Berzerker
Deity
Which was during a ~40 year warming trend following the mini ice age
Fox News On Recent Snowstorms
- Thread starter Formaldehyde
- Start date
Which was during a ~40 year warming trend following the mini ice age
Merkinball
Deity
Yeah, what a shocker considering that average temperatures in the Canadian city don't drop below freezing in January... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_Vancouver
-------------------
INSLEE 2005: The ski industry in the Cascade Mountains in Washington essentially was shut down this year. My son's on ski patrol and he worked for three days this year, there was no snow. And having no snow is consistent with what the models will predict will become a significant problem for us in the future.
BYRD 2002: We need a climate change strategy badly. Look at the kind of winter we've had here in Washington. One snow, three inches? What can we expect for the spring and summer seasons? What's going to happen to our crops, our livestock, our economy? This is serious. I've lived a long time, 84 years. Something's going wrong out there. I don't need a scientist to tell me that. We had better do something about it.
Well, firstly, as a change occurs in a system, there will be increasing variability as there's a shift to a new equilibrium. This is true in any system that's multifactorial (from economics to climate).
Secondly, there's a spectrum of intelligence regarding the climate change concerns. There are good arguments, good objections, and good criticisms. And then there's stupidity. Hannity & Beck foster movement towards ignorance: they don't improve the discussion, they detract from it. People who watch their discussion know less about the science after they're done. That's horrid.
Their contributions make things worse.
Secondly, there's a spectrum of intelligence regarding the climate change concerns. There are good arguments, good objections, and good criticisms. And then there's stupidity. Hannity & Beck foster movement towards ignorance: they don't improve the discussion, they detract from it. People who watch their discussion know less about the science after they're done. That's horrid.
Their contributions make things worse.
Merkinball
Deity
The same can be said for the IPCC and anything produced in East Anglia.
This is all just silly. Specific weather events have nothing to due with climate. Using a big snowstorm to claim to criticize data showing warming is is bad as claming Hurricane Katrina was the result of such warming. Because it snowed or didn't snow here or there or it was cold or warm in place x or y this week month or year means nothing in term of long term trends in temperature.
Kennigit
proud 2 boxer
Care to elaborate on disliking the IPCC? Or how the IPCC detracts from scientific knowledge?
Merkinball
Deity
You can't be serious? Pragmatic manipulation of data, improper and fraudulent methods for collecting data, altering data, the hockey stick graph, etc etc. In the last month the IPCC has been caught using fudged data from unpublished dissertations regarding the Himalayan ice caps and the rain forests. The IPCC chronically uses hyperbole in order to push their agenda. Members of the IPCC have threatened and exiled scientists who don't follow the IPCC line. They've proactively sought to make sure papers associated with it do not face scrutiny from global warming detractors. There's gotta at least 100 incidents of downright rotten science out of the IPCC over the last ten years. Yet people like to pretend that the deniers are flat earthers.
RedRalph
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2007
- Messages
- 20,708
True, and anyone who gave the topic two seconds' thoughts would realise this.
Berzerker
Deity
Anecdotes can precede trends
Gary Childress
Student for and of life
Gotta love Faux News.
Seriously though. I really don't know whether to laugh or cry.
Gotta love Faux News.
Seriously though. I really don't know whether to laugh or cry.
you mean the Ministry of Truth?you have committed a thought crime, this is doubleunplusgood go to MiniTru, NOW!
BasketCase
Username sez it all
Bleh. This isn't a true global warming thread, but I guess it'll have to do.
You might wanna check your fridge for gremlins.
Sooooo.....global warming produces a result which cannot be predicted and therefore cannot be tested?
You might wanna check your fridge for gremlins.
Leifmk
Deity
Exactly. If we were talking about the 201st decade of the Gregorian calendar, it would indeed be the years 2001-2010 and people could be pedantically smug whenever someone messed that up, but hardly anyone ever talks about the 201st decade. Instead people commonly talk about the 2000s or the 00s (or the aughts or the naughties or whatever) and that indeed means the years 2000-2009.
A similar thing applies to centuries, except flipped -- at least in English. "The twentieth century" (1901-2000) and "the 1900s" (1900-1999) are equally valid centuries, though only one of them is an integral century dating from the (post-dated) start of the calendar. In English, I see a lot more references to the twentieth (or twenty-first, nineteenth, etc.) century than to the 1900s (or 2000s, 1800s, etc.) while in Norwegian, the usage seems to be a lot more mixed. Other languages, I'm not familiar enough with to say anything about.
SS-18 ICBM
Oscillator
Yes, but you make valid conclusions based on the latter, not the former.
gangleri2001
Garbage day!!!
@OP: That's nothing. You should watch and read Libertad Digital and listen to esRadio.
Merkinball
Deity
Which places are those? It's not the Western Rockies, they're gonna be too warm, lose their icecaps, and everyone there is gonna die. It's the American midwest, because the farm land is going to be too warm to grow crops and everyone there is gonna die. It's not gonna be the east coast, because global warming means no snow for the northeast. It's not gonna be the arctic, because that's where the most warming will inevitably occur because that's where all the critical ice is. It's not going to be Greenland, because, again, all that ice is going away. It's not going to be the UK, because they're growing grapes for wine there now, and that hasn't been done since back when the Romans ruled. It's not going to be the mediterrainean because Malaria bearing mosquitoes are going all up through southern Europe because it's going to get warmer there. The same goes for the Caucus region. It's not going to be the Sahara region because the Sahara is gonna swallow up millions of square miles because it's going to get hotter and drier. It's not going to be sub saharan Africa because it's causing it to get hotter, prolonging droughts, and causing everyone to die there. It's not the middle east, because it's just getting hotter and causing all the Palestinian's to die. It's not going to be the forested area of Africa because warming is going to destroy the rainforests. It's not going to be Himilaya's because all the glaciers are going to disappear due to warming. China is warming and causing desertification around the Gobi. And Australia is getting so hot that it's literally going to be on fire all the time and kill everyone there. I'm getting bored now, but according to global warming fanatics, everywhere on earth is warming when it's convenient. Everything that's negative on earth is because of global warming. And thus, the utterly insane level of idiocy regarding utterly ******** people who believe this farce hook line and sinker.
