Software

Ask something
Discussion Locked

Is global warming turned into global cooling, or just an adjustment?

0 helpful
66 replies

by dadspad

Closed to new repliesThis discussion is closed. It stays readable, but it takes no new replies.

The following site shows data that the temperature for the last year has dropped dramatically. It uses the same data that demonstrated global warming.

http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Worldwide+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm

for all 12 months data:

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/02/19/january-2008-4-sources-say-globally-cooler-in-the-past-12-months/

The data shows the temperature dropped more than .5 degrees from Jan 2007 to Jan 2008.

And just when I was beginnig to think global warming was getting enough evidence. :D

66 replies

by mjd420nova

I feel that with the advance of technology that measures the temperatures more accurately and more locations at which these measurements are taken have led many to assume that they can now predict which way the pendulum is swinging. One year does not make enough data to accurately prdict which way it will swing next year or for the next decade. The accuracy of past measurements has to now be called into question.

by dadspad

not enough data yet. One of the comments said it was the lowest temperature since 1875. Since the last Little Ice Age offically ended in 1850, that may be the reason they started monitoring global warming in 1875. :D There were official temperature readings before that date that could have been used. :)

by dr dij

it still doesn't stop global warming which is up 1.8o F so far and correlates pretty closely with CO2 emissions for last 150 years, the start of the industrial age. Plus as developing countries spew more and more CO2 as their living standards increase it will just get alot worse.

It's really pretty simple: the last time the earth was much warmer, the CO2 levels were much higher. That CO2 deposited out as coal, oil over a couple hundred thousand years. We are taking all that coal and oil and releasing the CO2 from burning it into the atmosphere.

If it is all burned the CO2 levels will be seven times what they are now, and will be a lot hotter. SHort of something like a supervolcano such as the one at Yellowstone from erupting.

Plus all that CO2 mixed with other hydrocarbons is just NASTY. A piece of rebar on the 710 freeway bounced up and knocked my muffer loose. I pulled over on the shoulder and took a knife to cut it off completely from the rubber hangers, lying on the ground on the edge of the freeway.

The fumes from all the cars were like a liquid toxic river when you lie on the ground. I had to 'come up for air' and raise my head above the ground every few seconds.

So the pollution effect of all those hydrocarbons (China is building a new coal plant each week for next 5 years, without any effective pollution controls) is probably just as bad for the developed countries as the GW effects.

by oz_media

I know CO2 is the buz word for global warming, but that's not what is effecting you when you lay on the street. What you are referring to is the lethal CO, Carbon Monoxide which is teh KEY element checked for vehicle poluutants, even Hydrocarbons are not a major issue with vehicle exhaust.

CO exposure reduces the number of oxygen carryign vlood cells in the blood, resulting in suffocation. When someone sticks a hose on the exhaust in order ot commit suicide, it is the CO inhalation that kills them. CO makes you sleep until you suffocate.

This is why cops, city workers etc. have common issues with headaches, and prolonged exposure causes sickness, blurred vision and even death. Thousands die each year from CO posoning, it is colourless, odourless and lethal.

CO2 is lighter than air, therefore it moves high enough in the atmosphere to not be directly harmful to humans inhaling it. Hydrocarbons can be breathed too, they are als lighter than air and breakdown into relatively common and harmless gases at such high alititudes.

CO doesn't dissipate as well, being heavier that air it lingers at street level. Ever get a headache from shopping in a bust city all day? It's the CO not the stress of the city.

I don't mean to come across to harshly, your comments are relevant, but not the cause of what you are leaning toward.

I've studied alternate fuels and am a certified air care mechanic, so it's all still fresh to me, but I see so many people disclaiming global warming and completely ignoring the fact that our own emissions are killing us at the street level, regardless of how the earth is warming or cooling.

by dr dij

both CO2 and hydrocarbons.
YOu can't smell CO2 so I was refering to general smelly hydrocarbons from cars.

by dadspad

1. We need to address and clean up the worlds act on pollutants, which may include CO2 (we need CO2 to live). That the majority of people would agree on. Is C02 causing the earth to warm? It is hard to believe such a simple cause of a global situation, but it is very hard to tell if it is a cause or coincidence.

2. You may be right about the last CO2 deposit, but not about the earth being warmer. There was a thing called the Little Ice Age. It began around 1400, before that the temperatures were equivalent or greater than now. There was a documentary, of the same name, on the History channel that gave proof of this. There was no industralization before 1400, although there might have been other reasons.

by dr dij

in the past climate change has been by natural causes, simply because humans were incapable of doing anything much to affect climate, short of setting massive fires in Australia like the aborigines did, which probably didn't change climate much. Did change the fauna.

I was refering to the massive warming period millions of years ago. Previous coolings typically were caused by volcanoes.

And in the previous warming where N. America was flooded, CO2 was much higher. Some natural event tipped cascade events such as the methane hydrates on the sea beds to come into the atmosphere, etc.

And yes, even global warming can cause europe to go into mini-ice age now, while the rest of the earth is getting hotter, if, for example greenland and arctic ice cap melting floods the ocean with fresh water, which doesn't instantly mix typically with the denser salty waters of the global heat conveyors. (the gulf stream being primary in this).

This would mean that heat would have to get to the poles by other means, so the atmosphere would take up much of that slack and tend toward more violent atmosphere events (nice talk for hurricanes, tornadoes and cyclones, the way the military now calls deaths 'trits' or attritions).

by dawgit

Is overall warming causing an increase in CO?? We do now know that there is a tremendus amount of CO? released naturally from the Earth itself. The Oceans release nomerous Gases all the time, including CO?. Could this be a chicken and egg thing? -d

by oz_media

Global warming doesn't just mean that the Earth is going to boil and we'll all perish. The breakdown of the Earth's ozone layer does let more hazardous rays enter through our atmosphere, it also creates extreme climate on teh cool side too. As the Eath moves farther from the sun in it's natural annual orbit, we will also have less and less protection from the cold as well.

SO the breakdown of our atmosphere actually works for both hot and cold, both are more extreme as we have less and less protection from the extreme temperatures found outside the ozone layer.

by dr dij

problem is many of the worlds peoples are barely above 'have food' line and any disruption there WILL cause mass starvation. While a drought in Australia raises the price of wheat and american consumers complain, in un-developed country they just go hungry and many die.

The problem is everyones lifestyles are predicated on a reasonably stable climate. From water systems, e.g. Georgia in crisis because their water resevoirs are for an 'average' year and they had a long drought.

In developing countries, many depend on glacial meltwater. South America on both sides of the Andes, the Himalayas, where the Ganges will flood earlier in spring and get close to dry later till monsoons, etc.

So, for better or worse all the worlds economies are heavily dependent on climate, more than we realize. In developed worlds we are less dependent due to fossil fuels, but we'll still have to pay alot to adjust - building new resevoirs, moving flooded areas, etc.

by dadspad

The last one(s) I saw said that unless we reversed the global warming, it might not be reversable and most life would perish. We may not boil, but the experts are now saying it could get too hot to live.

I know the Earth is moving away from the Sun, but do not think it is moving so rapidly that it would have this effect.

What I am concerned about is that the Earth may react to warmer tempatures by making it much colder. There have been warm/cold periods in Earth's history. The last one was before 1400 and was a long warm period. Our warm period has been since 1850, less than 200 years. Kind of scary.

by oz_media

Humans are the most destructive being on earth, without contest. We kill for territory, we destroy territory to make room and resources for more humans as we cannot seem to contain or control our breeding patterns, we pollute our atmosphere, our waters etc.

We are killing the rest of the world, we are killing ourselves and too many people don' give a rats arse because they simply don't believe in Global Warming.

I was readong another thread today where a bunch of Americans were all laughing about global warming and stating how we would need to live in the biblical or dark ages in order to conrol global warming and how it is a big conspiracy to get corporations to shut down and then it turned into political ranting about Conservatives and Liberals and how it is all hype to shut down the administration etc.

All in all, it was complete BS from a heap of misguided, flag waving clowns with no clue as to what they were talking about.

Sometimes it's nice to find out that there are others who actually see the effects of GW and understand that in order to act responsibly, on a personal level, all we need to do is use a little common sense. Such as, turning off lights, wearing a sweater instead of cranking the heat up all teh time, walking or riding a nike when possible and even buying produce grown locally to reduce the number of trucks driving long distances on our highways.

There are many common sense ways of reducing emissions, without teh sacrifice of returning to the dark ages.

Suzuki has some good tips: davidsuzuki.com

by jdclyde

since the last ice age, and how much of that is "man made".

The reason there is such doubt about the whole global cooling/warming/climate shifts is it doesn't account for the natural element in the whole process.

As there has been more than one ice age, it is clear that the Earth NATURALLY warms and cools with no help what-so-ever from man.

If, instead of being alarmist twits, they confronted the important issue of pollution, we could get somewhere with all this.

We need clean air to breath.
We need clean water to drink.

Who can argue about cleaning up the environment to a reasonable standard?

If AL Gore and his cult want to stop taking planes, stop driving cars/suv's, and anything else that relies upon carbon emission, then they could become powerful examples of their cause, instead of global laughing stocks. Al Gore stands to make a fortune off this all, while not cutting his own emissions at all.

by dr dij

the evidence is quite clear and most scientits and even large oil companies, who have a stake in it not being real agree we are causing it. I'm guessing you actually haven't seen the evidence where since the 1940's the correlation of CO2 levels and warming is almost 100% spot on.

The reason is simple: the natural processes are much slower. We've overwhelmed them. As for name calling, it goes both ways: The people who can't see the facts because their predefined viewpoints haven't changed since the '70s when there was no (or very little) scientific evidence of climate change.

FOr convenience I'll call them "Fossilized Twits" :) for their not realizing they have a fossil fuel problem. And i'll be the first to admit I have a problem with my addiction to fossil fuels. I'll also be one of the first to switch over or encourage those who supply me with energy to switch over when better sources become available.

Also energy use is GOOD. Using polluting fuels for that energy is BAD. Energy use by itself is NOT to blame. We just need to switch to clean sources as you said.

I'm also a bit ticked at Cooper Anderson. ANd here I'm going to sound like a Republican but I am not. In his pollution and GW special he highlighted a family that had a kid with leukemia, living in the houston 'chemical alley' homes areas.

He called it 'environmental racism' which is a load of inflammatory BS. The family said "we can't move, we can't afford it". Cooper made it sound like they were chained to thath house, which was much cheaper than averaege market price simply BECAUSE it was in a nasty area.

I don't like pollution, but for society to live, we allow certain amounts of it. The family IS free to move. Cooper, who I used to think of as a sharp fellow is now a bit 'Hard of Thinking' in my mind. (a bit retarded).

by jdclyde

You can specify that you want YOUR energy to come from a certain "clean" source. Sure, your bill will go up because of this choice, but isn't that putting your money where your mouth is? At this stage of my life, I NEED the cheapest energy source I can find.

I am to the point where I would "drill a hole in baby seals skulls" if it would get me cheaper gas. I currently spend about $100 a WEEK on gas.

And your opinion of building some nuke plants here in the US to cut down on the CO2 levels? Right now they are looking at building more Coal plants, clearly a step in the wrong direction.

by oz_media

While people will contest the effects of global warming, there are two issue nto being addresses most of the time.

1) nobody is claiming we are responsible for GW, it's that we increase it's natural effects.

2) The pollutants we beathe each and every day are far more a reson to reduce our carbon footprint as individuals. Corporations follow people's wants and needs, lets not let coporations dictate to us instead. That is also why i have mroe to say about CO than CO2. The most harmful emission, to us as humans, is not CO2 but CO.
If X# of deaths each year does not help peple understand that we are killing ourselves with our vehicle emissions, then we need ot educate the public about tehse real and present dangers and not a theory that is easily contested and always blown well out of proportion. We don't need to stop what we are doing, we don't need to live without electricity and vehicles, but we also don't need to leave the lights on all ight or drive to teh corner for milk.

Personal responsibility, something very few are able to accept these days, everyone just sits around until teh government does something abotu it and forces people into compliance. Of course then it would be a metter of how teh government steps on our right to do a we please etc, etc, yadayada.

Bunch of whiners need to get with teh program and wake up, or at least educate themselves beyond the Al Gore hype.

by jdclyde

It has to start with the people that have picked up the cause to start leading by example, for a change.

I personally know several people that are rabid about GW and think "the government" should mandate this or that. I asked them why they have to wait for a mandate for THEM to start living according to their beliefs. Funny, how they never have an answer.

by dadspad

I think we should have gone to hydrogen fuel in the 70's. Anybody remember the oil embargo? Despite the public demonstrated desire for alternate fuel, the car companies have been really slow on producing. When the public is buying hybrid cars and asking for battery powered cars, most car advertisement are for trucks and SUVs.

This can give the wrong impression on what the auto manufacturers are doing.

by jaqui

that the burning of coal / wood in Europe during the last "mini ice age" had an effect on the temperatures locally.

There has been speculation that it was human action that caused it to end as soon as it did, and that industrialization is the cause of our current warm period. the lack of evidence to prove or disprove the theory is not going to help answer anything though.

by absolutely

CO, the accidental by-product of incomplete
combustion, is of course accompanied by
even more CO2. So detecting one strongly
implies the other.

by dr dij

I was showing how awful the unburned hydrocarbon pollution is from cars, from a 'having to snif it' aspect, as if you were locked in your garage with the car running.

by oz_media

Abs is just being an immature tosser because he has a bone to pick. He feels I give people a hard time and am wrong in doing so. In actuality, I have simply agreed with you but also corrected what I see as the most common oversight regarding pollutants. This is because CO2 is an issue with global warming, and yet it is CO that is an even mroe realistic reason for reducing our emissions. It kills US before CO2 will do in our atmosphere!

I have proven him to be wrong and an outright liar and he has a bone to pick over it, that's all. Though he won't see it that way and will TRY to turn this into one of his grade school hissy fits again.

As to your own comments, you are correct, HC is the stinky part but with a closed door in the garage, HC's are the least of your worries; the CO will eventually kill yuo, not the CO2 nor the hydrocarbons.

by oz_media

It is carefully measured and monitored,vehicle engineers can set a balance prescisely so that an exact level of CO is emitted from a vehicle in good working condition. It IS a byproduct of Gasoline combustion, as is HC and CO2.

HC smells and that's the problem with choking on car "Fumes" but respiratory problems and even death arise from CO, not CO2 nor HC.

Street level pollution from cars is noticed as HC. The CO is far more lethal and is not detected by smell and is not visible.

CO2 is a third by product of Gasoline combustion, 'greenies' are dead set on thwarting CO2 from the atmosphere, because CO doesn't normally find a high enough altitude to harm the Ozone too much and not enough peple know about CO as compared to CO2 so they have nothing they can relate to. CO2 does NOT break down at high altitude and therefore sits in and depletes the ozone layer's ability to protect us from the harmful hot and cold extremes of outer space.

by absolutely

And, like Oz_Media already said,
temperature extremes, both high and low,
are part of what the global warming model
predicts. An occasional very cold January
supports the anthropogenic global warming
model. You need several of these
consecutively to start having a real
argument that 150+ years of general warming
trend are a fluke. But keep grasping at
straws, it's funny.

by dadspad

The data I refered to is a site that measured Earth temperature was .5 degress or more (depending on which reference you use) measured for ONE YEAR: Jan 2007 to Jan 2008. These are the same data sources that measure global warming.

Now this might be just a blip or insignificant or it might be a trend! That is the question asked.

by absolutely

And I think that you've rushed to believe
verbiage that would be nice if it's true,
but you've overlooked how badly even this
cherry-picked datum supports that verbiage.
There is no indication of any "trend"
toward cooler weather. The graphical
comparisons I see on DailyTech are all to
the month of January 2007, except one to
August 2007. It's easy to leap to a false
conclusion by comparing a single cold month
to the 5th-warmest year on record, if you
don't take that into account or aren't
told. I don't suppose that's common
knowledge, but it's something I know, and
now I'm telling you: 2007 was nearly the
warmest on record, so comparing only to
2007 and implying a cooling trend is
disingenuous, and was done to set you up to
ignore the comparison to the average, and
to misinterpret the significance, if any,
of the recent cold month.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/weather/12/13/warm.weather.ap/index.html

MadMaster on DailyTech got it right, it's
because of La Ni?a:
"That's exactly what this is. A climate
fluctuation.

Notice in the graph, even with the
fluctuating drop in temperature in the USA,
it is still .037 degrees above normal...

Even more interesting, these cold
temperatures are probably caused by a La
Nina event.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080114085128.htm

This year will probably not be a record
warm year... (remember, global warming
doesn't happen linearly)."

For a more balanced picture than that
provided by DailyTech:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071010131931.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080104091616.htm

"Over the eight years, 2000-2007, since the
Met Office has issued forecasts of annual
global temperature, the mean value of the
forecast error was just 0.07 ?C."

by drowningnotwaving

I say unfortunately for two reasons:

1. The "graspers" will use it to deny "global warming", as has been evidenced; and

2. It's been the most pleasant summer in Sydney for 50 years - not one day over 100f, and only four over 90f, and enough rain to take our regional water storage from under 60% to over 75%.

I expect next year will be payback time!!!

:)

by rbarrett

Check out global dimming which has also risen in proportion to global warming.

Basically the skys today aren't as clear as they used to be which luckily is hampering the global warming acceleration. If it weren't for the suspended solids we've released into the sky, the global warming problem would be much worse.

~Rich

by oz_media

But I thought it referred to the effects of the Republican administration brainwashing its sheeplike followers?

by oz_media

CO2, Hydrocarbons and Carbon MONOXIDE(CO).

Hydrocarbons stink but are relatively harmless unless in highly concentrated form for extended periods.

In Canada, vehicle emissions and public servant sicknesses have been directly related.

The SMELLY part of teh exhaust is Hydrocarbons (HC), the lethal part of the exhaust is Carbon monoxide(CO). Another and less harmful, to humans, emission is CO2. But while CO2 does not degrade at as low of an altitude as HC's do, it is considered more detrimental to the earth's atmosphere.

the part that makes US sick is CO, the part that stinks is HC's. Fortunately HC's aer relatively harmless and break down into common atmospheric elements at a low altitude, so it does not have teh same effect on teh ozone. This is alsi wht semi trucks do not have to clear Air Care testing every year or two, as their main emissions from burning diesel at such high temperatres and extreme compression are HC's.

Gasoline also combusts and produces Carbon Monoxide with doe sNOT break down, sits at street level as it is heavier than air and also causes sickness in people exposed to street level emissions for an extended time.

This is also the killer of people running stoves and heaters in motorhomes, why people suffocate form house fire smoke etc. CHeck your local hardware store, you'll find a bunch of CO detectors now, not CO2, as CO is far more harmful than CO2.

Or look into carboxyhemogloben (sp? maybe 'globIn').

To be mroe concise as to how this reflects on the previous post.

"Plus all that CO2 mixed with other hydrocarbons is just NASTY. A piece of rebar on the 710 freeway bounced up and knocked my muffer loose. I pulled over on the shoulder and took a knife to cut it off completely from the rubber hangers, lying on the ground on the edge of the freeway. "

THis is not an issue with CO2 at all. It is hydrocarbons, if for a prolonged time it will be sleepiness, headaches etc. from Carbon Monoxide (CO). Again, not CO2, the basis of the comment I replied to.

by absolutely

an old tosser.

[i]Abs is just being an immature tosser because he has a bone to pick. He feels I give people a hard time and am wrong in doing so.[/i]

No, I feel that you're a jackass for telling people they shouldn't "waste keystrokes" expressing our opinions about Rogers. You just pulled a seagull on that thread and have been stalking me ever since, for calling you on that you stupid piece of trash.

[i]I have proven him to be wrong and an outright liar and he has a bone to pick over it, that's all.[/i]

No, you haven't, not even once, and I can see it drives you crazy. TS.

by oz_media

Before you jumped in on the favourable opinion badwagon with the others, you state:

"I conclude from ~3 years of casual observation of his posts that he is approximately as knowledgeable as he claims to be about what he claims to know"

Several people called me to task on that thread, including yourself in quoting me and saying "[i]I still have access to much of the documentation[/i] Post it"
You also indicated you disagreed with my views by stating:
"PS Thanks for adding to the numbers of Internet Activists Up In Arms. We were starting to look outnumbered, by Oz_media all by himself! "

I therefore posted links to both the Rogers EULA and the CRTC regulations as well as Telus's customer notification of the fair rules of competition. You also acknowledge this posting of facts by stating "[i]Oz_Media defines the rights of each party entirely in terms of the EULA[/i]"

By my doing so, I have responded to being called to task and proven them and those who concur with them to be incorrect, including yourself for calling me to task an therefore innsinuating you disagreed with the assertion and considered my comments a personal opinion that was incorrect.

As for you "never" being corrected by me: You wouldn't have said this with respect to another comment on the same thread: " I know that was all addressed to apotheon directly, but this is an open forum, and it seems I also misunderstood your stand in a similar manner."

I see that as a fair and acceptable agreement to correction. In fact, the key arguments in that thread came from Apotheon, TechExec, nentech ( The most lost of all), Gone Fishing. You were simply the YES man who was found guilty by association, which I concur was perhaps my mistake or a case of mistaken identity. In either case, your support of their arguments which were proven wrong is pretty close in itself, I think. when I respond to Apotheon and you rebut it or vice versa (as exhibited in your reply quoted above) it is no wonder that objections from you two are easily confused.

So whule I do concur that you tried ot take a side seat and simply egg on the instigators in most cases, you still stoof in opposition to my comments, called me to task and when that evidence was provided, you tried to turn the discussion around by stating you were only unterested in sharing opinions on the matter and not just facts and EULA's.

Hypocritical, instigating, corrected, backing away., Great character traits you posses, and all the while you simply accuse others of doing so whilst not realizing your own hypocrisy. I agree that my comments instigated a lot of heated debate, BUT my comments were proven to be accurate, which is when the facts were not wanted anymreo of course, it was factonpiguess time.

sorry to post links and comments, I suppose just an opinion would have sufficed, in which case...Did too!

by oz_media

the government is supposed to act on the people's best interests and consider what the citizens want. ROFLMAO! :D

I'm not in Utopia, keep forgetting.

I see people, especially here when such subjects arise, that claim they don't need to act unless the government does something to make it worth their while first. I thyink if people change, the government will have to also, or else they don't get the next term.

Personal responsibility is all it takes to get the ball rolling, many have begun but noowhere near enough. I have reduced my carbon footprint but still could do more I think. I do more than most though, while that is not a valid excuse for inaction it is at least making a start toward a more responsible lifesyle. (insert self appreciating pat on back and Brownie badge here)

by jdclyde

is people that say they WANT "the government" to FORCE them to be better at conservation.

These same people cry about the "Fascist" government we have now..., and then want "the government" to take even more control of our daily lives.

Can you believe the assbags in CA can't even smoke in a friggen BAR? Talked about putting an extra tax on capaccino "because if they can afford a $3 coffee, they can afford $.10 to help the kids".

Land of the Free, my ass.

by oz_media

You can't in Canada either! Waitresses in seedy strip bars even complained about havign to inhale smoke. uhh, when you applied for work at a seedy strip bar did yuo think it would be smoke free? Most offe re little glass cubicle to stand in and smoke, so people just stand outside and litter the street with butts, makign teh nonsmokers more and more repulsed.

But the Workers Compensation Board stepped in and now it is a public health hazard, they have TALKED about banning smoking in all public places, even outdoors.

In Seatlle, they have an OUTDOOR smoking area at the race track! Just a few steps away form the 'acceptable people's benches' are benches for smokers. I was told to move by a security guard and simply laughed at him, thinking it was a joke, but he was actually serious! So I stepped three feet to the right and finished my cigar. Somehow that was better?

I suppose that wind direction is not taken into consideration because smoke was blowing across the 'acceptable people's' area from where the smoking section was. There was even one lady running up to the security guard and ratting people out for smoking near her section. NOTE: These are OUTDOOR benches on the ground level of the racetrack! F'in insane! i remember when oyu could smoke on a crowded bus, in a restaurant and in the office, it wasn't that far back. While I do have some respect for smokign near someone who is eating or smoking in a confined space, gettign dirty looks for smoking outside, away from other people, really gets me started.

by jaqui

I have much better proof right outside that the warming trend is real. [ so does Oz for that matter ]
It's still February, still full winter, yet the trees are putting forth their spring greening here, in the "Great White North". :D
where we "live in igloos year round" .. going to have to switch to living in Teepees soon if this continues ;)

by jdclyde

and your already showing green?

I just hope all this snow helps bring the water levels back up to where they are suppose to be.

by jaqui

I have seen green on the trees here as early as Feb 6.

Vancouver is unique, very mild temperatures usually.. -4 Celsius is very cold for here.
[ you know, 4 degrees below the freezing point of water ]

The odd part is the greening of some trees, right beside another variety that still has the dead leaves on it's branches from last year. :D

~sigh~ but then the pink snow will hit soon, that's all this really means.
[ Japanese Cherry Trees with pink blossoms.. the blossoms fall and deluge us with pink petals so heavily in some areas it looks like it is snowing. ]

by dadspad

It has been an unusually warm year down here too.

But a fellow can dream, can't he :)

by jaqui

we just had a fairly cold January for here.

the greening in Feb is normal for us. :D

by absolutely

[i]By my doing so, I have responded to
being called to task and proven them and
those who concur with them to be incorrect,
including yourself for calling me to task
an therefore insinuating you disagreed with
the assertion and considered my comments a
personal opinion that was incorrect.[/i]

You responded, alright. You haven't shut up
since! And just because you're right about
the silly EULA doesn't make your worthless
opinion the last word. You can be exactly
right about that small part of the
question, but by refusing to consider the
big picture, you end up being in diametric
opposition to people who do.

[i]As for you "never" being corrected by
me: You wouldn't have said this with
respect to another comment on the same
thread: "I know that was all addressed to
apotheon directly, but this is an open
forum, and it seems I also misunderstood
your stand in a similar manner."[/i]

Check the context. That was me correcting
myself.

[i]I see that as a fair and acceptable
agreement to correction. In fact, the key
arguments in that thread came from
Apotheon, TechExec, nentech ( The most lost
of all), Gone Fishing. You were simply the
YES man who was found guilty by
association, which I concur was perhaps my
mistake or a case of mistaken identity. In
either case, your support of their
arguments which were proven wrong is pretty
close in itself, I think. when I respond to
Apotheon and you rebut it or vice versa (as
exhibited in your reply quoted above) it is
no wonder that objections from you two are
easily confused.[/i]

We're not difficult to tell apart, even for
very lazy people. He uses a lower-case 'a'
at the beginning of his name.

[i]So while I do concur that you tried to
take a side seat and simply egg on the
instigators in most cases,[/i]

That's funny, you "concur" with whom?
Yourself. What a stupid troll you are!

[i]... you still stood in opposition to my
comments, called me to task and when that
evidence was provided, you tried to turn
the discussion around by stating you were
only interested in sharing opinions on the
matter and not just facts and EULA's.[/i]

Not "only" interested in sharing opinions.
If and when you choose to be honest, you'll
notice that I have already explained to you
that I consider an EULA not to be the
end-all/be-all of a person's rights, and
your wish to end the Rogers thread
with "the EULA permits it" is your problem,
not ours (Apotheon, TechExec, nentech, Gone
Fishing, me). I don't believe that a
contract which places a person in perpetual
servitude can be legal in a civilized
country (Do you live in one? I used to. It
was nice.), and I don't believe an EULA can
grant an ISP unreasonable privileges at
their customers' expense. Finally, I didn't
jump on any "bandwagon." I have
a "favorable opinion" of some other people
who think a complaint about ISP intrustion
into their content is interesting and
legitimate. That I have an unfavorable
opinion of you is entirely your own doing,
and has nothing to do with a "bandwagon."

by jdclyde

We are going to allow the corrupt and incompetent United Nations to extort money under the pretext of a carbon tax?

The power to tax is the power to control.

by oz_media

Is a mater of personal opinion. As teh US has no control of teh UN and the UN is operated by many US enemies, which was what the UN was all about, giving a voice to the underdog, it is obvious that most Americans drink the 'despise the UN cool aid".

While I don't condone all they do, he UN has done a lot of good in the world too, it's just that people don't wish to look at that when it is easier to support the mainstream and just hate a global body for singular events. Perhaps the same comment with less bias would have had more effect for you, this way it is too easily dismissed.

by jdclyde

There is no way ANY thinking person can say an organization that has a human rights panel that is chaired by some of the worlds biggest violators has any credibility. Yeah, they are going to stand up for human rights globally?

How about pulling out of Rwanda, and allowing thousands to be hacked apart my machetes because it was politically unpopular to do their job? Would have been hard to be the ground troops, to have the locals beg you to shoot them before you leave because they know the death that awaits them otherwise.

UN troops trading food for sex with children? Yeah, I can see how that could be misunderstood, huh?

Oil for food program? Nuff said there, corruption all the way to the top.

How good of a job is the UN doing in Darfur?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3496731.stm
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2008/02/27/sudan18171.htm

My wish is for the US to stop wasting so much money by paying such a disproportionate amount of money to this corrupt organization that is and has been, anti-American.

by rfink

The government wants the auto companies to control pollution but when was the last time the government help solved the problem? How much pollution is caused by mismanaged traffic lights, stupid traffic laws, poorly designed roads?

by dadspad

The first ones are a good examples of the doomsayers that are appearing lately. (The could be right). And thanks for putting up a more balanced opinion too.

I started this not claiming that there is global cooling, just that it is interesting data. I agree that more data globally is needed.

What concerns me the most is that world history has shown that a period of natural global warming is followed by a long global cooling. Is there a built-in mechanism of Earth climate to do this? A good question, since we are warming so fast.

by absolutely

[i]What concerns me the most is that world
history has shown that a period of natural
global warming is followed by a long global
cooling. Is there a built-in mechanism of
Earth climate to do this?[/i]

At this point, I wish deepsand was still
around to explain radiative forcing and all
the other factors involved, but I will say
that my understanding is that there is no
[u]feedback[/u] mechanism, in case that's
part of what you mean to ask. The very
long-term, non-anthropogenic heating &
cooling trends are based on cycles in the
Sun's output, primarily. Those show
11-year "sunspot" cycles which I think are
common knowledge, and longer-term cycles of
variation within wider ranges, which I do
not assume are common knowledge. I'm
guessing the answer to your question has to
do with the latter, but you'd have to clear
up your question for me to be sure of that.

by dadspad

The last Little Ice Age started around 1400, it took 10 years (decade) and the temperature dropped 4 degrees. The best estimate they have is that the Global Temperature before 1400 was the same or higher that now.

It just strikes me as such a similar situation. Everybody was used to a warm climate and suddenly there was severy winters and wet summers (wet enough to ruin crops).

My question is, and we can only watch and see, is it happening again? Could there be a built in Earthly mechanism to adjust its temperature?

I really did not expect you would have the answer, just wanted you opinion. :) Which I happen to value.

by oz_media

the other posters you refer to actually DID contest the EULA and that was where the argument began. nentech even said he READ the EULA, which he didn't, and commented that it didn't say anything that alowed them to act that way, which it does. The people I responded to there were completely focused on the legality of the issue, which was pointed out as completely legal.

Now soem even suggested taht becaus eth econtract says so, it doesn't make it legal. In this case it does, the contract would not be drafted that waqy unless it was legal as they are closely scrutinized by teh governing body to ensure it IS legal, plus I know teh people who draught that stuff and they toe teh line VERY carefully and contracts are always reviewed for months before being put in place.

If there is contest beyond that, it is an issue fthat needs to be taken up with congress, not Rogers.

But you had to reduce it with the 'stupid troll' comment, that's where you lose it I think.

Enforcing a point to people who are flamign you and stating complete untruths is not trolling, it's called defending an opinion with facts to support it.

by absolutely

You can post as much more in that thread as
you want, but I'm tired of seeing that crap
brought into other unrelated threads. Quit
it.

by absolutely

[i]I really did not expect you would have
the answer, just wanted you opinion. :)
Which I happen to value.[/i]

You present your views consistently in a
reasonable tone. If you didn't, I wouldn't
bother to try to inform you where I think
you're missing or misinterpreting a fact.

[i]It just strikes me as such a similar
situation. Everybody was used to a warm
climate and suddenly there was severy
winters and wet summers (wet enough to ruin
crops).[/i]

That's a relevant observation.

[i]My question is, and we can only watch
and see, is it happening again? Could there
be a built in Earthly mechanism to adjust
its temperature?[/i]

I don't agree that "we can [b]only[/b]
watch and see." The mechanism by which some
elements and compounds tend to retain heat
by not emitting infrared radiation is
well-known and has been for well over a
century. I believe it was Arrhenius who
first predicted the greenhouse effect, but
I'm not going to Google and verify it. I
hope I'm not mis-remembering. Anyway,
science works because it does more than
[b]just[/b] "watch and see." Good science
utilizes both empirical and analytical
skill.

by jaqui

but they didn't have any real measuring equipment until then. :D

not for record keeping of weather at least.

it does explain WHY they would start the record keeping though, they noticed the changes and how the smoke affected the weather.

by jaqui

other than maybe the murcury thermometer.

more like a general improvement in the accuracy of the equipment, like wind direction and esitmating wind speed tools, using a compass rather than weather vane for wind direction.. better quality barometers with finer graduated scale..

and, most importantly, the creation of the scientfic methodology to get as much detailed data as possible. That was around the time that real scientific study tarted.

by jdclyde

"The Government" sees fit to make a fortune off of the tobacco industry, all the while claiming to give a rats ass about the "poor non-smoker"?

They recently TRIED to put the full ban here in Michigan, and it failed.

If you don't like the smoke in a certain place, don't GO there. Who are these assclowns to tell a business owner how to run their business, on private property?

by jdclyde

Just like anything else that is alive, if you increase the food supply, what feeds on it will thrive and do better than ever.

This in turn increases vegetation, which in turn sucks up more CO.

by oz_media

YOu made a comment and went into detail about the 'other ' discussion. In my reply I simply referred to it and the people involved. Now yuo say that it was wrong to brign up the 'other' discussion?!?!?

That is hypocrisy, the only thing yuo canpossibly hope to gain from such a comment is qargunment, which would make you the troll, I was replying to YOUR references to the other topic.

Now if you are, as you suggest, going to agree to disagree, that's fine and I'm good with that. However, in doing so, don't try and have the last word, refer to a previous thread and then chastize me for a reply that refers to the same, that is hypocrisy and even you can see that quite clearly, I would hope you can anyway.

and seeing aS YOU are alowed to eply to that thread and I am not (making up the rules that suit you best now, are you)I'lk further piss you off by replying to your comment, which was obviously NOT referring to the 'other' thread.

"And just because you're right about
the silly EULA doesn't make your worthless
opinion the last word."

the thread was based on the anger one woman had regarding ROgers spying on her and influxing her connection with unwanted data. In order to have such an argument, you need to show how you have not agreed to allow such actions. According to the EULA she DID agree to such actions by accepting th eservice, which is tantamount to the discussion. It is 100%, entirely the end all of such a comment. It's like someone saying that you can't grow a beard, but you can. End of story.

In the case that you wanted to draw it out as a matter of morality, then such a thread should have been started.

"ISP MORALS: Should ISP's be alowed to send unwanted data to clients?"

Wonder how you'll accuse me of 'trolling' in THIS post?

Just as you said, I am done with it and agree to disagree, but you cannot simply discount the fact that the basis of the argument was proven to not hold water, and that's all there is to it.

by oz_media

"Oil for food program? Nuff said there, corruption all the way to the top."

What do you mean, the top of the US administration? Or were you sleeping when that report was publicly brought to light on TR?

The US was as much to blame as ANYONE for the failure of the OFF program. The US Embassy's Report tpo Congress was publicly available on the WhiteHouse website, I am NOT going to drag it out for the 50th time just to appease you though, do your own digging this time or search the TR archives.
(funny enough, about two months after it was linked to and people started to see the light, the White House reposted it with ammendments, it went from a 66 page, very condemning report, to a 22 page overview which made the US look pretty good. But that couldn't be due to the White House censoring public information, noooo, they don't do that in free countries.

In a nutshell for you though:

Seeing as YOU were in charge of inspecting and allowing goods into Iraq, why were goods held for ridiculous lengths of time, as much as 9 months while supplies perished and were no use afterwards, restricting their access to medicines and food that were clearly not dual purpose goods? (hint: The US government had no answer for this so I don't actually expect you to make one up) How many soldiers does it take to inspect a pallet of goods? Again, they had no clear answer, just political sidling.

Seeing as you were unable to buy oil from Iraq and were forced to request it from smaller countries (Canada wouldn't provide you with mroe than they already do either), how can you then go against THEM for possible illegal trading to get you YOUR oil? If you didn't request it, didn't offer the poorer countries money for providing it, they wouldn't have been so inclined as to breach the agreement in order to deliver it. You create a demand and then chastize them for filling that demand, while not telling Americans they were filling your order.

If your were not allowed to buy a football game ticket, and you had someone else do it for you, would you then be right in turning them in for scapling tickets?

okay I said I wouldn't go there again, sorry.

"3 December 2007 ? The United Nations has teamed up with the Government of Liberia to launch a nationwide campaign to prevent and punish the crime of rape, one of the most serious challenges the West African nation is grappling with as it emerges from years of conflict." [b]Those heartless bastards![/b]

When the US removed most of the main troop support and money from Afghanistan, and declared it a successful mission, the ONE lady remaining in the Afghan government was quickly pushed out and hunted down by AlQaeda. She fled to the UN troops, still on the ground who saw her to safety and to whom she said she owes her life. [b] Damn useless bunch of blue helmet baddie![/b]

Then there's Unicef, what a dodgy, corrupt and useless system THAt is. How dare they collect money to help others, especially US taxpayers money! [b] cold, clueless and corrupt. [/b]

When the US built wells and the Afghans destroyed then after the US leaving, it was teh UN and Canadian forces who rebuilt and secured them.

Is it possible that SOME of this 'charitable' money was misused? Probably was. Is it possible that the UN also was fraudulent in their handlign of teh OFF program? A program being abused, who'd have thought such a thing possible?! The UN still helps a lot of people though, that aren't being helped by America or Canada or anyone else.

Is the UN all good and squeaky clean, nope not at all, ar they 100% corrupt ? No, not at all.

But the same can be said about the United States of America too. Defintely not squeaky clean, definitely a corrupt government wasting taxpayers money and putting others in danger by starting what could turn out to be WWIII. Are they COMPLETELY corrupt? nope, Disneyland is kinda cool and I like those giant cartons of Whoppers, you shouldn't be allowed to brew beer though, leave that up to the rest of the world.

Now I know you think the world is full of commie bastards and that anyone with a different view than America's should be shot and p1ssed on , but that's the stuff for grouchy old men in the movies, it's not real life.

When it comes to political scandal, ulterior motives and bullspit, the US is seen in no better light than the UN, it's like the pot calling the kettle black.

Most countries citizens would rather pull their own teeth out with a string and a door handle than trust anything the USA had to say, it's a bit hypocritical for you to start pointing fingers. When you point one finger at someone, the rest of your fingers are pointing back at you.

Edited for typos and some structuring.

by oz_media

But in teh same sense, I think some personal responsibility is in order, as usual. I don't light up at a freinds house after eating, if they are still eating. I don't stand in a crowded bus stop or lineup and smoke, I don't think smoking is a great habit, I think it stinks, is killing me and I shouldn't be doing it at all. However, being addicted to nicotine is not teh easiest crutch to rid yourself of. I've quit some pretty hard drugs before losing everything in my life, but for some reason smoking has me good. I quit cigs about 2 years ago, but smoke cigars now, as if that's any better!?!

Now I just have to kick those and I'm good to go.

But in agreement with you, if yuo CHOOSE to work at a bar, there's no secret of what goes on inside. People drink when smoking, even many NON smokers will light up if drinking, it's just one of those things.

In Canadam it is getting so that peopl edon't mind people smoking doep just about anywhere, even in very public places, btu a ciogarrette turns them wild on you for some reason.

I tHINK people don't THINK,.

by absolutely

Now, which do you choose, one topic per
thread or more trolling?

https://www.techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=254631&messageID=2439495

by absolutely

It looks to me like all you're saying is that no matter how far back you go, or don't go, you can only pretend to refute anthropogenic global warming with bogus measurement error claims.

This discussion is closed to new replies.