- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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: 2014 May = warmest on record.
Posted on 6/19/14 at 3:39 pm to BobBoucher
Posted on 6/19/14 at 3:39 pm to BobBoucher
quote:
The drastic rise is likely to continue.
I have yet to see any real evidence to support this, especially since there has not been a drastic rise for the last 20 years or whatever it has been. Wouldn't that point towards this:
quote:
Sure, but for us to continue to be ok, it would require the drastic rise pattern to suddenly cease and the more steady rise pattern to resume
Obviously, it is too small of a data set to be conclusive, but to say the drastic rise is likely to continue doesn't seem entirely accurate.
This post was edited on 6/19/14 at 3:41 pm
0
Posted on 6/19/14 at 3:40 pm to BobBoucher
quote:
Perhaps the cause is debatable.
You answered your own point.
Posted on 6/19/14 at 3:44 pm to BobBoucher
quote:
1000 times higher than normal due to deforestation,
do you notice we have more forests than we use to due to replanting and such?
before I really get into this I want to see the boards comments on climate gate the apparent hiding of the decline which attempted to cover up a deviation of the proxies from the actual data, which would make the proxies unreliable. There have been other proxies which show a medieval warm period which got hotter than we are now. If this is the case we have nothing to worry about.
Posted on 6/19/14 at 3:46 pm to BobBoucher
quote:Not exactly. Water vapor, temperature, and heat capacity are all initmately related. They are not independent of each other. Google psychrometric chart.
agreed. so if the average global temp rises by 1 degree for any given decade, then the atmosphere has the capacity to hold slightly more water vapor. But it doesnt necessarily mean that it will unless theres a larger and more uniform increase in global temp.
Posted on 6/19/14 at 3:48 pm to catholictigerfan
quote:
do you notice we have more forests than we use to due to replanting and such?
before I really get into this I want to see the boards comments on climate gate the apparent hiding of the decline which attempted to cover up a deviation of the proxies from the actual data, which would make the proxies unreliable. There have been other proxies which show a medieval warm period which got hotter than we are now. If this is the case we have nothing to worry about.
fair enough. But just becuase we replant a few trees and some grass when we develop a neighborhood doesnt mean were restoring the biodivirsity. (i dont want to hijack this thread - its simply indisputable that its happening. In large, its unrelated to GW/CC though)
This post was edited on 6/19/14 at 3:49 pm
Posted on 6/19/14 at 3:51 pm to BobBoucher
quote:I'm not sure what you mean by "is Ok". It's not like we have the ability to grant permission for the temperature to change...
two things. your statement asserts the graph is ok, because we ended up where we were originally on track to be
quote:Climate is a system with VERY little momentum. It can be 80F one day and 50F the next. Hell it change that much in the same day.
it would require the drastic rise pattern to suddenly cease and the more steady rise pattern to resume....The drastic rise is likely to continue.
quote:A 1.7 degree (on average) temperature change doesn't require much adaptation. Temperature varies far more than that on a daily, and often an hourly basis.
and second, history shows that the planets biology does not adapt well to sudden climate changes.
quote:Dramatic?
These are the types of changes that have led to the mass extictions throughout the planets history.
quote:In this case, it would open up longer growing seasons allowing more food production. Keeping in mind we already pay farmers not to grow too much food... I'm not particularly worried.
Its never been kind to the animals at the top of the food chain.
I'm far more concerned with running out of drinkable water sources.
This post was edited on 6/19/14 at 3:52 pm
Posted on 6/19/14 at 3:57 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
Google psychrometric chart.
yeah it charts the relationship between tmeperature and the volume of water it can retain.
I still fail to see how this is something that we should be worried about. on any given day, the air is satruated at points all over the globe, and extremely arid at others, and at all ranges of temp spanning about 150 degrees.
Posted on 6/19/14 at 3:58 pm to BobBoucher
You are correct but what about my climate gate comments. The data you guys are using is claimed to be not reliable. Some say that the medieval warm period was worse than the modern warm period. If this is the case than GW isn't a big deal.
Posted on 6/19/14 at 3:58 pm to Choctaw
quote:
.i will not go quietly into that EXCEEDINGLY HOT night with the sea lapping at the porch, species dying out and people starving.
I think this is all they understand.
Posted on 6/19/14 at 4:02 pm to BobBoucher
quote:
I still fail to see how this is something that we should be worried about. on any given day, the air is satruated at points all over the globe, and extremely arid at others, and at all ranges of temp spanning about 150 degrees.
This is where the entire framework of AGW/CC breaks down because there is no such thing as a "global" temperature or even a "global" climate.
Posted on 6/19/14 at 4:11 pm to catholictigerfan
quote:
You are correct but what about my climate gate comments. The data you guys are using is claimed to be not reliable. Some say that the medieval warm period was worse than the modern warm period. If this is the case than GW isn't a big deal.
There is no dispute that CO2 levels are rising. The argument is translating that to measurable impact. The seas would have to get so toxic that it was obvious it was from CO2 absorption. The temp would have to rise so much for so long that it would have to be obvious that it wasnt some mini-heating period which is part of the natural cycle.
what sucks about this is that if it ever gets to that point, life as we know will have been drastically altered. Heckuva risk to take.
forget science for a sec. I prefer a little common sense. We're putting CO2 in the atmposphere and oceans that the earth literally spent millions and millions of years removing. Think about that for a sec. think about all of the CO2 throughout the history of the earth that was captured and stored, suddenly (by earth time) being released back in to the atmosphere and oceans (in addition to normal concentrations).
Does anyone honestly believe that wont seriously screw everything up?
This post was edited on 6/19/14 at 4:13 pm
Posted on 6/19/14 at 4:17 pm to BobBoucher
quote:
what sucks about this is that if it ever gets to that point, life as we know will have been drastically altered. Heckuva risk to take.
Silly argument to make. That's like being a Christian because the alternative of being wrong is better.
quote:
Does anyone honestly believe that wont seriously screw everything up?
At this moment, I really don't have a reason to believe it would "seriously screw everything up."
Posted on 6/19/14 at 4:20 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
Not exactly. Water vapor, temperature, and heat capacity are all initmately related. They are not independent of each other.
They are independent if you want to jack up the price of energy for no legitimate reason.
Posted on 6/19/14 at 4:29 pm to GoCrazyAuburn
quote:
Silly argument to make. That's like being a Christian because the alternative of being wrong is better.
Funny you should bring faith in to it. a lot of faith is predicated on fear of doing wrong by God.
anyhow - the point i was making is that by the time the link between GW/CC is bulletproof, the damage will likely be irreversiable, and the sad part is that this falls directly along party lines.
been fun fellas - im out.
This post was edited on 6/19/14 at 4:31 pm
Posted on 6/19/14 at 4:36 pm to BobBoucher
quote:
Funny you should bring faith in to it. a lot of faith is predicated on fear of doing wrong by God.
Not disagreeing. Doesn't make it any less silly (thus my point).
quote:
link between GW/CC is bulletproof,
Okay.
quote:
the damage will likely be irreversiable,
And if there is no damage?
quote:
the sad part is that this falls directly along party lines.
When have political parties been brought into this discussion? Up until now, everyone has been debating the actual merits of the science involved.
Posted on 6/19/14 at 5:58 pm to BobBoucher
Still avoiding my question
I linked a video a few posts back go back and watch it and comment.
Pretty much it says the hockey stick model was unreliable because the proxies used to figure out pre 1850 temp data was proven unreliable because of the deviation from real data in 1990 and on. This throws out the pre 1850 data.
The proxy that the video I posted claims should be thrown out shows the rapid increase. They also showed other proxies saying that the medieval warm period was worse than where we are now
I linked a video a few posts back go back and watch it and comment.
Pretty much it says the hockey stick model was unreliable because the proxies used to figure out pre 1850 temp data was proven unreliable because of the deviation from real data in 1990 and on. This throws out the pre 1850 data.
The proxy that the video I posted claims should be thrown out shows the rapid increase. They also showed other proxies saying that the medieval warm period was worse than where we are now
Posted on 6/22/14 at 8:21 am to udtiger
quote:
in other words, but for the anomalous "Little Ice Ace," we'd be exactly where we are. Perhaps the Earth is just playing "catch up" because the LIA may have been the result of a massive volcanic eruption in Indonesia.
Brilliant explanation for the warming!!!
Is "playing catch up" a scientific term?
This post was edited on 6/22/14 at 8:22 am
Posted on 6/22/14 at 8:23 am to Taxing Authority
quote:
This is why linear tending is a turrible way to analyze a non-linear function with strong cyclical influence.
Yet when scientists apply more complex methods of prediction - they are ridiculed by denialists like yourself.
Interesting.
Posted on 6/22/14 at 8:26 am to catholictigerfan
quote:
i don't know how accurate he is but check this out. Your graph is clearly the hokey stick graph that GW advocates love to use, but apparently there are some major issues with it.
No there aren't. That's mostly a myth. From youtube. How surprising, right?
LINK
Posted on 6/22/14 at 8:28 am to CptBengal
quote:
Here's the problem champ, I said BEFORE the last glacial maximum. You really do have trouble with simple tasks....reading, understanding the axes of a graph, etc.
You didn't specify WHEN before the last glacial maximum.
You really do have trouble expressing simple thoughts.
Page 18 of 19
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News