Arctic Warming Causing Cold Weather

Abubob · Feb 17, 2014

As far back as 1978 I've been hearing that Global Warming aka Climate Change is causing big winter storms. I say bring it!

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-sick-of-winter-blame-the-long-and-winding-jet-stream-20140216,0,639334.story

Nick · Feb 17, 2014

Here we go.

:popcorn:

BenedictGomez · Feb 17, 2014

Abubob said:
As far back as 1978 I've been hearing that Global Warming aka Climate Change is causing big winter storms

That's not very likely. Back in 1978 the fledgling field of climate change was worried about Global Cooling, not Global Warming.

Cannonball · Feb 17, 2014

^not really. Global warming linked to CO2 emissions first postulated in the 19th century. Revisited in the 1920s, 40s, 50s, and started gaining more widespread understanding and acceptance in the 1980s.

fbrissette · Feb 17, 2014

BenedictGomez said:
That's not very likely. Back in 1978 the fledgling field of climate change was worried about Global Cooling, not Global Warming.

The increase in aerosols concentration led some scientists to worry about potential cooling in the sixties but this was never mainstream. In 1978 the consensus about warming was already strong.

And characterizing 'climate change' as a fledgling field is simply ridiculous. Giants like Fourier, Arrhenius and Milankovitch and numerous others dedicated part of their life to climate change, generations before you were born.

Not Sure · Feb 17, 2014

Aerosols and gases are the wrong path. The heat generated fom millions of barrels per day used and all of the dark road surfaces ,roofs and automobiles (little green houses) generate more heat...That being said the Earth is an adaptable entity and we don't really know what will happen.
While I'm one for contolling pollution there is a great deal of money being made....ex
I had to get a EPA refrigerant certification in the 90's when HCFC phase out, during the class I was informed that Chlorine component is whats destroying ozone. I raised my hand an asked when Chlorine would be phased out?
The instructor launched into a tyraid on Rush Limbaugh. He then proceded to tell me chlorine was ok and did not off gas into the atmosphere!!!But they haven't been able to prove chlorine destroys ozone?
The phase out put a lot of money in the big co's who manufactred HFC's
So if you don't want to give up your car...paint your roof white

BenedictGomez · Feb 17, 2014

fbrissette said:
The increase in aerosols concentration led some scientists to worry about potential cooling in the sixties but this was never mainstream. In 1978 the consensus about warming was already strong.

No, it was definitely well into the 1970s.

fbrissette said:
And characterizing 'climate change' as a fledgling field is simply ridiculous. Giants like Fourier, Arrhenius and Milankovitch and numerous others dedicated part of their life to climate change, generations before you were born.

I'm talking specifically about the rebranded use of the term, "Climate Change", aka man-made Global Warming - AGM is most certainly a fledgling field.

fbrissette · Feb 17, 2014

BenedictGomez said:
AGM is most certainly a fledgling field.

How's life in black and white ?

flightschool · Feb 17, 2014

I tend to think the whole debate is stupid. Both sides are required to prove the impossible, much like there is god there is no god. Unless you could live simultaneously in parallel worlds yet separated in time by a 1000 years, you would not be able to support the theory with evidence that would stand up against the level of scrutiny that is the norm for all other areas of scientific endeavor that are subsequently used to alter public policy.

Rowsdower · Feb 17, 2014

flightschool said:
I tend to think the whole debate is stupid. Both sides are required to prove the impossible, much like there is god there is no god. Unless you could live simultaneously in parallel worlds yet separated in time by a 1000 years, you would not be able to support the theory with evidence that would stand up against the level of scrutiny that is the norm for all other areas of scientific endeavor that are subsequently used to alter public policy.

Please, none of this "historical science" nonsense. There are numerous, peer reviewed, methods for recording historical climate data which are supported by lots and lots of empirical evidence. If you can test it, then its scientific. You can test theories for global climate change. You can make predictions with those theories and see if your hypothesis is supported by data you collect. You cannot test the existence of the supernatural. It's not scientific. The two are not comparable.

flightschool · Feb 18, 2014

Rowsdower said:
Please, none of this "historical science" nonsense. There are numerous, peer reviewed, methods for recording historical climate data which are supported by lots and lots of empirical evidence. If you can test it, then its scientific. You can test theories for global climate change. You can make predictions with those theories and see if your hypothesis is supported by data you collect. You cannot test the existence of the supernatural. It's not scientific. The two are not comparable.

We can't account for all of the variables, and for many others we have poor metrics. Furthermore, there is no way to know if warming is certain or a lesser pace of cooling because 90% of what drives change is likely outside of our atmosphere.

jack97 · Feb 18, 2014

fbrissette said:
How's life in black and white ?

I noticed a correlation with alarmist or people who believe in AGW with name calling or simple phases as above.

What I will add to this topic is that CO2 is the hyped up molecule due to political activism and has been use as the cause to any climate change. Holdren who supports the hypothesis that AGW is causing the polar vortex is the political adviser to the Pres has written politically driven papers in the past.

jack97 · Feb 18, 2014

Siliconebobsquarepants said:
The instructor launched into a tyraid on Rush Limbaugh. He then proceded to tell me chlorine was ok and did not off gas into the atmosphere!!!But they haven't been able to prove chlorine destroys ozone?
The phase out put a lot of money in the big co's who manufactred HFC's

According to the latest satellite observations, the ozone depletion/hole has not closed. Leading scientist is saying that it should close around 2060. How's that for job security..... that's a great setup.

jack97 · Feb 18, 2014

Cannonball said:
^not really. Global warming linked to CO2 emissions first postulated in the 19th century. Revisited in the 1920s, 40s, 50s, and started gaining more widespread understanding and acceptance in the 1980s.

The postulation in the 19th century was motivated by competing technologies, an engineer who had an interest in steam engines started to measure co2 since he believed it be harmful.

The late Stephen Schnieder wrote papers in the lat 70's that CO2 would cause global cooling and then changed his hypothesis that it would cause global warming.

ScottySkis · Feb 18, 2014

Well epics snow storms coming I hear for us so that I welcome just need a truck to be able to drive home to my mountain road in the Shawngunks of NY.

fbrissette · Feb 18, 2014

You win. I finally get it.

The earth is not warming, and if it is, we are definitely not part of the problem.
CFCs did not destroy the ozone layer, and the good chemical industry tried very hard to save us money in the face of lying scientists who were getting tons of money out of this lie.

How about we debate something more basic. Are we really sure the earth is going around the sun ? Galileo made lots of money out of this one. 1 american out of 4 does not think so. Surely there's a few on this Forum.

Did we really evolve from earlier ape-like species ? 1 american out of 2 does not believe it.

I mean it's like trying to prove that god exists. Enough with the tyranny of bad lying scientists. Let's return to the dark ages.

http://newsfeed.time.com/2014/02/16/1-in-4-americans-thinks-sun-orbits-earth/

Rowsdower · Feb 18, 2014

flightschool said:
We can't account for all of the variables, and for many others we have poor metrics. Furthermore, there is no way to know if warming is certain or a lesser pace of cooling because 90% of what drives change is likely outside of our atmosphere.

And because of this I'm sure you reject evolution as well, and plate tectonics?

Tin · Feb 18, 2014

This is going to go nowhere fast.

And if you cite or quote historical science, I'm mad at you for hunting the dinosaurs to extinction.

Nick · Feb 18, 2014

Yup.

My view: Climate change is clearly happening. Whether its caused by humans or not, I don't know. Nor do I particularly care. I think we should invest money in trying to minimize our impact because even if it's not the root cause of climate change taking care of the earth is important, at least for my kids and their kids.

I seriously doubt the human race will last another 5,000 years anyway.

Puck it · Feb 18, 2014

Arctic Warming Causing Cold Weather

Well-known member

Administrator

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Member

Member

Member

New member

New member

New member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Member

Active member

Administrator

Well-known member

Similar threads