Are we skiers helping global climate change?

SIKSKIER said:

Your really making my point.Your looking at such a small sample size and period of earths existance.Tree ring studies?Sure those go back what,a few hundred years or in a few cases a few thousand years.Ice cores will only go back to the begining of the last ice age.The earth is about 5 BILLION years old.Looking back 10's of thousands of years amounts to a few grains of sand in the Sahara Desert.Obviously you did not read the link I provided which is exactly what I would expect from the "the debate is over" team.

Click to expand...

Are you sure you read it? Because it does mention "analysis of ice core and ocean sediment cores has shown periods of glacials and interglacials over the past few million years."

ctenidae said:

Jesus' dinosaurs were just wee young'uns then.

View attachment 7058

Click to expand...

Buddha's cool with it..

SIKSKIER said:

looking at such a small sample size and period of earths existance.Tree ring studies? Sure those go back what,a few hundred years or in a few cases a few thousand years.

Click to expand...

The more curious question I have about "tree ring studies" is, why do people like him not know that there are tree ring studies that are also really, really bad for the man-made Global Warming theory?

I suspect the answer to that question is that if a tree-ring study comes out showing a recent warming trend, it gets promoted on CNN, Jon Stewart, ABC, MSNBC etc....., but when a tree-ring study comes out showing there were numerous periods in recent history that are warmer than today, it receives absolutely ZERO media attention, like the below Canadian tree-ring study released a few months ago.

Of course, now I'm left to ponder what model of SUV did William Shakespeare drive?

And did Global Warming cause the Bubonic plague?

BenedictGomez said:

The more curious question I have about "tree ring studies" is, why do people like him not know that there are tree ring studies that are also really, really bad for the man-made Global Warming theory?

I suspect the answer to that question is that if a tree-ring study comes out showing a recent warming trend, it gets promoted on CNN, Jon Stewart, ABC, MSNBC etc....., but when a tree-ring study comes out showing there were numerous periods in recent history that are warmer than today, it receives absolutely ZERO media attention, like the below Canadian tree-ring study released a few months ago.

Of course, now I'm left to ponder what model of SUV did William Shakespeare drive?

And did Global Warming cause the Bubonic plague?

Click to expand...

It's usually handy to cite sources when you are going to present data. Otherwise there is no context. I'll do it for you. That study was "Tree-ring derived Little Ice Age temperature trends from the central British Columbia Coast Mountains, Canada. Quaternary Research, Volume 78, Issue 3, November 2012, Pages 417-426. Kara J. Pitman, Dan J. Smith". This was largely a methods study that was evaluating the technique of using submerged woody debris to mountain lakes to get a little further back in time for making climate change estimates. They found that it's a good method. It gets them about twice as far back as existing records for this region (high elevation climates in BC coast mountains). The figure you posted is consistent with virtually any localized temperature measurements. Lots of variability over time. This is not a measure of global temperature. So I'm not sure what your point in relation to this discussion is. As for media attention, this is a pretty small-scale localized study. Maybe it got some press in BC? I don't know. I wouldn't expect any major news sources to pick up a small science study like this...despite the fact that it's pretty cool. But it got enough press that YOU found it. I wonder if that's because it shows up another "some guy's blog" about uncovering the big conspiracies of climate change science. You do have a habit of sourcing your info from these blogs....

BenedictGomez said:

The more curious question I have about "tree ring studies" is, why do people like him not know that there are tree ring studies that are also really, really bad for the man-made Global Warming theory?

but when a tree-ring study comes out showing there were numerous periods in recent history that are warmer than today, it receives absolutely ZERO media attention, like the below Canadian tree-ring study released a few months ago.

Of course, now I'm left to ponder what model of SUV did William Shakespeare drive?

And did Global Warming cause the Bubonic plague?

Click to expand...

Do you read any of the scientific research you cite? That chart is, as near as I can tell, from "Tree-ring derived Little Ice Age temperature trends from the central British Columbia Coast Mountains, Canada" by Pitman and Smith. They weren't studying the actual temperatures. They took samples from glacial moraines and tried to match temperatures they found there to other temperature work, to see if woody debris in the moraines could be useful for constructing a longer dendroclamtic record.

Their finding: "We conclude that coarse woody debris submerged in high-elevation lakes has considerable potential for developing lengthy proxy climate records, and we recommend that researchers focus attention on this largely ignored paleoclimatic archive." To the extent they studied temperature, they comment that it seems like periods of extended below-normal temperature are follwed by periods of above normal temperatures, and that during periods of above normal temperatures glacial moraines fill up with more woody debris.

Or maybe you were really thinking of "Orbital forcing of tree-ring data" published in Nature in July 2012. Cited as a paper that hurts the global warming theory, it was largely misread by the popular press (shocking, I know). Rather than providing evidence that it was warmer during the Medieval and Roman periods than it is now, they were actually trying out a new way of analyzing tree rings, and think that the temperatures then may have been warmer than was originally thought.

The medieval warm spell, which has been pretty well studied, is attributed to a decrease in volcanic activity (volcanic dust reflect heat back into space, so it never makes it to the surface). The idea is that we've been in a several thousand year cooling trend that we may have prematurely interrupted through antropogenic sources.

Bubonic plague is spread by fleas, which travel on rats. So, you could argue that it's caused by globalization, which is another much-decried, if misunderstood, phenomenon.

Cannonball said:

It gets them about twice as far back as existing records for this region (high elevation climates in BC coast mountains). The figure you posted is consistent with virtually any localized temperature measurements. Lots of variability over time. This is not a measure of global temperature. So I'm not sure what your point in relation to this discussion is. As for media attention, this is a pretty small-scale localized study.

Click to expand...

The better truth is none of the long-term ways they measure historical temperatures are perfect (or even nearly perfect enough, and that's being kind). But do you not see what you did in the above? You're criticizing the finding of an area(s) of the planet as being much cooler in the past as not being representative of the entire planet. Great; except that's exactly what some of these pseudo-scientists are doing right now. Look no farther than last year as an example. Over and over again we were told that temperatures in North America last winter were very warm (which was 100% true), and this was neatly-tied to global warming, but they simultaneously failed to mention that overall virtually everywhere else on the planet the global temperatures last season were rather cool. Regardless, the fact that there were warmer overall global instances in the past doesn't well jive with today's science if you wish to prove direct correlation.
It also doesn't bode well that the planet has been cooling for about 15 or 16 years now. "Well", they say, "yes, but these are still really warm years on a historical basis". This is a disingenuous, red herring defense of a failed hypothesis. Nobody is denying that it's not warm. But the earth should not be cooling with skyrocketing CO2, and CO2 that is rising much higher and much quicker than the climate scientists predicted to boot. Given how poorly their computer models and predictions have fared thus far, why should anyone reasonably believe them going forward? Even if you somehow were mentally capable of dismissing their caught-red-handed outright fraudulent data submissions, multiple coverups of data that seemed to contradict man-made global warming, and the blackballing of scientists working on any (literally) hypothesis not blaming the human race for the globe's warming.

BenedictGomez said:

....virtually everywhere else on the planet the global temperatures last season were rather cool.

Click to expand...

I think you're still missing how global temperature works. It's the whole globe as a composite that makes up the concept of "global temperature". There is no such thing as "everywhere else on the planet global temperatures".

It's also not "global warming" (an unfortunately sticky buzzword). It's "global climate change." Widescale and rapid changes to the global climate is the problem- melting ice caps and glaciers, deforestation, acidification of the oceans, increasing atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gasses, ongoing and deepening droughts, severe weather patterns, etc etc. these are allproblems that we have to be able to handle, and that we can have some type of influence on by reducing our overall contribution to some parts.

Europe being colder than normal and the tropics being hotter than normal canhave profound effects on overall climate.

Cannonball said:

Are you sure you read it? Because it does mention "analysis of ice core and ocean sediment coreshas shown periods of glacials and interglacials over the past few million years."

Click to expand...

Absolutetly read it.My point is not to weigh in one way or the other.It supports theories on both sides.There is no "the debate is over" conclusion from what I see from all different data,studies,and theories that I have read.But then,I have an open mind.

SIKSKIER said:

Absolutetly read it.My point is not to weigh in one way or the other.It supports theories on both sides.There is no "the debate is over" conclusion from what I see from all different data,studies,and theories that I have read.But then,I have an open mind.

Click to expand...

I don't think the "debate is over," necessarily. But, I'm quite positive the near-certain consequences of doing nothing and being wrong far far outweigh any potential downsides of doing something and being wrong.

SIKSKIER said:

Absolutetly read it.My point is not to weigh in one way or the other.It supports theories on both sides.There is no "the debate is over" conclusion from what I see from all different data,studies,and theories that I have read.But then,I have an open mind.

Click to expand...

That article describes a number or processes, both natural and man-made, that have been shown to impact global climate. They are not portrayed as from "both sides", they are portrayed (correctly) as all part of the same side. I.e. part of the overall picture.

Let me be clear what I meant when I said "there is no debate"....There is no longer any debate, among credible scientists, that humans can and do have an impact on global climate. The article you linked to says exactly that. On the other hand there is absolutely ongoing investigation, discussion, and even debate on the degree of those impacts, the long-term consequences, the secondary impacts, solutions, etc.

BenedictGomez said:

It also doesn't bode well that the planet has been cooling for about 15 or 16 years now. "Well", they say, "yes, but these are still really warm years on a historical basis". This is a disingenuous, red herring defense of a failed hypothesis. Nobody is denying that it's not warm. But the earth should not be cooling with skyrocketing CO2, and CO2 that is rising much higher and much quicker than the climate scientists predicted to boot. Given how poorly their computer models and predictions have fared thus far, why should anyone reasonably believe them going forward? Even if you somehow were mentally capable of dismissing their caught-red-handed outright fraudulent data submissions, multiple coverups of data that seemed to contradict man-made global warming, and the blackballing of scientists working on any (literally) hypothesis not blaming the human race for the globe's warming.

Click to expand...

You haven't a clue of what science is about!

Science base on evidence. Yes, data can be mis-interpreted. Data can even be mis-collected. But it can be proven if it's wrong. And the right one is reproducible. If you're only reading the science from the media, you're getting bits and piece of the scientific process and you may then conclude ALL science are unreliable because they sometimes get refuted which happens to be the best part of science.

So, all you rant of redherring and coverup are part of the scientific process. Politicians (and media) may mis-report or mis-use scientific findings for their own purpose. But if you're actually following the serious science, you'll find the debate is indeed "over". We human are accelerating the change in the earth's climate and making it more difficult for our children.

These days, the average American are unable to see beyond next weekend. Those who attributes the lack of snow last year to global warming are just as shortsighted as those who demand more snow making in 30 degree temperature! So climate change, which will affect our children and grandchildren most significantly, will simply be ignored by most as "unreliable" the moment the first snow flake flies. Let's hope our offsprings are smarter than dinosaurs so they can survive the mess we leave them in!

I know some geniuses who believe all the crap from Fox lies they just believe what they want, how funny would this thread be in a safety break 420 conversation.:beer:

She blinded me with science!

dmc said:

She blinded me with science!

Click to expand...

That's always the trouble isn't it? Critical analysis can be difficult, so most people default to one of three things- believe who ever is yelling the loudest, believe whatever serves your purposes now the best, or believe whatever is simplest and most expedient.

abc said:

You haven't a clue of what science is about!

Click to expand...

It's truly distressing to learn on an internet forum that my science degree was meaningless.

abc said:

if you're actually following the serious science, you'll find the debate is indeed "over".

Click to expand...

And then he follows it up with this! Gold Jerry, GOLD!

Scotty said:

I know some geniuses who believe all the crap from Fox lies they just believe what they want, how funny would this thread be in a safety break 420 conversation.:smile::smile::beer:

Click to expand...

That's ironic, when I read the English in your posts it helps me in cognition to assume you're high on a 24/7 basis.

Cannonball said:

I think you're still missing how global temperature works. It's the whole globe as a composite that makes up the concept of "global temperature". There is no such thing as "everywhere else on the planet global temperatures".

Click to expand...

Oh, I'm quite aware. Which is why the last 15 or 16 years should trouble the Global Warming alarmists, and explains why some of the more disingenuous among them (being kind) have tried to mask that data.

BenedictGomez said:

Oh, I'm quite aware. Which is why the last 15 or 16 years should trouble the Global Warming alarmists, and explains why some of the more disingenuous among them (being kind) have tried to mask that data.

Click to expand...

So, what do you suggest we, as a species, should do about the future? Continue with business as usual, cut down trees, over fish the oceans, increase factory farming, pump more CO2 and other greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere, and hope an asterooid hits us before we push things too far?

I get it that you think the government is always out to take every penny they can from you. I get it that you think folks who are concerned about anthropogenic impacts on the climate are alarmist nutjobs.

What I don't know is whether you think diversifying our energy sources makes sense. I don't know if you think that protecting wild spaces is important. I don't know if you think that saving species from extinction by human actions is worthwhile. I don't know if you're concerned that the polar ice caps are, undeniably, shrinking, and that we don't know what effect this may have on things, or if you think it might make sense to look into ways to adjust if it does change the climate around.

The global climate changes over time- I know you believe that, as you keep pointing to natural causes as a way to discount anthropogenic ones. I submit that we, as a culture, have gotten fairly well locked into our current ways of life, and have lost some of our natural adaptability. This concerns me because as the climates change, no matter the cause, we will need to adapt, and, at least in the developed world, we may have forgotten how to, or, worse still, we may be willfully ignorant, and refuse to remember how to adapt and stubornly continue down the path we're on.

This is why I get into these kinds of conversations. people like y ou are so wrapped up in the "global warming is all lies" claptrap that you have forgotten, perhaps because you want to, that there's a much bigger issue here, and it won't go away by ignoring it. The Earth's climate changes, and it's currently undergoing a change that has happened before, and appears to be a precursor to bigger, longer term changes. It really doesn't matter, particularly, what's causing it. If it's not us, fine, let's figure out how we can adapt. If it is us, fine, let's figure out how we can adapt (and along the way,we may be able to buy ourselves some time).

The longer we go thinking everything's hunky dory and we don't need to change the way we do things on this planet, the worse it'll be when or if things do go substantially against us. There is no downside to assuming we are having an impact on the global climate and looking for ways to fix, adjust, or adapt to it. None. In fact, there are tangible and achievable upsides, even if we aren't having an impact. There are real, tangible, and some not so distant impacts to business as usual, and the potential downsides are really quite bad.

Sticking your head in the sand, calling scientists liars, and espousing conspiracy theorists isn't at all helpful. But, you're entitled to your beliefs. All I ask is that you get the fuck out of the way as others try to make some progress and leave behind some sort of liveable planet for our grandkids. If you're not going to help, that's fine. Just don't be a hinderance.

I think we are contributing to global warming with this thread... haha..

Sent from my ADR6410LVW using Tapatalk 2
I'm sure it does BG but I actually have not been on MJ for a year now.

I kind of like the approach some environmental groups are taking now, where they are trying to work on a more local and regional level than at the national level.

We've seen how every world summit on cutting greenhouse gas emissions has been a dismal failure. Every country worries about their economy faltering without cheap polluting energy and agrees to do precisely nothing. Then you had Al Gore trying the grab the bull by the horns and advocate for change on a national level. But that just politicized the issue and now you see the kind of entrenched do nothing crowd that has sprung up in reaction.

Groups like the R20 Regions of Climate Action (the one founded by good old Arnold Schwarzenegger) seem to be able to move forward on green projects while the national governments remain paralyzed. I also like the local efforts of some ski areas to source their energy from renewable sources, and to put up wind turbines.