A simple question about snow

[JerrySeinfeld]

One simple question:

If the lack of snow in Europe is evidence that the earth is warming up, and the huge abundance of snow is ignored, then how can that be scientific?

[marcinmoka]

One simple question:

If the lack of snow in Europe is evidence that the earth is warming up, and the huge abundance of snow is ignored, then how can that be scientific?

GLOBAL WARMING CAUSES IRREGULARITIES. AT LEAST THAT'S WHAT SCIENCE SAYS WILL HAPPEN.

[Wilber]

One simple question:

If the lack of snow in Europe is evidence that the earth is warming up, and the huge abundance of snow is ignored, then how can that be scientific?

GLOBAL WARMING CAUSES IRREGULARITIES. AT LEAST THAT'S WHAT SCIENCE SAYS WILL HAPPEN.

Wow, hard to argue with that. Doesn't matter what happens, its global warming because it's an irregularity. Works just like religion.

[gc1765]

If you flip a coin once, and it lands on heads, don't assume that the coin will usually land on heads.

If you flip a coin a hundred times and get 99 heads, it's pretty safe to say that the coin will usually land on heads.

[geoffrey]

Global warming is minor changes over hundreds of years. Don't expect to see it tomorrow. Anyone educated on the topic won't claim that either is evidence.

Climatic differences happen all the time. I happen to know that the Rockies where I'm at had an absolute record season, we've had great skiing all winter (minus that few weeks in February, clear sky and minus 25 for 2 weeks).

[sunsettommy]

One simple question:

If the lack of snow in Europe is evidence that the earth is warming up, and the huge abundance of snow is ignored, then how can that be scientific?

GLOBAL WARMING CAUSES IRREGULARITIES. AT LEAST THAT'S WHAT SCIENCE SAYS WILL HAPPEN.

You are out of date dude.

It is now called CLIMATE CHANGE.

That way they can say anything and always be right!

[Catchme]

Climate change is a result of global warming, and both have been equally in use since at least 1983.

it is the Harper government's emphasis on Canada-U.S. relations that is at the heart of Canada's failure to meet Kyoto targets. Kyoto or no Kyoto, Canada cannot commit to an effective strategy to address climate change unless our government is willing to substantially change our relationship with the U.S.

Canadian energy is consumed primarily by the U.S. Canada signed away significant control over energy when it agreed to a proportional sharing clause under the North American Free Trade Agreement. Under this clause, Canada cannot cut exports to the U.S. no matter what the state of our energy supplies, unless it cuts the same proportion of supplies to Canadians. As a result, Canada now exports 70 per cent of our oil to the U.S. while importing 60 per cent of what we consume from other countries. We cannot cut back on the production of fossil fuels for the U.S. market.

Now, the Security and Prosperity Partnership threatens to take it to another level. This agreement is the real motivation behind the Conservative government's position on climate change. Their so-called "made in Canada" strategy is made for the U.S. Energy integration is a key element of the deep integration agenda enshrined in the SPP and signed by Canada, the U.S. and Mexico in March 2005.

One of the SPP's recommendations is a "continental energy and natural resources pact." This would mean granting U.S. investors greater access to our energy supplies by creating an integrated marketplace -- something for which the Bush administration and the energy industry have been pushing.

At a meeting in Boston two weeks ago, Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn told energy industry executives, "I want you to know that the Canadian government will do everything we can to support you."

http://www.canadians.org/media/council/2006/18-Nov-06.html

Insurer sounds warning bell on climate change

TONY EASTLEY: One of the world's most conservative insurance institutions is the latest to sound the alarm bell on climate change.

The insurer, Lloyds of London, now ranks climate change one of the biggest risks facing global business alongside terrorism, political instability and natural catastrophes.

Lloyds has also criticised the United States, one of its biggest customers, for adding to the risk facing the planet by not taking an early leadership position in reducing carbon emissions.

The chairman of Lloyds, Lord Levene, is visiting Sydney where he spoke with our Business Editor, Peter Ryan.

LORD LEVENE: Even up to a couple of years ago there was not too much attention paid to this, it was thought to be something in the realms of the eccentrics. Now I fear that people have realised that this is a big problem - rising sea levels, changes in temperature, they have a huge effect on the economies, they have a huge effect on insurance that has to be placed, and people need to recognise that this is something which has to be addressed. We can't ignore it anymore.

PETER RYAN: Well, Lloyds is renowned as a conservative institution, and you do manage risk, but how has your attitude to climate change changed in recent months?

LORD LEVENE: We had a conference last summer on the whole question of climate change, to try and bring it through. It's no good just telling ourselves about it at Lloyds, we have to tell the whole of our insured customer base, which is worldwide.

We operate in over 200 countries around the world, and this is an issue which they've got to be aware of, it's an issue which they've got to take steps to protect themselves against. Not all of that is going to cost a lot of money. Just being aware and acting in a way that can inhibit the worst effects of this, that in itself can be very important and can save them a hell of a lot.

http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2007/s1865011.htm

Climate change caused by emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) from human activities is one of the greatest threats to people, economies and ecosystems in the 21st century. The international community must undertake a determined effort over several decades to cut emissions to a small fraction of their current level.

"The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action. ... Failure to implement significant reductions in net greenhouse gas emissions now, will make the job much harder in the future."

-- National science academies of Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States, June 2005

http://www.pembina.org/climate-change/index.php

[BubberMiley]

This must be Seinfeld's hundredth thread on the topic of global warming. He's kind of like the supposedly anti-CBC people who want to make sure you watch Little Mosque at 7:30 to register your indignation. I'm not sure it's possible that someone could be so obsessed with this topic and yet think there's nothing to it. Keep doing your part to keep the conversation going.

[JerrySeinfeld]

This must be Seinfeld's hundredth thread on the topic of global warming. He's kind of like the supposedly anti-CBC people who want to make sure you watch Little Mosque at 7:30 to register your indignation. I'm not sure it's possible that someone could be so obsessed with this topic and yet think there's nothing to it. Keep doing your part to keep the conversation going.

yes, bubber. those irritatinig people who want to debate facts just won't seem to shut up and let the mob psychology run it's natural course

[Black Dog]

Jerry still doesn't know that "global warming" doesn't mean everywhere on earth warms up.

And surely we can have just one thread to act as a suppository repository for all these Seinfeldian anti-scientific consesnsus threads?

[M.Dancer]

Global warming is an inaccurate term (at least popularly)...while it is true, the global avergae temperatuire is rising, and no one with any crdibility in field debates this, the far better term is global climate change.

Now to what's his name's question about snow......I will supply an equally misplaced analogy.

I knew a couple whose house was chilly so they got this nifty fireplace. Thing was, when the fire was roaring, the room the fire was in was too hot for comfort and to boot, in the rest of the house the temerature plunged and was all drafty like........

....the world is like that too......

[JerrySeinfeld]

Global warming is an inaccurate term (at least popularly)...while it is true, the global avergae temperatuire is rising, and no one with any crdibility in field debates this, the far better term is global climate change.

Now to what's his name's question about snow......I will supply an equally misplaced analogy.

I knew a couple whose house was chilly so they got this nifty fireplace. Thing was, when the fire was roaring, the room the fire was in was too hot for comfort and to boot, in the rest of the house the temerature plunged and was all drafty like........

....the world is like that too......

ahh - the old "world as a log cabin" scientific study - as coined by the IPCC i presume?

As for the nomenclature, unless you've been living under a rock everyone (myself included) is very well aware of how the name "climate change" has been adapted to ensure that any new weather phenomenon can be captured under the new dogma. In the 70's it was global cooling. In the 90's it's global warming. now, instead of confusing the public and coming up woth new excuses to tax industry and redistribute wealth to the poorer nations (ie. global socialism), they call it "climate change" - and EVERYTHING on earth is evidence of it. wow. What a perfect, unfalsifiable (and unscientific) idea!!!

But the main point is is the framing of the debate. I saw a news story on the snow in the alps on CBC a few days back - and it was framed as a climate change story.

This is not scientific: it's misleading and tugs on emotion rather than science. Climate change nazis know that televising a record 9 meters of snow in whislter isn't giong to convince people that the earth is getting warmer and that we are causing it. it's much more dramatic to show the LACK of snow in the alps. and it's not very scientific.

[AndrewL]

One simple question:

If the lack of snow in Europe is evidence that the earth is warming up, and the huge abundance of snow is ignored, then how can that be scientific?

Hi Jerry,

The warming of the surface of the earth should lead to more evaporation, and more precipitation. But it is unlikely to be uniform precipitation, i.e, it will likely be one extreme in one place and the opposite extreme in another.

So, in line with the theory and climate models, one should be observing more precipitation in some places and less in others, (based on historical data).

That is indeed what we are seeing.

Andrew

[White Doors]

One simple question:

If the lack of snow in Europe is evidence that the earth is warming up, and the huge abundance of snow is ignored, then how can that be scientific?

Hi Jerry,

The warming of the surface of the earth should lead to more evaporation, and more precipitation. But it is unlikely to be uniform precipitation, i.e, it will likely be one extreme in one place and the opposite extreme in another.

So, in line with the theory and climate models, one should be observing more precipitation in some places and less in others, (based on historical data).

That is indeed what we are seeing.

Andrew

Ahhh.. The 'climate change' "proof" in practice!

They are clever I'll give them that!

[AndrewL]

One simple question:

If the lack of snow in Europe is evidence that the earth is warming up, and the huge abundance of snow is ignored, then how can that be scientific?

Hi Jerry,

The warming of the surface of the earth should lead to more evaporation, and more precipitation. But it is unlikely to be uniform precipitation, i.e, it will likely be one extreme in one place and the opposite extreme in another.

So, in line with the theory and climate models, one should be observing more precipitation in some places and less in others, (based on historical data).

That is indeed what we are seeing.

Andrew

Ahhh.. The 'climate change' "proof" in practice!

They are clever I'll give them that!

I wouldn't say it was proof. Its just that the OP is wrong about 'snow' being ignored. Its accounted for in the science.

Andrew

[White Doors]

I wouldn't say it was proof. Its just that the OP is wrong about 'snow' being ignored. Its accounted for in the science.

Of course it is.

What weather/climatic occurences are NOT covered by it?

see?

[AndrewL]

I wouldn't say it was proof. Its just that the OP is wrong about 'snow' being ignored. Its accounted for in the science.

Of course it is.

What weather/climatic occurences are NOT covered by it?

see?

Well weather and climate are two different things. Weather is localized and can have any number of causes, the climate system obviously only governing this at top of the hierarchy.

The climate system itself is concerned with larger patterns, i.e., jet streams. ocean currents, seasons, long term cycles, ecosystems, etc....

One should not confuse a local weather event for being directly caused by the larger system. (at some point we may be able to pinpoint these connections, but not yet).

None of this is to say that climate predictions are false, or correct. It is a science in development, as all sciences are.

Andrew

[JerrySeinfeld]

I wouldn't say it was proof. Its just that the OP is wrong about 'snow' being ignored. Its accounted for in the science.

Of course it is.

What weather/climatic occurences are NOT covered by it?

see?

Well weather and climate are two different things. Weather is localized and can have any number of causes, the climate system obviously only governing this at top of the hierarchy.

The climate system itself is concerned with larger patterns, i.e., jet streams. ocean currents, seasons, long term cycles, ecosystems, etc....

One should not confuse a local weather event for being directly caused by the larger system. (at some point we may be able to pinpoint these connections, but not yet).

None of this is to say that climate predictions are false, or correct. It is a science in development, as all sciences are.

Andrew

Good post - and this (although it has been misunderstood) is my point. If we are talking about science, we shouldn't be giving so much credence to news reports about the lack of snow in europe as shocking first hand evidence of a major climate shift.

[AndrewL]

I wouldn't say it was proof. Its just that the OP is wrong about 'snow' being ignored. Its accounted for in the science.

Of course it is.

What weather/climatic occurences are NOT covered by it?

see?

Well weather and climate are two different things. Weather is localized and can have any number of causes, the climate system obviously only governing this at top of the hierarchy.

The climate system itself is concerned with larger patterns, i.e., jet streams. ocean currents, seasons, long term cycles, ecosystems, etc....

One should not confuse a local weather event for being directly caused by the larger system. (at some point we may be able to pinpoint these connections, but not yet).

None of this is to say that climate predictions are false, or correct. It is a science in development, as all sciences are.

Andrew

Good post - and this (although it has been misunderstood) is my point. If we are talking about science, we shouldn't be giving so much credence to news reports about the lack of snow in europe as shocking first hand evidence of a major climate shift.

Agreed. We should look at what scientists are saying about topics of scientific concern. The media is notoriously bad at science....

Andrew

[White Doors]

I wouldn't say it was proof. Its just that the OP is wrong about 'snow' being ignored. Its accounted for in the science.

Of course it is.

What weather/climatic occurences are NOT covered by it?

see?

Well weather and climate are two different things. Weather is localized and can have any number of causes, the climate system obviously only governing this at top of the hierarchy.

The climate system itself is concerned with larger patterns, i.e., jet streams. ocean currents, seasons, long term cycles, ecosystems, etc....

One should not confuse a local weather event for being directly caused by the larger system. (at some point we may be able to pinpoint these connections, but not yet).

None of this is to say that climate predictions are false, or correct. It is a science in development, as all sciences are.

Andrew

You shoudl remember that next time the golbal warming people rage on about Katrina etc.

[AndrewL]

I wouldn't say it was proof. Its just that the OP is wrong about 'snow' being ignored. Its accounted for in the science.

Of course it is.

What weather/climatic occurences are NOT covered by it?

see?

Well weather and climate are two different things. Weather is localized and can have any number of causes, the climate system obviously only governing this at top of the hierarchy.

The climate system itself is concerned with larger patterns, i.e., jet streams. ocean currents, seasons, long term cycles, ecosystems, etc....

One should not confuse a local weather event for being directly caused by the larger system. (at some point we may be able to pinpoint these connections, but not yet).

None of this is to say that climate predictions are false, or correct. It is a science in development, as all sciences are.

Andrew

You shoudl remember that next time the golbal warming people rage on about Katrina etc.

Who are the 'global warming' people?

Andrew

[JerrySeinfeld]

I wouldn't say it was proof. Its just that the OP is wrong about 'snow' being ignored. Its accounted for in the science.

Of course it is.

What weather/climatic occurences are NOT covered by it?

see?

Well weather and climate are two different things. Weather is localized and can have any number of causes, the climate system obviously only governing this at top of the hierarchy.

The climate system itself is concerned with larger patterns, i.e., jet streams. ocean currents, seasons, long term cycles, ecosystems, etc....

One should not confuse a local weather event for being directly caused by the larger system. (at some point we may be able to pinpoint these connections, but not yet).

None of this is to say that climate predictions are false, or correct. It is a science in development, as all sciences are.

Andrew

You shoudl remember that next time the golbal warming people rage on about Katrina etc.

Who are the 'global warming' people?

Andrew

That's part of my point as well - that the climate change debate has been bastardized into something completely unscientific and instead political. That's why I mention the possibility that "climate change' is a trojan horse for socialism.

What has socialism ALWAYS advocated? taxing corporations to transfer wealth. Suspiciouslty this is exactly what kyoto / suzuki et al put forth as a solution.

It's the "watermelon" effect: green on the outside: red on the inside.

Look on the front cover of Al Gore's movie. It has a smokestack emitting a ploodf of smoke that turns into hurricane katrina. This does nothing to advance the science or research. It plays on simplistic emotions of VOTERS.

The same way that Bush used 9-11 to fanangle dimwitted redneck voters into thinking the whole issue should be a "war against ayrabs" - Now the Gore / Suzuki crowd has tricked a generation of lefties --just starved for the opportunity to "save the earth" and "do something siginficant" without ever having to create anything (a callnig card for left wingers)-- into thinking that just because a living train-wreck city below sea level got flooded, that we should all drive hybrids.

Let's get back to the science.

[AndrewL]

That's part of my point as well - that the climate change debate has been bastardized into something completely unscientific and instead political. That's why I mention the possibility that "climate change' is a trojan horse for socialism.

What has socialism ALWAYS advocated? taxing corporations to transfer wealth. Suspiciouslty this is exactly what kyoto / suzuki et al put forth as a solution.

It's the "watermelon" effect: green on the outside: red on the inside.

Look on the front cover of Al Gore's movie. It has a smokestack emitting a ploodf of smoke that turns into hurricane katrina. This does nothing to advance the science or research. It plays on simplistic emotions of VOTERS.

The same way that Bush used 9-11 to fanangle dimwitted redneck voters into thinking the whole issue should be a "war against ayrabs" - Now the Gore / Suzuki crowd has tricked a generation of lefties --just starved for the opportunity to "save the earth" and "do something siginficant" without ever having to create anything (a callnig card for left wingers)-- into thinking that just because a living train-wreck city below sea level got flooded, that we should all drive hybrids.

Let's get back to the science.

The notion that global warming or kyoto is just some super leftist conspiracy makes no sense at all.

You compare it to George Bush hoodwinking the american public, but i would argue that even Bush believes sincerely that he is doing the right and truthful thing. (the fact that he is an idiot aside).

Andrew

[gc1765]

I know you are new here, but try to avoid using so many quotes.

Forum Rules:

"TRIM YOUR REPLIES

When replying to a post, quote only what is needed for context. No one is interested in reading the entire post again! Quoting the entire post wastes expensive bandwidth and is just plain annoying. After hitting the quote buttom, please remove those portions of the post that are unrelated to your response."

[AndrewL]

I know you are new here, but try to avoid using so many quotes.

Forum Rules:

"TRIM YOUR REPLIES

When replying to a post, quote only what is needed for context. No one is interested in reading the entire post again! Quoting the entire post wastes expensive bandwidth and is just plain annoying. After hitting the quote buttom, please remove those portions of the post that are unrelated to your response."

Sure thing.

Andrew