Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Minnesota
|
Quote:
Quote:
"Virtually bursting with adequatulence." |
||
quote |
careful with axes
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Hillsborough, CA
|
Freakingly cold here in sunny California, I even had to change my wardrobe.
80F? T-shirt and shorts. 50F? T-shirt and shorts. 30F? T-shirt and jeans. |
quote |
Environmental Bloodhound
|
A thread on global warming and I wasn't invited? For shame...
Concerning the freakish winter weather: The culprit is that this is an El Nino year. Yes, warm waters off the western coast of South America can wreak havoc with weather systems across the globe. Now the big picture (Global warming): To single out a single year of climate as a sign of global warming, 2005 Atlantic hurricane season and current winter temperatures, is morally reprehensible and makes members of the scientific community cringe (e.g. me). The climate system is excedingly complex with many differnent modes of varibility that do not operate in a linear fashion within defined antecedent conditions. Formerly known as cynical_rock censeo tentatio victum There is no snooze button on a cat. |
quote |
Senior Member
|
I was hoping the climatologist would show up. What action is it we need to be taking?
You raise an interesting point that going green even today won't stop what has been happening for the past few decades. Isn't the real solution to:
This may seem impossible but then again a man on the moon was considered outlandish in the 1940's. |
quote |
Member
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Newport, Rhode Island
|
I don't care about bugs in the summer. I wish it would just stay like this all year long. Walked around Boston all day yesterday and it had to be at or near 70.
I lived in Hawaii for two years about 15 years ago and I've missed that ever since. Yeah, there were a lot of bugs, but I'd happily take that in exchange for never having to put on a coat. |
quote |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Near Indianapolis
|
Quote:
|
|
quote |
Hates the Infotainment
Join Date: May 2004
Location: NSA Archives
|
Thanks Cynical for a great post and some extra explanation.
Hope I didn't cause any confusion. To clarify I mentioned el nino and that our problem is we alter and magnify existing climate factors, rather than producing them out of thin air, but you are right that any one year should not be the cause for a conclusion. This year is one of many. To quote a frequently used factoid: of the ten "hottest" years on record, all fall in the past 14 years. And this one is predicted to top the list according to some BBC commentary. That is one data point, strong el nino cycles another, and there are many more data points if you go out and look for them. Here's a great link for anyone interested: http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_de...ge/default.stm And thanks also for pointing out there is no real debate that exists among respected scientific types. As for the "I love it when it's this warm in winter" crowd, yes it's nice in some ways to not have to wear a parka but think of the long term consequences of what's happening and why. Americans are notoriously short-term, instant gratification type thinkers... it's time to change that. ...into the light of a dark black night. |
quote |
Hates the Infotainment
Join Date: May 2004
Location: NSA Archives
|
Another good link
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...l_warming.html One thing I meant to mention is that when you hear things like "global avg temperature" has risen 1 degree in 80 years (or something similar), and you think "no big deal, 1 degree"... keep in mind that's not 1 degree everywhere. That's a range of temperature increases averaged together, depending on how far north or south of the equator you are. 1 degree globally often means 5-10 degrees in places like Canada or southern Chile, and the north and south poles (i.e. where all the fresh water is locked up in ice, that we want to stay ice). 1 degree globally can be a big deal. Now consider some estimates predicting several degrees globally over the *coming* 80-100 years, extrapolate that out and you're talking (as I understand it) 10-15 degree increases at the poles, year-round. That is bad because while it makes no difference to go from -30 to -15, it makes a big difference during the transitional seasons to go from 20 to 35 during weeks when the ice is supposed to be freezing / remaining frozen. And the less time the oceans at the poles are frozen, the more energy they absorb, further warming the water, melting more ice. The ole feedback loop. If you look at some of the arctic, antarctic and greenland ice data trends (at least those I've seen), it's not a pretty picture. Again it's not that this could never happen (ice melting in large quantity) without our influence, it's that it's happening when it's not supposed to and faster than it otherwise should. And that we are probably at the beginning of the "bad effects" period, not right in the middle of it. Likely, things will get noticeably worse before they get better, over a period of years and decades. ...into the light of a dark black night. |
quote |
Member
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Newport, Rhode Island
|
Quote:
I don't know a lot about global warming/climate change, but it seems to me that the climate has changed a whole bunch of times in Earth's past and it's going to continue to do so with or without our help. If the glaciers melt and the oceans rise, people will have to pack up and move away from the waterfront just like they have in the past, the big difference being that in the past, the waterfront property wasn't worth billions of bucks. Some species will die but others will adapt and thrive. I'm all for a clean environment and I'll do what I can to support it, but I haven't found a whole lot of good reasons to get worked up about climate change. |
|
quote |
Environmental Bloodhound
|
Quote:
Normally I don't like to get into policy decisions, but here's some things that I've mulled over to moderate the current trends:
Some good, some bad. But all of which I am certainly willing to live with. Incidentally if anybody is interested, here's where you can find the scientific reports that are given to policy makers: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Check out some of the special reports and assessments under their publications. They provide a summary for policymakers as well as a more detailed technical report. I can't emphasize this enough: Quote:
Formerly known as cynical_rock censeo tentatio victum There is no snooze button on a cat. |
||
quote |
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2004
Location: San Francisco, CA
|
Quote:
Sure we can adapt to any changes in climate that might happen, but it will cost us. From dealing with refugees to dealing with different weather (stronger storms and such), a lot of weird weather-related stuff is going to happen that we most likely won't expect. As we've seen in the case of Hurricane Katrina, we don't seem to be too good at dealing with these sorts of problems. |
|
quote |
Space Pirate
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Atlanta
|
Well you know, I think that Shades of Blue has a point outside of any effects our species has on weather cycles. It shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. Any scientist would caution you not to consider the planet's "normal" state as being the way that things have existed during the short span of our own recorded history.
What of those crocodile-infested mangrove swamps in Greenland? And what about the forests in Anarctica? The ecosystems that once existed in places like those were passing fancies in the big picture of Earth's history, but zoom in on the timeline and you realize that it took quite a while in the way that we comprehend the passage of time. Hells yeah, I don't want those adorable man-eating polar bears to pass out of existence. I despise the demise of any species. But, what are we going to do? Sure, we'll eventually pass significant legislation to lessen our impact on the climate. But did you ever try slamming on the brakes when you're traveling at lightspeed? Takes a while to do a U-turn at full speed. The more important question that somebody should be asking is "What can we do now to save life when things change?" to which the answer may be "Nothing". The idea of Equilibrium would suggest that some rutting large numbers of us will need to perish as the long scales of time eventually rock back toward the climate we knew forty years ago. |
quote |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Lake Vostok Yacht Club
|
Not directed at any AN'er:
Just an opinion, but I gotta say it: global warming is junk science, but even if it weren't, it just doesn't matter. 1. Every time somebody gets all lathered up about leaving a light on in a room, or letting your car idle in the driveway while warming up, or how people who drive SUV's are worse than Hitler, just close your eyes and think of the hundreds of massive unregulated power plants in China, India, South America, etc. churning out truly ridiculous amounts of pollution. Think about all the garbage generated everyday, everywhere across this massive world. It just doesn't matter if you leave the thermostat at 68 versus 69 degrees. Or if you throw out that plastic water bottle. It just doesn't. Recycle the cans, whatever it takes to make you feel better and assuage your own guilt in the process, but just because you reuse a baggie a couple days a week, it doesn't mean a thing. You aren't making a difference to anybody but yourself. That's worth something, but don't try to extend it to global policy. 2. Ever notice that worrying about climate change is something only those blessed with adequate amounts of excess time and money on their hands can afford to do. Much of the rest of the world would really just like a modest amount of clean, safe water. Maybe some food for their children so they aren't hungry. Basic medicine would be some kind of wonderful! Getting all torqued up about buds on the trees in New York City in January, or next year's hurricane forecast is not just ridiculous, it's myopic. 3. My recollection of weather has been formed over the past 20 plus years. I've lived in Hawaii, Seattle, California, Colorado (go Broncos), Pennsylvannia, Arizona, Florida and Minnesota (home sweet home). The other day, I heard this was the third warmest December out here since 1940. WOWOWOWOW! Last time the science geeks spoke, I heard the earth was billions of years old. My twenty year experience vs. billions... let's see, carry the one, add the denominator.... IT MEANS NOTHING. It's hubris to believe our experiences portend an ominous future, or that we even know what we're talking about with this discussion. The weather has always been that: just something to talk about. Nobody can reasonably or accurate guess the weather for next weekend, and yet global warming true believers want everybody (well, everybody in the first world) to HOLD EVERYTHING WHILE WE FIGURE THIS ALL OUT. Hi, my names Al, I'm from the government and I want to help! 4. Never mind all this jibber jabber. How about this: just be a decent human being, try use a reasonable share of this earth's resources, and hope for the best. And at the end of the day, if you are still really worried about global warming, you should count yourself thankful you don't have real problems. |
quote |
Hates the Infotainment
Join Date: May 2004
Location: NSA Archives
|
Yah there's no evidence out there for it whatsoever. All junk science... just ask all the scientists, since all of them except the ones funded by energy companies are in near-complete agreement that it is a legitimate concern and that there are things we can do (including the Chinese, thank you very little). Just because individuals and countries are doing it wrong now, doesn't mean they can't do it right given the proper incentives. Anyway, whatever. If you don't want to do anything, don't. But don't come in here and tell the rest of us that we shouldn't. Your POV is apathy / laziness, pure and simple. As for your third warmest December comment, obviously you haven't looked at any real, global data that spans decades and shows the obvious trends. You're right about one thing, it's going to keep getting worse. Only question is how much worse. Leave it up to people like you and we'll all need a space transport in 50 years. ...into the light of a dark black night. |
quote |
Space Pirate
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Atlanta
|
Honestly, from a "big picture" perspective the problem does seem insurmountably daunting and the rich/powerful people's preaching to the poor, faceless masses is galling, regardless of the good intent. The trick is, to move the focus from the 30,000 foot view to the 30 foot view. Remove the mental block and put baby steps in front of us. Achievable goals. While all of the thermostat adjusting and recycling are obviously helpful, that's the 3 millimeter view that a lot of people aren't capable of achieving (yes, apathy).
Mid-level regulations on products and fuel-consumable machinery may be the most effective early fighters. Other small, babystep moves are likely to be equally effective. Better efficiency is achievable if you do it one step at a time. |
quote |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Antwerp, Belgium
|
|
quote |
monkey with a tiny cymbal
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Lost
|
Quote:
Good energy policy isn't just good for the earth; it's good social policy, too. You're concerned about the food for children across the world? Americans live at an unsustainable rate. If everyone demanded to live like you, billions would starve to death. Ensuring sustainable land use patterns and energy use patterns is good policy for humanity. Quote:
|
||
quote |
Environmental Bloodhound
|
Quote:
The continued denial of global warming has nothing to do with science. Science has convincingly shown the causes and effects of global warming (see the IPCC reports based on reviews of the 1000s of papers being published in peer reviewed journals). The campaign of disinformation about global warming ranks right up there with the smoking industry's campaign against the surgeon general's warning about cancer. Quote:
Greenhouse gasses are not limited to the recent economic boom in several third world nations. Modern developed industries have contributed from the start of the industrial revolution and through the present. So China, India, and South America are rapidly becoming leaders in the contribution department, we (read developed nations) have one heck of a head start on them. Also think about the number of imported products from those countries that the average consumer buys. On a per capita basis the developed nations far out strip developing nations. Forget recycling because of the trash produced worldwide? Say 1 billion people use recyclable products on a regular basis. How about bottles of water? 1 billion people x 1 bottle of water/day x 365 days = 365 billion/year. Recycling and reusing has the potential to remove those 365 billion bottles from landfills and reduces the manufacturing process. And this is just one product. Extend it to paper, cans, etc. Saves a huge drain on natural resources as well as cuts down on manufacturing pressures. Quote:
And clean, safe water and food for their children is a great thing. But what happens when climate change drastically reduces the amount of precipitation your region receives or melts away the glaciers that are feeding your streams and groundwater? Just some minor details right? Quote:
As to predicting what's going to happen. Short term predictions are problematic (e.g weather reports and yearly averages). However, the trend that scientists have shown time and time again operates on timescales much longer. It's very simple and has been conclusively shown time and time again. High greenouse gasses = higher temperatures. We are approaching the limit of natural variability (but at a much more accelerated rate than occurs naturally), and will soon greatly excede it. Logically temperatures will follow suit, inducing all of the other changes in atmospheric circulation (storms, droughts, etc.). Quote:
Formerly known as cynical_rock censeo tentatio victum There is no snooze button on a cat. Last edited by Elysium : 2007-01-09 at 04:05. |
|||||
quote |
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Ottawa, ON
|
Raining again tonight in Ottawa. The Canal is not frozen. No skating. Sigh.
|
quote |
Ruling teh World
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Boston, MA
|
It has been cold here in Kansas, but no snow. Apparently the high for the next 25 days is supposed to be 20 degree F. That is winter-like weather for you.
|
quote |
Hates the Infotainment
Join Date: May 2004
Location: NSA Archives
|
Yah it's supposed to cool off here too for a while. Maybe even snow some (hopefully so for farmers), but the point is, that's what it's *supposed* to be like, nearly all winter, nearly every winter. Even during warm winters, you don't see prolonged periods across large regions, where temperatures are not 5 or 10 degrees above normal but 15 and 20 degrees above normal, for weeks on end. I'm not climatologist but I do have a pretty decent memory and if it serves me right, most fluctuations in temperature like this, typically only happen once or twice a winter, and only 3-4 days at a time. Not a whole friggin month (or more).
Same with precipitation (whether it's snow or rain is less relevant admittedly). Even in very mild winters, we usually get close to 3 feet of snow. Save one storm where we got about a foot, we've had almost nothing this December and January in the way of regular precipitation. Some drizzle here, fluries there. And that is one of the known side-effects is that the precipitation patterns are altered. Places that usually get a lot often get much less and places that get not a lot typically get inundated. Denver anyone (storm #4 in 4 weeks headed their way apparently). Friends of ours in Denver have lived there for 30+ years and they've never seen anything like it (and believe me, Denver is the home of "weird weather"... but this is something entirely different. Will it be this way next year? Maybe not, but being this way next year is not a pre-requisite for global warming (and its effects) to exist. You can't have it both ways. You can't say "one year doesn't mean anything" and then turn around and say "look, this year hurricanes weren't bad" (for example), so it must all be bunk. If we all agree any given year is not a basis to reach a conclusion on its own, but rather a way to gauge trends, then we have to take years like this seriously as a sign things are changing, but not overlook the big picture. That's really all this thread is about: signs of change that none of us have really experienced before and that the record books don't indicate as common fluctuations. ...into the light of a dark black night. |
quote |
Senior Member
|
Sounds interesting, care to recommend any further reading on the topic?
Just my personal point of view ahead: I don't care, in the least, about billions of years. A billion years is to my simple mind a period of time so long as to be silly. It maybe trite but I care about my family, my friends, my god and my society. As a forward looking being I can conceive of next week, next year and possible as far as to such a point as my great great grandchildren. After that I'll be dead as will most everyone I care or will care about and the society I lived in will be unrecognizable. It is purely out of my own selfish desire to live a good life and provide one for the generations that immediately follow that I'm interested in any of this. I don't think people are talking about what sea levels might be like in 23,057. I think there is concern about 2057. |
quote |
Hates the Infotainment
Join Date: May 2004
Location: NSA Archives
|
2027.
|
quote |
Environmental Bloodhound
|
Quote:
If you're more willing to dive into the subject matter here is the more technical report. Happy reading. Formerly known as cynical_rock censeo tentatio victum There is no snooze button on a cat. |
|
quote |
Member
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Newport, Rhode Island
|
Quote:
|
|
quote |
Hates the Infotainment
Join Date: May 2004
Location: NSA Archives
|
Really? What changes, and how are you going to definitively "see it coming" unless by definition you are too near the even to prevent it? If you're close enough to their undoing to *know* a big continental ice shelf is going into the ocean over the next [__] years, a) you're *far* too late to stop it, and b) it would take years of planning and construction to protect anything [along the coasts] worth a poop anyway. We have to make changes in our behavior *now* and hope ultimately the damage is much less than it could've been / that the big ice shelves stay put by and large.
...into the light of a dark black night. Last edited by Moogs : 2007-01-10 at 09:46. |
quote |
Space Pirate
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Atlanta
|
I hate to quote my ever-so-quotable self but shall do so here...
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
quote |
Hates the Infotainment
Join Date: May 2004
Location: NSA Archives
|
|
quote |
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Toronto
|
Sorry Moogs, but you've got one more here in the 'not persuaded' category.
In the Western world science has become a religion, and scientists are the new keepers of the grail. However, there are other disciplines to draw on, such as history. Aside from the Greenland thing, there are many references to a much warmer past, including records of growing grapes in England and such. (This is fresh in my mind because I recently saw a report on a new book called "Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years" Given that a volcano can spew more greenhouse gases in a day than we can emit in a year, I'm going with the idea that our effect on this whole thing is negligible at best. As far as the costs incurred by waterfront living and such, that's part of living on the planet. You decide where you live - whether in midwest flood country, near the coast under sea level or a southern hurricane zone - and you take what the planet sends there. Personally, I'd just move. I also think the urgency surrounding this issue is being largely manufactured and manipulated for personal gain. Kyoto is little more than a wealth transfer initiative dressed up as environmental policy. Green groups are raising record sums of money and there's no reliable way to measure accurate results. This doesn't mean I don't abhor the SUV culture or don't support prudent planning initiatives, but a lot of what is being promoted, I think, is simply nonsense. |
quote |
Environmental Bloodhound
|
Quote:
Quote:
Avery and Singer (authors) do a good job of summarizing a worldwide database showing the impact of warmer global temperatures at times in the past. Of course there have been times in the past where there have been warmer temperatures, However, it is logical fallacy to assume that since these occurred before modern industrialization, it is entirely natural and debunks the human component of the modern trend. Now this may come as a shock to some, but there are other factors that affect global temperature besides greenhouse gasses. There is a 1000-1500 year solar cycle known as Dansgaard-Oeschager (DO) events that are seen in the ice core records. However, it should be noted that these events are particularly amplified in the Greenland ice core records. This preference in the North Atlantic vs. the rest of the world reflects that there are other systems in play besides solar variability. There is also the paradox of the equatorial Pacific with colder than normal surface waters during the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and warmer than normal surface waters during the Little Ice Age. In short, there are many factors that must be considered in determining why it was warmer during the Medieval warm period allowing for grapes to be grown in Britain and colonization of Greenland by the Norse. These exemplify the natural component of natural variability. However, the trends that they describe are inadequate in replicating the trends seen in the last 50 years. Of note, it should be stated that agriculture during the Norse occupation of Greenland was marginal and spotty at best. However, of interest should be that agriculture is still possible today and grape production in Britain is on the verge of becoming a successful venture. Quote:
And not to intentionally throw out a red herring, but: Search Dennis Avery and Fred Singer on http://sourcewatch.org You will find that Avery works for the Hudson Institute, which has received funding from Exxon Mobile. Fred Singer has also admitted to doing global warming research for several oil companies in the early 1990's. Quote:
A thought experiment for you:
I agree with you that living on the waterfront should be a cost of where you want to live and should be wholly upheld by the individual that lives there. Unfortunately this is not the case with government aid and insurance. Anybody else find it insane that the rest of the country is paying for the *repeated* rebuilding of luxury homes on barrier islands that are geologically unstable (storm erosion)? (I have purposely avoided the mention of a certain city that is below sea level in order to keep this thread from devolving into a flamefest). Quote:
True to a point. The vast majority of scientists are independent and do not significantly gain financially from their research. There are the select bad apples that base their results upon who is funding them, and unfortunately due to the nature of those funding them, these "scientists" are the ones that are most often in the public eye. Therefore, scientists are perceived to be profit driven politically oriented writers of climate fiction. Again the majority of us do not fall into this category. As to accurately measuring the results, go to the literature (not popular press) and look at what has been published. All research is open to peer review (read: many different viewpoints and objectives). They will pick at it, write rebuttals, suggest changes, question methods. But if the same results occur over and over again despite whatever each group does to it, then you've got an accurate picture of what's going on. Quote:
Just to piss off Banana... Formerly known as cynical_rock censeo tentatio victum There is no snooze button on a cat. |
||||||
quote |
Posting Rules | Navigation |
Page 2 of 4 Previous 1 [2] 3 4 Next |
Thread Tools | |
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
2006 Winter Olympics | drewprops | AppleOutsider | 139 | 2006-02-27 20:25 |
Winter is upon us... | Moogs | AppleOutsider | 8 | 2004-12-08 18:53 |
Winter Vs. Summer Olympics | Maciej | AppleOutsider | 21 | 2004-08-22 19:13 |