• Hello, please take a minute to check out our awesome content, contributed by the wonderful members of our community. We hope you'll add your own thoughts and opinions by making a free account!

Learning Global Warming facts and fiction

Status
Not open for further replies.
Iceagewhereartthou said:
"Facts" can be hard to present in a way that removes bias and conjecture. Is it a fact that much of the US is warmer than it was 50 years ago? Many would say yes. I know my area seems warmer and gets less snow, but do I have enough data to say that the whole country has factually warmed (or the whole planet), and it is absolutely due to man induced activities? I doubt it. The same scientists tell us there is more ice volume in the antarctic than at any time in the satellite era. The same scientists told us the Arctic would be ice free by the year 2000, or 2010, or 2020, or.... . Which are facts and which are biased conjecture? We know that most of our long-term temp reading stations have been influenced by the growth of cities and their heat island effects. We could say these areas are factually warmer b/c we have the data, but we also have to recognize that particular data describes micro climates and it would be inappropriate to apply on a global scale.

The evidence points to the Earth having been much cooler and much warmer in past eras and there is little reason to doubt this. They could have been due, at least in part, to CO2 (ie volcanic eruptions) but they could have also been due to many other reasons we do not yet know enough about; such as earth, water, or solar patterns we don't have enough data on. One thing is for certain, those changes weren't due to human activity. You speak about the rate of change and that is a valid point. However, we can only guess at past rates of change, as well as their causes. The current rate of change may not be dissimilar from past rates of change. So which is fact and which is conjecture? Just because we see a fast current rate of change does not mean we know exactly why. Maybe human activity is at least partially responsible, but because we know it wasn't at all in the past, I think it is scientifically irresponsible and manipulative to say it "absolutely and factually" is the reason now; and a discussion cannot even be had.

It's also intersting you mention politics and I think it's too bad politics have been so closely intertwined with this. Bias and error get worked into it from both sides of the aisle. But the political interference is one of the many reasons why I take pause before jumping on board with what we are being told. The "you have to believe this or you are a denier" crowd is almost exclusively on the left, and these are the same people who think that men can "factually" have babies and that 2+2=4 is a racial distortion of mathematics. I am not jumping on board with any facts that come from the same source as that, without serious thought and distrust.
Click to expand...
This should be up voted a thousand! Well stated, southernwx member Iceagewhereartthou!
 
severestorm said:
Understand that completely. Biden's already planning to engage in SO2 injection into the stratosphere, similar to volcano eruption. It looks like it will be 10 billion a year to being the temp down 1 degree Celsius. About 10% of EPA's annual budget for example. It's far cheaper than carbon sequestration for example which costs $600 per ton of CO2.

www.cnbc.com

White House is pushing ahead research to cool Earth by reflecting back sunlight

There are several kinds of sunlight-reflection technology, and none have been thoroughly researched due to a perceived moral hazard. But sentiment is shifting.
www.cnbc.com www.cnbc.com
Click to expand...
We are sure to get snow now! Add the 1.5 degree drop from the grand solar minimum and we are going to have glaciers over Chicago. I bet the southeast ridge still pushes in a warm nose, though.
 
Rain Cold said:
If man is the primary contributing factor to runaway global warming, and if runaway global warming is going to cause life on Earth to perish, then the only viable alternative is global population reduction. There simply isn't enough alternative energy today to transition away from fossil fuels, while maintaining living standards, food production, healthcare, infrastructure, growth, etc., supporting the global population as is. Has anybody been saying or doing anything along the lines of population reduction in the last several years?
Click to expand...

AGW will kill off plenty of folks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
weatherfide said:
How? I think fear of AGW will cause people to kill but how will warmth kill people? Are you expecting the heat to increase dramatically? How hot is it going to get? Cold kills far more people than heat.
Click to expand...

Longer and more extreme heat especially in areas that don't have the infrastructure to handle it and more frequent and extreme flooding.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Electric and internal-combustion vehicles have drastically different environmental effects when the cars are in use. But when it comes to recycling, the situation is completely reversed. As little as 5% of the world’s lithium batteries are recycled, according to Chemical and Engineering News, a stark contrast to the 99% of lead car batteries recycled here in the U.S.

The dearth of recycled lithium batteries has significant economic repercussions, but it also takes a dire toll on the environment. Most lithium batteries end up in landfills, where their hazardous components can leak into the soil and groundwater. Landfills are also a major contributor of greenhouse gas emissions, the EPA reports.
 
NoSnowATL said:
Electric and internal-combustion vehicles have drastically different environmental effects when the cars are in use. But when it comes to recycling, the situation is completely reversed. As little as 5% of the world’s lithium batteries are recycled, according to Chemical and Engineering News, a stark contrast to the 99% of lead car batteries recycled here in the U.S.

The dearth of recycled lithium batteries has significant economic repercussions, but it also takes a dire toll on the environment. Most lithium batteries end up in landfills, where their hazardous components can leak into the soil and groundwater. Landfills are also a major contributor of greenhouse gas emissions, the EPA reports.
Click to expand...

Yeah we got a long way to go to become sustainable civilization. We can't keep using landfills forever. We need to use stuff that either can be repaired and used over and over or can be recycled using clean energy. We also all need to become vegetarians. Cattle is very bad for the environment. We also need clean energy for travel like hydrogen fuel or some advanced technology that the government is holding out on us. Take a look at the descriptions folks give of the inside of an ET craft. Very minimalistic. You won't find a Cheerio box laying around or a trash bin. Everything has a purpose and is designed to perfection.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
BHS1975 said:
Yeah we got a long way to go to become sustainable civilization. We can't keep using landfills forever. We need to use stuff that either can be repaired and used over and over or can be recycled using clean energy. We also all need to become vegetarians. Cattle is very bad for the environment. We also need clean energy for travel like hydrogen fuel or some advanced technology that the government is hold out on us. Take a look at the descriptions folks give of the inside of an ET craft. Very minimalistic. You won't find a Cheerio box laying around or a trash bin. Everything has a purpose and is designed to perfection.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Maybe we should just ban ourselves then we could save the cows.
 
I don’t dispute AGW by any means, but there is always this perception that we get less snow than we used to. There’s some truth to it, but I’m not sure if it’s dramatic as people think. For example, in Greensboro the 2010s were snowier than average, if anything. It probably depends on when you grew up, too, as the 1980s were extremely snowy relative to average, whereas the 1990s (when I grew up) were a snowless hellscape with few redeeming qualities (the Superstorm and Blizzard of ‘96 being notable exceptions).

For Greensboro, NC:

myfox8.com

Has there ever been a winter in Greensboro with no snow?

GREENSBORO, N.C. (WGHP) – “Snow! It won’t be long before we’ll all be there with snow! Snow! …. I want to wash my hands, my face and hair with snow!” Channel your inne…
myfox8.com

Van-Denton-weather-graphic.jpg


Is there a downward trend there? I’m not so sure. Obviously, temperatures have gotten somewhat warmer, and if they continue to warm we may run into future issues in the snowfall department, but for now we’re not doing too badly.

It would be interesting to see these stats for other reporting sites. Unfortunately, they can be hard to find going back more than a decade or two.
 
superjames1992 said:
I don’t dispute AGW by any means, but there is always this perception that we get less snow than we used to. There’s some truth to it, but I’m not sure if it’s dramatic as people think. For example, in Greensboro the 2010s were snowier than average, if anything. It probably depends on when you grew up, too, as the 1980s were extremely snowy relative to average, whereas the 1990s (when I grew up) were a snowless hellscape with few redeeming qualities (the Superstorm and Blizzard of ‘96 being notable exceptions).

For Greensboro, NC:

myfox8.com

Has there ever been a winter in Greensboro with no snow?

GREENSBORO, N.C. (WGHP) – “Snow! It won’t be long before we’ll all be there with snow! Snow! …. I want to wash my hands, my face and hair with snow!” Channel your inne…
myfox8.com

Van-Denton-weather-graphic.jpg


Is there a downward trend there? I’m not so sure. Obviously, temperatures have gotten somewhat warmer, and if they continue to warm we may run into future issues in the snowfall department, but for now we’re not doing too badly.

It would be interesting to see these stats for other reporting sites. Unfortunately, they can be hard to find going back more than a decade or two.
Click to expand...

Fyi, having looked at it very meticulously myself over the last several years, Greensboro's "official" snowfall record is not very reliable prior to about the 1940s. There are lots of missing snowstorms in the early part of the record that make those early decade totals look low. You check places like RDU, ILM, CAE, CLT, ATL, etc. the downward trend is obvious & undeniable. Not to mention, the way snow is measured today w/ a snowboard usually biases today's measurements (outside of the occasional very large storm) higher than they used to be when it was mostly voluntary COOP observers measuring snow depth (which is always going to be lower than a snowboard due to compaction, sublimation, melting, more infrequent reporting, etc.). Also, another thing to keep in mind, is that where snow was actually measured in GSO (airport near Kernersville west of downtown now) vs near downtown prior to about 1948, also biases today's totals a tick higher in addition to the aforementioned low bias attributable to missing storms in the record. Same can be said for Raleigh's official snowfall record too, which moved from central Wake Co to NW Wake Co/near Morrisville after 1947.
 
It's always interesting that historical data that doesn't support warming is "suspect" or "not reliable" but historical temperature and co2 records are iron clad. Probably means nothing. But it's interesting.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top