for all you climate change nuts*

catefrances

*i mean enthusiasts.. :P you might be interested to know that today sydney is experiencing her hottest day on record. its 45.hellcius here... which is around 114F. i temper that by adding sydney is only 224 years old, so the records arent that old.

brianlux

From Arizona Bay to the Tropic of Down Under. I'll make note of that.

hedonist

Watch the weather change
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RaNDc5uHAY4

catefrances

and what do i do brian??? i book a cruise to the tropical south pacific. i dont know what the hell i was thinking.

hedonist

I was gonna say "ice ice baby".

:fp:

brianlux

catefrances wrote:

and what do i do brian??? i book a cruise to the tropical south pacific. i dont know what the hell i was thinking.

Hmmm... next try making an origami boat, get a blow-up rubber pool, a few lawn chairs, a big sun umbrella, some Jose Cuervo, limes and ice. You'll save a bundle-- I promise!

Prince Of Dorkness

It gets very frustrating trying to explain that "global warming" doesn't mean "it will be warmer outside."

It can also mean that the odd cold snap in Los Angeles and San Francisco is a result of changing ocean currents caused by lower salinity in the ocean which was caused by melting ice in the polar ice caps which was caused by holes in the ozone which was caused by chlorofluorocarbons.

And it can also mean the freakishly strong blizzards they've been getting on the east coast, the hurricanes, the tornados... It doesn't mean that Toronto will have Miami weather with no bad side.

know1

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

It gets very frustrating trying to explain that "global warming" doesn't mean "it will be warmer outside."

It can also mean that the odd cold snap in Los Angeles and San Francisco is a result of changing ocean currents caused by lower salinity in the ocean which was caused by melting ice in the polar ice caps which was caused by holes in the ozone which was caused by chlorofluorocarbons.

And it can also mean the freakishly strong blizzards they've been getting on the east coast, the hurricanes, the tornados... It doesn't mean that Toronto will have Miami weather with no bad side.

It also gets frustrating to see people point to single weather events as any kind of evidence of anything.

As the OP reminded us, the records we've kept on the weather and weather events are scientifically meaningless so we have almost nothing to compare to.

But, I don't think we should abuse the environment by any means.

EdsonNascimento

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

And it can also mean the freakishly strong blizzards they've been getting on the east coast, the hurricanes, the tornados... It doesn't mean that Toronto will have Miami weather with no bad side.

I assume the no snow in the northeast and Chicago this winter is further proof.

I would love to support a cause like this. No matter what happens, it's proof!

Though as with everyone else on the planet, I agree with know1's last sentiment.

polaris_x

know1 wrote:

It also gets frustrating to see people point to single weather events as any kind of evidence of anything.

As the OP reminded us, the records we've kept on the weather and weather events are scientifically meaningless so we have almost nothing to compare to.

But, I don't think we should abuse the environment by any means.

sooo ... the scientists have said that a symptom of global warming will be more extreme weather events with significant disruption to "normal" weather patterns ... now, when we see weather records broken - we are not allowed to point to this as ongoing evidence? ...

the notion that our weather records are short in the history of the earth as a reason to discount the science is about as flawed as it gets ... how do we know smoking can cause lung cancer? ... do we have records of who had lung cancer in the 1300's?? ...

what is ultimately frustrating is that the basic science of global warming is not very hard to understand if one chooses to educate themselves instead of persistently looking for reasons not to believe because the topic has become politicized ...

EdsonNascimento

polaris_x wrote:

know1 wrote:

It also gets frustrating to see people point to single weather events as any kind of evidence of anything.

As the OP reminded us, the records we've kept on the weather and weather events are scientifically meaningless so we have almost nothing to compare to.

But, I don't think we should abuse the environment by any means.

sooo ... the scientists have said that a symptom of global warming will be more extreme weather events with significant disruption to "normal" weather patterns ... now, when we see weather records broken - we are not allowed to point to this as ongoing evidence? ...

the notion that our weather records are short in the history of the earth as a reason to discount the science is about as flawed as it gets ... how do we know smoking can cause lung cancer? ... do we have records of who had lung cancer in the 1300's?? ...

what is ultimately frustrating is that the basic science of global warming is not very hard to understand if one chooses to educate themselves instead of persistently looking for reasons not to believe because the topic has become politicized ...

Again - what you are missing is - nobody is refuting the the climate is changing. Nobody is refuting the earth might be warming. It's cause that's the issue.

The Earth's climate has been changing - cooling, warming, warming, cooling for billions of years. To think that humans are having a SIGNIFICANT (again, I don't think anyone is doubting we have some) impact is the issue.

So, you can all stop with the Hurricane Sandy is your fault line of argument. What you need to do is prove that the Earth's climate has NOT been changing for Billions of years. Didn't you discover in first grade that the continents are a puzzle that have been broken apart? Isn't where we are drifting to all these years even MORE concerning? What happens when Alaska bumps into Russia and the pieces don't fit together? :shock:

polaris_x

EdsonNascimento wrote:

Again - what you are missing is - nobody is refuting the the climate is changing. Nobody is refuting the earth might be warming. It's cause that's the issue.

The Earth's climate has been changing - cooling, warming, warming, cooling for billions of years. To think that humans are having a SIGNIFICANT (again, I don't think anyone is doubting we have some) impact is the issue.

So, you can all stop with the Hurricane Sandy is your fault line of argument. What you need to do is prove that the Earth's climate has NOT been changing for Billions of years. Didn't you discover in first grade that the continents are a puzzle that have been broken apart? Isn't where we are drifting to all these years even MORE concerning? What happens when Alaska bumps into Russia and the pieces don't fit together? :shock:

:fp: :fp:

good grief ... what did i just write? ... there is proof ... it's called science and it wouldn't take but 25 mins from someone who is reasonably objective and intelligent to educate themselves on that ...

what you write is right out of the big oil playbook in response ... all of which has been addressed by scientists ... i can't really help you if you continue to choose to believe what PR companies and lobbyists tell you ... do you not believe in academia? ... do you not believe in modern day medicine? ... do you believe we actually landed in the moon? ...

Hugh Freaking Dillon

polaris_x wrote:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

Again - what you are missing is - nobody is refuting the the climate is changing. Nobody is refuting the earth might be warming. It's cause that's the issue.

The Earth's climate has been changing - cooling, warming, warming, cooling for billions of years. To think that humans are having a SIGNIFICANT (again, I don't think anyone is doubting we have some) impact is the issue.

So, you can all stop with the Hurricane Sandy is your fault line of argument. What you need to do is prove that the Earth's climate has NOT been changing for Billions of years. Didn't you discover in first grade that the continents are a puzzle that have been broken apart? Isn't where we are drifting to all these years even MORE concerning? What happens when Alaska bumps into Russia and the pieces don't fit together? :shock:

:fp: :fp:

good grief ... what did i just write? ... there is proof ... it's called science and it wouldn't take but 25 mins from someone who is reasonably objective and intelligent to educate themselves on that ...

what you write is right out of the big oil playbook in response ... all of which has been addressed by scientists ... i can't really help you if you continue to choose to believe what PR companies and lobbyists tell you ... do you not believe in academia? ... do you not believe in modern day medicine? ... do you believe we actually landed in the moon? ...

to play devil's advocate here.........I think what he's saying is you can't take one miniscule amount of time in earth's history and base science on just that. human-caused-climate-change would have an infinitely more concrete argument if we had data dating back to the last cooling/warming period, and see if it falls in line with the industrial/technological revolution. this is why people still aren't believing and/or concerned about it. because 150 years of data out of billions of years is nothing in the grand scheme.

but still, whether climate change is a bi product of man or not, the amount of pollutants we put in their earth's atmosphere is obviously going to hurt us one way or the other.

polaris_x

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

to play devil's advocate here.........I think what he's saying is you can't take one miniscule amount of time in earth's history and base science on just that. human-caused-climate-change would have an infinitely more concrete argument if we had data dating back to the last cooling/warming period, and see if it falls in line with the industrial/technological revolution. this is why people still aren't believing and/or concerned about it. because 150 years of data out of billions of years is nothing in the grand scheme.

but still, whether climate change is a bi product of man or not, the amount of pollutants we put in their earth's atmosphere is obviously going to hurt us one way or the other.

no ... i get what he's saying ... and my response is that all that has been addressed ... this notion that we can't prove global warming is caused by man is a myth perpetrated by big oil and their lobbyists ... it's in the literature ... the same argument could be said for nearly everything if that held any water ...

how long has cancer been around? ... how do we not know that it is just naturally occurring and that there is nothing you can do to prevent it ... it's absurd to think this way ...

even flow - question mark

The beer stores here in Ontario used to put out a guide to fishing for all of the "fresh" water lakes in the province. I used to grab one every year and watch as the amount of fish from each lake rise with the "DO NOT EAT" warning. Hmmmm fresh water, way up north and toxins fill the fish. Please somebody tell me this is not climate change with a straight face. And for those that think they can, I'll answer that now. Yeah, right!

Don't mistake climate change with the fact that I live in Ontario and haven't had to shovel snow more than three times in the last five years.

EdsonNascimento

polaris_x wrote:

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

to play devil's advocate here.........I think what he's saying is you can't take one miniscule amount of time in earth's history and base science on just that. human-caused-climate-change would have an infinitely more concrete argument if we had data dating back to the last cooling/warming period, and see if it falls in line with the industrial/technological revolution. this is why people still aren't believing and/or concerned about it. because 150 years of data out of billions of years is nothing in the grand scheme.

but still, whether climate change is a bi product of man or not, the amount of pollutants we put in their earth's atmosphere is obviously going to hurt us one way or the other.

no ... i get what he's saying ... and my response is that all that has been addressed ... this notion that we can't prove global warming is caused by man is a myth perpetrated by big oil and their lobbyists ... it's in the literature ... the same argument could be said for nearly everything if that held any water ...

how long has cancer been around? ... how do we not know that it is just naturally occurring and that there is nothing you can do to prevent it ... it's absurd to think this way ...

No you don't. Thanks HFD. You put it better than I did, other than the concern part.

The issue with climate change nuts (to use the OP's phraseology) is they think they're smarter than everyone else. That sounds familiar. Perhaps, we should just call them Lays or Enrons, or some other stupidly clever name.

Your cancer analogy is funny, BTW. You can put cancer into remission. You can't put naturally occuring global changes in remission. Change is going to happen. Welcome, to the real world.

EdsonNascimento

even flow - question mark wrote:

The beer stores here in Ontario used to put out a guide to fishing for all of the "fresh" water lakes in the province. I used to grab one every year and watch as the amount of fish from each lake rise with the "DO NOT EAT" warning. Hmmmm fresh water, way up north and toxins fill the fish. Please somebody tell me this is not climate change with a straight face. And for those that think they can, I'll answer that now. Yeah, right!

Don't mistake climate change with the fact that I live in Ontario and haven't had to shovel snow more than three times in the last five years.

How is filling up fresh water lakes with toxins the same as climate change? :?

That's the problem. You guys all think everyone's arguing AGAINST cleaning up the environment.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

polaris_x wrote:

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

to play devil's advocate here.........I think what he's saying is you can't take one miniscule amount of time in earth's history and base science on just that. human-caused-climate-change would have an infinitely more concrete argument if we had data dating back to the last cooling/warming period, and see if it falls in line with the industrial/technological revolution. this is why people still aren't believing and/or concerned about it. because 150 years of data out of billions of years is nothing in the grand scheme.

but still, whether climate change is a bi product of man or not, the amount of pollutants we put in their earth's atmosphere is obviously going to hurt us one way or the other.

no ... i get what he's saying ... and my response is that all that has been addressed ... this notion that we can't prove global warming is caused by man is a myth perpetrated by big oil and their lobbyists ... it's in the literature ... the same argument could be said for nearly everything if that held any water ...

how long has cancer been around? ... how do we not know that it is just naturally occurring and that there is nothing you can do to prevent it ... it's absurd to think this way ...

I don't think it's a myth, but I don't think it can be proven either. I mean, how do you prove the box exists when you can't stand outside of the box to look at it? the only data we have is the data of a warming period during times of severe pollution and industrial (r)evolution. how do we know for CERTAIN that pollution causes the change, and not just a naturally occurring warming phase of the planet, when we have no data pre-pollution?

brianlux

know1 wrote:

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

It gets very frustrating trying to explain that "global warming" doesn't mean "it will be warmer outside."

It can also mean that the odd cold snap in Los Angeles and San Francisco is a result of changing ocean currents caused by lower salinity in the ocean which was caused by melting ice in the polar ice caps which was caused by holes in the ozone which was caused by chlorofluorocarbons.

And it can also mean the freakishly strong blizzards they've been getting on the east coast, the hurricanes, the tornados... It doesn't mean that Toronto will have Miami weather with no bad side.

It also gets frustrating to see people point to single weather events as any kind of evidence of anything.

As the OP reminded us, the records we've kept on the weather and weather events are scientifically meaningless so we have almost nothing to compare to.

But, I don't think we should abuse the environment by any means.

I agree that drawing any kind of conclusion about climate change from one weather event is unwise. What is relevant is the increasing and vast number of unusual climate events. Catefrances has pointed out one of many such events. No doubt, all of us could contribute to a list of such events. It is pretty much common knowledge that these events are increasing and their numbers do not follow climate change events that have occurred in the past. This is evidenced by the rapid nature of these changes and the influence of human activity which is new in terms of planetary events.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

brianlux wrote:

I agree that drawing any kind of conclusion about climate change from one weather event is unwise. What is relevant is the increasing and vast number of unusual climate events. Catefrances has pointed out one of many such events. No doubt, all of us could contribute to a list of such events. It is pretty much common knowledge that these events are increasing and their numbers do not follow climate change events that have occurred in the past. This is evidenced by the rapid nature of these changes and the influence of human activity which is new in terms of planetary events.

**I need to point out here that I'm not a climate change denier**

however, for discussion's sake, how do we know climate change hasn't happened in the past when man's activities had no/little influence over nature?

brianlux

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

polaris_x wrote:

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

to play devil's advocate here.........I think what he's saying is you can't take one miniscule amount of time in earth's history and base science on just that. human-caused-climate-change would have an infinitely more concrete argument if we had data dating back to the last cooling/warming period, and see if it falls in line with the industrial/technological revolution. this is why people still aren't believing and/or concerned about it. because 150 years of data out of billions of years is nothing in the grand scheme.

but still, whether climate change is a bi product of man or not, the amount of pollutants we put in their earth's atmosphere is obviously going to hurt us one way or the other.

no ... i get what he's saying ... and my response is that all that has been addressed ... this notion that we can't prove global warming is caused by man is a myth perpetrated by big oil and their lobbyists ... it's in the literature ... the same argument could be said for nearly everything if that held any water ...

how long has cancer been around? ... how do we not know that it is just naturally occurring and that there is nothing you can do to prevent it ... it's absurd to think this way ...

I don't think it's a myth, but I don't think it can be proven either. I mean, how do you prove the box exists when you can't stand outside of the box to look at it? the only data we have is the data of a warming period during times of severe pollution and industrial (r)evolution. how do we know for CERTAIN that pollution causes the change, and not just a naturally occurring warming phase of the planet, when we have no data pre-pollution?

Hugh, here's a quote that might help:

"Deniers of global warming science say, 'Global warming has not been proven- it's only a theory.' Similarly, creationists delight in saying that, "Evolutionary theory has not been proven." This despite the fact that science can never prove anything- only mathematicians do proofs.

By contrast, in science we collect evidence and probe the natural world for testable ideas called hypotheses (or theories) that have predictive value. When the world is thus explained using these scientific processes, the results are not theories in the pejorative sense, but they represent the best provisional answers that science and society can presently provide. To disregard these findings in favor of the climate myths debunked in this book, for example, just because a more refined scientific theory may come along in the future, is the height of folly."

-John Harte, from the preface to Climate Myths