Should we be seeing these Snowstorms if Global Warming was Real?

reply to post by grantbeed

Well global warming can do more then just heat things up. It causes weather to change and shift thins around which dose me heavier snow storms. Global warming dosnt change the fact the the earth rotates and causes areas to be cold. So by the earth rotating and the the amount of water that get evaporated wouldnt that make more and heavier snow storms?
I dont belive man made Global warming but that we are jsut pushing it along with our green house gas's.

I see the Global Warming Hoax pushers are out in force!

These are the same people who shrug off unusually low temperatures, but let a unusual hot spell set in over a particular region, and they claim that it's because of Global Warming. Don't think we should allow them to have it both ways.

reply to post by Carseller4

No, we shouldn't anyone have it both ways, but that doesn't mean that we should be responsible for other people's ignorance either.

Taking Portugal (the case I know) as an example, from the past 11 months, 7 had temperatures above average, even if the summer was not particularly hot. March, May and October had temperatures much higher than the average for the last 30 years, with October being more than 2ºC hotter than the average in more than 90% of the country.

What has been happening is that the whole temperature, in average, is getting higher, despite some short periods of extremely cold weather and the lack of short periods of extremely hot weather.

reply to post by grantbeed


yeah and damn it, i spent 7 hours today shoveling about 2 tons of snow to get my fing car freed...

we got almost 2 feet of snow where i live and we are not used to this! Everything was shut down Saturday, the busiest day of the year!

reply to post by grantbeed


yeah and damn it, i spent 7 hours today shoveling about 2 tons of snow to get my fing car freed...

we got almost 2 feet of snow where i live and we are not used to this! Everything was shut down Saturday, the busiest day of the year!

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
SO WHAT?

NO ONE has been able to tie increased levels of CO2 to "so-called" global warming.
You GW people JUST DON"T GET IT.

Well, 'prof', you see, CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It has a clear causal mechanism.

Whereas the causal link between national debt and global warming is, shall we say, a little less clear. Although it's quite possible that in time national economies will be influenced by climate change.

The fact that two variables seem to correlate, indicates NOTHING.

It often suggests lots of things. What it doesn't do is necessarily imply causation.

reply to post by grantbeed


I don't believe that any global warming scientist has claimed that global warming means that it will never snow again!

Next time there is a heatwave, the same people who use snowstorm as evidence against the existence of global warming, will criticise the scientists who say the heatwaves are evidence of global warming.



[edit on 20-12-2009 by john124]

I don't know about the validity of global warming, but man can affect the whether. Example: acid rain. Snow isn't going to disappear anytime soon because there is the artic area not so exposed to the sun, wind brings that weather to other areas.

I always shake my head when I see Drudge posting stories with headlines like

"Blizzard Dumps Snow on Copenhagen as Leaders Battle Warming..."

Because it makes him look foolish, and ignorant to how climate change/heating works. He should really stop posting statements like that.. (I guess some will believe him, and say 'YEAH! its snowing, so global warming isn't real'... if only it were that easy. lol.

The earth goes through NATURAL cycles. I had written about this in 1 post I replied to.
I was recently in Italy, Greece, Turkey and Egypt. When we went to Naples we visited the ancient city of Pompeii. This city was destroyed in the early 1900's be a volcanoe. It was about a 20-25 minute drive from Naples to Pompeii. When this city was destroyed it was right on the Mediterranean Sea. It now sits miles away and is no longer a Sea front city. Now, for this to happen obviously the ocean reseeded. Was it "global cooling" that caused the water to reseed? NO!!!!!! It was a natural cycle.
At one point the earth was frozen solid, it was called the "ice age." Was it global warming that caused the earth to warm up? NO!!!!!!! It was a NAUTRAL cycle. The earth changes and it is not due to all the horrible humans okay. It is a natural cycle that the earth goes through. It seems to me it may be going back to the way it was. If the oceans and sea end up inland, then they are back where they started.

Global warming doesn't always, or immediately, result in warmer temperatures. In fact, this also applies to climate change in that the climate won't actually change...it may just warm. Ummm....or cool. Yeah...it cools and that is why we get snow. But when the snow melts...that, my friend, is cause of global warming. But remember, it isn't always global either. Basically, when it is hot somewhere, it is global warming showing it's face. Sneaky thing isn't it. So remember to save up for your carbon credits, cause it is without a doubt, carbon emissions causing the global climate warning change thingy and not cow farts...you know...the crap...err....SCIENCE those guys who know science...know.

Of for God's sake! I admit it!!! I just don't want Al Gore looking like an idiot.

Sorry.

The snowstorm in China was man made - they said in order to end the drought there. You can find this statement in the mainstream news. So which heavy snowfalls in this world at this minute are caused by cloud seeding, which was even used during Operation Popeye in the Vietnam War, and which are not?

Will the globalists want to prove that all this snowfall in the world is a result of global warming? After all, many of you gave plausible explanations for snowfall being a result of global warming.

Cloud seeding therefore only strenghtens the tptb's argument that we NEED to get this climate deal signed, sealed, delivered and legalised!

Of course at this point we only know that the snowfalls in China were induced through cloud seeding. But why only in China and nowhere else?

reply to post by melatonin

It often suggests lots of things. What it doesn't do is necessarily imply causation.

That is EXACTLY what I am saying. A suggestion is not a proof. It may turn out that CO2 does cause GW, or it may not. Is CO2 a FACTOR? Certainly, and I am not denying that. However, no one has proven, via the scientific method, that it is a major contributor to GW. There are, as I have stated many times in the last year, so MANY variables, that we do not know for certain how those variables interact, to produce any result. When someone determines:
1.) What all the factors ARE
2.) How those factors interact
3.) A formula to COMPUTE the effect

then I will BELIEVE. Until then, we can only, as you say, SUGGEST.

I am not looking to pick a fight with you, I merely want you to understand my position on this issue-namely waiting for absolute proof.
Until then, since we don't know any of the above 3 with certainty, I remain a skeptic, and until that point that we have 1 through 3 settled, I believe that we should proceed with any "solution" with extreme caution, for fear we may actually make things worse.

Should we try to control pollution? Absolutely!

Should we try to remove ourselves from dependencies on oil? Absolutely!

Those can be done, without making declarative statements that are not scientifically proven, because they stand on their own as advantageous. There is no need for scare tactics though about GW, and the seas rising 100 feet.

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
That is EXACTLY what I am saying. A suggestion is not a proof. It may turn out that CO2 does cause GW, or it may not. Is CO2 a FACTOR?

You have again missed the important point. There is a long- and well-established causal mechanism, lol. Just parroting 'correlation doesn't imply causation' shows that you're not really willing to think about this issue.

Normally, scientist performs correlational study usually based on some hypothetical insight. It shows a relationship between variables a and b.

The direction of causation (or direct nature) can't be logically concluded because it could be:

1. a causing b
2. b causing a
3. unknown variable(s) leading to a or b via intervention (e.g., c to a to b, a to c to b etc)
4. A fluke (5% chance of false positive normally at p = .05)

Here, we have a rise in CO2 associated with a rise in temp. However, this is not the sole evidence. It's more than a mere correlational study, indeed, this was predicted over 100 years ago. But lets work with it as if it is a single study.

1. increase CO2 causes increase temps
2. increase temps causes increase CO2
3. Unknown variables intervening in relationship
4. fluke.

1 is supported by a direct causal mechanism. It's a simple result of physics. CO2 is a GHG.

2 is also supported by a direct causal mechanism. Another simple result of physics. Here, solubility of gases changes with temps and sinks can release CO2 under such conditions.

3 isn't required to explain, we have two well-established direct causal mechanisms

4. Not likely, see 3.

So 1 and 2 are where we need to look. But we know that 2 isn't the main issue as the CO2 increase is being driven by human activity and CO2 is being absorbed by oceans and terrestrial 'sinks'. Indeed, we release twice the CO2 needed to account for the CO2 rise each year. Therefore we can see the direction of causation easily enough - it is well-supported, well-established, and was predicted over 100 years ago.

The causal link is well-established, only the scientifically ignorant would suggest otherwise (even the likes of Pat Michaels says this, lol). The next question is how much variance it can explain (how much does a contribute to b).

Certainly, and I am not denying that. However, no one has proven, via the scientific method, that it is a major contributor to GW.

It has been shown to be a factor. It's simple physics. This stuff has been understood for over 100 years. We don't need to keep reinventing the wheel.

I am not looking to pick a fight with you, I merely want you to understand my position on this issue-namely waiting for absolute proof.

Which no science ever provides. An obvious call for inaction. We leave absolute proofs and truths (TM) to maths and religion. But I'm fairly sure I understand your position, it's one informed by ideology rather than actual evidence.

[edit on 21-12-2009 by melatonin]

reply to post by melatonin

Which no science ever provides. An obvious call for inaction. We leave absolute proofs and truths (TM) to maths and religion. But I'm fairly sure I understand your position, it's one informed by ideology rather than actual evidence.

Actually, you have made your basis of "belief" QUITE CLEAR. Your threads regarding intelligent design, your liberal stances, and your condemnation of religion, have made it clear to me, that your position on GW are politically and atheistically based.
I see no further point in continuing any discussion, since, as is the case with most liberals, your mind is made up, and nothing will change it, or allow facts to the contrary to influence you. I seem to recall recent GW emails, where they ALSO threw away data that did not fit their preconceived "beliefs" of GW, so I do understand your actions and words.

reply to post by ProfEmeritus


A pretty lame reply, really. But, hey, whatever.

If you want to be at the forefront of where the science really is with CO2 and the Earth's historical climate, try this nice lecture by a real Prof at the AGU meeting t'other day.

The Biggest Control Knob: CO2 in Earth's climate history

Happy festivus.

[edit on 21-12-2009 by melatonin]

reply to post by melatonin

try this nice lecture by a real Prof at the AGU meeting t'other day.

Only people that agree with you are real? It must be a very lonely world for you.

Which no science ever provides. An obvious call for inaction. We leave absolute proofs and truths (TM) to maths and religion.

Anyone that truly believes that science cannot PROVE anything definitely, must have utter contempt for science. Furthermore, most religions rely on FAITH, but I can see that you do not understand that concept, except when it comes to your belief in the certainty of GW. What a topsy turvy world you live in. I truly pity you.

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
Only people that agree with you are real? It must be a very lonely world for you.

lol

Anyone that truly believes that science cannot PROVE anything definitely, must have utter contempt for science.

Nope, I just have an understanding of its nature. Inductive turkeys tend to lose their noggins.

reply to post by MightyAl

The snowstorm in China was man made - they said in order to end the drought there. You can find this statement in the mainstream news. So which heavy snowfalls in this world at this minute are caused by cloud seeding, which was even used during Operation Popeye in the Vietnam War, and which are not?

Maybe thats what HAARP and other weather modification devices are doing in this country.
Making it seem like GW is not real so we will continue the status quo(greed and gluttony).....hmmm.

the perfect storm is approaching the plains and midwest as we type.

happy christmas