Global warming? More like cooling...

[DBZgirl88]

[COLOR=#004a6f]We all hear about how the rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has slowly been making temperatures rise. The ice caps might eventually melt people think.

But if the earth is warming up, how come winter has become longer and colder over the years? That's at least what I see in my region. It used to be sunny and warm by the middle of march, even hot at times, and now it might take till mid-April for all the snow to melt, and it's still very chilly, even in May!

When I was younger, the snow was almost always warm enough to pack together. Now it's just very cold, dry and powdery.

Any explanations for this gradual decrease in winter temperatures?[/COLOR]

[SunfallE]

I guess it would depend on what the weather cycles are like where you live. Where I am it isn't unusual for us to have seven to fifty years of warmer than usual weather followed by seven to fifty years of colder weather than usual. We also go through drought and wet cycles that fit that pattern too. I'm not familar with where you live, but does your region go through cycles as well? Perhaps that's what's going on.

[DeathBug]

The sciences that the global warming theory is based upon is shakey at best, and just as much evidence poiints towards it as points against it. It became accepted as fact in the '80's because it was an effective scare-tactic for enviornmentalist groups looking to increase their political power.

Don't take any of it too seriously.

[Bloodseeker]

I've got the same here. All of the seasons start a bit later, and winter lasts longer than the others and is colder and rainier than it used to be. The seasons used to be pretty even in length.

I'm all for keeping the environment clean and healthy, but I don't think that the global warming thing is legit. DeathBug put it well. "...it was an effective scare-tactic for enviornmentalist groups looking to increase their political power."

[AzureWolf]

[COLOR=blue]Even if we were to assume that that Global Warming thing is a huge hoax, isn't the fact that it's getting colder something to worry about just as much?

This is absolutely unsupported speculation, but perhaps because the large chunks of ice and other things from the colder regions are spewing into the seas and absorbing heat, they are also absorbing heat from warmer areas merely by convection. You know, like if you have a hot metal (i.e., land where you live) in water of the same temperature (i.e., body of water near you), and then you drop ice as far from the metal as possible, everything will get cooler (except for the ice, heh).

Personally, while this winter had snow, it was just out of the blue. It must have been 4-5 years since the last real snowstorm.[/COLOR]

[Red]

[QUOTE=DeathBug]The sciences that the global warming theory is based upon is shakey at best, and just as much evidence poiints towards it as points against it. It became accepted as fact in the '80's because it was an effective scare-tactic for enviornmentalist groups looking to increase their political power.

Don't take any of it too seriously.[/QUOTE]

[url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4349133.stm][b]This[/b][/url], despite how controversial it is, seems to show how industry has effected our climate in recent years. The science it's based on isn't 'shakey' as it involves more than just one form of science; information needs to pooled from a variety of sources to reach any sort of conclusion about warming.

Global warming does not mean we're going to see some sort of instant effect, where you can stroll out of your house in a shirt (or of course in the Southern hemisphere, naked). The average temperature of the Earth is predicted to increase by around 5 degrees C in the next hundred years.

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong - but as far as I know carbon molecules contained within emitted greenhouse gases absorb the infrared light that bounces off the Earth's surface. After that it's emitted in all sorts of directions; the more gases in the atmosphere, the more this occurs.

[Decadence]

[quote name='DeathBug']Condeleeza Rice for President![/quote]

I would just like to point out the person denying Global warming, if the signature is not some sort of joke, is a conservative, therefor pro-big business. So logicaly he would deny global warming, because it costs the corporation more. (generalization based on the U.S. president''s actions.)

[DeathBug]

[quote name='ShadO MagE']I would just like to point out the person denying Global warming, if the signature is not some sort of joke, is a conservative, therefor pro-big business. So logicaly he would deny global warming, because it costs the corporation more. (generalization based on the U.S. president''s actions.)[/quote]

Soo...rather than give actual evidence for global warming, as others have done, you're going to tos stones at me based on a string of large assumptions.

Good job there, Skippy.

[Decadence]

Actuly the statement there was not an insult directed at you, I was mearly pointing out the political alighnment of those who say it may mor may not be true, or is not true, and those who say it is true. For the most part my assupmtion is true. Based on the economic principals of the conservatives and the liberals, it can be an assumption based on logic.

Edit: Also, even if it wasn't true, wouldn't iit be better to just take the safty measures now and if it stil happens, no one can blame it on big business?
Because the easiest way to prove if it is true or not, is to do what the environmentalists ask, and if it still happens, then we know its false, but if it stops we know its true.

[DeathBug]

[quote name='ShadO MagE']Actuly the statement there was not an insult directed at you, I was mearly pointing out the political alighnment of those who say it may mor may not be true, or is not true, and those who say it is true.[/quote]

Well, don't you see that if that's the case, then every stance on it is thrown into balance? If people who are "pro-business", as you say, disavow global warming, then logically, people who are anti-business support the theory. So, they can't be trusted either, since they don't like businesses.

[QUOTE]For the most part my assupmtion is true.[/QUOTE]

No, Skippy, it's not; that's why it's an "assumption". You know what assumptions do, right?

[QUOTE]Based on the economic principals of the conservatives and the liberals, it can be an assumption based on logic.[/QUOTE]

Maybe I just want Condi elected because she's a smokin' hottie.

[QUOTE]Edit: Also, even if it wasn't true, wouldn't iit be better to just take the safty measures now and if it stil happens, no one can blame it on big business?[/QUOTE]

So, then, if we use that logic, how many other safety measures will we have to take for every single theoretically possible danger that we concieve.

[QUOTE]Because the easiest way to prove if it is true or not, is to do what the environmentalists ask, and if it still happens, then we know its false, but if it stops we know its true.[/QUOTE]

......there's a sentence that probably made a lot more sense in your head than before you typed it out, eh?

Look, we're a pretty arrogant species, and we like to attribute things to us. The fact is, the Earth's climate chanfes on a regular basis; remember the Ice Age? The temperature changes all the time; only now are we smart enough to notice it. Read Chrichton's "State of Fear".

[2010DigitalBoy]

Here in Virginia you can never tell WHAT the weather's going to be like. We had one of our hottest days in February, only 3 days before it snowed. We Got snow the first day of march, but the next day it was all sunny and fairly warm. Only 2 days later was a heavy rainstorm. The only time you're guaranteed warmth here is in the summer, and by then there will be so my bugs you'll be afraid to go outside!

[DBZgirl88]

[COLOR=#004a6f]I took the time to go outside today, and it seems like the weather has read my mind. It was really sunny, almost blinding, and the snow is melting faster than usual. I also saw a fly!

That's so freaky, I thought that winter is gonna last longer, and when I mention it on the boards the weather suddenly changes! Most intriguing...

But wow! A fly! Flys indicate warm weather! Maybe the snow will melt soon. Maybe we'll have a warm April for once.

I'd say that air pollution is creating inconsistencies in weather, not specifically global warming. I suggested the idea of Global cooling, but even though winters are getting longer and colder over the years where I live, we keep getting unsusually warm days. We got rain in [I]Febuary[/I].

But if global cooling is possible, why have summer temperatures remained the same?

Maybe the Earth's tilt is changing? Maybe, the earth's orbit is changing?[/COLOR]

[Delta]

[COLOR=#FF5646][SIZE=1]I won't count on that.

It's probably just a cycle, like SunfallE said. What bothers me is that its effects are more, ehrm, [i]pronounced[/i] as of late.

Last I heard, great volcanic eruptions are able to cool the earth's atmosphere. With all the ash flying around and blocking out the sun... I don't know. Perhaps global cooling is Mother Nature's way of repairing herself, you know, as response to the increse in global temperatures.

As we've read, this process of remediation (is that what it's called?) does have an effect on [i]certain[/i] living things (never mind them roaches). So yeah, that doesn't mean that we can just sit around and watch MN heal the environment. [/SIZE][/COLOR]

[Morpheus]

The fact that the temperature is rising is an average. It might be colder where you live, but that is what we call a fluke(I watch too much college basketball). Also, I doubt Canada has enough CO2 to fill up the atmosphere around it. This is more of an issue in places where the ratio of vehicles to land is a lot smaller like Europe and East asia.

[AzureWolf]

[COLOR=blue]What does it matter where Deathbug's argument is coming from? As long as he provides his opinion with his support, it doesn't matter if there's some pro-business mindset behind him. I'm not saying Deathbug is pro-business or whatever, but even if he was, what does that prove, and what relevance does it have to this thread?

Anyway, if we are on the topic of big business, I remember that DuPont was the big bad of the whole ozone dealy. DuPont did intentionally deny the effect their CFC (chlorofluorocarbon) products had on the environment, and they flatly said any effect was minimal at best. Even with all the pressing and apparent problems the CFCs were causing, DuPont would not claim responsibility.

It was not until 1986 (1976?), when some scientist discovered the big gaping whole in the ozone above the Arctic that DuPont finally conceded to being an ###.

The point of this story isn't a science lesson (although it's quite a cool story - chlorine radicals and everything!), but to point out that if you are aware and willing to accept the big gaping hole in the ozone, you can't say global warming isn't happening. Without the ozone layer, ultraviolet light will be striking down on us, and that's a great deal of energy. Molecules will absorb the energy, break down, and release the excess energy as heat. This is one of the main reasons Mars contains no organic molecules, as its formation is immediately countered with UV.

So, I'm with Red: Global Warming isn't a hoax.[/COLOR]

[Roxas]

Right. May I just point out that it might be possible for global warming to cause longer and colder winters as well. I mean nature does sort of balance it self at most doesnt it? And yes it does get colder over here in Arkansas as well. We're just now exiting winter... I think.

[Japan]

[COLOR=Navy]It sure is affecting us out here in the Northwest. I only snowed three of four times total this winter, and the rest of the days either nice weather we get in April, or cold weather like in October or September.

I remember that four years ago we had snow on the ground from November till March. The East is taking all of our snow! >_<[/COLOR]

[James]

[color=#B0251E]Bringing up Michael Chrichton's "State of Fear" is a really bad idea too, because that novel has been roundly criticized by the scientific community.

Of course, movies like The Day After Tomorrow are far from accurate -- but it's also totally inaccurate to suggest that global warming simply doesn't exist. There's just too much evidence to the contrary.[/color]

[Drix D'Zanth]

It is difficult to correctly ascertain the exact ?value? of our earth?s temperature. It is also uncertain whether or not the method for which we measure the earth?s temperature has changed in the thirty-some years that global warming has been hypothesized. This would explain a certain variance in data. However, there is pretty convincing evidence that the earth [i]is[/i] getting warmer.

Why is the earth getting warmer? Well, we?ve attempted to draw a correlation between carbon dioxide emissions and global warming. Carbon dioxide emissions appear to be increasing exponentially, while the warming curve is more linear, at best. I don?t think we should be so haughty in our supposed dominion over earth. I believe the warming, or relative cooling is merely the earth?s natural meteorological change independent of our influence.

The problem with our correlation-based theory is that we superimpose two different sets of data that may be entirely unrelated. We are searching for an answer in the evidence instead of letting the evidence speak for itself. For example, I recently listened to a professor speak about statistical correlation by taking the semester grades (per year, for about 30 years) and superimposing a graph of the semester grades on a graph of the bi-annual global carbon dioxide emissions. The results are quite stunning; the two graphs line up almost perfectly, more so than carbon dioxide and the global temperature. Is it fair to assume that carbon dioxide emissions are responsible for this increase in GPA?

As for the hole in the ozone layer; the current theory is that CFCs, bromides, or any halogen-based byproduct interacting with sunlight facilitates and unbalances the natural decomposition of ozone into molecular oxygen. Here?s the big question, is the hole going to appear over you or I? The answer is a striking: [b]no[/i]. In order for the chemical reactions to take place to the magnitude that has been witnessed over the artic poles you must have:

? The polar winter leads to the formation of the polar vortex which isolates the air within it.
? Cold temperatures form inside the vortex; cold enough for the formation of Polar Stratospheric Clouds (PSCs). As the vortex air is isolated, the cold temperatures and the PSCs persist.
? Once the PSCs form, heterogeneous reactions take place and convert the inactive chlorine and bromine reservoirs to more active forms of chlorine and bromine.
? No ozone loss occurs until sunlight returns to the air inside the polar vortex and allows the production of active chlorine and initiates the catalytic ozone destruction cycles. Ozone loss is rapid. The ozone hole currently covers a geographic region a little bigger than Antarctica and extends nearly 10km in altitude in the lower stratosphere.
(source: Centre for Atmospheric Science, Cambridge University)

I honestly doubt the ozone hole is as much a threat to our natural environment as previously assumed. It?s uncertain the exact mechanisms and history of these ozone holes as our fraction of time in studying them is sometimes fractured. We?ve only been studying this phenomenon for a relatively short period of time, so it?s unlikely that we?ll understand the effects of ozone depletion for years to come. One current theory is that the magnetic alignment of the poles has some catalytic effect on the Chapman reactions (the natural decomposition of Ozone into molecular oxygen). (source : Krug, Edward C. Ph.D.)

In either case, the vitamin D from all that sunlight is going to be good for us ;)