curious

[shankle]

Have you ever wonder why nobody talks about Global Warming
in the winter time?

[hutch--]

 

That's because they are talking about "Climatic Change" in the Winter. You will get "Global Warming" back next summer.  :P

[shankle]

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....

[FORTRANS]

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

[Magnum]

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. :-)

[jj2007]

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?

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

[anunitu]

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.

[HSE]

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.

[Magnum]

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?

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

Predicting rain is more straight forward.

Predicting temps is another matter.

[avcaballero]

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 Chamartín" ("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 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.

[HSE]

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.

[xanatose]

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.

[hutch--]

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. 

[jj2007]

You made the point, Hutch

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:

[Raistlin]

Code Select Expand

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).