Jimmi McJenkins
Sometimes miracles
Well I do hate them, plus I don't understand dry and have a ton of mosquitoes
OT: 2019 Weather Thread
- Thread starter ThreeOfAPerfectPair
- Start date
- Status
ThePhoenixx
Registered User
- Aug 7, 2005
- 9,578
- 6,296
ThePhoenixx
Registered User
- Aug 7, 2005
- 9,578
- 6,296
MoontoScott
Registered User
- Jun 2, 2012
- 9,107
- 11,284
This is what happens when you have 2 teams like the Oilers and the Eskimos mired in ineptitude for 15 years. The weather thread becomes the hottest item on the HF Board.
CantHaveTkachev
Cap Space > NHL players
I really don't know what exactly is coming, but I do know that the younger generations (younger than me) are sick and tired of kicking the bucket down the road when it comes to not doing ANYTHING about dealing with climate change, and they are going to start demanding things change.
Scientists actually do know quite a bit about climate and weather, though obviously not everything, and since it's such a highly complicated system, even knowing lots about it doesn't mean you can predict the future. However the connection between fossil fuel emissions -> increased levels of CO2 ->warming of the climate is incredibly basic stuff that is nearly unanimous and is something that we as a society can actually do something about. Not easily, and not simply,but we can. So the time for excuses, for saying 'Well it's complicated and we don't know exactly how to fix this' is over. It's time to make changes, and for the sake of my kids, and their kids, I truly hope the pressure never relents on this topic.
It's also why, while I get frustrated with the oversimplified connection between forest fires and climate change, I also don't mind using that oversimplification to drive home a point to people who might be on the fence about this. The tactics of misusing the facts and using highly emotional arguments to push an anti-climate change agenda are highly effective. Being nice and expecting people to make rational decisions based on logic and reasoning has failed us in society when it comes to this very important issue (as it has on other incredibly important issues, like vaccinations). So, while I think it's a broad oversimplification to use videos of forest fires to make strong connections to climate change, I unfortunately see it as an ends justifies the means type situation. Humans are emotional creatures who make their decisions many times not based on evidence on facts, but on stories and emotions. We need to show pictures of people's houses burning down in Fort Mac, people's lives being ruined by flooding in Quebec and Ontario, and videos of polar bears starving to death in the arctic. Not because these things are the perfect description of what climate change is doing to us as a planet and as a species (because it's clearly much more nuanced than that) but because these emotional forms of "evidence" are far more effective at getting people to change their mind than actually laying out the cold hard facts have been. It's time to play a little dirty on this issue, just like the anti-climate change folks have been doing for decades, because what has been tried has not worked, and the stakes are far too high not to do everything required to change the public's mind on this issue. And from what I can tell, it's finally starting to work.
Jet Walters
Registered User
- May 15, 2013
- 7,438
- 3,181
Drivesaitl
Finding Hemingway
I'm well aware of how the by proxy measures of temperature are established. But there are many obvious questions about the conclusiveness of such data and you would know this.
1)The isotope tests are by proxy measures of a temp in the first place. They are not actual temperature readings, which of course was not being recorded or quantified around the globe in say 500BCE
2)There is no control for the constituent properties of the ice core samples and deviations in water chemistry of those samples could conceivably impact the testing. If all ice samples were exactly the same in the elements they contain then control is had. They are not. Extraneous variables, in the form of deviation of water composition could impact the results.
3)The ice samples obviously occur at the poles or in glaciated areas and by that nature can be limited in extrapolating the data globally, to exact fractions of degrees like purported in some of the data and graphs we see. Clearly this is a case of limited sample, data, and involving rampant extrapolation.
4) Ice core samples that have been tested are finite, regional, and potentially subject to regional variance as occurs at the poles or hemispheres historically. They are not necessarily a substitute to temp measure being taken, actually, at several points on the globe as currently occurs. Therefore comparing todays temp data with past by proxy measure could very well be apples oranges comparisons. Generally speaking any data set in which the measures, gauges, methodology changes comes with an asterisk denoting that the data analysis is NOT a contiguously consistent process. Its established in science that changes in testing methodology often change the results.
Last edited:
Drivesaitl
Finding Hemingway
Scientific *conclusions* on what preceded, resulted in various massive geologic extinction events and Cataclysmic Earth events have changed even within my lifetime and are the subject of ongoing debate.
In Geology specifically you would know that Cataclysm vs Uniformity had been dividing precepts for a century, among Scientific Scholars.
In the discussion you somehow seem to be conflating what is actual fact, vs what is hypothesis, or theory. In a sense what you are advocating for (without seemingly realizing it) is that people should blindly trust facts that are not yet irrevocably proven facts.
Just as an aside a major shift you would know had occurred recently in the study of the origins of life. Until recently the estimations (thats what they are) of life on other planets was possibly grossly underestimated. By the Scientific community. The revolutionary game changer? That Comets, Asteroids, Meteors, could contain some matter that essentially seeded interstellar bodies with the precursers to organic matter and life. This requiring an entire rethink on such previously subscribed theories on primordial soup, and the overall probabilities of life occurring due to the external source seeding.
I cite something like this because its the nature of science that new information is often a gamechanger whereby theories end up being replaced, revised, or completely thrown out subject to the new information.
There should be far less absolutes posited by the Scientific Community. Indeed one of the foremost disciplines in Science should be learning the history of Science so as to avoid false conclusion, and to exact more Scientific humility around what is established fact. Nor should Plurality of findings be concluded to be fact. They support hypotheses. They collobarate, but they do not constitute irrevocable fact. The history of Science essentially tells us that.
Last edited:
Drivesaitl
Finding Hemingway
Honestly why would succumb to such a comment which only serves to diminish your own credibility. Debate by all means. Debase? That's on you ultimately.
Jamin
Registered User
- Aug 25, 2009
- 4,924
- 778
Watch the Ken Burns Vietnam documentary specifically when they get to JFK. He wanted to scale down Vietnam and had already botched the bay of pigs. Eisenhower warned of military industrial complex and they really wanted their decade plus Vietnam war, lots of money to go around. Not gonna lose billions because some pretty boy irish president is soft on commies.
If anything to me this is one of the more believable conspiracy theories
Jamin
Registered User
- Aug 25, 2009
- 4,924
- 778
What gets me is everyone is so focused on co2. Even if you dont believe in climate change surely you have eyes and believe humans are polluting. Everyone and the media is so focused on green house gases.
Lets start making companies redesign packaging. Why is it on consumers to reduce our plastic usage when virtually every product sold is covered in multiple layers of plastic.
The ozone layer was being healed and was on pace to fully fix itself. Now China and other countries are increasing their use of banned products. Lets put some heat on them or better yet start diversifying our economy so it is not fully dependent on massive imports of cheaply made Chinese plastic products.
What about dumping sewage into the oceans and or rivers. Lets work on tech that could help clean our water process. I've always thought it weird we live on a river but its so dirty you cant swim in it and people are just ok with that.
Reduce and reuse, people recycle but skip step one and 2. Studies say buying an old car is actually better for the environment then buying newer more efficient cars because you are reusing. We need to go back to that. You used to be able to repair products yourself or take them to places to get fixed. Now Apple and other companies pretty much make it impossible so everything is thrown out and you buy brand new. Lets pressure these companies.
Im sure there is more to do but this is what was at the top of my head. So even if you dont believe in climate change that doesn't mean **** it who needs the environment. There is still lots that we can do that doesn't destroy the economy
Lets start making companies redesign packaging. Why is it on consumers to reduce our plastic usage when virtually every product sold is covered in multiple layers of plastic.
The ozone layer was being healed and was on pace to fully fix itself. Now China and other countries are increasing their use of banned products. Lets put some heat on them or better yet start diversifying our economy so it is not fully dependent on massive imports of cheaply made Chinese plastic products.
What about dumping sewage into the oceans and or rivers. Lets work on tech that could help clean our water process. I've always thought it weird we live on a river but its so dirty you cant swim in it and people are just ok with that.
Reduce and reuse, people recycle but skip step one and 2. Studies say buying an old car is actually better for the environment then buying newer more efficient cars because you are reusing. We need to go back to that. You used to be able to repair products yourself or take them to places to get fixed. Now Apple and other companies pretty much make it impossible so everything is thrown out and you buy brand new. Lets pressure these companies.
Im sure there is more to do but this is what was at the top of my head. So even if you dont believe in climate change that doesn't mean **** it who needs the environment. There is still lots that we can do that doesn't destroy the economy
Sure, it's not an either or. All of these things need attention. The conversations among those who study these things for a living have moved well past IF many many years ago. The fact that the general public is still stuck there is sad, but nothing to be done but keep hammering these things over and over until things change.
Drivesaitl
Finding Hemingway
I've had to empty several planters that contained so much water that the plants in them were drowning. So much rain now that plants that were parched a week ago are now swimming in water.
Add to my concern that the out door thermometer reading is 1C at 2pm. While frost advisory has not yet come up for this region it seems inevitable. Around the province I wonder how many gardenerers are having their bedding plants destroyed right about now with it snowing in mid June, mid day, in several locations.
Add to my concern that the out door thermometer reading is 1C at 2pm. While frost advisory has not yet come up for this region it seems inevitable. Around the province I wonder how many gardenerers are having their bedding plants destroyed right about now with it snowing in mid June, mid day, in several locations.
Mr Tadakichi
Never Reads OP Before Posting
- Nov 23, 2014
- 4,515
- 5,145
Mr Tadakichi
Never Reads OP Before Posting
- Nov 23, 2014
- 4,515
- 5,145
https://vigilantcitizen.com/vigilantreport/kennedys-elite-dynasty-got-decimated-pt/
This guy has a good three part series on JFK, and why there is so much suspicion about his death. I'm not a huge conspiracy guy, but the whole JFK thing is nuts if you dig deep enough.
Frank the Tank
The Godfather
I do know this, and yet also I understand uncertainty is a key component in the language of science. We do not use it to throw our hands up and say that we can't be sure of anything; instead, uncertainty is used to quantify the confidence of what one claims.
Yes, hence my comment of significant efforts continually being spent on defining the accuracy, precision, and error bars of a particular method, such as the use of oxygen isotope ratio to define temperature. This method was established in the '60-70s and has had these aspects refined by other data sources the past 5-6 decades. One can find papers in the last 5 years constantly challenging and testing claims published previously. It remains a constant refinement.
It's difficult to respond to this because you use the vague terms like water chemistry/composition? When using the overly broad term "elements" do you mean dissolved cations? oxoanions? suspended solids? In general, yes, there are variations between samples. So one keeps collecting and measuring thousands of them and establish a confidence range. One has a problem if none of them overlap and a conclusion cannot be drawn; however, that has not been the case in numerous major studies. The equation is tweaked as data continually accumualtes, and the core equation persists.
Good thing the paleoclimatologists don't only use ice cores as incorporate other temp proxies. Phosphate and apatite mineral sediments remain other common oxygen sources for analysis. I'm sure a quick Google Scholar search can populate other sources and their confidence intervals for you faster than what I can describe here.
Other oxygen sources cited above are not regional. These temperature data are overlayed with other proxy measurements to define a range. Once again, there remains uncertainty and that is why the further back one goes into the record the wider the error bars become because less sources exist to define the temperature range. You'll notice a theme... scientists continue to measure, test, and publish data in these areas. It's a slog, and yet it's what these scientists dedicate their careers to.
Last edited:
Frank the Tank
The Godfather
Frank the Tank
The Godfather
Yes, that's how science works. You keep pointing to the uncertainty like that hasn't been considered. My whole career as a scientist has focused on quantifying uncertainty. Will we hit 2C warming in our lifetime? No one actually knows, but the odds are heavily weighted in favor of that happening on our current climate trajectory, which has been assembled over tens of thousands of published manuscripts.
Can you show me an example where I state that people should blindly trust facts or state that something is an "actual fact"? I do point out that peer-reviewed data remains the best data we have to quantify uncertain situations, like past temperature records. I also point out that something who posts theories that have yet to be published and supported should not be weighted equally with peer-reviewed, published data. You seem to be the one unfamiliar with how scientists view and work with uncertainty. Not everyone gets an equal seat at the scientific debate table. One earns one's way there with published, verified, peer-reviewed data.
Yes, that's how modern science has worked for the past century. The conclusion about human's contribution to climate change were determined the same way, just with significantly more evidence than more recent theories like exogenesis or panspermia.
Find me a published manuscript about climate change in the academic literature that speaks in absolutes. I wonder if you are listening to actual scientists present their conclusions or the university/company press office?
Last edited:
CantHaveTkachev
Cap Space > NHL players
Oh I have, it’s really good
Watch Oliver Stone’s “Untold History of the United States”
Yes, he’s a noted conspiracy theorist but a lot of what he says in it is true
Two absolutely superb posts on this topic Frank the Tank. Better than I could have ever communicated it.
harpoon
Registered User
- Dec 23, 2005
- 14,585
- 12,446
Good Lord.
1. Knowing more than ‘we’ do is not the standard I’m willing to accept. I mean you can see the self labelled scientist in the thread basically admitting that he knows very little beyond greenhouse gases -> climate change. Lots of less than helpful ‘theory’ beyond that. I work with a company that produces plastic replacement products. They have many dedicated scientists working every day on improving their products and creating new ones. They are making a real change in our lives and an immediate and tangible improvement for the environment. Those are the scientists I respect. Not the ones who write airy thesis built on miles of extrapolated data and then get frustrated when anyone other than a ‘peer’ dares to question what they wrote.
2. I guess you can’t understand the difference between ‘talk down to’ and ‘look down on’. That’s too bad for you, but I never used the latter phrase.
3. I never called anyone an asshole or a prick, so I’ll thank you to stop characterizing my comments in that way.
Messrules11
6 Cups, elbows up.
- Nov 23, 2018
- 5,759
- 6,539
Canada is actually well ahead of other nations when it comes to the environment. If this planet is ever going to see real change then China, India and the US need to step up, these 3 countries more than any others are the most responsible for the worlds problems.
- Status
