Obama renames Mt. McKinely to Denali

[homersapien 11,373]

Is it really warmer in Barrow AK?

Even without a mean line, there is an obviously discernible upward trend there.

Hah! I noticed that too.

[homersapien 11,373]

Why did they build a football field so close the water? And yes, it's known that temperatures do fluctuate, over time. This isn't news, and there's nothing we can do about it.

Damn, right again! Temperatures do fluctuate over time. And that is not news.

But then, fluctuation is not the issue. The issue is the overall upward trend caused by the accumulation of greenhouse gases. We can do something about that upward warming trend, but time is rapidly running out.

Keep posting on this. Maybe you'll learn something.

[homersapien 11,373]

The vast majority of scientsists/astronomers thought for years that Pluto was a planet.

Well, they are the ones in the know. ;)/>

Not really the same. That only changed when the IAU got off their duffs and decided to formally define the term planet

They decided ? I guess nature doesn't always fit within man's well-defined limits, does it?

What the heck is that supposed to mean?

Most of the planets are obviously planets by any reasonable (proximate) definition of planet. But once you move out (discover) the continuum of orbiting bodies it gets a little fuzzy. Traditional, proximate definitions of a planet no longer cover all the possibilities.

This creates a dilemma where some orbiting bodies can either be planets or defined more accurately as something else, which is what happened with Pluto.

Here, this might help: https://www.khanacad...a-planet-anyway

Let me know if you have any questions.

[homersapien 11,373]

The vast majority of scientsists/astronomers thought for years that Pluto was a planet.

Well, they are the ones in the know.

Right again!!

You're going to get a gold star for today's work.

[homersapien 11,373]

The vast majority of scientsists/astronomers thought for years that Pluto was a planet.

Big deal. That's nothing compared to the phlogiston theory.

What's your point?

[homersapien 11,373]

Everything had a name given to it by the natives before the white man renamed it. Maybe we should go back and put all the original names of mountains, rivers and everything else back on.

Well, that's one of the nice things about Alabama. Many of the native names were retained.

They are very lovely compared to the English names common to the Northeast.

[around4ever 4,139]

Is it really warmer in Barrow AK?

Even without a mean line, there is an obviously discernible upward trend there.

Hah! I noticed that too.

It's a shame that this chart doesn't go back 20 more years. The beginning of this chart, 1950, was a low point in average temps with the early 1930s being a high point equivalent to current averages in Barrow. It trended downward after that until the 1950s then stayed fairly stable until the mid 1980s when we saw the averages start trending upward. Scientist and Climatologist are both correct. The temps are rising as Scientists suggests but they are cyclic in nature and will soon start the downward trend again as Climatologist suggests.

[AUDub 11,148]

It's a shame that this chart doesn't go back 20 more years. The beginning of this chart, 1950, was a low point in average temps with the early 1930s being a high point equivalent to current averages in Barrow. It trended downward after that until the 1950s then stayed fairly stable until the mid 1980s when we saw the averages start trending upward. Scientist and Climatologist are both correct.

You mean like this one:

that also indicates alarming warming in Barrow, Alaska?

Or this one:

that shows only station data from October, but stretches about a decade further on from our prior graphs?

The temps are rising as Scientists suggests but they are cyclic in nature and will soon start the downward trend again as Climatologist suggests.

That's a far cry from what the vast majority of climatologists are actually saying.

[AUDub 11,148]

Here's one with a line indicating the trend, just to give you an idea of how dramatic the rise has been. It can be hard to spot without it.

[TitanTiger 20,482]

So glad that when I clicked on this thread because it had grown to seven pages that it's mostly arguing about AGW. I was going to despair of our existence if we were still bickering about changing the name of a damn mountain back to what it was for centuries.

[TitanTiger 20,482]

Everything had a name given to it by the natives before the white man renamed it. Maybe we should go back and put all the original names of mountains, rivers and everything else back on.

If it's within our power and goodwill to do so, and the mountain/river/etc has not real connection to the person we tromped in and renamed, why not?

[AURaptor 1,125]

How would you feel if come itinerant prospector came through your state and re-named one of your sacred places after a politician?

Alaska wasn't a state until 1959, homie. FYI

And I thought it was funny also - the lack of such perspective made it sound like a parody.

As does the entirety of Obama's Presidency. Sadly, it's all too real.

[homersapien 11,373]

How would you feel if come itinerant prospector came through your state and re-named one of your sacred places after a politician?

Alaska wasn't a state until 1959, homie. FYI

So?

And I thought it was funny also - the lack of such perspective made it sound like a parody.

As does the entirety of Obama's Presidency. Sadly, it's all too real.

ODS

[AURaptor 1,125]

How would you feel if come itinerant prospector came through your state and re-named one of your sacred places after a politician?

Alaska wasn't a state until 1959, homie. FYI

So?

Figured you'd have trouble w/ this one. See the part I underlined above ? Alaska wasn't a state. The scenario you offer up is meaningless. The comparison does not apply. No prospector came though any state and renamed anything.

And I thought it was funny also - the lack of such perspective made it sound like a parody.

As does the entirety of Obama's Presidency. Sadly, it's all too real.

ODS

It's o.k. The adults will soon be back in power to govern the country, Buddha willing. I only hope there's a country worth running when that happens.

[TitanTiger 20,482]

Figured you'd have trouble w/ this one. See the part I underlined above ? Alaska wasn't a state. The scenario you offer up is meaningless. The comparison does not apply. No prospector came though any state and renamed anything.

Don't be that guy. The pedant that tries to score cheap rhetorical points over inconsequential matters.

A prospector went through the Alaskan Territory and renamed the mountain.

[autigeremt 6,630]

Why did they build a football field so close the water? And yes, it's known that temperatures do fluctuate, over time. This isn't news, and there's nothing we can do about it.

Who knows. I assume they had a good reason.

Temperatures do fluctuate over time, the difference is what forces these changes in temperature. We're the dominant one for the current rise. And we can do something about it.

Not sure we can change it a whole lot but I'm all for a cleaner planet....we just need to be very wise and very calculated when we do it.

BTW, I'm shocked that no one has gone after Mt. Rushmore. Anyone ever looked into the history of the man who created it?????

[AURaptor 1,125]

Figured you'd have trouble w/ this one. See the part I underlined above ? Alaska wasn't a state. The scenario you offer up is meaningless. The comparison does not apply. No prospector came though any state and renamed anything.

Don't be that guy. The pedant that tries to score cheap rhetorical points over inconsequential matters.

A prospector went through the Alaskan Territory and renamed the mountain.

It's not inconsequential. The mountain had been named McKinley for 60 years before Alaska became a state. homie's scenario suggests some prospector could wander into an already established state.

Plus, I enjoy tweaking homie on his lack of awareness.

[TitanTiger 20,482]

Figured you'd have trouble w/ this one. See the part I underlined above ? Alaska wasn't a state. The scenario you offer up is meaningless. The comparison does not apply. No prospector came though any state and renamed anything.

Don't be that guy. The pedant that tries to score cheap rhetorical points over inconsequential matters.

A prospector went through the Alaskan Territory and renamed the mountain.

It's not inconsequential. The mountain had been named McKinley for 60 years before Alaska became a state. homie's scenario suggests some prospector could wander into an already established state.

Plus, I enjoy tweaking homie on his lack of awareness.

And it was named Denali for centuries before that.

And the key issue here isn't that you can name things anything you want as long as it's pre-statehood. It's utterly inconsequential to make that an arguing point.

[japantiger 4,051]

Did you hear Obama on global cooling, i mean global warming...I mean climate change...islands submerged, coastlines flooded...fields that won't produce......how did we fall this low as a nation...

[homersapien 11,373]

Figured you'd have trouble w/ this one. See the part I underlined above ? Alaska wasn't a state. The scenario you offer up is meaningless. The comparison does not apply. No prospector came though any state and renamed anything.

Don't be that guy. The pedant that tries to score cheap rhetorical points over inconsequential matters.

A prospector went through the Alaskan Territory and renamed the mountain.

Thank you. Saved me the effort.

And like I said: Imagine a prospector went through your state.....

[AURaptor 1,125]

Why would s prospector come & start naming the tallest mountain in my state? Or ANY state ? It makes no sense.

Think about it. A new state already has had its borders defined, which means it's already had prospectors and cartographers go out and survey the state. There's also an existing government of some sort, communication network, order... on and on. So, when it comes to stumbling across the biggest mountain in a state, one which damn near everyone already knows... it's a nonsensical attempted analogy.

[homersapien 11,373]

How would you feel if come itinerant prospector came through your state and re-named one of your sacred places after a politician?

Alaska wasn't a state until 1959, homie. FYI

So?

Figured you'd have trouble w/ this one. See the part I underlined above ? Alaska wasn't a state. The scenario you offer up is meaningless. The comparison does not apply. No prospector came though any state and renamed anything.

Wrong. My question - or "scenario" - stands alone.

It has nothing to do with Alaska's statehood at any given time. If fact, it's not a comparison. It's a question.

[homersapien 11,373]

Why would s prospector come & start naming the tallest mountain in my state? Or ANY state ? It makes no sense.

Think about it. A new state already has had its borders defined, which means it's already had prospectors and cartographers go out and survey the state. There's also an existing government of some sort, communication network, order... on and on. So, when it comes to stumbling across the biggest mountain in a state, one which damn near everyone already knows... it's a nonsensical attempted analogy.

Think about it? Like you?

I am starting to see where your ODS comes from.

[AURaptor 1,125]

Why would s prospector come & start naming the tallest mountain in my state? Or ANY state ? It makes no sense.

Think about it. A new state already has had its borders defined, which means it's already had prospectors and cartographers go out and survey the state. There's also an existing government of some sort, communication network, order... on and on. So, when it comes to stumbling across the biggest mountain in a state, one which damn near everyone already knows... it's a nonsensical attempted analogy.

Think about it? Like you?

I am starting to see where your ODS comes from.

Really? Can you explain it then ? Because I've already said I actually approve of the name change. Alaskans have been calling it that, officially recognized by the state, for 40 years. So, by all means, have at it.

[DKW 86 7,424]