Page 2 of 24 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 477

Thread: Global Warming? I don't know what to believe.

  1. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by ddavis View Post
    So 'just sayin' - saying what?
    I'm saying people cook the books to match their agenda.


  2. # ADS
    Circuit advertisement
    Join Date
    Always
    Location
    Advertising world
    Posts
    Many
     

  3. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Iceaxe View Post
    I'm saying people cook the books to match their agenda.
    So you are accusing these guys of falsifying their data. Because you believe that everyone does. Including you? There are direct personal economic impacts to data you generate and the results of models you run. Is that what you do? Cook your books to match your agenda?

    To be clear, I have absolutely no evidence of any kind that you falsify data in your work. And my assumption is that you don't. There is not a more serious accusation that you can make against researchers - and yours is a blanket accusation without any specifics, without a shred of evidence. Your only basis is to claim 'everyone does it'. Well, as far as data from the hard sciences is concerned - bullshit. Falsifying data does happen, but it is very rare, and in the few cases I have heard about, there's only one person involved, and he has to hold on to his raw data so no one else can see it. As soon as the fake data gets out, it gets discovered. It's hard to fake physical data, and it's nearly impossible when there are literally hundreds of people who access, review and use it.

    NASA is not the only organization generating global temperature data. There are several countries and universities all over the globe generating their own data. Are you seriously suggesting that all of those organizations and people (numbering in the thousands) are 'cooking their books'? And they are doing it in such a way that they are getting results consistent with each other? Really?
    Deb

  4. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by Iceaxe View Post
    And I guess I'll respond to your graphic too, at least to point out that statistics=/=data. The data you are claiming is faked is just data. No statistics involved. Statistics don't get involved until the data are analyzed. But you weren't attacking the analysis, you were attacking the data.
    Deb

  5. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by ddavis View Post
    In my world, 'show me don't tell me' means I want to see your derivations and your math. That supposes I have the background necessary to understand those derivations and the math. And that I have the background to understand the processes involved in developing the principles involved (ie, the scientific method).
    What do you mean by 'show, don't tell'?
    With all due respect Ms. Davis, you're obviously quite smart and I'm not trying to troll you in any way, but perhaps you could slow down a bit and re-read my post.

    I don't have the ability to bust out any math, equations, data or input processes. My view of the world is similar to that Dylan song "You don't need a weatherman to tell you which way the wind blows".

    In other words, all this scientific data doesn't mean squat to me when every summer and winter for my entire life there has been little variation from what is perceived by me to be normal weather. You know how they say "Weather is local"?...the last two summers here in Denver haven't had a day go over 100 degrees, whereas back in the drought years it got quite toasty a few times. There's plenty of snow in the mountains...no shortage of water around here.

    It's hard to believe that the "science is settled" when you simply don't see or feel it. Also, it has become clear to many that what you hear and read in regards to this may come with an agenda...considering the unfulfilled predictions of catastrophe one way or another.

    This thread asked a question that no one here can answer, so what's posted here is straight up opinion...different takes on reality, right?

    I'm not even going to try to match wits with you on this, and quite frankly I feel sorry for anybody else who does. You're operating from a place that invites argument...I'm just looking out the window.
    Philosophy, is the top of a cereal box
    Religion, is a smile on a dog

  6. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by twotimer View Post
    With all due respect Ms. Davis, you're obviously quite smart and I'm not trying to troll you in any way, but perhaps you could slow down a bit and re-read my post.
    It wouldn't be the first time put my foot in my mouth because I didn't read something carefully enough. However in this case, my question to you was an honest one. I didn't understand what you were trying to get at, in part because what you said means something different to me. That's why I asked. And if I understand what you are saying here, you are very skeptical because you don't see anything going on in your backyard (to paraphrase a bit).

    I'm not entirely sure how to respond here. I suspect that nearly anything I say will come across as a lecture, and I am not interested in doing that. So I will just link to a report I found:

    http://cwcb.state.co.us/environment/...rtOnePager.pdf

    This is just the executive summary; there's a link to the full report in the summary. I haven't read the report, but it looks like Colorado water managers are looking for what to expect due to warming. It seems kind of interesting.
    Deb

  7. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by rockgremlin View Post
    This again?

    I think there's gotta be close to a dozen threads about global warming on this forum. A quick surf through the environmental section should pull up a bunch.
    To be fair, we should create a new thread every time the terminology changes, from Global Warming, to Global Cooling, to Climate Change. We would hate to lump all of the different hypothesis over the years into 1 thread, that would be unfair to the settled scientists.

  8. Likes twotimer liked this post
  9. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by ddavis View Post
    http://cwcb.state.co.us/environment/...rtOnePager.pdf

    This is just the executive summary; there's a link to the full report in the summary. I haven't read the report, but it looks like Colorado water managers are looking for what to expect due to warming. It seems kind of interesting.
    This is exactly what I'm talking about...this report makes predictions for the year 2050, and right now, as well as recent years, we've epic snow in the mountains. Everything above 6500' is buried. Fifteen years ago they were insisting that we'd be all dried up by now.

    Are you familiar with the National Geographic article "The Drying of the West"? Now THAT is interesting. Check it out.

    When I first started hiking in southern Utah is the late 80s, it was "assumed" as I read, that during the time of the Anasazi, it was much wetter, allowing them to thrive until the drought hit.

    Turns out that it was considerably DRYER than it is now! The tree rings tell the story. When that drought hit, it must have been a whopper. The Escalante River is hardly much of a flow now...I can imagine that's why so few lived along it back then. The largest concentration of Anasazi in Glen Canyon were up on Cummings Mesa, just west of Navajo Mountain...they stuck close to the big rivers. They also built dams...I've seen the remnants of them up on that mesa and in tributaries of Bowdie Canyon.

    Anyway, if the Colorado River starts flowing like it's historical average, then the lower basin states (at least) are in real trouble. It's been flowing above average for more than 100 years.

    I'm not disputing that the earth may (or is) warming..."anthropogenic" is the key word that puts me on my heels about it.
    Philosophy, is the top of a cereal box
    Religion, is a smile on a dog

  10. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by twotimer View Post
    This is exactly what I'm talking about...this report makes predictions for the year 2050, and right now, as well as recent years, we've epic snow in the mountains.
    Then we both need to read more carefully. From the summary I linked to: "In Colorado, temperatures have increased by approximately 2ºF between 1977 and 2006. Increasing temperatures are affecting the state’s water resources." "Between 1978 and 2004, the spring pulse (the onset of stream flows from melting snow) in Colorado has shifted earlier by two weeks. Several studies suggest that shifts in timing and intensity of stream flows are related to warming spring temperatures."

    Of course the report focuses on the future, because that's the information water managers need to figure out what to plan for. But there is also information on current impacts. The changes may be smaller than you can feel, but they are big enough to measure.
    Deb

  11. #29
    two subjects come out of this.

    First - the earth is more dynamic than I was led to believe as a child 50 years ago. In Alaska, the treeline is marching north over what used to be tundra as climate does change.

    Second - looks like folks will be arguing for at least another decade about mankind's impact, or lack thereof, on climate change.

    Third - climate change won't matter because we will likely have killed off everything we eat first.

  12. #30
    I think at this stage the fact that the earth is warming is irrefutable. If you don't believe it you might be in denial.

    That said, I like to carry the discussion forward to address what the source of that warming is, and what (If anything) we can do about it.

  13. Likes Brian in SLC liked this post
  14. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by rockgremlin View Post
    That said, I like to carry the discussion forward to address what the source of that warming is, and what (If anything) we can do about it.
    I can't help much with policy or mitigation (although I might be able to provide some links), but maybe I can with the other. What do you want to know?
    Deb

  15. #32
    http://thebulletin.org/sites/default/files/Final%202017%20Clock%20Statement.pdf

    Excerpt:

    To: Leaders and citizens of the world

    Re: It is 30 seconds closer to midnight
    Date: January 26, 2017

    Over the course of 2016, the global security landscape darkened as the international community failed to come effectively to grips with humanity’s most pressing existential threats, nuclear weapons and climate change.


    The United States and Russia—which together possess more than 90 percent of the world’s nuclear weapons—remained at odds in a variety of theaters, from Syria to Ukraine to the borders of NATO; both countries continued wide-ranging modernizations of their nuclear forces, and serious arms control negotiations were nowhere to be seen. North Korea conducted its fourth and fifth underground nuclear tests and gave every indication it would continue to develop nuclear weapons delivery capabilities. Threats of nuclear warfare hung in the background as Pakistan and India faced each other warily across the Line of Control in Kashmir after militants attacked two Indian army bases.


    The climate change outlook was somewhat less dismal—but only somewhat. In the wake of the landmark Paris climate accord, the nations of the world have taken some actions to combat climate change, and global carbon dioxide emissions were essentially flat in 2016, compared to the previous year. Still, they have not yet started to decrease; the world continues to warm. Keeping future temperatures at less-than-catastrophic levels requires reductions in greenhouse gas emissions far beyond those agreed to in Paris—yet little appetite for additional cuts was in evidence at the November climate conference in Marrakech.


    This already-threatening world situation was the backdrop for a rise in strident nationalism worldwide in 2016, including in a US presidential campaign during which the eventual victor, Donald Trump, made disturbing comments about the use and proliferation of nuclear weapons and expressed disbelief in the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change.


    The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Science and Security Board takes a broad and international view of existential threats to humanity, focusing on long-term trends. Because of that perspective, the statements of a single person—particularly one not yet in office—have not historically influenced the board’s decision on the setting of the Doomsday Clock.


    But wavering public confidence in the democratic institutions required to deal with major world threats do affect the board’s decisions. And this year, events surrounding the US presidential campaign—including cyber offensives and deception campaigns apparently directed by the Russian government and aimed at disrupting the US election—have brought American democracy and Russian intentions into question and thereby
    made the world more dangerous than was the case a year ago.

    For these reasons, the Science and Security Board of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists has decided to move the minute hand of the Doomsday Clock 30 seconds closer to catastrophe. It is now two minutes and 30 seconds to midnight.

  16. #33
    "...carbon dioxide emissions were essentially flat in 2016..."

    "...the world continues to warm."

    Correlation does not imply causation.
    hu·bris
    /(h)yo͞obrəs/

    noun

    1. A personality quality of extreme or foolish pride.
    2. Dangerous overconfidence, often combined with arrogance.



  17. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by rockgremlin View Post
    "...carbon dioxide emissions were essentially flat in 2016..."


    "...the world continues to warm."


    Correlation does not imply causation.

    For me, the question of causation is irrelevant. What’s relevant is that it is happening, and is exacerbated by carbon emissions. There are essentially 3 approaches to dealing with this (and nearly any situation):

    A - Escape from the situation
    B - Change the situation
    C - Accept the situation (i.e. take no action)

    For most of the world, A is not physically possible (although many engage in denial); C ranges from difficult to impossible, which leaves us with B. This is the question we should all be focusing on. Even those who get hung up in the causation question can acknowledge that it’s happening and that it demands an urgent response.

    With a snake in your bed, do you first argue about how it got there?

  18. Likes rockgremlin liked this post
  19. #35
    Bogley BigShot oldno7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    We're all here, because we ain't all there.
    Posts
    10,687
    D- the situation is only in your mind, carry on, have a beer and relax


    but hey--if you can change the situation, send some warming to my snowpacked driveway, i'd be grateful.
    I'm not Spartacus


    Boycotting imlay canyon gear because I value access

    Professional Mangler of Grammar

    Guns don't kill people--Static Ropes Do!!

    Who Is John Galt?

  20. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by hank moon View Post
    For me, the question of causation is irrelevant. What’s relevant is that it is happening, and is exacerbated by carbon emissions. There are essentially 3 approaches to dealing with this (and nearly any situation):

    A - Escape from the situation
    B - Change the situation
    C - Accept the situation (i.e. take no action)

    For most of the world, A is not physically possible (although many engage in denial); C ranges from difficult to impossible, which leaves us with B. This is the question we should all be focusing on. Even those who get hung up in the causation question can acknowledge that it’s happening and that it demands an urgent response.

    With a snake in your bed, do you first argue about how it got there?
    Hmmm...I came here to argue with you and ended up liking your post instead. Went from 'Murican to Canadian in 16 seconds.
    hu·bris
    /(h)yo͞obrəs/

    noun

    1. A personality quality of extreme or foolish pride.
    2. Dangerous overconfidence, often combined with arrogance.



  21. #37
    Bogley BigShot oldno7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    We're all here, because we ain't all there.
    Posts
    10,687
    - In the 1970’s scientists were predicting a new ice age, and had 60 theories to explain it.: Ukiah Daily Journal 0 November 20, 1974 - "The cooling trend heralds the start of another ice age, of a duration that could last from 200 years to several millenia...Sixty theories have been advanced, he said, to explain the global cooling period."


    For those who actually experienced the non-mythological cooling scare during the 1960s and 1970s (that has since been made to disappear from graphs), the consequences of the -0.5° Northern Hemispheric cooling (especially) were frequently discussed in scientific publications. There were geoengineering strategies proposed by scientists to melt Arctic sea ice. Droughts and floods and extreme weather anomalies/variability were blamed on the ongoing global cooling. Glaciers were advancing, even surging at accelerated rates during this period. Sea ice growth and severe Arctic cooling meant that the oceans were much less navigable. Crop growth and food production slowed as the Earth cooled, which was of great concern to world governments. Severe winters in the 1960s and 1970s led many climatologists to assume that the Earth was returning to an 1800s-like Little Ice Age climate. Observations of mammals migrating to warmer climates during the 1960s and 1970s due to the colder temperatures were reported in scientific papers.


    http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/09/...fic-consensus/
    I'm not Spartacus


    Boycotting imlay canyon gear because I value access

    Professional Mangler of Grammar

    Guns don't kill people--Static Ropes Do!!

    Who Is John Galt?

  22. Likes rockgremlin liked this post
  23. #38
    Bogley BigShot oldno7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    We're all here, because we ain't all there.
    Posts
    10,687
    http://notrickszone.com/285-papers-7....sfohXaqD.dpbs

    285 scientific papers, espousing global cooling from the 60's 70's 80's.
    I'm not Spartacus


    Boycotting imlay canyon gear because I value access

    Professional Mangler of Grammar

    Guns don't kill people--Static Ropes Do!!

    Who Is John Galt?

  24. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by oldno7 View Post
    http://notrickszone.com/285-papers-7....sfohXaqD.dpbs

    285 scientific papers, espousing global cooling from the 60's 70's 80's.
    I've always been curious how the stalwart global warming sympathizers explain this phenomenon.

    Likewise, how to explain the warming events the earth went through back in pre-industrial times when NOBODY was burning fossil fuels.
    hu·bris
    /(h)yo͞obrəs/

    noun

    1. A personality quality of extreme or foolish pride.
    2. Dangerous overconfidence, often combined with arrogance.



  25. #40
    Bogley BigShot oldno7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    We're all here, because we ain't all there.
    Posts
    10,687
    Quote Originally Posted by rockgremlin View Post
    I've always been curious how the stalwart global warming sympathizers explain this phenomenon.

    Likewise, how to explain the warming events the earth went through back in pre-industrial times when NOBODY was burning fossil fuels.
    It's easy to explain if there is no $$$ involved.

    the EPA does not have scientists doing science. they have political operatives with degrees in sciences doing propaganda.
    I'm not Spartacus


    Boycotting imlay canyon gear because I value access

    Professional Mangler of Grammar

    Guns don't kill people--Static Ropes Do!!

    Who Is John Galt?

Similar Threads

  1. [News] Global Warming is now Against the Law
    By rockgremlin in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-05-2016, 05:44 AM
  2. The truth about global warming
    By chickenlicken in forum The Political Arena
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 12-08-2007, 08:25 AM
  3. With Regards to Global Warming
    By Iceaxe in forum Environmental Issues
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 08-22-2007, 07:46 AM
  4. Why don't you believe in Global Warming?
    By DiscGo in forum Environmental Issues
    Replies: 54
    Last Post: 05-24-2007, 07:09 AM
  5. Global Warming
    By Sombeech in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 67
    Last Post: 01-15-2007, 06:42 PM

Visitors found this page by searching for:

Outdoor Forum

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •