Bizarre weather
-
I remember it being 150,000 years, and the evidence of it is on the ocean floor with respect to mineral deposits following a pattern based on the magnetic pull.
What's in a sig? This statement is false. Build a bridge and get over it. ~ Chris Maunder
-
I don't know if you read newspapers, but the whole academic world is convicent of the greenhouse effect. So let all Chinese have the same car park as the USA have, and see how fast the earth will warm up then. Here in the Netherlands btw, we had the warmest year in the past 1000 year
yeah i do read the newspapers and no they dont all agree on the matter at all. That "agreement" is a myth :) and you point about netherlands having the warmest year in 1000 years is interesting as a) i didnt know that the wonderful people of the netherlands had been recording it accurately fro 1000 years b) 1000 years ago it was clearly warmer from your statement...which was therefore before all the burning of fossil fuels on a large scale. cheers :) Bryce
--- To paraphrase Fred Dagg - the views expressed in this post are bloody good ones. --
Publitor, making Pubmed easy. http://www.sohocode.com/publitorOur kids books :The Snot Goblin, and Book 2 - the Snotgoblin and Fluff
-
The ANZAC wrote:
DAMN GLOBAL WARMING!
So this weather you are experiencing has never happened before? Say, over the last 5 thousand years?
Truth is the subjection of reality to an individuals perception
good point :) Bryce
--- To paraphrase Fred Dagg - the views expressed in this post are bloody good ones. --
Publitor, making Pubmed easy. http://www.sohocode.com/publitorOur kids books :The Snot Goblin, and Book 2 - the Snotgoblin and Fluff
-
But it seems that it is just like some hardliner are sayin: there is no climate change.... (how blind must they be X| ) We had the warmest november ever and december doesn't seem to get better. (germany)
Olli "Ooooooh, they have the internet on computers now!"
Homer Simpson
:beer: + :java: = NULL :=> X|how do you know it was the warmest december "ever"? bryce
--- To paraphrase Fred Dagg - the views expressed in this post are bloody good ones. --
Publitor, making Pubmed easy. http://www.sohocode.com/publitorOur kids books :The Snot Goblin, and Book 2 - the Snotgoblin and Fluff
-
The weather has been odd for maybe 10 years now...it's simply gotten bad enough for people to notice...and it'll probably get even worse at earth's magnetic field distabilizes... The current position of the magnetic poles is starting to change just as it had millions of years ago, so in time we'll have several different poles until the earth flips and the new poles are established. The magnetic north pole is slowly moving away from the geographical north pole and the magnetic field is weakening in some locations, which gives scientists a clue on what's happening. If you combine the subtle changes of the magnetic field and the effects of global warming you'll see the slight changes that affect weather patterns, which multiply because the balance if broken... Roswell
"Angelinos -- excuse me. There will be civility today."
Antonio VillaRaigosa
City Mayor, Los Angeles, CA -
Don't feel isolated, the weather in Australia is pretty hectic where i am too. Keep in mind that our seasons are opposite. We had the coldest day in november (our last month of spring), it was 5 degrees celsius (41 F) for our area ever recorded around, then 4 days later it was 41 degrees celsius (105.8 F). Today it was 95 F, yesterday it was 59 F and the day before was almost 100, it's so crazy. For our area, temps should be so consistent now. DAMN GLOBAL WARMING! Ethanol fuel is the way of the future, or hydrogen cell alternatively (preferably).
Posted by The ANZAC
> Ethanol fuel is the way of the future, or hydrogen cell alternatively (preferably). Read realclimate.org, if we go with the full hog with hydrogen, it may be as bad a pumping out CO2, as water vapour is also a greenhouse gas.
-
Nice to see not everything related to climate change being blamed on global warming, but care to site a reference?
*dives down to the ocean floor and brings up a rock* here, can't have any proof more concrete than that :-D Although if you are looking for something to read, look here: NASA:Earth's Inconstant Magnetic Field[^] Roswell
"Angelinos -- excuse me. There will be civility today."
Antonio VillaRaigosa
City Mayor, Los Angeles, CA -
yeah i do read the newspapers and no they dont all agree on the matter at all. That "agreement" is a myth :) and you point about netherlands having the warmest year in 1000 years is interesting as a) i didnt know that the wonderful people of the netherlands had been recording it accurately fro 1000 years b) 1000 years ago it was clearly warmer from your statement...which was therefore before all the burning of fossil fuels on a large scale. cheers :) Bryce
--- To paraphrase Fred Dagg - the views expressed in this post are bloody good ones. --
Publitor, making Pubmed easy. http://www.sohocode.com/publitorOur kids books :The Snot Goblin, and Book 2 - the Snotgoblin and Fluff
As back as in the late 80's there were a lot of meteorologists who claimed that the rising of the earths temperature had possibly a cause in human activities. At that time the effect was ignored. 10 years later, the warming could not be ignored, and thus the argument shifted to denial of the human cause. But now it seems that everybody agree and you see the arguments are now of type 'it isn't so bad that the temperature is raising by one or two degrees globally'. How far do we have to go? Should real catastrophies break out? Remember that humans are still highly dependent on nature. All the food we eat comes from natural resources. The longer we wait for taking measurements, the harder they become. And Bush prefer to go to war instead of dealing the real issues of 21 century. The USA is the most energy consuming country and refuses to take real counter measures. They didn't even sign Kyoto, which is only about reducing the growth of emission, not even about reducing the absolute emission. About the second argument: of course there wer no weather services in the medieval period. But they can determine mean temperatures of the past. For example growth rings of trees (literal translation, I do not know the English word for it) are a clue for how warm it was in that days. This planet should be livable for humans even after our generation.
-
As back as in the late 80's there were a lot of meteorologists who claimed that the rising of the earths temperature had possibly a cause in human activities. At that time the effect was ignored. 10 years later, the warming could not be ignored, and thus the argument shifted to denial of the human cause. But now it seems that everybody agree and you see the arguments are now of type 'it isn't so bad that the temperature is raising by one or two degrees globally'. How far do we have to go? Should real catastrophies break out? Remember that humans are still highly dependent on nature. All the food we eat comes from natural resources. The longer we wait for taking measurements, the harder they become. And Bush prefer to go to war instead of dealing the real issues of 21 century. The USA is the most energy consuming country and refuses to take real counter measures. They didn't even sign Kyoto, which is only about reducing the growth of emission, not even about reducing the absolute emission. About the second argument: of course there wer no weather services in the medieval period. But they can determine mean temperatures of the past. For example growth rings of trees (literal translation, I do not know the English word for it) are a clue for how warm it was in that days. This planet should be livable for humans even after our generation.
Gast128 wrote:
the warming could not be ignored,
gee i dunno, NZ for example has been cooling in the last 10 years. Antartica is actually growing in mass, not melting.
Gast128 wrote:
How far do we have to go? Should real catastrophies break out?
no, fact needs to be established, this years storm season inthe US was the quietest in the last 10 or so...although the "experts" were predicting it to be a real corker. BEFORE people run around throwing money and laws at a problem they better gosh darn well prove the problem - sometthing which has not happened also, if you want people to do things - get EVERYONE to do it...making the first world responsible for a global issue is farcial when all the other countries can sign up to an "agreement" but not actually have to DO anything. Yes NZ with your 4 million people, you have to abide by Kyoto rules which a country of 100 or MORE million people does not have to. Doesnt seem to smart to me. also, The Greenhouse effect is not a fact it is a theory. An unproven theory. The is no "Consensus" on it, there is wide debate on it. if you're attempting to say "better safe than sorry" then i'll riposte with "better smart than stupid" and i'd point to DDT as to why that viewpoint is flawed.
Gast128 wrote:
This planet should be livable for humans even after our generation.
i agree, but lets be smart about it. Leaving the world in a better state than we found it in is a just and noble cause - knee jerk reactions to a swag of incorrect and emotive news article written by journalists is just so wrong its not funny. cheers and merry xmas bryce
--- To paraphrase Fred Dagg - the views expressed in this post are bloody good ones. --
Publitor, making Pubmed easy. http://www.sohocode.com/publitorOur kids books :The Snot Goblin, and Book 2 - the Snotgoblin and Fluff
-
Gast128 wrote:
the warming could not be ignored,
gee i dunno, NZ for example has been cooling in the last 10 years. Antartica is actually growing in mass, not melting.
Gast128 wrote:
How far do we have to go? Should real catastrophies break out?
no, fact needs to be established, this years storm season inthe US was the quietest in the last 10 or so...although the "experts" were predicting it to be a real corker. BEFORE people run around throwing money and laws at a problem they better gosh darn well prove the problem - sometthing which has not happened also, if you want people to do things - get EVERYONE to do it...making the first world responsible for a global issue is farcial when all the other countries can sign up to an "agreement" but not actually have to DO anything. Yes NZ with your 4 million people, you have to abide by Kyoto rules which a country of 100 or MORE million people does not have to. Doesnt seem to smart to me. also, The Greenhouse effect is not a fact it is a theory. An unproven theory. The is no "Consensus" on it, there is wide debate on it. if you're attempting to say "better safe than sorry" then i'll riposte with "better smart than stupid" and i'd point to DDT as to why that viewpoint is flawed.
Gast128 wrote:
This planet should be livable for humans even after our generation.
i agree, but lets be smart about it. Leaving the world in a better state than we found it in is a just and noble cause - knee jerk reactions to a swag of incorrect and emotive news article written by journalists is just so wrong its not funny. cheers and merry xmas bryce
--- To paraphrase Fred Dagg - the views expressed in this post are bloody good ones. --
Publitor, making Pubmed easy. http://www.sohocode.com/publitorOur kids books :The Snot Goblin, and Book 2 - the Snotgoblin and Fluff
bryce wrote:
gee i dunno, NZ for example has been cooling in the last 10 years. Antartica is actually growing in mass, not melting.
That's exactly the greenhouse effect: locally the temperatures can actually drop, globally they are increasing. The north pole and Greenland are shrinking btw, for Antartica I do not have the numbers here.
bryce wrote:
also, The Greenhouse effect is not a fact it is a theory. An unproven theory. The is no "Consensus" on it, there is wide debate on it.
Well take a look at www.knmi.nl. Unfortunatley in dutch, but it says that scientist expect a global raise in temperature for about 1.4 to 5.8 °C the next century. I do not have to quote the whole internet and probably yourself can look up some counter arguments, but there is a common agreement about earth's raising temperature and even a common agreement that human's are the cause of it. I wish you a very nice christmas. Still I found it very disappointint that intelligent people are still living in denial.
-
bryce wrote:
gee i dunno, NZ for example has been cooling in the last 10 years. Antartica is actually growing in mass, not melting.
That's exactly the greenhouse effect: locally the temperatures can actually drop, globally they are increasing. The north pole and Greenland are shrinking btw, for Antartica I do not have the numbers here.
bryce wrote:
also, The Greenhouse effect is not a fact it is a theory. An unproven theory. The is no "Consensus" on it, there is wide debate on it.
Well take a look at www.knmi.nl. Unfortunatley in dutch, but it says that scientist expect a global raise in temperature for about 1.4 to 5.8 °C the next century. I do not have to quote the whole internet and probably yourself can look up some counter arguments, but there is a common agreement about earth's raising temperature and even a common agreement that human's are the cause of it. I wish you a very nice christmas. Still I found it very disappointint that intelligent people are still living in denial.
couple of points 1. the nz cooling was one example - guessed you missed that part of the sentence That's exactly the greenhouse effect no its _weather_ thats what it does., your statement also suggests that antartica is a small place - it holds 90 percent of the worlds ice. Suggesting that the increase in ice mass is a "local" event and not relevant is madness - but there is a common agreement about earth's raising temperature and even a common agreement that human's are the cause of it. no, there is not common agreement. You keep lmissing that and i keep telling you here go read this :) http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597[^]
Gast128 wrote:
Still I found it very disappointint that intelligent people are still living in denial.
and i also find it disappointing intelligent people believe what the media and various left wing groups with vested interests keep spouting. I also think its terrible the mannner in which you have just attempted to patronise me. I used to be a greenhouse believer until i starting researching the issue. It is a fact that the earth has been both warmer and cooler than it is currently. To say that its the unproven "green house" effect which is respnsiible for any current weather patterns is nonsense and i think perhaps further education is in order for all concerned Including both myself and yourself cheers Bryce -- modified at 15:52 Wednesday 20th December, 2006
--- To paraphrase Fred Dagg - the views expressed in this post are bloody good ones. --
Publitor, making Pubmed easy. http://www.sohocode.com/publitorOur kids books :The Snot Goblin, and Book 2 - the Snotgoblin and Fluff
-
couple of points 1. the nz cooling was one example - guessed you missed that part of the sentence That's exactly the greenhouse effect no its _weather_ thats what it does., your statement also suggests that antartica is a small place - it holds 90 percent of the worlds ice. Suggesting that the increase in ice mass is a "local" event and not relevant is madness - but there is a common agreement about earth's raising temperature and even a common agreement that human's are the cause of it. no, there is not common agreement. You keep lmissing that and i keep telling you here go read this :) http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597[^]
Gast128 wrote:
Still I found it very disappointint that intelligent people are still living in denial.
and i also find it disappointing intelligent people believe what the media and various left wing groups with vested interests keep spouting. I also think its terrible the mannner in which you have just attempted to patronise me. I used to be a greenhouse believer until i starting researching the issue. It is a fact that the earth has been both warmer and cooler than it is currently. To say that its the unproven "green house" effect which is respnsiible for any current weather patterns is nonsense and i think perhaps further education is in order for all concerned Including both myself and yourself cheers Bryce -- modified at 15:52 Wednesday 20th December, 2006
--- To paraphrase Fred Dagg - the views expressed in this post are bloody good ones. --
Publitor, making Pubmed easy. http://www.sohocode.com/publitorOur kids books :The Snot Goblin, and Book 2 - the Snotgoblin and Fluff
You have your opinion and I have mine which is shared amongs a lot of scientist. I have read the article and it doens't convince me at all, although the author seems to be a professor. I hope however that I am wrong. That indeed the raise in temperature is not of human ause but some natural fluctuation. We 'll see. If I am right however there is no way back.
-
You have your opinion and I have mine which is shared amongs a lot of scientist. I have read the article and it doens't convince me at all, although the author seems to be a professor. I hope however that I am wrong. That indeed the raise in temperature is not of human ause but some natural fluctuation. We 'll see. If I am right however there is no way back.
Gast128 wrote:
You have your opinion and I have mine which is shared amongs a lot of scientist.
and mine also is shared amoung a lot of scientists, however you don't seem to be doing the reading and research for yourself, you appear to be listening to the side which suits your viewpoint of the world. I really do think you should spend some time reading about the science and the state of the political arguments. The article wasnt meant to convince you either way, it was to demonstrate that there is strong division within the scientific community over the issue. This is a good thing, it also helps demonstrate that the media are not to be belived as they like to report sensationalism and drama over facts and the truth.
Gast128 wrote:
We 'll see. If I am right however there is no way back
Yes we will see, back inthe 70s people were very worried (including many scientists) that we were heading towards an ice age, you may not be old enought o recall this. No way back from what? are you suggesting that the c02 in the atmosphere cannot be extracted out? plants and algaes do it all day everyday. No way back from bad or strange weather - erm weather is always bad and strange. always has been. What has the media made you scared of? I just want to say here (again) than i am all in favour of a clean green world, i would like to think that we all share the ideal that we should leave the earth in a better state than we found it. But i am also in favour of being smart about things, a knee jerk reaction based on poor science because "its the safe thing to do" or "its better to be safe than sorry" is the wrong path to follow and has been shown in the past to cost money, lives and progress. cheers and have a clean green xmas ;) Bryce
--- To paraphrase Fred Dagg - the views expressed in this post are bloody good ones. --
Publitor, making Pubmed easy. http://www.sohocode.com/publitorOur kids books :The Snot Goblin, and Book 2 - the Snotgoblin and Fluff