Someone cast Wolven Winter on New Orleans!

[MaxWilson]

Originally Posted by lch

The joke being that it probably is linked to global warming.

Riiight, and so is the snow melting on Mount Kilimanjaro.

-Max

[Tifone]

Originally Posted by MaxWilson

Riiight, and so is the snow melting on Mount Kilimanjaro.

Ehm... yes it is? (82% of snow loss on the top of it in the last century... dunno why but I don't think it's due to Abysia having cast Second Sun )...

[thejeff]

It's not possible to link any one event, storm or heat wave or whatever to global warming. Weather is variable and any individual event could happen regardless.
However, one of the predictions the models make is that weather will be come more extreme. Storms, heat waves, cold snaps will all be come more common and severe as the average global temperature rises. So, yes it's quite possible.

And I don't know about Kilimanjaro, but the artic and antarctic glacial melting is about as linked to global warming as anything is. Moving faster than predicted, if anything. Trends at both poles and linked to ocean circulation are not "just local"

[Xietor]

I guess i can start with burning my dominions manual since it is out of date now!

[MaxWilson]

Originally Posted by Tifone

Ehm... yes it is? (82% of snow loss on the top of it in the last century... dunno why but I don't think it's due to Abysia having cast Second Sun )...

So you know that it's been shrinking for more than a century. Do you concede that it's been shrinking since 1870, and that the temperature has averaged 12 degrees (F) below freezing all the time we've been measuring it and has never exceeded 3 degrees below freezing? (That is, the snow is *ablating*, not melting. Reference http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/..._viscou_1.html.) If unusual weather is evidence of a global warming trend regardless of what kind of weather it is, and shrinking snowpack/glaciers are evidence of a global warming trend regardless of the cause of the shrinkage, is there anything which does *not* constitute evidence for a global trend?

That's terrible science, irrespective of whether Seattle will be hotter or cooler 20 years from now (it's hard to tell). There's no way to know why New Orleans has snow but it's not evidence of anything relating to global temperatures, yet. Although I have it on good authority that the Louisiana snowstorm was caused by a Monarch butterfly in Oklahoma flapping his wings last June.

-Max

[Tifone]

Could you please find another relevant source? One beginning with...

"YOU CHOSE a visit to a wind-farm in early summer 2008 to devote an entire campaign speech to the reassertion of your belief in the apocalyptic vision of catastrophic anthropogenic climate change - a lurid and fanciful account of imagined future events that was always baseless, was briefly exciting among the less thoughtful species of news commentators and politicians, but is now scientifically discredited. (???)

With every respect, there is no rational basis for your declared intention that your great nation should inflict upon her own working people and upon the starving masses of the Third World the extravagantly-pointless, climatically-irrelevant, strategically-fatal economic wounds that the arrogant advocates of atmospheric alarmism admit they aim to achieve.*"

...doesn't seem totally unbiased

*(they admit they aim to achieve pointless economical wounds to their own countries? ma lol!)

PS:

Originally Posted by MaxWilson

There's no way to know why New Orleans has snow but it's not evidence of anything relating to global temperatures, yet.

Nobody here has actually claimed undisputed "evidence" for that.

PPS: I suggest a big OT in the thread's title

[thejeff]

No one claims snow in New Orleans is evidence of global warming. I said it's possible (maybe even likely) it's due to global warming, but that's far different than being evidence of.

Again, no single unusual weather event is evidence, there have always been unusual weather events. A statistic increase in both the number and severity of such events is predicted and would be evidence. Do you see the difference?

[licker]

How pointless.

If temperatures go up it's global warming.

If they go down?

Yep, still global warming...

Though the entire point of the exercise is to link rising temperatures to CO2 anyway, but not the converse...

How odd that we listen to non scientists like Al Gore to explain systems as complicated as the global climate, yet ignore any findings which show alternative causes to rising temperatures.

Well the dogma has been bought already, no reason to ask for a refund I guess.

[Tifone]

Look, I'll try to explain it in a non-difficult way

Global warming = temperatures go up.
Temperatures go up = ice caps melt in the poles (expecially the north pole, this summer for the first time both the northwest and the northeast passages opened)
Ice caps melt = lots of cold, fresh water go in the oceans
Cold fresh water in the oceans = it disturbs the hot currents which mainly from the tropical/equatorial gulfs go warming the coasts around the world
Hot currents disturbed = Heat goes down around and it is increased the chance of typhoons floodings hurricanes etc. due to pressure jolts

The thing is obviously much more complicated. Still it's not that difficult to understand that global warming can make the temperatures go both ways.

And btw nobody just "listens to non scientists like Al Gore", (he made a great documentary while not scientifically perfect, and has the merit of having brought "sixpackjoe"'s attention to the problem); still ppl even listen to commissions of top-climatologists and scientists of other branches (including Nobel prizes) which say the problem exists, it's serious and even the Kyoto protocol wouldn't be enough to stop the huge and dangerous climate changes of the next centuries. - http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../306/5702/1686

Our sons will pay for our greed.

[licker]

Except that this past winter the arctic had its largest ice coverage in something like 30 or more years (I can look for the citation). But so what?

Oh don't get me wrong, I'm all for better controls on pollution, including CO2 emissions, but not for the ridiculous notions Al Gore lied to everyone about.

His documentary wasn't just imperfect science, it was pure bollocks designed to scare based on lies.

I think you should take another look at how cold water from the poles would affect the gulf of mexico as well, you seem to be implying that the melt from this summer was both greater than normal, and managed to reach the gulf in some 5 months or so.

Also the past two hurricane seasons have been much lighter than what the alarmists were predicting after one anomalous season 3 years back.

It's not simple, this much is true though.