[WeatherOp]

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.....

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.

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.

[karajorma]

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.....

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

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

[aldo_14]

Isn't the 'quoting game' usually known as 'citing empirical evidence'?

[WeatherOp]

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 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.

[Ford Prefect]

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.

[aldo_14]

But erring on the side of caution costs money!

[karajorma]

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 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.

[Sandwich]

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?

[karajorma]

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.

[WeatherOp]

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.

[Black Wolf]

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.

[WeatherOp]

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.

[bfobar]

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.

[WeatherOp]

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.

[Black Wolf]

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.

[WeatherOp]

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.

[Grug]

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.

[WeatherOp]

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.

[Black Wolf]

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 )

[Black Wolf]

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.