This winter is killing two of the biggest scare tactic lies ever told...

#101
#101
BeecherVol said:
Is it at that level assuming we need more data to make a better decision?

Or are you saying the possibility is a very serious topic?
Click to expand...


The possibility is serious. Enough people have been discussing it for enough time that it would be foolish to ignore it.



OrangeEmpire said:
Are you always a mindless a$$hole, or did you have to work on it?

:question:
Click to expand...


How it is you don't get a few days off for that is beyond me.


g8terh8ter_eric said:
Yet scientists are using 200 years worth of data to try and come to the conclusion that we could all burn up if we don't start trying to control a naturally occurring gas in C02. Pot meet kettle.
Click to expand...

200 years may or may not be enough, I don't know.

But for sure a few months is not.




lumberjack4 said:
Kinda like Liberals using one hurricane as proof of global warming. Both sides have a history of doing this.
Click to expand...


They should not do that, either. Just as unscientific.
 
#103
#103
i dont believe in global warming at all but at the same time, this winter doesnt exactly discredit them. at some point all the warm summers we would have would cause an ice age and this could be the beginning. but the climate is like our economy, its gonna be up and down.
 
#104
#104
lawgator1 said:
Absolutely. There is a valid debate to be had simply as to the amount of data that is necessary to make a decision as to what the trend is.

However, whatever that minimum amount of data in actuality must be, I am CERTAIN that a few months of really cold temperatures in OP's neck of the woods doesn't come anywhere close.

It is disturbing to me, however, that so many conservatives are using a week's worth of data in a particular area to decry what should be a very serious topic.
Click to expand...

And likewise, 40 years... 50 years... hell, 100 years of data one way or the other is not enough data to determine a trend, one way or the other on a planet that has been here 4 billion years. That is the whole point most reasonable people can come to about this subject. Yet, people on yourside of the argument are so confident in their "data" that they are drafting legislation that will drastically affect our way of life based on 1 degree rises in average temp over 100 years? And not only that, they are assumming that man is the chief cause based on CO2 increases... which only makes up less than .05% of our atmosphere. :crazy:

Who is making the bigger assumption, LG?
 
#105
#105
Rasputin_Vol said:
And likewise, 40 years... 50 years... hell, 100 years of data one way or the other is not enough data to determine a trend, one way or the other on a planet that has been here 4 billion years. That is the whole point most reasonable people can come to about this subject. Yet, people on yourside of the argument are so confident in their "data" that they are drafting legislation that will drastically affect our way of life based on 1 degree rises in average temp over 100 years? And not only that, they are assumming that man is the chief cause based on CO2 increases... which only makes up less than .05% of our atmosphere. :crazy:

Who is making the bigger assumption, LG?
Click to expand...

You just demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt you know absolutely nothing about this subject. The Earth may be 4 billion years old, but it hasn't even had an atmosphere for half of that. Thus, climate didn't exist for the first 2 billion years. Climate 80 million years ago is not directly relevant to today's regime. Continents were in radically different places, which greatly affects climate through ocean circulation and continental/maritime effects. Atmospheric composition was also somewhat different. It's only the last 100,000 years or so that are worth looking at because they are fairly analogous to present configurations.The amount of CO2 relative to the atmosphere is in no way a damning figure. What, do you think no one else knows that? The physics behind greenhouse warming are sound, and that is taking into account the composition of the atmosphere. If there were was no CO2 in the atmosphere, you better believe we'd miss it very quickly from a temperature standpoint despite it "only" being less than .05 %. The atmosphere is only 23 % oxygen at sea level (less higher up) and yet we are breathing just fine.

Throwing out numbers like 4 billion and .05 % without understanding their context is ridiculous. Would you say these things out loud to people?
 
Last edited:
#106
#106
If we're just going to use this winter as an example, it should be noted that Vancouver is having to truck in snow for the Winter Olympics, because of how dry and above average it has been there.
 
#107
#107
IPorange said:
Here's what we got:

global primary information from actual thermometers and personal accounts going back to at least 1890.

Personal accounts, weather records (from farmers, vineyards, all sorts of random places) on perhaps a regional scale going back to 900-1000 AD for much of the Old World.

Dendrochronological data (tree rings) from around the world going back 2000 years and more.

Records derived from marine and lake sediment by using proxies such as pollen, diatoms, ostracods, isotopes, mineral deposits and more going back 10,000 years and more.

Records derived from ice cores going back 10's of thousands of years.

Records derived from geological evidence going back millions of years.




The further down that list you go, the less exact the information. But the information is still there and is still detailed enough to get a picture of things.
Click to expand...

How do we go back and retroactively adjust these readings taken from so many years ago, as well as the current readings, and retroactively account for the "islands of heat" that our cities produce. I know in the last 40 to 50 years much of the temperatures registered have been taken away from these heat sources.

I know it's probably been touched on before but I figured I'd ask the question from someone with more knowledge on the subject.

We also know that the earth has a, for lack of a better term, built in thermostat in that the oceans help to regulate temperature changes. Granted this process takes much time, certainly not something that would happen in a human lifetime. Can you explain how this would or would not address the issues we see today?
 
#108
#108
nickknx865 said:
If we're just going to use this winter as an example, it should be noted that Vancouver is having to truck in snow for the Winter Olympics, because of how dry and above average it has been there.
Click to expand...

Many places have record snow, Alabama and some parts of Texas are getting snow and ice. There have been changing weather patterns and temp. ups and downs throughout the history of the earth. We as humans can't stop it or cause it.

Some tree hugers have indicated that global warming has caused these record snow falls.
 
#109
#109
lawgator1 said:
Absolutely. There is a valid debate to be had simply as to the amount of data that is necessary to make a decision as to what the trend is.

However, whatever that minimum amount of data in actuality must be, I am CERTAIN that a few months of really cold temperatures in OP's neck of the woods doesn't come anywhere close.

It is disturbing to me, however, that so many conservatives are using a week's worth of data in a particular area to decry what should be a very serious topic.
Click to expand...

I think you miss the point. there are many conservatives and more importantly Americans (regardless of political affiliation) that are being told that the climate is warming yet we have had really cold temperatures throughout the mid south this year and in many other places. Many of them might not be as aware of the science as others, they wonder why there are alarms bells being rung and drastic measures being thought up when they have seen no evidence they can touch or feel. Yes we have had droughts and floods recently, record highs and record lows. This has all been a very real part of life in America for some time, many see it as a scare tactic to push some really drastic measures that the public would otherwise reject outright.
 
#110
#110
IPorange said:
You just demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt you know absolutely nothing about this subject. The Earth may be 4 billion years old, but it hasn't even had an atmosphere for half of that. Thus, climate didn't exist for the first 2 billion years. Climate 80 million years ago is not directly relevant to today's regime. Continents were in radically different places, which greatly affects climate through ocean circulation and continental/maritime effects. Atmospheric composition was also somewhat different. It's only the last 100,000 years or so that are worth looking at because they are fairly analogous to present configurations.The amount of CO2 relative to the atmosphere is in no way a damning figure. What, do you think no one else knows that? The physics behind greenhouse warming are sound, and that is taking into account the composition of the atmosphere. If there were was no CO2 in the atmosphere, you better believe we'd miss it very quickly from a temperature standpoint despite it "only" being less than .05 %. The atmosphere is only 23 % oxygen at sea level (less higher up) and yet we are breathing just fine.

Throwing out numbers like 4 billion and .05 % without understanding their context is ridiculous. Would you say these things out loud to people?
Click to expand...

Wow....I'm impressed:matrix:
 
#111
#111
IPorange said:
You just demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt you know absolutely nothing about this subject. The Earth may be 4 billion years old, but it hasn't even had an atmosphere for half of that. Thus, climate didn't exist for the first 2 billion years. Climate 80 million years ago is not directly relevant to today's regime. Continents were in radically different places, which greatly affects climate through ocean circulation and continental/maritime effects. Atmospheric composition was also somewhat different. It's only the last 100,000 years or so that are worth looking at because they are fairly analogous to present configurations.The amount of CO2 relative to the atmosphere is in no way a damning figure. What, do you think no one else knows that? The physics behind greenhouse warming are sound, and that is taking into account the composition of the atmosphere. If there were was no CO2 in the atmosphere, you better believe we'd miss it very quickly from a temperature standpoint despite it "only" being less than .05 %. The atmosphere is only 23 % oxygen at sea level (less higher up) and yet we are breathing just fine.

Throwing out numbers like 4 billion and .05 % without understanding their context is ridiculous. Would you say these things out loud to people?
Click to expand...

You must be really old to know stuff from way back then!
Gee, I was told that in another thread that science couldn't prove things 100%, who would have thunk it!
 
#112
#112
We know from fossil and geological records that as the earth wobbles on it's axis areas of desert become flooded plains and shallow seas, other areas that were once cooler can become much more arid. I was wondering where we were currently at in this cycle?
 
#113
#113
KB5252 said:
I think you miss the point. there are many conservatives and more importantly Americans (regardless of political affiliation) that are being told that the climate is warming yet we have had really cold temperatures throughout the mid south this year and in many other places. Many of them might not be as aware of the science as others, they wonder why there are alarms bells being rung and drastic measures being thought up when they have seen no evidence they can touch or feel. Yes we have had droughts and floods recently, record highs and record lows. This has all been a very real part of life in America for some time, many see it as a scare tactic to push some really drastic measures that the public would otherwise reject outright.
Click to expand...

+1:eek:k:
 
#116
#116
nickknx865 said:
If we're just going to use this winter as an example, it should be noted that Vancouver is having to truck in snow for the Winter Olympics, because of how dry and above average it has been there.
Click to expand...

This post will get ignored by most.
 
#117
#117
KB5252 said:
How do we go back and retroactively adjust these readings taken from so many years ago, as well as the current readings, and retroactively account for the "islands of heat" that our cities produce. I know in the last 40 to 50 years much of the temperatures registered have been taken away from these heat sources.

I know it's probably been touched on before but I figured I'd ask the question from someone with more knowledge on the subject.

We also know that the earth has a, for lack of a better term, built in thermostat in that the oceans help to regulate temperature changes. Granted this process takes much time, certainly not something that would happen in a human lifetime. Can you explain how this would or would not address the issues we see today?
Click to expand...

Some are statistically adjusted, and some are removed from the accounting if say, they're now in the middle of midtown Philadelphia. If urban heat islands were not accounted for, the temperature increase over the last century would be being reported as much higher. Believe it or not, much of the GCC data are low-balled. The ones that get the headlines are the high estimates. That's media for you.

If one were only to factor in non-urban spots, a warming trend over the last 120 years is still apparent. That alone is not enough to prove anthroprogenic warming, but does prove warming.
 
#118
#118
volfanjustin said:
Many places have record snow, Alabama and some parts of Texas are getting snow and ice. There have been changing weather patterns and temp. ups and downs throughout the history of the earth. We as humans can't stop it or cause it.

Some tree hugers have indicated that global warming has caused these record snow falls.
Click to expand...

I am not saying GCC "caused" the snow falls, but in the other thread "so much for global warming..." I pointed out how snowfall is not necessarily indicative to lower termperatures.

Ironically, this is exactly why scientists and educators began referring to it as "global climate change" rather than global warming; the effects of a warmer is Earth isn't "it's hotter everywhere." It's a global average, not a uniform rise in temperature.
 
#119
#119
Oldvol75 said:
You must be really old to know stuff from way back then!
Gee, I was told that in another thread that science couldn't prove things 100%, who would have thunk it!
Click to expand...

There is a difference in "knowing" there are going to be 105,842 fans at Neyland Stadium for the Florida game, and "knowing" the stadium is going to be filled beyond capacity and have over 100,000 people in it. But there isn't a practical difference. It's the same with approximating past climate. Sure there is a degree of uncertainty, but an acceptable one. Kind of like not knowing how many more miles you can go before you have to fill up your tank in your car, but knowing it is going to be in the next 30 miles.

Nothing is ever going to be completely 100 % certain in this physical world. That's why some find religion so appealing.
 
#120
#120
IPorange said:
I am not saying GCC "caused" the snow falls, but in the other thread "so much for global warming..." I pointed out how snowfall is not necessarily indicative to lower termperatures.

Ironically, this is exactly why scientists and educators began referring to it as "global climate change" rather than global warming; the effects of a warmer is Earth isn't "it's hotter everywhere." It's a global average, not a uniform rise in temperature.
Click to expand...

You are not going to get less snow fall from higher temps, it just does not work that way. In July and August here in Middle Tenn we were having to wear light jackets in the mornings and and night because it is normally 90 plus degrees it was like 20 degrees below normal. In January we had temps in the single digits when the normal here should have been around 40. I know these are very small situations on the larger scale but we are seeing record snowfall and in some cases record low temps.

And they began referring to it as climate change because their global warming reteric was being proved wrong all the time, so to try to keep fear in people they relabled their lies.

The good news about global warming or climate change or whatever it should be called today is the American people are not buying it.
 
#121
#121
Look, I don't know if 40 or 50 years is enough data. I don't know if the 130 year old data of your great grand uncle reading the mercury thermometer outside the barn is valid and usable.

But its what we have. It would be foolish to blow it off.

On the other hand, jumping to the conclusion that there is no global warming because, at the moment, its freakin cold outside, is just so ridiculous its hard to put it into words.
 
#122
#122
volfanjustin said:
You are not going to get less snow fall from higher temps, it just does not work that way.
Click to expand...

Dude. Seriously? I assure you that it snows a lot more when it's 25 degrees than when it's -10. This isn't a guess. I live in this climate.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top