Congessional Hearing on Global Warming Cancelled Due to Snowstorm

[taks]

Weather and climate are not interchangeable terms, Guard Dog.

unless it's in favor of the global warming hypothesis. watch how many idiotic news stories talk about some temperature record or another in the same paragraph as GW. then compare it to cold weather. statements like this suddenly appear.

 

taks

[taks]

Warming in some places, cooling on other places. Makes sense if you've studied metereology or climate change in general, even cursorily, but at this point it's a shapeless menace to most people, if that. But they don't call it "global cooling".

the GW hypothesis IS warming, not change. and warmer poles (where most of the warming is supposed to take place) means less temperature gradient between the poles and the equator, which means LESS severe weather.

 

the alarmists have switched to "climate change" from "global warming" because it's media friendly. the climate ALWAYS changes. hell, all of the US was covered in ice 10-12k years ago. during the MWP greenland was, well, GREEN.

 

taks

[taks]

Why would we have greater extremes in both directions?

it doesn't. alarmist environmentalists have to hang their hats on something since they've been proven incapable of modeling even past climate, let alone future. ask a meteorologist, if the poles warm faster than the equator (the north pole has seemingly warmed more, btw), it will result in overall less extreme weather. any explanation otherwise is really, truly, garbage.

 

taks

[alanschu]

Warming in some places, cooling on other places. Makes sense if you've studied metereology or climate change in general, even cursorily, but at this point it's a shapeless menace to most people, if that. But they don't call it "global cooling".

the GW hypothesis IS warming, not change. and warmer poles (where most of the warming is supposed to take place) means less temperature gradient between the poles and the equator, which means LESS severe weather.

 

This is what I was curious about. Water is a fantastic temperature regulator, so I was curious how more water would lead to more extreme temperatures.

[taks]

actually, water vapor is double edged. on one hand, it is the main greenhouse gas. it traps heat the earth would otherwise re-radiate out into space. on the other hand, it also reflects incident radiation from the sun. positive and negative feedback of a sort.

 

oh, and what i was talking about wasn't water, in the previous comment. weather events, such as storms, are caused by a temperature gradient in the atmosphere. when a cold front meets a warm front you get a storm (providing there is sufficient moisture). warmer poles mean less gradients, on average, than usual. the arctic IS warmer. most definitely. the antarctic IS cooler, significantly. alarmists cannot explain this (huge hole in their theory, btw).

 

taks

[alanschu]

I was simply referring to the fact that the specific heat capacity of water is twice as much when it is liquid compared to solid or gas. I wasn't really commenting about water vapour.

[taks]

then i'm not sure why you mentioned water in the first place?

 

the oceans do play a major role, btw, and the weak el nino (warming of the sea surface temps in the pacific) is what caused the warm early winter on the east coast of the US and most of europe. what didn't make the presses, btw, was that western US and eastern asia were suffering under way below average temps... here in CO it has been miserably cold (7 feet of snow or so in the springs, 4 feet above average and our "snowy" season isn't till march/april). CA has been cold, too.

 

task

[alanschu]

Ice caps melting = more temperature regulating water in the world = less extreme differences in temperature

 

It's 12:50 so I might not be making any sense here. I'm also playing Eve at the moment, while working on a strategy for our breakout in floor hockey.

Edited February 15, 2007 by alanschu

[taks]

oh, i see. well, ice caps aren't going to melt from a few degrees. the antarctic is cooling, and, overall, growing. greenland's ice shelf is actually gaining mass in the middle as well (the glaciers are calving off into the sea, but pressure in the middle from excess weight from added snow is what causes that, not a degree rise in temp).

 

keep in mind, when we talk about the poles warming, we're talking about going from -30 to -29, F, hehe.

 

interesting point, btw, alanschu, hadn't thought about that.

 

taks

[alanschu]

Fair enough. I didn't think of that.

 

It's warming therefore it's melting!!!!11

[taks]

yeah, that bit always gets dropped from the media reports. did you ever see the survivorman when les went up to baffin island? 700 m from the north pole. coooooold. then the sun came out and it got hot (even though the air was still cold). strange place. anyway, the point is that the day-day temperature swings are influenced more by cloud cover than anything else (also, time of year because it gets dark in the winter).

 

taks

[alanschu]

also, time of year because it gets dark in the winter

 

I believe angle to the sun makes an impact as well.

[Walsingham]

I can't believe this has turned into a serious discussion. It was like "Food safety conference called off due to salmonella outbreak".

[Tale]

I can't believe this has turned into a serious discussion. It was like "Food safety conference called off due to salmonella outbreak".

Which would be even more hilarious. Or perhaps something about attendees of a traffic commission running late.

 

I especially love peace rallies that erupt into violence. Don't do a kite festival on the india-pakistani border is all I'm saying.

[Sand]

Hey, in a crazy world that this is it wouldn't surprise me one bit if that happens.

[Walsingham]

I can't believe this has turned into a serious discussion. It was like "Food safety conference called off due to salmonella outbreak".

Which would be even more hilarious. Or perhaps something about attendees of a traffic commission running late.

 

I especially love peace rallies that erupt into violence. Don't do a kite festival on the india-pakistani border is all I'm saying.

 

I'm reminded of Ed Byrne, who becomes incensed by the Alanis Morisette about Irony - which isn't ironic! None of the examples of irony given are actually anything more than annoying. Unless, as he observes, the whole point is the irony of a song about irony that isn't.

[alanschu]

Meh, I'm not surprised that it turned into a serious discussion.

[mkreku]

the arctic IS warmer. most definitely. the antarctic IS cooler, significantly. alarmists cannot explain this (huge hole in their theory, btw).

No, the Antarctic is NOT significantly cooler. There are parts that are warmer and there are parts that are cooler. The net for the entire gigantic area we're talking about is slightly warmer.

 

Source: http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/ANTARCTIC/TRENDS/

 

To put the taks BS in perspective: the world is reacting to the gigantic amounts of solar energy being stored within our atmosphere because of the green house effect. Since weather, turbulence and movement of water masses follow a chaotic formula, we can not with certainty say why some places get colder and some places get warmer. Does that mean that every climate scientist in the world who thinks we're warming the planet wrong? I don't think so, but feel free to form your own opinion.

 

 

 

The image above shows a picture which is easier to understand. It shows mean temperatures around the world for the last ten years, compared to 40 years of mean temperatures around the world. The blue areas is where it's gotten colder, the yellow/red areas is where it's gotten warmer.

 

 

 

This graph shows the global annually averaged surface temperatures.

[Sand]

I don't think the question of the Earth is getting warmer is without doubt. The Earth, overall, is getting warmer. The question that people are getting hung up on is it really mankind's fault that it is happening? Could this warming be a part of a natural cycle the Earth goes through every so thousand of years? Maybe mankind is accellerating it a little, but we cannot rule out that it is a possibility that this si a natural cycle that will eventually lead to another ice age.

[mkreku]

We can also not rule out that this might be the start of a new ice age and we're actually making it warmer.

 

What we CAN do is measure the amount of gas and pollution we mix into the natural order of things and from there try to measure the impact we've caused to the natural variations in the climate. So far everything points to us making it warmer, no matter what the natural variations would do themselves.

[kirottu]

I don't think the question of the Earth is getting warmer is without doubt. The Earth, overall, is getting warmer. The question that people are getting hung up on is it really mankind's fault that it is happening? Could this warming be a part of a natural cycle the Earth goes through every so thousand of years? Maybe mankind is accellerating it a little, but we cannot rule out that it is a possibility that this si a natural cycle that will eventually lead to another ice age.

 

I think the most recent international study said that there is a 90% chance that global warming is happening because of man

Edited February 15, 2007 by kirottu

[Sand]

And what of the 10%?

[taks]

I think the most recent international study said that there is a 90% chance that global warming is happening because of man

[taks]

also, time of year because it gets dark in the winter

 

I believe angle to the sun makes an impact as well.

angle to the sun is the reason it is dark 6 months out of the year at the poles...

 

taks

[taks]

No, the Antarctic is NOT significantly cooler. There are parts that are warmer and there are parts that are cooler. The net for the entire gigantic area we're talking about is slightly warmer.

even YOUR plot shows that it is cooler... sheesh, can't even read your own data.

 

and, hate to tell you, the only area of the antarctic that is warmer is the very edge that touches the warm pacific waters, i.e. outside the antarctic cirlcle. duh. that's also evident in your plot. :crazy:

 

To put the taks BS in perspective: the world is reacting to the gigantic amounts of solar energy being stored within our atmosphere because of the green house effect. Since weather, turbulence and movement of water masses follow a chaotic formula, we can not with certainty say why some places get colder and some places get warmer. Does that mean that every climate scientist in the world who thinks we're warming the planet wrong? I don't think so, but feel free to form your own opinion.

sorry, but warming alarmists predict warming poles, both. not "some cooler some warmer." nobody has said we haven't warmed, either. we just came out of the little ice age in which temperatures were KNOWN to be much lower than normal, everywhere. the question is whether the "global warming" hypothesis has strong connection to man.

 

 

The image above shows a picture which is easier to understand. It shows mean temperatures around the world for the last ten years, compared to 40 years of mean temperatures around the world. The blue areas is where it's gotten colder, the yellow/red areas is where it's gotten warmer.

al's making the claim that this is over 1000s of years, not 10. do you really think 10 years is a representative sample? ice ages occur on the order of 10s of thousands of years, yet somehow 10 years (or 40) is good enough to draw the conclusions the same scientists are making? even those scientists aren't that silly.

 

study statistics, it is helpful.

 

taks

Edited February 15, 2007 by taks