KillingtonZone.com

XtremeJibber2001 wrote:

JerseyGuy wrote:Sigh... I'm not having this argument with you any more over percentages.

You want absolute certainty in this life? Get out your Good Book and become a fundamentalist, Biblical literalist. Otherwise, it ain't gonna happen.

A study from London almost a year and a half ago was published by the World's leading scientists and concluded they were ~95% confident that humans were responsible for global warming.

If these scientists came up with such a percentage, I have a hard time understanding why the "What percentage increase in temperature are humans responsible for" is such a hard question.

Surely you wouldn't invest in anything without knowing the facts, right? We're about to invest in the Earth and you don't care to know the facts?

Why?

Why would it even matter to you?

You, and many like you, are the kings of the "Yeah, buts" when it comes to climate change.

Some study says there's something called "global warming"? Yeah, but we can only go back as far as we've been keeping temperature records, and that's doesn't tell us much of anything. Oh, ice core samples indicate a larger, longer-term problem? Yeah, but we don't know for absolute sure if it's OUR fault. Oh, now a bunch of scientists are saying that we're contributing to the problem? Yeah, but how MUCH are we contributing to the problem? And now we should try to do something to fix it? Yeah, but why clean up after Mother Nature's own capriciousness?

What percentage are you looking for? Is one percent enough to justify changes? Two percent? Five percent?

If it's only 0.5%, or 0.05%, or 0.005%, is that still enough? Not enough? Just right? What's your threshold?

And if a percentage could be determined, what the formula you'd use to determine how much it's worth our while? How many dollars is a percentage point worth? Do you not think this is already being discussed?

And since you still think these are all "sky is falling" predictions anyway, would any number really mean anything to you... or are you simply trying to tie the entire argument up into a logical pretzel?

Since you clearly don't believe humans are responsible for anything more than a tiny fraction of the problem, and since you also clearly believe that the cost of doing something would be "wasteful", everything else you're asking and/or proposing is simply meant to derail any governmental action.

"Knowing the facts"? You don't believe in "the facts." It's yet another stalling tactic. You're not asking for mere "facts"... you're asking for a guarantee, one you know can never come with absolute scientific certainty.

Your investment analogy is a good one. Do you only invest in stocks that you KNOW, beyond a shadow of a doubt, will grow at a certain percentage for a certain period of time?

XtremeJibber2001 wrote:

JerseyGuy wrote:Sigh... I'm not having this argument with you any more over percentages.

You want absolute certainty in this life? Get out your Good Book and become a fundamentalist, Biblical literalist. Otherwise, it ain't gonna happen.

A study from London almost a year and a half ago was published by the World's leading scientists and concluded they were ~95% confident that humans were responsible for global warming.

If these scientists came up with such a percentage, I have a hard time understanding why the "What percentage increase in temperature are humans responsible for" is such a hard question.

Surely you wouldn't invest in anything without knowing the facts, right? We're about to invest in the Earth and you don't care to know the facts?

Why?

Fill three glasses with ice. In two of the glasses pour vodka over ice until glass is full. Leave last glass of ice alone. Start drinking one of the vodkas, sip slowly, take your time. What happens?

The static scenario - ice only, ice takes longest to melt. Melts very slowly at first, speeds up to an almost constant rate, and then speeds up again at the end as the cubes get very small.

The no human scenario - ice and vodka, no disturbances, ice melts at a pretty constant rate until the end, when it speeds up as the cubes get very small. Ice doesn't last as long as the static scenario.

The human intervention scenario - ice and vodka nightcap, the warmth of your hand and the movement of the glass along with the liquid movement inside causes the ice to melt at an ever increasing rate, but again still with a noticible increase in rate of ice melt at the end as the cubes get very small. Ice melts well before the static scenario, and before the no human scenario, BUT it finishes melting at the same rate as the other two. Why?

There's not enough ice left to counterbalance the warmth around it. We've reached the rapid ice melt state on earth since our last deep freeze. Human intervention may have gotten us here faster, but there's nothing we can do to change it now...short of throwing more ice cubes in the glass.

Did a little research on NOAA and put together some #'s on avg. temps during winter months (dec of prior yr, jan, feb, mar) for each decade going back to 1900 - taken in Burlington, VT.


Decade /Avg winter temps / Avg yearly temp

1900's / 30.4 / 52.6
1910's / 29.4 / 52.1
1920's / 30.3 / 52.4
1930's / 30.6 / 53.3
1940's / 30.8 / 54.6
1950's / 31.8 / 54.5
1960's / 29.3 / 53.0
1970's / 29.6 / 53.4
1980's / 32.2 / 54.5
1990's / 33.2 / 55.6
2000's*/ 32.7 / 55.2

* 2000 - 2006

Draw your own conclusions on why the 60's was used as the original point of reference. For me its telling that the 60's was a low point that increases each decade until present. If they used the 1900's as baseline, they would have to explain that avg temps decreased in the 60's after a steady rise for the previous 50 years, thus greatly reducing the creditibility of their agenda that winters are getting warmer and warmer and will continue to do so unless something is done. Wouldn't want to give any impression that temperatures can go in the opposite direction too now, would they.

Wow. Does anybody really believe the continual burning of massive amounts of fossil fuels is good or neutral for the planet? Anybody? Independent of one's interpretation of global warming data, this is still a core issue caused by humans alone.

what i would be curious to know, has there been extreme changes in temp from one day to the next throughout the century or is the a new phenomenom?

JerseyGuy wrote:Why would it even matter to you?

I'm a consumer and a tax payer. I think those are two noble reasons, right?

JerseyGuy wrote:You, and many like you, are the kings of the "Yeah, buts" when it comes to climate change.

Nope. Not today. Using the data we have available what percentage increase can be directly attributed to humans. That's it.

JerseyGuy wrote:Some study says there's something called "global warming"? Yeah, but we can only go back as far as we've been keeping temperature records, and that's doesn't tell us much of anything. Oh, ice core samples indicate a larger, longer-term problem? Yeah, but we don't know for absolute sure if it's OUR fault. Oh, now a bunch of scientists are saying that we're contributing to the problem? Yeah, but how MUCH are we contributing to the problem? And now we should try to do something to fix it? Yeah, but why clean up after Mother Nature's own capriciousness?

These are all valid concerns (except the last one). Don't you think these concerns should be put on the table and considered before sweeping legislation affects the way we live our life? Of course acknowledging I'm only looking for the answer to a simple question.

JerseyGuy wrote:What percentage are you looking for? Is one percent enough to justify changes? Two percent? Five percent?

If it's only 0.5%, or 0.05%, or 0.005%, is that still enough? Not enough? Just right? What's your threshold?

Cost vs Benefit ... as I'm sure you're familiar with. If it's .001% and it takes $1,000 per individual per year to make that percentage change to .0005%, is it worth it? I don't think it's worth it.

If it's 25% and it takes $2,000 per individual per year to make that percentage change to 10%, is it worth it? Yes, it sure is in my opinion.

The real question is why don't we know the answer to these questions. You can agree the initial question should be very simple considering scientists are point the finger at fossil fuels that humans generate. The cost is a lot more difficult, but it's still something that should be addressed.

If there is nothing we can do as Stormchaser has said, why push for "green". We're damned either way and if mother Earth sees no noticeable difference why push for change and spend the money?

I do however, agree with pushing for more green energy for the sake of getting of the Middle Eastern oil nipple and reducing "smog" and pollution.

JerseyGuy wrote:And if a percentage could be determined, what the formula you'd use to determine how much it's worth our while? How many dollars is a percentage point worth? Do you not think this is already being discussed?

Great question! I'm sure it is being discussed but I haven't even read what percentage increase humans are responsible for. I can't think of any reason that wouldn't be made public do you? Robrules appears he might have a few ideas ...

JerseyGuy wrote:And since you still think these are all "sky is falling" predictions anyway, would any number really mean anything to you... or are you simply trying to tie the entire argument up into a logical pretzel?

Since you clearly don't believe humans are responsible for anything more than a tiny fraction of the problem, and since you also clearly believe that the cost of doing something would be "wasteful", everything else you're asking and/or proposing is simply meant to derail any governmental action.

I'm just asking for the answer to an extremely simple question that no one can answer. If it's so clear cut that humans are primary cause of global warming as scientists state ... why is this so tough to address?

JerseyGuy wrote:"Knowing the facts"? You don't believe in "the facts." It's yet another stalling tactic. You're not asking for mere "facts"... you're asking for a guarantee, one you know can never come with absolute scientific certainty.

When have you provided me facts that I didn't believe? It hasn't happened.

I'm also not asking for a guarantee. I'm merely asking what percentage of temperature increase is caused directly by humans. If scientists can say with 95% confidence that humans cause global warming .. surely you agree they could state with 95% confidence what percentage increase we're actually responsible for, right?

Also taking into account that some of these scientists jobs depend on Global Warming in-order to succeed. You're the first one to cast suspicions over gov't reports because they're biased yet you take the scientists word straight to heart all the meanwhile forgetting their job(s) depend on GW.

JerseyGuy wrote:Your investment analogy is a good one. Do you only invest in stocks that you KNOW, beyond a shadow of a doubt, will grow at a certain percentage for a certain period of time?

I know most well balanced portfolios over the long term average approximately ~8% which is indicated by historical data from the inception of the S&P500 index.

All I'm looking for in the Global Warming arena are the approximate percentage humans contribute to the increase in temperature. Which, ironically, can be calculated by year and made into an average just like the S&P500.

1900's / 30.4 / 52.6
1910's / 29.4 / 52.1
1920's / 30.3 / 52.4
1930's / 30.6 / 53.3
1940's / 30.8 / 54.6
1950's / 31.8 / 54.5
1960's / 29.3 / 53.0
1970's / 29.6 / 53.4
1980's / 32.2 / 54.5
1990's / 33.2 / 55.6
2000's*/ 32.7 / 55.2

I think for "Global Warming" average yearly temps would be the true area of concern.

robgoose wrote:1900's / 30.4 / 52.6
1910's / 29.4 / 52.1
1920's / 30.3 / 52.4
1930's / 30.6 / 53.3
1940's / 30.8 / 54.6
1950's / 31.8 / 54.5
1960's / 29.3 / 53.0
1970's / 29.6 / 53.4
1980's / 32.2 / 54.5
1990's / 33.2 / 55.6
2000's*/ 32.7 / 55.2

I think for "Global Warming" average yearly temps would be the true area of concern.

The post was started on a article that only uses winter time data.

I wonder if al snore realizes that the earth is coming out of an "Ice Age", along with the greater amount of solar flairs....(that causes heat folks) and we better stop fvcking up people even Mars is getting hotter and it is the falt of MAN!....now pull my finger.

b-5 wrote:I wonder if al snore realizes that the earth is coming out of an "Ice Age", along with the greater amount of solar flairs....(that causes heat folks) and we better stop fvcking up people even Mars is getting hotter and it is the falt of MAN!....now pull my finger.

Come on B it's election season.

I'm totally digging coydog these days... smart poster!

Coydog wrote:Wow. Does anybody really believe the continual burning of massive amounts of fossil fuels is good or neutral for the planet? Anybody? Independent of one's interpretation of global warming data, this is still a core issue caused by humans alone.

Volcano!
now that is CORE...get it magma?

Coydog wrote:Wow. Does anybody really believe the continual burning of massive amounts of fossil fuels is good or neutral for the planet?

Agreed. I can't say for sure that they are/aren't causing global warming, but it sure as hell can't be GOOD for the environment.

Well, seems to me that I remebered a time when down here in MD it would be snowy in the winter. Don't think I am nuts, they actually cut ski slopes down here.

Now, not so much. Mid January and we barely cover the slopes. Took this pic this morning:



We see the effects down here first - the edges always melts first. 10 years, and this will be Killington.