West Penn Hardwoods (Ad 2)

Special Events in the next 30 days

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 44
  1. #16
    Corporate Member
    DQ
    tarheelz's Avatar
    Nickname
    Dave (46)
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Durham, NC
    Posts
    937
    Visit Freq
    4.58 visits/week
    Threads
    62
    Classifieds
    0

    Re: Upside To Polar Vortex

    Weird that we rely upon those who have devoted their lives to woodworking for their advice and guidance.
    We then turn around and reject those who have devoted their lives to climate science - instead winging it on our own.

  2. The following 3 users say Thank You to tarheelz :


  3. #17
    Senior User
    Nickname
    Chris
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Arcadia, NC
    Posts
    1,889
    Visit Freq
    3.62 visits/week
    Threads
    70
    Classifieds
    0

    Re: Upside To Polar Vortex

    Quote Originally Posted by tarheelz View Post
    Weird that we rely upon those who have devoted their lives to woodworking for their advice and guidance.
    We then turn around and reject those who have devoted their lives to climate science - instead winging it on our own.
    Dave, Im not trying to give any guidance here, just trying to understand the science. Because im pretty sure if I did a study and my study conclusively said that something was indeed happening based on .0000000222% of the total sample, Im quite certain no one would or should believe it. I believe in numbers, statistics and tangible things. Scientists are claiming we are warmer (by 1.63 degrees or some random number) now than we were 100, 500, 1000 years ago?. They have only recently been able to predict temperatures with any reasonable accuracy (+/- 3 degrees seems to be the norm) of what the temperature will be tomorrow.

  4. #18
    Corporate Member
    DQ
    tarheelz's Avatar
    Nickname
    Dave (46)
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Durham, NC
    Posts
    937
    Visit Freq
    4.58 visits/week
    Threads
    62
    Classifieds
    0

    Re: Upside To Polar Vortex

    Quote Originally Posted by chris_goris View Post
    Dave, Im not trying to give any guidance here, just trying to understand the science. Because im pretty sure if I did a study and my study conclusively said that something was indeed happening based on .0000000222% of the total sample, Im quite certain no one would or should believe it. I believe in numbers, statistics and tangible things. Scientists are claiming we are warmer (by 1.63 degrees or some random number) now than we were 100, 500, 1000 years ago?. They have only recently been able to predict temperatures with any reasonable accuracy (+/- 3 degrees seems to be the norm) of what the temperature will be tomorrow.
    This is a helpful website as it brings together a number of the answers to questions skeptics regularly ask. It also provides references to other resources in the event you are really interested in studying this area of science. (I'm not. Instead, I merely appreciate that others have chosen to dedicate their careers to this stuff. It ain't my bag.)

    https://grist.org/series/skeptics/
    https://grist.org/climate-energy/one...is-not-enough/

  5. The following user says Thank You to tarheelz for this useful post:


  6. #19
    Corporate Member
    DQ
    Willemjm's Avatar
    Nickname
    Willem
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Pinehurst, NC
    Posts
    972
    Visit Freq
    6.08 visits/week
    Threads
    130
    Classifieds
    0

    Re: Upside To Polar Vortex

    Quote Originally Posted by chris_goris View Post
    I wasnt aware we monitored the Earths CO2 levels 10,000 years ago..... Interesting. That 10,000 year "curve" (speculation) does bring that percentage of the Earths age WAY up to .00000222 %. That number is so insignificantly small as a sample its impossible to quantify. The part of this equation that really puzzles me is if say tomorrow, all the scientists got all the funding they wanted, because lets face it, this IS about money. What would the checks be written for? .What are the deliverables?. More study?.. If its a scientific fact, that shouldnt be necessary.... Is the entire world ready to give up life as we know it today?. No more fossil fueled vehicles?. The entire human race would perish if that happened. So, Im asking what is it global warmers want EXACTLY?.
    The curve is not speculation, they can measure CO2 levels accurately way beyond 10,000 years ago. No rocket science needed to do that. Look at an ice cube in your refrigerator and you will see tiny bubbles. The bubbles are air, can be released and measured for CO2 content. First to second year college math. Then there are glaciers, we can drill down and extract, do the same thing. Then there are carbon isotopes, carbon-12 and carbon-14.

    Ever wonder why snow is so light? Because it is filled with air. When it is compressed and turns into ice some of that air is trapped in the ice and will be available millions of years later when released.

    If I recall the mass spectrometer was invented in 1927, and no one questions its accuracy.

    Antarctic ice core records at dome C with atmospheric CO2 levels extend 800,000 years back.

    I do not understand the relevance of your percentage calculation in this instance for relevance. There are various other studies about Mother Earth, vegetation, oxygen and CO2 levels well beyond 10,000 years. Going back 10,000 years for this study gives a massive sample compared to the man made Industrial Age.
    Last edited by Willemjm; 02-03-2019 at 12:33 AM.

  7. The following 3 users say Thank You to Willemjm :


  8. #20
    Senior User
    Nickname
    Chris
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Arcadia, NC
    Posts
    1,889
    Visit Freq
    3.62 visits/week
    Threads
    70
    Classifieds
    0

    Re: Upside To Polar Vortex

    Quote Originally Posted by Willemjm View Post

    I do not understand the relevance of your percentage calculation in this instance for relevance.
    The relevance is this: Since the amount of time we are using as our baseline to determine a temperature change is SO short (relative to how long the Earth has existed) that the scientists are measuring would not even be a tiny blip on the total timeline , how do we know this has not occurred regularly naturally, say every 10 million years?. It could have happened hundreds, thousands of times perhaps and I doubt it could be detected by looking at frozen oxygen bubble levels in ice that could be MUCH younger than the last time it naturally occurred.

    Do you think anyone would be alarmed if I said that based on my sampling of .0000000222 of the world population everyone WILL get cancer or some other horrific disease?.

    But, you can believe what you want, this my rationale for not believing. So, if you DO believe so vehemently, what are YOU doing about it, personally?. All I hear constantly is "the sky is falling", and then I hear, we need to send money!!!!!!!.... to WHO? for what?? If its SO important, what is our government to do about it??????.
    Last edited by chris_goris; 02-03-2019 at 08:29 AM.

  9. #21
    Corporate Member
    DQ
    Willemjm's Avatar
    Nickname
    Willem
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Pinehurst, NC
    Posts
    972
    Visit Freq
    6.08 visits/week
    Threads
    130
    Classifieds
    0

    Re: Upside To Polar Vortex

    Quote: "Do you think anyone would be alarmed if I said that based on my sampling of .0000000222 of the world population everyone WILL get cancer or some other horrific disease?."

    To each his own, my education and work life experience leans more towards physics and science. In a 40 year career those have never let me down.

    For what it is worth NASA has an atmospheric CO2 graph that goes back 400,000 years. My math is different to yours, as your small percentage will include periods where there were no humans, or almost anything else on the planet.

    1760 to 2019 from the start of the proclaimed industrial age to now, gives us 259 years. 400,000/259 x 100 = 154,449%

    Just curious, where does NASA run a donation campaign?

    https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_res...arbon-dioxide/

    About our government doing something about it, I will rather not comment.

    For those who don't believe, they do nothing. The only thing I can do is try and share and make aware how serious this is to others. Even that is probably insignificant. The Europeans are trying hard but our relationship has detriorated a little recently.
    Last edited by Willemjm; 02-03-2019 at 12:30 PM.

  10. The following user says Thank You to Willemjm for this useful post:


  11. #22
    Senior User
    Nickname
    Chris
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Arcadia, NC
    Posts
    1,889
    Visit Freq
    3.62 visits/week
    Threads
    70
    Classifieds
    0

    Re: Upside To Polar Vortex

    Quote Originally Posted by Willemjm View Post

    F1760 to 2019 from the start of the proclaimed industrial age to now, gives us 259 years. 400,000/259 x 100 = 154,449%


    its actually 259/400000.....= 0.0006475% thats the percentage they are comparing to 400,000 year history????

  12. #23
    Corporate Member
    DQ
    Rick M's Avatar
    Nickname
    Rick
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Garner, NC
    Posts
    1,579
    Visit Freq
    5.04 visits/week
    Threads
    104
    Classifieds
    0

    Re: Upside To Polar Vortex

    Ignorance is not skepticism.

  13. #24
    Corporate Member
    DQ
    tarheelz's Avatar
    Nickname
    Dave (46)
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Durham, NC
    Posts
    937
    Visit Freq
    4.58 visits/week
    Threads
    62
    Classifieds
    0

    Re: Upside To Polar Vortex

    Quote Originally Posted by chris_goris View Post
    its actually 259/400000.....= 0.0006475% thats the percentage they are comparing to 400,000 year history????
    Let me guess. You post woodworking questions to climatology forums.

  14. #25
    Senior User
    Nickname
    Chris
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Arcadia, NC
    Posts
    1,889
    Visit Freq
    3.62 visits/week
    Threads
    70
    Classifieds
    0

    Re: Upside To Polar Vortex

    Quote Originally Posted by tarheelz View Post
    Let me guess. You post woodworking questions to climatology forums.
    Typical type of response, when confronted with logical arguments.....

  15. #26
    Corporate Member
    DQ
    Tarhead's Avatar
    Nickname
    Mark
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Concord, NC
    Posts
    3,891
    Visit Freq
    5.77 visits/week
    Threads
    351
    Classifieds
    0

    Re: Upside To Polar Vortex

    Regardless of how bad it's been throughout Earth's history or whether humans are responsible or if the scientists are just greedy or whatever the conspiracy of the month is, conditions in many places affecting millions of people will soon (<20 years) not allow people to live there. At some point, every petri dish full of microbe dies in its waste. http://www.howglobalwarmingworks.org/

  16. #27
    Corporate Member
    DQ
    Willemjm's Avatar
    Nickname
    Willem
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Pinehurst, NC
    Posts
    972
    Visit Freq
    6.08 visits/week
    Threads
    130
    Classifieds
    0

    Re: Upside To Polar Vortex

    Quote Originally Posted by chris_goris View Post
    its actually 259/400000.....= 0.0006475% thats the percentage they are comparing to 400,000 year history????
    Both calculations actually means absolutely nothing. The 400,000 year curve shows that Mother Earth had CO2 levels under perfect control for most of the 400,000 years shown. However from around 1950 onwards she is no longer in control. Mathematically it would be more correct to state that the sampling rate since the start of burning significant fossil fuels by humans is 100%

  17. #28
    Senior User
    Nickname
    Chris
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Arcadia, NC
    Posts
    1,889
    Visit Freq
    3.62 visits/week
    Threads
    70
    Classifieds
    0

    Re: Upside To Polar Vortex

    Quote Originally Posted by Willemjm View Post
    Both calculations actually means absolutely nothing. The 400,000 year curve shows that Mother Earth had CO2 levels under perfect control for most of the 400,000 years shown. However from around 1950 onwards she is no longer in control. Mathematically it would be more correct to state that the sampling rate since the start of burning significant fossil fuels by humans is 100%
    Willem, Im not sure what it was you were trying to calculate, it meant nothing for sure. Mine was comparing the the sample size (259 years) to the overall dataset (400000) as a percentage. ANY person who does testing or comparison studies would tell you that sample size is far too small to determine a true outcome. ANY math based on this comparison would be so skewed (its called math error) it would not even be considered.

  18. The following user says Thank You to chris_goris for this useful post:


  19. #29
    Corporate Member
    DQ
    Phil S's Avatar
    Nickname
    Phil Soper (68)
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Posts
    4,646
    Visit Freq
    7.42 visits/week
    Threads
    544
    Classifieds
    0

    Re: Upside To Polar Vortex

    Quote Originally Posted by chris_goris View Post
    what are YOU doing about it, personally?.
    I can only do what one person can do. I read both sides and I conclude that the vast majority of the scientist have it right - the earth is warming due in part to humans. So I do my best to stop doing what they say is contributing to the problem - I do not understand why anybody would not, it just makes sense to do ones best to protect this earth and leave it better than you found it.

    I compost virtually all the household waste and recycle almost everything else.
    I only buy products in recyclable or refillable containers
    I return products sent to me if sent in styrofoam peanuts
    I will not buy any food served or delivered in styrofoam
    I support numerous environmental defense funds
    I support numerous environmental educational groups
    I support numerous clean energy groups - offshore wind is a favorite
    I have significantly reduced my dependance on fossil fuels and will go electric or hydrogen ASAP
    I attempt not to buy any products made in polluting countries
    And yes I do listen to NPR

    So now what are you doing ??

  20. #30
    Corporate Member
    DQ
    Willemjm's Avatar
    Nickname
    Willem
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Pinehurst, NC
    Posts
    972
    Visit Freq
    6.08 visits/week
    Threads
    130
    Classifieds
    0

    Re: Upside To Polar Vortex

    Quote Originally Posted by chris_goris View Post
    Willem, Im not sure what it was you were trying to calculate, it meant nothing for sure. Mine was comparing the the sample size (259 years) to the overall dataset (400000) as a percentage. ANY person who does testing or comparison studies would tell you that sample size is far too small to determine a true outcome. ANY math based on this comparison would be so skewed (its called math error) it would not even be considered.
    LOL Chris. Let’s agree to disagree on that one. For what we are measuring the affected period where humans introduced the problem has 100% sampling rate. Every single period was measured. If we want to talk mathematics with the SPC folks, the 400,000 year curve shows a pretty nice PID closed loop in control within a nice upper and lower limit range. And then from 1950 onwards control is lost. If we include the 400,000 years in a sampling rate we are over sampling exponentially. I just included my percentage calculation as a mute point to try and show that neither your small percentage and my large percentage has any relevance whatsoever as a calculation, to what we are measuring.

    Why would you want to measure and compare a trend in an out of control process? Millions of years ago, when the earth crust was formed with volcanoes everywhere would have atmospheric conditions totally irrelevant to today. Millions of years ago, when the dinasoars roamed the earth is totally out of realm with what happened in the last 100 years. Why try compare that statistically? It makes no sence.

    Trying to compare atmospheric conditions in a period where large amounts of fossil fuels are consumed, to a period where these fossils were deposited makes even less sence.

    Nature has a way of correcting itself, I wish I know what it will be doing to save itself from the Human Race.
    Last edited by Willemjm; 02-04-2019 at 09:55 AM.

Similar Threads

  1. Photos upside down
    By Phil S in forum Help Desk
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 12-10-2012, 07:02 AM
  2. G0555P 14" 1 HP Bandsaw, Polar Bear Series
    By manfre in forum Found for Sale/Hot Deals
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-25-2011, 10:51 AM
  3. Grizzly Polar Bear series
    By NCPete in forum Power Tools and Their Use
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 07-02-2010, 09:39 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •