Global Weirding: What do YOU see?

[Da Skinna]

So, away from all the science, propaganda and whatnot surrounding this global warming/climate change business, I have noticed some things that are a LITTLE different than they were before.

Like ethanol, global warming can be made a boondoggle, something to simply be made profitable to those who scout it first. It also entails much political force and power.

At the same time, the resistance to accept, and subsequently face, the possibility of man-made changes in our atmosphere and environment, is immense. It has to be. It costs A LOT otherwise. Much more than to say more evidence is needed, much to say we were wrong, much more to act.

But in Vancouver we hit a forty year record low temperature last night.

The term "global weirding" is much more apt, because we are not warming, the weather is just getting weirder.

I don't want your conjecture. I don't want your science, and I don't want your animosity, FOR or AGAINST the idea of climate change, or man-made climate change.

I want what YOU see corroborating the evidence for either, or I just want what you see.


Let's do this.

[Viking Prince]

What purpose is gained by selection of such examples? This is not the same as empiric evidence. It is not testable and thus is not a facet of the scientific method. This seems to be related to cherry picking a population to make some point about outliers, but I cannot fathom your reason for doing so. I will grant that this is not the Athenaeum or Ethos, but I still do not see a reason for the post.

Sorry, I cannot play the game without a better idea of the purpose for the game.

As for reaching a forty year record on weather -- not much of a data base to get excited about. The weather guys on the television are there for entertainment value and thus they will get excited nearly every day about breaking or nearly breaking some record. It means nothing.

If you like this sort of thing:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...e-climate.html

[mp0295]

im sorry but please stop being a hypocrite(original poster). i will try to keep the following as unbiased as possible and based on fact. just because it was very cold where you were dosn't mean any thing. it was simply a thing called local weather. if in fact there is a n increainng global temp, that will only play out year by year. let me put that in another way, do you remember a extraordinary cold day in July? does that mean there is a global cooling going on? no! it was just a fluke of local weather.

no onto why there is global warming
just because you dont see it dose not mean anything.
a) you obliviously do not have any scientific training
b) you live in a environment where is is cold (meaning it would be hard ot notice differences) for example i have noticed here in NY, a temperature climate with cold winters and hot summers, that it has been warmer in November than usual. That of course could just be coincidence but it has been for the last couple of years.
c) its called global warming, so just because your small town (relative to the size of earth) had a a cold night dose not mean the world isn't heating up elsewhere.
d) the scientist say that its by about 1 degree so far, i don't know about you but i cant notice a 1 degree difference in air temperature
e) yes the weather is getting 'weirder' but that could mean anything, who knows maybe the moon men are shooting xrays to disrupt our Troposphere!
i could go on but i don't see the need.

[Da Skinna]

If you like this sort of thing:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...e-climate.html

Considering in 348 years of record keeping that England got its hottest in 2007.. yeah, 40 years isn't a lot.

I just was interested in the anecdotal evidence of global weirding.

im sorry but please stop being a hypocrite(original poster). i will try to keep the following as unbiased as possible and based on fact. just because it was very cold where you were dosn't mean any thing. it was simply a thing called local weather. if in fact there is a n increainng global temp, that will only play out year by year. let me put that in another way, do you remember a extraordinary cold day in July? does that mean there is a global cooling going on? no! it was just a fluke of local weather.

no onto why there is global warming
just because you dont see it dose not mean anything.
a) you obliviously do not have any scientific training
b) you live in a environment where is is cold (meaning it would be hard ot notice differences) for example i have noticed here in NY, a temperature climate with cold winters and hot summers, that it has been warmer in November than usual. That of course could just be coincidence but it has been for the last couple of years.
c) its called global warming, so just because your small town (relative to the size of earth) had a a cold night dose not mean the world isn't heating up elsewhere.
d) the scientist say that its by about 1 degree so far, i don't know about you but i cant notice a 1 degree difference in air temperature
e) yes the weather is getting 'weirder' but that could mean anything, who knows maybe the moon men are shooting xrays to disrupt our Troposphere!
i could go on but i don't see the need.

Neutrality does not equal hypocrisy. Global weirding was the name given by an environmentalist that outdoes both global warming AND climate change and what both imply.

To me, it is utter arrogance and ignorance that allows us to scoff at the notion that the pollution we have made and damage done to the Earth's surface, the breathable, living part, in the last 200 years since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution has ZERO to LITTLE effect? That's staggering hubris.

But since you jumped on me without really giving clear thought to my post, here:

Like ethanol, global warming can be made a boondoggle, something to simply be made profitable to those who scout it first. It also entails much political force and power.

At the same time, the resistance to accept, and subsequently face, the possibility of man-made changes in our atmosphere and environment, is immense. It has to be. It costs A LOT otherwise. Much more than to say more evidence is needed, much to say we were wrong, much more to act.

Nowhere in my post do I claim one side or the other. I try to describe the arguments from the others side. That is all. I am no scientist, but nor do I pretend to be one.

[Trey]

Well I'm from Seattle and have about a foot of snow on my front porch.
http://www.weather.com/newscenter/st.../?from=hp_news.

Some of my friends who live further east have even more.

[cfmonkey45]

In my town, a suburb of Los Angeles (which is in the desert mind you), it snowed a year back for the first time in over two decades, plus a dramatically colder winter this year, with much more snow on the mountains. I also had some friends come down from Vegas, they said there was a few feet of snow, which is somewhat out of the ordinary apparently.

To my knowledge, seems to be polarizing between hotter summers and colder winters. So I think it would be a misnomer to call it "Global Warming", but rather climate shift. Hey, even back in the 70s, they thought it would be Global Cooling, and a new Ice Age would emerge. 0.o

[Da Skinna]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl.../National/home

Yep, Canada's first coast-to-coast white Christmas since 1971.

[Valiant Champion]

I see the same ole same ole sun cycles that have been continuing since the beginning of time as we know of it anyways.

The only global warming or global cooling that takes place is caused by the sun. A minute change in the amount of radiation the Earth recieved from the Sun is a huge modifier when compared to the little peep of water vapor in the bucket that CO2 omissions make up.

Also keep in mind that the Earth has been much hotter than it is now if we look at the past evidence.

Also keep in mind that Greenland was once green. Not all of course but enough for the Viking settlers to etch out a plentiful living on its coastline. Without modern technology to assist a person in living there now, it would be considered inhabitable.

I can remember back as a kid there was serious talk of a coming ice age. That was in the 70s and early 80s.

Then in the late 80s talk of a worldwide catastrophic drought and a Nuclear winter.

In the mid 90s more talk of an ice age (we had some very cold winters in those years where I live)

by the late 90s until this last year it has been global warming again.

As you can see there is a pattern forming here.

Of course all this ties in with many other side arguments that cross each others paths and inevitably pointing to the New World Orders (world government in perdition)attempts to manipulate the gullible. Of which there will always be more gullible people than sensible people.

All this leads to one thing as is related to this topic. Is the suppression of the freedom and convenience of personal transportation. Its all about power and control.

The same reason why solar panels and generating windmills are overpriced so we will be discouraged from becoming self suffecient. The NWO wants to get in the middle and have control. THe Global warming scam is one of those attempts.

8^I

[Zephyrus]

The melting of the polar icecaps might have something to do with it...

[Morkonan]

...I want what YOU see corroborating the evidence for either, or I just want what you see.Let's do this.

What I see are localized weather patterns. What Global Warming is about is not localized weather patterns, it is global averages. That's an immensely different subject.

However, I will say this in response to what could be attributing to some more severe weather effects:

The Earth is basically a giant convection oven. For those who don't know what convection is, we always have wiki.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convection

Now, Earth's convection is a bit different. We have a few things extra. One, energy is supplied not at the "bottom" but along the outside diameter - The Equator. The Equatorial zone receives much of the Sun's energy. And, after all, that's the predominant source (only.. mostly..) for all energy for all systems on the planet. What does that do when combined with "Convection." Again, we have a neat little wiki link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_thermodynamics

Now, let's look at a pic for an example: (resized it a bit)


Aside from the specifc system, what do we see? Easy - Warm air rises, cool air descends. That is, after all, the heart of convection. (Not getting into fluid dynamics atm, pls.)

So, now we know what Atmospheric Convection is. How does that apply to Earth as a whole and, possibly, increased energy in localized weather? Well, convection along with gravity can help explain some of that, IMO, as well. Here is how Earth looks in a simple convection model:



Neat, huh?

So, we see these individual cells of convection here. Actually, there are some other things we need to see as well but I couldn't find a decent pic. One of them has to do with the Water Cycle on Earth. Typically, the lifespan of water in the atmosphere is no more than 10 days. That's 10 days before a drop of water in the atmosphere comes back to the ground from whence it came. We'll remember that. Another thing is that the Earth's Atmospheric convection is more interconnected than it may appear in the pic. These are general tendencies in certain cell patterns, AFAIK. Yet, the energy gets distribute throughout the atmosphere and, as we know, warm air does rise from the tropics and fall in the non-tropics just like the TV Weatherman say's it does.

So, we now have Energy from the Sun and Earths Atmospheric Convection as a result. Along with convection, is heat. It is, after all, the driving force. What do you suppose when more heat is retained as in the case of a mean temperature increase due to the "Greenhouse Effect?" Well, that's easy - That means a more energetic system as a whole. After all, that retained energy has to go somewhere. Energy is never lost or destroyed, it's just converted. Some of that energy goes into creating and sustaining water vapor.

So, now we have a more energetic system. We also have Earth's Water Cycle. The mean lifespan of moisture (a drop of water) in the atmosphere is no longer than 10 days. That means no clouds of moisture you see are going to have water vapor trapped for longer than 10 days. We also know that in a more energetic system, more water vapor is going to get into the atmosphere. That's just the way it works.

Moist atmosphere's are more susceptible to retaining temperature extremes than dry ones. Moisture laden air comes in two flavors - hot and cold. Yet, we know that really cold air tends to have its moisture fall out and really warm air can hold a lot of moisture before it accumulates and releases.

With all of that, here is what I see happening:

Increased energetic systems also carry more moisture into the atmosphere. Because of this, more moisture may be experienced in certain systems yet, because of the increase in energy, moisture and content, what you may see is much more severe effects over shorter durations. Because moisture laden air is more stable at temperature for a longer period of time, you're going to see certain durations of related seasonal weather extremes increase on average.

So, Global Warming can induce localized changes that would seem to be in opposition to the whole "warming" idea due to atmospheric convection. That energy has to go somewhere. Increased energetic systems sustaining temperature extremes due to increased water vapor CAN lead to massive snows in some areas and torrential downpours in others even though the "mean" temperature of the Earth's atmosphere is increasing.

[Milos98]

Man, this global warming looks weird...
What happened to censorship?

[Каие]

Shouldn't this be in the science section?

[Viking Prince]

Shouldn't this be in the science section?

The OP specifically asked:

I don't want your conjecture. I don't want your science, and I don't want your animosity, FOR or AGAINST the idea of climate change, or man-made climate change.

So it is not science. But it also is not political or in the news. Thema Devia?

[Каие]

So it is not science. But it also is not political or in the news. Thema Devia?

Academy it is.

[Copperknickers II]

So, away from all the science, propaganda and whatnot surrounding this global warming/climate change business, I have noticed some things that are a LITTLE different than they were before.

Like ethanol, global warming can be made a boondoggle, something to simply be made profitable to those who scout it first. It also entails much political force and power.

At the same time, the resistance to accept, and subsequently face, the possibility of man-made changes in our atmosphere and environment, is immense. It has to be. It costs A LOT otherwise. Much more than to say more evidence is needed, much to say we were wrong, much more to act.

But in Vancouver we hit a forty year record low temperature last night.

The term "global weirding" is much more apt, because we are not warming, the weather is just getting weirder.

I don't want your conjecture. I don't want your science, and I don't want your animosity, FOR or AGAINST the idea of climate change, or man-made climate change.

I want what YOU see corroborating the evidence for either, or I just want what you see.


Let's do this.

Do let's.

That is purely a misunderstanding of the concept. Evolution, for example, does not necessarily mean we are evolving in the conventional sense, it could entail a species staying the same for millions of years through being stuck in an ecological niche, or it could mean an organism loses the use of something (devolution, as some people who do not understand would call it).

Basically, if the people who studied this even started on the processes and results that come with the greenhouse effect, you (not the OP but the people about whom he is referring) would be bored to death after about 2 minutes. The best thing to do is just accept that if we do not act, there will be terrible consequences.

[Beanbee]

Currently nothing, I live in Skane, Souther Sweden which is one of the most stable places climatically in the world. The planet could rise 10degrees and skane would not change a single degree. The weather is so consistant that it basically doesn't change within a week.

P.S. Africa, the far Northern/Southern Hemisphere and some parts of Southern America are the most vulnerable areas to climate change so I doubt many people visiting this forum will have noticed much of anything that isn't anecdotal one way or the other.

[Da Skinna]

South Africa got its first significant snowfall in 25 years. And on Reunion Island, 400 miles (645 kilometers) east of Africa, nearly 155 inches (4 meters) of rain fell in three days—a world record for the most rain in 72 hours.

From that National Geographic.

I did a paper in Grade 11 about effects of Global Warming on Canada.

For the first time in their history, the Inuit report... thunder and lightning!

[Beanbee]

Milos, if you relate that to any part of your body, I worry for you. Seek medical help.

[Milos98]

Milos, if you relate that to any part of your body, I worry for you. Seek medical help.

Hmm...
I just said it was weird...
I didnt relate it to anything.
You should be worried for thinking that I was thinking that it was part of a body.
Anyhow, global warming.

[Gogf]

So, away from all the science, propaganda and whatnot surrounding this global warming/climate change business, I have noticed some things that are a LITTLE different than they were before.

Like ethanol, global warming can be made a boondoggle, something to simply be made profitable to those who scout it first. It also entails much political force and power.

At the same time, the resistance to accept, and subsequently face, the possibility of man-made changes in our atmosphere and environment, is immense. It has to be. It costs A LOT otherwise. Much more than to say more evidence is needed, much to say we were wrong, much more to act.

But in Vancouver we hit a forty year record low temperature last night.

The term "global weirding" is much more apt, because we are not warming, the weather is just getting weirder.

I don't want your conjecture. I don't want your science, and I don't want your animosity, FOR or AGAINST the idea of climate change, or man-made climate change.

I want what YOU see corroborating the evidence for either, or I just want what you see.


Let's do this.

The plural of anecdote is not data.

I don't think it's even our place to evaluate global warming science. We have no training in this field, and the overwhelming consensus among those who actually hold degrees in the relevant science is that global warming is not only happening but accelerating. Moreover, even if there were no conclusive evidence of global warming, it's still common sense that we should try to limit the amount of "stuff" we're pouring into the atmosphere.

Also, I'll add that one of the predictions of global warming is cooling for some areas in the North Atlantic due to disruption of the gulf stream.