• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

The global warming is causing the global cooling guys!

Freshgeardude

Freshgeardude

Diamond Member
tomorrow night, South Florida is suppose to drop to around 42 with a wind chill of up to 32.

I haven't heard of sub 40s in florida in maybe 6 years.


cmon now! the global warming is causing the global cooling.
 
Didn't you get the memo? It's called Climate Change now. The theory (although completely unfounded) is that the Earth's climate changes.

*and by completely unfounded, I meant "DUH".
 
Maybe we took your heat, as it's been in the mid 60s for the last couple days in colorado. We had 6 inches of snow less than a week ago too.
 
"Thirty years later, the concern that the cooler temperatures would continue, and perhaps at a faster rate, can now be observed to have been incorrect. More has to be learned about climate, but the growing records have shown the cooling concerns of 1975 to have been simplistic and not borne out."
 
Climate change is so small relative to weather that your anecdotes are almost 100% attributable to variance. Not interesting.
 
Originally posted by: freshgeardude
tomorrow night, South Florida is suppose to drop to around 42 with a wind chill of up to 32.

I haven't heard of sub 40s in florida in maybe 6 years.


cmon now! the global warming is causing the global cooling.
Click to expand...

WOW! HOLY SHIT!

Maybe we're just having a chilly winter?...
 
..yes. we have seasons. and we're going to use alarmist crapola to con. you to think somethings wrong and it's your fault so you'll pay us a ton of money.
 
It's times like this when I wish that there WAS a grand conspiracy to keep medical advances, high technology, and scientific truths out of the hands of the masses. Once the media gets a story they skew it, and then the public skews it some more, and then they get all condescending. Idiots.

/sits in his ivory tower and shakes his head
 
A single degree change in annual average temperatures can be disastrous to certain ecosystems. Any credible research will show you this, and no climatologist will dispute this. Of course, I'm sure plenty of them hang around these pages and are perfectly capable of interpreting peer-reviewed research.
 
Temperatures dropping in the northern hemisphere follows global warming theory. It actually makes sense if you look at the patterns behind it instead of relying on 3 minute tibits once a week from the news and forum trolls for your information.
 
Originally posted by: zinfamous
A single degree change in annual average temperatures can be disastrous to certain ecosystems. Any credible research will show you this, and no climatologist will dispute this. Of course, I'm sure plenty of them hang around these pages and are perfectly capable of interpreting peer-reviewed research.
Click to expand...

And the peers are starting to say the research might have flaws.

More and more scientist are comming out of the wood work to say they disagree. The earth has been here a long time A really long time and we have data for what 100 years?

to say that a 10 year cycle is of any relivance and then to determain that we did it is pretty egotistical if nothing else. When we can predict when it will rain with greater acuracy than the farmer's almanac I will perhaps head the warning. For now I will say I am interested in learning more, preferably from people without an agenda.
 
Originally posted by: tm37
Originally posted by: zinfamous
A single degree change in annual average temperatures can be disastrous to certain ecosystems. Any credible research will show you this, and no climatologist will dispute this. Of course, I'm sure plenty of them hang around these pages and are perfectly capable of interpreting peer-reviewed research.
Click to expand...

And the peers are starting to say the research might have flaws.

More and more scientist are comming out of the wood work to say they disagree. The earth has been here a long time A really long time and we have data for what 100 years?

to say that a 10 year cycle is of any relivance and then to determain that we did it is pretty egotistical if nothing else. When we can predict when it will rain with greater acuracy than the farmer's almanac I will perhaps head the warning. For now I will say I am interested in learning more, preferably from people without an agenda.
Click to expand...

Who is to say the people disagreeing are not without an agenda? During Bush years I imagine disagreeing and submitting a research proposal with that would give you some nice grant money to keep working/bidding your time/phd. Science is just as motivated by money as everyone.

I think the big thing is *something* is happening, weather patterns are changing, temperatures are rising some places, falling in others, caps are melting, fresh water dumping is increasing and the big question is, Is it something we are doing? Saying you don't believe in climate change is like saying you don't think living in the city actually makes you breath in dirtier air. It is happening, we just don't know if we can do anything about it or if we are the cause of it.
 
Originally posted by: RichardE
Originally posted by: tm37
Originally posted by: zinfamous
A single degree change in annual average temperatures can be disastrous to certain ecosystems. Any credible research will show you this, and no climatologist will dispute this. Of course, I'm sure plenty of them hang around these pages and are perfectly capable of interpreting peer-reviewed research.
Click to expand...

And the peers are starting to say the research might have flaws.

More and more scientist are comming out of the wood work to say they disagree. The earth has been here a long time A really long time and we have data for what 100 years?

to say that a 10 year cycle is of any relivance and then to determain that we did it is pretty egotistical if nothing else. When we can predict when it will rain with greater acuracy than the farmer's almanac I will perhaps head the warning. For now I will say I am interested in learning more, preferably from people without an agenda.
Click to expand...

Who is to say the people disagreeing are not without an agenda? During Bush years I imagine disagreeing and submitting a research proposal with that would give you some nice grant money to keep working/bidding your time/phd. Science is just as motivated by money as everyone.

I think the big thing is *something* is happening, weather patterns are changing, temperatures are rising some places, falling in others, caps are melting, fresh water dumping is increasing and the big question is, Is it something we are doing? Saying you don't believe in climate change is like saying you don't think living in the city actually makes you breath in dirtier air. It is happening, we just don't know if we can do anything about it or if we are the cause of it.
Click to expand...

Weather patterns change. It has happened since we started looking at them.

My son seems to need need shoes alot because his toes keep reaching the end of them after just a few months. The global warming folk would more than likely suggest I Cut off his toes.

 
Originally posted by: tm37
Originally posted by: RichardE
Originally posted by: tm37
Originally posted by: zinfamous
A single degree change in annual average temperatures can be disastrous to certain ecosystems. Any credible research will show you this, and no climatologist will dispute this. Of course, I'm sure plenty of them hang around these pages and are perfectly capable of interpreting peer-reviewed research.
Click to expand...

And the peers are starting to say the research might have flaws.

More and more scientist are comming out of the wood work to say they disagree. The earth has been here a long time A really long time and we have data for what 100 years?

to say that a 10 year cycle is of any relivance and then to determain that we did it is pretty egotistical if nothing else. When we can predict when it will rain with greater acuracy than the farmer's almanac I will perhaps head the warning. For now I will say I am interested in learning more, preferably from people without an agenda.
Click to expand...

Who is to say the people disagreeing are not without an agenda? During Bush years I imagine disagreeing and submitting a research proposal with that would give you some nice grant money to keep working/bidding your time/phd. Science is just as motivated by money as everyone.

I think the big thing is *something* is happening, weather patterns are changing, temperatures are rising some places, falling in others, caps are melting, fresh water dumping is increasing and the big question is, Is it something we are doing? Saying you don't believe in climate change is like saying you don't think living in the city actually makes you breath in dirtier air. It is happening, we just don't know if we can do anything about it or if we are the cause of it.
Click to expand...

Weather patterns change. It has happened since we started looking at them.

My son seems to need need shoes alot because his toes keep reaching the end of them after just a few months. The global warming folk would more than likely suggest I Cut off his toes.
Click to expand...

As in every debate there are extremist, they usually have the loudest voice sadly. Weather patterns do not change quickly, in short terms they are very cyclical, so when big changes start happening in short periods of time that usually take long periods you need to wonder why. The problem with the MMGW theory is that it is the "easiest" solution, as well as the simplest to explain to the average person. "You drive your car too much, the earth heats up and we die."

Just as dangerous though is saying that there is no cause at all and it is not worth looking into. Remember when people said its impossible that chemicals are destroying the Ozone and it was all a bunch of fear mongering? As with everything in life it is better to look into a subject rather than just dismiss the entire topic due to the loud voice of a few. (Reducing emissions has other benefits besides global ones on a more local scale, as well as health wise to humans in general, does it help weather? Who knows, but it does make us healthier to breath in less shit.)
 
Originally posted by: RichardE
Who is to say the people disagreeing are not without an agenda? During Bush years I imagine disagreeing and submitting a research proposal with that would give you some nice grant money to keep working/bidding your time/phd. Science is just as motivated by money as everyone.
Click to expand...

*sigh*
No.

Science is about the truth, and on an individual level it's about what interests you, and what you have the ability to study.

Obviously funding is part of this "ability". But people don't immediately lose their objectivity or their personal interests the moment that money is waved at them (witness the overall aversion to DoD grants). Generally speaking you have an interest, you try to find a way to pursue your interest in a given lab, and you try to find a way to fund that lab with certain grants. Now there is a certain skill to writing grants that use the words that funders want to hear, but which will be used to study what interests YOU...some compromises are made, but overall grants are a lot less specific than people seem to think. And even if you study EXACTLY what a funding agency wants you to (rare), you are under NO obligation to have your findings match what they want.

Yes, putting "global warming" in your funding proposal has been a good idea in recent years. But that would be just as true for a study whose findings might contradict the current scientific consensus, as for one which would be more likely to shore it up. You can't predetermine your experimental results.
 
Originally posted by: RedSquirrel
The earth is broken. oh noes!
Click to expand...

heh
The Earth also made life. Surely it's regretting that decision now that it knows that we'd eventually pop up from the muck.
 
Originally posted by: jagec
Originally posted by: RichardE
Who is to say the people disagreeing are not without an agenda? During Bush years I imagine disagreeing and submitting a research proposal with that would give you some nice grant money to keep working/bidding your time/phd. Science is just as motivated by money as everyone.
Click to expand...

*sigh*
No.

Science is about the truth, and on an individual level it's about what interests you, and what you have the ability to study.

Obviously funding is part of this "ability". But people don't immediately lose their objectivity or their personal interests the moment that money is waved at them (witness the overall aversion to DoD grants). Generally speaking you have an interest, you try to find a way to pursue your interest in a given lab, and you try to find a way to fund that lab with certain grants. Now there is a certain skill to writing grants that use the words that funders want to hear, but which will be used to study what interests YOU...some compromises are made, but overall grants are a lot less specific than people seem to think. And even if you study EXACTLY what a funding agency wants you to (rare), you are under NO obligation to have your findings match what they want.

Yes, putting "global warming" in your funding proposal has been a good idea in recent years. But that would be just as true for a study whose findings might contradict the current scientific consensus, as for one which would be more likely to shore it up. You can't predetermine your experimental results.
Click to expand...

I know of at least two people who put proposals in for issues they didn't believe in (one being that man made global warming is false) because at the time they could not get funding for the things they actually wanted to research. They justified it in all sorts of warm and fuzzy ways (I'll disprove it with my research so I'll still be research what I want just from a different angle!). Which goes along with what you said in regards to your results do not have to match up with the objective of the funding parties. Still, people see this and take some guys paper and find 2-3 sentences that support there topic than add it onto shit like "500 scientist!".

That was off track a bit though. I understand your ideals about science and research and generally speaking that is what happens from what I have seen in the labs I have worked, but the fact remains there are quack doctors, quack researches and quack scientists out there who will study whatever they need to to make a few dollars.
 
Originally posted by: freshgeardude
tomorrow night, South Florida is suppose to drop to around 42 with a wind chill of up to 32.

I haven't heard of sub 40s in florida in maybe 6 years.


cmon now! the global warming is causing the global cooling.
Click to expand...

That is the model . It was talked about some time ago right here. As the ocean current slows . because of melt down and warm water . Scientist were saying Ice age. Could be result.

Don't recall the year I believe 1890 . Was known as the year of the blue snow. Snow still hadn't melted in july .

 
Originally posted by: freshgeardude
tomorrow night, South Florida is suppose to drop to around 42 with a wind chill of up to 32.

I haven't heard of sub 40s in florida in maybe 6 years.


cmon now! the global warming is causing the global cooling.
Click to expand...

There's more to Florida than South Florida...and wind chill doesn't count. 😉

Originally posted by: Jeff7
It's Florida. I've read enough Dave Barry to know that Florida is completely insane.
Click to expand...

Dave Barry FTMFW.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top