U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Colorado
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 08-21-2013, 08:18 PM
 
Location: Wherabouts Unknown!
7,764 posts, read 16,843,278 times
Reputation: 9316

Advertisements

wanneroo wrote: if we examine what these people said in the 1980's and 1990's and what they predicted for now, they turned out to be dead wrong.

That's the nature of making predictions....they are usually wrong. Not just global warming predictions, but predictions in general. My prediction of life in general still stands. What will be will be.....whatever it happens to be. With a prediction like this, I am one a handful who always get it right.

Last edited by CosmicWizard; 08-21-2013 at 08:38 PM..

 
Old 08-21-2013, 08:33 PM
 
Location: Bend, OR
3,296 posts, read 8,426,113 times
Reputation: 3321
Quote:
Originally Posted by wanneroo View Post
No you will not argue over it because if we examine what these people said in the 1980's and 1990's and what they predicted for now, they turned out to be dead wrong. And not only that those involved got caught with their hand in the cookie jar falsifying data and putting misleading information out there. Of course they had to do that because if they told the truth they would be out of a job.

These people peddling this apocalyptic stuff are hucksters in it for money and their political control. It's got zero to do with the climate or even having the ability to control the climate. As of yet man has yet to figure out how to regulate the earth with a thermostat.

I really don't care about the dead trees and the pine beetle because if they had let fires burn years ago and even in the past decade, it would be a mute point. We wouldn't let the forest die and regenerate so nature found another way. Boo hoo hoo. Yes it looks ugly, but this is the cycle of life.
I do agree with you that we should have allowed the forests to burn decades ago. It hasn't happened though, and won't happen because people want to live in the mountains, in places like Vail (oh wait, didn't you live there for years too ). But, it's still only part of the equation.
 
Old 08-21-2013, 08:56 PM
 
8,317 posts, read 25,791,460 times
Reputation: 9132
The old saying, "Mother Nature bats last," says it all. It's always been that way and it always will be. The difference now is that the world is overrun with egotistical humans that think that they have "mastered" nature. Well, that is going to make a real "target-rich environment" for Mother Nature when she comes up to the plate. She will have a jillion human heads to bash in wherever she swings her bat.

If human-caused global warming is real (or even if it is not caused by humans), nature will take of it. That may mean exterminating a whole lot of us in the process, but nature will take care of it. The fires this summer in Colorado, and all over the West, are nature's way of "correcting" a century-plus of human fire suppression in the forests. Expect more of that in the years to come--there is a lot dead and diseased forest that hasn't burned yet, but needs to. Nature will take care of it--the sooner the better in the long run. It's not nature that is misbehaving--it's us.
 
Old 08-21-2013, 10:50 PM
 
Location: CO/UT/AZ/NM Catch me if you can!
4,697 posts, read 4,337,002 times
Reputation: 10278
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snikt View Post
Can you please provide your source for this data?
Sure

It comes from a page called the climate wizard which allows one to see changes in warming and drought under different scenarios. I picked the middle model, 50%: The info on the site explains that half of the models project a greater amount of change, and half of the models project less change as compared to the 1961-1990 baseline average. (IPCC 4th assessment)
 
Old 08-21-2013, 11:06 PM
 
Location: CO/UT/AZ/NM Catch me if you can!
4,697 posts, read 4,337,002 times
Reputation: 10278
Also, my apologies to all, that the first pragraph of my OP was a bit jumbled. No, it wasn't stoned typing, it was lack of sleep typing. Think I'll try to remedy the lack of sleep thing now, and make further replies tomorrow. Nite all and carry on the war.
 
Old 08-22-2013, 12:14 AM
 
Location: Pluto's Home Town
9,995 posts, read 11,645,813 times
Reputation: 5579
Quote:
Originally Posted by wanneroo View Post
As Rush Limbaugh has said many times(so glad I could bring him up for the Rambler) is that people's appreciation for history typically only goes back to their birth.

Hence people say "hey it's gotten hotter since the late 1970's, so the earth will be on fire by 2100!" and they completely neglect any meteorological history from the past. 1930's in Colorado was both hotter and drier than anything experienced recently. Even looking at the whole 20th century you can see 30-40 year cycles of hot/dry, cold/wet cycles. In fact Colorado has some trees that are nearly 2400 years old and tree core samples from those trees show Colorado swinging through 30-40 year climate cycles.

It's also been found that we go through much larger 300-400 year cycles. The medieval warming period for instance allowed the Vikings to colonize Newfoundland, Greenland and Iceland. When the weather suddenly turned cold around 1400, the Greenland Vikings quickly died off.

The ego of some humans believes that the earth began with their birth and will die when they pass on. The earth was here before them, will be here after them and some cycles are just larger than their lifespan.
Citing Rush Limbaugh in a post about climate change says a lot about you and one source of hot air, but doesn't say much about climate forecasting. You have the National Center of Atmospheric Research right there in Colorado. I'd recommend you go harangue some of those folks with your talk radio theories and see where it gets you.
 
Old 08-22-2013, 12:36 AM
 
Location: Vernon, British Columbia
3,019 posts, read 2,682,445 times
Reputation: 2127
Anyone is says that the 1930s were wetter than today is either an liar or a fool (not that anyone here would be that foolish).

 
Old 08-22-2013, 08:41 AM
 
Location: CO/UT/AZ/NM Catch me if you can!
4,697 posts, read 4,337,002 times
Reputation: 10278
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josseppie View Post
The problem is models are only as good as the data used and the data does not take into account the fact that information technology (both technologies that will replace fossil fuels and technologies that will be used to help clean the planet) advance exponentially. Thus all the models that look at global warming 25 or more years out are wrong and that is why I am not worried about the future of weather in Colorado.
Thanks for your reply Joss. It gives me the chance to point out a couple of things:

1) Folks who don't have much background in science often think technology will save us. I call this belief "too much magic" after the book by the same name. Technology can be great stuff. It allow people from all over Colorado to have this discussion with one another from the comfort of their living rooms or while sitting in a coffee shop using their smart phones. But technology will never be able to break the laws of physics, especially the laws of thermodynamics. We already have in place the technologies to clean the air. Nature gave them to us and they're called "carbon sinks" =

a) green plants, especially trees and forests like the ones growing in the Amazon jungle and other tropical regions. Unfortunately, we are destroying such forests at an alarming rate.

b) the oceans which can dissolve CO2 from the atmosphere. The high levels of CO2 now in the earth's atmosphere have over-whelmed this natural so-called "safety valve." The warmer temperatures have resulted in warmer ocean waters, as well. The chenical reaction which allows CO2 to be dissolved in the ocean is slowed when the water is warm and becomes less efficient. In addition, the oceans are becoming more acidic, thanks to the increased load of dissolved CO2. This increased acidity kills fish species we use as food and disrupts ocean ecosystems. You can read more about this problem here: Carbon sink a double-edged sword.

2. The reason why scientists do not take into account such technologies as you mentioned Joss, is that they are the stuff of science fiction since they break the first law of thermodynamics - energy is neither created nor destroyed. The amount of energy required to "srub" the planet's air would be astronomical since the Earth's atmosphere has a total volume of about 51,000 trillion trillion liters. Even if we COULD set up such a mechanism, the energy used in the process would result in the air and everything else becoming worse rather than better.
 
Old 08-22-2013, 10:24 AM
 
Location: Pueblo - Colorado's Second City
12,174 posts, read 20,966,911 times
Reputation: 4258
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colorado Rambler View Post
Thanks for your reply Joss. It gives me the chance to point out a couple of things:

1) Folks who don't have much background in science often think technology will save us. I call this belief "too much magic" after the book by the same name. Technology can be great stuff. It allow people from all over Colorado to have this discussion with one another from the comfort of their living rooms or while sitting in a coffee shop using their smart phones. But technology will never be able to break the laws of physics, especially the laws of thermodynamics. We already have in place the technologies to clean the air. Nature gave them to us and they're called "carbon sinks" =

a) green plants, especially trees and forests like the ones growing in the Amazon jungle and other tropical regions. Unfortunately, we are destroying such forests at an alarming rate.

b) the oceans which can dissolve CO2 from the atmosphere. The high levels of CO2 now in the earth's atmosphere have over-whelmed this natural so-called "safety valve." The warmer temperatures have resulted in warmer ocean waters, as well. The chenical reaction which allows CO2 to be dissolved in the ocean is slowed when the water is warm and becomes less efficient. In addition, the oceans are becoming more acidic, thanks to the increased load of dissolved CO2. This increased acidity kills fish species we use as food and disrupts ocean ecosystems. You can read more about this problem here: Carbon sink a double-edged sword.

2. The reason why scientists do not take into account such technologies as you mentioned Joss, is that they are the stuff of science fiction since they break the first law of thermodynamics - energy is neither created nor destroyed. The amount of energy required to "srub" the planet's air would be astronomical since the Earth's atmosphere has a total volume of about 51,000 trillion trillion liters. Even if we COULD set up such a mechanism, the energy used in the process would result in the air and everything else becoming worse rather than better.
This is from Ray Kurzweil, the director of engineering at a little company called Google. I would say he knows a lot about technology.

This is from PBS:

Futurist Ray Kurzweil isn’t worried about climate change

The link: Futurist Ray Kurzweil isn’t worried about climate change | Need to Know | PBS

More data on solar:

Current estimates suggest that solar might be as cheap as coal by the end of the decade, and half the cost of coal by the end of the next decade:
If the trend continues for another 8-10 years, which seems increasingly likely, solar will be as cheap as coal with the added benefit of zero carbon emissions. If the cost continues to fall over the next 20 years, solar costs will be half that of coal. These predictions may in fact be too conservative given that First Solar have reported internal production costs of 75 cents (46 pence) per watt with an expectation of 50 cents (31 pence) per watt by 2016. When applied to electricity prices this predicts that solar generated electricity in the US will descend to a level of 12 cents (7 pence) per kilowatt hour by 2020, possibly even 2015 for the sunniest parts of America.
The link: When Solar Becomes Cheaper Than Fossil Fuels | azizonomics

This is not science fiction but science fact. Discussed by some of the leading scientists in the world. That is why my personal goal is to be completely off the electrical grid and on solar by 2020. That goes for my house and the business I own in Pueblo.
 
Old 08-22-2013, 10:54 AM
 
Location: The 719
14,499 posts, read 22,355,839 times
Reputation: 13810
Quote:
Originally Posted by wanneroo View Post
They can't even predict the weather right 5 days out so ...
I disagree with this. I think the 5-7 day forecasts have become very accurate. You can rely upon them. I'm impressed with meteorologists today.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Colorado
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top