04 Mar 06
Originally posted by princeoforangeSo the documented increased mean average global temperature, decreased sea ice area, increased freak weather frequency (hurricanes such as Katerina, Rita etc , the busiest storm season in the US ever, the widespread droughts in Europe in 2003, leading to 10,000 plus deaths (sure you care about the 9/11 attacks, as horrible as they were, but not this) amongst others), species loss, glacier retreat, increases in desertification etc are all unrelated?
Actually I think you're right, I think it's a big joke too. As I look out my window to 3 or 4 inches of snow, just the same as it is this time of year every year, I can only conclude that the Kyoto Protocol serves no purpose other than killing business.
04 Mar 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzYes really, to me, I go by what I see, and what I see is no change in weather patterns, at least not where I live, no immediate threat to humans and in short, no evidence of human induced global warming. True, global temperatures have risen (very slightly) on average over the past 150 years or so, but that is too short a time to judge whether or not this is merely part of a natural cycle. As for the hurricane season, although last year may have been more severe than usual, they always get their hurricanes and apparently there was a more severe season in 1900 and in 1924, before anyone had got the global warming idea into their heads. Also I don't see what hurricanes have to do with global warming, oh yes, you call it climate change now, so whatever way it goes you can always say, "I warned you", well I suppose you do your best to keep yourself covered!
So the documented increased mean average global temperature, decreased sea ice area, increased freak weather frequency (hurricanes such as Katerina, Rita etc , the busiest storm season in the US ever, the widespread droughts in Europe in 2003, leading to 10,000 plus deaths (sure you care about the 9/11 attacks, as horrible as they were, but not t ...[text shortened]... ngst others), species loss, glacier retreat, increases in desertification etc are all unrelated?
04 Mar 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzI read a study that said global warming will decrease hurricane activity, just because we had 1 bad hurricane that actually hit us, on one year dont mean it had anything to do with global warming
So the documented increased mean average global temperature, decreased sea ice area, increased freak weather frequency (hurricanes such as Katerina, Rita etc , the busiest storm season in the US ever, the widespread droughts in Europe in 2003, leading to 10,000 plus deaths (sure you care about the 9/11 attacks, as horrible as they were, but not t ...[text shortened]... ngst others), species loss, glacier retreat, increases in desertification etc are all unrelated?
04 Mar 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzGlobal warming. The only fact I have ever been convinced of is that it is a major distraction for the public. There are many important things happening in the world today and we should address those that really matter. Has anyone ever heard of the mini ice age. It happened from the 1550's and finally ended about 1850. Google it and read up. Most of our weather documentation is for the last 150 to 200 years. So most of our records start at the end of the last ice age. It is expected that the planet would warm up. I think it is cyclic and the most imporatant factor is solar output.
So the documented increased mean average global temperature, decreased sea ice area, increased freak weather frequency (hurricanes such as Katerina, Rita etc , the busiest storm season in the US ever, the widespread droughts in Europe in 2003, leading to 10,000 plus deaths (sure you care about the 9/11 attacks, as horrible as they were, but not t ...[text shortened]... ngst others), species loss, glacier retreat, increases in desertification etc are all unrelated?
04 Mar 06
it's global cooling, not global warming .... yesterday/today there's snow on the hills east and southwest of san jose (california), a couple of weeks ago there was the same ... there's only been snow up there once before in the last several years ...
GLOBAL COOLING, wake up y'all, we're all gonna freeze .... use more energy! make more smoke! ....
05 Mar 06
Originally posted by zeeblebotAh, seems like Zeeb has developed the dangerous 'Baby-Bathwater' syndrome.
it's global cooling, not global warming .... yesterday/today there's snow on the hills east and southwest of san jose (california), a couple of weeks ago there was the same ... there's only been snow up there once before in the last several years ...
GLOBAL COOLING, wake up y'all, we're all gonna freeze .... use more energy! make more smoke! ....
05 Mar 06
Originally posted by rassman987Yes, we're all quite aware of global cycles. In fact, the current interglacial is a bit cool on the grander scale of things. Likewise, I'm more than aware of the 'Little Ice Age'. And the 'Medieval Warm Period'. The difference between those, and this current increase in temperature is not the magnitude but the pace of change. It's all happenning a bit too quickly. So quickly, in fact that we think that the necessary changes to the worlds ecosystems won't keep up.
Global warming. The only fact I have ever been convinced of is that it is a major distraction for the public. There are many important things happening in the world today and we should address those that really matter. Has anyone ever heard of the mini ice age. It happened from the 1550's and finally ended about 1850. Google it and read up. Most of our we ...[text shortened]... the planet would warm up. I think it is cyclic and the most imporatant factor is solar output.
There is copious evidence for global climate change (some people call global warming - I prefer climate change because whilst the mean average global temperature will increase, it won't be uniform, some places will be cooler). I'll link some URLs for you to look at;
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/
http://www.cotf.edu/ete/modules/climate/GCremote3.html
(temp increase)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1225064.stm (direct evidence of climate change)
http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/co2/sio-mlo.htm
http://www.publicaffairs.noaa.gov/releases2005/mar05/noaa05-035.html
(CO2 conc increase)
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/thinning/thinning.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4290340.stm
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2000/ast22aug_1.htm
(arctic ice thinning - linked with an increase in Polar bear attacks on arctic circle communities)
http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/19.htm
http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/space_geodesy/SEALEVEL/
(sea level rise)
You'll note that these are ALL from reputable sources, none of your oil company funded "think tanks"!
05 Mar 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzThe science of global warming is little more than carefully-worded statements with no meaning, presented as if it were significant, and used to back up alarmist rhetoric.
So the documented increased mean average global temperature
Any projection of climate change would vary, because of differing estimates of population growth, economic activity, greenhouse gas emission rates, changes in atmospheric particulate concentrations and their effects, and also because of uncertainties in climate models..... In other words, lots of non-scientific factors making it essentially guesswork! Mostly it's just data collated to achieve an end to a means, and often the data itself is meaningless.
Take for instance, the term "average global temperature" (often a mainstay of this debate). Some believe that "average temperature" can tell us something about what is going on in the climate - but it is just a number with no physical content. You can’t add up temperature and take its average like you can with physical quantities such as energy, i.e. one could add the temperature of a cup of ice water to the temperature of a cup of hot coffee, but what does that number mean? It doesn’t mean anything because there is no such thing as total temperature...and dividing the result by 2 to get "average temperature"? pffft!
How have we come to a place where the media, politicians, and rhp posters repeatedly state that there is a scientific consensus that the planet is warming up, it is caused by man, and the effects will be catastrophic? Because politically minded groups need big issues to form policy initiatives that sound like heroic measures to save the planet (Kyoto protocol). What's happening is that science is being used to serve a political agenda.
05 Mar 06
Originally posted by xsOf course you can get a average global temperature, which would be meaningful.
Take for instance, the term "average global temperature" (often a mainstay of this debate). Some believe that "average temperature" can tell us something about what is going on in the climate - but it is just a number with no physical content. You can’t add up temperature and take its average like you can with physical quantities such as energy
Science is about recording data and then trying to deduce patterns from the data collected. If the same method is consistently used, year in year out, to measure the temperature then a pattern could be identified which is meaningful. Maybe not in the first year, or even the tenth, but you've got to start at some point.
Your anti-science approach of "this figure means nothing when we start, so lets not bother" is ridiculous.
And frankly, there is an awful lot of evidence of global warming. If you don't believe in global warming yet, then do you believe in poisoned rivers, smog, dead lakes and oil slicks?
People with your attitude are preventing reforms on even these tangible tragedies, because you are more interested in economics and negative politics than nature.
D
05 Mar 06
Originally posted by RagnorakSee...this is an example of what I was talking about.
Of course you can get a average global temperature, which would be meaningful.
Science is about recording data and then trying to deduce patterns from the data collected. If the same method is consistently used, year in year out, to measure the temperature then a pattern could be identified which is meaningful. Maybe not in the first year, or even th ...[text shortened]... gedies, because you are more interested in economics and negative politics than nature.
D
05 Mar 06
1 edit
Originally posted by xsXS, I have a suggestion. Go to the library; there are these wonderful things called books there - try reading one, you'll like it immensely.
See...this is an example of what I was talking about.
[edit; I don't know, I provide copious evidence, so do you tackle that to defend your viewpoint? No! Polemic and soundbites, that's all we can expect from you apparently.]