Erratic and extreme? Cold enough temperatures to produce snow are not new at this time of the year in the Midwest. The earliest recorded snowfall does not mean that temperatures have been different. It has been cold enough, but the moisture wasn't present at that time to produce a snowfall. We get a dusting of snow in the Midwest that didn't even stick and now it's time to run around screaming that our climate is out of whack?jonsimon wrote:
Sure, laugh, but our winters have gotten more erratic and more extreme recently. Drastic changes in climate are a significant sign of a huge imbalance in our environment.Stingray24 wrote:
Yeah, we had snow here, too. Oh noes! Global ice age! Next day it was 60 degrees. Oh noes! Global warming!jonsimon wrote:
We just had snow on the 12th of October here in Detroit. For comparison's sake, the earliest recorded snowfall in Detroit used to be October 30th. Global climate change bites.
Look, if it's never, ever, snowed this early in Detroit, that means it wasn't cold enough. It doesn't mean clounds avoided Detroit during this time of the year for all of recorded history. Also, last winter was equally odd, we had a really bad cold snap in november followed by heavy snows, but the rest of the winter was mild though extremely long, lasting into april. I never said it was time to panic, but continuing weather like this is the sign of a large change in climate.Stingray24 wrote:
Erratic and extreme? Cold enough temperatures to produce snow are not new at this time of the year in the Midwest. The earliest recorded snowfall does not mean that temperatures have been different. It has been cold enough, but the moisture wasn't present at that time to produce a snowfall. We get a dusting of snow in the Midwest that didn't even stick and now it's time to run around screaming that our climate is out of whack?jonsimon wrote:
Sure, laugh, but our winters have gotten more erratic and more extreme recently. Drastic changes in climate are a significant sign of a huge imbalance in our environment.Stingray24 wrote:
Yeah, we had snow here, too. Oh noes! Global ice age! Next day it was 60 degrees. Oh noes! Global warming!
Oh, so since I don't think that the world is going to flood in the next 10 years my opinion is bullshit? I guess since I also don't believe the world is flat that's bullshit too, right?Turquoise wrote:
Troll: An individual who regularly posts specious arguments, flames or personal attacks to a newsgroup, discussion list, or in email for no other purpose than to annoy someone or disrupt a discussion. Trolls are recognizable by the fact that they have no real interest in learning about the topic at hand - they simply want to utter flame bait. Like the ugly creatures they are named after, they exhibit no redeeming characteristics, and as such, they are recognized as a lower form of life on the net, as in, “Oh, ignore him, he's just a troll.”Aenima_Eyes wrote:
Sorry, but you and Al Gore are the trolls. There's about 10 BILLION other things that we can be worrying about and that WE CAN ACTUALLY FUCKING FIX instead of screaming about how in 10 years things will be flooded across the world.
I guaranfuckingtee you that if you come back here in 10 years not a damn thing will have changed. Seriously, let's mark it down. October 16, 2016 you best show your pansy ass back up here on this forum. If everyone in Florida and the coastal areas have drowned I'll say you're right. Until then, shut the fuck up with this nonsense.
Also, I said I was plenty interested in helping the environment. Just not interested in listening to Al Gore's lunatic ravings. I mean, there's a reason the Democrats dumped his ass like a $5 hooker....he's crazy....
Most of your posts are of that nature. At least most of the other opponents of the global warming idea in this thread have actually listed facts and sources. I can level with someone who sincerely has an interest in discussing the pros and cons of a topic, but you spend more time spouting polemic arguments. It's as if you want to turn threads into flame wars.
You and MajorJerkwad should hook up -- you're on opposite ends of the political spectrum, but you both love to insult and argue with people. You'd be the perfect couple. For the rest of us, spare us your bullshit.
Seriously you're asinine idiot and you can't think for yourself, you have to have Al "I Invented the Internet" Gore do it for you. I may be a troll, but at least I'm not a fucking tree-hugging kook.
LOL... This is fun. You realize each time you do this, you just make yourself look more stupid. I almost feel sorry for you.Aenima_Eyes wrote:
Oh, so since I don't think that the world is going to flood in the next 10 years my opinion is bullshit? I guess since I also don't believe the world is flat that's bullshit too, right?Turquoise wrote:
Troll: An individual who regularly posts specious arguments, flames or personal attacks to a newsgroup, discussion list, or in email for no other purpose than to annoy someone or disrupt a discussion. Trolls are recognizable by the fact that they have no real interest in learning about the topic at hand - they simply want to utter flame bait. Like the ugly creatures they are named after, they exhibit no redeeming characteristics, and as such, they are recognized as a lower form of life on the net, as in, “Oh, ignore him, he's just a troll.”Aenima_Eyes wrote:
Sorry, but you and Al Gore are the trolls. There's about 10 BILLION other things that we can be worrying about and that WE CAN ACTUALLY FUCKING FIX instead of screaming about how in 10 years things will be flooded across the world.
I guaranfuckingtee you that if you come back here in 10 years not a damn thing will have changed. Seriously, let's mark it down. October 16, 2016 you best show your pansy ass back up here on this forum. If everyone in Florida and the coastal areas have drowned I'll say you're right. Until then, shut the fuck up with this nonsense.
Also, I said I was plenty interested in helping the environment. Just not interested in listening to Al Gore's lunatic ravings. I mean, there's a reason the Democrats dumped his ass like a $5 hooker....he's crazy....
Most of your posts are of that nature. At least most of the other opponents of the global warming idea in this thread have actually listed facts and sources. I can level with someone who sincerely has an interest in discussing the pros and cons of a topic, but you spend more time spouting polemic arguments. It's as if you want to turn threads into flame wars.
You and MajorJerkwad should hook up -- you're on opposite ends of the political spectrum, but you both love to insult and argue with people. You'd be the perfect couple. For the rest of us, spare us your bullshit.
Seriously you're asinine idiot and you can't think for yourself, you have to have Al "I Invented the Internet" Gore do it for you. I may be a troll, but at least I'm not a fucking tree-hugging kook.
I never said that I believe the world will be flooded in 10 years. Several people, like myself, believe that various negligent acts done by humanity have accelerated the rate at which climate changes. It's not a matter of a decade. It's a matter of decades. We have enough time to make changes to live more responsibly. Encouraging society to implement environmental progress is not kooky in the least.
Rational people don't react hysterically to this impending problem, but they don't deny its existence either. Affecting change in a positive way should be something that all of us find worthwhile. If you'd rather just sit back and criticize people, go ahead. You're never going to accomplish much in this life that way.
LMAO...NOAA. First the EPA brought into the thread, and now this. More goodness from Nixon.ATG wrote:
Ah crap, this may not be worthy of its own thread...but read on dear libs, read this!
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2006/s2720.htm
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/res … sep06.html
I think Nixon was actually one of the better Republican presidents in recent history. Reagan gets all the glory, but Nixon brought about some very needed changes. He opened up trade with China, he created the EPA, and he got us out of Vietnam.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
LMAO...NOAA. First the EPA brought into the thread, and now this. More goodness from Nixon.ATG wrote:
Ah crap, this may not be worthy of its own thread...but read on dear libs, read this!
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2006/s2720.htm
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/res … sep06.html
Nowadays, he'd probably be seen as a liberal.
Granted, as a person, he was a jackass, but I judge politicians more by their policies than their personal lives.
Actually, nowadays he's seen as one of the most villanous figures in American history, at least according to what's taught in school. But if he was president now? Interesting thought.Turquoise wrote:
I think Nixon was actually one of the better Republican presidents in recent history. Reagan gets all the glory, but Nixon brought about some very needed changes. He opened up trade with China, he created the EPA, and he got us out of Vietnam.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
LMAO...NOAA. First the EPA brought into the thread, and now this. More goodness from Nixon.ATG wrote:
Ah crap, this may not be worthy of its own thread...but read on dear libs, read this!
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2006/s2720.htm
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/res … sep06.html
Nowadays, he'd probably be seen as a liberal.
Granted, as a person, he was a jackass, but I judge politicians more by their policies than their personal lives.
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2006-10-16 19:49:14)
Hey, troll, take a look at the links from National Geographic I posted not from Algoreisanasshole.com. All your posts consist in flaming other people and you never back up your statements, take a moment to read the articles or shut up.Aenima_Eyes wrote:
Oh, so since I don't think that the world is going to flood in the next 10 years my opinion is bullshit? I guess since I also don't believe the world is flat that's bullshit too, right?Turquoise wrote:
Troll: An individual who regularly posts specious arguments, flames or personal attacks to a newsgroup, discussion list, or in email for no other purpose than to annoy someone or disrupt a discussion. Trolls are recognizable by the fact that they have no real interest in learning about the topic at hand - they simply want to utter flame bait. Like the ugly creatures they are named after, they exhibit no redeeming characteristics, and as such, they are recognized as a lower form of life on the net, as in, “Oh, ignore him, he's just a troll.”Aenima_Eyes wrote:
Sorry, but you and Al Gore are the trolls. There's about 10 BILLION other things that we can be worrying about and that WE CAN ACTUALLY FUCKING FIX instead of screaming about how in 10 years things will be flooded across the world.
I guaranfuckingtee you that if you come back here in 10 years not a damn thing will have changed. Seriously, let's mark it down. October 16, 2016 you best show your pansy ass back up here on this forum. If everyone in Florida and the coastal areas have drowned I'll say you're right. Until then, shut the fuck up with this nonsense.
Also, I said I was plenty interested in helping the environment. Just not interested in listening to Al Gore's lunatic ravings. I mean, there's a reason the Democrats dumped his ass like a $5 hooker....he's crazy....
Most of your posts are of that nature. At least most of the other opponents of the global warming idea in this thread have actually listed facts and sources. I can level with someone who sincerely has an interest in discussing the pros and cons of a topic, but you spend more time spouting polemic arguments. It's as if you want to turn threads into flame wars.
You and MajorJerkwad should hook up -- you're on opposite ends of the political spectrum, but you both love to insult and argue with people. You'd be the perfect couple. For the rest of us, spare us your bullshit.
Seriously you're asinine idiot and you can't think for yourself, you have to have Al "I Invented the Internet" Gore do it for you. I may be a troll, but at least I'm not a fucking tree-hugging kook.
Last edited by sergeriver (2006-10-17 04:50:56)
I brought to you several National Geographic links, and the EPA was for all the people who need the dot gov link to believe it's true. But you can't deny what National Geographic says, it's science without interests. They sell their magazine anyway.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
LMAO...NOAA. First the EPA brought into the thread, and now this. More goodness from Nixon.ATG wrote:
Ah crap, this may not be worthy of its own thread...but read on dear libs, read this!
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2006/s2720.htm
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/res … sep06.html
So it's only a coincidence that all the ice has been melting in the past 100 years - the years which industry grew?
It's not only a coincidence. It's a conspiracy by environmentalists. They've convertly left loads of heaters on all over the world to push up the temperatures to drive big corporations out of business and demonise people driving big cars.Poseidon wrote:
So it's only a coincidence that all the ice has been melting in the past 100 years - the years which industry grew?
It's all because someone let Al Gore loose in Antarctica with a hair dryer.
Aenima is just an angry College Republican who's had everything handed to him. Life's tough in suburbia.
lol...this sounds like it could turn into 2142.
Keep this discussion clean of trolling and swearing!
my point being, just like every time this is brought up, that the sun is currently in a cycle of heightened output, hotter sun= hotter earthTurquoise wrote:
I do believe the suggestion here is to regulate pollution and consumption rather than cosmic rays.kr@cker wrote:
until you can figure out how to regulate the output of the sun, just ride with it, it'll regulate itself
another point i always bring up, during mt pinatubo's big eruption in the 90's, it released more pollutants and greenhouse gases than all of mankind combined since the industrial revolution, can you stop volcanic eruptions mr gore?
a new point that the article itself brought up, kilimanjaro started losing it's ice caps 80 years ago, you telling me a few thousand model T's were worse polluters than the millions of IC engines covering the planet today?
besides, if it's all as bad as we're told, then what the hell was up with the record/early snowfall in buffalo, NY last week?
Volcanos were always here, it's true. But the amount of gases they send to the atmosphere is minimal compared with the pollution humans send there.kr@cker wrote:
my point being, just like every time this is brought up, that the sun is currently in a cycle of heightened output, hotter sun= hotter earthTurquoise wrote:
I do believe the suggestion here is to regulate pollution and consumption rather than cosmic rays.kr@cker wrote:
until you can figure out how to regulate the output of the sun, just ride with it, it'll regulate itself
another point i always bring up, during mt pinatubo's big eruption in the 90's, it released more pollutants and greenhouse gases than all of mankind combined since the industrial revolution, can you stop volcanic eruptions mr gore?
a new point that the article itself brought up, kilimanjaro started losing it's ice caps 80 years ago, you telling me a few thousand model T's were worse polluters than the millions of IC engines covering the planet today?
besides, if it's all as bad as we're told, then what the hell was up with the record/early snowfall in buffalo, NY last week?
Kilimanjaro's ice was intact 80 years ago, and now there's only 15% left. Why is that happening? I think the volcanic eruptions might not be the cause.
Last edited by sergeriver (2006-10-18 05:06:28)
Volcanoes account for less than 1% of greenhouse gases (that's excluding water vapour). In fact it has been shown that volcanoes contribute towards global cooling.kr@cker wrote:
another point i always bring up, during mt pinatubo's big eruption in the 90's, it released more pollutants and greenhouse gases than all of mankind combined since the industrial revolution, can you stop volcanic eruptions mr gore?
a new point that the article itself brought up, kilimanjaro started losing it's ice caps 80 years ago, you telling me a few thousand model T's were worse polluters than the millions of IC engines covering the planet today?
SourceThe 1991 eruption of Mt Pinatubo in the Philippines was one of the
largest in the past 100 years. The injection into the stratosphere of 14-26
million tonnes of sulfur dioxide led to a global surface cooling of 0.5°C a
year after the eruption.
What we want is more volcanic eruptions like that.
Never did deny National Geographic. Where I come in on this thread is through my chuckles generated by the source of the EPA and NOAA.sergeriver wrote:
I brought to you several National Geographic links, and the EPA was for all the people who need the dot gov link to believe it's true. But you can't deny what National Geographic says, it's science without interests. They sell their magazine anyway.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
LMAO...NOAA. First the EPA brought into the thread, and now this. More goodness from Nixon.ATG wrote:
Ah crap, this may not be worthy of its own thread...but read on dear libs, read this!
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2006/s2720.htm
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/res … sep06.html
However, I would still argue that National Geographic is the occasional victim of internal bias.
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2006-10-18 09:35:13)
@ bert, correct, that and the ash produces a shading effect, not letting the sunlight through to heat the lower levels of the atmosphere, however plants also contribute to almost 90% of those greenhouse gases, though that figure may have changed as the last time i saw it used was in the late 80's early 90's, my surfing is somewhat limited at work, i only manage to sneak on here by using an external browser as the IT nazis block it through the company site, then i have to contend with the dial-up speeds
Just another example of climat change.....
I'm a mountaineer and last year i climbed a glacier in the alps called glacier du bertol, last year, it was still a nice glacier with lots of snow ( over 1 m deep) and ice for over 300m
but this year, i went back on exactly the same day and....
all that remained were rocks, all the ice and snow was gone.....
ON YEAR TIME !!
I'm a mountaineer and last year i climbed a glacier in the alps called glacier du bertol, last year, it was still a nice glacier with lots of snow ( over 1 m deep) and ice for over 300m
but this year, i went back on exactly the same day and....
all that remained were rocks, all the ice and snow was gone.....
ON YEAR TIME !!
i still don't get how people are using a few piddling years worth ( or decades at best) of information to judge the next step in a cycle that has been occuring on the scale of a few hundred millenia for a few million years
few
few
Do you know what scientists do in Antarctica, besides making snowballs wars?? They drill the ice at different levels, and they study ice from different periods. They study the amount of CO2 and other pollutants, and with that info they can make predictions in a very accurate way. It sounds simple, doesn't it?kr@cker wrote:
i still don't get how people are using a few piddling years worth ( or decades at best) of information to judge the next step in a cycle that has been occuring on the scale of a few hundred millenia for a few million years
few
Last edited by sergeriver (2006-10-18 10:51:48)
Ummm. It's 420'000 years of pretty solid climate information. Certainly according to the joint academies of sciences.kr@cker wrote:
i still don't get how people are using a few piddling years worth ( or decades at best) of information to judge the next step in a cycle that has been occuring on the scale of a few hundred millenia for a few million years
few
i'm talking about the recent events. Our past century, when we supposedly developed the ability to alter the cosmos, accounts for how much of the earth's total life span? drilling into the crust or ice tells you what was going on eons ago, not today, how can you have a half million years of evidence that man has been fucking up the atmosphere when we were still figuring out how to process bronze 5000 years ago?
Do you people really believe the Earth was here 100,000 years ago let alone 10,000 years ago. I have a hard time believing it was around more than 2500 years ago.Do you know anyone who was alive back then and if so what did they say to you? I mean if i had a Dr. in front of my name and i told everyone that it was cause of this or that and you haven't studied it you'd believe me right! hahahahahhaaa