Is news coverage of stories global?
-
This is true... See, the trick is that warming isn't uniform. If the cause is CO2, well then that's going to be concentrated more in urban areas. If you think it's just increased energy from the sun, well, I think the difference in climate between the poles and the equator makes it obvious that different parts of the world receive solar energy differently. So if you increase the temperature in one region, it's going to affect wind and ocean currents among other things (Remember, the atmosphere is like one giant heat-transfer engine)... The currents that dissipate heat from these warmer regions will increase to correct the imbalance, and weather patterns will be affected pretty much everywhere... Anyway, I'm no meteorologist, but as I understand it, the climate will find a new equilibrium ("The Day After Tomorrow" was a HUGE exaggeration, I think), and that equilibrium (Don't #%(*& with the Tetragrammaton!) would be, on average, hotter than before. Ok, I forgot what I was talking about... It's too early to think logically...
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
I love all the idiots that say "It's snowing more than ever, so GW must be a myth." The Colbert skit where he shows that the sun vanished, so we are all about to be plunged in an endless night where the mole people will be in charge is just hilarious. What is happening in 1 region obviously trumps the entire planet. And the Jet Stream weakening in the Gulf of Mexico and so being unable to protect Britain like it normally does from snow is just a sign that they are wrong...
-
This is true... See, the trick is that warming isn't uniform. If the cause is CO2, well then that's going to be concentrated more in urban areas. If you think it's just increased energy from the sun, well, I think the difference in climate between the poles and the equator makes it obvious that different parts of the world receive solar energy differently. So if you increase the temperature in one region, it's going to affect wind and ocean currents among other things (Remember, the atmosphere is like one giant heat-transfer engine)... The currents that dissipate heat from these warmer regions will increase to correct the imbalance, and weather patterns will be affected pretty much everywhere... Anyway, I'm no meteorologist, but as I understand it, the climate will find a new equilibrium ("The Day After Tomorrow" was a HUGE exaggeration, I think), and that equilibrium (Don't #%(*& with the Tetragrammaton!) would be, on average, hotter than before. Ok, I forgot what I was talking about... It's too early to think logically...
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
Yes, the extremist garbage produced in the name of AGW is ludicrous, and is actually damaging to the AGW cause. IMO we are looking at something cyclic. The north pole gets as warm as it was in the 30's, the southern hemisphere cooling. I dont see any case for CO2 causing warming. It will moderate temperature, but it wont cause overall warming.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
I love all the idiots that say "It's snowing more than ever, so GW must be a myth." The Colbert skit where he shows that the sun vanished, so we are all about to be plunged in an endless night where the mole people will be in charge is just hilarious. What is happening in 1 region obviously trumps the entire planet. And the Jet Stream weakening in the Gulf of Mexico and so being unable to protect Britain like it normally does from snow is just a sign that they are wrong...
-
Yes, the extremist garbage produced in the name of AGW is ludicrous, and is actually damaging to the AGW cause. IMO we are looking at something cyclic. The north pole gets as warm as it was in the 30's, the southern hemisphere cooling. I dont see any case for CO2 causing warming. It will moderate temperature, but it wont cause overall warming.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
I'm not speaking for or against CO2 as the cause... Just using it as an example. Personally, I'll find it hard to believe if our pollution and excessive industry ISN'T causing some kind of climate change. It just seems logical that all of this crap we pump into the atmosphere would have an effect. Obviously that's just my take on it, not backed up by any scientific evidence. That said, I think any climate shift caused by humanity wouldn't start until at least a century or two down the road, since I would guess the heavy pollution didn't start until the early 1900's. Figure something as big as the planet would take a little while to react, though it couldn't hurt to clean up our act now and limit the effect. Again, just my thoughts, not backed up.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
-
BYW I am not the one voter. I dont believe in censoring opinion. However, if you get enough snow then it must disprove GW. No?
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
However, if you get enough snow then it must disprove GW. No?
If it's worldwide, then possibly. But one region getting more snow doesn't disprove it. Have to look at the entire planet, because the warm/cold regions could just be shifting around. "The Day After Tomorrow," though ridiculously exaggerated and not at all scientific, IS loosely based on a real theory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shutdown_of_thermohaline_circulation[^]. I think the idea is that global warming could potentially screw up the ocean currents, which would in turn screw up heat transfer from the equatorial regions toward the poles... Hot areas get hotter, cold areas get colder... Now, I have no idea how credible the theory is... I'm a programmer, not a meteorologist... But it's something to think about.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
-
I'm not speaking for or against CO2 as the cause... Just using it as an example. Personally, I'll find it hard to believe if our pollution and excessive industry ISN'T causing some kind of climate change. It just seems logical that all of this crap we pump into the atmosphere would have an effect. Obviously that's just my take on it, not backed up by any scientific evidence. That said, I think any climate shift caused by humanity wouldn't start until at least a century or two down the road, since I would guess the heavy pollution didn't start until the early 1900's. Figure something as big as the planet would take a little while to react, though it couldn't hurt to clean up our act now and limit the effect. Again, just my thoughts, not backed up.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
The industrial revolution started well before the 1900s and the amount of coal pumped into the atmosphere was likely fairly big. While they may be alarmists, there is a reason to be alarmed. We don't exist in a vaccum. We need the environment to sustain our people, our resources are being used rapidly, and we need to start thinking long term for a change. The standard answer to having a problem substance or item is to bury it. What happens when we run out of places to bury stuff? Wall-E was way over the top, but if you look at some cities, they kinda already look like giant garbage dumps. *cough*Detroit*cough*
-
The industrial revolution started well before the 1900s and the amount of coal pumped into the atmosphere was likely fairly big. While they may be alarmists, there is a reason to be alarmed. We don't exist in a vaccum. We need the environment to sustain our people, our resources are being used rapidly, and we need to start thinking long term for a change. The standard answer to having a problem substance or item is to bury it. What happens when we run out of places to bury stuff? Wall-E was way over the top, but if you look at some cities, they kinda already look like giant garbage dumps. *cough*Detroit*cough*
Wall-E? Try Idiocracy :) Anyway... I was going to quote St. George (Carlin), but I couldn't remember enough of the skit to do it justice, so I found a link instead... http://amahchewahwah.wordpress.com/2007/06/02/the-planet-is-fine/[^] (NSFW - Language)
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
-
I was skiing with some French friends in the week and they hadnt heard about the 'Climategate' emails from the CRU. This struck me as odd, since the CRU prepare data for the IPCC, which IS international of course. I was wondering why French news hadnt given the story the attention it deserves, and this got me to thinking about whether other countries news outlets have coverd it? So, a quesiton to everyone, have you heard of these leaked e-nmails in your countries media or not? If you arent sure just what Climategate is here is a UK news piece on the latest developement: Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995 [^]
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
fat_boy wrote:
However, if you get enough snow then it must disprove GW. No?
If it's worldwide, then possibly. But one region getting more snow doesn't disprove it. Have to look at the entire planet, because the warm/cold regions could just be shifting around. "The Day After Tomorrow," though ridiculously exaggerated and not at all scientific, IS loosely based on a real theory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shutdown_of_thermohaline_circulation[^]. I think the idea is that global warming could potentially screw up the ocean currents, which would in turn screw up heat transfer from the equatorial regions toward the poles... Hot areas get hotter, cold areas get colder... Now, I have no idea how credible the theory is... I'm a programmer, not a meteorologist... But it's something to think about.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
So would you have apply the same global rule to warming? ie, if GW is a fact, thenthe entire world has to warm? If thats the case then by your own rules GW isnt happening because Antartica and much of the southern hemisphere isnt warming. In fact its been getting colder for 50 years. So do you call it global warming or northern hemisphere warming?
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
I'm not speaking for or against CO2 as the cause... Just using it as an example. Personally, I'll find it hard to believe if our pollution and excessive industry ISN'T causing some kind of climate change. It just seems logical that all of this crap we pump into the atmosphere would have an effect. Obviously that's just my take on it, not backed up by any scientific evidence. That said, I think any climate shift caused by humanity wouldn't start until at least a century or two down the road, since I would guess the heavy pollution didn't start until the early 1900's. Figure something as big as the planet would take a little while to react, though it couldn't hurt to clean up our act now and limit the effect. Again, just my thoughts, not backed up.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
Ian Shlasko wrote:
It just seems logical that all of this crap we pump into the atmosphere would have an effe
CO2 is not pollution. It is plant food. The more the better as far as plants, and those that depend on them are concerned. Secondly yes, we do produce other 'pollutants' SO2, NO2 and so on. These do affect the clmate (SO2 causes cooling). But, volcanoes also produce vast amounts of similarly acting products. A lot of the morality involved cones down to whether one thinks man, and thuis his actions are natural. After all, he is just an animal. All other animals and their actions are considered natural, no matter how damaging.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
The industrial revolution started well before the 1900s and the amount of coal pumped into the atmosphere was likely fairly big. While they may be alarmists, there is a reason to be alarmed. We don't exist in a vaccum. We need the environment to sustain our people, our resources are being used rapidly, and we need to start thinking long term for a change. The standard answer to having a problem substance or item is to bury it. What happens when we run out of places to bury stuff? Wall-E was way over the top, but if you look at some cities, they kinda already look like giant garbage dumps. *cough*Detroit*cough*
ragnaroknrol wrote:
the amount of coal pumped into the atmosphere was likely fairly big.
We have added about 30% CO2 to the atmosphere.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
there is a reason to be alarmed.
And what have we seen in the last 100 years? Possibly some warming (depending on the validity of the data, and the accuracy of past thermometers. 0.5 degree C would be within the margin of error for old thermometers.) And the effect of CO2 is logarithmic. The next 30% we add will have half the effect of the first.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
We don't exist in a vaccum. We need the environment to sustain our people, our resources are being used rapidly, and we need to start thinking long term for a change.
And that is an entirely different discussion to AGW.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
So would you have apply the same global rule to warming? ie, if GW is a fact, thenthe entire world has to warm? If thats the case then by your own rules GW isnt happening because Antartica and much of the southern hemisphere isnt warming. In fact its been getting colder for 50 years. So do you call it global warming or northern hemisphere warming?
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
No, if the AVERAGE temperature of the planet is increasing. What happens in one region doesn't matter in and of itself.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
It just seems logical that all of this crap we pump into the atmosphere would have an effe
CO2 is not pollution. It is plant food. The more the better as far as plants, and those that depend on them are concerned. Secondly yes, we do produce other 'pollutants' SO2, NO2 and so on. These do affect the clmate (SO2 causes cooling). But, volcanoes also produce vast amounts of similarly acting products. A lot of the morality involved cones down to whether one thinks man, and thuis his actions are natural. After all, he is just an animal. All other animals and their actions are considered natural, no matter how damaging.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
Doesn't matter whether it's natural or not. Yes, volcanoes spit a lot of crap into the air, but that DOES affect the climate. Here's the first link from google: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-do-volcanoes-affect-w[^] Morality has nothing to do with science. Anyway... Sure, CO2 is plant food. Oxygen is human "food", but too much can still kill us. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen_toxicity[^]
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
-
No, if the AVERAGE temperature of the planet is increasing. What happens in one region doesn't matter in and of itself.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
-
Doesn't matter whether it's natural or not. Yes, volcanoes spit a lot of crap into the air, but that DOES affect the climate. Here's the first link from google: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-do-volcanoes-affect-w[^] Morality has nothing to do with science. Anyway... Sure, CO2 is plant food. Oxygen is human "food", but too much can still kill us. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen_toxicity[^]
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Yes, volcanoes spit a lot of crap into the air, but that DOES affect the climate. Here's the first link from google:
As I stated.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Morality has nothing to do with science.
Neither does AGW. And no, oxygen is not human fod. Carbohudrates are. As for txiocity we arent even remotely near those levels of CO2 so its a spurious argument.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
So, in the case of snow "If it's worldwide, then possibly. !" (it is global cooling) But if its not snowing (warming) non worldwide then it IS global warming. Nice logic. Care to explain?
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
I don't see what's so difficult here... AVERAGE temperature. If you average the temperature for each region, including the oceans, and put it all together (Weighting by area, of course), you get a number. If that number goes up, the planet is getting warmer. The hard part is actually measuring that.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Yes, volcanoes spit a lot of crap into the air, but that DOES affect the climate. Here's the first link from google:
As I stated.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Morality has nothing to do with science.
Neither does AGW. And no, oxygen is not human fod. Carbohudrates are. As for txiocity we arent even remotely near those levels of CO2 so its a spurious argument.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
And no, oxygen is not human fod. Carbohudrates are.
And what happens if you ingest too much carbs? That can kill you too. Too much of ANYTHING can kill you. Just because it's "good" in proper doses, doesn't mean that more of it is good.
fat_boy wrote:
As for txiocity we arent even remotely near those levels of CO2 so its a spurious argument.
Perhaps, but we're getting sidetracked anyway. I thought we were talking about temperature effects.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
-
I don't see what's so difficult here... AVERAGE temperature. If you average the temperature for each region, including the oceans, and put it all together (Weighting by area, of course), you get a number. If that number goes up, the planet is getting warmer. The hard part is actually measuring that.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
Ian Shlasko wrote:
the planet is getting warmer.
No no no. Only PART of the planet is warming. It is crucial that this is understood. The theory of GH gass warming states that the cold periods and regions will be affected more than the warm. So nights warm, and the poles warm. So if only ONE pole is warming then we are not looking at GH gass caused warming, regardless of what the average temperature does. It is also part of GH gass warming theory that the troposphere, wghere CO2 accumulates, warms MORE than the surface. It has to in order to radiate heat back to the surface. However the troposphere is not warming sufficiently in line with GH gass theory. And that is even after the data has been adjusted to show more warming than originally measured. Both of these facts show categorically that the warming seen today only in the northen hemisphere is NOT caused by CO2.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
fat_boy wrote:
And no, oxygen is not human fod. Carbohudrates are.
And what happens if you ingest too much carbs? That can kill you too. Too much of ANYTHING can kill you. Just because it's "good" in proper doses, doesn't mean that more of it is good.
fat_boy wrote:
As for txiocity we arent even remotely near those levels of CO2 so its a spurious argument.
Perhaps, but we're getting sidetracked anyway. I thought we were talking about temperature effects.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
Yes, so back on track. There is no proof whatsoever that the recent warming trend is caused by CO2. Prof Bob Watson of DEFRA, a prominent AGW scientist, stated on Channel 4 news that they canot account for the recent warming and thus, in the absence of any other demonstrable cause, CO2 must be the reason. There is NO scientific proof that CO2 is causing warming. It is only circumstantial guesswork.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
the planet is getting warmer.
No no no. Only PART of the planet is warming. It is crucial that this is understood. The theory of GH gass warming states that the cold periods and regions will be affected more than the warm. So nights warm, and the poles warm. So if only ONE pole is warming then we are not looking at GH gass caused warming, regardless of what the average temperature does. It is also part of GH gass warming theory that the troposphere, wghere CO2 accumulates, warms MORE than the surface. It has to in order to radiate heat back to the surface. However the troposphere is not warming sufficiently in line with GH gass theory. And that is even after the data has been adjusted to show more warming than originally measured. Both of these facts show categorically that the warming seen today only in the northen hemisphere is NOT caused by CO2.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
What point are you trying to prove here? * That the planet isn't warming? * That it IS warming, but not because of CO2? * That the warming isn't uniform? Pick your position, then get back to me. You're jumping all over the place trying to counter every point I make. My position is that the AVERAGE temperature of the planet is increasing, and that this will significantly affect heat distribution and climate patterns throughout the globe, and I think it's likely that industrialization has something to do with it.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)