Al Gore Was Right

The weather here is seriously fucked.

We're about half a month from summer vacation up here in Wisconsin. There was snow on the ground yesterday.



Good lord. The weather is craaazy.

(I don't mean for this thread to be about global warming or climate change or whatever. I'm just bitching.)

Well saturday and sunday we had an early summer weather here. Then yesterday as I came back from work it started hailing.

smoke said:

We're about half a month from summer vacation up here in Wisconsin.

Click to expand...

It's Wisconsin, what do you expect?

It was 83F here three days ago. Right now it's 32F. In late April.

yep, weather sucks.

Chicago has had the same problems you've had up in wisconsin, smoke. We were enjoying near summer-like temperatures all week until Saturday. At least the sun is shining again today...but it's still cool

global cooling?!

sounds great to me!

So if Al Gore was right about the weather, does that mean he was right about Man Bear Pig?

Until you've lived in Alberta, you cannot know the full meaning of weather change.
We had snow for about 4 days and now it's blazing hot. The good thing about all this, is that now I can shovel the snow and get a tan at the same time. Which really helps me save time.

No but seriously.. the weather here can reverse in a matter of 5 minutes.
If you've ever worn shades because of the blinding sun.. in the middle of a snow storm, then you should know what I mean.

Ramen4ever said:

Until you've lived in Alberta, you cannot know the full meaning of weather change.
We had snow for about 4 days and now it's blazing hot. The good thing about all this, is that now I can shovel the snow and get a tan at the same time. Which really helps me save time.

No but seriously.. the weather here can reverse in a matter of 5 minutes.
If you've ever worn shades because of the blinding sun.. in the middle of a snow storm, then you should know what I mean.

Click to expand...

Same here in kansas. Earlier this year, it went from, probably 60, to a foot of snow (that lasted days at least) in 2 days.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7376301.stm

I like the way the environmentalists have given themselves a loophole if global weather doesn't rise for the next DECADE, and for anyone who really wants to know, global temperature has not risen since 2001. All this just goes to prove once more that people should not jump on bandwagon politics and think they need to reshape the nature of society to face their respective, imagined Armageddon. Seems to be the way of politics now, the right has terrorists that want to destroy our civilisation and the left has environmental catastrophe. Guess we better just let these all seeing all knowing individuals rule every aspect of our lives and monitor us constantly, for OUR OWN GOOD of course.

Sanguinius said:

I like the way the environmentalists have given themselves a loophole if global weather doesn't rise for the next DECADE, and for anyone who really wants to know, global temperature has not risen since 2001. All this just goes to prove once more that people should not jump on bandwagon politics and think they need to reshape the nature of society to face their respective, imagined Armageddon.

Click to expand...

So, just to be sure, are you saying there is no global warming?

Aazealh said:

So, just to be sure, are you saying there is no global warming?

Click to expand...

Well not at the moment, there was before 2001 but from 2001 it has plateaued until now. I equate it to the terrorist threat, it's not that there is no terrorist threat to Western countries, there is, but certain groups widely exaggerate the threat in order to scare people into changing society in a way that meets with their approval. Basically what I'm saying is that certain groups exaggerate dangers to society in order to manipulate the way society functions, it's not the same as saying that what they use as their cause for concern is totally groundless.

Here's one article about what I'm talking about with regards to global temperature, but it's not the only one.

http://www.newstatesman.com/print/200712190004

Sanguinius said:

Well not at the moment, there was before 2001 but from 2001 it has plateaued until now.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry but it's not as if wide climatological changes can abruptly start or stop over a matter of months. This analysis is quite reductive considering the complexity of climatology, and it's also plain wrong in many ways (see the end of my post). I think the point isn't to wait until a catastrophe happens but rather to start diminishing the risks and taking actions so that we limit the chance of encountering problems in the future as much as possible. It seems shortsighted to me to be arguing about short-term consequences (i.e. the next decade) when the goal has always been as far as I understand it to prevent problems in the long-term. I looked quickly at that BBC article you provided, and from what I gathered it seems that this new model that would account for a stabilized period over the next 10 years does come back to the usual models by 2020, meaning that in the end the result will be the same. So basically I'm not sure what you were trying to prove with it. Sure, some people use it as a political tool and may be overly alarmist, but it certainly goes beyond that scope scientifically and environmentally.

As for that extremely controversial article about global warming having stopped in 2001, it's not something I'd base anything on if I were you. Case in point, the response from the New Statesman's own correspondent: http://www.newstatesman.com/200801140011

Mark Lynas explains it well enough, so I'll leave it at that. The article you provided just contains the usual claims by a pseudo-scientist without any data to back them up. I don't see how such articles are supposed to rival the studies and conclusions of actual groups of scientists and neutral scientific institutions. See for example the NASA's 2005 temperature trends summation: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/

Aazealh said:

I'm sorry but it's not as if wide climatological changes can abruptly start or stop over a matter of months.

Click to expand...

The 6 years from 2001 to 2007 is a couple of months now?

Aazealh said:

This analysis is quite reductive considering the complexity of climatology, and it's also plain wrong in many ways (see the end of my post). I think the point isn't to wait until a catastrophe happens but rather to start diminishing the risks and taking actions so that we limit the chance of encountering problems in the future as much as possible.

Click to expand...

Well of course, reasonable precautions should be made for reasonable dangers even if we’re not 100% that there truly is a danger. Although you have to give proportionality to it. We know for a 100% fact that someday a meteorite of considerable size will hit the earth and that it will cause considerable damage and could well take millions of lives. However, it is not currently a reasonable response to spend potentially hundreds of billions of pounds/dollars/euros making an anti-meteorite defence system as a meteorite might not hit for a hundred thousand years or more. There are people suggesting various amounts of change but many advocate sweeping changes to the entire economic system of the world and lifestyle changes to much of the earth’s population to placate their worries about global warming. In response to such radical alterations I’d say a fairly unequivocal and utterly deadly threat would be needed to reasonably justify such radical changes. I simply do not think it is at all clear that there is such a cataclysmic environmental catastrophe awaiting in our future and therefore I think that such radical alterations to our economic and social systems would be absurd, costly and create real current problems for the world today. (which it already is)

Aazealh said:

It seems shortsighted to me to be arguing about short-term consequences (i.e. the next decade) when the goal has always been as far as I understand it to prevent problems in the long-term. I looked quickly at that BBC article you provided, and from what I gathered it seems that this new model that would account for a stabilized period over the next 10 years does come back to the usual models by 2020, meaning that in the end the result will be the same. So basically I'm not sure what you were trying to prove with it. Sure, some people use it as a political tool and may be overly alarmist, but it certainly goes beyond that scope scientifically and environmentally.

Click to expand...

But you’re missing the whole point that I was trying to make, science is not a belief system, global warming is not meant to be something you believe in it’s meant to be a fact. If environmentalists can say that there will be no global warming from 2001 until 2020 but we must radically alter our economic and social systems between now and then to prevent future raises how on earth can you know they’re right? The only thing that is clear is the costs. Justifying these costs on certain models that say that even though the world isn’t heating for a period of some 20 years it will after and we just have to trust that their study is right in saying this. Whenever just a few years the models were not showing decade long plateaus or gaps in global warming. Perhaps a more reasonable conclusion would be that the costs of what they propose are clearly high and would cause real problems and scarcity of resources for millions around the world today and the evidence upon which global warming is based is far from being complete. As you said climatology is a complicated area of study in which scientists are still far from making short term let alone long term predictions about weather patterns. Maybe that knowledge should be used to advise caution before making Malthusian doomsday statements about processes we only have very limited knowledge about.

Aazealh said:

As for that extremely controversial article about global warming having stopped in 2001, it's not something I'd base anything on if I were you. Case in point, the response from the New Statesman's own correspondent: http://www.newstatesman.com/200801140011

Click to expand...

Well that’s because you believe in global warming, you don’t need any more testing, you don’t need more evidence, you believe it and therefore it’s true for now and evermore. In science though nothing is taken for granted, it’s only true until it’s disproved, it’s an unending process of analysis, it’s not meant to reach a point of agreement and then stop.

http://www.newstatesman.com/200801140011]http://www.newstatesman.com/200801140011

This brings up a file not found page

Aazealh said:

Mark Lynas explains it well enough, so I'll leave it at that. The article you provided just contains the usual claims by a pseudo-scientist without any data to back them up. I don't see how such articles are supposed to rival the studies and conclusions of actual groups of scientists and neutral scientific institutions. See for example the NASA's 2005 temperature trends summation: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/

Click to expand...

That figure comes from the IPCC Synthesis report, also, I could have picked many sources to show that but I picked that one as the newstatesman is a left wing (by left wing in the UK they’d probably be called communists in the US) publication here so you couldn’t talk crap about it just being a few right wing nut jobs, but oh well, you tried to do that anyway. Yep this guy is a real piece of right wing nut job work, worked for the BBC and everything, clearly a reactionary right wing wacko

http://www.starlinkuk.co.uk/david/Awards.html

Also that NASA link you gave pretty much ends at 2001 which is the beginning of the period he spoke about. I did see an article by Mark Lynas that I guess was the one you gave in your link although he seems quite oblivious to the fact that there’s been no major volcanic activity during the 2001-2007 time period to explain the plateau in temperature that he uses to explain the short term fall in previous decades. In those cases it’s blatant that a general rise in global temperatures is being offset by a short term volcanic eruption that causes a sharp and sudden FALL in global temperatures. That does not explain a plateauing of temperatures without any major volcanic activity. As for the other scientific studies you probably mean although you don’t name any, they are longer term and go back to WW2 and earlier. They analyse changes over the totality of the period and not specifically more recent times. This could mean that for some unknown reason there is a mere short term plateau in a more general trend to rising temperatures. But whenever environmentalists start saying that their models might be off until 2020 (and who knows by how much more they might alter their models by then) it seems very suspicious. A 7-8 year plateau is one thing, a plateau lasting 2 decades seriously stretches trust, especially when man made global warming is only really considered to be a major issue for a little over 50 years.

Sanguinius said:

The 6 years from 2001 to 2007 is a couple of months now?

Click to expand...

You're saying it stopped in 2001, meaning from 2000 to 2001. There was global warming in 2000 and then poof, in 2001 it's over. That's a matter of months, like I said.

Sanguinius said:

Well of course, reasonable precautions should be made for reasonable dangers even if we’re not 100% that there truly is a danger. Although you have to give proportionality to it. We know for a 100% fact that someday a meteorite of considerable size will hit the earth and that it will cause considerable damage and could well take millions of lives. However, it is not currently a reasonable response to spend potentially hundreds of billions of pounds/dollars/euros making an anti-meteorite defence system as a meteorite might not hit for a hundred thousand years or more.

Click to expand...

Your comparison and the logic you derive from it are specious. To be honest it smells of bad faith to me.

Sanguinius said:

But you’re missing the whole point that I was trying to make, science is not a belief system, global warming is not meant to be something you believe in it’s meant to be a fact. If environmentalists can say that there will be no global warming from 2001 until 2020 but we must radically alter our economic and social systems between now and then to prevent future raises how on earth can you know they’re right?

Click to expand...

I didn't miss anything. Science does deal in facts. The facts you got from that article you mentioned are incorrect and you were incorrect yourself. You seem to be utterly missing the point of what global warming is. It's a climatological trend that, like I told you, shouldn't (and can't) be solely measured in a short-term, year-by-year manner. I'm not telling you there needs to be extreme, instantaneous changes made to the economy, but it's true that efforts have to be made and the sooner the better. It's not so much for us as for the future generations. You can't deny that people in general haven't been very mindful of the environment so far in the history of the world. Well it's about time that changes. That doesn't mean we should abandon all forms of energy other than wind and solar power. I don't know why you must bring economical and political considerations into what is primarily a scientific question here. I originally simply asked you if you were refuting global warming, you should have just answered yes.

Sanguinius said:

As you said climatology is a complicated area of study in which scientists are still far from making short term let alone long term predictions about weather patterns.

Click to expand...

Scientists are univocal about the fact there is a global warming trend though. Predictions aren't 100% accurate but they're not just speculation either, unlike what you're saying. Because it's complicated doesn't mean nobody understands it or that it's completely unreliable.

Sanguinius said:

Well that’s because you believe in global warming, you don’t need any more testing, you don’t need more evidence, you believe it and therefore it’s true for now and evermore.

Click to expand...

No, I don't "believe" in it. Like you said, there are facts, I have studied those facts and concluded what all knowledgeable people have concluded before me. I'm all for more testing, and as you must know people will never stop gathering data on the matter, but it's a fact that it's happening. Saying otherwise is just hiding your head in the sand.

Sanguinius said:

http://www.newstatesman.com/200801140011]http://www.newstatesman.com/200801140011

This brings up a file not found page

Click to expand...

Try clicking the link properly? I don't know, it works here, and it's linked at the top of the article you provided as well. I assume that if you can access one article you should be able to access another. In any case the problem is on your side.

Sanguinius said:

That figure comes from the IPCC Synthesis report, also, I could have picked many sources to show that but I picked that one as the newstatesman is a left wing (by left wing in the UK they’d probably be called communists in the US) publication here so you couldn’t talk crap about it just being a few right wing nut jobs, but oh well, you tried to do that anyway. Yep this guy is a real piece of right wing nut job work, worked for the BBC and everything, clearly a reactionary right wing wacko

Click to expand...

No, I just called him a pseudo-scientist and suggested his article stank of incompetence. Which it does. He's indeed not basing what he says on anything but a gross misinterpretation. It's almost a joke to suggest that his source for giving a completely opposite conclusion to that of the field's top researchers is those researchers' own work. I'm not reasoning in terms of politics here, contrary to you. He provided no numbers, and I know for a fact that there are no serious publications that can back up what he's saying. I don't care about whether he or the website is rightwing or leftwing. Must everything come down to politics to you? I mean you give me an article, I tell you it's not a serious work and that it was disproven very quickly after being published, and instead of checking your facts you tell me it comes from a left-wing publication? What does that have to do with anything?

Sanguinius said:

Also that NASA link you gave pretty much ends at 2001

Click to expand...

No, it's the data for 2005. Did you read what was on the page? Anyway, I think it's obvious here that your political agenda is influencing you on the matter (something which I'm afraid everyone is getting used to), so I don't believe there's a point in continuing this discussion. I already know that you'll never acknowledge what anyone will tell you as long as it's not what you want to hear. Now let's just get this thread back to what it was supposed to be: people commenting about the crazy weather in their area (quoting smoke: "I don't mean for this thread to be about global warming or climate change or whatever. I'm just bitching.").

And on that note, yesterday started off warm, reaching 70, but then it devolved into freezing rain in the afternoon? What?

Well, all I know about the matter is that the weather down here in Long Beach CA has been bipolar for the past few months. Being hopelessly white, my sunburn fluctuates with the weather. It makes choosing what to wear for the day a pain in the ass too.

Aazealh said:

You're saying it stopped in 2001, meaning from 2000 to 2001. There was global warming in 2000 and then poof, in 2001 it's over. That's a matter of months, like I said.

Click to expand...

I said from 2001 to 2007, I don’t know what you’re talking about. That’s 7 years, not a few months.

Aazealh said:

Your comparison and the logic you derive from it are specious. To be honest it smells of bad faith to me.

I didn't miss anything. Science does deal in facts. The facts you got from that article you mentioned are incorrect and you were incorrect yourself. You seem to be utterly missing the point of what global warming is. It's a climatological trend that, like I told you, shouldn't (and can't) be solely measured in a short-term, year-by-year manner. I'm not telling you there needs to be extreme, instantaneous changes made to the economy, but it's true that efforts have to be made and the sooner the better. It's not so much for us as for the future generations. You can't deny that people in general haven't been very mindful of the environment so far in the history of the world. Well it's about time that changes. That doesn't mean we should abandon all forms of energy other than wind and solar power. I don't know why you must bring economical and political considerations into what is primarily a scientific question here. I originally simply asked you if you were refuting global warming, you should have just answered yes.

Click to expand...

No global warming from 2001 to 2020 is only a year by year; specious; ignorant understanding of how the climate works? Right ….

Aazealh said:

Scientists are univocal about the fact there is a global warming trend though. Predictions aren't 100% accurate but they're not just speculation either, unlike what you're saying. Because it's complicated doesn't mean nobody understands it or that it's completely unreliable.

No, I don't "believe" in it. Like you said, there are facts, I have studied those facts and concluded what all knowledgeable people have concluded before me. I'm all for more testing, and as you must know people will never stop gathering data on the matter, but it's a fact that it's happening. Saying otherwise is just hiding your head in the sand.

Click to expand...

What good is gathering more data if you’re utterly unwilling to reassess old theories in the light of new data? The very first part of the article was about people with that very attitude people that are set doctrinally in place. When the world cooled in the 40’s & 50’s many scientists thought we were heading for a new ice age, the consensus then was not as big as now but rapid man made global warming is only considered to have occurred from the late seventies. That’s only some 30 years ago, that’s not a long time either, that’s why environmentalists say it is RAPID man made warming. If there was a continuing of the current plateau which has existed from 2001-2007 until 2020 then a rise in temperatures of about 25 years would be followed by a 20 year standstill or cooling. I’d call that more than a year by year fluctuation and a serious reason for a reassessment of the underlying theory. Just because a certain raise in global carbon levels leads to some global warming doesn’t mean that there is a direct and equal cause and affect between temperature and carbon at all levels of carbon in the atmosphere. Of course that can only be determined retrospectively, which is why more testing always needs to be done, as in any aspect of science.

Aazealh said:

Try clicking the link properly? I don't know, it works here, and it's linked at the top of the article you provided as well. I assume that if you can access one article you should be able to access another. In any case the problem is on your side.

No, I just called him a pseudo-scientist and suggested his article stank of incompetence. Which it does. He's indeed not basing what he says on anything but a gross misinterpretation. It's almost a joke to suggest that his source for giving a completely opposite conclusion to that of the field's top researchers is those researchers' own work. I'm not reasoning in terms of politics here, contrary to you. He provided no numbers, and I know for a fact that there are no serious publications that can back up what he's saying. I don't care about whether he or the website is rightwing or leftwing. Must everything come down to politics to you?

Click to expand...

Well better politics than name calling. His statement is also not difficult to check, just look at the global average temperature from 2001 to 2007. It is plateauing although atmospheric carbon levels are continuing to increase, it is not a very long period in climate terms, but 7 years isn’t a few months and it’s not a year by year fluctuation. But that wasn’t even my point, I gave that 1st link to suggest that some environmentalists are giving themselves a loophole that could give them 2 decades of no global warming and allow them to say that everyone should still have no doubts about global warming and CRUCIALLY the environmental apocalypse that is supposed to accompany it. Now maybe in your own “year by year” analysis 20 years of no global warming is something you can write off without a second though but whenever man made global warming is only meant to have really kicked off in the late seventies I’d call a twenty year suspension in global warming suspicious.

Aazealh said:

No, it's the data for 2005. Did you read what was on the page? Anyway, I think it's obvious here that your political agenda is influencing you on the matter (something which I'm afraid everyone is getting used to), so I don't believe there's a point in continuing this discussion. I already know that you'll never acknowledge what anyone will tell you as long as it's not what you want to hear.

Click to expand...

Yes, only I am influenced by my politics on this board, no one would think that a left leaning French man who supports Obama in the US election would also believe in Global warming without hesitation, those platforms are clearly different.

Aazealh said:

Now let's just get this thread back to what it was supposed to be: people commenting about the crazy weather in their area (quoting smoke: "I don't mean for this thread to be about global warming or climate change or whatever. I'm just bitching.").

Click to expand...

Aazealh said:

So, just to be sure, are you saying there is no global warming?

Click to expand...

It wasn’t just me, as much as you like making me the cause of disruption.

Sorry Sanguinius, it really is just you who went against the thread's original purpose. Aaz could have simply deleted your post without even arguing and been completely justified. I'm not even touching the main argument, but I think Aaz's point with the political bantering is that the politics are really unrelated to the issue. There are only data and analysis in science, morality and political policy have absolutely nothing to do with the temperature of the planet. You can assess the accuracy of a statement in regards to logic and factual analysis.

On a side note, I'd like to correct that very few things, if any, are considered absolute in science. It is absolutely imperative to the scientific method not to assume that things will not always turn out the same every time. There are only high levels of accuracy, no facts.

Sanguinius, you're obviously either very obtuse, or showing some incredible bad faith here, or both. It's like you're playing dumb for the sake of your argument. You don't want to acknowledge that what you're saying has no actual scientific ground at all? Fine by me. It's your responsability if you make yourself look like a fool, and I'm not going to waste my time replying to your uninformed drivel.

Sanguinius said:

Yes, only I am influenced by my politics on this board, no one would think that a left leaning French man who supports Obama in the US election would also believe in Global warming without hesitation, those platforms are clearly different.

Click to expand...

You're the only one that's influenced to such a ridiculous level that you relate everything and anything to it, yes. Vaxillus is right, I should have just deleted your post instead of humoring you on your little trolling attempt. I'll be doing that next time. Now leave this thread be please.

Well so far the weathers been rather normal this week, although I'm still expecting a snowstorm for when I apply for a motorcycle license.

Wow, we actually touched the global warming debate here. I'm not going there.

The cold weather was replaced with cold weather plus rain and wind this week (with even some slight snow flurries and a "wintry mix" on Monday).

I guess it's something about spring time in Chicago that gives us a thunderstorm one day and snow flurries the next.

On the bright side, it was finally sunny today...albeit still a bit chilly.

It's good to know that lots of people are experiencing these spring weather nightmares.

SMZKAH said:

It's good to know that lots of people are experiencing these spring weather nightmares.

Click to expand...

Misery loves company.

I am skeptic about global warming as a whole but if scaring people with an apocaliptic vision of the future helps the development of more sustainable power generation technologies then I don't mind. Plus I would rather hear politicians scare people with global warming that with terrorist threats to spend money on weapons instead on power generation research (which will pay off in the long run).