Printable View
The day before yesterday it was 10°C and hailing. :(
Today, it's 27°C and not a breath of air. :?
Where have the normal seasons gone?! :o
Does anyone else here experience these wild climate jumps - or is it just poor little Belgium that's being warmed up and cooled down over and over again, like some microwave dinner?
:|
It's cold and it's snowing from time to time in my city. Not very common for May. :o Judging by some "forecasts" I expect it being extremely hot in the middle of the month.
It's negative energy from the people's thoughts that makes nature go wild. Still few understand it. :(
global warming baby
It's been fairly warm in Moscow in the past three days. The weather here has been sunny. I like such weather. It's neither hot nor cold. I probably like such weather because it's good for photographing.
I don't believe in global warming. Well, I mean that I couldn't care less about this problem because I hope it never concerns either my kids nor me. What's more, I'm no scientist.
I don't believe in it either. I don't think we have enough data to get in such a panic as people do. We should definatly try to limit our effect on the planet but I don't have much respect for the doomsday theorists. Have you heard of 'global dimming'? I saw a program about it the other day. According to some scientists, appearantly the planet is getting darker (and at the same time warmer) and this will cause multiple oppurtunities for a slow and painful death for all of mankind.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Layne
:DQuote:
Location: Texas, USA
Denying the changing of the climate right in front of you eyes, is like sitting on an open fire and thinking: "I do not have enough data to know whether this pain will last much longer or not, or whether it is caused by me pouring gasoline over the fire"
Maybe it is just a media hype, but we in California just came out of the raniest March and April in the recored HISTORY of california!!!
Right is the word! I shake your hand, vinnie.Quote:
Originally Posted by kalinka_vinnie
Just to be argumentative, KV, b/c I like arguing with you...First let me say I don't know anything about the subject, nor do I really care. Really. I don't. It doesn't interest me in the least. BUT. The recorded history of California is what, maybe 150 years? In the grand scheme of things, really, what is 150 years? Nothing. It's kind of like you saying that MR has had the most visitors just now that it has had in the last 60 seconds! Big deal...Quote:
Originally Posted by kalinka_vinnie
It's better to act and be wrong than not to act and be right.
Yes, the weather here has gone crazy too. Flooding is on the news every night and I can't remeber the last time it wasn't warmer than average.
Oooooooh dear - I seem to have opened a can of worms here... :oops:
And here was me thinking I couldn't go wrong with a bit of small talk about the weather.... :lol:
But I do agree that global warming (or lert's just say pollution in general) is a serious, and sad, problem. What are we doing to this beautiful world? :cry:
As for the global dimming: that's all about small particle dust pollution, and it's most definitely there. Here, it's followed up in the weather forecast every day (just like UV radiation). A couple of weeks ago there was a particularly bad spell, because of consistent easterly winds bringing on pollution from the Ruhr - and I personally know two people who were taken to hospital with breathing problems because of it. :( So unfortunately, it's not a myth. :cry:
Ironically, global warming would be worse if there wasn't global dimming :?
So we just can't win.
Barmaley - I agree that 150 years is a short time in the history of mankind, but that doesn't mean it can't have a serious effect on history. Wouldn't you say that one day (take, f.ex., the eleventh of september, 2001) is a ridiculously short time compared to the history od the US? Even so...... :| Know what I mean? :wink:
RedSanchous - (something totally different :lol: ) I'm a Photo Phanatic too :wink: It was one of my subjects in higher education, and I loved it. I particularly like winter light, which is very clear and crisp here (when the sun is shining - which isn't often, I must admit). I don't have time for taking pictures these days though, it has become a holiday pleasure.... :(
I agree that 150 years is nothing compared to the age of the planet. But look at the polar ice cap shrinkage in the last 24 years. It might change your mind on Global Warming.
http://www.awitness.org/journal/melt_ic ... acier.html
It was about 25 today in London. Shame I had to spend all day in the library.
I knew the "ooh, but how long have you been collecting data" argument was going to pop up again. Compare these past years to 15 years ago, we didn't have:
1) heat waves in Europe every summer
2) hurricanes in such quantity that we run out of names
3) hurricanes with the strength of Andrews, Katrina and more FREQUENT
4) perma-frost in west Siberia melting (it has been permanently frozen for over 10000 years)
5) huge slabs of ice og antartica melting and falling into the ocean
6) huge floods every single year in Europe
etc.etc.
There is a global trend my friends, and if you don't care, that is a very serious problem. You are the last ones who should complain about the weather, EVER. Live in your little world and destroy the planet you live on. Your children will think fondly of you...
:wink:
Pffhh. I don't know what you guys are worrying about. It's all good. 8)
*whips out CFC-211 Heptachlorofluoropropane, CH2BrCl Chlorobromomethane, Halon 1301 (CF3Br) Bromotrifluoromethane and CFC-11 (CCl3F) Trichlorofluoromethane-filled baloons and plays "Don't Let The Baloons Hit The Amazingly Sharp Spikes On The Ground"*
let me tell you something about the nature of scientific consensus :DQuote:
Originally Posted by kalinka_vinnie
Yeah, that there are always some wackos who will disagree with the consensus. Those who don't want to believe will listen to them.
Same as the scientists who are trying to disprove that smoking causes cancer :roll:
If you looked at the history of science you'd be surprised to find out how much modern technology and medicine owes to these wackos. Science evolves by the elimination of inconsistent theories, not by rationalization. As for the modern scientists, they are driven by the availability of grants more than by anything else, and that, my friend, requires moving in packs. I've seen too many "consensuses" come and go, and I don't pay too much attention.
Take the weather forecast. The accuracy of prediction of the average day temperature a week from now is plus/minus 5 degrees, ballpark . If it's two weeks - the prediction is a joke. What am I supposed to think now? There is enough data and there are sufficiently good models to predict what is going to happen in 100 years? Right...
Clean sustainable energy? I am all for it.
adoc, my defeatist friend, you are treating all the sciences of ecology/meteorology/geology/chemistry as if it was one simple science. It is like saying that since a Medical Doctor who specializes in toe-nails can't tell you what your rash on your left butt-cheek is, you dismiss the whole medical profession as quacks.
Nobody is predicting that in 23.1253 years the temperature under Adocs right nostril will increase by 0.324 degrees Kelvin.
I don't know how much you have studied meteorology, but it is a very complicated subject and very difficult to predict weather, as there are so many small random factors involved, that is why forecasts are so difficult to predict. But who is talking about meteorology here? I don't care which direction the wind will be blowing in 100 years, I am worried what the effects of millions of tons of greenhouse gases that are released every single hour.
I am just curious why YOU believe the [quoting Adoc]"wackos"[/quoting Adoc] over the "consensus". What do YOU know about the subject that makes you doubt the "consensus"?
Oops, looks like like I touched a sensitive subject :) . Hey man, I am not trying to attack you or your convictions or anything, I am just talking all right? Are you trying to agree exactly with the point I made by objecting? That's what I said, it's a complex issue and I am not ready just yet to throw a fit and go, OMG if we are not gonna do something NOW, we are all going to DIE. For example, you have mentioned smoking as being a cause of cancer. It's not a cause of cancer, it's a promoting factor of certain types of cancers, it's like saying ABS is the cause of a good grip with the road. If we spend all resources on eliminating smoking, there still will be cancer and more people will die 'cause we have no more money left. I'm not saying there is no problem, I just wonder how much attention the problem deserves. If you read the media it's always either global warming or avian flu. And I'm telling you, fixation on the avian flu is worth jack. If we are talking seriously let's work out the criteria of importance first and only then start throwing tomatoes at each other.Quote:
Originally Posted by kalinka_vinnie
that's fine, man, it's all cool :) You just came across as saying that it is all bullsheise, which is the typical reaction of people nowadays. It is irritating, that's all.
Of course there will be cancer, even if we don't smoke. But that is far from saying that smoking doesn't cause cancer. Tell that to my friend's dad who had three oral surgeries to remove cancer and just two days ago had to remove one lung. Funny how he got cancer the very same place where he kept his cigar for the last 25 years. You think that he would have gotten cancer there anyway? :lol:
It's a little more complex than that. Chances are, you and I already have multiple microscopic tumors. It's how you treat your body or parts of it will define where these tumors will proliferate faster and how soon they become detectable. In fact, although smoking is undoubtly a great risk factor, it's what you eat seems to be more important. So yes, there is a chance that he would have gotten cancer anyway, who knows. This is just FYI. Also, the definition of "cause" is quite stringent in my field, so I can't afford nor am I used to use the word lightly.Quote:
Originally Posted by kalinka_vinnie
In case you are wondering, I don't drive a huge asSUV, and I collect my recyclables. :D But that's mostly because I am a cheap bastard and proud of it.
My field has also a pretty stringent definition of "cause". I am an engineer, if something is wrong we try to find the root cause. I know we are just arguing over semantics here, but if micro tumors are there anyway (part of the natural system), what caused them to go el wacko? In my fault tree analysis, I would color that box red. :lol:
Anyway, keep recycling.
Here is the difference. Cancer cells (or any other organisms) are not designed, they are the ones that survived. There may not be a root cause per se. I'll try and explain in your terms. If you have a system of thousands and thousands dependencies, triggers and feedbacks, what is the root cause that makes it go off balance? You pull switches A and B, but if the C is on, A and B being on is good and if it's off A and B being on is bad. And if A and C are on, D is off and if the A is on and D is off C is good if B is on, but bad if it's off, etc. And it's somewhat different for every person. And I am talking only a primitive model, in reality there are no switches, but dependencies, so be my guest and find the cause and effect relations. :D The most you can do is measure the probability and say - there, when this "cause" is present this "effect" is observed more often.Quote:
Originally Posted by kalinka_vinnie
I might as well say that your organisms's ability to be born, develop, heal and protect itself from the environment is the cause of cancer. We are not designed, and cancer is a side effect of evolution.
Adoc and KV, my dear cyberfriends......
It's funny reading through this exchange "from the outside", so to speak.
You do both realize that you actually agree, don't you? :lol:
Befitting a language board, this is really a discussion about the semantics of the words "cause" and "trigger"...... :wink: