|
Post by jerryfmcompushaft on Sept 21, 2012 22:15:12 GMT -5
I guess it would probably do me no good to mention that I DO believe in climate change and the resultant (who knows when for sure?) potential catastrophic events that may occur. How's that for waffling? Denny - There is no doubt that the climate is changing - as it has been for the last X number of eons. The climate of the earth is constantly changing. The ice age is responsible for the Great Lakes... Tropical plants were found in the ice of Alaska. It does change and always has. The hoax is that it is the fault of humans and can be controlled by humans and how many 'carbon credits' they buy or sell. Total BS....
|
|
|
Post by mcnoch on Sept 22, 2012 2:54:36 GMT -5
Yes, we don't understand yet fully the highly-complex system that is forming our climate and from that the local weather. But we see a lot of changes in all areas and as we understand the thermo-, hydro- and aerodynamic processes that are driving these changes we can build models that allow us to simulate what is causing the changes and to how it might develop. The more data we enter into these simulations the better the simulations and their results become. At the moment the strong trend of these simulations is that due to the warming we will see our so far more or less stable weather-systems shift into an instable condition, causing more extreme weather. What the next phase will be after that is unsure, but even these extreme weather situations might cause in the coming decades a lot of problems for our local eco-systems, with all consequences. We all will see the outcome in our life-time as many of these eco-systems have reached their tipping-points. In many of these areas the changes will no take place over decades, but just a few years. THe climate-records gained in the past decades show that has happened unpleasently often in the past. And one point to "skeptical thinker". I wish they would be as skeptical to the news that seems to bolster their opinion as they are to these news which are contradicting it.
|
|
|
Post by jerryfmcompushaft on Sept 22, 2012 6:48:00 GMT -5
The question is, "When the ice that covered Canada, the northern US and most of Europe melted, was it a good thing or a bad thing?" Were Grog and Urk so concerned that they stopped driving SUVs?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2012 8:21:01 GMT -5
Jerry,
Your head is so deep in the sand that you refuse to acknowlege change. Are there those who want to reap reward from being like Chicken Little and say the world is dying? Sure. But most rational people understand that we are a major source of whatever weather/climate changes have occured, and are occuring. I'm not an enviromentalist in any way, shape or form, but I agree that people have a part in the way the GW/climate change, whatever one calls it, is happening. And it sure as hell is not positive. I'm not a scientist and never claimed to be, but based on what little I know, there have been too many changes over the past century that would not have happened were it not for man's presence on the earth.
Denny
|
|
|
Post by jerryfmcompushaft on Sept 22, 2012 9:19:11 GMT -5
Jerry, Your head is so deep in the sand that you refuse to acknowlege change. Are there those who want to reap reward from being like Chicken Little and say the world is dying? Sure. But most rational people understand that we are a major source of whatever weather/climate changes have occured, and are occuring. I'm not an enviromentalist in any way, shape or form, but I agree that people have a part in the way the GW/climate change, whatever one calls it, is happening. And it sure as hell is not positive. I'm not a scientist and never claimed to be, but based on what little I know, there have been too many changes over the past century that would not have happened were it not for man's presence on the earth. Denny Denny, Please help me here since my knowledge and understanding are so deficient - What caused the warming that ended the Ice Age? Was that a bad thing? What scientific evidence do you have that the same thing is not occuring now? Help me get my head out of the sand. (I did acknowledge change in my first sentence - Denny - There is no doubt that the climate is changing - as it has been for the last X number of eons. - just don't acknowledge that humans can do anything about it - or that it is necessarily bad) BTW - I do have some carbon credits for sale - do your bit to save the world - check my ebay offering.....
|
|
|
Post by mcnoch on Sept 22, 2012 13:41:17 GMT -5
Do you really want to discuss the complex developments in the oceanographic environment on the southern side of the earth that caused in about 12700 BC the wind-pattern on the Northern side to change and established new warm-air infusions into the North-Polar climate-system? Within one to three years temperatures raised by 10°C, then cooled down for 200 years a bit to raise over the next 60 years another 10°C again. We know pretty well what caused these developments and we know that the industrialization and permanent deforestation has released CO2 and other climate-relevant gasses in an amount that is repeating exactly what we can see in the remains of even older climate-changes, but other than back then we don’t see large scale volcanic activity or massive fires or decomposition of dying forests, but we see the impakt of the human behaviour.
Receding ice gave humans new areas to settle, but took others by flooding them. I know that many people think it would be good that NYC and others sin cities might disappear below the seas, but there are some people that think that this is not so cool. Look for Lake Agassiz about 10 700 and what id did to the USA and Canada. Additionally Receding ice lowered the pressure onto the ground and caused wide-spread sea- and earthquakes when the ground rebounded. In some earthquake sensible areas in the USA and Canada this can cause additional problems. Sure, there are risks for another seaquake at the Cascadia subduction zone anyhow, but who will miss Seattle or Vancouver? Change for a fresh restart, right?
Would that be a bad thing? Not if you are not living there…
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2012 13:46:30 GMT -5
McNoch's answer is just a bit more complex than more would've been. For me, like you, I'm not a scientist and don't profess to understand the problem, but too many things have happened since the Industrial that have impacted the climate/weather directly or indirectly for whatever changes that have occured to be a fluke. And yes, you did mention and a change, my bad. I couldn't find the carbon credits on eBay. I wanted to buy two.
|
|
|
Post by jerryfmcompushaft on Sept 22, 2012 14:51:49 GMT -5
I couldn't find the carbon credits on eBay. I wanted to buy two.Two wouldn't offset the disruption caused by my morning flatulance....
|
|
|
Post by Swampy on Sept 22, 2012 14:52:54 GMT -5
That's a gas.
|
|
|
Post by Sir John on Sept 22, 2012 15:47:19 GMT -5
I rely very strongly on my BS Detector, it has never let me down.
Claims that include the words "May", "Could", "as much as" "Up to" and so on lose much cred in putting forward some vague and devastating prediction.
Sea level rise claims are easy to disprove and the records go back 150 years in Australia. The change can be measured in millimetres, and is about 20mm (< 1") over the past 150 years. In Tasmania a vertical rock face in the water was gouged with the Mean Sea Level in 1841. It has hardly changed!
Claims of 50' are usually based on ALL of the ice in Antactica and Greenland melting, which it can never do at that rate. If all the sea ice in the Arctic melted it would NOT change the sea level. A schoolboys experiment with ice cubes melting in a full bowl of water proves it!
....and scares about ice shelves breaking away and drifting north or south ignore the FACT that ice shelves have been doing that ever since they were formed, they MUST, otherwise they would grow all the way to NYC!!!
......same with glaciers 'calving'!
FAR too much BS for me to give it any credence.
SJ
|
|
|
Post by mcnoch on Sept 22, 2012 16:19:47 GMT -5
Claims that include the words "May", "Could", "as much as" "Up to" and so on lose much cred in putting forward some vague and devastating prediction. So people who take into account that nothing is 100% have less credibility for you than those who say "It will not happen!"? Sea level rise claims are easy to disprove and the records go back 150 years in Australia. ... It has hardly changed! 150 years don't mean much in geological terms. If all the sea ice in the Arctic melted it would NOT change the sea level. A schoolboys experiment with ice cubes melting in a full bowl of water proves it! But of course this is only true for that ice that is floating in/on water, not that one which is on solid ground like Greenland, Canada or Antartica.
|
|
|
Post by Sir John on Sept 22, 2012 18:40:48 GMT -5
Matthias,
150 year is far more than the disaster predicted by 2050, which is the favourite year for it.
And the Greenland ice cap is about 10,000 feet thick average, with some over 12,000 feet and the temperature is always well below zero, except on the coastal border of it.
And even the most southern part of it is GROWING, not melting.
SJ
|
|
|
Post by mcnoch on Sept 23, 2012 0:44:07 GMT -5
The problem in the Artic and Antarctic is that they are losing more ice in their summer-seasons than gaining back during their winter-seasons. So where is this ice coming from? It comes from the continental areas. The waters around both zones are warming, speeding up the reduction of the land ice shields. Some local temporary growing trends can't compensate for the general lose.
Even in a warming climate we don't see a rise in temperatures everywhere, that is expected, not a proof to the contrary. The simulations clearly show that due to the reduced ice in the polar region during the summer we will face colder winters in large parts of Europe. It is not black/white, it is complex. Thinking in black/white pattern is no valid simulation of life or nature, it is an intentional over-simplification.
|
|
|
Post by Sir John on Sept 23, 2012 1:41:50 GMT -5
Matthias,
Apart from a small area of the Northern Antarctic Peninsular in part of the summer, NONE of the Continent ever gets above 0C.
Therefore the ice cannot, and does not, melt!
SJ
|
|
|
Post by mcnoch on Sept 23, 2012 2:12:44 GMT -5
Mechanical processes are pushing ice from the colder areas out toward the warmer coastal areas where it starts to melt. And with the floating buffer zone shrinking the warming water-currents will influence increasingly the temperature-pattern of the coastal areas. IN the central continent it might stay cold or even get colder.
|
|