Global Warming Sucks
 

Global warming sure is creating some cold weather. :(

And isolated winning sprees are breaking casinos. :rolleyes:

You're a fucking nut job.

Who eviscerated your weak attempt at making a point.

He'll get back with you after he fetches his dictionary.

LMAO!

Zeke.....You da man!

Dave

Global Warming cant be properly measured in such a short period of time.

Its like saying "Evolution isnt true! I've been alive for 20 years and I've never evolved in my life!"

But in his case, this would be true.:D

Yuck, yuck, yuck. That there's a good un.

Hey, when you walk in the door, ask the first person you meet: "Cold enough for ya!?" That one always breaks um up.

And Zeke, that is the post of the year.

djv8ga, I guess you did't get the latest propoganda flyer. Pretty much everyone now admits that global warming is happening. It's that part where they can directly measure and document it that pushed them that way. So the new line is "it's not man caused... and stuff". Typically followed by some jab at the person you're talking too, often related to their sexuality. "Homo" is a popular one.

Climate change is always happening, manmade or not.

But Brother Karl has more to worry about than most of us, if the gulf stream shuts down. England is pretty far north.

Pete

"Global Warming" is an unfortunate moniker, because it allows its detractors to muddy the waters by confusing weather and climate. "Global climate change" would be better and certainly seems to describe what's happening with the recent snow storm and the huge cyclone in Queensland.

What I've been reading is that the slight changes in climate end up putting lots more energy into the global climate system and increasing the severity and frequency of storms.

I suppose the question remains how much you have to spend to make any meaningful difference in the long run and is this money perhaps better spent elsewhere (e.g., disease prevention, clean water, etc.)? I don't have the answer for that one.

The way most of you here want to design the system, we better all pray for climate change so somehow it averages about 73 degrees, year-round, everywhere on the planet. Then we can all be comfortable living in our mud hut, and growing our own food and natural fiber for clothing.

Everywhere on the planet? Growing food ain't gonna work well underwater.

Yes, I believe we moved away from "Global Warming" to "Experiencing Climate Change" some time ago. Use of Climate Change had less of a Al Gore - Earth in the Balance feel to it.

Al is so yesterday.

And the way you would have it, we'd all just laugh at it and "yammer" on about what bullshit it is until the planet dries up and we all drop dead.:p

Dave

ROTFLMAO! Dude, pass the hemp cloth, I need to make another man purse!

Pete

You're just jealous because you don't have a Nobel AND an Oscar.

I'm jealous because I don't have a 2,000 SF houseboat with biofuel marine diesels. It's difficult for me to save the world in my 17 footer.

Chas

I am just waiting until we become an ocean front property then I will sell.

And surfing in Cleveland! Whoo hoo!

I recently saw a report that said Cleveland, Detroit, and Baltimore stand to benifit most from increased global temps :)

Pete

For what it's worth I think it's important to try to establish whether the climate is changing long term, or whether it's the kind of short term blip that resulted in ice fairs on the Thames.

If the former, we have to try to figure out without political loading either way whether we're causing it or not. If we are, we have to stop doing what we were doing, cross our fingers and hope. If the latter, crossing our fingers and hoping might still be a good idea, but so would working out how best to try to deal with the consequences. Do we take the Dutch approach and build embankments so that ground below sea-level can still be cultivated? Or do we think long term and recognise that a lot of the lowlands will be gone.

Long ago Britain was literally part of Europe. Now, either by the sea rising or the land level falling, we're an island.

It does seem then that a rise in the ocean's waters may have also had some benefits, unless you'd prefer to speak German.:rolleyes:

We'll get the same folks who built the levees around New Orleans to build them. Uh boy. We're screwed.

Or Italian, or French, or anything other than English:D We don't have to look too far back though. There were humans around when it was still possible to walk from Britain to Europe. It's interesting the way words change. Hardly enyone talks now about Global Warming, the new pc phrase is Climate Change. Much more tenuous, it's lack of a clear meaning means it's very hard to argue about its effects. Why am I bothered? Look how much we're all spending, then follow the money trail................ Cynical moi?

Goddammit, it must be Friday.

You are not cynical in my book, but very astute in pinpointing the real (money grab/power grab) reasons for the rhetoric.

The sky isn't falling. Does one ever think about erosion? Where does all the dirt end up when you see rocks in your pasture get bigger every year? Well, I noticed my pond that used to be over ten feet deep is now less than three feet deep do to dirt washing down into it. How can one think that dirt washing into the big blue sea cannot lower the land making it seem like the sea is rising? I see rocks on dads farm that are now sitting on dirt and are the size of cars. As a kid, I remember when those rocks had 'dirt' on them. That dirt washed down the creeks over a period of decades ( that I've watched in my lifetime ). The locals used to plow that same ground with mules and they grew crops there until it 'became' to rocky.

Water expands when frozen, ever notice how cast iron engine blocks split open if they are exposed to the cold without anti-freeze? How about all the pipes that bust open when the temps get nice and cold? It isn't the cold that splits the pipes open .. it is a fact that when water turns to ICE it EXPANDS.

I'm not going to argue the Below as I wasn't there and I didn't see the tree stumps in the ice 'myself', but the above that I wrote myself I do stand behind as I've watched it happen over time with my own eyes.


The below was a long read, so I pasted only part of it.

************************************************** *****

But consider for a moment a worst-case scenario. What would happen if all of the Arctic sea ice melted? “Sea level would not rise by so much as a millimeter,” said Lord Christopher Monckton, former U.K. science advisor to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. Just as melting ice cubes in a glass of water don’t make it overflow, melting sea ice does not affect sea level.

Monckton is not alone in claiming Arctic ice melt poses no threat. Roy W. Spencer, a former NASA scientist, points out glaciers have been retreating for more than 100 years, well before the dawn of the Industrial Age. “A few retreating glaciers are even revealing old tree stumps,” he writes on his blog. “How did those get there? Planted by skeptics?” Obviously, if retreating glaciers expose tree stumps, then these glaciers could not always have been there and are not shrinking to unprecedented sizes.

Spencer was among 170 scientists from around the world who signed an open letter to the UN Secretary-General prior to the Copenhagen Climate Conference, calling for “convincing observational evidence” to support claims of dangerous AGW. Among the itemized list of alarmist assertions they challenged was “worldwide glacier retreat, and sea ice melting in Polar Regions, is unusual and related to increases in human GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions.” In other words, 170 highly qualified scientists stake their professional reputations that melting polar ice caps pose no threat whatsoever.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/index....e-caps-melting

As I drive south from (glacially formed) Lake Erie over the relatively flat (glacially scraped) fields of northern Ohio to somewhere around the 100 mile marker (Cleveland is approximately the 0 mile marker) just south of Canton, the flatness ends and the land starts gently rolling.

That's because this is as far south as the last (Wisconsin) glacier progressed, piling up a jumble of the dirt and rock that it pushed in front of its (purported to be 100' thick at that point) sheet of ICE to form what is called a terminal moraine.

Now I wasn't there, but scientists say that glacier started moving south 24,000 years ago, progressed for 10,000 years, and then melted to be completly gone 14,000 years ago. All that was left behind was billions of gallons of water, the world's largest body of fresh water, The Great Lakes.

I'm pretty damn sure man wasn't around burning petrochemcals then, and I don't think Bush was there to pull it off either, but it is possible Al Gore made a pact with the devil and simply opened his mouth with the resulting hot air setting the meltdown into motion.

How do you Global Warming / Climate Change morons explain the last ice age and following melt when no SUV's or evil capitalists were present?

Have you ever been to the beach? That sand. Where did it come from? Did you watch the tide come in and go out? I'll leave that for you to ponder.

lol. 24,000 years ago. Riiiight. We all know the Earth is only 6,000 years old.

Okay, okay. You're right. I've heard that before.

What caused the Ice Age? My understanding is - and I'm talking about ice ages in general, not just the last one that you mention - that the big causes are things like changes in Earth's orbit, tectonic plate movement and changes in the level of CO2 in the atmosphere. So, natural forces can indeed cause an ice age, or more to the point, climate change.

But, here we are. No significant tectonic shift. No massive volcanic activity. No change in Earth's orbit. But it's getting warmer. Why? Changes in level of CO2 have been measured and the results seem to be consistent with what has been recorded in ice cores that date back to the last ice age, but inverse. In other words, less then, more now.

So where is all the CO2 coming from? Well, I guess some people disagree about that. But it seems pretty logical that the tons and tons and tons and tons of it we're putting into the atmosphere may be the cause.

In short, you are right. There are purely natural forces that can cause climate change. We aren't observing any of those changes. But we are simulating some of those natural changes through our actions. And the results seem to be the same as they would be if the causes were natural. Specifically, they are bad. The difference is, we likely could do nothing about tectonic shifts. We can do something about the CO2 we're putting into the atmosphere.

Manmade or not, if it's happening there's precious little to be done.

Pete

Given the performance of the human race it may well be a good thing.

No to mention, grow a much better beard than myself also.

I don't even have a boat. I think I would like to combine the carbon footprints of myself with 10 of my closest friends/family and compare the total with AL's some day.


.

Maybe, but could you clear up what you mean? I mean, "or not", I get. Probably little we could do about that. But the "manmade" part. Could we not do something about that?

No, and it would make no difference if we did, other than we would live in mud huts and grow hemp to wear (and smoke because were were so miserable) as we had all now become Ethiopians.

Thanks for telling me what you meant, Pete.

You don't even own a boat???

How can you even call yourself a Republican without owning one of the most environtmentally unfriendly devices known to mankind???

Haven't you ever seen a Subaru commercial???

I worry about you at times. After all, it is our duty as citizens of the world to live as a serf so that stuffed shirts such as Big Al can fly around it private jets taking credit for saving the planet.

You Sir, are an embarrassment to the powers that be.

But you can appease your concience by purchasing carbon credits...I think Big Al has a few he'd be willing to unload.

Chas

Nope, no boat really.

We do have a 14 foot Alumacraft sitting in the weeds up at the lake though. Thats gotta count for something right? I'm hoping to be sitting on the dock someday and end up selling it to some escaped convict that need to get across the lake fast. Kinda like the scene from the movie Papillon.

What I was trying to say is that 'rainfall' is what washed away the soil covering the rocks. We all know that rain on good soil is needed for vegatation so we have to take what mother nature gives us. Did ya'll notice that when a contractor buys a farm in the hills where there's not much flat ground he'll develope and build as many houses as he can on ''the best part of the land''? Heck, why not preserve the nice fertle bottom ground and build on the ridge tops that aint gonna grow a crop or pasture anyways? One day folks'll think about it when they get hungry and find they are living in a house that sits on what used to be a crop field, or livestock pasture that once fed people. Myself, I built on the least useable part of my land and preserved my pasture and garden spot. I'm not to good to park at the bottom and walk up the hillside when it snows.

Thats about my only beef locally as I don't worship the Al Gore theory.

A more accurate analogy would be a completely full glass with ice cubes floating above the rim of the glass (just like the glaciers rising far above sear level). As the ice melts in the full glass, the water will spill over, as it can no longer float.

Regards,

D-Ray

But those wasn't my words, they were words copy/pasted, supposedly said by a smarter fella than I. :D


Honestly though, it's not rising waters that worries me. From the story I grew up hearing, .. isn't it fire we sposed to get destroyed by 'next time' ? :eek:

Have you ever tried that? It was parlor magic when I was at school. As long as the ice is free floating and not jammed into the glass, it displaced no more than it's liquid volume. Water up to the rim of the glass, ice cubes with their top surface above the rim of the glass, when it melts it it's got flow over hasn't it? But it doesn't. Same principle applies to the Arctic circle; as long as the only thing supporting it is the water around it, when ice melts the water level doesn't change.

It's just the scale that's different, size doesn't matter;)