Have you ever wonder why nobody talks about Global Warming
in the winter time?
:biggrin:
That's because they are talking about "Climatic Change" in the Winter. You will get "Global Warming" back next summer. :P
Is there a difference Hutch?
These guys take a couple of courses in college and instantly become
climate experts. It will take a 100 years of collected data to
reach any valid solution IMHO.
Controlling the weather is a science fiction fantasy.
Will we ever be able to control the weather? Who knows....
Hi,
Given that they have been collecting data since the nineteenth
century, you might think people will have made up their minds
already. As most have.
Steve
Quote from: shankle on February 17, 2016, 01:21:10 AM
Is there a difference Hutch?
These guys take a couple of courses in college and instantly become
climate experts. It will take a 100 years of collected data to
reach any valid solution IMHO.
Controlling the weather is a science fiction fantasy.
Will we ever be able to control the weather? Who knows....
In college around 37 years ago, a professor said that weather casters are only right 50% of the time.
That percentage has not increased. :-)
Quote from: Magnum on February 18, 2016, 04:04:33 PM
In college around 37 years ago, a professor said that weather casters are only right 50% of the time.
That percentage has not increased. :-)
How Accurate Are Weather Forecasts? (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-robbins/how-accurate-are-weather-_b_6558770.html)
Quote
The same day forecast has been extremely accurate as to whether or not it will rain. For the 134 days we tracked, it rained at least .1" (our threshold for rain) 30 times (22% of the time). When same day predicted 0% (78 times), it rained just once. Other same day predictions were similarly accurate: It rained 1 of 10 times (10%) when there was a 10% chance of rain, 2 of 11 (18%) for 20% chance, 1 of 4 (25%) for 30% chance, 2 of 5 (40%) for 40% chance, 4 of 4 (100%) for 50% chance, 4 of 6 and 2 of 3 (67%) for 60% and 70% chance, and 100% of the time (1 of 1, 3 of 3 and 9 of 9) for 80%, 90% and 100% chance of rain.
Even the long-term forecast is fairly accurate. It didn't rain any of the 16 days the 9-day forecast predicted 0% chance of rain, it rained 15% of the time the 9-day predicted 10%, etc
Thank you for your valuable "contribution", Andy. Insulting meteorologists is so funny :greensml:
In a sense,what we have happening is "Terra forming" though some conspiracy types say it is Aliens doing it. We ourselves are kinda doing it to ourselves. You mess with the chemical makeup of the atmosphere and you start some negative chemical reactions.
The whole weather machine is complex but was settled a bit,devil you know,VS devil that is new thing.
In the last 2 millons years there was 19 cicles warming-cooling.
The last cooling begin to end around 400 years ago. Because good quality paints and scientific writings appear at that time, we only know about warming.
Quote from: jj2007 on February 19, 2016, 02:01:06 AM
Quote from: Magnum on February 18, 2016, 04:04:33 PM
In college around 37 years ago, a professor said that weather casters are only right 50% of the time.
That percentage has not increased. :-)
How Accurate Are Weather Forecasts? (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-robbins/how-accurate-are-weather-_b_6558770.html)Quote
The same day forecast has been extremely accurate as to whether or not it will rain. For the 134 days we tracked, it rained at least .1" (our threshold for rain) 30 times (22% of the time). When same day predicted 0% (78 times), it rained just once. Other same day predictions were similarly accurate: It rained 1 of 10 times (10%) when there was a 10% chance of rain, 2 of 11 (18%) for 20% chance, 1 of 4 (25%) for 30% chance, 2 of 5 (40%) for 40% chance, 4 of 4 (100%) for 50% chance, 4 of 6 and 2 of 3 (67%) for 60% and 70% chance, and 100% of the time (1 of 1, 3 of 3 and 9 of 9) for 80%, 90% and 100% chance of rain.
Even the long-term forecast is fairly accurate. It didn't rain any of the 16 days the 9-day forecast predicted 0% chance of rain, it rained 15% of the time the 9-day predicted 10%, etc
Thank you for your valuable "contribution", Andy. Insulting meteorologists is so funny :greensml:
Predicting rain is more straight forward.
Predicting temps is another matter.
I guess that what we are dealing with here is to get the consensum that there's no weather change, so we will keep on destroying the nature without pangs of conscience. I do not consider myself an extremist in any matter, neither in this, but I think that any damage to the environment has been caused by the humans, don't we? I think that the most responsible thing would be to assume that, in fact, we do destroy, and so to try to improve ourselves.
Where I live there's many residential areas with descriptive names such as "El Pinar de ChamartÃn" ("Chamartin pinewood"). I think that because at some point there must have been a beautiful pine forest there, a wonderful area where to live. Of course, today you can only find some pines scattered throudh its streets.
The history books say that when Spain discovered America was a great effort to meet the high demand for products coming from America. Consequently lot of forests were cleared for agricultural land. Today you can watch Spain virtually no forests, land and bare land without trees. The trend in the Amazon is more of the same.
We reach to everywhere to exploit its resources, to kill every living creature that moves around, whether by land, sea or air, to eat or just for sport.
The global population (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_growth) has increased dramatically since the last 2 centuries.
As they say, I'm not vegetarian, but it is better to understand the reality to try to improve it.
Sentimentalists and charlatans are making a big confusion in other people minds.
Climatic changes and Environmental destruction are very diferent issues. They are essentially independent, but with a lot of interaccions.
There are actions favorable for both issues, but the ugly true is that actions to prevent climatic impacts could affect environment and most actions for environmental protection don't make any climatic improvement.
Perhaps pines don't endure the hot weather and Chamartin's people must plant something else.
Climate change is real.
Is man made climate change that is in question. Specifically how much is the percentage. ...
We know that the #1 source of heat is that big ball of fire in the sky, followed by volcanoes. And you get the climate change crew saying that CO2 is bad. Except that there have being periods of time with more CO2 than now. And plants breath CO2. No CO2 no plants. No plants no people.
Plus you get the ridiculous you can contaminate all you want as long as you buy this forest that was already giving oxygen without you paying. Is not even funny, from a guy that rerouted a river just to film a commercial on global warming (Al Gore). A SCAM. And you get the "scientist" prediction failing worse than the horoscope. The "We will claim anything as long as it keeps the grant money flowing" crew. Scholars pretending to be scientist.
I doubt man made global warming is the most pressing issue. Global contamination is more of an issue. China is specially bad on this. The island of plastic in the pacific is another one. As well as fukushima in the pacific and the Bastard Petroleum fiasco in the gulf of Mexico.
Global Warming was just the excuse to say is not the corporations throwing all the garbage to sell products, is the CO2. VERY CONVENIENT.
Yeah, you can blame it all on the worst pollution scare the world has ever had when the bacteria that lived on stromatolites (cyanobacteria) started to pollute the earth with oxygen a billion or so years ago. Think of the pure clean methane atmosphere the planet had before such pollution levels occurred. Greening the planet back then meant blue-green algae. :biggrin:
You made the point, Hutch :biggrin:
Just for the record: The era when CO2 was higher than today is commonly called "the dinosaur age".
It took nature about 200 Million years of photosynthesis to store away the excess CO2 as carbon and crude oil.
It took mankind about 100 years to throw it all back into the atmosphere.
Never mind, keep on bragging "it is not even sure that my SUV and my steaks have anything to do with climate change". But pleaze, don't complain if tyrannosaurus rex 2.0 knocks at your door :icon_mrgreen:
Controlling the weather is a science fiction fantasy.
Actually weather control has been in active research by the DOD in America (in contravention to the Geneva Convention)
They used weather control (mostly cloud seeding) in WWII (however this is disputed) but definitely in the Vietnam war (documented).
My concern is this, while climatic change has been with us for the last 4.5 billion years and some of being truly traumatic, its only been in the last couple of hundred years that humans have collectively had the capacity to change the world's environment in ways that damage it. Note here that I did not claim carbon dioxide as the damaging agent. Think of massive land clearances that change a local climate, this is something we see in West OZ where large scale land clearances changed the rainfall pattern and trees that could survive 40c temperatures are dying off because of lack of rainfall and temperatures up near 50c.
In Tasmania there are ancient Gondwanaland stands of conifer trees that are more than 10000 years old that are now subject to bushfires due to the climate drying out and differing from mainland eucalypts they are not fire resistant so if they get badly burnt out, they will not come back. Now where the problem lies is in that some of the changes happened well before the era of SUVs, air travel and the like, OZ has strange long weather patterns for far longer than the last couple of hundred years, in south OZ there used to be a large inland farming community but an 80 year long drought in the 19th century turned it to desert.
I am a fan of adaption and preservation, stop making a mess of what is left, fix what you can and adapt to what you can't change. It just may be the case in a few hundred years time that you need to migrate to Antarctica or northern Canada/Alaska and leave the raging deserts behind. My complaint with the histrionics of the climate change is gross exaduration, a solution that at best will not work and a dislike of anything that will make global banking cartels far richer. Carbon trading is nothing more than another banking scam to line the pockets of the super rich, empoverish the middle class and convert 3rd world economies to vassal states.