![Sad :(](./images/smilies/icon_sad.gif)
Thats gonna be bad for our palms ...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 132420.htm
Ben
Moderators: Laaz, lucky1, Alchris, Kansas, Wes North Van
canadianplant wrote:Plants and animals are a good indication:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story ... north.html
This indian gave a good waylucky1 wrote:I rely on the Indians.
How do they know winter's coming?
"White man putting up wood," they say.
(Sorry if anyone's offended by this non-politically-correct joke).
I agree, they can't even get a 5 day forcast right.gpenny wrote:Ahh, the coming ice age. Here we go again!! I went to college in the early 70's and that was all we heard from all the experts. Guess what, they were wrong then and probably are now! Just relax and realize that no man really knows.
Well, I can see your stance on that. Back in the 70s, computer modeling wasnt the best, only due to the technology we had back then. We found out moe about our climate in the last decade then the last 3. Computer technology was aided my weather forcasters trying to get more power to deal with all the variables. Sure it isnt perfect, but computer power has gone up 1000 times since the 70s.gpenny wrote:Ahh, the coming ice age. Here we go again!! I went to college in the early 70's and that was all we heard from all the experts. Guess what, they were wrong then and probably are now! Just relax and realize that no man really knows.
Because that is usual misconception, for the reasons mentioned above. They use different data (generally), but still use information about the past. The difference is weather predictions on the weather channel are derived using 30 yr data spans, while climate data is using all available climate data for 100 000 - million year time scales or more. Sure its not perfect as we wont know everything about the past (yes variables, but computers can handle way more data then the 70s).gpenny wrote:Computer models can only use data from the past. In my humble opinion they can not predict (with any degree of confidence) what future changes might be (there are just too many variables involved). Just look what the 30 day European model was calling for 30 days ago (opposite of what is occurring). If we can't get 30 days right how can we get 30 years? I'm not saying we quit trying to figure things out,just saying we're not there by a long shot!!
But its snowing in BostonPaul Ont wrote:Can we put that "global cooling" myth on ice finally? Never was a consensus and was only a small minority of scientists who ever pushed this idea.
I'm getting tired of posting this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling
Word!TimMAz6 wrote:I don't believe any news article/scientist who claims they understand the climate system.........does anyone really think we will understand world climate change in our lifetime? If we understand climate change then why are we continuing to study it?We study climate change cause we don't understand it.
Thats the problem with saying "global warming". Sure there is a general warming trend, but it is warming all over. The weather patterns are changing if anything right now, which is bad enough in itself IMO.hardyjim wrote:I prefer the term climate change .....;
We may see the coldest March in history here
I think you found a signature Jim! LOLNot an alarmist here but definitely not one to bury my head in the sand....unless its warm![]()
canadianplant wrote:Thats the problem with saying "global warming". Sure there is a general warming trend, but it is warming all over. The weather patterns are changing if anything right now, which is bad enough in itself IMO.hardyjim wrote:I prefer the term climate change .....;
We may see the coldest March in history here
I think you found a signature Jim! LOLNot an alarmist here but definitely not one to bury my head in the sand....unless its warm![]()
Holy moly, Ben.Its -4c today and the normal high is +8c ...
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests