Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics & World News' started by N8 v2.0, Feb 7, 2006.
The only thing constant is change. The lizard people will love the new hot climate.
Please register to disable this ad.
I saw a raven eating lizards in Chaco Canyon a while back...
All we need is a minor nuclear engagement with North Korea to trigger a small nuclear winter and we will be all good.
who's side are you on?
Lizards don't like the cold.
The Times has reviewed an alarming draft report by government scientists who say climate change is happening now and severely affecting the United States.
The report directly contradicts claims about global warming made by the Trump administration, which must sign off on it before it can be released.
Full report for monkeys who can read good: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914641/Draft-of-the-Climate-Science-Special-Report.pdf (pages 13-14 offer a good overview)
Reason not to have #3?
Now you tell me...
Baby burritos are good for the environment.
You have 3 kids?
Yep...that I am aware of.
I have lots of good reasons as to why I stopped at zero.
So how's them denialist predictions going then......
Yep as a species, we are about to have to make some really ugly changes to;
Extreme weather event resilience
Population growth........ IMO the breeders are over breeding us out of our current existence in a bad bad way*.
Energy generation & usage.... the growth in our electrical power hunger in the last century is mind boggling!
*I will openly admit to becoming ever more Malthusian in outlook.
Saving coal jobs.
Well, somehow it makes sense to Her Gropenfuhrer.
The solar tax has the ability to kill hundreds of millions of dollars in infrastructure spending along with better than 20K jobs.
Not to mention this also kills one of the fastest growing industries who actually pay a living wage.
He must know something we don't 'casue he knows how to make a great deal, he said so hisself.
He knows that the solar industry didn't give his campaign a whole bunch of money like the fossil fuel industry did.
Yup. Here is Drumpenfuhrer minion Rick Perry trying to climb onto or hump ??? coal barron Murray at the DOE
I hate it when the gov't picks winners and losers.
Ok, as a meteorologist with several degrees I will chime in on my educated opinion on the topic since I recently had a few other educated atmospheric scientists in the boat recently and this topic came up and we all agreed on this consensus.
Humans only really have 100 years or so of decent meteorological/atmospheric data compiled to base theories and climate swings off of and we are still learning much about the solar systems working and fundamental effects of it on our little planet's rotation as it relates to weather patterns. Thus I don't think we can correctly predict or hypothesize on a subject that does not have sufficient data to produce accurate facts.
Considering our best guess of the earth is 4.5 billion years old and we have maybe at most 200 years or so of climate data at best I would say we really don't know what we are talking about. It would be the same scientific study as only measuring .0.000004% of a periodical time study.
Bottom line, There simply isn't enough data.
We had climatologist give a speech on climate change in the Arctic during our last month’s science pub. Are you saying you don’t acknowledge the increase of CO2 relative to the industrial revolution?
Or do nothing, and hope for the best...
We only have a 50 years or so of data that smoking causes cancer.
These guys actually take on the notion that we only have about 200 years of observed data: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07142ls
there's a lot of other sources of data to support this.
Don't we have ice cores?
You don't need direct atmospheric measurements to be able to understand what was happening in the past. Shit I can take stroll down to my local city park and probably give you accurate estimates of local rainfall for the past 800 years by measuring tree rings on a Doug Fir log. Tree rings, sediment layer, ice cores all give you a good measurement of what happened in the past.
Even if you only look at accurate and direct atmospheric measurements. CO2 levels have gone from 320 ppm to 390 ppm in the past hundred years. That is about 20%, that is a huge number.
I have never heard a climate change denier ever explain the actual thermodynamics of the greenhouse effect, be it from atmospheric gasses or an actual greenhouse. That energy equation is well know and scientifically measurable and repeatable. You really don't need centuries of data to tell that an increase of greenhouse gasses is going to increase global temperatures. Even if we only look at the past 100 years of atmospheric measurements, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing dramatically.
People also don't seem to understand that burning massive amounts of fossil fuels will disrupt the normal carbon cycle equilibrium. During the carboniferous period, plants evolved liginum, an organic polymer that gives plants their fibrous strength. At that time no other organism could eat, digest or rot liginum. So for millions of years every plant that grew, unless burned, the liginum in their fibers would just stick around, capturing massive amount of carbon. All that material is what created fossil fuels. But eventually various bacteria and fungi evolved to digest liginum. So now all the carbon that plants use in their liginum is eventually be released back into the atmosphere as CO2, or even worse methane. The conditions that captured all that carbon no longer occur and are likely to never occur again. This isn't something that can be undone.
meteorologist != climatologist
It's supposed to be 70 freedums near Denver tomorrow, that's normal for the end of January right?
That's the chemtrails, not climate change. Duh.
Temperatures of the Puget sound have increased significantly over the past decades. 5 years ago the sound was teaming with various starfish. Haven't seen a single one in two years, they have pretty much been wiped out by a wasting disease that has been around for a long time, but becomes highly virulent in warmer temperatures.
Right after new years I drove a freaking camaro SS around in Alaska because it was 45 degrees. 45 freaking degrees. The "normal" cycle up here has changed to 1 normal-ish winter in about 3, this winter is one of the warm no-snow ones.
There's always someone that says "but volcanoes" with no idea that volcanoes dump far less CO2 into the atmosphere than man. There are even people out there as dumb as trump that say the ice caps are increasing, where one year one portion showed an increase while the overall sea ice was decreased, people just make up their own facts. As our presenter last month said, there are still doctors out there that say smoking doesn't cause cancer. Not many, but there are definitely a few, so just because there are a few that deny the impact of man on the climate, doesn't mean the science that's been done is somehow invalid. Our presenter from last month was:
I have taken many flights with researchers traveling to the Arctic (since I oversee the flights). Having done research myself, I just want to punch someone in the nose that things it's some way to get rich or that it's just all made up.
interesting - i've been noticing the same thing with a lack of starfish recently in places that I used to find them all the time as a kid in midcoast Maine . . .
and yeah, I'd go with @mykel 's comment re: meteroligist /= scientist/climatologist/marine biologist, etc.
never trust a man that doesn't drink.
I found this post by IAB from the random pic thread rather fitting...
We're blaming you.