[Scape]

Mocked Meteorologist Gets Last Laugh



The next 20 years to be cooler and this was the coldest in 100 years.

[Unsound]

But will we hear aything about him if he's wrong next year?

[Scape]

Dam, and here I was hoping the northwest passage was going to be open soon.

[Canadian_Mind]

Who the fuck cares? I don't get the whole global warming/climate change debate. It's a pissing contest. Why aren't we being more pro-active about preparing for climate change and putting most if not all our resources towards that, instead of trying to prevent climate change? Even without human influence, the climate changes; and we as a country are far to small a piece of the pie to make any lick of difference to the human affected portion of climate change.

[andyt]

Canadian_Mind wrote:

Who the fuck cares? I don't get the whole global warming/climate change debate. It's a pissing contest. Why aren't we being more pro-active about preparing for climate change and putting most if not all our resources towards that, instead of trying to prevent climate change? Even without human influence, the climate changes; and we as a country are far to small a piece of the pie to make any lick of difference to the human affected portion of climate change.

I agree.

Tho, if the doom sayers are right, then we as a species would certainly want to try to stop and even reverse our GHG emissions. But, who knows if the doom sayers are right, and even if we knew for sure they were, the process is so gradual that somebody would always be trying to get an advantage by still polluting while all the suckers tried to play nice - so we're doomed. If the doom sayers are right.

[BartSimpson]

If there was a way to cause global warming it might be a nice idea. A warmer planet would mean less energy spent on heating and it would also mean an increase in arable land and a reduction in drought (warmer temps step up the hydrologic cycle).

[EyeBrock]

And a palm tree in my front yard would be nice.

[BartSimpson]

EyeBrock wrote:

And a palm tree in my front yard would be nice.

That can happen today, if you'd like.

http://www.alivepreservedplants.com/sit ... age/369204

[EyeBrock]

Nah, I still think that the GTA is a long time off supporting tropical plants in winter mate! That said, tropical plants have been here before and they will be here again, in time.

[fifeboy]

BartSimpson wrote:

If there was a way to cause global warming it might be a nice idea. A warmer planet would mean less energy spent on heating and it would also mean an increase in arable land and a reduction in drought (warmer temps step up the hydrologic cycle).

There seems to be quite a bit of information that warmer climate means drought in some areas of the world.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/12/101213151405.htm

Course I could be wrong, not being an expert.

[Canadian_Mind]

The climate of earth is effectively divided into bands of arable and non-arable land. The highest and lowest of course being the polar tundra's. Then you have boreal forest that turns into prairie and goes all the way to about the mid-USA, where it turns into dessert until you get to southern mexico. Then once again it's arable land all the way to the Equator and beyond. One more dessert, one more patch of arable land, then the southern arctic circle.

With a warming planet, these bands would spread out. the arctic circles would shrink, the boreal/prairie and dessert bands would grow. I don't know whether the equatorial band would grow, or if it would split and in the future we have dessert around the equator instead of fertile land. Either way, there would likely be a net increase in usable farmland. However, far more people would be living in desert. So it's a bonus and a boon at the same time.

Course I could be wrong. Not an expert.

[Scape]

Canadian_Mind wrote:

Who the fuck cares? I don't get the whole global warming/climate change debate. It's a pissing contest. Why aren't we being more pro-active about preparing for climate change and putting most if not all our resources towards that, instead of trying to prevent climate change? Even without human influence, the climate changes; and we as a country are far to small a piece of the pie to make any lick of difference to the human affected portion of climate change.

Mankind's effect on climate may or may not be a fulcrum that is what is at issue. It doesn't have to be huge, it merely needs to give a gentle push to set things in motion. Climate on Earth has been something that has developed over several eons and it is something mankind would never be able to replicate by itself but we may have the ability to pull some of the levers that run it. If so we could end up causing the whole thing to come crashing down and resetting like a huge bookcase falling over but if that happens it would be EONS before we could get the planet climate back to where it is now.

That's the point. We talking an extinction level event here that we may be setting off on ourselves. Mankind's success on one hand may be seen as a virus to the earth and the earth may sneeze. Now even without man on earth it can still sneeze from time to time but why on earth provoke it?

[Canadian_Mind]

Scape wrote:

Canadian_Mind wrote:

Who the fuck cares? I don't get the whole global warming/climate change debate. It's a pissing contest. Why aren't we being more pro-active about preparing for climate change and putting most if not all our resources towards that, instead of trying to prevent climate change? Even without human influence, the climate changes; and we as a country are far to small a piece of the pie to make any lick of difference to the human affected portion of climate change.

Mankind's effect on climate may or may not be a fulcrum that is what is at issue. It doesn't have to be huge, it merely needs to give a gentle push to set things in motion. Climate on Earth has been something that has developed over several eons and it is something mankind would never be able to replicate by itself but we may have the ability to pull some of the levers that run it. If so we could end up causing the whole thing to come crashing down and resetting like a huge bookcase falling over but if that happens it would be EONS before we could get the planet climate back to where it is now.

That's the point. We talking an extinction level event here that we may be setting off on ourselves. Mankind's success on one hand may be seen as a virus to the earth and the earth may sneeze. Now even without man on earth it can still sneeze from time to time but why on earth provoke it?

Again, who cares? If we weren't the cause, awesome, we just wasted a bunch of resources trying to change the climate that we should have put towards preparing for climate change. If we were the cause, it's too late to change things now. The time to act would have been 50-75 years ago when we were to busy flirting with nuclear annihilation to give a damn about the climate.

And again, we are to small a piece of the pie to change anything even if we as a species still could. So if we truly are dealing with an extinction level event, lets start doing what the Norwegians are doing and record the genetic info of every living species on the planet, and prepare ourselves for the climate-induced mass-extinction event. Meaning build more dykes, make our roads and railways ice-age proof, etc.



Here's an idea: If you set off an avalanche while skiing, are you going to stop and try to catch all the snow before it crushes you and your friends/family/companions on the mountain? Or are you going to inform everyone else of the problem, and then do your best to get yourself and your loved ones out of the way?

[Scape]

Canadian_Mind wrote:

Again, who cares?

Same people who put man on the moon. The scientists, thinkers and the political elites of society.

Canadian_Mind wrote:

If we were the cause, it's too late to change things now. The time to act would have been 50-75 years ago when we were to busy flirting with nuclear annihilation to give a damn about the climate.

Is that a hypothesis or guesswork on your part? If it's a guess then your gambling that your right or your dead. Either way there is nothing to worry about. If your big concern is to not have anything weighty on your conscious then this whole debacle is rather annoying inconvenience then isn't it? However, if it does evoke the divine spark that is your existence then this is an issue once seen that can not be unseen and for that suffering you have my sympathy.

Canadian_Mind wrote:

And again, we are to small a piece of the pie to change anything even if we as a species still could. So if we truly are dealing with an extinction level event, lets start doing what the Norwegians are doing and record the genetic info of every living species on the planet, and prepare ourselves for the climate-induced mass-extinction event. Meaning build more dykes, make our roads and railways ice-age proof, etc.

A small flaw with that is we could live in a hole in the ground for quite some time, centuries even, but at some point we have to emerge from the hole. The time frame we are talking about here would be in the millions of years so all we would do with fallout shelters is delay the inevitable at that point. As the atmosphere would have fundamentally shifted, it may not even support oxygen and end up with a methane based atmosphere one instead.

[Canadian_Mind]

Scape wrote:

Same people who put man on the moon. The scientists, thinkers and the political elites of society.

The same folks who are repeatedly demonstrating they are wishing to alter the data to support their theories? I don't have any faith in a scientist that makes up fact. It's fraudulent.

Scape wrote:

Is that a hypothesis or guesswork on your part? If it's a guess then your gambling that your right or your dead. Either way there is nothing to worry about. If your big concern is to not have anything weighty on your conscious then this whole debacle is rather annoying inconvenience then isn't it? However, if it does evoke the divine spark that is your existence then this is an issue once seen that can not be unseen and for that suffering you have my sympathy.

It's neither a hypothesis or guesswork of my own. That statement is based on the charts that the Global Warming proponents have put forth. I can no longer count on my fingers and toes the number of times I've been told that we're pretty much fucked by the end of the century, but might be able to change things in 500 years if we eliminate all GHG emissions. If it's true, then I'm not going to bother wasting my energy trying to change what the climate will be 500 years down the road, and prepare for the worst instead. If it isn't true, and the climate isn't being destroyed by us, then why waste time trying to fix a problem that doesn't need to be fixed?

And I may be gambling that I'm right, or I'm dead. But no man ever died from being over-prepared for the worst.

Scape wrote:

A small flaw with that is we could live in a hole in the ground for quite some time, centuries even, but at some point we have to emerge from the hole. The time frame we are talking about here would be in the millions of years so all we would do with fallout shelters is delay the inevitable at that point. As the atmosphere would have fundamentally shifted, it may not even support oxygen and end up with a methane based atmosphere one instead.

Funny, I figured living in a hole in the ground would be the best solution to prevent further GHG emissions. And if we prevent further GHG emissions, why would the atmosphere turn into methane? What would cause the entire atmosphere to change from something thats 79% nitrogen to mostly methane?