It's called climate change. It happens all the time on this planet. Whether or not humans are involved. It's going to happen anyways.
Peddling ourselves to work isn't going to make a lick of difference.

Originally posted by ZombieOctopus

Originally posted by wx4caster
sure you notice that in the last ten years or so... but what happens when in another ten years you guys are buried in snow.

I find it hard to believe that you're a meteorologist and believe that the Earth goes through 10 year cycles of warming and cooling...


[edit on 11/8/2009 by ZombieOctopus]

the earth does o through warming and cooling cycles. it is not 10 years exactly, i simply put a nice even figure out there so as not to get into useless semantics, but if you must then fine...

the earth has a major cyle of about 1500 years based on the sun. it is not clock work and 1500 years is an average. this information is based loosley upon historical data from ice samples and other natural tell tales such as tree growth and sediment types.

but there are other cycles, that can be based on other things such as ocean temperature and salinity. these cycles are still not understood, and can be as small as 5-50 years.

sea surface temperature (SST) has an enormous role in weather as you may have heard of the el-nino and la-nina, both are climate chages based on SST. the temperature effects evaporation rate and available water vapor, and oceanic circulation has a global effect on general climate and global and macroscale weather patterns.

interestingly enough, there are still more things that can effect even yearly cycles such as longwave patterns. this describes the ridging and troughing of the heights of the upper atosphere. generally sepaking there are about 7 long wave troughs in the northern hemisphere, and these patterns "steer" the baroclinic mid-lat lows that are what cause rain and snow.

the normal or "positive" pattern for the north in the winter is ridging in the west and troughing in the east. this causes the lows that develp in the mid west east of the rockies (due to adiabatic warming from drier air...its long and complicated, but if you wanna know just ask) to trake into the great lakes and occlude, eventually becoming a decaying wave in the vicinity of the james bay. or the lows that form off the the coast of north carolina (due to Cp airmasses interacting with the warmer gulfstream waters) to track NE along the coast and sometimes developing rapidly and becoming those pesky nor'easters, occluding in the new england and decaying in novascotia or being absorbed by the icelandic low.

if the pattern is reversed with troughing in the west and ridging in the east, the lows tend to track further northward. this has a two fold effect. one: lows need moisture to produce precipitation. so the lows that try to form east of the rockies will form further north, similar to what is called an alberta clipper, and lacking any moisture source, they really just drop the temperature by dragging artic air out of central canada. and lows generally dont form off of hatteras because in ridging the source airmass is the Mt iarmass that would be homogenous with the gulf stream. you do see some pretty nasty storms on the west coast, but they still have to get across the rockies, and the rockies act like a sponge drying out the storm and generally disrupting the low, causing it to undergo cyclolosis.

the long wave pattern changes by the order of weeks. so if you enter winter with a negative pattern, and have weak troughing through the positive cycle, you could very well see little snow. and if the ridging is strong enough you could see what is calle "unseasonally" warmer temperatures that could easily result in snow melt and having bare ground in winter.

this is out of the "ordinary" sure.

see there are what is called semi permanent pressure features. the equature is marked by lower pressures, while the 30º lat is marked by generally higher pressures, 60 is generally lower and the poles are generally higher. this is due to a vertical global circulation known as the 3 cell theory consisting of the polar ferral and hadley cells. that is why you have the aleutian low ner the aleutian island chain, and the icelandic low, and you also have the pacific high and the bermuda or atlantic high pressure. these features help to create cyclogenisis downstream of the longwave trough axis.

petterson's rule tells us that if an area of upper level divergence is superimposed over a surface boundary, cyclogenisis will occur, and downstream of the longwave trough axis is where you see the most U/L div.

snowfall, temperatures, rain amounts, all of that is based upon basic meteorological synoptic features and earths surface terrain...

and it all happens in cycles, sometimes cycles line up and cause extremes, sometimes they dont.

Unfortunately, most Americans are completely incapable of grasping the science behind global warming - or anything else, basically. Science is not well taught in schools here. Neither is critical thinking. Our educational system is geared towards making "good citizens", sheep who do not question authority, who obey instructions, who do not think for themselves or try to be creative. Creative, thoughtful, inquisitive students are harshly punished as discipline problems and often drugged into compliance.

Many Americans think there is no global warming, because many locations on land are actually gettting colder. As I understand it, the US had one of the coolest summers in decades. Therefore, the doubters say, there is no global warming.

The point is that this is *global* warming, not local. The temperature of the oceans is rising. As this happens, there is often a corresponding drop in some temperatures on land. However, 75% of the earth's surface is water. The warming is affecting the most frigid places more severely - that being the poles, and apparently this "ice store" in China.

Whether this warming is a result of human activity is less clear; and whether we can do anything to reverse it is even more doubtful. But global warming is an unpleasant fact of life.

The water from melted ice runs off into rivers, and then to the oceans. It evaporates and rains down elsewhere, often in the oceans, sometimes on land that doesn't usually get much rainfall. The "ice store" has gone somewhere. So have massive amounts of ice at the poles. This doesn't happen unless the ice melts, which doesn't happen unless the temperatures rise above freezing and stay there for a while.

Personally, I don't much care. I'm old enough that I won't live to see the results of this arrogance, ignorance, and greed. I have no kids who are going to have to suffer. So I have no personal interest one way or the other. Still, it's a shame to allow our ignorance to keep us from taking steps to mitigate the damage.

The Earth is heated in by a fire ball we call the sun and that sun is not constant. It goes through this cycle thingy and the energies released go up and down. As a direct effect of these fluctuations, the energies absorbed by the Earth correspond with those put out by the sun.

The real Inconvenient Truth is that some people want to believe that they can do something to change the situation, so they except a theory that allows their hope to be nourished.

Then there are others who are more than willing to sell you the theoretical solutions. All the while preparing themselves for the inevitable climate change; inevitable, because it has happened countless times in the vast history of the planet. Geological history tells us so.

Sadly people will die, but who would want to live through it?

Originally posted by chiron613
Unfortunately, most Americans are completely incapable of grasping the science behind global warming - or anything else, basically. Science is not well taught in schools here. Neither is critical thinking. Our educational system is geared towards making "good citizens", sheep who do not question authority, who obey instructions, who do not think for themselves or try to be creative. Creative, thoughtful, inquisitive students are harshly punished as discipline problems and often drugged into compliance.

Many Americans think there is no global warming, because many locations on land are actually gettting colder. As I understand it, the US had one of the coolest summers in decades. Therefore, the doubters say, there is no global warming.

The point is that this is *global* warming, not local. The temperature of the oceans is rising. As this happens, there is often a corresponding drop in some temperatures on land. However, 75% of the earth's surface is water. The warming is affecting the most frigid places more severely - that being the poles, and apparently this "ice store" in China.

Whether this warming is a result of human activity is less clear; and whether we can do anything to reverse it is even more doubtful. But global warming is an unpleasant fact of life.

The water from melted ice runs off into rivers, and then to the oceans. It evaporates and rains down elsewhere, often in the oceans, sometimes on land that doesn't usually get much rainfall. The "ice store" has gone somewhere. So have massive amounts of ice at the poles. This doesn't happen unless the ice melts, which doesn't happen unless the temperatures rise above freezing and stay there for a while.

Personally, I don't much care. I'm old enough that I won't live to see the results of this arrogance, ignorance, and greed. I have no kids who are going to have to suffer. So I have no personal interest one way or the other. Still, it's a shame to allow our ignorance to keep us from taking steps to mitigate the damage.

if you are old enough then what happened to global cooling of the 1970s? and the gasoline shortages that occured because of it?

this is a sensationalist movement based on incomplete data pushed by greedy coorporations in an effort to line their pockets.

70% of the earths surface is covered by water. pollutants stay in the atmosphere for a few days to weeks at the most. it takes something like a volcanic eruption to put particulates into the stratosphere where it takes years to fall.

the real concern would be polluting the quality of the water table, not warming the globe. rest assured. the globe will cool again. and i am sure there will be some company out there selling space heaters that is gonna make money by trying to make a giant space heater to warm the andes... and there will still be fools out there that eat it up like candy and pass laws taxing refridgerators....

i reccomend that everyone who believes in global warming go out and take a few climatology and meteorology classes so that they can get an understanding as to what exactly they are trying to say.

then take the knowledge that they gain from the classes and apply it to thier hypothesises and watch them crumble to logic.

Nice thread, Loam. Pity it has to turn into groundhog day.

Anyways...

Glacier change and glacier runoff variation in the Tuotuo River basin, the source region of Yangtze River in western China
Journal of Environmental Geology

Issue Volume 56, Number 1 / November, 2008

Abstract

Glaciers in the Tuotuo River basin, western China, have been monitored in recent decades by applying topographical maps and high-resolution satellite images. Results indicate that most of glaciers in the Tuotuo River basin have retreated in the period from 1968/1971 to 2001/2002, and their shrinkage area is 3.2% of the total area in the late 1960s. To assess the influence of glacier runoff on river runoff, a modified degree–day model including potential clear-sky direct solar radiation has been applied to the glaciated regions of the river basin over the period 1961–2004. It was found that glacier runoff has increased in the last 44 years, especially in the 1990s when a two-thirds increase in river runoff was derived from the increase in glacier runoff caused by loss of ice mass in the entire Tuotuo River basin.

Changing streamflow patterns in the rivers of northwestern Himalaya: Implications of global warming in the 20th century

M. R. Bhutiyani1,*, Vishwas S. Kale2 and N. J. Pawar3
1Department of Geology, College of Military Engineering, Pune 411 031, India
2Department of Geography, and 3Department of Geology, University of Pune, Pune 411 007, India

The results of trend analyses of the discharge data of four rivers in northwestern Himalaya, namely Beas, Chenab, Ravi and Satluj, are presented here and the impact of climate change in the last century is discussed. In the case of Satluj river, studies indicate an episodic variation in discharge in all three seasons on a longer timescale of about 82 years (1922–2004). Statistically significant decrease in the average annual and monsoon discharge and insignificant increase in winter and spring discharge, despite increasing temperatures during all the three seasons can also be seen. Decreasing discharge during winter and monsoon seasons in the post-1990 period, despite rising temperatures and average monsoon precipitation strongly indicates decreasing contribution of glaciers to the discharge and their gradual disappearance. On a shorter timescale of the last four decades of the 20th century, barring the Beas river, which shows a significantly decreasing trend, the other three rivers have shown a statistically insignificant change (at 95% confidence level) in their average annual discharge. Annual peak flood discharges show significant increasing trends in the Satluj and Chenab basins, significant decreasing trend in the Beas river and insignificant trend in the Ravi river. Notwithstanding these variations, the studies indicate an increase in the number of ‘high-magnitude flood’ events in the rivers in northwestern Himalaya in the last three decades.

The interesting data from the Indian study above is for the Satluj and Chenab rivers, both largely fed by glaciers.

Originally posted by DINSTAAR

The IPCC report on climate change was not that catastrophic. In fact, the projected effects are relatively insignificant. The unsubstantiated fear-mongering is a tool to convince us to obey the will of a small minority.

Also, glacial growth and shrinkage is not a good example for warming. Warmer air holds more moisture and precipitates more. Assuming parallel universes, a glacier at 31 degrees Fahrenheit would more likely be bigger then the same glacier at 27 degrees.

I am not saying that the earth is not warming, it just isn't happening the way Al Gore and his ilk say it is. Al Gore would not make money and would not be relevant if he told the truth.

The IPCC report was actually scary enough without mentioning recent studies that show that such projections were actually too conservative. The effects of global warming will hardly be insignificant. With ice caps being completely melted in the summers just a couple decades from now, desertification running wild, rising sea levels (no matter how little or lot), the effects on global ecosystems/species, the effects on food production/disease/refugees, etc. things will not be pretty or desirable no matter how we handle the symptoms. We're playing with fire, and quite literally heat, and on a rapid global scale, only bad can ultimately come of it.

Glacial shrinkage is not quite the foundation of evidence for global warming, but it is an alarming and obvious symptom of it. Also, perhaps I'm not understanding your point... but wouldn't a glacier at 27 degrees actually be bigger considering the crystal-structure of ice EXPANDING the volume of water as it freezes (thus the reason ice cubes overflow in the tray beyond the level of original liquid)...?

Originally posted by FortAnthem

Exactly what I was thinking. If the glaciers were melting, Why werent the rivers flooding during the melt off? Instead there were reports of the rivers drying up .


I also find it suspicious that there are no before & after photos in any of the links provided. Am I just to take their word for it that this area was covered with glaciers just a few years before? Show me the proof.

It seems to me there is a strange situation of the Earth not producing Ice at the same rate it once did and it cannot any longer produce ice at a rate sufficient to keep up with melting.

Is the Earth's atmosphere drier now than it was before?

Are we experiencing less rainfall in galcial areas than previously during winter months?

What is affecting the rain cycle in these areas?

When global climate shifts in this manner, all sorts of unpredictable things can happen. Not to mention, weather becomes more polarized. So instead of having balanced, even, predictable precipitation in regions all over the world, you'll have erratic weather and extreme droughts in a formerly wet place, while getting flooding in a formerly dry place. This creates a huge imbalance in weather, climate, and ecosystems. Not good. Also, when glaciers melt and freshwater evaporates, this can cause much of our freshwater to be dumped into saline oceans. Also not good since we can't drink salt water.

I don't think this is a situation where you need to demand proof that there was ice/snow there before. It's common knowledge that the Himalayas were rich in glacial cover, and I'm sure a quick google search will prove to you that this land isn't supposed to be as dry as it is.

Earth's atmosphere isn't necessarily drier than it was before. And actually there is probably an average increase in precipitation around the globe due to global warming. However, like I said, due to polarized/erratic weather and desertification, you do have vast areas which are much drier than they were even a couple decades ago. This is neither good for the environment nor for any food production on that land.

Once again a google search will probably give you any figures you need on rainfall.