1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Sub-zero temps in Chicago; record cold/snow in NW; blizzard warnings--Global Warming?

Discussion in 'The OT' started by Lord Vader, Dec 21, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Dec 24, 2008 #81 of 152
    txtommy

    txtommy Icon

    805
    0
    Dec 30, 2006
    This is why most scientists now refer to it as global climate change rather than global warming. The skeptics like to point out that fact and claim that it is a denial of the original global warming theory. In reality it is the same thing. On the average, worldwide temperatures have increased but that does not mean that every location on earth is warmer every single day. By the same reasoning, it does not mean that a cold winter in Chicago means that the entire earth is suddenly colder. The fact is that average world temperatures are on the rise.
     
  2. Dec 24, 2008 #82 of 152
    Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    21,623
    385
    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    I'm not actually sure that is a fact.

    There is a lot of questionable data (such as some scientists using old paintings as evidence of snow on mountaintops having melted) that cannot be verified. There are also questionable conclusions drawn from valid data. Lastly, we have not been studying weather for very long compared to how long people have been on the planet, much less how long the planet has existed... so to extrapolate any kind of long-range global warming or cooling based upon our actions is not likely to be valid unless purely coincidental.
     
  3. Dec 24, 2008 #83 of 152
    Richard King

    Richard King Hall Of Fame

    21,331
    1
    Mar 25, 2002
    We moved from Maryland to Minnesota when I was a Junior in HS. It was quite a shock to go from Maryland to Minnesota, and make the move at the end of December (arrived on Dec. 20). When I started at my new school I was amazed to see my fellow classmates jumping out of second story windows into snow drifts. I wanted to move back to Maryland (or anywhere warm). In 1991 we had the "Halloween Blizzard". Snow started falling in the afternoon of Halloween day and didn't stop until we had over 28" of snow. This was the earliest big snowfall on record in Minneapolis. This storm even has its own Wikipedia page:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halloween_Blizzard

    As of a bit over an hour ago it was 74 degrees. ;)
     
  4. Dec 24, 2008 #84 of 152
    txtommy

    txtommy Icon

    805
    0
    Dec 30, 2006
    Scientists do not use old paintings for establishing any scientific data. There is more than sufficient real data to prove that the earths temperature is rising over a period of centuries and that the rate is increasing. There can be valid differences of opinion as to what may be causing the rise in temperature but I have heard of no scientist who has studied the data and still doubts that change is occurring.
     
  5. Dec 24, 2008 #85 of 152
    James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    46,124
    1,068
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    One has to believe in the science to believe that scientists can accurately report to the degree past temperatures. I won't even assume that they can accurately date the substances they are testing to get these alleged historical temperatures.

    It is a matter of faith. Those who have strong faith in the science and "global warming" are just zealots for their faith. Especially those who are evangelical about their faith in the "science".
     
  6. Dec 24, 2008 #86 of 152
    txtommy

    txtommy Icon

    805
    0
    Dec 30, 2006
    You can't argue with someone who refuses to acknowledge that which has been proved. Science is never based on faith but only on facts which can be shown repeatedly to be true. No sense in continuing this discussion.
     
  7. Dec 25, 2008 #87 of 152
    Lord Vader

    Lord Vader Supreme Member DBSTalk Club

    8,761
    42
    Sep 20, 2004
    Galactic Empire
    Therein lies the problem. "Global Warming" has NOT been proved. If that was the case, there would be no dissenters, the number of which has been steadily increasing, including scores of scientists who once believed it did exist but now admit they were wrong, that it cannot be proved.

    Ignorance and vanity. It's running rampant, and that's a crying shame.
     
  8. Dec 25, 2008 #88 of 152
    Richard King

    Richard King Hall Of Fame

    21,331
    1
    Mar 25, 2002
    The problem that I have is that those who are pushing this garbage on us (Al Gore acolytes) won't even admit that many people ARE in fact changing their opinions on the subject. They still insist that there is a consensus out there when that "consensus" is withering away on a daily basis.
     
  9. Dec 25, 2008 #89 of 152
  10. Dec 25, 2008 #90 of 152
    Draconis

    Draconis New Member

    4,433
    4
    Mar 16, 2007
    Las Vegas, NV
  11. Dec 25, 2008 #91 of 152
    curt8403

    curt8403 Hall Of Fame

    4,481
    0
    Dec 27, 2007
    Biodiesel most of the time smells like French Fries. I wonder what this would smell like. And It reminds me of Soylent Green.
     
  12. Dec 25, 2008 #92 of 152
    txtommy

    txtommy Icon

    805
    0
    Dec 30, 2006
    So very untrue. There are still dissenters of many proved scientific facts and always will be. There are those who do not believe in evolution, modern medical advances, space travel and any number of other scientific facts. There are people who do not believe we have been to the moon. There are people who do not believe the earth is over 6000 years old and globular. There will always be those who are labeled 'scientists' who do not observe the scientific methods and deny the overwhelming bodies of evidence for modern scientific theories (and here I use the scientific definition of theory meaning fact and not the religious definition meaning guess).

    Ignorance and vanity are rampant for sure. Ignorant for denying proved data and vanity for refusing to accept modern science that might not agree with legend and fantasy.
     
  13. Dec 25, 2008 #93 of 152
    drded

    drded Godfather

    380
    3
    Aug 22, 2006
    Tucson, AZ
    Science in it purest form does not have dissenters. True science develops a theory and then proves it. For example: Voltage times Current equals Power (E x I = W). Mixing Sodium with Chloride equals Salt (NaCl), mising 2 parts Hydrogen with one part Oxygen equals water (H2O), and water boils at 212 degrees F. There are no dissenters because these are proven scientific theories.

    Evolution and Global Warming are theories that are far from being proven or accepted. As several posters have said quite well, the amount of data on weather is minor compared to the number of years our planet has been around. The weather people can't even predict accurately when rain and snow will reach a certain area, yet we are to believe they can predict conditions 10, 20, 30 or more years out?

    As many people of have tried to tell you, just because YOU believe it doesn't make it true.

    Dave
     
  14. Dec 25, 2008 #94 of 152
    txtommy

    txtommy Icon

    805
    0
    Dec 30, 2006
    I am not aware of any true scientists that do not believe in evolution. Some of its finer points may be in dispute but not the overall theory. Scientists will always modify some portions of a theory as more data becomes available. Because a theory is constantly fine tuned does not mean that the basic theory is being denied. Much the same goes for global climate change; most scientists agree that it is happening but have not agreed on all the causes, the amount of man's contribution or the solution. Finding small discrepancies or disagreements in a theory does not refute the entire theory.

    In many scientific topics such as weather, it is easier to make long term trend predictions than to make short term predictions. While it is proved that the earth has shown a warming trend that does not mean that tomorrow will necessarily be warmer than today or that next year will be warmer than this. Trends are just that and minor fluctuations do not change the overall trend.

    It is an accepted scientific fact that all of us will die someday. I know of no reasonable person that will deny that. What we cannot predict is what day you or I will die with any certainty. It is similar with other proved theories. Science can state that all life will continue to evolve or that the warming trend will continue but cannot offer specifics on the random pattern of evolution or the exact temperature or weather conditions on a future date. None of this means that the theory is not true.

    And as you state, just because YOU don't believe doesn't make it false.
     
  15. Dec 25, 2008 #95 of 152
    Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    21,623
    385
    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    This is a good example actually of disproving the causes of global warming/climate change...

    Even when proven that all living things must die, we still do not know for sure why things die. Discounting accidents and diseases, perfectly healthy people and other animals simply live to death every day, dying of "old age". There is no current accepted scientific explanation of this except to say that "it happens".

    Same for sleep... In numerous sleep-deprivation studies over the years, the only definitive conclusion made for the need to sleep is to prevent being sleepy. No one is completely sure why we need to sleep or what it does for us, but we do know we can't stay awake forever and periodic sleep seems to be good.

    So, back to global whatchamacalits... I'm not sure warming/cooling trends have actually been proven... but even if I grant you that it has, there absolutely has been no possible way to conclusively prove we and our man-made machinery has had a direct effect on it in they way they like to think.

    I also think about all those "green" solutions... Consider, windmills are cited as a source for clean/natural power... but it is theoretically possible to put up enough windmills to substantially effect wind patterns since each windmill causes a change in the atmospheric conditions by absorbing some of the energy therein. So this "clean" power if taken too far would be damaging to the environment in unpredictable ways, and yet the global whatchamacalits would have us run screaming towards such fuel sources.
     
  16. Dec 25, 2008 #96 of 152
    drded

    drded Godfather

    380
    3
    Aug 22, 2006
    Tucson, AZ
    Please cite for me one scientific study that has proven evolution. There are none. Many scientists would like to believe it is true and even argue on its behalf, but none have proven it.

    Remember, one of the tenets of science is that a theory is proven when the results are consistently repeatable. No matter how many times your combine 2 elements of hdyrogen and one of oxygen you will get water. That's what proves the theory, it is consistently repeatable.

    Global Warming & evolution are unproven theories. If you study science (I've had to to get my Doctorate) you realize an unproven theory may sound and look good, but that doesn't mean it stands up to scientific scrutiny. There are numerous weather theories we've all heard in our lifetimes, and none of them have been proven true. Global Warming, now known as climate change, is just the latest in a string of press-related theories. Sells newspapers, gets people watching TV, makes political friends and foes, even creates heated discussions, but...has little to do with real science.

    Dave
     
  17. Dec 25, 2008 #97 of 152
    txtommy

    txtommy Icon

    805
    0
    Dec 30, 2006
    Simple. The flu virus will make thousands sick and some will die this year. Scientists will develop a vaccine that will kill most of the virus. Next year the same virus will have mutated to a strain that the same vaccine will not kill and a new vaccine must be developed. Happens every year. That is evolution. Do you deny that it happens? Do you deny that overuse of antibiotics have caused strains of super bacteria that are now immune to most antibiotics?
     
  18. Dec 25, 2008 #98 of 152
    drded

    drded Godfather

    380
    3
    Aug 22, 2006
    Tucson, AZ
    txtommy,


    Please enjoy debating with yourself. I shall waste no more words.

    Dave
     
  19. Dec 25, 2008 #99 of 152
    txtommy

    txtommy Icon

    805
    0
    Dec 30, 2006
    You asked for an example. I gave you one. There are many, many more.
     
  20. Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    21,623
    385
    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    Caveat first... I do happen to believe in evolution.

    However, this particular example does not by itself prove evolution.

    There are typically many different strains of the flu virus at any given time, and if you don't "dose" it with the right thing then it survives for another round. So, if we have Flu A, Flu B, and Flu C flying around this year... but only dose for Flu A, then Flu B and C hang around until next season.

    Next season we find Flu B, but miss Flu C... and Flu C survives for yet another year.

    In this example, Flu C was there all the time. It didn't evolve or mutate at all, but was just already immune to what we threw at Flu A and then Flu B.

    Thus, your example doesn't exactly prove evolution. It doesn't rule it out either, but it certainly doesn't conclusively prove it. To do that, they'd actually have to prove that this year's strain wasn't here last year (i.e. it evolved from last year's strain).

    But that is digressing... although it does aptly demonstrate two things simultaneously:

    1. Science can draw inaccurate conclusions from accurate data.
    2. Science can draw accurate conclusions from inaccurate data.

    Take your pick, but both are equally applicable here.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page