The Global Warming thread.

[Boatrocker]

With all the strange weather all over the world, I wonder what people's opinions would be if, instead of saying "Global Warming", the phraseology
would simply have been "Global Climate Change"....? :-0?>

It's never been either-or, the deniers have been duped by intentional obfuscation. The planet is warming but that drives uneven local effects, as the models have predicted all along. Hence, the consequence is climate change.

One of the more interesting things I read (a while back) was the possible effect of melting Arctic icecap on the climate of Western Europe. Ice melting and warming North Atlantic waters between Greenland and the British Isles could cause a sort of mini-ice age from Ireland to Germany.

[JTA]

With all the strange weather all over the world, I wonder what people's opinions would be if, instead of saying "Global Warming", the phraseology
would simply have been "Global Climate Change"....? :-0?>

Keep your change! We can look outside and see everything is normal.

Global warming starts tomorrow; will be in the 60's here.....probably be about 85 or so by the 27th, but don't get too excited because there will also be another foot of snow delivered around the latter part of next month. In addition, two more volcanoes will erupt before the year is over, with shocking consequences....oh, I'm losing the signal.............

How much lava needs to be on the ground before work is cancelled?

[bannination]

With all the strange weather all over the world, I wonder what people's opinions would be if, instead of saying "Global Warming", the phraseology
would simply have been "Global Climate Change"....? :-0?>

Keep your change! We can look outside and see everything is normal.

Global warming starts tomorrow; will be in the 60's here.....probably be about 85 or so by the 27th, but don't get too excited because there will also be another foot of snow delivered around the latter part of next month. In addition, two more volcanoes will erupt before the year is over, with shocking consequences....oh, I'm losing the signal.............

How much lava needs to be on the ground before work is cancelled?

Probably this much: http://science.slashdot.org/story/14/02 ... st-century

"About 252 million years ago, cracks in the Earth's crust in Siberia caused vast amounts of lava to spill out and blanket the region with about 6,000,000 cubic kilometers of molten material—enough to cover the continental U.S. at a one mile depth.

[Mr.B]

Looks like we got another Arctic Tornado headed our way...!



There is some encouragement to this, however.....

Polar Vortex Chill Exterminated 95% of Stink Bugs

[bannination]

Creationist solution to global warming.

[Mr.B]

Nearing Collapse? West Antarctica's Glaciers Speeding Up

Six big glaciers in West Antarctica are flowing much faster than 40 years ago, a new study finds. The brisk clip may mean this part of Antarctica, which could raise global sea level by 4 feet (1.2 meters) if it completely melts, is nearing full-scale collapse...

Florida after 20 meters (66 feet) of sea level rise (Geology.com):



Global sea level likely to rise as much as 70 feet for future generations

I'm not a nay-sayer about Global Warming....I have been saying all along that that Global Warming is a natural process....and have been laughed at or ridiculed for my comments. I've not said much since on the subject, except in jest in this thread, since the BRN days; but I saw something on the Discovery Channel about one of my favorite places that got my attention, so I looked up this tid-bit from Wikipedia.....

"The Everglades are a complex system of interdependent ecosystems. Marjory Stoneman Douglas described the area as a "River of Grass" in 1947, though that metaphor represents only a portion of the system. The area recognized as the Everglades, prior to drainage, was a web of marshes and prairies 4,000 square miles in size. Borders between ecosystems are subtle or imperceptible. These systems shift, grow and shrink, die, or reappear within years or decades. Geologic factors, climate, and the frequency of fire help to create, maintain, or replace the ecosystems in the Everglades.

Water is the most dominant force and substance in the Everglades, and it shapes the land, vegetation, and animal life in South Florida. Starting at the last glacial maximum, 21,000 years ago, continental ice sheets retreated and sea levels rose. This submerged portions of the Florida peninsula and caused the water table to rise. Fresh water saturated the limestone that underlies the Everglades, eroding some of it away, and created springs and sinkholes. The abundance of fresh water allowed new vegetation to take root, and formed convective thunderstorms over the land through evaporation."

Glaciers are melting due to warmer temperatures in the cold climates; that's a fact. Also the fact is.....it's a natural occurring event. We can pass all the laws we want, spend gazaboozillions of dollars on ideas, ban internal combustion engines, shut down the smokestacks.....but no matter what we do...we ain't gonna do nothing to thwart the natural order of Earth's cycles.

[Mr.B]

I'm not a nay-sayer about Global Warming....

You are about the cause.

I am? Gee, you know more about me than I do.

I have been saying all along that that Global Warming is a natural process....

True, but this time humans are the cause.

Well, gee....you think humans are solely the cause? Simple solution: Get rid of humans, huh? Maybe go out and announce to the Earth to stop this silly business of Ice Aging and recycling itself....that ought to do it!

and have been laughed at or ridiculed for my comments.

By 97% or more of scientific papers on the topic over the past few decades. Do you have an expert sources for disagreeing or is it just wishful "thinking"?

Do you have expert solutions to the answers, or is it just wishful "thinking?"

...Glaciers are melting due to warmer temperatures in the cold climates;

Warmer temperatures globally.

Ya think maybe that's the same thing...? Heat does migrate towards cold, you know....not the opposite.

that's a fact. Also the fact is.....it's a natural occurring event.

It always has something driving it. Now, it's humanity and you silly deniers are unable to ID an alternate current driver of it.

"Silly denier"? P'raps you missed my first statement.....or in your rush to find a cute reply, you chose to deny it? You think maybe natural forces or occurrences could be an "alternate current driver of it"?

We can pass all the laws we want, spend gazaboozillions of dollars on ideas, ban internal combustion engines, shut down the smokestacks.....but no matter what we do...we ain't gonna do nothing to thwart the natural order of Earth's cycles.

What current cycle are you talking about? They don't just pop up magically.

What current cycle do you think I'm talking about, and how do you think they "pop up", silly? Man hasn't always been the cause of climate change, or global warming; which the earth has experienced before, (whichever term you prefer to use). Maybe they're the fault of conservatives and Christians, you think? Those two groups seem to be at the root of all the other ills you crusade against.

Even if your excuse for apathy and inertia was correct, which it isn't, what have you got against reducing pollution and the trade deficit, ending support for dictators and creating more jobs at home?

So if I disagree with the deniers, I'm only putting forth an excuse for "apathy and inertia", which leads you to be the only true crusader for the belief in climate change, or global warming; whichever term you prefer to use?

reducing pollution----reducing the trade deficit-----ending support for dictators-----creating more jobs at home....yeppers, those scenarios will most certainly stop climate change, or global warming; whichever term you prefer to use.

[Mr.B]

"......and you are completely unable to ID some other "natural forces or occurrences" that are doing it."

Uhhh.....let's see...uhhh....darn, that's a toughie.....uhhh.....maybe the same "natural forces or occurrences" that's caused it the last thousands of years....?

Since there weren't factories, automobiles, pollution, or enough cattle/human flatulence back then.....come to think of it, those dinosaurs could probably cut some whoppers, don't you think?

[Mr.B]

"In other words you don't know what they were at the time, have no clue whether any are operating today, and just wish that some relevant one is suddenly discovered despite scientists looking at the issue closely for decades now. Does that seem rational and informed even to you?"

Since it's obvious that I'm too dumb to know what caused past warming/cooling periods and I wish that some relevant cause is discovered, why don't you, in your infinite wisdom, tell us what did cause past warming/cooling periods? You said they've been looking at the issue for decades now, so let's go back the thousands of years I spoke of.....I'm not too concerned with their "scientific" findings of today's causes.......

[Mr.B]

"Cool, I don't think I've ever seen anyone besides me color code a poster's handle. It does help with these rainbow chats."

Whatever trips your trigger.

[homerfobe]

Damn, the idiot is so eat up on himself he can't even agree with someone that agrees with him. Just got to prove his one upmanship.

[JTA]

Science and Oil Don't Mix: Wyoming Becomes First State to Reject New U.S. Science Standards for Schools

So, Wyoming's kids will be science-illiterate and ill-prepared for the real world. Then, they'll realize they were lied to by their schools, government and energy companies. Sad.

I could probably just look this up on the internet, but for the sake of discussion why are some people so pissed off about the common core curriculum? What's so drastically different about common core that has upset people? I see a few signs in peoples front yards around where I live saying "Stop Common Core Now!". Is it as bad as forcing parents to vaccinate their children against diseases?

[rstrong]

I could probably just look this up on the internet, but for the sake of discussion why are some people so pissed off about the common core curriculum? What's so drastically different about common core that has upset people?

The problem is that it's almost in the realm of a national curriculum, which would tread on states' rights.

Specifically the right to underfund their school systems, ignore the problems, and then ignore the results.

[O Really]

Science and Oil Don't Mix: Wyoming Becomes First State to Reject New U.S. Science Standards for Schools

So, Wyoming's kids will be science-illiterate and ill-prepared for the real world. Then, they'll realize they were lied to by their schools, government and energy companies. Sad.

I could probably just look this up on the internet, but for the sake of discussion why are some people so pissed off about the common core curriculum? What's so drastically different about common core that has upset people? I see a few signs in peoples front yards around where I live saying "Stop Common Core Now!". Is it as bad as forcing parents to vaccinate their children against diseases?

"Common Core" is being used as the scapegoat for some other educational concepts. It's not federally required, nor does it define or require a particular curriculum. I found an article that explained it ... I'll see if I can find it again and link it.

[O Really]

This isn't the one I had in mind, but it does give a reasonable perspective... http://origin-www.citizen-times.com/art ... de-schools

[Wneglia]

[Wneglia]

Sometimes the crackpots are right

[Wneglia]

No Darwin?

It's AGW that was initially met with skepticism and I'm unaware of a single scientist on that list that was funded by rightwing foundations or the fossil fuel industry.

From your Link

"Dr. Spencer’s research has been entirely supported by U.S. government agencies: NASA, NOAA, and DOE. He has never been asked by any oil company to perform any kind of service. Not even Exxon-Mobil."

Maybe you need to start a petition to stop all his government support, since it is sponsoring junk science.

[rstrong]

Source Watch: Roy Spencer

Skeptical Science: Roy Spencer

RealClimate: How to cook a graph in three easy lessons

There are plenty of rebuttals - from REAL scientists - to his claims in that first link. Also:

Spencer has been an active in advocating Intelligent Design over evolution, and argued in 2005 that its teaching should be mandatory in schools. Working with the Interfaith Stewardship Alliance, Spencer has been part of an effort to advocate environmental policy that is based on a "Biblical view" rather than science. As a defender of "Intelligent Design" creationism, Spencer has asserted that the scientific theory of evolution is really just a kind of religion.

....Which tells you everything you need to know about his definition of "science" and his opinion of evidence.

[Wneglia]

I wonder why Lennart Bengtsson had a change of heart.

See also

Senility?