Weather Acting Funny in Your Neighbourhood?

[Daisy]

figo your stuff is too good. Don't do it. Just give us the links and the first paragraph. that works great.

[Mennisco]

As one who has been down that road before, I urge you to edit your post, and take a cooling-off time-out. Don't make decisions in the heat of this kind of emotion. Think about it ok, obviously some of us care enough to say so.

[lonewolf]

Figo,, you are the most informed, articulate contributor on the board of what I believe is the correct side of this argumen. It is my impression that more people every where are recognizing the fallibility of the gobal warming hysteria.
Don't bail on us. I urge you, just give us the link, those who care will click it.

[Mennisco]

that said, the global warmers best efforts may reduce pollution which is a serious problem.

.

Wish I had noticed that sooner. I haven't really paid attention to your posts Figo because honestly I was too lazy to go through the long amounts of data - had you posted links with a synopsis of the arguments to which they pointed, you'd have caught my attention much quicker than you caught gh's. I am genuinely curious to hear both sides of the debate, and I've indicated this further up this thread. And I admit, before I entertain hearing any more of it, I owe it to myself to learn the basics. I've been swayed by the "World's Top Scientists.....blah blah" talk, like I don't understand how electricity works but I don't question the theories underpinning it either. Not a good analogy maybe except insofar as it demonstrates how much faith we put in "science".

[Daisy]

it demonstrates how much faith we put in "science".

And so you should!!

But seriously, as you know, the common thread for science, apart from the scientific method, is ignorance.

[Mennisco]

it demonstrates how much faith we put in "science".

And so you should!!

But seriously, as you know, the common thread for science, apart from the scientific method, is ignorance.

You're TOO funny!

[MJD]

Too funny. Our ski club made a bad call deciding to close Easter after those two warm days. My problem with this debate is that everytime you see a report like this, people say "That's proves the global warming case." Or, maybe, everything is just reverting to the mean.

/"O.CON.KBUF.WS.A.0004.070415T0300Z- 070416T2200Z/ MONROE-WAYNE-NORTHERN CAYUGA-GENESEE-WYOMING-LIVINGSTON- ONTARIO- CATTARAUGUS-ALLEGANY- INCLUDING THE CITIES OF...ROCHESTER... NEWARK...FAIR HAVEN... BATAVIA... WARSAW...GENESEO...CANANDAIGUA... OLEAN...WELLSVILLE 336 AM EDT SAT APR 14 2007

...WINTER STORM WATCH REMAINS IN EFFECT FROM THIS EVENING THROUGH MONDAY AFTERNOON...

A WINTER STORM WATCH REMAINS IN EFFECT FROM LATE TONIGHT THROUGH MONDAY AFTERNOON.

SNOW IS EXPECTED TO OVERSPREAD THE REGION LATE TONIGHT AND SUNDAY MORNING AND CONTINUE THROUGH MONDAY. THE SNOW MAY BE MIXED WITH OR EVEN CHANGE TO RAIN FOR A TIME DURING THE DAYLIGHT HOURS SUNDAY BUT CHANGE BACK TO ALL SNOW SUNDAY NIGHT. IN ADDITION TO THE SNOWFALL... NORTHERLY WINDS WILL INCREASE SUNDAY NIGHT AND MONDAY WITH SUSTAINED WINDS OF 20 TO 25 MPH AND GUSTS TO NEAR 40 MPH POSSIBLE."

[SQUACKEE]

If Al Gore and his energy sapping mansion were buried under 100 feet of ice he would say , "Global warming is unpredictable".

It certainly is Al , it certainly is.

[MJD]

They have downgraded the report above from a Winter Storm Watch to a Winter Weather Advisory. A distinction without a difference:

"TOTAL ACCUMULATIONS BY MONDAY EVENING MAY REACH 5 TO 8 INCHES WITH THE GREATEST AMOUNTS EXPECTED ACROSS HIGHER ELEVATIONS. IN ADDITION TO THE HEAVY SNOWFALL...NORTH WINDS WILL INCREASE SUNDAY NIGHT AND MONDAY WITH SUSTAINED WINDS OF 20 TO 25 MPH AND GUSTS TO 35 MPH. THE COMBINATION OF HEAVY WET SNOW AND GUSTY WINDS MAY RESULT IN SOME ISOLATED POWER OUTAGES."

[bad hammy]

It rained today in sunny CA. Does that count??

[lonewolf]

Apparently the weather gods have not been clued in to global warming..;last weekend was cold, rain and sleet..worst weather in my 55 years of Texas Relays.. this weekend ditto for Jacobs Relays at Univ Okla.. best weather of the year was at Fayetteville for Indoor NCAA. in early March..

[Mennisco]

They have downgraded the report above from a Winter Storm Watch to a Winter Weather Advisory. A distinction without a difference:

"TOTAL ACCUMULATIONS BY MONDAY EVENING MAY REACH 5 TO 8 INCHES WITH THE GREATEST AMOUNTS EXPECTED ACROSS HIGHER ELEVATIONS. IN ADDITION TO THE HEAVY SNOWFALL...NORTH WINDS WILL INCREASE SUNDAY NIGHT AND MONDAY WITH SUSTAINED WINDS OF 20 TO 25 MPH AND GUSTS TO 35 MPH. THE COMBINATION OF HEAVY WET SNOW AND GUSTY WINDS MAY RESULT IN SOME ISOLATED POWER OUTAGES."

I fully expect Osaka to be snowed out this year. Forgot your WC, IAAF. You'll be scrambling at the last minute to build that covered facility I want, with windless races and a set dew point.



Heed my call, or be prepared for Athletics to have a new image:

[MJD]

Snow on the ground here this morning.

http://sirocco.accuweather.com/nx_mosai ... aSIRNE.gif

[MJD]

I am basically agnostic on this debate and haven't even got that familiar with the arguments and the reason I haven't is because there is a very similar debate going on about energy which I do spend a lot of time paying attention to(and they are related to an extent). Every day, I will read articles from some very smart people quoting some other very smart people that say we either are going to freeze in the dark so go long on oil or that we are awash in the stuff and you better get out of the commodity. All the people on both sides of the debate are much smarter than Al Gore so I refuse to take anything he says seriously. Here is a guy today that says we are swimming in the stuff and he always takes this position. Problem is that he never mentions consumption. He is so shrill about it, my guess is that he has a short position:

"Mr. Skinner describes this supply-demand mismatch as "the true inconvenience" of our time, perhaps more ominous than climate change. By blocking access to easy oil, he says, despotic governments could force the democratic world to rely on difficult oil -- a scenario in which "peak oil" proponents could momentarily win their wagers for the wrong reason. In fact, you could reasonably bet on it."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ ... iness/home

[tafnut]

we are awash in the stuff and you better get out of the commodity.

The only way we're not going to run out of fossil fuels in the very near foreseeable future (50 years) is if nuclear plants start popping up everywhere, which Europe is starting to do, but we (USA - biggest consumers thereof) are dragging our NIMBY feet.

[SQUACKEE]

First 2 weeks of April colder than the first 2 weeks of Jan. in Connecticut

[MJD]

"Q Did you watch Al Gore get his Academy Award?

A No! Bad enough I watched his movie.

Q He would appear to have the support of the majority of your scientific colleagues.

A Not really. This is an issue that has hundreds of aspects. The very thought that a large number of scientists all agree on everything is inconceivable. Among my colleagues, I would say, almost no one thinks that Gore's movie is reasonable. But there will be differences. Some believe it is possible that warming could be a serious problem. Others think it's very unlikely. People are all over the place."

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news ... 233e96&p=2

[tandfman]

Unfortunately, in too much of what I've seen on this issue, the debate over how likely global warming is to be a problem is often intertwined with the questions of what is causing global warming and what, if anything, can be done to prevent it or slow it down.

They're really two different issues. If there's even a reasonable chance that gw will cause big problems, it shouldn't be ignored and we should be looking seriously about what to do about it, even if it's more likely than not that problems will not occur. Too many people are saying that because there's lots of evidence that gw won't happen or won't be a serious problem, we should just ignore it.

I can't buy that. I don't know what my cut-off point is on probability, but it's certainly below 50%, given the potential consequences.

[tandfman]

Unfortunately, in too much of what I've seen on this issue, the debate over how likely global warming is to be a problem is intertwined with the questions of what is causing global warming and what, if anything, can be done to prevent it or slow it down.

They're really two different issues. If there's even a reasonable chance that gw will cause big problems, it shouldn't be ignored and we should be looking seriously about what to do about it, even if it's more likely than not that problems will not occur. Too many people are saying that because there's lots of evidence that gw won't happen or won't be a serious problem, we should just ignore it.

I can't buy that. I don't know what my cut-off point is on probability, but it's certainly below 50%, given the potential consequences.

[MJD]

You must feel strongly about the issue!

[tandfman]

My point is that there are TWO issues!

[Pego]

My approach to this is pretty simple. We all agree on two things.

1. There are climactic changes happening ( multiple causes).
2. We are polluting the planet.

We have no control over changes such as planetary variations.
We can control the pollution.

[bad hammy]

"The very thought that a large number of scientists all agree on everything is inconceivable."

Really? I think we have most of them on board with the ideas that the earth is not flat and that the earth revolves around the sun . . .

[MJD]

I suspect that these guys aren't interested in the subtleties of the debate:

http://www.thestar.com/images/assets/215397_3.JPG

http://www.thestar.com/News/article/205975

[Mennisco]

My approach to this is pretty simple. We all agree on two things.

1. There are climactic changes happening ( multiple causes).
2. We are polluting the planet.

We have no control over changes such as planetary variations.
We can control the pollution.

That sums it up quite neatly for me too Pego.

[MJD]

2. We are polluting the planet. We can control the pollution.

But isn't it true that we are doing a much better job at that than we were? The Great Lakes were basically dead at one time.

[Pego]

2. We are polluting the planet. We can control the pollution.

But isn't it true that we are doing a much better job at that than we were? The Great Lakes were basically dead at one time.

Yes, we do. We also have to continue and that means globally.

[MJD]

And if you believe the guy in the article above, we are actually increasing our tree coverage. By the way, don't for a minute think that I am "pro-pollution".

[Mennisco]

2. We are polluting the planet. We can control the pollution.

But isn't it true that we are doing a much better job at that than we were? The Great Lakes were basically dead at one time.

This first link is somewhat dated, though my very limited understanding is that the Great Lakes are now cleaner than 10 or more years ago:

http://www.igreens.org.uk/great_lakes_g ... leaner.htm

This site should prove useful to anyone interested in more sources:

http://www.waterkeeper.ca/content/indus ... php?page=3

The Yangtze River may be close to dead, however:

http://tinyurl.com/yq9ez8

China is going to have massive difficulties in not becoming a much more serious polluter as her economy continues to grow like a teenager hitting puberty.

[bad hammy]

We can control the pollution.

Although this article focuses on eliminating the filling and development of the SF Bay, part of the efforts also help ensure that it is no longer a dump and a sewer. It does show that grassroots efforts can have very real and positive effects.

San Francisco Bay was growing steadily smaller. Its primary use, other than shipping, was for sewage and garbage disposal. On the afternoon breeze in Berkeley you could whiff the persistent "East Bay stink" -- the aroma from untreated sewage.

At night you could see the bay on fire where garbage was dumped in the shallows and set ablaze. The bay was being filled for airports, harbor facilities, freeways, factories, salt production, shopping malls and subdivisions.

The city of Berkeley had plans to double its size by filling 2,000 acres offshore. Other cities had similar intentions. If all the plans went forward, most of this superlative body of water would disappear.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... 01&sc=1000

[SQUACKEE]

Warmer in Maine than Las Vegas today!

[tafnut]

The Yangtze River may be close to dead, however

I'm a greenie all the way, but the above statement is just silly. Mother Nature, given half a chance, is miraculous at recreating life in the direst circumstances. If they came up with a plan to curb pollutants now, the Yangtze would be back to normal within 10 after the cessation of pollution. The trouble is that too many political/economic pressures exist to keep it polluted.

[Mennisco]

The Yangtze River may be close to dead, however

I'm a greenie all the way, but the above statement is just silly.

"China's massive Yangtze river, a lifeline for tens of millions of people, is seriously polluted and the damage is almost irreversible, a state-run newspaper said Monday.

More than 370 miles of the river are in critical condition and almost 30 percent of its major tributaries are seriously polluted, the China Daily said, citing a report by the Nanjing Institute of Geography and Limnology, part of the Chinese Academy of Sciences."


http://tinyurl.com/yq9ez8

This is coming from CHINESE SCIENTISTS.

[bad hammy]

This is coming from . . . SCIENTISTS.

Well why didn't you say so?? The whole point of the global warming dissidents is that you can't trust THOSE guys.

[Mennisco]

This is coming from . . . SCIENTISTS.

Well why didn't you say so?? The whole point of the global warming dissidents is that you can't trust THOSE guys.

What, the Illuminati are controlling the Chinese scientists too? Of course!