An Inconvenient Truth

Anything and everything goes here... post away!

Moderators: EatMoreLead, Nad, Suck.

User avatar
K2
Administrator
Posts: 7114
Joined: Sep 14th, 2002 at 6:33 am

An Inconvenient Truth

Postby K2 » Nov 29th, 2006 at 2:43 am

Well, I just watched 'An Inconvenient Truth' for the first time tonight. While Al Gore may be as exciting as a box of rocks, the message he conveys in this film more than made up for his lack of excitment. If you pay attention to what's being said, you can't help but take notice, and think.

Me and Jenn watch channels like the discovery channel, national geographic, and so on... and I have subscriptions to popular science, discover, and scientific american. By watching and reading all of these sources of media, you will get bits and pieces of how global warming affects us, what factors cause it, etc. This film tho, does a pretty good job at giving you the big picture - a compilation of trends based off of hard scientific data, that show a relation between CO2 content in our atmosphere vs. average global temperatures. And it's pretty clear that if these trends continue, some very bad things could be in store for us and all other life on this planet.

Have any of you noticed any changing climate trends in where you live over your lifetime? I have, and I have commented on them before in the past, way before 'global warming' was really anything anyone really talked about very much. When I was a kid growing up in northern Oklahoma, during the winters, we'd see a fair amount of snowfall from November thru February - there;d be at least 4-5 good solid snowfalls, each dumping anywhere from 9-16 inches of snow on the ground that would last a good while (anywhere from 9-10 days to a few weeks). Nighttime temps could get as low as -25 degrees F, and the highs would sometimes never get above 0-5 degrees F. This was back when I was in grade school, so late 70's to early 80's. I remember this vividly, because winter was always my favorite season of the year, and my 5th grade science project had to do with weather/climate in our area, so data tracking was one of the things I did.

Now? My folks still live in the same house, in the same neighborhood, in the same town since day one. My mom and dad tell me now that getting snow is a rare thing, and the lows barely dip below 20-25 degrees F, if that. They'll get a couple ice storms, and maybe a few days of snow, but nothing more than a couple inches, and nothing that lasts more than a few days. During the summer, it still gets hot as balls as it always did (105-115 degrees F on average), but the lows during the night are way too warm now. Mom used to have dad open the windows in the house at night to let the night breeze cool down the house... now it's too warm at night to do that.

Anyways, not to write a novel here... if you've seen the movie, post here what ya thought of it. If you havent seen it, check out this site - http://www.climatecrisis.net - and click on 'the science' link for starters, and have a read.

Curious to see how many of you all are in the dark about what's happening to the earths climate.

User avatar
Miracl3
Senior Member
Posts: 596
Joined: Mar 25th, 2006 at 8:51 am

Postby Miracl3 » Nov 29th, 2006 at 6:58 am

yeah keiths right...so all you pansies who use diesel powered dildos need to dwitch over to solar powered! :twisted:
Image
Image

User avatar
Campsalot
Senior Member
Posts: 911
Joined: Jul 20th, 2003 at 7:17 pm

Postby Campsalot » Nov 29th, 2006 at 9:46 am

Keith.. what is your take on the "Gore Effect"? You know, the effect that was seen in Boston and New York in 2004 and Australia this year where, at the time he happens to visit to preach his message of global warming, the locations have their coldest seasons in scores of years. I find it humorous in the very least. :D

Seriously though, there is no doubt that the earth is warming in different ways. However, I fail to give a lot of credence to the causes behind global warming that are preached from the environmental activists (of which Gore is a member of). The biggest producer of CO2 in the world is the trees and plants around us. Does that mean that we need to drive fewer SUVs? I don't think so. Not to mention the numerous scientists that failed to arrive at the same conclusions that Gore did after his film was released.

You know.. Gore did invent the Intarweb so I guess he is probably smarter than those other "scientists", anyway. :P

Camps

User avatar
WidowMaker
Benefactor
Posts: 2237
Joined: Sep 15th, 2002 at 7:49 pm

Postby WidowMaker » Nov 29th, 2006 at 10:27 am

So what happened to all the hurricanes that were supposed to happen again this year, from global warming and all? I guess they forgot to show up?

Concerning weather... in 2004, Houston and much of South Texas had its first Whie Christmas in like 50 years. We got like 3 inches of snow at my parents house, in a suburb between Houston and Galveston. A little further south in Victoria, they got like 12 inches of snow. It was awesome.



-Wid
- The AWP god formerly known as 'WidowMaker' [Retired]
-------------------------------------------------------------------
-Game Designer
-Retro Studios - www.retrostudios.com
-If the next Metroid sucks, you will know who to blame.

User avatar
Best_predator
Banished to Siberia
Posts: 2786
Joined: Dec 21st, 2004 at 5:40 pm

Postby Best_predator » Nov 29th, 2006 at 11:23 am

Campsalot wrote:The biggest producer of CO2 in the world is the trees and plants around us.


lol what? Am i missing something?
Sneaky bastard...
"Knowing is not enough; we must apply. Willing is not enough; we must do." ~ Goethe

User avatar
Relic
Senior Member
Posts: 604
Joined: Jul 2nd, 2003 at 10:08 pm

Postby Relic » Nov 29th, 2006 at 1:09 pm

If you want to spend your money watching this type of crappy rhetoric I encourage you to buy the Farenheit: 911 Collectors Addition to feed your mind.

Here is a copy/paste to inform all the alarmists:

Eight Reasons Why ‘Global Warming’ Is a Scam


Written By: Joseph L. Bast
Published In: Heartlander
Publication Date: February 1, 2003
Publisher: The Heartland Institute


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


When Al Gore lost his bid to become the country’s first “Environment President,” many of us thought the “global warming” scare would finally come to a well-deserved end. That hasn’t happened, despite eight good reasons this scam should finally be put to rest.


It’s B-a-a-ck!

Similar scares orchestrated by radical environmentalists in the past--such as Alar, global cooling, the “population bomb,” and electromagnetic fields--were eventually debunked by scientists and no longer appear in the speeches or platforms of public officials. The New York Times recently endorsed more widespread use of DDT to combat malaria, proving Rachel Carson’s anti-pesticide gospel is no longer sacrosanct even with the liberal elite.

The scientific case against catastrophic global warming is at least as strong as the case for DDT, but the global warming scare hasn’t gone away. President Bush is waffling on the issue, rightly opposing the Kyoto Protocol and focusing on research and voluntary projects, but wrongly allowing his administration to support calls for creating “transferrable emission credits” for greenhouse gas reductions. Such credits would build political and economic support for a Kyoto-like cap on greenhouse gas emissions.

At the state level, some 23 states have already adopted caps on greenhouse gas emissions or goals for replacing fossil fuels with alternative energy sources. These efforts are doomed to be costly failures, as a new Heartland Policy Study by Dr. Jay Lehr and James Taylor documents. Instead of concentrating on balancing state budgets, some legislators will be working to pass their own “mini-Kyotos.”


Eight Reasons to End the Scam

Concern over “global warming” is overblown and misdirected. What follows are eight reasons why we should pull the plug on this scam before it destroys billions of dollars of wealth and millions of jobs.

1. Most scientists do not believe human activities threaten to disrupt the Earth’s climate. More than 17,000 scientists have signed a petition circulated by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine saying, in part, “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” (Go to www.oism.org for the complete petition and names of signers.) Surveys of climatologists show similar skepticism.

2. Our most reliable sources of temperature data show no global warming trend. Satellite readings of temperatures in the lower troposphere (an area scientists predict would immediately reflect any global warming) show no warming since readings began 23 years ago. These readings are accurate to within 0.01ºC, and are consistent with data from weather balloons. Only land-based temperature stations show a warming trend, and these stations do not cover the entire globe, are often contaminated by heat generated by nearby urban development, and are subject to human error.

3. Global climate computer models are too crude to predict future climate changes. All predictions of global warming are based on computer models, not historical data. In order to get their models to produce predictions that are close to their designers’ expectations, modelers resort to “flux adjustments” that can be 25 times larger than the effect of doubling carbon dioxide concentrations, the supposed trigger for global warming. Richard A. Kerr, a writer for Science, says “climate modelers have been ‘cheating’ for so long it’s almost become respectable.”

4. The IPCC did not prove that human activities are causing global warming. Alarmists frequently quote the executive summaries of reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a United Nations organization, to support their predictions. But here is what the IPCC’s latest report, Climate Change 2001, actually says about predicting the future climate: “The Earth’s atmosphere-ocean dynamics is chaotic: its evolution is sensitive to small perturbations in initial conditions. This sensitivity limits our ability to predict the detailed evolution of weather; inevitable errors and uncertainties in the starting conditions of a weather forecast amplify through the forecast. As well as uncertainty in initial conditions, such predictions are also degraded by errors and uncertainties in our ability to represent accurately the significant climate processes.”

5. A modest amount of global warming, should it occur, would be beneficial to the natural world and to human civilization. Temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period (roughly 800 to 1200 AD), which allowed the Vikings to settle presently inhospitable Greenland, were higher than even the worst-case scenario reported by the IPCC. The period from about 5000-3000 BC, known as the “climatic optimum,” was even warmer and marked “a time when mankind began to build its first civilizations,” observe James Plummer and Frances B. Smith in a study for Consumer Alert. “There is good reason to believe that a warmer climate would have a similar effect on the health and welfare of our own far more advanced and adaptable civilization today.”

6. Efforts to quickly reduce human greenhouse gas emissions would be costly and would not stop Earth’s climate from changing. Reducing U.S. carbon dioxide emissions to 7 percent below 1990’s levels by the year 2012--the target set by the Kyoto Protocol--would require higher energy taxes and regulations causing the nation to lose 2.4 million jobs and $300 billion in annual economic output. Average household income nationwide would fall by $2,700, and state tax revenues would decline by $93.1 billion due to less taxable earned income and sales, and lower property values. Full implementation of the Kyoto Protocol by all participating nations would reduce global temperature in the year 2100 by a mere 0.14 degrees Celsius.

7. Efforts by state governments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are even more expensive and threaten to bust state budgets. After raising their spending with reckless abandon during the 1990s, states now face a cumulative projected deficit of more than $90 billion. Incredibly, most states nevertheless persist in backing unnecessary and expensive greenhouse gas reduction programs. New Jersey, for example, collects $358 million a year in utility taxes to fund greenhouse gas reduction programs. Such programs will have no impact on global greenhouse gas emissions. All they do is destroy jobs and waste money.

8. The best strategy to pursue is “no regrets.” The alternative to demands for immediate action to “stop global warming” is not to do nothing. The best strategy is to invest in atmospheric research now and in reducing emissions sometime in the future if the science becomes more compelling. In the meantime, investments should be made to reduce emissions only when such investments make economic sense in their own right.

This strategy is called “no regrets,” and it is roughly what the Bush administration has been doing. The U.S. spends more on global warming research each year than the entire rest of the world combined, and American businesses are leading the way in demonstrating new technologies for reducing and sequestering greenhouse gas emissions.


Time for Common Sense

The global warming scare has enabled environmental advocacy groups to raise billions of dollars in contributions and government grants. It has given politicians (from Al Gore down) opportunities to pose as prophets of doom and slayers of evil corporations. And it has given bureaucrats at all levels of government, from the United Nations to city councils, powers that threaten our jobs and individual liberty.

It is time for common sense to return to the debate over protecting the environment. An excellent first step would be to end the “global warming” scam.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Joseph L. Bast is president of The Heartland Institute.



-Relic
Image

YOU CLICK DRAGON

User avatar
Jahiliyya
Senior Member
Posts: 648
Joined: Feb 22nd, 2005 at 9:05 pm

Postby Jahiliyya » Nov 29th, 2006 at 2:06 pm

Campsalot wrote:The biggest producer of CO2 in the world is the trees and plants around us. Camps


I'm confused Camps...Tree's convert CO2 to O2 as part of photosynthesis.

6H2O + 6CO2 ----------> C6H12O6+ 6O2

Image
There's a blip that hovers that city that can see thry anything, like x-ray, they can see everything you do. ~Keyser

User avatar
Campsalot
Senior Member
Posts: 911
Joined: Jul 20th, 2003 at 7:17 pm

Postby Campsalot » Nov 29th, 2006 at 2:41 pm

Bah.. that's what happens you have too many things going at the same time. What I meant to say was that trees CONSUME a lot of CO2 and in the northern hemisphere, absorb more sunlight without releasing condensation which warms the atmosphere, thereby acting as a contributor to global warming. Sorry for the confusion.

Camps

User avatar
K2
Administrator
Posts: 7114
Joined: Sep 14th, 2002 at 6:33 am

Postby K2 » Nov 29th, 2006 at 3:18 pm

Wow. I dont even know where to begin. All of ya that think global warming is a 'scam' are fucking RETARDED (esp that post from this Bast guy Relic... what drugs are you smokin' today?). Lemme guess, you're conservative republican too, right?

FYI - having a cold winter does not automatically debunk global warming. And an area having it's first 'white x-mas' in over 50 yrs actually supports the fact that humans are altering the climate on a global scale. Not only are you having areas with record drought/high heat, you're also having areas that are seeing tons more precipitaion (rain or snow) than they ever had in the past.

I am at work, and I dont have time to launch into the full reply I wanna do. More later.

User avatar
Jahiliyya
Senior Member
Posts: 648
Joined: Feb 22nd, 2005 at 9:05 pm

Postby Jahiliyya » Nov 29th, 2006 at 3:31 pm

K2 wrote:FYI - having a cold winter does not automatically debunk global warming. And an area having it's first 'white x-mas' in over 50 yrs actually supports the fact that humans are altering the climate on a global scale. Not only are you having areas with record drought/high heat, you're also having areas that are seeing tons more precipitaion (rain or snow) than they ever had in the past.


Having a cold winter doesn't debunk global warming. Having a drought or more precipitation doesn't prove human influence either, Keith.

Think about how that sounds... All that it proves is that the global climate is changing.

We know that the global climate was in flux long before humans got here, so why are you so quick to point to human influence?
There's a blip that hovers that city that can see thry anything, like x-ray, they can see everything you do. ~Keyser

User avatar
WidowMaker
Benefactor
Posts: 2237
Joined: Sep 15th, 2002 at 7:49 pm

Postby WidowMaker » Nov 29th, 2006 at 4:04 pm

K2 is right, humans are destroying the planet. I say we eliminate the human race, starting with K2! :twisted:

I, of course, will oversee this elimination, thus will be the last man alive! Muwahahahaaa!


-Wid
- The AWP god formerly known as 'WidowMaker' [Retired]

-------------------------------------------------------------------

-Game Designer

-Retro Studios - www.retrostudios.com

-If the next Metroid sucks, you will know who to blame.

User avatar
Exile
Member
Posts: 100
Joined: Apr 25th, 2006 at 7:28 pm

Postby Exile » Nov 29th, 2006 at 5:10 pm

On a side note.. I'll besure to archive these threads on global warming for a debate class if needed.


Could totally score some chicks (lol)
Lies, Hax and Interpolation.
Image

User avatar
Jeng
Elite Member
Posts: 1360
Joined: Nov 16th, 2005 at 6:16 pm

Postby Jeng » Nov 29th, 2006 at 7:12 pm

Beside the effect of the chemicals we add to the atmosphere, you also need to think about the straight up amount of heat we add to the atmosphere every day. All that oil we consume doesn't exactly produce endothermic reactions. I wonder if someone has estimated the amount of BTU's we push out each day from our vehicles and power plants?

Didn't read Relics paste there so this might have been mentioned there, but surprised no one tried saying that Volcanoes n such put out more pollutants than we do and there for the amount of pollution we put out is inconsequential, which is something I have heard others say, but to put that argument to rest before it begins.

One of the first links I found on a google of the issue.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/l ... no01m.html

Since Mount St. Helens started erupting in early October, it has been pumping out between 50 and 250 tons a day of sulfur dioxide, the lung-stinging gas that causes acid rain and contributes to haze..............The volcano has even pulled ahead of the coal-fired power plant near Centralia that is normally the state's top air polluter. In the mid-1990s, when the facility's emission rate was about 200 tons a day, regulators pressed for $250 million in pollution controls to bring it down to today's level of 27 tons...........Worldwide, sulfur dioxide emissions from volcanoes add up to about 15 million tons a year, compared to the 200 million tons produced by power plants and other human activities.


Another major contributor to global warming is water vapor (camps that is what you wanted to say probably in regards to trees).

Anyway, global warming for the most part is probably the wrong phrase to describe the climate change we are creating since the effect isn't higher temperatures, the effect is more energy in the atmosphere which causes more wind and greater variances in temperature, global warming won't actually take place until the ice caps are depleted more.

Btw, haven't watched an Inconvenient Truth yet, but plan to.
I really need to change this sig

User avatar
Jeng
Elite Member
Posts: 1360
Joined: Nov 16th, 2005 at 6:16 pm

Postby Jeng » Nov 29th, 2006 at 8:01 pm

Relic wrote:If you want to spend your money watching this type of crappy rhetoric I encourage you to buy the Farenheit: 911 Collectors Addition to feed your mind.

Here is a copy/paste to inform all the alarmists:

Eight Reasons Why ‘Global Warming’ Is a Scam


-Relic


The guy isn't even good with math, besides not being an environmental scientist.

From his own website.
During the past 2 years, more than 17,100 basic and applied American scientists, two-thirds with advanced degrees, have signed the Global Warming Petition.

Signers of this petition so far include 2,660 physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, and environmental scientists (select this link for a listing of these individuals) who are especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide on the Earth's atmosphere and climate.

Signers of this petition also include 5,017 scientists whose fields of specialization in chemistry, biochemistry, biology, and other life sciences (select this link for a listing of these individuals) make them especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide upon the Earth's plant and animal life.

2660 + 5017 = 7677 , not the 17,000 scientists that he claims

More debunking.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?ti ... d_Medicine
I really need to change this sig

User avatar
K2
Administrator
Posts: 7114
Joined: Sep 14th, 2002 at 6:33 am

Postby K2 » Nov 29th, 2006 at 9:09 pm

I'm aware of natural causes of CO2, SO2, and other compounds that enter our atmosphere that can have a negative effect... hell, cow farts contribute significantly.

However... ;)

In the film, Gore discussed the findings of a team of scientists that took a core sample from one of Antarctica's ice shelves... deep enough to record the composition of our atmosphere going back to approx. 650,000 years. The results of those findings was published in Science magazine last year. What the study showed, was that the earths climate has periods of warm weather, then periods of cold (ice ages), and then back again. It's cyclic... and the CO2 levels show to be at their lowest during the ice age periods, and at their highest during the warm periods.

Right now, we're already in the middle of a natural warm period.

The problem tho, is that humans as a whole, since the industrial revolution began, have been adding a significant amount more CO2 to the atmosphere than what's natural during this period. It's something like 380 ppm, which is about 27% higher than it's ever been in the last 650,000 years. So in effect, we're making a normally warm period even warmer, and if the trend continues, the consequences could be bad... in fact, it's possible it could actually bring about a mini ice age, as weird as that sounds.

Take a look, this page describes the Science magazine article in a lot more detail - http://news.mongabay.com/2005/1124-climate.html

Global warming is not the end of the world, billions of people are not going to die from the effects of it. But, it could drastically change how and where we live, and that would definitely kill off several millions over time in under-developed countries that wouldnt be able to adapt.

User avatar
Campsalot
Senior Member
Posts: 911
Joined: Jul 20th, 2003 at 7:17 pm

Postby Campsalot » Nov 29th, 2006 at 10:19 pm

I don't believe the earth is 650,000 years old, so I have a hard time believing that data. If they can't properly date something, how do they know their other findings are accurate?

User avatar
K2
Administrator
Posts: 7114
Joined: Sep 14th, 2002 at 6:33 am

Postby K2 » Nov 30th, 2006 at 12:33 am

Campsalot wrote:I don't believe the earth is 650,000 years old, so I have a hard time believing that data. If they can't properly date something, how do they know their other findings are accurate?


Please tell me you're kidding... Camps, you arent one of those people who think the earth is only 6000 yrs old do ya? :?

Anyways... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core#Dating_cores - it's not a perfect science (it becomes more difficult the deeper you go), but it can get you in the ballpark, and you can narrow down the timeline based on other data. So a sample taken that's approx. 650,000 yrs old could be off by +/- say 10,000 yrs. That's a margin of less than 2% error.

Read also - http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/icecore/review.php - very informative. Learning curve on this article is high.

User avatar
KillerClown
Senior Member
Posts: 759
Joined: Sep 14th, 2002 at 8:39 pm

Postby KillerClown » Nov 30th, 2006 at 5:01 am

lol man I love some discovery channel and science programs.

The earth is estimated at about ~4.6 billion years old actually.

Also See:
http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth
http://gpc.edu/~pgore/geology/geo102/age.htm
http://geology.wr.usgs.gov/parks/gtime/ageofearth.pdf

I find it pretty wildly amazing at some of the things you can learn from science channels/videos/movies/etc in general.
The $12 million bullet shot at the comet was pretty sick. And at 2000-3000 feet deep in the ocean there are some ugly mofo'in fish ^^

The earth has been through many Ice Ages (est. around once every 200 million years) and thousands of glaciations, though I personally don't believe any of us, or well even the next 5-10 generations or more will really see any major effects of global warming, I do think it is happening...Though I would not take the temperature measurements approach to it, I would lean more towards the water/ice levels side. I wouldn't say induce a mini Ice Age though....We are still in an Ice Age currently (The earth has been for the last 30 million years). :P
(Yes I do realize a lot of people call glaciations Ice Age's, though imo it's not the right term to use...since an Ice Age is the expansion and contraction of the glaciers (10's-100's of millions years), and a glaciation is just the height of the expansion basically (which lasts 10's of thousands of years))

Ice Age:
Ice Ages are intervals of time when large areas of the surface of the earth are covered with ice sheets (large continental glaciers).

The term is used to describe time intervals on two very different scales. It describes long, generally cool intervals of Earth history (tens to hundreds of millions of years) during which glaciers advanced and receded. The term also describes shorter time periods (tens of thousands of years) during which glaciers were near their maximum extent. These shorter intervals are also known as "glaciations."


I think we would just be interrupting the earths natural pattern, and in turn either 1 of 2 things...
1) Flood the earth with water from the melting of the ice in an unnatural way (Maybe not completely flood, but a slower rising in water decreasing land over time).
2) Induce an early glaciation (see above for definition)

I think what you're referring to as an Ice Age is better described as a glaciation, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you're wrong in saying Ice Age because really you're not directly wrong...I just think that this is a better way to divide the 2 common uses of the phrase 'Ice Age' to a more "explainable" level. :P


If I have managed to get myself confused, I apologize in advance, it is pretty late and I am higher than shit atm (I may have mis-read something or just been misinformed in general), feel free to let me know. :P
"Truth is treason in the empire of lies." - Ron Paul

User avatar
Relic
Senior Member
Posts: 604
Joined: Jul 2nd, 2003 at 10:08 pm

Postby Relic » Nov 30th, 2006 at 8:11 am

For those to lazy to read the article I pasted:

K2's justification for buying into this global warming theory is based on climate change in certain parts of Oklahoma. There are several scholarly articles in regards to this issue and the evidence trumps the theory. Climate changes have been happening long before man reached the industrial age. Im not telling you my opinion, its a fact, global warming is bullshit, just like Y2K, DDT, and alien abductions.

The impact economically isn't worth the exercise in futility in trying to reverse or elimintate the alleged causes of global warming. Everything Al Gore wants to try is the equivalant of poking something with a very expensive stick hoping something falls out.

Its alarmist bullshit, don't get sucked into it...



P.S.
Al Gore is a sore loser.



-Relic
Image



YOU CLICK DRAGON

User avatar
Jahiliyya
Senior Member
Posts: 648
Joined: Feb 22nd, 2005 at 9:05 pm

Re: An Inconvenient Truth

Postby Jahiliyya » Nov 30th, 2006 at 10:10 am

K2 wrote:Have any of you noticed any changing climate trends in where you live over your lifetime? I have, and I have commented on them before in the past, way before 'global warming' was really anything anyone really talked about very much. When I was a kid growing up in northern Oklahoma, during the winters, we'd see a fair amount of snowfall from November thru February - there;d be at least 4-5 good solid snowfalls, each dumping anywhere from 9-16 inches of snow on the ground that would last a good while (anywhere from 9-10 days to a few weeks). Nighttime temps could get as low as -25 degrees F, and the highs would sometimes never get above 0-5 degrees F. This was back when I was in grade school, so late 70's to early 80's. I remember this vividly, because winter was always my favorite season of the year, and my 5th grade science project had to do with weather/climate in our area, so data tracking was one of the things I did.

Now? My folks still live in the same house, in the same neighborhood, in the same town since day one. My mom and dad tell me now that getting snow is a rare thing, and the lows barely dip below 20-25 degrees F, if that. They'll get a couple ice storms, and maybe a few days of snow, but nothing more than a couple inches, and nothing that lasts more than a few days. During the summer, it still gets hot as balls as it always did (105-115 degrees F on average), but the lows during the night are way too warm now. Mom used to have dad open the windows in the house at night to let the night breeze cool down the house... now it's too warm at night to do that.


I grew up in north central Oklahoma so your comment on the weather was interesting to me. I went and checked back in the farmer's almanac to have a look at conditions in the time frame you mentioned and I don't see any temperatures falling below 0. (I took a healthy sampling from 75 to 80 between Dec 1st and Apr 1st. Possible that I missed one or two days that fell below 0, but there certainly wasn't a trend where it was barely getting up to 0 - 5 degrees.) For the area that I was looking at the temperatures are about the same as they've always been. My folks are still there and I haven't noticed any major temperature changes whenever I go back. Seems like the same trends are still occuring. Drought every few years. Floods a few years after that. Snow on Spring Break. Like clockwork.
There's a blip that hovers that city that can see thry anything, like x-ray, they can see everything you do. ~Keyser

User avatar
K2
Administrator
Posts: 7114
Joined: Sep 14th, 2002 at 6:33 am

Postby K2 » Nov 30th, 2006 at 10:11 am

Relic wrote:For those to lazy to read the article I pasted:

K2's justification for buying into this global warming theory is based on climate change in certain parts of Oklahoma. There are several scholarly articles in regards to this issue and the evidence trumps the theory. Climate changes have been happening long before man reached the industrial age. Im not telling you my opinion, its a fact, global warming is bullshit, just like Y2K, DDT, and alien abductions.

The impact economically isn't worth the exercise in futility in trying to reverse or elimintate the alleged causes of global warming. Everything Al Gore wants to try is the equivalant of poking something with a very expensive stick hoping something falls out.

Its alarmist bullshit, don't get sucked into it...



P.S.
Al Gore is a sore loser.



-Relic


Yeah right, I deduced artificial CO2 levels rising because of a lack of snow where I grew up. ROFL, gimmie a break.

OF COURSE climate changes have occured naturally before humans even existed... the point being made is that humans as a race are causing some of these changes to accelerate faster than they do naturally, with more profound affect. Or did you even bother to look at the links I posted?

I think Relic, that you are on the big coal company payroll to dish out mis-information like some scientists and professors have been caught doing. I'm more comfortable in believeing that, than thinking you're actually just really dumb.

User avatar
K2
Administrator
Posts: 7114
Joined: Sep 14th, 2002 at 6:33 am

Re: An Inconvenient Truth

Postby K2 » Nov 30th, 2006 at 10:19 am

Jahiliyya wrote:
K2 wrote:Have any of you noticed any changing climate trends in where you live over your lifetime? I have, and I have commented on them before in the past, way before 'global warming' was really anything anyone really talked about very much. When I was a kid growing up in northern Oklahoma, during the winters, we'd see a fair amount of snowfall from November thru February - there;d be at least 4-5 good solid snowfalls, each dumping anywhere from 9-16 inches of snow on the ground that would last a good while (anywhere from 9-10 days to a few weeks). Nighttime temps could get as low as -25 degrees F, and the highs would sometimes never get above 0-5 degrees F. This was back when I was in grade school, so late 70's to early 80's. I remember this vividly, because winter was always my favorite season of the year, and my 5th grade science project had to do with weather/climate in our area, so data tracking was one of the things I did.

Now? My folks still live in the same house, in the same neighborhood, in the same town since day one. My mom and dad tell me now that getting snow is a rare thing, and the lows barely dip below 20-25 degrees F, if that. They'll get a couple ice storms, and maybe a few days of snow, but nothing more than a couple inches, and nothing that lasts more than a few days. During the summer, it still gets hot as balls as it always did (105-115 degrees F on average), but the lows during the night are way too warm now. Mom used to have dad open the windows in the house at night to let the night breeze cool down the house... now it's too warm at night to do that.


I grew up in north central Oklahoma so your comment on the weather was interesting to me. I went and checked back in the farmer's almanac to have a look at conditions in the time frame you mentioned and I don't see any temperatures falling below 0. (I took a healthy sampling from 75 to 80 between Dec 1st and Apr 1st. Possible that I missed one or two days that fell below 0, but there certainly wasn't a trend where it was barely getting up to 0 - 5 degrees.) For the area that I was looking at the temperatures are about the same as they've always been. My folks are still there and I haven't noticed any major temperature changes whenever I go back. Seems like the same trends are still occuring. Drought every few years. Floods a few years after that. Snow on Spring Break. Like clockwork.


Got a link? And where in Northern OK where ya? I was in Ponca, and lemme tell ya, it used to get damn cold there.

User avatar
Relic
Senior Member
Posts: 604
Joined: Jul 2nd, 2003 at 10:08 pm

Postby Relic » Nov 30th, 2006 at 10:36 am

I could play you a game of chess if that would help you decide if I am dumb or not... :twisted:
I believe its DUMB to buy into this propoganda. I also think you may have spent too much time huddled in your Y2K bunker waiting for technology to trigger doomsday. I equate your links to the same I read regarding the Y2K issue,or the hole we are ripping in the ozone layer...allegedly.

This movie by Al Gore just released is beating a dead horse.There is alot of information out there regarding the issue. Unlike you, I choose to believe that the earth has, is and always will go through climate changes and our impact on it while it may not be negligible, is insignificant compared to what the earth does to itself without our help.



-Relic
Image



YOU CLICK DRAGON

User avatar
Jahiliyya
Senior Member
Posts: 648
Joined: Feb 22nd, 2005 at 9:05 pm

Re: An Inconvenient Truth

Postby Jahiliyya » Nov 30th, 2006 at 11:06 am

K2 wrote:
Jahiliyya wrote:
K2 wrote:Have any of you noticed any changing climate trends in where you live over your lifetime? I have, and I have commented on them before in the past, way before 'global warming' was really anything anyone really talked about very much. When I was a kid growing up in northern Oklahoma, during the winters, we'd see a fair amount of snowfall from November thru February - there;d be at least 4-5 good solid snowfalls, each dumping anywhere from 9-16 inches of snow on the ground that would last a good while (anywhere from 9-10 days to a few weeks). Nighttime temps could get as low as -25 degrees F, and the highs would sometimes never get above 0-5 degrees F. This was back when I was in grade school, so late 70's to early 80's. I remember this vividly, because winter was always my favorite season of the year, and my 5th grade science project had to do with weather/climate in our area, so data tracking was one of the things I did.

Now? My folks still live in the same house, in the same neighborhood, in the same town since day one. My mom and dad tell me now that getting snow is a rare thing, and the lows barely dip below 20-25 degrees F, if that. They'll get a couple ice storms, and maybe a few days of snow, but nothing more than a couple inches, and nothing that lasts more than a few days. During the summer, it still gets hot as balls as it always did (105-115 degrees F on average), but the lows during the night are way too warm now. Mom used to have dad open the windows in the house at night to let the night breeze cool down the house... now it's too warm at night to do that.


I grew up in north central Oklahoma so your comment on the weather was interesting to me. I went and checked back in the farmer's almanac to have a look at conditions in the time frame you mentioned and I don't see any temperatures falling below 0. (I took a healthy sampling from 75 to 80 between Dec 1st and Apr 1st. Possible that I missed one or two days that fell below 0, but there certainly wasn't a trend where it was barely getting up to 0 - 5 degrees.) For the area that I was looking at the temperatures are about the same as they've always been. My folks are still there and I haven't noticed any major temperature changes whenever I go back. Seems like the same trends are still occuring. Drought every few years. Floods a few years after that. Snow on Spring Break. Like clockwork.


Got a link? And where in Northern OK where ya? I was in Ponca, and lemme tell ya, it used to get damn cold there.


http://www.almanac.com/weathercenter/

I grew up in Stillwater. So, 45 miles south. Interestingly enough, I couldn't get temperatures from Stillwater for that time period, so I used the data from PONCA CITY MUNICIPAL, OK.

Also, note that I was not looking at the median or mean temperatures for those dates, I was looking at the low temp. The average was never below 0 and the high was definately absolutely never below 0.

In your science class were you using a funky thermometer or something? I just don't see days that were that cold.
There's a blip that hovers that city that can see thry anything, like x-ray, they can see everything you do. ~Keyser

User avatar
rekloose-[PUPPY]
Elite Member
Posts: 4182
Joined: Sep 14th, 2002 at 11:38 pm

Postby rekloose-[PUPPY] » Nov 30th, 2006 at 11:12 am

K2 wrote:
Campsalot wrote:I don't believe the earth is 650,000 years old, so I have a hard time believing that data. If they can't properly date something, how do they know their other findings are accurate?


Please tell me you're kidding... Camps, you arent one of those people who think the earth is only 6000 yrs old do ya? :?


This thread made me want to log in ...

Keith, a few moons ago there was a thread were Camps and Burz both came out against carbon dating, ice dating, etc. and said they believed the earth was a thousand years old (New Earthers). Trying to debate science with them is an exercise of futility.

Also, global warming will bring heavier rainfall AND snow. How obtuse do you have to be to think that global warming means less snow? On the contrary, global warming will cause intense rain and snow storms.

http://news.com.com/Global+warming+to+b ... 95784.html
Rising temperatures in the world's atmosphere and oceans will lead to more intense storms as the century progresses, according to a new report from the National Center for Atmospheric Research.


Anyway, here are some links about this year being the warmest one ever on record:

http://www.24dash.com/environment/12342.htm
The Met Office's current record for the UK's warmest year is 2003, followed by 2004, 2002 and 2005.


http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/arti ... article.do

http://www.localnewswatch.com/skyvalley ... s&id=30432
With NASA reporting that 2005 was the warmest year on record worldwide ...


Return to “General Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests