Reply With Quote
the alarmist will argue that there's a chance it continues snowing for the next 365 days.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6156862.html
Falling snowflakes glimmered in streetlights, so wide that they billowed to the ground like parachutes, and so tantalizing that even awestruck adults reached out their hands or stuck out their tongues to catch one.
By Wednesday evening, the flakes were big enough to hold their shape for a moment on the street before melting into the pavement, and a dusting had collected on parked cars in some parts of town.
The flurries tied a record for Houston's earliest snowfall ever and warmed the hearts of winter weather lovers who have pined for snow since it last made an appearance on Christmas Eve 2004.
"I've got a pot roast in the Crock-Pot, and I'm going to go home, change into my warmest pajamas and eat pot roast and enjoy what may be the only real winter day we have all year," said Tina Arnold, an Illinois native who took advantage of the wintry backdrop to pick up Christmas presents Wednesday at The Woodlands Mall.
Since 1895, records indicate, snow has fallen this early just once — on Dec. 10, 1944.
the alarmist will argue that there's a chance it continues snowing for the next 365 days.
Everytime I come a across a person who refuses to believe in global warming because of winter/cold weather, I silently call them an idiot, before going about the rest of my day.
If you don't even know what the Global Warming is, it's probably best you not try to discredit it, based on a singular snow storm.
Right, it's not like the global warming nazis pointed to Katrina as proof of global warming. Point taken.
lol at this guy calling others idiot when he in fact is the idiot being controlled by his lovely big government.
From Newsweek, 1975
There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production – with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas – parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia – where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.
The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to ac ulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree – a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars’ worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.
To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. “A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.”
A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitc of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.
To the layman, the relatively small changes in temperature and sunshine can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin points out that the Earth’s average temperature during the great Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest eras – and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age average. Others regard the cooling as a reversion to the “little ice age” conditions that brought bitter winters to much of Europe and northern America between 1600 and 1900 – years when the Thames used to freeze so solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and when iceboats sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New York City.
Just what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery. “Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at least as fragmentary as our data,” concedes the National Academy of Sciences report. “Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions.”
Meteorologists think that they can forecast the short-term results of the return to the norm of the last century. They begin by noting the slight drop in overall temperature that produces large numbers of pressure centers in the upper atmosphere. These break up the smooth flow of westerly winds over temperate areas. The stagnant air produced in this way causes an increase in extremes of local weather such as droughts, floods, extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons and even local temperature increases – all of which have a direct impact on food supplies.
“The world’s food-producing system,” warns Dr. James D. McQuigg of NOAA’s Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, “is much more sensitive to the weather variable than it was even five years ago.” Furthermore, the growth of world population and creation of new national boundaries make it impossible for starving peoples to migrate from their devastated fields, as they did during past famines.
Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice capby covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.
So, they were wrong then, but I should believe them now?
it should be called Regional Warming. i think i'd be happy if they switched it to that.
oh, and "global" warming hit southern louisiana as well.
let me guess
balijuana=
i think i'll be able to go about with the rest of my day knowing labia-wanga is laughing at me.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=111846
Global Warming = Worst Scientific Scandal in History
Wouldn't Global Warming eventually lead to cooler temperatures because of the warmer temperatures? If so it is working, because it's pretty damn cold here and it's getting pretty hot as well during the summers.
Kind of ruins the apocolyptic predictions of 20 feet of water in New York, etc...
The Church of Global Warming is clueless and, now, their ignorance is being exposed.
I was just thinking that for Global Warming theorists their alarm should be much COLDER temperatures rather than Warmer temperatures, because I think the main fear is another ice age or something due to Global warming. I'm not sure since I don't really care about Global warming because if it exists it's drastic effects will not affect me in my lifetime so I don't bother to research about it. But IMO eventually there will be anotehr ice age sooner or later and I considered this before i ever heard of globabl warming because it happend before so it cna happen again.
Global warming only exist during Republican Presidencies, much like homelessness.
This thread and posts were more predictable than AHF going off on Pop after a loss. And thats pretty ing preditctable.
are you a global warming alarmist? not a challenge, just curious to know.
Not by a long shot. I'll be honest and say that I simply don't know. I'm looking forward to having access to a top notch meteorological department in a year or so because I feel I'll be able to get real knowledge and data on the subject first hand.
I'm not a fan of the IPCC and I've said so in the past, but that doesn't change that we are doing lots of harmful things to our planet. CO2 is killing the oceans, which in its own right may be just as bad as any climate change. I've also said in the past climate change may have many positive aspects.
Now, all of that being said, threads like this just make the OP look incredibly stupid. Singular weather events mean nothing in terms of climate. Its the equivlant of taking a Harold Minor dunk contest win and using that as justification of him being the best player of all time.
(1) Is the earth warming?
(2) If so, is that a bad thing?
(3) To what extent is human activity causing that warming?
(4) What can be done to actually solve the problem?
Which questions have been answered?
funny how 30,000 scientists are suing Al Gore for fraud
Well, Monday could have been one for the Global Warmers in Houston. I went off to work in short sleeves and flip flops. Then 48 hours later we get snow. I don't know if global warming is real and if we humans are the cause, but I do know that Mother Nature is acting like one crazy on the rag this week.
What does that even mean?
Do you still buy the anthropogenic global warming crap? Seriously?
I don't think the people here discredit it for that reason. There are plenty of other supporting factors.
Myself, I see it as one more sign that supports global warming fears as dogma.
I like this part:
They knew then the effects of black soot on ice, but the Alarmists never speak of it's impact.They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve.
Agreed. Especially when the news will blow everything out of proportion to sell their product.
Of the 4 years I lived in Houston, it snowed in December in 2 of those years- and that was almost 20 years ago.
Here are my opinions which are based on far more than the average citizen knows:
Possibly. It definitely has been over the long term, since the 1700's. I would say yes, except it there is strong evidence we have entered a cooling phase again starting about two to four years ago.
Only if it's excessive. I will not pretend to know how much is too much. Considerations are several. Ocean acification is probably the biggest concern, but warming actually has a real small effect on it.
Nobody really knows. If you use the 0.7 C figure, I would say that our effect is about 0.3 C, and no more than 0.4 C. Most people would disagree. I would say about 0.04 C to 0.12 C from added CO2 and about 0.1 C to 0.3 C from black carbon on ice and snow. My less accurate educated guess would narrow that to about 0.07 C for CO2 and about 0.25 C for the soot, leaving about 0.35 for solar. I am very convinced that the sun accounts for at least 0.3 C of the warming and probably about 0.4 C since the 1700’s.
I believe the most effective solution is to convince Asia that they need to update their coal burning power plants to clean burning facilities like most of ours are in the USA. The winds carry their soot over the northern ice, melting the ice and warming the water.
To my knowledge, none of them with any level of certainty. Even my numbers are my best guess, and I could be wrong.
Here's an interesting related article:
Houston ties earliest snowfall record
Todays page; Watts Up With That?; has this the first article and a great deal of interesting things below.
California is about to go bankrupt and their about to waste hundreds of millions of dollars fighting a non-issue. But I'm the stupid one?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
