If we don't change nature, why would nature 'change back' (YOUR WORDS) when we stop exploiting it?
Extreme heat, drought have ‘virtually no explanation other than climate change’
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
If we don't change nature, why would nature 'change back' (YOUR WORDS) when we stop exploiting it?
A person that does not doubt that we can land the Mars Rover, moving at 5.8 kilometres per second, safely on a rock which is at least 48 million kilometers away, but doubts that we can accurately predict ~1% change in global temperature after an increase of an atmospheric gas of 23% is quite confused.
When did rocket science become synonymous with easy? It is not like "The weather is chaotic" has any meaning either, the three body problem is manifestly chaotic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N-body_problem#Three-body_problem yet we got the rover there.
When did rocket science become synonymous with easy? It is not like "The weather is chaotic" has any meaning either, the three body problem is manifestly chaotic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N-body_problem#Three-body_problem yet we got the rover there.
Re: Extreme heat, drought have ‘virtually no explanation other than climate change’
That would be overstatement and simplification, even just for the western part of N America. All along the west coast the weather is dominated by the Japanese current. The amount of heat in the water as it leaves the tropics, the amount of cold it picks up as it passes under the Bering Strait, and of course that cooler pool of water has an effect. But if you think that is all there is then you blatantly don't understand it.
That would be overstatement and simplification, even just for the western part of N America. All along the west coast the weather is dominated by the Japanese current. The amount of heat in the water as it leaves the tropics, the amount of cold it picks up as it passes under the Bering Strait, and of course that cooler pool of water has an effect. But if you think that is all there is then you blatantly don't understand it.
The change back is nature, that's how it works. I dunno, I went back to the Manitoulin last week, hadn't seen it in 20 years, couldn't see stuff I used to see because all the trees grew up to block the view, the previous ones had been cut by my grandfather, or folk like him in the logging industry. LaCloche Island has only remnants of the old road we used to take to get to the Manitoulin are all but gone, the original brush has taken over most everything. We don't change nature, its always there, stop mowing your lawn and find out. Nature will reclaim a lot faster than most can even realise. We are more insignificant in the grand scheme of nature than we care to realise.
So, building a hydro dam isn't changing nature? It doesn't change the ecosystem? If you use the term nature so vaguely it doesn't really have much meaning.
Yet weather should be more accurate; as forcasters had predicted visual landing conditons in Halifax at my time of arrival, ended up being a vertical visibility of 100' and a runway visual range of 1200' (try driving at 140mph in 1/4 mile visibility, and from 100' you have 3-4 seconds to touchdown, then you have to stop). This only happens, I dunno, 3 times a year, when they get it wrong. Science being exact, oookaaay. At least with Mars they didn't have fog.
I never mentioned ecosystem either. You neglect the dam and nature will reclaim it. You are not changing nature. I wish I could show you pictures of Kagawong, where there was a dam and power station, it all gone now, everything but the old power station which is now a museum. In another 20 year I'm sure all that real estate will look much as as did when the voyageurs first traversed that land.
Re: Extreme heat, drought have ‘virtually no explanation other than climate change’
Nobody has said that winter isn't going to happen, in the foreseeable future, nobody is saying that record cold snaps aren't going to happen. What they and this study are pointing out, is that the warm streak records are of a much greater number than the cold streak records, which is an indication that the climate is changing. The proof for anthropogenic climate change has also been presented.
Nobody has said that winter isn't going to happen, in the foreseeable future, nobody is saying that record cold snaps aren't going to happen. What they and this study are pointing out, is that the warm streak records are of a much greater number than the cold streak records, which is an indication that the climate is changing. The proof for anthropogenic climate change has also been presented.
Yes, that's one of the shortcomings of your message.
No I don't. First off there is no guarantee that nature will change it back to the way it was before. Second, as has been mentioned already, if nature will reclaim something, then there by necessity must have been a change. It's completely illogical to suggest otherwise.
Sure we are. The drainage in the basin has changed, the constituents in the reservoir are different from what was there before. You're being ludicrous by suggesting that nature doesn't change when we change it.
Ah, another cut n paste thread on climate change by the dimwit with the record of separate threads on the same topic.
"Ah, whatta maroon" - Bugs Bunny
2 winters ago when we had all that severe cold, the other half of the planet had severe heat. The topic is GLOBAL climate change not just northern hemisphere climate change.
Yeah, we haven't caused any extinctions in nature, never came up with genetically engineered food products that have an impact on global plantlife, never transplant foreign species to areas that were naturally stable, we never decimated the forests that used to be in the middle east, never polluted the atmosphere causing a plethora of people to die from lung related diseases, never caused any devastation of other species via oil spills, etc ad infinitum, ad nauseum.
"Ah, whatta maroon" - B. Bunny.
Yeah, nature bounces back, but human deeds have caused some pretty huge upheavals in nature's course. And by and large, our activities have had a negative effect on our own and other species.
Wow, we are certainly full of ourselves, here's a clue, we don't manage nature, nature manages us, we merely adapt. We didn't create plagues, or plants, we may upset the balance, but things will return to their natural balance in time.
You sound like an engineer, nature doesn't need engnieering, it's, well, natural, most engineers can't seem to grasp that.
Ad hominems? You resort to that because you have nothing but your opinion, feeble as it is, to support you.
Bull****. We can and do steer the course of nature.
Nope. If a species goes extinct, it goes extinct. If ithe extinction is caused by us, the balance is thrown off and it is not natural. Nature has to work to adapt to us.
Last edited:
C'mon Les, I know you are at least my age, you must've been around the patch a bit, you gotta remember the ice age scare of the 70's. You gotta know this is all bullhs!t. Did the BC wilderness suck out your brains? Look for the truth yourself.
It most definitely is not that. Weather is an immensely complicated system involving huge areas of the oceans and land areas.
Of course you are not a conspiracy thorist. You are a paranoid crank!
Ooooh, a name caller, makes you an authortity. I'm sure the Jews were paranoid cranks too, oooh, sorry.
We have the evidence that shows we can. It is also not very difficult to know that we can. It is a very simple function of physics. Put GHGs into the atmosphere and the Planet warms. Take them out and it cools. We can do that. Just turn your car ignition on and you are participating in the great change.
It dose not take long! How much have you readÉ As I posted about the PETM, it took 200,000 years for nature to remove the excess CO2 from the atmosphere and millions of years for a cooling to pre-PETM levels.
We are already committed to thousand of years of hot climate even if we do get out=r act together in the next few years.
Yes, I remember that.
Nope. In the 70s we were still pumping CFCs into the atmosphere. Don't tell me you have not a clue about the effects of ozone and the differences that ozone has depending upon its altitude. Not only that, but we did not have the amount of knowledge about climate we have now. DUH
Nope.
Truth is relative. Reality is reality.
BTW, we actually are one of the causes of plagues. Take, for instance, the Black Plague. If humans had not been stupid and had better hygeine and living conditions, the plague would have not had nearly as devastating effects and may not even have happened. Perhaps only a handful of people may have gotten ill. We didn't start the disease, but we along with the virus caused the plague.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm
At any rate, Bob. Humans have affected nature and for the most part, the effects have not been positive.
Well, there was a Time magazine article and a Newsweek article that didn't really get the science part right, as you can see from the link Les posted.
This is one of those things that get's repeated often enough that it becomes almost a given, when in reality it was never a mainstream view of the community at all.
It would be like using the movie The Day After Tomorrow in 40 years time to say the same thing.