Draughts, floods and storms...oh my.

[ygsmilo]

Thrawn,

Go back and look at 1995-96, compare it to this years droughts in Ausie, Canada, and the US and then compare what is starting to happen in the US and Canada now vrs what happened in 1996-97.

[AKDejaVu]

In the 1960's the main concern was that we were adding too much ozone and could cause a global freeze.

It seems to me that both sides of the global warming debate seem to believe they represent the "majority".

I know that two years ago, we had a very hot and dry summer.  Yet it wasn't the hottest and it was not the dryest.  This year, it was very dry, but never really got all that hot (hit 100 once).

We've recently seen record amounts of snow in the winter with record colds as well.

It really seems like people are more concerned with proving their pre-conceived point than an actual unbiased assesment of what is really going on.

AKDejaVu

[john9001]

what we need are tighter controls on greenhouses , so that their gases don't excape into the atmosphere, way too many leaky greenhouses and most of them are in Canada.

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by AKDejaVu


It really seems like people are more concerned with proving their pre-conceived point than an actual unbiased assesment of what is really going on.

AKDejaVu

Its called "Funding"

[Wlfgng]

that and our very limited life-spans means we'll probably never really  know if the cycles are normal or modified by humans...

for now.. I"M skiing

in a couple of hundred.. maybe I'll be surfing..

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by Ripsnort


Its called "Funding"

That's right Rip there's a global wide climatological CONSIPACY!!  

Did the people in the black helicopter's tell you that?

All the weather related anomilies this year maybe do just natural flucations.  I just hope that if they continue getting worse you guys realise that there maybe another cause and that cause may be globlal warming, and it may continue to get much worse.

Regardless of how many of you say, "well it's cold here right now."  The global surface temperature has increase by 1 to 2 degrees celcius over the past 100 years.  That's an absolutely mind boggling amount of energy is a geographical minute about of time.  There will be repercussions.  

What's more the surface temperture is exprected to go up by another 9 degrees celcius over the next 100 years.

[Kanth]

They can't even get the 5 day weather forcast right most of the time.

It's more likely in my mind that they will come back 5 years from now and say oops that whole global warming thing was a mistake, it was actually just a natural cycle that won't really hurt anyone or extinct the human race, sorry about that.

Originally posted by Thrawn

What's more the surface temperture is exprected to go up by another 9 degrees celcius over the next 100 years.

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by Kanth
They can't even get the 5 day weather forcast right most of the time.

Global warming climatology is more akin to atmospheric chemistry as opposed to local wether forcasting.

It's more likely in my mind that they will come back 5 years from now and say oops that whole global warming thing was a mistake, it was actually just a natural cycle that won't really hurt anyone or extinct the human race, sorry about that.

Let's hope so.  But, the weight of evidence shows that this won't be the case.

[H. Godwineson]

Recently, climatologists and other scientists have issued the summaries of studies which suggest that the hole in the ozone layer could "slam shut in 50 years."  Two factors were mentioned which have contributed to this turnaround;  the banning of the manufacture and use of Cfcs and the greater natural production of ozone.

Besides lightning strikes, what else can cause the natural production of ozone?

Curious, Shuckins

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by H. Godwineson
Besides lightning strikes, what else can cause the natural production of ozone?

Curious, Shuckins

Ultra violet light.

http://daac.gsfc.nasa.gov/CAMPAIGN_DOCS/ATM_CHEM/ozone_cycle.html

[AKS\/\/ulfe]

Swulfe, your ignorance on the subject is shouwing. CFCs that destroye ozone and global warming are two seperate issues.

No, actually it's not... it's just proving that you ran out of stuff to argue with me about and decided to label me as ignorant.

Greenhouse gases a) destroy the ozone and b) may or may not be retaining a lot more heat.

AFAIK, Ozone(not the Earth's natural one) is still classified as a greenhouse gas.

Core samples of glacial ice that go back millenia show that the rate of warming that we are expriencing now has happen for eons.

Wouldn't this agree with what I've been saying?
-SW

[Thrawn]

Yes, some greenhouse gases also destroy ozone.  Yes ozone is a naturally occuring greenhouse gas, but...

"Some greenhouse gases occur naturally in the atmosphere, while others result from human activities. Naturally occuring greenhouse gases include water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone. Certain human activities, however, add to the levels of most of these naturally occurring gases:Carbon dioxide is released to the atmosphere when solid waste, fossil fuels (oil, natural gas, and coal), and wood and wood products are burned.

Methane is emitted during the production and transport of coal, natural gas, and oil. Methane emissions also result from the decomposition of organic wastes in municipal solid waste landfills, and the raising of livestock.

Nitrous oxide is emitted during agricultural and industrial activities, as well as during combustion of solid waste and fossil fuels.

Very powerful greenhouse gases that are not naturally occurring include hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), which are generated in a variety of industrial processes

may or may not be retaining a lot more heat.

That's incorrect.


"Each greenhouse gas differs in its ability to absorb heat in the atmosphere. HFCs and PFCs are the most heat-absorbent. Methane traps over 21 times more heat per molecule than carbon dioxide, and nitrous oxide absorbs 270 times more heat per molecule than carbon dioxide. Often, estimates of greenhouse gas emissions are presented in units of millions of metric tons of carbon equivalents (MMTCE), which weights each gas by its GWP value, or Global Warming Potential."



Me: Core samples of glacial ice that go back millenia show that the rate of warming that we are expriencing now has happen for eons.

You: Wouldn't this agree with what I've been saying?

Yes, but that's because I'm an idiot.  It should read, "hasn't happened for eons.".

[Udie]

Man all I know is that back when I was a kid, I wanted to watch cartoons on saturday mornings.  I remember being bombarded with comercials with the popular children actors of the time telling me that by the year 2000 the worlds oil suply would be gone and nonsense like that.  School House Rock was good, that actually taught stuff like, conjunction junction what's you're function and how bills became laws and stuff. But those all those "other" commercials did for me is scare me and make me think for 1/2 my life that life on the planet would end on the year 2000.

 Didn't God say something about wars and rumors of wars and earthquakes and storms and floods and droughts and stuff like that just before the rapture? I'm sure Eagler will agree with me that we should all quit worrying about this stupid stuff and keep the big picture in mind.  Be ready....

[GRUNHERZ]

You guys are right!  Global temperatures have risen dramatically over the past 12,000 years, something must be done to return mother nature to her true harmonius state of generally being frozen.

[AKS\/\/ulfe]

Well, there's the Ozone that's naturally occuring, then there's the Ozone that was used as a compressant-> old fridges, air conditioners (house and car), and spray paint cans.

One Ozone, chemically made by, us destroys the one naturally made by a combination of natural things.

So, no where in the ice were there samples that show a period of rapid warming?

I'm sure if they were looking for that, they would find it...
-SW