Any weather condition is an expected symptom of G.W. That way they
are always right. Just more junk science from the Carl Sagan crowd.
Actually, I don't doubt G.W. I just doubt that it is caused by and
controllable by man. Given that there have been several cycles of
warming/cooling in the past few million years, long before humans were
on the planet, I think that's a reasonable conclusion. The last cycle
of G.W. started 25k years ago and caused the demise of the last
ice-age which has allowed mankind to move out of their caves.
The warm weather puts more water in the atmosphere, which permits more
It snows most often when it's not that cold, 28 to 38 degrees. So
heavy snows don't mean it's colder out.
This one is sort of strange "5. "The Children's Blizzard"
This blizzard occurred in 1888, causing 230 deaths. The blizzard was
completely unexpected, and temperatures dropped from above zero to
below 40 in the course of a day. Many people, mostly children who had
left for school that morning, died of hypothermia."
It doesnt' say what city this was, and I don't think it will snow at
40 below, but it will at below 40, so it's pretty confused.
Also this one: "1. Blizzard of 1888
This storm occurred the same year as "The Children's Blizzard" and
caused major damage to Connecticut, Massachusetts, New York, and New
Jersey. Due to the hazardous conditions, railroads were closed down,
which prevented many people from having any form of transportation.
Over 400 people died in the storm. Massive flooding and
inextinguishable fires destroyed major cities"
There may have been major files in more than one city, but I don't
know of any city destoryed by such a fire, where it snows, and the
author says more than one.
Perhaps if you learned the difference between weather and climate....
Global warming appears to be working very well.
12/10/2010 - NASA says 2010 will be the global hottest year on record.
The previous hottest year was 2005.
More extreme weather is entirely consistent with global warming.
I don't believe you are that dumb. (Those that are could use a dictionary.)
Totally ignores that 2010 will be the hottest year on record globally.
Second hottest 2005. Pattern over years equals climate.
The consistent climate science is that the global temperature is going
up. There is remarkable consensus by the vast majority of climate
scientists looking at climate from multiple viewpoints. And remarkable
consensus that the rise is the result of human activity.
2010 being warmest year on record and 2005 being 2nd place according to
NASA means according to the GISS global temperature index. GISS is not
the only global temperature index - there are 4 other major ones.
Besides, the GISS global temperature index has 2010 being a close second
There is also the NCDC one - in my experience, least-cited of all 5, due
to similarity to GISS. That one also has 2010 being a close second place
The HadCRUT3, UAH and RSS indexes have the hottest year being 1998, 2010
being in second place, and 3rd place is nearly a tie between 2005 and
- Don Klipstein ( email@example.com)
On Sun, 30 Jan 2011 18:21:20 +0000 (UTC), firstname.lastname@example.org (Don
I think it was back in the late 60's or early 70's when I read an
article in Pop Science or Pop Mechanics - or maybe Field and Stream or
Argosy - about global temps.
The fear then was global cooling, and another ice age.
Anyway, the article writer wasn't too worried.
Said all we had to do was air drop pulverized coal on the poles.
Think he had worked out how many sorties the Air Force would have to
fly to get the job done.
That'll cause more sunlight to be absorbed and stop the ice age.
Since the recent global warming buzz I got to thinking about that in
Air drop reflective styrofoam beads in the oceans and where ever else
it will do the job to reflect the sun's heat back up to the stars.
No need to worry about any of this stuff.
Might have to tweak it back and forth a few times to get it right.
"Science" does not depend on majority vote.
This does not mean the concept is not a valid way to govern one's life.
Inasmuch as Global Warming is a faith-based religion - a cult, to be sure,
but a religion nevertheless - those who believe in it must be accorded
respect for their beliefs.
Consensus is not majority vote.
Perhaps denialists could find out what consensus, climate and weather. mean.
Global warming, caused by CO2, produced by human activity, is widely
accepted in the sciences.
Amongst those who back global warming:
the vast majority (way over 90%) of climate scientists
the US National Academy of Sciences
the national science academies of all major countries of Europe and all
major world industrialized nations.
a large number of professional societies, just a few being
American Institute of Physics,
American Meteorological Society
American Chemical Society
World Meteorological Organization
the well know scientist George Bush 2
Science has long since coalesced behind global warming.
Denialist arguments are boring - like talking to creationists. And for
much the same reason.
"Consensus" = An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole.
So "Global Warming" cannot be a "consensus inasmuch as the group (of climate
scientists), as a whole, do not subscribe to the notion.
"Weather" - change occurring during months that have an "R" in them.
"Global Warming" - change occurring during the months without an "R".
Listening to a climate alarmist is like a Jew listening to a Jehovah's
Witness door-knocker. And for much the same reasons.
Ever wonder how they come up with those predictions?
Easy, they get ten weathermen or staff in a room. "Okay, how many of you
think it will rain tomorrow? One, two... seven. That's it? Okay then."
"Tomorrow expect a 70% chance of rain...
Should I be correct in seeing this, I do congratulate my fellow
daring dufas (or for that matter even a fellow engineer),
For getting away from Usenet-disfavored Top Posting...
In Usenet, posting "bottom" and "interleaved-in-response-to-short-points"
Best for now,
- Don Klipstein ( email@example.com)
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.