Strange Weather

[August1991]

People in southern latitudes never or rarely talk about the weather. Near the equator, the sun always rises at 6 am, it's hot, then the sun sets at 6 pm. Everyday. Always. At most, there might be a rainy season.

Not so in northern latitudes where the weather is an endless source of conversation, even among strangers.

So, what gives now?

In Montreal, it has been over 30 degrees for the past few days. Shorts, sandals, fans, air-conditioning. July, not October. According to the media, these are record highs, well above the previous records set in 1946. I don't know when records were first kept here. Early 19th century I imagine.

In the back of every one's mind, I suspect, is the feeling that something is not right.

Now then, I see that it snowed in Winnipeg this past week but as Kimmy has said before, Winnipeg isn't quite a normal place in the universe.

[err]

People in southern latitudes never or rarely talk about the weather.  Near the equator, the sun always rises at 6 am, it's hot, then the sun sets at 6 pm.  Everyday.  Always.  At most, there might be a rainy season.

Not so in northern latitudes where the weather is an endless source of conversation, even among strangers.

So, what gives now?

Have you ever heard of the modern "fiction" called global warming. Many in this forum would say that it's fiction and disagree with the overwhelming majority of scientists in the world.

However, most people haven't read much about the predictions and real consequences of global warming. The whole planet is not going to get warmer... On average yes, but places like England and Ireland will become ice communities.... That is due to a predicted change in the Gulf Stream....

It's funny (or maybe not) how people won't believe many things until it hits them in the head.....

[B. Max]

People in southern latitudes never or rarely talk about the weather.  Near the equator, the sun always rises at 6 am, it's hot, then the sun sets at 6 pm.  Everyday.  Always.  At most, there might be a rainy season.

Not so in northern latitudes where the weather is an endless source of conversation, even among strangers.

So, what gives now?

Have you ever heard of the modern "fiction" called global warming. Many in this forum would say that it's fiction and disagree with the overwhelming majority of scientists in the world.

However, most people haven't read much about the predictions and real consequences of global warming. The whole planet is not going to get warmer... On average yes, but places like England and Ireland will become ice communities.... That is due to a predicted change in the Gulf Stream....

It's funny (or maybe not) how people won't believe many things until it hits them in the head.....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

They can barely predict the weather for five days never mind years down the road. The majority of scientists do not agree on global warming. This year in alberta has not been warm and has had no drought. There has been all kinds of different years as far as weather goes and this is just one of them.

[err]

They can barely predict the weather for five days never mind years down the road. The majority of scientists do not agree on global warming. This year in alberta has not been warm and has had no drought. There has been all kinds of different years as far as weather goes and this is just one of them.

Did the idea of claiming that scientists don't agree just pop into your head, or did your dog tell you this.... If you can provide any kind of credible evidence (ie. not funded by Exxon, Chevron, BP, or Haliburton) I'm all ears....

Or is this a "conservative truth", that you have to be a Conservative to understand why it's true ????

[cybercoma]

They can barely predict the weather for five days never mind years down the road. The majority of scientists do not agree on global warming. This year in alberta has not been warm and has had no drought. There has been all kinds of different years as far as weather goes and this is just one of them.

Did the idea of claiming that scientists don't agree just pop into your head, or did your dog tell you this.... If you can provide any kind of credible evidence (ie. not funded by Exxon, Chevron, BP, or Haliburton) I'm all ears....

Or is this a "conservative truth", that you have to be a Conservative to understand why it's true ????

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why don't YOU provide evidence showing forum members "disagree with the overwhelming majority of scientists in the world"? Please show us where it is shown that an overwhelming majority of scientists believe 1) global warming exists, 2) it's a problem and 3) it's controllable, or are we to just take your word for it?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

In the back of every one's mind, I suspect, is the feeling that something is not right.

The main manifestation of the effects of 'global warming' is purported to be abberant weather patterns. There are several problems with 'proving', one way or the other, of the cause. Truly, nature is cyclical, but then huge swings in weather may or may not affect the averages. If it is plus 40 degrees on Christmas day and minus 40 on boxing day, the average is still zero. However, some people can still take both sides...(some will say "That isn't right", while other's could say "It's cyclical, probably happens every million years or so".)

I read about 'the greenhouse effect' some two decades ago, yet some people still misunderstand, saying "CO2 isn't a pollutant", when that was never the argument.

It is difficult to assess what impact the billions of tonnes of pollution has on the environment when mankind's activities are unprecedented in the earth's history. I asked Pateris, and then cybercoma, what they would consider 'valid empirical evidence' of man-influenced climactic changes or 'global warming'. Cybercoma replied with 'scientific concensus', but I expect that is akin to waiting for the world's religious groups to agree on 'which is the one true God'.

[err]

Why don't YOU provide evidence showing forum members "disagree with the overwhelming majority of scientists in the world"?  Please show us where it is shown that an overwhelming majority of scientists believe 1) global warming exists, 2) it's a problem and 3) it's controllable, or are we to just take your word for it?

There is virtually no credible scientific opposition to the reality of human-induced climate change. Over ten years ago, the United Nations Environment Program and the World Meteorological Organization established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC recently completed an assessment of global climate change, involving 2,500 scientists and scholars from around the world. The IPCC assessment concluded that human activities are changing the climate and that changes consistent with climate change are already occurring in areas of the planet. The IPCC conclusions have been endorsed by more than 100 Nobel laureates, by 17 national scientific academies and by most of the world’s government including the United States.

Canadian Government web page on climate change

International Panel on Climate Change Website.

There are poeple (like you) who choose not to believe the evidence, and some of them still think the world is flat....

[Argus]

So, what gives now?

In Montreal, it has been over 30 degrees for the past few days.  Shorts, sandals, fans, air-conditioning.  July, not October.  According to the media, these are record highs, well above the previous records set in 1946. 

Yeah, but what were the highs ten thousand years ago?

From what I could see on the weather map there's a big weather pattern hovering over the southcentral US and another over the northwest so that southerly air is being guided up towards us isntead of straight east across the US. Those weather patterns have now shifted.

In the back of every one's mind, I suspect, is the feeling that something is not right.

Thata's what Ugh said to Blog as the last ice age began.

Climactic shifts are funny things, and can change centuries worth of weather for no reason we really understand. Is the earth getting warmer? Probably. Is it because of pollution? Possibly. Or abrnormal solar activity, or - something. Can we do anything about it? Probably not. I think the last I heard about that idiotic Kyoto Accord it was designed, at a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars, to lower the INCREASE in CO2 emissions by about 5% (or thereabouts). In other words, big deal. And that's only if the US, China, Russia, etc. all get enthusastically aboard. Which, of course, they haven't.

[B. Max]

They can barely predict the weather for five days never mind years down the road. The majority of scientists do not agree on global warming. This year in alberta has not been warm and has had no drought. There has been all kinds of different years as far as weather goes and this is just one of them.

Did the idea of claiming that scientists don't agree just pop into your head, or did your dog tell you this.... If you can provide any kind of credible evidence (ie. not funded by Exxon, Chevron, BP, or Haliburton) I'm all ears....

Or is this a "conservative truth", that you have to be a Conservative to understand why it's true ????

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Can you provide any credible evidence other than the canadian government and the UN. Who themselves have not provided any proof what so ever and are the least credible of all. Their only proof is to claim over and over again that they are right and claiming the debate is over when in fact there never was a debate, and in fact have done everything they could to make sure there wasn't.

http://www.sepp.org/pressrel/petition.html

[kimmy]

My dad, hardly a lefty or an enviro-weenie, mentioned that when he was a young man he visited the mountain national parks and stopped at the Columbia Icefield, which at the time came right up to the highway. He said that last time he was there recently, the glacier had receded a considerable distance from the highway. I mention this anecdote because I suspect that the long-term growth or retraction of such a large glacier is probably a reliable (and easy to demonstrate) measure of climate change.

-k

[B. Max]

My dad, hardly a lefty or an enviro-weenie, mentioned that when he was a young man he visited the mountain national parks and stopped at the Columbia Icefield, which at the time came right up to the highway. He said that last time he was there recently, the glacier had receded a considerable distance from the highway.  I mention this anecdote because I suspect that the long-term growth or retraction of such a large glacier is probably a reliable (and easy to demonstrate) measure of climate change.

-k

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So if glaciers are growing, does that mean there is global cooling or climate change. What if some glaciers are growing while some are shrinking. What then does that mean.

A radical treehugger who had a radio show in calgary was going on one day about a glacier that gives calgary water. He was telling everybody they had to cut the amount of water they use because the glacier was melting faster.

So i phoned this guy and asked him how cutting the amount of water one uses would slow the rate of the melt. There was silence. Then he said well so there would be more water for people down stream. I said if it's melting faster shouldn't that make more water for everybody. He hung up.

What's really scary is that this guy got elected to office.

http://www.iceagenow.com/Growing_Glaciers.htm

[geoffrey]

I don't think many educated people, conservatives, liberal, neo-fascist, communist or hippie-anarchists would argue that global warming isn't happening. You hear the common folk saying it is all to blame on the oil companies, or on the other side, that it doesn't exist. The simple fact is that it is happening, the world is getting warmer. That is proven scientific fact. However, there is no proven scientific fact that it is related to industrial development to the extent that the environmental left tends to state. Forest fires cause great amounts of CO2 to be released into the atomosphere, among other things. Not to mention, the most influential green house gas (on global warming) is water vapor. Last time I checked we weren't shooting water into the air. These are all contributing factors to a natural cycle of heating and cooling the Earth has seen.

Lay of industry. Environmental change is needed, I wouldn't argue that. But imposing impossible restrictions is only going to hurt workers and investment in Canada, and that is something we cannot afford.

[Guest eureka]

Did I come back just to get depressed over the future of the Human Race agin? Once again, this topic demonstrates that the defining characteristic of humanity is stupidity.

There is not the slightest doubt anymore - and has not been for more than a decade, that climate change is with us for the worse. That climate change is at a rate that is unparalled in the researchable history of the earth.

That climate change is exactly correlated with the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. That climate change is causing extreme weather of all kinds in all places of the earth. That climate change is caused by human activity is agredd by every responsible scientist in fields related to the study on this planet. Only a few charlatans and paid hacks of energy companies attempt to disagree.

We still have foolish commentary about "water vapour" as if that were at all relevant. The explanation for that is given in a million sites.

We still have idiotic commentary about Glaciers. Of course some glaciers are still advancing - a few. that is. Their advance is also a function of climate change in that the tiny regions involved have not experienced significant warming or that it is slower than most of the world around.

Meanwhile, much of the world's glacier fields has already disappeared or shrunk alarmingly. And it is not a cyclical thing. Never has there been a change at such speed. This is occurring over a few generations not over tens of thousands of years.

And the human lemmings still post their silliness while the world as we know it is shrieking to an end. The children an dgrandchildren of the idiots who deny are going to be the sufferers for it is happening that fast: it is not about some distant future.

Frankly, I think that all deniers here and in politics, should be drawn, quartered and hung - a more painful method of execution than the usual order. They are dooming untold millions to death and/or a life of misery.

This is not a subject for debate or controversy. It is the most urgent need ever to face humanity and requires the attention and cooperation of the whole world to have any hope for a (not the) future.

"Oh what fools hese mortals be."

[fellowtraveller]

And the human lemmings still post their silliness while the world as we know it is shrieking to an end. The children an dgrandchildren of the idiots who deny are going to be the sufferers for it is happening that fast: it is not about some distant future.

Shouldn't this be accompanied by a dark soundtrack featuring lots of cellos and bassoons?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear fellowtraveller,

Shouldn't this be accompanied by a dark soundtrack featuring lots of cellos and bassoons?

You'll know when you're in trouble when you hear Wagner's "Ride of the Valkyries".

If only the brunt of the effects of global warming could be placed upon those that deny it, or those that say "Addressing the issue will hurt the economy", but it is going to affect everyone. There are other ways to do what we do, and eliminate our 'pollution', but humans insist on the cheapest and generally, most damaging way of doing things, because too many believe 'maximum profit is the highest good'.

[B. Max]

We still have foolish commentary about "water vapour" as if that were at all  relevant. The explanation for that is given in a million sites.

We still have idiotic commentary about Glaciers. Of course some glaciers are still advancing - a few. that is. Their advance is also a function of climate change in that the tiny regions involved have not experienced significant warming or that it is slower than most of the world around.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The only thing foolish are the people who refuse to accept the facts, but prefer to go with junkscience. With 90% of the worlds glaciers in advance how could anyone suggest it is only a few. The few are the 10% in retreat. Water vapor, 97% of greenhouse gas. I guess if one could ignor that 90% of glaciers are expanding it wouldn't be much of a leap to ignor that 97% of greenhouse gas is water vapor. What's really idiotic is that the chicken little scare mongers were the ones using the shrinking glaciers as proof of global warming or climate change or whatever they call it on any particular day to suit their purpose. Now that that has been debunked it's idiotic to mention them.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear B.Max,

from your link,

This week glaciologists in the USA have discovered that the Kangerdlugssuaq Glacier, situated to the southeast of Greenland is melting at a faster rate than ever before. This has sparked fears of much faster rising sea levels than previously thought

The glacier is melting, not growing, causing rapid movement. Glaciers traditionally move at rates of inches per year. Debunked, my foot. Didn't you read the article? Or did you just not understand it?

[B. Max]

Dear B.Max,

from your link,

This week glaciologists in the USA have discovered that the Kangerdlugssuaq Glacier, situated to the southeast of Greenland is melting at a faster rate than ever before. This has sparked fears of much faster rising sea levels than previously thought

The glacier is melting, not growing, causing rapid movement. Glaciers traditionally move at rates of inches per year. Debunked, my foot. Didn't you read the article? Or did you just not understand it?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah i did read the site. Obviously you didn't.

Ice and snow piling up over a large area of Antarctica - 19 May 2005 -

According to a new study published in the online edition of Science, the East Antarctic

Ice Sheet gained about 45 billion tons of ice between 1992 and 2003. The ice sheets are

several kilometers thick in places, and contain about 90% of the world's ice.

Using data from the European Space Agency's radar satellites ERS-1 and ERS-2, a research

team from the University of Missouri , Columbia , measured changes in altitude over about

70% of Antarctica's interior. East Antarctica thickened at an average rate of about 1.8

centimeters per year over the time period studied, the researchers discovered.

The region comprises about 75% of Antarctica 's total land area and about 85% of the

total ice volume. The area in question covers more than 2.75 million square miles - roughly

the same size as the United States.

(This means that more than 90 percent of the world's glaciers are growing thicker …

while the media keeps yelling about the ones that are melting.)

http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050516/full/050516-10.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/20/science/20ICE.html

[kimmy]

A link to a free copy of the article he references:

http://www.bioedonline.org/news/news.cfm?art=1773

The article is quite interesting, and the conclusions that B-Max has drawn from what it actually says are also somewhat interesting.

-k

[B. Max]

A link to a free copy of the article he references:

http://www.bioedonline.org/news/news.cfm?art=1773

The article is quite interesting, and the conclusions that B-Max has drawn from what it actually says are also somewhat interesting.

-k

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has a dog for every trick. It wouldn't matter what the weather was doing, it would be because of climate change global warming or some other nonsense of which there isn't the slightest proof. Of course it's all the fault of the oil companies coal companies or some such boogie man that they can demonize. The answer of course is always to tax them, drive them out of the country or out of business. I wish the hell they would. I would welcome the resulting wars to clean up the crackpots and losers of the world. Go ahead get at her i can't wait.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear kimmy,

drive them out of the country or out of business. I wish the hell they would. I would welcome the resulting wars to clean up the crackpots and losers of the world. Go ahead get at her i can't wait.

Can you say, "Lonely, bitter crank from waaaayyyy out in right field"? I knew you could.

because of climate change global warming or some other nonsense of which there isn't the slightest proof.

Ummmm, you posted a bunch of proof...

[B. Max]

Dear kimmy,

drive them out of the country or out of business. I wish the hell they would. I would welcome the resulting wars to clean up the crackpots and losers of the world. Go ahead get at her i can't wait.

Can you say, "Lonely, bitter crank from waaaayyyy out in right field"? I knew you could.

because of climate change global warming or some other nonsense of which there isn't the slightest proof.

Ummmm, you posted a bunch of proof...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nothing cranky about. When people start losing their houses and whatever else, and they know it's all based on a farce they will be looking for somebody. That's not to hard to figure out.

I don't think those articles appear on that site to endorse the global warming propaganda, but rather to show the hypocrisy of those that promote it.

They want it both ways, don't they?

If the glaciers recede, it must be caused by "global warming."

And if they advance? It must be "global warming."

The trouble is that the public believes it.

What a masterful piece of deception.

[I Miss Trudeau]

My dad, hardly a lefty or an enviro-weenie, mentioned that when he was a young man he visited the mountain national parks and stopped at the Columbia Icefield, which at the time came right up to the highway. He said that last time he was there recently, the glacier had receded a considerable distance from the highway. 

-k

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I was at the glacier two months ago and walked up to where it currently begins. Its a pretty decent hike to the foot of it from the parking lot now, let alone the parkway. There are little markers noting where it was at certain times over the last 200 or so years... not only is the speed of its retreat increasing, but doing so almost exponentially.

[newbie]

Can you provide any credible evidence other than the canadian government and the UN. Who themselves have not provided any proof what so ever and are the least credible of all. Their only proof is to claim over and over again that they are right and claiming the debate is over when in fact there never was a debate, and in fact have done everything they could to make sure there wasn't.

http://www.sepp.org/pressrel/petition.html

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

For one thing, the petition you present is 7 years old and much has been discussed in the interim. I don't believe, as you do, that global warming has been debunked. Nor do I believe it is junk science. I think my links will show how credible this problem is and will be in our future.

http://www.koshland-science-museum.org/exhibitgcc/index.jsp

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...al_warming.html

http://maui.net/~jstark/nasa.html

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/

http://books.nap.edu/collections/global_warming/index.html

What scares me is not that people like you might deny the problem, but that you and your like-minded folk would deny the science.

[masterkush]

Mabe its the heat from all that tension south of the border in texmexica