Where the ... is that global [climate change] warming?

[Tzupy]

After spending two hours with a shovel around my house, after 50 cm of snow fell overnight, my arms hurt and I so wanted to share with SPCR forum members the title of this thread.
Last year's winter was mild and gave weight to the global warming theory (OK I agree it's not a theory, it's happening) but this winter seems to me quite a normal one if not colder.
I read on CNN that snow also fell in (usually warm) Florida: http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/weather/01/0 ... index.html
I wonder how other SPCR forum members are affected by this winter's snowfall. If you are interested by a scientific approach to snow, here is a link: http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/pri ... F58A6D93A1
BTW, my heating system is pumping CO2 into the atmosphere, but it doesn't seem to get any warmer yet.

[seraphyn]

It's been a steady cold over here this winter, at least so far, while last year the temperatures went up and down like a rollercoaster.
Not so much snow though

[lm]

Global warming does not have to mean that every day it's warmer in every place. Some places might become permanently colder.

Here in the south coast of Finland, no snow at all, even though we usually have lots.

[Bluefront]

Here's the deal......according to the pundits (people in the know). "Global warming" is supposed to cause global temperature extremes. So if we had 20 years of colder temperatures, and all the icy places froze over again, the pundits could still blame "global warming". Doesn't make any sense, but that's what they want you to believe.

[floffe]

One or two years do not a (climatic) trend make.

[djkest]

I could use some global warming right about now. It's been freezing lately.

I really get a kick out of global warming conferences and conventions that get cancelled due to blizzards.

Oh, I read an interesting article about how if global warming continues as they think, certain parts of Canada and Russia will become much more habitable. Good for those people!

[nutball]

Here's the deal......according to the pundits (people in the know).

pundits != people in the know, especially if they're media pundits.

IPCC = Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change. Inter-Governmental Panel on Global Warming would be IPGW. Which it isn't.

[NeilBlanchard]

Hello,

The more appropriate term is "global climate change" -- which is more apt, really. Some places will get less rain, and others will get more. Some places will get warmer over time, and others will get cooler. And, it is the range of the average temperatures. The ice caps, permafrost, and glaciers are melting faster than they were.

[adam_mccullough]

The more appropriate term is "global climate change"

I reckon all these terms are very unfortunate. I'd much prefer something that described what the science indicates: perhaps "anthropogenic climate destabilisation"?

Sigh...

[derekva]

Read this paper for information on how global warming could cause certain areas to get colder. It's counterintuitive, but makes sense when you think about it...

-D

[LinuxSam]

Hello,
The ice caps, permafrost, and glaciers are melting faster than they were.

I think you mean "some" are melting faster than others. But according to here, http://www.iceagenow.com/Growing_Glaciers.htm
That shouldn't make much difference if more ice is forming right behind them.

Also, the earth regularily goes through temperature cycles, so nothing is "out-of-the-ordinary".

[laserred]

And another thing that nobody seems to mention, or realize, is that the Earth's magnetic poles are moving, along with a slight tilt, which means that the North Pole ain't "at the top" like it has been in the past, or in the future. This means that different areas will have different weather and be exposed to different levels of sunlight and darkness than we humans are used to, but it's likely business as usual for the planet. To take a 100-year, or even 1000-year window and go "Eureka! It's getting hot because of humans!" in the 4 billion year history of the planet is a little alarmist any way you cut it. Past ice ages and warm ages have had much bigger temperature swings in smaller amounts of time. But, they can't keep packing people into church and killing other people in the name of God if you're not fearful enough to believe the propaganda. Sorry, I told myself I'd not make these posts in 2008.... Oh yeah, and really, who IS an expert on this? Nobody, because nobody has been around through one of the ice ages or warm ages and figured out how to keep it that way, so to think that if we've started this big invisible DOOM ball rolling, that we can stop it now is beyond foolish... Peace!

[aristide1]

....I really get a kick out of global warming conferences and conventions that get cancelled due to blizzards.....

When I was senior in high school we had a very snowy winter. There were so many Friday announcements that the ski club trip was cancelled because of snow. It was a 2 month long running joke. Like Pavlovs dogs we got to the point we were expecting the announcement, around 2:00 p.m.

[aristide1]

Hello,
The ice caps, permafrost, and glaciers are melting faster than they were.

I think you mean "some" are melting faster than others. But according to here, http://www.iceagenow.com/Growing_Glaciers.htm
That shouldn't make much difference if more ice is forming right behind them.

Also, the earth regularily goes through temperature cycles, so nothing is "out-of-the-ordinary".

The problem should not be addressed the way it's being addressed. It should only address and concern itself with any man made impact. That should be defined as any additional impact beyond what occurs naturally. The argument that 90% of CO2 is natural and therefore the last 10% should be of no concern is ridiculous, it's what impact that extra 10% does passed what's already happening that should be addressed. Some scientists refuse to believe man can affect climate, despite such facts as China keeps on putting up 2 coal fired power plants every week. Scientists are suppose to be skeptical, subjective, detached, but some are clearly the exact opposite of Chicken Little alarmists; they won't give an inch until half of Florida is below sea level. And Bush is finding and hiring all of them, because his corporate backers demand it.

It's amazing how corporate logic hasn't learned a thing from the disasters its already created, like the Exxon Valdez and all their other "spills". An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. And it's these guys that make national energy policy in the US. The people have zero input. Which is why you now see states suing the EPA.

[aristide1]

I reckon all these terms are very unfortunate. I'd much prefer something that described what the science indicates: perhaps "anthropogenic climate destabilisation"?

Sigh...

And you honestly expect the leader of the free world to be able to pronounce that? He can't even pronouce nuclear.

[laserred]

That should be defined as any additional impact beyond what occurs naturally. The argument that 90% of CO2 is natural and therefore the last 10% should be of no concern is ridiculous.

I clipped at will to highlight a couple things. How, exactly, do you propose to distinguish the line between the 90% and the 10%? You can't. You also can't definitively say that "greenhouse gases" actually ARE the cause of any of this warming. Do I believe humans (in the name of corporate greed) are utterly and completely ruining this planet? I do. But again, look at it this way: every thing that has ever been created was already on this planet, and it's been here for billions of years. Even "nu-kyu-ler" stuff, man simply changed the mixture for most of it. My point is, oil has been here forever, and always will. Uranium has been here forever, and always will. Carbon monoxide has been here forever, and always will. Man is just a booger on the kleenex of time.

They won't give an inch until half of Florida is below sea level.

Actually, when Florida goes underwater FEMA is there the next day. When poor, black people are underwater, then they don't give a crap until bodies start drifting into the yards of the rich white folk.

It's amazing how corporate logic hasn't learned a thing from the disasters.

And therein lies the rub: Corporate logic doesn't care about disasters. Corporate logic cares about one thing and one thing only: filling its shareholders' pockets with money however it can get away with it. If innocent people are killed, maimed, or otherwise F#ked, as long as people don't find out, it's ok.

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

And now you're using George Bush logic. This is exactly why we're buggered like we are in Iraq and Afghanistan. He tried to take a pound of cure and make them snort it all at once. Bad things happen from overdosing. This ain't a knock, but don't just accept what the mainstream media feeds you. You started by asking questions here, so that's good. To quote the X-Files, everybody's favorite conspiracy, "The Truth is out there." Keep an open mind, and you'll be ok

[aristide1]

That should be defined as any additional impact beyond what occurs naturally. The argument that 90% of CO2 is natural and therefore the last 10% should be of no concern is ridiculous.

I clipped at will to highlight a couple things. How, exactly, do you propose to distinguish the line between the 90% and the 10%? You can't. You also can't definitively say that "greenhouse gases" actually ARE the cause of any of this warming. Do I believe humans (in the name of corporate greed) are utterly and completely ruining this planet? I do. But again, look at it this way: every thing that has ever been created was already on this planet, and it's been here for billions of years. Even "nu-kyu-ler" stuff, man simply changed the mixture for most of it. My point is, oil has been here forever, and always will. Uranium has been here forever, and always will. Carbon monoxide has been here forever, and always will.

I don't like it but I agree.

Man is just a booger on the kleenex of time.

You don't expect to gain favor with the religious sector I hope. That and I hope we stand out a little, like the green ones.

Do we have to pinpoint everything? For example, there's no possible way to pinpoint which cigarette will give person A cancer, which pound of fat is the most detrimental, which illegal pill of oxycontin made Limbaugh an addict and a hypocrite, but overall anyone can still see it happen. What's important is to not wait for pinpoint info (it's cigarette #362,138!) which won't occur, it's to behave like we add to the problem, we can identify the worst offenders without knowing the exact quantity of the total damage, prioritize and work on it.

They won't give an inch until half of Florida is below sea level.

Actually, when Florida goes underwater FEMA is there the next day. When poor, black people are underwater, then they don't give a crap until bodies start drifting into the yards of the rich white folk.

Well I was referring to the enviroment issue in general. "You're doing a helluva job Brownie" all goes back to the state of denial that there's a problem at all. My point was it will be underwater before they act, the iffy nature of what they do after the damage was beyond my original scope, though oddly enough a lot of those FL people didn't get to vote in 2000, did they?

It's amazing how corporate logic hasn't learned a thing from the disasters.

And therein lies the rub: Corporate logic doesn't care about disasters. Corporate logic cares about one thing and one thing only: filling its shareholders' pockets with money however it can get away with it. If innocent people are killed, maimed, or otherwise F#ked, as long as people don't find out, it's ok.

Well you hit the nail on the head, it was clearly the republicans that taught us it's about getting caught, and even then not for the R's. Some people noticed that individuals that left this administration and went, or should have, gone to jail. Nobody kept track of the ones who stepped out of jail at the end of their sentence and went to work for this administration. Ex-cons, paroled or not, have no business in government. They do enough damage writing books and lecturing to future business grads. Changes are good W would have pardoned his good buddy Ken Lay (he didn't do anything wrong), so at least he died before becoming yet another bad example of Washington logic and priorities.

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

And now you're using George Bush logic. This is exactly why we're buggered like we are in Iraq and Afghanistan. He tried to take a pound of cure and make them snort it all at once. Bad things happen from overdosing. This ain't a knock, but don't just accept what the mainstream media feeds you. You started by asking questions here, so that's good. To quote the X-Files, everybody's favorite conspiracy, "The Truth is out there." Keep an open mind, and you'll be ok

Not at all, and I will answer this without:
1. Dumb pictures.
2. Articles from tabloids.
3. Conspiracy theories of opponents that can be disproven, hence they are true.
4. Other childish attempts at distraction from the issue.

The phrase "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" has been along way before W earned his triumphant C average. I used it to say/mean that a double hulled ship (and a breathalyzer) would have prevented an oil spill that has left fishermen without a job for life. I don't use the phrase to make the company the real leader of this country works for (Cheney/Halliburton) more profitable, and I don't hide policy behind the all encompassing cloak of "national security." I say it the old fashioned way, when it actually meant something, before being trivialized by the Great Crusader.

I also have a low threshold for capitalizing words.

Iraq has always been:
1. A personal vendetta.
2. A way to impact Middle East oil to our benefit, or at least that was the intent.
3. Turnover of military stock and testing of new weapons. Make Halliburton rich without question via no-bid war time contracts where it would seem unpatriotic to even ask why huge skids of cash, untraceable cash, have been shipped to the Middle East no questions asked. Even now.
4. A more strategically located new military base. I mean you don't really believe we're ever totally going to get the hell out of there.

Edited for syntax.

[Bluefront]

Funny....thought this was a thread about cold temperatures in Romania?

[Rusty075]

...drags the thread back onto topic...

I wonder how other SPCR forum members are affected by this winter's snowfall.

I don't know what you're talking about. It was sunny and 71 here today.

[jaganath]

Global warming does not have to mean that every day it's warmer in every place. Some places might become permanently colder.

That's why it's called global warming, not "today it will be warmer in the 100 square feet in your back yard" warming. also, global warming is not going to end the seasons, which are almost entirely due to the inclination of the earth with respect to the Sun.

ps. whoever said the movement of the magnetic poles will affect the weather, it won't. nor the amount of light incident on the earth's surface.

[Tzupy]

I didn't mean to start a new thread on global warming, there has already been plenty of discussion on this topic in this section.
I was just trying to be fun, and to complain to someone about the snowfall. But yesterday I was tired, so I guess my humor wasn't good enough.

I also was curious about the snowfall in other countries, especially in Europe. FYI the S and E of Romania and N and E of Bulgaria have been affected by this snowfall.
So far I found out that there's been little snow in the Netherlands and no snow in S of Finland. And lucky Rusty enjoys a sunny weather!

I know that due to the global warming there may be significant cooling in parts of the world. But there is no reason for Romania to become colder.
If the North Atlantic Current slows down, Northern Europe could get colder: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Atlantic_current

[mexell]

Two things to keep in mind:

1. Climate != Weather
2. Don't make jokes about climate change here. No one will laugh. Ok, I will. But only if the joke is a bit better. But please don't tell the others here that I will.

[mexell]

About the "where to differenciate 90 and 10 percent"-thing:

You always have to keep in mind that we are talking about complex systems here, which tend to be in an equilibrium state, which means that they are oscillating around a point of (mostly semi-)stability. But you don't know (you can only estimate with advanced mathematical methods) how stable this state of equilibrium is. Imagine a ball running in a pot. It will stay inside most of the time, but if you shake too hard the ball will leave the pot. If the pot's walls are higher, you have to shake harder.
(I once e seminar covering stability of nonlinear systems, and this was exactly the introducing example. Afterwards ugly mathematics followed.)

We are influencing this equilibrium with what we are doing. The question is how hard we are shaking, and how high the pot walls are. But this is in fact cutting-edge science, and unfortunately I'm no more in that business.

I hope this wasn't too abstract...

[jhhoffma]

And you honestly expect the leader of the free world to be able to pronounce that? He can't even pronouce nuclear.

Neither could Jimmy Carter...and he was a physicist.

[derekva]

My point is, oil has been here forever, and always will. Uranium has been here forever, and always will. Carbon monoxide has been here forever, and always will. Man is just a booger on the kleenex of time.

Actually, oil won't be here forever. It is a finite resource created by the decay of organic matter over millions of years combined with heat and pressure. No organic matter, no oil. And given how quickly we have been burning through oil over the last 100+ years, I don't expect there will be much left in the next 100.

[derekva]

And you honestly expect the leader of the free world to be able to pronounce that? He can't even pronouce nuclear.

Neither could Jimmy Carter...and he was a physicist.

Yeah, but he was a Southerner - they get special dispensation, don't they?

[Forumlurker]

In Luleå Sweden, we got some snow but it melted away and now there are barely snow to cover the ground. That is unusual, dont think that ever happened as long I have lived(30years). The temperature have been about 6 degrees Celsius (10.8 Fahrenheit) over normal in December month. And almost 2(3.6 Fahrenheit) degrees Celsius over normal for the hole year.

[floffe]

Further south in Sweden (Linköping, to be specific), we have a few centimeters of snow, which doesn't particularly differ from normal this time of the year. Some years there can be 30 cm, others are still clear well into January. We had quite a bit of snow (10cm!) in November though, which was a bit earlier than we usually see that much, but it melted was all gone after a week or so.

[aristide1]

...drags the thread back onto topic...

Whatever it takes to divert attention from 'pub' crooks.

[aristide1]

Funny....thought this was a thread about cold temperatures in Romania?

Whereas I addressed the issue brought about by the post just prior to mine, this reponse tends to me more like #4.

Not at all, and I will answer this without:
1. Dumb pictures.
2. Articles from tabloids.
3. Conspiracy theories of opponents that can be disproven, hence they are true.
4. Other childish attempts at distraction from the issue.

Could find a single fact to address? That's says more than I ever could.