We know that global warming affects the weather and the earth's natural resources, but I need to know how it affects the health of people and animals around the world?
Global warming
- Thread starter Sustainability
- Start date
"We're all going to die!!!!!" - alien character in Halo.
As climate changes, some species will adapt and some will not. Some will move to other regions and some will die. People will become more and more like a virus, kill it's host and a hundred million years from now, someone will be burning us as fossil fuel. As Roger Waters once said, "This species has amused itself to death."
As climate changes, some species will adapt and some will not. Some will move to other regions and some will die. People will become more and more like a virus, kill it's host and a hundred million years from now, someone will be burning us as fossil fuel. As Roger Waters once said, "This species has amused itself to death."
Just heard on the news two or three days ago that we are entering a trend of 20-30 years of colder than normal winters. Wonder how the G.W. advocates like that? You know Cliff, Mother Nature is pretty good at averaging things out in the long run (without any help from man)
We are no longer supposed to use the phrase "Global Warming".
That is because of several reason's.
One of the main ones is that we are in a period of global cooling at the moment.
Year on year we have been cooling steadily from our peak year which was something like 9 years ago.
Another reason is that most of the original global cooling data and doctrine has been proven false.
The hockey stick, world temperature rises preceding increasing co2 levels and stuff like that.
Plus if we just have one issue (like global warming) it severely limits the abilities of researchers and environmentalists to continually raise funding.
All the eggs in one basket and so forth.
So as Lizzy May and the Greens have pointed out.
Its now "Climate Change".
No more global warming.
Climate change covers about everything.
A change in wind direction as an example.
Thus you can blame anything on anybody.
Unlimited opportunities for issues and fund raising.
And its impossible to disprove climate change.
After all an increase in wind speed or cloud cover is climate change.
Trex
I think it was the "G.W." advocates that changed it to "climate change" as they were getting a little worried about their original stance and wanted to create a little wiggle room.
source: Goddard Institute for Space Studies
If you focus on those last five points, you will realize that you can pass a flat line through them. That is the recent "proof" of stabilization of the global warming trend.
The move away from the term "global warming" is because some people insist on using only a few months of the year or a specific area to show that in fact that place is colder. That is, people tried to move away from "global warming" because not everyone understands what an average is.
"That is, people tried to move away from "global warming" because not everyone understands what an average is."- No, but 99.99% do and most understand what a mean is and what a median is and what normal is. People are smarter than you think.
Well Niflmir,
You know what they say: There are lies, damn lies and then statistics.
I know after I slogged my way through Stats 101 I never looked at gambling the same way again.
I respect your right to believe your statistics, hopefully you respect the right of others to believe their's.
Quote"
Professor Richard Lindzen, one of the world’s leading climatologists, also stressed that climate alarmism was a political and not a scientific matter. Particular worrying, he said, was that various scientific bodies had been seized by alarmists, who now issued statements without polling the members. This played into the appeal to authority rather than science. He called climate modelling “unintelligent design” and global warming a “postmodern coup d’état.” He stressed that “Nature hasn’t followed the models” used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. There has been no global warming for 10 or 15 years.
unquote.
If the data sets backing global warming theory were not starting to smell bad then why would all the environmentalists be leaping off the "global warming" ship and jumping aboard the "climate change" boat?
Just a thought.
Trex
You know what they say: There are lies, damn lies and then statistics.
I know after I slogged my way through Stats 101 I never looked at gambling the same way again.
I respect your right to believe your statistics, hopefully you respect the right of others to believe their's.
Quote"
Professor Richard Lindzen, one of the world’s leading climatologists, also stressed that climate alarmism was a political and not a scientific matter. Particular worrying, he said, was that various scientific bodies had been seized by alarmists, who now issued statements without polling the members. This played into the appeal to authority rather than science. He called climate modelling “unintelligent design” and global warming a “postmodern coup d’état.” He stressed that “Nature hasn’t followed the models” used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. There has been no global warming for 10 or 15 years.
unquote.
If the data sets backing global warming theory were not starting to smell bad then why would all the environmentalists be leaping off the "global warming" ship and jumping aboard the "climate change" boat?
Just a thought.
Trex
The semantics changed to climate change from global warming to more easily explain what "global warming" actually means
Climate change is more easily explainable to someone who looks out and sees that it's actually colder in some respects. It's one of the aspests (or side effects) of global warming - erractic and unpredictable weather patterns.
The "climate" is changing due to the stresses put on it by industrialization at a much quicker rate than what would be expected in a "normal" colder/hotter cycle of every few hundred years. i.e The cycle from a warmer trend to a cooler trend is no longer measured in hu8ndreds of years but rather many decades and the cycle is compacting itself
But to top it off, there are cliches.
A statistic by itself is worthless. If one considers a weighted average, then the same set of data can generate essentially whatever number you want. These numbers cannot change the interpretation of the data however.
The temperature of winter for the next 20-30 years is a funny statistic. It in no way tells us anything about the global mean surface temperature, and interpreting it as a challenge to global warming is like measuring the heights of 20 men and no women to say that men are usually taller than women.
When I made my original post I was willing to give the statement the benefit of the doubt and understand "winter" as "yearly temperature" because in another post a statement had been made to a paper which originally claimed that the global mean surface temperature had flatlined since 2001.
I do believe I may be starting to detect the tried and true: we are really smart and most others are idiots so I know best, line of defense.
Never assume what others may understand or be aware of.
That in itself is flawed logic.
To each his own beliefs and experiences.
Trex
Never assume what others may understand or be aware of.
That in itself is flawed logic.
To each his own beliefs and experiences.
Trex
I am sorry, when someone claims that they understand what a mean is when they previoulsy made a statement they could only believe if they did not then I take it as evidence that they do not understand fully. Because ignorance is more likely than malevolance.
The people I know who I would say do not understand statistics are not so pretentious as to claim to. I in no way consider them less intelligent because they do not and nothing I have said should lead you to believe that. There are many subjects in this world that those same people would make me look like a fool in.
OK whatever you say.
The only thing I said about stats is it changed my understanding of gambling.
Its a deadly boring field in my view but to each his own.
Lets call a truce.
Its not about you or me.
I believe you understand the data you have access to.
And the integration and the final analysis of that data may point to a fixed conclusion.
But surely others can have a different view.
I have trouble with a black and white world.
I believe in greys.
I remember when there was a global cooling theory.
Not the nuclear winter theory.
I remember some people wanted to cover the poles with ash or cinders to increase warming.
I remember when some academics wanted to seed all the oceans with oxides to create a world wide plankton bloom and save the environment.
And I remember spending time in a high arctic meteorological base drinking large amounts of booze with leading researchers from around the world.
They were all there to study the holes in the ozone layer.
It should be pointed out I was there on a separate project and just needed a place to bunk up while waiting on weather.
So for a week or two I drank and bull****ted about holes in the ozone layer.
The data was unpredictable.
The holes themselves were completely unpredictable.
Bigger, smaller, here , there nobody really truly understood it.
Granted not my field.
Back then a lot of people were so sure of themselves, they were so positive that these holes were going to expand and doom the world.
It was going to be an unstoppable death blow to the planet.
That's why we banned CFC's.
And then I found out from the experts that the data is never perfect.
That trends may not necessarily predict the future.
That most things are not absolutely correct.
Whatever happened to those world killing holes anyway?
Trex
Well, Niflmir has already explained the futility in using short time spans to make meaningful inferences about trends.
But let's entertain the notion of the coldest winter in 20-30 years. What area of the globe is that representing, and is it even true that it's the coldest winter in 20-30 years?
I've been keeping track of the US continental daily weather records for 2009 using the US weather service approved data, on this website:
HAMweather Climate Center - Record Events for The Past Week - Continental US View
I put it into a google documents spreadsheet, found here:
http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=pfX40BEMJ20okrAGvAKnLfA&hl=en
The bulk of the weather records are in fact high maximum temperatures, and high minimum temperatures. This is entirely consistent with a warming globe. But, this is only for 2% roughly of the Earth's surface. This is not enough to make any meaningful declarations about trends. The only thing it tells me is that there have been more warm records than cold records. Not very useful at all, except as an example of why the we shouldn't use weather as an indicator of a long term behaviour.
The past year has been at a time when the solar cycles are at a minimum, the statistical measure that is the Pacific Decadal Oscilation is at a minimum, and it was during a strong La Nina, and still the temperatures are above the long term average. So given that the other forcings are at a minimum, and that you lot guffaw at the radiative physics of greenhouse gases, how do you intend to explain why temperatures remain above the long term average?
Rhetoric can't explain it away. Tired old cliches will not explain it away. What is the physical explanation?
But let's entertain the notion of the coldest winter in 20-30 years. What area of the globe is that representing, and is it even true that it's the coldest winter in 20-30 years?
I've been keeping track of the US continental daily weather records for 2009 using the US weather service approved data, on this website:
HAMweather Climate Center - Record Events for The Past Week - Continental US View
I put it into a google documents spreadsheet, found here:
http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=pfX40BEMJ20okrAGvAKnLfA&hl=en
The bulk of the weather records are in fact high maximum temperatures, and high minimum temperatures. This is entirely consistent with a warming globe. But, this is only for 2% roughly of the Earth's surface. This is not enough to make any meaningful declarations about trends. The only thing it tells me is that there have been more warm records than cold records. Not very useful at all, except as an example of why the we shouldn't use weather as an indicator of a long term behaviour.
The past year has been at a time when the solar cycles are at a minimum, the statistical measure that is the Pacific Decadal Oscilation is at a minimum, and it was during a strong La Nina, and still the temperatures are above the long term average. So given that the other forcings are at a minimum, and that you lot guffaw at the radiative physics of greenhouse gases, how do you intend to explain why temperatures remain above the long term average?
Rhetoric can't explain it away. Tired old cliches will not explain it away. What is the physical explanation?