It's going to be cold in California

#26
#26
I have no problem with hard data being assessed and analyzed differently by different persons.

I do have a problem with RJD using the term "approximated data" while trying to defend his stance.

I imagine there are tests that can be used to glean hard data out of any artifact. However, what that data actually means is almost always subject to interpretation. Being that we don't have actually temperature readings dating back 1,000 years, all conjecture based off of any other means are just that: conjecture.

I have a hard time being told to jump on board and offer sacrifice to the gods of global warming based on mere milliseconds of irrefutable scientific evidence against the 24 hour clock that is the entire existence of the Earth.

On a side note, if the increases in temperatures over the past 100 years are due to the industrial revolution, would you trade all of our gains in productivity and distribution in order to not have to face global warming?
 
#27
#27
therealUT said:
On a side note, if the increases in temperatures over the past 100 years are due to the industrial revolution, would you trade all of our gains in productivity and distribution in order to not have to face global warming?
Click to expand...

That isn't really the issue at hand. The issue is now we know it was a problem based on carbon levels measured in polar ice (which is how geologists are proving the increase, and thus the presence of more greenhouse gases). The point is, we have no idea what this kind of quick turn around on the historical charts will have on us in the future. We don't have to worry about rising seas at the moment because most of the ice is already floating (so the mass is already added when it melts), but we do have to worry about the glaciers that are breaking off mountains and the melting of the permafrost. Once these things go we'll be losing major sources of fresh water, and will have a much more salinated water supply which is a problem considering many areas are already having shortages.

The issue, as it stands now, is finding a way to try and adjust for our output where we are seeing negligible levels of impact so that we can allow Earth to regulate its self. We're also short-sighting ourselves on plant, animal, and insect species that may have been important to our survival (such as fighting disease, finding cures, or any other of the uses they can provide) as they go extinct or run the risk because of changing migratory patterns.

In any event, I highly doubt we'll see some kind of "Day After Tomorrow" incident in our lifetimes, but that doesn't mean the effects of warming won't have a significant impact on our relatives in the future. We don't actually know what will happen, scientists can only speculate, but at the same time what is the harm in trying to prevent or at least curb our impact on climate change when we have the means to do so?
 
Last edited:
#28
#28
rjd970 said:
Absolutely. Show me data where Hurricanes have increased in average strength progressively over time, and correlate it with rising global temperatures, and that might be something interesting to investigate further. Until then, all assertions are completely anecdotal.

Likewise, I don't believe Katrina was an act of God or anything else. The whole disaster was nothing more than a perfect combination of unusually high gulf water temperatures, poorly design/upkeep of levees, inadequate evacuation plans, and gross incompetence of disaster relief at all levels of government.

Single data points are worthless. Trends, averages, and data regressions are what matter in the analysis.
Click to expand...

I don't have a link but on the Discovery channel they had a program about hurricanes. They took cores from old trees on the east coast and studied the pores in those trees. It's been about a year or two since it was on. I believe they had a scientist from UT involved.

They noticed a pattern of increased hurricane intensity for some period of time with extremely powerful hurricanes hitting the east coast from New York to the Carolina's. You might get some useful information from it.
 
#29
#29
therealUT said:
I do have a problem with RJD using the term "approximated data" while trying to defend his stance.
Click to expand...

I was referring to the data sort provided by TennTradition (isotropic core analysis, etc..). If it is "hard data" then all the better. But there was nobody out taking temperature readings a 1000 years ago, that was my point.

Besides, when you say...

therealUT said:
I have no problem with hard data being assessed and analyzed differently by different persons.
Click to expand...

...and then follow it up later in your post with...

therealUT said:
Being that we don't have actually temperature readings dating back 1,000 years, all conjecture based off of any other means are just that: conjecture.
Click to expand...

...it just seems like a feable attempt to remain objective. You've made up your mind, damn the overarching evidence, and nitpick every little problem you see with it.

therealUT said:
I have a hard time being told to jump on board and offer sacrifice to the gods of global warming based on mere milliseconds of irrefutable scientific evidence against the 24 hour clock that is the entire existence of the Earth.
Click to expand...

Well, that's a big surprise.

Forget the "gods of global warming". Look at the data. The earth is warming. Nobody knows for sure why, but evidence shows that it is probably due to normal temperature cycles. The jury is still out if it is manmade. Nature itself is a far greater output of CO2 then we are. That is all that can be said with any kind of scientific or evidence-based credibility. The alarmist Al Gore types are taking things too far, and everybody that points to single events of cold spells to discount it either have no idea what they are talking about, or are just as agenda driven.

therealUT said:
On a side note, if the increases in temperatures over the past 100 years are due to the industrial revolution, would you trade all of our gains in productivity and distribution in order to not have to face global warming?
Click to expand...

I personally never said the industrial revolution had anything to do with it.
 
Last edited:
#30
#30
KB5252 said:
I don't have a link but on the Discovery channel they had a program about hurricanes. They took cores from old trees on the east coast and studied the pores in those trees. It's been about a year or two since it was on. I believe they had a scientist from UT involved.

They noticed a pattern of increased hurricane intensity for some period of time with extremely powerful hurricanes hitting the east coast from New York to the Carolina's. You might get some useful information from it.
Click to expand...

I will have to check that out. It would be interesting to see how they are measuring hurricane strength from tree core samples.
 
#33
#33
rjd970 said:
I will have to check that out. It would be interesting to see how they are measuring hurricane strength from tree core samples.
Click to expand...

If I'm not mistaken it had something to do with the pores within the tree rings themselves. They used the data they received from the tree cores and then went into the bogs, swamp and ponds to retrieve the sediment layers that contained evidence of flooding (by sea) that happened during storm surges from hurricanes.

They correlated the data and were able to establish there was a period of warming that coincided with these hurricanes.

Just remember this is all from memory of a show from a couple of years ago. I don't remember all the info and could have some of this wrong. All the basics are correct though.
 
#40
#40
lawgator1 said:
"Facetious," from the Latin "in-your-face." Means glib.
Click to expand...

perhaps you should also look up "sarcasm". but before you do that, have a looksee at rjd's first post in this thread. You might then be able to follow and understand the true intent of my previous post.
 
#41
#41
I teach subject matter related to global climate change at UT. I find that most people who don't think it's real don't understand what climate is, as opposed to weather. The concept of a global trend as opposed to a regional one also seems be something that confuses people.

It is amusing to hear people bring up past climate change such as the periodic glacial and interglacial episodes of the last couple million years as evidence that climate change is natural, and yet at the same time argue that climate isn't changing at all.
 
#43
#43
I think most of the people who don't believe in "global warming" don't believe in it as being a man made phenomenon. They believe it is part of the natural fluctuation this planet has been going through for many years. I also happen to believe that the sun is a factor in climate change as well.

It is certainly true that men like Al Gore have done great harm to the scientific cause of trying to understand the reason and effects of climate change by proclaiming it is a man made problem when clearly there are much bigger factors than man at play here. It seems to me that compared with the many factors at play we (human race) are just a grain of sand on the beach as far as climate change goes.
 
#45
#45
MG1968 said:
what's "facetious"? Us morons are intimidated by such big words.
Click to expand...


For all the "misunderstandings" in the room:

Facetious:

1 : joking or jesting often inappropriately : waggish <just being facetious>
2 : meant to be humorous or funny : not serious <a facetious remark>

...hence, I made "a facetious remark" to dantheman617.
 
Last edited:
#46
#46
KB5252 said:
I think most of the people who don't believe in "global warming" don't believe in it as being a man made phenomenon. They believe it is part of the natural fluctuation this planet has been going through for many years. I also happen to believe that the sun is a factor in climate change as well.

It is certainly true that men like Al Gore have done great harm to the scientific cause of trying to understand the reason and effects of climate change by proclaiming it is a man made problem when clearly there are much bigger factors than man at play here. It seems to me that compared with the many factors at play we (human race) are just a grain of sand on the beach as far as climate change goes.
Click to expand...

Certainly the sun is the biggest player in the warming of the Earth. Al Gore nor anyone else would ever dispute that.

The strongest greenhouse gas per molecule? Methane. The strongest greenhouse gas as far as total effect? water vapor.

The point is that for the first time in geologic history, carbon is being pumped out of the Earth and combusted into the atmosphere, changing the make-up of the small zone we inhabit. All the other forcings such as the sun and surface albedo and such are always shifting. But this is a new forcing created by man, that is having a measurable impact on the composition of our atmosphere, and the average temperature of our planet.
 
#47
#47
IPorange said:
When it shows a cooling trend over the last five years it is evidence. When is shows a warming trend over the last 150 years it doesn't mean anything.

Get it?
Click to expand...

No, I don't.

A 5 year trend is evidence, 150 year trend isn't? We can have a worthless argument all day long about verbiage, but it won't accomplish anything or make either of us more right or wrong. Both are evidence of something happening, just one is more accurate because it is looking at more data. Scientists look at data as evidence that a theory holds water. The accuracy of the data (ie...evidence) is what is questioned.

For example, if data shows continual heating over the last 50 years it can be used as evidence the earth is warming....but if the data shows heating and cooling cycles every 50 years for the last 1000 years, the data supporting the warming claim is incomplete.
 
#49
#49
rjd970 said:
Data is not evidence?
Click to expand...
Data:
1 : factual information (as measurements or statistics) used as a basis for reasoning, discussion, or calculation <the data is plentiful and easily available — H. A. Gleason, Jr.> <comprehensive data on economic growth have been published — N. H. Jacoby>
2 : information output by a sensing device or organ that includes both useful and irrelevant or redundant information and must be processed to be meaningful
3 : information in numerical form that can be digitally transmitted or processed

Evidence:
1 a: an outward sign : indication b: something that furnishes proof : testimony ; specifically : something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter
2: one who bears witness ; especially : one who voluntarily confesses a crime and testifies for the prosecution against his accomplices
 
#50
#50
IPorange said:
When it shows a cooling trend over the last five years it is evidence. When is shows a warming trend over the last 150 years it doesn't mean anything.

Get it?
Click to expand...
I am not going to apologize for having a superior understanding of the English vocabulary.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top