[Stoner]

Hidy-ho Jim

Tom's post did look interesting.
Something new to investigate.

[pyritechips]

Originally Posted by Stoner

Hidy-ho Jim

Tom's post did look interesting.
Something new to investigate.

I'll have to go back and find it. I was distracted by all the political mumbo-jumbo.

[buffoon]

Originally Posted by iltos

ain't it obvious?

it's caused by the snow.

*sheesh*

you spanish types need to hire some danish scientists

Yeah.
What I find funny if it were not so sad is that people actually use the snow surge here as an example of global warming not happening. It's colder here than it was last year and we have had snow that we didn't so that means the earth is actually cooling, right?

The whole blinking weather cycles are changing and that has been predicted years and years ago as something that global warming brings and it stands to reason with the climate machine becoming more volatile. The rain in Spain (no pun intended) having turned into snow and then only briefly doesn't change a hoot about the fact that the glaciers in the Alps or in Chile are getting lesser every year. It just means there is more precipitation. So if there was more ice on the North pole than the year before it had no blinking effect on the sea level rising in the Polynesians and elsewhere. Leaving aside science for a moment and just listening to the locals anywhere the overall tendency is perceived as one of gettting hotter and drierfor longer periods. Whether the locals are Inuit or Polynesians or Spanish farmers.

[LANMaster]

Originally Posted by buffoon

Yeah, that stuff cam all the way down here to Andalucia.

What doesn't make the news since it's not worthy are the Andalucian summers. Everbody know they're hot so why mention it?

Well they're getting hotter and hotter and longer and longer each year.

Cold fronts come down here from the North and make it as far as Granada with snow (that's a high plateau behind the mountain range about 50 kms behind me). But they hardly ever brought snow this far down south and never in anybody's memory here this far down in elevation.

And both phenomena are part of a global warming whatever the heck that's caused by.

So you're saying the cold and the snow is caused by global warming?

I suppose the record cold in Slovenia is also caused by global warming?



This is perhaps the first time I have seen it so blatantly implied that cooling is caused by warming.

[Stoner]

Originally Posted by LANMaster

So you're saying the cold and the snow is caused by global warming?

I suppose the record cold in Slovenia is also caused by global warming?



This is perhaps the first time I have seen it so blatantly implied that cooling is caused by warming.

And we're off and spinning

[iltos]

Originally Posted by LANMaster

So you're saying the cold and the snow is caused by global warming?

I suppose the record cold in Slovenia is also caused by global warming?



This is perhaps the first time I have seen it so blatantly implied that cooling is caused by warming.

it's difficult to address this using google without running into the political spin
even members of a physics forum, in discussing the question of "global warming causes cooling?" pull sources and explanations for the science from sites with political bias....
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=162314

but here's a reasonably simple analogy that might help....it's part of a longer article, that is both hard science and pokes fun at the conservative mindset.
the emphasis here is on the science.....see what you think, LAN.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/ope...ming_creat.htm

To understanding global warming without being confused by hard-to-understand scientific jargon, thinking is required. And we will look at global warming with only a little scientific background getting in the way, and using knowledge gleaned by the experience of working in electronic intelligence, where instruction in electronic-communication transmission is part of standard training.

It's obvious to knowledgeable people that colder temperatures and heavier snowfall PROVE global warming is real. That concept is impossible for a conservative mind to understand, but it is so.

To understand that proof one needs to know why a radio signal can be received several miles farther from the transmission site than can a TV signal.

The ionosphere is the cause. The ionosphere is a duo-layered crust of particles several miles thick holding the atmosphere in place. Without it, our atmosphere could drift into space to be replaced by absolute-zero temperatures. The ionosphere is why meteorites or spent space ships are burned to a crisp by friction when they enter earth's atmosphere.

The reason that a radio signal travels much farther than a TV signal is that the radio signal is much weaker than the TV signal.

The logic of the TV-radio conundrum is: The strong TV signal will penetrate the ionosphere at all angles and head off into space, so can only be received on TV sets on a line-of-sight basis. The weaker radio signal will penetrate the ionosphere when it hits head on but be deflected back to earth when it hits at an angle and can be received many miles farther away than the TV signal. It is deflected back to earth because it is too weak to penetrate the ionosphere at an angle. The process is like a rock skipping off the surface of a pond when thrown at a low point to create a severe angle away from perpendicular.

Now think of those signals as coming from the sun. Light is like the powerful TV signal and will penetrate the ionosphere everywhere with no problem other than a slight refraction in northern and southern locales. Heat from the sun is like the weak radio signal and most will be deflected by the ionosphere when it hits at a sharp angle, such as in winter.

As we put more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, the rigidity of the ionosphere is increased so that it deflects more heat than previously when heat hits at a sharp angle, resulting in colder temperatures, while allowing all heat into the atmosphere when coming head on, then trapping the heat beneath the strengthened upper atmosphere and ionosphere. Between the two extremes will be a gradual change in the amounts of heat allowed past the ionosphere. Because cold air is heavier than warm air, warmth is blocked from moving into cold areas. And the coldest air will sit at ground level, where temperatures are recorded, and won't pass over higher ground to invade warm area.

The same phenomena occur during winter in temperate regions, when a high-pressure system increases rigidity at, and just below, the ionosphere so that it deflects more heat-carrying rays; thus on bright sunny days in January the temperature is colder than it is during overcast low-pressure weather and why no one ever gets a suntan or sunburn in the dead of winter. When the high pressure dissipates, more heat is allowed to enter the atmosphere. High-pressure systems do not greatly affect heat entering the atmosphere during the summer since the rays carrying heat mainly hit the ionosphere head on.

Higher average temperatures will increase evaporation, making a more-humid atmosphere year round, and that added moisture is available for snowstorms; thus heavier snowfall is definitely caused by global warming just as are colder short-term winter temperatures. The heavier air resulting from the higher moisture content of the atmosphere also makes wind storms more destructive.

That is how global warming contributes to colder winter temperatures and heavier snowfall. It's completely logical because it's real...

[buffoon]

Originally Posted by LANMaster

So you're saying the cold and the snow is caused by global warming?

I suppose the record cold in Slovenia is also caused by global warming?



This is perhaps the first time I have seen it so blatantly implied that cooling is caused by warming.

You don't read much it would appear. I mean I'm sure you read a lot but very selectively.

Tell me, if you read something you don't agree with, does it get stored somewhere or do you shove it into the recycle bin straightaway and then empty the bin aswell? Or does it crash you hard disc straight away?

I'm really astounded that my post is the first time you've come across this.

[buffoon]

Originally Posted by iltos

it's difficult to address this using google without running into the political spin
even members of a physics forum, in discussing the question of "global warming causes cooling?" pull sources and explanations for the science from sites with political bias....
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=162314

but here's a reasonably simple analogy that might help....it's part of a longer article, that is both hard science and pokes fun at the conservative mindset.
the emphasis here is on the science.....see what you think, LAN.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/ope...ming_creat.htm

I couldn't be bothered to google it.
You could.
You put shame on me, Bob

[Stoner]

Originally Posted by buffoon

I couldn't be bothered to google it.
You could.
You put shame on me, Bob

Don't be ashamed.......much that I've searched out and posted for Lan to read was overlooked.
I suspect he may not even realize that I've destroyed the credibility of his guano blog sites _

[iltos]

Originally Posted by Stoner

I suspect he may not even realize that I've destroyed the credibility of his guano blog sites _

the interesting thing to me in all of this is that there are some very well written rebuttals to global warming out there.....done without political spin, without the need of short term weather anomalies as "proof" of anything, and with the use of different scientific approaches to the question of data, its sources and significance....

tho i can't speak to the veracity of the scientists who question warming, they do seem to be as well versed in climatology as its supporters

the question of climate change and its direction will be debatable forever, it seems....or at least until the polar ice cap reaches LA.....or there are oil rigs out on the open ocean at the north pole.

[Stoner]

Originally Posted by iltos

the interesting thing to me in all of this is that there are some very well written rebuttals to global warming out there.....done without political spin, without the need of short term weather anomalies as "proof" of anything, and with the use of different scientific approaches to the question of data, its sources and significance....

tho i can't speak to the veracity of the scientists who question warming, they do seem to be as well versed in climatology as its supporters

the question of climate change and its direction will be debatable forever, it seems....or at least until the polar ice cap reaches LA.....or there are oil rigs out on the open ocean at the north pole.

I think most of the 'rebuttal' is aimed not at the process existing or that man has no effect.....but at the exaggerations that many like Gore have presented.
Of course....there have been climatologists funded by big oil that have come out in complete denial of global warming occurring.
One of the big mistakes made in this thread is seeing a poster claim man is responsible for global warming. I've seen that in some scientists, too.
Often it's a misstatement, later corrected by further explanation but some extremists do mean to imply it, imo.
Man isn't the cause..... but he does add to the equation, slowly speeding up the existing process.

[valis]

and again, we digress.

Gentlemen, the question is not 'is the globe warming'. That question has been laid to rest, with the answer laying in the affirmative. All those who think otherwise are either idiots or chicken littles who refuse to believe that the facts that lie before them are in fact the sooth.

What needs to be discussed now is how do we deal with the ramifications of what has happened. I don't CARE if anthropogenic in cause anymore, because IT DOESN'T DAMN MATTER. It could be caused by an increase in sparrow farts, doesn't change the fact that it's happening and we are along for the ride and all you guys want to do is back and argue about who left the fool gate open.

We need to think about what we can do to adapt to the coming climatological change. Lan, if you don't think there is going to be one, you are more than welcome to leave. But you have a sound mind on that pipsqueak body, and I'd like your input, so I hope you stay.

Again; we are AT the threshold of a new climatological world. Whether or not we can adapt remains to be seen. What we need to do now is think forward, think like those guys in Norway who have built houses that, in case of flooding, will actually float up to like 6 feet or some such. These are things that we need be discussing.

Not who left the damn gate open. That I don't care about anymore. Someone did, yippee freakin' skippee. Do you want to talk about the problem or set about fixing said problem?

Me? I'm a fixer. My wife's a talker. I tell her, she wants to beeatch about her day at work, call her girlfriends, because all she's going to get out of me are solutions, which will pi$$ her off because all she wants to do is vent.

We are not here to vent, gentlemen. We are here to fix.

Hopefully that rang a few bells around the table. I gotta go home and start packing, going to the ranch to do some manual labor in January, should be a blast. Actually, looking forward to it. I'll be on at some point in time today, but after 3 CST, I'm out until late late Saturday night.

I expect SOMEONE can keep this damn thread on track. Jack, I'm looking right at you, partner.

No use crying over spilt milk. Sooner you get it mopped up the sooner you can go about getting yourself another glass.

Capisce?

[iltos]

Originally Posted by Stoner

I think most of the 'rebuttal' is aimed not at the process existing or that man has no effect.....but at the exaggerations that many like Gore have presented.

good point, jack

[buffoon]

Originally Posted by Stoner

Don't be ashamed.......much that I've searched out and posted for Lan to read was overlooked.
I suspect he may not even realize that I've destroyed the credibility of his guano blog sites _

In realization of this I didn't bother with googling. I haven't heard yet whether anything detrimental to Lan's outlook is scrubbed automatically or simply crashes the hard disc.
Mebbe he's got a special spam filter

[LANMaster]

Originally Posted by buffoon

In realization of this I didn't bother with googling. I haven't heard yet whether anything detrimental to Lan's outlook is scrubbed automatically or simply crashes the hard disc.
Mebbe he's got a special spam filter

I think you're on to something there.

Same could be said for my opposition in this thread.