Weird weather

[Calandale]

Peter has the answer.

[DirtDawg]

It is nearly impossible to observe "good scientific procedures" when trying to evaluate something like weather. How can you possibly assert that you have collected enough data? Weather is ancient and always changing. Our records are only a few years old, by comparison. Long term weather patterns can not be used to predict or explain short term weather.

Assuming that something that happens today can be attributed to a trend that is half a century old is not scientifically supportable. I pity those who are charged with making sense of it (and eventually, policies, FFS) They have a tough hand dealt to them and all the other players are cheating.




Maybe after more data is gathered we can PROVE GW is responsible.
 

 

[Lemon Aguilera]

we already know he fucked up the weather. he is a pest. generally and everyway.

[DirtDawg]

we already know he fucked up the weather. he is a pest. generally and everyway.

Not that GW, Cum-For-Brains!   Global Warming!

[Calandale]

Same thing.

[Lemon Aguilera]

 

[Dexter Morgan]

The frequency of said weather, however, can be blamed on global warming.

I don't see how you can control the sampling of unusual weather events over a specific period of time.  Communications technology and the ability to access it in remote areas has dramatically increased, as has the size of urban areas.  The result is that it is much more likely to report that these events are happening even if we assume there is no change in their frequency from earlier periods.

[odeon]

The frequency of said weather, however, can be blamed on global warming.

I don't see how you can control the sampling of unusual weather events over a specific period of time.  Communications technology and the ability to access it in remote areas has dramatically increased, as has the size of urban areas.  The result is that it is much more likely to report that these events are happening even if we assume there is no change in their frequency from earlier periods.

The number of hurricanes, for example, is increasing.

[odeon]

It is nearly impossible to observe "good scientific procedures" when trying to evaluate something like weather. How can you possibly assert that you have collected enough data? Weather is ancient and always changing. Our records are only a few years old, by comparison. Long term weather patterns can not be used to predict or explain short term weather.

Assuming that something that happens today can be attributed to a trend that is half a century old is not scientifically supportable. I pity those who are charged with making sense of it (and eventually, policies, FFS) They have a tough hand dealt to them and all the other players are cheating.




Maybe after more data is gathered we can PROVE GW is responsible.
 

 

We have data for weather a lot older than half a century. I think even Al Gore included this in his film. You can find out a lot by drilling deep holes in glaciers (um, while they still exist) and checking carbon dioxide levels and such for the various layers of ice. Those layers act like recordings from the time when the water froze.

We can prove it. Scientifically.

[Calandale]

One can prove global warming is happening,
but the causes are less certain. Ah, it
seems LIKELY that humans are to blame,
but it's not been shown, conclusively.

[odeon]

I think the vast majority of scientists devoting themselves to the study of global warming and its effects disagrees with you, Cal. See, for example, http://www.ipcc.ch/.

[Peter]

One can prove global warming is happening,
but the causes are less certain. Ah, it
seems LIKELY that humans are to blame,
but it's not been shown, conclusively.

How much evidence do you need to consider it conclusive?

[Calandale]

How much evidence do you need to consider it conclusive?

Something that can directly link the changes
to human causes. Sorry, it ain't done.

Not sure it CAN be, without an understanding
of weather which is WAY beyond our present
capability.

[DirtDawg]

It is nearly impossible to observe "good scientific procedures" when trying to evaluate something like weather. How can you possibly assert that you have collected enough data? Weather is ancient and always changing. Our records are only a few years old, by comparison. Long term weather patterns can not be used to predict or explain short term weather.

Assuming that something that happens today can be attributed to a trend that is half a century old is not scientifically supportable. I pity those who are charged with making sense of it (and eventually, policies, FFS) They have a tough hand dealt to them and all the other players are cheating.




Maybe after more data is gathered we can PROVE GW is responsible.
 

 

We have data for weather a lot older than half a century. I think even Al Gore included this in his film. You can find out a lot by drilling deep holes in glaciers (um, while they still exist) and checking carbon dioxide levels and such for the various layers of ice. Those layers act like recordings from the time when the water froze.

We can prove it. Scientifically.

Oh I understand about core samples, but I meant that the assumption that a particular weather related event can be directly attributed to what we know by analysing ice that was frozen one hundred fifty thousand years ago, is a problem.

I certainly accept the evidence of change. I browse several related sites on a weekly basis and there is too much "real evidence" to ignore, any longer. By "fifty years" I was referring to the "starting point" of the current upward trend of global temperatures that is commonly quoted. I think Al Gore started that. (Calandale, this proves that it was humankind!  ) It also depends upon where you want to look along the timeline. When I was in high school, the big scare was "global cooling."

There again, the coring technology in the seventies was not as well advanced as it is today. It has only been about a year since they got the first "million year old" samples. Just wait 'til more of the top melts away!

I think we are agreeing, but I am mainly saying that those who try to prove GW in a way that typical people can understand, have their hands full. As Calandale says, too, the cause may still be unknown.

[DirtDawg]

I think the vast majority of scientists devoting themselves to the study of global warming and its effects disagrees with you, Cal. See, for example, http://www.ipcc.ch/.

It's the "fact" of a consensus that is even more difficult to prove.

Have you enjoyed the ones claiming that the Little Ice Age in the seventeenth century was also a normal instance and that the fact that the globe has warmed consistently since that time is not out of the ordinary.

Even those guys woukld shut up if they would look at the amount of change in three hundred years previous and compare it to the amount of change in the past one hundred years. In economics, a graph with an upward turn like that is called a "boot."

That could mean something.