Which is it

[woodchip]

In this link we have the exalted Sen Byrd, Barb Boxer exclaiming how the lack of snow way back when as a sure sign of global warming:



Now we have Algore sayin:

\"As it turns out, the scientific community has been addressing this particular question for some time now and they say that increased heavy snowfalls are completely consistent with what they have been predicting as a consequence of man-made global warming\"

http://blog.algore.com/2011/02/an_answer_for_bill.html

So gloom and doomers, is it less or is it more snow a sign that the earth is turning into a fry pan?

[Spidey]

Yea, more or less.

[Tunnelcat]

Climate change really means more severe and extreme weather events, in either direction, hot and cold. It's not about the planet just warming up and getting hotter and drier. What we may be seeing now is a warmer atmosphere that can hold more moisture, more moisture means more rain AND snow events and bigger storms. Warmer oceans also change the way the jet stream flows too, creating bigger meanders in that river of air that like lock in place over the continents for longer periods of time. Warmer oceans also evaporate water quicker too, adding moisture to an already warm and moisture excepting atmosphere.

So what we're getting is bigger storms that like to follow a more fixed jet stream. The east is getting nailed while the west is basking in sunny weather. Australia is getting hit with a rare category 5 typhoon.

However, no single season will tell us what's really going on. Climate changes are slow long term events and may or may not be a result of human actions. What WILL matter is if these changes stick around for decades or more, indicating a more permanent trend. Of course by then, we'll be unable to reverse the trend quickly enough to save our skins because people politicized the problem and argued over it, instead of trying to analyze the problem logically and think things through.

[Avder]

I have no idea whats really going on besides the fact that something *is* going on.

Ive heard all kinds of possible consequences for global warming, from the polar ice caps melting and sinking Los Angeles into the oceans, to the increased heat somehow killing off ocean currents and leading to new Ice Age.

The only thing that I can say is that winter has been rapidly getting worse and worse where I am. The last couple of years here in Fargo have been marked by extreme amounts of snow and extended episodes of bitter, bitter cold, much more so than is usually the case during our winters. For the last several years, the snow drifts that pile up on the side of our streets have ended up easily high enough to make any intersection thats controlled by stop or yeild signs dangerous because you simply cant see around them without pulling the front end of whatever you are driving into traffic. This usually happens by mid-late january. This year, they were that high in mid december, and they just keep getting higher!

Back in 2009 Fargo was almost wiped off the map by a monster 500-year flooding of the Red River that caused significant portions of both Fargo and neighboring Moorhead, MN to be evacuated. This year they're already saying there is around a 20 percent chance of this years flood being WORSE than 2009. At the very least its pretty much a given that the water level of the Red River will be within a few feet of the record levels set in 2009. Its early february and both cities are already gearing up for a potentially very big flood fight.

So yeah, I have no idea which theory about global warming is correct, I just know something is happening the last couple of years, because while winter is murder around where I live, it is usually not this friggin bad, and certainly not several years in a row.

[Top Gun]

Climate change really means more severe and extreme weather events, in either direction, hot and cold. It's not about the planet just warming up and getting hotter and drier. What we may be seeing now is a warmer atmosphere that can hold more moisture, more moisture means more rain AND snow events and bigger storms. Warmer oceans also change the way the jet stream flows too, creating bigger meanders in that river of air that like lock in place over the continents for longer periods of time. Warmer oceans also evaporate water quicker too, adding moisture to an already warm and moisture excepting atmosphere.

So what we're getting is bigger storms that like to follow a more fixed jet stream. The east is getting nailed while the west is basking in sunny weather. Australia is getting hit with a rare category 5 typhoon.

However, no single season will tell us what's really going on. Climate changes are slow long term events and may or may not be a result of human actions. What WILL matter is if these changes stick around for decades or more, indicating a more permanent trend. Of course by then, we'll be unable to reverse the trend quickly enough to save our skins because people politicized the problem and argued over it, instead of trying to analyze the problem logically and think things through.

All of this. Seriously, woodchip, those questions are pretty damn easy to answer, and I suggest you seek them from people who actually do this for a living instead of fossilized Congressmen who have no background in the field whatsoever. Thinking about the difference between "average global temperature" and "localized weather patterns" might be a good start too.

[woodchip]

Well Top Gun, those old fossils are the ones trying to implement laws that will hit us all in the pocket book. I for one do not want laws made on junk science voiced by senile politicians trying to line their pockets with taxpayer gold. Do you?

[Top Gun]

Well Top Gun, those old fossils are the ones trying to implement laws that will hit us all in the pocket book. I for one do not want laws made on junk science voiced by senile politicians trying to line their pockets with taxpayer gold. Do you?

No, but I do want laws founded on sound science that make basic sense. And regardless of the specifics of how global warming will play out, slicing down our dependence on fossil fuels and promoting green technology makes a hell of a lot of sense no matter how you slice it.

[Foil]

I wouldn't trust Boxer or Gore as far as I could throw them.

But that said, the data is abundantly clear; there is indeed a warming trend, and there is some evidence that known weather patterns appear to be changing.

[woodchip]

No, but I do want laws founded on sound science that make basic sense. And regardless of the specifics of how global warming will play out, slicing down our dependence on fossil fuels and promoting green technology makes a hell of a lot of sense no matter how you slice it.

Promoting or requiring? Green tech is fine as long as it can compete with existing tech without taxpayers having to foot the bill to "promote" it or penalize the existing tech to make green tech competitive.

[woodchip]

I wouldn't trust Boxer or Gore as far as I could throw them.

But that said, the data is abundantly clear; there is indeed a warming trend, and there is some evidence that known weather patterns appear to be changing.

Change has been occurring up and down temp. wise for millennium long before man had any impact. Now is no different. The East Anglia scandal shows the extremes to which the warmers will go to make the world believe the climate change is man made. The question I have, how would global cooling affect what we are seeing? If the warmers can say global warming is causing both less and more snow fall, that the extreme cold we've been seeing in the states is due to warming...what would we see with global cooling? Less or more snow? Variations in world temp. extremes?

[fliptw]

Then again, there hasn't been a constant human population of 7 billion and its attendant livestock..

[woodchip]

Then again, there hasn't been a constant human population of 7 billion and its attendant livestock..

But then 10k years ago there was next to no human population nor their livestock and yet had a greater warming period in a very short time span.

[Sergeant Thorne]

The question I have, how would global cooling affect what we are seeing? If the warmers can say global warming is causing both less and more snow fall, that the extreme cold we've been seeing in the states is due to warming...what would we see with global cooling? Less or more snow? Variations in world temp. extremes?

It's a good question.

My primary question for anyone who claims to really understand climate science from a global warming point of view (internet experts need not apply) is, why is your so-called global warming resulting in cooling, and what in this supposed line of events is going to lead to the actual warming? I wasn't born yesterday. They didn't call it "global warming" in the knowledge that their pet phenomena was going to result in cooler cold-seasons. And that leads me to believe that the story is just being changed.

[Will Robinson]

Short answer from my amateur position is it is possible that it they are correct both ways. Ocean currents change due to global warming causing the regular weather patterns that drive temp change to shift bringing both cold and heat to new extremes in areas they didn't before...

The area I'm concerned with is how much of the change is really anthropogenic and how much was from Mother Nature's natural fluctuation. When you follow the money you see why algore and the U.N. want us to believe it is all on us.

[Grendel]

Where do you see cooling ?? They called it warming because the data shows it. AFAIK there's no scientist denying warming, only different opinions about its cause. Might want to read up on some basics before asking funny questions.

A better question would be: Should we do something about it or wait and see ?

[Foil]

Exactly. Who said there was cooling happening?

1. Increased snowfall does not necessarily imply cooling.
2. Despite this recent cold snap, we're still above normal so far this year.

[Pandora]

oh dear, winning by quote mining again. might bring you satisfaction but others are facepalming.

For example, Boxer is talking about snowpack reduction in the Sierra Nevada, for which scientists made specific predictions. The radical cutting of the video hides this. Here's the relevant link:
http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/video/watershort.html

Al Gore is talking about a general physical phenomenon. Again, this part of his quote is cut, which would have provided the physical explanation. Here it is: \"Warmer air collects moisture like a sponge until it hits a patch of cold air. When temperatures dip below freezing, a lot of moisture creates a lot of snow. \"
http://blog.algore.com/

both are entirely consistent with each other if you accept that warming will have different consequences on different parts of the globe, depending on the local temperature, sun and moisture conditions. But go on acting all surprised when science/nature does not behave as simplistic as you would want it to.

[Nightshade]

Omg, it's so warm I'm freezing.

[Top Gun]

Promoting or requiring? Green tech is fine as long as it can compete with existing tech without taxpayers having to foot the bill to "promote" it or penalize the existing tech to make green tech competitive.

If said technology entails substantial societal benefits, then I think "requiring" is sometimes necessary. In some cases, it may mean having to foot a higher bill in the short-term, but the long-term benefits far outweigh that downside. We can't have our cake and eat it too, the "cake" in this place being relatively-cheaper technology that craps on the planet.

The question I have, how would global cooling affect what we are seeing? If the warmers can say global warming is causing both less and more snow fall, that the extreme cold we've been seeing in the states is due to warming...what would we see with global cooling? Less or more snow? Variations in world temp. extremes?

It's a good question.

My primary question for anyone who claims to really understand climate science from a global warming point of view (internet experts need not apply) is, why is your so-called global warming resulting in cooling, and what in this supposed line of events is going to lead to the actual warming? I wasn't born yesterday. They didn't call it "global warming" in the knowledge that their pet phenomena was going to result in cooler cold-seasons. And that leads me to believe that the story is just being changed.

The "cooling" that occurs happens on regional scales. The fundamental principle of global warming is that it represents increased average temperatures taken across the entire planet. The changes in weather patterns that said increases produce will create areas of comparatively-cooler weather, but the global net effect of the whole process is higher temperatures, which equals higher sea levels. The mistake you're making is losing the forest through the trees.

Another thing to keep in mind is that larger snowstorms often tend to occur during comparatively warmer winters, or warmer periods of winters. Really big storms like the one we've experienced this week require a crap-load of moisture to develop and sustain themselves, and you're just not going to see that happen under Arctic air mass conditions.

As far as the anthropogenic part goes, yes, it's true that the climate has experienced a series of natural swings back-and-forth over the past few ten thousand years that we've been able to track. But what that fact ignores is that human activity is more than capable of exacerbating, or even reversing, said swings. When you break down the data, you see a pretty clear spike in the prior natural trend that starts around 1850 or so and accelerates through the present day. That time period exactly corresponds with the start of the Industrial Revolution through our modern industrialized world, a time period when we've been pumping ever-increasing amounts of a known greenhouse gas into the atmosphere. That seems like a pretty strong correlation to me.

But the real kicker is that, even if human activity had absolutely nothing to do with the current warming trend, we'd still have to be finding ways to mitigate it. In the end, why it's happening isn't nearly important than the fact that it's happening. Low-lying regions of the world are still going to be impacted by rising sea levels either way, and regional climate changes are going to create periods of drought or deluge in areas that aren't accustomed to them. We need to do our best to mitigate these effects in order to keep the world's population as a whole safe and fed.

[Sergeant Thorne]

I don't like any of the proposed solutions I've seen so far, Grendel, so I don't think that's the question at all. And while I appreciate Wikipedia for what it is, I don't consider it to be a likely place to gain an accurate understanding of controversial topics, so I must decline there.

As far as cooling, it could be that's a mistake on my part, but I believe we've set new records for cold around here this season, and I don't think we're alone. Anybody have a good reference for average seasonal temps in the U.S.?

[woodchip]

Where do you see cooling ?? They called it warming because the data shows it. AFAIK there's no scientist denying warming, only different opinions about its cause. Might want to read up on some basics before asking funny questions.

A better question would be: Should we do something about it or wait and see ?

While the graphs in your link are all pretty n stuff, they only encompass 120 years. Lets look at a thousand years instead:



Do you notice we have not yet reached the medieval warm period's temperature height? Was man causing the spike in temp. back then?

The changes in weather patterns that said increases produce will create areas of comparatively-cooler weather, but the global net effect of the whole process is higher temperatures, which equals higher sea levels. The mistake you're making is losing the forest through the trees.

The mistake you are making is looking at a small patch of trees (time) and think you are looking at a world spanning jungle.

[Spidey]

Boy an honest debate about climate change would be sooo refreshing.

Here’s my point exactly, that I keep making over and over…

“But the real kicker is that, even if human activity had absolutely nothing to do with the current warming trend, we'd still have to be finding ways to mitigate it. In the end, why it's happening isn't nearly important than the fact that it's happening. Low-lying regions of the world are still going to be impacted by rising sea levels either way, and regional climate changes are going to create periods of drought or deluge in areas that aren't accustomed to them. We need to do our best to mitigate these effects in order to keep the world's population as a whole safe and fed.”

Who the hell actually believes that all of the changes are going to be negative…

We will lose shoreline, but are also going to gain countless acres of arable land in the northern areas. It’s already begun, in fact it’s well ahead of all of the doom and gloom effects.

Get real…stop trying to pick my pocket, and get into a useful discussion.

[woodchip]

Spidey, you are of course correct. I suspect all those medieval farmers during the warming period appreciated the longer growing season and, as a aside, wasn't the medieval warming period about the time the vikings were colonizing Greenland and coming to America?

[Grendel]

As far as cooling, it could be that's a mistake on my part, but I believe we've set new records for cold around here this season, and I don't think we're alone.

Check on the difference betw. "Climate" and "Weather". Bunny, you too.

While the graphs in your link are all pretty n stuff, they only encompass 120 years. Lets look at a thousand years instead:

The "Global Warming" we are talking about means the last 120 or so years -- about the time when the industrial revolution started.

[Top Gun]

The mistake you are making is looking at a small patch of trees (time) and think you are looking at a world spanning jungle.

Except that span of time displays an aberration that isn't consistent with the normal natural cycles over the past tens of thousands of years, and there's a blatant smoking gun to implicate. We know for a fact, 100%, that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. We also know that we've been spewing out ridiculous amounts of it over the past 150 years, and that the increase has been exponential. We've seen the average global temperature spike during that exact same timeframe. Do I really have to state it any more simply than that?

[Heretic]

Is there climate without weather? Doesn't climate equal weather over time?

Is there truth in a lie if it's repeated over and over?

Isn't true humans using of fossil fuels only accounts for about 1.4% of carbon dioxide when all sources are added in to the equation? IS it true that humans breathing accounts for about 0.1% of the carbon dioxide released into the air?

[Foil]

Doesn't climate equal weather over time?

That's exactly the difference that was being pointed to.

Is there truth in a lie if it's repeated over and over?

Of course not. But there's truth in something backed by evidence, whether it's oft-repeated or not.

Isn't true humans using of fossil fuels only accounts for about 1.4% of carbon dioxide when all sources are added in to the equation? IS it true that humans breathing accounts for about 0.1% of the carbon dioxide released into the air?

[citation needed]

1.4% of what measure? (Of all C02 in the atmosphere, or annual C02 produced, or some other measure?) We need a reference here.

In any case, who says "1.4%" is insignificant?

[Top Gun]

Isn't true humans using of fossil fuels only accounts for about 1.4% of carbon dioxide when all sources are added in to the equation? IS it true that humans breathing accounts for about 0.1% of the carbon dioxide released into the air?

As Foil noted, your first question is very unclear, and I can call BS on the second without having to look anything up. Amusingly enough, though, cattle flatulence is a fairly significant source of greenhouse gas emissions.

[Isaac]

Skipped most of thread... It's pretty obvious since snow is precipitation, caused by evaporating water elsewhere, the more we have the warmer the planet must be. The only reason I'm not that worried is that we keep finding cleaner and cheaper ways to do the same tasks; we're all solving the problem whether most of us believe in global warming or not. /thread

[Tunnelcat]

You think this is bad, wait until the magnetic poles start their reversal process, and it isn't a quick change either. It can take a long time, with several 'poles' forming all over the earth. In the meantime, we get fried by solar radiation.

[Heretic]

Is there climate without weather? Doesn't climate equal weather over time?

Is there truth in a lie if it's repeated over and over?

Isn't true humans using of fossil fuels only accounts for about 1.4% of carbon dioxide when all sources are added in to the equation? IS it true that humans breathing accounts for about 0.1% of the carbon dioxide released into the air?

First off they are all questions. If you don't know how to answer don't respond. Second if you only got paid 1.5% of your annual salary would that be insignificant?

Edit: Sources = all greenhouse gases

[Top Gun]

We don't know how to answer because we're not sure exactly what you're asking. If you could rephrase it more clearly, maybe we could.

[Foil]

Isn't true humans using of fossil fuels only accounts for about 1.4% of carbon dioxide when all sources are added in to the equation?

Edit: Sources = all greenhouse gases

You still need to clarify what "1.4%" means (1.4% of all C02? 1.4% of C02 added annually? 1.4% of some other measure?), and provide some citation.

[Foil]

...humans using of fossil fuels only accounts for about 1.4% of carbon dioxide...

Okay. You're saying 1.4% is insignificant.

...if you only got paid 1.5% of your annual salary...

Okay. You're saying 1.5% is significant.

---------

To quote the thread title, "Which is it?"

[Heretic]

The only one here who thinks 1.4% or 1.5% is significant is you

In any case, who says "1.4%" is insignificant?

[Foil]

1.4%/1.5% could be significant or insignificant. Depends on the subject being discussed. Your salary example makes that clear.

To that end, I'm still waiting for you to give us some more information about the \"1.4%\" you referenced.

[Spidey]

Since carbon dioxide makes up only 1% of the earth’s atmosphere, I think a lot can be gathered, as to the significance of 1 or so percent of something.

[dissent]

Since carbon dioxide makes up only 1% of the earth’s atmosphere, I think a lot can be gathered, as to the significance of 1 or so percent of something.

The current average CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is about 390 ppm. Since it takes 10000 ppm to equal 1%, we are at considerably under 1% CO2 in the atmosphere - more like about 0.04%. linky

The mere statement about the small percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is not an argument that this is an insignificant amount because it is so small. What matters is the amount of the material AND the relative affect of this material on any given system. There are any number of things that in very small amounts can still kill you. For example, carbon monoxide at concentrations of 650 to 700 ppm can send you to an early grave, because of the nature of the impact it has on our biological systems. Ditto for any number of poisons or animal venoms.

[Spidey]

It’s only something close to 1-1.5% of DNA that keeps you from being a gorilla.

Feel free to correct the actual number.

[Blaze]

Yea, more or less.

Out of the frying pan and into the fire.