What happened to Global Warming?
When I put my first above ground pool in around the late 90's we were able to open it in April and start swimming in May.
Now my pool is just opened and still not warm enough to swim in
I'd like some global warming back...
Good grief. All the ice is not already in the water. You might notice that the Arctic and the Antarctic aren't underwater, so that conclusively demonstrates that the ice isn't all in the water. And that's ignoring all the glaciers, etc.
When you're going to decry the vast majority of the world's scientists, you would do well to get basic facts right. Your argument is that I'm supposed to ignore what scientist are saying (because they're all crackpots talking bullshit) and listen to you instead. But you don't have a shred of scientific proof on your side and you don't even understand how ice works or even where it is.
There's a saying that states extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. You're making extraordinary claims, so you'd better be able to demonstrate some proof of what you're saying.There are certain things you're right about. The climate has changed and fluctuated many times over millions of years. They have been periods of drought, flood, freezing, warming, etc. That's absolutely true and no one would argue with you. Oddly, you're happy to take scientists' word for that. But the recent fluctuations in climate have happened over a much shorter period and the research inference is that human activities are having a role in that.The science is quite difficult to perform as we only have detailed climate records for a relatively short time period. Extrapolating out from that is very difficult to do with any degree of certainty, so by necessity, the science is not absolute.But we are already experiencing pollution on a vast scale. I'm sure you won't deny that that is a result of human activity. We have poisoned our water, ground and air on a vast scale over a very short timescale. That's undeniable. But for you, it's too much of a stretch to imagine that the damage we've done to our environment can have an effect on our weather.You don't understand what ice is, how it works or even where it is. You throw around the word theory when you actually ought to be saying hypothesis (there's a big difference), but I'm expected to believe you and regard the world's scientific community as crackpots spouting bullshit. Point me to some articles in proper scientific journals that support what you're saying. Go on. After all, you didn't just come up with your clever opinions by just making stuff up, did you? You must have read some serious and weighty research that allowed you to reach your conclusions.
For the most part, I just can't be feched to dig up facts and post links to prove something that's so obvious. I'm too fechen lazy for one thing, and secondly, I only visit a limited handful of sites these days to find shit out. Nope, I simply don't wanna suffer information overload and get confused.
Yeah, that happens at my age, being told 2 or 3 things and getting overwhelmed cos the brain don't multitask anymore.
There are tons of research and most of it is conflicting, read consensus. Like I said, there too many variables and they are near infinite.
Climate change, naturally ocurring, happens over thousands of years according to the geololgical record. Like Bodabar said, the present changes are happening over a much shorter time scale, human influence has seen to that. Look at China, they are experiencing the worst smog in decades. By their own admission it is due to pollution and industrial waste products. Seeing is believing. Look it up, there are pics to prove it. Just saying.
Technically it's an opinion, not a fact.
Facts are determined by [at worst] popular opinion, and [at best] scientific analysis/testing.
"calling an idiot an idiot" has a pre-judgement/presumption of truth without verification....
Now, if there were a poll gathering popular opinion of whether someone was an idiot or not...and the results came in the majority as 'yes' it's still only a popular opinion, really.....and that's a fact...
Well, apparently, these days facts are indeed determined by popular opinion, but that's just because people are, as a factually accurate description, idiots. In the real world, where everyone resides but few live, facts are those things which are found to be true by observation or experience.
There's a saying that states extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. You're making extraordinary claims, so you'd better be able to demonstrate some proof of what you're saying.
This would be a case of saying something hilariously dumb in response to something hilariously dumb. Ice floating on water is a simple matter of water displacement, the Archimedes principle, specifically. Ice, being a frozen mixture of water and the various elements contained within it, takes up more space than said water on account of it's properties when frozen, and is thus less dense. The height at which it rides is determined by the point at which it's taking up the same space as it would in liquid form, as it still weighs the same amount when frozen. Floating ice does indeed already occupy all the space it's going to in the ocean and finding this claim extraordinary would be extraordinarily dense. However, the Antarctic ice is primarily on land, as Antarctica is a continent, and is thus not floating to begin with. Only the sea ice, which is almost entirely what's been melting, is indeed not raising sea levels on account of it already doing that whole water displacement bit.
Now, if the land ice starts melting off, we'd see extensive sea level rise, but this is impossible. Once the sea ice is gone, the ocean currents slow to a crawl and the poles freeze up hard, returning the sea ice and restarting the cycle. It would take a radical change in temperature to have a significant melt, one not born out by facts, only observably falsified data.
I do have my facts right, you are just a brainwashed moron. It's 8th grade science. That ice is already in the water. It is displacing all the water it is ever going to displace no matter what form it is in. You have just been brainwashed and are no longer in touch with reality. I love how you immediately draped yourself in science for the rest of your long, babbling post, when you don't understand simple 8th grade science. You people are so amazingly ignorant and stupid I just don't even have words to describe it. Wow.
Ice on land isn't 'already in the water' ...it's on land - by definition....
When it melts and thus joins 'the water' there will be a sea level rise .
Other than that, you'll need to refrain from "you are just a brainwashed moron" as such is a violation of Stardock's TOU and will subject you to censure.
Ice on land isn't 'already in the water' ...it's on land - by definition.... When it melts and thus joins 'the water' there will be a sea level rise . Other than that, you'll need to refrain from "you are just a brainwashed moron" as such is a violation of Stardock's TOU and will subject you to censure.
I never said anything about ice on land, we are talking about the north pole. No wonder you don't understand simple 8th grade science, you can't read.
Your kind are dangerous. I'll refrain from calling you the things you have earned and deserved to be called for the sake of the forum rules, but you and your kind are dangerously ignorant. You represent a danger to civilization, you are an enemy of civilization. Merely calling you names really isn't going far enough.
There's no land at the north pole, this isn't a fact I like, it's simply a fact. You specifically listed the arctic and antarctic caps as being above water, the arctic cap is floating. If you really want to quibble over the 2% difference from salinity, fine, but I'll gladly accept the inch. It's inconsequential, less relevant than rainfall. You can't have it both ways either. If the albedo will prevent ice from forming at the pole once it's gone(it wont, winter is fucking cold), then the currents are going to massively slow down thanks to the loss of temperature differential and the lack of increasing salinity at the pole.
Not that any of this is relevant, satellite measurement of arctic ice started in 79, an abnormally high extent year in the middle of a cold snap that got newspapers around the globe talking about the impending ice age we've conveniently pretended scientists weren't backing much the same as they are global warming today.
We've been above the average readings for three years now, and the decline was a whopping 10% off maximum at it's worst, just catastrophic, really.
Edit: Byebye, Kavik, nice knowing you?
A rather overpopulated Earth with a dominant species pumping all sorts of wonderful stuff into the atmosphere, while getting rid of most of the trees at the same time, tend to bring more recent weather variations into the ancient mix. Of course we have had a varied and interesting climatic past, from a drought ending the Akkadian Empire, to the medieval "little Ice Age" that made it easier to cross a lot of water without bringing out a boat, given the appropriate geographical considerations.
Nothing truly exclude the impact you get from numerous energy hungry civilizations though. The planet is ultimately a fairly closed and limited resource, and we are burning the candle at the available ends, and then some. To believe we are getting out of this "Scot Free", is a nice thought though. It truly is. But not with the way the world is set up. We have caused the recent weather variations, because quite frankly, it is impossible to not have had an impact at this stage.
Global warming comes from all the hay lying around. Everyone knows hay heats up when bundled.
If only we hadn't flogged those poor bloody horses to death they would have eaten the hay by now.
Alas, the flogging may have killed the horse, but the gullibility of mankind will kill me...
There isn't anything unusual about the current weather around the world. It has been, quite depressingly, unusually inactive by recorded history's standards. There aren't loads of hurricanes, typhoons, or hurricanes and typhoons in places they shouldn't be. There aren't abnormally high numbers of tornadoes, tornadoes in places they shouldn't be, or other overly severe thunderstorm impacts. There aren't more droughts either, no scorching summers of doom that leave people starving by the thousands year after year.
There are less. In the US, major hurricane strikes are at an all time low, detected EF1+ tornadoes, despite vastly better detection capabilities, are less common than they were in the 70's. Ef3+ tornadoes are at the lowest levels since they started recording in the 50's. The doom and gloom about how terrible our weather has been the last couple decades is entirely manufactured bullshit. It's not just the US either, that increasing drought the world is supposedly going through? It doesn't exist, soil moisture levels are in long term improvement over past centuries. The claims that we're going to end up a dry dust ball are just pure bullshit.
There are, however, multiple 24 hour news channels with nothing better to do than sensationalize every little bit of piss and wind they can find.
The human equation is now part of the climate, unless all those bright lights on the dark side of the planet is powered by magic. With the climate being a cyclic process, the need for an absolute trend, or straight lines, or a predictable set of changes, is perhaps the reason for these debates to linger beyond sanity. There will be variations, drifts, and fluctuations, for as long as we stay in motion. Taking a good look at Mars or Venus, in order to contemplate what might come to pass, is not especially damaging to the cognitive functions though. We cannot predict the future, but we can try to plan for one. The oblivious path leaves a lot to chance, which in so many cases tend not to cash out. At all.
It goes without saying that everything can and will be abused by opportunists, sensationalist media, or hysterical individuals, while those truly enjoying and profiting from the Status Quo, will have an opposed idea of how to move forward. Or not to!
Somehow being able to talk us out of the basic premise of being stuck in a closed environment we're well and truly messing with, would no doubt bring a real purpose to this veritable volume of circular engagements. But that would also put an end to the cyclical nature of it all! For when you get down to it, we're just reflecting our true nature. Ouroboros would be proud.
Except that when it rains my roof leaks. Me thinks these climate change fanatics have diluted it so it can get through the cracks easier.
Seriously, though, you are quite correct! The world's weather hasn't altered dramatically at all, though the climate change fanatics will try to say that storms and droughts, etc, have become more severe. That's not what I'm seeing, though.
In January 1974, Australia had its worst cyclone on record. It hit Darwin with such devastating force the whole town was pretty much flattened. There have been powerful cyclones to hit since then, but none as powerful as that. Also, Brisbane went through a devastating flood in January of that year. It was the worst flood on record and the entire city was inundated, as were suburbs for as far as the eye could see. There have been devastating floods since, but none as severe as the flood of 1974.
We're also told the climate is warming at an alarming rate, and while there have been some hot days here and there of late, I recall years when hot days came in lots of weeks, even months at a time. Due to a medical condition I suffer with the heat more than most, yet I suffer no more with it now than I did 20 - 30 years ago.
There is an agenda with this global warming/climate change bullshit.... and it's NOT about saving the planet.
Perhaps locally, like over cities such as Los Angeles and Beijing, but the planet is such a huge expanse that mankind is but a speck on it. The atmosphere is an even greater expanse, and mankind is even more insignificant in terms of size... with an even lesser ability to significantly alter it. Now this isn't to say that mankind shouldn't clean up its act, far from it, but let's be honest about it and not make it about financial gain for the powers that be, both political and corporate. If these bastards actually cared about the planet, why didn't they start implementing laws and cleaner manufacturing practices decades ago?
The answer is simple! Money, money and more money! In other words, they simply didn't care.... well not until some bright spark came up with how there's more money [taxes and increased manufacturing costs] to be made from "let's pretend there's global warming and hike up the price of everything to 'so-say' remedy the situation". Fact is, governments around the globe are still signing off on pollution with large industrial estates getting easy approval, so there's no governance or self-regulation with regard to pollution... and then there's the mining and drilling for oil, both of which contribute greatly to pollution, and both attracting tax dollars.
Put bluntly, I don't trust government [don't care whose it is] to resolve the situation. Nor do I trust corporations to self regulate... not while there's greater profit in doing exactly as they are. Carbon taxes and the like, they're NOT going to remedy anything. No, they will serve only to make politicians fatter and wealthier, which is not what the planet needs right now. There's too many rotund politicians as it is.
This is of course wishful thinking. Take a plane and observe the true vastness of that thin layer that is all that keeps us alive. The surface might appear expansive enough from a point near the ground, as will the sky appear tall and endless, from the perspective of the singular observer with a naked eye. But it is truly not so!
Human activities have turned extensive enough to go far beyond local considerations. It is not only the presence, but the sum of all the activities we're talking about here. To somehow believe we have no impact on the entire environment at this stage, is no more than a very optimistic dream of what-could-have-been. We're not protected by any magical powers, and the buffers are not going to hold for an eternity.
I'm not saying we face imminent disaster or anything, but you guys really remind me of those scientists on Krypton. "Quakes? Perfectly normal! Carry on!"
They're micro quakes, we get them by the thousands every year, it's normal.
The Denmark Meteorological Institute has detailed Arctic sea ice mapping data going back to 1893. Our satellite records, which is all we use, for what I find to be obvious reasons, starts in 1979. A cold year in a long run of cold years. Even the warmists will admit that the 70's were a downward trend in temperature. Those relics of the past? They show two preceeding meltdowns in the arctic circle. Neither quite as severe as our recent one, but both substantial, with rapid recoveries. The ice can come back from it's current extents in just a few years. We also have numerous pictures of submarines surfacing at the north pole, the earliest in 1959. The ice is frequently less than 2 feet thick in places. varies greatly as it breaks up and refreezes, and can change radically in the space of a few years.
The modern nonsense is telling us something different, that the recent meltdown was the first time this happened, that all that multi-year ice can't be regained in just a few years. It's bullshit, nonsensical conjecture at best, outright deception at worst.
This isn't limited to arctic ice either, they talk about the glaciers melting off as if it's a recent thing. One of the places they like to mention is Glacier Bay in Alaska, how it's lost most of it's glacier in the last few decades. I found this to be one of the funniest things in years when I heard it. The ice is retreating for sure, it's almost gone, it's a very long hike to find ice now, and when I was a little kid, we could drive to it. It was still hilarious though.
Check out this nice Glacier Bay travel guide and you should be able to figure out why the rapid loss of such a precious national resource due to global warming is so amusing to me.
The history of the Earth, even just the extremely recent history, is far more radical than modern politically driven science would have you believe.
I guess using a Superman movie reference was somewhat out of bounds in the current climate we have here... It was meant as an anecdote regarding the willingness to not accept the obvious. Deep Ice Core samples from Antarctica is the safest bet in order to get a look at what has been going on for the last 400 000 - 795 000 years, but they are of course part of the grand conspiracy, so there is that! No doubt er... fueled by some hidden agenda.
Your sarcasm meter is clearly broken.
Ice core readings show that the last interglacial was substantially warmer than the current climate, by as much as 5C, despite a lower CO2 level. They're not part of a grand conspiracy, they're just selectively ignored whenever they don't fit the political agenda. You can't get precision from them either, they show temperatures at highly insulated points on the globe that are slow to react to the actual global temperature average. Just in case you had any hope for your last post, they also show that temperatures are falling, after peaking in the 50's. I know, I'm cruel.
All you need is a thirty second internet search to discover that Antarctic and Greenland ice core samples both show the Medieval and Minoan warming periods to have been greater than the modern one, as well as showing the modern warming period as having ended already.
This is the same data they say matches local temperature station data, just in case you're trying to figure out why the recent ice core data is wrong...
The Greenland Ice Core samples have been dismissed as unreliable, corrupted by foreign particles as it were. Need to stick to the Antarctica ones. They are good enough compared to the alternatives that pretty much does not exist, and as such they back up what we already know, that we have had a real impact on the atmosphere recently. ( It also should take less than thirty seconds to go back and visit a mention of that drought that killed off the Akkadian empire by someone named exactly like me, since the virtues of internet browsing now also have turned into an agenda, hehehe. )
How many signs of a sickened and polluted earth is it really possible to brush away with excuses though? I'm guessing all of them, until we're standing at the abyss itself, at which time the gloating will be over, one way or another. This is not personal! This is global! Was the Age of Reason followed by the Age of Denial? It's a tempting conclusion!
The planet's on an express elevator to Hell and goin' down!
Makes me think of a line made by Private Hudson on Acheron ( LV-426 ) somehow. Let's terraform something and get away from here! I'm sure it will be quite safe!
Please explain the relevance of an ancient civilization that didn't understand land management and built with mud bricks falling to a drought thousands of years ago?
Fuzzy's posts are entertaining, yours lack substance and entertainment, ergo useless.
The relevance of repeating the exact same historical proceedings as I've acknowledged on the same page, is on your cape, I don't see the relevance either, so there you have it! The Minoan and Akkadian cultures overlap timewise, although the Minoans lasted longer. Makes no difference in the end. We still end up here! You just brought more Bull into it. That's about it.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
