Coldest winter in years, Environment Canada warns

[rmnunez]

My theory is that if we all went out and emptied aerosol cans enough additional greenhouse gases would be released to form a barrier that would keep sunlight out and thereby cool the planet.

[mark3748]

Quote by: rmnunez My theory is that if we all went out and emptied aerosol cans enough additional greenhouse gases would be released to form a barrier that would keep sunlight out and thereby cool the planet.

Yeah, the ozone layer is for sissies, I wany my CFCs back! that's what sunblock's for

[Chris]

Quote by: rmnunez My theory is that if we all went out and emptied aerosol cans enough additional greenhouse gases would be released to form a barrier that would keep sunlight out and thereby cool the planet.

are you serious?

The "barrier" doesnt keep sunlight out, it traps in UV and radiation thereby warming the planet. Are Greenhouses cold or hot in the summer? Why do you think they call it a greenhouse effect?

Also do not confuse ozone with the buildup of Co2 and greenhouse gasses.

Ozone is what blocks a lot of UV coming from the Sun.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Chris are you serious? The "barrier" doesnt keep sunlight out, it traps in UV and radiation thereby warming the planet. Are Greenhouses cold or hot in the summer? Why do you think they call it a greenhouse effect? Also do not confuse ozone with the buildup of Co2 and greenhouse gasses. Ozone is what blocks a lot of UV coming from the Sun.

The ozone layer does filter out ultraviolet radiation.


That's why there is a higher percentage of skin cancer cases in the Southern Hemishpere since the hole opened up.

[Chris]

um, I said "it blocks a lot of", which is not the same as "blocks all"

go back and read what I said. "blocks a lot of" is not different than "filter out".

Quit bogging me down with the minutia.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Chris Quit bogging me down with the minutia.

ROTFL @ that one.


Roger, copy, over.

[Praxius]

So that storm which hit the US last week just went over my area of living..... pssh.... that was nothing. I mean sure it came down a lot, followed by freezing rain, but nothing to write home about.

Can't wait for the next one, that sorta brought back old memories

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Praxius So that storm which hit the US last week just went over my area of living..... pssh.... that was nothing. I mean sure it came down a lot, followed by freezing rain, but nothing to write home about.

As I said, no one's predicting the cancellation of winter just yet.

As predicted, it's been a La Nina year.


.

[BobbyO]

--"A region accustomed to plentiful rain from tropical storms and hurricanes is experiencing its second straight year of less rain in the summer and fall.

--"Through September, it is the region's driest year in 113 years of record-keeping. In five of the six worst-hit states, rain totals this year are close to a foot below normal."--

--"Water rationing has hit the capital. Car washing and lawn watering are prohibited within city limits. Harvests in the region have dropped by 15-30%. By the end of summer, local reservoirs and dams were holding 5% of their capacity. [b]Oops, that's not Atlanta, or even the southeastern U.S. That's Ankara, Turkey, hit by a fierce drought and high temperatures that also have had southern and southwestern Europe in their grip."--

--"Over the last decade, 15-20% decreases in precipitation have been recorded. These water losses have been accompanied by record temperatures and increasing wildfires in areas where populations have been growing rapidly. A fierce drought has settled in -- of the hundred-year variety. Sound familiar? As it happens, that's not the American Southeast either; that's a description of what's come to be called "The Big Dry" -- the unprecedented drought that has swept huge parts of Australia, the worst in at least a century"--

--"Or how about Morocco, across the Mediterranean, which experienced 50 percent less rainfall than normal? Or the Canary Islands, those Spanish vacation spots in the Atlantic Ocean known to millions of visitors for their year-around mild climate, which, this summer, morphed into 104 degree days, strong winds, and fierce wildfires. Eighty-six thousand acres were burnt to a crisp, engulfing some of the islands in flames and smoke that drove out thousands of tourists?

Or what about Mexico's Tehuacán Valley, where, thousands of years ago, corn was first domesticated as an agricultural crop. Even today, asking for "un Tehuacán" in a restaurant in Mexico still means getting the best bottled mineral water in the country. Unfortunately, the area hasn't had a good rain since 2003, and the ensuing drought conditions have made subsistence farming next to impossible, sending desperate locals northward and across the border as illegal immigrants -- some into Southern California, itself just swept by monstrous Santa Ana-driven wildfires,

What happens if Atlanta's faucets go dry? The Bush administration doesn't want to know


What about it? Did anyone suggest the end of winter was imminent? No, but they did suggest that while winters are getting shorter, storms could be more severe.

Report: Shorter lake and river ice seasons confirm global warming

Global warming placing ski industry at risk -- Dec. 2007

.[/quote]


Yep, droughts are proof of global warming. Rain is proof of global warming. What caused the 100 year droughts 100 years ago? 200 years ago?
No hurricanes to replenish Atlanta water? A couple of years ago increased hurricane activity was considered proof of global warming. Now, with no real hurricane activity its ABSENCE is being cited as proof.

It seems that EVERYTHING tends to proves global warming. What would tend to disprove it?

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: BobbyO It seems that EVERYTHING tends to proves global warming. What would tend to disprove it?

After 25 years of concentrated, worldwide scientific research, yes, EVERYTHING does tend to prove global warming. That's why the vast majority of the world's scientific community accepts it as fact. The fact that you can't comprehend it doesn't change anything, BobbyO.

To disprove it? Maybe 25 years finding evidence to the contrary, but so far no one's seeing any.

.

[kubedawg]

Global warming includes global cooling. If you watched that documentary by that one guy who created the internetz, you would know this. Global cooling is a cause and effect, when you do something, it has an equal and opposite reaction. So if we are causing our globe to keep more heat, causing ice to melt, it causes currents to shift, rain gets to places where it doesn't normally rain, places that rain are dry as hell, and places that are naturally warm are getting hit by extremely cold weather...

I live in Oklahoma, for example, and we just got hit with the worst ice storm in our state history. That's 100 years! Last year it was pretty bad too. We had at least 4-6 inches of ice on the roads for nearly 2 weeks. These aren't normal weather patterns. Things are changing due to global warming, both hot and cold.

[mark3748]

apparently you watched The Day After Tomorrow a few too many times....

Or maybe it was Two Days Before The Day After Tomorrow

[kubedawg]

Actually, I've never seen the movie, although I heard it was pretty good. XD

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: kubedawg Global warming includes global cooling. If you watched that documentary by that one guy who created the internetz, you would know this.

I'm not sure what you're referring to...

I can recall two theories regarding global cooling. The one that gained notoriety in the '70s -- based on stories in Newsweek and TIME magazine were based on theories regarding particulate pollution in the atmosphere -- SMOG. Back in the bad 'ol days, industry was throwing up huge volumes of dirty smoke, sulfates and carbon particulates that were literally blocking sunlight for reaching the earth. This has also been referred to as Global Dimming.

Sort of a milder version of nuclear winter, in which the smoke from a nuclear exchange blankets the earth for long enough to kill all or nost vegetation and life. Huge volcanic eruptions, like Mt. Pinatubo in the Phillipines, are often followed by dramatic global cooling the following year.

The OTHER cooling theory has to do with the Gulf Stream, the Great Climate Flip-Flop.

In this case, global warming melts the arctic ice fields and Greenland ice shelf and glaciers dramatically, to the point where millions of gallons of fresh water pour into the Labrador and Greenland Seas. This infusion of fresh water changes the salinity at the point where the Gulf Stream cools and plunges to become the cold deep water current that heads back south. The Gulf Stream, its course altered by the change in salinity, no longer brings warm water into the North Sea, which then no longer warms Europe, which plunges into a new Ice Age.

More recent research seems to suggest that, while each of these theories are based in reality, they are unlikely to keep up with the current warming trends... especially since particulate pollute of the atmosphere has been largely cleaned up in advanced industrial nations. In fact, there has actually been discussion of INTENTIONALLY creating particulate pollution to counteract the warming affects of greenhouse gases.

.

[rmnunez]

Just what I was saying with those aerosol spray cans.

[BobbyO]

Quote by: Sonart . After 25 years of concentrated, worldwide scientific research, yes, EVERYTHING does tend to prove global warming. That's why the vast majority of the world's scientific community accepts it as fact. The fact that you can't comprehend it doesn't change anything, BobbyO. To disprove it? Maybe 25 years finding evidence to the contrary, but so far no one's seeing any. .

What would that evidence be?


If cooler weather is considered proof of global warmin, which it is, then clearly that cannot be. Increased hurricane activity is considered proof of global warming. Now decrease hurricane activity is considered proof of global warming.

EVERYTHING cannot prove a scientific theory. You have to be able to identify a set of factors, which if exist, would disprove the theory. A dropped rock which does not fall to the ground would tend to disprove the theory of gravity.The rock strikes the ground, thus gravity is proven.

Yet cold weather is proof of global warming; increaased snowstorms are proof of global warming; increased rain is considered proof of global warming as is increased drought. And on and on.

So what body of evidence would, if it existed, would disprove global warming?

[Sonart]

.

How about proof that CO2 and methane aren't greenhouse gases, that the greenhouse affect doesn't exist, that we are not increasing the levels of greenhouse gases in the upper atmosphere beyond levels not seen in hundred of millions of years, that arctic and antarctic ice fields, and glaciers worldwide, are not melting at accelerating rates, and that overall global temperatures have not increased over the past 25 years as predicted, based on anthropogenic greenhouse gas projections.

Can you prove that?

.

[Muser]

Quote by: Sonart ...that we are not increasing the levels of greenhouse gases in the upper atmosphere beyond levels not seen in hundred of millions of years

This is the highest point of my skepticism; you place a lot of faith and trust in the people and methods used to determine so-called accurate knowledge of "hundreds of millions of years ago". Until someone can show me where a human, computer, scientific principle or theory was ever infallible, then any and all assertions considered hard-core, irrefutable "fact" pertaining to "hundreds of millions of years ago" remain subject to fallibility - exponentially moreso where money is involved. Infinitely moreso when there are other scientists offering alternative scientific theories for said climate change.

It's certainly enough justification for a common-sense layman to rationally believe, "The jury's still out on this one for the time being" in relation to whether climate change is directly and strictly caused solely by human behavior.

[kubedawg]

Quote by: Sonart . I'm not sure what you're referring to... I can recall two theories regarding global cooling. The one that gained notoriety in the '70s -- based on stories in Newsweek and TIME magazine were based on theories regarding particulate pollution in the atmosphere -- SMOG. Back in the bad 'ol days, industry was throwing up huge volumes of dirty smoke, sulfates and carbon particulates that were literally blocking sunlight for reaching the earth. This has also been referred to as Global Dimming. Sort of a milder version of nuclear winter, in which the smoke from a nuclear exchange blankets the earth for long enough to kill all or nost vegetation and life. Huge volcanic eruptions, like Mt. Pinatubo in the Phillipines, are often followed by dramatic global cooling the following year. The OTHER cooling theory has to do with the Gulf Stream, the Great Climate Flip-Flop. In this case, global warming melts the arctic ice fields and Greenland ice shelf and glaciers dramatically, to the point where millions of gallons of fresh water pour into the Labrador and Greenland Seas. This infusion of fresh water changes the salinity at the point where the Gulf Stream cools and plunges to become the cold deep water current that heads back south. The Gulf Stream, its course altered by the change in salinity, no longer brings warm water into the North Sea, which then no longer warms Europe, which plunges into a new Ice Age. More recent research seems to suggest that, while each of these theories are based in reality, they are unlikely to keep up with the current warming trends... especially since particulate pollute of the atmosphere has been largely cleaned up in advanced industrial nations. In fact, there has actually been discussion of INTENTIONALLY creating particulate pollution to counteract the warming affects of greenhouse gases. .

I was referring to An Inconvenient Truth by Al Gore.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: kubedawg I was referring to An Inconvenient Truth by Al Gore.

And he discusses global cooling????

Quote by: Muser It's certainly enough justification for a common-sense layman to rationally believe, "The jury's still out on this one for the time being" in relation to whether climate change is directly and strictly caused solely by human behavior.

Actually, no, it's not. The Deniers lobby would like you to BELIEVE the jury's still out.

'Scepticism' over climate claims

--"Royal Society vice-president Sir David Read said: "People should not be misled by those that exploit the complexity of the issue, seeking to distort the science and deny the seriousness of the potential consequences of climate change.

"The science very clearly points towards the need for us all - nations, businesses and individuals - to do as much as possible, as soon as possible, to avoid the worst consequences of a changing climate."--

The following, to name just a few, have stated that human caused global warming is a fact (links available if you really need them)

The American Meteorological Society
The National Weather Association
The American Geophysical Union
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
The U.S. Academy of Sciences
Scripps Institute of Oceanography
Woodshole Oceanographic Center

And the fact is they have variety of ways of measuring conditions in the distant past.

Quote by: Muser ...exponentially more so where money is involved.

A very tellig comment. One would think it was exponentially more important to get it right when the fate of humankind and life on earth as we know it is at stake. But noooo, not for you. It's all about money.

The fact is, there's vast fortunes to be made getting us off our petroleum addiction, and in making us less reliant on an imbalance of trade with unstable petro/banana republics around the world -- and the middle east specifically. We can either make those fortunes here, or watch them being made abroad, in Japan and the EU, and watch our super-power economy sink into 2nd world status.

.