Global warming and Drought...at it again

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

another classic..i was that person you described at one time, when i was 14..but alas i got fired..and i havent been 14 for while..

... and still looking for that second gig? You competing with Sylvanfan to see who can live in their mom's basement the longest?



BTW... thanks for that link to Denis Dutton. Some really interesting stuff on his site. Seriously. Definitely a different fellow. Appears he doesn't believe in much, except his own expertise. Gotta love skeptics!

[transplant99]

Interesting article Mel and a couple things from it. (This was a mere 32 years ago BTW)

Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve

Good grief.

This is EXACTLY why there is so much more information needed on the current "warming" trend on earth.

Could you imagine if they had knee-jerked and done something so stupid back then?

The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.

Thank god humans are tardy.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Tranny, you are aware that the Cooling Theory was not widely accepted back then? It would be as fringe as say, some of the theories being used to discount the CO2 theory today.

[transplant99]

Tranny, you are aware that the Cooling Theory was not widely accepted back then?

Seems to me that scientists gave it some real consideration back then...much like the same kind of scientists are giving this global warming thing serious consideration now.

It would be as fringe as say, some of the theories being used to discount the CO2 theory today.

And as fringe as some of the theories that CO2 is having an effect on the earths temerature now?

Just curous.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

... and still looking for that second gig? You competing with Sylvanfan to see who can live in their mom's basement the longest?



BTW... thanks for that link to Denis Dutton. Some really interesting stuff on his site. Seriously. Definitely a different fellow. Appears he doesn't believe in much, except his own expertise. Gotta love skeptics!

nope brother, i actually went out and got myself a couple rounds of good ol education....it got me started but alas an education can only carry you so far...because things keep changing..

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Seems to me that scientists gave it some real consideration back then...much like the same kind of scientists are giving this global warming thing serious consideration now.

Nope. Never had much support to it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...-cooling-myth/

And to tell you how fringe it is, look who one of its major proponents is!!!!

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/site/article/122

And as fringe as some of the theories that CO2 is having an effect on the earths temerature now?

Now when you say fringe, you're speaking of the vast majority of scientists and academics out there, as well as many agencies in the know, like the UN, NASA and The US DoD through the auspices of the Pentagon. I guess they could be considered fringe.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

...because things keep changing..

Amen to that. Just when you think you got all the answers they change all the damn questions. Sucks to get old.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Amen to that. Just when you think you got all the answers they change all the damn questions. Sucks to get old.

well i hear there are some products out there that can reverse aging, so i am not to concerned about it..

[T@T]

Good series at CNN.

Click the globe for different problems:

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2007/pla...trlafrica.html

[Flames in 07]

For what it's worth Northern Europe and Russia are expected to have a colder than average winter. Just like last year.

[icarus]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

For what it's worth Northern Europe and Russia are expected to have a colder than average winter. Just like last year.

This is what the global warming theorists claim would happen as a result of the slowing down of the Gulf Stream.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by T@T

This is getting very concerning, before we know it we'll be planting palm tree's in our front yards.

Just some of the problems:

"The Great Lakes, which together make up about 20 percent of the world's fresh surface water, have been in decline since the late 1990s. Lakes Huron and Michigan were about two feet below their long-term average levels, while Lake Superior was about 20 inches off, Lake Ontario 7 inches below and Lake Erie a few inches down."

"The Tennessee Valley Authority shut down Browns Ferry Unit II nuclear power plant due to inadequate stream flow."

"With the worldwide warming, the extent of Arctic Sea ice reached its lowest amount in September since satellite measurements began in 1979, shattering the previous record low set in 2005"

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/weather/1....ap/index.html

No No! There is no global warming, the trillions of pollution in the atmosphere have no effect on our planet. Please please, next question.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

and it wasnt that long ago that they were all warning us of global cooling...

We actually have Global Dimming as its popularly called. The quick version is airborne pollutants which reflect sunlight cause a cooling effect, this is most recently seen when all planes in North America were grounded and the results showed a rather huge difference in high/low temps for those days.

There is also evaporation tests that have been done for many decades showing that evaporation was slowing, it was found that the intensity of sunlight was a key factor in evaporation and not a few degrees of temperature change.

There is now evidence that the massive drought in Africa (Ethiopia) in the late 80's was in fact because of European pollution causing a dimming and change of the monsoon latitude that caused the yearly rainy season to shift northwards, causing havok on northern africa.

So what you have is a competing problem, global greenhouse gas warming and global dimming which slows the warming. In another form of fun/irony global dimming is decreasing as our visible/refractory pollutants have decreased a lot in the last few decades so the effect of global dimming is in fact decreasing (yay!) but that means global warming will affect us a lot more without this other bad pollution refracting the sun's rays (not so yay.)

But its ok, Al Gore and the damn liberal elite are at it again convincing the vast majority of scientists from tons of different fields to believe his hype that somehow humans could affect the global temperature and cause a climate shift which could dramatically affect this world in the next 100-200yrs.

Its amazing to me how when we debate this, people are either fully on one side of the issue, much like what the paid spokespeople for the 'global warming is a overhyped issue' wanted to achieve. They win, considering the fact for every 10 scientists 1 (usually paid by the oil and pollutant lobbies) speaks out and turns it into a partisan debate.

I'm all for healthy skepticism, and I am not 100% convinced at the severity of how bad things will be in the next 50-100 years will be because of human pollution. I am however not stupid enough to ignore science and the obvious fact that such huge ammounts of polution effect the planet in un-natural ways that will be a detriment to it.

Far as I'm concerned the debate is not IF global warming is happening because of human activity, but rather how severe are the affects of it. Thats the key question, and we better stop the silly partisan back/forth that seems to occur since Gore is Democrat and therefore anything he says must be liberal elitist scare tactics.

[Lurch]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Interesting article Mel and a couple things from it. (This was a mere 32 years ago BTW)



Good grief.

This is EXACTLY why there is so much more information needed on the current "warming" trend on earth.

Could you imagine if they had knee-jerked and done something so stupid back then?



Thank god humans are tardy.

Yeah, it's ridiculous what the wackos are proposing today - reduce fuel use, put a price on pollution, encourage clean development in poor countries as they industrialize, etc. Knee jerk reactions like this are certain to end up creating irreparable harm to the planet if it turns out humans are not the major cause of the current warming trend.

Bottom line, if they are wrong, we still create benefits at some alleged cost to economic 'growth', but even the cost is arguable. As an example, I'm currently working on a project for one of the oil majors that has been initiated purely as a result of Alberta 12% reduction target on GHG intensity. The project should pay for itself, and will reduce emissions by the company by roughly the 12% target.

Even if 25 years from now we find out global warming is completely a natural phenomenon, there is a very definite benefit to the actions being taken today. Can anyone on the business as usual side of the debate say the same if they turn out to be wrong? Put it this way - if what I think is wrong, the downside is we've under exploited energy reserves and are possibly poorer from a GDP perspective, but we've also preserved non-renewable resources and reduced other emissions associated with burning fossil fuels beyond GHG's. If what others think is wrong, we may have a higher GDP to help pay for flooding, more hurricanes, etc, etc. I'm comfortable on my side of the equation up until probably 80% or 90% likelihood I'm wrong. What level of certainty do those on the business as usual side need before they say take action?

In a completely serious question, I would love to hear a rationale for continuing with business as usual. The only one I can make is that you are 100% certain global warming is natural with no human contribution. Are there other reasons?

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

Glaciers used to cover calgary and much of canada...then they started to receded....and they still are since the last ice age was a only 10,000 years ago - which is a second on the earth's clock.

The sun which without there would no life and the single biggest factor in driving the earths climate, which is so large it could fit a million planet earth's inside of it, and yet we arrogant humans still think that we have the knowledge to conclude that we are the ones now driving our climate or effecting it in such a massive way....

Are you sure your an Oilers fan? I must be dreaming because I couldnt have said it any better myself.

[MaDMaN_26]

didn't want to start a whole new Environment thread... but some of you may find this article interesting.

http://environment.independent.co.uk...cle3172144.ece

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by MaDMaN_26

didn't want to start a whole new Environment thread... but some of you may find this article interesting.

http://environment.independent.co.uk...cle3172144.ece

How completely uplifting.

I know that one year means nothing, but here we are, November 19th with winter no where in sight.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by hulkrogan

How completely uplifting.

I know that one year means nothing, but here we are, November 19th with winter no where in sight.

You mean we might actually get a white Christmas this year, instead of having all of the show melt about a week before???

[REDVAN]

Ah... the environmental thread that pops up every 2 weeks.

I have said my peace/piece about this before. Global warming might not have been caused by natural causes, but it is natural so let's adapt and quit complaining.

Read some geology books and then debate the issues at hand please. Don't look at it from economic views, or social views, that is the main problem. Look at it from a scientific view.

[Teh_Bandwagoner]

Originally Posted by Dan02

I think we really need to expand beyond this planet because it's only a matter of time when we're so "smart" that all it will take is 1 loney and the planet is done for.