Climate Change

[David John Hill Jr]

Wan't to argue against global warming?
Won't convince me.
I took the insert july 1963.
Mount Kilimanjaro.

[mfgoode]

Originally Posted by David John Hill Jr

Wan't to argue against global warming?
Won't convince me.
I took the insert july 1963.
Mount Kilimanjaro.

If I take your meaning and photo that you mean the mount has little snow on the summit in July let me point out to the fact that Mt. Kilimanjaro is situated on the equator itself and one would not expect any snow at all. I have been at the foot hills of this mountain and in winter it had just a crown on the top.

Mally

[David John Hill Jr]

I believe one might rightly say that Kilimanjaro has two summers,march and september(very close to the equator), then in the middle of the year the sun sun shines from the north, and at Xmas from the south.Thus on the photo shown , the lack of slope snow is north, which as by the fact I was heading towards the cape and the jet engine, are showing up consistent.I had just finished a first summer session in the U.S., and was heading home(at that time),which is how I can pinpoint the time.
As the pictures showing up nowadays, which really is where we must now judge, there is a lot less slope snow, and little centre fill up any time.
Show me a picture this coming July, like the above and I'll back off.

On the other hand, in S.A., when I lived there, snow in J'burg every 20 years was the norm, and far down into the cape almost unheard of. Now I believe snow is common even far down into the cape and on the reef a yearly experience, while people at the same time in the north(hemishere), say central new york, have been baking at 95+ degrees F.

I not on average global warming, a global mushmatch is taking place, an even more alarming phenominal change.

[ewmayer]

The issue is not whether global warming is occurring, it is to what extent it is the result of human activity.

When earth came out of the last ice age, that was global warming (and of a scale and rapidity that utterly dwarfs the present-day going'-on), too. And there were only a few tens of thousands of people on the planet at that time.

[Prime95]

Originally Posted by David John Hill Jr

Wan't to argue against global warming?
Won't convince me.

Why would anyone want to argue with you when you've stated up front that you are close-minded?

[David John Hill Jr]

a) I am not the judge.
b)obvious counter examples suffice to prove me wrong.
(One cannot state an argument,without doing just that)


I just had a thought about Kilimanjaro(not too knowledgeable on local names for the mountain), but when Tanganyika and Zanzibar combined, they might have renamed their mountain too: Mount Zisiaparo is my suggestion.

By the way not all are in a position to function such around here , but I haven't had air conditioning in my home for 25 years, nor driven a petroleum
type auto for 4.

I don't think the global situation would occur SOLELY by man, but on the other hand poison a rat, and it dies.

[Uncwilly]

Originally Posted by David John Hill Jr

nor driven a petroleum
type auto for 4.

Carless then?

[xilman]

Originally Posted by Uncwilly

Carless then?

Perhaps so. On the other hand, perhaps he has a car which he does not drive.

For a couple of years about 25 years ago I owned a TV which was not used to receive TV broadcasts. I used it as a computer monitor. In the UK you're required to pay the government baksheesh for the privilege of receiving broadcast TV. I had endless fun with the TV licensing people until they finally gave up, accepted that I didn't watch TV on my TV, and quit bothering me.


Paul

[akruppa]

Originally Posted by ewmayer

When earth came out of the last ice age, that was global warming (and of a scale and rapidity that utterly dwarfs the present-day going'-on), too.

Interesting. I vaguely remember a graph showing that the rate of temperature increse occuring today is much higher than it was at the end of the last ice age. I don't have a reference at hand, though. Do you remember where you got the info that it's the opposite (steeper at the end of ice age)?

Alex

[ET_]

Originally Posted by xilman

For a couple of years about 25 years ago I owned a TV which was not used to receive TV broadcasts. I used it as a computer monitor. In the UK you're required to pay the government baksheesh for the privilege of receiving broadcast TV. I had endless fun with the TV licensing people until they finally gave up, accepted that I didn't watch TV on my TV, and quit bothering me.


Paul

Lucky you.

In Italy they are trying to tax each system enabled to receive a TV signal, included video-phones, computer monitors, MPEG4 viewers and cameras...

Luigi

[ewmayer]

Originally Posted by akruppa

Interesting. I vaguely remember a graph showing that the rate of temperature increse occuring today is much higher than it was at the end of the last ice age. I don't have a reference at hand, though. Do you remember where you got the info that it's the opposite (steeper at the end of ice age)?

I remember seeing numerous articles about this in Science and Nature back when I used to subscribe to same - I'll see if I can dig up something specific.

Basically, the problem amounts to a measurement bias - we have very detailed directly-measured temperature records for the past few hundreds of years, and of course no direct measurements before that. So we have to use proxies - tree rings, isotope ratios, indicators of glacial melt, etc. The farther back in time one goes, the more "fuzzed out" these proxies become, and the wider the resulting error bars.

An analogous situation (but even further back) is the speed of species' disappearing around the K-T impact, 65 million years ago. Early studies of sediment cores in many cases seemed to show species surviving well beyond the layer of Iridium-rich impact debris - for instance in many cases you'd find tiny marine mollusc shells several feet above the KT layer - and this was used by the "gradual extinction" crowd^* as an argument against the sudden-extinction hypothesis of Alvarez et al. Subsequent work has shown that time, tides and burrowing organisms can "fuzz out" the original layers and thus distort the record - the better we understand these processes and learn to compensate for them or find proxies less-affected by them, the sharper the species-extinction event comes into focus.

It's essentially an entropic process - think of what happens to an initially sharp step-function temperature distribution under the action of the heat equation: it gets progressively smoothed out into an ever-wider sigmoid-type curve.

---------------------------
^*Which still exists, it just keeps getting smaller every year, and their story keeps changing: first it was "no impact", now it's "maybe 'twas an impact, but not *that* one, it was a whole different impact...". Translation: "It can't be true because I've spent most of my academic career advocating a different hypothesis, poor me."