|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,118 Likes: 141
Hall of Famer
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,118 Likes: 141 |
An excerpt of an article from March of 2000. Quote:
Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past
By Charles Onians
Monday, 20 March 2000
Britain's winter ends tomorrow with further indications of a striking environmental change: snow is starting to disappear from our lives.
Sledges, snowmen, snowballs and the excitement of waking to find that the stuff has settled outside are all a rapidly diminishing part of Britain's culture, as warmer winters - which scientists are attributing to global climate change - produce not only fewer white Christmases, but fewer white Januaries and Februaries.
The first two months of 2000 were virtually free of significant snowfall in much of lowland Britain, and December brought only moderate snowfall in the South-east. It is the continuation of a trend that has been increasingly visible in the past 15 years: in the south of England, for instance, from 1970 to 1995 snow and sleet fell for an average of 3.7 days, while from 1988 to 1995 the average was 0.7 days. London's last substantial snowfall was in February 1991.
Rest of the article is here: web page
Fast forward to today.
Quote:
Coldest December since records began as temperatures plummet to minus 10C bringing travel chaos across Britain
By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 11:38 AM on 18th December 2010
Swathes of Britain skidded to a halt today as the big freeze returned - grounding flights, closing rail links and leaving traffic at a standstill.
And tonight the nation was braced for another 10in of snow and yet more sub-zero temperatures - with no let-up in the bitterly cold weather for at least a month, forecasters have warned.
The Arctic conditions are set to last through the Christmas and New Year bank holidays and beyond and as temperatures plummeted to -10c (14f) the Met Office said this December was ‘almost certain’ to become the coldest since records began in 1910.
More here:
web page
It's supposed to be hard! If it wasn't hard, everyone would do it. The hard... is what makes it great!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 8,767
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 8,767 |
When will enough evidence to the contrary of this steaming pile of crap theory be enough to change the minds of those who still insist this stuff is true! 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,848 Likes: 159
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,848 Likes: 159 |
I'm no science geek by any means,, so I kinda always wondered if the whole "global warming" thing was real or concocted by some dude in a lab somewhere trying to make a name for himself...LOL
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,887
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,887 |
Global Warming was real. It's the theory that it was because of Man that is the debate. But from the period of 1980's to the late 1990's there was significant global warming. But from 1998 - 2010 there has been a trend of both. Some years it will be down and others it would rise. Nothing significant. But it depends on who's data you want to believe. I have always trusted John Coleman and here are some of his comments on Global Warming. Read through it when you have some time. It is defiantly something I would like to hear any true blue Global Warming activist to contradict. About Coleman from Wikipedia Quote:
Coleman started his career at WCIA in Champaign, Illinois, doing the early evening weather cast and a local bandstand show called At The Hop while he was a student at University of Illinois. After receiving his journalism degree in 1957, he became the weather anchor for WCIA's sister station WMBD-TV in Peoria, Illinois. Coleman was also a weather anchor for KETV in Omaha, WISN-TV in Milwaukee and then WBBM-TV and WLS-TV in Chicago.[2]
At WLS, Coleman was teamed with Fahey Flynn, Joel Daly and Bill Frink to form the Eyewitness News team, creating a news brand name and establishing a highly successful new local news format dubbed "happy talk" by a local television columnist. This style of local news has been widely copied. The team dominated Chicago television news ratings for more than a decade. During his time at Chicago's WLS-TV, Coleman was one of Chicago's most popular weathercasters, famous for his amusing and irreverent style. It was then that Coleman became the original weathercaster on what was then the brand-new ABC network morning program, Good Morning America. He stayed seven years with this top-rated program anchored by David Hartman and Joan Lunden.[1]
In 1981, he persuaded communications entrepreneur Frank Batten to help establish The Weather Channel, serving as TWC's CEO and President during the start-up and its first year of operation. After leaving TWC, Coleman became weather anchor at WCBS-TV in New York and then at WMAQ-TV in Chicago, before moving to Southern California to join the independent television station, KUSI-TV in San Diego, in what Coleman fondly calls, "his retirement job."[1]
![[Linked Image from mypsn.eu.playstation.com]](http://mypsn.eu.playstation.com/psn/profile/Letherface.png)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,234
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,234 |
Quote:
Global Warming was real. It's the theory that it was because of Man that is the debate.
Thank you. It IS real, just not proven that WE are contributing to it. Glaciers and icecaps have had some melting but it's just a cyclical global thing and puny humans have some BIG egoes to think they are causing it or have the know-how to prevent it.
And since we had to listen to liberals spout on and on about it, it just had to become a political debate and we are still having to listen to conservatives poo-poo it every time it snows outside.
It's an annoying lose-lose situation for those closer to the middle.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
Ok, now what happened every year inbetween 2000 and 2010? Also, the media is always misconstruing climate with weather, which is what they're doing here. More snow, greater degree of cold and vice versa is not climate.
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,887
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,887 |
From 1840 - 2007 the five warmest years according to NASA are:
1) 1934
2) 1998
3) 1921
4) 2006
5) 1931
The next five are
6) 1999
7) 1953
8) 1990
9) 1938
10) 1939
There are five years on that list before 1940 including the #1 warmest year on record.
Then throw in the fact that the planet was so warm that the Vikings lived, farmed and cultivated on Greenland before there was any kind of industrial age for over 100 years and then explain to me how there is Man Made Global Warming. For that matter explain to me what caused the Medieval Optimum and the little ice age.
I'm no scientist but there some things that don't pass the common sense detector.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,823 Likes: 516
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,823 Likes: 516 |
Quote:
From 1840 - 2007 the five warmest years according to NASA are:
1) 1934
2) 1998
3) 1921
4) 2006
5) 1931
The next five are
6) 1999
7) 1953
8) 1990
9) 1938
10) 1939
There are five years on that list before 1940 including the #1 warmest year on record.
Then throw in the fact that the planet was so warm that the Vikings lived, farmed and cultivated on Greenland before there was any kind of industrial age for over 100 years and then explain to me how there is Man Made Global Warming. For that matter explain to me what caused the Medieval Optimum and the little ice age.
I'm no scientist but there some things that don't pass the common sense detector.
You don't need to be a scientist to know that man made global warming is a hoax.
The earth warms, it cools.
After all, in the early 1970's - mid 70's we were told to get ready for another ice age.
How quickly it has changed, huh? Ice age imminent - to global warming death.........in under 40 years (under 30 if you consider when Al Gore went postal with his global warming crap)
And yet the earth has been around for - depending who you talk to - 5,000 years to millions upon millions of years.
There is one thing that has never changed - earth has always been here.
The people pushing man made global warming do it for one reason: Money.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,409 Likes: 461
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,409 Likes: 461 |
One thing that the geniuses never take into account is that there are also more people on the Earth alive today than in all of past centuries combined. 4 billion human beings with a body temperature of 98.6 degrees has to have some impact on global temperature. I mean, if you have an average temperature of 60 degrees, then add a million people exhaling gases from their lungs at 98 degrees ..... well, it's bound to get warmer. I'm also kinda surprised that they never go after air conditioners. These things are basically heat pumps for the outdoors in the middle of summer. I would think that this also kelps warm things up a little. Yes ... this is facsitious ..... but not completely. It's probably about as factual as some of the climate change garbage spewed out into the atmosphere by temperature increasing blowhards full of hot air.  
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,823 Likes: 516
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,823 Likes: 516 |
They also conveniently forget to account for the temp. recording devices that sit on roof tops - right beside the air conditioners that blow hot air, or the stations that sit on asphalt, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,887
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,887 |
Or the fact that they shut down some of the Temperature Recording devices that were routinely accounting for the coldest temperatures.
But it was just to save money the fact they were the lowest temperatures was completley coincidental.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758 |
Just don't tell those in the Global Warming Religion that you don't think it's a big problem and that it's not man-made.. They'll call you dumb, stupid, a naysayer and then will go on about how bad it is that the ave temp has gone up a whole degree in 100 years.
Last edited by ~TuX~; 12/20/10 05:06 PM.
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](http://i.imgur.com/FUKyw.png) "Don't be burdened by regrets or make your failures an obsession or become embittered or possessed by ruined hopes"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,823 Likes: 516
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,823 Likes: 516 |
Quote:
Just don't tell those in the Global Warming Religion that you don't think it's a big problem and that it's not man-made.. They'll call you dumb, stupid, a naysayer and then will go on about how bad it is that the ave temp has gone up a whole degree in 100 years.
And they'll throw in big scientific words that they feel support their argument.......in a lame attempt to make you feel inferior., or a lame attempt to make them feel superior.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758 |
Quote:
Quote:
Just don't tell those in the Global Warming Religion that you don't think it's a big problem and that it's not man-made.. They'll call you dumb, stupid, a naysayer and then will go on about how bad it is that the ave temp has gone up a whole degree in 100 years.
And they'll throw in big scientific words that they feel support their argument.......in a lame attempt to make you feel inferior., or a lame attempt to make them feel superior.
well just be glad you don't live in California where they passed strict laws that will be costing every a lot of money to implement. We couldn't even get it suspended via a prop.. The opposing side kept bringing up Texas Oil Companies as if they were evil incarnate even though they employee thousands of Californians and brought up pictures of dirty smokestacks polluting the air even though the law had nothing to do with dirty air pollution, but a gas that plants breathe called CO2. And the public bought it. I loved how they kept on going about how oil companies were pumping so much money into it to make the prop to suspend the law pass whereas "green" companies, who are set to make millions from the global warming bill, spent millions more to defeat it. Not to mention Google and intel's support behind it, even though Intel is moving a lot of their facilities out of CA.
And the lovely green jobs that will prop up California.. green jobs that were still leaving California for other states with better business climates anyways..
"Don't be burdened by regrets or make your failures an obsession or become embittered or possessed by ruined hopes"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,374
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,374 |
Quote George Carlin's Hippy Dippy weatherman again.........."Ladies and Gentlemen, the weather will change off and on for a long long time to come" 
LET'S GO BROWNS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/OldSixty-Two/new0400001.jpg) [b]WOOF WOOF[b]
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,409 Likes: 461
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,409 Likes: 461 |
"Tonight's forecast: Dark. Continued dark tonight, becoming partly light in the morning." "Tomorrow's weather will be dominated by a Canadian low ...... not to be confused with a Mexican high."
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
This Quote:
Or the fact that they shut down some of the Temperature Recording devices that were routinely accounting for the coldest temperatures.
But it was just to save money the fact they were the lowest temperatures was completley coincidental.
Actually coincides with:
Quote:
They also conveniently forget to account for the temp. recording devices that sit on roof tops - right beside the air conditioners that blow hot air, or the stations that sit on asphalt, etc.
The ones that were shut down were the ones that were on the rooftops and next to A/C units etc. Also, the "bad" units on rooftops, on asphalt, etc. generally reported cooler temps on average than other "good" sites. It's been documented by citizen scientists at surfacestations.org and published in the journal of geophysical research this past year. The, paper for those that want to read it, can be found for free here. Sorry y'all, this is a falacious (a big word for ya Arch, just to make me feel better  ) argument.
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
Quote:
There is one thing that has never changed - earth has always been here.
Do you know the state of the Earth at the majority of those time periods? It's either been a ball of lava, or a frozen ball of ice. But, you're right, life, as far as the evidence has shown us, is roughly 3.5 billion years old while the Earth is roughly 4.5 billion. It's survived horrible atmospheres, huge, rapid changes, etc. and yet it's always pulled through. It's never been quite the same afterward though. If you don't mind that, then there's probably nothing to worry about  .
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,823 Likes: 516
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,823 Likes: 516 |
Quote:
The ones that were shut down were the ones that were on the rooftops and next to A/C units etc. Also, the "bad" units on rooftops, on asphalt, etc. generally reported cooler temps on average than other "good" sites.
So, the temp. collecting sites that sat by a.c.'s, and on asphalt, didn't read as high as the temp. collecting sites that sat in real nature?
I haven't read the links you gave yet - but I'm calling b.s. on that.
Next summer, walk in the grass - barefoot - on an 80 degree day - in the sun. Then take a few steps and walk on asphalt - tell me which feels hotter.
I will read your links - as long as they aren't too long - but I have a feeling they will be fallacious........Al Gore types of links.
Perhaps I'm wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,823 Likes: 516
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,823 Likes: 516 |
Tell me I'm reading that graph wrong - the first link you gave.
The way I read it is:
Class 4 (CRN4) (error >= 2C) - Artificial heating sources <10 meters.
Class 5 (CRN5) (error >= 5C) - Temperature sensor located next to/above an artificial heating source, such a building, roof top, parking lot, or concrete surface.
Those 2 classes account for 69% of the data?
And science is based on that?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
The only testing done on these sites are observational in nature. What was the amount of error at the site as opposed to a close site that would be considered "good." That's it. There's no point in reading something if you're not willing to potentially change your mind. There's no point if you can't potentially swallow your pride, and admit you were wrong. No offense Arch, but if you can't trust this study, you can't trust anything put forth by any established science. This is a very simple study from an experimentation stand point.
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,823 Likes: 516
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,823 Likes: 516 |
Quote:
It's either been a ball of lava, or a frozen ball of ice. But, you're right, life, as far as the evidence has shown us, is roughly 3.5 billion years old while the Earth is roughly 4.5 billion.
So, science says life is 3,500,000,000 years old, and the earth is 4,500,000,000 years old.
And yet 35 or so years ago science told us we were going to have an ice age. In 2000 we were told global warming was taking over - man made global warming actually - and we had less than 15 years to change it.
Now, if their has been live for 3.5 billion years on this rock - you tell me how "science" can go from ice age to man made global warming in about 30 years time. It's laughable.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,823 Likes: 516
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,823 Likes: 516 |
Quote:
The only testing done on these sites are observational in nature. What was the amount of error at the site as opposed to a close site that would be considered "good." That's it. There's no point in reading something if you're not willing to potentially change your mind. There's no point if you can't potentially swallow your pride, and admit you were wrong. No offense Arch, but if you can't trust this study, you can't trust anything put forth by any established science. This is a very simple study from an experimentation stand point.
Amazing! I'm wrong because I looked at the graph and saw that 69% of the data was collected within 10 meters of heat conducting sources????????????
As for me not being willing to change my mind by reading your graph - perhaps YOU should open your eyes to the fallacy of man made global warming. After all, you have 3,500,000,000 years of temperatures to study, right? Like the temperatures from even 50 years ago are reliable in comparison to today's temps.( the tech. gathering the temps that is)
Face it - man made global warming is a joke - a farce - a rip off of the largest magnitude. Science can't prove it - hell, 35 years ago science said we were def. headed for an ice age.
35 years ago. Now you want to say something about life being 3.5 billion years old?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
Quote:
Now, if their has been live for 3.5 billion years on this rock - you tell me how "science" can go from ice age to man made global warming in about 30 years time. It's laughable.
No if's about how old the earth is or how long life has been on it.
But, how can science go from man-made ice age to man-made warming? It's simple, more evidence was collected and showed that the previous evidence wasn't the whole story. If evidence proves a hypothesis wrong, by necessity we must change our outlook to discover the most correct explanation. Science is, was and will be about the best fit model that matches all our observations, and not about absolutes.
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
Quote:
Amazing! I'm wrong because I looked at the graph and saw that 69% of the data was collected within 10 meters of heat conducting sources????????????
I'm not sure what you're talking about here? There has to be some control in the study, 30 feet is a decent enough difference from the site so as to not bias the results with some people going hundreds of feet and others only going two.
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 413
1st String
|
|
1st String
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 413 |
Quote:
"Tonight's forecast: Dark. Continued dark tonight, becoming partly light in the morning."
"Tomorrow's weather will be dominated by a Canadian low ...... not to be confused with a Mexican high."
Good old George 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 Likes: 280
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 Likes: 280 |
Quote:
It's survived horrible atmospheres, huge, rapid changes, etc. and yet it's always pulled through. It's never been quite the same afterward though. If you don't mind that, then there's probably nothing to worry about .
There is nothing to worry about.. because there is nothing you can do about it anyway. And worrying about something you can't change is a monumental waste of time.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758 |
Quote:
The only testing done on these sites are observational in nature. What was the amount of error at the site as opposed to a close site that would be considered "good." That's it. There's no point in reading something if you're not willing to potentially change your mind. There's no point if you can't potentially swallow your pride, and admit you were wrong. No offense Arch, but if you can't trust this study, you can't trust anything put forth by any established science. This is a very simple study from an experimentation stand point.
Sorry, but that sounds exactly like what Global Warmists say when people have a differing opinion to them.. "You don't believe it?? You are against science!!!! and will never agree with anything science!" The problem is that throughout the years, science has been proven wrong... or more correctly spoken scientific theories have been proven wrong.. and yet a lot of people are spouting off theories(Global Warming as a man-made event) as fact. You can look back and see a lot of this stuff that has come and gone.. More recently it has be a link between vaccines and Autism. In the past there was a Global Cooling theory as well.. There's nothing wrong with science.. it's just that often scientific theories are wrong.. But that is what science is about.. coming up with theories, trying to work them out and see where it goes.
The issue is that some people are not as sold into the religion of Global Warming as a man-made event as others.. Climates run in cycles for a variety of reasons, maybe some of it is man-made but perhaps it's not.. Maybe we just have more accurate thermometers.. Considering that scientists use ice core samples to guess what the temp was thousands of years ago, I would have to say we have better thermometers nowadays. I just don't buy into that we are causing it.. not with the amount of Greenhouse gases being emitted compared to how much the temp has risen or might be starting to fall.
Last edited by ~TuX~; 12/20/10 07:48 PM.
"Don't be burdened by regrets or make your failures an obsession or become embittered or possessed by ruined hopes"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,363
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,363 |
If you are so sure about yourself, explain the emails that proved that the sceintists were creating a hoax. Also, there are scientists recently that again have said we could be on the edge of a small ice age.
IMO you have fallen for the hoax, and nothing will convince you otherwise. Gore is a joke and his movie has been debunked. If you still believe that the "climate change", "global warming", or what ever you call it this week is true, then I feel sorry for you. The whole thing is part of a money making scheme...period.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798 |
Quote:
From 1840 - 2007 the five warmest years according to NASA are:
1) 1934
2) 1998
3) 1921
4) 2006
5) 1931
The next five are
6) 1999
7) 1953
8) 1990
9) 1938
10) 1939
There are five years on that list before 1940 including the #1 warmest year on record.
Then throw in the fact that the planet was so warm that the Vikings lived, farmed and cultivated on Greenland before there was any kind of industrial age for over 100 years and then explain to me how there is Man Made Global Warming. For that matter explain to me what caused the Medieval Optimum and the little ice age.
I'm no scientist but there some things that don't pass the common sense detector.
All I would say to this is that science is not based on common sense or what seems right. It is based on collecting data, determining how that data is distributed, and coming up with some model as to why the data distributes that way. That model is then tested over and over again from different angles, and refined as the data dictates.
If science were based on common sense, some of the greatest theories of the modern era, including the theory of relativity, would have been cast aside b/c many of the consequences, like time dilation, don't make intuitive sense right away. But they are scientifically proven and consistent with most data to this point.
This argument above from John Coleman, using the top 10 hottest years on record, is handpicking the extremes and extrapolating that to make a new general trend. This is a big no-no in science ethics, and would get me blackballed from my profession altogether.
If global warming truly is a global event, consisting of temperatures that are rising on average over the course of several decades, then making an argument based on Greenland (a small speck on the globe), and 5 years out of the last 100 years is plain and simple as unscientific as you can get.
My personal opinion is that there is a strong scientific consensus that temperatures are rising over the course of the last 100 years. This happens to correlate with increased industrial activity. But correlation is not causation, and the relationship may not be so simple. I think it's a problem that is definitely worth more exploration.
Last edited by tjs7; 12/20/10 08:24 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 Likes: 280
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 Likes: 280 |
Quote:
All I would say to this is that science is not based on common sense or what seems right. It is based on collecting data, determining how that data is distributed, and coming up with some model as to why the data distributes that way. That model is then tested over and over again from different angles, and refined as the data dictates.
Which is exactly the problem.... the model is created by scientists who, by and large, believe that man-made global warming exists... then the tests to prove or disprove are created by scientists who generally believe that man-made global warming exists....
In perfect science the scientist is dispassionate about the results of the study.. if the data proves him right, then he is happy, if the data proves him wrong, then he is equally happy... this, from what I have seen, is NOT the approach of global warming scientists.. if the data proves them right, they are happy, if the data proves them wrong then they try to figure out what was wrong with their tests and data collection,
I won't say that all scientists are driven by money, but there would be a LOT of out of work scientists tomorrow if somehow it was proven that "global climate change" was just a naturally occuring cycle and there was NOTHING we could do about it.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798 |
Quote:
Which is exactly the problem.... the model is created by scientists who, by and large, believe that man-made global warming exists... then the tests to prove or disprove are created by scientists who generally believe that man-made global warming exists....
This is not a problem in my mind. The vast majority of the data (measured to the best of our ability) is pretty conclusive that the temperature is rising as a general, global trend. There are a number of compelling correlations that suggest that the rising temperature is man-made (although there is really no smoking gun, conclusive proof; the data is correlative). I don't know of a significant body of data that is completely inconsistent with this idea (for example, pointing to one small speck of land (Greenland) as evidence that the entire Earth was warm in medieval times is one small data point in the grand scheme of things, not a large trend). Until there is a large body of work to the contrary, it is perfectly acceptable for scientists to ascribe to the theory of man-made global warming.
Quote:
In perfect science the scientist is dispassionate about the results of the study.. if the data proves him right, then he is happy, if the data proves him wrong, then he is equally happy... this, from what I have seen, is NOT the approach of global warming scientists.. if the data proves them right, they are happy, if the data proves them wrong then they try to figure out what was wrong with their tests and data collection,
The first part is 100% true. But the second part is hard. What is the evidence that there is some massive conspiracy to perpetuate this theory in the face of overwhelming evidence that it is a hoax?
Quote:
I won't say that all scientists are driven by money, but there would be a LOT of out of work scientists tomorrow if somehow it was proven that "global climate change" was just a naturally occuring cycle and there was NOTHING we could do about it.
If that were shown, I guarantee that we will find out about it. Whoever published that convincingly would be as widely heralded in the scientific community as those who came up with the theory of man-made global warming. There are many more problems in climatology than just global warming. If this theory were convincingly disproven, then climatologists would shift to studying the effects of solar storms, the holes in the ozone layer, erosion, predicting the weather, etc.
This situation has been encountered over and over again in science. When the classical theory of mechanics was proven to not be adequate to describe atomic and subatomic behavior, scientists didn't lose their jobs. They shifted to studying the new phenonmena.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,823 Likes: 516
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,823 Likes: 516 |
Let's just establish right now there is NO MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING!!!
Okay?
The earth has cooled and warmed over and over. Golly gee - it even warmed before there were cars or industry.
How does science explain that?
And people that say "using Greenland as an example is stupid - it's just a small piece of land, etc.....", and then they say "look at the last 100 years....."
Uh, 100 years on this earth that scientists say is 4.5 billion years old????????? You wanna talk about a small sample?
Also - can we measure temp. better today than we could 500 years ago? 400 years ago?100 years ago? 30 years ago?
Remember when records were the king? Then 8 tracks? Then cassettes? Then CD's? Now it's all digital. That happened in the last 40 years. Does anyone mean to tell me that the scientific measurements of 40 years ago were as accurate as they are now?
There is NO man made global warming. Get used to it. The fad is over. Gore made his money. I distinctly remember him saying ethanol was the future, as recently as about 2002. Now? He's on record as saying "Ethanol is not the answer - when I said it was, I was running for president and I listened to the farmers in my state, and the state of Iowa. I was wrong".
Man made global warming is a money maker........but its time is up. It is not proven, will never be proven.....because it is false.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 658
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 658 |
Quote:
This situation has been encountered over and over again in science. When the classical theory of man made global warming was proven to not be adequate to describe observations, scientists didn't lose their jobs. They shifted to being paid for studying climate change.
Fixed it for you.
By any chance, did you read the recent report regarding banning smoking in public and the reduction in near term heart attack rates and deaths? "Scientists" published study after study, for years, claiming the empirical evidence was indisputable. It turns out to be false. There is no reduction in near term rates for heart attacks and mortality associated with banning smoking in public. Their claims of 30% and higher reductions were false.
link
Please note they are not saying that there is not a long term benefit, just that the reports of short term benefits are completely false.
Thomas - The Tank Engine
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,316
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,316 |
One day/week/year doesn't make a weather pattern in any direction...
I'm coming home, I'm coming home, tell the world I'm coming home
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,991
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,991 |
I still have yet to understand why people believe predictions for the next 20 years of weather when most forcasters can't predict the weather tomorrow. It's called "weather" for a reason. Most forcasters don't know whether it will be rainy, snowy, sunny, hot, or cold tomorrow.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798 |
Quote:
Let's just establish right now there is NO MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING!!!
Okay?
The earth has cooled and warmed over and over. Golly gee - it even warmed before there were cars or industry.
Show me some evidence for this. What we have as far as experimental evidence is direct measurements from the mid-1800's, as well as some indirect measurements like tree rings, coral reefs, ice cores, etc. from which we can infer temperatures back about 1000 years. And the majority of it is highly consistent with increasing temperatures over the last 100 years.
Quote:
And people that say "using Greenland as an example is stupid - it's just a small piece of land, etc.....", and then they say "look at the last 100 years....."
Uh, 100 years on this earth that scientists say is 4.5 billion years old????????? You wanna talk about a small sample?
This is simply a limitation on what we can measure. The last 1000 years is relatively easy to experimentally access. Beyond that is very difficult, if not impossible to collect data for. If you don't have global scale data for a time period, you cannot include it in a global theory. We can only deal with what we have data for, the rest is just belief. And science deals with data, not belief.
However, we do have relatively good global scale data for the last 1000 years. Cherry picking any very minute locale as evidence against the theory or for the theory is just unscientific. The theory is a global theory, not a Greenland, or England theory.
Quote:
Also - can we measure temp. better today than we could 500 years ago? 400 years ago?100 years ago? 30 years ago?
Absolutely true. Which is why I'm advocating continued research. We have very good, direct data for the last 100 years. It is consistent with man-made climate change (not proof). We would become increasingly confident (or skeptical) of the theory with more measurements over longer periods of time.
On the contrary, there is no global body of scientific data that anyone has posted here that is consistent with man-made climate change being a complete falsehood.
Quote:
There is NO man made global warming. Get used to it. The fad is over. Gore made his money. I distinctly remember him saying ethanol was the future, as recently as about 2002. Now? He's on record as saying "Ethanol is not the answer - when I said it was, I was running for president and I listened to the farmers in my state, and the state of Iowa. I was wrong".
You have provided a series of ideas for which you don't have one ounce of global scientific evidence. Forgive me if I'm going to withhold judgment until it is strictly disproven by convincing data.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758 |
Quote:
What we have as far as experimental evidence is direct measurements from the mid-1800's, as well as some indirect measurements like tree rings, coral reefs, ice cores, etc. from which we can infer temperatures back about 1000 years. And the majority of it is highly consistent with increasing temperatures over the last 100 years.
and when you are extrapolating data from tree rings, coral reefs and ice cores.. it's not exactly accurate. And who's to say we don't have better instruments or better ways to measure today than we even had 50 years ago? And there's really nothing to really say Global Warming is man-made.. You can assume and make a theory off of data showing greenhouse gases going up as well as temps going up, but that still doesn't mean that is the cause.
"Don't be burdened by regrets or make your failures an obsession or become embittered or possessed by ruined hopes"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,823 Likes: 516
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,823 Likes: 516 |
Quote:
You have provided a series of ideas for which you don't have one ounce of global scientific evidence.
And you have cited.........um........nothing that is proven as well.
Quote:
Forgive me if I'm going to withhold judgment until it is strictly disproven by convincing data.
I will forgive you. Forgive me if I continue to say man made global warming is a farce - all the top scientists in the world and they can't prove it??????
What about when the earth warmed 500 years ago, or 1000 years ago? Was that man made also? Or is it simply the nature of the beast so to speak?
I'm going to cut some ice out of my pond - you, or any scientist, come and tell me what day it froze, what the temperature was that day - or even that week........then tell me what the summer temps were here based on that ice. Okay?
Because when you say - or someone said - they take ice core samples and can tell what the temp. was, I don't believe them. And if they could do that for 50 years ago - 150 years ago, etc.........then they can do that with the ice from my pond.
You up to the challenge? After all, if science thinks it can tell us what the weather was, temps and all, based on an ice sample from 200 years ago or more - surely they can tell me all the details I want for only 4 weeks ago based on my ice, right?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798 |
Quote:
By any chance, did you read the recent report regarding banning smoking in public and the reduction in near term heart attack rates and deaths? "Scientists" published study after study, for years, claiming the empirical evidence was indisputable. It turns out to be false. There is no reduction in near term rates for heart attacks and mortality associated with banning smoking in public. Their claims of 30% and higher reductions were false.
This is an interesting finding. A couple of points. The previous studies are not "false" while this study is "true." It is never that simple, especially with multivariable outcomes like myocardial infarction (diet, air pollution, unemployment rate, weather, general stress level, distribution of age of population, etc., etc.).
For example, in a particular region, with a particular set of variables and a high incidence of risk factors, smoking bans may lead to short term reductions in the rate of infarction. In those particular regions, the bans may have a positive effect.
This data set argues that when you take all the data together at the national level, all the regions showing positive effects are balanced by regions showing no effects or negative effects. That doesn't mean that for specific regions, there aren't positive effects.
You are getting hung up on thinking that there has to be a "right" and "wrong" answer. But as with many things, what is right for Ohio may not be right for Montana, or the nation as a whole.
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Another global warming prediction
gone wrong
|
|
![[Linked Image from s2.excoboard.com]](http://s2.excoboard.com/forums/25521/user/302752/484538.gif)