User Name
Password
AppleNova Forums » AppleOutsider »

Freakish Winter Continues


Register Members List Calendar Search FAQ Posting Guidelines
Freakish Winter Continues
Page 2 of 4 Previous 1 [2] 3 4  Next Thread Tools
LudwigVan
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Minnesota
 
2007-01-07, 01:49

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moogs View Post
In the upper midwest, we've seen a straight month of 40-50 degree daytime temperatures since early December. After living here for over 20 years, I can tell you we've never seen anything like it. A few days here, a week there... sure it's happened. But never this long and never this warm.
I've lived here in Minnesota for well over 30 years and do remember one winter back in the 80s--it may have been 1982/83--where we received very little snow (perhaps a couple of small storms) and temps that rarely went below zero Fahrenheit. So this sort of weather we're having now isn't unheard, rare though it may be. The difference between now and then is that recently, perhaps within the last 5 years or so, the winters here have been comparatively mild in relation to decades past.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roboman View Post
It's been freakishly warm in my little slice of Minnesota, too. Well, not warm, per se - especially not compared to Vegas - but not cold, either.

I don't think we had any snow until New Years' Eve. It arrived just in time to upset our party plans.
There was a little snow (at least in the Twin Cities) in December 21st, but nothing spectacular. See this site for more details. Select the month and year under Daily Weather Observations (1995-Current) for the Twin Cities.

"Virtually bursting with adequatulence."
  quote
Eugene
careful with axes
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Hillsborough, CA
 
2007-01-07, 02:14

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
Elysium
Environmental Bloodhound
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Land of ice and snow
Send a message via AIM to Elysium  
2007-01-07, 04:34

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 why does this happen? Simple. The temperate (warm) jet stream becomes strengthened and moves northward. This not only blocks polar air masses from plunging down out of the Arctic into the continental interior, it also allows for the development of strong convective storms systems that sweep across the southern tier (ala blizzards in Colorado).

In a nutshell, this weather is the result of an entirely natural phenomena that occurs on a 3-5 year cycle.


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.

The key in ending this "debate" (I put this term in quotes because it is social/political and not scientific in origin) is to focus on the long term trends. You guys have already nailed this one, so gold stars for all.
  • El Ninos have become more frequent and stronger in intensity.
  • Reduced winter snowcover due to later snowfalls and earlier thaws.
  • Rapid retreat of mountain glaciers over the last twenty years.
  • Increased melting and flow velocities of outlet glaciers in Greenland and Western Antarctica.
  • Increased drought and desertification in the Sahel.
  • Massive heat waves killing thousands in Europe and Asia.
  • Rapidly retreating sea ice in the Arctic Ocean (killing not only polar bears, but seals too).

The list goes on and on...

There is no scientific debate. Global warming is real and anthropogenic greenhouse gasses are the overwhelming cause. There have been times in the geologic record when CO2 levels where much higher than today, and during those times there were crocodiles and mangroves in Greenland.

The human race can survive global warming. But at what cost to civilization? Millions dispossessed by rising sea levels, drought and famine due to lack of glacier/snowmelt from the Himalayas/Andes, Europe plunged into a deep freeze, intensified cyclonic activity in the tropical oceans.

Now if that wasn't bad enough, here's something to really drive the point home. We have only seen a portion of the effects of greenhouse gas loading into the atmosphere. Even if we got the entire planet to go "green" tomorrow, we would still see the trends to continue for years. Delaying and blaming the science is no longer an answer, and action is most desperately needed.

Formerly known as cynical_rock
censeo tentatio victum
There is no snooze button on a cat.
  quote
hiltond
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Tampa Bay and CNJ
Send a message via AIM to hiltond  
2007-01-07, 05:50

Quote:
Originally Posted by cynical_rock View Post
action is most desperately needed
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:
  • Figure out how to reduce greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and implement that plan in the short term
  • Figure out how to live the kinds of lives people have gravitated towards without emitting excess greenhouse gases
  • Implement point B
  • Remove the systems and methods from point a to return things to a natural state
    ?

This may seem impossible but then again a man on the moon was considered outlandish in the 1940's.
  quote
Shades of Blue
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Newport, Rhode Island
 
2007-01-07, 09:40

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
Wyatt
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Near Indianapolis
 
2007-01-07, 10:19

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shades of Blue View Post
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.
It was about 50 here yesterday. It was absolutely great. I'll take 50 in January any time. Of course, I'd prefer the 70 you had in Boston, but 50 is pretty damn good for Indiana in January.

Twitter: bwyatt | Xbox: @playsbadly | Instagram: @bw317
  quote
Moogs
Hates the Infotainment
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: NSA Archives
 
2007-01-07, 10:30

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
Moogs
Hates the Infotainment
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: NSA Archives
 
2007-01-07, 10:49

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
Shades of Blue
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Newport, Rhode Island
 
2007-01-08, 00:08

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moogs View Post
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.
Hey, I do my part, I drive a small car, walk everywhere I can, and conserve power whenever practical. But I'm going to enjoy it every time we have a warm winter.

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
Elysium
Environmental Bloodhound
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Land of ice and snow
Send a message via AIM to Elysium  
2007-01-08, 02:35

Quote:
Originally Posted by hiltond View Post
  • Figure out how to reduce greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and implement that plan in the short term
  • Figure out how to live the kinds of lives people have gravitated towards without emitting excess greenhouse gases
  • Implement point B
  • Remove the systems and methods from point a to return things to a natural state
    ?
Exactly the kind of thinking needed.

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:
  • New tax system: Create a new tax on industries and power generation centers that rely on outdated and inefficient technology. Use taxes as grants for industries that are actively pursuing and implementing cleaner practices.
  • Reduce the availability of energy inefficient products to the general public.
  • Produce guidelines for the auto industry to raise emission standards and engine efficiency on all vehicles and increase the number of alternative fueled vehicles.
  • Actively incorporate funds into the transportation sector to upgrade the fuel infrastructure.
  • Increase funds for carbon sequestration research.
  • Increase research funding into more efficient and cleaner nuclear energy (e.g. breeder reactors)

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:
Originally Posted by About the IPCC
Recognizing the problem of potential global climate change, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988. It is open to all members of the
UN and WMO.

The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. The IPCC does not carry out research nor does it monitor climate related data or other relevant parameters. It bases its assessment mainly on peer reviewed and published scientific/technical literature.

Formerly known as cynical_rock
censeo tentatio victum
There is no snooze button on a cat.
  quote
BlueRabbit
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: San Francisco, CA
 
2007-01-08, 03:46

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shades of Blue View Post
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.
Unfortunately, this view is all too typical of global warming's public perception. The problem isn't just a simple rise in ocean level; there are many other effects associated with rising temperatures as well. For example, the shrinking of Himalayan glaciers will eventually cut off major water supplies for large parts of China and India - this will likely result in mass famine and lots of refugees looking for someplace else to go.

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
drewprops
Space Pirate
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Atlanta
 
2007-01-08, 07:42

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.

Steve Jobs ate my cat's watermelon.
Captain Drew on Twitter
  quote
Edna Crabtree
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Lake Vostok Yacht Club
 
2007-01-08, 16:03

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
Moogs
Hates the Infotainment
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: NSA Archives
 
2007-01-08, 19:47



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
drewprops
Space Pirate
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Atlanta
 
2007-01-08, 19:56

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.

Steve Jobs ate my cat's watermelon.
Captain Drew on Twitter
  quote
digitalprimate
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Antwerp, Belgium
 
2007-01-08, 20:00

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moogs View Post
Leave it up to people like you and we'll all need a space transport in 50 years.
Or a rubber boathouse to keep us from drowning...
  quote
Majost
monkey with a tiny cymbal
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Lost
 
2007-01-08, 20:12

Quote:
Originally Posted by Edna Crabtree View Post
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.

...

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.
And as it should be. Those of us with our basic needs covered are the ones that pollute the most. We're the ones that *should* be the most concerned, and we're the ones that *should* cut back the most.

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:
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!
Why wait? Even if we aren't making a significant impact on the weather (never mind that all evidence points the other way), isn't it a *good thing* to reduce the number of carcinogens and toxins that are put into our air and water? Think of those "starving children" that have an undue exposure to mercury and other toxins due to the overabundances and excesses of the West.
  quote
Elysium
Environmental Bloodhound
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Land of ice and snow
Send a message via AIM to Elysium  
2007-01-08, 20:12

Quote:
Originally Posted by Edna Crabtree View Post
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.
While you may be trying to be polite about it, this is tanatmount to a slap in the face considering you've just attacked my career.

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:
Originally Posted by Edna Crabtree View Post
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.


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:
Originally Posted by Edna Crabtree View Post
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.
Hmm... Ever notice that the ones with the adequate amounts of excess time and money on their hands are the ones that account for a good portion of greenhouse gas production through their choice of lifestyle?

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:
Originally Posted by Edna Crabtree View Post
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!
The planet will be just fine on geologic time scales. Climate has been much warmer and cooler over the past 4.6 billion years. However, there have also been billions upon billions of species that have come and gone in that time span as well. How about the Permian extinction 290 million years ago that killed off 90% of life on Earth as a result of climate shifts resulting from the formation of Pangea (and possibly due to a meteorite impact)? The Earth will continue on no matter what we do to it. But I think the 6 billion people on its surface will be a little indisposed don't you think?

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:
Originally Posted by Edna Crabtree View Post
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.
Good start, bad finish. Use a reasonable share of the earth's resources, and be proactive in reducing your impact/footprint on the environment. If global warming is not addressed then we all will have real problems.

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
Chinney
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Ottawa, ON
 
2007-01-08, 21:05

Raining again tonight in Ottawa. The Canal is not frozen. No skating. Sigh.
  quote
World Leader Pretend
Ruling teh World
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Boston, MA
 
2007-01-08, 21:16

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
Moogs
Hates the Infotainment
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: NSA Archives
 
2007-01-08, 22:52

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
hiltond
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Tampa Bay and CNJ
Send a message via AIM to hiltond  
2007-01-08, 22:55

Quote:
Originally Posted by cynical_rock View Post
Increase funds for carbon sequestration research.
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
Moogs
Hates the Infotainment
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: NSA Archives
 
2007-01-08, 23:01

2027.
  quote
Elysium
Environmental Bloodhound
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Land of ice and snow
Send a message via AIM to Elysium  
2007-01-09, 03:06

Quote:
Originally Posted by hiltond View Post
Sounds interesting, care to recommend any further reading on the topic?
Here's a recent report put out by the IPCC for policymakers (public friendly summary): Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage (direct PDF link)

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
Shades of Blue
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Newport, Rhode Island
 
2007-01-09, 12:00

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueRabbit View Post
Unfortunately, this view is all too typical of global warming's public perception. The problem isn't just a simple rise in ocean level; there are many other effects associated with rising temperatures as well. For example, the shrinking of Himalayan glaciers will eventually cut off major water supplies for large parts of China and India - this will likely result in mass famine and lots of refugees looking for someplace else to go.
Yeah, but it's not going to happen overnight. It's not like Hurricane Katrina, where New Orleans was fine one day and then three days later it was a mass disaster. The shrinking of glaciers may eventually, as you said, cut off water supplies, but you'll be able to see it coming and make changes.
  quote
Moogs
Hates the Infotainment
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: NSA Archives
 
2007-01-09, 19:47

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
drewprops
Space Pirate
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Atlanta
 
2007-01-09, 22:38

I hate to quote my ever-so-quotable self but shall do so here...

Quote:
Originally Posted by drewprops View Post
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.
Oddly reminiscent of something Kryten said....

Quote:
Originally Posted by kryten View Post
"A superlative suggestion sir, with just TWO minor flaws: ONE, We don't HAVE any defensive shields....and TWO, we don't have any DEFENSIVE shields. Now, I realise that technically speaking that's only ONE flaw, but I thought it was such a BIG one it was worth mentioning twice!!!"
  quote
Moogs
Hates the Infotainment
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: NSA Archives
 
2007-01-10, 09:46

  quote
Frank777
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Toronto
 
2007-01-10, 23:37

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
Elysium
Environmental Bloodhound
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Land of ice and snow
Send a message via AIM to Elysium  
2007-01-11, 23:22

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post
In the Western world science has become a religion, and scientists are the new keepers of the grail.
Sweet, does this mean I can stop paying taxes?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post
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"
Here's a reasonable summary of the book mentioned above.

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:
Originally Posted by RealClimate.org
Nor do past, natural variations in climate negate the global warming forecast. Most past climate changes, like the glacial interglacial cycle, can be explained based on changes in solar heating and greenhouse gases, but the warming in the last few decades cannot be explained without the impact of human-released greenhouse gases. Avery was very careful to crop his temperature plots at 1985, rather than show the data to 2005.
Click for rebuttal of book and discussions (warning there are trolls present on these boards just as much as AN )


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:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post
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.
Volcanos? Uh, no. Average volcanic emissions are orders of magnitude less than the contributions from human sources (think millions vs. billions of tons). Only major volcanic events have the *potential* to emit a significant contribution of greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere. Unfortunately these also come with nasty aerosols that mask the greenhouse gas contribution by drastically reducing incoming sunlight (our primary heat source) (e.g. Tambora in 1816).

A thought experiment for you:
  • The continents have been in their modern positions for the last half million years (no major changes in plate tectonics). Therefore, volcanic activity then should be roughly equivalent to what we have now.
  • Current CO2 levels are the highest in the 420,000 years and are growing at an exponential rate beyond the normal trends seen throughout the Pleistocene.
  • There has been no signs of drastically increased volcanism.
  • Therefore, the current CO2 emissions have exceeded any of which that volcanic activity could have provided.

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:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post
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.
"It is difficult for a person to understand an issue if his salary depends on him not understanding it."

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:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post
Green groups and the oil industry are raising/spending record sums of money and there's no reliable way to measure accurate results.
T,FTFY



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
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Page 2 of 4 Previous 1 [2] 3 4  Next

Post Reply

Forum Jump
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


« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 00:08.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2024, AppleNova