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)
Daisy wrote:Lonewolf, there is a big difference between challenging the existence of climate change and not being convinced it is caused by man's activity.
I think the term climate change is a little sneaky. The only change we have been told we have to worry about is the climate eventually getting warmer, not colder.
I do understand that the Earth can have global warming in its future but still suffer some cold spells along the way. But long term the only real threat being argued is warming, correct?
SQUACKEE wrote:The only change we have been told we have to worry about is the climate eventually getting warmer, not colder.
Not the climate but the average global temperature. Local weather will change in a less predictable way.
One thing I read is that in the global warming model the arctic air is more likely to head south. That means we might all be freezing but the arctic is relatively balmy. Hence, the global average temperature could be still be higher even while we freeze our butts off.
SQUACKEE wrote:The only change we have been told we have to worry about is the climate eventually getting warmer, not colder.
Not the climate but the average global temperature. Local weather will change in a less predictable way.
One thing I read is that in the global warming model the arctic air is more likely to head south. That means we might all be freezing but the arctic is relatively balmy. Hence, the global average temperature could be still be higher even while we freeze our butts off.
How does he explain all the melting glaciers? Except those in PA of course.
Ice melts. Glaciers are always calving. This is what ice does. If ice did not melt, we'd have an ice-covered planet. The fact is that the ice cover is growing in the southern hemisphere even as the ice cover is more or less shrinking in the northern hemisphere. As you and I are talking today, global sea ice coverage is about 400,000 square kilometers above the long-term average - which means that the surplus in the Antarctic is greater than the deficit in the Arctic.
So ALL the glaciers melting is not a problem? Seems like this guy is hoping that a cooling antarctica is going to save us. Does this sound normal to you?
Daisy wrote:How does he explain all the melting glaciers?
Did you read it completely?
I know you think there's been something of a hysteria in the media about melting glaciers. Could you explain?
Ice melts. Glaciers are always calving. This is what ice does. If ice did not melt, we'd have an ice-covered planet. The fact is that the ice cover is growing in the southern hemisphere even as the ice cover is more or less shrinking in the northern hemisphere. As you and I are talking today, global sea ice coverage is about 400,000 square kilometers above the long-term average - which means that the surplus in the Antarctic is greater than the deficit in the Arctic.
lonewolf wrote:While I am firmly in the camp of those who believe "climate change/global warming" is a naturally re-occuring event, unaffected and unopposable by man, I also believe the unusal amount of snow this winter neither refutes nor reinforces climate change. It happens. You can average temperature and precipitation and if a year happens to hit the average, it just happens to hit the average. No year is normal
This position, while not agreeing with, I can appreciate. Those that deny a climate change is occurring is plain lunacy.
Daisy wrote:So ALL the glaciers melting is not a problem? Seems like this guy is hoping that a cooling antarctica is going to save us. Does this sound normal to you?
The guy is a highly respected scientist, with no agenda, and with no financial conflicts of interest. His points regarding how climate data is traditionally collected(and how ever-increasing development skews those numbers) are valid and make sense.
Daisy wrote:So ALL the glaciers melting is not a problem? Seems like this guy is hoping that a cooling antarctica is going to save us. Does this sound normal to you?
The guy is a highly respected scientist, with no agenda, and with no financial conflicts of interest. His points regarding how climate data is traditionally collected(and how ever-increasing development skews those numbers) are valid and make sense.
Well if he wants to talk about the details and exact figures, fair enough. But if he wants to say that there is no global warming problem, shouldn't he fit all the data into his argument?
I just read that wiki bio. He agrees there is global warming. What is your point here guru?
Daisy wrote:I just read that wiki bio. He agrees there is global warming. What is your point here guru?
I've never said there's not global warming. But it's certaainly not the catastrophy in waiting as advertised, and the data being presented to back that view is flawed. That is his point as well(with a helluva lot more gravitas than I have).
My only point has been do not doubt there IS global warming. It is clear the consequences for civilization are less predictable. But it is not something to ignore. It's so easy to spend all ones times criticising the details and miss the elephant on the room.
Daisy wrote:Lonewolf, there is a big difference between challenging the existence of climate change and not being convinced it is caused by man's activity.
I am not challenging climate change. It happens continually. I am convinced man is insignificant, one way or the other. Some disagree.
Daisy wrote:[That means we might all be freezing but the arctic is relatively balmy. Hence, the global average temperature could be still be higher even while we freeze our butts off.
Exactly! Weather is local. Average don't mean squat. It is gonna happen and there ain't nuthin we can do to cause it or stop it. imo.
Record single calendar day (as opposed to 24 hour period) snow of 9.4 inches at Dallas-Fort Worth airport today as of 9:00 tonight and it is still snowing. I have lived here 25 years and pretty sure I have never seen more than 2 or 3 inches in a day.
Weather forecast for some areas in Florida today . . . . snow! Where's global warning when ya need it? I didn't move hear to deal with that nasty stuff! Where's my parka - haven't seen it since we moved here in 1993!
donley2 wrote:Record single calendar day (as opposed to 24 hour period) snow of 9.4 inches at Dallas-Fort Worth airport today as of 9:00 tonight and it is still snowing. I have lived here 25 years and pretty sure I have never seen more than 2 or 3 inches in a day.
We shattered all previous single day and 24 hour records with 11.2 inches before midnight and 12.5 in 24 hours. Had a great snowball fight with the kids though.
http://www.srh.noaa.gov/productview.php?pil=PNSFWD
Marlow wrote:Where's global warning when ya need it? I didn't move hear (sic(k)) to deal with that nasty stuff!
Has one of Marlow's students hijacked his login details?
It looks like i hijacked it, but even i know its here not hear! The difference between us is im not teaching english!
Homophones R Us! Jest so's ya no, eye ain't bean a hippocrypt wen ah spel rong, ei rairley teak off poynts fer mispelins cuz disleksics cant spel nohow noway aniweigh, and I gots em. Cumpooters gots spelckek fer that!
12" of snow in Dallas. Mobile and Pensacola got some 'fall. BWI-Marshall Airport (Balt.) has 80" this winter, DC has received six feet of snow, averages 15" per winter.
Washington had a 16" snowstorm bef. Xmas, 30" last weekend, and 12"-21" more this Tues/Wed. Mail hasn't been delivered all week, colleges were closed (Howard only one open today, two hours late), no school here or surrounding jurisdic. since last week.
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 am sure that that point has been made at least once (probably more) in the 500+ preceding posts, but you're right--it's always worth mentioning. It's often mis-understood.
tandfman wrote:I am sure that that point has been made at least once (probably more) in the 500+ preceding posts, but you're right--it's always worth mentioning. It's often mis-understood.
But then again, anyone who confuses the two is so out of touch with the issues here that telling them that is pointless.
tandfman wrote:I am sure that that point has been made at least once (probably more) in the 500+ preceding posts, but you're right--it's always worth mentioning. It's often mis-understood.
But then again, anyone who confuses the two is so out of touch with the issues here that telling them that is pointless.
tandfman wrote:I am sure that that point has been made at least once (probably more) in the 500+ preceding posts, but you're right--it's always worth mentioning. It's often mis-understood.
But then again, anyone who confuses the two is so out of touch with the issues here that telling them that is pointless.
So you don't believe in teaching moments?
I believe in dunce caps for those that refuse to be taught. I wonder if there are enough to go around?
