Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Koch Brothers pay to show global warming is real
Topic Started: Oct 31 2011, 08:01 PM (4,906 Views)
Chris
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Texas Scorched by Worst Drought in 50 Years: "The state's worst drought made the record books for its longevity, spanning a seven-year period during the 1950s. This drought, state weather officials say, is more notable for its intensity." OK, but word around here is it will last only one or two more years.

And then there's Drought History of Texas
Quote:
 
...I thought it would be interesting to pull the data to see how abnormal the current situation is versus the history of drought in Texas. Accordingly, I went to the National Climatic Data Center and obtained the data for the Palmer Drought Severity Index for Texas in March. That data goes back to 1895 and looks like this:

Posted Image

I've circled March 2011, so you can see how it compares to the history.

Recall the meaning of the PDSI, in which values of -2 to -3 are "moderate drought", -3 to -4 are "severe drought", and -4 and below are "extreme drought". So the current value of about -3.2 is indeed a severe drought. At least if the PDSI is to be believed, it's not unprecedented however: I count 15 different years which have had a lower PDSI in March than 2011.

I've also added a trendline, which you will note slopes upward (ie to wetter conditions). However, a regression comes up with a slope of 0.0056 ± 0.0075 PDSI units/year - ie. the trend is smaller than the uncertainty and so it's not a statistically significant trend. At any rate, there certainly is no evidence in the record that Texas is getting drier overall (at least in March, at least so far)....

Those are the facts, the data, and that's a logical conclusion.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

I have to wonder just how many of these "100 year events' have to occur in a single year before these guys like Chris get the message through their thick heads that something very unusual is happening. I suppose they have to wading around waist deep in water like the folks in Thailand and several other places this year have been doing. Events that were once confined to a specific area due to an unusual climatic event are now occurring in many places simultaneously. And it is now happening year after year. Duh, obvious or what?
Quote Post Goto Top
 
ngc1514
Member Avatar
Moderator
[ * ]
Mike
Nov 1 2011, 12:49 AM
I can't argue against your point Chris that the weather changes regularly and the earth has warmed and cooled in cycles. If we look at the dictionary definition of climate, the weather changes mark climate changes.
The problem is that no one is sure what drives these cycles. Why, after millions of years, did the earth start a period of glaciation about 2 million years ago?

Claiming today's warming is just one of those cycles is unsupportable by facts. Obviously, the jury is still out on what's driving the current warming trend, just as it is out on what has caused the previous cooling and warming cycles. There are lots of hypotheses, but no comprehensive theory of global climate.

.



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Chris
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
ngc1514
Nov 1 2011, 01:15 AM
Mike
Nov 1 2011, 12:49 AM
I can't argue against your point Chris that the weather changes regularly and the earth has warmed and cooled in cycles. If we look at the dictionary definition of climate, the weather changes mark climate changes.
The problem is that no one is sure what drives these cycles. Why, after millions of years, did the earth start a period of glaciation about 2 million years ago?

Claiming today's warming is just one of those cycles is unsupportable by facts. Obviously, the jury is still out on what's driving the current warming trend, just as it is out on what has caused the previous cooling and warming cycles. There are lots of hypotheses, but no comprehensive theory of global climate.

.



Well, the data, much as we have, support that. But if you want to argue it's unknown, in the longer run, because we don't have much data, fine, then, argumentum ad ignorantiam, claiming anything is unsupportable, whether today's warming is just part of cycles, or today's warming is uniquely breaking cycles.

Uncertainty is certainly more scientific than certainty.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Chris
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
telcoman
Nov 1 2011, 01:09 AM
I have to wonder just how many of these "100 year events' have to occur in a single year before these guys like Chris get the message through their thick heads that something very unusual is happening. I suppose they have to wading around waist deep in water like the folks in Thailand and several other places this year have been doing. Events that were once confined to a specific area due to an unusual climatic event are now occurring in many places simultaneously. And it is now happening year after year. Duh, obvious or what?
More ad hom.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mike
Member Avatar
Administrator
[ * ]
I think along with reviewing past history data, that the terms slight, moderate, and severe need revamping. A drought in Texas in say 1920 is a horse of a different color compared to a similar one in 2011. Texas now has nearly 30 million folks living there. The affect is more extreme in nature and the same can be said for everywhere on earth.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Quote:
 
More ad hom.


That appears to be your stock answer, Chris, when you have no valid argument back. It is hardly impressive.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Chris
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
telcoman
Nov 1 2011, 02:21 AM
Quote:
 
More ad hom.


That appears to be your stock answer, Chris, when you have no valid argument back. It is hardly impressive.
When your stock post is ad hom my stock reply will be that it is ad hom. Try some facts and logic instead of Pure Emotionalism. Why should I defend or rebut your ad hom, it's made up.

Note, I have responded in kind to NGC and Mike. They presented facts and logic, so did I.
Edited by Chris, Nov 1 2011, 02:27 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ngc1514
Member Avatar
Moderator
[ * ]
Chris
Nov 1 2011, 01:20 AM
Well, the data, much as we have, support that. But if you want to argue it's unknown, in the longer run, because we don't have much data, fine, then, argumentum ad ignorantiam, claiming anything is unsupportable, whether today's warming is just part of cycles, or today's warming is uniquely breaking cycles.

Uncertainty is certainly more scientific than certainty.
What data supports what, Chris? That the climate changes? No one was arguing it hasn't changed. The difference is today we have the tools to attempt to understand what is driving the present change. What do you propose is doing so?

"Uncertainty is certainly more scientific than certainty."

By that, I take it you are uncertain whether the present climate change is man caused or not.

Good man!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Chris
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
ngc1514
Nov 1 2011, 03:52 AM
Chris
Nov 1 2011, 01:20 AM
Well, the data, much as we have, support that. But if you want to argue it's unknown, in the longer run, because we don't have much data, fine, then, argumentum ad ignorantiam, claiming anything is unsupportable, whether today's warming is just part of cycles, or today's warming is uniquely breaking cycles.

Uncertainty is certainly more scientific than certainty.
What data supports what, Chris? That the climate changes? No one was arguing it hasn't changed. The difference is today we have the tools to attempt to understand what is driving the present change. What do you propose is doing so?

"Uncertainty is certainly more scientific than certainty."

By that, I take it you are uncertain whether the present climate change is man caused or not.

Good man!
No, I was responding to what you said about cycles, that the data doesn't support it, that its unknown. Kind of hard to argue anything from that.

Man's a part of the environment and can't help but contribute to it. How much, we don't know.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Fire And Ice General Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Website Traffic Analysis