Bring on Global warming!!!
Moderator: S2k Moderators
Forum rules
The posts in this forum are NOT official forecast and should not be used as such. They are just the opinion of the poster and may or may not be backed by sound meteorological data. They are NOT endorsed by any professional institution or STORM2K.
- Dr. Jonah Rainwater
- Category 2
- Posts: 569
- Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2005 2:45 pm
- Location: Frisco, Texas
- Contact:
-
- Tropical Storm
- Posts: 189
- Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 1:58 am
- Location: Anchorage, AK
- Contact:
People calling it a cycle are funny. What they are really saying is "Hey I once read an article that said it was hot millions of years ago , so it's a cycle that will be after I die so I don't care !!"
As long as scientist don't say "America will run out of food in 5 years thanks to GW" people like Matt will simply pretend it dosn't exsist or convince themselves of it. *Shrug* who cares if animal species go extinct and millions of people die in 3rd world countries because their food and water sources vanish in the span of a couple years.
This is exactly like me going "Hurricains are not dangerous and people shouldn't be afraid of them". I might even inwardly belive it a little since reporters I see on TV from up here in alaska seem to do just fine in them. However to the people it actually effects I would be saying "water isn't wet". Thats what matt is doing , because it's not immediatly effecting him nor is it threating his personal way of life right this moment he is saying "water isn't wet".
This thread is trolling becaue if he really wanted information all he would have to do is actually google global warming news and he would find mountains of real science on it not his own personal head in the sand aproach to the subject he is trying to shove down everyones throat.
As long as scientist don't say "America will run out of food in 5 years thanks to GW" people like Matt will simply pretend it dosn't exsist or convince themselves of it. *Shrug* who cares if animal species go extinct and millions of people die in 3rd world countries because their food and water sources vanish in the span of a couple years.
This is exactly like me going "Hurricains are not dangerous and people shouldn't be afraid of them". I might even inwardly belive it a little since reporters I see on TV from up here in alaska seem to do just fine in them. However to the people it actually effects I would be saying "water isn't wet". Thats what matt is doing , because it's not immediatly effecting him nor is it threating his personal way of life right this moment he is saying "water isn't wet".
This thread is trolling becaue if he really wanted information all he would have to do is actually google global warming news and he would find mountains of real science on it not his own personal head in the sand aproach to the subject he is trying to shove down everyones throat.
0 likes
- jasons2k
- Storm2k Executive
- Posts: 8245
- Age: 51
- Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 12:32 pm
- Location: The Woodlands, TX
I wonder how much of global warming is attributed to the urban "heat island" effect rather than CO2 emmissions. Have there been any global warming studies that have done a comparitive analysis of strictly rural stations? just curious. It seems to me any study that includes urban sites that have been built-up over the years would taint/skew the study to a warmer bias.
0 likes
- x-y-no
- Category 5
- Posts: 8359
- Age: 65
- Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:14 pm
- Location: Fort Lauderdale, FL
jschlitz wrote:I wonder how much of global warming is attributed to the urban "heat island" effect rather than CO2 emmissions. Have there been any global warming studies that have done a comparitive analysis of strictly rural stations? just curious. It seems to me any study that includes urban sites that have been built-up over the years would taint/skew the study to a warmer bias.
Yes, this has been extensively studied and the effect, such as it is, compensated for.
See this discussion for references to some of the relevant research:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=43
0 likes
- MGC
- S2K Supporter
- Posts: 5899
- Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2003 9:05 pm
- Location: Pass Christian MS, or what is left.
I'd rather a warmer Earth than a colder one. Us humans evolved in a warm climate thats why we are mostly hairless. Just a little over 1000 years ago the Vikings discovered Greenland, which is now covered mostly in ICE. The Vikings also grew grapes in Labrador, funny but I have not tasted any wine from that region in some time. I wonder what happened? The Earth got cooler. A mini ice age would lead to the deaths of millions due to crop failures because of a reduced growing season in the norther hemisphere. The warming trend started hundreds of years ago. Glaciers have been retreating since the early 1800's as John Mier noted of Alaskan glaciers. I'll take the warmth thank you.....MGC
0 likes
MGC wrote:I'd rather a warmer Earth than a colder one. Us humans evolved in a warm climate thats why we are mostly hairless. Just a little over 1000 years ago the Vikings discovered Greenland, which is now covered mostly in ICE. The Vikings also grew grapes in Labrador, funny but I have not tasted any wine from that region in some time. I wonder what happened? The Earth got cooler. A mini ice age would lead to the deaths of millions due to crop failures because of a reduced growing season in the norther hemisphere. The warming trend started hundreds of years ago. Glaciers have been retreating since the early 1800's as John Mier noted of Alaskan glaciers. I'll take the warmth thank you.....MGC
I agree this is the point I been trying to get across. The ice cores found in the 1970s also support a cycle. It has been at least this warm hundreds of times. Will people die because of the Climate warming up to its peak levels the answer is yes. Would it make the death worst if we shut are country in the world went into a global depression very much so. 100 years ago people died because of no care. Today people live longer why? Because we are a first world nation in which moves the stadard of the whole world up.
So you don't see 10k black deaths any more. Or the small pox or god knows what. I think a world that has a strong economy going into this has the best chance of making it out. Its almost sad how some people think destroying all the hard world we have done to better our selfs. SAD REALLY!
If theres Global warming out side of this cycle...It could very well be our sun...In which supposed to be slowly warming up any way as it draws closer to its red giant stage. If so then theres not one durn thing we can do about it. We just need to use are tech and Economy to find our selfs a new world to live on. So its the other way around!
Also I'm not trolling just speaking my option on this.

0 likes
- Hurricaneman
- Category 5
- Posts: 7351
- Age: 45
- Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2004 3:24 pm
- Location: central florida
- x-y-no
- Category 5
- Posts: 8359
- Age: 65
- Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:14 pm
- Location: Fort Lauderdale, FL
MGC wrote:I'd rather a warmer Earth than a colder one. Us humans evolved in a warm climate thats why we are mostly hairless. Just a little over 1000 years ago the Vikings discovered Greenland, which is now covered mostly in ICE. The Vikings also grew grapes in Labrador, funny but I have not tasted any wine from that region in some time. I wonder what happened? The Earth got cooler. A mini ice age would lead to the deaths of millions due to crop failures because of a reduced growing season in the norther hemisphere. The warming trend started hundreds of years ago. Glaciers have been retreating since the early 1800's as John Mier noted of Alaskan glaciers. I'll take the warmth thank you.....MGC
And I'd much rather we took our duty to be stewards of the Earth seriously and didn't introduce massive rapid perturbations of any kind, or at least did our level best to minimize the perturbations we cause.
I've asked the following question many, many times of those who make the "the Earth has been warmer/colder naturally in the past" argument, but I've never received the courtesy of an answer of any sort. As far as I can tell, it's a pretty good analogy to this argument. Would you do me the courtesy of a reply?
----
Forest fires occur naturally all the time. Does this mean that:
1) Humans cannot cause forest fires.
2) Humans can cause them, but it's perfectly OK to do so and we should do nothing to prevent humans from causing them.
----
0 likes
- SouthFloridawx
- S2K Supporter
- Posts: 8346
- Age: 46
- Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 1:16 am
- Location: Sarasota, FL
- Contact:
x-y-no Here is my two cents and my rant for the month.... I do agree with your arguement we should be limiting our effects on the environment. Here is an arguement that I hear all the time. Volcanoes produce much more gasses that pollute the earth than humans do and our affect on the earth is very limited. Eventually mother earth is going to get fed up with being poisoned. We should minimally be contributing to the effects of pollution on planet earth. For everyone who doesn't know earth is a living breathing organism and just like all organisms they can be poisoned and forced to change to correct the problem. I think it is a bunch of crap the neysayers of global warming don't believe in it because there are natural cycles on the earth. There may be natural cycles on the earth so then we'll let it naturally occur and not try to spew all kinds of pullution and gasses out there. Yes I agree there probably are natural cycles of warming and cooling but, do we really have to over contribute to the problem. Ok well then when your kids and their kids are suffereing from a global catastrophy someday maybe they will think back to when thier parents and grandparents totally ignored the whole situation. But, I guess it doesn't really matter to people who know they are not going to be here someday.
(By the way that was not toward anyone specific on this forum, I'm just yelling in general)
(By the way that was not toward anyone specific on this forum, I'm just yelling in general)
Last edited by SouthFloridawx on Wed Mar 29, 2006 10:00 am, edited 2 times in total.
0 likes
- x-y-no
- Category 5
- Posts: 8359
- Age: 65
- Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:14 pm
- Location: Fort Lauderdale, FL
Matt-hurricanewatcher wrote:I agree this is the point I been trying to get across. The ice cores found in the 1970s also support a cycle. It has been at least this warm hundreds of times. Will people die because of the Climate warming up to its peak levels the answer is yes. Would it make the death worst if we shut are country in the world went into a global depression very much so. 100 years ago people died because of no care. Today people live longer why? Because we are a first world nation in which moves the stadard of the whole world up.
This is a false dichotomy. Hardly anybody seriously proposes shutting down our economy. Portraying those who argue that we should take agressive mitigating action sooner rather than later in this light does nothing to advance the discussion and much to retard it.
I will point out, however, that if we continue to dither and do next to nothing long enough, then it will get to the point where nothing would reverse the trend but extreme action such as what you posit. And if we allow it to get to that point, I think future generations will rightly look upon this era as one of gross irresponsibility.
...
If theres Global warming out side of this cycle...It could very well be our sun...In which supposed to be slowly warming up any way as it draws closer to its red giant stage. If so then theres not one durn thing we can do about it. We just need to use are tech and Economy to find our selfs a new world to live on. So its the other way around!
This is an absurd argument. The sun won't get to red giant stage for billions of years. Dragging that into it is just silly.
There are, of course, shorter term variations in insolation, but the data contradicts the claim that solar variation is responsible for the rapid warming we are currently seeing.
0 likes
- Hybridstorm_November2001
- S2K Supporter
- Posts: 2811
- Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2004 2:50 pm
- Location: SW New Brunswick, Canada
- Contact:
x-y-no wrote:MGC wrote:I'd rather a warmer Earth than a colder one. Us humans evolved in a warm climate thats why we are mostly hairless. Just a little over 1000 years ago the Vikings discovered Greenland, which is now covered mostly in ICE. The Vikings also grew grapes in Labrador, funny but I have not tasted any wine from that region in some time. I wonder what happened? The Earth got cooler. A mini ice age would lead to the deaths of millions due to crop failures because of a reduced growing season in the norther hemisphere. The warming trend started hundreds of years ago. Glaciers have been retreating since the early 1800's as John Mier noted of Alaskan glaciers. I'll take the warmth thank you.....MGC
And I'd much rather we took our duty to be stewards of the Earth seriously and didn't introduce massive rapid perturbations of any kind, or at least did our level best to minimize the perturbations we cause.
I've asked the following question many, many times of those who make the "the Earth has been warmer/colder naturally in the past" argument, but I've never received the courtesy of an answer of any sort. As far as I can tell, it's a pretty good analogy to this argument. Would you do me the courtesy of a reply?
----
Forest fires occur naturally all the time. Does this mean that:
1) Humans cannot cause forest fires.
2) Humans can cause them, but it's perfectly OK to do so and we should do nothing to prevent humans from causing them.
----
Yes humans can cause forest fires but we got laws against it. The thing is you can't control every one with out taking peoples rights away. In which sounds more like the USSR. I went more rights not less.
Also a volcano puts about 10k times more stuff into Atmosphree like Co2 then all the cars on earth. Mt st.helens did just that.
You know I think we should replanet the forest when we cut it down. More work for people that need a job. In I think it would be a good idea. Also add a few more trees to the city where you can. Also the United states is clean next to China or India, I mean don't go killing the ones that do a half way good job with out changing the real people that make the mess.
Yes we are much cleaner then we where 50 years ago. In if a strong economy we will become even more cleaner. So if you hurt the economy with these new things like shutting down stuff then it would become dirtier.
0 likes
- x-y-no
- Category 5
- Posts: 8359
- Age: 65
- Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:14 pm
- Location: Fort Lauderdale, FL
Matt-hurricanewatcher wrote:Yes humans can cause forest fires ...
OK, good. So you'll agree that the fact that something has occurred naturally does not mean that it cannot be caused by humans.
I look forward to never again having to respond to a claim on your part that past warm periods indicate that humans are not the cause of the current warming.
... but we got laws against it.
Thanks for reinforcing my point. Sometimes, we need to take policy actions regarding human activities, even if the undesireable effects of those activites may have occurred naturally in the past.
The thing is you can't control every one with out taking peoples rights away. In which sounds more like the USSR. I went more rights not less.
This is, by rule, not a political forum, yet you persist in engaging in politcally charged and absurd comparisons. There is not a stark either/or choice between anarchy and totalitarianism. Equating any and all efforts at public policy with Soviet oppression is not even remotely valid, and despite your statement that you're not trolling I have a hard time reading this as anything less than trollish.
Also a volcano puts about 10k times more stuff into Atmosphree like Co2 then all the cars on earth. Mt st.helens did just that.
This is quite simply false, as I have remarked any number of times before in these discussions. th simple refutation of this claim that we see no spikes corresponding to volcanic eruptions in the multiple atmospheric CO2 records.
The sum total of all volcanoes emit CO2 at a rate about 1/150th that of anthropogenic emissions. See:
http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/Gases/man.html
It's more than a little tiresome to have to keep debunking the same claims over and over and over again, but I'm even more allergic to just letting such falsehoods stand unchallenged. I'd sure appreciate it if those of you continually making these false claims would take a look at the backup I provide and see that it's for real, and then maybe you could edit those false claims out of your argument (of course that would leave you with the problem of having no substantive argument left to make).
You know I think we should replanet the forest when we cut it down. More work for people that need a job. In I think it would be a good idea. Also add a few more trees to the city where you can. Also the United states is clean next to China or India, I mean don't go killing the ones that do a half way good job with out changing the real people that make the mess.
Again, this is not a political forum. I fail to see what anything of this has to do with the facts, which is what we are constrained to dicuss here.
I'll confine myself to saying that you probably won't find any climate scientists who think one can have an effective GHG mitigation policy which ignores China, India and other developing industrial nations.
Yes we are much cleaner then we where 50 years ago. In if a strong economy we will become even more cleaner. So if you hurt the economy with these new things like shutting down stuff then it would become dirtier.
This assumes a couple of things I have never seen demonstrated - that effective GHG mitigation would neccesarily harm the economy, and that economic development in and of itself (i.e. absent affirmative regulation) neccesarily implies getting cleaner. In fact, history and reason suggest the opposite to me in both instances, although once again a full exposition on that might veer too far into politics for this site.
Last edited by x-y-no on Wed Mar 29, 2006 3:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
0 likes
- SouthFloridawx
- S2K Supporter
- Posts: 8346
- Age: 46
- Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 1:16 am
- Location: Sarasota, FL
- Contact:
Quote:
Also a volcano puts about 10k times more stuff into Atmosphree like Co2 then all the cars on earth. Mt st.helens did just that.
This is quite simply false, as I have remarked any number of times before in these discussions. th simple refutation of this claim that we see no spikes corresponding to volcanic eruptions in the multiple atmospheric CO2 records.
The sum total of all volcanoes emit CO2 at a rate about 1/150th that of anthropogenic emissions. See:
http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/Gases/man.html
It's more than a little tiresome to have to keep debunking the same claims over and over and over again, but I'm even more allergic to just letting such falsehoods stand unchallenged. I'd sure appreciate it if those of you continually making these false claims would take a look at the backup I provide and see that it's for real, and then maybe you could edit those false claims out of your argument (of course that would leave you with the problem of having no substantive argument left to make).
This tells me that it's not only me that hears that from global warming neysayers.
0 likes
- Dr. Jonah Rainwater
- Category 2
- Posts: 569
- Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2005 2:45 pm
- Location: Frisco, Texas
- Contact:
- AussieMark
- Category 5
- Posts: 5858
- Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2003 6:36 pm
- Location: near Sydney, Australia
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests