Adirondack Forum

Adirondack Forum (http://www.adkforum.com/index.php)
-   Environmental Issues (http://www.adkforum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=87)
-   -   Rochester Professor Proposes Jail Time (http://www.adkforum.com/showthread.php?t=19888)

redhawk 04-22-2014 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glen (Post 216367)
Wow Cityboy. More cherry picked quotes from such a balanced non-biased source as Forbes. Next you'll be posting denials from the API.

As I have pointed out. A perfect model of what the real problem is. It's a perfect example of the naysaying. Look for the 1% of statements that match what you want to believe, Quote from many of the others out of context and continue to bombard the atmosphere with God knows what, continue to dispose rather then conserve and continue to swear there isn't a problem.

cityboy 04-22-2014 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by redhawk (Post 216409)
As I have pointed out. A perfect model of what the real problem is. It's a perfect example of the naysaying. Look for the 1% of statements that match what you want to believe, Quote from many of the others out of context and continue to bombard the atmosphere with God knows what, continue to dispose rather then conserve and continue to swear there isn't a problem.

I challenge either you or Glen to provide proof of cherry picking. How about some specifics for a change?

Some quotes taken from private e-mails have been out in the public eye for 5 years and yet the scientists themselves have not come forward to say that what they said was misinterpreted.

So show me the follow-up e-mail that said "dude I was kidding. I can't believe you fell for it. Didn't you see it was dated April 1st?"

Accusations are easy to make how about providing some supporting facts for a change rather than just your "opinion"?

Glen 04-22-2014 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cityboy (Post 216412)
I challenge either you or Glen to provide proof of cherry picking. How about some specifics for a change?

Some quotes taken from private e-mails have been out in the public eye for 5 years and yet the scientists themselves have not come forward to say that what they said was misinterpreted.

So show me the follow-up e-mail that said "dude I was kidding. I can't believe you fell for it. Didn't you see it was dated April 1st?"

Accusations are easy to make how about providing some supporting facts for a change rather than just your "opinion"?



For every quote you post I could post a hundred. So in the end, what would that accomplish? You need a new hobby.

cityboy 04-22-2014 10:01 AM

I'm curious, has any seen any comparisons between real world temperatures and Climate model Projections for the Adirondacks?

Currently the gap for worldwide temps is .5C lower than those projected by Climate Models and growing.
It was my understanding that the Northeast and the Adirondacks in particular were projected to rise much higher than those of the rest of the world. I'd be interesting in seeing the accuracy of those Adirondack projections.

At the very least I'd like to see a graph of temperature trends for the Adirondacks since the mid 90's.

Neil 04-22-2014 10:04 AM

This thread, now that the players' biases have been laid out, would be more interesting to me if they were to choose and argue the opposite side of the argument. My hypothesis is that a reader would find a much more balanced discussion where each side draws closer to middle ground. The deniers would be obliged to look for, ferret out and post evidence that supports AGW and vice versa.

What is unclear is whether this approach would uncover the truth.

Neil 04-22-2014 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cityboy (Post 216417)
At the very least I'd like to see a graph of temperature trends for the Adirondacks since the mid 90's.

My understanding is that paleo-climatologists would call a change over 100 years to be an example of rapid climate change, or a very rapid "flickering" of climate that can be superimposed over much longer-term trends that actually have been shown to go in the opposite direction.

As interesting as such data is, anything measured since the 90's would not have very much significance as far as climate change is concerned.

cityboy 04-22-2014 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neil (Post 216419)
My understanding is that paleo-climatologists would call a change over 100 years to be an example of rapid climate change, or a very rapid "flickering" of climate that can be superimposed over much longer-term trends that actually have been shown to go in the opposite direction.

As interesting as such data is, anything measured since the 90's would not have very much significance as far as climate change is concerned.

I've found this study published in 2009. I think it stopped around 2005.

Historical Patterns and Effects of Changes in Adirondack Climates since the Early 20th Century
Author: J. Curt Stager, Stacy McNulty, Colin Beier, and Jeff ChiarenzelliBack to Table of Contents >>From Peer Review - Volume 15, No. 2 (2009)


"Analysis of weather data from seven United States Historical Climatology Network stations in the Adirondack region reveals statistically significant warming over the last 30 years during June and September, but no significant trends in the other months. The warmest intervals of the 1926-2005 period were the early 1930s, 1949-1954, and 1997-2003. These findings are consistent with similar analyses of northern New York weather data by Kathie Dello, but somewhat less so with earlier works by the first author and others."

http://www.ajes.org/v15n2/stager2009.php

I suspect that just like the Global temperatures there would be no trend from 2003 on. Notice that the two of three indicated Warming Intervals predated 1975 which is generally theorized when CO2 started to influence temperatures.

Limekiln 04-22-2014 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glen (Post 216367)
Wow Cityboy. More cherry picked quotes from such a balanced non-biased source as Forbes. Next you'll be posting denials from the API.

Who's in charge of defining what is biased and what isn't?

Glen 04-22-2014 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Limekiln (Post 216422)
Who's in charge of defining what is biased and what isn't?


People with a brain that can look up ownership and agendas.

redhawk 04-22-2014 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cityboy (Post 216412)
I challenge either you or Glen to provide proof of cherry picking. How about some specifics for a change?

Some quotes taken from private e-mails have been out in the public eye for 5 years and yet the scientists themselves have not come forward to say that what they said was misinterpreted.

So show me the follow-up e-mail that said "dude I was kidding. I can't believe you fell for it. Didn't you see it was dated April 1st?"

Accusations are easy to make how about providing some supporting facts for a change rather than just your "opinion"?

My opinion is just that, mine. Based on life's experience and observation. Therefore it has more value than a bunch of data based on other peoples agendas.

I was taught to observe, challenge and to think for myself.

Hell, your cherry picking is obvious, one only has to read the complete articles you reference as a source. And in many instances one has to only look at the source that you quote.

Bottom line is that I am stating my opinion, based on my own observations, not yours or anyone else's, and in doing so I don't have to "show" anyone anything.

Unlike many of the sources you quote, I have nothing to gain from my viewpoint and really nothing to lose either. I'm old enough that I probably won't be around when you have to explain exactly how and why you were wrong.

redhawk 04-22-2014 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Limekiln (Post 216422)
Who's in charge of defining what is biased and what isn't?

A person who has nothing to gain or to lose. Has the power of observation and deductive reasoning, along with the ability to come to conclusions based on their own observations and experiences across a life time.

randomscooter 04-22-2014 01:58 PM

Happy Earth Day folks! :dance:

brontide 04-22-2014 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by randomscooter (Post 216426)
Happy Earth Day folks! :dance:

Since we only started "observing" earth day on 1970, how do we know really know what we are observing. Globally it wasn't even recognized until 1990. It hasn't even been through a full solar cycle!

Glen 04-22-2014 08:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by randomscooter (Post 216426)
Happy Earth Day folks! :dance:


How can I believe it is Earth Day? Because you say so? Can you post some graphs or out of context quotes so I can be a true believer?

:)

John H Swanson 04-23-2014 03:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by redhawk (Post 216424)
My opinion is just that, mine. Based on life's experience and observation. Therefore it has more value than a bunch of data based on other peoples agendas. .

However it is limited to the scope of your experiences. If we are referring to global warming then accuracy or value would require sufficient global experience or one has to include the experience of others to truly have a global perspective. I would argue that the data has more value but I do agree that interpretation is subject to biases

randomscooter 04-23-2014 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brontide (Post 216431)
Since we only started "observing" earth day on 1970, how do we know really know what we are observing. Globally it wasn't even recognized until 1990. It hasn't even been through a full solar cycle!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glen (Post 216442)
How can I believe it is Earth Day? Because you say so? Can you post some graphs or out of context quotes so I can be a true believer?

:)

Aw shucks, guys. You can trust li'l ol' meeeeeee. :)

And, for the record, I had nothing to do with setting the date of the first Earth Day to coincide with the 100th anniversary of Lenin's birthday. :Peek:

redhawk 04-23-2014 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John H Swanson (Post 216456)
However it is limited to the scope of your experiences. If we are referring to global warming then accuracy or value would require sufficient global experience or one has to include the experience of others to truly have a global perspective. I would argue that the data has more value but I do agree that interpretation is subject to biases

If that were the case, then explain how there can be two opinions, so far apart. Since those opinions have been reached by others, supposedly "professionals" in the field, than that information must be discarded because logic dictates that one side is obviously wrong, or intentionally deceptive. Therefore the odds of an opinion formed based on my own observations and experiences has the higher odds of being accurate.

Here is one fact to take into consideration when deciding if climate change (which all camps now agree does exist) is man made. In the last 150 years, the amount of co2 in the atmosphere has increased hundreds of time more then all the thousands of years before. The fact that the industrial revolution began about the same time as the more drastic changes and population has also exploded in the same time would logically show that human causes are the only answer to the phenomena.

John H Swanson 04-23-2014 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by redhawk (Post 216475)
If that were the case, then explain how there can be two opinions, so far apart. Since those opinions have been reached by others, supposedly "professionals" in the field, than that information must be discarded because logic dictates that one side is obviously wrong, or intentionally deceptive. Therefore the odds of an opinion formed based on my own observations and experiences has the higher odds of being accurate.

Here is one fact to take into consideration when deciding if climate change (which all camps now agree does exist) is man made. In the last 150 years, the amount of co2 in the atmosphere has increased hundreds of time more then all the thousands of years before. The fact that the industrial revolution began about the same time as the more drastic changes and population has also exploded in the same time would logically show that human causes are the only answer to the phenomena.

It is easy to explain why two opinions are so far apart - People have an opinion that is not based on the overall data. (a bias) or people are not smart enough to interpret the data correctly (incompetance).

I do not think you can flatly discard the data because in that case you would only have your own data. You quote facts that I agree with but IIUC these are not facts based on your own expereince unless you are 160 years old or have done your own core sampling and analysis of gas trapped in ice layers. These are facts someone else presented and you chose to believe (probably correctly).

You refer to an opinion based on your own observations and experiences....I only say that perhaps a better wording would be your own conclusions based on interpreting the data available and using knowledge you built from your own observation and experience.

With regard to the odds of being right...You have two sides that are opposed if one is right and one is wrong....And you have an opinion that matches one side so you could be right or wrong. Perhaps someone with a better statistics background can present the reason why your odds of being right are better than everyone else.

BTW, in general I agree with some of the things you have said and believe and also with some of the points made by cityboy.

John H Swanson 04-23-2014 02:07 PM

ps. Has anyone read super freakomonics? Great concept on why the whole global warming issue is SOOOO overrated. There are viable proposed solutions (at least as presented in the book) that correct the issue. There are other issues to the solution they present but it is funny to see how an engineering approach to the problem makes it seem insignificant

cityboy 04-24-2014 09:39 AM

Great article about how "Developing" countries like Saudi Arabia and China argued for 5 days to have the IPCC remove parts of the recent summary report that made them look bad and held them accountable for their share in increased CO2 since 1996.

http://news.sciencemag.org/climate/2...t-negotiations

A quote:

"the most contentious issue this year was whether to highlight economic groupings of nations, such as high or low income, and illustrations showing how each group was contributing to the growth of greenhouse gas emissions were particularly controversial. Below is one of the figures from the draft summary that sparked debate; it shows that emissions from lower-middle income countries (LMCs) and upper-middle income countries (UMCs) are rising faster than emissions from high-income countries (HICs)."


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:16 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.