General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: earl1937 on April 20, 2015, 03:54:54 AM
Title: Weather Today and Yesterday
Post by: earl1937 on April 20, 2015, 03:54:54 AM
:airplane: Maybe we just have better reporting and observation tools today than yesterday, but it just seems as though the weather is getting more and more severe today than 40 or 50 years ago. I can remember when a thunder storm with tops in the 25,000 foot range of height, was a "huge" storm and one to be feared and avoided at all costs. Now days, to give you an example, I flew a trip right before I retired to Cancun Mexico and there was a thunder storm about 50 miles North of Cancun and I was tooling along at 270 knots at 24,000 feet and I flew towards this thing for an hour and it never changed shapes, it was so big. As I sit here this morning at 430 in the AM, we have huge thunderstorms all over the place this morning here in my area of the country and I don't ever remember one being around back in the 50 and 60's this time of day. Guess I have missed something somewhere. (and no, I am not a global warming nut) Are we really living near the end of time or am I just getting more and more concerned as I get older? Sometimes I wonder where all this is going?
Title: Re: Weather Today and Yesterday
Post by: Copprhed on April 20, 2015, 05:27:49 AM
There is global warming, Earl, you can't release all the carbon that took millions of years to be absorbed into the earth, trees, oil, natural gas etc in the course of a few hundred years and not expect it to have an effect. Remember, they laughed at Galileo and Copernicus for saying that the earth circled the sun.
Title: Re: Weather Today and Yesterday
Post by: earl1937 on April 20, 2015, 07:00:40 AM
There is global warming, Earl, you can't release all the carbon that took millions of years to be absorbed into the earth, trees, oil, natural gas etc in the course of a few hundred years and not expect it to have an effect. Remember, they laughed at Galileo and Copernicus for saying that the earth circled the sun.
:airplane: I just said I was not a global warming nut, didn't say it wasn't happening! My problem with the global warming thing is that group of people who insist that the U.S, is responsible for all the global warming, so there fore we should solve the problem! If there is global warming, then why is there more ice cap at the poles now than anytime in history?
Title: Re: Weather Today and Yesterday
Post by: Copprhed on April 20, 2015, 07:24:04 AM
Actually I've never heard anyone say that the Us is totally responsible, but we, until recently, have been the largest industrialized nation in the world. If you want an idea of what happens, check this out. https://www.google.com/search?q=pictures+of+smog+in++England+during+the+industrial+revolutions&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=n-80Vd7DEce4oQSpg4GoCQ&ved=0CDMQ7Ak&biw=1680&bih=951
Title: Re: Weather Today and Yesterday
Post by: PR3D4TOR on April 20, 2015, 08:17:40 AM
I moved to the usa in dec of 1979 los angeles to be exact. 6 months later or so the wind started blowing up really hard for a day or so. the next morning I went to school and was amazed that we had mountains about 15 miles from my house. the mountains are about what 7 or 8 thousand feet? :rofl :rofl. had never seen them before.
semp
Title: Re: Weather Today and Yesterday
Post by: zack1234 on April 21, 2015, 05:35:32 AM
Were said mountains there before the inclement weather?
Title: Re: Weather Today and Yesterday
Post by: hgtonyvi on April 21, 2015, 06:27:18 AM
Yea thats a different CASHEW...I think so...OR might be his Spirit lurking on the forums.
Title: Re: Weather Today and Yesterday
Post by: Chris79 on April 21, 2015, 07:23:07 AM
Actually, the incidents of severe weather and hurricanes have been on the decrease the past several years. I suspect the difference is even more profound today due to the fact that a good number of Tornados and a few hurricanes which could be detected today via advanced satallite and Doppler radar would have gone unnoticed 50 years ago. Another underlying factor pertaining to an "increase of severe weather" is the media namely the weather channel. Naming winter storms give me a break.
Title: Re: Weather Today and Yesterday
Post by: Copprhed on April 21, 2015, 07:28:22 AM
Actually, the incidents of severe weather and hurricanes have been on the decrease the past several years. I suspect the difference is even more profound today due to the fact that a good number of Tornados and a few hurricanes which could be detected today via advanced satallite and Doppler radar would have gone unnoticed 50 years ago. Another underlying factor pertaining to an "increase of severe weather" is the media namely the weather channel. Naming winter storms give me a break.
Please give some evidence that they are decreasing. The majority of climate scientists AROUND THE WORLD pretty unanimously say that sever weather is on the increase, statistically.
Title: Re: Weather Today and Yesterday
Post by: Chris79 on April 21, 2015, 09:14:28 AM
Tornado count the last 4 years. The average number of tornados in the U.S is 1253 2012 933 2013 811 2014 663 2015 107 so far, 18th percentile for the year to date
I would suspect if the last 4 tornado counts took place in the 1970's or 1980's before Doppler radar was common the respective numbers would be significantly lower. Hurricane data is a bit more tricky to properly assertain. First, satallite technology allows meteorologists to classify short lived open sea cyclones that would have otherwise gone unnoticed. Secondly, the requirements for classification seemed to have been a bit more blurred as of recent. Sometimes NOAA isn't exactly the most honorable of government institutions.
Title: Re: Weather Today and Yesterday
Post by: zack1234 on April 21, 2015, 10:30:16 AM
So the end is nigh?
Title: Re: Weather Today and Yesterday
Post by: Copprhed on April 21, 2015, 10:31:46 AM
Tornado count the last 4 years. The average number of tornados in the U.S is 1253 2012 933 2013 811 2014 663 2015 107 so far, 18th percentile for the year to date
I would suspect if the last 4 tornado counts took place in the 1970's or 1980's before Doppler radar was common the respective numbers would be significantly lower. Hurricane data is a bit more tricky to properly assertain. First, satallite technology allows meteorologists to classify short lived open sea cyclones that would have otherwise gone unnoticed. Secondly, the requirements for classification seemed to have been a bit more blurred as of recent. Sometimes NOAA isn't exactly the most honorable of government institutions.
Ok so tornadoes are not as many, but other types of severe weather are increasing, along with this past winter being one of the warmest on record. If I have to bet, I'm going to bet on science.
Title: Re: Weather Today and Yesterday
Post by: earl1937 on April 21, 2015, 11:31:52 AM
Ok so tornadoes are not as many, but other types of severe weather are increasing, along with this past winter being one of the warmest on record. If I have to bet, I'm going to bet on science.
:airplane: If you check the records, NOAA and the weather channel agree on one thing, there has been NO increase in the average daily temperature in the last 19 years. However, I do agree that the weather patterns of the past are changing, for what ever reason! The reason I make that statement is years ago, when a cold front would come through the Southeast, it might be a 1 or 2 day event, then a strong N.W. wind would come in and clear everything out for 8 or 10 days. Now, when one comes in, most times it is a 3 or 4 day event, counting on the lingering rain after frontal passage. Why that is, I don't know, but there seems to be more IFR weather below 15,000 feet now days than used to be. I could be wrong about that, but that is the way that it seems now.
Title: Re: Weather Today and Yesterday
Post by: Copprhed on April 21, 2015, 02:36:54 PM
:airplane: If you check the records, NOAA and the weather channel agree on one thing, there has been NO increase in the average daily temperature in the last 19 years. However, I do agree that the weather patterns of the past are changing, for what ever reason! The reason I make that statement is years ago, when a cold front would come through the Southeast, it might be a 1 or 2 day event, then a strong N.W. wind would come in and clear everything out for 8 or 10 days. Now, when one comes in, most times it is a 3 or 4 day event, counting on the lingering rain after frontal passage. Why that is, I don't know, but there seems to be more IFR weather below 15,000 feet now days than used to be. I could be wrong about that, but that is the way that it seems now.
it also should be noted that smog, while visually impressive and certainly unhealthy for the anything with a respiratory system, is no where close to invisible Greenhouse gases like CO2 and CH4 widespread persistent smog causes 'brown clouds' which actually cool the area by blocking out sunlight, as illustrated in this extreme sample from a mill town outside of Pittsburgh (http://bike-pgh.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/smog1.jpg) the photograph was taken at noon
the idea that we shouldn't try to reduce emissions because China is also a big polluter is like a kid on the playground who thinks he's justified in throwing rocks at other kids because he's not the only one. just stop. don't throw rocks at people. the Chinese environmental movement is spooling up like crazy anyway.
on weather: the problem with scientific coverage in the media is that it's always so stupid you wonder how the reporters can figure out how to breath through their noses. this goes left or right. climate change causes climatic variability. it does not mean that the weather in your area will be more severe. it can lead to the weakening of some natural cycles and the strengthening of others, for example dimming from smog leads to less energy penetration from solar radiation which leads to less evaporation which leads to less precipitation. it may lead to local colder temperatures, for example in high latitude areas of the Atlantic ocean which will fall victim to a weakening of heat transfer through the Atlantic gyre as the Greenland ice sheet dumps in fresh water. individual cold or warm or wet or dry events don't necessarily reflect anything about climate change, though. if the weather's colder than normal it's probably not because global warming screws up the weather like crazy as MSNBC may tell you, and it's not because global warming doesn't exist like Fox or Congress or those weird signs on the turnpike will tell you. it's just cold. that may be a result of local variability exacerbated by whatever, but the real effects of global warming are not it snowing in late march. weather's just weird.
arctic sea ice (or other systems vulnerable to global warming) experiencing rebounds doesn't mean that 'we finally did it CO2 sequestration is working!' or 'global warming was never real', either. long term trends are what's important. annual variability is... just that. for examplepeople have been really stoked about arctic sea ice lately but:
(http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/detect/detection-images/climate-ice-seaice-extent-trend-sep14.png) is a pretty ominous curve
there's so much
Title: Re: Weather Today and Yesterday
Post by: Mickey1992 on April 22, 2015, 10:01:05 AM
Please give some evidence that they are decreasing. The majority of climate scientists AROUND THE WORLD pretty unanimously say that sever weather is on the increase, statistically.
Dr. Ryan Maue "5-year running sum of number of global tropical cyclones (1970-2015) Stuck at 400 — lowest in this 45-year record.".
" The big killers in hurricanes are wind, storm surge and rain. Storm surge, for example, caused most of the flooding during Hurricane Katrina in 2005 in New Orleans, resulting in the breaching of the levees. As storm intensity increases, so do those dangers.
"We should not be worried about the frequency of hurricanes; we should be worried about the frequency of intense hurricanes," said Kerry Emanuel, professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. "Climate change is causing a greater number of intense storms. The total number of storms has remained constant, but the proportion of high-intensity events has gone steadily upward in most parts of the world. Scientific models and real-world observations both suggest that the frequency of intense storms is going up." From this article: http://www.livescience.com/28489-sandy-after-six-months.html
Title: Re: Weather Today and Yesterday
Post by: Mickey1992 on April 22, 2015, 01:03:51 PM
" The big killers in hurricanes are wind, storm surge and rain. Storm surge, for example, caused most of the flooding during Hurricane Katrina in 2005 in New Orleans, resulting in the breaching of the levees. As storm intensity increases, so do those dangers.
"We should not be worried about the frequency of hurricanes; we should be worried about the frequency of intense hurricanes," said Kerry Emanuel, professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. "Climate change is causing a greater number of intense storms. The total number of storms has remained constant, but the proportion of high-intensity events has gone steadily upward in most parts of the world. Scientific models and real-world observations both suggest that the frequency of intense storms is going up." From this article: http://www.livescience.com/28489-sandy-after-six-months.html
Your reference article comes from someone with a doctorate in journalism. Forgive me if I have more faith in people with doctorates in science.
The fact is that Sandy wasn't even hurricane strength when it made landfall. When Marlene says "Sandy, clearly, was one of those extreme storms", clearly she is wrong. It was simply a tropical storm that made landfall during high tide and it caused a very large storm surge.
The US has not been hit by a cat 3+ hurricane since 2005, and has not been hit by a cat 4+ hurricane since 2004, the longest cat 4+ drought on record.
Your reference article comes from someone with a doctorate in journalism. Forgive me if I have more faith in people with doctorates in science.
The fact is that Sandy wasn't even hurricane strength when it made landfall. When Marlene says "Sandy, clearly, was one of those extreme storms", clearly she is wrong. It was simply a tropical storm that made landfall during high tide and it caused a very large storm surge.
The US has not been hit by a cat 3+ hurricane since 2005, and has not been hit by a cat 4+ hurricane since 2004, the longest cat 4+ drought on record.
The frequency of intense hurricanes is not increasing, nor is the number of 'intense' storms.
What was Hurricane Sandy? Cat 3, but was also called SUPERSTORM. If you READ, you will see the quote is from Kerry Emmanuel, PROFESSOR of ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES at MIT. I know...he's a journalist.....right? MIT is a wannabe school, too, right? 08 saw Ike, Cat 4.
Title: Re: Weather Today and Yesterday
Post by: zack1234 on April 22, 2015, 02:49:38 PM
Motherland!
Those pictures are a fake and I believe you have produced them.
Are you North Korean?
We demand an answer before we pass judgment :old:
Title: Re: Weather Today and Yesterday
Post by: Chris79 on April 22, 2015, 03:58:52 PM
At one point sandy was a Cat3 but at landfall it was not even a "Hurricane". This thread reminds me of "Animal Farm"....."Four legs good, two legs better"
Title: Re: Weather Today and Yesterday
Post by: MrKrabs on April 24, 2015, 06:23:27 AM
I heard they have to start naming my farts :old:
Motherland is North Korean :old:
Ever notice the lack of storms named Zack? :old:
Title: Re: Weather Today and Yesterday
Post by: Zoney on April 24, 2015, 08:53:12 AM
The "Zack" storm is what happens when the methane stored up in undersea ocean ice is release in a big gas bubble. Also called an "Earthfart". Very appropriate name therefore.
Title: Re: Weather Today and Yesterday
Post by: Zimme83 on April 24, 2015, 09:13:50 AM
I would say the real elephant in the room is how natural recources are distributed and used on a global scale. For ex oil. If all people on earth used same amount of oil as the average American we would need to increase production by almost 10 times by 2050. (incl growth in population). Its obvious that it will be almost impossible to do that. So we can either choose to relocate recources from rich countries to poor or maintaining a system were a few uses a lot. (today the riches 10% use 50% of the oil on a global scale) I'm pretty sure that we will see a lot of conflicts (even some very large) within the next decades over natural recources. The biggest threath to the western way of living is that 6 billion (soon 10) other people want to live in the same way. And it will be hard to get the cookie big enough for everyone.
Title: Re: Weather Today and Yesterday
Post by: DREDIOCK on April 24, 2015, 09:32:50 AM
There is global warming, Earl, you can't release all the carbon that took millions of years to be absorbed into the earth, trees, oil, natural gas etc in the course of a few hundred years and not expect it to have an effect. Remember, they laughed at Galileo and Copernicus for saying that the earth circled the sun.
You do realise the one of the largest contributor to greenhouse emissions world wide are animals.
Methane (CH4) is the second most prevalent greenhouse gas emitted in the United States from human activities.
Domestic livestock such as cattle, buffalo, sheep, goats, and camels produce large amounts of CH4 as part of their normal digestive process. Also, when animals' manure is stored or managed in lagoons or holding tanks, CH4 is produced. Because humans raise these animals for food, the emissions are considered human-related. Globally, the Agriculture sector is the primary source of CH4 emissions.
Although we ought to be more concerned with the above, it would be far more destructive then global warming. Unlike ACW there is plenty of evidence that the above existed, and will inevitably return.
Title: Re: Weather Today and Yesterday
Post by: earl1937 on April 24, 2015, 12:22:37 PM
You do realise the one of the largest contributor to greenhouse emissions world wide are animals.
Methane (CH4) is the second most prevalent greenhouse gas emitted in the United States from human activities.
Domestic livestock such as cattle, buffalo, sheep, goats, and camels produce large amounts of CH4 as part of their normal digestive process. Also, when animals' manure is stored or managed in lagoons or holding tanks, CH4 is produced. Because humans raise these animals for food, the emissions are considered human-related. Globally, the Agriculture sector is the primary source of CH4 emissions.
Oh wait. that wont work either, the manure is used to fertilize the plants.
Maybe we should just stop eating alltogether
:airplane: You are correct sir, but the biggest contributor to the atmosphere are TREEs! Yes, trees, look it up, they produce more carbon into the atmosphere than do cars and trucks!
Title: Re: Weather Today and Yesterday
Post by: Zimme83 on April 24, 2015, 12:50:47 PM
Even if they do it doesnt matter, they have got that carbon from somewere (the air) so they are not adding any new carbon to the system. Unlike fossile fuel that bring up new carbon.
Title: Re: Weather Today and Yesterday
Post by: DREDIOCK on April 26, 2015, 08:27:17 PM
Even if they do it doesnt matter, they have got that carbon from somewere (the air) so they are not adding any new carbon to the system. Unlike fossile fuel that bring up new carbon.
Thee is no such thing as "new carbon" Its always been there. Its a matter of where its placed
Title: Re: Weather Today and Yesterday
Post by: icepac on April 26, 2015, 10:42:41 PM
In the early 1970s, weather in miami was insane.
Weather was also insane around 2001 in orlando where every window looked like it had a strobe light outside it with the huge cracks of thunder such that it was one continuous explosion.
Come outside and it looks like they dropped a million marbles on the ground.
That year, I saw lightning strike a tree over my car twice in 20 seconds. (the second strike instantly started it burning fiercely) with my car parked under it.
Title: Re: Weather Today and Yesterday
Post by: ghi on April 28, 2015, 07:18:45 PM
large plasma filament was ejected from Sun this afternoon ; we are done cooked ,game over :noid
Thee is no such thing as "new carbon" Its always been there. Its a matter of where its placed
yes. either buried deep in the ground, or in the atmosphere.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle
we have been taking it out of the ground for 150 years, and putting it into the atmosphere.
however slightly, it changes the way the atmosphere works. this changes climate, and will change how we (humans) live. it's gonna mess alot of people (especially 3rd worlders) up.
this is all measurable and quite non-controversial science.. until people's political ideology conflicts with it, apparently.
Title: Re: Weather Today and Yesterday
Post by: PR3D4TOR on April 29, 2015, 10:11:16 AM
And and all photosynthesis based lifeforms take the carbon out of the atmosphere and uses it to grow themselves. Net result is a larger, faster growing biosphere.
Few people are talking about the positive effects of increased CO2 in the atmosphere.
Title: Re: Weather Today and Yesterday
Post by: Slash27 on April 29, 2015, 10:22:35 AM
I would say the real elephant in the room is how natural recources are distributed and used on a global scale. For ex oil. If all people on earth used same amount of oil as the average American we would need to increase production by almost 10 times by 2050. (incl growth in population). Its obvious that it will be almost impossible to do that. So we can either choose to relocate recources from rich countries to poor or maintaining a system were a few uses a lot. (today the riches 10% use 50% of the oil on a global scale) I'm pretty sure that we will see a lot of conflicts (even some very large) within the next decades over natural recources. The biggest threath to the western way of living is that 6 billion (soon 10) other people want to live in the same way. And it will be hard to get the cookie big enough for everyone.
Do you ride an elephant to work?
Title: Re: Weather Today and Yesterday
Post by: Zimme83 on April 29, 2015, 10:28:35 AM
Not at the moment. The elephant flew to India to visit his mother so im riding the Ostrich until he is back.
Title: Re: Weather Today and Yesterday
Post by: Chris79 on April 29, 2015, 02:53:59 PM
Here is an Acid test.
1. Is the Earth's climate warming. Unknown, 120 years of data collected compared to the current climatological epic is insignificant.
2. If the earth is warming is it caused by man. Well, assuming the earth is warming, there are much more powerful forces effecting climate then man.
3. If the Earth is warming and caused by man is it necessarily bad? Historical speaking civilizations have flourished during warming trends and declined during cooling trends. Although there is no way to quantify with hard numbers, using historical texts we have learned that the Romans grew gapes near Hadrians wall (250ad) and the Norse grew oats and barely in Greenland circa ~1000ad. Neither of which could be replicated today. So It could be determined with a fair degree of certainty that the earth has been both warmer and colder during the distant past.
In conclusion. In order for mankind to be concerned with ACW, the earth must be warming due to man made causes and in turn is detrimental to the planet. Maybe one day in the distant future a rational conclusion can me made, but doubtfuly in my lifetime.
Title: Re: Weather Today and Yesterday
Post by: earl1937 on April 30, 2015, 12:04:02 PM
1. Is the Earth's climate warming. Unknown, 120 years of data collected compared to the current climatological epic is insignificant.
2. If the earth is warming is it caused by man. Well, assuming the earth is warming, there are much more powerful forces effecting climate then man.
3. If the Earth is warming and caused by man is it necessarily bad? Historical speaking civilizations have flourished during warming trends and declined during cooling trends. Although there is no way to quantify with hard numbers, using historical texts we have learned that the Romans grew gapes near Hadrians wall (250ad) and the Norse grew oats and barely in Greenland circa ~1000ad. Neither of which could be replicated today. So It could be determined with a fair degree of certainty that the earth has been both warmer and colder during the distant past.
In conclusion. In order for mankind to be concerned with ACW, the earth must be warming due to man made causes and in turn is detrimental to the planet. Maybe one day in the distant future a rational conclusion can me made, but doubtfuly in my lifetime.
:airplane: well said sir! I would only add that there is more ice cap at the poles, North and South, than anytime in history! I would think if the earth is warming, we would have less ice at the poles. Al Gore has made billions off of this fantasy!!
Title: Re: Weather Today and Yesterday
Post by: Skuzzy on April 30, 2015, 12:57:50 PM
Earl, this is not quite correct. Antarctica has had ice growth the last three years, but the Arctic has lost more. Right now, according to NASA, the Earth is losing about 13,500 square miles of sea ice per year.
The theory behind Antartica's ice expansion states the ozone depletion above Antarctica has caused more violent storms over the continent forcing a vortex of wind to flow over the Ross Sea where 85% of the continents ice expansion has happened.
Title: Re: Weather Today and Yesterday
Post by: PR3D4TOR on April 30, 2015, 02:45:42 PM
Title: Re: Weather Today and Yesterday
Post by: earl1937 on April 30, 2015, 03:42:34 PM
Earl, this is not quite correct. Antarctica has had ice growth the last three years, but the Arctic has lost more. Right now, according to NASA, the Earth is losing about 13,500 square miles of sea ice per year.
The theory behind Antartica's ice expansion states the ozone depletion above Antarctica has caused more violent storms over the continent forcing a vortex of wind to flow over the Ross Sea where 85% of the continents ice expansion has happened.
:airplane: appreciate you correct me Roy, but all I know is what I read on the inter net and you know that is never wrong! LOL
Title: Re: Weather Today and Yesterday
Post by: Vulcan on April 30, 2015, 04:20:36 PM
Personally I don't think science knows enough to make the call on global warming/global freezing. Their models are usually based on feeding assumptions in that are usually wrong.
That said, nothing good can come from filling out atmosphere with bad stuff, in fact nothing good comes of pollution at all. One of things that pee's me off about the focus on global warming is that it takes away from general pollution issues such as the water table and what we are doing to it (while everyone is worried about the sky the entire planet seems to be taking a dump in our rivers and oceans).
We also seem to be shifting the problem not solving it here. In NZ our green policies have effectively shut down some industries, we know source products from these industries from offshore where pollution (and near slave labour) is rampant. The feel good greenies are feeding the problems and making them worse.
Title: Re: Weather Today and Yesterday
Post by: Chris79 on April 30, 2015, 05:00:55 PM
I agree with Vulcan, but I want to state that CO2 is not a pollutant, it is an essential chemical compound for life to sustain itself.
Title: Re: Weather Today and Yesterday
Post by: Slash27 on April 30, 2015, 08:33:17 PM
Title: Re: Weather Today and Yesterday
Post by: Zimme83 on May 01, 2015, 08:56:22 AM
Depends on how u want to look: (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/2d/Arctic_September_sea_ice_decline.png/776px-Arctic_September_sea_ice_decline.png)
Title: Re: Weather Today and Yesterday
Post by: PR3D4TOR on May 01, 2015, 07:40:28 PM
Just because a group of people say that there is a world-wide consensus doesn't make it true. Why do you believe these people?
Title: Re: Weather Today and Yesterday
Post by: Zimme83 on May 01, 2015, 09:25:17 PM
Why wouldn't he? If scientists say that "our research shows that the climate is most likely affected significantly by humans and that most likely it will have negative consequences". Its a wise thing to assume that they are right. Because nothing really bad will happen if we assume they are right and it turns out they weren't. On the other hand if we assume they are wrong and it turns out they are right a lot of bad stuffs can happen.
Title: Re: Weather Today and Yesterday
Post by: PR3D4TOR on May 01, 2015, 09:54:52 PM
Do you also take the word of politicians at face value? If you don't think most of the scientists in the UN IPCC are politicians with an agenda you're naive. There are enormous amounts of money involved. Anyone can call themselves a climatologist. It is not a protected title. Why do you trust any of them?
Title: Re: Weather Today and Yesterday
Post by: PR3D4TOR on May 01, 2015, 10:01:50 PM
Scientific skepticism is a healthy thing.
Title: Re: Weather Today and Yesterday
Post by: Zimme83 on May 01, 2015, 10:03:34 PM
Same argument can be used against those hwo deny global warming etc. So I ask u the same question, Why do you trust any of them?
Title: Re: Weather Today and Yesterday
Post by: Zimme83 on May 01, 2015, 10:04:25 PM
Edit: Surveys shows that among scientist (those hwo do actual research) 95-98% agree in that human activity have a significant impact on climate change.
Title: Re: Weather Today and Yesterday
Post by: PR3D4TOR on May 01, 2015, 10:51:27 PM
Edit: Surveys shows that among scientist (those hwo do actual research) 95-98% agree in that human activity have a significant impact on climate change.
Scientific skepticism is an important part of the scientific process. Scientists don't trust each other, nor should they. That's why there's a peer review process and every experiment must be repeatable by others. And even that has not been adequate to prevent scientific fraud at times.
And yes, I have asked doctors for a second opinion a couple of times. Haven't you?
Title: Re: Weather Today and Yesterday
Post by: Zimme83 on May 02, 2015, 12:22:06 AM
Scientific skepticism is an important part of the scientific process. Scientists don't trust each other, nor should they. That's why there's a peer review process and every experiment must be repeatable by others. And even that has not been adequate to prevent scientific fraud at times.
And yes, I have asked doctors for a second opinion a couple of times. Haven't you?
What u are doing is not asking for a second opinion. What u doing is telling the doctor that everything he learnt in med school i bogus.
If 97% of the scientist in a field say the same thing its pretty strong evidence. This is not 1, 2 or 10 guys saying it. its >95% of scientists worldwide. That is a lot of people and a lot of reports pointing in the same direction. Its enough to take it seriously. But u maybe questioning scientist that claims that earth is round too, because of "Scientific skepticism."
Title: Re: Weather Today and Yesterday
Post by: PR3D4TOR on May 02, 2015, 12:41:47 AM
Who told you ">95% of scientists worldwide" and why do you believe it?
It is funny you bring up the spherical nature of our planet. Back when the Greek philosophers first proposed that the Earth was a sphere what do you think the "scientific consensus" was at the time? When Copernicus first suggested that the Earth was not the center of the universe and that the Earth orbited the Sun, what do you think the "scientific consensus" was?
Title: Re: Weather Today and Yesterday
Post by: Zimme83 on May 02, 2015, 12:47:26 AM
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/pdf/1748-9326_8_2_024024.pdf U can start there. But i can admit that i read it wrong, its 97% of those expressing an opinion.
And :rofl So u assume that every scientist are wrong because people 3000 years ago belived the earth was flat... Btw it was mainly the church that resisted the thought that the earth was not in center of universe....
Title: Re: Weather Today and Yesterday
Post by: PR3D4TOR on May 02, 2015, 01:09:21 AM
I don't assume they are wrong, but they haven't proved that they are right. I don't assume anything, that's the whole point. Don't assume anything. Question everything. Those are the most fundamental mantras of science. That two or more scientists agree doesn't mean they are right. Only empirical evidence can prove them right.
Title: Re: Weather Today and Yesterday
Post by: kvuo75 on May 02, 2015, 08:31:26 AM
all of the evidence points to global warming being a thing.
Climate change is a thing, and there is a good deal of empirical evidence to support it. Anthropogenic climate change however has never been proven to my satisfaction. Climatologists have never been able to explain and demonstrate through repeatable experiments the mechanisms involved. There are data correlations that suggest anthropogenic climate change, but as any good scientist knows, correlation does not imply causation. If it did we must immediately stop funding NASA to prevent people from hanging themselves.
Climate change is a thing, and there is a good deal of empirical evidence to support it. Anthropogenic climate change however has never been proven to my satisfaction.
your satisfaction is irrelevant. it has and continues to be proven. that you deny it is your personal problem with science. i tend to trust the experts.
i will just ask anyone who denies the science, to ask themselves why they do. what is it going to take to convince you? can you be convinced? if not, you are no skeptic.
Title: Re: Weather Today and Yesterday
Post by: PR3D4TOR on May 02, 2015, 06:29:01 PM
What you don't get is that I'm not on either side of the argument. I'm on the fence. Both sides act more like it's a religious belief rather than rational scientific reasoning, and lash out against their detractors with vehement zeal. Filtering the hard science from the established belief systems has become increasingly difficult.
Title: Re: Weather Today and Yesterday
Post by: PR3D4TOR on May 02, 2015, 07:43:05 PM
Title: Re: Weather Today and Yesterday
Post by: Chris79 on May 02, 2015, 08:20:47 PM
First of all, I will not deny that the Earth could possibly be warming, nor will I deny that the Earth could possibly be cooling. In my experience some proponents of ACW approach it with religious fanaticism yet have little or no understanding of chemistry or physics relating to such ideals. Furthermore in my opinion Climatology is a borderline bogus science. I posted a condensed opinion a few days briefly explaneing the complexities of quantitatively proving the ACW theory, and yes it is just a theory. With this being said I will attempt to explain certain actual scientific aspects to ACW without delving into the political or financial intricacies pertaining to ACW.
Atmospheric Content. 1. N2, ~78% molar mass of ~28 2. O2, ~20.94% molar mass of ~32 3. Ar, ~.93% molar mass of ~36 4. H20 vapor, ~.4% molar mass of 18 "varies upon geographic location and altitude" 5. C02, .04, molar mass of 42. (Note that the molar mass of CO2 is significantly higher then that of other gasses excluding Argon. Furthermore, the atmosphere is not a solution, it is more of a colloid then anything.) 6. CH4, .00018% molar mass of 16.4
Now, N2, O2, and Ar are not green house gasses, where as H20, CO2 and CH4 are. Atmospheric green house gasses are an aggregate of roughly .44% of atmospheric content but they vary greatly in insulation properties and man is only responsible for variations of CO2 and CH4. There is however some correlation between an increase of C02 and a corresponding increase of atmospheric H20, but it really is like the chicken or the egg deal. CP levels of Atmospheric Greenhouse gasses 1. H2O, 1.850 2. CO2, .709 3. CH4, 2.01
The higher the CP, the greater the insulator.
Now, if one took an example of the atmosphere at roughly 1000 feet, extracted the greenhouse gasses, and then compared the content both by percentage and its total effect on aggregate CP of the respective greenhouse gasses it would be as follows. (Note, I fudged the percentage of H20 slightly downward in order to do a base 10 calculation) 1. H2O, 90.87% 2. CO2, 9.087% 3. CH4, .04089% A quick glance shows that water vapor is by far the most prevalent atmospheric greenhouse gas. Now we will look at percent of CP.
1. H20, 96.265% 2. CO2, 3.831% 3. CH4, .0470% Again, Water vapor. Per the IPCC, humans have contributed roughly 18.18% of total carbon emissions. Although I find this organization to be dubious due to past scandals, I will use their information anyways. By taking in account that humans contributed 18.18% of global CO2 emissions, and then recalculating the CP for that respective CO2 I conclude that human caused CO2 emissions are roughly .69% of total greenhouse gas CP. The only reason I even listed Methane CH4 is because someone earlier mentioned it. As you see it is insignificant.
As for climatology, as stated earlier, quantitative data pertaining to climate and weather in terms of temperatures have only existed for the past 110 or so years. Our current climate epoch is roughly 11700 years old which is directly related to the retreat of the glaciers following the Younger Dryas. Following the Younger Dryas the Earth has entered a period of fairly chaotic climatology patterns. Although there is no empirical evidence to support this,for the last 1500 observation made mainly though clergy who for the most part were the only literate people for a long period of time supports this. For about the last 1500 years, there has been maximums and minimums, for instance there was a minimum that coincided with the fall of Rome. Afterwards there was a maximum around the time of the Viking expansion up toward the renaissance, then a long minimum ranging from 1550 to 1815 called the little ice age. Finally we are currently in the modern maximum. In between these long patterns there is some speculation that there are shorter 40 periods, one 20 year cooling trend and one 20 year warming trend. As for the cause of these climate patterns I have yet to be convinced on any one cause, although I am pretty certain its not HARP or Chemtrails. One thing I am certain of, is that there has been significant climate swings both on the cold and warm end of the spectrum long before the industrial age and the subsequent human population explosion.
My skepticism. Certain organizations and scientists, have taken data collected pertaining to climate for only .94% of the current climate epoch, then conclude that human CO2 emissions will cause the Earth to warm to near catastrophic proportions, in which the man made portion of said emissions accounts for .69% of the insulating properties of .4418% percent of the atmosphere. It goes on, they will detract, degrade, slander, silence and in some cases threaten arrest for those whom disagree. If ACW theory is so absolutely sound and its proponents so ideological pure then it ought to stand well enough on its own. I have not even touched on the poor methodology in which they conduct their climate models, or the amount of wealth and power certain people and organizations have procured over this fiasco. Now I consider myself an educated man, other then threatening my standard of living and those of my fellow citizens I have no dog in the hunt. History have proven many things, humans fare better when its warmer, worse when its colder, and maybe in 5, 500, or 5000 years the ice will again relentlessly march south.
Title: Re: Weather Today and Yesterday
Post by: kvuo75 on May 02, 2015, 10:59:22 PM
First of all, I will not deny that the Earth could possibly be warming, nor will I deny that the Earth could possibly be cooling. In my experience some proponents of ACW approach it with religious fanaticism yet have little or no understanding of chemistry or physics relating to such ideals. Furthermore in my opinion Climatology is a borderline bogus science. I posted a condensed opinion a few days briefly explaneing the complexities of quantitatively proving the ACW theory, and yes it is just a theory. With this being said I will attempt to explain certain actual scientific aspects to ACW without delving into the political or financial intricacies pertaining to ACW.
Atmospheric Content. 1. N2, ~78% molar mass of ~28 2. O2, ~20.94% molar mass of ~32 3. Ar, ~.93% molar mass of ~36 4. H20 vapor, ~.4% molar mass of 18 "varies upon geographic location and altitude" 5. C02, .04, molar mass of 42. (Note that the molar mass of CO2 is significantly higher then that of other gasses excluding Argon. Furthermore, the atmosphere is not a solution, it is more of a colloid then anything.) 6. CH4, .00018% molar mass of 16.4
Now, N2, O2, and Ar are not green house gasses, where as H20, CO2 and CH4 are. Atmospheric green house gasses are an aggregate of roughly .44% of atmospheric content but they vary greatly in insulation properties and man is only responsible for variations of CO2 and CH4. There is however some correlation between an increase of C02 and a corresponding increase of atmospheric H20, but it really is like the chicken or the egg deal. CP levels of Atmospheric Greenhouse gasses 1. H2O, 1.850 2. CO2, .709 3. CH4, 2.01
The higher the CP, the greater the insulator.
Now, if one took an example of the atmosphere at roughly 1000 feet, extracted the greenhouse gasses, and then compared the content both by percentage and its total effect on aggregate CP of the respective greenhouse gasses it would be as follows. (Note, I fudged the percentage of H20 slightly downward in order to do a base 10 calculation) 1. H2O, 90.87% 2. CO2, 9.087% 3. CH4, .04089% A quick glance shows that water vapor is by far the most prevalent atmospheric greenhouse gas. Now we will look at percent of CP.
1. H20, 96.265% 2. CO2, 3.831% 3. CH4, .0470% Again, Water vapor. Per the IPCC, humans have contributed roughly 18.18% of total carbon emissions. Although I find this organization to be dubious due to past scandals, I will use their information anyways. By taking in account that humans contributed 18.18% of global CO2 emissions, and then recalculating the CP for that respective CO2 I conclude that human caused CO2 emissions are roughly .69% of total greenhouse gas CP. The only reason I even listed Methane CH4 is because someone earlier mentioned it. As you see it is insignificant.
As for climatology, as stated earlier, quantitative data pertaining to climate and weather in terms of temperatures have only existed for the past 110 or so years. Our current climate epoch is roughly 11700 years old which is directly related to the retreat of the glaciers following the Younger Dryas. Following the Younger Dryas the Earth has entered a period of fairly chaotic climatology patterns. Although there is no empirical evidence to support this,for the last 1500 observation made mainly though clergy who for the most part were the only literate people for a long period of time supports this. For about the last 1500 years, there has been maximums and minimums, for instance there was a minimum that coincided with the fall of Rome. Afterwards there was a maximum around the time of the Viking expansion up toward the renaissance, then a long minimum ranging from 1550 to 1815 called the little ice age. Finally we are currently in the modern maximum. In between these long patterns there is some speculation that there are shorter 40 periods, one 20 year cooling trend and one 20 year warming trend. As for the cause of these climate patterns I have yet to be convinced on any one cause, although I am pretty certain its not HARP or Chemtrails. One thing I am certain of, is that there has been significant climate swings both on the cold and warm end of the spectrum long before the industrial age and the subsequent human population explosion.
My skepticism. Certain organizations and scientists, have taken data collected pertaining to climate for only .94% of the current climate epoch, then conclude that human CO2 emissions will cause the Earth to warm to near catastrophic proportions, in which the man made portion of said emissions accounts for .69% of the insulating properties of .4418% percent of the atmosphere. It goes on, they will detract, degrade, slander, silence and in some cases threaten arrest for those whom disagree. If ACW theory is so absolutely sound and its proponents so ideological pure then it ought to stand well enough on its own. I have not even touched on the poor methodology in which they conduct their climate models, or the amount of wealth and power certain people and organizations have procured over this fiasco. Now I consider myself an educated man, other then threatening my standard of living and those of my fellow citizens I have no dog in the hunt. History have proven many things, humans fare better when its warmer, worse when its colder, and maybe in 5, 500, or 5000 years the ice will again relentlessly march south.
this is kinda my point. you think you've disproved the entire scientific literature about agw in a single post on an internet forum.
no, you don't have any dog in the hunt.
you don't think they know about the chemistry?
are you as motivated about the standard model of particle physics? after all, it's just a theory.
Title: Re: Weather Today and Yesterday
Post by: kvuo75 on May 02, 2015, 11:24:53 PM
Title: Re: Weather Today and Yesterday
Post by: FLOOB on May 03, 2015, 12:18:04 AM
Speaking of correlations.. In america very frequently global warming deniers are often also evolution deniers. In fact I just read a depressing statistic that more americans believe in angels than believe in global warming.
Title: Re: Weather Today and Yesterday
Post by: Zimme83 on May 03, 2015, 12:43:22 AM
One problem with the charts is that the scales are chosen so that the correlation seems bigger than it really is.
And that's how everyone who wants to show a correlation does it.
Title: Re: Weather Today and Yesterday
Post by: Zimme83 on May 03, 2015, 10:23:46 AM
And its easy to reveal. But im glad we have u that are smarter than the scientist and can tell us that all their research is just bogus...
Title: Re: Weather Today and Yesterday
Post by: PR3D4TOR on May 03, 2015, 10:39:23 AM
I haven't said that anyone's science is "just bogus". A personal attack like yours is a typical response from the pseudo-religious proponents and detractors of the climate change debate.
Title: Re: Weather Today and Yesterday
Post by: Zimme83 on May 03, 2015, 11:17:41 AM
Since u refuse to accept the scientific consensus on the subject it means that u think u know better than the scientists.
Title: Re: Weather Today and Yesterday
Post by: PR3D4TOR on May 03, 2015, 11:57:03 AM
No. That's another typical response: If you're not with us you're against us.
I don't think I know more than they do, or that I'm smarter than they are. I don't trust them with being honest and objective. If you can't see the difference I don't know how to better explain it to you.
Title: Re: Weather Today and Yesterday
Post by: Chris79 on May 03, 2015, 12:37:30 PM
:airplane: I do not know what is happening to our earth's atmosphere, but the charts you have presented do make a certain point, that the earth's temperature goes up and down! the only thing that I think no one knows for sure, is how the addition of all the people on earth today is going to affect the atmosphere in the long run. The reason I say this is just this, there a lot more people on earth today, driving cars and other things than there were 100 years ago. I think they are going to have to measure the average temperature over the next 25 years and measure it against the last 25 years to get a trend, if any. I know a lot of people look at the ice cap collapsing into the oceans and everyone hollers global warming, but what they are not pointing out is that is a glacier which is moving all the time and as ice gets out over the water with no ground support, it falls into the ocean.
Title: Re: Weather Today and Yesterday
Post by: ghi on May 04, 2015, 06:59:14 PM
I remember watching this video , French foreign minister in a meeting with John Kerry, last year May 2014,; "We have 500 days to avoid climate chaos " . I'm thinking; Do they know more at high level ? Is this warming trend more urgent and sinister than rest of population is allowed know? What chaos? :headscratch:
Title: Re: Weather Today and Yesterday
Post by: Chris79 on May 04, 2015, 07:57:18 PM
I remember watching this video , French foreign minister in a meeting with John Kerry, last year May 2014,; "We have 500 days to avoid climate chaos " . I'm thinking; Do they know more at high level ? Is this warming trend more urgent and sinister than rest of population is allowed know? What chaos? :headscratch:
In the early 90's scientists said we had a decade to stop rising CO2 levels before there would be a point of no return and the earth would become inhabitable. In the early 70's scientists said that global cooling was going to usher in a new ice age.
San Jose Mercury News (CA) - June 30, 1989
"A senior environmental official at the United Nations, Noel Brown, says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of "eco-refugees," threatening political chaos, said Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program. He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect...."
Title: Re: Weather Today and Yesterday
Post by: kvuo75 on May 05, 2015, 11:35:36 PM
the good thing about science is it's self correcting.
better estimates come by doing more science. real science builds on itself.
or we could just go by: "they said in 1989 this -- therefore no" and never question it.
that's not science.
all the actual science that's been done since, and is still being done every day, points towards the theory of agw. if you could prove otherwise, it would be a revolution, probably nobel prize worthy.