houstonmacbro Posted January 12, 2007 Author Share Posted January 12, 2007 Macbro, what exactly are you trying to prove by posting links to all these articles? It isn't relevant that some place somewhere is warmer than normal. That's going to happen in any given year...there are too many places for some place not to be warmer than normal. And by slapping a GW label on it, it works as a fear-based story in a slow news cycle. And just as it isn't relevant that some researchers are able to coax funding from government sources by using scare tactics, it also isn't relevant that ExxonMobil is contributing money to activist groups. Both sides can legitimately point the finger at one another on this issue and claim financially-based bias...but that doesn't mean anything as far as the science is concerned. It just means that perhaps you should not believe everything you read. Think for yourself and ask meaningful questions.If you want to talk GW, lets talk about GW and the hypothetical effects. Not a closed ski resort. That datapoint signifies nothing.If I recall, I started this thread and the title of it is "scary new changes in the earth's eco-system." it has evolved into a lot of things. So what if I read and try to comprehend and think for myself. I am sharing MY viewpoints. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 If I recall, I started this thread and the title of it is "scary new changes in the earth's eco-system." it has evolved into a lot of things. So what if I read and try to comprehend and think for myself. I am sharing MY viewpoints. In all of the last three posts, the only comment you made was "How about that. " Is that a viewpoint? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
houstonmacbro Posted January 12, 2007 Author Share Posted January 12, 2007 'How about that.' was in reference to the above article that I was responding to (the one with the fat man in a swim suit) ... I didn't post it. It was not in reference to the article I then posted. In fact, the articles I posted didn't have a comment from me. I was sharing the information.Want a new thread ...? Start one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pumapayam Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 Want a new thread ...? Start one. Don't get testy guys Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
houstonmacbro Posted January 12, 2007 Author Share Posted January 12, 2007 Don't get testy guys No, it wasn't that at all .. but I have seen this thread take a lot of twists and turns. I don't mind people expressing varying opinions, thoughts, and yes ... news articles. It helps me learn. I cannot think like others, but I can certainly learn from various information. Sometimes I post information, sometimes I post thoughts. This topic is obviously one of the most intense on this board based on number of posts to it. We must be doing something right ... right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 Don't get testy guysWasn't it you and lockmat that agreed in another thread that posting links to articles wasn't a very productive way of HAIFing? Well I agree, especially where those articles don't add value to the discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pumapayam Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 Wasn't it you and lockmat that agreed in another thread that posting links to articles wasn't a very productive way of HAIFing? Well I agree, especially where those articles don't add value to the discussion.IMO, I think articles regarding these temperature changes add value to the topic, that being "scary new changes", and the changes being out of the ordinary temperatures.Just the fact that they mention that 2006 was the hottest year in the US, and the third hottest in the world is reason for all these smaller articles to make sense in the large scope of this topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 Just the fact that they mention that 2006 was the hottest year in the US, and the third hottest in the world is reason for all these smaller articles to make sense in the large scope of this topic.Do they? One year is not a statistically significant point of comparison to anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pumapayam Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 Do they? One year is not a statistically significant point of comparison to anything.Unless 2007 turns up anything else but above average, I would say that 2006 may be the start of above average temperatures.I thought someone had mentioned that the majority of the recent years have been above average, with 2006 being the highest above average. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
houstonmacbro Posted January 12, 2007 Author Share Posted January 12, 2007 I think the articles make sense in the larger understanding of what is happening around us. Whether it is a year, two, 10, 50, 100, 1,000 or 1,000,000. Each year it seems (and some evidence bears this out) are hotter than the next.Also, the stories about the birds, etc. are scary changes to our earth's eco-system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pumapayam Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 Lookie what I found, I wonder why 2004's snow was not added, I guess the City of Houston did not get enough snow to register.But notice how frequent it snowed before 1989! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 Unless 2007 turns up anything else but above average, I would say that 2006 may be the start of above average temperatures.I thought someone had mentioned that the majority of the recent years have been above average, with 2006 being the highest above average.Yes, well that may (or may not) occur, but it is not something that can be predicted reliably except in hindsight. Remember: we had three of the most destructive hurricanes and an incredibly busy hurricane season in 2005, after which everybody freaked out because they thought that a single year was the start of some horrifyingly trend. Insurance rates skyrocketed, costing homeowners gawdawful sums of money. ...and then nothing happened. Now it could also just be that 2006 was the odd year and that 2007 will see the continuation of the forecasted trend, but it could just as easily be a repeat of 2006.Frankly we don't know, and citing the most scary of an incredibly large number of datapoints and citing the scariness as a trend is not only useless...it is harmful and misleading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pumapayam Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 This is interesting to play with too! Update: Bastards only let you go back 2 months though, weather.com is probably better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 Lookie what I found, I wonder why 2004's snow was not added, I guess the City of Houston did not get enough snow to register.But notice how frequent it snowed before 1989!Seems like they probably just haven't updated thier information recently. It was more than just a trace, after all.I would like to call your attention to the fact that snowfall is not a very good indicator of average annual temperatures or temperatures in any given month. It is a much better indicator of winter precipitation. I would further like to mention that snowfall in Houston, TX has no bearing on GW. In fact, broader datasets indicate that the American South has been undergoing a long-term cooling trend even though average global temperatures are on a rising trend. This is yet another reason that I can't stand all these little bits and peices of information that get posted on here. They don't mean anything.Moreover, that we aren't getting as much snow lately is NOT a scary change. Less snow is good. It prevents car crashes. Watch what happens to Dallas traffic nearly every year when they get freezes. It ain't pretty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJones Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 Lookie what I found, I wonder why 2004's snow was not added, I guess the City of Houston did not get enough snow to register.But notice how frequent it snowed before 1989!Frequent ? I swear we need to get you into rehab !Let's do the math shall we. I will give the benefit of the doubt and say that since 1895 to the present, not cutting off at 1989,going all the way to 2006, that it has snowed a total of 40 days TOPS in the city of Houston, including "trace" amounts. 111 years equals roughly 40515 days. Take 40 divided by 40,515 and what is the percentage you come up with ? That works out to 1/10 th of 1 percent. How is THAT frequent ? That my friend is what is called a RARE OCCURENCE.Niche, I would just tell Puma, too watch our own news on Tuesday when the Sleet is supposed to hit us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pumapayam Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 Moreover, that we aren't getting as much snow lately is NOT a scary change. Less snow is good. It prevents car crashes. Watch what happens to Dallas traffic nearly every year when they get freezes. It ain't pretty. I think it is very pretty, just be safe! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
houstonmacbro Posted January 12, 2007 Author Share Posted January 12, 2007 Okay, how about this ARTICLE about what the farmers (ranchers?) in Australia are battling. They are having to kill off their herds because of drought. Now ... it SAYS that this has not occurred for 30 years so it could be just a fluke of nature right? It COULD have nothing to do with the changes going on with the planet. Afterall, much of Africa has been in drought for the last 20 years or more. But even they are having weird stuff happen, like the total disappearance of large lakes in Southern/Eastern Africa.Maybe I should rename this topic to something like "scary things going on in the world's eco-systems" and let y'all duke it out as to the cause.I actually like sharing these news items and chronicling events that are happening in our world ... and I will keep posting them until the editor decides he (she?) has had enough of this insane topic.***Cattle slaughter rate jumps as farmers battle droughtBy Joseph KerrJanuary 12, 2007 12:00amArticle from: The AustralianCATTLE are being slaughtered at rates not seen for 30 years, with almost three-quarters of a million killed a month as farmers battle the drought.Figures released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics yesterday reveal a rise in the number of cattle slaughtered for the fifth consecutive month, reaching 706,000 for November. Full article here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJones Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 You know Macbro, I wonder what the farmer's were thinking back in the 1930's when there was a freak weather occurence for most of the decade here in Texas called "The Dust Bowl". You ever heard of that phenomena back then ? I guess they were thinking wow, this "Global Warming" thing is something scary.http://www.climateark.org/shared/reader/we...px?linkid=30875 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
houstonmacbro Posted January 12, 2007 Author Share Posted January 12, 2007 And here is a related article about how our bad weather (global warming, El Nino, drought, natural Earth warming patterns ... whatever you wanna call it ...) is affecting stuff here at home. Okay, so maybe this is not as severe (or 'scary') as what's going on with Australian farmers, or the polar bears losing their ice, but it is ... curious.I guess my point? These changes are gonna have more affects on our lives than just temperature. It's happening now. ***Hay shortage drives cattle sell-offWeather, high corn demand push hay prices higher, forcing some cattle farmers to sell.The Associated PressSedalia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJones Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 The Great Depression wasn't caused because of the Dust Bowl, it didn't help, but it wasn't the cause. I am simply pointing out, that weather patterns such as these are nothing NEW ! Drastic climate changes have happened before in this country, WAAAAAAAAYYYYYY before we were thought to be the cause of it all, and WE being the cause is impossible as far as history is concerned, because if you look at it objectively, you will see that there were no "Greenhouse Gases" no "Holes in the Ozone", none of the B.S. spewed by these so-called scientists of today. The Earth is a living, breathing, organism as far as I am concerned, and sometimes it gets sick, but eventually heals itself.BTW, I say "greenhouse gases" and "holes in the ozone" because they had no instruments to be able to detect such things, but perhaps they were there and have been there the whole time and the weird weather that has been documented in the past is just part of the Earth's eco-system. But scientists are being able to tell what the past weather was like in certain regions almost down to the year. It is how they can tell when and how long Ice Ages occurred, or whether a certain year was hotter or colder than another. I just wish they would stop using scare tactics and just shoot us straight. They really don't know if the Earth has always been like this or if WE are really the cause for Earth's climate at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 And here is a related article about how our bad weather (global warming, El Nino, drought, natural Earth warming patterns ... whatever you wanna call it ...) is affecting stuff here at home. Okay, so maybe this is not as severe (or 'scary') as what's going on with Australian farmers, or the polar bears losing their ice, but it is ... curious.I guess my point? These changes are gonna have more affects on our lives than just temperature. It's happening now. Yeah, and you saw how that ... combined with 'The Great Depression' wrecked (spelling?) havoc on our country and the world economy.Woah, now! The Great Depression was the result of the combination of MANY factors. Climate variations were one that had effects on the American midwest, but that wouldn't have happened if there hadn't also been poor farming techniques used at the time. Also, the breakdown in global trade was a huge contributor to the depression. You can thank populist idiots for that contribution. Another contributor, of course, was excessive capital investment, hence the stock market crash.Fortunately, so long as we can avoid protectionism, global commerce is rapid and inexpensive enough that localized crop failures and droughts don't mean much of anything to the large population centers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
houstonmacbro Posted January 12, 2007 Author Share Posted January 12, 2007 I THINK I said 'combined with' ... I did not mention caused The Great Depression. I did say they wrecked havoc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pumapayam Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 Just as a random insert. . . . . IT MAY ACTUALLY SNOW THIS TUEDAY! Ok, I am done! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 Just as a random insert. . . . . IT MAY ACTUALLY SNOW THIS TUEDAY! Ok, I am done! ICE AGE!!! The sky is falling, the sky is falling! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJones Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 Just as a random insert. . . . . IT MAY ACTUALLY SNOW THIS TUEDAY! Ok, I am done! See, you are starting to come around, just look at the numbers, and quit listening to the crackpots of science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmainguy Posted January 14, 2007 Share Posted January 14, 2007 http://www3.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/061...ure4/index.htmlSo I'll keep flying, and scrambling my eggs on Teflon, and using that scented shampoo. But I'll never feel quite the same about the chemicals that make life better in so many ways.Those are the final two sentences in the article. For some of us toxic chemicals are a catch-22. I could stop flying; I could refrain from using teflon-which I always have anyway...my eggs taste better from my grandma's well seasoned cast iron skillet; and I could use an organic shampoo-now that my hair has grown back. But the catch-22 for me is if I stopped using toxic anti-virals to supress HIV and if I had refused chemo for brain cancer, I would be dead. So what I am saying is: there's alot more to pollution than natural and human greenhouse gases. There are products we rely on that while extending some of our lives, also pollute us with chemicals we're not quite aware of that may in the long term deny us a quality of life that we might otherwise have if only we questioned more of what is offered in the marketplace. Most of us aren't powerful enough to affect change in that regard and unfortunatly there aren't enough of of us willing to band together to affect the change that ultimatly would benefit us all.Anyway, as we are all apart of the eco-system, I thought I'd throw out that aspect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Marty Posted January 14, 2007 Share Posted January 14, 2007 I don't care how long i live. i live life one day at a time one day i might be here the next day i might disappear from the face of the Earth i don't care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Double L Posted January 14, 2007 Share Posted January 14, 2007 @ nmainguyThat is a topic and there are various issues and things that could be done to handle that topic. I'd say we just need to keep up to date on the issues and handle them individually as they come in order to find a balance between necessary health protection and luxury. For example, while our mattresses have flame-retardent in them, they shouldn't have too much flame-retardent in them. Working on those details individually would be the best way to go about handling similar issues. Just like how the EPA recently banned wood preservation for home use. http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/6...33;OpenDocumentWe are handling these issues and each one is a little different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJones Posted January 15, 2007 Share Posted January 15, 2007 I don't care how long i live. i live life one day at a time one day i might be here the next day i might disappear from the face of the Earth i don't care. Spoken like a true Bachelor that has no kids ! ROCK ON ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heights2Bastrop Posted January 15, 2007 Share Posted January 15, 2007 Durn g-g-g-global w-w-w-warming!Somebody turn that dang thermostat up! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.