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.
Oh noes! I wonder if this is caused by acid rain or the vanishing ozone layer or burning rainforests or maybe the killer bees.
And this post is the embodiment of commoners I referred to in my previous posts.
Scientists discovered ozone destroying chemicals used by industries. They worked tirelessly to bring awareness. Engineers worked to find alternatives. Ozone degradation disaster is averted. And now we have commoners questioning about the ozone holes because they ain't see no holes.
As an engineer, I have to face this kind of flawed reasoning by commoners all the time.
One of my colleagues was on a team of engineers who discovered structural integrity problems in one of our local bridges. They brought it up and got the DOT to fund the repairs. To this day, we still got commoners trying to make the case that it was a waste of money because the bridge ain't collapsed yet. Of course it hasn't collapsed... we fixed it!
And this post is the embodiment of commoners I referred to in my previous posts.
Scientists discovered ozone destroying chemicals used by industries. They worked tirelessly to bring awareness. Engineers worked to find alternatives. Ozone degradation disaster is averted. And now we have commoners questioning about the ozone holes because they ain't see no holes.
As an engineer, I have to face this kind of flawed reasoning by commoners all the time.
One of my colleagues was on a team of engineers who discovered structural integrity problems in one of our local bridges. They brought it up and got the DOT to fund the repairs. To this day, we still got commoners trying to make the case that it was a waste of money because the bridge ain't collapsed yet. Of course it hasn't collapsed... we fixed it!
Yes, and when global warming never happens, warmers will pat themselves on the back and thank themselves for preventing glibal destruction with hybrids and plastic bag taxes.
Completely opposite of what is "supposed" to happen in about 15 years... When the "perma drought" doesn't show up in 2030, I guess they will postpone it for another 15 years claiming natural variation in climate overrunning man made influence
Quote:
Are you saying that the droughts and floods in the midwest are not real?
No you just did.
Quote:
Are they some sort of false flag event staged by Hollywood directors and crisis actors in order to justify government action?
Floods and droughts have happened and will continue to happen. There has been no trend to show droughts increasing in the Midwest.
Quote:
Do you even know how to read it?
Yes. Do you?
Quote:
First of all, obviously you can't say that the predictions for 2030-39 are wrong. Simply rolling your eyes and saying 'pffff yeah, whatever' doesn't constitute any sort of rational argument.
A prediction can't be wrong until it doesn't happen. I'm saying that there is no evidence based on current trends that will lead us to that prediction. Capish?
Quote:
Second of all, the patterns from 2000-2009 were already mostly observed at the time that the graphic was made in 2007.
So what?
Quote:
If you have a drought and a flood that follows, then yes, the average might be slightly higher than previous years... does that mean it's great to have a pattern of droughts followed by floods?
As for floods.....
Quote:
Analysis of trends and of aggregated time series on climatic (30-year) scale does not indicate consistent trends worldwide. Despite common perception, in general, the detected trends are more negative (less intense floods in most recent years) than positive. Similarly, Svensson et al. (2005) and Di Baldassarre et al. (2010) did not find systematical change neither in flood increasing or decreasing numbers nor change in flood magnitudes in their analysis.
Out of more than a thousand long time series made available by the Global Runoff Data Centre (GRDC) in Koblenz, Germany, a worldwide data set consisting of 195 long series of daily mean flow records was selected, based on such criteria as length of series, currency, lack of gaps and missing values, adequate geographical distribution, and priority to smaller catchments. The analysis of annual maximum flows does not support the hypothesis of ubiquitous growth of high flows. Although 27 cases of strong, statistically significant increase were identified by the Mann-Kendall test, there are 31 decreases as well, and most (137) time series do not show any significant changes (at the 10% level). Caution is advised in interpreting these results as flooding is a complex phenomenon, caused by a number of factors that can be associated with local, regional, and hemispheric climatic processes. Moreover, river flow has strong natural variability and exhibits long-term persistence which can confound the results of trend and significance tests.
and the authors conclude:
Quote:
Destructive floods observed in the last decade all over the world have led to record high material damage. The conventional belief is that the increasing cost of floods is associated with increasing human development on flood plains (Pielke & Downton, 2000). However, the question remains as to whether or not the frequency and/or magnitude of flooding is also increasing and, if so, whether it is in response to climate variability and change.
Several scenarios of future climate indicate a likelihood of increased intense precipitation and flood hazard. However, observations to date provide no conclusive and general proof as to how climate change affects flood behaviour.
Finally, the graphic clearly states that it is a reflection of trends IF present levels of emissions remain the same. The climate models can't take into account political decisions that haven't happened yet, obviously.
So emissions to date have caused less drought in the Midwest and more rain, yet any further emissions will cause more? Check.
Actually anyone with just a little knowledge in meteorology understand that the primary driver over land based precip is the ocean oscillations. For the US it's the positive and negative phase of the PDO (and lesser extent the AMO)
and as for California's drought
Quote:
What's causing the current drought?
Ingram and other paleoclimatologists have correlated several historic megadroughts with a shift in the surface temperature of the Pacific Ocean that occurs every 20 to 30 years—something called the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO). The PDO is similar to an El Nino event except it lasts for decades—as its name implies—whereas an El Nino event lasts 6 to 18 months. Cool phases of the PDO result in less precipitation because cooler sea temperatures bump the jet stream north, which in turn pushes off storms that would otherwise provide rain and snow to California. Ingram says entire lakes dried up in California following a cool phase of the PDO several thousand years ago. Warm phases have been linked to numerous storms along the California coast.
"We have been in a fairly cold phase of PDO since the early 2000s," says Brian Fuchs, a climatologist at the National Drought Mitigation Center, "so the drought we are seeing now makes sense."
So again, you know all about what the future holds. You are so psychic that all you need to do is say 'LOL look at these losers', roll your eyes and produce absolutely NO proof that what you're saying is researched or supported by anything or anyone. That's how awesome you are.
I don't claim to know, but that doesn't mean I have to believe a computer "simulation" of a possible future.
Quote:
There you go again. Your snarky, self-important laughter is so amazing that it can predict the future with 100% certainty. Well done.
Last edited by chicagogeorge; 12-07-2014 at 09:53 AM..
Yes, and when global warming never happens, warmers will pat themselves on the back and thank themselves for preventing glibal destruction with hybrids and plastic bag taxes.
Well, for one thing you don't have to worry about it. I absolutely don't believe in trying to prevent climate change in anyway. Why? I think it's already too late. Climate change, or global warming, whatever you want to call it, is a self motivating, self spiraling affect. I'm just as opposed to environmentalists as I am to ignorant conservatives on this issue.
WTF of course they've addressed cropland in Canada.
Why do you even think you know about that?
I know about it because of reading I've done on the North Atlantic conveyor (current) and the topic much like some posters here.....of drunken forests.
Also, because when the soil is dead, it promotes deforestation to make way for more farmland (which then also dies, and repeat). Deforestation releases CO2 into the air while also eliminating trees which would have otherwise drawn CO2 out of the air.
You can't just assume that because alarmism exists, there are absolutely NO legitimate threats to society or civilization.
If you actually know something about the topic of soil degradation and can shed some light on why this claim is BS, then go ahead, but assuming it's merely alarmism and then posting examples of other failed predictions isn't the same thing as addressing this specific claim.
Did you read the OP's article?
Hmmm.....the people that did the study are proposing dire gloom and doom unless we transition to organic farming.
What was the name of the organization? Oh yeah, the Federation of Organic Agriculture.
As a freshmen in college, a physics prof warned us that there was only about 40 years of oil reserves left. That was 39 years ago. My dad was a bridge design engineer with the state DOT. I went home and asked him, gee Dad, what are we going to do with all the roads and bridges when there is no oil. He shrugged.
Did you go to the U of CO by any chance? That was Al Bartlett's meme. His acolytes are still giving the same speech.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rosie_hair
*Sigh*
Since you actually went to college, you should be able to think beyond this flawed reasoning that commoners tend to follow.
Here's a scenario to better explain what I mean.
Suppose a group of engineers and scientists, after a study, concludes that the incoming storm could cause mass floodings in the area. How would the community combat this? Well, they build a levy. The storm comes, and the levy keeps back the water, thus diverting a flood.
At this point, it is almost always true that the commoners of the population would start questioning the need for the levy in the first place. They would argue that there ain't no flooding, so the prediction must have been false and it was a waste of money to build the levy.
Try to think about that.
Decades ago, the technology at the time only allowed us to extract oil from certain places. And indeed, most of those places are depleted of oil. Why do you think we have to drill 5 miles deep in the middle of the ocean for oil these days?
Now, the same logic applies. Geologists at the time figured out that there was only so much oil from places that was only accessible at the time. So, engineers heeded the warning and developed technology to go deeper and deeper for more oil.
Regarding this report of soil degradation, it is good that they've done studies on this. Rather than be all conservative and just dismiss this warning, engineers like myself can now develop technologies and techniques that will divert a disaster. And no doubt, after the disaster has been diverted in the future, commoners will start questioning why all that money had been poured into the research in the first place.
That's what commoners do. Thank goodness bridges and buildings aren't designed and built by commoners. Thank goodness science and technology are not developed by short-sighted conservatives. We'd still be riding horses if it were up to short-sighted conservatives.
Well, the point is, all the easily discovered oil that anyone knew about had already been discovered, supposedly. Until more was discovered, that is. That's the problem with these kind of predictions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rosie_hair
I know this young woman. 2 years ago, her father died and left her $70k. She immediately quit her job. Her boyfriend immediately quit his job. They spent the next 3 months traveling the country living like king and queen. Neither of them worked for almost two years. That money was going to last forever.
Nowadays, they are homeless and live in their car.
I've always been curious why conservatives think fossil fuel will last forever and resist any attempt at moving beyond it?
I'm not sure fossil fuels have to do with your acquaintance, but whatever. Who says conservatives think fossil fuel will last forever and resist any attempt at moving beyond it? We have electric and hybrid cars right now. A small part of the market, but they've become pretty mainstream.
check the Forbes piece that I posted--he discusses that. Yes you can get varying results by shifting the time frame, but according to the writer Simon was correct about the overall trend line, and Ehrlich was wrong.
Your entire post consists of posting predictions, insisting that they could never be true and then rolling your eyes. It reminds me of that Saturday Night Live sketch where some right wing organization criticizes Obama by simply reading one of his speeches in a snarky voice.
Considering global warming has been accelerating, runaway warming has occurred during warm periods in the past and very very few steps have been taken to deal with it, they don't seem ridiculous to me.
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.
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.
