Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[TheFishingLad]

TNA Still being uneducated.

/thread

[TNAngler]

TNA Still being uneducated.

/thread

You're funny, except you're not, and wrong.  I guess name calling is all you have left.

I gave my background in models.  I have been putting in about 800 study hours a year on models and the like, oh, for the past 10-15 years.  You want to call me uneducated, then prove that I am so uneducated compared to you.  Give your background.  Explain how you are such the expert.  Or is it just that my opinions are contrary to what you have thought/believed/been told for so long that it just can't possibly make sense so I must be uneducated?

[Quinsam_Lose_Some]

Nice to see some rain here on the Island. Maybe a bump of water will bring up some Steel. Flows are dreadfully low.

Skunked so far here on the Quinsam and Campbell this year. Been to the Gold several times since Christmas. Had one on, never saw it though.

Clearly 'Global Warming' not to mention 'Government Intervention'. 

[TheFishingLad]

You're funny, except you're not, and wrong.  I guess name calling is all you have left.

I gave my background in models.  I have been putting in about 800 study hours a year on models and the like, oh, for the past 10-15 years.  You want to call me uneducated, then prove that I am so uneducated compared to you.  Give your background.  Explain how you are such the expert.  Or is it just that my opinions are contrary to what you have thought/believed/been told for so long that it just can't possibly make sense so I must be uneducated?

See pages 1-6.  Re-read, realization, success.

My background is irrelevant as I'm not a meteorologist, evolutionary biologist or the like. The issue here is your arguments are similar to those of the flat earth society (as previously mentioned early on in this thread). I could also post studies, research papers and statistics but this again is beating a dead cat, it's all been posted here.

What I would suggest, for the good of this earth, is let your thoughts stay in your mind and let other pliable minds be molded by legitimate science. Just remember, Anti-Vaxxers think that they are doing the right thing too..,

[Sandman]

You can discuss what the climate is on any given day as long as your discussion of the climate in any given week/month/season gives you the pretty much the same answer.  You are missing the bigger point though.

Your graph doesn't even show climate, it shows days below freezing.  It doesn't show whether on average the temperatures are colder or warmer.  Stats can be used to show anything.  What are the temps on the days where it isn't below freezing?  If those dropped from an average of 60 degrees down to 40, the number of days below freezing could go down but the average will still go down.

http://vancouver.weatherstats.ca/charts/temperature-25years.html


Using Vancouver's last 25 years, looks pretty darn flat.  The average for the year got above 11 in 1992, 1995, 1998, 2003, 2010.  Every 3 years for 9 years it would peak but then you went 5 years and then 7.  Looks like the distance between averages above 11 degrees is spreading out so it must be getting colder.  Of course you aren't going to agree with that but given the data I linked to, that is a reasonable conclusion.

It is amazing to me how many websites will give the 25 year average, the 50 year average, present their information in the way that they want you to see it but won't give the underlying data.  I have gotten to a point where I don't trust anybody showing me their data points that aren't willing to show me the underlying data.  Especially given the whole fiasco a couple years ago with them "massaging" the data to fix "errors" but unwilling to give the data without the fixes.

Actually, since the number of nights with temperatures below freezing is a long term pattern in weather conditions, and since climate is the prevailing weather conditions in general or over long periods of time, not just averages, it indeed shows climate.  A change from a moderate to extreme climate (greater variability between highest and lowest temperature), or visa versa, is a change in climate, even though the average may not change much at all.  Furthermore, while Vancouver's average temperatures may appear relatively flat, this may be as much a product of the moderating effect the Pacific Ocean has on our climate.  We may also be an area that is going to experience a cooler drier climate in the new regime. What is interesting is that in Canadian cities further inland (continental vs maritime climate) we see that the average temperature in the last five years has risen at least a degree compare to the first five years of that 25 year period:

http://ottawa.weatherstats.ca/charts/temperature-25years.html

This is even more pronounced in cities further north:

http://iqaluit.weatherstats.ca/charts/temperature-25years.html

Given that global warming (the rise in the global average temperature of the earth's atmosphere) in the last 100 years is a rise of less than a degree, these changes appear significant.

[RalphH]

You haven't been following US politics in the last, oh decade, have you?  A majority of the electorate didn't want a major change to our healthcare system.  A majority of the electorate doesn't want it now. 

actually I have followed US Politics for about 5 decades. you are wrong on this one as well. When someone goes narrow you argue broad. When they argue narrow you switch back to broad. It's very thin unsophisticated sophistry. The US Electorate is it's own worst enemy as the average person doesn't vote. Looking at narrow bands of broad scale polling is deceptive as it swings wildly based on media and political spin. Health care is just one issue and your illustrates the sort of spin and distortion that typifies US politics. The Obama health care initiative was such politically divisive (what isn't down there - if he announced he favored motherhood the Republic Christian Tea party vote would oppose him. I mean it's the Western World's biggest political joke don't you know? ROTFLMAO)  Given that and how badly it was pulled off little wonder it's opposed at the moment.

[TNAngler]

actually I have followed US Politics for about 5 decades. you are wrong on this one as well. When someone goes narrow you argue broad. When they argue narrow you switch back to broad. It's very thin unsophisticated sophistry. The US Electorate is it's own worst enemy as the average person doesn't vote. Looking at narrow bands of broad scale polling is deceptive as it swings wildly based on media and political spin. Health care is just one issue and your illustrates the sort of spin and distortion that typifies US politics. The Obama health care initiative was such politically divisive (what isn't down there - if he announced he favored motherhood the Republic Christian Tea party vote would oppose him. I mean it's the Western World's biggest political joke don't you know? ROTFLMAO)  Given that and how badly it was pulled off little wonder it's opposed at the moment.

It was a mess when it was put in, not read by many who passed it, been a complete disaster of an implementation, and the Congress had to break hundreds of years of protocol to pass it.  This despite a polls showing by the time they passed it that only a majority of people favored it.  That is not following the will of the people.

[TNAngler]

See pages 1-6.  Re-read, realization, success.

My background is irrelevant as I'm not a meteorologist, evolutionary biologist or the like. The issue here is your arguments are similar to those of the flat earth society (as previously mentioned early on in this thread). I could also post studies, research papers and statistics but this again is beating a dead cat, it's all been posted here.

What I would suggest, for the good of this earth, is let your thoughts stay in your mind and let other pliable minds be molded by legitimate science. Just remember, Anti-Vaxxers think that they are doing the right thing too..,

Alright, so you are in the section of "just believe what people you believe are smarter than you say because they are smarter, or at least have told you they are smarter."  At least do yourself a favor and realize that there is an entire section of the scientific community that does agree with me and if you search you can find their research.  Some of them are sponsored by oil companies, stay away from them because they aren't unbiased either.  There are plenty of others though.  If you want to read both sides and still believe what you believe, fine.  I have no issue with that.  How can you critically think about any of this if you don't hear both sides from people you could believe as you obviously won't believe me?  Or is it that you don't want to critically think about it?

There is a nationally syndicated radio host that put together a movie.  His name is Phil Valentine and the movie is "An Inconsistent Truth".  I haven't watched it but I hear it is very good and brings together many of these scientists and shows all of the issues.  You can find it on Amazon.  It has been a top seller on there for many weeks.  You want to hear it from scientists that aren't taking oil money?  Watch that.

[TNAngler]

Actually, since the number of nights with temperatures below freezing is a long term pattern in weather conditions, and since climate is the prevailing weather conditions in general or over long periods of time, not just averages, it indeed shows climate.  A change from a moderate to extreme climate (greater variability between highest and lowest temperature), or visa versa, is a change in climate, even though the average may not change much at all.  Furthermore, while Vancouver's average temperatures may appear relatively flat, this may be as much a product of the moderating effect the Pacific Ocean has on our climate.  We may also be an area that is going to experience a cooler drier climate in the new regime. What is interesting is that in Canadian cities further inland (continental vs maritime climate) we see that the average temperature in the last five years has risen at least a degree compare to the first five years of that 25 year period:

http://ottawa.weatherstats.ca/charts/temperature-25years.html

This is even more pronounced in cities further north:

http://iqaluit.weatherstats.ca/charts/temperature-25years.html

Given that global warming (the rise in the global average temperature of the earth's atmosphere) in the last 100 years is a rise of less than a degree, these changes appear significant.

Comparing a 5 year average over 25 years and then saying the 100 year average is less than a degree doesn't mean as much since we don't have the data from before that.  If you want to find a place to get that I will review it.

I have never said climate isn't changing.  Climate has changed since the beginning.  I'm just saying the effect man has on it is over blown.  Or maybe it isn't but we don't really know because we can't predict climate into the future because our models are so poor.


Read this
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-09/global-warming-slowdown-due-to-pacific-winds-study-shows.html

Just came out last week.  Increased Pacific winds have buried the global warming deeper in the oceans causing us to cool.  They just considered this possibility so you know it isn't built into the models.  If this isn't built into the models, what else isn't?  It even says it in the story, "Stronger Pacific Ocean winds may help explain the slowdown in the rate of global warming since the turn of the century, scientists said."  MAY.  They don't know.  They don't know why their models aren't predicting things closer.  So, I ask again, if they don't understand why the models are giving bad results for now, why would we believe their prediction 50 or 100 years out?  They are trying to back test their models and it is failing.

For those not familiar with back testing, it is going back to some time in the past (10 years say) and putting in some of what actually happened and letting the assumptions flow through and getting the results.  This should validate that the model can be trusted for the next 10 years without any major shocks to the system.  If you can't validate over 10 years back testing like this, no results of the model should be trusted.

[banx]

this site has made me read more than expected and fish less. 

[TNAngler]

this site has made me read more than expected and fish less. 

Well, please, fish more although I hear there are few fish.  Post some pics in the fish porn thread.  Not many pictures these days.

[banx]

hahaha I don't think pictures of my cold toes would suit the fish porn thread.

[TNAngler]

hahaha I don't think pictures of my cold toes would suit the fish porn thread.

  Some of us live vicariously through the pictures because we don't get to fish enough.  The rest of you aren't catching enough to satisfy our needs.  Get to it and up your game.

[Sandman]

I have never said climate isn't changing.  Climate has changed since the beginning.  I'm just saying the effect man has on it is over blown.  Or maybe it isn't but we don't really know because we can't predict climate into the future because our models are so poor.

You insist we cannot know what our impact is, but at the same time you insist our impact is less than scientists claim.  Humans have long argued that we cannot alter the oceans or the atmosphere because they are so large and we are so small, yet science (and simple observation) has shown this is erroneous.  We now understand that dumping sewage and untreated industrial waste into the ocean may not be such a harmless act.  It does not take a scientist to realize that if greenhouse gases like CO₂ are responsible for our atmosphere retaining heat (natural Greenhouse Effect), and if we are producing more CO₂ today through the burning of fossil fuels (primarily coal and petroleum) than at any time in the Earth's past, while at the same time we are removing forest cover (responsible for converting a substantial amount of the atmospheric CO₂ to O₂) at an unprecedented rate, that we can indeed have a significant impact on the chemical composition of the Earth's atmosphere.  While one can be skeptical of the accuracy of computer models to predict future climates accurately, it is quite another to deny humans can have an profound impact on climate given what we do know about the Earth's natural cycles (carbon cycle, Water Cycle, etc) and about our present actions and contributions to them. 


https://www2.ucar.edu/climate/faq/how-much-has-global-temperature-risen-last-100-years

http://www2.ucar.edu/climate/faq#t2507n1345

[Ian Forbes]

Typically, people here seem to prefer attacking the person rather than the subject at hand. If you can't support your own premise with facts then attack the other guy on a personal basis rather than dispute his theories.

I think we can all agree that we've done damage to this planet and the damage needs to stop before it's too late. Whether or not the damage has caused global temperature changes means absolutely nothing. The ONLY thing that counts now is how can we prevent further damage to the planet.