NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/world/news/10072007news.shtml

Thousands of overjoyed residents took to the streets of Buenos Aires, Argentina on Monday as the capital city had its first major snowfall since 1918.

The snow storm struck on the countries Independence Day holiday, adding to the festive air. Excited children scraped snow off cars and threw snowballs, while some built snowmen on the roofs of parked cars.

According to the local meteorological centre, this is the first time since 1973 that Buenos Aires experienced any snowfall. The snowfall was linked to a mass of freezing air from the Antarctic which collided with a low pressure system that swept across the capital and surrounding area.

Despite all the excitement caused by the snowfall, the sub-zero temperatures have contributed to an energy crisis and the deaths of 23 people from exposure to the cold.

South America is witnessing one of its coldest ever winters this year and the Andes mountain range has witnessed plenty of heavy snowfall.

It is very interesting that this year's Southern Winter is much worse than last year's one. First, we got snow in the South Island of New Zealand in March; then we got snow for the first time in twenty-five years in Johannesburg last month; then we got ice in the seas near Cape Town, and now this

Snow in Buenos Aires - if this is global warming, then I wonder what global cooling must be like.

Snow in Buenos Aires - if this is global warming, then I wonder what global cooling must be like.

I knew this was coming. I just knew it.

Im sorry,but you bettere run now. Prepared to be flamed, because you have an absolute lack of understanding when it comes to the idea of global warming, just like everyone else that uses snow fall, or low temps as "proof" against global warming.

Wow.

Maybe just a joke? Maybe?

I knew this was coming. I just knew it.

Im sorry,but you bettere run now. Prepared to be flamed, because you have an absolute lack of understanding when it comes to the idea of global warming, just like everyone else that uses snow fall, or low temps as "proof" against global warming.

Wow.

I will not be running away, that is for sure. Also, I don't just use ordinary low temperatures as proof, I use low temperatures that should not be happening. You should not be getting snow in Johannesburg, you should not be getting snow in Los Angeles, you should not be getting snow in the middle of summer in Queenstown, you should not be getting snow in Buenos Aires.

Also, global warming means the following

global - universal
warming - increase in temperatures

i.e. a universal increase in temperatures. Alright, some areas may have increases at greater rates than others, however, the idea is that you have an increase in temperatures. Snow where it does not belong is indicative of decreases in temperatures, not increases.

If you really want to, you can look up dictionary.com to get the definitions of global and warming.

In fact, there have probably been more weather events associated with decreases in temperatures in the last two years than weather events associated with increases in temperatures.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/world/news/10072007news.shtml



It is very interesting that this year's Southern Winter is much worse than last year's one. First, we got snow in the South Island of New Zealand in March; then we got snow for the first time in twenty-five years in Johannesburg last month; then we got ice in the seas near Cape Town, and now this

Snow in Buenos Aires - if this is global warming, then I wonder what global cooling must be like.
Doesn't the Buenos Aires area have some sort of really weird climate anyway hence the odd periods of droughts followed by huge amounts of precipitation? Or am I thinking of somewhere else in South America?

I will not be running away, that is for sure. Also, I don't just use ordinary low temperatures as proof, I use low temperatures that should not be happening. You should not be getting snow in Johannesburg, you should not be getting snow in Los Angeles, you should not be getting snow in the middle of summer in Queenstown, you should not be getting snow in Buenos Aires.

Also, global warming means the following

global - universal
warming - increase in temperatures

i.e. a universal increase in temperatures. Alright, some areas may have increases at greater rates than others, however, the idea is that you have an increase in temperatures. Snow where it does not belong is indicative of decreases in temperatures, not increases.

If you really want to, you can look up dictionary.com to get the definitions of global and warming.

In fact, there have probably been more weather events associated with decreases in temperatures in the last two years than weather events associated with increases in temperatures.
Just because temperatures overall increase does not mean adverse weather like snowstorms become impossible. Indeed, they become far more likely, especially when one takes into account the way the climate system works.

You have to study the climate. You also have to take into account the fact that global warming is a bit of a misnomer and should really be called global climate change.

I will not be running away, that is for sure. Also, I don't just use ordinary low temperatures as proof, I use low temperatures that should not be happening. You should not be getting snow in Johannesburg, you should not be getting snow in Los Angeles, you should not be getting snow in the middle of summer in Queenstown, you should not be getting snow in Buenos Aires.

Also, global warming means the following

global - universal
warming - increase in temperatures

i.e. a universal increase in temperatures. Alright, some areas may have increases at greater rates than others, however, the idea is that you have an increase in temperatures. Snow where it does not belong is indicative of decreases in temperatures, not increases.

If you really want to, you can look up dictionary.com to get the definitions of global and warming.

In fact, there have probably been more weather events associated with decreases in temperatures in the last two years than weather events associated with increases in temperatures.

No. Wrong. False.

I can't believe I'm going to say this, again, because I know you will be to thick to even consider it, but here goes:

Global warming refers to the phenomena that the average temperature of Earth is increasing. In fact, it is entirely possible that many areas may infact decrease in temperature due to global warming, for many reasons. The most drastic increases in warming occur at the poles due largely to how our world naturally works(That is, due to how our world works, the poles would be affected moreso than other areas).

Now then, how in the world would Global Warming cause a decrease in temperature in certain areas? Well, one is that an influx of fresh water in the ocean would disrupt warm current flow, and would actually enter Europe into an Ice Age. As well, an influx of liquid water would create an influx in water moisture in water vapor in the air, thus disrupting the air currents, as well as lead to increased precipitation.

Hence, you are dense because you have failed to research what is "Global Warming", you are dense because you have failed to research the effects of "Global Warming", and you are dense because you fail, almost completely, in debate.

Just because temperatures overall increase does not mean adverse weather like snowstorms become impossible. Indeed, they become far more likely, especially when one takes into account the way the climate system works.

You have to study the climate. You also have to take into account the fact that global warming is a bit of a misnomer and should really be called global climate change.

I'm pretty sure Global Warming was a term coined for media hype, and not for actual scientific use. Not sure on that one, though.

It's not an innaccurate term, really, just misleading.

Doesn't the Buenos Aires area have some sort of really weird climate anyway hence the odd periods of droughts followed by huge amounts of precipitation? Or am I thinking of somewhere else in South America?

You could be thinking about elsewhere in South America. I am not 100% sure if the El Nino/La Nina cycle has an impact on Argentina or not, however, even if it did, that cycle has been in existence since the beginning of time. Ironically enough, that cycle is still little understood and it has generally been blamed for the Australian drought, and not global warming

Just because temperatures overall increase does not mean adverse weather like snowstorms become impossible. Indeed, they become far more likely, especially when one takes into account the way the climate system works.

You have to study the climate. You also have to take into account the fact that global warming is a bit of a misnomer and should really be called global climate change.

Snow happens when the temperatures decrease, not when they increase. Also, I never said that it would be impossible, I merely said that it should not be happening. If it happened in one or two places, then that would be normal, however, a great deal of the globe has had these wintry events happen when it should not happen normally, and it should especially not be happening with an increase in temperatures.

Also, climate change is an excuse for failing to admit that no-one really believes this anymore and the scientists are trying to save face - there is always climate change, you go from summer to winter, from one El Nino/La Nina cycle to the next. It was originally called global warming and to call it anything else is a flip-flop.

It was originally called global warming and to call it anything else is a flip-flop.

It's not a flip flop, it's an attempt not to confuse people such as yourself who, even after several years of media coverage, and now after several forum responses, have failed to educate yourself on what global warming actually is.

Looking up two words in a dictionary and making up an explanation in your head does not equal research.

It's not a flip flop, it's an attempt not to confuse people such as yourself who, even after several years of media coverage, and now after several forum responses, have failed to educate yourself on what global warming actually is.

Looking up two words in a dictionary and making up an explanation in your head does not equal research.

As I said, "Global Warming", although accurate in you know what is being referred to, is misleading to the... let's call it "lay-men". The term, when you actually understand what is being referred to is accurate.

And that's the reason I prefer to call it "climate change". Gives challenged people less chance to embarass themselves.

And that's the reason I prefer to call it "climate change". Gives challenged people less chance to embarass themselves.

Oh no, Alexandrian has already amply embarassed himself after that term was used. I would venture to say it actually gives them more of a chance.

Not to spam, but has anyone read the Michael Crichton book State Of Fear? It is an excellent book that has much to do with global warming.

Not to spam, but has anyone read the Michael Crichton book State Of Fear? It is an excellent book that has much to do with global warming.
Great book or not, the science in it was mostly crap.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=74
http://www.wunderground.com/education/stateoffear.asp
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002170342_warming04.html

Snow in one place disproves global warming? That's absurd. That's like saying one good factory in the Soviet Union means the economy is working great.

Snow in one place disproves global warming? That's absurd. That's like saying one good factory in the Soviet Union means the economy is working great.

Sort of like making a case for global warming by saying the glacier is shrinking in your backyard while ignoring that another one only a few miles away is growing, isn't it?

Great book or not, the science in it was mostly crap.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=74
http://www.wunderground.com/education/stateoffear.asp
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002170342_warming04.html

That's why I refuse to read it. I've had it up to here with Michael Criton's tendency to scare the living crap out of people with his books on nanotechnology or genetic research and his lack of actual science and understanding.

Snow in Buenos Aires - if this is global warming, then I wonder what global cooling must be like.

Look, kid, the proper phrase is Global Climate Change. Not everywhere will get warmer, because wind patterns will change, and the types of weather that certain climates get will change.

I will not be running away, that is for sure. Also, I don't just use ordinary low temperatures as proof, I use low temperatures that should not be happening. You should not be getting snow in Johannesburg, you should not be getting snow in Los Angeles, you should not be getting snow in the middle of summer in Queenstown, you should not be getting snow in Buenos Aires.

Also, global warming means the following

global - universal
warming - increase in temperatures

i.e. a universal increase in temperatures. Alright, some areas may have increases at greater rates than others, however, the idea is that you have an increase in temperatures. Snow where it does not belong is indicative of decreases in temperatures, not increases.

If you really want to, you can look up dictionary.com to get the definitions of global and warming.

In fact, there have probably been more weather events associated with decreases in temperatures in the last two years than weather events associated with increases in temperatures.

Wrong it is global AVERAGES not local problems

http://files.samhart.net/humor/fail.jpg

Snowfall? Snowfall? And that moron Al Gore thinks the planet's warming? You know what, fuck the environment, I'll burn as many fossil fuels as I damn well please!

:p

Snow in Buenos Aires - if this is global warming, then I wonder what global cooling must be like.
The ignorance is so strong it burns.


I'm surprised NewMitanni hasn't posted this as 'evidence' against GW.

I notice the OP convienently forgot to mention this:
Towns repeatedly hit by extreme weather may have to move
New Zealand settlements being repeatedly hit by adverse weather conditions may have to consider moving, the Prime Minister has said.

A state of civil emergency was declared in the Far North yesterday after torrential rain and violent winds caused flooding and slips, before moving south and battering Auckland and Coromandel.

Speaking in the town of Kaeo, which has been submerged under water for the second time this year, Helen Clark said such repeated severe weather events were a concern.

Miss Clark had flown from Auckland over the Kaipara Harbour to the Far North to inspect damage from the storm that has cut power and caused flooding and slips in the country's north.

When asked by the Herald whether towns like Kaeo might have to shift to safer areas, Miss Clark said there would come a point where that would have to be considered.

She said the problem was that many settlements had been established on the basis of old weather patterns, which had changed in the erratic world climate.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/10/story.cfm?c_id=104&objectid=10450943

For those who don't live in NZ, the last week has had extreme wind, rain and flooding throughout all of the Far North and Coromandel. So bad that the Prime Minister is seriously suggesting (as you can see above) some towns may have to move.
Of course this has nothing to do with the change in Global weather:rolleyes:

So, what was the problem in 1918? :p

As I glanced at the title and moved on, I paused and looked at the title again. Apparently, I caught a whiff of stupid and curious, I pop in to investigate.

What do I find? A big heaping helping of stupid. I must learn to trust my judgement.

As has already been mentioned to the OP, there is vast difference between climate change and short-term regional weather anomalies.

Oh, and speaking as a global warming skeptic, Get the hell off my side. :p

Why is it that people always bang on about the 'biggest x since...' as evidence of anything?

The fact that it's since 1918 means that it's happened before, and this is a normal, but rare event.

A 1 in 100 year event occurring is only worthy of attention if it happens repeatedly in a short period.

So, what was the problem in 1918? :p
Maybe lots of British soldiers moved to the Falklands after WWI and brought snow and depressing rain stashed in their suitcases with them in case they got homesick.
During the trip they stopped in at Buenos Aires and accidently opened the wrong cases. The offending English climate escaped, settled on Argentina and wrought havoc on a country not used to such depressing drizzle.

Here's how it works. If we have a hot summer, it's global warming. If we have a cold winter, it's also global warming. If we get tornados, hurricanes, and tsunamis, global warming. And if everything is absolutely normal, that too is global warming. :p

It's not a flip flop, it's an attempt not to confuse people such as yourself who, even after several years of media coverage, and now after several forum responses, have failed to educate yourself on what global warming actually is.

Looking up two words in a dictionary and making up an explanation in your head does not equal research.

It is more likely an attempt by scientists to ensure that they are not seen as idiots in the eyes of the world again. I understand that most posters (including myself) are too young to remember this, however, back in the 1970s, there was hysteria about global cooling; the scientific community and the media were predicting that we would be entering into another Ice Age. In the end, the Ice Age never arrived, and now the hysteria is about global warming.

As I said, "Global Warming", although accurate in you know what is being referred to, is misleading to the... let's call it "lay-men". The term, when you actually understand what is being referred to is accurate.

I am still waiting for the increase in temperatures - I tried to take a swim this morning, but the water was too cold

And that's the reason I prefer to call it "climate change". Gives challenged people less chance to embarass themselves.

It also gives scientists the opportunity to prevent themselves being embarassed when temperatures start levelling off or making a downward movement. They can then say, "we said it was climate change all along, so we are not wrong"

Snow in one place disproves global warming? That's absurd. That's like saying one good factory in the Soviet Union means the economy is working great.

Actually, this is not just about snow in one place. For the last two years, we have been seeing snow in far too many places where it does not belong. In February, there was snow in Los Angeles for the first time in recorded history, in March, there was snow in Queenstown for the first time in many years, last month, there was snow in Johannesburg for the first time in twenty-five years. In February, there was snow in Kathmandu for the first time in sixty years. In November, there was snow in Southern Queensland for the first time in sixty years. In the Northern Winter, history was made when the earliest recorded snowfall in ninety-five years and the latest recorded snowfall in recorded history occurred in Florida. There has been a slushy effect in the waters by Cape Town.

There are far too many of these events occurring - if it were one or two, I would accept that they are unusual, however, it is happening in far too many places all around the world.

Look, kid, the proper phrase is Global Climate Change. Not everywhere will get warmer, because wind patterns will change, and the types of weather that certain climates get will change.

So you are suggesting that places are going to get cooler? I might as well invest in a heater manufacturing business rather than an ice manufacturing business. Actually, we might as well call it global cooling then.

Wrong it is global AVERAGES not local problems

Many local problems equal a global problem. Read above, I have listed seven weather events associated with winter that should not be happening, events that I am aware of. No doubt, there are many more.

You know what, fuck the environment, I'll burn as many fossil fuels as I damn well please

Personally, that is not my approach, my approach is be efficient, use less fossil fuels, and so on where it will make a difference (in terms of financials, energy security and so on). However, we should not bend over backwards and potentially ruin the economy for something that is on shaky ground - and just because all the scientists agree on it does not mean that is going to happen, if all the scientists agreed on something and it happened, then I would be sitting in a foot of snow by now.

For those who don't live in NZ, the last week has had extreme wind, rain and flooding throughout all of the Far North and Coromandel. So bad that the Prime Minister is seriously suggesting (as you can see above) some towns may have to move. Of course this has nothing to do with the change in Global weather

Demented Hamsters, obviously you are not aware that the latest El Nino cycle has come to an end. That means that dry weather is no longer happening in the Western Pacific, and of course we are getting more rain now.

Also, all that Helen Clark is doing is keeping herself in power; the only reason why she suddenly cares about the environment is because the difference between power and a lost job (and destroyed party) is the absentions of six Green MPs in our Parliament.

Finally, Northland has always been prone to flooding. Why is this worse? It can easily be put down to rivers silting up - silt in rivers has been blamed for floods in Alexandra and Queenstown before. The bridges over many rivers in Northland are quite low and during bad weather turn into natural dams (this caused damage to Kemp House and the Stone Store in the 1980s). Combine these, and you end up with problems.

As has already been mentioned to the OP, there is vast difference between climate change and short-term regional weather anomalies.

This may refer to one short-term anomaly, however, as I have said in this post and others, there have been far too many short-term anomalies - when you have several weather events going against what is expected, then one must start asking questions

Here's how it works. If we have a hot summer, it's global warming. If we have a cold winter, it's also global warming. If we get tornados, hurricanes, and tsunamis, global warming. And if everything is absolutely normal, that too is global warming.

Ditto

It is more likely an attempt by scientists to ensure that they are not seen as idiots in the eyes of the world again.I completely agree. Btw, did you hear that scientists killed Baby Jesus, too?

The evil witches should all be burned!

I mean, it's not like science is about correcting one's hypothesis as more facts come up... No, it's all about covering oneself up.

And really. These bastards killed Baby Jesus. We really shouldn't trust them.

I am still waiting for the increase in temperatures - I tried to take a swim this morning, but the water was too coldAnd I wanted to build a snowman during the last winter.

Sadly, there was no snow. Every year of my life (26 years), there was snow. Except this last winter.

So... Your point?

It also gives scientists the opportunity to prevent themselves being embarassed when temperatures start levelling off or making a downward movement.Exactly. Not to mention that these bastards killed Baby Jesus!

They can then say, "we said it was climate change all along [...]And guess what? They did. Hypotheses about weather patterns changing rather more complex than certain simple-minded individuals might believe aren't exactly a new thing. Point in case, meteorology has been aware of them for a century or so.

Of course, something tells me that your meteorology is somewhat lacking...

Actually, this is not just about snow in one place. For the last two years, we have been seeing snow in far too many places where it does not belong.We've also seen

The Siberian permafrost thawing
The alpine glaciers shrinking
The antarctic ice shelf shrinking (And before I forget it - the theory that increased snowfall closer to the south pole will make up for it has been proven wrong. Largely because there's no increased snowfall)
The European winters turning into permaspring
Same for Japan
The arctic icesheet thinning to a stupidly large extend
Greenland's ice sheet... Well, you can probably guess it by now

This list is, of course, not comprehensive, but merely highlighting a few examples.

So, again... Your point? What part about 'Average increase in global temperatures' don't you get?

So you are suggesting that places are going to get cooler? I might as well invest in a heater manufacturing business rather than an ice manufacturing business. Actually, we might as well call it global cooling then.When > 75% of the globe are getting warmer, and < 25% (America, it seems like) are getting cooler, I think we can safely go for 'Warming'.

Many local problems equal a global problem. Read above, I have listed seven weather events associated with winter that should not be happening, events that I am aware of. No doubt, there are many more.Indeed there are. I've listed quite a few of them just a few paragraphs above.

Too bad they don't support your hypothesis.

Oh damn it I don't want to....*bites*

As pointed out numerous times Global Warming is talking about an average rise in global temperatures. There will not be a eustatic change in the environment where everywhere suddenly gets warm because the climate does not work like that. You have to take in fscors such as local temperatures, relief, land gradients, type of vegetation found, proximity to the sea etc. Sure you have given some examples like Johannesburg but it was only 25 years ago which in climatic time is not long at all so it isn't a thing that is unusaul just rare. Okay I live in England, traditionally we get really cold winters with lots of snow. For the past few years out winters have warmed up and we are not getting as much snow in winter and a lot more rain in the summer. Now you may say the rain proves its getting colder...wrong. This means that evapotranspiration rates have increased due to increased sunlight during the preceeding seasons storing up this water vapour and so on. Due to increased evapotranspiration we experience more rain but this can only be attributed to higher temperatures. The UK is facing a summer where we could hit 40 degrees Celcius for the first time in recorded history, temperatures on par with the Sahara desert and the Indian sub continent! Also a few weeks ago one of the biggest Ice Shelfs ever to exist came into existence after breaking off from the Arctic due to increased melting of the ice. Greenlands glaciers are retreating, the water tables that support LA and Las Vegas are decreasing due to increased evaporation.

Now tell me we aren't facing some kind of global warming.

It is more likely an attempt by scientists to ensure that they are not seen as idiots in the eyes of the world again. I understand that most posters (including myself) are too young to remember this, however, back in the 1970s, there was hysteria about global cooling; the scientific community and the media were predicting that we would be entering into another Ice Age. In the end, the Ice Age never arrived, and now the hysteria is about global warming.

Bullshit. The 'hysteria' was generated by the media, not by the scientific community. Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling) have a good article on the subject, and a more detailed analysis can be found here (http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/). The fairy tale of scientists screaming about Global Cooling is simply an attempt by the deniers to hand-wave away all the evidence which is mounted against them.

EDIT: Other good articles can be found at New Scientist (http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11643) and Real Climate (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94).

Why is everyone still trying to convince the OP that he's wrong, or at least not adequately informed?
He is clearly not interested in counterarguments, just in his own opinion.
So why bother? :confused:

Why is everyone still trying to convince the OP that he's wrong, or at least not adequately informed?
He is clearly not interested in counterarguments, just in his own opinion.
So why bother? :confused:We're masochists.

Why is everyone still trying to convince the OP that he's wrong, or at least not adequately informed?
He is clearly not interested in counterarguments, just in his own opinion.
So why bother? :confused:

For the benefit of any lurkers who happen to be reading this thread. If we don't counter the nonsense, it'll give them the impression that Global Warming Denialism is the more reasonable position.

This is what annoys me about the US, you guys have every condition to study and become very inteligent people (dont get me wrong some are really inteligent), you guys have internet you guys have money and hell you guys have the best media. But still there are a lot of people that still believe global warming doesnt exist!
For gods sakes, look it up, study, or spare a feel minutes, and turn on the tv and watch a news or something!
You guys will only understand why the media is constantly talking about this when it actually happens, THIS IS SERIOUS!
I live in Brazil, a country that you guys a call a ''third'' world country, and here, cars are now running on ethanol thats is almost non-pollutant since 1997, buses run on bio-diesel, most of our grocery stores have plastic bags that the enviroment can degrade in only 8 months (normal bags take centuries) and most of our trash is recycled.
All im saying is this, if we can do it, why cant the US do it too?

Yeah, but you see, global warming is a myth.
A few billion years ago, the whole earth was much warmer than it is now, and it has cooled down, and will continue to do so, slowly but surely, for quite a while! :p

I live in Brazil, a country that you guys a call a ''third'' world country, and here, cars are now running on ethanol thats is almost non-pollutant since 1997, buses run on bio-diesel, most of our grocery stores have plastic bags that the enviroment can degrade in only 8 months (normal bags take centuries) and most of our trash is recycled.[Enter rant about why biofuels are a fucking stupid idea here]

Kudos on the degradable plastic bags, though.

Erm, the fact that the earth is getting warmer or, indeed, cooler is hardly controversial is it?

Climate change has been happening for billions of years. Areas that were tropical became tundra and may become tropical again even without the movement of continents on tectonic plates.

The only argument about 'climate change' is whether or not we're causing it.

The safest thing to do is build flood defences and the like. Because if we're not causing the climate change, but it's happening anyway, then we have to be prepared and even if we are causing it then we have to be prepared.

People get too hysterical about this. Doesn't everyone realise that the sun is going to blow up someday and we'll all be dead in any case?

Yeah, i think global warming a little bit earlier then the sun exploding...

Well, if you know when the sun is going to super-nova would you let us know?

I've got stocks and stuff to sell.

Erm, the fact that the earth is getting warmer or, indeed, cooler is hardly controversial is it?

Climate change has been happening for billions of years. Areas that were tropical became tundra and may become tropical again even without the movement of continents on tectonic plates.

The only argument about 'climate change' is whether or not we're causing it.

The safest thing to do is build flood defences and the like. Because if we're not causing the climate change, but it's happening anyway, then we have to be prepared and even if we are causing it then we have to be prepared.

No, the safest thing to do is to cut emissions, thus preventing catastrophic sea level rises and food shortages.

People get too hysterical about this. Doesn't everyone realise that the sun is going to blow up someday and we'll all be dead in any case?

1. The Sun won't explode for billions of years.
2. Catastrophic Global Warming is preventable, the Sun's death isn't.

And why would you say bio fuel is a stupid idea, much smarter then using diesel, gasoline, once you can get a fuel that not only pollutes A LOT less, its cheaper, and it makes the car run faster... I mean, whats bad about it?

I am still waiting for the increase in temperatures - I tried to take a swim this morning, but the water was too cold
well, gee perhaps because it's the middle of winter in NZ. And during Winter it gets cold. Have you not noticed that before?

There are far too many of these events occurring - if it were one or two, I would accept that they are unusual, however, it is happening in far too many places all around the world.
...
Many local problems equal a global problem. Read above, I have listed seven weather events associated with winter that should not be happening, events that I am aware of. No doubt, there are many more.
If many local problems equal a global problem then you'll be happy to know:

Winter warmth breaks all records
Winter in the Northern Hemisphere this year has been the warmest since records began more than 125 years ago, a US government agency says.
The combined land and ocean surface temperature from December to February was 0.72C (1.3F) above average.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6456897.stm
Canada: Warmest winter on record (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/03/13/warm-winter060313.html)
NSW: Warmest Winter on Record (http://www.bom.gov.au/announcements/media_releases/nsw/20050901.shtml)
Japan: Warmest Winter on Record (http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Asia_Sees_Warmest_Winter_On_Record_Tokyo_Goes_Snowless_As_Temperatures_Jump_999.html)
China: Warmest Winter on Record (http://www.endi.com.cn/ReadNews.asp?NewsID=641)
Britain: 2nd Warmest Winter on Record (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6401063.stm)
Germany: Warmest Winter on Record (http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/40571/newsDate/28-Feb-2007/story.htm)
Russia: Warmest Winter on Record (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6185345.stm)
Europe: Warmest Winter on Record (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070316124440.qp04a6gw&show_article=1)
That's from a few minutes googling. Something you obviously should have done before posting.

Demented Hamsters, obviously you are not aware that the latest El Nino cycle has come to an end. That means that dry weather is no longer happening in the Western Pacific, and of course we are getting more rain now.
I am well aware about El Nino thank you very much.
So why is this one the worst on record?
want to know why?
because maybe GW has worsened it, got it?

Finally, Northland has always been prone to flooding. Why is this worse? It can easily be put down to rivers silting up.
Or it could be due to GW having increased the intensity and ferocity of the storms. Considering that there was 270mm of rain dumped in the Far North in one night and 180 km/hr wind gusts, I'll opt for GW.
Unless of course you can prove to me that river silt causes heavy rain and strong winds.

This may refer to one short-term anomaly, however, as I have said in this post and others, there have been far too many short-term anomalies - when you have several weather events going against what is expected, then one must start asking questions
Indeed. So considering that the 10 warmest years on record have occurred since 1995, why aren't you asking questions about that?

No, the safest thing to do is to cut emissions, thus preventing catastrophic sea level rises and food shortages.


No, that's not the safest thing to do at all. Because cutting emissions may not prevent catastrophic sea level rises and food shortages.

There were no human created emissions when the earth heated up and cooled down previously.

It's sensible to find new and renewable viable energy sources but to suggest that doing so will definitely prevent the planet getting warmer is ludicrous.


1. The Sun won't explode for billions of years.
2. Catastrophic Global Warming is preventable, the Sun's death isn't.

We don't know if catastrophic global warming is preventable or not. It smacks of arrogance to suggest that we completely control our own destiny in this respect.

And wouldn't the sun blowing up actually equate to catastrophic climate change in any case?

Well, if you know when the sun is going to super-nova would you let us know?

I've got stocks and stuff to sell.

The sun won't ever go supernova. Only the most massive stars do that.

The sun won't ever go supernova. Only the most massive stars do that.

I have big hopes for the Sun though. With a bit of hard work and a lucky break or two I reckon it could become a massive star. A Superstar even.

No, that's not the safest thing to do at all. Because cutting emissions may not prevent catastrophic sea level rises and food shortages.

There were no human created emissions when the earth heated up and cooled down previously.

It's sensible to find new and renewable viable energy sources but to suggest that doing so will definitely prevent the planet getting warmer is ludicrous.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e9/Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr-2.png

Human activity has fundamentally changed the level of CO2 in the atmosphere. Yes, the climate has changed before but not so quickly. The scientific consensus is that Global Warming is caused by human activities; if you think you know better than people who've spent their lives studying climatology then that's your business.

And wouldn't the sun blowing up actually equate to catastrophic climate change in any case?

Do you really think this has any relevance to Global Warming?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e9/Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr-2.png

Human activity has fundamentally changed the level of CO2 in the atmosphere. Yes, the climate has changed before but not so quickly. The scientific consensus is that Global Warming is caused by human activities; if you think you know better than people who've spent their lives studying climatology then that's your business.


Measuring the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is an entirely relative exercise. Yes, it has increased but it remains almost insignificant as an overall percentage of the atmosphere - something less than 0.05 per cent. Water vapour is a far more prevalent greenhouse gas for example.

I don't claim to know better than people who have been studying this for their entire lives. They're scientists and not paid to be practical.

The pragmatic thing to do is to prepare for rising sea levels not just try to prevent them rising in the hope that we've got our science right and that the entire world with all its various vested interests can get their acts together.

I fail to see why this is controversial. I'm not denying global warming, merely pointing out that trying to prevent it might be impractical no matter what is causing it. Even if we manage to slow it down we're still going to need flood defences and other measures.

And why would you say bio fuel is a stupid idea, much smarter then using diesel, gasoline, once you can get a fuel that not only pollutes A LOT less, its cheaper, and it makes the car run faster... I mean, whats bad about it?Humans are already using up to 25% of the world's biomass in one form or another - humans themselves, agriculture, etc.

The world's biomass is - through plants and, ultimately, animals eating these plants - responsible for CO2 absorption.

Biomass is constantly being destroyed - you're from Brazil, right? You might've seen it first hand amazonian rainforest and all.

Now, the plan is apparently to destroy more biomass than we already do, in order to create fuel - the burning of which does, of course, produce CO2, although it's admittedly less than with conventional fuels -, thereby reducing the biosphere's ability to absorb CO2 to save the climate? At a point in time when we're already the single greatest user of biomass - and growing in numbers as well as per capita use of biomass?

That's just stupid. And on more than one level.

As I glanced at the title and moved on, I paused and looked at the title again. Apparently, I caught a whiff of stupid and curious, I pop in to investigate.

What do I find? A big heaping helping of stupid. I must learn to trust my judgement.

As has already been mentioned to the OP, there is vast difference between climate change and short-term regional weather anomalies.

Oh, and speaking as a global warming skeptic, Get the hell off my side. :p

Even when you make a serious looking post you manage to make it funny. You rock.

For those who don't live in NZ, the last week has had extreme wind, rain and flooding throughout all of the Far North and Coromandel. So bad that the Prime Minister is seriously suggesting (as you can see above) some towns may have to move.

DUH! It's winter! Welcome to the far southern hemisphere!

Even when you make a serious looking post you manage to make it funny. You rock.

It's a gift. :cool:

I mean, it's not like science is about correcting one's hypothesis as more facts come up... No, it's all about covering oneself up.

The problem is that it happens far too regularly. One year, coffee is bad for you, the next, it is good for you. Same goes for tea, chocolate, wine, red meat and so on. Given that global cooling never happened, the scientists would naturally be very cautious now.

And I wanted to build a snowman during the last winter.

Sadly, there was no snow. Every year of my life (26 years), there was snow. Except this last winter.

So... Your point?

And I want to so enjoy the weather, like the Queenslanders and the Fijians do - hot summer days and no winter.

It was a sarcastic snide remark. Also, this last winter, you may not have had snow, but Los Angeles had snow in February for the first time in recorded history, and Florida had snow in April, the latest they have had snow in recorded history

This list is, of course, not comprehensive, but merely highlighting a few examples.

So, again... Your point? What part about 'Average increase in global temperatures' don't you get?

You forgot the definition of the words global and warming

global - universal
warming - increase in temperatures

global warming - universal increase in temperatures

Alright, time for me to continue with the list

In November last year; Canberra recorded a temperature below 10 degrees Celsius for only the fourth time since records began

That same month, Ballarat and other locations in Victoria had snow - this by the way is the month before summer and those locations are as low as 400 metres above sea level

Franz Josef glacier has been increasing in recent years. A nearby church was built in the 1930s to take advantage of the view of the glacier. In the 1950s, that view disappeared, only to return in 1997

There are further links toward the bottom of this post about unusual weather events associated with winter that have been happening in recent years

When > 75% of the globe are getting warmer, and < 25% (America, it seems like) are getting cooler, I think we can safely go for 'Warming'

Actually, it is not just America; I am talking large chunks of the Southern Hemisphere that are experiencing these conditions; and these are the events that I know of - there are no doubt others which I am not aware of. Also, do you remember the hurricanes of last year, hurricanes that were so widely predicted? Oops, I forgot, there were none.

Indeed there are. I've listed quite a few of them just a few paragraphs above.

Too bad they don't support your hypothesis.

Too bad that the events I listed before and now do not support your hypothesis either.

Okay I live in England, traditionally we get really cold winters with lots of snow. For the past few years out winters have warmed up and we are not getting as much snow in winter and a lot more rain in the summer. Now you may say the rain proves its getting colder...wrong. This means that evapotranspiration rates have increased due to increased sunlight during the preceeding seasons storing up this water vapour and so on. Due to increased evapotranspiration we experience more rain but this can only be attributed to higher temperatures. The UK is facing a summer where we could hit 40 degrees Celcius for the first time in recorded history, temperatures on par with the Sahara desert and the Indian sub continent! Also a few weeks ago one of the biggest Ice Shelfs ever to exist came into existence after breaking off from the Arctic due to increased melting of the ice. Greenlands glaciers are retreating, the water tables that support LA and Las Vegas are decreasing due to increased evaporation.

Okay, I live in New Zealand, and traditionally we get shit summers with no sun and shit winters with lots of snow. For the last few years, we have still had shit summers with no sun, and in some cases even snow, and shit winters with lots of snow and the thermostat taking a nosedive. New Zealand temperatures hardly head above 30 degrees Celsius, and the only day that I can remember that Auckland registered above 30 degrees Celsius was February 19, 1998, when we hit 31 (we were in the middle of El Nino that year).

Climate change has been happening for billions of years. Areas that were tropical became tundra and may become tropical again even without the movement of continents on tectonic plates.

Thank you - that is the reason why I prefer the term global warming. Climate change is a term that can be used by scientists to hide behind in the event that they are proven wrong

well, gee perhaps because it's the middle of winter in NZ. And during Winter it gets cold. Have you not noticed that before?

As I said above, I was being sarcastic.

That's from a few minutes googling. Something you obviously should have done before posting.

A few minutes of googling produces this as well

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_wave
http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id=5739&method=full
http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/11/florida-yukon-record-cold-temperatures.html
http://newsminer.com/2007/03/24/6116/
http://maroon.uchicago.edu/news/articles/2003/01/31/record_cold_streak_h.php
http://www.atmos.millersville.edu/~wic/news/news0403web.htm
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/016931.php
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2641467.stm
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2003/feb/februaryext2003.html
http://www.iceagenow.com/Global_Warming_Myth.htm
http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id=5020&method=full

I am well aware about El Nino thank you very much.
So why is this one the worst on record?
want to know why?
because maybe GW has worsened it, got it?

In what way is this one the worst on record? The El Nino of 1997/98 was worse than the recent one - this is small fry

Or it could be due to GW having increased the intensity and ferocity of the storms. Considering that there was 270mm of rain dumped in the Far North in one night and 180 km/hr wind gusts, I'll opt for GW.
Unless of course you can prove to me that river silt causes heavy rain and strong winds.

River silt does not cause heavy rain and strong winds, however, it amplifies the effect of rain and makes flooding more likely. We have plenty of weather bombs, there is at least two each winter, so this ain't unusual

Indeed. So considering that the 10 warmest years on record have occurred since 1995, why aren't you asking questions about that?

If we have warm years, then why the hell is there snow in Buenos Aires, Los Angeles and so on? Events that are either for the first time in recorded history or for the first time in a very long time?

The ignorance is so strong it burns.


I'm surprised NewMitanni hasn't posted this as 'evidence' against GW.

Sure he hasn't?

ZOMG!!!! GLOBAL WARMING IS A CONPRIACY!!!!
THIS ONE INCIDENT PROVES IT!!!!!!!!!!

This scientists just want grants for their research, their evil liberal research!

Even if Global Warming is real...
*excuses himself from the room to laugh uncontrollably*
*comes back in*
Even if global warming were real *snicker* there's no way humans could be responsible becasue that would mean we migh thave to make some changes and that's just... just... you know... it can't be orcjhjhxghghdzhgfdgfdh800 vt=[2350-859075u890578902e47890578234908134908842358558 n!!~ ! !1!~1

Franz Josef glacier has been increasing in recent years. A nearby church was built in the 1930s to take advantage of the view of the glacier. In the 1950s, that view disappeared, only to return in 1997.
aha. One glacier having an increase wins all every other glacier that's retreating. Great display of selective fact picking & choosing there.
Also, Franz Josef is unique to Glaciers in that it's movement is about 10 times the average. So using such an obvious outlier as if it's the norm is disingenuous to say the least.
Why didn't you use NZ's Ivory Glacier for example? Oh yes, because it doesn't exist anymore. It was retreating at 2.4 m/yr until it disappeared completely in 1988.

Here, do yourself a favour and read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850
Over the five-year period from 1995 to 2000, 103 of 110 glaciers examined in Switzerland, 95 of 99 glaciers in Austria, all 69 glaciers in Italy, and all 6 glaciers in France were in retreat.
...
By 2005 only 1 of the 25 glaciers monitored in Norway was advancing, two were stationary and 22 were retreating.
...
A WWF report concluded that 67% of all Himalayan glaciers are retreating. In examining 612 glaciers in China between 1950 and 1970, 53% of the glaciers studied were retreating. After 1990, 95% of these glaciers were measured to be retreating, indicating that retreat of these glaciers was becoming more widespread.
Glaciers in the Mount Everest region of the Himalayas are all in a state of retreat. The Khumbu Glacier, which is one of the main routes to the base of Mount Everest, has retreated 5 km (3.1 miles) since 1953. The Rongbuk Glacier, draining the north side of Mount Everest into Tibet, has been retreating 20 m (65 ft) per year. In India the Gangotri Glacier, which is a significant source of water for the Ganges River, retreated 34 m (111 ft) per year between 1970 and 1996, and has averaged a loss of 30 m (100 ft) per year since 2000.

and so on and so on..

But hey! In 1997 one glacier in NZ advanced so that means there's no Global Warming, doesn't it?

Okay, I live in New Zealand, and traditionally we get shit summers with no sun and shit winters with lots of snow. For the last few years, we have still had shit summers with no sun, and in some cases even snow, and shit winters with lots of snow and the thermostat taking a nosedive. New Zealand temperatures hardly head above 30 degrees Celsius, and the only day that I can remember that Auckland registered above 30 degrees Celsius was February 19, 1998, when we hit 31 (we were in the middle of El Nino that year).
Really? You must live in a very shitty part of NZ (oh wait you do - Auckland). When I was there in February for two weeks it didn't rain once and the temperature stayed in the mid-to-high 20s the entire time - not bad for the end of Summer.
When I was at Uni, I used to work on farms near my parents place over the Summer break to make money for the fees. Mostly doing haymaking. I could earn a very decent amount of money by working hard - as long as the weather stayed fine.
And back in the 90's it did.
I remember one year working for 41 days without a break - it started raining on the 41st day, late afternoon.
The last few summers I've talked to those same farmers I used to work for, and they're lucky to get a week in over Summer nowadays to cut, dry and house their hay before it rains again. The climate there has basically become tropical. They've even started finding malarial mosquitos right up North.

As for winter, they (un)lucky to have frost once or twice a year there now.

Thank you - that is the reason why I prefer the term global warming. Climate change is a term that can be used by scientists to hide behind in the event that they are proven wrong.
No you want to conitinue using a term no Scientist does because this way you can use it to bolster your erroneous ideas. Why not just go all out and call it 'Global attack of the killer zombie squirrels warming' and then claim that because there aren't any this 'proves' there is no Global climate change?

Humans are already using up to 25% of the world's biomass in one form or another - humans themselves, agriculture, etc.

The world's biomass is - through plants and, ultimately, animals eating these plants - responsible for CO2 absorption.

Biomass is constantly being destroyed - you're from Brazil, right? You might've seen it first hand amazonian rainforest and all.

Now, the plan is apparently to destroy more biomass than we already do, in order to create fuel - the burning of which does, of course, produce CO2, although it's admittedly less than with conventional fuels -, thereby reducing the biosphere's ability to absorb CO2 to save the climate? At a point in time when we're already the single greatest user of biomass - and growing in numbers as well as per capita use of biomass?

That's just stupid. And on more than one level.

Actually that's kinda why it's good, you see, when the plants grow, they take the CO2 out of the air to build biomass, which we then burn to make CO2, which the next crop uses to grow. It's basically like solar power, but a growing season's worth of solar energy is concentrated into a fuel.

Except, of course, that trees can - by virtue of sheer mass - absorb considerably more CO2 than the plants usually associated with biofuel. Now, as you might or might not guess, the area we're already using for agriculture is kinda necessary in order to, erm, feed ourselves.

So, to get proper biofuel, we need to get more agricultural area - cut down the woods. To then, eventually, replace them with comparatively meager CO2 absorbing plants.

And... Oh, fuck, this is where we went wrong, right?

Except, of course, that trees can - by virtue of sheer mass - absorb considerably more CO2 than the plants usually associated with biofuel. Now, as you might or might not guess, the area we're already using for agriculture is kinda necessary in order to, erm, feed ourselves.

So, to get proper biofuel, we need to get more agricultural area - cut down the woods. To then, eventually, replace them with comparatively meager CO2 absorbing plants.

And... Oh, fuck, this is where we went wrong, right?
Also, the land the trees are on, especially in Brazil, is pretty shite and not particularly good for growing anything other than those trees. So we have to keep cutting more trees down when the land we are using loses all it's nutrients making it useless for our biofuel plants.

The problem is that it happens far too regularly. One year, coffee is bad for you, the next, it is good for you. Same goes for tea, chocolate, wine, red meat and so on. Given that global cooling never happened, the scientists would naturally be very cautious now.



...Oh my fucking...:headbang:

I am so sick of the sheer stupidity inherent in this argument! It's nothing more than a hand-waving dismissal of science altogether.

Look. Science is not all one homogeneous entity. It is not one gigantic amoeboid with the same people in every single field running the show. It is comprised of a vast number of fields with lots of different specialists in each field. Surprise surprise, most of these fields aren't directly related to each other and the work of individual scientists in one field has no bearing on another field. It's like saying that because scientists in the 14th century thought that the Earth revolved around the Sun and was flat, computers must somehow not be capable of functioning. It's a complete non sequitor.

You might have a vague point if climatology and nutrition were related, but they're not. Climatology is a field that studies the various climates of the Earth as well as the overall Earthian total climate. Nutritionists deal with the nutritional needs of the human body, which is a completely different field, with large amounts of conflicting data because--shock and awe--humans change on a daily basis, while the climate does not.

Scientists are human, just like everyone else. They're not the fucking Borg; they don't all think alike. Science itself changes over time with new understanding. That bit about global cooling in the seventies? It was a low-key thing that came out because scientists didn't have anywhere near as much data as they do now and made an incorrect hypothesis. With vast--VAST--amounts of data they didn't have then but do now, they know it was wrong. And before you make the typical response "Well maybe the science isn't all in" you should note the sheer amount of research that has been conducted in the past thirty-five years. It's been pretty damned conclusive.

Quite frankly, I don't think you care about what science has to say. Arguments like this show you simply have an agenda aimed at painting scientists with this brush of black and white idiotic egomaniacs who must all cringe and hide whenever one scientist in one field makes a mistake, because everyone knows that one mistake means that every single damned scientific study, research, achievement, experiment, everything science has done since humanity started studying it must be completely and totally wrong!

Maybe I'm wrong about this, but aren't trees actually horribly inefficient at absorbing CO2? What with having large parts of their mass being comprised of non-photosynthesising bark and roots and trunks?:p

Maybe I'm wrong about this, but aren't trees actually horribly inefficient at absorbing CO2? What with having large parts of their mass being comprised of non-photosynthesising bark and roots and trunks?:p

YOung and fast growing trees can absorb considerable amounts of carbon dioxide and in effect, 'bank' it. Older growth forests are just about carbon neutral, but represent vast 'banks' of carbon dioxide that get released when forests are cut down to make People Magazine. :p

Maybe I'm wrong about this, but aren't trees actually horribly inefficient at absorbing CO2? What with having large parts of their mass being comprised of non-photosynthesising bark and roots and trunks?:p

Plant cells have cell walls, which are a polymer comprised mainly of glucose (created from photosynthesis). It is the cell wall that you burn off.

Trees in this respect are much better the bushy plants because there is a larger proportion of the organism being used for support systems which require a larger amount of glucose to create.

There is also the larger amount of biomass per square kilometre because trees grow higher and wider, rather than just wider and retain a larger percentage of dead material (in this case heartwood) for support.

They only absorb about 15% of light that hits their leaves though.

Human activity has fundamentally changed the level of CO2 in the atmosphere.

FUNDAMENTALLY changed? Hmmmmm... perhaps we should compare mankind's "carbon footprint" (to use the new, "in" term) over our entire existance, to the "carbon footprint" of, oh, say, VOLCANOS across the planet.

That would interest me in a trivial sort of way. The reality is that mankind, by and far, is an horribly egotistacal race of creatures. So many people believe that "WE MATTER!" Local to areas directly about huge population centers, sure... minor weather effects due to heat transfers, etc...

But global effects caused by a race of creatures that take up less than 0.65% of the total surface area of the globe, or even 2.24% of the total land area surface?

{3,350,000 square km total surface area [giving each human .5 meter coverage each... not gonna bother with figuring in stacked up humans in big cites vs. spread out country dwellers]}
{In July, 2007, the world population has reached over 6.7 billion}
{Surface area: 510,065,600 km² ; Land area: 148,939,100 km² (29.2 %); Water area: 361,126,400 km² (70.8 %) }

How freaking egotistical are these people???

The same kind of folks that back in the 70's, when I was a wee tyke, were sceaming that OMFG, we're all gonna die cause a new ICE AGE was coming... as shown by a global cooling trend from the 40's-70's.

As I said... mankind is an egotistical race. Especially those who consider themselves "better educated" and "smarter" than the rest of their "peers". They especially believe they know better, and that we all should do as they say. Sadly they base much of their "knowledge" off what they were taught by educational relics from the 60's and 70's. Sad.

Meanwhile, for a more reality based, factual view... over the time period in consideration, Mars has gone up in temp an equal amount that Earth has. Perhaps we all need to simply decide it's a natural cycle that is hundreds of thousands of years old, or the sun's effects on the soloar system as a whole have increased slightly, and simply figure out a way to deal with whatever effects are going to occur, stop feeling oh so guilty about it, and deal with it.

[ Lives 1300 feet above sea level AND keeps a stock of Firewood handy]

Ay ay ay! No me gusta la nieve!

Snow in Buenos Aires - if this is global warming, then I wonder what global cooling must be like.

Ahhh, the sheer ignorance of men. You can almost smell it.

You forgot the definition of the words global and warming

global - universal
warming - increase in temperatures

global warming - universal increase in temperatures



And you are being an idiot. Again.

YOU don't get to look at some words, and decide what they refer to as far as what a theory states. So the term is misleading. Woop-dee-fucking-doo. All this shows is that you don't understand what is actually being stated by Global Warming, your complete ignorance on the issue, and hell your lack of language skills to boot.

This kind of thing happens all the time. A common example is with Darwin's On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. People see "Race" in there and automatically assume it refers to human races, and come to the conclusion that Darwin was racist. Of course, Darwin was referring to species and not human race, but that doesn't stop idiots, like you, to misconstrue what is actually being said in semantic bullshit. So really, just stop. You don't know what is being said, at all, and have shown that you are only willing to argue semantic bullshit, and not the actual facts. Stop. You fail at debate.

FUNDAMENTALLY changed? Hmmmmm... perhaps we should compare mankind's "carbon footprint" (to use the new, "in" term) over our entire existance, to the "carbon footprint" of, oh, say, VOLCANOS across the planet.We have. (http://carto.eu.org/article2481.html)

Now, in 1994 (Sorry, but quick information can at times be mildly outdated - increase since then seems to have averaged at about 1.1% annually), the world's CO2 emissions amounted to 6.2 bn tonnes of carbon equivalent - which equals 22.7 bn tonnes CO2 (Carbon equivalent being the total mass of the carbon involved).

At present, 0.038% vol of Earth' atmosphere consist of CO2, and its - the atmosphere's - average density (I simplify because pulling out the ideal gas law for every component of earth' atmosphere isn't in my mind right now) is 1.2 kg/ m^3.

Total mass of the atmosphere is ~ 5300 trillion tonnes - the total amount of CO2 in it can therefore be approximated at around 2E12 tonnes. Divide by our yearly CO2 emissions, and we increase the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by about 1.14% (More, actually, given the increase in emissions) of its total mass. Annually.

There's likely a not entirely insignificant margin of error involved - call it around 10%

Of course, some of this CO2 is reabsorbed - by plants, by the oceans, etc. However, given the 7% increase in CO2 concentration from 1994 to 2006 (0.6% annually) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide.png), I think we can safely say that not all of it is absorbed - about half of it isn't.

We know how CO2 contributes to the greenhouse effect - absorption of infrared radiation, which happens to be what is reflected from Earth' surface back into space, whereas the incoming radiation tends to be in the visible spectrum. The reason for this shift in wavelength is, of course, a loss of energy for the individual photon when it collides with a molecule (Hence why the temperature of the molecule increases).

We also know that the CO2 content in the atmosphere is increasing significantly. We know how much CO2 we're producing. We know that our CO2 output is actually greater than the CO2 increase in the atmosphere - which is, of course, because we still have plants and oceans absorbing some of it.

And finally, as the last nail in your pretty coffin, the long-term average of volcano-based CO2 emissions is about 500 million tonnes annually - a mere 2.2% of the total human-caused emissions in 1994, and even less now. Looks like we're causing a flat 46 times greater emissions, kid.

This tells us two things:

Given that some of our CO2 emissions are absorbed back, and given that we're increasing the total concentration by over 1% annually, we're not a minor producer of CO2.
Given that volcanoes - the second-greatest source, if we disregard the (Human-caused) elimination of assorted forests and the (Human-caused) temperature increase of the oceans (Which reduces their CO2 absorption capacity) - are pissant little wannabees when compared to us, we're the number one source of CO2 emissions by a one-and-a-half order of magnitude margin

Oh, and a third thing:

Your argument fails.

And now I claim this to be the most informative global warming related post ever made in these forums.

Meanwhile, for a more reality based, factual view... over the time period in consideration, Mars has gone up in temp an equal amount that Earth has.Oh, and before I forget it...

The scientists who discovered this also noted that the mechanism for this warming of Mars would be...

The sun? Nah. Sun's getting cooler.

Duststorms? Why, yes - we've observed duststorms on Mars. We know that duststorms can trap heat. And it's also what NASA - you know, the guys who do this for a living, who have spent half a decade just studying the basics, and who've actually discovered this phenomenon - says is responsible for the temperature increase on Mars. Which, as it happens, means that it's a phenomenon disconnected from the sun, 'Indigenous' to Mars, so to speak, and therefore of zero relevance to the matter of Earth' temperature increase.

Of course, I didn't actually expect you to do your research - well, I'm there to ridicule you for your lack thereof :-)

Ay ay ay! No me gusta la nieve!
Solamente perdidos no le gusta nieve.

EDIT: I'm kidding here.

Duststorms? Why, yes - we've observed duststorms on Mars. We know that duststorms can trap heat. And it's also what NASA - you know, the guys who do this for a living, who have spent half a decade just studying the basics, and who've actually discovered this phenomenon - says is responsible for the temperature increase on Mars. Which, as it happens, means that it's a phenomenon disconnected from the sun, 'Indigenous' to Mars, so to speak, and therefore of zero relevance to the matter of Earth' temperature increase.

To be fair, it does have relevance to Earth, since the mechanics are similar(put something up, planet can't radiate the heat away as easily?), although the details differ. At the very least, we know nuclear induced dustclouds will raise the temperature like mad before the loss of sunlight cools the planet too significantly. ;)

So what's this I've heard about Bamboo being better than trees? I mean, if you're gonna eat it anyway, the carbon will be released again right? On the other hand, I guess if they keep growing it, then turning the cut portions into furniture, that traps more carbon in solid form than trees in the same plot over the same amount of time?

Duststorms? Why, yes - we've observed duststorms on Mars. We know that duststorms can trap heat. And it's also what NASA - you know, the guys who do this for a living, who have spent half a decade just studying the basics, and who've actually discovered this phenomenon - says is responsible for the temperature increase on Mars. Which, as it happens, means that it's a phenomenon disconnected from the sun, 'Indigenous' to Mars, so to speak, and therefore of zero relevance to the matter of Earth' temperature increase.


Strange.. info I found shows this:

Atmospheric dust causes daily pressure variations, proportional to the dust amount; the magnitude of the daily variation can increase rapidly, but decreases slowly as the dust falls out of the atmosphere if its a deep, great dust storm. "Great" dust storms, such as the 1977 A and 1977 B storm, produce large increases in the daily pressure and decreases in atmospheric temperature variations, which then slowly recover over many tens of sols. During these dust storms, the maximum daytime temperature decreases and the minimum, nighttime temperature increases: the effect is very similar to that of clouds on Earth and details will be presented in future enhancements. The effect of the Martian dust storms provided some of the impetus for the study of the "Nuclear Winter" concept in the TTAPS paper, authored by Turco, Toon, Ackerman, Pollack and Sagan: the latter two were Viking Science Team members.


Hmmmm... looks like maybe.. just maybe, NOT ALL Scientists agree on things.

http://www.russiablog.org/2007/03/russian_astronomer_points_to_g.php

Kinda like people in general.

Atmospheric dust causes daily pressure variations, proportional to the dust amount; the magnitude of the daily variation can increase rapidly, but decreases slowly as the dust falls out of the atmosphere if its a deep, great dust storm. "Great" dust storms, such as the 1977 A and 1977 B storm, produce large increases in the daily pressure and decreases in atmospheric temperature variations, which then slowly recover over many tens of sols. During these dust storms, the maximum daytime temperature decreases and the minimum, nighttime temperature increases: the effect is very similar to that of clouds on Earth and details will be presented in future enhancements. The effect of the Martian dust storms provided some of the impetus for the study of the "Nuclear Winter" concept in the TTAPS paper, authored by Turco, Toon, Ackerman, Pollack and Sagan: the latter two were Viking Science Team members.And this helps your point... How? They say the effects will be similar to a nuclear winter - short term (Relatively speaking) temperature spike, followed by long term decrease. Given the frequency of duststorms on Mars, this... Doesn't proof your point at all. And of course, Mars' rather thin atmosphere means that dust kicked up wont actually stay up there for long (Nevermind that it fails to reach the altitudes it can reach on Earth) - it falls down rather quickly (Carrying heat with it), meaning that the long-term cooling effects of dust in the atmosphere are drastically reduced - rather than cooling the planet, the dust serves as a heat carrier once it sinks down.

Furthermore, I just noticed another hole in your argument - Mars only gets somewhat less than half (~ 44%) the radiation from the Sun Earth gets. Guess what this means? If the 'Sun gets hotter and increases global temperatures' theory was correct, Mars' temperature should rise less, notably less than Earth'. Yet, it, ah... Doesn't. Instead, it increases at roughly the same pace, which cannot be explained by solar radiation (Which is decreasing, anyway), which requires a Mars-specific reason...

Which kills your argument.

Have a nice day.

And now I claim this to be the most informative global warming related post ever made in these forums.

Ah, you ain't seen nothin'

Now I feel disappointed. I wrote that rant about science expecting some sort of reply, and yet it seems to have scared him off! :(

Not to spam, but has anyone read the Michael Crichton book State Of Fear? It is an excellent book that has much to do with global warming.

Fiction is good. That's why librarians go through so much trouble to point out there's a giant section of it.
A section to which most of Crichton's "work" rightfully belongs.
Not "fact".

Now I feel disappointed. I wrote that rant about science expecting some sort of reply, and yet it seems to have scared him off! :(
Don't worry about it. There'll be more chances. :)

Ass-kicking

You win the thread.

Don't worry about it. There'll be more chances. :)
Oh, I hope so. I'm eager to slay ignorance and provide education to the masses, always with the intent of helping even the most moronic person learn something.

Oh, I hope so. I'm eager to slay ignorance and provide education to the masses, always with the intent of helping even the most moronic person learn something.
I admire your patience in fighting an uphill struggle, considering what you're up against.

OP's stupid hurts mah head.

I admire your patience in fighting an uphill struggle, considering what you're up against.

It's not easy, but it will make the world better in the end to have these people educated, no matter how long it takes. And the neat thing is that, once they're educated, they can help me in educating others, then those help us in educating, then THOSE help us, and so on and so on like some gigantic domino effect!

It's not easy, but it will make the world better in the end to have these people educated, no matter how long it takes. And the neat thing is that, once they're educated, they can help me in educating others, then those help us in educating, then THOSE help us, and so on and so on like some gigantic domino effect!
Unfortunately, changing peoples' minds seems pretty difficult when it comes to climate change. Most people seem pretty stuck in what they believe in.

Now I feel disappointed. I wrote that rant about science expecting some sort of reply, and yet it seems to have scared him off! :(

Actually, you did not scare me off. Yesterday (it is four minutes past midnight here, and I have had the heater running all day); life came in the way, I had an eight hour shift at work and I woke up three and a half hours before I was due to start. Today, I have another eight hour shift, so I probably will not be replying until Monday.

In short, I have been too busy to worry about NSG

Not to spam, but has anyone read the Michael Crichton book State Of Fear? It is an excellent book that has much to do with global warming.

I read it, and I enjoyed it but his other books are more scientifically accurate. Ex: Airframe

aha. One glacier having an increase wins all every other glacier that's retreating. Great display of selective fact picking & choosing there.
Also, Franz Josef is unique to Glaciers in that it's movement is about 10 times the average. So using such an obvious outlier as if it's the norm is disingenuous to say the least.
Why didn't you use NZ's Ivory Glacier for example? Oh yes, because it doesn't exist anymore. It was retreating at 2.4 m/yr until it disappeared completely in 1988.

Here, do yourself a favour and read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850


and so on and so on..

But hey! In 1997 one glacier in NZ advanced so that means there's no Global Warming, doesn't it?

There have been others in New Zealand that have expanded; Fox is another one. Also, you cannot simply use glacier retreat as an argument for global warming; you had glacier advancement back in the 1970s (using that article that you so kindly linked to), and yet we did not end up having an Ice Age. Glaciers retreat and advance for reasons other than warmer weather (Kilimanjaro's glacier retreat can be linked to the drying of the area that has been occurring for over a century)

Really? You must live in a very shitty part of NZ (oh wait you do - Auckland). When I was there in February for two weeks it didn't rain once and the temperature stayed in the mid-to-high 20s the entire time - not bad for the end of Summer.
When I was at Uni, I used to work on farms near my parents place over the Summer break to make money for the fees. Mostly doing haymaking. I could earn a very decent amount of money by working hard - as long as the weather stayed fine.
And back in the 90's it did.
I remember one year working for 41 days without a break - it started raining on the 41st day, late afternoon.
The last few summers I've talked to those same farmers I used to work for, and they're lucky to get a week in over Summer nowadays to cut, dry and house their hay before it rains again. The climate there has basically become tropical. They've even started finding malarial mosquitos right up North.

As for winter, they (un)lucky to have frost once or twice a year there now.

Basically when you were here was the only summer we had this year. I was still running my heater in December last year - December, at this stage, I should be running a fan, not a heater. In fact, there has not been a warm summer here since at least 2001. With regards to the rain piece, remember that in the 1990s, El Nino happened rather frequently (only 1990, 1995, 1996 and 1999 were non El Nino years), with the very strong El Nino of 1997-1998. As you should know, El Nino = less wet weather in New Zealand. Since 1999, we have only had four years of El Nino and four years of either neutral or La Nina conditions; La Nina of course = more wet weather in New Zealand.

Also, if it were tropical up here, then I would be expecting weather similar to what the Queenslanders and Fijians have, and that would be a good thing.

Finally, last year, I recall, we had three straight weeks of frosty days; the only reason why you do not find frost in Auckland that much is because of cloud cover; when the evenings are cloudy, they are warmer than non cloudy evenings.


No you want to conitinue using a term no Scientist does because this way you can use it to bolster your erroneous ideas. Why not just go all out and call it 'Global attack of the killer zombie squirrels warming' and then claim that because there aren't any this 'proves' there is no Global climate change?

I use the term that was used for twenty years for describing this phenomeon - climate change has only become the fashionable term in the last few years; and it is ironic that this changed at the same time as we have had all these wintry events. In fact, it seems rather convenient that this change occurred.

By the way, the Sydney Morning Herald has reported that Sydney has had a record chill

http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/sydney-shivers-in-record-chill/2007/07/17/1184559742516.html

I use the term that was used for twenty years for describing this phenomeon - climate change has only become the fashionable term in the last few years; and it is ironic that this changed at the same time as we have had all these wintry events. In fact, it seems rather convenient that this change occurred.

By the way, the Sydney Morning Herald has reported that Sydney has had a record chill



Do you know what the term used changed? Because idiots like you did not understand what was being stated, so a less misleading name had to be used. The actual theory in and of itself is unchanged. Only the term used to describe it has. So basically, stop. You obviously cannot comprehend basic notions of logic and reasoning.

Do you know what the term used changed? Because idiots like you did not understand what was being stated, so a less misleading name had to be used. The actual theory in and of itself is unchanged. Only the term used to describe it has. So basically, stop. You obviously cannot comprehend basic notions of logic and reasoning.

You fail to understand my suspicions. While the global temperatures were increasing in the 1980s and 1990s (that I do not dispute by the way), global warming was the catch cry, everyone used it and so on. However, as soon as the weather started going against what everyone expected (i.e. we started having all these phenomeon associated with winter), the name suddenly changed; it was no longer global warming, it was now climate change. Add in how the scientific community were embarassed over global cooling, and naturally one would be very suspicious. Also, the term climate change is extremely neutral, one can apply the term to virtually all forms of temperature change, whether it be the change from day to night, winter to summer, El Nino to La Nina, et cetera. It smells like an attempt by the scientific community to ensure that they are not embarassed again.

Oh, and Demented Hamsters, we had some frost in Auckland this morning (although it was mostly gone by 9am when I woke up)

You fail to understand my suspicions. While the global temperatures were increasing in the 1980s and 1990s (that I do not dispute by the way), global warming was the catch cry, everyone used it and so on. However, as soon as the weather started going against what everyone expected (i.e. we started having all these phenomeon associated with winter), the name suddenly changed; it was no longer global warming, it was now climate change. Add in how the scientific community were embarassed over global cooling, and naturally one would be very suspicious. Also, the term climate change is extremely neutral, one can apply the term to virtually all forms of temperature change, whether it be the change from day to night, winter to summer, El Nino to La Nina, et cetera. It smells like an attempt by the scientific community to ensure that they are not embarassed again.

Oh, and Demented Hamsters, we had some frost in Auckland this morning (although it was mostly gone by 9am when I woke up)

No, the name changed because people like you can't understand that people predicted weather pattern changes to begin with that are associated with Global Warming, and that Colder than normal weather for a given region not only does not disprove a damn thing, but actually validates the predictions set forth by the theory itself if such phenomena persist. You see, the only people who actually thought and think that Global Warming will increase temperatures in all places across the world are people who have no idea what they are talking about.

I.E. You. Scientists have been consistent with the predictions made by Global Warming. However, as lay-men like catch phrases more than actually going in depth into the actual information and data, and understanding what is being stated, they were confused by what Global Warming meant. As such, "Global Climate Change" was coined to eliminate the confusion.

Problems arise with simple minded conspiracy theorists, who can't grasp this concept. As you have shown.

No, the name changed because people like you can't understand that people predicted weather pattern changes to begin with that are associated with Global Warming, and that Colder than normal weather for a given region not only does not disprove a damn thing, but actually validates the predictions set forth by the theory itself if such phenomena persist. You see, the only people who actually thought and think that Global Warming will increase temperatures in all places across the world are people who have no idea what they are talking about.

I.E. You. Scientists have been consistent with the predictions made by Global Warming. However, as lay-men like catch phrases more than actually going in depth into the actual information and data, and understanding what is being stated, they were confused by what Global Warming meant. As such, "Global Climate Change" was coined to eliminate the confusion.

Problems arise with simple minded conspiracy theorists, who can't grasp this concept. As you have shown.

Tell me anywhere in Global Warming theory that it says that temperatures will decrease? (Oh, by the way, I know about the European suggestion, however, as both you and I know, the thermohaline circulation shutdown theory is still on very shaky ground).

If you cannot show it, then it is clear that the assumption that global warming theory included a cooling element for the last twenty years must be eliminated.

Tell me anywhere in Global Warming theory that it says that temperatures will decrease? (Oh, by the way, I know about the European suggestion, however, as both you and I know, the thermohaline circulation shutdown theory is still on very shaky ground).

If you cannot show it, then it is clear that the assumption that global warming theory included a cooling element for the last twenty years must be eliminated.

No, the prediction was that climates would change. This can either be warmer, or cooler, dryer or even wetter.

I would like you to tell me where, exactly, any scientist, ever, when referring to Global Warming, has ever stated that the climates everywhere on earth would have an increase in temperature.

I'll be waiting a very long time, because nobody has ever made that claim. Instead, people who don't understand the actual theory make semantic bullshit strawmen, without actually debating anything of value.

You, my friend, don't know what you are talking about. You are using the common delusional tactic of creating a strawman(As your claim has never been made by any scientist, ever), tearing it down, and claiming "AHA!".

However, what you don't realize is that you have fabricated an argument which you have torn down, not the actual arguments.

As such, you fail at debate, you fail at science, and you fail at life. Please exit the World as we know it immediately, as your presence here only exasperates Global Warming, with all the hot air you produce.

Snow in Buenos Aires - if this is global warming, then I wonder what global cooling must be like.

http://www.idrewthis.org/comics/idt20070417-2lw3.gif

No, the prediction was that climates would change. This can either be warmer, or cooler, dryer or even wetter.

I would like you to tell me where, exactly, any scientist, ever, when referring to Global Warming, has ever stated that the climates everywhere on earth would have an increase in temperature.

I'll be waiting a very long time, because nobody has ever made that claim. Instead, people who don't understand the actual theory make semantic bullshit strawmen, without actually debating anything of value.

You, my friend, don't know what you are talking about. You are using the common delusional tactic of creating a strawman(As your claim has never been made by any scientist, ever), tearing it down, and claiming "AHA!".

However, what you don't realize is that you have fabricated an argument which you have torn down, not the actual arguments.

"For example, while warming is expected everywhere on Earth, the amount of projected warming generally increases from the tropics to the poles in the Northern Hemisphere."

FAQ 11.1 - IPCC WG1 AR4 Report http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html

That is where scientists have said that there will be increases in temperatures throughout the earth. I have not fabricated this argument; this argument has been made by the IPCC. To suggest that I have created a strawman is a lie; now unless you can find an argument (aside from the shaky thermohaline circulation shutdown theory) that suggests that global warming theory includes an element of decreased temperatures, then it is clear that the scientists have said one thing

Temperatures throughout the Earth will increase.

As such, you fail at debate, you fail at science, and you fail at life. Please exit the World as we know it immediately, as your presence here only exasperates Global Warming, with all the hot air you produce.

I will exit the world, just as soon as I can get a ticket on Virgin Galactic; however, I shall return when the temperatures drop.

there are alot of armchair scientist on both sides of the global warming debate. the people who read an article/watch an over rated power point and all of a sudden they know as much as someone who has been studying climate changes for years as a career.