House hearing on Global Warming cancelled due to cold!

www.drudgereport.com...

HOUSE HEARING ON 'WARMING OF THE PLANET' CANCELED AFTER ICE STORM
HEARING NOTICE
Tue Feb 13 2007 19:31:25 ET

The Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality hearing scheduled for Wednesday, February 14, 2007, at 10:00 a.m. in room 2123 Rayburn House Office Building has been postponed due to inclement weather. The hearing is entitled “Climate Change: Are Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Human Activities Contributing to a Warming of the Planet?”

The hearing will be rescheduled to a date and time to be announced later.

DC WEATHER REPORT:

Wednesday: Freezing rain in the morning. Total ice accumulation between one half to three quarters of an inch. Brisk with highs in the mid 30s. North winds 10 to 15 mph...increasing to northwest 20 to 25 mph in the afternoon. Chance of precipitation near 100 percent.

Wednesday Night: Partly cloudy. Lows around 18. Northwest winds around 20 mph.

Where are all the Global Warming alarmists now?

If last year was one of the warmest on record, and this year turns out to be one of the coolest, how will the Global Warming alarmist deal with it?

Remember in October when it was unseasonably hot? You couldn't go a day without hearing about Global Warming. Where are these idiots now?

Global Warming does'nt mean just warming, it means that the
greenhouse gasses trap heat.

And yes global warming can cause extreme cold as well as
extreme heat.


Artificially created extreme climate change is a much better
term, albeit quite a mouthfull.

Congrats on demonstrating that you don't understand what Global Warming is.

In fact, the term "Global Warming" is a very poor term to describe what's going on. "Climate Shift" is a much more correct term.

The climate is a very large and very unstable system. When you alter one part of it, you are likely to get plenty of unexpected results. While some parts of the world grow warmer, others will cool off. Freak storms and unusual weather are all part of it. As a Canadian West-coaster who's been through 3 emergencies caused by extreme weather in the last 3 months, I can tell you I've seen nothing like this year ever.

Hell, when I was young there was snow every winter and it stayed on the ground for a long time. These days, it's unusual to see snow for more than 3 days. Ski hills that used to have a solid base by the end of October have been shut down completely because they don't get enough snow to allow for skiing, even with artificial assistance. Summers are hotter too. Last year there was an untold death-count in BC due to heat. This in a place that's known for mild temperatures and wet summers.

The wind storms we've endured this winter are nothing short of amazing. We've seen multiple hurricane force winds without the hurricanes. Trees that have stood for hundreds of years without human tampering are laying flattened by these freak storms that have never been recorded in this part of the world.

And you want to argue that Climate Shift isn't a reality?

Open your friggen eyes!

Calling someone an alarmist and an idiot is a tactic of the weak minded and desperate. But when it's coming from someone who believes that Oil comes from little critters who produce more energy then they take in, well why should I expect anything less.

Originally posted by BitRaiser
Congrats on demonstrating that you don't understand what Global Warming is.
.....................
And you want to argue that Climate Shift isn't a reality?

Open your friggen eyes!

Apparently you don't know much about it either.

Climate Change is a natural occurrence, it has happened several times in the 4 billion years of Earth's history, and will continue to happen even when mankind is not around.

There are several other factors which are for certain the ones to blame for the Climate Change we are going through, some of those is the fact that the Sun has been more active in the last 60 years more than in 8,000 years. There is also the fact that Earth's magnetic field has weakened 10%, the last time it had weakened was before the last magnetic flip which was 780,000-800,000 years ago, or how about the fact that our solar system has entered a new region where there is more interstellar dust, which density has been increasing every year, and by the year 2013 we will be at it's maximum density. Or how about the fact that since we have been coming out of an ice age that CO2 and methane gas has been released more from our oceans and lakes?

Those are some of the factors that affect Earth's climate more than the 0.28% anthropogenic CO2 of all trace gases, which is nothing in comparison to the 95% water vapor, the most important trace gas/greenhouse gas which the "it's all mankind's fault crowd" keep trying to ignore, despite the fact that water vapor retains twice the amount of heat than CO2.

One of the main points that people don't often understand about global warming is that it doesn't require man to make a huge impact in order to destabilize the climate.

The climate is such a large, complex system, we often forget that it's a very delicate system too. It's like we're a wasp compared to a speeding car.
The problem is, what happens when the wasp stings the driver of that car in the eye?

It crashes.

We don't have to have a huge impact on the climate in order to cause large problems.

We know the climate shifts all by it self and has done so dramatically in the past. This only proves that the climate is an unstable system. If you know even the very basics of thermal dynamics, you know full well that the slightest change within an unstable system can cause catastrophic results.

1st of all, I don't believe Global Warming is caused by man. I believe it is caused by natural cycles of the Sun.

2nd of all, I don't believe oil is a fossil fuel. I believe it is a natural resource from the Earth.

Man-Made Global Warming is just a scare tactic for anti-capitalists.

Rather than depend on belief, what does actual science have to say on the solar variation issue...

Nature 443, 161-166 (14 September 2006) | doi:10.1038/nature05072

Variations in solar luminosity and their effect on the Earth's climate
P. Foukal1, C. Fröhlich2, H. Spruit3 and T. M. L. Wigley4

Abstract

Variations in the Sun's total energy output (luminosity) are caused by changing dark (sunspot) and bright structures on the solar disk during the 11-year sunspot cycle. The variations measured from spacecraft since 1978 are too small to have contributed appreciably to accelerated global warming over the past 30 years. In this Review, we show that detailed analysis of these small output variations has greatly advanced our understanding of solar luminosity change, and this new understanding indicates that brightening of the Sun is unlikely to have had a significant influence on global warming since the seventeenth century. Additional climate forcing by changes in the Sun's output of ultraviolet light, and of magnetized plasmas, cannot be ruled out. The suggested mechanisms are, however, too complex to evaluate meaningfully at present.

So it seems Muaddib's claim is a red-herring and cannot fully account for the current period of warming.

Originally posted by RRconservative
1st of all, I don't believe Global Warming is caused by man. I believe it is caused by natural cycles of the Sun.

2nd of all, I don't believe oil is a fossil fuel. I believe it is a natural resource from the Earth.

Man-Made Global Warming is just a scare tactic for anti-capitalists.

There's a lot more too it than even this too. One of the major factors of "global warming" is simply that the earth isn't a still body rotating around the sun. The earth actually wobbles on an extremely long cycle(estimated to be 23,000 years). So, while the northern hemisphere is getting more direct sunlight at this time due to this wobble, the southern hemisphere is getting the opposite effect. This completely explains why ice is thickening at the south pole while it's thinning on the north pole. For some reason, I've never seen this on any "global warming" study. The only place you can read about the earth's wobble and it's effect on climate change is in the reports of those who are shunned out of the argument because they have a different opinion on the subject. Despite it's abscence in the reports (as well as Al Gore's movie) the research revealing the thickening ice at the south pole, as well as the earth's wobble, are readily available. It should be obvious that it's being left out because it provides a counter-argument, which is a no-no in today's cach cow that is global warming.

enough of this already, every other thread degenerates into the same old stereotypical nonsense, this is not a ****ing contest, is it?


take the follwing threads as an example of what's wrong with this subforum in particular and the GW debate in general, either pages upon pages of drivel or lost threads about the same issue. is that in any way logical? how many reiterations of emotional alarmism do we have to wade through before someone acknowledges that a) there are more opinions than people on this board and in the world and b) you might just be wrong and c) none of these options make anyone an idiot per se, especially simple disagreement doesnt.

www.abovetopsecret.com...'

www.abovetopsecret.com...'


with that out of the way:

How on earth are we supposed to falsify a hypothesis which is designed to be always right ?



if it's hot it's GW, if it's cold it's GW - if it stayed the same you'd simply use more stringent standards, probably, but the chances are so slim that you won't have to find out too soon anyways.

if all else fails, deafening silence is the answer, isn't it?

Any scientific hypothesis and theory can be falsified, GW apparently can't be, so take this to 'Conspiracies in Religion', please.

[edit on 15-2-2007 by Long Lance]

Originally posted by Long Lance
How on earth are we supposed to falsify a hypothesis which is designed to be always right ?

....

Any scientific hypothesis and theory can be falsified, GW apparently can't be, so take this to 'Conspiracies in Religion', please.

A simple falsification would be to show that there is no trend in warming of the globe.

But global warming is not a theory, it is actually a fact. The causes are more the theory.

I apologise profusely if people are not supposed to contradict your viewpoint...

Originally posted by BitRaiser
One of the main points that people don't often understand about global warming is that it doesn't require man to make a huge impact in order to destabilize the climate.
...............

The main point that a lot of people don't understand is that Climate Change has been a reality of this planet, and all others, for as long as those planets came into existance.

Climate Change happens. There is no planet that stays in balance and harmony for the betterment of "humanity". The history of planets is one of chaos, not one of balance, because there are many forces that can change the Climate on a planet suddenly.

In the historical and geological record we have evidence that past Climate Changes have happened within a few decades and in some cases in a decade or even less.

What is happening now is not new, and will continue to happen despite some people trying to take control of the Climate.

Everything does not "start or end with mankind".

Muaddib

I agree with you, earth will take care of earth and the human species either survived of die just like other species before us.

Is very interesting to see how humans think that they control the environment when all alone the environment control us.

The bible said that men has command over other animals it never said that it had command over the earth and the weather.

Wow... did he really imply that it was due to cold? It's due to freezing rain that's being carried by a storm system. You can't even try and not lie can you? The article clearly states "inclement weather" not.. "So cold that all molecular motion has stopped"

This is just like someone claiming it's not true because Buffalo-area got 11 ft of snow... not realizing there's a reason they're getting lake effect in the middle of February... sigh...

You can lead the ignorant to the source, but you can't make them drink. It's a shame really.

Originally posted by sp00ner
Wow... did he really imply that it was due to cold? It's due to freezing rain that's being carried by a storm system. You can't even try and not lie can you? The article clearly states "inclement weather" not.. "So cold that all molecular motion has stopped"

Yes on that one I agree with you, it was about the weather . . . my husband has been stuck in Washington since the 11, due to the problem with the ice.

thats why they should of called the movement global climate change.

global warming actually means extremes in weather, though the iropny in the name is funny

A simple falsification would be to show that there is no trend in warming of the globe.

But global warming is not a theory, it is actually a fact. The causes are more the theory.

Well, if you're inclined to respect only graphs and charts for evidence, please understand that this kind of thinking works both ways, therefore i urge everyone to refrain from using weather catastrophies as ammunition in the GW debate.

thanks.

[edit on 15-2-2007 by Long Lance]

Originally posted by Long Lance
uh, well, if you're inclined to respect only graphs and charts for evidence, please understand that this kind of thinking works both ways and therefore urge everyone refrain from using weather catastrophies as ammunition in the GW campaign. thanx.

How else do you think we decide whether global temperatures are showing an increasing trend?

But, I agree, single weather events can never really be attributed absolutely to climate change. A case in piont is Katrina, it is possible that sea temperatures do affect hurricane intensity (and there some pretty tentative evidence of this), but we can never really attribute a single storm to climate change.

We've had big hurricanes before and we'll have big hurricanes again. Only long-term measurements will pick up any relevant statistical trends.

Wow, what a thread!!!

I would love to go on and on about this topic, because I don't believe humans are responsible.

Before I get attacked - I want to discuss this reasonably. No arguing please!!!

I would like to ask some common sense questions, and lets get some common sense answers, no name calling or false theories or "Bush is behind it" - PLEASE!!!

The first question concerns the past.

1. What happened to the hole in the ozone layer? Thirty or so years ago, we were told that the ozone layer was not going to be here and the rate of skin cancer was going to be 10 - 30% of the worlds population, trees, plants and other wildlife was going to die, drouts...etc..etc.. and it was all do to those nasty little Cfls - chloroflourocarbons (spelling?) we used in deotorant.(the stuff you spray under your arms to smell nice -joke), I also believe they were in air conditioners and refrigerators.

My answer: I don't know about anybody else but, the last time I checked, I don't have skin cancer nor do I know anyone with skin cancer, I have two refrigerators and about 100,000 btus of air conditioning in my home. UH, I'm still me, no more healthy no less healthy.

#2. The daily and weekly whether reports on the nightly news programs. This week is an exceptionally good week to discuss this with the SO CALLED "blizzard" in the northeast. They can't get the daily, weekly forcast correct, BUT they know what's going to happen in 30, 50, 75, 100 years from now?

MY answer: On the news this week they said (for my area - new york) that we would get between 1 - 3 inches of snow and freezing rain. Okay, we probably got 6 inches. My point: they were wrong even when they were reporting it. The story didn't change until there was more than the 3 inches on the ground and then they didn't know if it was going to end.

If they don't know while its happening, how can they be 100% sure of what's going to happen 30-50-75-100 years from now?

PLEASE DO NOT GIVE THE THE TYPICAL TALKING POINT THAT,
"GLOBAL WARMING CAUSES EXTREME WHEATHER CONDITIONS".


#3. The consensus is that humans and their "toys" contribute to global warming. My question is, How do we know how much Co2 is in the atmosphere now? How did we measure it? When did they first measure it and how did I miss it? What are we comparing these measurments too?

Now, no long dragged out formulas on this please, because science is not exact.

My point to this is : What if they aren't measuring the right gases? or What if their way of measuring is incorrect? Scientists have been wrong in the past, what makes them right about this?

#4. My last question. What makes this new report from this UN council untouchable? or infalible? Why must it be right? And why aren't we allowed to hear the opposition? Their must be some opposition. It doesn't make sense that every scientist on the planet agrees with this.

My answer to this question could go on even longer...

---edited---

[edit on 15-2-2007 by Muaddib]