you do understand why that's happening, yeah? that's a well-known consequence of climate change.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Seems the jury is still out, but on balance you're wrong
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_ice_sheet
Its always funny hearing people who have not the slightest understanding trying to argue.
"But I thought global warming would mean it got warmer, so why is it raining so much?"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_ice_sheet
Its always funny hearing people who have not the slightest understanding trying to argue.
"But I thought global warming would mean it got warmer, so why is it raining so much?"
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2012-07-12 06:14:35)
Fuck Israel
My whole point is that climate change doesn't matter. In the grand scheme of the Earth's overall climate, it's a very small part. Yes, it could have some unfortunate side effects, but we as humans will just have to adapt. We're never ever going to get the entire world to agree to stop burning carbon. Not until it runs out, at any rate. I don't know why people dream of being Sysyphus.Spark wrote:
you do understand why that's happening, yeah? that's a well-known consequence of climate change.
We'll just have to learn to adapt to whatever changes do occur. The sky is not falling, and even if it was, we'd build an umbrella.
Last edited by Jay (2012-07-12 06:12:03)
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
hmm not convinced based on everything i've read.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
I'm not denying climate change by any means, I'm simply stating that everyone immediately focusing on the worst case scenarios every time a theory is published is not helping anything. I know people feel strongly, and I understand that they believe that fear is their only weapon, but fear has the pleasant side effect of making people angry at the messenger rather than the message. The alarmists have been the environmental movements own worst enemy.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
The effects may well be too large, and happen too quickly for us to adapt.
Some predicted issues:
It may become impossible to grow wheat in North America in our lifetime.
148,000,000 Bangladeshis could be looking for a new country in our lifetime, not forgetting a few other nations.
If the methane hydrate theory is correct, we could be more buggered than that and very quickly.
As I mentioned, people aren't generally being alarmist, these are the realistic and predicted consequences. The defenders of the status quo accuse them of being alarmist though.
Some predicted issues:
It may become impossible to grow wheat in North America in our lifetime.
148,000,000 Bangladeshis could be looking for a new country in our lifetime, not forgetting a few other nations.
If the methane hydrate theory is correct, we could be more buggered than that and very quickly.
As I mentioned, people aren't generally being alarmist, these are the realistic and predicted consequences. The defenders of the status quo accuse them of being alarmist though.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2012-07-12 06:21:34)
Fuck Israel
http://www.amazon.com/Powering-Future-E … the+futureSpark wrote:
hmm not convinced based on everything i've read.
His premise is the same one that I've been talking about for years here. Carbon is the most efficient and cheapest fuel source man has ever known, and getting him to give it up will be impossible until it becomes more expensive than alternative energy sources due to shortage, not subsidies, and even then we'll replace the carbon in the ground with carbon that we grow. Nobel Laureate physicist btw.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Yawn.Dilbert_X wrote:
The effects may well be too large, and happen too quickly for us to adapt.
Some predicted issues:
It may become impossible to grow wheat in North America in our lifetime.
148,000,000 Bangladeshis could be looking for a new country in our lifetime, not forgetting a few other nations.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
It's like pushing water up a hill. The climate will change regardless of human influence and may do so more radically than what we could possibly cause. The whole 'movement' seems to be concerned with preserving the status quo on a planet that has been evolving constantly for milennia, I also believe it vastly underestimates the adaptability and resilience of life. It has been through much harsher and more sudden changes than 2-3 degrees of warming over the course of some two hundred years.
inane little opines
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/ … 6120120711Jay wrote:
Yawn.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-2 … llies.html
Obviously they're single data points, but consider the consequences if that were the norm - which is the prediction.
Fuck Israel
Small Sample Size.
Last edited by Jay (2012-07-12 06:27:56)
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Nope, burning in a few hundred years carbon which has been laid down over millenia is going to cause a very sudden change.Shocking wrote:
The climate will change regardless of human influence and may do so more radically than what we could possibly cause.
Its simply inevitable.
Fuck Israel
Then perhaps you should get off your carbon fueled computer, the carbon fueled internet, and give up driving if you care so much. But you don't, you'd rather talk about it and feel smug about something you don't really understand.Dilbert_X wrote:
Nope, burning in a few hundred years carbon which has been laid down over millenia is going to cause a very sudden change.Shocking wrote:
The climate will change regardless of human influence and may do so more radically than what we could possibly cause.
Its simply inevitable.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
My carbon bill is pretty low, thanks, and no-ones saying we all have to live like hill-billies.
Fuck Israel
There have been many, MANY events in earth's history when drastic changes in the climate were caused due to a single event. The eruption of tambora for one.Dilbert_X wrote:
Nope, burning in a few hundred years carbon which has been laid down over millenia is going to cause a very sudden change.Shocking wrote:
The climate will change regardless of human influence and may do so more radically than what we could possibly cause.
Its simply inevitable.
inane little opines
weath·er/ˈweT͟Hər/AussieReaper wrote:
See now you're confusing weather with climate.
We shouldn't have to explain such basic definitions. Pick up a dictionary.
Noun:
The state of the atmosphere at a place and time as regards heat, cloudiness, dryness, sunshine, wind, rain, etc.
cli·mate/ˈklīmit/
Noun:
The weather conditions prevailing in an area in general or over a long period.
>climate: The weather
As for Dilbert the alarmist, the warmest period in recent European history coincides with the construction of the vast majority of Cathedrals (prosperity?) and wine being grown in North England.
Oh the horror.
Last edited by Cheeky_Ninja06 (2012-07-12 12:01:05)
holy shit you are stupid
http://www.co2science.org/subject/other … ousand.php
If when we have mild winters its because of global warming and when we have cold winters its still because of global warming what possible weather could we have that isnt because of global warming?
But regardless, not a debate worth getting into on here again.Between the 10th and 14th centuries A.D., Earth's average global temperature may have been warmer than it is today (Lamb, 1977a; Lamb, 1984; Grove, 1988; Lamb, 1988). The existence of this Medieval Warm Period was initially deduced from historical weather records and proxy climate data from England and Northern Europe. Interestingly, the warmer conditions associated with this interval of time are known to have had a largely beneficial impact on Earth's plant and animal life. In fact, the environmental conditions of this time period have been determined to have been so favorable that it is often referred to as the Little Climatic Optimum (Imbrie and Imbrie, 1979; Dean, 1994; Petersen, 1994; Serre-Bachet, 1994; Villalba, 1994).
The degree of warming associated with the Medieval Warm Period varied from region to region; and, hence, its consequences were manifested in a number of different ways (Dean, 1994). In Europe, temperatures reached some of the warmest levels of the last 4,000 years, allowing enough grapes to be successfully grown in England to sustain an indigenous wine industry (Le Roy Ladurie, 1971). Contemporaneously, horticulturists in China extended their cultivation of citrus trees and perennial herbs further and further northward, resulting in an expansion of their ranges that reached its maximum extent in the 13th century (De'er, 1994). Considering the climatic conditions required to successfully grow these species, it has been estimated that annual mean temperatures in the region must have been about 1.0 °C higher than at present, with extreme January minimum temperatures fully 3.5 °C warmer than they are today (De'er, 1994).
If when we have mild winters its because of global warming and when we have cold winters its still because of global warming what possible weather could we have that isnt because of global warming?
Last edited by Cheeky_Ninja06 (2012-07-12 12:48:15)
global cooling?
wasn't aware that europe = the worldCheeky_Ninja06 wrote:
http://www.co2science.org/subject/other … ousand.phpBut regardless, not a debate worth getting into on here again.Between the 10th and 14th centuries A.D., Earth's average global temperature may have been warmer than it is today (Lamb, 1977a; Lamb, 1984; Grove, 1988; Lamb, 1988). The existence of this Medieval Warm Period was initially deduced from historical weather records and proxy climate data from England and Northern Europe. Interestingly, the warmer conditions associated with this interval of time are known to have had a largely beneficial impact on Earth's plant and animal life. In fact, the environmental conditions of this time period have been determined to have been so favorable that it is often referred to as the Little Climatic Optimum (Imbrie and Imbrie, 1979; Dean, 1994; Petersen, 1994; Serre-Bachet, 1994; Villalba, 1994).
The degree of warming associated with the Medieval Warm Period varied from region to region; and, hence, its consequences were manifested in a number of different ways (Dean, 1994). In Europe, temperatures reached some of the warmest levels of the last 4,000 years, allowing enough grapes to be successfully grown in England to sustain an indigenous wine industry (Le Roy Ladurie, 1971). Contemporaneously, horticulturists in China extended their cultivation of citrus trees and perennial herbs further and further northward, resulting in an expansion of their ranges that reached its maximum extent in the 13th century (De'er, 1994). Considering the climatic conditions required to successfully grow these species, it has been estimated that annual mean temperatures in the region must have been about 1.0 °C higher than at present, with extreme January minimum temperatures fully 3.5 °C warmer than they are today (De'er, 1994).
If when we have mild winters its because of global warming and when we have cold winters its still because of global warming what possible weather could we have that isnt because of global warming?
it's just so boring to argue about this now, really
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
A careful reading of official Major League Baseball Rule 6.08(b) suggests that in this situation, the batter would be considered "hit by pitch", and would be eligible to advance to first base.
Last edited by Spark (2012-07-18 02:53:46)
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
http://reason.com/blog/2012/07/28/new-g … tcontainerCALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified scientific issues that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Now, after organizing an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I’ve concluded that global warming is real, that the prior estimates of the rate were correct, and that cause is human.
My turnaround is the result of the careful and objective analysis by the “Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature” team, founded by me and my daughter Elizabeth. Our results show that the average temperature of the Earth’s land has risen by two and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, and one and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase is due to the human emission of greenhouse gases.
These findings are stronger than those of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations group that defines the scientific and diplomatic consensus on global warming. In its 2007 report, the IPCC concluded only that most of the warming of the prior 50 years could be attributed to humans. It was possible, according to the IPCC consensus statement, that the warming before to 1956 could be due to changes in solar activity, and that even a substantial part of the more recent warming could be natural.
Our Berkeley Earth approach used sophistical statistical methods developed largely by our lead scientist Robert Rohde, and which allowed us to determine earth land temperature much further back in time. We carefully studied issues raised by skeptics: biases from urban heating (we duplicated our results using rural data alone), data selection (prior groups selected less than 20% of the available temperature stations; we used virtually 100%), poor station quality (we separately analyzed good stations and poor ones), and from human intervention and data adjustment (our work is completely automated and hands-off). In our papers we demonstrate that none of these potentially troublesome effects unduly biased our conclusions. ...
How definite is the attribution to humans? The carbon dioxide curve gives a better match than anything else we’ve tried. Its magnitude is consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect – extra warming from trapped heat radiation. These facts don’t prove causality and they shouldn’t end skepticism, but they raise the bar: to be considered seriously, an alternative explanation must match the data at least as well as does carbon dioxide. ...
What about the future? As carbon dioxide emissions increase, the temperature should continue to rise. With a simple model (no tipping points, no sudden increase in cloud cover, a response to gases that is “logarithmic”) I expect the rate of warming to proceed at a steady pace, about 1.5 degree F over land in the next 50 years, less if the oceans are included. But if China continues its rapid growth (it has averaged 10% per year over the last 20 years) and its vast use of coal (typically adding one new gigawatt per month), then that same warming could take place in less than 20 years.
He makes some pretty silly assumptions regarding China's growth. You can't predict economic growth out to 20 years, anything can happen. Aside from that, I look forward to seeing his published work in the coming weeks.
It's nice to see work that isn't influenced by politics, but I still vehemently disagree with enviros regarding possible solutions.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
To be fair, he says if. I mean, assuming it might be a bridge too far but it is prudent to see what would happens should that be the case.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
- Superior Mind
- (not macbeth)
- +1,755|6978
The subtle effects of climate change:
