A place for the discussion of all things not closely related to the sport and its competitive side. (Locked down several times a year during the major championships)
Conor Dary wrote:"Scientist" in the different camps offer up dueling statistics to prove their contention."
This is a poor representation of the two sides. Just as in the evolution argument, the vast majority of the 'scientist' who study and know this stuff are in agreement. Then there is the nonbelievers camp who primarily just try to find 'missing links'.
Exactly. It's not a 50/50 issue; more like 90/10 at this point, or maybe, to be generous, 80/20. There's no pretending that the man-affected global warming trend is a SURE thing...but it remains the consensus of the scientific community.
My rule of thumb is roughly as follows. We are faced with two opposing answers--A and B--to a given problem.
A requires nothing from us, no change, no sacrifice, no effort of any real kind. All that's required is a shrug of the shoulders and a knowing smile.
B demands real and permanent change in the way we live and think--not change that is impossible, but change that will be difficult and controversial--in order to lower the odds of a future catastrophe.
OK, we have our two possible paths laid out. Knowing human nature as I do--I've had some little experience in 57+ years--its natural that the "easy" answer is A--that's the answer that our pre-rational, reptilian brain wants to be true. Why? Because it's easy, of course. The intricacies of the science get quickly sidetracked as soon as we tell ourselves, "this one demands nothing from me, and, in fact, only confirms that everything we're doing now is just fine."
B, on the other hand, doesn't let us off the hook. And, in part, that's exactly why I'm compelled to think that it has a reasonably high likelihood of being right: it runs counter to the comforting falsehoods and justifiations that we continually invent to protect ourselves.
Very well said, Kuha! Of course, we are not sure whether we can make a difference, or not, but we owe it to ourselves and to future generations to CARE and TRY...
London Times reporting on a new study that says 95% chance man is to blame for global warming:
<<...The evidence that human activity is causing global warming is much stronger than previously stated and is found in all parts of the world, according to a study that attempts to refute claims from sceptics.
The “fingerprints” of human influence on the climate can be detected not only in rising temperatures but also in the saltiness of the oceans, rising humidity, changes in rainfall and the shrinking of Arctic Sea ice at the rate of 600,000 sq km a decade.....>>
Back to local specifics... Central California has no sand left on the beaches because so many winter storms have sent pulses of BIG waves scouring the shorelines. There may have been bigger swells in past years but I don't recall a season with so many days of major surf along this coastline. Of course this is weather, not climate and it is an El Nino situation, and here there are no "norms" for weather, only averages (the average rainfall is @16 inches per annum because some years it totals 38" and then the next two might only be 5"). But this winter's solid lines of surf marching in from the north Pacific has been unprecedented in my memory.
Apparently the great Central Valley in California is rapidly running out of water. This area provides a lot of the fruit and vegetables for a significant portion of North America, particularly during our winter, spring and early summer. Of course, I'm sure this isn't worth worrying about, because part of the Anarctic seems to be retaining and perhaps even building up a little more ice... What climate change ???
Interesting piece in this morning's daily, Victoria Times Colonist. The title is "Warmest, driest winter in Canadian history". Apparently, 4 degrees Celsius (over 7 F.) warmer than normal, and 6 degrees Celsius warmer in some part of Northern Quebec and Nunavut. Called "beyond shocking" by one climatologist, he says the non-Winter "may have set the stage for potentially horrific water shortages, insect infestations, and wildfires this Summer". The suspects are El Nino, shift in the winds and ocean currents in the Pacific Ocean, and thinning, retreating Arctic Ice.
rasb wrote:... he says the non-Winter "may have set the stage for potentially horrific water shortages, insect infestations, and wildfires this Summer". The suspects are El Nino,...
In these parts, El Nino certainly does not imply water shortages.
rasb wrote:Apparently the great Central Valley in California is rapidly running out of water. This area provides a lot of the fruit and vegetables for a significant portion of North America, particularly during our winter, spring and early summer. Of course, I'm sure this isn't worth worrying about, because part of the Antarctic seems to be retaining and perhaps even building up a little more ice... What climate change ???
The rice farming in the Central Valley uses about a meter of water for irrigation (i.e., each square meter of planted rice uses about a cubic meter of water in irrigation; at least they did 20+ years ago). When the price is very low [i.e., artificially low to some customers] a lot will get used and then there is not enough at that price. I suspect that fruits and veggies have higher marginal products of water than does a lot of rice. California agriculture might be in for a rougher future in that snow pack is a source for much of its water and snow pack is sensitive to temperature and the timing of temperature changes. If rain falls instead of snow more often between 4000 and 9000 feet, a lot less snow pack will be available as winter rains wash quickly through the system rather than being stored as snow for later.
For all the gruff southern California gets for wasting water, residential (and commercial/industrial) customers in southern California do not use that much of California's water despite the fact that there are 25 million of them living in a warm/dry climate.
The price elasticity of demand for water in many agricultural uses is greater than one (i.e., a 1% increase in price leads to more than a 1% decrease in usage).
gh wrote:This is probably a good time to mention that a lot of people confuse weather and climate. Weather is short-term and local, climate is longterm and far-reaching.
In other words, unusual snow (or heat, or anything) probably means absolutely nothing relative to climate.
I cite this difference often.
Also, people cite specific events or a sequence of events such as the large snowfall this season in the East as clear evidence that their cannot be Global Climate Change. However, Getting more snow is not necessarily a sign that the climate is not getting warmer and can be a sign that it is (which is the case for snowfall along the East Coast, I think).
I have been generating some trends of weather in conjunction with work I have been doing and using the NOAA Official Norms for heating degree days (HDDs) has been the worst predictor among a set of three: 1) NOAA Norms; 2) the average of the most recent 10 years; 3) the trend over the last 25 years attached to the average of the most recent 20 years. The difference in performance using data starting from 1965 through to the present is actually stunning even compared with what I expected to find. For example, for the case that got me started in the upper Midwest, the average forecast Bias of the NOAA Norms was about 500 one year out, over 600 five years out and over 700 ten years out. The most recent 10 years had a Bias of only a bit over 100 one year out, but over 400 ten years out. The trend method had a Bias of about 20 one year out and essentially zero ten years out.
While these amounts were large, almost all other cases I tested for major areas around the country (Portland, Austin, Georgia, Kansas City, NY, Baltimore, Louisville, Chicago, LA, Denver) show similar results with smaller magnitudes except for LA, where the weather station was LAX (the airport) RIGHT on the coast and thus dominated by cool on-shore flows, and they were almost neutral.
I don't know that this is funny, but it is a nasty combo af hot and humid today. At 1:00 one of the local airports was reporting 94 degrees and 50 percent relative humidity. That converts to 103 on those heat-humidity tables. Took a 20 minute walk at lunch time and have not been that uncomfortable walking around outside in recent memory.
donley2 wrote:I don't know that this is funny, but it is a nasty combo af hot and humid today. At 1:00 one of the local airports was reporting 94 degrees and 50 percent relative humidity. That converts to 103 on those heat-humidity tables. Took a 20 minute walk at lunch time and have not been that uncomfortable walking around outside in recent memory.
Hey, I used to live in Cowtown.. it gets hot there in the summer..I don't remember the humidity being so bad.. compared to Houston
Last edited by lonewolf on Thu Jul 08, 2010 8:37 am, edited 2 times in total.
It is sweltering here in Baltimore. The past four days it has been over 100 degrees, with the highest being 105 a couple of days ago (two degrees shy of the all-time record). Heat indices have been at or greater than 110.
Today we will have what feels like an arctic front come thru when we top out at about 98. Afterwards, the temps are supposed to go back up and more humidity than this week. Poor saps in my neighborhood out there watering their lawns. It's like spitting into a volcano to try and put it out. Do you honestly think watering your flattened, yellow straw (I mean grass) will help?
Day 3 of a predicted 10 day extreme heat wave here on Vancouver Island and the Lower Mainland of British Columbia. We had a relatively dry winter and spring here, so this kind of heat and no precip. expected for 10-14 days will play havoc with us. They are predicting extreme forest fire hazards, and major water-use restrictions by the end of next week. And we will still have 2 and 1/2 to 3 months before the Fall Rains arrive. Not good ! And we are talking all-time records here on all fronts. If it ain't climate change, I sure as hell wish I knew what it was... We are often called the "wetcoast" of Canada, instead of the "westcoast". That ain't happening anymore...
Here in Santa Barbara the local weather gurus have announced that this just concluded summer was officially the coldest on record (average temp. 24/7 less than 62 degrees) and the foggiest skies since the airport began recording such stats in 1941.
Dunno why folks are continually surprised that weather/climate varies from locale to locale, year to year, decade to decade, century to century, millineum to millineum, eon to eon... always has, always will.. at least until the sun burns out.
Fourth-largest snow event in Minneapolis history takes down the Metrodome roof. The Vikes/Giants game, already postponed to tomorrow night, now REALLY interesting.
I just want to see a picture from INSIDE that place.
Looks like the Bears/Patriots game this afternoon in Chicago is going to be a beaut. 2-4 inches of snow, 30 mph winds, with gusts up to 50 mph. -4 degree windchills. Not exactly Bradyball weather...
Pego wrote:200 miles east of MMM, we have a foot of snow on the ground. My roof is holding up so far .
Just far enough south that the first part came as rain (only 4-5 inches?); had to travel to Milwaukee for a nephew's performance in Spamalot (enjoyed it), and decided to stay the night rather than risk driving back at midnight.
guru wrote:Looks like the Bears/Patriots game this afternoon in Chicago is going to be a beaut. 2-4 inches of snow, 30 mph winds, with gusts up to 50 mph. -4 degree windchills. Not exactly Bradyball weather...
IF the Giants had made it into Twin Cities on Saturday and IF that roof had collapsed about 9 hours later than it did and IF the game was going on at the end of the field where the huge cascade of ice/snow/water came down... then multiple players very likely would have died. And probably large-scale panic in the stands as well.
IF the Giants had made it into Twin Cities on Saturday and IF that roof had collapsed about 9 hours later than it did and IF the game was going on at the end of the field where the huge cascade of ice/snow/water came down... then multiple players very likely would have died. And probably large-scale panic in the stands as well.
Looking at the video on the collapse, it was not a sudden, catastrophic event but started with some tears that leaked snow, followed by a bigger one that dumped a bunch on the field but not an avalanche. Probably the biggest risk was panic, plus what do you do with 60,000 people going out into that weather? The video did not go on for too long, so I do not know how rapidly it proceeded from there (since air holds it up, once a big leak develops I presume that it deflates. I thought that they worked to get the snow off of such domes; if they were not able to do so would they have held the game despite the risk?
IF the Giants had made it into Twin Cities on Saturday and IF that roof had collapsed about 9 hours later than it did and IF the game was going on at the end of the field where the huge cascade of ice/snow/water came down... then multiple players very likely would have died. And probably large-scale panic in the stands as well.
Looking at the video on the collapse, it was not a sudden, catastrophic event but started with some tears that leaked snow, followed by a bigger one that dumped a bunch on the field but not an avalanche. Probably the biggest risk was panic, plus what do you do with 60,000 people going out into that weather? The video did not go on for too long, so I do not know how rapidly it proceeded from there (since air holds it up, once a big leak develops I presume that it deflates. I thought that they worked to get the snow off of such domes; if they were not able to do so would they have held the game despite the risk?
High winds stopped them from getting the snow off.
I seriously doubt they would have played with all that snow still up there. It wasn't like they started the game in fine weather and then a Blizzard showed up.
Wellllllll, it has been raining for about 15 hours or so (the cat thinks it's been a lifetime, and from her point of view, probably close). Not too unusual at this time of year, but this is f**king San Diego. I want a refund I know, if you live where seasons happen, this would be considered balmy weather (its actually in the 60s). I am just spoiled. I really would have liked to see the lunar eclipse, but visibility, not so much.
Weather acts funny somewhere, every year.. i remember pulling cotton shirtless , temp in 90s F, on Dec 25, circa 1950-51 in Kiowa County, OK.... also remember -5 F one Xmas day in the late 30s-early 40s... The only constant about weather is: It changes.
Satellite of the monster ripping through the Plains and Chicago today. Fortunately, we're(Cincinnati) not on the business end of the rain/snow line this time.
Yes, it was quite a storm. About 3 feet, from drifts, just outside the front door. Even had big lightening bolts and 50 mile winds. Some fools went driving on Lake Shore Drive last night and hundreds were stuck in their cars all night.
Well there ain't no road just like it, anywhere I've found, Runnin' south on Lake Shore Drive, headin' into town. Just slippin' on by on L.S.D., Friday night trouble bound.
School closed for a third straight day tomorrow for almost all of Dallas and Fort Worth. Hard for the ice to melt if the high temperature is 18 and its cloudy. Shoot,I don't remember missing three consecutive days of school growing up in southern Kansas where we had some pretty decent snow storms.
The biggest snow storm I have experienced was April 1957... don't remember the official inches but I was snowbound in motel in Greensburg, Ks for five days. The longest cold spell was Alberta, Canada 1968-69, 62 consecutive days when temp did not rise above 0 F.. lowest overnight temp -70F......got up to -40 F the next day.... we suspended seismic operations ...I did not go outside that day...
.
I know, if you live where seasons happen, this would be considered balmy weather (its actually in the 60s). I am just spoiled. I really would have liked to see the lunar eclipse, but visibility, not so much. 
