GW takes another hit

Edmonton breaks weather record
« on: Yesterday at 12:11:22 PM »

www.timescolonist.com...

"EDMONTON — Sunday marked the coldest Dec. 13 in Edmonton’s history.


Environment Canada recorded a frigid -46.1 C, or -58.4 C with wind chill, at the Edmonton International Airport at 5 a.m., Environment Canada meteorologist Pierre Lessard said.


The old record of -36.1 C was set last year, he said."


===

Bwahahahahaha!!!

Ps. -58.4C is well below -70F and exposed skin can freeze well under 1 minute.

[edit on 14-12-2009 by leo123]

On that note:

===

Typical Edmonton brain-dead boneheads.

===

cnews.canoe.ca...

"There’s one way to deal with some of the coldest winter temperatures yet on the Prairies — outright denial.

At least that’s how some folks were taking it as they strode into the Edmonton airport over the weekend after arriving from their vacations in Mexico, still dressed in their shorts and sporting tans.

Christopher Toutant walked out of the international arrivals area still wearing Bermuda shorts and a light shirt."

reply to post by leo123


If there IS a God this is his best show yet!

I think the decade trend is basically the whole world other than North America has shown a warming trend, so while we are having a very cold winter the rest of the world has had record breaking high tempatures.

With that said I'm not sure how any of it plays into whether GW is real or not.

Originally posted by Xtrozero
I think the decade trend is basically the whole world other than North America has shown a warming trend, so while we are having a very cold winter the rest of the world has had record breaking high tempatures.

With that said I'm not sure how any of it plays into whether GW is real or not.

You run with that Xtrozero

Originally posted by Xtrozero
I think the decade trend is basically the whole world other than North America has shown a warming trend, so while we are having a very cold winter the rest of the world has had record breaking high tempatures.

With that said I'm not sure how any of it plays into whether GW is real or not.

Londons weather has got worse. I remember as a kid in 80s it never snowed in london, until 1991. Summers used to be warm too, but like this year, we had 1 week of warm temps, which is not a summer.

Wait wait wait.. slow down

You mean, in the winter time, places get COLD!?

My god! Stop the presses! Call a conference! Alert the media!

People need to know about this "winter" thing.

Originally posted by leo123

Originally posted by Xtrozero
I think the decade trend is basically the whole world other than North America has shown a warming trend, so while we are having a very cold winter the rest of the world has had record breaking high tempatures.

With that said I'm not sure how any of it plays into whether GW is real or not.

You run with that Xtrozero

Personally I think since the last little ice age was from 1300s to the late 1800s we are just seeing normal warming, but there has been a few good size eruptions lately that I think plays a lot more into what puts us into an abnormal cool peroid.

You realize that global warming isn't just about "warming" ? For example, if the gulf stream "died", england would lose temperature. Other places would get hotter. I really don't want to come across as disrespectfull or anything, but maybe you should try to fully grasp what you are debunking before you debunk it.

This is what really gets to me about "anti-global warming" types. You guys mostly have no idea of what your talking about, you just disagree with an idea because it threatens your lifestyle. I'm not a climatologist. I willingly admit that I don't know. This being said, if we cut down all the trees on earth, while burning vast amonts of fossil fuel, and pumping thousands of tons of gas into the atmosphere every year, it's kind of logical than it would have some kind of an effect on the planet, don't you think ?

Originally posted by Ismail
You realize that global warming isn't just about "warming" ? For example, if the gulf stream "died", england would lose temperature. Other places would get hotter. I really don't want to come across as disrespectfull or anything, but maybe you should try to fully grasp what you are debunking before you debunk it.

This is what really gets to me about "anti-global warming" types. You guys mostly have no idea of what your talking about, you just disagree with an idea because it threatens your lifestyle. I'm not a climatologist. I willingly admit that I don't know. This being said, if we cut down all the trees on earth, while burning vast amonts of fossil fuel, and pumping thousands of tons of gas into the atmosphere every year, it's kind of logical than it would have some kind of an effect on the planet, don't you think ?

Interestingly ironic that you would, disclaimer of no disrespect noted, take someone to task for not fully grasping what is being debunked then turn around and admit that you don't fully grasp what you are advocating. That being said, you are absolutely correct in your assertion that recklessly cutting down all the trees on earth, burning vast amounts of fossil fuels which in turn pumps gasses into the atmosphere year after year is not at all prudent. It will have an effect on the climate and no doubt humans do have an effect on the climate.

However, the current anthropogenic global warming political agenda is much more than just a group of self proclaimed ethical scientists who only want to save humanity. While there may indeed be ethical scientists whose only goal is to add to the betterment of an ecologically sound environment and the betterment of humanity, there are also many scientists who are ambitious beyond such lofty goals who are paid by government grants to create studies that would support a political agenda. No doubt there are, conversely, scientist paid by corporate grants who create studies to counter the claims made by scientist funded by government grants and this is the way of the world.

Every group is formed with the purpose of achieving the targets and goals they desire. The IPCC was formed by the U.N. and it is not imprudent to question the agenda of the U.N. and in turn question the agenda of the IPCC beholden to that U.N. just as it is not imprudent to question corporate funded scientific studies. When governments come together to create a panel that discusses an agenda of controlling human behavior there are quite naturally going to be people who rebel against such an idea. This doesn't make them skeptical of science nor does it make them "ant-global warmists" whatever that means, it makes them anti-tyrannical.

There has been scientific claims made by both sides of the issue and somewhere in all of this there is the truth, that this truth has not been effectively or conclusively revealed is only demonstrated by those who continually point to the "overwhelming" evidence of their case. Evidence is not truth it is a clue as to what the truth might be but is only evidence and in the end when there is only evidence to present instead of undeniable facts, then a jury must come to their own conclusions.

Hello readers, The Brit. met. office issued a graph earlier in the year, showing average global temperature, it has gone down since the year 2000, and in some parts of the world record low summer temperatures seem to be the norm these days, literally hundreds of American and Japanese scientists
have come out against human involvement in global warming, I cannot see how less than %1.00 of the atmosphere (CO2) can have so much effect on the other %99.6.
As for volcanoes, their activity has gone up %300 in the last 2000 years, they spew out more crud into the atmosphere than we do.
All this information is available on Google, I have been collecting this stuff for over two years now.
I am going see how I can upload this graph.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Good reply. I agree with most of what you said. However, me saying "I don't know", isn't about me not knowing what i'm talking about. I'm saying that, after studying both sides of the biscuit, I don't know.

The OP is saying "things got cooler, it's proof that global warming is a hoax", which is just plain ridiculous. People who believe in global warming don't just believe that "the planet is getting warmer". It's like me coming up to a christian and saying "hey man, I've got proof that Allah doesn't exist". Which just shows that I oppose christianity without having studied, or understood it. Which is just stupid.

reply to post by Ismail


I certainly did not mean to take you to task for being refreshingly honest by admitting that "you don't know". I do not know either. I merely found it ironic that you would insist another person fully understand the issue before attempting to debunk it, then turn around and admit you don't fully understand it yourself. This is ironic, but even so, I admire your own willingness to admit you don't fully understand an issue that is so complex, it is unclear and there seems to be plenty of evidence to support the notion that, even the scientist advocating anthropogenic global warming don't fully understand the issue.

In fairness to the original poster, he never said, as you claim he did that:

"things got cooler, it's proof that global warming is a hoax"

This is an inference made by you based on what the O.P. actually said. The complexity of weather and climate change is indeed overwhelming and extremely difficult to predict. However, those advocating anthropogenic behavior as the cause of global warming are doing so by pointing to evidence that supports their hypothesis. In fairness to the O.P. all that person has done is do the same, point to evidence. Either pointing to evidence is a valid form of advocacy or it is not. Personally, I would rather we find facts on this issue and whatever evidence that avails itself should be regarded as what it is, merely evidence to support the facts.

What the O.P. has done, is duplicate the very same method the IPCC has done and pointed to obvious facts that only serve as evidence to support their own agenda, it has no more been proved that an increase of Co2 in the atmosphere will reach a "tipping point" that will cause an ecological disaster, than it has been proved that record breaking snow storms are evidence that the planet is no longer going through a warming period.

Since the periods in between ice ages are regarded as periods of warming, and since we are not currently living in an ice age, it should be a given that we are living in a period of warming and it was bad foresight on the part of the advocates of anthropogenic global warming to use a term such as "global warming" as propaganda to push their hypothesis in a political arena. It was still bad foresight on their part to attempt to correct their earlier mistake by changing the term to "climate change" since that term is just as simplistic and ambiguous as "global warming" and neither term effectively addresses the complex issue and very real questions that come with an advocacy of anthropogenic behavior being the cause of predicted ecological disasters.

Furthermore, your analogy of; "It's like me coming up to a christian and saying "hey man, I've got proof that Allah doesn't exist". Which just shows that I oppose christianity without having studied, or understood it.", seems to be confused as Christians do not refer to God as Allah, and it could be very likely that walking up to a Christian and announcing you have proof that Allah doesn't exist would be interpreted as pro Christian rather than anti Christian. Allah is the name used by Muslims to refer to God. Christians tend to not name God, other than using the name Jesus as an embodiment of God. In fairness to Muslims I believe that Allah is also not a name as in a proper name such as Jesus or Muhammad, but is a pronoun used to describe "the one true God".

If you were to walk up to a Muslim and make such a remark it would be interpreted as ant-Muslim behavior but not necessarily so if you made the same remark to a Christian who may or may not listen to your assertions. Either way, the O.P. offered no proof nor claimed to have any, but merely pointed to a record breaking snow storm as evidence. Evidence to support his title for this thread which was that GW takes another hit. Just as it was ironic that you would insist the O.P. fully understand the complex issue of anthropogenic behavior causing a predicted ecological disaster, it is just as ironic that those advocates of anthropogenic behavior being the source of "global warming" are meeting in a political arena during the dead of winter when record breaking snow storms are raging across two continents.

It proves nothing, but neither does statistical data drawn from ice cores and tree rings. Nor does the melting of ice bergs prove that they are melting due to human activity. The ice bergs have been steadily melting since the advent of this current warming stage, that stage being the period between ice ages, and given that this last period has lasted more than 14,000 years, that those ice bergs have begun to show evidence of major erosion in the last two decades, it is a fair concern to question the efficacy of human activity being the undeniable source of this phenomenon.

It is far easier to argue that a reckless destruction of rain forests is imprudent than to argue that too much Co2 in the atmosphere is dangerous. The first argument is based on sound and accepted science that the rain forests are a crucial part of the planets ecology, the second argument is much more radical in its claim and has not been accepted as sound science it has only been presented as sound science, by those who have a clear political agenda that includes regulation of human behavior much more radical than regulating the number of trees cut down in the rain forests.

It is good to have an earnest concern for responsible conservation of the planets ecology. It is not good to willingly engage in propaganda and to twist the words of another in order to present them as saying something they did not. I stand by you proudly as an advocate of responsible conservation of the planets ecology. I urge you earnestly to avoid using political spin to dismiss the concerns of another, and instead to engage that person with the same earnestness and refreshing honesty you showed by admitting you do not fully understand the science behind anthropogenic behavior being the cause of predicted ecological disasters.

What's funny is, after all this time , people still think that a certain place being cooler means global warming is fake.

now, im not an advocate or total believer in manmade GS, but global warming is soeaking of the planet as a whole. What happens in one specific corner of the earth is moot and beside the point.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


I stand by my "hey man, I've got proof that Allah doesn't exist" said to a christian. The point I was trying to make, was that christians don't believe in Allah. No more than people who believe in athropogenic global warming simplistically believe "the planet is getting warmer".

I don't belive in global warming, as I have previously stated, because I don't know. My main concern, is that many people totally discard our influence on the planet, because they discard man-made global warming. That's the only point i'm trying to make. No political spin. No nothing. Just that.

Snow storms do not prove that man is not influencing the climate through CO2 emmissions. That was the point pushed by the OP, and I disagree with it.

Other than that, I fully agree with your well thought up responses.

[edit on 17-12-2009 by Ismail]

reply to post by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
What's funny is, after all this time , people still think that a certain place being cooler means global warming is fake.

now, im not an advocate or total believer in manmade GS, but global warming is soeaking of the planet as a whole. What happens in one specific corner of the earth is moot and beside the point.

Okay, this may be shoking news for you, but at the moment it is quite cold in Finland too, which is quite far away from Canada.

Had -24 C this morning, and about that few days before.

-v

[edit on 17-12-2009 by v01i0]

Originally posted by v01i0
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
What's funny is, after all this time , people still think that a certain place being cooler means global warming is fake.

now, im not an advocate or total believer in manmade GS, but global warming is soeaking of the planet as a whole. What happens in one specific corner of the earth is moot and beside the point.

Okay, this may be shoking news for you, but at the moment it is quite cold in Finland too, which is quite far away from Canada.

Had -24 C this morning, and about that few days before.

-v

[edit on 17-12-2009 by v01i0]

Atill missing the point completely. Global Warming speaks of THE AVERAGE TEMPERATURE OF THE GLOBE-which is rising(as is the temp of many planets in our solar system). It does not matter that it is colder where you are, or in canada, or in Texas, or anywhere else.

The fact of the matter is, and this seems to be difficult for most to grasp, is that the majority of the earth is covered by water, meaning most of the surface of the planet is uninhabited by humans-and therefore cannot be experienced by humans.

Every average temp of every city in the world could be lower, and yet the planet could still be warming.

The world exists FAR beyond the individuals experience.

Atill missing the point completely. Global Warming speaks of THE AVERAGE TEMPERATURE OF THE GLOBE-which is rising(as is the temp of many planets in our solar system).

Except that it isn't.

There has been no global warming since 1998, as the raw datasets for all the leading temperature indices show. What you have seen is the "corrected" graphs made by a very small group of UN-funded scientists who peer-review each other's work (they even call themselves "the team").

Are you familiar with the Lindzen & Choi paper of July 2009, which is based on real-life measurements of the ERBE climate feedback data rather than the predictions made by computer models? It contradicts the predictions made by all the leading models. The models are wrong, the role of CO2 has been overestimated by 600% and the scientists trying to "hide the decline" should be on trial for fraud, alongside their political paymasters.

Originally posted by dreamweaver2012

Atill missing the point completely. Global Warming speaks of THE AVERAGE TEMPERATURE OF THE GLOBE-which is rising(as is the temp of many planets in our solar system).

Except that it isn't.

There has been no global warming since 1998, as the raw datasets for all the leading temperature indices show. What you have seen is the "corrected" graphs made by a very small group of UN-funded scientists who peer-review each other's work (they even call themselves "the team").

Are you familiar with the Lindzen & Choi paper of July 2009, which is based on real-life measurements of the ERBE climate feedback data rather than the predictions made by computer models? It contradicts the predictions made by all the leading models. The models are wrong, the role of CO2 has been overestimated by 600% and the scientists trying to "hide the decline" should be on trial for fraud, alongside their political paymasters.

Honestly, you'd probably be a better source than I as far as it goes-I do not pay attention to the GW debate very much, nor do I consider it the dire situation some would like to make it out to be.

my only point was that I continue to see thread after thread about how 'such and such' place is colder, so GW must be wrong, and this is not only completely false, it is downright naive and/or ignorant.

Irony at its best

Take a hint people.