[WeatherOp]

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 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.

[karajorma]

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.

[Ford Prefect]

Politics? Oh it's politics, 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

[Grug]

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 )

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, 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.

[Sandwich]

Yer mom's causing the ice caps to melt.

[Grug]

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.

[WeatherOp]

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, 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.

[Grug]

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.

Yer mom's causing the ice caps to melt.

Noooo,  ohh well, my Moms cooking pwns melting ice caps.

[karajorma]

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. 

[WeatherOp]

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??? 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 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 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.

[Black Wolf]

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.

[perihelion]

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!

[Turambar]

Politics? Oh it's politics, 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

[karajorma]

Do what??? 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 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 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.

[WeatherOp]

Do what??? 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 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 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 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.

[karajorma]

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 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?

[Grug]

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.

[karajorma]

In any case I don't think a dictionary is the place to be getting an explaintion of science from anyway.

[WeatherOp]

Weeee. This is fun