Who said Global Warming is not for real!?

[cars]

They showed on the news today that parts of FL actually got Snow/Hail balls!!! Enough where people scouped it off their cars & made Ice Balls!!!

It was said that the temps here in FL have not been this cold in over the last 20+ years!!!

What gives? It sure seems like Global Warming phenomenon! :wah:

[G#Gill]

It is a natural change, there are periods of cold and periods of hot, which swing to and fro. This has been happening for 1000's of years. There are thoughts that we are headed for a new ice-age over an extended period of time. It has happened before. Now Spot will ask me to furnish everybody with evidence ! Well it can be googled. :p

[Bryn Mawr]

cars;1280749 wrote: They showed on the news today that parts of FL actually got Snow/Hail balls!!! Enough where people scouped it off their cars & made Ice Balls!!!

It was said that the temps here in FL have not been this cold in over the last 20+ years!!!

What gives? It sure seems like Global Warming phenomenon! :wah:


Certainly is - quickly disturb a system that's in equilibrium and the result is a series of fluctuations until the system can resolve into a new steady state.

In the intermediate state the short term movements can be chaotic.

[Barman]

Always the same, the worse for 50 years, the worse for 100 years, that means it has been worse in the past, global warming pah, poppycock.

[Richard Bell]

cars;1280749 wrote: They showed on the news today that parts of FL actually got Snow/Hail balls!!! Enough where people scouped it off their cars & made Ice Balls!!!

It was said that the temps here in FL have not been this cold in over the last 20+ years!!!

What gives? It sure seems like Global Warming phenomenon! :wah:


Global warming consists of the gradual rise of the average planetary temperature. Disruptive and strange weather is part of it, as patterns change. Cold weather in sub-tropical latitudes ( it was 4c in Mexico City the other day), droughts in Australia, torrential rains in southeast Asia are consistent with global warming.

[BTS]

Barman;1280755 wrote: Always the same, the worse for 50 years, the worse for 100 years, that means it has been worse in the past, global warming pah, poppycock.


Way Kool.............



Have not heard "poppycock" since me grandmother passed away in 1998....



Now get ready to be pounced on by cloddhopper, bryn etc.........for they know it ALL about how bad we are to even breath here on earth (C02)





But I wonder if they have ever looked at the thought that C02 is not the bad boy as they suppose and some other POS is at fault and not MAN?



Earth's Magnetic Field Changes Climate







Solar geomagnetic activity at all-time lowOnly "zero" could be lower





December sunspots on the rise



30 12 2009

The sun has seen a resurgence of activity in December, with a number of cycle 24 sunspots being seen. The latest is group 1039 seen below:



2009 is ending with a flurry of sunspots. Indeed, if sunspot 1039 holds together just one more day (prediction: it will), the month of December will accumulate a total of 22 spotted days and the final tally for the year will look like this: From Spaceweather.com



The dark line is a linear least-squares fit to the data. If the trend continues exactly as shown (prediction: it won’t), sunspots will become a non-stop daily occurance no later than February 2011. Blank suns would cease and solar minimum would be over.

If the past two years have taught us anything, however, it is that the sun can be tricky and unpredictable.

[BTS]

Richard Bell;1280776 wrote: Global warming consists of the gradual rise of the average planetary temperature. Disruptive and strange weather is part of it, as patterns change. Cold weather in sub-tropical latitudes ( it was 4c in Mexico City the other day), droughts in Australia, torrential rains in southeast Asia are consistent with global warming.




What ever you say pal............:yh_worshp

Ya'll belong to the Al Gore church of global warming:yh_worshp and that is all right by me........

Anything that happens with weather is caused by man...........

NO questions asked

Just make sure you tithe your 10% on the way out:driving: Thank you

[Bryn Mawr]

BTS;1280780 wrote: What ever you say pal............:yh_worshp

Ya'll belong to the Al Gore church of global warming:yh_worshp and that is all right by me........

Anything that happens with weather is caused by man...........

NO questions asked

Just make sure you tithe your 10% on the way out:driving: Thank you


Instead of trying to be a smartarse would you try looking at the attached graph.

Don't worry, it doesn't represent anything real. It's just an illustration.



Note the temperature, goes up and down like a yo-yo - pretty much random and unpredictable.

Now note the slope, straight as a die and totally predictable.

The first is called weather whilst the second is called climate.

Global warming is about climate, not weather - no one has ever suggested that "Anything that happens with weather is caused by man...........

NO questions asked".

Now, can we please discuss the same subject rather than play with the heavy handed sarcasm?

Attached files

[BTS]

Bryn Mawr;1280886 wrote:



Global warming is about climate, not weather - no one has ever suggested that "Anything that happens with weather is caused by man...........

NO questions asked".



Now, can we please discuss the same subject rather than play with the heavy handed sarcasm?


Sure we can, but I notice you sidestep my post that presents another view on what might be going on and why.





One could take your quote below to mean that man is the link to the unprecedented climate change........



Bryn Mawr;1267581 wrote: No-one doubts that the climate changes, always has and always will. What is unprecidented it the rate of change and that is linked to the rise of industrial output. Emphases by BTS





just pointing that out to you as I have NEVER heard anything come out of your mouth that remotely resembled that man was not the cause of climate change.... or do you believe man has little to do with the changes......



On another note:

You would think we would have warmed up in the last decade but we have in FACT cooled....weird huh.. Can you splain that with all this carbon and all we put in the atmosphere?



No Bryn, some get sick of the sky is falling etc.......just look at some of clodhoppers posts:



Clodhopper;1250808 wrote: Growth, yes. But the US produces a far, far greater total amount, and it is the total amount of emissions that has to be cut. And cut fast. We have less than 90 months to sort it or the results will be catastophic, involving (amongst other things) loss of food growing land and mass migrations. The death toll will be in the billions.



Agreed that no-one knows for sure what the effects will be - it is possible that climate change will lead to an ice age, but the scientific consensus is that the most likely result is a 3-5 degree Celsius average warming of the climate.



Either result is a horror beyond my ability to express it.

[Saint_]

Bryn Mawr;1280886 wrote:

Global warming is about climate, not weather - no one has ever suggested that "Anything that happens with weather is caused by man...........

NO questions asked."

Now, can we please discuss the same subject rather than play with the heavy handed sarcasm?


Maybe the lesser educated people think that by dismissing this and making a joke about it, it won't happen. They understand in a vague way that something serious is up and it scares them, but they don't know enough science to understand that "Global Warming" will affect ALL the weather. To me, they are like people in a burning house that refuse to leave because "it might just be the toast in the oven."

People, the rise in the temperature planet-wide does all kinds of things. It melts the glaciers, making deserts where there were jungles. It redirects the jet stream, causing massive tornadoes. It heats the oceans spawning larger, more numerous, and more destructive hurricanes.

And yes... it even dumps tons of ice water into the oceans from a melting ice pack and causes more severe winters.

If you think that mankind isn't affecting the Earth, please come down to New Mexico, I have a sight for you. It's what I see every day. Two huge coal-fired power plants spewing pollution that is so massive it blocks out the sun on some days.

Go ahead... convince me that all that air pollution isn't having an effect on the Earth and isn't bad for us all.

Attached files

[BTS]

Saint_;1280932 wrote: Maybe the lesser educated people think that by dismissing this and making a joke about it, it won't happen. They understand in a vague way that something serious is up and it scares them, but they don't know enough science to understand that "Global Warming" will affect ALL the weather. To me, they are like people in a burning house that refuse to leave because "it might just be the toast in the oven."



People, the rise in the temperature planet-wide does all kinds of things. It melts the glaciers, making deserts where there were jungles. It redirects the jet stream, causing massive tornadoes. It heats the oceans spawning larger, more numerous, and more destructive hurricanes.



And yes... it even dumps tons of ice water into the oceans from a melting ice pack and causes more severe winters.



If you think that mankind isn't affecting the Earth, please come down to New Mexico, I have a sight for you. It's what I see every day. Two huge coal-fired power plants spewing pollution that is so massive it blocks out the sun on some days.



Go ahead... convince me that all that air pollution isn't having an effect on the Earth and isn't bad for us all.


First off, I have NEVER thought of Farmington NM as being in the "High Rockies" ( 5,395 FT ) but to each his own and us'n REDNICKS and "lesser educated people" think a little more towards facts and logic instead of being delusional and believing we live "High in the Rockies" instead of in the "High Desert" of New Mexico.



About the global warming debate, You are not changing my mind and I am not changing yours, therefore I am saving my breath on this issue from now on. One can not change a religous zealot overnight and I am not even going to try.

So you enjoy it "High in the Rockies" and I'll enjoy it here down in the High Desert below you in Placitas Elevation: 5950 feet.



HMM.............Ain't 5950' higher than 5395'????



Oh well hell I am one of the supposed lesser educated dummies you chastised..........

But I might be right

[Saint_]

BTS;1280960 wrote: First off, I have NEVER thought of Farmington NM as being in the "High Rockies" ( 5,395 FT ) but to each his own and us'n REDNICKS and "lesser educated people" think a little more towards facts and logic instead of being delusional and believing we live "High in the Rockies" instead of in the "High Desert" of New Mexico.


Yeah, you're right... over a mile in altitude isn't really "high." Pfft. Your sarcasm is as flawed as your appreciation of science.:p BTW, what has the elevation of a town in New Mexico to do with this thread?:yh_silly



About the global warming debate, You are not changing my mind and I am not changing yours, therefore I am saving my breath on this issue from now on.


Oh... I don't have to change your mind, time will do that for me. (But then again, possibly not. Some people refuse to save themselves, even from certain death. They'd rather stay in their safe "denial" state.)

One can not change a religous zealot overnight and I am not even going to try.


And, obviously, it's impossible to get an ostrich to lift its head from under the ground when it's scared witless. But again, why do you keep going off track like that? What does religion have to do with fact-based science?:-2



Oh well hell I am one of the supposed lesser educated dummies you chastised..........


That's odd. I don't remember specifically naming you. But if you insist... Guilty conscience?:rolleyes:

[BTS]

Saint_;1280964 wrote: Yeah, you're right... over a mile in altitude isn't really "high." Pfft. Your sarcasm is as flawed as your appreciation of science.:p BTW, what has the elevation of a town in New Mexico to do with this thread?:yh_silly







Oh... I don't have to change your mind, time will do that for me. (But then again, possibly not. Some people refuse to save themselves, even from certain death. They'd rather stay in their safe "denial" state.)







And, obviously, it's impossible to get an ostrich to lift its head from under the ground when it's scared witless. But again, why do you keep going off track like that? What does religion have to do with fact-based science?:-2







That's odd. I don't remember specifically naming you. But if you insist... Guilty conscience?:rolleyes:


Why do you ignore this? You upper edja-macated should get your heads out of the sand and look at at ALL sides not just what you are spoon fed



http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/gener ... ost1280778

[Saint_]

I trust my eyes....

Attached files

[Bryn Mawr]

BTS;1280921 wrote: Sure we can, but I notice you sidestep my post that presents another view on what might be going on and why.





One could take your quote below to mean that man is the link to the unprecedented climate change........



Emphases by BTS





just pointing that out to you as I have NEVER heard anything come out of your mouth that remotely resembled that man was not the cause of climate change.... or do you believe man has little to do with the changes......



On another note:

You would think we would have warmed up in the last decade but we have in FACT cooled....weird huh.. Can you splain that with all this carbon and all we put in the atmosphere?



No Bryn, some get sick of the sky is falling etc.......just look at some of clodhoppers posts:


I do believe that man is the major cause of the current rate of climate change - my post was in response to your saying that I claim man is the cause of the change in the weather, a totally different subject.

I did not comment on your comments about sunspot activity because it would have diluted the comments about the un-necessary sarcasm in your post. For the record :-

I have no problem with ascribing some degree of climate change to changes in solar activity, volcanic activity or even passing interstellar dust - climate change is not a simple one to one relationship but a complex equation based on many factors. I believe that the solar cycle is observable in the climate records but is a minor factor in the equation.

The problem I see is that the rate of change in atmospheric CO2, due in the most part to human activity be it industrial, agricultural or personal, is greater than can be compensated for by the natural feedback loops such as the ocean sink and that we are in grave danger of passing one or more tipping points that will have a (semi) permanent effect on the world climate.

BTW, would you care to provide some peer reviewed figures to show that the global climate has cooled over the past ten years for us to discuss?

[mikeinie]

Ireland:

November: Wettest month on record

December: Coldest month in 40 years

January: On rout to being the coldest month on record

I don’t know if it is global warming or not, but it certainly sucks.

[Nomad]

BTS;1280780 wrote: What ever you say pal............:yh_worshp

Ya'll belong to the Al Gore church of global warming:yh_worshp and that is all right by me........

Anything that happens with weather is caused by man...........

NO questions asked

Just make sure you tithe your 10% on the way out:driving: Thank you


Why are some so extremely resistant to at least the idea that man has an impact on his environment?

Cause and effect...its a very basic concept that cannot be denied.

We pollute our air, land and water. Cmon, at least concede that as we populate and increase pollution around ourselves there must be an impact.

[Saint_]

Nomad;1281285 wrote: Why are some so extremely resistant to at least the idea that man has an impact on his environment?

Cause and effect...its a very basic concept that cannot be denied.

We pollute our air, land and water. Cmon, at least concede that as we populate and increase pollution around ourselves there must be an impact.


Yeah... I don't get that either. Even if you don't believe in Climate Change (or "Global Warming" if you like that better) the kinds of things we need to do to combat it, more solar, wind, and geothermal power, recycling, and conservation are all things we should be doing anyway!!!

[Clodhopper]

BTS:

POUNCE!

Well. That wasn't so bad, was it?:wah:

By now if you're not convinced I'm not really concerned with arguing about it anymore. We'd only go round in circles.

As to the apocalyptic warnings - that is what I see ahead if things go on without serious corrective action. I do try to limit myself to one every six months or so.

[BTS]

Bryn Mawr;1281034 wrote: I do believe that man is the major cause of the current rate of climate change - my post was in response to your saying that I claim man is the cause of the change in the weather, a totally different subject.



I did not comment on your comments about sunspot activity because it would have diluted the comments about the un-necessary sarcasm in your post. For the record :-



I have no problem with ascribing some degree of climate change to changes in solar activity, volcanic activity or even passing interstellar dust - climate change is not a simple one to one relationship but a complex equation based on many factors. I believe that the solar cycle is observable in the climate records but is a minor factor in the equation.



The problem I see is that the rate of change in atmospheric CO2, due in the most part to human activity be it industrial, agricultural or personal, is greater than can be compensated for by the natural feedback loops such as the ocean sink and that we are in grave danger of passing one or more tipping points that will have a (semi) permanent effect on the world climate.



BTW, would you care to provide some peer reviewed figures to show that the global climate has cooled over the past ten years for us to discuss?




I Left your whole post with no snip, but, I am replying to your last 2 paragraphs.



I hope you might read these article that addresses both ....



Climate facts to warm to



No rise in world temperatures for the past decade, UN’s top weather man admits in BBC news revelation that also concedes some scientists doubt climate change theory

[BTS]

clodhopper;1281420 wrote: bts:



pounce!



well. That wasn't so bad, was it?:wah:



By now if you're not convinced i'm not really concerned with arguing about it anymore. We'd only go round in circles.



As to the apocalyptic warnings - that is what i see ahead if things go on without serious corrective action. I do try to limit myself to one every six months or so.




re----pounce!

[gmc]

Nomad;1281285 wrote: Why are some so extremely resistant to at least the idea that man has an impact on his environment?

Cause and effect...its a very basic concept that cannot be denied.

We pollute our air, land and water. Cmon, at least concede that as we populate and increase pollution around ourselves there must be an impact.


Some people can look at things like this

YouTube - Mountaintop Removal Movie from iLoveMountains.org

and say it's all progress and industry needs it and that the earth was put there for man to exploit-the bible tells it so. Besides it doesn't matter because everything will grow back again. That those who object are lefty tree hugging hippies who stand in the way of making the country great and want to destroy the economy. God forbid that anyone should argue that maybe natural resources belong to all and shouldn't be old off to the highest bidder with no regard for those who have to continue living there-smacks of socialism that.

Maybe it's because they live in a backward state that hasn't been industrialised and you can't actually see the long term effects man's activity can have on the environment-no vast acres of land that has been over-farmed and can no longer grow anything except grassland and moors for sheep and cattle. The effect of chemicals used in farming are hidden away from populated areas whereas in the UK they are right next door and you see the dead fish on the water and people notice the number of birds is falling because they no longer see them in the garden and wonder why and don't believe it when agribusiness says it's all OK. I live in the middle of one of the most densely populated areas in the UK where land is at a premium yet I have places where I can go walks all around me for the simple reason the land has been so polluted by heavy industry and shale and coal mining that no one is allowed to build on it. I look out my window and environmental impact is just across the road. If all you know of Tennessee is the waltons why spoil the image with a smoking chimney?

If you live in an area damage free and don't see the effects maybe it's just harder to believe the long term damage that can be done.

[Bryn Mawr]

BTS;1281481 wrote: I Left your whole post with no snip, but, I am replying to your last 2 paragraphs.



I hope you might read these article that addresses both ....



Climate facts to warm to



No rise in world temperatures for the past decade, UN’s top weather man admits in BBC news revelation that also concedes some scientists doubt climate change theory


OK, I've read both sites and they are a perfect example of why I asked for peer reviewed papers with figures that we could discuss.

The first link is to a newspaper interview with a biologist who is employed by the water extraction companies to conclude that the lack of water in the Murray is a myth and the river is not in need of protection. It contains lots of opinion but none of it is backed by any verifiable fact - there are no references to data sources and no figures to back up the comparatives.

The second is even worse, it is a blog written by ??? claiming that global warming is a scare story being promoted by the BBC. Again no verifiable fact, no references to source data, no supporting figures and not even a scientific background to suggest detailed knowledge of the subject.

[Saint_]

gmc;1281514 wrote:

If you live in an area damage free and don't see the effects maybe it's just harder to believe the long term damage that can be done.


Well I guess that might be a part of it, but how can any intelligent person not understand what we've seen on the news for decades? The impact of the Exxon Valdez for example.

You can only deny man's impact if you WANT to deny it.:-3

[Clodhopper]

It's how far do you understand the argument.

Point number one: I don't understand all the arguments.

But I'm ignorant at a more informed level. As a result of a high level of education.

This is what BTS is dismissing.

My opinions could be wrong.

My basic training was Arts.

But I understand the arguments the scientists are using, as a result of lucky cross-discipline training in psychology.

I've been trained in the empirical logic they are using as the basis of their work.

Always: Everything and anything I know could be/is wrong.

BUT

On all I have to understand by, climate change is happening. The consequences are left to your imagination.

[Clodhopper]

Oh, and for the hard scientists who are noticing gaps: Start a thread and I'll respond.

[cars]

No real need for charts & or graphs, just go outside!

This morning it was "22"f degrees in Tallahassee, if that's not climate change, don't what is?!:-2

[gmc]

cars;1281856 wrote: No real need for charts & or graphs, just go outside!

This morning it was "22"f degrees in Tallahassee, if that's not climate change, don't what is?!:-2


and we've got the worst snowfall in thirty years. Didn't Tallahassee have a famous bridge or something?

Just twigged you are using Fahrenheit, no wonder americans get confused about global temperature you use the wrong scale.:-5:-5:D

[Nomad]

gmc;1281514 wrote:

If all you know of Tennessee is the waltons why spoil the image with a smoking chimney?



If you live in an area damage free and don't see the effects maybe it's just harder to believe the long term damage that can be done.


Perhaps, but that screams ignorance.

Were all privy to the same information.

[Bryn Mawr]

cars;1281856 wrote: No real need for charts & or graphs, just go outside!

This morning it was "22"f degrees in Tallahassee, if that's not climate change, don't what is?!:-2


That's weather, not climate change

[cars]

Bryn Mawr;1281908 wrote: That's weather, not climate change


Definition of Climate:

the average course or condition of the weather at a place usually over a period of years as exhibited by temperature, wind velocity, and precipitationb. bthe prevailing set of conditions (as of temperature and humidity) indoors - a climate-controlled office



FL has not customarily seen 22f temps & or last week even SNOW, that's not the usual average climate for said state!

[Bryn Mawr]

cars;1282019 wrote: Definition of Climate:

the average course or condition of the weather at a place usually over a period of years as exhibited by temperature, wind velocity, and precipitationb. bthe prevailing set of conditions (as of temperature and humidity) indoors - a climate-controlled office



FL has not customarily seen 22f temps & or last week even SNOW, that's not the usual average climate for said state!


No, it is not usual but it is not outside the bounds of variation.

As your definition says, climate is the trend over a period of years. We are talking of the global climate which is further spread over the whole planet rather than a point source. It is not the specific conditions at one specific point on the World's surface over a one week period - that's weather.

Take an example that's been used here many times. At the north pole it might well be blowing a blizzard at the moment - that's weather. Over the entire year, over the whole Arctic ice cap, more ice melts than is deposited - that's climate. When it happens year after year that's a climatic trend.

Weather fluctuates, sometimes wildly, and is totally unpredictable.

Climate is fairly stable and largely predictable.

Very different subjects.

[cars]

Bryn Mawr;1282084 wrote: No, it is not usual but it is not outside the bounds of variation.



As your definition says, climate is the trend over a period of years. We are talking of the global climate which is further spread over the whole planet rather than a point source. It is not the specific conditions at one specific point on the World's surface over a one week period - that's weather.



Take an example that's been used here many times. At the north pole it might well be blowing a blizzard at the moment - that's weather. Over the entire year, over the whole Arctic ice cap, more ice melts than is deposited - that's climate. When it happens year after year that's a climatic trend.



Weather fluctuates, sometimes wildly, and is totally unpredictable.



Climate is fairly stable and largely predictable.



Very different subjects.
It has to start somewhere, & since it directly affects me, as it's been very cold here for over "3" weeks, to me that's climate change. (It has always been in the high 70's to low 80's.) On the other side of the world, London has gotton tons of SNOW.

[Clodhopper]

cars: In literal terms Bryn is right - statistically, you might expect a once in a lifetime fall of snow in Florida. It's in the range of expectable weather, but only to be expected once perhaps every hundred years. So to a person stuck in the snow in Florida, it's a freak event of the first magnitude.

The climatologists will only start to get seriously interested if in the next, say, ten years you get another or preferably two snowy winters. At that point they can start talking about climate change.

Bryn: Think you are a bit unfair to the Met Office saying weather is TOTALLY unpredictable! They're pretty good out as far as a week, now. With the usual caveats about microclimates, etc. The seasonal forecasts are a bit of a joke, but I saw a senior Met Office bod saying they were experimental and unlikely to be be much good for many years and you had to start somewhere.

[Bryn Mawr]

Clodhopper;1282168 wrote: cars: In literal terms Bryn is right - statistically, you might expect a once in a lifetime fall of snow in Florida. It's in the range of expectable weather, but only to be expected once perhaps every hundred years. So to a person stuck in the snow in Florida, it's a freak event of the first magnitude.

The climatologists will only start to get seriously interested if in the next, say, ten years you get another or preferably two snowy winters. At that point they can start talking about climate change.

Bryn: Think you are a bit unfair to the Met Office saying weather is TOTALLY unpredictable! They're pretty good out as far as a week, now. With the usual caveats about microclimates, etc. The seasonal forecasts are a bit of a joke, but I saw a senior Met Office bod saying they were experimental and unlikely to be be much good for many years and you had to start somewhere.


I'll give you five day forecasts - beyond that the poor overworked butterfly in Outer Mongolia gets the better of you and the system becomes chaotic.

[Clodhopper]

beyond that the poor overworked butterfly in Outer Mongolia gets the better of you and the system becomes chaotic.


So if we chop off the little beggar's wings, Chaos Theory collapses, Mandelbrot doesn't set and we can predict the British weather?

Right. Where are my scissors....

[Bryn Mawr]

Clodhopper;1282370 wrote: So if we chop off the little beggar's wings, Chaos Theory collapses, Mandelbrot doesn't set and we can predict the British weather?

Right. Where are my scissors....


:yh_rotfl Poor, poor butterfly :yh_cry