry-picking of data and definitely nothing from the TV.[/quote]Simple: The planet is 4 billion years old. It has heated up, cooled down and back and forth over and over without this so-called human intervention. Is the climate changing? YES! Its always changing and when the planet explodes or the Universe gives up and everything in existence quits - then we can calculate averages and mins and maxes and know the deviations. Until then, 4 billion years of temperate swings and solar changes, continents drifting and everything else that goes on within this planet TRUMP what us nothing humans could have possibly done to alter things. The climate is fluid. It is always changing. We are NOT in control of this climate. Next you'll be telling me we can control the tides by repositioning the moon where we want it. The news used to give the weather people 120 seconds to get their report out AFTER the news the sports and the fruity story of the day. IF there was time left over, we got a weather forecast. Nowadays, our wonderful news/media LOVES to hype whatever stuff they can find on the weather up. Its sickening. You can hear them place emphasis on certain words and terms. They're trying to control how we should feel about this subject, just like they do every other subject. http://www.discussglobalwarming.com/bloghttp://www.junkscience.comWe've got about as much chance of human created global warming as we did at finding weapons of mass destruction. People are fed up with this "sky is falling" mentality and the fear mongering and telling us we're all doomed. If I want to hear the end-of-times cries, all I need to do is walk into a NYC subway station and listen to the freaks telling me to repent because THEY KNOW WHEN the last day is. Please. A little bit of common sense and some intelligence goes a long way toward trumping this global warming crap.OH, and those web sites you keep posting are government agencies. I, personally, hate the government and anything that has to do with it. They are liars, cheaters and thieves. 2 bailout bills for TRILLIONS of dollars spent on no one but themselves and we get stuck with the bill. Please. There is nothing honest about whatever comes from the government anymore, nor its cheerleaders (Al Gore and his science cronies). We have enough issues to deal with: Crime, gangs, drunk driving, cancer, terrorism and so forth. What are you saving the planet for? So we can continue to kill each other and die of diseases? Why not fix what is tangibly happening right under our noses FIRST? Ah....... because that stuff is old and cant be hyped up anymore.Sun, 15 Feb 2009 20:40:38 GMTOptimalDevelopmenthttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic655386-263-1.aspx[quote][b]AspiringGeek (2/13/2009)[/b][hr]Michael Crichton was first & foremost a scientist. He also graduated from Harvard Medical School.The fact that he was able to leverage his knowledge & talents to obtain popular critical acclaim oughtn't be held against him. ;-)Agenda? He was well-known for his liberal tendencies. However, when he examined the AGW challenge, intellectual integrity demanded he rail against it. Right or wrong, he made the arguments accessible--including the intellectual outrages.He did so BEFORE the data from the 90s was shown to be flawed & we learned--surprise!--that the hottest years in the 20th century were found to be in the 40s, not the 90s.Now in the 21st century, we've had almost a decade of stasis. Imagine that!Please examine everyone's agenda, not merely Crichton's. Ask yourself the five questions he asks. Read his speech, read the review I also provided.[/quote]Mr Crichton has no more expertise in climate science that a blow-in from the street. To put an appropriate analogy on that, cancer is best treated by an oncologist, not a neurosurgeon. I don't seek climatology advice from a medical doctor/Sci Fi authorNASA's "data from the 90's" was marked as provisional - once the error was made clear it was modifieded appropriately. There was indeed a spike in average global surface temps in the 40's (as we all know, climate is chaotic) however by 1945 it had returned to a 0 deg C temperature anomaly. Since then it has been rising until a slight plateau during the last decade which is not expected to stay in "stasis". Having said "stasis", our surface temperature anomaly is still well above where we were 50 years ago.http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2007/ann/global-jan-dec-error-bar-pg.gifhttp://epa.gov/climatechange/science/recenttc_triad.htmlhttp://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gifSun, 15 Feb 2009 18:04:51 GMTMichael D'Andreahttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic655386-263-1.aspxMichael, I don't know TJ, but I do know the science isn't conclusive, not even close. Even if you think Crichton doesn't count as a scientist, read the review of the literature I've cited twice.Sun, 15 Feb 2009 17:48:02 GMTAspiringGeek-40457http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic655386-263-1.aspx[quote][b]TJ (2/13/2009)[/b][br]I am not living my life based on the fact that my children are going to love me or not for what I do. What they do, hopefully legal only, is their business when they grow up. While their in my home and under my control, they do what I say. What I do is my business. What my parents do is their business. What you do is yours. If I want to drive a particular car, I am driving it. Live is not a television show or a commercial on TV... I am **NOT** going to become brainwashed by fruity commercials that show 7 year old children dictating how their parents should behave. Sorry. Our society has gone backward, upside down and reversed enough that we dont need to be taking orders from our children. Thats a poor excuse for believing in the hoax that is global warming.[/quote]That's almost funny. You've demonstrated your (lack of) reasoning for accepting a thoroughly backed scientific theory by addressing my very last sentence which is nothing but subjective banter. You have not addressed or even inadequately responded to any of my other points.You also demonstrate the mindset that has bought about this crisis in the first instance. "This world is mine and I'll treat it how I want". The truth is that this world owes you nothing, inversely it is you who owes it your very existence and that of your children. I don't and never have avocated letting kids run wild but I'm damn sure your kids aren't badgering you to cut your carbon footprint.You may choose to get your science from the TV. I choose to get mine from scientists. This is not about being brainwashed, it's about being educated by the right sources. As I said, you don't get a toothache fixed by your mechanic.If you think it's a hoax then demonstrate it, where and how is any of the current theory incorrect, misguided, improperly researched. Let me guess, you have nothing? Vapid conspiracy theories are immaterial and dismissable, unless you have evidence to support them. And I mean real evidence, not conjecture, not hearsay, not lies, not misrepresentation of data, not cherry-picking of data and definitely nothing from the TV.Sun, 15 Feb 2009 17:36:54 GMTMichael D'Andreahttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic655386-263-1.aspx[quote][b]Michael D'Andrea (2/12/2009)[/b][hr]I am disheartened by the responses to this topic. There is plenty of climate change denialism going on here, and for people purportedly in the higher percentile of intelligence, that really goes a long way to demonstrating something. Most of you seem to forget that Climate Science is actually backed by science. Denialism is backed by speculation, conjecture, conspiracy, hearsay, opinion... sweet nothings by scientific comparison.Here are some facts:**CO2 IS A GREENHOUSE GAS**. It re-radiates infrared/thermal radiation. This has been scientifically replicated and has been known for at least the last 100 years. The Swedish physicist/chemist Svante Arrhenius first put forward the idea that CO2 has a blanketing effect. In a sense, we are lucky because without it, life as we know it on this planet would not exist.**WE HAVE BEEN BURNING FOSSILS FOR OVER 150 YEARS**. Fossils are a high source of CO2. Not only have we been burning them but the amount we have been burning has increased exponentially. We are altering the chemical composition of the atmosphere and are seriously disturbing the natural carbon cycle (which takes centuries or millenia to do a round trip). History has demonstrated that when things are altered without a clear understanding of repercussions we set ourselves up for failure (we can all draw parallels to the computer industry here).**SCIENCE NEVER PROVES ANYTHING**. Proof is a property of mathematics, not science. Accepted science is that which holds a majority view from scientifically related peers. With that said, there will always be dissenters to any theory but the way we measure certainty of a theory is by the process of peer review. This theory has an overwhelmingly strong level of peer support, whereas the opposing viewpoint has no such consensus or peer support.**9.6 OUT OF 10 CLIMATOLOGISTS AGREE WE ARE SHAPING OUR CLIMATE**. So which side of the experts will you sit? Do you go with the opinions of the majority of domain experts, or will you side with the fringe scientists, non-related scientists, journalists, deniers, shills, lobbyists and conspiracy theorists? To put that another way, would you go to a mechanic to fix a toothache?**THERE IS NO PEER REVIEWED SCIENCE THAT REFUTES ACC**. If there were, it would be all over the media like a rash and the scientists involved would be governmental poster-people. For the conspiracy theorists, governments would save more money demonstrating that climate change theory is wrong and hence stopping any preventative action, than they would by agreeing with it and going down their respective chosen paths.**BELIEF SYSTEMS DON'T REFUTE THE SCIENCE**. What is arrogant is believing we have no net effect on our environment. We work in tandem with natural processes not in place of them. There is no doubt that climate works in cycles, but the chemical composition of the atmosphere plays a strong role. This can be seen by the chemical analysis of the Vostok ice cores which go back 800k years. Believing that we don't have an effect is just not enough, you need to back it with something of substance.Steve, sell the Porsche. Your children will love you for it.[/quote]I am not living my life based on the fact that my children are going to love me or not for what I do. What they do, hopefully legal only, is their business when they grow up. While their in my home and under my control, they do what I say. What I do is my business. What my parents do is their business. What you do is yours. If I want to drive a particular car, I am driving it. Live is not a television show or a commercial on TV... I am **NOT** going to become brainwashed by fruity commercials that show 7 year old children dictating how their parents should behave. Sorry. Our society has gone backward, upside down and reversed enough that we dont need to be taking orders from our children. Thats a poor excuse for believing in the hoax that is global warming.[url=http://www.discussglobalwarming.com/blog]http://www.discussglobalwarming.com/blog[/url]Fri, 13 Feb 2009 17:07:20 GMTOptimalDevelopmenthttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic655386-263-1.aspx[quote][b]Steve Holle (2/13/2009)[/b][hr]Does anyone remember when global cooling was the problem? Remember the coming ice age? [/quote]Are you talking about stuff like the movie "The Day After Tomorrow"? That was actually premised upon global warming causing a desalination of the northern end of the Gulf Stream, stopping the Atlantic Ocean's heat pump. So, it was global cooling caused by global warming. I'm not sure, but I think the theory was based partly on the finding of extraordinarily well-preserved mammoth corpses in old glaciers, that seemed to have been flash-frozen. (Anyone for mammoth burgers?)[quote][b]Steve Holle (2/13/2009)[/b][hr]Popular science is NOT good science. Science does not work by consensus.[/quote]I agree there.I still think we'd make the same technological moves, for different reasons, that yield more easily to analysis... such as the ROI on alternative energy sources.(I wouldn't know how to analyze the political benefits, but they are there, too.)Fri, 13 Feb 2009 14:57:54 GMTdivisonhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic655386-263-1.aspx[quote][b]Steve Holle (2/13/2009)[/b][hr]Take compact florecents, for example. Save energy and trash the environment.[/quote]Remember when batteries were the bogeyman of the day? They were bad because of mercury. Has anyone looked at CFLs? They're the next ones. Word of caution, I wouldn't be quick to call that 800 number on the box in case of breakage. Can you say Environmental Mitigation?Fri, 13 Feb 2009 11:56:23 GMTJason Miller-476791http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic655386-263-1.aspxI understand that those samples also show a considerable melting period in the past. What caused that?Fri, 13 Feb 2009 11:38:34 GMTSteve Hollehttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic655386-263-1.aspxDoes anyone remember when global cooling was the problem? Remember the coming ice age? Popular science is NOT good science. Science does not work by consensus. If it did we would still believe the world was flat and that the next ice age was just around the corner.The real question is if we adopt protocols that kill economies and reduce human greenhouse gasses to the absolute minimum, will it make a significant difference? The question is NOT will it make any difference. Would one volcanic eruption swamp our efforts? Are there mechanisms at work here that we don't completely understand? Could our attempts to change long term temperature cycles cause more harem than good?The idea of trading carbon credits is ridiculous, another pop sci project. That is what happens when you get politicians in science. "Let's pay someone else to be green for us."Every action we take has an unintended consequence. Take compact florecents, for example. Save energy and trash the environment.Fri, 13 Feb 2009 11:37:33 GMTSteve Hollehttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic655386-263-1.aspx"Computers help us get more work done, but they also allow us to make mistakes very, very fast."That line reminds me of a button I used to have outside my cubicle. It said: "I make tomorrow's mistakes today." Yeah computers make mistakes fast, but it also means we learn fast, and move on.Fri, 13 Feb 2009 10:20:13 GMTsjsubscribehttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic655386-263-1.aspxMichael Crichton was first & foremost a scientist. He also graduated from Harvard Medical School.The fact that he was able to leverage his knowledge & talents to obtain popular critical acclaim oughtn't be held against him. ;-)Agenda? He was well-known for his liberal tendencies. However, when he examined the AGW challenge, intellectual integrity demanded he rail against it. Right or wrong, he made the arguments accessible--including the intellectual outrages.He did so BEFORE the data from the 90s was shown to be flawed & we learned--surprise!--that the hottest years in the 20th century were found to be in the 40s, not the 90s.Now in the 21st century, we've had almost a decade of stasis. Imagine that!Please examine everyone's agenda, not merely Crichton's. Ask yourself the five questions he asks. Read his speech, read the review I also provided.Fri, 13 Feb 2009 10:15:43 GMTAspiringGeek-40457http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic655386-263-1.aspxIs that Michael Crichton, journalist and author of Jurassic Park?I would rather look at scientific papers rather than the opinions of a journalist to get a balanced view. Remember, Michael Crichton has his own agenda too and makes (well, made) money from doing speeches etc.Fri, 13 Feb 2009 10:05:43 GMTcgreen-568768http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic655386-263-1.aspxFor those critical of Crichton & the amalgamation of the literature, I suggest you not rely on partisans, but read the aritcles. For your convenience:Good BI will do little to help us get to the truth, because the truth doesn't matter very much. The IPCC is not a scientific organization, it is a political organization.Something as important as the future of mankind oughtn't be relegated to politics. Unfortunately, good science is taking a back seat to--no, getting stuffed into the trunk--when it comes to the political agendas being promulgated by devotees of global warming.Here are two interesting articles. The first is a review of the scientific literature:Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxidehttp://www.michaelcrichton.com/speech-ourenvironmentalfuture.htmlThe next is by the late, great scientist, physician, author, & producer Michael Crichton:The Case for Skepticism on Global Warminghttp://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/GW_Article/GWReview_OISM600.pdfI invite you to print it in color & read it carefully. In this article, Crichton asks:Is global warming happening?Is it anthropogenic?Is it harmful?Can we do anything about it?Should we? My thing is, for something in such dispute, can mankind afford to "invest" trillions of dollars in remediation? Especially when so many of the AGW advocates just happen to be socialists? No judgment here, but a fact. Raise your hand if you trust the decisions of the UN? The European Union? The US government? Etc.It's a shame it's so politicized. Because it is, the *real* science is hard to know.Fri, 13 Feb 2009 08:48:29 GMTAspiringGeek-40457http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic655386-263-1.aspx[quote][b]cgreen (2/13/2009)[/b][hr]If you're interested in the science behind the theory, have a look here (plenty of references if you click on any of the links at the bottom).[url]http://www.aip.org/history/climate/cycles.htm#L_0469[/url][/quote]Thank you for the excellent reference.Fri, 13 Feb 2009 08:33:30 GMTCarla Wilson-484785http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic655386-263-1.aspxIf you're interested in the science behind the theory, have a look here (plenty of references if you click on any of the links at the bottom).[url]http://www.aip.org/history/climate/cycles.htm#L_0469[/url]Fri, 13 Feb 2009 07:29:22 GMTcgreen-568768http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic655386-263-1.aspx[quote][b]bear in a box (2/13/2009)[/b][hr]if anyone of you grew beside the sea, if anyone of you had a river beside your family's farm?my location is close to the equator, i am close to my fourth decade now. my grandfather's beach we used to go to during weekends, its halfway eaten up by the sea now.[/quote]How precise is your error-check for errosion?Fri, 13 Feb 2009 06:52:12 GMTGSquaredhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic655386-263-1.aspx[quote]Here are some facts:**CO2 IS A GREENHOUSE GAS**. It re-radiates infrared/thermal radiation. This has been scientifically replicated and has been known for at least the last 100 years. The Swedish physicist/chemist Svante Arrhenius first put forward the idea that CO2 has a blanketing effect. In a sense, we are lucky because without it, life as we know it on this planet would not exist.[/quote]Cite the experiments that were used to prove this. How has this been "scientifically replicated". You're asserting as proven fact something that every scientist I've ever read anything about has stated is unprovable.I want the names and publications of the papers, the dates of the experiments, and the names of the researchers.Fri, 13 Feb 2009 06:46:33 GMTGSquaredhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic655386-263-1.aspxif anyone of you grew beside the sea, if anyone of you had a river beside your family's farm?my location is close to the equator, i am close to my fourth decade now. my grandfather's beach we used to go to during weekends, its halfway eaten up by the sea now.Fri, 13 Feb 2009 05:23:53 GMTOpen Mindedhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic655386-263-1.aspxI am disheartened by the responses to this topic. There is plenty of climate change denialism going on here, and for people purportedly in the higher percentile of intelligence, that really goes a long way to demonstrating something. Most of you seem to forget that Climate Science is actually backed by science. Denialism is backed by speculation, conjecture, conspiracy, hearsay, opinion... sweet nothings by scientific comparison.Here are some facts:**CO2 IS A GREENHOUSE GAS**. It re-radiates infrared/thermal radiation. This has been scientifically replicated and has been known for at least the last 100 years. The Swedish physicist/chemist Svante Arrhenius first put forward the idea that CO2 has a blanketing effect. In a sense, we are lucky because without it, life as we know it on this planet would not exist.**WE HAVE BEEN BURNING FOSSILS FOR OVER 150 YEARS**. Fossils are a high source of CO2. Not only have we been burning them but the amount we have been burning has increased exponentially. We are altering the chemical composition of the atmosphere and are seriously disturbing the natural carbon cycle (which takes centuries or millenia to do a round trip). History has demonstrated that when things are altered without a clear understanding of repercussions we set ourselves up for failure (we can all draw parallels to the computer industry here).**SCIENCE NEVER PROVES ANYTHING**. Proof is a property of mathematics, not science. Accepted science is that which holds a majority view from scientifically related peers. With that said, there will always be dissenters to any theory but the way we measure certainty of a theory is by the process of peer review. This theory has an overwhelmingly strong level of peer support, whereas the opposing viewpoint has no such consensus or peer support.**9.6 OUT OF 10 CLIMATOLOGISTS AGREE WE ARE SHAPING OUR CLIMATE**. So which side of the experts will you sit? Do you go with the opinions of the majority of domain experts, or will you side with the fringe scientists, non-related scientists, journalists, deniers, shills, lobbyists and conspiracy theorists? To put that another way, would you go to a mechanic to fix a toothache?**THERE IS NO PEER REVIEWED SCIENCE THAT REFUTES ACC**. If there were, it would be all over the media like a rash and the scientists involved would be governmental poster-people. For the conspiracy theorists, governments would save more money demonstrating that climate change theory is wrong and hence stopping any preventative action, than they would by agreeing with it and going down their respective chosen paths.**BELIEF SYSTEMS DON'T REFUTE THE SCIENCE**. What is arrogant is believing we have no net effect on our environment. We work in tandem with natural processes not in place of them. There is no doubt that climate works in cycles, but the chemical composition of the atmosphere plays a strong role. This can be seen by the chemical analysis of the Vostok ice cores which go back 800k years. Believing that we don't have an effect is just not enough, you need to back it with something of substance.Steve, sell the Porsche. Your children will love you for it.Thu, 12 Feb 2009 17:42:20 GMTMichael D'Andreahttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic655386-263-1.aspx[quote][b]David.Poole (2/12/2009)[/b][hr]The opportunity to move on to the next generation of technology is here today.[/quote]Hi David, I agree with what you say. I would like to add that there are dangers with focussing on technological solutions. The most obvious one being that the more efficient we do things the more likely we are just to do more of them. It is similar to the well known effect that building roads has on traffic. The number of cars increases to fill the available space, congestion doesnt improve people just make more trips.Out immediate needs are for technological fixes for power generation and transport, and the political will to do so. But in the longer term this will not be enough, there is also a need to deal with issues such as the idea that we can have never ending economic growth. It is obvious from the current financial crisis that our society is totally dependent on continual growth in the economy. But the world is like a disk drive - it has limited space. But unlike a disk drive we only have one world. It would be a poor DBA who expected to be able to have a database that grew exponentially forever on a single disk, but that is what we assume we can do with our economy.Thu, 12 Feb 2009 17:09:30 GMTmtucker-732014http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic655386-263-1.aspx[quote]So what kind of temperature data do you use for the last 100,000 years?[/quote]Ice core samples from glaciers and ice packs. They are like tree rings. Will not give you an exact temperature, but it will tell you the length of melt and freezing spells.Thu, 12 Feb 2009 17:05:56 GMTCarlo Clausiushttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic655386-263-1.aspxSo what kind of temperature data do you use for the last 100,000 years?Thu, 12 Feb 2009 16:54:20 GMTSteve Hollehttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic655386-263-1.aspxAs far as BI and global warning is concerned I would say that it tells us that there is a lot of money to be made out of climate change.There is a lot of political incentive for pushing climate change agendas. If the public can be persuaded to use transport that is less dependent on fossil fuels that have to be harvested in hostile lands then that means we are no longer hostage to the whims of unstable dictatorships.There is a belief that we are at the end of a very long term economic cycle, the last one being in the crash of the 1930s and as a result we are in dangerous times with revolutions afoot. These could be political and/or technological but now would be the time to push next gen technologies that offer significant fuel savings.To give an example, the lights on my bike last 2 hours on a large 9 volt battery. At the time of purchase it was a recommended buy in most cycling magazines.10 years on an LED equivalent will last 5,000 hours on a much smaller battery.Honda has demonstrated that a hydrogen fuel cell car is a practical proposition provided you have a hydrogen distribution grid. Hyrdogen is just an explosive gas, you can move it around pipes just like you can with domestic gas.Porsche are actually quite fuel efficient for what they do, certainly more so than Aston-Martin, Ferarri and Lamborghinis, plus you can get more than 2 people in a porsche if you squeeze a bit.Material science is such these days that we don't have to build vehicles out of heavy steel. We could build them out of plastics, aluminium and other materials and save massive amounts of weight and the resulting fuel to propel them. My Dad's Caterham could do 40+mpg and yet do 0-60 in under 5 seconds. The acceleration is due to the power to weight ratio.The Audi A2 is an example of what can be achieved for an efficient small family car.The opportunity to move on to the next generation of technology is here today.Thu, 12 Feb 2009 16:29:17 GMTDavid.Poolehttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic655386-263-1.aspxSteve, if you are worried about the emissions of your Porsche there is any easy solution. Eat less beef.The process of producing a steak produces the equivalent of several hundred kilometres driving emissions.Thu, 12 Feb 2009 16:16:32 GMTmtucker-732014http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic655386-263-1.aspx[quote][b]AspiringGeek (2/12/2009)[/b][hr]Good BI will do little to help us get to the truth, because the truth doesn't matter very much. The IPCC is not a scientific organization, it is a political organization.Something as important as the future of mankind oughtn't be relegated to politics. Unfortunately, good science is taking a back seat to--no, getting stuffed into the trunk--when it comes to the political agendas being promulgated by devotees of global warming. [/quote]You are right the IPCC is a political organisation, but it also includes a lot of scientists. The politicians invariably attempt to water down the conclusions put to them by the scientist members. If you look at the science itself the prognosis is worse than the IPCC would have us believe.So I agree, we shouldnt let politicians put their short term career goals ahead of the real need to do something about global warming.Thu, 12 Feb 2009 16:12:56 GMTmtucker-732014http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic655386-263-1.aspx[quote][b]David Reed (2/12/2009)[/b][hr]There's an army of snowmen on my lawn who'd like to have a word with you about so-called "global warming" (whether anthropogenic or some other unicorn-type):[/quote]There are over 1000 homes burned to the ground and about 200 people burned to death here in the worst bush fires in our history. Most of our country is still in a drought that has lasted a decade.Thu, 12 Feb 2009 16:08:05 GMTmtucker-732014http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic655386-263-1.aspx[quote][b]GSquared (2/12/2009)[/b][hr]It also should be pointed out that mankind and our symbiots (cattle, etc.) are responsible for less than one half of one percent of CO2 that goes into the atmosphere every year, and that volcanoes are the primary source of almost all atmospheric CO2.[/quote]That is a gross error. Volcanoes produce about 200 millions tonnes of CO2 each year. Human activity produces about 24 billion tonnes per year. Yes, we produce over 100 times as much CO2 as volcanoes every year. Refer to Scientific American this months online issue.Thu, 12 Feb 2009 16:02:45 GMTmtucker-732014http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic655386-263-1.aspx[quote][b]robertdorans (2/12/2009)[/b][hr]These guys can't even predict how much rain will fall in NYC next month. Which rain and snow have a great deal to do with the temprature of the planet as well. When you say 1 to 3 inches that is a huge diffrence.[/quote]predicting the weather is not the same as predicting the climate, they are completely different. You cant predict the patterns that cream swirling in your coffee will make with a supercomputer, but you can predict that in 5 minutes time it will be mixed evenly through.[quote]It is just a power grab by the government.[/quote]You havent been paying attention to politics. Governments around the world have been resisting doing anything about climate change for about 20 years, the US government in particular.[/quote][quote]The planet must heated up before. New York isn't under a glacier anymore.[/quote]and your point is? the planet has heated up before and the consequences for life were dramatic, we want to avoid that. This time around we are the cause.[quote]If global warming was also a real concern. Then why are we building roads. concrete capture heat very well.[/quote]Roads and concrete are not a particularly large source of CO2 emissions compared to the cars we drive and the coal we burn to generate electricity. A lack of action to prevent global warming does not mean it isnt happening, it means politicians have their heads in the sand.Thu, 12 Feb 2009 15:56:12 GMTmtucker-732014http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic655386-263-1.aspx[quote][b]Andrey (2/12/2009)[/b][hr]When floating ice melts, does the water level rise? [/quote]You are correct, ice floating on water that melts does not cause the sea level to rise. However ice on land that melts and flows into the sea does cause the sea level to rise, this is why the ice melting on Greenland is a problem, and why the ice melting on Antarctica is a problem (recent research has shown that yes Antartica is warming as well).Water also expands when it gets warmer, so as the oceans get warmer some of the sea level rise will be from themral expansion.This is not the only problem with the oceans. They act as a sink for CO2 but as they absorb it the acidity increases which is a problem for reefs and creatures with shells. At the current rate of increase in acidity reefs will not be viable by 2050.Thu, 12 Feb 2009 15:47:02 GMTmtucker-732014http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic655386-263-1.aspx[quote][b]TJ (2/12/2009)[/b][hr]Mind you, those temperature observations were all flawed. How much ACCURACY did that guy at the weather station in Tennessee, oh say, back in 1906, have with his readings? Hmmm... lets see.... "It looks here like its 94 degrees. Feels like it too. Ah. 94" Did he look at the instrument on an angle? Did he mess up the data as he recorded it? ...[/quote]because of course climate scientists wouldnt have thought of those sources of error - but thats right they are all liars and conspirators arent they[quote] Keep your global warming hoax to yourself. [/quote]You seem like a person who like to rely on evidence, so where is your evidence that climate scientists are perpetrating a hoax? Put up or shut up. It isnt good enough to call people liars just because they put forward a theory you disagree with, if you think they are lying you need to show they are lying.Thu, 12 Feb 2009 15:40:57 GMTmtucker-732014http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic655386-263-1.aspxIf you came to me and told me that you had results from a test that showed something MIGHT be happening, but you could only rely on a small subset of a much larger population of data - 99% of which you will never know, I'd say you're reaching.If you told me that I would have to put up my hard earned money AND tax dollars to support your theory, I'd tell you to take a hike.Well, thats what we have here. We have a 4 BILLION year old planet (entire set of climate data) and only a tiny spec of research data to go with (the last 150 years of weather observations and whatever ice-core measurements they've done). Mind you, those temperature observations were all flawed. How much ACCURACY did that guy at the weather station in Tennessee, oh say, back in 1906, have with his readings? Hmmm... lets see.... "It looks here like its 94 degrees. Feels like it too. Ah. 94" Did he look at the instrument on an angle? Did he mess up the data as he recorded it? Were his instruments calibrated with precision? To a large degree, our instruments arent even that accurate today! I mean, they're taking readings behind jet runways of all concrete? Hmmm... gonna bit a TAD warmer over there. Or, next to the air conditioner units. Yea. Ever stand outside by a group of those in the summer? Please. Spend your tax money but not mine. We've had enough of our government taking our tax dollars, our kids and their kids for a lifetime! And we're about to be robbed by our government AGAIN! Keep your global warming hoax to yourself. Thanks. :-)[url=http://www.junkscience.com]http://www.junkscience.com[/url][url=http://www.discussglobalwarming.com/blog]http://www.discussglobalwarming.com/blog[/url][url=http://www.newsbusters.com]http://www.newsbusters.com[/url]Thu, 12 Feb 2009 15:16:22 GMTOptimalDevelopmenthttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic655386-263-1.aspxGlobal warming has been debunked![url=http://www.junkscience.com]http://www.junkscience.com[/url][url=http://www.discussglobalwarming.com/blog]http://www.discussglobalwarming.com/blog[/url][url=http://www.newsbusters.com]http://www.newsbusters.com[/url][quote][b]mtucker (2/12/2009)[/b][hr][quote][b]AspiringGeek (2/12/2009)[/b][hr]Here are two interesting articles. The first is a review of the scientific literature:Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxidehttp://www.michaelcrichton.com/speech-ourenvironmentalfuture.htmlThe next is by the late, great scientist, physician, author, & producer Michael Crichton:The Case for Skepticism on Global Warminghttp://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/GW_Article/GWReview_OISM600.pdfI invite you to print it in color & read it carefully. In this article, Crichton asks:Is global warming happening?Is it anthropogenic?Can we do anything about it?Should we?[/quote]Whatever Michael Crichton was he was not a climate scientist. His claims and fiction about the 'conspiracy' of global warming have been thoroughly debunked. Check out www.realclimate.org[/quote]Thu, 12 Feb 2009 15:05:15 GMTOptimalDevelopmenthttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic655386-263-1.aspx[quote][b]Carlo Clausius (2/12/2009)[/b][hr]The debate about global warming is mute. The fact is, [b]intense human activity has a detrimental impact on the earth's environment[/b]. I see it in the brown tap water that I get when the rains cause landslides in the clear cut forests in our watershed. I've driven through the moon scape around Sudbury Ontario caused by acid rain from all the smelters. The pictures of the holes in the ozone speaks for itself. Call it global warming, global cooling, green house effect, what ever. We are having an impact. Thinking otherwise is delusional.The real issue is fossil fuels. It's going to run out, that's a fact. It's economically unstable, cheap today, expensive yesterday and going to get more so tomorrow. That's a fact. And most of it is in the hands of some of the worst thugs on the planet. Do we want to continue with this?We have to wean ourselves off this addictive stuff and we have to start now. Yes, it will be expensive, it will hurt and the short term results will be a trickle but that is all the more reason to get on with it.So drive your Porsche on a sunny day, but take the bus to work. Insulate your home better then it is now. Wear a sweater to keep the thermostat down. Plant a tree. If we all did a little now, we will save a lot later.A good read on this topic is a book by William Marsden, Stupid to the Last Drop: How Alberta is Bringing Environmental Armageddon to Canada (and Doesn’t Seem to Care)ThanksCarlo[/quote]Totally agree with you that what we're doing to the environment, through burning fossile fuels and a large number of other practices, is unsustainable, destructive and needs to be fixed.My only disagreement is with people who demand money for solutions to global warming. "Cap and trade" and all that. That's a scam.Dirty water, oceanic dead zones, toxic rivers, and so on are not a scam, but many of the so-called solutions to them, are.On the other hand, take a look at [url]www.dhmo.org[/url]. Actually, that page has a very high applicability to the editorial that this thread comes from. It's all about how you use the data.Thu, 12 Feb 2009 15:02:06 GMTGSquaredhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic655386-263-1.aspx[quote][b]AspiringGeek (2/12/2009)[/b][hr]Here are two interesting articles. The first is a review of the scientific literature:Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxidehttp://www.michaelcrichton.com/speech-ourenvironmentalfuture.htmlThe next is by the late, great scientist, physician, author, & producer Michael Crichton:The Case for Skepticism on Global Warminghttp://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/GW_Article/GWReview_OISM600.pdfI invite you to print it in color & read it carefully. In this article, Crichton asks:Is global warming happening?Is it anthropogenic?Can we do anything about it?Should we?[/quote]Whatever Michael Crichton was he was not a climate scientist. His claims and fiction about the 'conspiracy' of global warming have been thoroughly debunked. Check out www.realclimate.orgThu, 12 Feb 2009 14:46:54 GMTmtucker-732014http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic655386-263-1.aspx[quote]Would you cosider trading for 99 Boxster?[/quote]Sorry, I'm an air cooled guy. I'd replace it with another 87-90 911, though I'd try for black this year.Thu, 12 Feb 2009 13:27:03 GMTSteve Jones - SSC Editor