Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Et Cetera, Et Cetera' started by D_Barbi_Queue, Jan 29, 2006.
Alright, this is something I can give insight into. I am a meteorology major at Penn State University. Climate change is one of the major debates we have daily and everyone has an opinion on it. However, this is straight up bullshit. You can't look at 100 years and automatically say that humans are causing global warming, because frankly it is very much up for debate. The earth's climate fluctuates in cycles, from relative warmth, to relative cold. We had a mini ice age 500 years ago, and our last full on ice age was nearly 10,000 yrs ago. We are actually warm this year due to a few reasons.
1) La Nina in the Eastern Pacific ocean has lead to a relatively wet pattern.
2) EPO and SOI indexes are very strongly positive. The result is a strong pacific jet, which is flat. That results in a progressive zonal flow, and does not allow for things like trofs to form on the east coast.
3) A positive NAO (North Atlantic Oscillation) which in short doesnt allow atlantic ridges to form. When the NAO is negative, ridges form over the atlantic ocean which results in colder air pooling on the east coast, and warmer air in the atlantic. A prolonged negative NAO means prolonged warmth in the Atlantic, and increases oceanic temperatures. This is what happened this year, which resulted in the frequency and stregnth of storms.
What you all need to remember is you can't be myopic when looking at climatological data. This is why it is truly bullshit all this human global warming shit. You need more than 100 yrs of data to prove this. Especially since the earth has been around 4 Billion yrs. 100 yrs is nothing compared to history.
Because 'we' can't prove the climate change has a human cause you should ignore all signs.
Put your head in the ground. Buy a Hummer. Fuck the world. May God bless Amerika.
Im with nitney lyon on this one...as there are records of new glacical grouth in other parts of the world, also new patterns in the solar winds witch are proably causing gobal warmth. It just fails me when ppl just want to belive in what they hear..without researching more facts for themselfs.:werd: ok I'll get off my :soapbox: now
Points 1 through 3 are irrelevant, since they involve something so short term.
And nobody knows what you are talking about since its overly scientific for non-meteorologists. (EPO and SOI indices "aren't I impressive") Typical Penn State technobabble.
The earth *has* warmed over the last 100+ years. Can provide the stats if you don't have access to them. Water levels have gone up also. Those are easily proven stats as well.
The earth naturally warms and cools over relatively short periods of time. Yes, even 100 years is short compared to how long the planet has been around.
However, I do not believe global warming is "bullshit". If you are a met major and took any courses related to chemical meteorology, you'd know that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. Infrared radiation going back into space is reduced by it, hence warming occurs. I did a paper on it in college.
You can't keep spewing tons of crap into the atmosphere forever and not expect there to be consequences. Ozone depletion is a definite reality for example. Skin cancer rates are way up. Measurements of ozone levels are down. This was predicted years ago, but greed/money won that war. We have the power to decrease CO2 emissions into the air now, but Bush and the oil companies are in control, so its not going to happen. For his faults, god bless Al Gore for giving a damn about this issue. Nobody is listening though. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Enjoy your oceanfront property in Happy Valley when it arrives.
Signed, a hydrometeorologist.
Well excuse me for bringing up scientific points, but they are in fact true, and reasons why this year has been the way it has been. OK sine you don't want technobabble, I'll just give you some wonderful facts.
Less than 1% of CO2 output comes from humans, in fact the most environmentally damaging animals are probably cattle due to the amount of methane and CO2 they do produce.
Volcanic activity in years past has done the most significant damage to our atmosphere PERIOD. Events like Krakatoa and Mt. St Helens produce the equivalent of nearly 1 million times the amount of harmful gasses into the atmostphere as compared to humans. The Krakatoa plume was not even the highest recorded (a 6 on the scale of 8) In 1815, the Tamboran eruption was an Ultra Plinian eruption (7 out of 8). When you have two events of this nature occuring within 68 years of each other, damage to the atmosphere WILL ABSOLUTELY OCCUR. When and if Yellowstone erupts, this could be the climatological disaaster we have all feared. Volcanic activity releses most of our greenhouse gases, whether you choose to believe it or not. It is a naturally occuring process.
This is an archive of all volcanic activity over the past year, I suggest you read it,
Hurricane seasons are also cyclical. In the 1960's we had very high hurricane activity, 1996 and 1933 were also very high hurricane activity years, those following winters were some of the coldest and snowiest on record at central park (1996 WAS THE SNOWIEST winter ever in central park)
Melting ice caps are also a part of earths cyclical waming and cooling. You need to understand this specifically. Humans can only do so much to the environment, natural cycles are still the most important aspects of climatology nd climae shifts.
We are certainly not helping our environment by any stretch of the imagination. But you all give man too much credit. While we may play a part, if you took a basic meteo course, you would know that LIGHTNING replaces Ozone in the atmosphere. Hurricanes distribute warmth into north lattitudes, and while one area of the world is experiencing relative warmth, Europe is experiencing record cold, and the cold air in Siberia was so intense they were worried about gas lines FREEZING.
Where in gods name did you hear me say to pour tons of crap into the atmosphere. And why would you insult my University? You are so clouded by your political views that you can't even have an honest debate especially when the indicies I pointed out ARE THE MAJOR FACTORS IN OUR LAST HURRICANE SEASON.
THESE MAJOR FACTORS ARE NATURALLY OCCURING. Get off your high horse, throw politics out the window. Bring up scientific facts. Humans may play a part, but nature is all powerful.
You cant say things are irrelevnt when they serve to accurately explain current weather patterns either. Whether "too scientific" or not, they are in fact true.
Despite what you choose to believe about global warming, various meteorological events and theories of their various causes, no one can deny the fact that the government's scientific data is more suspect these days. There have been stories about politicians all over the government drastically altering scientific reports to serve their needs.
Just today, Slashdot posted an article about a study that set out to remove a mouse from the endangered species list just so developers could build more condos north of Colorado Springs. The report said that the mouse wasn't actually a unique subspecies, but a more recent *independent* study contradicts the government's data.
We can't trust the government to publish truly unbiased scientific data.
Ten years ago the ozone hole was bigger than Jupiter.
Twenty years ago we were going to deforest the jungles to nonexistence.
Forty years ago the world was going to starve because of overpopulation.
Before that, mankind was determined to push the doomsday button.
... and don't forget the ancient flat earthers ...
Is that what is taught to undergraduates in the atmospheric sciences department at PSU? To patronizingly label anything you don't agree with bullshit? To puff yourself up by throwing around esoteric acronyms in front of a lay audience? Would you leap out of your chair at a conference and shout "bullshit" at a visiting academic?
Posts like this don't help the debate at all.
So, we should just ignore warning signs and continue whistling hopefully in the dark?
Funny that a member who can talk scientifically about global warming (LINittanyLion) gets taken to task when his words contradict a near feeling of faith that others in the room hold on global warming.
Is it possible to have a civilized discussion about these issues? With neither side calling each other names or issuing cries of "bullshit"?
Is this kind of reply really neccesary? Or constructive?
I was under the impression that discussions were for, I dunno, discussing? Screaming rhetoric under we are blue in the face is not going to convince anyone. If you are truly interested in the topic, I would hope that you would keep an open mind to the opinions that are being brought forward.
If it comes to a vote, I'll go with LINittanyLion.
I look at the whole problem from a background in, among other things, planetary astronomy, paleontology, radiation thermodynamics and fluid dynamics. Anyone who doesn't like my education can write to MIT and bitch.
All I see in the global warming "debate" is a load of populist neo-luddite hogwash (note, I didn't say bullshit). I remember some twenty years ago when we were worried about global cooling. That didn't happen either.
Meanwhile I've been watching the sea level of the North Atlantic, as I used to live right on the coast, and still maintain property there. Sea level hasn't budged an inch in thirty years. That doesn't mean it won't start moving tomorrow, but so far it's stayed put. Anyone who tells you differently is just looking for headlines.
The only interesting development I've seen, buried in all the noise, is a possible retreat of the polar caps on Mars. We have a nice clear view of them from here, and photographic records going back about a century and a half - much better records than we have of our terrestrial ice caps. The Martian retreat implies that something may indeed be going on. However, whatever it is has nothing to do with human activity, unless of course the dark minions of Halliburton have already opened subsidiaries there.
Well, the first person to respond to him was a hydrometeorologist. Seems like that was equally scientific and not based on "faith" at all. Bottom line, I suspect folks on both sides, including you, of being influenced in your opinion by your politics.
This is beginning to sound like the spelling reform thread.
The earth is far older than we can understand or even have a frame of reference to understand. Our lifetimes or "100 years" or even 300 are nary a blip on the radar for our planet. I think our greenhouse gases have more to do with pollution and less to do with affecting our climate. Yes, yes, I know all about the ozone layer. To believe we've affected the climate in this short of a time is arrogant on our part. We aren't even a blip.
we're all going to die choking on our own filth, get over it
Thank you sir, exactly the point I was trying to make. We give humans way too much credit. You wan't to blame something? Blame Volcanoes, theyre the worst polluter in the world (Including China).
I wasn't calling the argument bullshit, I was calling the article bullshit because it took global warming as fact. That is a biased approach, and doesn't state the facts. The argument I gave has facts behind it. I wasn't combative at all. Then I was told to shove my head in the ground and buy a hummer. Then I was told my research was technobabble. Well technobabble = fact. It is the cause of our current weather patterns. And the warmth we experience now can be directly attributed to those two HUGE explosions in the 1800's, the amount of volcanic gases released pales in comparison to anything we have seen in our lifetime INCLUDING Mt. St. Helens.
Technically, the first person to respond offered up Put your head in the ground. Buy a Hummer. Fuck the world. May God bless Amerika.
I've never doubted both sides can garner enough scientists to testify at a hearing. But all you have to do is listen to the news to know which set of theories/hypotheses are more readily spread by the average media outlet...or by 'comedy' specials on TBS.