Amen!Originally Posted by OLDBLUE
No need. I go to the One who created it and made it so intriguing man gets crazy with it.
|
|
|
|
|
Amen!No need. I go to the One who created it and made it so intriguing man gets crazy with it.
Awesome post...green for you.No need. I go to the One who created it and made it so intriguing man gets crazy with it.
North Pole Record Summer Cold...
Record Summer Cold Continues At The North Pole
Posted on July 3, 2017 by tonyheller
The short polar melt season is almost half over, and hasn’t actually begun yet.
I know short term trends are meaningless in the long run but Baton Rouge had a June on the cold end of average (bottom 10 since 1930) and we had the 2nd lowest number of 90 degree days in a June since 1930. We only exceeded the average high twice all month (both 92 avg 91). I am curious if other stations around the country saw a similar trend in June this year. That is a sharp contrast to even 5 years ago where once June 6 rolled around we were at 97 or higher for the rest of the month. It was completely awful. June win this year. I hope it is a trend towards a mild summer.
June was mild. Hopefully the rest of the summer will be too. I have noticed in years past when we had mild winters, we also had a mild summer. Like the temps are staying in a narrower range, not too cold, then not too hot.
Funny side note...have an old friend and her 16-year-old daughter staying with us. They have fallen on hard times and asked if they could stay here until she got back on her feet financially. They had been living in Colorado. The daughter has never lived anywhere but in the mountains where, as recently as last week, that community got a dusting of snow. SHE IS WILTING! I told her May and June were very mild and she hasn't yet seen what a real Louisiana summer looks like. Our friend is from Alabama and lived several years in Shreveport, before moving to Colorado 20+ years ago. So, she is familiar with southern summers. But not the daughter....who either stays in the AC or lounges in our pool.
Point is, we've had a mild summer....so far.
"All roads lead to Putin" -- Thomas Jefferson
So, a weatherman with current weather models struggles to accurately predict the weather 5 days out, but scientists can predict the effects of global warming 60 years down the road? What am I missing?
So....the whole greenhouse gas theory has its roots in a 19th French mathematician's experiment using aquarium-size glass cases? Ya mean air trapped in glass and exposed to a heat source...warms up??? Who'd a thunk it? But, that's too easy...
This air pressure theory is quite interesting. Scientists everywhere, even those belonging to the give-me-tons-of-money-and-I'll-say-I believe-in-man-made-global-warming club admit this study is worth a hard look.
As I say, in ALL things, be it evolution, global warming, or Bigfoot! show me the REAL science. That's what I'm interested in. I joke around a lot (and like to yank the chain of certain posters, ahem..) but I am really interested in REAL science.
First, you need to understand the difference between weather and climate.
"All roads lead to Putin" -- Thomas Jefferson
Do you remember that TV show in the 50's, "You Asked For It"?
http://www.realclimate.org
"All roads lead to Putin" -- Thomas Jefferson
I was born in 1958. I don't have any memories of "the 50's." At least none that I can remember.
Thanks for the link.
I read through many of the posts and some of the linked articles. Here's "a" bottom line (note: I did NOT say "the" bottom line, because that implies an ultimate conclusion), all of the predictions are based on "models" fed by limited (very?) data input. One of the links is a study of ocean temps. They draw some, ahem, big conclusions from limited sampling. I had to go to another link, in a link, just to find something on how the data was taken. Based on what those researchers have provided they took their own readings, and there is no mention of using data provided by ARGO, even.
And even ARGO, while the most comprehensive data gathering system in place, measures a "whopping" .0000000000000000000001% of the ocean water in each sampling. ARGO has 3,800 devices working automatically, worldwide, each takes a reading on one gallon of water every 4 hours. Overall, the system takes 120,000 "snap shots" annually. Then, "scientists" take this sampling data and plug it in a computer model....Who designed the computer model? What assumptions were used to create the model? Anyone can create a model to spit out whatever results they want. Even if we grant, for the sake of argument, that the computer models are fair and accurate, who's to say what is the root cause of any changes?
If one is to lean on data gathered by ARGO, for instance, then one can ONLY compare data gathered by ARGO vs. other data gathered by ARGO (apples to apples). But, in one of the linked articles a GW enthusiast compares ocean temp data, gathered by the US NOAA (a member of ARGO) to other historic data, gathered by.....??? Who knows? Because the article does not say how that comparable data was gathered and then how it was analyzed to create a conclusion. There is just a reference to some fellow, another Man-made GW enthusiast, I assume, who made a presentation.
And, to me, here's the kicker...ARGO has been operational since 2007. Originally with 3,000 sensors, now 3,829 by the latest report. Hmmm...all of ten years and now with 829 more sensors in place, changing the data input and calling into question the "averages" climate scientists hold up as their proof the oceans are warming. How many sensors will there be next month? 4,000???
As a REAL scientist, I would have least placed 3,000 sensors in FIXED locations, and now would have 10 years of data gathered, to see what ocean temps have done. As it is, how does anyone know what effect the additional 829 sensors have had on the averages? Heck, I could place those 829 sensors in places to skew the data in any direction I want! Put 'em all at the poles, and the "average" ocean temps would go way down, place 'em at the equator, and temps would go way up.
Oh, no. These scientists would never do that. They spread 'em out all over the world in an honest attempt to get accurate measurements. Okay. Even given an "honest attempt" was made, they have nonetheless introduced a new variable to the equation. Can readings made with 3,829 sensors in 2017 really be compared to readings made by 3,000 sensors in 2007?
Yea, God made quite a mass we call earth. He put that unpredictable sun there in the middle of our galaxy and the "wisdom of man" has it all figgered out. The polar caps are going to melt away and we are all gonna drown. Ergo, man predicts God is a liar.
Scientific method calls for a representative sampling protocol such that the average results represent the whole. If I draw a bath beginning with cold water, then top it off with hot, how do I catch a proper samples to draw conclusions of the mean temperature?
Meanwhile, heat energy is leaving the tub, with vapor and loss thru the ceramics. Where’s all that energy going? Do the laws of thermo hold true?
Forget the tub for a minute. What about the oceans? Wow. They are deep, there are temp. gradients everywhere from massive cold pockets in the deep here and there as well as volcanic activity in other spots. Add the phenomenon of vaporization, condensation, rain, winds, all the temperature profiles (polar cold to equatorial heat as well) resulting in currents with gradual mixing all over.
Are you sure our “experts” have valid data? Are you gonna lose sleep over indications of varying temperatures over the centuries? Don’t waste your time, God is in control and He has all the answers. We certainly do not. Enjoy the ever changing conditions and marvel at the great expanse. Learn what you can about it; but fret over the unknown????
You don’t believe in God. Okay, I can certainly understand how one might lose sleep.
Heck, my pool has varying temps. After my long bike ride this morning (yes, I was hoping to see that lassie again on her bike (see the BTE) and thus I rode an extra 8-10 miles) I was hot! So, I jumped in the pool and there are pockets of cooler and warmer water at varying places and depths. We have an automated(computerized) system and a display that shows air temps and pool temps, which is averaged from two sensors at opposite ends of the pool. According to the sensors, the "pool temp" was 88F this morning. But really, that is just the average near those two sensors...probably 92 on the shallow end and 84 on the deep end. I guarantee at 12 feet down and deeper, the water is cooler than 84 in the deep end. You can feel the marked difference. Our pool is about 40 feet end to end with a varying width, averaging about 20 feet, and a deep end down to 16 feet. I think our pool guy said it has about 30,000 gallons of water.
What is, and how would you get a true average temp of our pool? I'd say you'd have to have multiple sensors at varying places/depths and then use a weighted average to calculate the overall average, such as there are 1,800 gallons at 94F, 4,100 gallons at 93.5F, etc until all 30K gallons are measured and accounted for. And then! the only real data you would have is a calculated average temp at a point in time, like 10:40am July 11, 2017. Because at 8:00am and later at 1:00pm I guarantee the dynamics of the water temps were different.
Now consider measuring just 3,829 gallons of water out of the trillions of gallons Earth's oceans hold and convince me you have a sufficient statistical sample. You don't.
But, I don't fault the ARGO program. It is about as comprehensive a sampling method practical. Just understand there insufficient data points to get anywhere near a 95% confidence level. I don't know what a .0000000000000000000001% sample size equates to in a CL. And, even if you trust the ARGO data and it shows average ocean temps have risen since 2007, what's that say about pre-2007 temps, and what's that say about the cause of it? GW alertists scream it's man-made!!! Run for the hills! But, that data doesn't point to a cause.
Excellent!!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
