- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Snow on the ground in all 50 states, climate change is being downgraded
Posted on 1/18/18 at 8:52 am to slackster
Posted on 1/18/18 at 8:52 am to slackster
quote:
Cherry pick data much? See how your chart starts in the year 1850? Think that’s just a coincidence? Ever hear of such a thing as the little ice age? Of course your chart is going to show an ever growing trend of warming if you just so happen by chance to start your chart at the exact time the planet is just starting to emerge out of a fricking ice age.
2
Posted on 1/18/18 at 8:56 am to DarthRebel
2.8C is still a lot though in a relatively short period.
And there is a difference between weather events and climate
And there is a difference between weather events and climate
Posted on 1/18/18 at 9:04 am to Darth_Vader
First off, the last ice age ended about 10,000 years ago. So to say that the earth just emerged out of an ice age in 1850 is just ridiculous.
What you should be concerned about is the rate of change. Of course the earth goes through warming and cooling periods, but we have never seen such a rapid change in temperature in such a short time period (i.e. what the chart is showing you).
What you should be concerned about is the rate of change. Of course the earth goes through warming and cooling periods, but we have never seen such a rapid change in temperature in such a short time period (i.e. what the chart is showing you).
Posted on 1/18/18 at 9:06 am to Salmon
quote:That seems to be the trend in climate change studies. Explain what you mean please.
None of this is accurate.
Posted on 1/18/18 at 9:09 am to DarthRebel
let's take a look in this thread for some good discussi....
....nope
....nope
Posted on 1/18/18 at 9:09 am to slackster
quote:
always find it comical how people look at regional weather as proof for or against global warming.
It should be comical, but when you see prominent politicians and govt. officials getting out there blaming global warming on hurricanes, forest fires, and droughts on climate change and correlates that with the need for govt. to raise taxes, subsidize their friends, and change out way of life; I quit laughing.
Posted on 1/18/18 at 9:09 am to Emiliooo
quote:How far back do the temperature charts go? A 164 year chart is extremely limited.
What you should be concerned about is the rate of change. Of course the earth goes through warming and cooling periods, but we have never seen such a rapid change in temperature in such a short time period (i.e. what the chart is showing you).
Posted on 1/18/18 at 9:16 am to The Mick
quote:
Explain what you mean please.
It was the NOAA. The study was found to be accurate. There was no data manipulation.
The only controversy was the rush to publication and even that was cleared up.
quote:
“The issue here is not an issue of tampering with data, but rather really of timing of a release of a paper that had not properly disclosed everything it was,” he told reporter Scott Waldman. And Bates told ScienceInsider that he is wary of his critique becoming a talking point for those skeptical of human-caused climate change. But it was important for this conversation about data integrity to happen, he says. “That’s where I came down after a lot of soul searching. I knew people would misuse this. But you can't control other people,” he says.
LINK
Posted on 1/18/18 at 9:16 am to The Mick
I agree that a 160+ year old chart is limited, but there is tons of data on the history of the earth's temperatures from studying ice cores. Ice cores are pretty much earth's internal bookkeeper, they hold tons of information about the earth.
I suggest you read up on the relative change of temperatures over the course of millennia and then look at the past 160+ years.
I suggest you read up on the relative change of temperatures over the course of millennia and then look at the past 160+ years.
Posted on 1/18/18 at 9:16 am to Emiliooo
quote:
First off, the last ice age ended about 10,000 years ago. So to say that the earth just emerged out of an ice age in 1850 is just ridiculous
Educate yourself, fool.
quote:
The Little Ice Age (LIA) was a period of cooling that occurred after the Medieval Warm Period.[1] Although it was not a true ice age, the term was introduced into scientific literature by François E. Matthes in 1939.[2] It has been conventionally defined as a period extending from the 16th to the 19th centuries,[3][4][5] but some experts prefer an alternative timespan from about 1300[6] to about 1850
LINK
Again, as I said, of course your chart will show a warming trend if you start your chart at the end of a fricking ice age.
Posted on 1/18/18 at 9:17 am to The Mick
quote:scientists can figure out temperatures from a long long time ago
How far back do the temperature charts go? A 164 year chart is extremely limited.
Posted on 1/18/18 at 9:21 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
Cherry pick data much? See how your chart starts in the year 1850? Think that’s just a coincidence?
It isn't a "coincidence". That is when the instrumental record for temperature begins.
Posted on 1/18/18 at 9:21 am to Pilot Tiger
Serious question, how do ice cores gathered at the poles give accurate knowledge of global temperatures?
This post was edited on 1/18/18 at 9:22 am
Posted on 1/18/18 at 9:23 am to DarthRebel
quote:
voids worst-case UN climate change predictions.
There wasn't much of a chance of that ever happening anyway.
Posted on 1/18/18 at 9:23 am to cssamerican
Posted on 1/18/18 at 9:25 am to DarthRebel
Does Al Gore have to return his 2007 Nobel Peace Prize
Posted on 1/18/18 at 9:25 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
Again, as I said, of course your chart will show a warming trend if you start your chart at the end of a fricking ice age.
Unlike the chart you posted?
Posted on 1/18/18 at 9:26 am to cssamerican
quote:
Serious question, how do ice cores gathered at the poles give accurate knowledge of global temperatures?
O-18/O-16 ratios. It's actually pretty simple stuff that any engineer/scientist that has taken a basic thermal dynamics class can understand.
But, since you didn't want to look it up, here you go: LINK
Posted on 1/18/18 at 9:29 am to Pilot Tiger
quote:
When we see pictures of dinosaurs basking in tropical heat or wooly mammoths shivering in an ice-covered tundra, how do we know that they lived in such climates? We can tell indirectly from sediments and deposits laid down during these periods. The presence of tropical plant and animal remains at the polar latitudes indicate that significantly warmer conditions must have existed as compared to today. Conversely, the absence of tree pollen in the tundra probably means that conditions were too cold for trees to grow.
I get that. But that doesn’t tell me if it was .8 degrees warmer in 800 BC versus 900 BC. We calling it doom and gloom because we have warmed .8 degrees over a 100 year period and we say that’s never happened. How do we know this isn’t normal? My pine trees ain’t dying over a .8 degree change, he’ll they probably won’t die with a 5 degree change.
Posted on 1/18/18 at 9:31 am to slackster
Just put 0 at a time when the temp of the earth was up near where we are now and we can make it seem like 1850-1900 temps pulled at the fabric of civilization due to extreme cold.
Or stretch that out 10,000 years and that part of the chart looks like a straight line.
Or stretch that out 10,000 years and that part of the chart looks like a straight line.
Page 3 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News