More Evidence of Global Warming

[Rogue]

http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2004...0411_21_04.txt

Snow in the desert.

[dunastor]

Snow in the desert.

Since when is snow evidence of warmth?

[Maeve_Mari]

http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2004...0411_21_04.txt

Snow in the desert.

The pics of snow in the hills of San Diego are pretty unusual to see, but considering your previous posts, Rogue, you seem hardly the type who cares about global warming. Isn't that a Liberal Dem's position and call for more sound environmental action?

[esskreemr]

Rogue is being facetious.

[Drifter]

http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2004...0411_21_04.txt

Snow in the desert.

Please educate yourself;

http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwa...rtainties.html

Notice this is from a governmental website, but they're probably a whiny bunch of liberals too huh?

[cowpaste]

I'm more liberal than I am conservative, but one thing I am totally against is an "OH NO WE MUST PROTECT THE WORLD FROM GLOBAL WARMING!!!!" attitude. Looking at the temperature trends over the past thousands of years, the one degree rise in average temperate over the past few years or whatever means absolutely nothing to me. Even if we assume that global warming was indeed caused by industrial/automobile output, stopping that output enough to lower the temperature by one degree would completely destroy the world's economy.

Anyway, I almost avoided this thread because at first glance I thought the thread was more pro-treehugger BS. Good thing I examined the thread in more detail.

[Drifter]

Looking at the temperature trends over the past thousands of years, the one degree rise in average temperate over the past few years or whatever means absolutely nothing to me.

Are you a scientist fully capable of making an educated descision on the situation like those writing the information on the EPA website that I referenced? Science cares little about what you or I think, the facts are that CO2 gases are creating a slow warming of the planet. What effect this will have is unknown but please don't claim that it hasn't happened or it's just part of the natural process because that is most certainly NOT what scientists that have spent thier entire lives studying this think.

[scrapinpeg]

In the immortal words of Drew Carey, "screw the grandkids, I'm cold now." (as he empties a can of hairspray at the sky)

[achilleus]

Anyway, I almost avoided this thread because at first glance I thought the thread was more pro-treehugger BS. Good thing I examined the thread in more detail.

So it's only BS if you don't agree with it? It's only worth reading if it supports your view?

[The0ne]

I'm more liberal than I am conservative, but one thing I am totally against is an "OH NO WE MUST PROTECT THE WORLD FROM GLOBAL WARMING!!!!" attitude. Looking at the temperature trends over the past thousands of years, the one degree rise in average temperate over the past few years or whatever means absolutely nothing to me. Even if we assume that global warming was indeed caused by industrial/automobile output, stopping that output enough to lower the temperature by one degree would completely destroy the world's economy.

Anyway, I almost avoided this thread because at first glance I thought the thread was more pro-treehugger BS. Good thing I examined the thread in more detail.

I'll hug trees for your grandkids.

[cowpaste]

I never said it didn't happen. In fact, those gases probably do cause an increase in the world's temperature. My point is that one degree will not make much of a difference when considering the large temperature swings need to place the planet in and out of an ice age.

Yes, I am a scientist.

Of course the EPA is going to state its concerns. If anything, it will be overly cautious when it comes to protecting the environment. This is its job.

Are you a scientist fully capable of making an educated descision on the situation like those writing the information on the EPA website that I referenced? Science cares little about what you or I think, the facts are that CO2 gases are creating a slow warming of the planet. What effect this will have is unknown but please don't claim that it hasn't happened or it's just part of the natural process because that is most certainly NOT what scientists that have spent thier entire lives studying this think.

[cowpaste]

Well duh, that's the reason I disagree with anything in the first place - it's BS. I hope you do realize that whether or not something is "BS" is a highly subjective.

So it's only BS if you don't agree with it? It's only worth reading if it supports your view?

[Prometheus]

Of course the EPA is going to state its concerns. If anything, it will be overly cautious when it comes to protecting the environment. This is its job.

Unless the administration decides to edit the agency's reports.

LINK

[Inquartata]

Since when is snow evidence of warmth?

All jocularity aside, that points out one of the things which makes me suspicious of the whole we-are-causing-global-warming-and-we-must-change movement. Its proponents maintain that EVERYTHING is evidence that the theory is correct. Does it get warmer? That proves global warming. Colder? That proves it, too. Drought? Caused by global warming. Floods? Also caused by global warming. In fact, just about every weather or climatological phenomenon you can name seems to get cited as "proof" that global warming is real and threat and warrants drastic action....

[Schiavona]

Up here global warming is an observable FACT. Permafrost is melting, the ocean ice pack is forming later and where I live the growing season is two weeks longer. I do not think 'global warming' is a myth. I do think that thinking we could stop it is a myth. If the 'First World' countries cut their polution to zero the developing nations would more than make up the difference. The ONLY way to affect our part in causing global warming is to limit WORLDWIDE population growth to just replacement numbers. That's just not gonna happen. The world won't end. Just the world as it is now. Hell, there were dinosaurs living at the poles once! How hot was it at the equator then?

[Epictetus]

Not to disagree with your conclusions, but as far as we know, the poles have been uninhabited for as long as there has been life on earth.

It is true that fossils have been found in antarctica, but those date from a time when the continent was at about the latitude Austrailia is now.

[Inquartata]

There is however evidence that the poles have not always been where they are now. When the present poles were inhabited, they were not the poles.

[Gav]

Global warming is a misnomer. Better to call it the PC-friendly "climate change". Global Warming estimates are the average temperature rise for the whole planet. Some places will get warmer, some colder. Climate models suggest that Scotland will become Tundra if the Gulf Stream is shut down by the melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet. So to think that because the term "warming" is used means "hotter all round" is actually incorrect.

What the solution is ... is a thornier question. In fact, whether we (the global community) should take action is really the question. I would like to think that we would, otherwise we will be seeing the end of my country (assuming the Tundra hypothesis is correct).

[Gav]

Inq' you are getting the geographical pole mixed up with the Magnetic. The Geographical pole will always be where it is. The Magnetic pole moves around. In fact we appear to be at the start of the next shift (when the magnetic poles flip).

It would also be true to say that the landmass at the poles haven't always been where they are now - due to continental drift - however that doesn't affect the geographical poles either.

[Drifter]

I never said it didn't happen. In fact, those gases probably do cause an increase in the world's temperature. My point is that one degree will not make much of a difference when considering the large temperature swings need to place the planet in and out of an ice age.

The implication that I read into your post was that global warming isn't a reality and this thread was certainly started with the typical, "it's snowing so global warming must be a trick by the scientists to get more spotlight" mentality. One fact is indisputable, CO2 gases are causing the slow warming of the environment. To take the Dittohead mentality of "it's all a bunch of huha invented by those briany types" is just trying to bury one's head in the sand.

Now that having been said, I personally don't really have a stake in the global warming argument. I have no intention of procreating and find cold climates to be tiresome and annoying. Add to that a proclivity for a nice cityscape as opposed to the countryside, and I suppose you could say I fall on the 'pave the Earth' side of the argument. BUT I maintain that we should KNOW what we're causing.