Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [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)
 
Old 02-06-2015, 09:54 PM
 
Location: Victoria, BC.
33,536 posts, read 37,140,220 times
Reputation: 14000

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoisite View Post
The OP is just playing at head games. It's a waste of time to discuss his premise with him.

.
I agree...He/she is not educated enough in climate science to even debate it.

 
Old 02-06-2015, 10:41 PM
 
Location: McKinleyville, California
6,414 posts, read 10,492,645 times
Reputation: 4305
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoisite View Post
I'm sure Sanspeur will address your questions, but I'll answer too. I'm in the same general location as Sanspeur - approximately 100 miles apart - Sanspeur is on Vancouver Island and I'm in the Fraser Valley (aka the Lower Mainland) both locations are in the extreme south-west coastal corner of the province.

Vancouver Island typically always enjoys milder warmer winters than the Lower Mainland and is the warmest winter location in all of Canada. However, in both locations we have not had a real winter here since 2008. Each winter season has been progressively warmer and drier with less rain and no snow than the winter preceding it since 2008 with climate going from mid-autumnal weather in November to early cool spring like weather in December, by-passing winter. Temperatures have been averaging between mid 40's to low 50's Farenheit through December and January. Not much rain has happened as normally would be the case, but now a few days ago the Pineapple Express from the south Pacific has started bringing warm monsoon-like rains.

My spring bulb plants that ordinarilly would be expected to start sprouting in mid February to early March (daffodils, tulips, crocuses, snowdrops, jonquils, blue-bells, hyacinths, etc.) all started sprouting and slowly putting up leaves in early to mid-December - 2 to 3 months early depending on type. The crocuses and snowdrops are now in full bloom. Deciduous trees have started new leaf buds while evergreen spring plants such as helebore have already been in full bloom since early January when ordinarilly they shouldn't be blooming until mid-March. The same thing has happened in the 6 preceding winters with all these plants sprouting or blooming a bit earlier each winter than the winter before it.

We have started experiencing more droughts and longer lasting and more extensive wild fires in the summers with high temperatures that are considered extreme for this location. Likewise with northern parts of the province.

.
Interesting. Here in far northern California near Oregon, we have the same exact scenario. No winter now for the fourth year in a row and this January was the warmest and driest on record. I take care of 28 yards and am thus up on what is in season. I started pruning fruit trees two weeks ago, my Lombardy poplar started putting out leaves before Christmas, our crocus are done and the early narcissus bloomed in November. We had had days in the 70's in every month now when normal is in the mid 50's and only two days of frost this year. My wisteria held its leaves till the beginning of January and those 2 days of frost finally finished them off, but now I am seeing growth in the flower buds. All over town the pink flowering plums are blooming, tulip trees are in full bloom and rhododendrons are bursting out in all colors. We have no snow in the mountains even at 7,000 feet and no snow means no snow melt to help regulate our run off in the off rain months.

So, to the op, warmer climate means less snow and a higher snow level. All that extra water that is precipitated in a warmer climate runs off, it does not stay to become a benefit, it also wrecks more havoc and damage by arriving in greater amounts in a shorter time span, flash floods. So, with a warmer climate we get, higher seas that are warmer, warmer seas create more storms, the atmosphere expands and the jet stream rises with it changing where storms would normally go or even stalling the jet stream. We get more desertification in areas in the central US and the center of South America. Most coast lines would be enundated by the rising seas forcing mass movement of people inland to relocate. We already see evidence of this around the Mediterranean with sunken cities and villas that were sunk by rising seas after the last surge of glaciers melted back. Many animals will have to change their patterns and migrate to the north to find enviornments suitable for them and in doing so will displace others doing the same.And that is just a drop in the bucket.
 
Old 02-06-2015, 11:21 PM
 
Location: Taos NM
5,355 posts, read 5,134,067 times
Reputation: 6781
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDragonslayer View Post
It took thousands of years for those plants and animals to move with the climate, not a century or less if global climate warms up rapidly. They move slowly with the climate, not rapidly. No ice and the oceans could be a hundred feet or higher then they are now. A changing climate is unstable and erratic, the warmer air and added moisture causes storms to generate larger storm cells. A warmer atmosphere also changes the patterns of the jet stream and causing it to rise up in the atmosphere. There would be no predictable pattern till the weather stabilized.
Well then what happened when Yellowstone erupted 600000 years ago or Krakatoa did in the 1800's??? Everyone misses that.

About species extinction, look where species are today. In warm and wet areas. Look what global warming does, make the world warmer and wetter. So --> more species with global warming. If the same biodiversity of Missouri was present in Ontario, Ontario would be better off. With global warming, the earth will have more species per each square mile of land than it has now.

Plus, the only species going extinct from global warming would be the ones on the fringe already, and if a species is on the fringe, it is not very important to that ecosystem.
 
Old 02-07-2015, 12:43 AM
 
Location: McKinleyville, California
6,414 posts, read 10,492,645 times
Reputation: 4305
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil P View Post
Well then what happened when Yellowstone erupted 600000 years ago or Krakatoa did in the 1800's??? Everyone misses that.

About species extinction, look where species are today. In warm and wet areas. Look what global warming does, make the world warmer and wetter. So --> more species with global warming. If the same biodiversity of Missouri was present in Ontario, Ontario would be better off. With global warming, the earth will have more species per each square mile of land than it has now.

Plus, the only species going extinct from global warming would be the ones on the fringe already, and if a species is on the fringe, it is not very important to that ecosystem.
What does Yellowstone have to do with this discussion on a warmer climate? Krakatoa happened in 1883 and its affects lasted about 4 years with cooler summers, longer winters and then the climate went back to normal. Yellowstone was a huge climactic eruption of volcanic material that overwhelmed the world and altered the climate for a long time, not just four years. Ontario could not have the same biodiversity of Missouri, it has fewer day light hours, just because it would be warmer does not mean it is equitable for animals and plants from Missouri. Do you know anything about biology or botany? A warmer and wetter world is also a world with weather out of control. Heat up a pot of water, as it warms it releases heat as steam, turn up the heat, more steam. Same with the atmosphere. A warmer and wetter world would not be a nicer or gentler world. And I guess you are okay with the rhino, elephant, chimpanzees, gorillas, giraffes, lions, tigers, pandas, dolphins, polar bears, walrus and so on going extinct due to a warmer world that they cannot adapt to. We could lose up to 70% of the species on this planet over the next 200 years, less time then we have been a country. I do not know where you get your information that there would be more species per square mile when a rising sea would enundate the low lands making for less land and loss of habitat.
 
Old 02-07-2015, 11:06 AM
 
3,792 posts, read 2,385,439 times
Reputation: 768
Quote:
Originally Posted by Retroit View Post
In all fairness, the OP did say this was all tongue-in-cheek. To add to the list:

...[*]Related: Plant growth will increase from more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere[/list]
With higher CO2 you don't need as much water to grow stuff as with lower CO2.
 
Old 02-07-2015, 11:11 AM
 
3,792 posts, read 2,385,439 times
Reputation: 768
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDragonslayer View Post
It took thousands of years for those plants and animals to move with the climate, not a century or less if global climate warms up rapidly. They move slowly with the climate, not rapidly. No ice and the oceans could be a hundred feet or higher then they are now. A changing climate is unstable and erratic, the warmer air and added moisture causes storms to generate larger storm cells. A warmer atmosphere also changes the patterns of the jet stream and causing it to rise up in the atmosphere. There would be no predictable pattern till the weather stabilized.
That is about the size of it. But when it settles down it should be stable. What we have now is unstable. A small push colder and we could be back into an ice age. A small push warmer and all the ice could melt. Ice age, NYC under a mile of ice. Warmer, 200 ft of water. Take your pick.
 
Old 02-07-2015, 11:15 AM
 
3,792 posts, read 2,385,439 times
Reputation: 768
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceist View Post
You're right. The Joanne Nova anti-science conspiracy blog posts "bull fertilizer" like that faked graph. In fact, they seem to specialise in making up faked graphs for "useful idiots" to copy and paste around the net.
https://www.google.com/search?q=glob...AUoAg#imgdii=_ Are they all made up? They all agree.
 
Old 02-07-2015, 11:19 AM
 
Location: North of Canada, but not the Arctic
21,133 posts, read 19,714,475 times
Reputation: 25650
Another Pro:
  • Less deaths due to extreme temperatures
Quote:
Based on information from death certificates, 10,649 deaths were attributed to weather-related causes in the United States during 2006–2010. Nearly one-third of the deaths were attributed to excessive natural heat, and almost two-thirds were attributed to excessive natural cold.
Source: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr076.pdf
 
Old 02-07-2015, 11:21 AM
 
Location: Arizona
13,778 posts, read 9,662,744 times
Reputation: 7485
Quote:
Originally Posted by ContrarianEcon View Post
It is warmer in the winter. Nice

You can grow more crops near the artic circle.

Advantages of a cooler climate.

You can ice skate on the Tames river, no need to use the bridges as it freezes over.

Less air conditioning bill in the summer.

This is tongue in cheek at the green weenies.
I'll take warmer as you can grow crops inside of the artic circle if it is warm enough, you can't grow crops on top of a glacier.
I once seen a guy grow moss between his toes.
 
Old 02-07-2015, 11:25 AM
 
3,792 posts, read 2,385,439 times
Reputation: 768
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur View Post
I agree...He/she is not educated enough in climate science to even debate it.
I like that one. All I am saying is that you are correct in everything you are saying but that your conclusion is wrong because if we go warmer then we can have a stable climate and that the current one is unstable.


Oh I'm not educated enough to debate it.

I like that one.

The only thing I disagree with you about is that your conclusion is wrong. Warmer is better long term. The change isn't going to be pretty but once we get warmer then we will have stable, and stability in our climate means we can have a large human population and species diversity. We have in the past had rapid climate change. As rapid as we are having now.

I take that back I think the cause of our current warming trend is the soot input at the start of the industrial revolution not CO2 but that is a minor difference compared to we should be keeping going as we are doing a useful and good modification to our environment long term. rather than reverencing the warming we've had or trying to capture our current state in an unstable system.
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


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 > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:33 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top