Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
DirtyThirdFrog

Chicago: Coldest 4 months on record

Recommended Posts

Cute website

Links to the NOAA conclusions were provided. Used that site to provide a more distilled interpretation.

Again, what is the more convincing evidence? This, or a cold winter in Chicago?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Links to the NOAA conclusions were provided. Used that site to provide a more distilled interpretation.

Again, what is the more convincing evidence? This, or a cold winter throughout the entire Continent of North America?

 

FIFY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FIFY

Which constitutes about 5% of the earths surface. What is going on with the other 95% is important, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which constitutes about 5% of the earths surface. What is going on with the other 95% is important, too.

 

Didn't say it wasn't... you can't discount either.

 

 

 

I personally believe that there are forces (read: $$$) who have been pimping this for a while now. Back in 1970 (during the first "Earth Day") you had Harvard Biologist, Stanford Biologist, Ecologist, etc. Telling us that by the 1980's we would be SCREWED. It's 2014. They are still saying the same thing. Just as the left likes to say that the right fear mongers with their gun and religious talk. I think the same can be said for the left and their climate doom and gloom talk.

 

Is the climate changing? Absolutely. It has ALWAYS been static. Has it not? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DTF, if you didn't see this past Sunday's Cosmos, I encourage you to watch. It touched on a lot of the basic science on why we should be worried about what is happening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*Newf feverishly typing up some long winded response to DTF to make him sound foolish*

NFF is so silly. He doesn't realise he doesn't have to be long winded to make you sound silly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NFF is so silly. He doesn't realise he doesn't have to be long winded to make you sound silly.

 

That's what I'm saying... My brain hurts when I try to read all that intellectual mumbo jumbo. I went to TCU. Not Baylor. Cut me some slack here.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DTF, if you didn't see this past Sunday's Cosmos, I encourage you to watch. It touched on a lot of the basic science on why we should be worried about what is happening.

 

I'll give it a whirl... but I'm still convinced that it is 99% politically driven.

 

Hell. They can't even get the name right.

 

"Climate Disruption" now? MMmmmmmkkkkkk

 

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2014/05/06/report-uses-phrase-climate-disruption-as-another-way-to-say-global-warming/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's what I'm saying... My brain hurts when I try to read all that intellectual mumbo jumbo. I went to TCU. Not Baylor. Cut me some slack here.

Actually Baylor had some really top psych stats people in the late 70s. Don't know about now. I thought about taking a postdoc there a bit.

 

Odd I was just playing with some Monte Carlo models of starting from a local max 18 years back and going from there last night. I don't have time to write up a long winded entry, but suffice it to say that those who keep repeating the mantra "there has been no warming since 17.6 years ago simply do not understand statistics. Or, are following the blog entries of those who do, in fact, understand statistics and are using that knowledge to confuse and obfuscate a la white lead, HFCs, tobacco, asbestos etc., etc., etc. The methods used are always the same and in fact the specific actors used are often the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually Baylor had some really top psych stats people in the late 70s. Don't know about now. I thought about taking a postdoc there a bit.

 

My mom wouldn't let me go to college for a "soft" skill major :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My mom wouldn't let me go to college for a "soft" skill major :)

They were also, like TCU stats of the time, "linked" with, shall we say, with certain governmental organizations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll give it a whirl... but I'm still convinced that it is 99% politically driven.

Hell. They can't even get the name right.

"Climate Disruption" now? MMmmmmmkkkkkk

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2014/05/06/report-uses-phrase-climate-disruption-as-another-way-to-say-global-warming/

The relative political motivation of any one individual making a claim, while relevant in distinguishing bias, is also largely just an excuse to not have to listen. The deniers have ample political and financial motivation too. What should concern you more as a college educated individual is who has the science on their side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The relative political motivation of any one individual making a claim, while relevant in distinguishing bias, is also largely just an excuse to not have to listen. The deniers have ample political and financial motivation too. What should concern you more as a college educated individual is who has the science on their side.

 

5 out of 10 scientist agree!!!

 

 

Again. Lets go back to the original earth day. We were supposed to be baked to a crisp by 1986... I was born in 1986. I'm 27 now. Do the math.

 

 

At what point to people admit they were wrong? We will all be dead before that happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 out of 10 scientist agree!!!

 

 

Again. Lets go back to the original earth day. We were supposed to be baked to a crisp by 1986... I was born in 1986. I'm 27 now. Do the math.

 

 

At what point to people admit they were wrong? We will all be dead before that happens.

Wrong about what? What specific scientific points do you disagree with? (Not politicians.) What scientific journal article predicted you'd fry any time soon?

 

Yes we'll all be dead before the harm we are in the process of doing really causes the greatest harm for our children. But is that really a reason to do nothing? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wrong about it being a dire issue...

 

Yes climate is changing. It always has been. Always will be. My entire issue is the alarmist blaming EVERYTHING on global warming. Literally. President Obama is making it his number one issue.

 

Ever seen Dr. John Bringnell's list of links to news reports linking various contradictory phenomena to global warming? It was over 600. And that was in 2005!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wrong about it being a dire issue...

 

Yes climate is changing. It always has been. Always will be. My entire issue is the alarmist blaming EVERYTHING on global warming. Literally. President Obama is making it his number one issue.

 

Ever seen Dr. John Bringnell's list of links to news reports linking various contradictory phenomena to global warming? It was over 600. And that was in 2005!!!

Blaming everything on global warming is scientifically wrong. Any scientist would agree. That said, many "links" are far, far stronger than, say, Osama's "links" to al-Qaeda!  This overstatement is a political point every bit as much as those made by the obfuscators. But I think you'll find the politics in the peer reviewed lit and IPCC far, far overstated by political opponents of the results. This is for the simple reason that reproducible results are publishable regardless of politics.

 

That climate has always changed is precisely zero reason to fail to come to grips with what we are doing. One might as well argue that since "fires have always occurred" there is no reason to put out a fire you accidentally through your actions set in your house.

 

Re. your list, what does the science literature say? Not news reports (if you're looking for truly inaccurate reports on climate in the news, look no further than Fox), not politicians, not green groups, not oil groups, none of them, but rather the science lit. Well, it points out a number of linkages that appear with some probability to be actually happening. And you can go and verify if you want to take the time and energy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes the climate has changed throughout Earth's history. The reasons why it has always changed and the results that change (particularly when rapid) had on life on this planet are precisely why the "fear mongers" are worried.

And if you can point to literature back around the advent of Earth Day claiming we were all going to fry by now, I'd like to see it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was 21 in 1986.

Dont remember nobody talking about being burnt to a crisp.

Or at anytime previous to that.

And I was a northerner in FW. Burning was a real thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think they were predicting that we were all going to freeze to death back then...or starve to death.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes the climate has changed throughout Earth's history. The reasons why it has always changed and the results that change (particularly when rapid) had on life on this planet are precisely why the "fear mongers" are worried.

And if you can point to literature back around the advent of Earth Day claiming we were all going to fry by now, I'd like to see it.

 

 

I was 21 in 1986.

Dont remember nobody talking about being burnt to a crisp.

Or at anytime previous to that.

And I was a northerner in FW. Burning was a real thing.

 

 

http://www.freedomworks.org/content/13-worst-predictions-made-earth-day-1970?social=twitter_share

 

 

Here's a preview: So yes. These predictions by the "expert" smarty pants scientist are nothing new.

 

 

1.      "Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind." - Harvard biologist George Wald

2.      "We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation." - Washington University biologist Barry Commoner

3.      "Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction." - New York Times editorial

4.      "Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years." - Stanford University biologist Paul Ehrlich

5.      "Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born... [by 1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s." - Paul Ehrlich

6.      "It is already too late to avoid mass starvation," - Denis Hayes, Chief organizer for Earth Day

 

 I like #6. Funny. The cover of nat geo this month was all about food too :)

ngm_may_2014_cvr-275x400.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.freedomworks.org/content/13-worst-predictions-made-earth-day-1970?social=twitter_share

 

 

Here's a preview: So yes. These predictions by the "expert" smarty pants scientist are nothing new.

 

 

 I like #6. Funny. The cover of nat geo this month was all about food too :)

ngm_may_2014_cvr-275x400.jpg

Now look in the peer reviewed literature. That would be where you would look for what is accepted as science if you were interested in what acceptable science actually is at any particular time. Erlich, presented one view in it, however many opposing views were also presented within the literature that countered his views. This is not what you are seeing here.

 

Bloggers constantly are trying to obfuscate things, but the literature actually is there should you care to look at it rather than accept what you read uncritically. For example, re. cooling in the 60s 1) cooling is, in fact, a real effect of SO2, 2) about 2 research groups pointed this out, 3) it turns out that acid rain effects of SO2 are much more immediately damaging and so many, many research groups pointed these effects out, 4) people could see their own forests and lakes dying and so 5) SO2 was reduced in various ways in many countries around the world (though China still needs to work on it). The real answer here, you see, is complex and takes many lines and is not suitable for a single bolded headline.

 

Re. overpopulation, there is no question but that overpopulation relative to carrying capacity is at the base of many historical conflicts. Focusing on term of the equation to the exclusion of the other is a clear mistake. It was Erlich's mistake. Basically, he missed the Green Revolution which changed carrying capacity around the world dramatically at about the time he was writing. Others in the literature pointed this out. The Simon-Erlich wager in Social Sciences Quarterly is a famous example of this. Google it. Erlich was clearly identified in the science community as an alarmist which is why most of his alarmist publications were in popular sources. You will not find the equivalent wager in the literature over warming, though you might have some decades ago. Some people almost got Lindtzen to enter into one, for example, a decade ago but he would only do so if the wager was qualified so many ways it was impossible to lose. And he wanted 50-1 odds which clearly states his real view more than anything else ever has.

 

But unless the Earth is an open system, which all evidence says it is not, overpopulation cannot continue forever at compound expansion. All you need to do is look at a Petri dish full of bacteria to see this. China knows this from history--it is very clear in their records which why when the tech became available the Chinese went the way they did. Their birth rate is presently 1.7/female so it will eventually drop in a couple of decades if present policies continue. India is 2.8/female which is going to be unsustainable soon enough. They will want to "spread out" at some point.

 

According to the FAO, about a billion people are suffering "chronic malnourishment" at the moment. I don't know if that qualifies as "mass starvation" in your estimation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This whole argument leaves me cold. Or hot, depending on your politics and which experts you find credible. What everyone should be able to agree on is that the climate is changing (as it always seems to) and it is likely (if unproven to a few folks) that mankind is somewhat responsible (how much is debatable). The political argument is what, if anything, we can do about it. Or even if we should. If you live in Wichita Falls, which is about to start recycling bathroom waste water because of the drought, you might feel that SOMETHING should be attempted, at least.

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...