Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: K Frame on May 23, 2019, 10:25:43 AM
-
https://www.wyff4.com/article/scientist-finds-rare-ancient-tree-in-north-carolina-swamp/27439072
The one is at least 2,600 years old, and they believe there are a lot more of them.
But this statement?
"The trees are scientifically valuable for reconstructing ancient climate conditions. The oldest trees extend the climate record in the southeast United States by 900 years. They show evidence of droughts and flooding during colonial and precolonial times that exceed any measured in modern times, experts say."
That can't be right! Human climate change fueled by Trump rage is giving us the worst conditions we've ever seen!
-
Imagine that - regional climate variability in the last under 3000 years that was greater than what we are experiencing now. Just imagine what 300,000 years looks like.
-
I think we can get back 400,000 years.
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.euanmearns.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2017%2F06%2Fvostok_T_CO2.png&hash=de0265226fe32b35d789378f6ce362808e41bd53)
Challenging that, we have:
https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-what-greenland-ice-cores-say-about-past-and-present-climate-change
-
Ice cores tell global conditions. Trees give regional conditions, and are able to give data on local conditions that ice cores simply can't.
-
^ "and are able to give data on local conditions that ice cores simply can't."
But once again, that "tree sample" is very small, both geographically and geologically.
And, once again, even when we talk about, say 2000 years, it's too small a sample.
As I've said before (not referring to you, Mike or Ben*), "It's your sample size, stupid."
Damn, it's 2° warmer today than yesterday. Therefore by the end of the year it will be 444° warmer.
Ridiculous? Boiling it down, guess what?
It's the sample size, stupid !
Terry
* PS: and Hawkmoon
-
Ridiculous? Boiling it down, guess what?
It's the sample size, stupid !
Who are you callin' stupid? Yer mudder wears combat boots!
-
You weren't part of the conversation at that point, so I'll have to add you as a postscript.
I was and am referring to anyone foolish enough to cite temperature changes for anything less than a couple hundred thousand years, considering the noisiness of the ice core records and their underlying validity as demonstrated by the regularity of the cycles.
It's your sample size, stupid !
Terry
-
I think we can get back 400,000 years.
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.euanmearns.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2017%2F06%2Fvostok_T_CO2.png&hash=de0265226fe32b35d789378f6ce362808e41bd53)
Challenging that, we have:
https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-what-greenland-ice-cores-say-about-past-and-present-climate-change
Greenland is just one location and temperature variations seen in ice core records may not be characteristic of global temperatures. However, global proxy reconstructions have tended to show similar patterns, with current temperatures lower than the early Holocene maximum.
Unless greenhouse gas emissions cease in the near future, warming will continue and, by the middle of the 21st century, Greenland – and the world as a whole – will likely experience temperatures that are unprecedented at least since the last interglacial period 125,000 years ago.
That makes the assumption that CO2 is a leading indicator, not a lagging indicator....
For instance- we came out of the 'little ice age' about 500 years ago, and now CO2 concentrations are spiking.
-
Unclear on meanings of words:
Unless greenhouse gas emissions cease in the near future, warming will continue and, by the middle of the 21st century, Greenland – and the world as a whole – will likely experience temperatures that are unprecedented at least since the last interglacial period 125,000 years ago.
Translation: "Hasn't ever happened since the last time it happened."
-
You funny mek joke haha.
More warm more food growed. Maybe good.
More CO2 more food growed. Maybe also good.
Terry
-
Tsk tsk. Those aren't "pre-Christian" trees, you deplorable cis-lords. Those are Before Common Era trees.
-
May the Lord Dog smite you with a Milk Bone.
Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk
-
We don’t even know what we don’t know.
Yet everyone is so certain.
-
Tsk tsk. Those aren't "pre-Christian" trees, you deplorable cis-lords. Those are Before Common Era trees.
So you're saying those trees are Pagans ...
-
I'm trying to figure why use of BC versus BCE could make one a deplorable cis-lord, or even not one, for that matter.
-
I'm trying to figure why use of BC versus BCE could make one a deplorable cis-lord, or even not one, for that matter.
Because, that's why.
And if you have to ask, you're not woke.
-
I'm trying to figure why use of BC versus BCE could make one a deplorable cis-lord, or even not one, for that matter.
Because the BC/AD scheme was given us by old, dead, white, Christian males. BCE/CE is more Inclusive. If you don't use it, you're a deplorable Nazi cis-lord, responsible for racism and Melania Trump's evil red Christmas Common-mas trees.
-
"But once again, that "tree sample" is very small, both geographically and geologically."
Being a small sample, and regionally specific, doesn't mean that it's not valuable information.
Case in point, the lost colony of Roanoke.
It wasn't until about 20 years ago when scientists started studying tree rings (in bald cypress trees) that they realized that the Roanoke colonists landed at the start of one of the most severe droughts ever recorded in North America. While it doesn't answer specifically what happened to the colony, it does go a long way toward providing plausible answers to what could have led to not only the disappearance of the colony but also the collapse of Native American cultures in the area.
Another example, the Anasazi. Similar research has shown that the Anasazi society's collapse coincided with a prolonged period of both winter and summer drought.
Ice cores can give an indication as to what was going on... but globally. The real interest in both of these examples is what was going on locally.
-
Oh, and obviously I meant to type Pre-Christian-era trees, ya wankers. :facepalm:
-
But Mike, the issue stemming from the OP is global warming / weather change / whatever.
Surely it's nice to be able to pin down what happened here, or there, by other indicators, but the major discussion is about global change, not about Roanoke or Golden, Colorado, whose temperature will rise about 444 degrees by the end of the year. (See http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=60213.msg1210796#msg1210796 .)
Terry
-
"But Mike, the issue stemming from the OP is global warming / weather change / whatever."
What?
The original post and the article attached to it only mentioned climate change in a peripheral and sarcastic manner and focused on the localized data points provided by those trees.
You're the one who took it to where every liberal idiot wants to go. You want to do that, start your own thread.
-
I fail to comprehend why ice cores are any less local than tree rings. How does drilling a core out of a glacier in Greenland tell us what the conditions were in Australia, Africa, or Antarctica?
-
Because ice cores are encapsulations of a lot of different information, virtually all of it based on atmospheric conditions at the time the snow fell/ice formed as well as stuff that was floating around in the atmosphere. Atmospheric conditions -- such as CO2 levels -- tend to be global in nature. Tree rings, on the other hand, capture localized conditions. Drought? Very small spaces between the rings. Lots and lots of rain? A lot wider spaces between the rings. The ring sizes can also hint at general temperature levels, but only very broadly. Most importantly, they can't tell us anything about atmospheric conditions (CO2, H2SO4, etc.)
Wikipedia's entry on ice cores is pretty good at explaining ice cores.
-
Jeeze, I'm sorry for initiating the thread drift. ;)
-
I'm trying to figure why use of BC versus BCE could make one a deplorable cis-lord, or even not one, for that matter.
I don't mind using a TLA for Before Christian Era. Or a two letter acronym - CE - for Christian Era.
-
Actually, my remark related to use of "cis-lord."
I personally don't care about the historical use of "Before Christ" versus "Before Common Era." I recognize that religion is one of those universal components of history and the period around the birth of Christ is a pretty good demarcation point --as good as any other, I reckon, bearing in mind this is the year 5779 in another religion's reckoning --and I'm sure there are others.
Today is Julian calendar 2458630.500000, and I guess it's negative in Star Trek's "Star Date"
The only thing that bothers me is that I get the sub-feeling that "CE" and "BCE" are sometimes used as a kind of in-your-face rebellion against the religious basis of our common dating scheme, which is... I don't know... kind of petty, I guess.
Terry
-
Actually, my remark related to use of "cis-lord."
I personally don't care about the historical use of "Before Christ" versus "Before Common Era." I recognize that religion is one of those universal components of history and the period around the birth of Christ is a pretty good demarcation point --as good as any other, I reckon, bearing in mind this is the year 5779 in another religion's reckoning --and I'm sure there are others.
Today is Julian calendar 2458630.500000, and I guess it's negative in Star Trek's "Star Date"
The only thing that bothers me is that I get the sub-feeling that "CE" and "BCE" are sometimes used as a kind of in-your-face rebellion against the religious basis of our common dating scheme, which is... I don't know... kind of petty, I guess.
Terry
Just another inconvenient statue coming down. Another awkward name being changed. A touchstone removed. (Terry, that would be the second MW definition.)
-
The only thing that bothers me is that I get the sub-feeling that "CE" and "BCE" are sometimes used as a kind of in-your-face rebellion against the religious basis of our common dating scheme, which is... I don't know... kind of petty, I guess.
Good guess, and not petty at all on your part. If you mean petty on the part of those who reject the "BC / AD" convention, then I agree completely.
"What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet." (Shakespeare)
"Rose is a rose is a rose." (Gertrude Stein)
Or, as a teacher I once had who had dabbled in Zen used to say, "What is ... is. It is your resistance to what is that causes your unhappiness."
-
Quote from: 230RN on May 27, 2019, 04:52:36 AM
The only thing that bothers me is that I get the sub-feeling that "CE" and "BCE" are sometimes used as a kind of in-your-face rebellion against the religious basis of our common dating scheme, which is... I don't know... kind of petty, I guess.
Good guess, and not petty at all on your part. If you mean petty on the part of those who reject the "BC / AD" convention, then I agree completely.
Yes, the latter. It did not come through correctly. I tend to write conversationally. But that's why writers require editors.
-
Actually, my remark related to use of "cis-lord."
I personally don't care about the historical use of "Before Christ" versus "Before Common Era." I recognize that religion is one of those universal components of history and the period around the birth of Christ is a pretty good demarcation point --as good as any other, I reckon, bearing in mind this is the year 5779 in another religion's reckoning --and I'm sure there are others.
Today is Julian calendar 2458630.500000, and I guess it's negative in Star Trek's "Star Date"
The only thing that bothers me is that I get the sub-feeling that "CE" and "BCE" are sometimes used as a kind of in-your-face rebellion against the religious basis of our common dating scheme, which is... I don't know... kind of petty, I guess.
Terry
I'm just sick of all of you cis-lord bigots complaining about the use of BC or BCE.
All of you pretending to care about not oppressing the non-Christians in your language, but all the while you are discriminating against the differently abled! A STAND of trees? STAND!??!?! What about people in wheelchairs you bigots!?
-
Hey, I've got no beef with a tree in a wheelchair. One of my best friends is a tree in a wheelchair.
-
Hey, I've got no beef with a tree in a wheelchair. One of my best friends is a tree in a wheelchair.
Groot with gout?
-
I'm just sick of all of you cis-lord bigots complaining about the use of BC or BCE.
All of you pretending to care about not oppressing the non-Christians in your language, but all the while you are discriminating against the differently abled! A STAND of trees? STAND!??!?! What about people in wheelchairs you bigots!?
Well someone can't see the forest for the trees.