U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-10-2013, 11:18 AM
 
9,659 posts, read 9,226,370 times
Reputation: 3225

Advertisements

Since on any given year, decade, or even century, the overall temperature (and other factors) can be an anomaly and departure from average by x standard deviations, at what point can you say that an anomaly is part of a more permanent departure from average or return to normalcy?

Since any given year can have below average, above average, or average quantities of something, how the **** can some of you people use a single event as evidence that the average is shifting or staying constant.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-10-2013, 11:21 AM
 
13,538 posts, read 8,455,820 times
Reputation: 6342
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheHurricaneKid View Post
Since on any given year, decade, or even century, the overall temperature (and other factors) can be an anomaly and departure from average by x standard deviations, at what point can you say that an anomaly is part of a more permanent departure from average or return to normalcy?

Since any given year can have below average, above average, or average quantities of something, how the **** can some of you people use a single event as evidence that the average is shifting or staying constant.
Certain areas can have above, average, or below temperatures, but to get a read of global trends scientists take into account all data and the trend lines go up.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-10-2013, 11:29 AM
 
9,659 posts, read 9,226,370 times
Reputation: 3225
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter_Sucks View Post
Certain areas can have above, average, or below temperatures, but to get a read of global trends scientists take into account all data and the trend lines go up.
The argument used by certain folks focuses mainly on the facts that:

The forecast was wrong.
The line created by two data points shows a trend.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-10-2013, 11:31 AM
 
13,538 posts, read 8,455,820 times
Reputation: 6342
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheHurricaneKid View Post
The argument used by certain folks focuses mainly on the facts that:

The forecast was wrong.
The line created by two data points shows a trend.
I'm not really sure what you mean. I follow the weather channel's 3 month forecasts and they are pretty spot on. They called for a wet and little cooler summer here in the southeast and that's how our summer went.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-10-2013, 11:33 AM
 
Location: West Coast of Europe
23,709 posts, read 21,159,950 times
Reputation: 9222
There is an interesting interview on that whole climate change thingy on the Guardian today:

Naomi Klein: 'Big green groups are more damaging than climate deniers' | Environment | theguardian.com

But read the interview, not just the headline, else you might misunderstand her.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-10-2013, 11:38 AM
 
20,194 posts, read 21,572,808 times
Reputation: 9234
Things can go above and below the mean BUT things are also heading towards a goal... for instance, if it isn't heating, it is cooling... if it isn't cooling, then it is heating... nothing on this planet stays the same forever, for instance it will not be 95 degrees in Summer from the beginning of time until the end of time... arctic ice is not a billion years old and yet earth is a lot older... Everything has a finite end to it, including ice... The Global Warming believers believe that earth is warming up due to trapped CO2 and their original theory was CO2 insulated the heat from the sun which result in increase temperatures... and they talk about black boxes, etc but when evidence goes AGAINST their line of thinking, they just dismiss it... in science, if something doesn't prove that you are correct, you start over with a new hypothesis... in Global Warming, you repeat the same thing and say everything else is wrong... that doesn't sound like science... it sounds like "faith"...
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-10-2013, 11:44 AM
 
Location: West Coast of Europe
23,709 posts, read 21,159,950 times
Reputation: 9222
That's nonsense. Many scientists have long developed a more differentiated look on the situation, climate change (even better would be climate changeS) is much more important now than global warming. You will find only few people claiming the earth is getting warmer everywhere...

Basically the question now is simply, do humans cause or intensify any climate changes?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-10-2013, 11:51 AM
 
9,659 posts, read 9,226,370 times
Reputation: 3225
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling View Post
That's nonsense. Many scientists have long developed a more differentiated look on the situation, climate change (even better would be climate changeS) is much more important now than global warming. You will find only few people claiming the earth is getting warmer everywhere...

Basically the question now is simply, do humans cause or intensify any climate changes?
Humans mess with climate for sure. It doesn't have to be intensification, it could be the other way around.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-10-2013, 11:53 AM
 
9,659 posts, read 9,226,370 times
Reputation: 3225
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling View Post
There is an interesting interview on that whole climate change thingy on the Guardian today:

Naomi Klein: 'Big green groups are more damaging than climate deniers' | Environment | theguardian.com

But read the interview, not just the headline, else you might misunderstand her.
I read the article. I agree, if you are going to disrupt the economy for the things that you claim to be the greater good of the earth, people living in the present will be affected negatively.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-10-2013, 11:57 AM
 
4,176 posts, read 4,257,501 times
Reputation: 1667
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheHurricaneKid View Post
I read the article. I agree, if you are going to disrupt the economy for the things that you claim to be the greater good of the earth, people living in the present will be affected negatively.
People will be affected far more negatively by the climate changing, than by any perceived economic response to it.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top