Home
Articles
Photos
Interviews
Forums
New posts
Search forums
Georgia Tech Recruiting
Dashboard
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Chat
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
General Topics
The Swarm Lounge
NOAA&NASA: 2014 Warmest Year on Record
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="AE 87" data-source="post: 123901" data-attributes="member: 195"><p>IMO, it's helpful to distinguish between facts and interpretation of facts in these sorts of discussions.</p><p></p><p>2014 as warmest year on record is a claim of fact. However, it obfuscates the actual fact in two ways.</p><p></p><p>First, the expression "on record" without definition leaves the reader to make some tacit assumption of its meaning, or more likely, ignore it, reading the title as simply "warmest year." This absolute reading becomes more likely within the context of the highly publicized predictions of human-originating global warming. </p><p></p><p>Second, the expression "on record" with a graph of 20th century temperatures obfuscates because the record of global temperatures has not been measured and kept in the same way throughout those years. Therefore, it relies on some model, interpretation, to translate some particular data into global data. Such a model may be reliable; however, recent climate models have been demonstrably unreliable, leading many to believe that the desired answer drove the modeling rather than the data. Google "Hockey Stick fraud" for evidence of this conclusion.</p><p></p><p>However, my problem with this thread is that it arose as simply linking of thread about the global temperature reading of one year with the desire to start a conversation on human-originated global warming. However, [USER=323]@cyptomcat[/USER] did not state his position on that topic or how this link informs his position. In his recent post, he said there's evidence for global warming over the last 50-100 years, but he still did not state a position on the human contribution. The issue is not whether we're in a period of warming but how to explain it and to what extent the gas which mammals breathe out, and vegetation absorbs, contributes to it. Warming is a statement of fact. Human contribution to an environment threatening warming is an interpretation.</p><p></p><p>Finally, this distinction could help [USER=323]@cyptomcat[/USER] understand the point that I think [USER=347]@Animal02[/USER] was making by reference to Curry. He cited her as an authority on certain facts, not for her interpretation of facts. The only interpretation is there in the quote and can be judged by the reader rather than hidden behind modelling.</p><p></p><p>I would like to know how [USER=323]@cyptomcat[/USER] concludes human contribution is a driver on global warming.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="AE 87, post: 123901, member: 195"] IMO, it's helpful to distinguish between facts and interpretation of facts in these sorts of discussions. 2014 as warmest year on record is a claim of fact. However, it obfuscates the actual fact in two ways. First, the expression "on record" without definition leaves the reader to make some tacit assumption of its meaning, or more likely, ignore it, reading the title as simply "warmest year." This absolute reading becomes more likely within the context of the highly publicized predictions of human-originating global warming. Second, the expression "on record" with a graph of 20th century temperatures obfuscates because the record of global temperatures has not been measured and kept in the same way throughout those years. Therefore, it relies on some model, interpretation, to translate some particular data into global data. Such a model may be reliable; however, recent climate models have been demonstrably unreliable, leading many to believe that the desired answer drove the modeling rather than the data. Google "Hockey Stick fraud" for evidence of this conclusion. However, my problem with this thread is that it arose as simply linking of thread about the global temperature reading of one year with the desire to start a conversation on human-originated global warming. However, [USER=323]@cyptomcat[/USER] did not state his position on that topic or how this link informs his position. In his recent post, he said there's evidence for global warming over the last 50-100 years, but he still did not state a position on the human contribution. The issue is not whether we're in a period of warming but how to explain it and to what extent the gas which mammals breathe out, and vegetation absorbs, contributes to it. Warming is a statement of fact. Human contribution to an environment threatening warming is an interpretation. Finally, this distinction could help [USER=323]@cyptomcat[/USER] understand the point that I think [USER=347]@Animal02[/USER] was making by reference to Curry. He cited her as an authority on certain facts, not for her interpretation of facts. The only interpretation is there in the quote and can be judged by the reader rather than hidden behind modelling. I would like to know how [USER=323]@cyptomcat[/USER] concludes human contribution is a driver on global warming. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
What jersey number did Justin Thomas wear?
Post reply
Home
Forums
General Topics
The Swarm Lounge
NOAA&NASA: 2014 Warmest Year on Record
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top