Blizzards are a sign of global warming...?

Chattanooga Fishing Forum

Help Support Chattanooga Fishing Forum:

tie1on

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
1,175
Location
Mcdonald,TN
OH, I mean climate change. Its no longer called global warming!

Climate-Change Debate Is Heating Up in Deep Freeze
Sign in to Recommend
Twitter
Sign In to E-Mail
Print

Reprints

Share
CloseLinkedinDiggFacebookMixxMySpaceYahoo! BuzzPermalink By JOHN M. BRODER
Published: February 10, 2010
WASHINGTON — As millions of people along the East Coast hole up in their snowbound homes, the two sides in the climate-change debate are seizing on the mounting drifts to bolster their arguments.

Skip to next paragraph
Multimedia
Back Story With John M. Broder

Global Warming and Weather Psychology
The cognitive effect of weather on the climate debate.

Post a Comment »
Related
After a Slow Start, a Snowstorm That Exceeds Expectations (February 11, 2010)
Times Topics: Global WarmingSkeptics of global warming are using the record-setting snows to mock those who warn of dangerous human-driven climate change — this looks more like global cooling, they taunt.

Most climate scientists respond that the ferocious storms are consistent with forecasts that a heating planet will produce more frequent and more intense weather events.

But some independent climate experts say the blizzards in the Northeast no more prove that the planet is cooling than the lack of snow in Vancouver or the downpours in Southern California prove that it is warming.

As an illustration of their point of view, the family of Senator James M. Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma, a leading climate skeptic in Congress, built a six-foot-tall igloo on Capitol Hill and put a cardboard sign on top that read “Al Gore’s New Home.”

The extreme weather, Mr. Inhofe said by e-mail, reinforced doubts about scientists’ conclusion that global warming was “unequivocal” and most likely caused by human activity.

Nonsense, responded Joseph Romm, a climate-change expert and former Energy Department official who writes about climate issues at the liberal Center for American Progress.

“Ideologues in the Senate keep pushing the anti-scientific disinformation that big snowstorms are evidence against human-caused global warming,” Mr. Romm wrote on Wednesday.

It is perhaps not coincidental that the snowstorm scuffle is playing out against a background of recent climate controversies: In recent months, global-warming critics have assailed a 2007 report by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and have claimed that e-mail messages and documents plucked from a server at a climate research center in Britain raise doubts about the academic integrity of some climate scientists. Earlier this week, Rush Limbaugh and other conservative commentators made light of the fact that the announcement of the creation of a new federal climate service on Monday had to be conducted by conference call, rather than news conference, because the federal government was shuttered by the storm.

Matt Drudge, who delights in tweaking climate-change enthusiasts, noted on his Web sitethat a Senate hearing on global warming this week was canceled because of the weather.

As the first blizzard howled last weekend, the Virginia Republican Party put up an advertisement on the Web — titled “12 Inches of Global Warming” — criticizing two Virginia Democrats, Representatives Rick Boucher and Tom Perriello, who voted for the federal cap-and-trade legislation last year. The advertisement urges voters to call Mr. Boucher and Mr. Perriello to ask if they will help with the shoveling.

Speculating on the meaning of severe weather events is not new. Hurricane Katrina in 2005 and a deadly heat wave in Europe in the summer of 2003 incited similar arguments about what such extremes might — or might not — say about the planet’s climate.

Climate scientists say that no individual episode of severe weather can be attributed to global climate trends, though there is evidence that such events will probably become more frequent as global temperatures rise.

Jeff Masters, a meteorologist who writes on the Weather Underground blog, said that the recent snows do not, by themselves, demonstrate anything about the long-term trajectory of the planet. Climate is, by definition, a measure of decades and centuries, not months or years.

But Dr. Masters also said that government and academic studies had consistently predicted an increasing frequency of just these kinds of record-setting storms, because warmer air carries more moisture.

“Of course,” he wrote on his blog Wednesday as new snows produced white-out conditions in much of the Eastern half of the country, “both climate-change contrarians and climate-change scientists agree that no single weather event can be blamed on climate change.

“However,” he continued, “one can ‘load the dice’ in favor of events that used to be rare — or unheard of — if the climate is changing to a new state.”

A federal government report issued last year, intended to be the authoritative statement of known climate trends in the United States, pointed to the likelihood of more frequent snowstorms in the Northeast and less frequent snow in the South and Southeast as a result of long-term temperature and precipitation patterns. The Climate Impacts report, from the multiagency United States Global Change Research Program, also projected more intense drought in the Southwest and more powerful Gulf Coast hurricanes because of warming.

In other words, if the government scientists are correct, look for more snow.
emoScratch
 
Pretty much the bottom line is they just dont know whats going on. You only hear the bad with global warming however you never hear anything against the theory. Just like the polar ice cap grew in thickness last year, and its the only year in recorded history that it actually grew in thickness. Not many people knew about that. So much of global warming theory has to do with people making money. Think of all the money thats spent each year, its going into somebodys pocket. Most dont realize that the sun is growing in size and getting hoter. Sure the earth is warming, but are we the main cause?
 
Seems like the ones raising the alarm have a vested intrest in "carbon credits", ie MONEY, whether it be on a personal basis or a company, Country(Great Briton) basis. They have put their $$$ into the Global market and expect a return $$ on The Sky Is Falling". Al Gore is one of them. He owns stock and lots of it in a California company that stands to make (B) billions off carbon credits & green projects. ( See, Jesse Ventura interview).
The trouble with "green projects" is: it takes a lot of other stuff, aluminum, iron, plastic,copper etc. to make these green things. So the question is,,,does that make it OK?
One of the main ingrediants in plastic is OIL. so lets stop making plastic stuff and we would import less oil..see?
Look out for a Carbon Tax if you own a boat, lawn mower, tractor, 4 wheeler, chain saw, weed eater,,,and the list go on & on.
 
inthebox30lbs - 2/12/2010 3:30 PM

Pretty much the bottom line is they just dont know whats going on.
Not at all. Pretty much every model that predicts global warming (long term event) also predicts that you will have more variable weather. From record dry summer to record wet summer, to strong than normal blizzard and hurricanes, it is in the majority of the models. Of course some people don't trust the models but that is what they have predicted.

You only hear the bad with global warming however you never hear anything against the theory.
The theory is pretty well ground in science, hard to argue that carbon can cause atmosphere gasses which trap warmth. What is being argued is does the amount released by mankind contributing in a measurable way to atmosphere gas build up.

Just like the polar ice cap grew in thickness last year, and its the only year in recorded history that it actually grew in thickness. Not many people knew about that.
I would like to read that, please provide your source. Sure polar ice caps grew in a couple of places, but the majority of places they shrank, at the fastest rates that have ever been measured.

So much of global warming theory has to do with people making money. Think of all the money thats spent each year, its going into somebodys pocket.
From my standpoint, it is the people spreading misinformation and fear that are afraid their wide profit margins shrinking making money. Curtailing carbon emissions will lower their profit margins.
 
Every week there is more evidence coming out that the algore man made global warming alarmists were misleading people and out right lying. Even the mainstream liberal media is starting to report on this.

I said it before and I will say it until the day I die. It is totally arrogant for man to think he can change the climate of the world. We can pollute small areas but even then it will not last long. God made this earth and we cannot destroy it even if we try.

Now I am in no way condoning pollution of any kind. I'm just saying that this man made global warming junk is and has been a lie from the get go. Perpetrated to weaken the United States and make the likes of algore and his cronies rich.
 
The cold weather in the United States is a relatively small event compared to the increase in temperatures of the Atlantic Ocean and Pacific Ocean. We can also see the long-term melting of glaciers in Europe, Antarctica, Greenland, Canada, South America, and the United States. The Arctic is very ice-free compared to the past decades. Ships can travel where they have not traveled.
It appears to me that we cannot lose by being careful with air pollution, for many reasons.
 
inthebox30lbs - 2/13/2010 7:27 AM

Here is one of the many articles about the polar ice cap
Thanks for the link.

However, I would not consider a one man blog called "Propaganda Matrix" as a creditable source. Here is another newspapery blog that disputes the 30% as being way too high: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/08/15/arctic-ice-extent-discrepancy-nsidc-versus-cryosphere-today/
Do you have any other more specific source, say a peer reviewed scientific article?

Also initially you were talking about ice thickness, the article you linked to talks about ice cap coverage. Not really the same thing. Kind of like talking about top speed of a vehicles by comparing hp. While hp might be an indicator of speed, higher or lower hp doesn't necessarily mean a faster vehicle.
 
cheez - 2/12/2010 6:49 PM


I said it before and I will say it until the day I die. It is totally arrogant for man to think he can change the climate of the world.

Sorry but your flat out wrong. Humans can and have changed the climate, just a tiny amount, but we have directly changed the climate. Some examples are the warming of metro area due to all the concrete leading to about 3 degree difference in temperature. Cloud seeding programs are often used to bring precipitation to dry areas, once the precipitation is removed it doesn't make it to its more natural release point (say up in the mountains). Large reservoirs in the desert (say Lake Mead) will also allow more moisture (especially on the windward side), extra moisture leads to colonization of non-desert plants. Transfer of water say to Los Angles from Northern California has had an affect on the climate around the San Francisco Bay. While none of these examples are global, they all have had documented, real, and measurable changes on the climate in a specific local.

We can pollute small areas but even then it will not last long.
Depends on what you call long time. Mercury can have a half-life of 444 years, to me that is an extremely long time. Radio active half-lifes are measured in 1,000 of years.

God made this earth and we cannot destroy it even if we try.
Maybe we can't destroy it, but we can make it uninhabitable to mankind, which would be the same fate as destroying it.
 
Democrats can't have it both ways. They say when it doesn't snow that is global warming. And then now that it does snow that also is global warming.. It just doesn't pass the common sense test.
 
Sniperchoke - 2/13/2010 11:25 AM

Democrats can't have it both ways. They say when it doesn't snow that is global warming. And then now that it does snow that also is global warming.. It just doesn't pass the common sense test.
ah politicizing a scientific discussion = grasping at straws emoPoke
 
Sniperchoke - 2/13/2010 12:25 PM

Democrats can't have it both ways. They say when it doesn't snow that is global warming. And then now that it does snow that also is global warming.. It just doesn't pass the common sense test.

Since when has common sense figured into the equation of the liberal mind?

Climate change is a natural occurrence. More and more proof comes out every week.
 
Bfish - 2/13/2010 11:47 AM

cheez - 2/12/2010 6:49 PM


I said it before and I will say it until the day I die. It is totally arrogant for man to think he can change the climate of the world.

Sorry but your flat out wrong. Humans can and have changed the climate, just a tiny amount, but we have directly changed the climate. Some examples are the warming of metro area due to all the concrete leading to about 3 degree difference in temperature. Cloud seeding programs are often used to bring precipitation to dry areas, once the precipitation is removed it doesn't make it to its more natural release point (say up in the mountains). Large reservoirs in the desert (say Lake Mead) will also allow more moisture (especially on the windward side), extra moisture leads to colonization of non-desert plants. Transfer of water say to Los Angles from Northern California has had an affect on the climate around the San Francisco Bay. While none of these examples are global, they all have had documented, real, and measurable changes on the climate in a specific local.

We can pollute small areas but even then it will not last long.
Depends on what you call long time. Mercury can have a half-life of 444 years, to me that is an extremely long time. Radio active half-lifes are measured in 1,000 of years.

God made this earth and we cannot destroy it even if we try.
Maybe we can't destroy it, but we can make it uninhabitable to mankind, which would be the same fate as destroying it.

This is the same kind of liberal tree hugger lies that was spewed before Desert Storm. These "scientists" predicted that the oil well fires would burn for decades causing a nuclear winter type scenario. A redneck oil field man and a few good ole boys put out every fire in just a couple months. No long lasting effects and no nuclear winter. The same group predicted 50,000 plus dead allied soldiers if we went up against the Elite Republican guard in Iraq.

When are you folks going to realize these people have an agenda that is NOT in the best interest of our nation?
 
Bfish - 2/13/2010 4:34 PM

cheesy,
you can keep spinning your pedals but your bicycle ain't got no chains.

But the wind of truth guides me and moves me and people like me. No need for chains to bind me to falsehoods just so I can go with the flow.
Maybe some day you and people like you will grasp this truth and be set free from the bondage of those who wish nothing else but to rule you.
 
I don't believe anything that is said anymore about Global Warming or Climate Change. Mother Nature , with the power of the Lord will do whatever she feels is right for her world and there is nothing we can do to change that. What we are going through right now is not caused by man and never will. If you are a true believer, you all ready know that the Lord will not let man destroy his Planet or his Universe, for that matter. All this talk is nothing more then to spend our hard earned money on some ridiculous theory and make someone all ready wealthy even more......This Planet will go through changes for centuries to come... but please do your part to keep America clean , there is no need to litter, so don't be a litter bug.......

emoThanks emoUSA
 
emoCrazy

What you said is no different than a person saying they are fat because God wanted them to be. Complete BS. If you believe what you said you haven't been to the right places. Saying man cannot change the climate is both arrogant and Naïve.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top