http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Worldwide+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm
Of course it isn't warming now, it's "climate change" :icon_roll
Of course it isn't warming now, it's "climate change" :icon_roll
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Twelve-Month Long Drop in Global Temperatures Wipes Out Century of Global Warming
- Thread starter Random8145
- Start date
Call it what you like. The graph has spikes everywhere.
Personally I'd rather choose to have a clean environment where we choose to work against a risk that might not exist rather than a dirty environment where we choose to ignore a risk that'd kill us. Seems like a simple choice...
Global warming doesn't exist but if we do something what do we get? A healthier, cleaner, nicer place to live...
Global warming does exist and we choose to ignore it what do we get? Painful, horrible, too warm, too cold, too dead consequences of some kind that may take generations to get here.
Personally I'd choose the first but hey to each their own.
Personally I'd rather choose to have a clean environment where we choose to work against a risk that might not exist rather than a dirty environment where we choose to ignore a risk that'd kill us. Seems like a simple choice...
Global warming doesn't exist but if we do something what do we get? A healthier, cleaner, nicer place to live...
Global warming does exist and we choose to ignore it what do we get? Painful, horrible, too warm, too cold, too dead consequences of some kind that may take generations to get here.
Personally I'd choose the first but hey to each their own.
WishICouldFly
UO Future Pork Chop
According to the article, we prefer an average temperature of 70. The average of Earth is 54 now.
So I guess we should drive and fly more to warm up the Earth with greenhouse gases!
Start using the afterburner expeditiously!
So I guess we should drive and fly more to warm up the Earth with greenhouse gases!
Start using the afterburner expeditiously!
Once again goofballs:icon_tong, despite the name the theory of Global Warming isn't suggesting that the world is going to become an arid wasteland devoid of life with landscapes straight out of Lawrence of Arabia. The theory of Global Warming links the climate of Earth to the model of a heat engine. Add more heat (which is energy... and we are doing exactly this, I assure you) to the system, the faster and more extreme it operates. It is true that some places will get warmer. However, other places will get colder, much more/less precipitation, and generally more severe and extreme weather events occurring at increased intervals: Hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts, floods, El Ninos, whathaveyous increasing with intensity and frequency. No we're not all going to die in 50 years, but a hell of a lot of people here in the US are going to be inconvenienced when we start having floods in Las Vegas and droughts in the Pacific Northwest.
The problem is that it's not that simple. I have no problem with taking steps to continuously clean the environment or to fight global warming if it might be a problem as long as we don't trash our economy in the process and/or make it where you're living with the government's tongue shoved up your arse.
Global warming is as much an economic question as it is a scientific one. It is a wonderful excuse for those who want to dictate to us how to live our lives. It also has three questions:
1) Is the Earth technically warming...? That in itself is debatable (though up till now it has seemed so).
2) "Global Warming" technically refers to the release of greenhouses gases from humans that will trap heat from the sun, heating up the upper atmosphere, thus heating up the lower atmosphere. Technically, the global climate and temperature could be going up, but if it isn't from humans, it isn't the technical definition of global warming.
This is a controversial topic in itself as some say the lower atmosphere is heating up faster than the upper atmosphere, which further complicates the question.
3) If it is human-caused, or not human-caused, will the warming harm us humans?
4) If it is determined that the planet is warming, it is being caused by humans, and it will harm people, what exactly do we do?
If you are like Europe, you make sure no one can afford gas to buy any SUVs, you tax the vehicles highly (California at least does this), you implement carbon-control standards on your power plants that drives up the cost of energy and trashes the economy in the process (Europe), you get Green groups demanding all electronics be made EnergyStar, etc...I vehemently reject all of the above.
I would be much more in favor of creating free-market solutions to this, for example giving incentives to create more fuel-efficient vehicles, more energy-efficient electronics, etc...as these naturally help in that they demand less energy, can help ween us from foreign oil, etc...but I do NOT believe we need Mother Government to come and save us.
Thus, if global warming doesn't exist but we do something, we could actually make the situation worse than it would be with global warming.
This is what the global warming-advocates claim, basically to promote fear-mongering and also b/c if you show that many areas are becoming colder, they can say it doesn't refute the theory.
I do not believe in the more extreme or intense weather events such as increased hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, droughts, etc...such events are caused by a difference in the climate of the poles. If the poles become more similar in temperature, then most likely we will experience far more mild weather.
So say the global warming scaremongers. I bet you in fifty years it will be no different than it was in 1950.
Remember, humanity always thrived during the warm periods, not the cold periods. Rome and the Mayans flourished during periods warmer than now. Both empires collapsed in a cold period.
Europe was frought with war, famines, poverty, disease, etc...during a cold period, and experienced great prosperity during the warm periods.
When Greenland melted down it experienced mild winters and good summers, and was settled by the Norseman (from about 1000 AD to 1200 AD). When it re-froze over (and it still is rather frozen), the Norseman left; those that stayed, starved or froze to death.
These scientists who want us all to start living minimalist lives and doing this and that to our economy need a boot jammed up their arse for not paying attention to the economics of the situation.
Economic advancement is essential to helping the 3rd World come out of poverty. Allowing weak economies around the world could actually kill more people than any natural disaster. Remember, the most lethal weapon the communists ever had wasn't their nuclear weapons, it was their economists (accidentally starved over 100+ million people in one century alone).
Strong economies are essential for handling natural disasters as well.
Droughts are actually pretty normal in Seattle during the summer. Coming from Corvallis, you should know what our summers are like.
Can we call it what it truly is, it is not a theory, it is a HYPOTHESIS. And the HYPOTHESIS of global warming is retarded.
How exactly is the earth a heat engine? I haven't heard this one before. Please explain in detail, I am going to grab an old thermodynamics textbook and make sure I didn't miss an extra chapter.
So in other words, there will be some hot places, some cold places, places with lots of rain, and places with little rain.
Sometimes there will be hurricanes, and sometimes there will be tornadoes, and sometimes there will be both, and sometimes there will be neither.
If this is your definition of GLOBAL WARMING, can we just rename it the definition of EVERYTHING?
It isn't fair (nor scientific) if you are just going to take the stuff that already happens naturally and cyclically, has always happened naturally and cyclically, and will continue to happen naturally and cyclically and tell me it is global warming, it is my fault, and I need to sell my truck and buy a bicycle because of it.
EVERYBODY PANIC!!!!!!!!!111111
--Break--
BTW, did it ever occur to you that maybe the majority of the controversy of global warming stems from the fact that if earth scientists simply say "Yeah, everything is ok right now" they won't get funded, but if they say "DOOM IS IMMINENT" they will get a lot of funding?
In 2006 federal spending on research into Global Warming/Climate Science was $1.7 billion
Here are a couple of animations to watch. I find this crap fascinating how the earth is always changing. The earth is going into a warming cycle, there is no doubt about that. The question to be answered is the rate at which its warming faster than normal and if it is.. why? Is it us, fuck if I know...
The first link is a video of the polar ice cap from 1979 to 2003. Its amazing how much the ice cap changes every few years. Interesting stuff. One thing to remember about this video is a lot of the "global warming" associate with the ice caps is their thickness which you can't tell from this video.
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/1023esuice.html#addlinfo
The second video is the climate in the Atlantic ocean and European Continent.
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/mpg/97517main_YrlyTempAnom.mpg
I am no expert on the subject and have only read a few different articles for and against it. Basically there are a few things that cannot be ignored. The ice caps are melting at a faster rate then ever recorded. This in turn is changing currents in the Atlantic (as well as all over). When the currents change the climates change in that region of the world. So, like somebody said above, somewhere it will be getting colder... I know the current that runs along Europe from South America (equator) is being affected by this. In turn things will change in Europe...
Jury is still out for me. I am not going to turn a blind eye like a lot of people and just say its scientific BS. That would be ignorant.
The first link is a video of the polar ice cap from 1979 to 2003. Its amazing how much the ice cap changes every few years. Interesting stuff. One thing to remember about this video is a lot of the "global warming" associate with the ice caps is their thickness which you can't tell from this video.
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/1023esuice.html#addlinfo
The second video is the climate in the Atlantic ocean and European Continent.
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/mpg/97517main_YrlyTempAnom.mpg
I am no expert on the subject and have only read a few different articles for and against it. Basically there are a few things that cannot be ignored. The ice caps are melting at a faster rate then ever recorded. This in turn is changing currents in the Atlantic (as well as all over). When the currents change the climates change in that region of the world. So, like somebody said above, somewhere it will be getting colder... I know the current that runs along Europe from South America (equator) is being affected by this. In turn things will change in Europe...
Jury is still out for me. I am not going to turn a blind eye like a lot of people and just say its scientific BS. That would be ignorant.
I'd have to disagree there. The ice in the Arctic seems to be melting, and a peninsula off of the Antarctic continent seems to be melting, but aside from that, all current evidence shows the whole of the Antarctic continent to be growing colder. This is significant, because Antarctica comprises 90% of the world's ice. Greenland is about another 7%, and then the other 3% is glaciers, which global warmers claim are melting, but that is a tough thing to call because there are thousands of glaciers, of which only a limited number have been documented, and only a very tiny number studied in any detail.
Some of the most ardent global warming scientists even said that just because Antartica appears to be growing colder, that doesn't mean that global warming is not happening. Well okay, but if the place with 90% of the world's ice appears to be growing colder, then I doubt we have much to fear with regards to the continents getting flooded out or anything.
Just throwing in my 0.02: There is a reason the most powerful computers were designed and built for climate modeling, one in Japan and one in Boulder, CO. It is an intensely complicated issue (spent my entire undergrad years studying it and still get lost in all of it).
If all of the ice in the artic were to melt, wouldn't that cause the sea levels to fall, not rise? What with ice having a specific gravity of only like .92 or so.
No, because most of the ice in the Arctic, as well is in Greenland, is on land, not in the water, thus sea levels would rise. Additionally, the land under the ice is compressed by the weight of the ice, so when it melts, the ground will 'bounce' back, forcing more ice into the water, rising sea levels.
The ice already in the water wouldn't change the sea level, exactly like ice cubes melting in a glass of water.
But this is only one thing effecting sea levels. Another is the amount of dams being built globally, changing the amount of freshwater flowing into the oceans, changing the pH, which changes currents, which changes global temperature distributions, blah blah blah...
No one aspect of this can be taken on it's own which is what makes it such a hot (pardon the pun
) topic
And at an absolutely tremendous cost. Lets be clear. What Al Gore, Kyoto and the UN have in mind is not just your normal responsible earth friendly policies. What they propose is outrageously expensive to the US, and for not more then a degree or two estimated change in temperatures. The cure is more costly then any climatic fever they have advanced.
I tell you what I call it. I call it arrogant to the highest degree that people think they can control the earth's climate in any significant measure. I also call it a CROCK!.
No.
That is a intentionally narrow view of the subject. Your arguing (with a few good points, and a lot of garbage) about Global warming like you know the subject and it shows that you have probably researched it a bit. So it should be obvious to you that you saying pro-Global warmers are using the "some areas will get colder" fact as a shield for perpetuating hysteria is ridiculous and sensationalist. The reason it's called Global warming is because of the long term mean increase in Global temperature, localized conditions will vary, and in some cases will very up or down, a lot. A place like Ireland which is extraordinarily dependent on the ocean warming ocean currents right off its coast is a great example of a place that will face significant cooling.
To even suggest the rate of change of climate affecting emissions is ANYWHERE close to ANYTIME in recorded and pre human history up to 500,000 years ago is an idiotic argument at best. The cycles your referring too (at least I hope you are) should by [SIZE=-1]Milankovitch cycles, and we are blowing right through the roof of the computer models of what our greenhouse effect should be.
[/SIZE]
Upstream of Corvallis; the Beavers can drink my piss
!What? This is the whole theory, where the science of Global warming is strongest! Climate on Earth is driven by one major heat source: the Sun. To have the climate running at an equilibrium state (no changes) you have to have an equal amount of energy in as the energy let out. As Solar radiation strikes the Earth, is either directly converted to thermal energy or is deflected back out into space by the atmosphere/clouds/snow/ocean what have you. The thermal energy is absorbed into the oceans is the power that drives global wide current belts and drives the process of evaporation results in the water cycle. If you start increasing greenhouse gases you increase the time it takes for reflected solar radiation to leave the equation. This part is somewhat complicated b/c when the solar radiation comes in from space it has enough energy to punch through the greenhouse gases all the way to the ground, but upon reflection against a surface, it loses that extra punch and becomes trapped. The energy hangs around for a lot longer, unbalancing the equation and shifting the equilibrium towards increasing the energy and temperature. Like any complex system, the Earth has many buffers to this like the oceans acting as heatsinks. There are a multitude of these factors, and when loadtoad said
he really said it well.