jbooma Posted June 29, 2006 Share Posted June 29, 2006 In other words, i am really really hoping this human-caused Global Warming thing will not be as bad as they say. Hopefully there is no good reason all civilized countries except USA agreed to do the Kyoto thing. Who do you actually believe then and what agenda do those scientists have? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted June 29, 2006 Share Posted June 29, 2006 AlexRS, why don't you move close to your job and do your part to save the planet? I will see about finding links,though I doubt it will change your mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexRS Posted June 29, 2006 Author Share Posted June 29, 2006 Who do you actually believe then and what agenda do those scientists have? Do you mean "believe" as in accept one possibility as "true" out of several? I do not do that... My belief system works on probabilities, i.e. I can believe one possibility has a higher chance of being the case... given there is enough evidence to make an estimation... I prefer not to mislead myself into thinking that 100% certainty exists... Sure, everybody has an agenda... but as far as science is concerned following things are not dispited: - gas bubbles trapped in ice cores give us a detailed record of atmospheric chemistry and temperature back more than four hundred thousand years, with the temperature record confirmed by other geologic evidence. This record tells us that carbon dioxide and temperature rise and fall tightly together. [4] - the recent rise in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is greater than any in hundreds of thousands of years[5] and this is human-caused, shown by isotopic signature of CO2 from fossil fuels - we know carbon dioxide captures IR radiation and converts it to heat because we use these physics to measure carbon dioxide concentration (see here for references: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateCitySkin Posted June 29, 2006 Share Posted June 29, 2006 A question to those convinced of significant human impact on warming::What do you suggest? How about socially responsible behavior? Maybe, not running AC full crank when its 80 degrees out. Or walking rather than driving everywhere. How about electing officials that show some knowledge of practical solutions to environmental problems? How about using reclaimed wood or bamboo for flooring in your house? How about installing light tubes to get central light into a dark portion of your house? What about taking the train instead of flying somewhere? Something hopefully people will realize is the innate beauty that surfaces when a community minimizes its impact on the environment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted June 29, 2006 Share Posted June 29, 2006 All good ideas,I have no problem with conservation and common sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Punani2 Posted June 29, 2006 Share Posted June 29, 2006 No. Warmer water gives more energy for hurricanes to form from which means MORE hurricanes. When the earth is cooler than usual, there is less hurricanes than normal because they feed off of warm water. NO IT DOESN'T!!! :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The 12th Commandment Posted June 29, 2006 Share Posted June 29, 2006 NO IT DOESN'T!!! :doh: Actually, I thought that was one of the more sensible comments from that post. How do you figure that warmer water doesn't cause more and stronger huricanes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateCitySkin Posted June 29, 2006 Share Posted June 29, 2006 Actually, I thought that was one of the more sensible comments from that post. How do you figure that warmer water doesn't cause more and stronger huricanes? I'm not getting involved with this one cept to say that warmer water will through thermal expansion raise water levels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Punani2 Posted June 30, 2006 Share Posted June 30, 2006 Actually, I thought that was one of the more sensible comments from that post. How do you figure that warmer water doesn't cause more and stronger huricanes? Read more carefully, he said warmer water caused more hurricanes. Warm water is not the cause of tropical development. Tropical development caused by Hadley's Cell action . All of you talk like you are experts but you don't know your ass from a hole in the wall.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The 12th Commandment Posted June 30, 2006 Share Posted June 30, 2006 Moreover, my problem still remains ice that has outlasted many of ice ages disappearing under current circumstances. I would consider this unusual and a testament to human influence. They mention in the SC article that these glaciers haven't been impacted like they are now for 20k years. That's really not a very long all things considered and might be testament to our influence. Then again, maybe not. But the WWF article is rife with foolishness. They assume that we have a control over our climate that we just don't have. End of story. We could do every thing in our power and the earth will still heat up and cool down. My frustration with people and their views on this issue is that they won't accept that it will change. It's all about stopping change which IMO is a very dangerous, naive and self aggrandizing point of view. We might slow warming down some if we put forth a herculean effort. But the sensible thing to do is to plan for the change and adapt. As mentioned, there are other reasons to conserve and minimize our impact on the planet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The 12th Commandment Posted June 30, 2006 Share Posted June 30, 2006 Read more carefully, he said warmer water caused more hurricanes. Warm water is not the cause of tropical development. Tropical development caused by Hadley's Cell action .All of you talk like you are experts but you don't know your ass from a hole in the wall.... How is your little speech here any different? If you truly are that much more advanced than the rest of us, you probably belong in this board. http://amsforums.ametsoc.org/tool/mb/amscwceforum Yeah, hadley cells cause the rotation and the ability to lift the energy and water from the sea. But if they are the sole cause, then how come equatorial waters on the hemispheres western coast don't have hurricanes? Could it be the Humboldt Current and the cold water it contains which doesn't have the energy to create tropical storms? YUP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted June 30, 2006 Share Posted June 30, 2006 AlexRS links http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220 http://www.oism.org/pproject/review.pdf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene-Eocene_Thermal_Maximum http://www.objectivescience.com/articles/dh_media_warm.htm http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Punani2 Posted June 30, 2006 Share Posted June 30, 2006 How is your little speech here any different? If you truly are that much more advanced than the rest of us, you probably belong in this board.http://amsforums.ametsoc.org/tool/mb/amscwceforum Yeah, hadley cells cause the rotation and the ability to lift the energy and water from the sea. But if they are the sole cause, then how come equatorial waters on the hemispheres western coast don't have hurricanes? Could it be the Humboldt Current and the cold water it contains which doesn't have the energy to create tropical storms? YUP. I don't need you to dictate what forum I need to belong to since I've been around here quite a bit longer then you. Hadley Cell Action doesn't lift water from the sea. It is the mechanism by which warm air is transported to the troposphere and northern and southern mid latitudes. Also, because of low coriolis effect close to the equator there is low mid and high level shear which have more of an impact on tropical development then warm water. Sure, you need warm water to fuel tropical development but it doesn't cause tropical development in itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The 12th Commandment Posted June 30, 2006 Share Posted June 30, 2006 I don't need you to dictate what forum I need to belong to since I've been around here quite a bit longer then you. Lighten up Nancy, I was just giving you a ration. I don't dictate to anyone. Not in my nature. Edit: To clarify since it's the internets and stuff. I was suggesting that if you needed a more enlightening discussion on global warming, you might have one with some people that do know their ass from a hole in the wall. No reference was implied as to being here in general. Hadley Cell Action doesn't lift water from the sea. It is the mechanism by which warm air is transported to the troposphere and northern and southern mid latitudes.Also, because of low coriolis effect close to the equator there is low mid and high level shear which have more of an impact on tropical development then warm water. Sure, you need warm water to fuel tropical development but it doesn't cause tropical development in itself. The rest of your post makes good sense. Like everything discussed in this thread, there are a number of processes and such that contribute to tropical storm development. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cjcdaman Posted June 30, 2006 Share Posted June 30, 2006 I would consider this unusual and a testament to human influence. Good for you. :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateCitySkin Posted June 30, 2006 Share Posted June 30, 2006 They mention in the SC article that these glaciers haven't been impacted like they are now for 20k years. That's really not a very long all things considered and might be testament to our influence. Then again, maybe not. But the WWF article is rife with foolishness. They assume that we have a control over our climate that we just don't have. End of story. We could do every thing in our power and the earth will still heat up and cool down. My frustration with people and their views on this issue is that they won't accept that it will change. It's all about stopping change which IMO is a very dangerous, naive and self aggrandizing point of view. We might slow warming down some if we put forth a herculean effort. But the sensible thing to do is to plan for the change and adapt. As mentioned, there are other reasons to conserve and minimize our impact on the planet. And my frustration stems from people that have no sense of care or responsibilty for their actions. Think of this way, if we contribute to a naturally occurring reaction that causes a large amount of devastation are we not responsible? Or because its "natural" we are somehow unaccountable for our actions. A ball will roll down a hill naturally a kicked ball will roll down a hill faster. Here is a more recent article on greenlands glaciers... This one is a little bit more unnerving. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11385475/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cjcdaman Posted June 30, 2006 Share Posted June 30, 2006 How about socially responsible behavior? Maybe, not running AC full crank when its 80 degrees out. Or walking rather than driving everywhere. How about electing officials that show some knowledge of practical solutions to environmental problems? How about using reclaimed wood or bamboo for flooring in your house? How about installing light tubes to get central light into a dark portion of your house? What about taking the train instead of flying somewhere? Dude, you have lost all respect from me. You are a little girl. End of story. I'm sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cjcdaman Posted June 30, 2006 Share Posted June 30, 2006 NO IT DOESN'T!!! :doh: Oh I'm sorry Nancy. I meant "the chance" of more hurricanes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The 12th Commandment Posted June 30, 2006 Share Posted June 30, 2006 And my frustration stems from people that have no sense of care or responsibilty for their actions. Think of this way, if we contribute to a naturally occurring reaction that causes a large amount of devastation are we not responsible? Or because its "natural" we are somehow unaccountable for our actions.A ball will roll down a hill naturally a kicked ball will roll down a hill faster. Here is a more recent article on greenlands glaciers... This one is a little bit more unnerving. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11385475/ Must be all that rain you guys are gettin. People seem a little stir crazy today. :insane: Nice find, crazy thing is I know Petr Chylek pretty well. He owns a lot of property in the area and he's been in my office discussing it. Weird. I had no idea he was a climate scientist at LA. I am not suggesting that we aren't going to see some catastrophic results from changes in the climate. Just the cause is in question. Their model showed that the oscillation wasn't responsible for the warming, but didn't prove that it was co2. There hasn't been sufficient evidence produced showing that our impact is so great on the current warming, to warrant the sort of drastic action that might possibly stop it. It's a question of looking at climate history, and while we are probably modifying the equation somehow, we are due for these sorts of changes anyway. If drastic action is to be taken then it should be towards dealing with the changes that are going to come. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted June 30, 2006 Share Posted June 30, 2006 Read more carefully, he said warmer water caused more hurricanes. Warm water is not the cause of tropical development. Tropical development caused by Hadley's Cell action .All of you talk like you are experts but you don't know your ass from a hole in the wall.... I am proposing Man Law 100484V49494.89-A6 Only Johnny Punani should be allowed to start threads regarding global warming or climate issues. Unlike many that want to be weather experts, he actually works in the field :notworthy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted June 30, 2006 Share Posted June 30, 2006 I am proposing Man Law 100484V49494.89-A6Only Johnny Punani should be allowed to start threads regarding global warming or climate issues. Unlike many that want to be weather experts, he actually works in the field :notworthy I can forecast the weather by my joints,does that make me eligible to post on his threads? :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateCitySkin Posted June 30, 2006 Share Posted June 30, 2006 I can forecast the weather by my joints,does that make me eligible to post on his threads? :laugh: When I spit and it goes to the left that means its going to rain. So I should be covered too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexRS Posted June 30, 2006 Author Share Posted June 30, 2006 Must be all that rain you guys are gettin. People seem a little stir crazy today. :insane: Nice find, crazy thing is I know Petr Chylek pretty well. He owns a lot of property in the area and he's been in my office discussing it. Weird. I had no idea he was a climate scientist at LA. I am not suggesting that we aren't going to see some catastrophic results from changes in the climate. Just the cause is in question. Their model showed that the oscillation wasn't responsible for the warming, but didn't prove that it was co2. There hasn't been sufficient evidence produced showing that our impact is so great on the current warming, to warrant the sort of drastic action that might possibly stop it. It's a question of looking at climate history, and while we are probably modifying the equation somehow, we are due for these sorts of changes anyway. If drastic action is to be taken then it should be towards dealing with the changes that are going to come. Fair enough. How do you feel about non-drastic actions? You know, starting small, stuff like that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The 12th Commandment Posted June 30, 2006 Share Posted June 30, 2006 Fair enough. How do you feel about non-drastic actions? You know, starting small, stuff like that? I fully support it. But not because of GW. We should be trying to wean ourselves off fossil fuels anyway. The sooner the better. I just don't buy the misguided reasoning promoted by some. And we should be looking at what to do with millions of people who will need to move due to sea level change, as well as how to deal with other impacts of climate change. Not in a panic, but as long term planning. :2cents: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted June 30, 2006 Share Posted June 30, 2006 I fully support it. But not because of GW. We should be trying to wean ourselves off fossil fuels anyway. The sooner the better. I just don't buy the misguided reasoning promoted by some. And we should be looking at what to do with millions of people who will need to move due to sea level change, as well as how to deal with other impacts of climate change. Not in a panic, but as long term planning. :2cents: One of the big problems though is it doesn't matter what we (US) does, it matters what everyone does like China, India etc.... CO2's have increased 15% since the early 90's due to the development of those nations. Why do you think gas prices are so high right now, because of India and China. A lot of posters here keep saying it is the US etc.., however our air quality compared to other nations is much better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.