Climate Change?

[Z28SSMAN]

At first it was global warming. Now it's climate change. As far as the media goes--you only hear about climate change when we have a hot day.

Why don't we hear the media connecting the two when we have cold days?

Hmmmm...

[MR.hp]

At first it was global warming. Now it's climate change. As far as the media goes--you only hear about climate change when we have a hot day.

Why don't we hear the media connecting the two when we have cold days?

Hmmmm...

I have a foot of climate change sitting in my yard right now :lol2:

[Fast One]

The general public doesn't understand that weather and climate are very different things. Weather is local, and can change in minutes. Climate is global, and changes usually happen over the course of years, decades, centuries, or millennia.

Plus - the political left & right have turned the whole thing into a shit-fest. This stuff was already complicated enough before the politicians got a hold of it & effed it up completely. I certainly wouldn't trust either side to tell the truth, given that they each have a dog in the fight. I suggest getting your info from unbiased scientific sources that use peer-reviewed data, rather than political sources that have an agenda to push.

There is no debate about the planet warming up. No matter how the data is sliced & diced, it is clear that average global temp has been going up since the little ice age that happened during 1550-1850. The debate is about the primary cause. Some think it's mainly us. Some think it's mainly the Sun. Others think it's caused by a number of factors that interact in complex ways that we don't yet fully understand.

One of the cardinal rules of science states that correlation alone does not prove causation. The fact that two trends match doesn't mean that they're necessarily connected. The biggest problem with figuring all of this out is that the engine which drives our climate is not a linear system. In a non-linear system, a relatively minute change in one input can cause a relatively large change in output. An example to which we can all relate is driving a vehicle with rear-wheel steering, such as a forklift. Due to the negative stability caused by the CG being behind the center of rotation, a very small steering input can cause a very large change in direction. We all know that if you want to drive a forklift very fast, it's best to drive backward to get rid of the positive feedback loop that causes the non-linear behavior. The engine which drives our climate is sort of like that. Except there are many inputs & many variables. Unlike the physics behind rear-wheel steering, we don't understand all of them yet. Hence, the ongoing debate. There are a number of compelling theories, but nobody has 'the answer' yet.

Changes in the Sun's 11-year solar cycle have long been known to correlate with global temps. During the little ice age, the Sun was unusually quiet. The 11-year solar cycle pretty much shut down for nearly a century. There were no sunspots for nearly 70 years. The period is known as the Maunder Minimum. It is commonly accepted that the century of very low solar activity triggered the little ice age, and that the medieval maximum caused the medieval warm period. Solar activity has generally been on the rise since then. In fact, the period from 1900-1950 is called the modern maximum. The increase in solar activity since 1900 was the primary cause of the sudden ramp-up in average global temp that started in the early 1900s. However - solar activity has been declining since the 1950s, yet global temp continued to rise. When one adds CO2 data to the mix, it appears that it may be the primary driver today. But some argue that smoothing the solar activity data masks the fact that solar output during solar minimums has still been on the rise. They say that the solar minimums are actually more important. (Sorta like 'area under the curve' on a dyno sheet?) Also, there is the question of what is causing the rise in CO2. There are a number of things that can cause increases in CO2 levels besides us. Add to that, the question of how much influence CO2 has on global temps. Water vapor absorbs a lot more heat than CO2, but there is evidence suggesting that water vapor provides a positive feedback loop, which dramatically increases the effects of CO2. (There's your 'rear-wheel steering' problem.)












Joel

[Z28SSMAN]

You should have been a professor!

But seriously...it gets "old" when the biased news media throws subtle hints confirming global warming/climate change/doom and gloom--and the coastal cities are gonna be under water due to the ice caps melting. That's a bunch of crap.

I do think the technology with today's automobiles has drastically reduced the dirty air. I mean...I like old cars, but can you imagine what the air would smell like if we were commuting with muscle cars from the 60s and 70s? I have a hard time cruising behind a muscle car that's pig rich.

My lawnmower probably emits more pollutants in a day than my daily driver in a month.

On a different note, but still connected to this subject as it relates to air quality and technology...After buying my 2000 SS, I noticed a divide between the guys from my era and the younger generation. I had a friend decide not to speak to me when he found out I had bought my car. I guess he thought I was being un-loyal to the old muscle (which I never had done). I'm still loyal to old muscle...I still own my '71 SS-454.

I heard the younger generation disrespecting old muscle basically saying "they weren't that fast". These people failed to realize that it's pretty difficult to get a 450 hp Chevelle with 500 ft lbs torque to run a quick ET with a F70x14 biased ply tire. Put that tire on a new car and see what the ET would be. I also heard guys from my generation basically despising new performance cars. I still see the bias here from some members who "aren't impressed" with new performance. My question to them? If they aren't impressed with new performance, then they must be really disappointed in the overall comparative performance of old muscle.

Well...the friend who hates new performance finally rode in my car and said "damn! this thing pulls like a 396-375 hp!". Well...I was there in '68 when there were 396-375 Novas and while they were damned quick for their era....my car has run 11.80s with drag radials. Sorry, but there's no way a 396-375 using the same tire that I run would run 11.80s nor trap 115-118mph. Probably more like 107-108.

So...is there climate change? I say yes....Uhh climate is constantly changing. Have we made progress? You bet we have. When there are cars which can be driven to the track and without lifting the hood that can outrun drag cars towed to the track, I'd say technology is our friend.

[MR.hp]

WTF, it's March now and they are predicting 5" of snow for Monday. God I hate MN.

[Z28SSMAN]

Yeah but March is usually our snowiest month. I heard today that snow could get into double digits by "Mundy"

[Fast One]

Winter sucks!!

Forecast says 6-8" up here by the end of tomorrow. The 28" Ariens I bought just before last winter might actually get broken-in this winter.

Looks like the local deer know something's coming. All eleven of "my" deer have been hanging around in the yard over the past few days, eating the pine nuts under one of my pine trees & cleaning up the sunflower seeds that the birds drop.

Did I mention that I'm sick of winter already??

Joel

[fast toys]

I got 10" of global warming today

[Fast One]

I've got about a foot so far up here & it's not done yet.

Joel

[MR.hp]

Just got done cleaning another mess. This winter seems to be turning out the same as '07 as I remember. A ton of snow in march then got hot real fast 3 weeks later.

[Fast One]

Ended up with just over a foot over here. Almost makes me wish I had a snowmobile.

Joel