Parsad Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 Here in Vancouver, we are running on nearly 60+ straight hours of falling snow. My driveway has two massive piles of cleared snow from the driveway and sidewalk...four feet high each and about ten feet across! I was enjoying talking to our various partners on the East Coast over the last three months about how cold it is there and how much snow they have received. Not enjoying it now! I have not seen this much consistent snow, in such a short period of time in Vancouver, since I was a little boy in the 70's. Global Shwarming! Cheers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
argonaut Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 Your snow would be our rain here just south of you in Seattle...for the past few days :) sounds like a LOT of snow :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ItsAValueTrap Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 At least you didn't get freezing rain and power outages...! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
augustabound Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 I'm no environmentalist but with the bitter cold we've had in Southern Ontario, the global warming hypothesis has been brought up a few times. Those who support it claim that a sign of global warming is temperature fluctuation like we've seen this year. These may be the same people who believe in EMT though. ;D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fareastwarriors Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 It's 70s (~22C) here in middle of Winter. It's better weather than summer. SF Bay Area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest deepValue Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 Global Cooling Global Warming Climate Change And for Earth's next act, the climate will stay exactly the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeffmori7 Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 Don't confound weather and climate..but anyway.. As a skier, I'm pretty jealous, hope you will lear to enjoy the snow like I am trying to explain everyone, skiing, snowboarding, snowball fight, snowshoeing, whatever, have fun and act like kids in the snow, that's the spirit to enjoy winter! Like they were telling all over the place with the Olympics hockey tournament, we are winter! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snow pea Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 Reminds me of this: http://xkcd.com/1321/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GregS Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 We're having a pretty epic drought here in Northern California...my water utility's intake pipes in Folsom Lake will be sucking air in a month or two...but yeah, you are having winter weather in winter so must be no global warming. Got it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tradevestor Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 Like a brick wall, the mass of high pressure air has been blocking Pacific winter storms from coming ashore in California, deflecting them up into Alaska and British Columbia, even delivering rain and cold weather to the East Coast. http://www.mercurynews.com/portlet/article/html/imageDisplay.jsp?contentItemRelationshipId=5659674 http://www.mercurynews.com/science/ci_24904396/california-drought-whats-causing-it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liberty Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 Global warming can actually lead to more snow because there's more evaporation over oceans (snow = precipitation, not cold. As long as you're below freezing, more precipitation = more snow even if things are warmer than usual). Let's also not forget that global warming is GLOBAL, so looking at regional weather doesn't tell you much (ie. colder than usual over north-america this winter, but record heat in Alaska, russia, etc). Here's more global data: http://climatecrocks.com/2014/01/29/new-video-if-theres-global-warming-why-is-it-so-cold/ http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2013/12 http://qz.com/106814/if-youre-under-the-age-of-28-youve-never-experienced-a-month-of-below-average-global-temperature/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ERICOPOLY Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 OMG Becky! Like, for real, the weather forecast is for sub-60 degree weather this Friday! That hasn't happend in like, OMG, not yet this year! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BTShine Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 Is this the sign of a market peak? Everyone is happy with their investment gains, or there are not enough bargains for us to discuss, so we are debating global warming :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cer302 Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 Or we are just really old and have nothing else to talk about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest deepValue Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-the-myth-of-settled-science/2014/02/20/c1f8d994-9a75-11e3-b931-0204122c514b_story.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
APG12 Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 OMG Becky! Like, for real, the weather forecast is for sub-60 degree weather this Friday! That hasn't happend in like, OMG, not yet this year! You must be, one of those weatherman's girlfriends. I mean. The temperature. It's just so COLD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikenhe Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 I'm not happy about this cold spell... I've had to wear a fleece twice already this year while sitting on my patio overlooking the lake. not fun.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yadayada Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 there is no debate about earth warming up (resulting in more extreme climate) but wether humans are actually causing it. Allthough it seems that all the guys who seem to know what they are talking about are on the side of humans being the cause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orange Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 97% of recent peer reviewed papers conclude it is man made, according to the last major survey. There is little to no real debate amongst scientists as to whether it is man made, just the extent of our problems. But who cares about the scientific process, I get all my climate science from the only respectable source, Charles Krauthammer. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/may/16/climate-change-scienceofclimatechange Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest deepValue Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 97% of recent peer reviewed papers conclude it is man made, according to the last major survey. There is little to no real debate amongst scientists as to whether it is man made, just the extent of our problems. But who cares about the scientific process, I get all my climate science from the only respectable source, Charles Krauthammer. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/may/16/climate-change-scienceofclimatechange LOL. I wonder if you actually read the article. Krauthammer doesn't argue whether or not it is man-made or to what extent it is man-made. He just says it's silly to say we really understand what is going on, beyond a shadow of a doubt, given the quirks that have thrown climate scientists for a loop (e.g., the pause in global warming). That doesn't mean we should not limit carbon emissions, it just means it's silly to say we know what's going on when we really don't. It's sort of like economists trying to figure out what the economy is going to do or what effect a certain policy will have on the broader economy; there are just too many variables to really say with any certainty. I wonder how many of the scientists who wrote those 12,000 papers rely on government funding for their research. I wonder how many of those journals turn their nose up at different viewpoints, thus opposing views go unpublished. I wonder how many of those papers that find man responsible for global warming conclude that beyond a shadow of a doubt. In fact, many scientists who believe man is responsible are not anywhere close to 97% confident, so that's a pretty misleading statistic. I think we should apply a little Charlie Munger to the climate change debate: Can man-made climate change ever be proven wrong? The climate has always changed and will always change. That doesn't mean man is not ruining the planet, it just means scientists haven't come up with a legitimate (i.e., testable) hypothesis (at least not testable in a reasonable time frame, like fewer than 100 years). Krauthammer argues not for an abandonment of climate science, but for the 'science' to be put back in climate science. I find it difficult to argue against that plea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
APG12 Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 But who cares about the scientific process, I get all my climate science from the only respectable source, Charles Krauthammer. I'm always confused by environmentalist's self-righteousness regarding the scientific process. I mean, there is a MASSIVE contradiction here. The elephant in the room is that never before in the history of the world has the human environment been so conducive to human life. Oil has been, quite possibly, the most beneficial resource we've ever figured out how to harness. Cheap plentiful energy, the amazing life-enhancing capabilities of plastic, etc. If enviros were truly concerned with human life, wouldn't they be the foremost champions of bringing fossil fuels to the poor? Fossil fuels have already lifted billions of people out of poverty. Billions. Does it not strike anyone as at least a little bizarre that they are trying to destroy these things? In my experience people are too innocent and unfamiliar with philosophy to understand what's going on. Why do environmentalists predict doomsday scenarios decade after decade? The answer is because they have an ideology to further. Or in other words, their predictions are not honest attempts at understanding truth. They are not concerned with what is but rather with the well being of the natural environment- humans be damned. If there were a group of zealots who kept coming up with new ways to prove that a flying pink elephant was about to destroy the world, would anyone pay attention? When they invented a new proof would we need to disprove it before we can go on living our lives? Of course not! These are not attempts at cognition and therefore not worthy of consideration. The same is true of every enviro doomsday scenario. The scientific process is a process of reason and rational thought. Let's apply this same process to our understanding of environmentalism as an ideology. It's wildly irrational, dangerous, and in my opinion quite evil. These guys are the only ones I know of who are defending what's right: http://industrialprogress.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liberty Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 deepValue, you're saying the equivalent of "astrophysics and cosmology isn't science! Can you prove wrong or run a control group on a star or a galaxy! I think not!" Fact is, there's a group of gasses that we know trap infrared radiation, we've seen their effects in experiments and on other planets (venus, mars). The earth's atmosphere is incredibly thin on the scale of our planet and we've been burning billions of tons of carbon that were buried in the planet's crust for decades. It doesn't take a genius to realize that this massive chemical experiment will have an impact. Well, we've been documenting that impact in dozens of ways for a long time. The whole argument of "how much of that science is funded by government?" is ridiculous; who's going to do that research if not NASA and NOAA and universities? Scientists funded by Exxon? Volunteer PHDs who will self-finance satellites and core drilling in the arctic? Are you also not relying on any of the other government-funded science? Because that's a lot that I bet you rely on every day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liberty Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 I'm always confused by environmentalist's self-righteousness regarding the scientific process. I mean, there is a MASSIVE contradiction here. The elephant in the room is that never before in the history of the world has the human environment been so conducive to human life. Do you prefer to breathe air in the post Clean Air Act US or the air in Beijing right now? Do you prefer to live somewhere where lead has been banned in gasoline, or somewhere where it hasn't? Dumping waste in rivers and the ocean, you are for or against it? How about letting fisheries self-manage, people can catch everything they want out of the ocean, from the smallest shrimp to the biggest whale, and we'll see what happens? Some environmentalists are cult-like and anti-science, but others aren't, just like in all large groups there are rational people and irrational ones. What's new? But those who oppose the current crop of rational environmentalists (a lot of them the very scientists who know most about things like our planet's climate) will one day look like those who opposed the ban on lead in gasoline or anti-smog measures.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest deepValue Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 The whole argument of "how much of that science is funded by government?" is ridiculous; who's going to do that research if not NASA and NOAA and universities? Scientists funded by Exxon? Volunteer PHDs who will self-finance satellites and core drilling in the arctic? That other funding sources are hard to come by is irrelevant to my point. Government funding favors climate alarmists (b/c skeptics are obviously ideological nutcases), so you end up with a bunch of climate alarmists getting funding and the others finding new careers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liberty Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 That other funding sources are hard to come by is irrelevant to my point. Government funding favors climate alarmists (b/c skeptics are obviously ideological nutcases), so you end up with a bunch of climate alarmists getting funding and the others finding new careers. You know this how? Science is not what you think it is. If someone could come up with really solid research based on sound methodology that disproved any of the current consensus, they'd probably win a nobel prize. Some of the big businesses making money on fossil fuels would definitely fund that research. But so far, all they finance doesn't hold up to scrutiny, because the facts aren't in their favor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now