Year of Global Cooling

[Big Don]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps...0071219/COMMENTARY/10575140/-1/RSS_COMMENTARY In 2005, a Canadian Greenpeace representative explained

“global warming can mean colder, it can mean drier, it can mean wetter.”

In other words, all weather variations are evidence for global warming.

 

[Big Don]

Global Warming can mean colder? Drier? Wetter?
Shouldn't it mean, oh, I don't know... WARMER? If all weather variations are "proof" of global warming, is that science, or religion, because that sure sounds like a description of faith, rather than reasoned science.

 

[tellner]

Not exactly. The most noticeable early effect of global warming is increased variability and unpredictability in the weather. It's not a simple case of everyone suddenly throwing away their long johns. As air and ocean currents change warm and cold air will shift out of the patterns we've grown used to. There will be more in some places and less in others. There will be less cool air and water overall, but there will still be plenty.

Look, the evidence is irrefutable unless you want to cherry pick, distort and ignore because you just don't want to hear it. The Earth is getting warmer. It's been doing it since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. It's strongly correlated with atmospheric methane, carbon dioxide and NOX levels. The rate of change is accelerating. We have multiple sources of unrelated data from direct temperature records and ice-cores to measurements of the Earth's albedo, permafrost melting, worldwide glacier retreat, plant population succession, changes in the wine industry and on and on and monotonously on.

We've been over it. Your response has been "It can't be true because I don't want it to be true." Even the overpaid whores of the oil companies admit that it's getting warmer and doing so quickly. They've progressed to "It's not our fault" and "There isn't anything we can do about it".

It's not about Al Gore, and I really don't understand why you have such a fetish about him. It's not about the danged librul commies who want to steal our precious bodily fluids. It's a well-established fact that simply has to be addressed.

 

[Andrew Green]

My understanding is that global warming predicts more extreme's in weather, more and stronger storms, more flooding, more droughts, basically a destabalization of the climate, combined with a fairly small increase in global averages. 0.7 C so far I believe.

That's not a lot, not enough that we would notice a big difference in temperature. I'm also not sure if extreme weather includes colder winters (plus warmer summers). But regardless, that's a 0.7 C average world wide, a cold winter hardly dissproves global warming.

However more storms we definately do seem to have, seems like every second night there is a thunderstorm here in the summer, 5 years ago that was certainely not the case. Of course that is a localized issue and can't demonstrate anything without looking at the bigger picture, same as a cold winter.

 

[Blindside]

Global Warming can mean colder? Drier? Wetter?
Shouldn't it mean, oh, I don't know... WARMER? If all weather variations are "proof" of global warming, is that science, or religion, because that sure sounds like a description of faith, rather than reasoned science.

Are we going to do this again? Don't we already have a 10 page thread that started out with something almost exactly identical?

Don't go to activists to get science, that said, the Greenpeace activist was correct. In large chaotic systems, localized effects can be quite different than the overall average. The writer of that article was doing exactly the same thing, cherry picking localized events to support his statements. To give an opposite example, I'm in year 8 of drought, and our Wyoming June temps were 4-5 degrees higher than the thirty year average.

Lamont

 

[Big Don]

The idea that ALL variations in weather PROVE global warming is ridiculous on it's face. Name one fact that is proved by absolutely everything else and is incapable of being disproved. The fact that reptiles have scales does not prove bunnies are fluffy, that dogs bark does not prove planes can fly.
Did I mention Gore here? Why do you feel compelled to defend him? If he walked the walk instead of just talking the talk, his name might still be inextricably linked with global warming, but, at least he wouldn't be hypocritical, and a man who has the courage to stand for his convictions I can respect, one who doesn't practice what he preaches is nothing more than a carnival barker at a freak show.
You don't have any problems with the overwhelming arrogance that assumes we can destroy what we lack the power to create? That we can somehow alter weather patterns worldwide, when we can do nothing but watch as hurricanes, drought and snow ravage cities and states? We haven't the power to stop ONE storm front from causing millions of dollars in damages in one specific place, but we can wreak havoc worldwide?

 

[Andrew Green]

It's a matter of taking things out of context, no where did he say that this proved global warming. Nor is a greenpeace activist even scientist.

Your logic of stopping a storm vs altering weather patterns is also flawed. We can alter things fairly directly. We have redirected rivers, drained lakes, irrigated deserts. These are massive projects that take a lot of time to do, global warming is even larger and has occured on a larger scale.

It's like building a skyscrapper, it takes time, work and a lot more time. We can do it though. But if one suddenly decides to fall over, not a lot we can do to stop it once it's falling. So I guess by the same logic it most be impossible for us to build one?

 

[Flying Crane]

The idea that ALL variations in weather PROVE global warming is ridiculous on it's face.

Don, ALL variations in weather do not PROVE global warming. However, the collective patterns of more extreme weather, and weather that is odd in areas compared to past patterns, whether this means warmer or cooler or more violent, or whatever, is a strong indicator that something is seriously out of whack. You cannot look at it on a microscale and draw conclusions from it. Rather, scientists are looking at the overall patterns across the globe and seeing some very disturbing trends in our global weather patterns. That is the proof of global warming.

The fact that reptiles have scales does not prove bunnies are fluffy, that dogs bark does not prove planes can fly.

this is really irrelevant and nonsensical in the global warming dialogue...

You don't have any problems with the overwhelming arrogance that assumes we can destroy what we lack the power to create? That we can somehow alter weather patterns worldwide, when we can do nothing but watch as hurricanes, drought and snow ravage cities and states? We haven't the power to stop ONE storm front from causing millions of dollars in damages in one specific place, but we can wreak havoc worldwide?

It is always much much much much easier to destroy than to create. Take the simple act of cutting down a tree with an axe. In a few minutes I can cut down what may have taken decades or longer to grow.

The arrogance lies not in believing we can alter worldwide patterns, but rather in believing we can continue with a cultural lifestyle of excess and waste, and never run into trouble for it. We are a greedy society, and we have caused some serious problems for ourselves and our descendants.

 

[Blindside]

The idea that ALL variations in weather PROVE global warming is ridiculous on it's face. Name one fact that is proved by absolutely everything else and is incapable of being disproved. The fact that reptiles have scales does not prove bunnies are fluffy, that dogs bark does not prove planes can fly.

Actually the original quote doesn't say "prove" is says "can."

You don't have any problems with the overwhelming arrogance that assumes we can destroy what we lack the power to create? That we can somehow alter weather patterns worldwide, when we can do nothing but watch as hurricanes, drought and snow ravage cities and states? We haven't the power to stop ONE storm front from causing millions of dollars in damages in one specific place, but we can wreak havoc worldwide?

Read up on "desertification," we can absolutely destroy what we lack the power to create.

Lamont

 

[Big Don]

I find it interesting that any attempt to debate global warming's existence is as popular as a whore in church. I am told over and over that the debate is over, when I see articles like the one in the OP and this one:http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/908

Climate scientists at the University of Rochester, the University of Alabama, and the University of Virginia report that observed patterns of temperature changes (‘fingerprints&#8217 over the last thirty years are not in accord with what greenhouse models predict and can better be explained by natural factors, such as solar variability. Therefore, climate change is ‘unstoppable’ and cannot be affected or modified by controlling the emission of greenhouse gases, such as CO2, as is proposed in current legislation.

These results are in conflict with the conclusions of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

Gee, that couldn't be because all those employed by the IPCC would lose thier jobs were global warming not reversible, inalterable, or not the fault of capitalism? No, no one ever skews to protect their paychecks. Never.
Of course statistics like:

* Emissions worldwide increased 18.0%.

* Emissions from countries that signed the treaty increased 21.1%.

* Emissions from non-signers increased 10.0%.

* Emissions from the U.S. increased 6.6%.

Don't help either.

 

[Flying Crane]

I find it interesting that any attempt to debate global warming's existence is as popular as a whore in church. I am told over and over that the debate is over, when I see articles like the one in the OP and this one:http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/908

Gee, that couldn't be because all those employed by the IPCC would lose thier jobs were global warming not reversible, inalterable, or not the fault of capitalism? No, no one ever skews to protect their paychecks. Never.

Well Don, it's pretty clear from the various threads on Global Warming that your mind is made up. I sincerely hope you are right, because the fallout of Global Warming promises to be pretty bleak in many ways. While I say that I hope you are right, I am deeply afraid that you are wrong.

In the meantime, whether or not you believe in global warming, I hope you will embrace a habit of moderation in your own use of the Earth's resources and in your own contribution to pollution. That much is inarguable, we all should do what we can to reduce pollution and energy consumption.

 

[tellner]

Ah, we've gotten to "You don't believe me because you're morally defective. Any evidence that contradicts what I want to believe comes from lying whores."

Sorry Don, it's just not possible to have a rational discussion with you on this issue. You won't consider any evidence that doesn't utterly support what you want to be true. You are hostile to science as a concept and don't seem to understand how it's done.

Any discussion with you under the circumstances is rootless, bootless and bound to be fruitless. So I will not bother until such time as you are a bit better educated about the fundamentals of the scientific method, and the objective nature of physical reality.

 

[michaeledward]

And, he keeps linking to the same article, reported from different web pages, as if they are new and different articles. It's the same David H Douglass, Fred Singer report that he linked to last week.

 

[Big Don]

U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007
These four hundred are all oil company hacks?

 

[Andrew Green]

U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007
These four hundred are all oil company hacks?

Sounds more like they are disagreeing with the effects this will have, and some the significance of it, but not that it is happening.

And what was the float earth stuff doing in there? Seems rather irrelevant.

 

[elder999]

U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007
These four hundred are all oil company hacks?

Perhaps not all, but if one follows the money....

for example, Dr. Hendrik Tennekes:

No published research in last 15 years
Tennekes is a retired researcher from the Netherlands that, according to a search of 22,000 academic journals, has not published any original research in a peer-reviewed journal since 1990. Prior to 1990, Tennekes has published research mainly in the area of meteorology.

Tenekes and Dr. S. Fred Singer
Tennekes has written numerous articles for Dr. S Fred Singer's organization called the "Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP). The SEPP and Fred Singer have a long history of attacking the science of global warming. Fred Singer has been connected to organizations that were involved in denying the link between second-hand tobacco smoke and he has also received funding from oil companies.

Seen here

 

[Xue Sheng]

Global Warming can mean colder? Drier? Wetter?
Shouldn't it mean, oh, I don't know... WARMER? If all weather variations are "proof" of global warming, is that science, or religion, because that sure sounds like a description of faith, rather than reasoned science.

Dry where it use to be wet
Cooler where it use to be warm
Warm where it use to be cool
Wet where it use to be dry (particularly places like Florida that will be underwater)

It does not mean the entire surface of the globe will get warmer it does mean the average temperature of the globe will be higher and that there will be fewer cooler places.

The planet is a very complex system and what global warming is doing is changing weather patterns and making is warmer in bad areas. In other words a whole lot of ice is melting and putting a WHOLE lot of fresh water into the ocean. This will disrupt the oceanic conveyor belt system, actually it will shut it down, and that system is responsible for warmer temperatures in many areas and cooler temperatures in others. This means those areas change DRASTICALLY and this effects a whole lot of stuff.

I would go into much greater detail if I thought it were worth it and if I had the time but I doubt it would change anyone’s mind so I will not.

Earth Science and Climatology were a long time ago for me and I would need to go back and read a few textbooks but those that are posting saying Global warming is a farce would not change their minds one bit so why bother.

 

[Ray]

The most noticeable early effect of global warming is increased variability and unpredictability in the weather.

I must be missing the accurate weather forecast channel.

 

[Big Don]

Idiocy like this makes it really hard to take global warming seriously.

 

[fireman00]

Not sure who has seen this: "Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore. "

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb

I'm still waiting to hear Al Gore explain what caused the mini ice-age from ~ 10,000 years ago ...