What “lost heat" are you talking about? Why do you ignore that we know it’s been going into the oceans?
Come on. Why do you think they went looking in the oceans in the first place?
CC, I got to run, may not get back until tomorrow, I will catch up then.
So, if they say for a given period of time the earth’s natural cycle is to warm 0.02 degrees. That is two hundredths of a degree. What tolerance are they using? Then in that same time period the rise in CO2 is said to cause a rise of heat of 0.02 degrees also. Then we would be looking at a projection warmth of 0.04 degrees.There you go again claiming "they said" Who said it? Where did he/she say it?? Exactly what was it they said??? Don't you get the joke here. You keep talking about the way you understand it. But, you've shown on numerous occasions you don't understand climate at all, nor do you seem interested in adding new knowledge to your understanding. Come on... comparing climate science, Earth science, with mechanical machines and there tolerances is ridiculous. Darron you might like this one
Catmando: A Richard Feynman Primer For Deniers http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2014/06/catmandos-richard-feynman-primer-for.html“Ordinary fools are all right; you can talk to them, and try to help them out. But pompous fools - guys who are fools and are covering it all over and impressing people as to how wonderful they are with all this hocus locus -THAT, I CANNOT STAND! An ordinary fool isn't a faker; an honest fool is all right. But a dishonest fool is terrible!" Richard Feynman
CC, in post #76 I made the statement that there are no tolerances provided with the charts or data. You ask me could “I explain what that even means?" Did you not? I did so in post #79. And in post #79 I gave you some examples of what can happen when you don’t have all the data and a tolerance for the data.
Is that not correct? In post #82 you are now arguing the examples I was using to show why the tolerances should be provided, are not to your liking. Sorry about that.
I am asking you now to please state your position. Should science use tolerances or should science not use tolerances?
Right now from post #82 my understanding is that you do not think science needs to work within the proven methods of operation.
I don’t think you are even grasping the simple points I laid out before you. For example, the tolerance on a house compared to the tolerance on a jet. I think most people reading the post would realize that the tolerance of a small part of a degree from the 230 trillion horsepower of sunlight, one of the climates driving forces, might consume the total amount of the carbon heating, the other climate driving force.
It is like comparing the flow of the Mississippi River to a small stream you can step across that flows into the Mississippi River. Then trying to figure out by a small rise in the water of the small stream how it will affect the amount of ice on the Mississippi River in the winter. Just the numbers used for the tolerance of the flow of the Mississippi River would consume the total amount of the water flow of the small stream.
The scientist are not stupid. But they are working with two driving forces that deliver heat to earth that vary greatly in size and amount. And are trying to give their findings based upon the combination of the two driving forces.
To separate the two, would cause confusion because the public only understood that carbon was the driving factor. And that has caused a lot of denier type of responses from the know it all’s. Now the scientists realize that they are going to have to include the natural climate cycle in the reports to the public. So the separation of the two driving forces was needed. Thus, we now have the “AGW". Educating the public on manmade climate and that science can be added to the Earth’s Natural Cycle. Let’s hope the next step of the break down is to separate the two driving forces. When they do that, we should be able to understand the “Carbon Lag".
If you do not understand mechanical and building and the way they use tolerances then what science do you understand? Let me know and we can review that science and their use of tolerances for you in examples.
Next, in post #77, “What “lost heat" are you talking about? Why do you ignore that we know it’s been going into the oceans?" Of course heat is going into the ocean. It has been doing so for the last ten years of the thirty year cycle. Maybe the oceans help cause the trends in the Natural Climate Cycles. But we are not talking about just a little bit of heat missing. We are talking about a major amount of heat is missing from the projections. And in twenty years we will find out if that missing heat is in the oceans. Right now would you not agree that it is still theory? As the Earth’s Natural Cycle warms, so do the oceans. How much, they are not sure yet. That’s what I am hearing.
You do understand don’t you that the thinking is that the heat going into the ocean cause evaporation which causes clouds, thus you can have cooling of the earth when the energy going into the earth is actually increasing. So where are these damn clouds? Can you send some to California?
It’s been years since we had major storms hit the coast. When I was in my twenties, if I could get away I always played in the coastal storm waves. Big waves are only water, but fun water!
It's been years since we had major storms hit the coast. When I was in my twenties, if I could get away I always played in the coastal storm waves. Big waves are only water, but fun water!My my, you have a short memory]. Or perhaps you cannot see beyond your own back yard.
It's been years since we had major storms hit the coast. When I was in my twenties, if I could get away I always played in the coastal storm waves. Big waves are only water, but fun water!My my, you have a short memory]. Or perhaps you cannot see beyond your own back yard. You left out "So where are these damn clouds? Can you send some to California?" That statement was clearly for my own back yard here in California. The only thing dryer than the California climate is the gravity of your posts. :coolhmm: I will start using similes so you can comprehend the intent of the thought. :coolsmirk:
You don’t need to use figures of speech for me to understand your posts. If you had even average reading comprehension you would have figured out I caught your short-sighted mistake. The phenomenon is global climate change, not local climate change.
That’s what I am hearing.That is the most important thing you said up there. Climate scientists have always talked about natural climate change, simply because you refuse to hear any of it doesn't mean the info isn't out there. ditto the rest of your silly assumptions, I notice you still don't support them with anything substantive or authoritative. It's all just the way you are hearing. Sorry Mike, but you're not hearing the scientists, nor thinking about the case they are presenting to the public, instead you prefer to keep within the crazy-maker's spell] so sad :down:
Tolerances are for designing machines and engines.
Error margins are used when observing and striving to understand our planet.
You don't need to use figures of speech for me to understand your posts. If you had even average reading comprehension you would have figured out I caught your short-sighted mistake. The phenomenon is global climate change, not local climate change.You obviously do need comprehension aids. Because I was talking about the local drought in California. Right or wrong you just thought you saw an opportunity to make a dig. Did you not?
Next time try specifying which coast you mean. But I have to admit I was taking the opportunity to take a dig at your poor writing skills.
Next time try specifying which coast you mean. But I have to admit I was taking the opportunity to take a dig at your poor writing skills.Actually I appreciate the criticism on my writing skills Darron. I would like it if you would keep doing that. My spelling skills have vastly improved in the last five years. And I know I have a long way to go yet. Having a lot of research, I am wanting to put it in book form. I know there is no money in writing, but I am not doing it for the money. I will hire a script writer to compile the book. But I have to get the ideas and thoughts down correctly. And this is a good site for developing those skills. If I can reach a comfortable point in my communication, I may take on another project. I have gather a lot of research in several different areas to choose from. Thanks, Mike
Tolerances are for designing machines and engines. Error margins are used when observing and striving to understand our planet.CC, error margins are tolerances. And my hearing is just fine. What bothers me is closed minded people that think they understand issues but are really just ignorant when it comes to all the facts. They usually stand out because they make allegation and resort to name calling and just end up showing their disillusionment. I was working offshore oil drilling in California when the San Barbara blowout happened. The oil companies were blamed, new laws were passed and drilling was shut down in the coastal areas of California. One of the refineries in Southern California had to close due to lack of oil. I had a really hard time understanding why the American people would shoot themselves in the foot by going after the oil company. The State of California’s geologist was the person who controlled every last detail of the cementing of the wells by new laws that had been passed in California. Yet, the state geologist never had to take the blame. Government workers never have to answer to the bad policies they create and manage. But I don’t think the public never understood that fact. So, why did people want to go after the oil companies? I think it is mainly because people can state BS facts and conclusions like some of the ones on this site and not have anyone question the validity of their thinking. But, they sure screwed up the oil industry in California. And the taxpayers end up with a broken system, thanks to these dimwits. Next you got a bunch of top rated scientist who have all the papers stuck on the wall, that think that gives them the power to be advisors to the political departments to make laws and rules for the masses. And the animals of Yellowstone Park suffered greatly for that. As the local people of Wyoming tried desperately to get the federal government to stop putting the fires out in Yellowstone Park. The scientist had all the charts and data that backed up the millions and millions of dollars spent on firefighting aircraft and equipment. The scientists had designed whole programs and procedures as to how the park was to be managed in the new scientific management methods. As the locals tried to explain to the government paid scientist that the methods were wrong and damaging to the trees and wildlife. They were attacked by the college back groupies and mountains of computer generated data and charts that backed up the governments’ reports and firefighting operations. That is until the government had to change methods to what the locals had been for years asking and fighting for. And all it took was for three to four hundred year old trees and a large part of the Yellowstone environment system to be destroyed by the governments’ methods. Next you have the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Exxon paid dearly for the actions of the government. The pilot of the tanker is trained, controlled and licensed by the governmental departments. Controlled under federal laws. Exxon part in this was to write his paycheck. Exxon was never able to hire him in any controlling standards that is understood that employers would have over employees or to decide if he should work or not. Exxon would just tell the government department that the tanker would be ready to leave a certain time and the government department arranged for a pilot with the union to be sent to Prince William Sound. Yet, Exxon got all the blame for the pilot and the federal management actions that caused the oil spill. Exxon’s fault was not building a boat that could withstand government personnel management standards. If you think that I am not going to watch and bring up facts that are going on with the scientists and government steps in the global warming issues, you sadly mistaken. If you feel the need to play games and be a smart ass. Go right ahead, I will do my best to work around the hurdles of injudicious direction.
I think it is mainly because people can state BS facts and conclusions like some of the ones on this site and not have anyone question the validity of their thinking.That's what you're doing. Going off about "paper on the walls" and "all those facts" just looks like comedy to me. If you are trying to write a comedy, the character you are playing right now is a good one.
What bothers me is closed minded people that think they understand issues but are really just ignorant when it comes to all the facts.Oh, the irony.
Next you have the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Exxon paid dearly for the actions of the government. The pilot of the tanker is trained, controlled and licensed by the governmental departments. Controlled under federal laws. Exxon part in this was to write his paycheck. Exxon was never able to hire him in any controlling standards that is understood that employers would have over employees or to decide if he should work or not. Exxon would just tell the government department that the tanker would be ready to leave a certain time and the government department arranged for a pilot with the union to be sent to Prince William Sound. Yet, Exxon got all the blame for the pilot and the federal management actions that caused the oil spill. Exxon’s fault was not building a boat that could withstand government personnel management standards. If you think that I am not going to watch and bring up facts that are going on with the scientists and government steps in the global warming issues, you sadly mistaken. If you feel the need to play games and be a smart ass. Go right ahead, I will do my best to work around the hurdles of injudicious direction.I'm always interested when I hear something I've never heard before. It could be you are right. In which case you should be able to cite the policies and procedures that were in place at the time. Or, some facts are getting twisted, but you should still be able to cite a source of what you said, then I can track that down. So far, I found this:
Exxon, along with the rest of the oil industry knew that navigating a large supertanker through the icy and treacherous waters of Prince William Sound was extremely complicated. It also knew that Alaska was not equipped to contain a large oil spill. In fact the contingency plan in place at the time acknowledged that a spill over 8.4 million gallons could not be contained and would result in long term consequences. Armed with this knowledge the oil companies promised to use great care to avoid a spill. Exxon broke that promise. Despite the risk of a spill, Exxon knowingly allowed Captain Hazelwood, a relapsed alcoholic, to command its supertanker through these treacherous waters. For nearly three years before the spill Exxon officials ignored repeated reports of Hazelwood’s relapse and failed to enforce its substance abuse policies. In fact, Hazelwood was allowed to continue operating the supertanker even though his driver’s license had been revoked for operating a motor vehicle under the influence. It was no surprise that on the evening of March 23, 1989 Hazelwood visited two local bars and consumed between 5 and 9 double shots (15 to 27 ounces of 80 proof alcohol) before boarding the ship. Even though he was the only officer on board licensed to navigate through Prince William Sound, in his drunken state, he turned the helm over to a fatigued third mate who was not qualified to steer the ship. Shortly thereafter, as the Exxon Valdez picked up speed it left the shipping lanes and collided with Bligh Reef. Today the Exxon Valdez oil spill is still considered the worst oil spill in our nation’s history.
What bothers me is closed minded people that think they understand issues but are really just ignorant when it comes to all the facts.Oh, the irony. Thank you, Darron, well said and succinct. :cheese: And then there's people who are interesting in understanding their errors and invite others to produce valid information, since recognizing our own errors is the key to learning, and for some learning is one of the big joys of life, even if it forces us to appreciate how much we still have to learn.
Lausten,
The key to understanding the Valdez and the San Barbara blowout are the same. The people who screwed up were not under the control of the company. The geologist worked for the state and the pilot of the taker was under the control of the government department. Companies set policies and regulations that they operate by. And they are usually built upon older regulations and industrial standards. In the case of the California oil industry there were no existing regulated standards or regulations.
Therefore a couple of scrupulous fly by night oil operations did not follow industrial standards. And messed up ground water and left the possibility of seepage from holes they drilled. So the State of California passed laws putting the well control in the hands of state geologist and state regulations. Baker Hughes and Schumberger who logged and cemented the well no longer worked with company geologist but had to follow the orders of the state geologist as to how to perform the cementing and what type of cementing to use.
With Exxon, there had been several big oil spills in the world. The government stepped in and built a training program for the tanker pilots and certified and controlled the pilots. The government also allowed the pilots to form a very strong union. Exxon would notify the government the departure time the tanker would be ready. The government department would notify the union and a pilot would be sent to the tanker. Everything you said about the drugs the officer had in his system was true. But the days of the captains having their own ship and living on the ship and being a company man was not the system used here.
Exxon officials did not ignore the captains past conditions. They simply had no say in that part of the process. I followed that part of the case as my business at the time was labor management under leasing arrangements. One of my biggest expenses was insurance, which costs ran in the million each year and cases like this can affect the cost of insurance across the country. So it was interesting to see how the Co-Employer relationship played out. And if the union itself which had some control would be responsible for any of the captains actions.
Yet when there are several companies involved in a project. The lawyers break up the blame and responsibility into percentages by companies. But the government is immune from prosecution and seems to never have to take responsibility for its actions.
Example, if the firefighting in Yellowstone Park was contracted to Exxon, and even though Exxon would have been following the procedures of the government scientists and departments, the world would know how Exxon had screwed up and the fines given to Exxon would have been huge. And the public would still be blaming Exxon today for the harm done to the park. All the business in the park would have sued Exxon for damages. Remember the government had all the data and charts that would have held up in any court or trial. It was only after the park was turned to ash that questioning of this data would be looked at under the proper light. The Exxon oil case will never see the proper light because the blame has been given. Where the Yellowstone had no Exxon to blame, the unquestionable data had to be questioned. The human factor is a tuff one for any business or government.
The government does not have these fears of blame and lawsuits and can screw up all it wants. And if there is a company contracted for any part of the project, it will get the blame.
I designed the insurance method used today by the horse racing industry in California that covers racetrack workers. I presented the system to the tracks and they all want me to implement the system. But because of the liability by association I decided there was too much risk for my company. This association is the same deep pocket lawsuits and blame that happens with cases like we have been talking about. I felt several state laws needed to be passed to be able to do business. I had just spent a lot on trying to fix some of the unemployment laws in California, and ran up against the most powerful political machine in the state, the trial lawyers association. And I was not willing to pour more money into the political system that did not care about the people or the process. I sat back and watched as the racetracks themselves got my system working for them. It took the tracks fifteen years and a lot of money to get it up and running. And they were lucky, as two greedy insurance companies battled each other for control of the money it opened the door for change.
It should not be this way or this hard. Why is it that most companies have to use media companies to deal with the public to keep lawsuits down? Even the top law firms now have in house media departments to use as part of the legal process.
You didn’t really answer my question. As far as I can see, from everything available about Captain Hazelwood, he was hired by Exxon and licensed by the government. Licensing is not managing. It was Exxon’s job to make sure he did his job. He got drunk and fell asleep, how is the government responsible for that?
Even if this system you claim of the government notifying the union is true, that says nothing about what he did. A captain having his own ship would not have solved this problem. You lack both coherency, that is, x causes y, and evidence. Government regulations and licensing do not cause oil spills and letting corporations regulate themselves does not prevent them. You need some sort of chain of events and some evidence that those events happened.
You’ve provided neither. You’ve given your personal authority, which has been shown to be highly suspect. You haven’t given a name of a regulation or even an agency. You just keep repeating “the government" like Rush Limbaugh.
You didn’t really answer my question. As far as I can see, from everything available about Captain Hazelwood, he was hired by Exxon and licensed by the government. Licensing is not managing. It was Exxon’s job to make sure he did his job. He got drunk and fell asleep, how is the government responsible for that? Even if this system you claim of the government notifying the union is true, that says nothing about what he did. A captain having his own ship would not have solved this problem. You lack both coherency, that is, x causes y, and evidence. Government regulations and licensing do not cause oil spills and letting corporations regulate themselves does not prevent them. You need some sort of chain of events and some evidence that those events happened. You’ve provided neither. You’ve given your personal authority, which has been shown to be highly suspect. You haven’t given a name of a regulation or even an agency. You just keep repeating “the government" like Rush Limbaugh.Let me see if I can explain the process. If you need a steelworker tomorrow to be on a project you are building. And you personally know ten steelworkers that need work and that you like to hire. You cannot use them because you are under contract with the union. Union powers are controlled by federal laws. All you can do is tell the union you need a worker and they will send a worker to the job site tomorrow. Now is it feasible for you to hire a company supervisor to watch the union steelworker to see that he can perform his tasks. In the government, maybe, in the real world, no. Your only choice is to fire the worker. And then the union will send out another worker. But look at the timetable from the time the captain walks onto the ship until the ship parts. Walk the steps that happen that day. The only saving thing would have been for another employee to call Exxon corporate and tell them the captain was on drugs. But this was Alaska and half the crew was most likely on drugs. In the old system the captain controlled the ship and all personnel, and it was considered his ship. This happened years ago and I followed the case closely back then. Today, I only want to refer to the case to back up a thought or idea. And that idea is who put the captain on the ship? Point being, it was not Exxon. You are right about the damages, they were terrible.