Global Warming.. Real?

Page 9 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Enig101

Senior member
May 21, 2006
362
0
0
Originally posted by: xxxInfidelxxx
Originally posted by: Enig101
So for the love of all that is intelligent, let's err on the side of caution, OK?

You people are insane.
And melt the Artic caps? That's what the last guy who said "let's err on the side of caution, ok?" suggested.
No, I mean eliminate our impact. Move off of fossil fuels and all that garbage. If we do so, we can be sure that any change is part of a natural fluctuation (after the 30 years or so it will take for our effect to dissipate). And, if most scientists are correct, that will be gradual enough to not worry about.
 

WHAMPOM

Diamond Member
Feb 28, 2006
7,628
183
106
Originally posted by: xxxInfidelxxx
I thought we were all going to starve to death from the coming ice age. Wasn't the latest fad (reads: alarmist-sky-is-falling-so-we-need-government-dollars-for-research) global cooling? Didn't they also consider melting the ice caps? lol Well, we are! Wake me up when NOAA gets the 5-day weather forcast spot-on...can't even tell me whether or not it is going to rain next Friday, let alone what the Earth will be like, say, 10-years from now.






"The Cooling World" - by Peter Gwynne

April 28, 1975 Newsweek


There are ominous signs that the Earth?s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production ? with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now.

The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas ? parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia ? where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.


The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree ? a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars' worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.

To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world's weather. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. ?A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,? warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, ?because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.?

A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.

To the layman, the relatively small changes in temperature and sunshine can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin points out that the Earth?s average temperature during the great Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest eras ? and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age average.

Others regard the cooling as a reversion to the ?little ice age? conditions that brought bitter winters to much of Europe and northern America between 1600 and 1900 ? years when the Thames used to freeze so solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and when iceboats sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New York City.

Just what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery. ?Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at least as fragmentary as our data,? concedes the National Academy of Sciences report. ?Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions.?

Meteorologists think that they can forecast the short-term results of the return to the norm of the last century. They begin by noting the slight drop in overall temperature that produces large numbers of pressure centers in the upper atmosphere. These break up the smooth flow of westerly winds over temperate areas. The stagnant air produced in this way causes an increase in extremes of local weather such as droughts, floods, extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons and even local temperature increases ? all of which have a direct impact on food supplies. ?The world?s food-producing system,? warns Dr. James D. McQuigg of NOAA?s Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, ?is much more sensitive to the weather variable than it was even five years ago.? Furthermore, the growth of world population and creation of new national boundaries make it impossible for starving peoples to migrate from their devastated fields, as they did during past famines.

Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.

Do not see a mention of the world's average temperture. But a lot of contradictory statements.
 

Grabo

Senior member
Apr 5, 2005
244
54
101
Originally posted by: Enig101
Originally posted by: xxxInfidelxxx
Originally posted by: Enig101
So for the love of all that is intelligent, let's err on the side of caution, OK?

You people are insane.
And melt the Artic caps? That's what the last guy who said "let's err on the side of caution, ok?" suggested.
No, I mean eliminate our impact. Move off of fossil fuels and all that garbage. If we do so, we can be sure that any change is part of a natural fluctuation (after the 30 years or so it will take for our effect to dissipate). And, if most scientists are correct, that will be gradual enough to not worry about.

'30 years or so'?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/climate/evidence/carbon_dioxide.shtml says c02 stays in the atmosphere for around 100 years.
I don't know if this means that it will slowly be converted to something else during the course of 100 years, or if levels will start to drop after 100 years, but it really doesn't matter much currently.

Why?
Because if we stopped all burning of fossil things today, what we've released already would cause havoc for 100 years anyway. And this is the ideal. It isn't even going to happen. We are instead increasing our rate of c02 output, which means that all bets are off.

As that article says regarding the future:
"The best case scenario for the increase in carbon dioxide emissions predicts that the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will reach double the level of before the Industrial Revolution, in 2100. The worst case scenario brings this forward to 2045."

Whampon: Your point? That articles drafted 30 years later are also filled with 'contradictionary doom and gloom'? Siiiiiighh...

It takes a long time for glaciers to form, and many of them are melting rather quickly now.. the bears of Öland Zoo, Sweden, have not gone into hibernation this year, yet, for the first time ever, drought and wildfires are becoming more and more common in Australia: the signs are all around. Soon our main problems will be spelled China and India, not the U.S.A, and I suspect the regime in China will bother even less than mr Bush.

What annoys me is that when one person does not take the world's rising temperatures seriously, it affects everyone.
 

xxxInfidelxxx

Member
Feb 19, 2006
187
1
0
Would everyone preaching the global warming gospel please state 1.) State in which you live 2.) Age and 3.) Current profession. I would like to do some hypothesis testing with this informal survey data.

 

Enig101

Senior member
May 21, 2006
362
0
0
Originally posted by: xxxInfidelxxx
Would everyone preaching the global warming gospel please state 1.) State in which you live 2.) Age and 3.) Current profession. I would like to do some hypothesis testing with this informal survey data.
Your use of words is a bit insulting. People who support global warming are largely just people who would rather play it safe based on the (not insubstantial) scientific evidence available to us. If they are right, and we do not change, then it could very well lead to big problems for the environment and for society.

But, if you like: Texas, 21, Student (studying science).
 

Grabo

Senior member
Apr 5, 2005
244
54
101
1. There is no way you are going to get enough data for anything like this 2. Not everyone lives in a State. 3. The way in which you formulate your query disqualifies it immediately.
 

wiin

Senior member
Oct 28, 1999
937
0
76
Originally posted by: Coldkilla
What do you think? Provide at least some backing to your statement, don't post some stupid ignorant post that everyone can spend a week on arguing, give some backing to your argument. I'm interested to hear what others have to say, especially those who disagree with it.

I think we're screwed. In the next 50-70 years we might see some really bad events unfold. It's funny how no one cares considering that 100+ Million Refugee's may be on our hands soon.. Worse than any terrorist attack I know of.


Them loonies been saying global warming for years. Them loonies also said that we would be out of fish in 10 years, 18 years ago. Well, I can still get my salmon from the market. Seasons change. It's hot in the summer, cold in the winter. It's hot in tropical countries, hot in the desert. Them loonies are good at scaring other loonies.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,128
5,657
126
Originally posted by: wiin
Originally posted by: Coldkilla
What do you think? Provide at least some backing to your statement, don't post some stupid ignorant post that everyone can spend a week on arguing, give some backing to your argument. I'm interested to hear what others have to say, especially those who disagree with it.

I think we're screwed. In the next 50-70 years we might see some really bad events unfold. It's funny how no one cares considering that 100+ Million Refugee's may be on our hands soon.. Worse than any terrorist attack I know of.


Them loonies been saying global warming for years. Them loonies also said that we would be out of fish in 10 years, 18 years ago. Well, I can still get my salmon from the market. Seasons change. It's hot in the summer, cold in the winter. It's hot in tropical countries, hot in the desert. Them loonies are good at scaring other loonies.

1) those "loonies"(Global Warming) are right
2) those "loonies"(fish gone in 10 years) I don't even recall hearing from
 

AudiPorsche

Senior member
Nov 2, 2000
676
0
0
Nobody knows what is going on with our earth. There are simplely too many variables.

There is currently no possible way to acurately model/simulate whats happening, or make future projections!! i wish everyone could understand this.
Therefore, every single article out there is a complete guess based on partial data.

The only thing scientists agree on, is that temperatures are rising. Its only because any moron can take temperature readings.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,128
5,657
126
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
I cannot help but notice the following news:

UN downgrades man's impact on the climate

Cow 'emissions' more damaging to planet than CO2 from cars

Are we going to err on the side of caution and terminate all cows?

1) Ya, did you read the article you linked? Merely a correction to previous numbers, but still an alarming rate of effect.

2) Cows produce Methane, a known GHG. They have also been known to be an issue for a long time. We may very well need to decrease the amount of Cows. I know your eyes must have rolled pretty heavily when you saw/read that link(just like many of us have reading your posts ), but the Facts speak for themselves, we have a very serious problem that requires some seriously thought out, immediate, and dramatic changes to how we live. This doesn't mean killing all Cows, nor does it mean scrapping all Cars, but it certainly means using significantly less Fossil Fuels and likely means having a lot fewer Cows.

 

HombrePequeno

Diamond Member
Mar 7, 2001
4,657
0
0
Originally posted by: AudiPorsche
Nobody knows what is going on with our earth. There are simplely too many variables.

There is currently no possible way to accurately model/simulate whats happening, or make future projections!! i wish everyone could understand this.
Therefore, every single article out there is a complete guess based on partial data.

The only thing scientists agree on, is that temperatures are rising. Its only because any moron can take temperature readings.

Well that's nice and all but I'd rather we err on the side of caution and be wrong which would decrease our pollution rather than doing jacksh!t about the possible problem and possibly getting screwed in the end.
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |