Global warming ?

Automatic Washer - The world's coolest Washing Machines, Dryers and Dishwashers

Help Support :

F

favorit

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 10, 2008
Messages
1,436
Sometimes one thinks that all those forecasts kinda "we'll be all submerged by oceans" are just some hypes of those "green freaks"

Ok, climate has ever changed. E.g. alpine glaciers were less extended in the 15th-16th centuries and people could travel more easily through cols. That's why still there are some swabian/alemannic dialects in north western italian Alps and even in Austria (e.g. Galtuer, where one expects rather a bavarian dialect)

But now, mehinks these climatic changes are way too fast. Indeed there' s something wrong.

In another thread Bob wrote that in western Canada now they have a somewhat spring. Canada, not California.

Keven wrote about some tornadoes that occurred in Germany (he said the last ones were in the middle ages)

In whole Europe floods and sadly even flash-floods are getting more frequent. And we haven't seen so much snow since 20 years.

Some month ago a severe flood occurred in Mecca, Saudi Arabia ... a flood in the desert would sound as a prank. Sadly it was real.

What's changing in your place climate ?
 
'Indeed there' s something wrong.'

But is there something 'wrong' or is it just weather?

Severe tornados occur all over the world, not just in America. Apparently more people get killed by tornadoes in India and Bangladesh than in the US. Here in Australia we get severe tornadoes as well. Though, most of them tend to blow themselves out over unpopulated areas.

There's been significant population growth along America's tornado alley over the last 50 years. More people means more buildings, which increases the potential for more damage. The annual average of tornadic events hasn't actually increased. Though, every time there is an F4 or F5 event there appears to be more damage. One needs to also consider that such events are now reported instantly and with a lot of drama.

Severe flooding is usually the result of people building in flood plains. Things go okay for quite some time, long enough for people to forget where they've settled and than nature reminds them that, perhaps, they should have built their houses on stilts.

Most natural events that we consider catastrophic are actually regenerative in the natural world. It is only when our stuff gets in the way we take it personally, because humans have this attitude that somehow our species are the masters of this planet.

I am extremely sceptical of this hard-sell regarding anthropogenic climate change. The genuine science is still out on this issue. Climate science is in its infancy. We've only been able to measure temperature for approx. 200 years. Robust long-term global data on temperature and climate variations does not exist. The types of nihilistic predictions that we are hearing of almost daily are based on very recent and largely inconclusive evidence. In fact there is nothing robust about the scientific data that is IPCC endorsed to push the 'political and economic' interests of climate change.

Another thing that I find ironic is the sudden increase in climate change experts, most of whom have absolutely no background in atmospheric science. Though, they all get paid by our various governments to offer their opinions on this topic.

As far as rising sea levels are concerned, even if the north pole melted away completely, it is largely pack ice that already floats around in the arctic ocean. When it melts its volume decreases exponentially and it would have only a negligible effect on global sea levels. The same applies to Antarctic ice shelves, the size of small European countries, separating and floating away.

Tornadic events, floods, snow storms and droughts are weather events, which are much more unpredictable. They must not be confused with long-term climate or even climate change.

Has our local climate changed where I live? Don't really know, I've only lived here for 30 years and what people have to say about that is largely an excercise in semantics than actual experience. There are changes, but they may well be ruled by cycles that I have not been able to experience due to the short time I've lived here.

When I arrived in Sydney in 1980 we were just coming out of a severe drought. Until the mid 80s summers were very hot, with monsoonal showers and lots of storms during January and February. Then it cooled down from about 85 until the late 90s. Most of the summers were mild to warm with only a handful of days hitting 30 degrees or more. Winters were pretty cold for Sydney standards as well, but nothing to the extent that annual averages had to be re-written.

From the late 90s until now, it's been warming up again. The last couple of years Sydney has had really nice, hot and consisten summer weather. Winters have been relatively mild with the occasional cold snap, but nothing too drastic.

We've had some pretty sever droughts lasting several years in many parts of Australia, but, again these events are cyclical and do not affect all areas equally. By and large we average out according to the records that have been collected over the last 60 years. Talk to anyone older than 50 and they usually talk about much hotter summers when they were young. Apparently Sydney used to hit the old century for days and weeks on end.

Anyway, whatever nature dishes out, we will have to deal with. The question that I am pondering is why should climate change necessarily be all bad? They have so many forecast models to choose from and none of them are any more accurate than the toss of a coin.

Anyway, that is just my opinion on this topic.

cheers

rapunzel
 
The earth has been in an interglacial period for many thousands of years. There are natural variations in the climate - with warmer periods generally corresponding with advances in human civilization, and colder periods with times of starvation and strife. The so called "Dark Ages" in Europe is one example.

However it is fairly clear that global warming at an unprecedented rate has been occuring for the past few decades. Glacier shrinkage is as good an indicator of this warming as any. The recent severe winter weather in much of the northern hemisphere does not mean that the globe is not in a warming trend. If anything, the climatologists have been saying all along that one effect of global warming will be more severe weather. We are probably just seeing the start of that phase.

It seems fairly logical to me that the rapid rate of global warming in the past century can be traced to human activity. Deforestation and greenhouse gases all seem to be traceable to humans and to be prime causes of these changes. We are fortunate that the oceans and water vapor in the upper atmosphere has been moderating the effects of these inputs. But there is a limit to how much they can absorb and sooner or later we'll start to see a process that builds on itself and will start an even greater warming trend that we can't reverse by stopping all human inputs of greenhouse gases etc.

On a personal level, I have mixed feelings about it. I'm looking forward to growing more warm weather crops and fruit trees in my small garden. But widespread drought and violent winter storms are not exactly what I had in mind.

I know there are a lot of skeptics about anthrogenic causes of global warming... but the problem is that most of these opinions disregard the weight of scientific thought on the matter. And there is the little matter that if the scientists are wrong and we really don't have to reduce green house gases, the reduction won't have really hurt the planet any. But if a failure to reduce greenhouse gases results in runaway global warming, the effects on the planet and human civilization could be devastating.

Would you bet the farm that it can't happen?
 
No matter on what side of the fence you see yourself,...

all of us are betting out farm which ever way we go.

I am a scpetic, not because I support a particular political or economic stance, but I see too much lobbying and opportunism in politics and anything that governments decide to throw money at.

Do the sceptics really disregard scientific thought, or are they questioning the worm in the message?

Scientific thought is not the same as scientific fact and should be questioned. Especially when the evidence is weak, inconclusive and governments want to introduce sweeping reforms that are going to have significant social and economic implications on a global scale.

The message of anthropogenic climate change is pure propaganda. Propaganda is bad, whether it is intended for good or questionable purposes makes no difference.

I don't know how it is in the US, but anyone who dares to question the mantra du jour of AGC is immediately branded a sceptic, doubter, denier, blasphemer or whatever else its supporters can think of. That leaves very little room for intelligent, critical and informed discussion.

Through the media we are told that the dabate on AGC is well and truly over. Yet, I don't recall any major scientific debate on this issue, ever. I recall that one day Global Warming was declared and if we, in the modern world, didn't amend our errant ways the consequences would be dire. In my books that is a decree, not a debate. I don't like decrees, that is the stuff of medieval politics and sociopahtic dictators.

We have all heard what happens to people who do not toe the line on climate change. Much science research depends on government funding. Governments always have agendas and do not fund scientific research that does not benefit their own ends. A lot of good science never gets published because it doesn't serve the interests of the decision makeers and funding bodies.

Just because people are skilled and educated, doesn't mean that they make intelligent and sound decisions when it counts. If that were the case, our world would be a better place.

That's all for now.

rapunzel
 
Well said Rich and Rapunzel

"I know there are a lot of skeptics about anthrogenic causes of global warming... but the problem is that most of these opinions disregard the weight of scientific thought on the matter. And there is the little matter that if the scientists are wrong and we really don't have to reduce green house gases, the reduction won't have really hurt the planet any. But if a failure to reduce greenhouse gases results in runaway global warming, the effects on the planet and human civilization could be devastating.

Would you bet the farm that it can't happen?" - Rich

"Just because people are skilled and educated, doesn't mean that they make intelligent and sound decisions when it counts. If that were the case, our world would be a better place." - Rapunzel

The main campus of our little university is across the street from one of the world's most advanced (and non-government, non-industry, non-religious) climate study centers.

They have been documenting and displaying their findings for over 20 years now.

The more time goes by, the fewer serious scientists doubt that we are in a period of intense global warming.
The more time goes by, the more serious scientists agree that, regardless of other factors, there is a direct, causal relationship between our activities and the increase in 'greenhouse' gases in critical atmospheric layers.

Now, just because Christianity has been taken over in the US by hateful, spiteful people who made the Nazis look moderate does not mean that the basic premise of love and forgiveness is wrong.

Just because the scientific tools available to us right now are not as advanced as we would like does not mean the current trends need necessarily be wrong.

Personally, having eaten lunch with some of the world's best minds on the subject and having attended some of their lectures (at the very edge of my education, but just barely able to do the math to follow them), I think we are causing a good deal of the current problem.

The real question, tho', is this: If we are right and do nothing, what will be the consequences?

After all, if we are wrong and it is true that the climate change is not related to us, then it won't matter either way. If, however, what nearly all serious scientists now believe is right, then the consequences will be very serious, indeed.

By the by, water levels are rising, the difference in specific gravity between the phases is not that big. More seriously, the salinity is falling very fast. Does anybody still dispute what keeps the England ice free?
 
Just a clarification ...

Just an FYI - we're not really having an unusual winter here in the Pacific Northwest. It's usually wet and rather mild in these parts - just cuz it's Canada, doesn't mean it's snow and ice everywhere! They don't call it "Lotusland" for nothing!

However, that doesn't negate the fact that "extreme" weather is occurring around the globe.
 
But, is it?

It is easy to say that 'extreme weather is occurring everywhere' but is it?

Or is it just that we have 24x7 instant reporting?

I don't know.

I DO know if the damn greens hadn't quashed nuclear power 35 years ago, we'd have WAY less smokestack emission. Coal is probably the single biggest emitter of C02.

Assuming, of course, that AGC is a fact -- NOT that climate change is happening. It always is, and always will.

But giving governments more power and paying higher taxes will not SOLVE the problem.
 
It is easy to say that 'extreme weather is occurring eve

I think mother nature has the potential to create "extreme" weather like we have never seen in our life time. This "global warming" is nothing in comparison to what this globe can really do. It's a mighty strong ball we live on. It is going to do what it is going to do. Humans are not going to CONTROL earth quakes,temperature,flooding,huricanes,volcanos..... Throw Government and MONEY into the mix makes some people think we can.

When I was little my Mother would take us to the ocean for the summer. She would always say, "Remember,that ocean is BIGGER than you". That is just the ocean. Just think of all the power and force this globe really has..

Jim
 
Well, I guess, after all, I am not the only one sceptical ab

I've cut and pasted an article that appeared on the internet news this morning and reflects some of the reservations that I've voiced above.

..............................................................

The Nobel-winning UN panel that serves as the scientific bedrock for global climate negotiations needs a serious makeover, several of its most senior members said on Wednesday.

Their recommendations included scrapping the panel, which is run by volunteers, and replacing it by a full-time staff or establishing a "Wikipedia-style" forum for swapping information and ideas on climate change.

Of the five researchers who wrote in the journal Nature most agreed the panel's process was too laborious and some suggested its review of climate change be removed from government oversight to avoid any political interference.

None, though, called for the removal of the group's chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, under fire for his stewardship and alleged conflicts of interest related to personal finances. Pachauri has denied any wrongdoing.

Once unassailable, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which issued its first report in 1990, has been battered over the past three months.

The IPCC comprises several thousand scientists tasked with vetting scientific knowledge on climate change and its impacts. They produce a major report every half-dozen years or so. The latest opus, the fourth in the series, was published in 2007.

Governments also participate in the process through helping to nominate experts and to approve a draft of the review.

Ahead of the Copenhagen climate summit in December, the IPCC was rocked by the leaking of emails between some of its scientists that, according to sceptics, showed data had been skewed to mask contradictions about the evidence for man-made global warming.

The allegations became an issue at the start of the UN talks but were dismissed by most scientists as distorted and politically motivated. At least one formal inquiry since then found no wrongdoing or unethical behaviour.

More damaging to the IPCC's reputation have been errors uncovered in its mammoth 2007 report.

A prediction that global warming would melt away the Himalayan glaciers that provide water to a billion people in Asia by 2035 has been dismissed by glaciologists as preposterous, and will be withdrawn.

Another passage suggesting that natural disasters including hurricanes and floods had increased in number and intensity has also been challenged.

Both assertions exaggerate the impacts of climate change and are based on sources that do not meet the IPCC's own standards of reliability, say critics.

These and other problems show the need for root-and-branch reform, said Mike Hulme, a professor at Britain's University of East Anglia and a coordinating lead author of previous IPCC reports.

"The IPCC needs a complete overhaul. The structure and process are past their sell-by dates," he wrote in a hard-hitting commentary.

Hulme suggested dissolving the panel and setting up three separate bodies to take on its duties.

The first would focus on hard science and issue short, timely and policy-relevant reports. A second would evaluate regional impacts and the third would translate all the findings into specific policy options.

Eduardo Zorita, a scientist at the GKSS Research Centre near Hamburg, Germany, called for the creation of a professional, independent climate body on the model of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the International Energy Agency (IEA) or the US Congressional Budget Office.

"The IPCC is currently experiencing a failure of trust that reveals flaws in its structure," pointing to a "blurring" of the space between politics and science, he said.

For John Christy of the University of Alabama, the only way to avoid bias on the part of lead authors nominated by individual governments was to create a "Wikipedia-style" forum for open debate.

"The IPCC would then be a true reflection of the heterogeneity of scientific views, an 'honest broker' rather than an echo chamber," he said.

"The truth - and this is frustrating for policy makers - is that scientists' ignorance of the climate system is enormous," he added. "There is still much messy, contentious, snail-paced and now, hopefully, transparent work to do."
 
...There's four feet of global warming piled up in front

Then it is high time that you take off your clothes and jump into the four feet of global warming.

Invigorate yourself!

Olav
 

Latest posts

Back
Top