Skins24
-
Posts
5,386 -
Joined
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Articles
Downloads
Posts posted by Skins24
-
-
I don't get it.
How is this relevant to anything I've said?
Thank you. Thank you for proving people either don't read or only see what they want to. The " timing " is just about the only thing I've been talking about! I'll let you figure it out.But I am curious why you dispute "the timing". What timing?
(hint: the non-skeptical climate scientist I quoted will lead you in the right direction)
I have no idea what you're talking about...And if you are going to be skeptical, why not be skeptical about politicians and scientists funded by big oil companies?
Um...why not indeed?
Peter:
Wow. Complete opposite!I don't know if they are contradictory, but they are ridiculous.
But you're the only person talking about weather. You are using weather events to make statements about climate.
Long term changes in precipitation, drought, etc. are all climate not weather.
Other climate events almost certainly tell us more about climate changes than a weather event like El Nino.
It MIGHT be another issue if the climate event was causing changes related to the weather event, but that's not the case.
Mike posted an article showing climate change effects around the U.S. but it just cited weather events and made conjectures about the future. I'M saying those weather events over a 10 or so year period are not necessarily representative of climate change as real climate change will span multiple normal weather cycles.
As far as El Nino, I'm fully aware it's simply a weather event. But in predicting what future weather holds in a warmer climate, El Nino events give us the best hints. That's all I was saying.
-
Example?No I simply listen to ACTUAL experts like NASA and the National Academy of Sciences rather than pseudo scientists and crooked politicians paid for by big oil and coal. And I'm saying you are talking out of your ass.
Striving for energy independence, reducing any and all pollution and keeping this world we live in clean should be priorities period! If scaring people by saying 'this and that' will happen is the only way to get people to act, then so be it.But while we are talking about risk assessment. Which is the smartest play... Following the growing evidence for man made climate change and acting to mitigate it, in which case if we are wrong we will have still advanced our energy independence and will live in a less polluted world, or assuming that 97% of the worlds peer reviewed scientists are wrong and risking trillions of dollars of damage and our national security?
I'm simply saying 'this and that' may not happen. Or 'this and that' may happen years, even decades later than currently predicted because of factors not previously taken into account.
I'm assuming you think I'm disputing climate change? I'm not, we're currently in a warming period. I'm disputing the overplayed gloom and doom predictions, especially the timing...
-
Oh! Have you returned from the future to inform us how things turn out?No hostility, simply the recognition of a person talking out of their rectum. And you have responded with more of the same. Complete and utter bull**** that flies in the face of what ACTUAL climate scientists are saying.
We're talking about predictions on what will happen. They can say all they want. I'm saying their 'sayings' should be taken like a typical weather report in trying to predict the weather a week from now. Except, don't expect the same accuracy. There are exponentially more factors to take into account when predicting future climate.
In terms of the new explanation for the "pause" -
2015 explanation:
From the article and what I was talking about re the models:
These speed bumps can last decades and cause predictions to be way off."It is true that Earth's surface warmed a bit less than models predicted it to over the past decade-and-a-half or so. This doesn't mean that the models are flawed. Instead, it points to a discrepancy that likely arose from a combination of three main factors. These factors include the likely underestimation of the actual warming that has occurred, due to gaps in the observational data. Secondly, scientists have failed to include in model simulations some natural factors (low-level but persistent volcanic eruptions and a small dip in solar output) that had a slight cooling influence on Earth’s climate. Finally, there is the possibility that internal, natural oscillations in temperature may have masked some surface warming in recent decades, much as an outbreak of Arctic air can mask the seasonal warming of spring during a late season cold snap. One could call it a global warming 'speed bump'."
Which part of that flies in the face of what climate scientist are saying? (With the note that the quoted is from one such scientist)
Peter, those two statements aren't contradictory at all. The first was talking about this warming period. The second, weather events.
-
Finally!!! Unbelievable
-
Up by 20+ huh?
Why am I still nervous?
-
lol, sensing a lot of hostility. Why?Are you a climate scientist? If so, please share with us the degrees you hold. If not I suggest you point to scientific evidence that can be reviewed to back your claim that NASA has "gotten NOTHING correct so far."
Or you can simply admit that you are speaking directly from your rectum.
Nope, not as climatologist. Weather is my game. My "evidence" is looking outside. Exaggerated? Yeah, a little but I am mainly talking about the doom and gloom predictions. Models are good for generalities. It'll get warmer. Pretty much anything beyond that the less accuracy you'll see. (why we can barely predict 7 days out.)
Our best guesses as to what the future holds lies with looking at the past. The problem with that is that no two warming (or cooling) events have ever or can ever be alike. Simply impossible.
Models also usually don't take into account the unpredictable. No model predicted the sun would be this quiet for this long. Or that the Atlantic may be absorbing more heat than thought. Or now (we literally have a new reason for the slower rate or "pause" every year. Last year the Atlantic, a couple days ago new research suggests-) a cooler Pacific is enough to slow things down. Cycles that can, and will, throw timing off by decades.
Again, that is making assumptions that have so far simply not verified in any way.I'm dumbfounded that you think this is a rational argument.
Also, looking at a few weather events over a 10 even 20 year period is not necessarily "climate." Climate is LONG term and any changes would span multiple normal weather cycles. So far our weather has NOT been dramatically affected by a warming climate. Not yet. And again our best guesses as to what will happen here in a warmer climate comes from specific types of El Nino events which dramatically increase worldwide temps. And here in the U.S...s'not so bad...
-
Non issue.Well first is the issue with large numbers of the population living near bodies of water at a time when sea levels are rising.
Pace of sea level rise is not even close and will never come close to the pace of technology to deal with any sea level rise.
Seen that article and it makes a ton of assumptions based on models that have gotten NOTHING correct so far.
Our current best guess as to what will happen if we see extreme warming comes from east-based El Nino events and...droughts aren't the U.S.'s problem.
Like? Texas? The parts of the country that are vulnerable to or are in the path of hurricanes and their remnants receive rain/snow year round.Even when you think about hurricanes, you've ignored the importance of them in terms of delivering water to certain parts of the country.
Not convinced at all. Warm water is only one out of many aspects that cause hurricanes to form and gain strength. Simply increasing one factor does not automatically lead to stronger storms.In addition, warmer water means stronger hurricanes so you get few hurricanes (you are right about wind sheer), which means less general preparedness, but when they come they are stronger.
Geographically the U.S. is well situated...and pretty darn big. Even in worse case scenarios there is plenty of room to move about and large areas that would not be affected. I have full confidence we can continue our dominance
Bottom line is, the climate as far as we know has never stopped changing and if you're not warming, you're cooling. This world, and organics in particular, do 1000x better when we're warming.
0% chance of happening but if somewhere down the line this warming becomes too much to handle, well,to quote a well known and well respected doctor, Life will find a way. We'll survive...
-
The US would most certainly be a winner when it comes to climate change. More dust and wind shear in the Atlantic mean less hurricanes. Less dramatic weather mood swings transitioning from winter to spring mean less tornadoes for the mid west. And if climate change causes more El Nino events, less west coast droughts. Even Alaska becomes more livable. Everyone wins!Though, I generally agree with the idea that some will winners and losers, which is why I really don't understand the issue with most Americans when we have a really great climate.
I mean if you live the Sahara desert, climate can't much worse so I can see be willing to take that coin flip, but for the US, it makes no sense.
In all seriousness, the US would indeed thrive in a warmer climate. I don't see how we wouldn't.
-
What are you talking about? The global cooling scare was/is real. The real question is what was going on between 1990 and 2010?what was going on in the 40 years from 1940 to 1980?
-
It's called climate change now, and yes they say extreme weather events will be more common.
No...
Not even the IPCC
I wouldn't say the terminology changed. Human activities are indeed causing global warming, which is driving a rapid change in the Earth's climate.
And warming of the Earth will lead to increased cooling in certain parts. Increased melting of arctic ice weakens the gulf stream (the heat trapped in water carried by the gulf stream is one of the contributors to warming in Atlantic European states). You will see colder European winters as a result and stronger hurricanes in the Gulf (warmer tropical waters since heat is trapped).
And no...
There are so many things wrong with the 'more extreme events will occur' line of thinking. Especially when it comes to a warmer climate. The number one thing wrong is that there's absolutely no evidence for it.
Focusing on the U.S., there would be less tornadoes and strong storms as the clash between air masses becomes less dramatic. The Atlantic would see less hurricanes as more dust would come off of Africa, any change in ocean currents (like if the gulf stream weakens) would cause changes with the air currents leading to more wind shear, and as we see during El Nino years, a warmer Pacific simply causes unfavorable conditions in the Atlantic.
Any increase in rainfall (and cloud cover) with a warming climate would, well, cause a cooling of the climate...so...
My first post was tongue in cheek but it was accurate. The net effects of a warming climate worldwide will remain positive for quite some time...and that's at incorrect rates (rates showing the Earth warming faster than it is.)
-
Exactly Larry.
Hate typing on the phone so more later. I've been interested in/studying meteorology most of my life so of course I and any one who's researched will know about different pollutants but the everyday man will not.
More later
-
1
-
-
twa had already addressed the "hiatus", which you mention (i.e. the suns nap), and I addressed that and the "issue" with climate models.that you refer to.
So those two topics have been covered, and your post didn't add anything other than repeat something that had already been said and refuted and to try and introduce something that I pre-emptively refuted.
Because climate change is an issue, and our increasing levels of CO2 are having affects that are/will affect the human population, and even specifically the US.
And so we should do something about it.
That's why.
So rather than post something on point that would actually make your point, you decided to post something that was essentially irrelevant?
Ugh!! My post disappeared!
To make this quick
1) Check the ninja. That first post was to be taken with a grain of salt at best
2) The only time I mentioned climate models was pointing out that they did not predict the slow down - I never said hiatus - that occurred to the degree it occurred. The fact that it was a slow down and not reversal means last year being the warmest non El Nino year is not all that shocking or proof that a slow down did not occur. If I warm a pot of water 10 degrees per minute then slow it to 5 degrees per minute, I'm still warming the pot.
To address the second part and Alexey
am not sure how to understand the rest of your point. Are you saying that managing greenhouse gas emissions is difficult, so we should do something that is easier and unrelated?I'm simply saying our focus needs to be redirected.
Which is more apt to get people to do something? Showing them this:
or this and saying "Gasp! The sea level has risen 3cm!"
-
Yay, a let's throw out as much garbage as I can into one post without bothering to even worry about what has already been posted in the thread and see what sticks post.
Indeed
Finally read through and I really did not repeat anything..so
Anyway, simple solution to the problem of getting people to do what needs to be done - Take out the 'climate change' part. Keep it simple. We should NOT be trying to prevent climate change anyway as the ONLY way to do so would be to stop the rotation of the Earth.
Back when the focus was on pollution prevention (as the focus without a doubt should be) you had the Acts passed...stuff got done. Why would you switch the focus to something even more divisive? You have plenty of examples (Ohio's water, any city in China's air) of reasons for needing to change without invoking climate change or global warming, so why do it?
-
Yay a climate change thread...
Ugh...4 pages already. Before reading through to address the OP, of course it's about money...on both sides. If you think otherwise, I have a bridge built by unicorns to sell you.
Climate change itself - Of course it's changing. If it didn't we would die. Global warming bad - For who? Certainly not humans. We thrive in a warmer climate and the latest studies show what? Even without any pauses the net effect of a warming climate will remain positive for another 70 years or so? Speaking of pauses, that silly old Sun showed that one little nap can slow down warming far more than ANY model ever predicted..even with ever increasing C02. So perhaps our influence is being overstated, no? The record low tornadoes and record low hurricanes we've been seeing as of late are making those silly predictions of more and more powerful storms look silly. I like snow and the 2010s (yes the 4 year old 2010s) has already been the snowiest decade for the east coast since who knows when, so if climate change brings more snow...awesome! The alternative to a warming climate is a cooling climate. Yeah...let's try to do that. See how that turns out.
tosses grenade...walks away
-
WOW......RANDY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
*gasp* a call!
-
It's a fake.............
But still funny. The original is similar and hilarious as well
(also NSFW)
-
*Detention Letter*
That can NOT be real!
-
*finishing sauce*
LOL!!
-
Olympus has fallen. Completely awesome movie. Gerard Butler makes his character from 300 look like a little girl. If it were a die hard movie, I'd rate it 2nd in the series, behind only the original
He was awesome, the movie was anything but. The CGI was horrible. And come on...is the Secret Service, United States Army and Air force that inept?? I hate having to suspend that much reality...
-
Not laughing now
-
Comedy coming out this summer. Basically the whole Judd Apatow crew and Emma Watson.
Don't think there's a non redband...so NSFW - just language
(I can just link it if needs be)
<yeah, brother, I'm sorry but in fairness to rule 13 and all who have fallen :pfft: we need to go with a link there--it's a great clip, too
> -
Article from the Post yesterday
I said that when Gary left Maryland. Jokingly at first, but then the more I thought about it....why not?
GARY GARY GARY!!
-
Wow! Paloffs, here we come!
I want to sue the republican party for willful denial of scientific evidence about climate change.
in The Tailgate
Posted
So yes some effects will be different but if warming increases the events and warms the waters enough (so that you'll see near perm El Nino-like conditions), you'll see similar effects.
Completely understand what you're saying in the differences but as no one was around the last significant warming event, El Ninos are currently the only events that warm the Earth significantly enough to give us any hints at all. Nope, not going to be the same! But if we want any hints, our observable choices are limited...
Lol, CA's drought is because CA was due for a significant drought. Weather cycle event. Definitely not climate change.