NationStates Jolt Archive


The world is warming up...

The Chinese Republics
28-12-2005, 23:09
The weather out there is so abnormaly warm this winter. Here in Rupert we usually get between -1 to 4 degrees celcius, today it's 9 degrees celcius according to The Weather Network (http://www.theweathernetwork.com/Weather/Cities/Can/Pages/CABC0236.htm). Also, it's raining on Whister's ski hills instead of snowing (http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/12/27/ski-resort-051227.html) and Texas and Oklahoma are on fire (http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2005/12/28/wildfires051228.html) :eek: . What's wrong with the weather these days? Is this normal or was it those damn global warming making Hummers.

edit: also, read this: http://www.cbc.ca/story/science/national/2005/12/28/permafrost051228.html
Smunkeeville
28-12-2005, 23:13
As for Oklahoma, our weather is never "normal" we have records of 90F in the middle of winter dating back to the 1900's and records of snow storms in the summers from the 1920's so you really can't judge what's "normal" by us.

Two years ago we had a day where it was sunny and 80F and then rain came in suddenly dropped about 4 tornadoes and about 1 1/2 feet of hail in my yard and then 45 min later it was back in the 70's, yep, that kind of crazy-ness is normal here. ;)

Oh, and I blame the big rigs that drive through here all the darn time, we are the crossroads of America, and pollution here sucks because of it.
Kyleslavia
28-12-2005, 23:16
I thought this was going to be some analysis/debate about global warming.
The Doors Corporation
28-12-2005, 23:21
Yeeeup, it has rained a couple of times....in NOVEMBER in ANCHORAGE, AK. So... it is getting warmer. As for snow...it has snowed 3 times, the first two were somewhat melted by mix of rain and warmth. The third snowfall is barely holding on. It sucks, I still love Alaska, but I want real snow fall, none of this Seattle sh*t.
The Chinese Republics
28-12-2005, 23:28
Every summer, the weather there is so boring, cold, depressing. It averaged around somewhere around 12 degrees celcius. Then last summer (2005 of coarse), almost everyday we get a clear 25 degree celcius weather, it was absolutely beautiful but everybody were not used to the heat, so everyday I saw mens half naked and chicks only wear shorts and small tops. :D
Drunk commies deleted
28-12-2005, 23:31
We're enjoying temps in the high 40s (farenheit) here in NJ. Not unheard of, but definately unusual for the end of December.
The Chinese Republics
28-12-2005, 23:35
Yeeeup, it has rained a couple of times....in NOVEMBER in ANCHORAGE, AK. So... it is getting warmer. As for snow...it has snowed 3 times, the first two were somewhat melted by mix of rain and warmth. The third snowfall is barely holding on. It sucks, I still love Alaska, but I want real snow fall, none of this Seattle sh*t.Well, that's what we usually get if we live on the coast. Do you ever notice that everytime there's clear skies the weather is very cold, and everytime there's cloudy skies the weather is warm. So annoying.
Greenlander
28-12-2005, 23:38
When it's warm enough to grow crops using iron age technology in Greenland and produce a harvest capable of sustaining your family, then the world will be as warm as it was Erik the Red founded settlements there... We've been in a miniature stinking Ice Age since the thirteenth century if you use that as a barometer. After seven hundred years it’s about time we had some global warming going on. ;)
Tremerica
28-12-2005, 23:44
In Southern Ontario, or at least where I live, its a lot wetter this winter
Neminefir
28-12-2005, 23:45
I believe that the discussion above, instead of the discussion on the actual topic of this thread, is the reason the globe is warming up....
Megaloria
28-12-2005, 23:48
Things come and go. Here on the east coast, we had a white christmas for the first time in a few years. Weather patterns aren't set in stone.
Tactical Grace
28-12-2005, 23:50
"Global warming" is a global average.

Some places will have the same temperature, some will get colder, in others the variation will be in humidity, rainfall, etc. I prefer the term climate change, as "global warming" is very misleading.
Vetalia
29-12-2005, 00:33
Well, it's great for energy prices. Natural gas has fallen over 30% in the past four days thanks to the warm weather.
Neu Leonstein
29-12-2005, 00:53
Here in Brisbane (and the whole of Australia really) it's actually pretty clear.

The city used to be subtropical, but these days it could be classified as arid. It just doesn't rain anymore, and every year gets the honours of the new hottest year on record.
Did you know that this town has been under pretty severe water restrictions for at least 6 months now?
100101110
29-12-2005, 01:00
How can this different weather be attributed to Global Warming when it's so sudden(It wasn't like this last year)? The reason is because it's not due to Global Warming. If I remember correctly, this year saw a bunch of severe natural disasters. That's whats causing the difference.
Ballklampania
29-12-2005, 02:25
It's because they're aren't enough pirates in the world...

http://www.venganza.org

No but really, it is because of the Hummers. And cows. The cows and their farts. You know about that. I think that we all need to eat more beef. Farting less would be good, too. The guy above,that's also why there were so many (big) huricanes this year, too. The heat caused the water to evaporate, fueling the hurricanes. How are hurricanes going to make it hotter, anyway?

-Ballklampania
The Chinese Republics
29-12-2005, 02:30
It's because they're aren't enough pirates in the world...

http://www.venganza.org

No but really, it is because of the Hummers. And cows. The cows and their farts. You know about that. I think that we all need to eat more beef. Farting less would be good, too. The guy above,that's also why there were so many (big) huricanes this year, too. The heat caused the water to evaporate, fueling the hurricanes. How are hurricanes going to make it hotter, anyway?

-Ballklampania
We need a butt plug. :D
Sinuhue
29-12-2005, 02:32
The weather out there is so abnormaly warm this winter.
It feels like spring. We had a brown Christmas, and my kids and I went out today in wind jackets instead of parkas. This causes a serious problem for our farmers...too little precipitation over the winter usually means a low harvest. It's nice for us...but not good for the animals...if we get a sudden cold snap, there are a bunch of animals that should be hibernating who will be caught unfattened for their sleep. It's bizarre.
Sinuhue
29-12-2005, 02:33
Well, it's great for energy prices. Natural gas has fallen over 30% in the past four days thanks to the warm weather.
Really? Here they jack the price up during warm months so you end up paying about the same as in the cold months. F*ckers. Have I mentioned how much I resent deregulation?

Then again, our geothermal system allows us to avoid most of that...but I still have to listen to my mom bitching:D
Fraternity and Liberty
29-12-2005, 02:36
God, I wish global warming hurried the hell up here in Canada. Sometimes it hits -20 up here...so damn cold. Maybe Quebec will get flooded, but its worth the price :/
Eutrusca
29-12-2005, 02:37
The weather out there is so abnormaly warm this winter. Here in Rupert we usually get between -1 to 4 degrees celcius, today it's 9 degrees celcius according to The Weather Network (http://www.theweathernetwork.com/Weather/Cities/Can/Pages/CABC0236.htm). Also, it's raining on Whister's ski hills instead of snowing (http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/12/27/ski-resort-051227.html) and Texas and Oklahoma are on fire (http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2005/12/28/wildfires051228.html) :eek: . What's wrong with the weather these days? Is this normal or was it those damn global warming making Hummers.

edit: also, read this: http://www.cbc.ca/story/science/national/2005/12/28/permafrost051228.html
Rather worrying, I'll grant you. The problem is, even if we were somehow able to stop all greenhouse emissions tomorrow, the trend would still continue for several decades. What we need to do is either find out how to reverse the trend, or just learn to adapt.
Eutrusca
29-12-2005, 02:39
... our geothermal system allows us to avoid most of that...but I still have to listen to my mom bitching:D
That's part of every mother's job description: "Must bitch and moan at every opportunity to insure children are properly irritated." :D
Sinuhue
29-12-2005, 02:42
That's part of every mother's job description: "Must bitch and moan at every opportunity to insure children are properly irritated." :D
What's even funnier is that she made me promise that I'd tell her to shut up if she ever got to this point...because she put up with so much complaining from her mother in law and swore she'd never be like that. But I'm telling her to shut up, and now she won't listen!!!
Straughn
29-12-2005, 06:24
We need a butt plug. :D
A great many of those are already being employed by a few of the posters on this forum. :eek:

Use your imagination as to whom ...
Lotus Puppy
29-12-2005, 06:38
This year in Upstate NY is not warm, but it is wacky. There was a foot of snow on the ground until a few days before Christmas, when warm weather and rain washed it all away. But some things are the same. Buffalo got buried earlier this month, Watertown is in a state of a never-ending blizzard, and the rest of Upstate NY is getting only a little here and there.
Dosuun
29-12-2005, 07:52
To Everyone:

Read Micheal Crichton's new novel, State of Fear

It should clear up a lot of misconceptions and plain old lies you've no doubt heard over the years about "global warming" and some other stuff. Plus it's a fun story.

I really hope I don't have to educate all you sheep.
The Chinese Republics
29-12-2005, 08:02
To Everyone:

Read Micheal Crichton's new novel, State of Fear

It should clear up a lot of misconceptions and plain old lies you've no doubt heard over the years about "global warming" and some other stuff. Plus it's a fun story.

I really hope I don't have to educate all you sheep.Hmmm... don't know I should believe that guy or not. When I read "Eaters of the Dead" two weeks ago, he wrote that the whole story about Ibn Fadlan is true and his manuscripts are properly translated. Then on the side of the book, the novel was classified as "Fiction".
Neu Leonstein
29-12-2005, 08:07
Hmmm... don't know I should believe that guy or not. When I read "Eaters of the Dead" two weeks ago, he wrote that the whole story about Ibn Fadlan is true and his manuscripts are properly translated. Then on the side of the book, the novel was classified as "Fiction".
That's because he's seen how much money the Da Vinci code made.

I wouldn't trust a novelist anyways with an issue like this. Fact of the matter is that there is consensus in the scientific community, and that for some reason, the US media (and the US media alone) still feels like it needs to present some sort of debate - thereby vastly overrepresenting the few people who disagree (and who either aren't actually in the relevant fields, or openly funded by industries which would be hurt by protection measures).
Straughn
29-12-2005, 08:22
To Everyone:

Read Micheal Crichton's new novel, State of Fear

It should clear up a lot of misconceptions and plain old lies you've no doubt heard over the years about "global warming" and some other stuff. Plus it's a fun story.

Just like another fun story that Crichton is the proponent for,
Intelligent Design.

Here, try this on for size and think carefully about your last line.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=74

I really hope I don't have to educate all you sheep.
What the f*ck ever. Back to your hidey hole.

EDIT: Since i'm sure there are a few who have no idea how to interpret data on this subject, like this poster, i'll include a little bit of help.

13 Dec 2004
Michael Crichton’s State of Confusion
Filed under: Climate Science Greenhouse gases Climate modelling Instrumental Record Arctic and Antarctic— gavin @ 10:09 pm - ()
In a departure from normal practice on this site, this post is a commentary on a piece of out-and-out fiction (unlike most of the other posts which deal with a more subtle kind). Michael Crichton's new novel "State of Fear" is about a self-important NGO hyping the science of the global warming to further the ends of evil eco-terrorists. The inevitable conclusion of the book is that global warming is a non-problem. A lesson for our times maybe? Unfortunately, I think not.


Like the recent movie "The Day After Tomorrow", the novel addresses real scientific issues and controversies, but is similarly selective (and occasionally mistaken) about the basic science. I will discuss a selection of the global warming-related issues that are raised in between the car chases, shoot-outs, cannibalistic rites and assorted derring-do. The champion of Crichton's scientific view is a MIT academic-turned-undercover operative who clearly runs intellectual rings around other characters. The issues are raised as conversations and Q and A sessions between him (and other 'good guys') and two characters; an actor (not a very clever chap) and a lawyer (a previously duped innocent), neither of whom know much about the science.

So for actors and lawyers everywhere, I will try and help out.

The issues Crichton raises are familiar to those of us in the field, and come up often in discussions. Some are real and well appreciated while some are red herrings and are used to confuse rather than enlighten.

The first set of comments relate to the attribution of the recent warming trend to increasing CO2. One character suggests that "if CO2 didn't cause the global cooling between 1940 and 1970, how can you be sure it is responsible for the recent warming?" (paraphrased from p86) . Northern Hemisphere mean temperatures do appear to have cooled over that period, and that contrasts with a continuing increase in CO2, which if all else had been equal, should have led to warming. But were all things equal? Actually no. In the real world, there is both internal variability and other factors that affect climate (i.e. other than CO2). Some of those other forcings (sulphate and nitrate aerosols, land use changes, solar irradiance, volcanic aerosols, for instance) can cause cooling. Matching up the real world with what we might expect to have happened depends on including ALL of the forcings (as best as we can). Even then any discrepancy might be due to internal variability (related principally to the ocean on multi-decadal time scales). Our current 'best guess' is that the global mean changes in temperature (including the 1940-1970 cooling) are actually quite closely related to the forcings. Regional patterns of change appear to be linked more closely to internal variability (particularly the 1930's warming in the North Atlantic). However, in no case has anyone managed to show that the recent warming can be matched without the increases in CO2 (and other GHGs like CH4).

Secondly, through the copious use of station weather data, a number of single station records with long term cooling trends are shown. In particular, the characters visit Punta Arenas (at the tip of South America), where (very pleasingly to my host institution) they have the GISTEMP station record posted on the wall which shows a long-term cooling trend (although slight warming since the 1970's). "There's your global warming" one of the good guys declares. I have to disagree. Global warming is defined by the global mean surface temperature. It does not imply that the whole globe is warming uniformly (which of course it isn't). (But that doesn't stop one character later on (p381) declaring that "..it's effect is presumably the same everywhere in the world. That's why it's called global warming"). Had the characters visited the nearby station of Santa Barbara Cruz Aeropuerto, the poster on the wall would have shown a positive trend. Would that have been proof of global warming? No. Only by amalgamating all of the records we have (after correcting for known problems, such as discussed below) can we have an idea what the regional, hemispheric or global means are doing. That is what is meant by global warming.

Crichton next raises the apparently unrecognised (by the lawyer character at least) fact that the interior of Antarctica is cooling (p196), an issue discussed in another post (Antarctica cooling, global warming?). This is more or less correct (given the obvious uncertainties in long term data from the continental interior), but analogously to the example above, local cooling does not contradict global warming.

Next, and slightly more troubling, we have some rather misleading and selective recollection regarding Jim Hansen's testimony to congress in 1988. "Dr. Hansen overestimated [global warming] by 300 percent" (p247). Hansen's testimony did indeed lead to a big increase in awareness of global warming as a issue, but not because he exaggerated the problem by 300%. In a paper published soon after that testimony, Hansen et al, 1988 presented three model simulations for different scenarios for the growth in trace gases and other forcings (see figure). Scenario A had exponentially increasing CO2, Scenario B had a more modest Business-as-usual assumption, and Scenario C had no further increases in CO2 after the year 2000. Both scenarios B and C assumed a large volcanic eruption in 1995. Rightly, the authors did not assume that they knew what path the carbon dioxide emissions would take, and so presented a spectrum of results. The scenario that ended up being closest to the real path of forcings growth was scenario B, with the difference that Mt. Pinatubo erupted in 1991, not 1995. The temperature change for the decade under this scenario was very close to the actual 0.11 C/decade observed (as can be seen in the figure). So given a good estimate of the forcings, the model did a reasonable job. In fact in his testimony, Hansen ONLY showed results from scenario B, and stated clearly that it was the most probable scenario. The '300 percent' error claim comes from noted climate skeptic Patrick Michaels who in testimony in congress in 1998 deleted the bottom two curves in order to give the impression that the models were unreliable.

Dr Hansen is further quoted (a little out-of-context) saying: "The forcings that drive long term climate change are not known with an accuracy sufficient to define future climate change". Given the discussion above it is clear that without good estimates of the actual forcings, the differences in the model projections can be large. It is widely accepted that exact prediction of what will happen to climate in 50 or 100 years is impossible. Much of the future is of course unknowable. A new energy source could replace fossil fuels, governments could control emissions, or maybe a series of huge volcanoes will erupt. Therefore it is much more sensible to ask, what would climate be like if you doubled CO2? or if this or that scenario occured. These are much better defined questions. Hansen's quote is often taken to imply that models are so unreliable they are useless in helping assess the issue. In fact it is the opposite - Hansen is actually claiming that the uncertainty in models (for instance, in the climate sensitivity) is now less than the uncertainty in the emissions scenarios (i.e. it is the uncertainty in the forcings, that drives the uncertainty in the projections).

Continuing to p315, it is claimed that "in the 1970's all the climate scientists believed an ice age was coming" (and, as described on p563, the MIT academic apparently still thinks so). However, this is not an accurate statement and William Connolley's pages on the subject are an illuminating read for those wanting more details.

Another issue that often comes up in discussion about the surface temperature record is the impact of the Urban Heat Island Effect (UHIE), and here it appears on p370. It is undisputed that the centres of cities such as New York are significantly warmer than the surrounding countryside. This issue has been extensively studied and is corrected for in all analyses of the global temperature trends. To see whether there might still be a residual effect in the corrected data, a recent paper (Parker, Nature, 2004) looked at the differences in the trends if you looked separately at windy and not-so-windy conditions. Wind is known to diminish the impact of urban heating, and so the trends on windy days should be less than trends on still days if this was important. The trends actually end up almost exactly the same. Other validating data for the corrected surface temperature record comes from the oceans, which have also been warming in recent decades. Even Richard Lindzen , normally an arch-skeptic on these issues, stated that "ocean temperature increases present some support for the surface temperature record" Lindzen (2002). Another demonstration that the corrections are sufficient is that over the continental US, where many cities have a clear urban heating signal, the mean of the corrected data is actually rather flat (p88) - i.e. none of the strong urban biases in the US has made it into the regional or indeed global mean.

A central issue in the book concerns sea-level rise. Vanuatu is singled out for special attention since the islanders there are understandably concerned about their low-lying islands eventually being swamped. Sea level however is a surprisingly difficult thing to measure. Tide gauges are very noisy, and are usually located on the continental coast. Global trends in sea level from these gauges are between 1.7 to 2.4 mm/yr. Sea level though is not rising everywhere. In Scandinavia the continents are still rebounding from the ice age and local sea level is receding. Satellite data (TOPEX/POSEIDON and JASON) can give a global picture, and indicate that although the global mean rise over recent years (2.8 mm/yr) is significantly larger than the longer term trend estimated from tide gauges, sea level change is actually very dynamic. There are many patterns of behaviour particularly in the Pacific, associated with El Nino variability - possibly related to Vanuatu's lack of actual sea level rise over the last 40 years. Curiously, Crichton cites the higher satellite derived number to claim that the rate of sea level rise has not increased recently ("[Sea level is] rising faster, Satellites prove it","Actually they don't"), p424. There are clearly some problems in comparing tide gauge and satellite data, and of course, satellites can have their problems (cf. MSU data), but the quoted numbers don't support the actual statement at all - though it would be fairer to say that the satellites are consistent with a recent rise in the rate, rather than a proof that it is occuring.

There are only a few out-and-out errors, but to be generous, they probably just slipped through the editing process. For instance, on p187 "higher temperature means more water vapor in the air and therefore fewer clouds" - Presumably, he meant that if the temperature is higher, the relatively humidity could be lower (and so there might be less clouds). On p368. "Croplands are warmer than forested lands". This is probably a confusion with the urban heating issue, but the actual impact is the opposite - croplands have a higher albedo than forests, reflect more solar radiation, and are thus cooler. In fact, while this is not yet fully quantified, it appears to have been a significant cooling term in the global budget over the last 150 years. On p461 "...Greenland shows that, in the last hundred thousand years, there have been four abrupt climate change events" More like 40. And that is probably an undercount given that Greenland may not record events in the tropics.

At the end of the book, Crichton gives us an author's message. In it, he re-iterates the main points of his thesis, that there are some who go too far to drum up support (and I have some sympathy with this), and that because we don't know everything, we actually know nothing (here, I beg to differ). He also gives us his estimate, ~0.8 C for the global warming that will occur over the next century and claims that, since models differ by 400% in their estimates, his guess is as good as theirs. This is not true. The current batch of models have a mean climate sensitivity of about 3 C to doubled CO2 (and range between 2.5 and 4.0 degrees) (Paris meeting of IPCC, July 2004) , i.e an uncertainty of about 30%. As discussed above, the biggest uncertainties about the future are the economics, technology and rate of development going forward. The main cause of the spread in the widely quoted 1.5 to 5.8 C range of temperature projections for 2100 in IPCC is actually the different scenarios used. For lack of better information, if we (incorrectly) assume all the scenarios are equally probable, the error around the mean of 3.6 degrees is about 60%, not 400%. Crichton also suggests that most of his 0.8 C warming will be due to land use changes. That is actually extremely unlikely since land use change globally is a cooling effect (as discussed above). Physically-based simulations are actually better than just guessing.

Finally, in an appendix, Crichton uses a rather curious train of logic to compare global warming to the 19th Century eugenics movement. He argues, that since eugenics was studied in prestigious universities and supported by charitable foundations, and now, so is global warming, they must somehow be related. Presumably, the author doesn't actually believe that foundation-supported academic research ipso facto is evil and mis-guided, but that is an impression that is left.
----
Dosuun
29-12-2005, 08:32
I wouldn't trust a novelist anyways with an issue like this. Fact of the matter is that there is consensus in the scientific community, and that for some reason, the US media (and the US media alone) still feels like it needs to present some sort of debate - thereby vastly overrepresenting the few people who disagree (and who either aren't actually in the relevant fields, or openly funded by industries which would be hurt by protection measures).

Just like another fun story that Crichton is the proponent for,
Intelligent Design.

Here, try this on for size and think carefully about your last line.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=74


What the f*ck ever. Back to your hidey hole.

Notice how the subject lashes out when it is confronted by something beyond its understanding.

Well you can chew on this for a while:

"Testimony of Michael Crichton before the United States Senate"
Committee on Environment and Public Works, Washington, D.C.
September 28, 2005

"Environmentalism as Religion"
Commonwealth Club, San Francisco, CA
September 15, 2003

"Aliens Cause Global Warming"
California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA
January 17, 2003

$10 says you won't read a single word of those speeches before declaring them irrelevant and dismissing them.

Edit: I need not prove anything to you. I know what I know. I know that I know the truth. I know that you have sadly become so entrenched in your beliefs to even consider alternatives. I know that Concensus Science is only used when the supporting evidence is weakest. I offer you the truth but if you wish to remain blissfully ignorant, well there is nothing I can do for you. I pity you and all others who have been blinded. You will fight to protect a lie. I hope, for your sake, your sepherds are at least well-intentioned.
Straughn
29-12-2005, 08:43
And for the very clever out there, this post is from the people whose business it is to know how to collect and interpret the data without right-wing bullsh*t spin.

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/slides/index.htm

http://ipcc-ddc.cru.uea.ac.uk/

and the follow up (w/the meat):

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/

There's a LOT to ingest from that site.

I'll follow up with this since no one else has posted it yet.

*ahem*

Ice Core Extends Climate Record Back 650,000 Years

Researchers have recovered a nearly two-mile-long cylinder of ice from eastern Antarctica that contains a record of atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane--two potent and ubiquitous greenhouse gases--spanning the last two glacial periods. Analysis of this core shows that current atmospheric concentrations of CO2--380 parts per million (ppm)--are 27 percent higher than the highest levels found in the last 650,000 years.
The ice core data also shows that CO2 and methane levels have been remarkably stable in Antarctica--varying between 300 ppm and 180 ppm--over that entire period and that shifts in levels of these gases took at least 800 years, compared to the roughly 100 years in which humans have increased atmospheric CO2 levels to their present high. "We have added another piece of information showing that the timescales on which humans have changed the composition of the atmosphere are extremely short compared to the natural time cycles of the climate system," says Thomas Stocker of the University of Bern in Switzerland, who led the research.

The core is a result of the European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica (EPICA) and it extends the climate record 210,000 years further back than what previous ice cores from Vostok Station on the same continent had documented. Scientists can determine ancient atmospheric concentrations by measuring CO2 and methane levels in tiny air bubbles trapped in such ice, formed when the ice fell to the earth as snow. By comparing the EPICA air bubbles data to that from other ice cores and marine sediments, researchers can create a reliable picture of the climate over time.

This record also seems to show that the rise in methane levels in the last 10,000 years--thought by some to be a result of human agriculture--could simply be the result of natural variability in the decomposition of plants in boreal forests and wetlands.
The research appears in the current issue of Science and presents a larger target for climate modelers to hit in fine-tuning their computer simulations. Therefore, it may ultimately help predict what climate changes the future holds. But this cold, gray ice already makes clear that humans have steered the atmosphere into unusual territory. --David Biello

---
And for those who still don't seem to get it ...

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=0006DDF5-DC0E-1C67-B882809EC588ED9F&sc=I100322

and

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000DDCAB-4CD4-1C75-9B81809EC588EF21

and

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00098D55-228C-12F1-A28C83414B7F0000&sc=I100322

So enjoy. And if tasked, of course, m'self or even Gymoor are likely to return.
Dosuun
29-12-2005, 08:51
Am I the only person here who's aware of the fact that most of Anarctica is getting colder? Extending pack ice around the coast has made life a lot harder for penguins. Please, think of the penguins.

The world is in constant flux.

Volcanoes spew more CO2, SO2, and other junk into the air than all of humanity ever has throughout history. Seems to me that the planet is doing a pretty good job killing itself.
Straughn
29-12-2005, 08:54
Notice how the subject lashes out when it is confronted by something beyond its understanding.

Well you can chew on this for a while:

"Testimony of Michael Crichton before the United States Senate"
Committee on Environment and Public Works, Washington, D.C.
September 28, 2005

"Environmentalism as Religion"
Commonwealth Club, San Francisco, CA
September 15, 2003

"Aliens Cause Global Warming"
California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA
January 17, 2003

$10 says you won't read a single word of those speeches before declaring them irrelevant and dismissing them.

Edit: I need not prove anything to you. I know what I know. I know that I know the truth. I know that you have sadly become so entrenched in your beliefs to even consider alternatives. I know that Concensus Science is only used when the supporting evidence is weakest. I offer you the truth but if you wish to remain blissfully ignorant, well there is nothing I can do for you. I pity you and all others who have been blinded. You will fight to protect a lie. I hope, for your sake, your sepherds are at least well-intentioned.
Lawdy, lawdy, this would be embarassing if i thought you had the faculty to understand what you're talking about. Read my posts and get back to me. Or ask Gymoor if you know what you're talking about.

$10 for your rumination and humiliation isn't even worth the paper it gets printed on, since i can tell the difference between necessity in argument and farcicle pursuits and propping of special interests in argument :
Commonwealth Club
But you could spend that $10 towards that old lady who wanted all her funeral proceedings to instead go towards removing Bush from office.
And i hope, for your sake, your dictionaries are more accurate with facts than your opinions your sepherds are at least well-intentioned

I'll note you also didn't bother to follow up on informing yourself. So back to the talking points with you.
Straughn
29-12-2005, 08:58
Am I the only person here who's aware of the fact that most of Anarctica is getting colder? Extending pack ice around the coast has made life a lot harder for penguins. Please, think of the penguins.
Please think of the polar bears, chum!

Groups sue U.S. to have polar bears protected
Last updated Dec 21 2005 09:55 AM MST
CBC News
Leading conservation groups are suing the American government in an attempt to protect Alaska's polar bears from extinction.

The Center for Biological Diversity, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and Greenpeace want the bears listed as an endangered species as a result of the disappearing Arctic sea ice that the animals depend on for survival.

The conservation groups say the government ignored a petition made in February under the Endangered Species Act to list polar bears as endangered.

Under U.S. law, petitions must receive a reply within 90 days. But after one year, a spokesperson for the Center for Biological Diversity says they haven't heard a reply. They filed their suit last week in San Francisco.

"Unfortunately in the United States, there is a high-level policy by the Bush administration not to respond to petitions to enlist endangered species until they're actually sued to make them do it," says Kassie Siegel. "This is because this is the most anti-environmental administration we've ever had in this country."

CENTRE FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY: Polar Bear
However, an official with the Fish and Wildlife Service in Anchorage says it's administrative issues that have delayed a response.

"The issue is that we've had a backlog of petitions in the past couple of years that we've been unable to address, because we haven't had sufficient funds," says Bruce Woods. "But Congress has increased listed funding in the last two years, so we're beginning to make our way through the backlog."

Woods says the polar bears petition will be addressed next year.

Drowning bears

The lawsuit comes just a day after the release of a report that polar bears have been drowning in Alaskan waters.

In September 2004, scientists flying over the Beaufort Sea saw several bears that appeared to have drowned. They think the bears were trying to swim between ice packs that had retreated 260 kilometres from Alaska's northern coast.

U.S. Minerals Management Service researchers said that more polar bears may have drowned than had been found.

If the lawsuit is successful, the polar bear would become the first mammal declared at risk because of global warming.
--


I really hope I don't have to educate all you sheep.
Ha! Funnier every time!
Are you the only person who knows that? Or didn't?
So did you also ignore the other posts?
Straughn
29-12-2005, 09:01
Seems tome that the planet is doing a pretty good job killing itself.
What an interesting, if not informed, post. I'm sure you have the data to back that up.
That post EDIT went pretty quick to the talking points thing i mentioned. Good for you.
Dosuun
29-12-2005, 09:05
I have read every article you have cited here before you posted it. I study both the truth and the lies. I also study the underlying processes that govern each, for it is only when you learn how something is done that what it speaks can be properly judged fact or fiction. I see no point to continue this as you will not be swayed nor even listen to an opposing view. You are a small person with a small mind trying to attack what you don't understand. You are the sort of individual who likes to join causes to feel good about yourself. The sort of person who would protest out of boredom. You may contact me via NS telegram when...if you ever grow up and decide to listen to a side other than your own.

Edit: as for the planet killing itself through volcanic erruption, I consider it common knowledge.
The Chinese Republics
29-12-2005, 09:06
Sitting back relaxing, having beer and popcorn, enjoying a flamewar between Straughn and Dosuun over Michael Crichton. Oh boy, here's come another flame from an Intelligent Design guy.
Kryysakan
29-12-2005, 09:09
Notice how the subject lashes out when it is confronted by something beyond its understanding.

Well you can chew on this for a while:

"Testimony of Michael Crichton before the United States Senate"
Committee on Environment and Public Works, Washington, D.C.
September 28, 2005

"Environmentalism as Religion"
Commonwealth Club, San Francisco, CA
September 15, 2003

"Aliens Cause Global Warming"
California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA
January 17, 2003

$10 says you won't read a single word of those speeches before declaring them irrelevant and dismissing them.

Edit: I need not prove anything to you. I know what I know. I know that I know the truth. I know that you have sadly become so entrenched in your beliefs to even consider alternatives. I know that Concensus Science is only used when the supporting evidence is weakest. I offer you the truth but if you wish to remain blissfully ignorant, well there is nothing I can do for you. I pity you and all others who have been blinded. You will fight to protect a lie. I hope, for your sake, your sepherds are at least well-intentioned.
Such a touching faith in the Messiah-like Crichton! So since you know the truth so well, I'm sure you've submitted it as your PhD thesis and will put it on the web for all us uneducated sheep to read.

As for me, I'm off to a theme park of genetically engineered dinosaurs. Oh wait I can't! Because DNA breaks down after 50,000 years, making the premise of that book impossible. Well if he got that wrong...
Maineiacs
29-12-2005, 09:26
I was talking about this on another thread the other day. tomorrow will be another day with a high about 40F (5C) and rain, when it should be 28F (-2C) and snowing. Of course just last winter, Bangor set a new all-time record low of -29F (-34C).
Straughn
29-12-2005, 09:27
I have read every article you have cited here before you posted it. I study both the truth and the lies. I also study the underlying processes that govern each, for it is only when you learn how something is done that what it speaks can be properly judged fact or fiction. I see no point to continue this as you will not be swayed nor even listen to an opposing view. You are a small person with a small mind trying to attack what you don't understand. You are the sort of individual who likes to join causes to feel good about yourself. The sort of person who would protest out of boredom. You may contact me via NS telegram when...if you ever grow up and decide to listen to a side other than your own.

Edit: as for the planet killing itself through volcanic erruption, I consider it common knowledge.

EDIT: For common knowledge, then, HOW'D we get this far? Care to make that common?
Le sens commun n'est pas si commun. *poke*

I have read every article you have cited here before you posted it. I study both the truth and the lies. I also study the underlying processes that govern each, for it is only when you learn how something is done that what it speaks can be properly judged fact or fiction. I see no point to continue this as you will not be swayed nor even listen to an opposing view. You are a small person with a small mind trying to attack what you don't understand. You are the sort of individual who likes to join causes to feel good about yourself. The sort of person who would protest out of boredom. You may contact me via NS telegram when...if you ever grow up and decide to listen to a side other than your own.
First with Crichton, now with ST:TNG and the BORG:
small person with a small mind trying to attack what you don't understand.
That's the best you've got? Tepid science fiction?
Come on, stick in there buddy, and give me the what for. I'm convinced people like you should have your clocks cleaned by people who have actually bothered to study. That's why i'll stick in it. And that's why there's a lot of posts to qualify my stance. You, so far, have an ID FICTION writer?
It's cute that when the Borg aren't enough, you want to try Freud and remedial Skinnerism to qualify HOW YOU FEEL.
I'm not interested in TGing you.
I'm calling you out on your aggressively ignorant posts. Feel free to educate yourself and correct yourself, or just click *IGNORE* on my posts .... other people will be able to see what you already neglect to.
Grow up indeed.

for it is only when you learn how something is done that what it speaks can be properly judged fact or fiction
So far you've been pretty clear about choosing the side of fiction and alluding to people with opposing points of view to yours as "sheep".

I also study the underlying processes that govern each
Then you should have no problem understanding what i've posted so far.

As for me, I'm off to a theme park of genetically engineered dinosaurs. Oh wait I can't! Because DNA breaks down after 50,000 years, making the premise of that book impossible. Well if he got that wrong... (forgive me if i misunderstand your premise) ;)
You know, this poster makes a good point as well. Are you going to attempt to belittle them as well?
Straughn
29-12-2005, 09:29
Sitting back relaxing, having beer and popcorn, enjoying a flamewar between Straughn and Dosuun over Michael Crichton. Oh boy, here's come another flame from an Intelligent Design guy.
Mmmm, beer and popcorn?
So does the "winner" get the dregs?
Neu Leonstein
29-12-2005, 11:23
$10 says you won't read a single word of those speeches before declaring them irrelevant and dismissing them.
$10 says that your reading comprehension apparently stopped you from correctly using the "quote"-function, thus using my quote, but attributing (and answering it against) Straughn.
Heavenly Sex
29-12-2005, 11:31
Apparently, the weather over here has never heard of global warming :rolleyes:
It's still as cold as usual (around 0°C) :mad:
Neu Leonstein
29-12-2005, 11:38
Apparently, the weather over here has never heard of global warming :rolleyes:
It's still as cold as usual (around 0°C) :mad:
I think so far we've established that changing salinity and the like would kill off the Gulf Stream, such that "Global Warming" would actually turn Europe into a very cold place indeed. :D
CthulhuFhtagn
29-12-2005, 12:15
To Everyone:

Read Micheal Crichton's new novel, State of Fear

It should clear up a lot of misconceptions and plain old lies you've no doubt heard over the years about "global warming" and some other stuff. Plus it's a fun story.

I really hope I don't have to educate all you sheep.
See, there's a reason why Crichton writes science fiction.

It's because when it comes to science fact, he's a fucking worthless braindead piece of shit.

Sorry, still pissed over Jurassic Park. He has seriously got to be huffing paint.
Straughn
30-12-2005, 01:59
$10 says that your reading comprehension apparently stopped you from correctly using the "quote"-function, thus using my quote, but attributing (and answering it against) Straughn.
It's the happy holidays in me or something but i feel inclined to front the $10 just because that prompt resulted in this hilarious post.
But don't quote me on it. All i gots right nows is Monopoly $.
:D
The Chinese Republics
30-12-2005, 02:11
$10 says that your reading comprehension apparently stopped you from correctly using the "quote"-function, thus using my quote, but attributing (and answering it against) Straughn.Burn.
Straughn
30-12-2005, 02:57
Burn.
Yes, global warming is bound to result in a burn or two, somewhere, to someone or something ..... ;)

EDIT: ya know that was just terrible. Feel free to flame me.
:D