• There seems to be an uptick in Political comments in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religious comments out of the forums.

    If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.

    Please note any post refering to a politician will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment among members. It is a poison to the community. We appreciate compliance with the rules.

    The Staff of SOH

  • Server side Maintenance is done. We still have an update to the forum software to run but that one will have to wait for a better time.

I hate global warning

Hey All,

One more comment.

In my opinion the issue with climate change discussions is the failure to consider the real issue - which is simply what are and how serious are the consequences? If the consequences are serious then it makes sense not to contribute to climate change in order to buy time to adapt - assuming a contribution significantly speeds climate change. The way I see it the CO2 mechanism for climate change really rests on two pieces of evidence - chemistry and physics which long ago demonstrated that the "greenhouse gas" effect is real and the apparent fact that at least once once in geologic history climate changed due to a mass CO2 pulse into the atmosphere - see the PETM event on wiki for example. The main question in my mind is - How serious are the consequences?

Consider this link

http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~emiguel/pdfs/Climate-Scientific-American_2009.11.23.pdf

Might also look at Gwynne Dyer's book climate wars.

If human society as we know it has evolved under relatively speaking "constant" climate the question becomes can humans adapt peacefully to climate change? If not we need all the time we can get to learn how to do so - especially in a world on the verge of not only having nuclear weaponry which we have but soon the wind will be the delivery mechanism for biological "warheads". If China can't produce food because of climate change - beware those downwind. No F22A raptor can stop a wind carried virus.

-Ed-
 
Yep, every few weeks a new one.

Two things they have in common:

1. An abject failure to understand the difference between local weather and planetary climate.

2. They are a political minefield... already skirting the edge of the 'No Politics' policy, just about begging for a response that will push things over the edge.

Pretty transparent, the whole subject should go to Oso's to start with... not really appropriate here.
Click to expand...

Lets go down this path for a minute, then I'll shut up.

Just for the record ... my understanding .... weather is timed in increments ... minute to minute, hour to hour, day to day. Its the "localized" changes to the atmosphere that produces weather. Most people watch the weather for information on temperature, humidity, percipitation, and other elements. That's why its called weather reporting.

On the other hand ... climate is still timed, but over a larger period of time, year to year, decade to decade. And climate becomes a repository of what the day to day, weather was. So then in this case, climatologists study the day to day temperature, humidity, percipitation, and the like, (otherwise known as weather,) and then try to average it out over longer periods ... and then call it climate.

The unfortunate part is, you need weather to get a climate, you can not have a climate without it. So in essence "climatology" is just the study of weather over longer periods of time, thus, at times it is very difficult to separate one from the other in most cases, except when you put the time factor on it.

All of this is why I call bunk on certain comments where you suddenly try to minimize a weather occurance, because ultimately, the weather we talk about today, does become the "climate" of the future you seem to espouce.

In otherwords, I see the AGW crowd minimising the the basic building block of their climate rants if it doesn't coincide with their perception of how you want the overall climate to be percieved by others.

Ultimately colder weather is going to affect your overall warming temperatures as you average them out. That's just a fact of life.

So summing up ... Climate is what a person expects, weather is what a person gets.
smile.gif


Any questions? <!-- / message --><!-- sig -->


And as for trying to put a political slant on this discussion and the "taking it to Oso's, that wasn't happening at all until the above quote, where some people shouldn't try to make rules so stringent so as not to allow for some friendly debate in an area like the Newshawks. Again doing the "mother henning" senario of "I'm offended." If you're over sensitive to this, you probably shouldn't have looked here to start with.

But that's just me ...
 
Snuffy said:
... Ultimately colder weather is going to affect your overall warming temperatures as you average them out. That's just a fact of life...
Click to expand...

Yes, but to make any conclusions, you have to measure the temperature everywhere, right? We're talking about global average temperature. The fact that it's colder at your house today than it was this day last year, does not warrant a conclusion that the entire planet is cooling, or isn't warming. A more complete set of data suggests that the planet is warming, local day to day weather in North Dakota notwithstanding. The fact that Mars is also getting warmer suggests that its a solar system wide effect, and that there may not be a whole heck of a lot we can do about it, except learn to adapt.
 
Hi,

Falsified datas :ernae:

http://translate.google.be/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pensee-unique.fr%2Fbonnetdane.html%23himalaya&sl=fr&tl=en&hl=&ie=UTF-8

http://translate.google.be/translat...http://www.pensee-unique.fr/paroles.html#petr

A more complete set of data suggests that the planet is warming, local day to day weather in North Dakota notwithstanding. The fact that Mars is also getting warmer suggests that its a solar system wide effect, and that there may not be a whole heck of a lot we can do about it, except learn to adapt.
Click to expand...
The only problem is that the IPCC don't use complete set of datas for predict the global warming :)
In fact they discard any solar influence .. lol.
They don't use it in their prediction model ......
Their mantra is "this must be the CO2" LOL
And the Mars getting warmer is not a scientific fact for support any climate changes on the planet Earth :)
BTW .. who is making all this CO2 on Mars .. lol..
Aahh .. yes ... the small green men .... :)

Anyways ... 2012 will put a end to this debate .. or more seriously ... the lack of fossil fuel (oil in particular) will put a definitive end :)
 
What an amazing conversation this has turned into, when all I wanted to say was that we had a lot of snow in the Texas Panhandle.
 
I want to compliment everybody on doing a decent job of discussing the issue and keeping this thread from going too political. Keep personal politics out and we should be fine.

My company, which I am the senior and founding partner, works with energy producing companies on meeting E.P.A. regulations for the Clean Air Act. I do a good deal of reading of the regulations and proposed regulations that center on what is know as Green House Gases (GHG) and Global Warming.

There is no argument among climatologists that the earth has experienced a warming trend over the last 1000 years. We saw a dip in the average temperatures in during the 1950 and 1960 but, the overall trend has been upward.

Where the argument lies is in the cause of this warming. Is it primarily man-made (Anthropogenic), as Al gore argues or is it a more natural effect due to a greater activity of the sun, for instance.

The US Government and its environmental protection agency, i.e., E.P.A. currently believe it is a man-made (Anthropogenic) event. The two gases which play the leading roles in the greenhouse (reflective) effect are Methane (CH4) and Carbon Dioxide (CO2) both of these gases are naturally accruing in the atmosphere.

Methane is the one which causes the most reflection of surface heat back towards the earth as it combines with water vapor and other chemicals. CO2 is believed to hinder the natural decomposition of methane within the atmosphere. Both of these gases have grown in concentration within the atmosphere. It is believed by the EPA and IPCC that these increased concentrations are anthropogenic. CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere increased from approximately 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv) in pre-industrial times to 376.7 ppmv in 2004, a 35 percent increase (IPCC 2001 and Hofmann 2004).

Atmospheric concentrations of CH4 have increased by about 143 percent since 1750, from a pre-industrial value of about 722 ppb to 1,756 ppb in 2004, although the rate of increase has been declining. The IPCC has estimated that slightly more than half of the current CH4 flux to the atmosphere is anthropogenic, from human activities such as agriculture, fossil fuel use, and waste disposal (IPCC 2001).

It stands to reason that human activities have to have some influence upon the climate. The infamous smog of Southern California is a good example of man-made activity affecting the local climate. The argument is in just how much influence anthropogenic events have had vs natural causes AND is this really bad?

There are quite a few positive effects due to warmer temperature. The increased food supply, due to a longer growing season being one. The positive effects of global warming do not get the publicity the negative ones do by the world press.

None the less, the US government is imposing major reductions of methane and CO2 upon industries. These reductions will cost these industries millions and millions of dollars and eventually result in higher costs for everything to the consumer.

I believe it will also put some smaller companies out of business and drive others overseas to countries who have governments who are willing to look the other way. It will also provide opportunities for companies like mine to make money.
 
Changes

I like to think that the process of converting our economy will in fact generate as many new industries and jobs as would be lost, maybe more. We all have to come to realize that the Earth is finite and we cannot keep gobbling up resources and soiling our own nest. Economic growth cannot be the only measure of mankind's progress. Maybe we can all step back and use this time to retool our economies to be less harmful to the planet.

Regards, Rob:ernae:
 
PRB said:
Yes, but to make any conclusions, you have to measure the temperature everywhere, right? We're talking about global average temperature. The fact that it's colder at your house today than it was this day last year, does not warrant a conclusion that the entire planet is cooling, or isn't warming. A more complete set of data suggests that the planet is warming, local day to day weather in North Dakota notwithstanding. The fact that Mars is also getting warmer suggests that its a solar system wide effect, and that there may not be a whole heck of a lot we can do about it, except learn to adapt.
Click to expand...

Yes, yes, we covered that.

Its like a tub of water ... if the water is hot and you add cold water the tub doesn't stay as hot as it use to be. The same principle applies to a tub of cold water when you add hot.

Just because its hot in certain parts of the globe and that seems to fuel your arguments for global warming, many seem to discount the colder parts of the same planet.

Global is global ... but if you have 2/3rds of the planet reporting colder than "average" temperatures, its going to have to affect the remaining 1/3 of globally hot temperatures. Its simple math. And yes it works the other way around too.

Point is ... this thing everone is so worried about is cyclic. It always has been, it will always be.
 
Global Warming? Yes
Global Cooling? Yes
Global Climate Change? Absolutely

Always has, Always will.

We are so smart in our tiny little fragment of time living on this Billion + Year Old Planet. Not to mention the quirkie nature of Nature.....Volcanoes, Earth Quakes, Weather and all that stuff. Oh, and then there is Mister Sun in all his glory, what with random Sun Spots and Mass Ejections. Then there are the chunks of stuff that bump into us now and then. We should also not forget the changes in the Magnetosphere, Polar Shifts and the Wobble in the Wobble of the Earth's Rotation and our elipticle orbit of the sun. Hum, I wonder just how influential we really think we are in the grand scheme of things ????
 
After quickly scanning replies to this thread, I noticed that little, if anything, has been said about how global temperature has been measured
over the years.

Ground stations have been the main source.

Up until the mid 80's there were over 6,000 stations world wide.

Once the AGW theory started gathering momentum (early 90's), weather station data started dropping out. We are now down to approx. 1,000 stations.

Which stations have been ignored or shut down ?? The ones at higher latitudes, the ones at higher altitudes and the majority of rural stations:
ie.....the ones reporting cooler temps.

Here's a very recent discussion by John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel:

http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/81583352.html
 
I know one thing LD, it's pretty da*n cold this morning!

But I am getting rapped and the moon is out and dang it I am going sledding. :running:

All I'll say any more about Global Warming is that it is a phase in human eff-ups, like the variances of a living Earth. We had a time in human history when our religious leaders tortured people that taught the scientific truth. Now we have these 'chicken littles" and the 2012 nuts. Like Elmer say, "scwewy wabbit"!

Caz
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top