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...
I just knew we'd make it. ParTEEE!! (Missed my chance for that to be reply 1999 - heh.)
All the hot air and flapping of gums expended in this thread simply has done nothing more than contribute to AGW....
As Frogboy said...some 70 or 80 pages ago....
DO SOMETHING TO REDUCE YOUR IMPACT.
[In Australia [the driest continent] we had a target for water consumption of 145litres per day per person [dam levels were down to 30%]...Terry and I managed 125 - between the 2 of us. Individuals can/should do 'their bit'.]
...and first on the list would be less gum-flapping....
Ah, the old "I'll hop in when you hop out" [of the bath] trick. Or was that; "Well we can both get in here [the shower] with a pinch" ???
Well I did my bit! Don't drink water cos fish do rude things in it.
Seriously, that 145 litrea a day includes such things as car washing, watering plants, showering, etc, etc. I did/do my bit by not having a car to wash or plants to water... I also turn off the tap after wetting my toothbrush/paste... turn it back on later to rinse. Same with shaving, which I don't do every day if I don't need to... tap on to wet my face and off again until I need to rinse off. I never use the washing machine unless I have a full load, saves water and power.
And it's not just about conserving resources... I'm a tight arse and don't like giving money to water and power companies.
That joke went right over their heads.
I just thought the Mammoth story was interesting... I'll put it into an equation:
Climate >> Humans > Mammoth
Now input this knowledge into our nice black box function that describes the Mammoth and then we get the inevitable outcome:
MammothBB(Climate, Humans, Ice Age) = Mammoths go extinct.
It's just a bit sad that it's only a black box function, we don't know what happens exactly, we only know the outcome.
Well anyway... the interesting part is that the early humans may not be to the ones to blame for the extinction of the Mammoths. It makes sense, because at the time there were very few humans on the planet. My guess is, just a few million on the entire planet. And the few of those that roamed to northern plains only had a few primitive spears, made of wood and stone.
And the other interesting part is, that vegetation can change permanently after a dramatic climate event. There's a tipping point, where some species just disappear, because other species take over. Of course it's not just the plants that the Mammoths ate. It's also happened to the pine forests of Europe; there were several species of pine trees, but after the Ice Age, only 1 species was left.
I wonder if we humans can do even more damage than that... it's seems almost impossible.
I'm glad you said 'almost' because man has the potential to inflict extreme damage to the planet... not in 50 years a 100 years, but right now. We may not have unleashed that potential as yet, but be rest assured, mankind will inflict irreparable damage from which the Earth will not recover.
Don't believe me? Have yourself cryogenically frozen and come back in 200 years... you'll see. I'm not wrong.
I think that in 200 years from now, humans will have turned the Earth into a beautiful garden.
(like much of Europe is nowadays).
It'll probably be a tropical garden / paradise with white sandy beaches everywhere.
The current coastal cities will act as the seeds of giant reefs/habitats for fish, creating a rich coastal flora and fauna.
You bin watching too much Fantasy Island or sumfink?
If that happens in 200 years I'll eat my shorts
There won't be a lush paradise, sandy beach anything.
Why/ Mans insatiable greed for wealth and power... his never ending quest for oil and minerals... his incessant desire to dig deeper.
If somebody discovered a way to power motor vehicles with wood tomorrow, there wouldn't be a jungle or forest anywhere that'd escape the bulldozers and chainsaws. Within 2 - 3 years there would not be a viable tree left on the planet.
And if they discovered a way to power the electricity generating turbines with cattle tomorrow, you'd have to resort to goats milk before year's end.
You see, mankind doesn't care if it obliterates one thing... even two or three things, to create another.
Mankind can turn grasslands into desert, but it can also turn deserts into grasslands.
Well anyway, I wanted to say something positive for a change... it doesn't have to be true, it's as good a guess as any.
Do you think Europe is a terrible place? It's pretty beautiful, even if most of it is completely unnatural...
If Europe were natural, you'd only have forest, more forests and even more lots of forests everywhere. I like forests but too much of a thing can become a pretty boring landscape don't you think.
The worms will have had them...and their contents long before then...so the whole topic/thread is meaningless to all but the rabid breeder...
...and one manic Dutchman....
Um, no! My next project is saving for some of that cryogenic science.... so I can be defrosted in 200 years and say: "See, I told you so."
I can imagine what'll happen then. Mankind has finally eradicated all diseases including the common flu. Then starkers starts melting and then with one *cough*, mankind is back to square one.
What the hell, we're on such a roll:
From...
I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had. Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period. In addition, let me remind you that the track record of the consensus is nothing to be proud of... In past centuries, the greatest killer of women was fever following childbirth. One woman in six died of this fever. In 1795, Alexander Gordon of Aberdeen suggested that the fevers were infectious processes, and he was able to cure them. The consensus said no. In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compelling evidence. The consensus said no. In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post. There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever until the start of the twentieth century. Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent "skeptics" around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of women... And shall we go on? The examples can be multiplied endlessly. Jenner and smallpox, Pasteur and germ theory. Saccharine, margarine, repressed memory, fiber and colon cancer, hormone replacement therapy. The list of consensus errors goes on and on. Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.
I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.
Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world.
In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.
In addition, let me remind you that the track record of the consensus is nothing to be proud of...
In past centuries, the greatest killer of women was fever following childbirth. One woman in six died of this fever.
In 1795, Alexander Gordon of Aberdeen suggested that the fevers were infectious processes, and he was able to cure them. The consensus said no.
In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compelling evidence. The consensus said no.
In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post. There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever until the start of the twentieth century. Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent "skeptics" around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of women...
And shall we go on? The examples can be multiplied endlessly. Jenner and smallpox, Pasteur and germ theory. Saccharine, margarine, repressed memory, fiber and colon cancer, hormone replacement therapy. The list of consensus errors goes on and on.
Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.
Ah...but Medicine isn't science...it's quackery....
Step into my office, Paul... Got a little snake oil enema that'll fix ya right up.
Among other things, cures migraine, dystopia, the purge, heartburn, the grippe, the vapors, colic, the heartbreak of psoriasis and smart-assedness.
Ah, so that's why my doctor keeps sending me a bill... and oooh ah, didn't he charge like a wounded bull when I went to him with quacked ribs.
And why should he get all the good stuff? If there's any left over after you've cleaned him out, I'll take a couple of pints and one of those jars containing the Indian witch doctor chants.
No problem starkers. Simply send a cashier's check for $249.95 (US) to:
PT Barnum Medical Associates, PC, PLLC, Inc., Corporation1127 West Easy Street, Top FloorGeorge Town, Grand Cayman Islands
We'll get 2 pints of oil and one jar of chants shipped FedEx Air at no extra charge.
This shows how stronger trade winds (and increased oceanic circulation) can explain the hiatus in global warming:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/02/140209152454.htm
Oh, and those Indian witch doctor chants have to be baritone... the tenors just don't do it for me.
I think it's the deep resonating sound, myself... and when it's combined with the snake oil enema, well I'm right to go.
Just more evidence that the models are wrong.
I think what's interesting about the article is that incorporating just a couple of trade winds, can actually reproduce the observed mitigating (or cooling) effect.
It looks to me like such models are already quite capable of modeling our climate.
They've identified a correlation; they've not proven a cause-effect relationship. The desperation to explain away the errors in the models is apparent.
There's no desperation... it's just a model and that has no emotions. The article says that when they input the change in trade winds, the model gave a reduced warming like we're seeing nowadays.
Imho that's pretty impressive: the only thing they have to do in their entire modeling, is adjust some wind.
The thing that's left is to understand why the trade winds are like that.
How hard can that be... I think the current state of the models is quite impressive.
Just 10 years ago, to model or predict such things were completely impossible.
???? The "hockey stick" was published in ~1989, featured in IPCC AR1 issued in 1990.
And so say all of us... well those with a mind of their own... those of us who don't blindly believe just because a scientist said so.
Ah, but there is... desperation. The model may have no emotions, but the scientists who created it do... as do those with vested interests, and the desperation is to convince the entire world they've got it right... because there are huge amounts of money to be made once done. So while these studies and models have some interest value, they are just that, interesting and certainly not gospel.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
