Coldest weather stormed Europe, Asia in December 2009, Northeast of the US had the biggest snow storm on record… I thought we have a global warming problem? Thoughts?
AlphaSeeker Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Coldest weather stormed Europe, Asia in December > 2009, > > Northeast of the US had the biggest snow storm on > record… > > I thought we have a global warming problem? > > Thoughts? If you think that global warming is all about warmer winters and nothing to do with unusual erratic weather conditions then a disussion is really pointless. Do you have a Phd in the metereological sciences?
.
.
marcus phoenix Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > AlphaSeeker Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Coldest weather stormed Europe, Asia in December > > 2009, > > > > Northeast of the US had the biggest snow storm > on > > record… > > > > I thought we have a global warming problem? > > > > Thoughts? > > If you think that global warming is all about > warmer winters and nothing to do with unusual > erratic weather conditions then a disussion is > really pointless. Do you have a Phd in the > metereological sciences? The people who do can’t even predict the weather in *one* area accurately. Extrapolate that to the entire earth, then tell me how good their “models” are. Anthropogenic Global Climate Change is a fvcking joke.
While science definitely shows us that carbon warms the atmosphere, I’m not quite convinced that man-made emissions are really all that significant, in the grand scheme of things. I’ve seen studies where it was proven that one large volcano eruption lets out more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than man does in 10-15 years. While there may be some climate change going on, we humans might not be the cause.
Pesonally, I think the whole globle warming is a scam to tax people. I thought global warming is about a warmer globe. However, if you present this view to a tree-hugger, he/she will laught at you and tell you “get with it”, it is no longer global warming, it is climate change. According to them, global warming is not just about warmer globe, it is about unusual climate. F*ing BS. It is funny each time when congress is ready to have a global warming meeting, it is always snowed out.
ws Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Pesonally, I think the whole globle warming is a > scam to tax people. I thought global warming is > about a warmer globe. Likely. And a Democrat ploy to create new government agencies.
More heat, more evaporation, more precipitation, more energy in the climate system, wider extremes. Anyone actually do science here? — These financial analysts can’t even predict what the stock will do tomorrow, and we think these bozos can tell us what the company should return on average over a whole year or business cycle? Pffft!
Although there is cogent logic in the notion that warming can create temperatures that and weather patterns that are warmer on average, but more volatile I consider myself to be very skeptical. Phenomenon such as volcanic eruptions and the biggest one that is never mentioned, higher seafloor spreading rates because that is like an endless but more intense vocanic eruption play much larger roles in carbon emissions that have a material impact on climate. The manipulated data that arose from East Anglia University along with the pervasive exclusion of dissenting articles from climate journals adds to my suspicion. I do believe that their is a conscious attempt to turn reasonable and genuine desires for cleaner air and preservation of resources into a means of power consolidation. I’m looking in your direction U.N., Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi, and others who wish to create an eco-industrial complex.
Politics doesn’t and shouldn’t mix with science. Science’s strength is less than perfect knowledge and less than final conclusions, that gets improved and tested and refined continuously. This is strength, but the political idiots see this as science’s weakness.
@marcus and bchad: Let me tell you two a story, my parents are both scientists, albeit real ones. They both worked a substantial portion of their careers in a Russian sort of Los Alamos where the Soviet government had set up dozens of institutes devoted to various disciplines (so they are scientists, they are more predisposed to the liberal ideals because they are academics, and they are more predisposed to liberal ideas since they grew up under COMMUNISM!). One of the institutes was for meteorological “sciences.” I knew this so when all these emails came out I thought I’d ask them what they thought about this whole situation and their experiences with meteorologists. The response was swift from both “they are NOT scientists, what they do is NOT science, and they were the laughing stock of the entire community.” To me what these folks do isn’t much different from what we do in finance/econ. They build untestable loosely fact based models that are impossible to prove categorically. So sure they are scientists in the same way economists are scientists, but please don’t sully the name of real science (math, physics, chemistry) with what these hacks tend to manufacture!
One of my friends from high school just graduated from UCLA’s masters program in Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences. She did undergraduate studies at a florida school in meteorology and environmental sciences. I asked her several months ago via facebook what her opinion of this whole global warming thing is, particularly because in high school she was a conservative Republican. Well, in her response to me, she kept emphasizing that she is still a committed conservative–EXCEPT on the topic of global warming. She wrote me PARAGRAPHS upon PARAGRAPHS explaining why anthropogenic global warming is proven and that there is absolutely no debate among serious scientists. In all honesty, most of what she said was so far above my head that I couldn’t understand the response. She and I had a polite back-and-forth and here is what I did glean from her: the evidence for anthropogenic global warming is overwhelming, although the only REAL evidence for anthropogenic global warming is based off of computer models that have failed virtually every time. To this point, she was very defensive. But this is what they teach at universities–the debate is done, although we have no actual concrete evidence.
Towards skeptics of human caused global warming: Are you absolutely 100% sure that the results of human caused global warming will have minor or no effect? Lets say on the off chance that your opinions were wrong and humans do contribute significantly to global warming and the effects are severe. Hundreds of millions of people to billions of people would have to relocate due to undesirable climate changes. Would it be reasonable to take some precautionary measures to hedge against this risk? The IPCC’s current position is that the global warming experienced over the last century has been significantly caused by human activities. Even with a collaboration of leading climate experts, the IPCC position is not 100% certain; how is it that skeptics can be so sure human caused global warming is a “joke”?
First of all, soviet communism was not liberalism. Liberalism includes human freedoms of expression and association which is not compatible with a totalitarian state and the dictatorship of the proletariat or the party of the proletariat. Meteorologists actually do seem to have a better record than many disciplines at estimating their error bars. Yes, their error bars are large, but that’s actually a better gauge to the precision of their prediction than many financial analysts, not to mention “real” scientists who decide that their knowledge of chemistry and physics means that they can predict social and financial events. If you get your error bars wrong, your portfolios will not be optimal. If you underestimate your risk, you will almost certainly have very large drawdowns at some point. If you overestimate your risk, you will still not be optimal, but it is a reduced average rate of growth, rather than a wild rise and drawdown. There is science to meteorology. This is the reason we understand how clouds form, what makes rain condense and fall, how tornadoes and hurricanes form. The fact that we can’t predict the exact path of storms doesn’t mean that meteorology isn’t science any more than the fact that we can’t predict when a radioactive nucleus will decay means that quantum mechanics is bunk and the physicists that study it are charlatans. Knowledge bases evolve. There were no chemists in the middle ages, but there were alchemists, and in fact both CHEMistry and alCHEMy have similar roots. Even Isaac Newton practiced alchemy and searched for the philosopher’s stone. Yet I still accept much of modern chemistry as science, even though medieval alchemy was silly. And so I can accept that meteorology can be based on science, even if Soviet meteorologists were laughingstocks.
IUKelley07: The IPCC was playing with the data. For example they would have 100 weather stations in a City. Whichever one that got higher temps were more likely to be used. Theres also pictures showing these weather stations near exhaust fans, in parking lots, etc. This was not controlled data? Why? The guys who were writing the report were getting million dollar contracts for consulting. Let’s keep it simple. If it didn’t snow this winter you would say its because of the warming. So now it snowed. So what’s the headline of the NYT: NYT THURSDAY: THE BLIZZARDS ARE FROM THE WARMING… DEVELOPING… People are fatter from warming… Plants are growing or not growing etc… Can I ask you if more people die in cold or warm weather? It’s cold!! Who are you to tell Russia they can’t have warm weather. 
Seriously we can control pollution but not the weather. The money is better spent adapting to natural climate change then some crazy global warming tax.
bchadwick, I may not be as liberal as you are, but I love reading your posts and learn a lot from them.
@IU: nice adaptation of Kierkegaard’s justification for religion