Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Mariner said:You wrote, "Explain to me why the meteorologists will probably get tomorrow's temps wrong, by more than 1 degree. Not to mention precip or lack thereof...
Let's just start there, with science."
It's true that day to day variations in weather are very hard to predict, but that does not mean that long-term trends cannot be predicted. For example, if you look at a newspaper weather report, the average high/low temperatures for each part of the year nearly always contain the day's real temperatures--even if the day's forecast was wrong.
In the same way that you can be pretty sure that a 90 degree day probably happened in summer in Boston and a 30 degree one in winter, not the other way around, long-term prediction works.
I have trouble understanding why people would consider global warming such a ridiculous idea. Each American produces about twenty TONS of carbon per YEAR. The atmosphere is very thin--we can't breathe just 5 miles up. And the layer of life on the earth is very, very thin. So why is it so difficult to imagine that dumping trillions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere, enough to raise the CO2 level by about 30%, wouldn't trap heat? It's a Science Fair experiment that any high school student could do, to show that CO2 and other greenhouse gases trap heat.
I think we're stuck in an old mentality. The American West gave us a fantasy that nature was unlimited, and ours for the taking, that the world is huge and we're tiny. It's simply not true anymore. Simple calculations show that the amount of ancient carbon deposits (fossil fuels) we've burned ought to warm the earth. And weather records prove it, with 5 of the 10 hottest years in recorded history in the past 10 years. Simple graphs show the earth warming decade by decade since the start of coal-burning in Europe.
It's so logical--and so vastly supported by evidence at this point--that even President Bush stopped saying it was "just a theory" about two years ago.
Who wants to call it "just a theory"? Some of the largest corporations in America (including the largest, Exxon/Mobil), who make tens of billions of dollars a year taking ancient carbon out of the ground and selling it to us. It just so happens that our entire current administration is oil people, so it's not surprise that they take the oil industry line on this subject. There is almost NO real scientific controversy about the reality of global warming--it's a given, and it's already happening. Sea levels have risen, coral reefs are dying, the Arctic ice will be history, Glacier National Park and Mount Kilimanjaro will have no snow--all because we love Ford Explorers and can't get our heads out of the sand.
A couple of months ago, one of the few remaining skeptics in the scientific community, an MIT hurricane expert, official changed his mind and joined the consensus that increased hurricane strength is due to global warming. With thousands of scientists (who have no reason to have major political agendas, and are both conservative and liberal) on one side and almost none on the other, why are we having this debate still?
Mariner.
So you think we've had NO effect on global warming? Or just not enough of an effect to change whatever was going to happen anways?rtwngAvngr said:We have gone into and out of ice ages all through earth's history. There is simply no proof that the current warming trend is tied to human activities. You perpetuate the lie of human caused global warming to attack economic growth. Have your handlers revealed this much of your mission to you? Follow the yellow brick road.
The ClayTaurus said:So you think we've had NO effect on global warming? Or just not enough of an effect to change whatever was going to happen anways?
So we're just speeding the process up a bit, then.rtwngAvngr said:option 2
The ClayTaurus said:So we're just speeding the process up a bit, then.
I said nothing of demise. But if the earth has climatic cycles, then what you're saying is that we more or less are either accelerating them, or intensifying them. Yes?rtwngAvngr said:"the process"? There is no proof that we will continue warming until our demise.
The ClayTaurus said:I said nothing of demise. But if the earth has climatic cycles, then what you're saying is that we more or less are either accelerating them, or intensifying them. Yes?
Sounds more like option 1 then option 2, but hey, semanticsrtwngAvngr said:We may be having little to no effect. Even if it's some effect at all, I don't believe it's enough of a reason to change our consumption one iota.
Mariner said:If some basic math shows that we've added enough CO2 to the atmosphere to account for the 30% observed increase in the past 100 years, and a basic Science Fair experiment shows that an atmosphere with more CO2 traps heat--and climatic records demonstrate conclusively that the earth is in fact warming... then why isn't that all enough to worry you?
And, as Clay Taurus points out, if this trend is superimposed on another trend that was happening anyway, shouldn't we worry about that? Remember, current human civilization emerged 10,000 years ago after the end of the last Ice Age. Prior to that, we spent 60,000 years in a deep freeze. There's concern that warming will lead to catastrophic cooling, which would, if not ending our current civilization, at least cost trillions of dollars to fight. Wouldn't it be more prudent to cut our greenhouse emissions now rather than to wait? Polar bears are currently expected to be unable to survive in the wild in 30 years. You want that? Or, you don't want to help prevent it?
In any case, the Republican Party is going to be forced away from its 2000-2004 stance of dissing global warming. Enough businesses and local governments (what to say of foreign governments) have concluded that we need to act now, that it will no longer be politically feasible to take your position. California will pass tougher standards for SUV emissions. The Northeast will limit CO2 emissions. New Hampshire ski resort owners and California salad growers will unite to force the issue. Businesspeople will wonder why we've squandered the chance to take leadership on the new technologies that will be required to stomp more lightly on the planet as our numbers swell towards 10 billion and middle classes arise in China, India, and elsewhere. Bush will be looked back upon as one of the dumbest presidents in history.
Mariner.
The ClayTaurus said:Sounds more like option 1 then option 2, but hey, semantics
Oh. It's a slow social day for you. Sorry to hear that.rtwngAvngr said:it's both. none OR some, yet very little. like your masculinity.
rtwngAvngr said:I bet he's willing to take a chance with his legacy.
Our ecosystem is more complex than your feeble 3rd grade pseudo-scientific propaganda.
jillian said:Is that a scientific opinion? :halo:
The carboniferous period wasn't exactly hospitable to human life.
http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/Geologictime.html
rtwngAvngr said:Did we cause that?
You're making my point.Thanks.
jillian said:No one says there aren't naturally occurring cycles. We just don't have to hasten things by being irresponsible. There is a middle ground between respecting the environment and not allowing business to function. The Republican party used to know that. In fact, Nixon was an environmentalist. And made Russell Train 9who also USED TO BE a lifelong republican, head of the EPA.
http://www.medaloffreedom.com/RussellTrain.htm
No, I didn't
bobn said:It is like an criminal investigator who whenever he visits a burnt out forest always concludes that because forests burn down all the time in naturally occuring cycles, therefore that proves the fire he is currently investigating cannot possibly be human caused. Nevermind if there are empty petrol canisters and matches found nearby, he just cites "natural cycles" and walks off home.
MtnBiker said:No it is not like that.
Said1 said:Yes it does. I saw Jerry Lewis phd, do it in a movie.
