Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: WeatherOp on March 27, 2006, 07:14:46 pm
-
I haven't had the chance to look thru them yet, but it looks interesting. They interview Wx experts like Dr. Gray and Max Mayfield on subjects like Global Warming, the 2005 Hurricane season and thoughts on the 2006 Hurricane season. :)
http://www.bahamaswxconference.com./
-
I thought the weather was a subject you brought up when you had nothing else to talk about....... :p ;)
-
I have to say, that website is done very well. It actually makes weather look somewhat interesting and dynamic. Now all that's missing is a Flash tornado simulator.
"The 2006 Weather Conference doesn't like black people."
-
Global Warming.... heh... heheh... I just finished reading Michael Crichton's State of Fear (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0061015733/sr=8-2/qid=1143536788/ref=pd_bbs_2/104-2902170-8618348?%5Fencoding=UTF8), and now the term "global warming" makes me laugh. :p Granted, I'm not one of those activists pushing for things in either direction, so if the book altered my preconcieved notions it won't really have much of an effect on the world through me, but still.... *giggles* :p
-
Global Warming.... heh... heheh... I just finished reading Michael Crichton's State of Fear (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0061015733/sr=8-2/qid=1143536788/ref=pd_bbs_2/104-2902170-8618348?%5Fencoding=UTF8), and now the term "global warming" makes me laugh. :p Granted, I'm not one of those activists pushing for things in either direction, so if the book altered my preconcieved notions it won't really have much of an effect on the world through me, but still.... *giggles* :p
Please tell me you're not actually regarding anything Crichton rights as based on fact?!
-
From the book:
[q]This is a work of fiction. Characters, corporations, institutions, and organizations in this novel are the product of the author's imagination, or, if real, are used fictitiously without any intent to describe their actual conduct. However, references to real people, institutions, and organizations that are documented in footnotes are accurate. Footnotes are real.[/q]
-
The footnotes are a bunch of bollocks too actually. Crichton has been raked over the coals numerous times for the stupid mistakes he made in that book.
If you want to read about what a real scientist who actually helped Crichton with his research thinks of it you might want to click here (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=74).
for a quick soundbite though.
Finally, in an appendix, Crichton uses a rather curious train of logic to compare global warming to the 19th Century eugenics movement. He argues, that since eugenics was studied in prestigious universities and supported by charitable foundations, and now, so is global warming, they must somehow be related. Presumably, the author doesn't actually believe that foundation-supported academic research ipso facto is evil and mis-guided, but that is an impression that is left.
In summary, I am a little disappointed, not least because while researching this book, Crichton actually visited our lab and discussed some of these issues with me and a few of my colleagues. I guess we didn't do a very good job. Judging from his reading list, the rather dry prose of the IPCC reports did not match up to the some of the racier contrarian texts. Had RealClimate been up and running a few years back, maybe it would've all worked out differently...
In other words He ignored the science and concentrated on the words of those opposed to Global Warming in order to sell his sack of ****e book.
-
If you really want a real opinion based on fact, you need to listen to John Christy of UAH in this video. This is what most Metoerologists not Climotolgists think, and study backs it up. Probley the best piece on GW I've heard in a while.
http://beta.abc3340.com/static/weather/video/sa2006.wmv
Go to the 24 minute mark in your player, or listen to all of it. :)
-
The footnotes are a bunch of bollocks too actually. Crichton has been raked over the coals numerous times for the stupid mistakes he made in that book.
If you want to read about what a real scientist who actually helped Crichton with his research thinks of it you might want to click here (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=74).
for a quick soundbite though.
Finally, in an appendix, Crichton uses a rather curious train of logic to compare global warming to the 19th Century eugenics movement. He argues, that since eugenics was studied in prestigious universities and supported by charitable foundations, and now, so is global warming, they must somehow be related. Presumably, the author doesn't actually believe that foundation-supported academic research ipso facto is evil and mis-guided, but that is an impression that is left.
In summary, I am a little disappointed, not least because while researching this book, Crichton actually visited our lab and discussed some of these issues with me and a few of my colleagues. I guess we didn't do a very good job. Judging from his reading list, the rather dry prose of the IPCC reports did not match up to the some of the racier contrarian texts. Had RealClimate been up and running a few years back, maybe it would've all worked out differently...
In other words He ignored the science and concentrated on the words of those opposed to Global Warming in order to sell his sack of ****e book.
Just linked off that page is http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2005/02/06/checking_crichtons_footnotes/, which notes a few of the scientists misquoted and/or mischaracterised, too.
-
I just don't understand how some people would prefer 'tales' to real fact :)
-
I just don't understand how some people would prefer 'tales' to real fact :)
Easier to swallow. I fell for it (with earlier books), I have to admit, because I read quite a lot of Crichtons' stuff when I was younger and going on holidays and stuff. But when he actually wrote something related (even tangentially) to something I'd studied, I realised he was full of pish. Crichton, of course, always uses the same basic template; man discovers something with science, mans arrogance in belief of science leads to tragedy, man rues his use of science. Man in the generic 'human' sense, of course, although I don't think he's keen on female protagonists (sidekicks, maybe, but the protagonist is usually the doubting male, thrust into accounting for those less humble etc etc).
It's a shame, really, because it's something we see more and more and which feeds into politics more and more. Even with this specific example, I believe a US Congress comission on climate change actually recommended this - a fictional novel - as reading to panel members and invited Crichton to speak. And we seem to be getting to the stage - in the US more than most IMO - where not only is scientific consensus being disregarded, it's being degraded because it is a consensus. And science (even including stuff like medicine) just becomes sidelined in a manner more befitting pre-renaissance than modern day.
-
I just don't understand how some people would prefer 'tales' to real fact :)
Because people like a varied plate of veggies, some like the doomsday scenario, others like the "it's not there" scenario, very few people care about the real truth, because frankly it isn't good for politics.
If you can't bash your opponet for not doing something or doing too much of something, no one is gonna ellect you into office. The sad fact is that the public as a whole is more stupid then cattle.
-
This is what most Metoerologists not Climotolgists think, and study backs it up. Probley the best piece on GW I've heard in a while.
Let me get this straight. He claims that the weather in Alabama is getting colder and wetter. He then goes on to explain how Alabama's weather is very changable from year to year and then returns to the fact that this (according to him) incredibly changeable weather should be taken as an indication that global warming isn't true because of 3 outlying data points?
What a ****ing joke. This is not science. Anyone who presented data like that in a scientific conference would be laughed out of the room. You can not refute or display a trend based on three data points in a sample of several hundred. To claim you can is idiotic and unscientific. It could be that he was simplifying his results for the average american audience to understand but he's simplified it beyond the point where it has any worth and overstated the pieces of information that had no relevence (Why the **** would it matter how many weather monitoring stations there are!). :rolleyes:
If you can find some real data on Alabama's climate that might be worth listening to but even that is debatable. We're dealing with global warming not Alabama warming here.
Furthermore some of the flim-flam in that report does not contradict global warming at any level other than a very simplistic interpretation of the facts. For instance the claim that Antarctic ice sheets are growing in size is actually predicted (http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/Key_Topics/IceSheet_SeaLevel/ice_sheet_change.html) by climate models because of increased snowfall caused by warmer air currents.
Because people like a varied plate of veggies, some like the doomsday scenario, others like the "it's not there" scenario, very few people care about the real truth, because frankly it isn't good for politics.
How you can dare to say that when you stick your fingers in your ears and refuse to acknowledge the scientific evidence in favour of global warming is beyond me. The best evidence you can give against it is a ****ing news report? One which is actually very light on actual science of any kind? And then you dare to claim that there are people who don't like to listen to the truth?
You are one of them. If global warming is wrong prove it. Scientifically. Not with the crap opponents to global warming come out with. Until you can do that don't attempt to claim that others don't want to hear the truth unless you are capitalising the T.
-
This is what most Metoerologists not Climotolgists think, and study backs it up. Probley the best piece on GW I've heard in a while.
Let me get this straight. He claims that the weather in Alabama is getting colder and wetter. He then goes on to explain how Alabama's weather is very changable from year to year and then returns to the fact that this (according to him) incredibly changeable weather should be taken as an indication that global warming isn't true because of 3 outlying data points?
What a ****ing joke. This is not science. Anyone who presented data like that in a scientific conference would be laughed out of the room. You can not refute or display a trend based on three data points in a sample of several hundred. To claim you can is idiotic and unscientific. It could be that he was simplifying his results for the average american audience to understand but he's simplified it beyond the point where it has any worth and overstated the pieces of information that had no relevence (Why the **** would it matter how many weather monitoring stations there are!). :rolleyes:
If you can find some real data on Alabama's climate that might be worth listening to but even that is debatable. We're dealing with global warming not Alabama warming here.
Furthermore some of the flim-flam in that report does not contradict global warming at any level other than a very simplistic interpretation of the facts. For instance the claim that Antarctic ice sheets are growing in size is actually predicted (http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/Key_Topics/IceSheet_SeaLevel/ice_sheet_change.html) by climate models because of increased snowfall caused by warmer air currents.
Because people like a varied plate of veggies, some like the doomsday scenario, others like the "it's not there" scenario, very few people care about the real truth, because frankly it isn't good for politics.
How you can dare to say that when you stick your fingers in your ears and refuse to acknowledge the scientific evidence in favour of global warming is beyond me. The best evidence you can give against it is a ****ing news report? One which is actually very light on actual science of any kind? And then you dare to claim that there are people who don't like to listen to the truth?
You are one of them. If global warming is wrong prove it. Scientifically. Not with the crap opponents to global warming come out with. Until you can do that don't attempt to claim that others don't want to hear the truth unless you are capitalising the T.
Dude did you not listen to one word he said??? I really can't believe it, for the first time in recorded history, you laugh in the face of scienctific evidence. You do know that Dr. John Christy is a very respected Climotolgist/Metoerologist, yet that isn't enough. Seams like you listened to what you wanted to hear.
Dude, here is the thing, if you bring up climate models to a bunch of Mets they will laugh you out of the room. Why?? because we can't predict three days with a 75% effectiveness, but you want to believe we can predict 50 years or up too 100 years. Ohh brother, thats really funny. :lol:
I really think you need to do some observation yourself instead of listening to reports, I myself as well as every other non-pro to pro mets will agree that Alabama has cooled down over the past years.
But, dang, sorry that whole post was laughable. :lol: Cause it sounds like someone has been watching too much of the Weather Channel.
-
According to wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Christy) (and you can search for independent verification, I don't have the time)
Christy became famous as early as 1993 for claiming the global temperature was actually decreasing based on the "more accurate" satellite data. But others over the years have shown errors in his interpretation of the data which has slowly and consistently increased his results. This is in addition to the improving accuracy of the short data set [4] (it begins in December 1978). In 1997 his testimony to the Committee on Environment and Public Works pointed out that his (and Dr. Roy Spencer's) data indicated a decrease in global temperature. Before the same committe in 2001, he stated it was at an increase that was "a rate less than a third that observed at the surface" at 0.045 C/decade and it showed "remarkable consistency between independent measurements [by radiosonde] of these upper air temperatures". In 2003 before the U.S. House Committee on Resources he stated his data was "less than half of the warming observed at the surface." In 2004 his published results showed a 0.08 C/decade increase. A new error in his interpretation of the data found in 2005 has now increased his results by 60% in only a year to 0.13 C/decade but he still claims "all radiosonde comparisons have been rerun and the agreement is still exceptionally good" [5] as was claimed in 2001 when his results were 1/3 as high as now.
EDIt; I find it interesting that the main opposition to climatological monitoring seems to come from a) scientific rivallry and b) short term inaccuracy. It seems evident to me that b) is kind of irrelevant as you want to predict and model trends, not specific instances.
It's like the difference between saying XX's stock will rise by about $1 in the next 3 years due to the ongoing trend of investment versus XXs' stock will go up by 2 cents tomorrow, drop 1 the next day, and go back up by 3 the day after. I wouldn't expect the former to be made nor, if made, accurate. But long term is entirely different, even if generalised.
That's aside from the scientific issues and difficulties of climate prediction, of course, but if your arguement against climate trend prediction is based on a lack of short-term precise prediction, I think it's bollocks. Frankly.
-
According to wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Christy) (and you can search for independent verification, I don't have the time)
Christy became famous as early as 1993 for claiming the global temperature was actually decreasing based on the "more accurate" satellite data. But others over the years have shown errors in his interpretation of the data which has slowly and consistently increased his results. This is in addition to the improving accuracy of the short data set [4] (it begins in December 1978). In 1997 his testimony to the Committee on Environment and Public Works pointed out that his (and Dr. Roy Spencer's) data indicated a decrease in global temperature. Before the same committe in 2001, he stated it was at an increase that was "a rate less than a third that observed at the surface" at 0.045 C/decade and it showed "remarkable consistency between independent measurements [by radiosonde] of these upper air temperatures". In 2003 before the U.S. House Committee on Resources he stated his data was "less than half of the warming observed at the surface." In 2004 his published results showed a 0.08 C/decade increase. A new error in his interpretation of the data found in 2005 has now increased his results by 60% in only a year to 0.13 C/decade but he still claims "all radiosonde comparisons have been rerun and the agreement is still exceptionally good" [5] as was claimed in 2001 when his results were 1/3 as high as now.
And that is called errors wow. :p
That's aside from the scientific issues and difficulties of climate prediction, of course, but if your arguement against climate trend prediction is based on a lack of short-term precise prediction, I think it's bollocks. Frankly.
You don't get it, if we can't predict 3 days in advance, there is no way we predict that far. Cause if we can't predict how the Jet Stream is gonna act, upper air throughs and ridges, EPO, NAO, AO, and many more. All can change the climate in an instant.
If you predict above avg temps for the south for a month, and a AO and NAO sets up you can kiss that forecast goodbye for the most part. If you predict a ridge of High pressure over the south, but the Jet Stream is stronger then first thought, and it swings a very powerful cold front thru, crushes that ridge, and that could mess up the entire forecast.
Trends can show up in model runs 7 days out, stays into 2 days out and the system you think is gonna happen, crashes and burns. I've seen that happen alot.
-
Dude did you not listen to one word he said??? I really can't believe it, for the first time in recorded history, you laugh in the face of scienctific evidence. You do know that Dr. John Christy is a very respected Climotolgist/Metoerologist, yet that isn't enough. Seams like you listened to what you wanted to hear.
I don't care if he's Albert Einstien or Issac Newton or any other scientist you could care to name. Eminence and respectability are no replacement for cold hard facts. The report you liked to had none. If you need an explaination for why this is true let me point out that Einstien spent his last 20 years trying to disprove quantum theory. If I use your criterion for judgement of scientific material I would take the fact that he was a respected scientist and probably one of the smartest men who ever lived and instantly ignore quantum theory even though every other scientist on the planet was telling him that he was wrong.
His status means nothing beyond establishing a yardstick for how much you can trust his data. That the only thing that matters.
Dude, here is the thing, if you bring up climate models to a bunch of Mets they will laugh you out of the room. Why?? because we can't predict three days with a 75% effectiveness, but you want to believe we can predict 50 years or up too 100 years. Ohh brother, thats really funny. :lol:
Sorry but that is a rather pointless way of reasoning. An inability to predict short term patterns does not correspond to an ability to predict long term patterns. Otherwise you might as well claim you can never know where anyone will be at any given time because you can't predict the position of the electrons that make up their atoms.
I really think you need to do some observation yourself instead of listening to reports, I myself as well as every other non-pro to pro mets will agree that Alabama has cooled down over the past years.
So? Did I deny that? When did Alabama become the whole world? As I explained before we are talking about global warming. It appears that it is you who is in fact reading only that which they wish to read since you appear to have completely ignored that comment in order to make some frivolous point about Alabama's temperature ignoring the fact that I never disputed what the temperature in Alabama was.
You yourself claim that you can't determine long term trends yet you're now claiming that Alabama has cooled as if this means that Alabama won't be scorching hot this year. (And if that isn't what you're claiming I'd love to know what the hell your point was for bringing this up).
And that is called errors wow. :p
So you refute scientific evidence claiming that it is error based on what data? The fact that the man espouses your particular world view and therefore must be right? Provide scientific proof that it's an error or quit misrepresenting yourself as a scientist.
-
Sorry but that is a rather pointless way of reasoning. An inability to predict short term patterns does not correspond to an ability to predict long term patterns. Otherwise you might as well claim you can never know where anyone will be at any given time because you can't predict the position of the electrons that make up their atoms.
Read what I posted above, if we lived in a world that
1. warmed evenly
2. had no jet stream
3. had no ocean currents
4. didn't spin
5. didn't have seasons
Then those models might have merit, but we don't.
Now I'll agree, short term weather systems are alot different from long term climate, but a bunch of short term weather systems can effect long term climate. And if we cannot predict them, we cannot predict the changes they will make to the climate. And therefore cannot make long range predictions with much effectiveness.
The thing is I fully expect it to get out in the next few years. And that is why I want to dis-courage these long range doomsday senarios. Cause once it does, the public and goverment are gonna look at Meoteorologist and Climotolgists and say, you said this was gonna happen, and we put all this money into fixing it. And then think what is gonna happen to the enviroment then?
Lets get down the short term climate down first like El' nino, El' Nina, the EPO and NAO, and the "Smoking Gun" itself, then go after the long range stuff. Cause otherwise it's like trying to drive a car without the front half.
Also I'm working on a theory, a theory that if is true would be devestating to the world as we know it, far more then the "dooms day" hold that GW has got on the public. I'll share it if anybody wants me too. :)
-
I live in the UK, you just need to remember the phrase 'Scattered Showers, with possible warm spots in the South and that [pick direction]erly breeze bringing in some more overcast weather for the weekend'.
There you go, instant BBC Weather Reporter ;)
-
Read what I posted above
You didn't write that above. You can't make stuff up and then claim you wrote it above to justify that your earlier posts were devoid of facts. You didn't write anything remotely similar to what you wrote below.
if we lived in a world that
1. warmed evenly
2. had no jet stream
3. had no ocean currents
4. didn't spin
5. didn't have seasons
Then those models might have merit, but we don't.
Prove it. You're the one claiming the scientists are wrong. Prove it. All I'm hearing from you are half baked assertions. Prove them.
Now I'll agree, short term weather systems are alot different from long term climate, but a bunch of short term weather systems can effect long term climate. And if we cannot predict them, we cannot predict the changes they will make to the climate. And therefore cannot make long range predictions with much effectiveness.
Nonsense. Patent nonsense. Prove that short term weather patterns can have a long term effect on the planet. All the ones you mention have a big effect but it's always short term. Again your claim is nothing more than an assertion with no proof to back it up whatsoever.
The thing is I fully expect it to get out in the next few years. And that is why I want to dis-courage these long range doomsday senarios. Cause once it does, the public and goverment are gonna look at Meoteorologist and Climotolgists and say, you said this was gonna happen, and we put all this money into fixing it. And then think what is gonna happen to the enviroment then?
I'm supposed to take your belief that proof will come out in the next few years as meaning anything other than the fact that you have no proof now? Sorry but that's not good enough. I refuse to believe that the global warming is a big conspiracy because if it was how come there isn't evidence to counter it? Or are you going to start wheeling in the Roswell aliens and Xenu as proof of how it's all a sham?
Science works on a basis of scientific proof. Not claims from prophets who believe it will all be explained in the next few years but can't even find preliminary evidence.
Lets get down the short term climate down first like El' nino, El' Nina, the EPO and NAO, and the "Smoking Gun" itself, then go after the long range stuff. Cause otherwise it's like trying to drive a car without the front half.
What you suggest is like trying to treat the external scrapes on an accident victim and claiming that the internal organ failure can be dealt with later. You have no proof whatsoever that these short term weather patterns even relate to long term effects. So why would learning about them have any validity?
Also I'm working on a theory, a theory that if is true would be devestating to the world as we know it, far more then the "dooms day" hold that GW has got on the public. I'll share it if anybody wants me too. :)
Feel free to spout some more baseless theories. It will only go further towards proving my point that you aren't basing any of this on anything other than gut instinct and psuedo-science.
-
Ok, I'm not gonna go into the quoting game, takes too much time. But, something must have stung cause you are as mad as a hornet.
Do I have to prove how short term weather patterns effects long range ones? Cause that is so simple, cause to solve it, you just have to relize what a pattern is..... :lol:
Once again as all the times before, where have I said GW was not real and was a conspiracy theory? I never had, I said I don't believe the "doomsday" predictions, but I agree the globe has warmed, and going back to what John Christy said as well. I was pretty sure he said on his first words, "the globe has warmed", I don't dispute that, as most people, it's the "sign this treaty are we are gonna die" crud that the media and the goverment puts out that makes me laugh. :lol:
What you suggest is like trying to treat the external scrapes on an accident victim and claiming that the internal organ failure can be dealt with later. You have no proof whatsoever that these short term weather patterns even relate to long term effects. So why would learning about them have any validity?
But, did the first doctors go straight to knowing how to fix the internal injury, or did they start on the scrapes? I'm nearly positive when you start school they don't let you start on the big injuries do they. Cause if you can't handle the scrapes, there is no way you can handle anything bigger. And not fixing the scrapes, they can get infected and led to the same result as the internal injury.
See the thing is we have studied using satellites only about 30 years, but by using those models we can predict 100 years? I don't think so.
-
Ok, I'm not gonna go into the quoting game, takes too much time. But, something must have stung cause you are as mad as a hornet.
I'm sick of people claiming to be scientists but failing miserably at the actual science. It simply denigrates the entire profession. You are not a scientist if you don't back up your claims with data. I've got scientific evidence to back up my claims. You have a TV news report. You lose.
Do I have to prove how short term weather patterns effects long range ones? Cause that is so simple, cause to solve it, you just have to relize what a pattern is..... :lol:
You claimed it was a fact so yes you do. If you can't it was simply another unproven assertion. I can just as simply say that they don't and cancel out your entire point otherwise and the discussion simply becomes a childish contest between you saying it's is so and me saying it so isn't. That's why you need to present evidence if you want validity to your claims.
But, did the first doctors go straight to knowing how to fix the internal injury, or did they start on the scrapes? I'm nearly positive when you start school they don't let you start on the big injuries do they. Cause if you can't handle the scrapes, there is no way you can handle anything bigger. And not fixing the scrapes, they can get infected and led to the same result as the internal injury.
No it can't the patient would be dead long before the sepsis could set in. Which is sort of the situation you have here. And the fact is that scientists have been warning about this for over 20 years and very little has been done at all. Now you want to wait another 20 years until maybe it's too late? Signs of irreversible changes are already turning up and you want to do nothing until all the data is in place?
I'll point out that although the early surgeons didn't know much they knew better than to sit there and let the patient bleed to death waiting for modern science to tell them what to do :rolleyes:
See the thing is we have studied using satellites only about 30 years, but by using those models we can predict 100 years? I don't think so.
We've been studying space with telescopes for about 400 years. I guess we can't know a damn thing about anything in it since everything takes billions of years :rolleyes:
-
Isn't the 'quoting game' usually known as 'citing empirical evidence'?
-
Ummm, ok, to have a pattern, you must have an underlying chain of events that happen over and over, correct? Each small system is one tiny part of that pattern. Let me explain those patterns, a Negitive NAO last normally about 3 weeks, but can last a few months, as can a +EPO or -EPO, a +AO or -AO, and a +NAO.
An example of a medium range pattern is a El'Nino, whitch is the warming of the pacific ocean with stronger or weaker trade winds. And they normally last 1-2 years, but can last up to 7 years or more. And from what I've heard and read, we didn't classify them until the late 80s, and didn't classify La'Nina until even more recent times. And we have studdying patterns what 30-40 years?
So lets say a 50 year span, we may see 100s of NAOs, ect, and there may be a few El'Ninos and La'Nina's, but wait a sec, if we just classified these types of climate changers about 15 years ago are there more we are missing. The awnser is most likely, yes.
What can we call last year? Water temps were barely above avg, but sheer was near non-existant, so, are we seeing a new climate rearing it's head, or has the jet stream been getting weaker, or is it something to do with the Gulf Stream, could it be getting stronger, or maybe the Atlantic current, is it getting stronger?
See that is what the long range global warming models cannot take into account. We don't know if an El'Nino will happen next year till we start seeing the signs that it is happening. We don't know if we have helped GW, or if we are just in a big pattern, a pattern that could change tommorow. And that is what we should be studying as well, if the climate starts to change, like it believe that it has allready, will we be ready.
A quick climate change would be alot more worse then just warming 4-9 degrees over the earth. And by quick I don't mean a "Day After Tommow" change, I mean one that could take a few years to settle in, if in three years we start cooling about 1 @F degree everyone 7 years. Think about that would do, while not a huge change temp-wise , I do know that most of the crops we grow can take heat a good bit more then cold.
And as El'Nino settles in very subtilely, could we spot the next big change, cause whether or not GW is happening, the pattern is gonna change. But, could we spot it, or will we just blame it on GW, while a new pattern settles in behind us.
One of the reasons I think we have entered a new pattern is the very sudden increase in atlantic hurricanes over the past few year.
Isn't the 'quoting game' usually known as 'citing empirical evidence'?
No, I was talking about taking a quote resonding to it, taking another, on and on, I'll just address it all at one time. ;)
-
Maybe I'm just a silly bear, but when the top climatologist at NASA comes out and starts talking about "feedback loops" in polar melting patterns and says basically that these changes we've set in motion will be largely irreversible within ten years, I have to start wondering if I should plan on having children. And this article was in ****ing Time Magazine, which is certainly not known for its affiliation with leftist tree-huggers. I mean, Christ, it's like pulling teeth-- what has to happen to make people grow up? NEWSFLASH: THIS IS THE ONLY PLANET ON WHICH PEOPLE CURRENTLY LIVE. MAYBE WE SHOULD THINK ABOUT ERRING ON THE SIDE OF CAUTION AND TAKE A LOOK AT THE ISSUE.
Whew. That was my catharsis for the day.
-
But erring on the side of caution costs money!
-
See that is what the long range global warming models cannot take into account. We don't know if an El'Nino will happen next year till we start seeing the signs that it is happening. We don't know if we have helped GW, or if we are just in a big pattern, a pattern that could change tommorow. And that is what we should be studying as well, if the climate starts to change, like it believe that it has allready, will we be ready.
How will we be ready? Seriously how? If the climate is already changing then those changes are part of the new baseline you are attempting to establish. If these changes are part of some larger pattern what is it? Have you even got a preliminary hypothesis on what it could be that fits the data or are you just talking out of your hat?
A quick climate change would be alot more worse then just warming 4-9 degrees over the earth. And by quick I don't mean a "Day After Tommow" change, I mean one that could take a few years to settle in, if in three years we start cooling about 1 @F degree everyone 7 years. Think about that would do, while not a huge change temp-wise , I do know that most of the crops we grow can take heat a good bit more then cold.
And a large asteroid strike or nuclear winter would be worse than both. What is your point? Are you attempting to claim that there will be a sudden climate change? What to? Where's your data? What's your hypothesis? I see no more evidence or even testable scientific claims than in your earlier comments. As far as I can see you've simply rabbited on and hoped to confuse people who don't understand climatology and meterology with your comments.
And as El'Nino settles in very subtilely, could we spot the next big change, cause whether or not GW is happening, the pattern is gonna change. But, could we spot it, or will we just blame it on GW, while a new pattern settles in behind us.
One of the reasons I think we have entered a new pattern is the very sudden increase in atlantic hurricanes over the past few year.
Again. Do you have any evidence to support this? I could just as easily claim that global warming is to blame for that due to increases in sea temperature. I wouldn't do that because it's a simplistic explaination and I have no data to back it up. You're all about the simple explaination. You claim that there must be patterns we haven't discovered and that cause they must exist we must be seeing one now. That's not science. You have no evidence to confirm the presence of this new superpattern. You have no predictions of its form that can be used to prove you wrong. Your explaination simply isn't science and therefore it makes me sceptical of it's validity when compared against evidence and theories that are.
-
Wow. Lookit all the pretty posts! Ooh, colorful!
On a side note, isn't predicting the general, far-reaching, global climate in a way a bit more reliable than predicting the specifics of the local weather for Nowheresville, Dirkadirkastan for the next 3 days? I mean, isn't there some sort of thing akin to Asimov's "psycho-historians", where the behavior of a person is impossible to know, but the behavior of a large mass of people is predictable?
-
Yep. That's pretty much what I've heard. You can predict long term effects like if the global temperature rises by x degrees then methane hydrate release will push it up by a further y degrees.
-
Wow. Lookit all the pretty posts! Ooh, colorful!
On a side note, isn't predicting the general, far-reaching, global climate in a way a bit more reliable than predicting the specifics of the local weather for Nowheresville, Dirkadirkastan for the next 3 days? I mean, isn't there some sort of thing akin to Asimov's "psycho-historians", where the behavior of a person is impossible to know, but the behavior of a large mass of people is predictable?
Sure, if you spin a perfectly balanced bicycle wheel, notice how clean it spins?
Now put a stick into the spinning spoke. :p
-
If the bicycle wheel is climate, and the stick is weather, then it's a twig and it gets snapped by the spokes, having no noticeable affect on the spinning of the wheel itself.
Weather is a symptom of climate. The affects are one way.
Oh, and for the record, spinning a bicycle wheel is generally not clean at all. It gyrates all over the place.
-
If the bicycle wheel is climate, and the stick is weather, then it's a twig and it gets snapped by the spokes, having no noticeable affect on the spinning of the wheel itself.
Weather is a symptom of climate. The affects are one way.
Oh, and for the record, spinning a bicycle wheel is generally not clean at all. It gyrates all over the place.
No Weather and Climate are two different things, both working together, as you won't see that much snow in a desert, the climate is too warm, but should the Jet Stream itself come south it can change climate, only for a while, but effects like El'Nino can effect it for a good bit longer.
And while the wheel is climate, it represents a straight climate, as saying if things are going one way, they will stay going that way. But, don't take in account all the rocks, sticks and other things that could bump it and cause it to change course or speed.
And big deal, I was paraphasing, not to go scientificly into whether or not the wheel spins perfectly or not. :p
-
I can't believe I'm getting sucked into this.
WeatherOp, in your generalizations of what we can and can't predict being based on only 30-100 years of data, you totally forgot about paleo-climate records, and there is an ever-expanding wealth of data there.
You've also demonstrated a lack of understanding of long term trends vs short term variability. The entire science of statistical mechanics is based on this. It also works pretty well when applied to turbulent and chaotic systems, like the atmosphere.
Alabama may indeed be cooling down, but pattern shift in local climates does not invalidate global climates because it is a chaotic system.
Also it snowed here in the desert 3 weeks ago. It was really pretty seeing saguaro cacti with 2 inches of powder on them.
That being said, it is also unknown whether the current warming trend will continue as some predicted by some climatologists, or if a reversal is what will happen, as chaotic systems are hard to predict.
As for my personal opinion, I think the take home message from all the global climate stuff is that the Earth is indeed a chaotic system, and the stable state of climate we've had for the most part for the duration of written history on the subject can in fact change and change rather rapidly, and goverments should have contingency plans for what to do if say, their country gets covered by a glacier or submerged under seawater. Putting off fixing the levies leads to flooded cities, as the folks in New Orleans would tell me these days.
-
I can't believe I'm getting sucked into this.
WeatherOp, in your generalizations of what we can and can't predict being based on only 30-100 years of data, you totally forgot about paleo-climate records, and there is an ever-expanding wealth of data there.
You've also demonstrated a lack of understanding of long term trends vs short term variability. The entire science of statistical mechanics is based on this. It also works pretty well when applied to turbulent and chaotic systems, like the atmosphere.
Alabama may indeed be cooling down, but pattern shift in local climates does not invalidate global climates because it is a chaotic system.
Also it snowed here in the desert 3 weeks ago. It was really pretty seeing saguaro cacti with 2 inches of powder on them.
That being said, it is also unknown whether the current warming trend will continue as some predicted by some climatologists, or if a reversal is what will happen, as chaotic systems are hard to predict.
As for my personal opinion, I think the take home message from all the global climate stuff is that the Earth is indeed a chaotic system, and the stable state of climate we've had for the most part for the duration of written history on the subject can in fact change and change rather rapidly, and goverments should have contingency plans for what to do if say, their country gets covered by a glacier or submerged under seawater. Putting off fixing the levies leads to flooded cities, as the folks in New Orleans would tell me these days.
I'd say that is probley the best post I've seen so far.
Now while we can use records like that, it will not give us absolute evidence as it cannot tell what caused the climate changes in the first place. Was it all caused by the Jet Stream undergoing weakening, was it strengthening, did it change course, or was it caused by longer-term effects similar to El'Nino. We just don't know. There are far too many varibles to predict.
-
You giv e ElNino way too much credit. It's what, a 5, 7 year cycle at most? Same with the Jet stream. These are all effetcs, not causes.
bfobar - The idea that we've had a "stable climate" for most of human history is a common misconception, but one that both history and geology tell us otherwise:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_climate_optimum
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_ice_age
Those are just one peak and one trough in a constantly varying short term climatic pattern.
-
You giv e ElNino way too much credit. It's what, a 5, 7 year cycle at most? Same with the Jet stream. These are all effetcs, not causes.
bfobar - The idea that we've had a "stable climate" for most of human history is a common misconception, but one that both history and geology tell us otherwise:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_climate_optimum
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_ice_age
Those are just one peak and one trough in a constantly varying short term climatic pattern.
Yeah, that is correct, the longest El'Nino will only last 7 years at most, but I didn't say it was an El'Nino, I said a long term effect(decades) similar to El'Nino.
But, the Jet Stream is a different matter, while it whips different directions that are only temporary, it is very possible that if it weakens or strengthens rapidly it could change course compleatly. And this weakening and a pull back north, could be why we are dealing with more powerful hurricanes, but weaker tornado seasons.
Anyways I think when he metioned writen history, he meant like the late 1880s when the first reliable wx reports started being writen.
-
Mythological Wildcard - Atlantis? ;)
As for jetstreams, arn't they within certain boundarys of centrifugal force due to the earth's rotation? So they are within at least some constraints, hence they are affects of rather than the prime determining factor. The world will always spin despite the weather. Rotation distance to the sun would have more of an impact to the weather IMO.
Climate is a hard one to pick. Global Climate I think is more important however then localised. The average world temperature etc.
Also Antarctica is melting away fairly rapidly of late, many large chunks washing up near southern Australian waters. Most likely due to the ozone problem...
Also, once cannot deny that cfc's, carbon dioxide, and other emissions are doing no wrong to the environment is a bit blind sighted I think. Mother Nature will win out in the end as always, whether humanity does in another story. Poisening ourselves with harsh toxins in the air and food, or burning away the ozone to given us Aussies a more darkened tan is no way to go either.
My point is that the world should not idle by while known harmfull toxins, ultimately to us, are being released into the ecosystem. No matter the reasons, global warming, iceage, weather patterns or whatever. We shouldn't do nothing because of a sit back and wait attitude while we increase the dangers to our future existence.
-
Also, once cannot deny that cfc's, carbon dioxide, and other emissions are doing no wrong to the environment is a bit blind sighted I think. Mother Nature will win out in the end as always, whether humanity does in another story. Poisening ourselves with harsh toxins in the air and food, or burning away the ozone to given us Aussies a more darkened tan is no way to go either.
My point is that the world should not idle by while known harmfull toxins, ultimately to us, are being released into the ecosystem. No matter the reasons, global warming, iceage, weather patterns or whatever. We shouldn't do nothing because of a sit back and wait attitude while we increase the dangers to our future existence.
I agree there, and I'm worried a good bit more about that then GW. Just to think about what you are breathing in.
Like I said on the 1st page, some poeple like to scream doomsday, others it's not there. But, the truth IMO is somewhere in between, should we study it, you bet, but should we shout that we gotta do this fast or we are doomed, no, should we sit on our butts and do nothing about it, no.
-
Also Antarctica is melting away fairly rapidly of late, many large chunks washing up near southern Australian waters. Most likely due to the ozone problem...
It's got nothing to do with the ozone hole. The ozone hole is a natural thing that the ice sheets have lived wiuh for millenia (we've exacerbated it, certainly, but it's seasonal, and it's always been there). The breakup of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is due to ice dynamics and long term climatic cycles - it's on its way out of an optimum, and it's inevitably going to lose a lot of ice while it does that, no matter what we may or may not do to the atmosphere.
The risk is that if we're in an accelerated warming period, you could see it tip past the point of no return and just go all out (think of it like a reverse nuclear bomb - get it below critical mass, and it melts down :D)
-
Like I said on the 1st page, some poeple like to scream doomsday, others it's not there. But, the truth IMO is somewhere in between, should we study it, you bet, but should we shout that we gotta do this fast or we are doomed, no, should we sit on our butts and do nothing about it, no.
You don't get it. A lot of doomsday prophesiers are twits, yes, but the core of their argument is 100% correct. If we're in a period of accelerated warming (and the evidence seem sto suggest we are, whatever the cause may be) then there will be a "doomsday", if you want to get poetic acout it. If you don't, then there'll be a minor collapse of western civilization. It's inevitable.
Every historical climatological variation above a certain magnitude has been catastrophic for humanity in the short term. When things heat up, as a general rule, the chaos is relatively short lived (decades to century scale stuff) when it chills down, it's much worse. So in the long term, we're OK. But consider - western civilization is a delicately balanced beast that relies on a well established infrastructure to continue to function, and that infrastructure is concentrated at or around a sea level which is beginning to rise. The collapse of the West Antarctic Ice shelf would put about 6m of sea water on top of what's already there, and that's enough to go Katrina on a whole lot of major cities. Without the cities, we're in trouble in the short term, especially since most people can't fend for themselves outside of the cities. That's doomsday. Theoretically, you can deal with the problem with some great big levies, but, well, we've seen how well they fare in unexpected situations.
Put simply, when the climate changes, things get harder. It's happened before, and it'll happen again.
-
You don't get it. A lot of doomsday prophesiers are twits, yes, but the core of their argument is 100% correct. If we're in a period of accelerated warming (and the evidence seem sto suggest we are, whatever the cause may be) then there will be a "doomsday", if you want to get poetic acout it. If you don't, then there'll be a minor collapse of western civilization. It's inevitable.
Every historical climatological variation above a certain magnitude has been catastrophic for humanity in the short term. When things heat up, as a general rule, the chaos is relatively short lived (decades to century scale stuff) when it chills down, it's much worse. So in the long term, we're OK. But consider - western civilization is a delicately balanced beast that relies on a well established infrastructure to continue to function, and that infrastructure is concentrated at or around a sea level which is beginning to rise. The collapse of the West Antarctic Ice shelf would put about 6m of sea water on top of what's already there, and that's enough to go Katrina on a whole lot of major cities. Without the cities, we're in trouble in the short term, especially since most people can't fend for themselves outside of the cities. That's doomsday. Theoretically, you can deal with the problem with some great big levies, but, well, we've seen how well they fare in unexpected situations.
Put simply, when the climate changes, things get harder. It's happened before, and it'll happen again.
Your arguing a different point, yes when the climate changes we could be in big trouble I won't argue that.
But, the thing is, I was talking about the ones who preech doom by our part, now once again don't take me wrong, I'm not saying some of it is not our fault. But, the thing is they never say anything about if it is natural, and they never say anything about what we will do about it if it is natural. Why? because it is on the top of politics. If it is natural it will not help anybody win or lose elections, sad but true.
If it is warming like everyone says, and if it is purely natural, then as I said earlier, we are in alot of trouble. Cause when the climate changes, we will not be able to do a dogone thing about it, it's gonna happen.
But, that is why would should study it carefully, but not go off the deep end and panic.
-
Thing is you might not have the time to sit and wait for the evidence you want to come in. How long do you think it's going to take for that evidence to come in.
Based on what you've said in the thread we know nothing right now. How long before we know enough to satify you? Cause it seems to me that you want to sit and talk about it for the next 40 years by which time we'll be looking at irreversible change.
And stop going on about preaching doom. No serious scientist is acting like global warming means the end of the world or the end of mankind. That's just a fantasy concocted by those against GW to justify why they aren't doing Nero impressions.
-
Politics? Oh it's politics (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/17/60minutes/main1415985.shtml), alright. When the head of NASA's climate research is saying that within the century we may have no polar ice caps, and the person in charge of telling him what he can and can't say JUST LEFT TO GO WORK FOR EXXONMOBILE, yeah I think there's some politics involved. It's absurd. The mind reels. Jonathan Swift could not have imagined something so ****ing ridiculous. Scientists are writing, "Hey, our climate is tweaking out," and some jerk-off from the oil industry is EDITING THEIR REPORTS. This isn't about liberals, or snooty people with hybrids, or banal academic discourse; this is the story of a few people who have their dicks in the mouth of the entire planet, and the people who pretended it wasn't happening. It just defies description. I wish I knew more languages to convey with more accuracy the mental seizure this gives me, because at this point my jaw is just hitting the floor.
EDIT: http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/03/26/coverstory/index.html
-
Also Antarctica is melting away fairly rapidly of late, many large chunks washing up near southern Australian waters. Most likely due to the ozone problem...
It's got nothing to do with the ozone hole. The ozone hole is a natural thing that the ice sheets have lived wiuh for millenia (we've exacerbated it, certainly, but it's seasonal, and it's always been there). The breakup of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is due to ice dynamics and long term climatic cycles - it's on its way out of an optimum, and it's inevitably going to lose a lot of ice while it does that, no matter what we may or may not do to the atmosphere.
The risk is that if we're in an accelerated warming period, you could see it tip past the point of no return and just go all out (think of it like a reverse nuclear bomb - get it below critical mass, and it melts down :D)
Hmm, interesting. We have aggrovated the ozone hole though, there's no doubt about that. Back in the day people could go out in the sun for longer periods without sunscreen on and not be burned seriously as much as one would now. As my parents and grandparents stories would say anywho.
That effect can't be wholey good on our ecosystem in respect to us I think. Though I'm sure it will always adapt and live on. :)
I don't think anyone is going off in panic running through the streets screaming we're all going to die. But at the same time, alot of people are simply ignoring the problem and doing nothing. Sure politicians are bastards when they use global warming as a catapault for a political career, I'm yet to see it (besides maybe the Greens party), but when have you met a politician that has used the whole hearted truth as a political gain?
To tell the truth, I think the best approach: any publicity is good publicity. :)
-
Yer mom's causing the ice caps to melt.
-
LoL @ Ford. That is pretty screwed up.
@Sandwich, I guess she is at least adding to the problem. She drives a car and cooks food over an electric stove ultimately powered by burning coal. So you'd be right. ;)
-
I don't think anyone is going off in panic running through the streets screaming we're all going to die. But at the same time, alot of people are simply ignoring the problem and doing nothing. Sure politicians are bastards when they use global warming as a catapault for a political career, I'm yet to see it (besides maybe the Greens party), but when have you met a politician that has used the whole hearted truth as a political gain?
To tell the truth, I think the best approach: any publicity is good publicity. :)
But, you have to remebmer people as a whole are stupid, thus creating a whole other situation. I'm nearly positive that the 2008 elections after being slamed with two more intense hurricane seasons, their platform will be made up of GW quotes. I have no doubt that it will be.
@Kara
How much more do we need to know, a butt load more, otherwise we will have morons like that dude and his tunnels, when he posted a topic "Build my tunnels or were doomed"
Yer mom's causing the ice caps to melt.
Noooo, ohh well, my Moms cooking pwns melting ice caps. :p
-
But, you have to remebmer people as a whole are stupid, thus creating a whole other situation. I'm nearly positive that the 2008 elections after being slamed with two more intense hurricane seasons, their platform will be made up of GW quotes. I have no doubt that it will be.
*shrugs*
That's a U.S. problem, not mine. :p
Yer mom's causing the ice caps to melt.
Noooo, ohh well, my Moms cooking pwns melting ice caps. :p
:lol:
-
How much more do we need to know, a butt load more, otherwise we will have morons like that dude and his tunnels, when he posted a topic "Build my tunnels or were doomed"
So you can't even quantify what we need to know to satify you? And then you quote idiocy as an example of why we should listen to you. Who exactly do you think listened to the tunnels idea?
This is the typical strategy we see from people who want to deny GW as the big problem it actually is. Point to idiotic, crackpot theories and claim that this is what they are protecting us from. It's absolute nonsense. The scientific community have already given reccomendations on what needs to be done without having to resort to digging tunnels.
So instead of trying point out the obvious flaws in idiotic plans or why the doomsayers are wrong how about dealing with what the scientific community are actually saying rather than the caricature you keep trying to paint.
-
How much more do we need to know, a butt load more, otherwise we will have morons like that dude and his tunnels, when he posted a topic "Build my tunnels or were doomed"
So you can't even quantify what we need to know to satify you? And then you quote idiocy as an example of why we should listen to you. Who exactly do you think listened to the tunnels idea?
This is the typical strategy we see from people who want to deny GW as the big problem it actually is. Point to idiotic, crackpot theories and claim that this is what they are protecting us from. It's absolute nonsense. The scientific community have already given reccomendations on what needs to be done without having to resort to digging tunnels.
So instead of trying point out the obvious flaws in idiotic plans or why the doomsayers are wrong how about dealing with what the scientific community are actually saying rather than the caricature you keep trying to paint.
Do what??? :lol: Point to idiotic, crackpot theories and claim that this is what they are protecting us from?
Now that is funny, no the reason I brought that up is that is how alot of people think, they would do anything to stop GW, doesn't it mater if it's natural or not, and doesn't matter what it does to the enviroment around it.
Now whether you want to believe it or not, this dude who thought of this genius idea, has gotten an ear at MIT. So, these "crackpots" could be far worse then what your saying.
What will it take to satify me? Get off the long range climate models, and shorten them down to a year, or atleast 5 years, trust me if you can predict how the climate will be in a year or two, you would get alot more ears to your cause.
Secondly, show off more runs of these long range models.
Example, this is the 0z GFS for 54 hours out.
http://www.nco.ncep.noaa.gov/pmb/nwprod/analysis/namer/gfs/00/images/gfs_slp_054s.gif
and this is the 12z GFS for 42 hours out.
http://www.nco.ncep.noaa.gov/pmb/nwprod/analysis/namer/gfs/12/images/gfs_slp_042s.gif
Both runs are valid at 6z Sunday April 2nd.
Now I can pull up several models, the Nam, UKMet, ect. But, they all have on ething in common, they run 4 times a day.
Now if you look, the 0z run is different then the 12z run. You cannot take one model run as gospel, you have to take all of them and put them together, and that brings up an intresting point, are we seeing the avg of these long range model runs, are do they do one run and take it as gospel, are we seeing one the runs they picked out because they liked it?
See, I can just about get the models run to tell me what I want to hear, I can go on in the winter and find the 384 hour mega blizzards, I can go and find repeats of the 1974 Superoutbreak, I can find heat waves and Freezing temps.
-
I give up. Weather is not climate. Weather models have nothing to do with climate models. Stop using weather models in an argument about Global Warming. The relationship is one way, and you can't compare them.
-
Now if you look, the 0z run is different then the 12z run. You cannot take one model run as gospel, you have to take all of them and put them together, and that brings up an intresting point, are we seeing the avg of these long range model runs, are do they do one run and take it as gospel, are we seeing one the runs they picked out because they liked it?
Well now what do you think? If someone created some arbitrary climate simulation and ran it out to 20 years and came up with some doomsday scenario and tried to publish it without any repeats, or variations on input variables, or any sensitivity studies, or any corroborations to other independent research, do you honestly think the scientific community would take it seriously? Come on! We're not talking about one or two models that are disagreeing with everyone else out there. Global warming is a result that is predicted by a vast majority of different models being developed independently in universities and labs all over the world.
And for the last time, no one but you is talking about predicting the weather a week from now or even a few years from now. I do not care if it is going to rain in Miami on April 15, 2040. I DO care if Miami is going to be several feet underwater!
-
Politics? Oh it's politics (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/17/60minutes/main1415985.shtml), alright. When the head of NASA's climate research is saying that within the century we may have no polar ice caps, and the person in charge of telling him what he can and can't say JUST LEFT TO GO WORK FOR EXXONMOBILE, yeah I think there's some politics involved. It's absurd. The mind reels. Jonathan Swift could not have imagined something so ****ing ridiculous. Scientists are writing, "Hey, our climate is tweaking out," and some jerk-off from the oil industry is EDITING THEIR REPORTS. This isn't about liberals, or snooty people with hybrids, or banal academic discourse; this is the story of a few people who have their dicks in the mouth of the entire planet, and the people who pretended it wasn't happening. It just defies description. I wish I knew more languages to convey with more accuracy the mental seizure this gives me, because at this point my jaw is just hitting the floor.
EDIT: http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/03/26/coverstory/index.html
QFT *****es
-
Do what??? :lol: Point to idiotic, crackpot theories and claim that this is what they are protecting us from?
Now that is funny, no the reason I brought that up is that is how alot of people think, they would do anything to stop GW, doesn't it mater if it's natural or not, and doesn't matter what it does to the enviroment around it.
Now whether you want to believe it or not, this dude who thought of this genius idea, has gotten an ear at MIT. So, these "crackpots" could be far worse then what your saying.
Find me any kind of popular support amongst climatologists for the tunnel thing. You won't cause it's a load of crap and you, me and everyone else knows that. You can claim he has support at MIT all you like but you never provide any proof of anything you say so why should I even believe that you are correct about that? Yet again I have to ask you to provide proof of your assertions.
What will it take to satify me? Get off the long range climate models, and shorten them down to a year, or atleast 5 years, trust me if you can predict how the climate will be in a year or two, you would get alot more ears to your cause.
Sorry but that is a ridculous argument. It's like saying that astronomers can't predict what the sun will be doing in a billion years because they can't predict solar flares now.
5 year models are not subject to the smoothing effects of taking an average. If you say that the world will be 1 degree warmer in 50 years you can use a reasonable standard deviation because you have a large sample. Trying to claim the same thing for 5 years in the future is impossible because your sample is far too small for that and is subject to to variations caused by the short term effects you already named. You know this. The rest of your argument at this point is about why short term models can have massive variablity.
-
Do what??? :lol: Point to idiotic, crackpot theories and claim that this is what they are protecting us from?
Now that is funny, no the reason I brought that up is that is how alot of people think, they would do anything to stop GW, doesn't it mater if it's natural or not, and doesn't matter what it does to the enviroment around it.
Now whether you want to believe it or not, this dude who thought of this genius idea, has gotten an ear at MIT. So, these "crackpots" could be far worse then what your saying.
Find me any kind of popular support amongst climatologists for the tunnel thing. You won't cause it's a load of crap and you, me and everyone else knows that. You can claim he has support at MIT all you like but you never provide any proof of anything you say so why should I even believe that you are correct about that? Yet again I have to ask you to provide proof of your assertions.
What will it take to satify me? Get off the long range climate models, and shorten them down to a year, or atleast 5 years, trust me if you can predict how the climate will be in a year or two, you would get alot more ears to your cause.
Sorry but that is a ridculous argument. It's like saying that astronomers can't predict what the sun will be doing in a billion years because they can't predict solar flares now.
5 year models are not subject to the smoothing effects of taking an average. If you say that the world will be 1 degree warmer in 50 years you can use a reasonable standard deviation because you have a large sample. Trying to claim the same thing for 5 years in the future is impossible because your sample is far too small for that and is subject to to variations caused by the short term effects you already named. You know this. The rest of your argument at this point is about why short term models can have massive variablity.
First read and learn.
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/cyclonebuster/comment.html?entrynum=0&tstamp=200601
Did I say he himself had a ton of support, no, but believe me there are plenty more of these types of people.
Secondly, So, we can't predict short term climate, but we can on long range.
Ummm, but that would mean if we cannot predict these short term variations, and if a time frame is made up of alot of these short term variations, how can we predict long range. But, anyways lets predict 10 years then, if not,15 years then. Cause if we cannot predict atleast 15 years, how can we predict 30 years?
I give up. Weather is not climate. Weather models have nothing to do with climate models. Stop using weather models in an argument about Global Warming. The relationship is one way, and you can't compare them.
2 entries found for Climate.
cli·mate Audio pronunciation of "Climate" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (klmt)
n.
1. The meteorological conditions, including temperature, precipitation, and wind, that characteristically prevail in a particular region.
2. A region of the earth having particular meteorological conditions: lives in a cold climate.
3. A prevailing condition or set of attitudes in human affairs: a climate of unrest.
Climate
n 1: the weather in some location averaged over some long period of time; "the dank climate of southern Wales"; "plants from a cold clime travel best in winter" [syn: clime] 2: the prevailing psychological state; "the climate of opinion"; "the national mood had changed radically since the last election" [syn: mood]
Pwned. :p
-
First read and learn.
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/cyclonebuster/comment.html?entrynum=0&tstamp=200601
Did I say he himself had a ton of support, no, but believe me there are plenty more of these types of people.
Are you ****ing kidding me? I ask you for proof that there is a consensus behind nutcase ideas and you post a blog followed by a comment contradicting yourself about the number of people who believe in this crap?
Why are you so willing to discount the evidence of thousands of middle of the road climatologists because a few have done something stupid. Would you discount the possibility of fusion because the somiluminecesence experiments were flawed? Would you discard quantum theory because Einstien decided he'd got it wrong?
I doubt it. Yet you've latched onto crazy theories on the periphery of science in order to disprove something that isn't at all connected to them. The simple fact is that it is obvious that you dislike GW for some reason and rather than taking a measured scientific approach of reviewing all the evidence you've only looked at that which makes the point you wish to make and added it to your arsenal.
That's not how you come to a scientific decision.
Secondly, So, we can't predict short term climate, but we can on long range.
Ummm, but that would mean if we cannot predict these short term variations, and if a time frame is made up of alot of these short term variations, how can we predict long range. But, anyways lets predict 10 years then, if not,15 years then. Cause if we cannot predict atleast 15 years, how can we predict 30 years?
Oh come on. That is a poor argument and you know it. Look at the example I gave of the sun. By your own claims we couldn't possibly know anything about what the sun is going to do in a billion years because we can't predict enough to know when the next flare will appear.
The mechanics involved in predicting the climate over a long term are very different from those involved in predicting whether it will rain tomorrow and you damn well know it.
Furthermore there are 15 year prediction models. How come you haven't seen them if you've actually done some research before coming to your rather blinkered viewpoint?
-
weather:
1. The state of the atmosphere at a given time and place, with respect to variables such as temperature, moisture, wind velocity, and barometric pressure.
2.
1. Adverse or destructive atmospheric conditions, such as high winds or heavy rain: encountered weather five miles out to sea.
2. The unpleasant or destructive effects of such atmospheric conditions: protected the house from the weather.
3. weathers Changes of fortune: had known him in many weathers.
Climate includes the weather patterns in one word. I don't think you can argue weather patterns to have an affect on the climate because ultimately the climate stays the same, weather is a result of the climate.
-
In any case I don't think a dictionary is the place to be getting an explaintion of science from anyway. :)
-
Weeee. This is fun :p