Climate Change [Archive] - Page 2 - SUBSIM Radio Room Forums

Sailor Steve

07-30-10, 01:15 PM

You should understand that local weather and global climate are two different things both regarding the dimension of space and the dimension of time. ;)
I guess I didn't make myself clear enough. My comment was addressed directly to those on the 'is' side who seem to think that when they get simplistic and rude it's cool, but if someone else does it they deserve a smackdown:

Imagine what we could do if the brainpower expended on coming up with ways to ignore facts, data and reality was actually used for something productive.

I'm sorry Mark, but I think that comment qualifies as jackassery at it's finest.

Well, all I know is that two years ago our house maintained a cool 67 degrees, and now it never drops below 75. Draw your own conclusions :smug:
The comment my comment was specifically aimed at, which is why I asked if I should draw my own conclusions now.

If the temperature monitoring stations have been there for years then their early readings can be compared to their current readings, right? So if their current average readings are higher than those of the earlier days why shouldn't that be a valid observation?
A valid observation for that part of the city, yes. So if where I live it's cooler than it has been in years?

Don't you go geting scientific:down:, if you can't explain things to a satisfactory pre determined conclusion in simple everyday language then you are part of the conspiracy:up:
So when someone agrees with you it's cool to be sarcastic to the ones who disagree? You don't make those comments when someone else posts minor facts from the other side.

Is there a problem? Sure. Should something be done? Sure. Should that something involve massive government spending and revolutionizing the way we live? Possibly, but that absolutely requires that everyone be honest and apolitical about it, and so far no one has done that.

Is mockery and derision warranted when discussing it? Never.

CaptainHaplo

07-30-10, 01:18 PM

Oh I agree we contribute. Mathematically we are a variable in the big equation. I don't know that I have ever said man doesn't affect the environment. If I have I communicated my meaning badly. Is all global warming "bunk"? No - it can't be - because for example - building cities creates urban warming.

What I am saying is this.

#1 - the mass hysteria is an invention of man
#2 - the changes we see are cyclical
#3 - man - while having an impact - is not the "cause" nor the solution to the "problem"
#4 - its not actually a problem for the earth - see #2
#5 - the mass hysteria is created in an attempt to modify societal behavior, not "save mother earth"

antikristuseke

07-30-10, 02:41 PM

Of course its a man made issue - because there is more of mankind....

Its either "man made" in the respect that humans impact the environment - so more humans means more impact....

OR

Its "man made" up because its all a big hoax.

After reading the logs of the IT guy that had to work with the raw data - which shows that alot of the temps used came from "unknown" and "unlocated" stations when it comes to "historical" data - I take it as a load of bull..

First it was global cooling - then global warming - now some of the experts are worried about global cooling again.

Its called a cycle. We don't have the undisputed data that tells us what the cycle extremes have been - but we do know that the planet has gone through some major extremes.

The real question isn't the climate - the problem is overpopulation and a lack of resources. Worrying about the climate at this point is alot like saying "there is this crack that might be in the foundation of my house, I wonder if I need to call a repair company" - all while your house is on fire.

Deal with the most pressing problems first....

Global cooling was never big in scientific literature, but was rather blown out of proportion by alarmist media. For your science information go to scientific sources.

STEED

07-30-10, 02:50 PM

Weather forecasters can not get it right on temperatures here where I live the next day! So how the hell can scientists get it on there long term forecasts?

ITS BULL****

Stuff them and enjoy life. :DL

Weiss Pinguin

07-30-10, 02:55 PM

The comment my comment was specifically aimed at, which is why I asked if I should draw my own conclusions now.
Eh, I was just throwing that in to be silly, not sure if it was taken that way :hmmm:

Honestly, the way I see it, if global warming turns out to be something, well, it's not like I can do anything to stop it, so why bother worrying about it? If we end up with new technologies in our frenzy to save the planet, then cool, and maybe it'll lead to a new push to get out and start kicking people out into space :p2: (or maybe not, who knows)

AVGWarhawk

07-30-10, 03:14 PM

The Third Man

07-30-10, 03:26 PM

Where are the exalted Nobel prize winners Barack Obama and Al Gore?

That's right, one is in a 'sex poodle' scandle and the other is on daytime television, being groovy.

Tribesman

07-30-10, 03:46 PM

WTH did Bush do now?
Its the burning bush, a contributary factor to emmisions

antikristuseke

07-30-10, 04:00 PM

Where are the exalted Nobel prize winners Barack Obama and Al Gore?

That's right, one is in a 'sex poodle' scandle and the other is on daytime television, being groovy.

What the **** does that have to do with anything?
Its the burning bush, a contributary factor to emmisions

Burning bush as in a redhead who doesn't shave? :b

Aramike

07-30-10, 05:14 PM

I'm not certain the changes we see are indeed cyclical. We don't have enough hard data either way.

However, we do know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and there is much more of it in the atmosphere than in the past, at the poles. What effects this will ultimately have on life on Earth are ultimately theoretical at best (personally, I'd label those theories as "guesses"). Judging by the fact that well over 99% of the species that have ever existed are now extinct, its very difficult to say that any climate change will be either adverse or beneficial to the natural evolution of the planet.

Besides, this entire debate is trivial when considered against the fact that we're overdue for some cataclysmic natural disaster, anyway, and I for one would rather cast my lot with high technology than living in harmony with a Mother Nature that couldn't care less to see me die...

The Third Man

07-30-10, 06:13 PM

Has anyone looked in the sky and said.....maybe its that great glowing ball which is the greatest contributor to global warming? Makes sence no?

antikristuseke

07-30-10, 06:37 PM

The data we have does not support that hypothesis.

Skybird

07-31-10, 04:30 AM

Daß es im Wald finster is',
kommt von der Finsternis,
denn in der Dunkelheit
da sieht man nicht so weit
als wie bei Tagslicht,
wo man viel weiter sieht.

The Third Man

11-18-10, 02:25 PM

C-SPAN: House Subcommittee on Energy and Environment heard from a dozen witnesses about how the public and private sectors are approaching climate change. Washington, DC : 3 hr. 47 min.

If you have trouble falling to sleep......this will fix it.

It is now online and can be watched in full at this link:
http://www.c-span.org/Watch/Media/2010/11/17/HP/A/40918/House+Science+Technology+Subcommittee+Hearing+on+C limate+Change+Science.aspx

AVGWarhawk

11-18-10, 02:49 PM

Is it back to global warming or is the catch phrase climate change being used? I just can not keep up with it all. It changes like the weather.

The Third Man

11-18-10, 03:01 PM

It changes like the weather.

:yeah:

SteamWake

11-18-10, 03:02 PM

The Third Man

11-18-10, 03:13 PM

If I see one more article on "A greener mindset" or "Anthropormophic Degredation" in the engineering trade journals I am going to hurl. :shifty:

They need something to divert our attention why not 'global climat change'.

I've gone to going into the Auto Dealerships and asking to see the biggest gas guzzling poluting vehicles on the lot. Invariably they show me a hybrid vehicle. I guess the coal used to create the electricity to charge the battery is a greater poluter than that through normal combustion via gasoline.

antikristuseke

11-18-10, 03:19 PM

Because hybrids are the ones that are recharged from the power mains.:roll:
You should look up what hybrid means in the dictionary.

SteamWake

11-18-10, 03:42 PM

Uhhh what? You should look into where that 'mains' power is generated.

Anyhow something I never see mentioned when discussing 'hybrids' or electrics is the small matter of the large quantitys of heavy metals involved in the batteries and how to deal with them at end of life.

Meanwhile I saw a commercial last night that just made me laugh out loud and then shake my head.

Scene opens with a polar bear sitting mournfully atop a little patch of ice. He (the bear) plops into the water and begins a trek accross urban america. "Growl" he protests loudly as the semi trucks and SUV's wizz past him. Finally the bear makes into the suberbs and approaches a man getting into his Chevy "Leaf" car. There is a moment where you think "oh god this guy is lunch" but next thing you know the Bear is hugging the man and feel good music is cued.

So yea uhh go hug a Polar Bear ! Go green :doh:

AVGWarhawk

11-18-10, 03:55 PM

Takeda Shingen

11-18-10, 03:59 PM

So what? The only things that hearings generate are fuel for pundits. Of course, that may be the point.

antikristuseke

11-18-10, 04:01 PM

Uhhh what? You should look into where that 'mains' power is generated.

Anyhow something I never see mentioned when discussing 'hybrids' or electrics is the small matter of the large quantitys of heavy metals involved in the batteries and how to deal with them at end of life.

I am not trying to defend hybrids like that POS Prius, just pointing out his error in claiming that hybrids use power generated from coal. Anyway, hybrids like thay are today are a bad idea, for the reason you mentioned and some others on top of that.
If fuel efficency is a concern then there are other, better, ways to go about achieving that end than loading a vehiacle down with heavy batteries made of toxic, although recycleable, materials. Ande before anyone starts, most of recycling is a waste of time, but it works as far as lead is concerned.

Sailor Steve

11-18-10, 04:16 PM

I am not trying to defend hybrids like that POS Prius, just pointing out his error in claiming that hybrids use power generated from coal.
Where I live the only power plant in town is indeed coal-fired.

Ducimus

11-18-10, 04:16 PM

I've always wondered why the skepticsm where global warming is concerned. It IS getting warmer. So, call it whatever you want. Global warming, climate change, whatever. Doesn't change two things.

A.) It IS getting warmer as time goes on. Although, it doesn't really matter why because....
b.) Fossil fuels (IE oil) aren't going to last forever.

Personally, ive always thought people raise their noses at this subject because.

1.) They can't imagine life any other way then how they've been living it.
2.) Nobody wants to change ( I count myself here )
3.) Economic fears. ( I also count myself here. I can't afford new alt fuel cars)
4.) Screw it anyway, i'll be dead by the time the excrement hits the fan. Not my problem.

I'm not a gone green, tree hugger hippie, but seems like to me, facts is facts. Gotta face them sometime. I expect that by the time im 60, whatever truck i'm driving at that stage in my life, will be sitting in a parking stall most of the time because it will be too expensive to gas it up, and there probably won't be enough gas to go around. I don't like that thought, but i think its a very distinct possibility.

August

11-18-10, 04:29 PM

antikristuseke

11-18-10, 04:29 PM

Where I live the only power plant in town is indeed coal-fired.

Yes, but hybrids generate their own power using a gasolene engine which drives an electric motor/generator.

tater

11-18-10, 05:07 PM

Warming is not all that clear, frankly. It probably has been (which it does, the earth's average temp (a semi-meaningless concept) varies over time). That said, you simply cannot compare the temps measured 20 or 30 years ago with the data collected today. Different everything.

You need a consistent sensor array, in consistent places that are unchanged. Not Satellite data for 2010, and some digital ground temp from 1990, and a paper tape chart with analog probe from 1980, etc. They are not the same.

You also need to know that the "average" temp is NOT measured, or objectively calculated. It is an algorithm that weights some stations or data over others, and makes assumptions about temperature in areas without data. It's complicated.

Not saying it isn't warming, it likely has been or had been. It's not cut and dried, however. As a science geek, I'm entirely fine with VERY probabilistic statements instead of X happened, and was caused by Y. I'm more a "X might have happened, and could possibly have been caused by Y."

It's not like climate science is what I'd call "hard" science. They have **** for predictive models, unlike, say, high energy physics.

The Third Man

11-18-10, 05:19 PM

I for one have never understood why people automatically think that if there is global warming then it must be the fault of man.

That is the argument. I agree it isn't man made.

The counter to man made warming is.....man made cooling.

Will our decisions now contribute to the cooling which is far more damaging to humanity than warming? Simple answer....YES.

darius359au

11-18-10, 05:20 PM

Yes, but hybrids generate their own power using a gasolene engine which drives an electric motor/generator.

look at the energy required to make the parts in a hybrid and also look at all the heavy metals and dangerous chemical used in the manufacture of them - they may not produce much pollution when their finished and being used But there's a huge amount of pollution in their manufacture ,way more than just a normal petrol or diesel vehicle.

Weiss Pinguin

11-18-10, 05:21 PM

NEWS FLASH: Global warming thing from 2-3 years ago may still be problem (http://www.theonion.com/articles/report-global-warming-issue-from-2-or-3-years-ago,18431/)

the_tyrant

11-18-10, 05:57 PM

why do we still care?
from
"the japs are taking over!"
"the soviets are coming!"
to
"y2k will turn our computers into the terminator!"
we have been scared again and again, and yet nothing happened
now nothing can scare me

Weiss Pinguin

11-18-10, 06:11 PM

But what about 2012? I dunno about the rest of you, but if you ask me that $h!7 is the real deal.

Tchocky

11-18-10, 06:13 PM

Rubbish. It was really cold today.

tater

11-18-10, 07:41 PM

Man is not really an issue from a policy standpoint in terms of cause. All that matters is can a given policy correct the problem to the extent the problem exists.

Any policy with a certain goal—say a reduction in X tons (megatons, whatever) of carbon needs to be able to demonstrate that it will work. I expect a model to work in the same rigorous way I'd expect a given model to work in any other hard science. Trillions are at stake, that's not a lot to ask. If their models are not demonstrably predictive, then their models are pretty poor, and making policy decisions like "we must reduce emissions to X level" absurd.

This is true regardless of the veracity of the AGW claims. Solutions need to be solutions, and provable.

I'm willing to take that at face value, but I want 100% transparent science (public policy is involved, no secrecy allowed at all, no email commo, force them to communicate via public readable blogs), and all models and data 100% available, including all assumptions made, data thrown out, etc. Every single bit open. If they can't do that, they shouldn't get my money.

antikristuseke

11-18-10, 07:46 PM

look at the energy required to make the parts in a hybrid and also look at all the heavy metals and dangerous chemical used in the manufacture of them - they may not produce much pollution when their finished and being used But there's a huge amount of pollution in their manufacture ,way more than just a normal petrol or diesel vehicle.
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=1537795&postcount=10

darius359au

11-18-10, 11:21 PM

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=1537795&postcount=10

I was replying to this one http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=1537815&postcount=14 but I do need to pay closer attention to what I've read :damn:

August

11-19-10, 12:06 AM

I agree it isn't man made.

That's not my belief. I think man does indeed have some degree of effect on the earths climate, but what puts me at odds with most of the global warming advocates is that I also believe that all their costly and ill thought out reduction schemes are doomed to failure as long as world population growth, the true source of our effect on the climate, remains unchecked.

We have seven billion people on the planet and those numbers are growing every day. We could live the most non-environmentally damaging way possible and it still wouldn't amount to a hill of beans in the face of that avalanche of humanity.

CaptainHaplo

11-19-10, 01:46 AM

Wait a second....

Did I misunderstand the title of the thread?

Global warming caused a duck to become lame - and congress is going to have hearings on this horrible situation????

Platapus

11-19-10, 06:20 AM

I for one have never understood why people automatically think that if there is global warming then it must be the fault of man.

or

That if man is indeed the cause of global warming then cutting back on emissions in the countries who already have the strongest environmental laws while allowing population growth worldwide to remain unchecked is ever going to correct the problem.

Especially with those polluting volcano pooping up everywhere. One volcano can put a lot of gases.

But there are some problems with volcanoes

1. They can't be taxed
2. They don't vote
3. They tend to ignore politicians

:D

Sailor Steve

11-19-10, 11:39 AM

Wait a second....

Did I misunderstand the title of the thread?

Global warming caused a duck to become lame - and congress is going to have hearings on this horrible situation????
No, ya idjit! The lame duck caused the warming. Now the duckhunt is on to find him and make him pay!

Cain't y'all read?

Weiss Pinguin

11-19-10, 11:50 AM

I thought that we were living on a lame duck, which was slowly getting warmer? :doh:

frau kaleun

11-19-10, 02:07 PM

I thought that we were living on a lame duck, which was slowly getting warmer? :doh:

I thought we were halfway there... ohhhh-OH, livin' on a prayer.

DarkFish

11-19-10, 09:52 PM

Electric cars are the ultimate 'big lie' as far as I'm concerned. TTM is correct, the plants in Baltimore burn coal to generate electricity. The ash and filth the stack belch into the air are serious pollutants. Not to mention the strip mining plus the 6 odd some diesel engines pulling the hopper cars to Baltimore daily. And as SW states, the lead /acid batteries can and are a problem. All we can say is there is no perfect solution for powered mobility.

We all should get a set of sneakers or a good bike. Just think...everyone is healthy from walking and riding. The air is clean.Well I dont know about the US of course, but in Europe a large part of all electricity is generated using nuclear, hydrodynamic, wind, solar or gas plants, all of which are much less pollutive than coal plants. So at least in Europe, the myth that electric cars are more pollutive than conventional cars is nothing more than exactly that: a myth.

Also there is the simple case of engine efficiency. The efficiency of a typical conventional car is around 20%. The energy efficiency of an electrical powered car can reach 80%.

That is the argument. I agree it isn't man made.

The counter to man made warming is.....man made cooling.

Will our decisions now contribute to the cooling which is far more damaging to humanity than warming? Simple answer....YES.Well, unfortunately for you most scientists don't agree with you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Statements_by _dissenting_organizations); the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Association_of_Petroleum_Geologists), which in 2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position.but hey, if you prefer to believe you are smarter than the experts, be my guest:salute:

HunterICX

11-20-10, 05:16 AM

The Earth's Climate changes all the damn time throughout the history of this planet.

If the change decides to fry us or freeze us is something we can't do anything about. The only thing I could perhaps say we are adding to this that we might speed up the process a bit.

but it is a nice weapon for the governement using the ''We are responsble for the Climate'' BS to shake our wallets a bit more.

HunterICX

Schroeder

11-20-10, 07:09 AM

If the change decides to fry us or freeze us is something we can't do anything about. The only thing I could perhaps say we are adding to this that we might speed up the process a bit.

Isn't that contradictory? If we speed it up then we do something to the climate, don't we? If we speed it up, then we also increase the natural effect, right?

Besides I don't give a rat's rear end whether we are responsible for global warming or not. We need to find new energy sources and should get away from oil ASAP. Drill Baby Drill isn't going to solve the problem and we are making ourselves dependable on foreign countries.

Gerald

01-20-11, 07:20 AM

Fraudsters are targeting climate scientists with fake conferences in a bid to make cash and obtain details.

Scientists are sent e-mail invitations and directed to a fake conference website - often written using language taken from real scientific meetings.

Typically they are told their travel costs will be refunded - but they have to pay first to reserve a hotel room.

London appears to be their venue of choice, with some invitations imitating the names of top hotels.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12219472

Note: 20 January 2011 Last updated at 01:31 GMT

the_tyrant

01-20-11, 08:02 AM

come on, how big is the target
there isn't really that many climate scientists around

Gerald

01-20-11, 01:18 PM

come on, how big is the target
there isn't really that many climate scientists around Enough, for the fraudsters will find it interesting

CaptainHaplo

01-21-11, 02:36 AM

Maybe they just are targetting the gullible?

Gerald

01-21-11, 06:59 AM

Yes some maybe it is, but things like this affects many industries, and now it happened to be a focus on just them here, and it is certainly a connection with the climate issues of concern today

Gerald

01-24-11, 07:00 PM

Global warming is in full swing, say some of the world's climatologists. Or is it?

On Thursday the U.N.'s weather agency announced that 2010 was a milestone, the warmest year on record, in a three-way tie with 2005 and 1998. "The 2010 data confirm the Earth's significant long-term warming trend," said Michel Jarraud, the World Meteorological Organization's top official. He added that the ten warmest years after records began in 1854 have all occurred since 1998.

But how reliable is the DATA? Here are five good reasons some scientists are skeptical of these claims.

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/01/24/planet-hottest-ever-global-warming/

Note: Published January 24, 2011

Rilder

01-24-11, 07:17 PM

Fox news link, I wouldn't trust Fox News if Data from Star Trek was the one fact checking for them. :O:

Also.

4. Besides, it's getting chilly. 2010 may have been a warm year, but 2011 has been off to a very cold start -- and may be among the coldest in decades. This always comes off as a juvenile response to global warming. "I'm cold so global warming doesn't exist" I've always thought global warming wouldn't make the weather just get hotter it would make the seasons more extreme, meaning summers would get hotter (Like they have) and winters would get colder (Like they have) The atmosphere and climate isn't some simple thing after all.

Gerald

01-24-11, 07:23 PM

Fox or any other media source, it's the same thing now "happened" there be a link from them so if you want to speculate freely, what they have put together, do not match directly with what people say IRL

TLAM Strike

01-24-11, 07:35 PM

He added that the ten warmest years after records began in 1854 have all occurred since 1998.

Imagine if all of human history was only known only as far back as 1854, what would we not know? As geological time goes 157 years is nothing.

Gerald

01-24-11, 07:45 PM

Right analyzed!

The Third Man

01-24-11, 09:34 PM

North Dakota Weather Alert!

Youtube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAq1Ml3PlGc&feature=related)

UnderseaLcpl

01-25-11, 12:50 AM

This always comes off as a juvenile response to global warming. "I'm cold so global warming doesn't exist" I've always thought global warming wouldn't make the weather just get hotter it would make the seasons more extreme, meaning summers would get hotter (Like they have) and winters would get colder (Like they have) The atmosphere and climate isn't some simple thing after all.

I feel the same way, but I also feel that way about the claim that because the mean temperature has increased marginally over the past century that it's a definitive link to mankind making the globe warmer, or different, or whatever they're claiming at the time. The mean temperature for most of the globe's existence that we know of has been quite a bit warmer than it has ever been since mankind has been around.

Any number of factors could be responsible in a climatological system of such vast size and with so many natural forces acting upon it (not the least of which is curious activity in the magnetosphere), but proponents of climate change simply assume it is from the output of industrialized societies. And why wouldn't they? They are taught this stuff from primary school now as though it were fact.
----------------------------------------------------

Going slightly OT, one of my other main arguments from the side of those derisively called "deniers" is that there is anything we could do about global climate change, even if it were man-made.

What, exactly, shall we do? Go green? A nice idea if you're trying to sell inefficient, expensive, feel-good stuff to the market that has been prepped for you by the environmental craze, but how much effect does that have?

Of the planet's six billion inhabitants, only a few hundred-million can afford enough green technology to make a significant reduction in their footprint, and even then it is still higher than that of a third-world citizen. The only countries in the world that are wealthy enough to afford to care about the world are free-trading nations. They are also generally the only nations in the world that have a declining birthrate without some kind of pandemic. They became capable of even caring about this problem through freedom of economic development.

So now, consider this; a first world with a wealthy but weakened economy due to inefficient green tech investments focused on a problem we may not actually have, versus an overwhelming third-world population that is just beginning industrialization. What happens when these countries industrialize and are able to produce cheaper goods than we can because of lower labor standards, greater availability of labor, and lax controls? Now we have near-on 5 billion destitute people or more doing the damage we did decades ago out of a natural desire to improve their standard of living. WTF do we do now?

If western society has done so much damage over a century that immediate action must be taken, what the hell are we going to do about that? Moreover, what position will be in to do anything when we have to struggle to preserve our "green" economies against a tide of inudstrialized activity? Given the current situation over what a fraction of China is doing, I'd wager: very little.

The best protection against the environment is free economic development. Wealthy states can afford to deal with it. Poor states suffer horrendous casualties and economic damage. This has proven true thus far and I think it will continue to be so. Whether the problem of climate change is due to mankind or other factors, I see the best course forward as being a continued (or better yet, improved) commitment to free economic development and the resources and technology it provides.

We cannot afford to step back now. If the threat is real the most vulnerable will need our capabilities, and we can't well deal with a handicap in a world market system. If it is not, we have more resources to spare towards their continued development so that they can reach our standard more quickly and they can join in the effort.

krashkart

01-25-11, 01:01 AM

So now, consider this; a first world with a wealthy but weakened economy due to inefficient green tech investments focused on a problem we may not actually have, versus an overwhelming third-world population that is just beginning industrialization. What happens when these countries industrialize and are able to produce cheaper goods than we can because of lower labor standards, greater availability of labor, and lax controls? Now we have near-on 5 billion destitute people or more doing the damage we did decades ago out of a natural desire to improve their standard of living. WTF do we do now?

Hitting the nail right on the head there, mate. :yep:

Gammelpreusse

01-25-11, 05:04 AM

Hitting the nail right on the head there, mate. :yep:

Climate change happening or not, I leave that up for debate. But actually, China is massively investing in green tech as well. It's one of those huge future industries, and kid you not, with third world countries industrializing, even if there is no problem now, there will be massive problems in the future in regrads to this. So from whatever perspective you look at it, ignoring green tech and solely relying on old stuff won't cut it.

Besides, you won't make green tech more efficient by ignoring it. Every tech has to made a start out at one point, eventually. And if you look at the efficiency of the first petrol engines, or steam engines...welllllllll.

Besides, given how the Rhine and other rivers in Germany looked just a couple decades ago, when it was so full of chemicals and dirt nearly all life in it had died out, compared to today, with even salmon returning and ppl bathing there, I do think green tech warrants a couple investments even as a climate change sceptic. It has a lot to do with personal quality of life and industries not ruining it for everybody else. If this also results in new industries developing, more people getting into jobs and economic growth, opposition to that becomes a bit odd.

Skybird

01-25-11, 05:45 AM

I withhold any comment on those five points, I just say this:

there are indices that are much more invulnerable to mishandling by man or misinterpretation, and that biological and ecological in dices. When you see that species (plants as well as animals) depending on "warm" surroundings spread into areas where before they did not live becasue it was too cold for them, and when you see species that depend on "cold" environments move out of places or shrink in total population where before they have lived, then you know that something has chnaged, and that temperature has something to do with it. And these indices are being observed since many years, and very huge scale - and we do not talk about transportation of alien species into new habitat due to man-made global traffic here (ships in the main).

This to me is the most ´convincing argument that on global scale, the regional temperature sprea dpatterns are chnaging indeed, and upwards.

The same is true with regard to certain chemical, physical processes, regarding ocean water for example.

One also must know that due to the uneven spread of water and land on the Northern and Southern hemispohere of the globe, both spheres follow quite different atmospheric behaviuour patterns, becasue water and landmasses store and radiate heat energy differenbtly, and the the vaporisation also is different in both spheres due to the differences in land and ocean ammounts.

While we in the Westrn world had a relatively "cold" year in 2010 and just have had a remarkably cold winter in Europe, and early, this does not chnage that in the equator region and in SE Asia and in the Southern sphere they have had remarkably many floods, in other places: and droughts. Many scientists say that an effect of global warming will be that the while the Southern hemipshere becomes clearly wearmer, the Nothern hemisphere could and will become slightly colder, or will see a more extreme difference between summers becoming hotter and winters becoming colder. This also seems to have been what the socalled mini-ice age has been about: a bigger gap between temperatures extzremes in seasons. Futuire chnages like this are caused by changes in the ocean'S tidings due to changes in salinity levels and temperature differences that keep these currents moving - the more itnense the bigger the temperature and salinity differences of water bodies are. And this again chnages the flow of air and the vaporiation in the atmosphere.

I pointed it out some time ago regarding the pole'S ice as well, the paradox effect that while on the one half of the Southern pole the ice was thinning out, on the other half it became slighty thicker, not much, but a bit. One needs to understand that here as well as in case of a cooling in the Northern sphere, this paradoxical effect is not in opposition to global warminmg claims, but are evidence for physical processes that are indeed casued by a general trend in temperature going upwards.

I also remiond of the fact that desertification processes, from the equator region towards both North and South, have massively gained in pace. This is in parts due to regional farming habits and abuse of ground water reservoirs, partially because of certain climatologic-atmospheric changes that amass in the equator region due to Earth's rotation. In general, local farming habits help to casue climate change by chnaging geological conditions in regions, due to salienation and ground water abuse by overuse. Hm, abuse probabaly is the wrong word here, but you get what I am talking about. Yopu see this in rural areas in Africa, in the centres of lifestock concentration at transport keynodes and slaughterhouses in the US, and on a huge scale in Australia (salienation). All this adds to the industrial, energy-production and traffic's influence on climate change due to emissions.

All what I mentioned above, does not need scientific precision and coprrectly handled sensors. It is observable to everybody willing to use his eyes unbiased and comaoring what he sees to poatterns from years and decades ago. Massive chnages are happening in the patterns of the lifesphere of this planet, and what they all have in common is that you must conclude that they at least share (if not are dominantly caused) by a general trend in atmosphere to push temperature up.

And just because somebody cannot imagine that a difference of half a degree makes a differenbce within an ecosystem becasue half a deghree - well, it looks so little and so small, doesn'T it?!, that does not mean that actually it means nothing indeed. Saying it means nothing maybe just represents a lack of knowldge in botanics and zoologics. What for man looks like nothing, half a degree, for many tropical fishes for example already makes a difference between life and death.

And this: not for the first time it was published, but some weeks ago I once again read a brief overview on a recent study from I thinkl Potsdam'S climate institute, a leading European adress on these issues, showing calculations that even if we would stop all activities and emissions that help warming right now, and would stop pollution coimpletely this very day, the inner dynamic of processes we already have started in the envrionment will make sure that they will carry on to unfold at growing pace nevertheless - for at least the next 100 years. And not all consequences we can predict in detail, so we cannot say what follow-on-conseqeunces will be caused by these "first generation" conseqeunces, which also will unfold their own inner dynamic.

Thius should remind us of how far we already have pushed. Whatevber we do, we do not do it for opur or the next one or two generations, but people living LONG time after us. for us and our kids and their children, it will not make much of a difference.

Some may take this as an egoist excuse to not cvhnage anything. Others hopefully will take it as a scary reminder of our moral responsibility for future generations.

Skybird snydrome. Now once again it got longer than I originally intended. :)

UnderseaLcpl

01-25-11, 08:15 AM

Besides, you won't make green tech more efficient by ignoring it. Every tech has to made a start out at one point, eventually. And if you look at the efficiency of the first petrol engines, or steam engines...welllllllll.

Besides, given how the Rhine and other rivers in Germany looked just a couple decades ago, when it was so full of chemicals and dirt nearly all life in it had died out, compared to today, with even salmon returning and ppl bathing there, I do think green tech warrants a couple investments even as a climate change skeptic. It has a lot to do with personal quality of life and industries not ruining it for everybody else. If this also results in new industries developing, more people getting into jobs and economic growth, opposition to that becomes a bit odd.

I completely agree. Like most techs, green tech will improve over time because there is a demand for it.

I don't have any problem with environmental consciousness - everyone wants a nice world to live in - my worry is that forcing the issue through state economic meddling will ruin the system that allowed us the freedoms of acts and means that gave us the chance to care about it in the first place. If/when the time comes that we do have a major crisis on our hands, we will not have the luxury of dealing with it.

The harms of state-backed eco-mania are already rather apparent. Hundreds of billions of units of currency throughout the world are wasted annually on things that have been proven to be ineffective: wind power, hybrid cars, ethanol fuels, bio-whatever, and (my personal bugbear) organic food. All this money is taken from productive members of society who would otherwise have used it for productive purposes. Instead, we end up force-feeding useless tech in an effort that often has perverse consequences for both ourselves and the less-developed nations that depend upon our markets for business and aid.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Skybird snydrome. Now once again it got longer than I originally intended. :)

That's only because your arguments are comprehensive, which is a good thing imo. Few things are so simple that their nature can be realized without analysis of contributing factors from related areas.

Climate change is an issue that we have fundamental disagreements upon, but if the Potsdam findings you mentioned are true, I see it as all the more reason to push for more economic development, rather than more forced diversion of assets into arresting what may or may not be man-made climate change. Nature has always been a very unforgiving mother, and mankind's success has always depended upon besting her through technological innovation. If we are on the verge of a global climate shift, whether natural or artificial, our best bet is the course that favors the most economic, and therefore technological, development. It goes without saying that you and I will disagree upon what that course is, exactly, but there you have it.

Skybird

01-25-11, 08:37 AM

We are too many humans on this planet. As long as this is the case, all debate on the cause of global weamring and how to adress it, is academical time-killing only.

Wer are too many.

That'S why our disagreements are not really important in the end. If environmental change, floods, draughts, food shortages, loss of farmland, epidemics, toxic environments and starvation will not catch us, then the shortage of resources, and the wars over the remains.

One billion people, at best 1 and a half - for all the globe. That's what in the end it is all about. I think the next 100 years will prove this.

UnderseaLcpl

01-25-11, 08:45 AM

One billion people, at best 1 and a half - for all the globe. That's what in the end it is all about. I think the next 100 years will prove this.

I sincerely doubt it, certainly within the next century. People are remarkably resourceful when the situation demands it. We are in agreement, however, that it will eventually come to war; likely at the expense of the the least-developed nations.

Gammelpreusse

01-25-11, 09:14 AM

I completely agree. Like most techs, green tech will improve over time because there is a demand for it.

I don't have any problem with environmental consciousness - everyone wants a nice world to live in - my worry is that forcing the issue through state economic meddling will ruin the system that allowed us the freedoms of acts and means that gave us the chance to care about it in the first place. If/when the time comes that we do have a major crisis on our hands, we will not have the luxury of dealing with it.

The harms of state-backed eco-mania are already rather apparent. Hundreds of billions of units of currency throughout the world are wasted annually on things that have been proven to be ineffective: wind power, hybrid cars, ethanol fuels, bio-whatever, and (my personal bugbear) organic food. All this money is taken from productive members of society who would otherwise have used it for productive purposes. Instead, we end up force-feeding useless tech in an effort that often has perverse consequences for both ourselves and the less-developed nations that depend upon our markets for business and aid.

As with all science, and especially basic science, a lot of stuff tried out is ineffective and unsuccessful. Only one in ten cases may be a success. That, however, is part of science. You do not know what works unless you actually try it. And I agree, there is a lot of money going down the drain in this process, but that is just part of the deal. In short terms, this means lots of lost money but in the long term it usually more then pays out.

Besides, wind power is fairly effective and hardly a waste. So i solar power, and hybrid cars also make a big impact. The problem simply is that these concepts are too expensive yet. But with what new tech was that ever different? Look at computers, navigation systems, internet and so on, everything highly expensive and only available for a very small circle of people in the beginning, but now everybody has it. If any of these folks said "hey, too expensive, let's stop it" we'd have never gotten there. I'd not have this stance against green tech just because it is green tech or because some folks complain about climate change. Imho, it is a very serious and success promising field to get into, and the more money is spend on it initially, the greater progresses can be made, leading to greater advances and ultimately, greater profits.

The only field where I agree with you is Bio Fuel. The earth is going towards major food shortages anyways and we simply need those areas for food production. Bio Fuel does not have much future unless it can be completely won out of organic waste.

UnderseaLcpl

01-25-11, 10:07 AM

As with all science, and especially basic science, a lot of stuff tried out is ineffective and unsuccessful. Only one in ten cases may be a success. That, however, is part of science. You do not know what works unless you actually try it.
Of course.

And I agree, there is a lot of money going down the drain in this process, but that is just part of the deal. In short terms, this means lots of lost money but in the long term it usually more then pays out.

Yeah, but it doesn't work that way when fiat power is involved. Private firms waste a lot of money in tech development, but they rapidly drop projects that don't work or that prove unpopular. Governments don't change their policies so readily. Legislators are not governed by immediate factors like profit motives, but rather by politics.

Besides, wind power is fairly effective and hardly a waste. So i solar power, and hybrid cars also make a big impact.

They've made an impact, but not a productive one. We can pull up the statistics on the costs of unsubsidized development and employment of these technologies if you wish, but I already know what they say. None of these things would even be around today in such quantities if the state didn't misguidedly sanction their development by forcibly redirecting assets.

The problem simply is that these concepts are too expensive yet. But with what new tech was that ever different? Look at computers, navigation systems, internet and so on, everything highly expensive and only available for a very small circle of people in the beginning, but now everybody has it. If any of these folks said "hey, too expensive, let's stop it" we'd have never gotten there.

The factor you're not seeing is that all these innovations were made possible by private investment, not government intervention. Even the first computer was a private design with no backing other than private resources. Same goes for the first computer that didn't suck and the semiconductor.

Governments do not know where to direct resources. How could they? Private individuals like inventors, investors, and production firms do because they have a reason to do so, namely the profit incentive. Even where the state tries to recruit the best minds in a given field, they often fail at everything. One needs look no further than the results of any conceived or current state initiative to see this. They virtually always manage to lose money, despite the fact that they have the power to forcibly sieze money from anyone. Private industry, by contrast, has to earn money.

The real bear with this situation comes when you try to combine what is politically gainful with what is gainful in a free market by giving legislators fiat power over trade. The result is that you get legislation that favors the most vested and powerful interests. This is not a good thing. Effectively, you give the interests power over trade.

In case the point has not been made clearly, please consider this: Imagine that you are a legislator with the concerns of a nation on your mind. You're a good legislator, with the interests of the population at heart, but you have many issues to deal with from diverse interests and voters. In the midst of all that, you're approached by a professional representative who wants a subsidy for a new green industry so that it can develop. It is expensive, but the potential could save millions of lives. Now imagine that I've been paid $200 per hour do this.

If you've agreed with anything I've said up to this point, you would fall victim to the exact same mechanisms that have co-opted the state (and I'm not even being paid to do this) Professional lobbyists have a tremendous success rate for the same reason. They will eventually identify with any kind of doubt or confidence you express, and they are very good at this; their jobs depend upon it. Even if they fail, there are many who stand ready to take their place. They were all selected by virtue of their effectiveness by specialized interests.

All you are doing is giving powerful private interests an easy way out of the free market. You're letting them live off the fat by giving the state free reign over your efforts through a misguided trust of state "servants".

August

01-25-11, 10:21 AM

Besides, given how the Rhine and other rivers in Germany looked just a couple decades ago, when it was so full of chemicals and dirt nearly all life in it had died out, compared to today, with even salmon returning and ppl bathing there, I do think green tech warrants a couple investments even as a climate change sceptic. It has a lot to do with personal quality of life and industries not ruining it for everybody else. If this also results in new industries developing, more people getting into jobs and economic growth, opposition to that becomes a bit odd.

We have similar results with the rivers over here but how much of that improvement is because of green technologies and how much is the result of heavy industry moving overseas to pollute someone elses rivers? I'm sure it's a combination of the two but i'll bet it's more the result of the latter than the former.

gimpy117

01-25-11, 11:52 AM

Well, its like trying to make an argument saying you shouldn't be concerned with cancer by saying:

"well it's not the worst case of cancer i've ever seen"

The fact of the matter is, natural or not, Climate change on a planet with such population which is dependent on an ample supply of food can be a big deal. If there is something we can do about it to preserve the way this planet is, not just on some hippy "i love trees perspective" like some will paint it, but on a perspective where we need to keep this planet as viable as possible or expect severe starvation to take place, killing many.

The Third Man

01-25-11, 11:58 AM

Skybird

01-25-11, 12:04 PM

August

01-25-11, 12:19 PM

The poisening of the Rhine in earlier years was mostly due to chemical industry, and the according chemical plants at the Rhine, and rivers feeding it, for the most are still there in Germany and Switzerland and France.

I hear ya about upstream polluters causing problems for those living downstream.

The Nashua river, at one time considered the worst polluted river in the entire country, runs right through the town I grew up in. You could tell what color paper the mills upstream were making by the color of the river that day and the stench was just unbearable.

All those mills are now closed, moved overseas to foreign lands, and the river is much cleaner (I wouldn't want to dig too deep into the river bed though). There are even fish populations now but that improvement came at the cost of several hundred jobs which the city of Fitchburg still hasn't recovered from.

Growler

01-25-11, 12:21 PM

There's a bumper sticker, been around for years: "Think globally, act locally."

Relying on government to fix things is like relying on a loan shark for financial advice. It's true whether you're talking health care, car care, skin care, or Earth care. We can't expect a government to act in our best interest; they will always act in their own self-interest - this is government, not philanthropy.

I recycle, not to save the planet - this third stone from the sun will get along just fine without us. I recycle because it is a vote for improving the recycling process, for improving the efficiency in packaging and reclamation of packaging. I recycle because there is no "away" to throw it. And because there's something vaguely triumphant about seeing lots of empty beer bottles in one place, but I digress.

I can't prove global warming or cooling; I'm not a scientist. I can see, though, that the Chesapeake Bay is cleaner than it once was; not clean by any stretch, but cleaner even than it was a decade ago. Cooler, warmer, either way, we as humans are adaptable. We will adapt; we have in the past. What I'm concerned about is a healthy, clean planet for tomorrow's kids to be able to play outside like I did; a clean wilderness where the view of mountains, streams, and wildlife is unclouded by trash and smog.

It's not a matter for government to decide. If you want a clean neighborhood, make it. If enough people want clean neighborhoods, you'll have cleaner cities. If enough people want cleaner cities, you'll have cleaner states. People who want clean states will move there, bringing their dollars with them. Same cycle applies for people who want "black" cities, "liberal" cities, or "Steelers" cities. Like attracts like. Is it perfect? It can't be, not as long as people are involved.

We have to get out of this practice of looking to the government to legislate every bloody-damned cause out there and start acting for ourselves.

This doesn't say everything I mean to; words are not working with me today.

The Third Man

01-25-11, 12:39 PM

Van Jones is the gift that keeps giving............. the entire green movement is really just about forwarding a radical leftist agenda in order to restructure society. Gee, everyone on the right hasn’t been saying that for years on end.

Video (http://blog.eyeblast.tv/2011/01/van-jones-environmentalism-is-really-all-about-social-justice/)

Gammelpreusse

01-25-11, 01:02 PM

We have similar results with the rivers over here but how much of that improvement is because of green technologies and how much is the result of heavy industry moving overseas to pollute someone elses rivers? I'm sure it's a combination of the two but i'll bet it's more the result of the latter than the former.

Kay, dunno about the US, but we sure still have lots of our industry here, outsourcing in these sectors were only marginal. However, in the late 80ies and 90ies there were huge government run programs forcing industries to get their act together. The results were highly successful, so government intervention over here has by far not the bad reputation as it appears to have in the US. Quite to the opposite, as industry and the overall economy have only profits in their minds, they enjoy a healthy dose of distrust when it comes to responsibility outside the money field. Jobs in this regard are of only secondary nature, though the economy certainly tries again and again to threaten the government with job losses for their programs. Ultimately, however, these threats have been pretty much empty, exceptions proving the rule.

Additionally, these forced programs laid the fundamentals for todays emerging green tech industries and thus were amongst the most successful after the war in preparing Germany for globalization, something the economy itself would have neglected in their focus on old tech products.

Sailor Steve

01-25-11, 01:04 PM

Of course this isn't the hottest the planet's ever been. It was once a chunk of roiling molten iron.

Not that I'd want to go back to those days though...

Takeda Shingen

01-25-11, 01:23 PM

Of course this isn't the hottest the planet's ever been. It was once a chunk of roiling molten iron.

Not that I'd want to go back to those days though...

If I was a total jerk, I'd post that photo of Jim and tell everyone how it is the hottest the planet has ever been. :O:

Don't even think about doing it now! I thought of it first!

mookiemookie

01-25-11, 01:30 PM

http://nathan-lee.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/whatIfGetABetterPlanetForNothing.jpg

The Third Man

01-25-11, 01:34 PM

Sailor Steve

01-25-11, 01:35 PM

It was a joke, and a funny one. Aren't you the one usually critcizing others for not getting your humor?

Growler

01-25-11, 01:43 PM

Who's definition of better world are you using. Yours? It isn't mine. We have all of that already. You just don't know it because you are steeped in a utopian fantasy world that has no bounds except the leftist totalitarianism.

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! :har::har::har:

This is, simply, the absolute funniest damned thing I've seen in MONTHS. Damn, I needed that laugh.

*gasp...*

*whew...*

gimpy117

01-25-11, 01:54 PM

Who's definition of better world are you using. Yours? It isn't mine. We have all of that already. You just don't know it because you are steeped in a utopian fantasy world that has no bounds except the leftist totalitarianism.

so your saying you're utopia would have none of the things listed on that board in the picture??

...I don't think i wanna live there...

The Third Man

01-25-11, 01:55 PM

so your saying you're utopia would have none of the things listed on that board in the picture??

...I don't think i wanna live there...

I'm saying I have no utopia and all those things already exist.

gimpy117

01-25-11, 02:01 PM

I'm saying I have no utopia and all those things already exist.

-smog problems in major cities
-children getting atshma or starving due to droughts (possibly connected to desertification)
-rainforest being cut down every day (makes oxygen -> lets you breath)
-most of our energy being in coal or petroleum (which comes from where people hate us)

The Third Man

01-25-11, 02:06 PM

-smog problems in major cities
-children getting atshma or starving due to droughts (possibly connected to desertification)
-rainforest being cut down every day (makes oxygen -> lets you breath)
-most of our energy being in coal or petroleum (which comes from where people hate us)

Smog created by the people that live there...leave, no smog.
Children have always died and mor live now than ever...some say population is a problem.

Developing countries have no right to develop?

But our coal/petro energy resources have been greatly curtailed by law or policy...we could do more...the worrld should love us for the sacrifice.

gimpy117

01-25-11, 02:26 PM

Smog created by the people that live there...leave, no smog.
Children have always died and mor live now than ever...some say population is a problem.

Developing countries have no right to develop?

But our coal/petro energy resources have been greatly curtailed by law or policy...we could do more...the worrld should love us for the sacrifice.

yes it is a problem. but we are smart. I know what you're alluding to, and population control is not really an option. Besides you'd probably be the first one on the picket line when they said "you can only have one kid"

Onkel Neal

02-03-11, 02:46 AM

Gargamel

02-03-11, 02:49 AM

hehehehe, Still going to call it BS when you slip on some ice in the morning? :D

UnderseaLcpl

02-03-11, 03:13 AM

I don't even want to hear about it. I'm only a few hours to the north and I've been living in a frozen hell for 2 days. :DL

I can't go anywhere because the streets are full of people who can't drive on ice, I have no water because the pipes froze, I have nothing to do because they shut the rail yard down; and to top it all off, TXU keeps cutting my power. Small stuff compared to what's going on in other parts of the country, but here in Texas it might as well be a new ice age.

papa_smurf

02-03-11, 04:26 AM

bookworm_020

02-03-11, 04:30 AM

Here is some good news.

http://video.theaustralian.com.au/1777344393/Groundhog-prediction-defies-snowstorm?area=videoindex19

Rilder

02-03-11, 04:58 AM

Global warning, my a**

How much you wanna bet on come summer:

"Its so hot why can't the scientists do something about global warming!" :rotfl2:

AngusJS

02-03-11, 06:59 AM

Thank goodness there is no difference between weather and climate - we just have to check what the weather is doing in Houston to see if the climate is changing or not. All those satellites, Antarctic science labs and computer models can be replaced by a simple thermometer at Neal's house.

But surely you will be raising the alarm about climate change when you have a heat wave, right?

DarkFish

02-03-11, 07:41 AM

global warming doesn't mean it's getting warmer *everywhere*. In fact, climate models predict lots of places will in fact get much cooler. Which is exactly the reason why theres "global" in front of "warming". The average temperature across the globe will rise, but there are countless places that will cool down.

Anyway, you can believe or not believe it, there currently is NO scientific body anywhere on earth that does not believe the earth is warming as a result of human activities. The number of dissenting scientists is continuously decreasing, the few remaining can't get much backing for their claims.
Everybody is free to believe what he wants, but not believing in global warming would be the same as saying you consider yourself more knowledgeable than the professionals.

Skybird

02-03-11, 08:04 AM

For crying out loud, snow in H-town? This will be the third time in 6 years. That's unprecedented in the history of the world. Global warning, my a**

And I don't care if you call it "global climate change", I'm leaning toward calling it bs.
That'S is your fault then.

Any comment on the Southern hemisphere in general avergae showing a massive widening of warmth-related climate pohenomeneons and according envcironmental effects? Erosion? Desertification? Loss of fertile farmland capoable to run agriculture on? The movement of warmth-depending species on both global hemipsheres into regions where before they could not have survived - becasue it was too cold for them? Decline of energetic potential in deep ocean tidings, due to a decline in differences between cold and warm water, and sinking salinity levels?

Don't mistake weather with global climate trends. Global warming can cause local paradox effects, I have often explained that. And there is a very basic difference in how GW shows on the Northern and on the southern side of the globe, due to the different distribtuion of land- and water masses. It could be that the spread between winter and summer temeporatuzre sin the North becomes wider again, more extreme temperatures in both summer and winter. On the southern side of Earth however we see a more general trend of more warming.

It helps nobody to simplify things beyond reason and then call that "avoiding to make things unneedingly complex". It is a complex issue.

We have had a very early winter over here, untpyical in timing and intensity by the standards of the past 30 years or so, we also had very much snow 2005 or 2006. But the summers of the past 15 years or so nevertheless for the most saw record temperatures that I cannot remember to have seen in my schooldays.

North-West passage, anyone? It's not only open, but opens even more it seems. Glaciers on the Northern pole, and ice capes? Last year it was shown that the not only melt and brake up, but that they do so at incrasing speed that just before last year was not considered to be possible. Glaciers in the alps? They are shrinking at accelerating pace, some are already gone. In Austria and Switzerland they now protect them with huge monumental foils, to maintain ski toursiom for some years longer in the future, it has become a habit that many prominent ski ressorts that before could completely rely on natural snow, now need to boost up the skiways with snow cannons throughout most of the winter season. Glaciers in South America? There are pics showing that where today there is a pathetic amount of tiny little white, 50, 70 years ago there were 30 meters of km-long ice-coatings - you cannot even recognise the landscape today that easily anymore.

But all that means nothing because it snows in Houston. :88)

the_tyrant

02-03-11, 08:31 AM

Hi from Canada, where we have like 2 feet of snow on the roads

razark

02-03-11, 09:27 AM

Hi from Canada, where we have like 2 feet of snow on the roads
Here in Houston, we can handle the occasional hurricane. We can survive having a couple extra feet of water in the roads. People will tie the boat to the back of the pick-up, and go out and have a great time.

But a quarter inch of snow? That'll shut down the roads. A little bit of ice? People don't know how to drive. It's chaos. We are currently waiting to see if they shut the center down and send us home.

Tchocky

02-03-11, 09:28 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qh76DVhj0-Y Relevant Mitchell/Webb sketch :D

Video added in by some fool, original sketch was just the audio.

McBeck

02-03-11, 09:32 AM

Please explain why greenlands thaw sets in a month ealier and lasts a month longer than normal....twice as much ice melted in 2010 compared to 1972 :doh:

the_tyrant

02-03-11, 10:06 AM

Conspiracy theory:
They say the is is melting is iceland because they know we don't like in iceland!
For the people in iceland, its too cold for them to linger outside, so they stay inside and its not like they would measure the ice!

August

02-03-11, 10:17 AM

But all that means nothing because it snows in Houston. :88)

It's not just Houston Skybird. Even here 2000 miles away in Massachusetts we're getting winters that remind me of the 1960's and 70's.

Of course according to you that doesn't mean anything either right?

tater

02-03-11, 10:33 AM

There is no scientific body that denies that based on modern instrumentality, the Earth has been warming during the period of such measurements. The HUMAN aspect of it is hypothesis, on the other hand to explain this observation. AGW is by no means "proved." It has not been tested enough to be theory (since there is very little that can be done experimentally).

Tests that have been done are nothing more than back-casting based on hitting computer models. Not backcasting to hit real data. This is a critical distinction.

The notion that human activity could change climate is an entirely reasonable hypothesis, but it is in no way demonstrated enough to make the grade as a theory, IMHO. (note I well understand the scientific definition of theory—making the grade to be a theory makes it "true" with little more than tweaks as to the model—"theory" is a VERY high bar to pass (contrary to the common english usage).

That said, even the notion of "warming" is very dependent on method. How can you compare accurate satellite data (though they don't have pure polar orbiting spacecraft to cover the poles very well) only available in the last couple decades to data from 100 years ago which is in effect crap?

If you make the claim that the word is X degrees warmer now than 1911, and Y degrees warmer than 1811, you would really need to use identical instrumentality and measurement locations. My personal thought is that many of the climate guys are young enough they never really dealt with uncertainty and precision in measurement (and computational errors—something many still forget is very real).

The amounts of warming proposed in these time periods is very small. A couple degrees. Do you really think that the data from 1811 is accurate to 2 degrees compared to satellite data? The error bars are based on the worst data you have, and as any of these plots goes back in time, the error bars should become well in excess of the signal here. Heck, the number of measurements alone is very different. 100, 200, 300 years ago you have discrete measurements in a handful of locations, vs continuous IR imaging over swathes of earth. The difference here is stunning. Trying to create a global model that works with real spot data on the ground (or sea) in 1800 or 1700, AND works with modern data, and works with the terrible proxy data they use is incredibly daunting (which is why the models don't actually work). So they have a computational problem that is in fact very very difficult, then they elect to have people write the code who are not CS professionals, but climate science guys who happened to take FORTRAN in grad school in 1985. LOL. I'd argue that any statement that this is the warmest year needs to take this into account. I flatly don't buy it, the data going back in time is too crappy (sorry, as a physics guy, I have much higher standards for precision that the climate people).

It's important to remember that modern temp data is also measure temperatures in entirely different places (in geographical location, and altitude). In many cases places that there was zero data taken even a few decades ago (the space-based data).

IMHO, the climate models are hopelessly muddled. Someone who knows what they are doing needs to take a crack at it—cause they could very well be right.

Regardless, with respect to the current weather, global warming plays no part at all. It might in the future, but you can only claim "climate change" if the global climate right now is outside of natural boundary conditions. If the climate has ever looked as it does now in the past, then this winter is still NORMAL. Climate change won't be "responsible" until we're outside of any norms due to it—which is a long way off. I recently read a editorial by a climate change guy (very much a mainstream, pro-AGW guy) where he berated climate scientists who blame current weather (Katrina, etc) on "climate change" because it makes them look like idiots. He realizes that they are trying to create a climate (political) to mitigate real climate change, but thinks lying is not the way to do it.

So this is just weather. 100 years from now it might well be "climate change" causing it, but it's well within normal limits right now.

Oberon

02-03-11, 10:35 AM

Well...since no-one else is going to say it, I'll say it first.

"Houston, we gotta problem..."

There.

Now, down to the matter at hand.

Winters in the UK seem a bit less snowy than I remember, although my current location next to the sea may have a lot to do with that, but I do remember snow that was about three or four foot deep in our front garden once and an icicle about a foot or two long dangling from the gutter over our front door like the Sword of Damocles! (admittedly this was back when I lived in Northern Kent) :haha:
The climate is changing, I think that that is universally recognised, however the cause of it is still debatable, is it a part of a cycle that occurs naturally every few thousands of years? Is it a natural cycle that has been exacerbated by man? Or is it all mans fault for pollution? Or perhaps is it all three? Either which way, we will have to adapt or we will die, because it's not going away, the genie is not being put back into the bottle, it's here, it's probably not going to get any better, so we'll have to deal with it one way or the other.

tater

02-03-11, 10:41 AM

3d snow day here. Kids cant even play well in the snow, it's -5 out (and really windy into the bargain).

Skybird

02-03-11, 10:46 AM

It's not just Houston Skybird. Even here 2000 miles away in Massachusetts we're getting winters that remind me of the 1960's and 70's.

Of course according to you that doesn't mean anything either right?
No, I just do not mistake "weather" with "climate".

For this weekend the weather prediction here says heavy winds and temperatures up to +13°C. Two weeks ago some parts of Germany had temperatures of up to +19°C. Both examples, by nation-wide standards of the past decades, is not only untypical, but is 10-20°C too warm fore this time of the year. In February, we should have occasional snow and sub-zero temps. On the other hand we have had an unusually early winter last years, with very heavy snow, and several weeks too early.

So what?

Regarding snow in Noth America and the typhoon in Austrlia, there are weather cycles that last for years, and that casue the phenomeneons of El Nino and La Nina. These cycles last for years. In how far global temeprature chnages effect both cycles,. is not understood in all detail, but that there is a link: that is not understood to be certain.

There is more landmasses on the Northern half of Earth than on the southern, and there is more water in the South than in the North. The equator line serves as a separator for the rotation direction of some atmospheric processes. Water stores heat for longer, than land, land sees more drasticv and rapic chnages in temperarure exchnage with the air. This is one of the reasons why both hemispheres produce different temperature symptoms if the overall general temperature of the globe is climbing. Also, the oceanic current and by that: the saturation of the air with moisture, is different, and the different thermals in the Northern hemisphere, due to the more share of land, also distribute this moisture differently than in the southern hemisphere.

There are paradoxical effects, yes, but that means not they cannot be explained, it just means that they are the opposite of what at first glance is expected. Also, inner dynamics of climate chnages and weather phenomenens can reach treshold levels at which the symptoms shown so far reverse into their opposite again.

It is a very complex issue, that'Sw hy you cna read about the forming of weather and lcimate in so different sources likle oceanography, astronomy, geology, ecology, physics, geography, even history related research. All these branches add important info and perspectives to the explanation of how climate functions, and how weather is formed. you cannot get the full picture if you leave out even just one.

It is also a very interesting field, I must say, right because it is so diverse. I touched it again quite intensely during my astronomy course this autumn and winter.

P.S. I forgot two very prominent symptoms for global warming: the accelerating thawing of the permafrost soils in Northern Russia, plus the increasing methane levels in the oceans (indicating that the frozen methane on the ocean'S grounds is thawing, too - and that means that even the water in the deep sea is warming slightly). And a biologic indicator for the oceans changing their ph-levels andf temperatures: the decline of many fishes in increasingly huge areas, and the growing plague of jellyfish, seing exotic species showing up in untypical waters in huge numbers, and a general growth of jellyfish plagues in all oceans.

Bilge_Rat

02-03-11, 10:47 AM

you can't really predict anything on the basis of one winter. While Europe and the U.S have been getting hammered, up here in Quebec, the snowfall has been milder than usual. I have about a foot of snow on my front lawn. At this time last year, it was around 2 1/2-3 feet.

Rebel

02-03-11, 11:07 AM

WHAT IS THAT :haha: SCOTTSDALE AZ

frau kaleun

02-03-11, 11:15 AM

http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/39/2011/02/500x_ap110201136576.jpg

Massachusetts Snowpocalypse Baby sez: C'mon, Texas... grow a pair! :O:

Krauter

02-03-11, 11:26 AM

:har:

Quarter inch you say? Ice you say :haha: -5!

Bahaha, I need to walk through about 2 and a half feet of snow to get to my bus/metro station if they don't plow the sidewalks at night. After they've plowed I now need to deal with ice and this crap called slush. And -5? How about - 33.

And I STILL sleep with my window open :O:

All I can say is get some chains and wrap 'em around your tires :).

Cheers from the North

Krauter

August

02-03-11, 11:38 AM

you can't really predict anything on the basis of one winter.

No but this hasn't been the only cold winter either. Last year was pretty cold as well, as was the year before that and the year before that.

How many winters does it take before it's not just "the weather"?

AVGWarhawk

02-03-11, 11:42 AM

Neal...I have been chasing that damn storm with FEMA trailers since Saturday. Got a few in Wright Patterson left over. The others being returned to Fort Worth. Enjoy the snow! :O:

Tchocky

02-03-11, 11:45 AM

Heckuva job :D

Armistead

02-03-11, 11:53 AM

No doubt the ocean is cooling due to all the fresh water run off from melting ice.

Nobody is clear on what has gone wrong. Suggestions for blame include the melting of sea ice or increased flow from Siberian rivers into the Arctic. Both would load fresh water into the surface ocean, making it less dense and so preventing it from sinking, which in turn would slow the flow of tropical water from the south.

And either could be triggered by man-made climate change. Some climate models predict that global warming could lead to such a shutdown later this century.

The last shutdown, which prompted a temperature drop of 5°C to 10°C in western Europe, was probably at the end of the last ice age, 12,000 years ago. There may also have been a slowing of Atlantic circulation during the Little Ice Age, which lasted sporadically from 1300 to about 1850 and created temperatures low enough to freeze the River Thames in London.

AVGWarhawk

02-03-11, 11:54 AM

Nobody is clear on what has gone wrong.

Perhaps nothing is wrong and this is the natural course of the global weather systems. :hmmm:

Takeda Shingen

02-03-11, 11:57 AM

The last shutdown, which prompted a temperature drop of 5°C to 10°C in western Europe, was probably at the end of the last ice age, 12,000 years ago. There may also have been a slowing of Atlantic circulation during the Little Ice Age, which lasted sporadically from 1300 to about 1850 and created temperatures low enough to freeze the River Thames in London.

Many famines have been associated with the effects of the Little Ice Age, most notably the Great Famine of 1315-1317; caused by excessive precipitation and colder than normal winters.

Alex

02-03-11, 12:07 PM

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/02/china-snow-beijing :O:

http://img713.imageshack.us/img713/8964/weathermodification.jpg

What's fine with unusual snow falls is that whatever people's reaction may be, absolutely everyone still gets screwed economically/politically/etc., but at least they shut up about it. :D

Sailor Steve

02-03-11, 12:28 PM

Where I'm at it's currently too cold to snow, which is about average for February here. Last summer was just fairly average too.

All of which means exactly nothing, of course. I just thought I'd pitch in. :sunny:

Skybird

02-03-11, 12:29 PM

How many winters does it take before it's not just "the weather"? Weather cycles are micro-cycles, like El Nino and sun cycles are microcycles as well. The weather is made by the general climate. Now figure. When weather cycles are counted in mostly the one- and low two-digit range, you now may have an idea what macro-cycles like climate changes are about: Centuries. Millenia. Tens of thousands of years - and even one zero more. :03:

Weiss Pinguin

02-03-11, 12:29 PM

Heh, forecast for Corpus Christi is 20% chance of 'Wintry Mix' this afternoon, then 70% tonight. Tomorrow should be interesting, just as long as the power doesn't go out again - yesterday what was supposed to be a 40 minute power outage lasted about 12 hours... You don't even need snow down here in South Texas, just give us a cold snap and everything goes to pot :nope:

I'm almost tempted to go running again today just to see the looks on people's faces :haha:

Skybird

02-03-11, 12:32 PM

"30076" - my God it's true! Steve, you are a posting animal, really! :woot:

Sailor Steve

02-03-11, 12:39 PM

"30076" - my God it's true! Steve, you are a posting animal, really! :woot:
My daily average is roughly twice yours, but falls far short of *ahem* some... :D

Onkel Neal

02-03-11, 12:56 PM

AVGWarhawk

02-03-11, 01:17 PM

That's right, I am the Supreme Meteroelogist. I also resole shoes.

Gave up watch repair I see. :hmmm:

Weiss Pinguin

02-03-11, 02:26 PM

That's right, I am the Supreme Meteroelogist. I also resole shoes.

And it's always fun to see people rushing to explain global warning to me each year :D
Oh, I believe in global warming. All it took was one August in Texas to convince me :haha:

August

02-03-11, 04:12 PM

..you now may have an idea what macro-cycles like climate changes are about: Centuries. Millenia. Tens of thousands of years - and even one zero more. :03:

All that tells me is the scales are way too long and open ended for anyone to claim that they know what is driving the current warming trend or that it is more than a momentary blip in the constantly changing pattern of world temperature.

August

02-03-11, 04:13 PM

Oh, I believe in global warming. All it took was one August in Texas to convince me :haha:

I'll be going to Texas one day. I'll let you know if it causes the temperatures to fluctuate.

August

02-03-11, 04:15 PM

Perhaps nothing is wrong and this is the natural course of the global weather systems. :hmmm:

Hey perhaps human cause global warming is all that's keeping the next Ice Age at bay and if we stop emitting gasses we'll all freeze. :hmmm:

krashkart

02-03-11, 04:23 PM

And it's always fun to see people rushing to explain global warning to me each year :D

:o

http://files.sharenator.com/its_a_trap_got_caught-s500x375-44104-580.jpg

Skybird

02-03-11, 04:48 PM

All that tells me is the scales are way too long and open ended for anyone to claim that they know what is driving the current warming trend or that it is more than a momentary blip in the constantly changing pattern of world temperature.
You've trapped yourself there.

When in a relatively short time frame you see changes that are in excess of changes that before have taken a hundred and a thousand times as long, from warming trends to extinction of species, then right this is the argument that natural causes are unlikely and that an artificial intervention has taken place. If you also see a correlation between warming-related variables and roughly the beginning of the industrial age, then this deserves some thought.

The symptom to be alarmed by is not that there is warming or extinction of species - these things happened always, and repeatedly. The symptom that deserves utmost attention is the speed at which it happens. I preaching this since years now . It's the speed that rings the alarm bell. ;)

Weiss Pinguin

02-03-11, 05:01 PM

I'll be going to Texas one day. I'll let you know if it causes the temperatures to fluctuate.
I dunno if there's enough room even in this state for two Augusts :o

August

02-03-11, 05:47 PM

You've trapped yourself there.

When in a relatively short time frame you see changes that are in excess of changes that before have taken a hundred and a thousand times as long

You can't be seriously trying to claim that worldwide temperatures for the past 200,000 years have been recorded with anything like the same degree of detail and accuracy they are nowadays. As far as you or anyone knows temperature spikes of this nature have occurred hundreds of times in the past.

nikimcbee

02-03-11, 07:00 PM

:haha:It's warmer here than it is there!:D I tell ya Neal, you need to fly out here and I'll take to see the Spruce Goose, The PT Boat, and the USS Blueback.:hmmm:

Skybird

02-03-11, 07:17 PM

August

02-03-11, 08:42 PM

tater

02-03-11, 08:57 PM

August,

From all what science and research on past eras tells us, a rise of 0.8 °C in just 4 decades or so is racing down the autobahn with lightspeed - it represents a warming process taking place several hundred - sometimes it is even calculated as up to a thousand - times faster than in any previous eras about whose climatic conditions and changes we can make reasonably founded statements, basing on geologic findings for the most, or deep core drillings and deep ice drillings.

Taking a trip in the time machine and setting up sensors 200,000 years ago has little to do with it, August. Geology is a very interesting science, and there are other subbranches of sciences that focus on analysis of petrified seeds, for example - and maybe you underestimate how much such findings and the geological layers in which they are being found, can tell us about past conditions of climate and geography. Sediment analysis also can give us explicit information not only on the mix of agents in past atmospheres, but about the processes that made the content of the atmosphere change, and at what time. And both sciences combined, plus several others, allow us to make quite reasonable models of past climatic conditions. ;)

In fact some researchers in these fields say it is easier to reconstruct past atmospheric and climatic conditions, than to predict the change of the present climate. :O:

Then they are telling untruths. Sorry, but the proxy data is very weak.

In order to prove that their models (for relating proxy data to temperature) work, they must try and calibrate to known time periods. They don't work well. It also requires many assumptions about the past climate that are plausible, but again, unproved. It's a great science to be in cause you can say anything about the past (as long as that "anything" is that it's warmer NOW) and there is no possible way to check your answer to the same precision that we can measure temperature now.

BTW, the proxy models need to be able to be predictive, or they are simply wrong. You cannot claim the model accurately works as a proxy if it is not predictive.

Back in school we used to call astronomy (our field of study (well, astrophysics)) a "zeroith order" science. We did so because first terms in expansions were often as good an approximation as we were ever gonna get.

Climate science would be lucky to make the grade to be "zeroith order."

Not to say they shouldn't try, but they're just not there yet.

From a policy standpoint, all that matters is cost-benefit. To access cost of AGW, you need to have an accurate, predictive model (how can you mitigate, if you cannot say that an X% reduction means Y temperature change?)

tater

02-03-11, 09:15 PM

Weather cycles are micro-cycles, like El Nino and sun cycles are microcycles as well. The weather is made by the general climate. Now figure. When weather cycles are counted in mostly the one- and low two-digit range, you now may have an idea what macro-cycles like climate changes are about: Centuries. Millenia. Tens of thousands of years - and even one zero more. :03:

Funny, the models tend to use short (geologically) time frame rolling averages. They are looking at shorter time frames than you let on. In addition, they very carefully pick the "origin" year, as well as the time frame for the rolling averages to maximize "change."

I remember someone asking Meave Leakey a question about how a new find of hers fit into the big picture. She said "we just don't know." I already liked her before that (worked with them for a bit), but that made me like her so much more. Other people in paleo-anthro... showboats... would put their find to always be THE lynchpin. She's the type to draw a cloud instead of a line. THese climate guys get very political, and—even if it is for the "benefit" of lay people, talk in very delineated terms. Very black and white. That lessens them as scientists. Science is probability. It's electron probability distributions, not the Bohr model.

"We think human pollution might possibly have some effect on global climate, but we are unsure, and our models don't work well yet."

^^^that's what they should say.

"The Earth is warming due to man (the science is settled, damn it!), and if we don't act at great expense... yesterday, we're all going to die."

^^^what they say, instead.

BTW, as I said up the thread, I think the basic AGW hypothesis is very plausible. In fact, I'd say it would be unlikely if our pollution did NOT affect the climate. It's like a horse race, we all know that one horse will win, but which one? How much the effect is matters from a policy standpoint. Matters a lot. And it needs to be understood to great accuracy, and with a reliable, predictive model so that mitigation schemes can be designed in a useful way (assuming the human component exceeds any natural one and is in fact driving things). I'l admit bias as an astrophysics person, but I want to see models that include good models of the sun output (of course those don't work well, either, as the current, weak sunspot cycle demonstrates). A climate model is only as good as the weakest part of it.

August

02-03-11, 10:26 PM

I think the basic AGW hypothesis is very plausible. In fact, I'd say it would be unlikely if our pollution did NOT affect the climate. It's like a horse race, we all know that one horse will win, but which one? How much the effect is matters from a policy standpoint. Matters a lot. And it needs to be understood to great accuracy, and with a reliable, predictive model so that mitigation schemes can be designed in a useful way (assuming the human component exceeds any natural one and is in fact driving things). I'l admit bias as an astrophysics person, but I want to see models that include good models of the sun output (of course those don't work well, either, as the current, weak sunspot cycle demonstrates). A climate model is only as good as the weakest part of it.

This ^

Onkel Neal

02-04-11, 03:38 AM

2011 is off to a great start, I post my only troll thread in a long time and the end result is the most civil and thoughtful discussion between Skybird and August ever. I should get an award!

magic452

02-04-11, 03:45 AM

Give yourself a free Subsim mug. :know: :up: :D

Magic

TarJak

02-04-11, 03:48 AM

Skybird

02-04-11, 06:58 AM

2011 is off to a great start, I post my only troll thread in a long time and the end result is the most civil and thoughtful discussion between Skybird and August ever. I should get an award!

Peace Nobel, maybe? Of course only if you do not take offense from Wikileaks suggested for nomination, too! :D

On the issue, August, if you think that you know it so much better than dedicated scientific branches, just because you do not like what they conclude, then I cannot help it. But I must tell you that just recently the NOAA once again has explained why the colder winter we have had repeatedly in the past 5 years are exactly evidence for global warming. It is for two factors, and they are indeed known since many years now: first, the ice cape at the Northern pole has become smaller in area, which means less sunlight is getting reflected back into space. It's energy stays in the atmosphere, and warms it up, which results in a warming of the air and more ice melting, and even faster. With lesser ice cooling the water, and warmer air warming it up, water temperature in the polar area is growing. The change in temperature spreads in water masses and the polar atmosphere results in a softening up of a typical atmospheric condition at the pole during winter, which is a huge low pressure field that usually is rotating and maintains a strict temperature barrier that hinders cold air to drift southward. this barrier had been weakened due to the change in temperature contrasts in the air and in the water. And so the arctic cold air moved southward - and that is what we feel this winter, and in I think 2005 it was.

The likelihood that we will see more of these extremes in winter temperatures, is high, because the polar regions warm up constantly. At the same time, more extreme summer temps are expected both on the Northern and Southern half of the globe, causing different effects in different regions: for some, like middle Europe, it means more floods (In Germany we have seen an increase in flood events (frequency and intensity) by a factor of 4 in the past 10 years), for others, like the mid- and southern US, it means more droughts.

Maybe this is again too scientific for your taste, but I am not responsible if somebody has an anti-scientific attitude in general. I stay with sciences, because their reasoning in this case makes more sense to me than just a statement like "its winter here and it is snowing, so I don't believe in global warming". Same is true for research being done regarding past eras and their climates - the arguments there are much more convincing by chemical and physical findings that are solid and material, than just ridiculing them or dismissing them as irrelevant. You could as well question the C14 method, or geological analysis of sediment layers to conclude on the presence of oil. But both the chemical composition of such layers, and the tectonic structure and its physical characteristics, form better arguments than just saying "I don't believe it".

Ha! I even used a spell checker to treat my many typos! I should get a good will award, too!

Skybird

02-04-11, 07:03 AM

... Really? For all their fancy computer models, ice cores and petrified tree rings and they still find short term prediction difficult? Why then should we have such blind faith in their ability to do so or more pointedly their recommendations on what we should do about it?
For the same reason you find it easier to tell us what you have done yesterday and at what time, than to tell us in detail at what time you will do what activity tomorrow. The past is easier to remember than the future is to predict. A written book is easier to read, than a still-to-be-written book is to be imagined and written down.

August

02-04-11, 10:21 AM

For the same reason you find it easier to tell us what you have done yesterday and at what time, than to tell us in detail at what time you will do what activity tomorrow. The past is easier to remember than the future is to predict. A written book is easier to read, than a still-to-be-written book is to be imagined and written down.

Yeah but we're not talking about yesterday, now are we? We're talking many thousands of years ago. So, care to tell me exactly what you were doing on April 14th 1989? Remember it has to be in more detail than what you are likely to be doing tomorrow.

Skybird

02-04-11, 10:50 AM

Yeah but we're not talking about yesterday, now are we? We're talking many thousands of years ago. So, care to tell me exactly what you were doing on April 14th 1989? Remember it has to be in more detail than what you are likely to be doing tomorrow.

It'S in my diary. ;) If I would have kept one.

That's what according scientific research on past eras is about: finding kind of global "diaries". Like archeologists can make very educated conclusions by finding items, tools or cities in the sand, other scientists can make climatological conclusions by analysing sediment layers, chemical inclusions, petrified seeds, granulate density, etc etc.

tater

02-04-11, 11:20 AM

It's funny to look at the temperature graphs the climate guys publish to show global temp (which, BTW, is not a "real" temp, or even a simple average, but rather a VERY complex algorithm where the modern data is populated by good data, and the old stuff is very, very dubious (in terms of assigning values to cells).

The graphs are frequently in hundredths or even thousandths of a degree. ROFL. They need to demonstrate their models are accurate to even a 10th of a degree, first. And they can only use as many significant figures as the least accurate base data they have. Even .1 degree might not be possible.

It would be an interesting exercise to remake the global warming graphs where all values are rounded to the nearest 0.1 degree, then again for them rounded to the nearest 0.5 degree, then again to the nearest degree. Then throw an error bar on there equal to our nearest rounding (+-0.1, +-0.5, +-1.0). I looked at a graph from 1880 to 2000, and rounded to 0.5 it would be flatlined at 0, then a blip at 0.5 near 2000+. Rounded to 1 degree (I cannot imagine the data from 1880 is any better than that) it's dead flat.

The more accurate graphs are fine for modern data, but are utterly silly going back in time.

UnderseaLcpl

02-04-11, 11:21 AM

2011 is off to a great start, I post my only troll thread in a long time and the end result is the most civil and thoughtful discussion between Skybird and August ever. I should get an award!

I hereby award you the position of owner/pwner of Subsim. Were it not for your efforts, everyone here would be reduced to posting their submarine-related thoughts on one of those other crappy forums, or god forbid, a game-genre forum. Were it not for you, there would be no concerted effort to restore the Cavalla, nor would there be an effort to recover the relics lost in the hurricane. IIRC, Chad traveled hundreds of miles to participate and recovered an irreplaceable chronometer from a destroyed shipping container full of very nasty and foul-smelling coastal muck.

That's leadership, kids. Take some notes.

CaptainHaplo

02-04-11, 11:23 AM

The problem with the "Diary" analogy Skybird is that the "geological" and other planetary data they use to reconstruct the past is not their diary. Its the diary of the earth aged over time and written in a language they barely can read.

So really the question is what were you doing on April 14, 1989, and to help you reconstruct it, here is a faded page of writing from the diary of someone you don't know who witnessed your day and wrote about what they thought was important. Oh, this is written in an obscure dialect of sanskrit. Please reconstruct that day using this, without consulting anything other google translater.

Can you get a little bit of it right? Maybe. But I wouldn't count on much.

August

02-04-11, 11:29 AM

It'S in my diary. ;) If I would have kept one.

So IOW you're saying that sediment layers can't really substitute for a real diary with recorded readings? :DL

That's what according scientific research on past eras is about: finding kind of global "diaries". Like archeologists can make very educated conclusions by finding items, tools or cities in the sand, other scientists can make climatological conclusions by analysing sediment layers, chemical inclusions, petrified seeds, granulate density, etc etc.

Let's not confuse petrified seeds etc with actual recorded readings my friend. Anything that requires large amounts of interpretation and guesswork vastly increases the chances of misinterpretation and inaccuracy.

Then there are the gaps in those records, some many thousands of years of years long. With such spotty coverage it's no wonder they can't tell the immediate future with any degree of accuracy.

August

02-04-11, 11:29 AM

frau kaleun

02-04-11, 11:43 AM

That's leadership, kids. Take some notes.

Note to self:

*scribbling*

"If you need..."

*scribble scribble*

"...to get something valuable..."

*scribble scribble*

"...out of a box full of..."

*scribble scribble*

"...old nasty muck..."

*scribble scribble*

"...make Chad do it."

:yeah:

tater

02-04-11, 11:52 AM

Proxy data is really sketchy. Heck, direct measurement is non-trivial. When instrumentality changes, you see jumps in the temps. The "average" temp is not a simple average, but the product of a complicated model—and there are time frames within the model (the CRU model, anyway) where they literally ignore what the model churns out, then fill it in by hand because they know the model is broken in certain time periods (some might say "out their ass"). (Personally I'd say if one model doesn't work for all time periods, it's time to throw that model in the trash).

I don't have a problem with using proxies, that's all you have for the past. But if you do a proxy temp model, then even the modern stuff needs to be done with the same proxy with no tweaking to get the right answer.

The tree ring data, for example, is very subjective. Instead of a protocol where they use every tree, they pick and choose "good" trees. What do they look for in "treemometers?" They look for trees that give the data they want to see (cooler in the past, loads of growth during modern period). The trees rejected? Not a few, in fact only a few are judged to be good, the bulk are thrown out—the rejected trees are those that mess up the desired curve. It's confirmation bias. Guys have run the statistics with all trees included (if you get a statistical sample of trees, any general trend should show up) show no radical jump in values that they correlate with temp.

Remember, while we can see temps rising in the modern period with excellent data sets, it's only "out of the ordinary" if it is higher than all periods in the past. The past data is quite frankly crap. Hence my skepticism.

I don't like the fact that people with in my mind legitimate, scientific skepticism are called "deniers" (clearly meant to link them in quality with the only others who are so-called, the holocaust deniers). I think climate science has suffered greatly from being so politicized.

UnderseaLcpl

02-04-11, 12:09 PM

Note to self:

*scribbling*

"If you need..."

*scribble scribble*

"...to get something valuable..."

*scribble scribble*

"...out of a box full of..."

*scribble scribble*

"...old nasty muck..."

*scribble scribble*

"...make Chad do it."

:yeah:

Very nice, Frau. How is it that you make a completely innocuous statement into something that makes the male of the species feel terrible about everything they do or say? Is this natural or is it a learned behaviour?

August

02-04-11, 12:22 PM

Very nice, Frau. How is it that you make a completely innocuous statement into something that makes the male of the species feel terrible about everything they do or say? Is this natural or is it a learned behaviour?

You must not have much experience with women to ask a question like that Gyrene! :DL

frau kaleun

02-04-11, 12:33 PM

:haha:

I thought I was making a humorous statement about taking a stirring example of leadership and turning it into an excuse to get out of doing any of the dirty work myself.

Weiss Pinguin

02-04-11, 12:40 PM

:haha:

I thought I was making a humorous statement about taking a stirring example of leadership and turning it into an excuse to get out of doing any of the dirty work myself.
Trust a Marine to miss that ;)

Skybird

02-04-11, 04:58 PM

So IOW you're saying that sediment layers can't really substitute for a real diary with recorded readings? :DL
Sdiment layers - just an example, btw - can be like a diary, like the year rings in trees can tell you what years were especially dry or especially wet.

Let's not confuse petrified seeds etc with actual recorded readings my friend.
You have to, live with that this - also an exmaple, ac tauilly plenty of more matter can be analysed and not only enforces but almost enforces causal conc´lusions that created conditioons that made the found meterial in the searched area at the time ra the sediment layer dates aback possible.

You're a dial-freak, which means that you negate all history and also all future and thus only belpieve what you read on a dial in the present moment. We are lucky, all of us, that science thankfully does not function that narrow-eyed.

Anything that requires large amounts of interpretation and guesswork vastly increases the chances of misinterpretation and inaccuracy.
Which gets reduced in probability by making more supportive findings. No serious scientist claims a theory to be the only truth if it is not proven perfectly, and is suppoprted opnly by one or two indices. But when you can suppoort your theory by more and more data, and from differen t, various fields of science, maybe even can show data that falsifies earlier theories as being wriong, then you increase the valdity of that theory. Sorry August, but Occam'S razor still is an important method in the sientific process - and it hzas served us so very very damn well so far.

Then there are the gaps in those records, some many thousands of years of years long. With such spotty coverage it's no wonder they can't tell the immediate future with any degree of accuracy.

A gap is not the same like "proven wrong" or contradicting evidence. A gap just says: "about this phase of time, we still cannot make statements". A gap in excplanations can be for many reasons. One has not c hecked for certain things. One has exmained the wrong place. One'S topols and sensors were not sensitive, one'S methody were not adequate enough. Evidence has been stolen (archeologists can sing a song of this). Manifestations have been eroded and destroyed by natural processes, by time. Etc. etc. Can we claim that there is no intelligent life just becasue we have not found a sign of it? Hardly.

I think you try to take the nature of science itself in order to try to delay conclusions. And also you seem to think that man in general should noit decide and act even when he only has reasonable theories and logical conclusions, no evidence that god himself has written into everlasting never eroding stone. But science is not like that, it does not make final statements, it only fits together the pieces in the one way that at a given time makes more sense in order to form the overall picture from the pieces, than any other. Certain conclusions on the climatic coinditions in past eras are made because the findings that were colelcted so far make best sense this way, and not in any other way.

Uncertainty is part of our life, and is part of science. It is like a captain on a ship getting order to plot course to another harbour and in dangerous waters of an unknown ocean, with areas of increased risks for disaster. He can never be sure that he has plotted the shortest possible course. Either he plotted a course that let the ship survive and itr reaches thew destination harbour, then he only knows that the course he has choosen, served its purpose. Or he has choosen a course that led the ship into disaster, the ship sinks and all aboard lose their lives. In no case he will ever knopw if there were better, safer, shorter routes possible.

In scinece at least altering the "course" is possible. This is done by showing old theories wrong by evidence and logical demoisntration, or by coming up with a new theory that explains the exiosting hints and data and assumptions in an easier wqay than the old theory, and/or explains more single data and hints and observations than the old model which needed to leave pout these no included elements. This is how it is done - and it served us well to use this model of science, since the ancient Greeks. They set the fundament for this thinking.

Just vague suggestions, and believing different, is not good enough in this process.

For eternal, totally secure statements about the absolute truth, you should not look at science, but at relgions - they do stuff like that, and they do not even ask questions and do not even question they quality of their arguments, becaseu they have no arguments at all, nor do they have evidence or hints or observations: They just have the virtue of believing blindly. Taking this as the ultimate truth - that is the dogma of theirs. You shall believe, not question and not exmaine - that is the dogma of almolst every relgion there is, no matter the text of what you should believe.

Climate sceptics for the most leave it to just bringing others into miscredit, and I see a hilarious ammount of misqutring, quiting out of context, even forging statements and data, and often you also see a massive exaggeration of details born from lacking understanding of the matter. On the other hand, claims they make for the most can be and have been shown to be wrong. If it is as far as this, then the next defence mechansim sets in: ignoring it.

In the end, to bring this talking in circles to an end, you do not need dials and sensors to assure yourself that climate and environment is chn aging, and that this is caused by a general warming trend in global climate. All ypou need is your eyes and an active mind. Then you can see the biological indices that I mentioned at the beginning of this thread: that species, who all can live only in a certain range of temperature, either died out, or move into new places where before they could not have surviuved, which eans living conditons have chnaged recently, in the past decades. You only need your eyes to see chnages in the landscape and the massive change in geographical and geological fetaures of places. You can compare it to eye witness reports from old people who can tell ypou how it was 70 years ago, you may even be able to find old photographies that show oyu a lake and meadows where now there is a desert, and you see on the photot that that valley of severl kilometers 50 years ago was filled with ice 40 meters and more high, where now you have a dry place and loose rubble and tourists walking around in shorts and T-shirts. Etc etc etc.

UnderseaLcpl

02-04-11, 06:21 PM

:haha:

I thought I was making a humorous statement about taking a stirring example of leadership and turning it into an excuse to get out of doing any of the dirty work myself.

Yeah, I'll bet.:DL For the record, I was right next to Chad the whole time and I have the permanently stained T-shirt to prove it.

You must not have much experience with women to ask a question like that Gyrene! :DL

Ha! Most of the women I've had experience with were dull enough to be women who would share any kind of experience with me.

Frau, on the other hand, is making a habit of outwitting me and posting way funnier stuff than I do. She even has a badge.

Trust a Marine to miss that ;)

Okay, y'know what? You can all go to hell:O:

August

02-04-11, 06:34 PM

You're a dial-freak

Says the guy whose back gets up when another poster says something he construes as a personal insult. I guess calling people freaks is different somehow?

But whatever, I don't hold grudges. Maybe it's just a failure of translation.

Back on topic it's becoming more and more evident that the climate change alarmists have cast yourselves as the "Boys who cried Wolf".

Like Tater said:
"We think human pollution might possibly have some effect on global climate, but we are unsure, and our models don't work well yet."

^^^that's what they should say.

"The Earth is warming due to man (the science is settled, damn it!), and if we don't act at great expense... yesterday, we're all going to die."

^^^what they say, instead.

It pretty much explains many peoples skepticism in a nutshell. Don't be saying the sky is falling when it isn't or nobody is going to take you seriously.

frau kaleun

02-04-11, 06:38 PM

Yeah, I'll bet.:DL For the record, I was right next to Chad the whole time and I have the permanently stained T-shirt to prove it.

In all seriousness, the only person I was taking a shot at was me. :D

Frau, on the other hand, is making a habit of outwitting me and posting way funnier stuff than I do. She even has a badge.

Don't hate me because I'm badgerful. :O:

Okay, y'know what? You can all go to hell:O:

You want I should have Chad smack him for you?

August

02-04-11, 06:48 PM

You want I should have Chad smack him for you?

:haha:

I hear you can get Chad to do just about anything... :har:

Sailor Steve

02-04-11, 09:10 PM

Hey, it worked for me. It was Neal who got us all to help out (well, except for the missing GWXers, bless their lazy hearts), but I'm the one who stood outside and directed the two lads. Didn't get a drop on me. :sunny:

August

02-04-11, 09:20 PM

Weiss Pinguin

02-04-11, 09:23 PM

Okay, y'know what? You can all go to hell:O:
WHOA hey now I was trying to make a roundabout compliment! As in trust a Marine to misread someone talking about getting out of excuses and YOU KNOW WHAT obviously you wouldn't get it anyway :stare: :smug:

frau kaleun

02-04-11, 09:27 PM

WHOA hey now I was trying to make a roundabout compliment! As in trust a Marine to misread someone talking about getting out of excuses and YOU KNOW WHAT obviously you wouldn't get it anyway :stare: :smug:

Play nice, boys, or... uh... I'll have Chad turn this thread around! :O:

Sailor Steve

02-04-11, 09:31 PM

...trust a Marine to misread...
He didn't misread anything. Marines are always looking for an excuse to pick a fight.

"Lookin' good today, Lance."

"Are you sayin' I don't usually look good?!" :stare:

UnderseaLcpl

02-05-11, 01:24 AM

In all seriousness, the only person I was taking a shot at was me. :D
Your're a terrible shot, then:DL

Don't hate me because I'm badgerful. :O:

I don't, dear Frau. I hate you because you're beautiful.(+1000 internet points to me for smoooooothness:DL)

You want I should have Chad smack him for you?
Dat won't be necheshary, Mugsy.

WHOA hey now I was trying to make a roundabout compliment! As in trust a Marine to misread someone talking about getting out of excuses and YOU KNOW WHAT obviously you wouldn't get it anyway

Extremely vague roundabout compliment accepted.:up:

frau kaleun

02-05-11, 01:39 AM

Your're a terrible shot, then

Sadly, GT appears to be manual targeting only. :88)

I don't, dear Frau. I hate you because you're beautiful.(+1000 internet points to me for smoooooothness)

I suppose it goes without saying that you're on a horse. :O:

TarJak

02-05-11, 04:34 AM

I suppose it goes without saying that you're on a horse. :O:
He'd like to be.:O:

Skybird

02-05-11, 06:08 AM

Says the guy whose back gets up when another poster says something he construes as a personal insult. I guess calling people freaks is different somehow?

But whatever, I don't hold grudges. Maybe it's just a failure of translation.

It probably is, I did not meant any insult there :03:, I considered the term to be harmless, but maybe that is just my uncomplete knowledge of English language. Maybe "dial happy" like in (trigger happy) would work better!? In German, using "freak" not always and necessarily has an aggressive undertone, but can come over as a joke, depends on the situation and context.

If you felt hit, I apologize. Wasn'T my intention.

UnderseaLcpl

02-05-11, 08:12 AM

I suppose it goes without saying that you're on a horse. :O:

It's too cold here to ride horses at the moment, but I do have two tickets to that thing you love.:O:

Weiss Pinguin

02-05-11, 08:16 PM

It's too cold here to ride horses at the moment, but I do have two tickets to that thing you love.:O:
No you don't! Those tickets are now diamonds:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_RKzQLIUiGFM/TEna9P4uK7I/AAAAAAAAAec/0wroNdAveis/s1600/Diamonds.png

UnderseaLcpl

02-05-11, 08:54 PM

No you don't! Those tickets are now diamonds:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_RKzQLIUiGFM/TEna9P4uK7I/AAAAAAAAAec/0wroNdAveis/s1600/Diamonds.png

Damnit to hell! I just got out-smoothed by a penguin and a guy with diamonds. Honestly, I don't know why I even bother.

Weiss Pinguin

02-05-11, 11:10 PM

Well, Marine, if you smelled like the Marine your Marine could smell like, you could out-smooth any penguin with diamonds.

frau kaleun

02-06-11, 12:35 AM

I can't decide between Marines and penguins! :wah:

Marines are... well, Marines.

And penguins do this:

http://images.wikia.com/clubpenguin/images/3/3a/Penguin_Slap.gif

Can't we all just get along?*

*Provided I get the tickets and the diamonds.

UnderseaLcpl

02-06-11, 03:12 AM

Well, Marine, if you smelled like the Marine your Marine could smell like, you could out-smooth any penguin with diamonds.

Highly dubious. I've never met a Marine who didn't smell like sweat, dirt, feet, and ass most of the time. And not necessarily in that order.

And penguins do this:

http://images.wikia.com/clubpenguin/images/3/3a/Penguin_Slap.gif

ROFL:DL
Clearly, their sense of humor is about as well-developed as ours. The uniforms are pretty snazzy, too. Idk, frau, I might opt for the penguins were I in your shoes.

*Provided I get the tickets and the diamonds.

Of course. Sadly, the tickets turned into diamonds.... so all you get are diamonds. It's not all bad, though. My research indicates that diamonds are both "a girl's best friend" and "forever".

I'd suggest you hold onto them tightly, however. It's only a matter of time before you find yourself on a boat.

heartc

02-06-11, 05:19 AM

Re: Climate Change.

I found this one interesting:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=augWGYU_Av4&feature=related

And a bit more dramatic, Jesse Ventura-style:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svRUcX9Q9yU

Now, I'm no scientist, so I can't really argue the actual matter scientifically. But I have serious doubts about the whole global warming drama, and when I look out the window, I can't see it happening either.
If it does, I'm not convinced it's man's little cars and a few smoke stacks causing it. Oh, and please spare me the weather =/= climate. Because it seems like no one else can really notice it in the weather, anywhere. People get hot summers, cold summers, warm winters, cold winters. Just like, uhm, almost EVER. So, if no one notices anything, then what the hell are we talking about in the first place?

I think the point is: In the 70s, scientists said there's a new ice age just around the corner. In the 80s, there was the great forrestal death scare, at least here in Germany. None of it materialized. And nowadays, science is NOT uniformly of the opinion that there is a man-made climate change happening, not nearly. Let alone what it implications are, if it is.
Yet, the matter has already been transfered into actual politics. You might say that this happened on the basis of "Better safe than sorry". I don't think so.

I rather think the "theory" was translated into laws and regulations so quickly because it might just be the biggest coup governments did ever exercise on their people: To tax the thin air.
How many governments in the past would have loved to do that but didn't come up with an idea for it. Now we did. But you can't tax oxygen, that would be too obvious a scam. What else is in the air, that is involved in - among other things - human activities? CO2, methane, the "Greenhouse Gasses". Yeah, let's make them pay for that, directly or indirectly.

I'm not saying that the scientists who support the idea of man-made climate change are necessarily involved in some grand conspiracy. I'm saying that the theory is not proven a fact, but since most governments are constantly on the look out for control and extraction of taxes, they gladly grabbed the opportunity, announced the theory a scientific fact and started "regulating" and directly or indirectly taxing the "Greenhosue" gasses. Which in turn makes climate change look real even more for the proverbial "gullible masses".

That is my climate change theory.

DarkFish

02-06-11, 08:01 AM

nowadays, science is NOT uniformly of the opinion that there is a man-made climate change happening, not nearly.You can't be serious?!:o
A simple wikipedia search shows:
No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Statements_by _dissenting_organizations); the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Association_of_Petroleum_Geologists), which in 2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#cite_note-AQAonAAPG-1)[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#cite_note-The_MIT_Press-2) Some other organisations also hold non-committal positions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Non-committal_statements).Of course there are people with dissenting opinions, but that's normal. You think science works like someone proves something and suddenly everyone agrees? Think again. Many scientific theories with currently no or almost no dissents took ages to gain any support at all.

I'm saying that the theory is not proven a factOf course it isn't proven. One of the very basics of science is that you can't prove anything. Find me one single law in physics, biology, astronomy, chemistry, geology etc. that's proven true. There aren't any.

The only thing we can prove in science is that 1+1=2. But besides mathematics, no proof exists or is even possible.

goldorak

02-06-11, 08:09 AM

For crying out loud, snow in H-town? This will be the third time in 6 years. That's unprecedented in the history of the world. Global warning, my a**
And I don't care if you call it "global climate change", I'm leaning toward calling it bs.

Way to miss the mark. Climate and weather are not the same thing.
Climate change is real, supported by facts and scientific consensus.
The weather on the other hand as always can be unpredictable. Extrapolating seasonal variations as a basis for climate change is stupid. It could snow in Houston for the next 10 years and this would not in any way contradict that the climate is getting warmer and warmer.

goldorak

02-06-11, 08:31 AM

No but this hasn't been the only cold winter either. Last year was pretty cold as well, as was the year before that and the year before that.

How many winters does it take before it's not just "the weather"?

How many hairs do you have to have on your head to not be considered bald ?
Its the same kind of problem. And the answer is that it is a question of degree or even arbitrariness. Climate is long term, weather is short term. 1000 years is long compared to length of a human life, but its insignificant compared to earth's eras. Its all a matter of degree.

nikimcbee

02-06-11, 11:09 AM

So Neal, I wanna see pictures of Motodude in a snomobile suit and moonboots!:haha: (long hair not required.)

nikimcbee

02-06-11, 11:11 AM

Neals' new sport:
http://www.erbook.net/suzuki2.jpg

Blood_splat

02-07-11, 10:20 AM

Coming to Texas.

http://www.wrif.com/Pics/0204SnowPenis.jpg

Oberon

02-10-11, 08:09 AM

http://a5.typepad.com/6a00e54fdbe03288340148c87f32b5970c-500pi
Taken on the I-35 between Austin and San Antonio. :har:

nikimcbee

02-10-11, 08:00 PM

http://a5.typepad.com/6a00e54fdbe03288340148c87f32b5970c-500pi
Taken on the I-35 between Austin and San Antonio. :har:

:har: So how are Texas drivers in the snow?

frau kaleun

02-10-11, 08:49 PM

:har: So how are Texas drivers in the snow?

http://cars.failblog.org/2010/12/09/funny-car-photos-so-thats-why-you-cant-drive/

Onkel Neal

02-10-11, 09:13 PM

Way to miss the mark. Climate and weather are not the same thing.
Climate change is real, supported by facts and scientific consensus.
The weather on the other hand as always can be unpredictable. Extrapolating seasonal variations as a basis for climate change is stupid. It could snow in Houston for the next 10 years and this would not in any way contradict that the climate is getting warmer and warmer.

Did you just call me stupid?

Sailor Steve

02-10-11, 11:06 PM

Did you just call me stupid?
I don't think he did. You were just caught up in the net with all the other fish. You see, anybody who disagrees with him is stupid.

razark

02-10-11, 11:13 PM

So how are Texas drivers in the snow?
For your information, we do just fine in snow. The smart ones avoid going out in it, and the others just sit in their cars until they stop sliding around. :D

McBeck

02-11-11, 03:51 AM

For your information, we do just fine in snow. The smart ones avoid going out in it, and the others just sit in their cars until they stop sliding around. :DBWAHAHAHAHA

It reminds me of a story my dad told me of his stay in Athens, Georgia.
He was working for the university and one morning there was maybe half an inch of snow. He drove to work and was supprised to find the entire university closed.....
A janitor came by and my dad asked him why the university was closed. The reply was "Well look at all the snow!!!" :har:

frau kaleun

02-11-11, 08:38 AM

BWAHAHAHAHA

It reminds me of a story my dad told me of his stay in Athens, Georgia.
He was working for the university and one morning there was maybe half an inch of snow. He drove to work and was supprised to find the entire university closed.....
A janitor came by and my dad asked him why the university was closed. The reply was "Well look at all the snow!!!" :har:

We lived in Alabama for a year when I was 6-7 years old. My school was at the end of our street so I just walked there every day.

One winter morning I got up and it had "snowed" overnight, and by "snowed" I mean it looked like someone had flown over with a sifter and dusted the area with a little powdered sugar, like you might do with a pan of brownies. You could still see the ground and the road through the dusting, it wasn't even enough to fully cover anything.

So I got dressed and walked to school as usual. Very quiet that morning, no other kids around, no cars going in and out of the lot. Tried the usual door and for some reason I couldn't get in. Walked around the school (it wasn't that big a building) trying all the doors, they were all locked. Peered in windows, couldn't see anybody. Finally gave up and walked home.

I didn't have a key and my mother was running the vacuum cleaner and couldn't hear me knocking or ringing the bell. Finally had to go 'round back and pound on the glass patio doors. She couldn't figure out what I was doing back home. I told her the school was empty and all locked up, was it some kind of state holiday that we weren't aware of? Lol.

About then one of our neighbors called advising my mother not to go out that day as the roads were terrible and impossible to drive on and all the schools were closed and just stay in and don't risk going anywhere in these horrible conditions!

We were from Ohio. And so we just lolled and lolled. :D

razark

02-11-11, 09:36 AM

We were from Ohio. And so we just lolled and lolled.
I have an uncle who lives in San Antonio. He lived in Ohio for 60+ years. After the snowfall, he walked to work to find out he was the only one that made it in.

nikimcbee

02-11-11, 12:25 PM

Did you just call me stupid?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFtmdorQG-U&feature=related
:o

Betonov

05-15-11, 11:02 AM

These pictures were taken today. Neal can verify it on my FB page.

http://a8.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/228204_223663387646186_100000075783694_987148_5442 998_n.jpg

http://a2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/229362_223663474312844_100000075783694_987156_2308 135_n.jpg

http://a1.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/226930_223663637646161_100000075783694_987159_1600 716_n.jpg

http://a7.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/230495_223663610979497_100000075783694_987158_3284 200_n.jpg

The pictures are taken from Pokljuka, at about 1000m above sea level. A full blown snow-storm, almost a blizzard.

Weather like this is not so unusual in the Alps, and very lousy weather on the 15th means a very nice summer. And this is not a thread to discuss wether global warming exists or not, just a share of an interesting highlight of the day.

Sailor Steve

05-15-11, 11:09 AM

OH YEAH? I DON'T CARE WHAT KIND OF THREAD YOU WANTED, YOU GOT A GLOBAL WARMING THREAD NOW, ACE! IT'S TRUE AND I CAN PROVE IT!

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a325/SailorSteve/GlobalWarmingProof.jpg

Just kidding, of course. Nice pics, but I can see snow anytime I want. Well, for a few months every year anyway.

Torplexed

05-15-11, 11:19 AM

Look. All the outdoor tables are empty. Can't imagine why.

http://a2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/229362_223663474312844_100000075783694_987156_2308 135_n.jpg

It's been a miserable, cold spring in the northwest United States as well.

05-15-11, 11:45 AM

It was raining here today.
It actually never does by this time of year.

antikristuseke

05-15-11, 11:46 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo&playnext=1&list=PLA4F0994AFB057BB8

This is as much effort I am willing to put into responding this bullcrap at this point in time.

05-15-11, 11:52 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo&playnext=1&list=PLA4F0994AFB057BB8

This is as much effort I am willing to put into responding this bullcrap at this point in time.
The climate is definitely shifting.
Don't know about warming as its popularly accepted by many.

Respenus

05-15-11, 12:12 PM

Climate change does infer more extreme weather and global warming, generally higher mean temperatures. Plus, are you going to tell me you never heard of a blizzard 1k above sea level in the middle of May? I remember, a couple of years a ago, that Ljubljana came to a stand still from snow in late March and my father told of some weather patterns that make you shiver in fear. This is nothing.

Jan Kyster

05-15-11, 12:15 PM

The climate has been changing since the forming of the planet, so why should it stop now? http://i189.photobucket.com/albums/z15/subject_rod/smilies/rolleyes.gif

Nice pics btw.! :up:

Torplexed

05-15-11, 12:18 PM

I get it now. They were serving snow on the veranda and nobody was interested.

http://a2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/229362_223663474312844_100000075783694_987156_2308 135_n.jpg

krashkart

05-15-11, 12:28 PM

I get it now. They were serving snow on the veranda and nobody was interested.

Sno-cone fail? :hmmm:

Torplexed

05-15-11, 12:38 PM

Sno-cone fail? :hmmm:

Sno-zone fail. :D

Onkel Neal

05-15-11, 01:09 PM

Wowee, that's cold. We've been enjoying really nice weather here in Texas, except for the lack of rain, But as a motorcycle rider, that's a bonus. :)

joea

05-15-11, 01:47 PM

We have been having a dry spell here in Geneva. Been the driest spring in Switzerland in a century and it has been hell for people with allergies like myself. This weekend we finally had proper rain and-with the end of the pollen season (at least the kind of trees that I'm allergic too) I am feeling a lot better.

@antikristuseke excellent clip very very interesting. :up:

Betonov

05-15-11, 02:06 PM

Like I said, not common, but not unusual. I heard that in 1952 the snow fell in june right down to the valleys. In 2004 snow also fell in beginning of may to lower levels, about 400 above sea. This is the Alps.
But, as an old saying goes, if 15th of may rain falls, the summer will be sunny and warm. :DL I love st. Sophia, she's very wet today :DL

I just hope my tomatoes dont get affected by this sudden bad weather :hmmm: Replanted them outside just yesterday

AVGWarhawk

05-15-11, 02:16 PM

Global warming:down: Climate change:up:

Anthony W.

05-15-11, 02:16 PM

Burt Rutan was showing me and a group of people some of the temperature monitors are, and he pointed to one, and about a hundred feet away was where they tested jet engines after repair...

Betonov

05-15-11, 02:21 PM

Burt Rutan was showing me and a group of people some of the temperature monitors are, and he pointed to one, and about a hundred foot away was where they tested jet engines after repair...

Didn't Al Gore also said, that the definitive proof of global warming are atmospheric temperature hotspots, where it's hot enough to melt lead :hmmm:

antikristuseke

05-15-11, 02:33 PM

Al Gores opinion on this is about as relevant as a random hobo yelling at you to repent, for the end is nigh.

Anthony W.

05-15-11, 02:33 PM

Didn't Al Gore also said, that the definitive proof of global warming are atmospheric temperature hotspots, where it's hot enough to melt lead :hmmm:

He also never seems to take into account the heat island effect

The average temperature in a city is noticeable hotter than in the country.

Maybe if he quit sucking sewer gas in LA and NY, and moved to the country for a while, he'd realize it gets pretty freakin cold out here.

THIS JUST IN: Al Gore realizes there IS NO global warming, and that IN FACT, he had just accidentally turned his thermostat up. :damn:
:yeah:

antikristuseke

05-15-11, 02:52 PM

Look at what actual scientists say, not political hacks like Gore or any of his opponents or supporters.

Fish

05-15-11, 04:18 PM

Climate change does infer more extreme weather and global warming, generally higher mean temperatures.

See:

http://climateprogress.org/2010/05/16/nasa-easily-the-hottest-january-and-hottest-jan-april-in-temperature-record/

Sailor Steve

05-15-11, 04:56 PM

And we tried so hard to keep this from happening. Sorry I contributed. :dead:

Skybird

05-15-11, 05:11 PM

Germany has just had one of the warmest Aprils in our history of wqeather records. It is so dry that farmers already say that they will have 10-20% less crop this year.

Your photos shownothing, Betonov. "weather" is not the same as "climatic trend". Your photos show weather. Now watch these photos which illustrate climatic trend:

http://www.gletscherarchiv.de/fotovergleiche/gletscher_liste?DokuWiki=8c43cdd71ec7b8dde2c71dfb5 6b25476

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Glacier_Gallery

http://www.whiteearth.org/WhiteEarthScience.html

http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/pages/glaciers.html

Etc. etc. etc. There3 is plenty of comparing photograpohy showing glaciers back several decades, and today. The differences are striking, sometimes scaring. Use Google.

Inm Germany, ten days ago or so they have just started to cover a major glaciuer ski ressooirt with sun-reflecting foil, like they use to do it in sevewral places in the Alpes since years, in Austria, Switzerland. The loss of ice is so immense now that it already threatens the perspective of ski-depending tourism beyond the next 15 years.

And that is no weather phenomenon. That is longterm climate change.

The summer is predicted to become damn hot over here.

Also, take into account that a wearming climnate nevertheless can produce paradox or regional counter effects. Warming oceans - change in the dynamic of ocean currents caused by the differenc ebetween cold and warm water masses - changes in climatic moves of the atmosphere (moisture, temperature.

Other indsices: chnages in the spreading of botanic and zoological species - species depending on warmth and moisture are now conqwuering and are to be seen in regions where before they were unknown because they could not survive there, it was too cold. Most well-known examples are the march of the Tiger mosquito and the anopheles mosquito into europe. But there are many more, and the lion's share of such indics are with plkants anyway.

Plancton's and algas' distribution pattern in the ocean also chnage, and indicate that the oceans become warmer.

And that is just some argument on the matter.

magic452

05-15-11, 05:49 PM

We had a little snow here in Reno this morning as well. We're at 4500 ft.(1500 meters) not that unusual. Got several inches at the higher elevations, 7000 ft and above (2350 meters)

We have had near record snow fall this season, 200% of normal but this spring has absolutely sucked big time. Lots of cold temps and wind with very few sunny days, worst spring I have seen here in 30 years, just one storm after another.

If there is global warming I sure wish it would get here sometime in late March and not late May.

Magic

05-15-11, 05:56 PM

Agree....aside this left vs right climate politics lol.

Weather is shifting drastically.
It was raining here today which usually never happens at this time of the year but in overall summers are hooter while there is less rain in the original winter period.
We are running dry.The country has to recycle and distillate water.

I don't know who is correct and what exact reason for that is.
It may be overall climate change but on another hand thinking that all billions of people with all the industry and pollution have no impact on the planet whatsoever seems a bit ridiculous.
Probably its both.

Yeah environmentalism is big business etc.....

Rockstar

05-15-11, 07:09 PM

05-15-11, 07:15 PM

Skybird

05-15-11, 07:26 PM

What do Earth and Mars have in common? Both have simultaneous warming and reduction of polar ice caps.

Now, what do Earth and Mars NOT have in common? Man made CO2 emissions, SUV's, party polotiks, Al Gore and Rush Limbaugh.
.

http://www.grist.org/article/mars-and-pluto-are-warming-too

And before the next dubious theory gets mentioned: No, the vulcanic activity on Io and the resulting earthquakes, and the earthquake that hit Japan, have nothing to do with each other, and are not caused by the same cause. :|\\

-----

The stunning thing about global climate change is the mere speed by which it takes place.

mookiemookie

05-15-11, 07:31 PM

Unfortunately, idiots conflate politics and science. To all of our detriment. :nope:

Crazy weather there. Lovely day here in Houston. :sunny:

Anthony W.

05-15-11, 07:41 PM

Well, here in my town we've broken records for coldest dates and months and highest snowfall totals this year

razark

05-15-11, 07:54 PM

Crazy weather there. Lovely day here in Houston. :sunny:
Seriously need some rain, though. I'm afraid the kids might fall on the lawn and break something.

Rockstar

05-15-11, 08:12 PM

Here in Tangier we're enjoying a great spring with 70 degree temps in the day and 60's at night, blue skies and beautiful beaches. Feels as if we might bypass summer and go directly into fall.

Getting that itch to go cruising again. Maybe to the Caribbean and hide myself from all the global warming in those crystal clear waters or the shade of a tiki hut or gazebo.

nikimcbee

05-15-11, 09:58 PM

Wowee, that's cold. We've been enjoying really nice weather here in Texas, except for the lack of rain, But as a motorcycle rider, that's a bonus. :)

If you like Rain, you need to come and visit me. All the rain you can handle w/o the fireants or killer bees.:up:
You may become manic depressive though.:dead:

Betonov

05-16-11, 12:50 AM

Just woke up to a beautifull sunny morning :sunny:

And Skybird, I meant to post those pictures as weather :DL, not climactic trend. Enjoy the scenery, we did, it was an interesting day

Growler

05-16-11, 12:49 PM

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a325/SailorSteve/GlobalWarmingProof.jpg

Notice there's nothing for 2011? These are "consequences" that aren't all bad.

And we tried so hard to keep this from happening. Sorry I contributed. :dead:

Well, don't drive so much, get your local cows to stop farting, and stuff like that, and you'd not contribute, and we'd all live in igloos, even Neal. :har:

Rockstar

05-16-11, 01:35 PM

Well we have without a doubt years ago passed the ten year mark. The deadline set by 'science' of our certain death by global warming. Looking at the reality of things based on comments here it looks pretty nice outside doesn't it? Yes it may get hotter in the next few months. But don't be discouraged or fear, it's what we called when I was growing up summer. It's a good thing.:yeah:

Skybird

05-16-11, 02:08 PM

Out of sight - out of mind.

People do not want to care for man-made climate chnage. As long as the results are following generations' problems and not their nown, they are quite comfortable witgh the idea of no adressing anything. Especially not as long as there may be - or has bee - time.

Because with time, it is like this: out of sight, out of mind.

We play this game since decades. Regarding debt reduction. Regarding various national internal affairs. Regarding environmental issues.

Le the next generation solve it - by always saying/implying/demanding that the next generation should solve it.

Nice breed we are. So - loving for our children and their children. Our time management works like Geithner and Bernanke try to solve the financial debts of the US: by borrowing more money, spending more money, but enver considering when and how to pay backl debts.

It's just that with nature you can'T make such deals. Environmental protection is not about saving the planet, but first and foremost is: protection of humans and saving them. That is what some smart minds just don't get.

I once again recommend to read Jarred Diamond: Collapse. How Societies Chose To Fail Or Succeed. Should teach everybody a lesson to realsise how often our way of behaving have already been done in the past cneturies - spelling disaster for regional civilisations around the world, wiping them out both culturally and biologically.

mookiemookie

05-16-11, 02:31 PM

If you like Rain, you need to come and visit me. All the rain you can handle w/o the fireants of killer bees.:up:
You may become manic depressive though.:dead:

http://i.imgur.com/xipr7.jpg

STEED

05-16-11, 02:40 PM

Global warming:down: Climate change:up:

Yes. :yep:

Betonov

05-16-11, 02:41 PM

I once again recommend to read Jarred Diamond: Collapse. How Societies Chose To Fail Or Succeed.

I believe National Geographic made a documentary about it. Was it the one where a goup of future scientists are exploring the ruins of Phoenix Ar. At least a segment of it.
Book might be more informative though, I'll keep in mind if I am able to aquire it somewhere.

nikimcbee

05-16-11, 02:56 PM

http://i.imgur.com/xipr7.jpg

That is ore-gone weather to a "t".:haha:

Ducimus

05-16-11, 03:02 PM

Sailor Steve

05-16-11, 04:20 PM

Well, don't drive so much, get your local cows to stop farting, and stuff like that, and you'd not contribute, and we'd all live in igloos, even Neal. :har:
Reread that in reference to the thread itself, not global warming.

Rockstar

05-16-11, 04:29 PM

Since the deadline for Earth's doom has passed. It would seem to me A. there was no problem or B. the problem has been solved.

What does continue since global warming was first brought up is division, political parties and governments using it to raise taxes and for political gains, even the beloved scientists say what needs to be said to get their government grant money for their studies. Now that's the problem global warming really caused. Whens the last time anyone has gotten away from their PC screen and stepped outside?

Skybird

05-16-11, 06:02 PM

I believe National Geographic made a documentary about it. Was it the one where a goup of future scientists are exploring the ruins of Phoenix Ar. At least a segment of it.
Book might be more informative though, I'll keep in mind if I am able to aquire it somewhere.

Can'T tell you, I am not getting National Geographicv. the book is kind of a follow-up to another book for which he won the Pulitzer and the British Rhone-Poulenc Science Book Prize, "Guns, Germs and Steel". But I found Collapse even more captivating. The chapters about the Norseman on Greenland, are jewels, and the different perspectives he presents on the genocide in Ruanda and the two-split developement on Hispaniola (Haiti and Dominican Republic), are compelling. The opening 80 pages-chapter on Minnesota indicates he is approaching things both from a factual and humane position, with great sympathy for the people struggling to exist in the societies that doom themselves to life or death.

It pays off when not so much a specialist for one academic branch, but a generalist with thorough academic training but experience in several different branches, examines a topic. We have far too few academics of this kind and too many "Fachidioten" deciding on our future.

Collapse (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Collapse-Societies-Choose-Fail-Survive/dp/0140279512/ref=sr_1_2/276-4253051-4390614?ie=UTF8&qid=1305586144&sr=8-2-spell)

If I would have my ways, this would become mandatory reading in general school, university when studying economics or politics, and for everybody being ambitious to claim political offices.

The nice thing is it also reads very well and is very accessible.

Skybird

05-16-11, 06:14 PM

Since the deadline for Earth's doom has passed.
????

Imagine you're in a car travelling at 160 mph, there is a wall in front of you and you slam in the brakes, and while the car still slides with blocked wheels for dozens of meters, you philosophize the distractive question above.

Only that we do not brake at all, but press the gas pedal to the metal, trying to find excuses for not wanting to brake.

The only question is: will we just scratch the paint and bend the metal and get injuries that we can survive and recover from, or will we slam with lethal kinetic energy into that wall.

Or imagine to jump off a high cliff, and while still not having hit the ground but being in free fall and joying the flight, you take that as an excuse to assume that you will not hit the ground at all.

the only question is will we grow wings and learn to flky before reachzing the gorund, will a mahgical poarachute apopear on our back witgh us still having time to open it and slwoijng the speed so that we njust brake our legs instead of all bones in our body, or will we visit the moles head first with our feet being the only part sticking out of the earth after we "landed".

Growler

05-16-11, 07:19 PM

Reread that in reference to the thread itself, not global warming.

Didn't need to. I know what you meant; I was trying to get more of a chuckle than anything else, but it appears I failed miserably.:DL

Rockstar

05-16-11, 07:55 PM

????

Imagine you're in a car travelling at 160 mph, there is a wall in front of you and you slam in the brakes, and while the car still slides with blocked wheels for dozens of meters, you philosophize the distractive question above.

Only that we do not brake at all, but press the gas pedal to the metal, trying to find excuses for not wanting to brake.

The only question is: will we just scratch the paint and bend the metal and get injuries that we can survive and recover from, or will we slam with lethal kinetic energy into that wall.

Or imagine to jump off a high cliff, and while still not having hit the ground but being in free fall and joying the flight, you take that as an excuse to assume that you will not hit the ground at all.

the only question is will we grow wings and learn to flky before reachzing the gorund, will a mahgical poarachute apopear on our back witgh us still having time to open it and slwoijng the speed so that we njust brake our legs instead of all bones in our body, or will we visit the moles head first with our feet being the only part sticking out of the earth after we "landed".

I am not making this up. I was told 12 years ago that something needed to be done immediately because in ten years global warming would be irreversible. Well that deadline has come and gone seems to me somebody forgot to tell us things must have been fixed to enough degree for us to avoid the inevitable doom brought on by this global warming thingy.

Tribesman

05-16-11, 08:09 PM

I am not making this up.
But what was the source?

Skybird

05-16-11, 08:32 PM

I am not making this up. I was told 12 years ago that something needed to be done immediately because in ten years global warming would be irreversible. Well that deadline has come and gone seems to me somebody forgot to tell us things must have been fixed to enough degree for us to avoid the inevitable doom brought on by this global warming thingy.

You really cannot see the difference between understanding that deadline of yours as fire and brimstone falling from the sky, and that deadline of yours meaning that the process of climate warming having passed that treshold level beyond which the self-dynamic is irreversible, can you?

But the latter is what seriouzs scientists mean when talking of "deadlines" for this topic of climate change.

The planet'S climate is changing constantly, and does so since millions and millions of years. The point is that normally, phases of relative climate stability last from several thousand to many millions years, and that changes take according time - while today the changes are happening apparently at accelerating speeds of up to the four digit factors range.

The characteristic of man-made climate change is not the global mean temperature this process ultimately will result in when it climaxes. The characteristic is the insane speed of climate change caused by man. what usually, in most phases of the planet'S climate, took at least hundreds of thousands of years, we have acchieved in just some dozen years, one and a half century at best.

And this at a time when an era that probably has seen the richest and widest diversity of species living simultaneously on Earth going extinct at one of the two fastest speed settings in the history of this planet, again speaking of factors in the range of three if not four digits. The other opportunities when something like this happened in Earth'S history, were global disasters of almost cosmic proportions.

Which means that by the effect it means for Earth, the existence of the human race seems to compare to said disasters.

Everybody being careful to take that as a compliment.