no global warming!

Question- I get it that warmer air can hold more moisture, but wouldn't it fall in the form of rain? I mean, if the air is cold enough to make it snow, it seems that the temperature of the air isn't a good explanation for all the moisture.

Our recent major snowstorms were a result of all the moisture from the warmer waters in the south and then hitting our cold temps. We have another storm coming from the north but it is just a Alberta Clipper meaning, maybe an inch of snow. If that storm that is hitting Texas and Alamaba now were to turn northward, we would get a lot more snow than the Alberta Clipper from the north.
 
Also, does no one else see the contradiction in this blog article arguing that it's silly to say this is proof that global warming isn't happening because it's one weather event and then going on to blame it on global warming? Poor science education for sure.

Question... Does any of those plastic that has been burned into the air have any adverse effect on the air or climate? I just dont see how it can not.
 
Poster children for science education. Science is sorely lacking in U.S. schools.


There are alot of well educated Scientists in mentioned in Post 4 and Post 8 who either disagree that the Globe is warming or on the cause.
 
Our recent major snowstorms were a result of all the moisture from the warmer waters in the south and then hitting our cold temps. We have another storm coming from the north but it is just a Alberta Clipper meaning, maybe an inch of snow. If that storm that is hitting Texas and Alamaba now were to turn northward, we would get a lot more snow than the Alberta Clipper from the north.
OK, but it seems that if global warming is really happening, it wouldn't be cold enough to make all this snow fall in the first place. Oh wait, that's weather, not climate and it's unscientific to confuse the two. But wait, isn't the warmness of the Gulf Of Mexico also a weather thing?

EDIT: Not Gulf of Mexico. I was thinking south of me. Whoops.
 
For those who think global warming is not going on, take a look at the dwindling ice floes in Anartica and around the North Pole and all. The penguins, polar bears and all are losing their homes and such. Itis due to the gases produced by the buring of plastic and all these plants that are clogging the sky and depleting the ozone. Yes, when that happens, then the weather patterns go screwy meaning we will have wild weather patterns giving up more extreme weather in the form of hurricanes, tornadoes, blizzards, snowstorms and rain as well as drought. And yes, I did say drought. It was the cause of Florida beginning to dry up. The Everglades was threatened as well as Lake Okeechobee. This was after the 4 hurricanes swept across Florida. Now, we have had enough rain as well as snow melt and all, the Lake O has filled up and is almost at capacity and the Everglades are making a comeback. What must be understood is "what comes around, goes around".
 
Last edited:
Question... Does any of those plastic that has been burned into the air have any adverse effect on the air or climate? I just dont see how it can not.

It causes pollution for sure....and that sucks. I think most everyone sees the need to cut pollution. As for global warming....who knows. I tend to think it is cyclical myself. It looks bad when scientists exaggerate the loss of ice in the North while ignoring the growth of ice fields in the south. That would seem to indicate a cycle to me.

I don't understand why people can't just say we need to recycle and reduce pollution because dirty air sucks and leave it at that.
 
Question... Does any of those plastic that has been burned into the air have any adverse effect on the air or climate? I just dont see how it can not.
I doubt burning plastic is very good for the environment, but i thought the issue was carbon from fossil fuels.
 
For those who think global warming is not going on, take a look at the dwindling ice floes in Anartica and around the North Pole and all. The penguins, polar bears and all are losing their homes and such. Itis due to the gases produced by the buring of plastic and all these plants that are clogging the sky and depleting the ozone. Yes, when that happens, then the weather patterns go screwy meaning we will have wild weather patterns giving up more extreme weather in the form of hurricanes, tornadoes, blizzards, snowstorms and rain as well as drought. And yes, I did say drought. It was the cause of Florida beginning to dry up. The Everglades was threatened as well as Lake Okeechobee. This was after the 4 hurricanes swept across Florida. Now, we have had enough rain as well as snow melt and all, the Lake O has filled up and is almost at capacity and the Everglades are making a comeback. What must be understood is "what comes around, goes around".

A) There are no penguins at the North Pole. Penguins are South Pole.

B) As the long article in Post 8 states the flos have been known to have been like this before. Ships were known to be in the area in the 30's

C) Many scientists disagree as to whether gases would create a significant warming.

D) It looks bad when IPCC has to be corrected and many scientists believe there were problems with the testing methods. There was also an exaggeration of the amount of flooding and Ice lost which has been widely reported.

E) The Northern Ice fields are beginning to freeze at an earlier date again

F) The Antarctic ice field has grown by 25%
 
The earth goes through warming and cooling cycles over and over. It's why the planet has seen several ice ages. It's a natural phenomenon. Man is contributing to green house gas however it is questionable how much of an impact that is having.
 
Really!
Brief Analyses | Environment | Global Warming


No. 551

Wednesday, May 17, 2006

by H. Sterling Burnett

Recently, some scientists have claimed that human-caused global warming poses a significant threat to the survival of many species. For most species at risk, they argue, warming will cause the range of suitable habitat to shift faster than either the species (or their food sources) can move or adapt to a new range. For other species, they say, suitable habitat will cease to exist altogether. Among the species claimed to be at high risk of extinction from human-caused global warming is the charismatic polar bear.

Indeed, in February 2005 the Center for Biological Diversity filed a petition with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service to list the polar bear as endangered or threatened. The petition was later joined by the Natural Resources Defense Council and Greenpeace. In response, the USFWS initiated a formal status review to determine if the polar bear should be protected throughout its range.

A new NCPA study by Dr. David Legates, director of the University of Delaware's Center for Climatic Research and state climatologist, examines the claim that global warming threatens to cause polar bear extinction and finds little basis for fear. By and large, the study finds that polar bear populations are in good shape.

Is the Arctic Warming? In the study, Climate Science: Climate Change and Its Impacts , Legates reviewed the claims that global warming is causing an unnatural increase in Arctic temperatures, posing a threat to the thickness and extent of sea ice and thus to the polar bears who rely upon it. In particular, he examined assertions made in the 2004 Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (hereafter, the Arctic Assessment ), an international project of the Arctic Council and the International Arctic Science Committee (IASC).

Legates finds that their claims of an impending, human-induced Arctic meltdown are not supported by the evidence. For example, the Arctic Assessment proclaimed that Arctic air temperature trends provide an early and strong indication that global warming is causing polar ice caps and glaciers to melt. However, current research suggests that coastal stations in Greenland are instead experiencing a cooling trend, and average summer air temperatures at the summit of the Greenland Ice Sheet have decreased at the rate of 4°F per decade since measurements began in 1987.

In addition, the Arctic Assessment ignored a relatively recent long-term analysis of records from coastal stations in Russia. Russian coastal-station records of both the extent of sea ice and the thickness of fast ice (ice fixed to the shoreline or seafloor) extending back 125 years show significant variability over 60- to 80-year periods. Moreover, the maximum air temperature reported for the 20th century was in 1938, when it was nearly 0.4°F warmer than in 2000. The Russian study concludes that actual temperature measurements do not show the increased warming predicted by computer climate models.

However, even if warming is occurring, it has happened before, as ice cores from Baffin Island and sea core sediments from the Chukchi Sea show. For example, in Alaska, the onset of a warming in 1976-1977 ended the multi-decade cold trend in the mid-20th century and simply returned temperatures to those experienced in the early 20th century. Sharp, substantial fluctuations are typical of the historic pattern of natural climate variability extending back several centuries. And, as expected in response to natural variability, Alaskan ecosystems have responded rapidly and visibly to this recent warmth. By contrast, if the recent warmth were human-induced by constant additions of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, responses in the Arctic region would be expected to be gradual and modest when viewed within any short time period.


Is Warming Causing Sea Ice to Melt? According to the Arctic Assessment , human-caused warming in the Arctic will necessarily lead to decreased sea ice thickness and extent. However, air temperature is only one factor that influences sea ice; the frequency and velocity of the wind also has an effect. When the Arctic is relatively calm, it is easier for sea ice to develop. During stormy periods, surface winds churn the water and move existing ice, making it more difficult for sea ice to form.

A study commissioned by Canada's Department of Fisheries and Oceans examined the relationship between air temperature and sea ice and concluded, "the possible impact of global warming appears to play a minor role in changes to Arctic sea ice." Rather, the Canadian study found that changing wind patterns are the primary cause of changing sea ice distributions. Moreover, while sea ice has decreased in the Arctic, it has remained relatively constant (or even increased slightly) in the Antarctic since 1978.

Is Global Warming Killing Polar Bears? The Arctic Assessment concludes, "global warming could cause polar bears to go extinct by the end of the century by eroding the sea ice that sustains them." According to the assessment, the threat to polar bears is threefold: changes in rainfall or snowfall amounts or patterns could affect the ability of seals, the bears' primary prey, to successfully reproduce and raise their pups; decreased sea ice could result in a greater number of polar bears drowning or living more on land, negatively affecting their diet (forcing them to rely on their fat stores prior to hibernation); and unusual warm spells could cause the collapse of winter dens or force more bears into less-desirable denning areas.

Though polar bears are uniquely adapted to the Arctic region, they are not wedded solely to its coldest parts nor are they restricted to a specific Arctic diet. Aside from a variety of seals, they eat fish, kelp, caribou, ducks, sea birds and scavenged whale and walrus carcasses. In addition, as discussed above, Arctic air temperatures were as high as present temperatures in the 1930s and polar bears survived.

Interestingly, the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), an international organization that has worked for 50 years to protect endangered species, has also written on the threats posed to polar bears from global warming. However, their own research seems to undermine their fears. According to the WWF, about 20 distinct polar bear populations exist, accounting for approximately 22,000 polar bears worldwide. As the figure shows, population patterns do not show a temperature-linked decline:

Only two of the distinct population groups, accounting for about 16.4 percent of the total population, are decreasing.
Ten populations, approximately 45.4 percent of the total number, are stable.
Another two populations - about 13.6 percent of the total number of polar bears - are increasing.
The status of the remaining six populations (whether they are stable, increasing or decreasing in size) is unknown.

Moreover, when the WWF report is compared with the Arctic air temperature trend studies discussed earlier, there is a strong positive (instead of negative) correlation between air temperature and polar bear populations. Polar bear populations are declining in regions (like Baffin Bay) that have experienced a decrease in air temperature, while areas where polar bear populations are increasing (near the Bering Strait and the Chukchi Sea) are associated with increasing air temperatures. Thus it is difficult to argue that rising air temperatures will necessarily and directly lead to a decrease in polar bear populations.

Conclusion. Are human activities causing a warming in the Arctic, affecting the sea ice extent, longevity and thickness? Contradictory data exists. What seems clear is that polar bears have survived for thousands of years, including both colder and warmer periods. There may be threats to the future survival of the polar bear, but global warming is not primary among them.
 
The earth goes through warming and cooling cycles over and over. It's why the planet has seen several ice ages. It's a natural phenomenon. Man is contributing to green house gas however it is questionable how much of an impact that is having.


True..we probably will never know.
 
I doubt burning plastic is very good for the environment, but i thought the issue was carbon from fossil fuels.

Fossil fuels, plastic and whatever else...all of that burning into the air probably has an effect on the climate changes. Maybe not.
 
it just annoys me that people rely on "facts" based on poking their heads out of their windows.

A simple logic should tell you that local activity does NOT equal to systemic activity. If you have a wart on your finger, it doesn't mean you have it on other finger even though a wart can appear ANYWHERE on the skin.

Suppose you have one wart, it reveals that your immune system is working well to keep it under control but if you have hundreds of warts, it's a clear indication that your immune system isn't working. If one wart gets bigger, it doesn't mean you'll start having lots of warts. Different activities, different mechanisms.

Same with climate - just because the east is having a LOT of snow (which is perfectly normal and PREDICTED by scientists in Oct - they expected colder than average and more storms) but it doesn't mean that the whole world is cold. Look at California and the Western states - nothing unusual. Also, because it is COLDER than average and it gets MORE condensation, you get a combo - SNOW!
 
it just annoys me that people rely on "facts" based on poking their heads out of their windows.

A simple logic should tell you that local activity does NOT equal to systemic activity. If you have a wart on your finger, it doesn't mean you have it on other finger even though a wart can appear ANYWHERE on the skin.

Suppose you have one wart, it reveals that your immune system is working well to keep it under control but if you have hundreds of warts, it's a clear indication that your immune system isn't working. If one wart gets bigger, it doesn't mean you'll start having lots of warts. Different activities, different mechanisms.

Same with climate - just because the east is having a LOT of snow (which is perfectly normal and PREDICTED by scientists in Oct - they expected colder than average and more storms) but it doesn't mean that the whole world is cold. Look at California and the Western states - nothing unusual. Also, because it is COLDER than average and it gets MORE condensation, you get a combo - SNOW!

:hmm:Is that the same group of Sceintists that predicted 2006 and 2009 would be major hurricane seasons and that we could expect more Katrina's due to global warming????

We CAN prove without a doubt that cooling and warming cycles have happened in the past. We CAN NOT prove without a doubt than man contributes significantly to warming. I prefer to stick with what we CAN prove. The earth is messy.....clean it up.
 
it just annoys me that people rely on "facts" based on poking their heads out of their windows.

A simple logic should tell you that local activity does NOT equal to systemic activity. If you have a wart on your finger, it doesn't mean you have it on other finger even though a wart can appear ANYWHERE on the skin.

Suppose you have one wart, it reveals that your immune system is working well to keep it under control but if you have hundreds of warts, it's a clear indication that your immune system isn't working. If one wart gets bigger, it doesn't mean you'll start having lots of warts. Different activities, different mechanisms.

Same with climate - just because the east is having a LOT of snow (which is perfectly normal and PREDICTED by scientists in Oct - they expected colder than average and more storms) but it doesn't mean that the whole world is cold. Look at California and the Western states - nothing unusual. Also, because it is COLDER than average and it gets MORE condensation, you get a combo - SNOW!
Then why did you post an article claiming that global warming, a climate phenomenon, explains the current weather?
 
A) There are no penguins at the North Pole. Penguins are South Pole.So I got my poles mixed up - sorry

B) As the long article in Post 8 states the flos have been known to have been like this before. Ships were known to be in the area in the 30's

C) Many scientists disagree as to whether gases would create a significant warming.

D) It looks bad when IPCC has to be corrected and many scientists believe there were problems with the testing methods. There was also an exaggeration of the amount of flooding and Ice lost which has been widely reported.

E) The Northern Ice fields are beginning to freeze at an earlier date again

F) The Antarctic ice field has grown by 25%

I still believe we are still going through a problems with global warming.
 
Then why did you post an article claiming that global warming, a climate phenomenon, explains the current weather?

My point is that it is POSSIBLE to have severe winters during the global warming.

Did anyone ever bother to say that the upper West is experiencing warmer winters on average? Nope. It's hardly news for us. Why is that the snow records in the East matters more than the warmer winters in the West? Humans are more reactive to something that's outside their comfort level. Snow isn't exactly comforting and can be disruptive while a nice warm winter is hardly disruptive.

"Forecasters predict warmer than usual temperatures would reach a swath from Washington to Michigan, dipping south to central New Mexico. Alaska also has a higher chance of warmer temperatures.

They also say cooler temperatures are expected from southern Texas to the Mid-Atlantic and in Hawaii.

Other places, such as the Northeast and California, can go any which way on temperatures.

Overall, slightly more than half the nation by area will be warmer than normal, but when it comes to where most people live, about half the population is likely to have warmer weather and the other half cooler, said Mike Halpert, deputy director of NOAA's Climate Prediction Center

The El Nino will play a big role in helping some drought-parched regions, Halpert said. Forecasters said there is a significantly higher probability of wetter winters for Texas, Florida and California and the southern parts of New Mexico, Arizona, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia and South Carolina."

Winter forecast: Warmer West, North; cooler South

Note that it was dated in Oct.
 
My point is that it is POSSIBLE to have severe winters during the global warming.

Did anyone ever bother to say that the upper West is experiencing warmer winters on average? Nope. It's hardly news for us. Why is that the snow records in the East matters more than the warmer winters in the West? Humans are more reactive to something that's outside their comfort level. Snow isn't exactly comforting and can be disruptive while a nice warm winter is hardly disruptive.

"Forecasters predict warmer than usual temperatures would reach a swath from Washington to Michigan, dipping south to central New Mexico. Alaska also has a higher chance of warmer temperatures.

They also say cooler temperatures are expected from southern Texas to the Mid-Atlantic and in Hawaii.

Other places, such as the Northeast and California, can go any which way on temperatures.

Overall, slightly more than half the nation by area will be warmer than normal, but when it comes to where most people live, about half the population is likely to have warmer weather and the other half cooler, said Mike Halpert, deputy director of NOAA's Climate Prediction Center

The El Nino will play a big role in helping some drought-parched regions, Halpert said. Forecasters said there is a significantly higher probability of wetter winters for Texas, Florida and California and the southern parts of New Mexico, Arizona, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia and South Carolina."

Winter forecast: Warmer West, North; cooler South

Note that it was dated in Oct.

Hmm sounds like a weather cycle to me.
 
They should explain on why there is over 10 inches of snow here in north of Texas, even in Feb!
 
Back
Top