FDXMECH From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3251 posts, RR: 38 Reply 4, posted (6 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 1500 times:
Quoting Sebolino (Reply 3): Global warming is about climate, not everyday weather
Trouble is when you have a warm spell in January it's global warming. So says the media. And funny that global warming experts don't dispel this saying it's everyday weather and not climate. Of course when the temps take a nosedive they're quick to point out that THIS is just local weather. You can't have your cake and eat it too. I am thoroughly convinced manmade global warming is a manmade farce.
PAHS200 From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 513 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (6 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 1493 times:
Quoting FDXMECH (Reply 4):
Trouble is when you have a warm spell in January it's global warming. So says the media. And funny that global warming experts don't dispel this saying it's everyday weather and not climate. Of course when the temps take a nosedive they're quick to point out that THIS is just local weather. You can't have your cake and eat it too. I am thoroughly convinced manmade global warming is a manmade farce.
Klaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 20853 posts, RR: 55 Reply 6, posted (6 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 1477 times:
Quoting FDXMECH (Reply 4): And funny that global warming experts don't dispel this saying it's everyday weather and not climate.
They do.
Whether your local news outlet bothers to report it is another question, and whether you're ready to actually realize it if they do is yet another again.
Sebolino From France, joined May 2001, 3667 posts, RR: 5 Reply 7, posted (6 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 1451 times:
Quoting FDXMECH (Reply 4): Trouble is when you have a warm spell in January it's global warming. So says the media. And funny that global warming experts don't dispel this saying it's everyday weather and not climate.
Well, as I understand it, the climate change is an increase of the average temperature, which can explain a hot winter.
But when I say it's not everyday weather, it means that we will still have cold days, but perhaps less cold days that we were used to.
So a warm January can be explained by the global warming which deals with average temperatures, but a quick change in temperature is not related to the climate, but to some "local" weather conditions, existing whatever the climate is.
Quoting FDXMECH (Reply 4): I am thoroughly convinced manmade global warming is a manmade farce.
You should ask the polar ice if it's a farce which make it become much thinner ...
KaiGywer From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 12027 posts, RR: 43 Reply 9, posted (6 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 1403 times:
Quoting Sebolino (Reply 7): You should ask the polar ice if it's a farce which make it become much thinner ...
But this could be a natural cycle, and not man-made. I think that's the point FDXMECH was trying to make
Oli80 From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2006, 685 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (6 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 1390 times:
Quoting KaiGywer (Reply 9): But this could be a natural cycle, and not man-made
Find me one scientist who claims there isn't a natural cycle (ice-ages). The rate of change is what is important - and the rate of change is occurring too rapidly for it to be natural.
Evan767 From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 2957 posts, RR: 2 Reply 11, posted (6 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 1377 times:
What's wrong with global warming? I hate the cold! Hooray for global warming.
The proper term is "on final" not "on finals" bud...
Klaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 20853 posts, RR: 55 Reply 12, posted (6 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 1368 times:
Quoting KaiGywer (Reply 9): But this could be a natural cycle, and not man-made.
The scientists who actually do research in the field agree that it cannot be a purely natural cycle. Anthropogenic effects are beyond any reasonable doubt at least contributing to it, if not dominating it. The exact extent of human influence is still under research, but the massive man-made increase of the CO2 level in the atmosphere (among other artificial influences) is an obvious contributor.
Saving fossile resources and restraining waste and emissions is very obviously a necessity even independently of climate change, but it seems complacency has no bounds at all.
PAHS200 From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 513 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (6 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 1364 times:
also whats the margin of error on reporting temps.
what i mean is: the avg. yearly temp is based on 1000s of reporting places all over the world and with so many reporting and the rise in yearly world temps only going up point tenths of a degree could it be possible that a reporting places(s) could have sent a wrong number to the database and that would set the temp up higher?
Quoting Evan767 (Reply 11): What's wrong with global warming? I hate the cold! Hooray for global warming.
Klaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 20853 posts, RR: 55 Reply 14, posted (6 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 1353 times:
Quoting PAHS200 (Reply 13): also whats the margin of error on reporting temps.
As long as the sensors are properly calibrated, you can get decent long-term data and relative trends for each of the measurement points. In addition to that, satellites like the european Envisat make it possible to extract global and rather accurate temperature readings from the entire surface of the earth, whether populated or not.
Mir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 19708 posts, RR: 56 Reply 15, posted (6 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 1349 times:
Quoting Evan767 (Reply 11): What's wrong with global warming? I hate the cold! Hooray for global warming.
Hooray for rising sea levels then, affecting the cities where most wealth in the world is concentrated? Hooray for reduced fertility of croplands? Hooray for desertification?
Of course it won't seriously affect us in our lifetime, so why should we bother taking the ounce of prevention?
-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
Go3Team From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3266 posts, RR: 22 Reply 16, posted (6 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 1318 times:
Well, from what I've seen in some movies is... The areas north and south of 30º will be frozen in an artic wasteland, and kill off enough population to ease the over populating that people seem to go on and on about. After all this happens, the air will be clean, and pure. The evil US will have to immigrate to Mexico to survive. Seems like this is a win - win situation for the rest of the world.
How about putting all your efforts to cleaning up dirtier places. Whatever happened to all this talk about the end of the world hole in the ozone over Antarctica? Smog? I haven't seen much of that in years.
AndesSMF From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 17, posted (6 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 1313 times:
Quoting Mir (Reply 15): Hooray for rising sea levels then
Bering Land Bridge, anyone?
"The Bering land bridge, also known as Beringia, was a land bridge roughly 1,000 miles (1,600 km) north to south at its greatest extent, which joined present-day Alaska and eastern Siberia at various times during the Pleistocene ice ages."
Quoting Mir (Reply 15): Hooray for reduced fertility of croplands?
Warmer climate will cause less crops, or do most crops grow in cold weather?
Quoting Mir (Reply 15): Hooray for desertification?
Sahara been recently created?
"The climate of the Sahara has undergone enormous variation between wet and dry over the last few hundred thousand years. During the last ice age, the Sahara was bigger than it is today, extending south beyond its current boundaries.[1] The end of the ice age brought wetter times to the Sahara, from about 8000 BC to 6000 BC, perhaps due to low pressure areas over the collapsing ice sheets to the north.
Once the ice sheets were gone, the northern part of the Sahara dried out. However, not long after the end of the ice sheets, the monsoon which currently brings rain to the Sahara came further north and counteracted the drying trend in the southern Sahara. The monsoon in Africa (and elsewhere) is due to heating during the summer. Air over land becomes warmer and rises, pulling in cool wet air from the ocean. This causes rain. Paradoxically, the Sahara was wetter when it received more solar insulation in the summer. In turn, changes in solar insulation are caused by changes in the Earth's orbital parameters."
Galapagapop From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 910 posts, RR: 4 Reply 18, posted (6 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 1306 times:
Quoting Mir (Reply 15):
Hooray for rising sea levels then, affecting the cities where most wealth in the world is concentrated? Hooray for reduced fertility of croplands? Hooray for desertification? crazy
Of course it won't seriously affect us in our lifetime, so why should we bother taking the ounce of prevention? Yeah sure
-Mir
Oh mi oh my, the sea is 6 inches closer to our mansions, whatever shall we do? Could it possible be concieved land deformation from those same mansion are possible responsible by building manmade boundaries where the sea would normally go? Such as removal of marshlands, large patches of beachgrass, and such that would absorb such water, naturally?(But they I guess they can't build their Mcmansion, that's a shame). Could that be concievable, guess that's answered in the second part ofyour the first phrase. By all means this doesn't mean there isn't more water in the ocean, I won't dispute that, but coastal effects would be minimal at best if we didn't feel the need to put our property above the natural way of things. Fertility of croplands and desertification is again a natural progression of things in many areas, and is also the result of man's pilfering of those areas. Look in Southern Cal, Arizona, or Las Vegas, water is being depleted and redirected from farther and farther away to feed the population explosion being seen in those areas. Not impacting desertification, becuase it's still CO2 right? How about California's programs to "seed" moisture carrying clouds with a silver compound to help make the water droplets heavier and thus rain? But what about the Rockies where it should naturally go?(Notice the large drops in the overall depth of Colorado River? That is also being diverted for use to fill pools?) Again that's answered by in your first phrase through the sheer importance is to protect the rich. Or how about the depletion of many of the natural grasslands throughout the West and Midwest with developments, farming, and over forestation through prevention of forest fires? Surely we have an impact on this Earth, but it's just plain ignorant, no, downright retarded, to actually believe this is happening mainly becuase of increased CO2 production, which, although defying science, seems it can only be produced by human kind, namely Oil and Coal companies, the devils idle hands, yes?
Keep the doom and gloom crap in the Old Testament, thank you!
FDXMECH From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3251 posts, RR: 38 Reply 19, posted (6 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 1225 times:
Quoting Sebolino (Reply 7): You should ask the polar ice if it's a farce which make it become much thinner ...
"It will without doubt have come to your Lordship's knowledge that a considerable change of climate, inexplicable at present to us, must have taken place in the Circumpolar Regions, by which the severity of the cold that has for centuries past enclosed the seas in the high northern latitudes in an impenetrable barrier of ice has been during the last two years, greatly abated.
(This) affords ample proof that new sources of warmth have been opened and give us leave to hope that the Arctic Seas may at this time be more accessible than they have been for centuries past, and that discoveries may now be made in them not only interesting to the advancement of science but also to the future intercourse of mankind and the commerce of distant nations."
President of the Royal Society, London, to the Admiralty, 20th November, 1817 [13]
13] President of the Royal Society, Minutes of Council, Volume 8. pp.149-153, Royal Society, London.
20th November, 1817.
Quoting Klaus (Reply 6): Whether your local news outlet bothers to report it is another question, and whether you're ready to actually realize it if they do is yet another again.
Yet it's colder here this year than it was last save a short spat of warmer weather. Should I be worried? Kinda late in the year for snow. Maybe we need a climate adjuster. Like a leap year. Maybe all those leap years have caught up with us finally and we're off a month or two. This feel's like March. December felt like November and January most certainly felt like December. Hell, I specifically recall a bad ass blizzard in Denver in November of 1990. Not unlike this years blizzard. Man, that was a fine mess. Yup.. Good old global warming. Mayeb if you folks would quit shouting about global warming there'd be a lot less CO2 going around.
Quoting Sebolino (Reply 7): So a warm January can be explained by the global warming which deals with average temperatures, but a quick change in temperature is not related to the climate, but to some "local" weather conditions, existing whatever the climate is.
Okay, then what was it in the 70's then when "global cooling" was the issue? Local?
Quoting Sebolino (Reply 7): You should ask the polar ice if it's a farce which make it become much thinner ...
Remember the Bering Strait? We cause that too? That was before the industrial revolution. Just checking cause it must have been damn cold for people to be walk across it. Oh wait, someone did it again in 2006. We must be cooling off again.
You guys have more holes than swiss cheese. Stinks about as much too.
Quoting Klaus (Reply 14): As long as the sensors are properly calibrated, you can get decent long-term data and relative trends for each of the measurement points.
So how accurate were the sensors 100 years ago? 1,000? How's about 1 million? A billion? Just perspective gievn the pin-prick of time people have actually had accurate enough equipment to measure the damn temperature much less evaluate the climate.
Quoting Galapagapop (Reply 18): Keep the doom and gloom crap in the Old Testament, thank you!
Global warming junkies seem to want to bring out biblical. Think about it. We're either billions of years old and this is but a pin-prick of time, or we're only a few thousand years old and we've really jacked things up. They can't have it both ways.
Klaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 20853 posts, RR: 55 Reply 21, posted (6 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 1141 times:
Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 20): Yet it's colder here this year than it was last save a short spat of warmer weather.
A single "strange" season is usually not an indication of anything. A succession of seasons skewed consistently into the same direction (which includes the variability of the weather) can be an indication of climate change, however.
Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 20): So how accurate were the sensors 100 years ago? 1,000? How's about 1 million? A billion? Just perspective gievn the pin-prick of time people have actually had accurate enough equipment to measure the damn temperature much less evaluate the climate.
The relative accuracy of earlier thermometers is known within a certain range; Longer-term temperature developments can be read from physical, geological and biological history as preserved in various deposits. Depending on the indicator, those readings can reach back millions, even billions of years and still deliver relevant data.
Measurement errors must be and are accounted for, which is why aggregate conclusions always come with a certain margin of error as well.
Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 20): Global warming junkies seem to want to bring out biblical. Think about it. We're either billions of years old and this is but a pin-prick of time, or we're only a few thousand years old and we've really jacked things up. They can't have it both ways.
What are you talking about? It is well known that there have been many gradual developments in climate but also near-instant reversals in natural history when certain tipping points had been reached. Unfortunately we're by now powerful enough to rock the boat with our industrialized civilization and our massive population numbers, so it is quite conceivable and entirely consistent to expect the possibility of yet another reversal on the path we're going right now.
And what do you want to say with your quote? That periods of regional or global cooling and warming happened before? Nobody in his right mind denies that our climate is variable. The point is that such a rapid change as we see now is something new and can't be related to natural causes. Your quote dates back to a time when a longer period with cool temperatures known as little the "Little Ice Age" came slowly (and not without some further minima) to its end. http://www.answers.com/topic/little-ice-age
Not crazy, just raining and cloudy for the last week or so here in the "sunny" Algarve, which has hugely p'd off the tourists here on Easter break from UK/Ireland/Germany/Clogland etc. Apparently the weather back home is rather nice!
Breakfast in BHX, lunch in FAO, dinner in TIP, baggage in YYC.
Boeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 24, posted (6 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 1076 times:
Quoting Klaus (Reply 21): A single "strange" season is usually not an indication of anything. A succession of seasons skewed consistently into the same direction (which includes the variability of the weather) can be an indication of climate change, however.
Well, the weather hasn't changed here at all my friend. I was mocking you people with my last post to point out your hysterics. You people take this crap far too seriously and in about 10-15 years you're going to be left holding a back of shit.
25 WestJetYQQ: The weather seems about average in Canada's West Coast so far this spring. It did snow WAY more than usual all over western Canada this Winter.
26 Allstarflyer: Good thread . Good post. Is that closest we can expect you to get to the truth of the matter? -R
27 Longhornmaniac: Not entirely sure what you mean by this, but if you look up the definitions of "climate" and "weather," he is absolutely correct. Weather: the state
28 AndesSMF: May I remind you all of a few things: 1. CO2 is used by plant matter in photosynthesis. 2. Kyoto allowed the use of Carbon sinks as a form of carbon o
29 Sebolino: It could be you're right ... if if it was not so fast. We know that there are cycles, but extremely slow. In a few years, the ice as significantly di
30 Pelican: Too nice. We haven't had rain for the last 4 weeks and that in a time of the year which is known for it's variability. Needlessly to say that the ris
31 Sebolino: You're confused with causes and consequences. I never said that a hot winter was a proof of global warming, but could be explained by it. What's impo
32 Boeing7E7: Our economy is built on ideas, not cheap oil. It's what keeps us from becoming government dependent. If you want to be beholden to this pathetic atte
33 KaiGywer: It could very well be, or it could not be. We will never know as there is no way we can measure anything without factoring in human influence, and fr
34 Longhornmaniac: Well, while it may not be BUILT per sé, our economy is certainly shaped abd dependant on having cheap oil. An increase in oil prices creates abundan
35 Allstarflyer: This remark of yours sums up the whole idea. Because proponents of global warming are so sure of their findings, the burden of proof is on said propon
36 FDXMECH: The polar ice thickness is heavily dependant on many variables, sub-surface water temps and current speed being a primary factor. This is very cyclic
37 Mrniji: I agree.. the expansive and well-routed researchers researching on global warming, climate change, are all idiots.. we should rather listen to you gu
38 FDXMECH: I think hyperbole beneith you. Do expansive and well-routed researchers disputing the former set of researchers rate as idiots?
39 Sebolino: Great news ! Triple the price of crude oil and you will see how efficient your ideas are. uh ? I see ? I didn't know that. Thanx to enlighten me on m
40 Mrniji: Did you ever think of independent vs. non-independent research? Of course, you will believe the people who have been "hired" by the Bush Administrati
41 Jonathan-l: The Future: Aviation And Climate Change (by Pe@rson Apr 6 2007 in Civil Aviation) That thread in Civ Av actually has some learned replies.
42 FDXMECH: I guess that answered my question. "Agree with me or you're corrupt."[Edited 2007-04-12 16:13:53]
44 FDXMECH: Forgive me Your Excellency. The Popes of the Church of Global Warming are infallable. I now admit my observations, heretical. I bow at the statue of
46 FDXMECH: And it guided me to these noteworthy links, thanks. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17997788/site/newsweek/#storyContinued http://www.washingtonpost.com/
48 Longhornmaniac: Of course it is an inexact science, and I absolutely agree that the burden of proof is on the proponents of global warming, as it is straying from th
49 Connies4ever: You're all correct, to some degree. Sebolino - right on. I've been watching this for about 30 years now and climatologists have pretty much consisten
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 12027 posts, 
From France, joined May 2001, 3667 posts, 
From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 20853 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2006, 685 posts, 
From Portugal, joined Jun 2005, 1644 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
