Experts: Cold snap doesn't disprove global warming

Originally posted by butcherguy
Just as the lack of any clear warming trend for the past 7 - 8 years could be just a blip.

Right-O! These climatologigoofs claim the last 10 years have been the hottest years on record — oh, except for the 3 years in the 1990s that were HOTTER.

This is Hitler's Big Lie, repeat a lie, no matter how preposterous, loud enough and long enough and it becomes accepted as "fact"... Yeah, right. That was before the Information Age.

Ironically, the Internet itself may be the downfall of Al Gore's Convenient Lie...


(crowd murmurs appreciatively and knowingly)

— Doc Velocity

reply to post by butcherguy


I actually think you and I have differing points on global warming...lol
Im a proponent of global warming!
But i think we both see the ridiculousness (is that a word) of arguing the point on over how hot or cold today was... ie being baited by frivolous articles instead of getting down to the more sciency(is THAT a word) stuff.

perhaps next time we meet it wont be so cordial!

hopefully we meet again on a more ...relevant... thread.!

Originally posted by Doc Velocity

Originally posted by butcherguy
Just as the lack of any clear warming trend for the past 7 - 8 years could be just a blip.

Right-O! These climatologigoofs claim the last 10 years have been the hottest years on record — oh, except for the 3 years in the 1990s that were HOTTER.

This is Hitler's Big Lie, repeat a lie, no matter how preposterous, loud enough and long enough and it becomes accepted as "fact"... Yeah, right. That was before the Information Age.

Ironically, the Internet itself may be the downfall of Al Gore's Convenient Lie...

(crowd murmurs appreciatively and knowingly)

— Doc Velocity

Yeah its almost like people who say these "facts" are wrong but never have data to back it up either.

I am very curious here.

If the "experts" contend that the current cold snap in the northern part of the planet is merely a blip and does not disprove global warming.....

then why isn't the heat wave in the southern part of the planet also not considered merely a blip?

news.bbc.co.uk...

So as far as I can see, whenever someone points to cold weather spots, the "experts" explain that global warming has NOTHING to do with weather.....and then point to hot weather spots to support their theory of global warming.

Can someone explain this??

TIRED OF CONTROL FREAKS

Only morons would believe the plans that they have because of Global warming... scratch....climate change.
They only propose to take the wealth, control everything with new gained power. There is no serious plan to fix anything. If they wanted to fix things, it could be done in less than five years.
The means is there, but not the will.
Either plan to clean it up, or shut up.

Carbon credits? What the hell is that going to fix besides someone's pocket book?

reply to post by countercounterculture
I too, am a proponent of global warming. If the climate here in Pennsylvania was warmer, I wouldn't have to spend so much of my hard-earned cash on heating my house! But I don't think that burning all the fossil fuels available would be enough to do the trick. See you later, nice yakkin' with you.

Why the double negative?

Does it prove global warming then? Many alarmists are claiming it does.

Why the defensive posture?

I haven't seen any MSM head lines declaring "Cold snap disproves global warming".

It sure does raise a lot of inconvenient questions though, doesn't it.

Originally posted by countercounterculture
So here some enlightened scientific response to the issue at hand:

lol, well when talking sense doesn't hit the spot might as well try some funky 80s pop. As some cleverclogs said, you can't reason people out of something they never reasoned themselves into.

Might as well try to explain evolution to a YEC creationist in many cases.

Originally posted by melatonin

I know it can be a difficult concept, but global warming/climate change doesn't mean that decembers and januarys become julys and augusts. Neither does every single place on the earth show temperatures above average at all times throughout the year. Nor will it mean every year is warmer than the last. Nor will it mean that snow never happens again.

Indeed, if you can grasp the concept of averages, it's quite possible for outside your front door to have a very unusual -100'C and still have a high global average.

What has been proposed is that average temperatures will increase in the long-term due to human activities. Which is what is readily observed.

If we had a number of forum members from greenland and the arctic (where's Santa when you need him!), they would be reporting very above average temperatures over the last few weeks. And we'd have above average for north africa as well. And that's just the northern hemisphere - one half of a globe.

While our snow and ice will easily melt in a few weeks, like it does every year, the snow and ice in the arctic regions which help reflect solar radiation year round is currently being 'toasted'.

[edit on 7-1-2010 by melatonin]

reply to post by melatonin


I think most people here understand the concept of averages & changing seasons.

The question is how many times do the predictions have to fail before we start questioning the mechanisms behind the predictions?

And yes I realize that climate is a complicated thing & hard to predict so "blips" are to be expected.

But when the "blips" start to outnumber the actual predictions, maybe people should stop and think for a bit?

Here is some entertaining video of one of these top experts on the hot seat.

news.bbc.co.uk...

John Hirst, head of the Met Office, defends the record of the weathermen after they predicted a mild winter. Andrew Neil asked him to justify his salary which is higher than the prime minister's.

Originally posted by MrVertigo
reply to post by melatonin

 

I think most people here understand the concept of averages & changing seasons.

The question is how many times do the predictions have to fail before we start questioning the mechanisms behind the predictions?

Why who predicted that weather would disappear?

And yes I realize that climate is a complicated thing & hard to predict so "blips" are to be expected.

But when the "blips" start to outnumber the actual predictions, maybe people should stop and think for a bit?

The blips aren't outnumbering anything. It's all blips, ups and downs all the way - just the downs aren't as bad on average. The only way is up! Baby. For you and me now!



[edit on 7-1-2010 by melatonin]

reply to post by whoshotJR


Yeah.... Don't believe what you see, believe what we tell you.


I'm mean really.... It gets hot in the summer and cold in the winter. Some winters are milder/colder than others and some summers fluctuate in the same way.

This whole thing with using the weather to make money is getting to be lame. The first record breaking hot day this summer will no doubt bring news on the MSM that we are going to all burn up from global warming but a cold winter means nothing..


When you go green I hope you realize that term is literal. You are putting greenbacks in the pockets of scamsters who have found a new niche that plays on the hearts and conscious of the people who want to do good.

If they are so concerned with the climate they would not be dishing out carbon credits like casino chips to line the pockets of the people who act like the environment is their main concern. If it was, NO amount of money would be acceptable for them to excuse pollution.

I once read somewhere that the average person in Sub-Saharan Africa is much poorer than the average person in Europe or the USA. I also read that poverty is a big problem in Sub-Saharan Africa.

However, I ran into a very wealthy person from South Africa the other day. Now I no this is all false. People in Sub-Sahara Africa are just as wealthy as Americans and Europeans. They do not have a poverty problem.

I have a problem with the whole AGW idea, i do believe the planet goes through natural stages of warming and cooling, and that the sun is the biggest player in it all. Though not a new idea, the idea that the sun and cosmic rays is the main cause in the earth's climate has been worked on by a Danish Physicist Henrik Svensmark this is part one, i believe there are 6 parts to it.


I think its always good to keep an open mind and use it while its open instead of being sucked in or on a band wagon, this to me along with other scientific explanations seems very feasible.

Originally posted by Digital_Reality
reply to post by whoshotJR

 

Yeah.... Don't believe what you see, believe what we tell you.


I'm mean really.... It gets hot in the summer and cold in the winter. Some winters are milder/colder than others and some summers fluctuate in the same way.

This whole thing with using the weather to make money is getting to be lame. The first record breaking hot day this summer will no doubt bring news on the MSM that we are going to all burn up from global warming but a cold winter means nothing..

When you go green I hope you realize that term is literal. You are putting greenbacks in the pockets of scamsters who have found a new niche that plays on the hearts and conscious of the people who want to do good.

If they are so concerned with the climate they would not be dishing out carbon credits like casino chips to line the pockets of the people who act like the environment is their main concern. If it was, NO amount of money would be acceptable for them to excuse pollution.

Going green isn't about any of that. It's about having responsibility of yourself to try and consume less and have less an impact on your surroundings. It's not a bad thing to want to not hurt the environment and that has nothing to do with carbon credits or cap and trade. Climate change/Global warming is a very real issue and like any issue, people will try and make money from it. That doesn't make the issue any less real.

Originally posted by butcherguy
Ice melting equals global warming. Ice forming equals global warming. So TPTB say that it's global warming, and that is that. We have no need to debate it any more, I guess.

[edit on 7-1-2010 by butcherguy]

If you look at the global cooling scare in the 70s, the effects of cooling detailed then are EXACTLY THE SAME as the scenarios plotted for warming.

They are trying to make facts fit the theory. They can't say they are wrong because they would have riots in the street if the truth was ever known.

The BBC are making a big deal that whilst it is cold in the North (duh - it's winter) it is warm above average in the South, and this proves it ias getting warmer.

Well, it is BELOW AVERAGE in the cold areas, so does that mean we are cooling?

Sheesh - above average warm plus below average cool = GLOBAL AVERAGE!

Just because it is above average warm does not prove warming. It's BS.

[edit on 7-1-2010 by mirageofdeceit]

reply to post by melatonin

What has been proposed is that average temperatures will increase in the long-term due to human activities. Which is what is readily observed.

What has been proposed is based upon flawed and skewed "models."

What is readily observed is that AGW is a hoax; dependent upon "homogenised" data and models that are hopelessly inept.

Not a single "model," taken back 100 or 1,000 years can "project " current climate observations.

Your faith rivals that of the second-coming faithful.

deny ignorance

jw