That's fantastic, never thought of it that way either.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
If the human mind was simple enough to understand, we'd be too simple to understand it.Wreckognize wrote:
"I lay awake at night wondering whether we as a species are simply too stupid to figure out the universe we are investigating"
Last edited by Spark (2012-07-04 01:57:20)
It hasn't.Shocking wrote:
So I just read that the Higgs Boson has been discovered
That just means that the climate is gonna change, and in many regions we can say good bye to the season that we have been used to.Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:
2011 - UK 2nd hottest/driest year on record, caused by global warming, a sign of what is to come.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16366078
2012 - UK wettest summer on record, caused by global warming, a sign of what is to come.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-18783422
Last edited by Jay (2012-07-11 08:46:26)
The rate of change in the last 100 years is a significant change to what the averages should have predicted.Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:
The climate has always changed, thats nothing new at all.
It was sunny this week, therefore it will be sunny next week? Right?AussieReaper wrote:
The rate of change in the last 100 years is a significant change to what the averages should have predicted.Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:
The climate has always changed, thats nothing new at all.
This isn't that difficult a concept.
Last edited by Cheeky_Ninja06 (2012-07-12 04:44:07)
See now you're confusing weather with climate.Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:
It was sunny this week, therefore it will be sunny next week? Right?AussieReaper wrote:
The rate of change in the last 100 years is a significant change to what the averages should have predicted.Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:
The climate has always changed, thats nothing new at all.
This isn't that difficult a concept.
Larger changes have happened over smaller time scales in the past. In fact recent times are unique in having such a long period of climate stability.
I'm not debating whether the climate is changing or not (it always has and always will), im not even debating whether we are responsible (done to death) im merely highlighting that whatever weather we experience is immediately labelled as evidence of Human climate change. Whether it is dry/wet, hot/cold, more storms/less storms, it is always further proof.
It appears to be that there is no possible weather event that isn't labelled as evidence of global warming. The average is just that, an average, it is the sum of all the extreme values. Not every year is average, by definition some will be above and others will be below.
Climate change has the potential to make things like mild oceanic oscillations look like a drop in the bucket, by disrupting or radically changing oceanic flows.Jay wrote:
Climate change is a drop in the bucket compared to the impact the Pacific oscillations have on the worlds weather anyway. But... that's an answer that vapid reporters feel is too complex for their supposedly retarded audiences. Much easier to boil it down to the most simplistic explanation, full of buzz words, so that even the lowest common societal denominator (usually the reporters themselves) doesn't feel alienated by his lack of knowledge.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2012-07-12 05:56:22)
Yep, the absolute worst case scenario is always the most likely. When I get in my car today, two 18 wheelers will instantly collide with my car crushing me between them.Dilbert_X wrote:
Climate change has the potential to make things like mild oceanic oscillations look like a drop in the bucket, by disrupting or radically changing oceanic flows.Jay wrote:
Climate change is a drop in the bucket compared to the impact the Pacific oscillations have on the worlds weather anyway. But... that's an answer that vapid reporters feel is too complex for their supposedly retarded audiences. Much easier to boil it down to the most simplistic explanation, full of buzz words, so that even the lowest common societal denominator (usually the reporters themselves) doesn't feel alienated by his lack of knowledge.
For example what do think would happen if the California Current stopped, reversed or changed direction?
I'm guessing it would drastically alter the climate and economy of the whole of the US west coast, just as reversal of the Gulf Stream would completely change Northern Europe.
But you'd know about these things if you knew anything about the subject, or any subject actually.
Dilbert_X wrote:
But you'd know about these things if you knew anything about the subject