Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Descan]

Go back fifty years in pretty much any area in the far north/south and take a look at the weather for a few years, then come back to now and take a look.

Hell, twenty years.

I remember when I was a kid and the middle of Toronto would have cars encased in snow. I remember one across the street that looked like it was a mould with one side gone, I'm still trying to figure out how that car got out without breaking the front or back of that shape.

Now, you're lucky to get snow in Mississauga, that's a city outside Toronto. In Toronto itself? Forget about it.

[kaenneth]

Well, I remember NOT having inch-thick layers of frozen rain in Seattle, just regular rain. And volcanic ash.

[Tellemurius]

Well, I remember NOT having inch-thick layers of frozen rain in Seattle, just regular rain. And volcanic ash.

Wait did i miss Mt. Rainier's eruption?

[Montague]

Go back fifty years in pretty much any area in the far north/south and take a look at the weather for a few years, then come back to now and take a look.

Hell, twenty years.

I remember when I was a kid and the middle of Toronto would have cars encased in snow. I remember one across the street that looked like it was a mould with one side gone, I'm still trying to figure out how that car got out without breaking the front or back of that shape.

Now, you're lucky to get snow in Mississauga, that's a city outside Toronto. In Toronto itself? Forget about it.

Right, remember there was also record high snow-fall and record low temperatures in much of North America last year. There have been years with hardly any severe weather like hurricanes, which are supposedly supposed to be more common now.There are inconsistencies to the predictions being made.

Which is one of the reasons why I am skeptical of what the predicted effects of global warming might be. It's supposed to flood the world when the ice caps melt, but water levels have actually gone down in places and the ice cap in the interior of the Antarctic has grown thicker with increased precipitation there.

The data backing up climate change might very well have mundane explanations, urban island heating effect around weather stations previously in rural or outskirts regions. The type of unusual weather lately could be caused by a previously unrecorded El Nino/ La Nina type of cyclic climate phenomenon similar to them, perhaps with a longer duration.

Anyways, I'm not certain either way, but I do believe the threat of global warming isn't nearly as dire as that posed by energy scarcity and peak oil. I think the emphasis should move away from crap like carbon-trading and carbon emissions and toward energy sustainability and reducing the reliance on fossil fuels. Especially since the vast majority of green house gasses come from the earth or livestock and other living creatures, not so much tail pipes and smoke stacks like climate change activists portray, actions directed at mitigating climate change are largely irrelevant or futile even assuming their premise is correct.

[G-Flex]

Right, remember there was also record high snow-fall and record low temperatures in much of North America last year.

Global warming does not mean that all of the Earth always gets warmer all of the time. Different weather patterns and regions are affected differently.

It's supposed to flood the world when the ice caps melt, but water levels have actually gone down in places and the ice cap in the interior of the Antarctic has grown thicker with increased precipitation there.

The Antarctic ice shelves have also been disappearing. Also, this is totally hypothetical, but you don't see why increased precipitation in central Antarctica just might be indicative of warmer weather?

[MonkeyHead]

I do think it is exceptionally arrgont of humans to assume we are in any way, shape or form a major contributing factor in climate change. The numerous systems at play are very complex, I dont feel we have anywhere near full understanding of the interplay between them all, and they have been at work for aeons in some beautifully chaotic long term emergent order. Note that this isnt the same as saying that we are having no effect - we probably are having some minor influence, but even a minor influence can cause a system to go beyond a tipping point depending on how finely balanced it is. I do feel that fighting climate change is a bit like that Viking King trying to control the tides - its gonna happen (as thats what the climate has shown us it does), and we should be looking at ways to either cope, or influence the change in a positive (or least negative) manner, rather than going around finger pointing and arguing.

[Max White]

I think it is exceptionally ignorant to dismiss something as being too complex for us to take action on.
A very similar argument is used by creationists to argue against evolution, saying that life is indivisibly complex, there for we can make no education guess as any aspect of it such as speciation.

We understand chemistry, meteorology and other aspects of climate change science very well. While true that there might be specific aspects that still hide from human knowledge, science is a process of refinement. For those parts that we do not understand, we often use a simplified pattern that will serve out needs, such as Newtonian physics.

We understand climate change to the degree where we can asses the impact of each greenhouse gas we release into the atmosphere, and measure the amounts of each gas. What more do you want?

[MonkeyHead]

I think you might have missed my point...

I think it is exceptionally ignorant to dismiss something as being too complex for us to take action on.

At no point did I say that we should not take action. In fact, I am pretty sure I stated that we should be acnowledging that climate change is occuring and be looking at taking action, instead of people debaing about if it is occuring or not, which is clearly a stupid argument - as you state with the comment about our current understanding of greenhouse gases. No doubt as part of the work to "manimpulate" the changing climate we will develop a fuller understanding of it, and the factors that influence its behavour.

[G-Flex]

I do think it is exceptionally arrgont of humans to assume we are in any way, shape or form a major contributing factor in climate change.

Why? We wouldn't be the first organism to do it.

[Montague]

Right, remember there was also record high snow-fall and record low temperatures in much of North America last year.

Global warming does not mean that all of the Earth always gets warmer all of the time. Different weather patterns and regions are affected differently.

It's supposed to flood the world when the ice caps melt, but water levels have actually gone down in places and the ice cap in the interior of the Antarctic has grown thicker with increased precipitation there.

The Antarctic ice shelves have also been disappearing. Also, this is totally hypothetical, but you don't see why increased precipitation in central Antarctica just might be indicative of warmer weather?

You're right, the latter is an example of what global warming might do. Warmer weather means more evaporation means more precipitation means more permanent snow in Antarctica and other extremely cold places which means lower sea levels. So they point to generally warmer temperatures but seem to be conflicted on exactly what the consequences of that might be, which sort of discredits the whole idea and discredits some of the fear mongering elements the global warming advocators espouse.

Ice shelves cleaving off the continent might be completely normal. The ice shelf obviously cannot keep expanding forever and with Antarctica shaped like a dome, it stands to reason the edges might be naturally trimmed every few decades or so. We haven't been observing it for very long.

Global warming may very well be a real thing, it might also be some other unobserved climate pattern. Still, their proposed solutions are dodgy, especially when you consider that apparently 50% of greenhouse gas emissions literally come from cow farts. Climate change should be a rallying cry for cattle genocide and vegetarianism rather then, whatever these advocates are trying to sell, catalytic converters or tree planting services or whatever. I'm not saying catalytic converters or reforestation are bad things, but I think it's a misdirection from the more serious issue of energy scarcity.

[MonkeyHead]

The changes you refer to are far more long term than the ones humanity seems to be claiming responsibility for...

[Max White]

You're right, the latter is an example of what global warming might do. Warmer weather means more evaporation means more precipitation means more permanent snow in Antarctica and other extremely cold places which means lower sea levels. So they point to generally warmer temperatures but seem to be conflicted on exactly what the consequences of that might be, which sort of discredits the whole idea and discredits some of the fear mongering elements the global warming advocators espouse.

Ice shelves cleaving off the continent might be completely normal. The ice shelf obviously cannot keep expanding forever and with Antarctica shaped like a dome, it stands to reason the edges might be naturally trimmed every few decades or so. We haven't been observing it for very long.

Global warming may very well be a real thing, it might also be some other unobserved climate pattern. Still, their proposed solutions are dodgy, especially when you consider that apparently 50% of greenhouse gas emissions literally come from cow farts. Climate change should be a rallying cry for cattle genocide and vegetarianism rather then, whatever these advocates are trying to sell, catalytic converters or tree planting services or whatever. I'm not saying catalytic converters or reforestation are bad things, but I think it's a misdirection from the more serious issue of energy scarcity.

Oh wow, did you seriously just say that in a water cycle, increased evaporation leads to increased condensation and there for produce a net gain in water, or snow, or what ever is falling at the time?
Did you mean to imply that or was it an accident?

Also, we haven't been observing ice sheets for that long, but the animals that live there have. Most Arctic lifeforms are ill adapt to these new conditions under a year long basis. Yes, I am well aware of seasonal change, but we are talking net annual change.
A. The period of growth and decline in ice sheets is slower than the rate of adaptation, or...
B. This is not a regular phenomena.

So the rate of change has recently shown to be some what rapid on a timeline of global temperature, we can rule out A. This leaves B, taking your regular pattern theory out.

[G-Flex]

Also, we haven't been observing ice sheets for that long, but the animals that live there have. Most Arctic lifeforms are ill adapt to these new conditions under a year long basis. Yes, I am well aware of seasonal change, but we are talking net annual change.
A. The period of growth and decline in ice sheets is slower than the rate of adaptation, or...
B. This is not a regular phenomena.

• He was talking about Antarctica.
• It's "phenomenon".

Your argument does apply to the water and ice near the other pole, though.

[Darvi]

• It's "phenomenon".

/irony-fixed.

[Max White]

It's "phemonenon".

It's menomena or bust!