Man-made Global Warming proven to be a hoax

Page 15 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.


(This is also to the post prior to the one I am quoting)

Firstly, I feel that an apology is in order. My last post seemed unduly aggressive, and while it could have been justified it certainly wasn't necessary. So I apologise for that.

So you admit you did remark about not caring. That's why I felt you didn't care.

'Knowledge hasn't saved us here'? Knowledge hasn't had the chance to save us. Knowledge has driven humanity throughout its history, from early tool use to modern computing. Knowledge has been and still is critical to the success of this species.

'But in doing so, finding us not a virus but more, yet denying other things as well, means the same, does it not?' I honestly have no idea about what this means. Explain?

Faith in knowledge and faith in religion are slightly similar but markedly different. Faith in knowledge is a 'faith' in facts, the other is faith in perceived fact. Just because knowledge fluctuates doesn't reduce it into a theist principle, in fact this constant change marks it apart most religions, whom have ideologies based upon ancient scripts that have remained unchanged for thousands of years. Just because something changes doesn't make it unreal, The night-sky changes, does that make the stars false? Tectonics plates mean that, over time, the Earth beneath our feet changes, does that make it unreal?

Perhaps knowledge could be considered a cocoon. However, it is a cocoon that we are constantly pushing outwards, enlarging it with every new discovery. A religious cocoon remains small in comparison. Some grow, some can embrace aspects of knowledge that aren't inhibited by a belief system, but it will still mean that a religious cocoon will be smaller than the cocoon of knowledge. But many people choose to remain in a cocoon that is small, and wrapped around a religion, and it remains a shame that some people do put themselves in a situation like that. There are of course non-theist cocoons people wrap themselves in, such as with HIV, when parents refuse to give treatment to their child whom contracts the disease, resulting in the death of the child.

The poor have always suffered, they suffered when they were colonised, they suffered when they were enslaved, and they still suffer today. Food, water, shelter and warmth (clothing) are important, in fact they are the considered the basic needs of every human being. Yet, many millions do not have all of these, and has this picked up since globalisation? Probably not. I have suggested ways to help poorer nations, although they do rely upon there leaders, such as schemes to stop deforestation, or fossil fuel use. The way poorer nations will be effected by this means that acute interest needs to be paid into helping them.

It's odd, I was watching a program on viruses last night, and I could interchange 'virus' and 'humans' and the show still made sense. It's not a point rather an observation. Man continues to be a virus, he continues to scar the landscape in the manner of a virus scarring the body. Humans need this planet to survive, as a virus needs its host. Humanity can be evil, but there are, as you say, moments of goodness out there. Unfortunately most good people never make it to any decision making positions, hence why it took women around the world so long to get the vote, and black people so long in the USA (among others but the US is the most highlighted case of oppression against blacks).

What you are referencing is not communism and shouldn't be referred to as such. You can call it Leninism or Stalinism, but never communism. I don't call a cat a dog because they both have four legs, a tail and teeth, the same is true with ideologies. Leninism isn't communism, because it broke fundamental rules regarding oppression and equal-pay.

Have the lands risen or the sample been sunk? It's a tough call, because coastal erosion means land is being washed away, while this land is displaced elsewhere, but most sedimentary rocks are from soil compacted over time, so it's possible that this layer was pushed downwards. Hurricanes hit New York about every 150 years? I've statements to this effect, but why would they then hit fifteen times more often in a warmer world? Let me explain. Tropical cyclones are produced by the oceans which need to above at a certain temperature to produce tropical cyclones, and if the world is warmer then the area of ocean at this temperature increases. If there is more ocean at the right temperature then the hurricane can spend a long time forming, growing in intensity, and numbers produced. Atlantic hurricanes have been getting more numerous since 1995, but the worldwide numbers have remained steady. However, it is felt that the intensity and duration of tropical cyclones has increased throughout their global range. If the duration has increased this means that the likelihood of a hurricane reaching New York increases, and fifteen times doesn't seem an unreasonable figure for this increase. If they had said every year, you could claim it's alarmist, but an every decade event is recoverable. So the facts of the increased chance of a New York hurricane do 'add up'. Another factor is that a sea-level rise from a warmer world means that the defences of New York will be stretched more, so the storm surge would have more of an impact on New York, but this in itself won't effect the odds of a strike.
[EDIT: Also note their use of the word 'could' in the programme. That's not the same as definately.]
 
honestly? this is absurd. jmo, but people who dont believe that global warming exists should be shuttled off to Mars. Maybe with all of the ignorant fools gone we wont have to worry as much about overpopulation and global warming :)
 


Well now.

You first link is, well, contentious at best. 700 scientists maybe 13 times more than the number on the UN panel, but a) of course there are a lot more, such as there being a lot more doctors than neurosurgeons, b) the 52 on the UN are likely to all be climatologists/atmospheric physicists/chemists etc., whereas the '700' could be from any field, from economics to sociologists (come on it's 255 pages long, if they are all relevant to the debate then this point is, obviously, nullified), c) in a similar list in 2008 many scientists felt that they hadn't actually said anything to the effect of what was being shown and asked for their names to be removed, d) when many national academies of science, whom represent scientists for their respective countries, feel that climate change is happening and it is man-made, it's hard to see how 700 would tear the consensus apart. The Royal Society, who represent nearly twice the number on this list, agree with this consensus, which would mean the trend of opinion remains, especially when this is one society representing more than are on the list, and e) mentions made of Russian scientists mystify me, considering it's the world largest natural gas exporter, so reducing this flow wouldn't help finances in the Kremlin. This final point is interesting, as deniers often like to claim out that people on the Pro-CC are being 'paid' by organisations or governments, but when this is put to them, that it is they themselves who are being paid to disagree, by organisations or (in rare cases) governments the issue doesn't stand-up in their eyes – it doesn't count as an argument against them, only as an argument before them.

Lets look at consensus – it is defined as a trend in opinion. The scientific consensus is that there is climate change and it is man-made. Just as with the phrase a 'a warm day does not a summer make', just because there are minority of deniers doesn't take away from the prevailing consensus.

As for your second link it's 36 pages long, if you have some points you'd like to make from it please quote them, as I have with links that are long. Not knocking it, but 36 pages of retina busting computer screen reading?

This is a politicised field. Too politicised? Governments don't like to put in place measures that inhibit growth (as discussed previously) for no good reason, so this is hardly for there benefit. A tax simply to raise revenue? There are easier options than setting this up as some sort of reason if it's going to come under such flak from segments on the public. But any scientific study where it transpires action needs to be taken inevitably becomes involved in politics. Stem Cell Research, Abortion, Nuclear power, Medicine, are all scientific discoveries/research that have become politicised. Governments are in place to make decisions, inevitably these decisions should be based on new scientific discoveries that show policy-makers which is the best direction to head.
 
Weve had ABC saying they cant find any dissenters, all the other claiming the others are lame, and ignorant, so now, this is just some "other side of the issue" folks.
Now, we can believe Al Gore et al, or barbara Streisands et al, basically anyone left of "let the government make the decisions for you" folks.
Like the media, where these 700 havnt gotten a fair shake, as I said, ABC couldnt even find them.
Now, what we need is to accept their opinions as well, and weigh them out, and not go by what is a controlled and led scenario.
Ive sat on a few panels before, and Ive been the victim of 2 ringers.
Ringers are those brought in on panels to make sure the forseen agenda is accomplished. In one panel, it was litterally taken out of our hands (local governmennt) and pusher straight thru to state (highest government).
The problem is, the constitution recognizes the lowest form of government as the most powerful and important, as it speaks more directly to the individual, and once removed, it loses its relevence.
The panel was from 3 counties, all of which had special ecological needs, and it was the subject of old gas tanks, which were leeching/leaking into the ground, and how we were supposed to handle the effected soils.
Our panel wanted too much I guess, andf the fact that in the area that I lived at the time, where the water table was on average 7 feet, varying of course, that they let it go the cheapest way, once taken out of our hands, which threatened our water tables, as we tried to explain to them the sandy soils needed a
clay underpan, and the sloping had to be minimal as well.
We wanted the gas to turn into benzene thru the atmosphere, and farm it out slowly that way, for a gradual disperal.
Now, these "experts" out numbered us as well, and they all had lofty positions, and many were placed there for honor, with no qualifications. They also had some unkind words for us as well, and their opinions werent that high of us either. And their consideration of our requests, after having it pulled from us was shunned, and was treated "in the big city"{ as we were just country bumpkins, without actually telling our side at all.
Now, this is why I find this very ironic here. the same thing is going on. If you dont consider what the others have to say, then whoever doesnt isnt qualified to handle this issue, period.
 


Governments are chosen by the people, and they are chosen by the people to make decisions. It is possible for the public to have to much information, and for people against the government or the scheme to supply misinformation. If you don't want to live in a country with governments you are sorely out of luck, because governments are there for a reason, and a government-less state would be an anarchist state. So would be in, as suggested, anarchy.

Opinions are just that; they are opinions, so shouldn't just be accepted in the same way as fact. If I had the opinion that all Christians were paedophiles this opinion would be grossly incorrect, in the same way that is someone on the list had the opinion that, lets say, cheese was the contributing factor to global warming, then we don't 'need to accept their opinions as well' for at least that particular opinion.

Maybe ABC couldn't find them because, well, just that. They simply couldn't find them, because they looked a) in places where it was unlikely any would be found (which I'm sure will be the deniers will use) or b) they did look in places where you'd expect them, but they found none or couldn't find any with a coherent argument against climate change.

Maybe this panel of yours was taken over because it 'wanted the gas to turn into Benzene through the atmosphere'. Perhaps this lack of scientific understanding is why 'experts' stepped in. Petroleum/Natural Gas doesn't simply turn into Benzene when exposed to the atmosphere, maybe somebody on the panel realised this and went to someone higher up and went “this really isn't going well”, so they stepped in. Trace amounts of Benzene are produced from incomplete combustion, and quite a bit when you burn PVC, but it doesn't just morph magically from Petroleum. If it comes from Natural Gas bonds would need to be made, and if it were to come from Petroleum bonds would need be broken and made, both of which require a large energy input (a few million years at high pressures and temperatures should do it naturally) to achieve. I can see why their opinions weren't that high of you, and equally it would seem that your opinion of them was equally as low.

Do we listen to holocaust deniers? No. Because the overwhelming evidence is that the Holocaust happened. It similar with this (sceptics and sometimes even deniers can enlighten mistakes, or even instigate the production of further evidence that merely strengthens the case for Climate Change). When deniers can produce a coherent argument or report, based on fact rather than untruths and conjecture then the scientific community will be more inclined to believe them.

You haven't picked out any key points from the 36 page report - http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.3762.pdf – could you do so if you want to make a point from it?
 
Oh boy, you sure dont know what the hell youre saying.
http://lequia.udg.es/lequianet/WatSciTech/03708/0027/037080027.pdf
Heres a small sampling of the efforts and effects of soil farming etc.
The options were given to us, not something we created, and no we werent idiots,
If you really claim to know what youre talking about, youd have recognized this immediately.
This was a govermental response, and was asked by the local government to create a panel of varying degrees of representitives within the community.
So, no, this wasnt anti governement, but the exact opposite, people voluneering their time for a governmental response to a common problem.
So, once again, the attack of things unknown by someone who doesnt grasp the larger pictures, and desperately clings onto what they do "know", driven by fear, and perpetuated thru insult and degradation of others.
Not sure where youre getting these "opinions" from, other than some peoples lack of understanding that they assume what they know certainly cant be understood by the common man, and therefore, has the "need" to "take care of them", which speaks and reeks of elitism, foolhardiness and a want of power.
Didnt I mention I was a yank? Isnt this what we do? Challenge our government? And make sure theres participation? Representation? Isnt this what I explained above?
Benzene can be farmed out of soils, and was the decided way of doing so in the end anyways, just not the best way for us.
What youve proven here is, youve taken the elitist angle, tried to degrade others, while holding yourself, and your "structure" higher than those who actually are not only capable to do and learn the things you claim is above them, but voluntarily do so, for the betterment of them and their neighbor.
The panel was dispersed, with all but the important considerations taken, that of soil contents/makeup, and water tables.
The area where we lived is exclusive to that state, and doent contain much clay, the water tables run high, the soils are loamy or sandy, and the danger of spreading the ciontaminate without proper measures taken are high, and they were ignotred, and instead, it was "stamped" with a broad usage for the entire state, where there is much clay, water tables run closer to 60-80 feet, and that was good enough.
So no, they failed our ecology in those counties by dummying up their law they passed, ignored wiser and better directions, and yes, a good friend of mine also sat on that panel, and he owned the largest petro distribution LOCALLY OWNED and agrred right along with it, and the costs were higher, but he too cherished the land he and his children and neighbors lived on.
So, Mr Elitist, what have you to say now?
Any more insultsto spray? Any more things "too difficult" for people to understand, so therefore, you wanna be our daddy? Is this what government is to you? If it is, I feel sorry for you, and yes, Im Christian, and in order for the things to happen according to the words, your attitude has to prevail in order for those words to come to pass.
He will come as a peacemaker, he will solve the worlds problems.
Now, since Im the sceptical one here, as obviously youre not, Id find it hard for that individual to escape my scepticism, and wouldnt just buy his line, hook line and sinker.
Regardless of how "scientifically factual" it was.
I said Im also as sceptical on my beliefs, and if Im not, then Im not as good as I can be.
But once again, instead of opening a crack of scepticism to the point of even recognozing there is other voices and theories and opinions and facts being swept under the rug, you ignore them, doomed in your conviction of them, where i have the freedon of being sceptical of both sides, ever honing a finer point, and coming closer to the truth
 


Woh, woh, woh. This response is entirely out of proportion with my reply. What you said is the panel you were a member of “wanted the gas to turn into benzene thru the atmosphere, and farm it out slowly that way, for a gradual dispersal”, I merely pointed out that this is impossible, which would suggest why experts were called in. Then I commented that it would be understandable for 'experts' to hold a low opinion of the panel, due to this poor standard of science in this case.

This paper is all well and good, but it sheds no light on your claim that petroleum will turn into Benzene when exposed to the atmosphere. The clean-up of contaminated soil is outlined, heck, I learnt about it from reading the report, but it doesn't appear to be specific in the measures of how to deal with soil contaminated by Petroleum/Natural Gas.

I never claimed you were an idiot, such a thing would be crass, I did say that this option of a Petroleum-Atmosphere reaction showed little scientific understanding, but I did not call you an idiot.

I never claimed that your panel was anti-government, I merely commented on your stance that appeared to indicate decisions shouldn't be left to governments.

You should hold onto knowledge and reason, but I feel I don't desperately cling to it, I fail to see how my statements in the last post show how I'd be driven by fear, something I am certainly not driven by. Worry for the planet and its wildlife? Certainly, but not fear. I don't fear anything.

I don't feel that scientists assume that the common man can't understand things. Are some people more intelligent than others? Yes. Does this mean they always nanny people? Of course it doesn't. I'm friends with people smarter than me, and they don't 'take care of' me, and I'm sure that in IQ standards I am friends with people less intelligent than me, does that mean I nanny them? Of course it doesn't. When someone is more of an expert than you in a particular field it makes sense to turn to them for information.

Nationality shouldn't factor when it comes to challenging government – 'People shouldn't be afraid of their governments, governments should afraid of their people', so you being American makes no difference for me. The people should be represented, but, as is often the problem, the rich and self-serving twist the system, to run better campaigns, or pay-off government members, meaning the needs of a minority get first place over the needs of the majority.

I don't feel that I've taken an elitist view in any way, shape or form. I don't hold myself in a position above you, right from the start I've tried to treat you as an intellectual equal, I've never said 'Oh, you just don't understand' or 'You'll never get this', I've always tried to explain points. If you feel that this explanation means I've taken an elitist stance then I feel you are mistaken.

I never said that they hadn't failed you in the case as equally as I haven't said that they failed you because you didn't mention the outcome of the case in the post I responded to.

There's nothing too difficult for anybody to understand, if they wish to understand it. Should leaders lead? Yes. Some people are better than others at leadership, personally I think I'm one of those who aren't very good with leadership. Governments are in place to lead, to make difficult decisions, to try to act for the majority of people who elected them. So if you mean that a government is in place to lead then yes, that is what government is to me. Along with a provider of social services.

From your early responses to me I feel that your scepticism sides with the deniers; having refuted data patterns and trends. I in no way ignore the sceptical responses, the ones supplied from you I have read and responded to, just because they don't stand up to scrutiny doesn't mean I ignore them. Should coherent, fact-based and rational argument be removed from the debate? Definitely not, but incoherent and irrational arguments based on untruths should be, and their are more unthruths and more incoherence in the deniers arguments than in the supporters arguments.
 
Global warming was because of solar flares and for the next 10 years will be on a decrease, then the cycle starts again, carbon tax credits, are just that TAX, the UN is a bunch of A####, they want a one world gov't and are helping fuel the mideast turmoil, UN peacekeepers, Global Warming, there is no conspiracy theory, what a laugh, lets see if I get flamed
 


I'm not here to flame anyone. Firstly you could read the conversation (of sorts) that myself and JDJ have been having regarding this topic. It starts around the middle of page 4 with a post by myself.

The cycle of solar flares is closely linked with the 11-year solar cycle, as the more sunspots there are generally the more solar flares there are (although solar flares are quite variable) But there appears to be very little link between global warming and solar flares. The average global temperature started increasing, after a level period, in 1975 (ish), some 35 years ago, or approximately 3 solar cycles, however, the average temperature graph - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png - whilst showing increases and decreases, appears to show a decrease in temperature for the late 1980s to early 1990s, which was a high point in the solar cycle ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar-cycle-data.png ) and also a period when a large solar storm struck. As it is no solar cycle can account for this increase in temperature. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Temp-sunspot-co2.svg Shows that solar activity has decreased since about 1985, but the temperatures have continued to rise.

Carbon credits are not quite a tax, but a market created for companies to trade credits with each other. The way it works is that if a company 'cleans up' it's production methods, releasing less CO2 than there allocation in credits then they can sell them to other companies who would have to buy these credits to match there CO2 output. the issue is that the allocation of credits in the market needs to be right, too many and their price is too low so companies feel it would be cheaper to simply buy the credits, too few and the price becomes to high for companies to keep up with.

The UN do not want one world government, they want co-operation between governments of the world. The demographics of a world government would be too large to formulate a scheme that would work everywhere. Nobody wants a world government. Even when the Soviets controlled the eastern bloc in Europe they chose candidates to run the countries for them.

The UN are not fuelling middle east turmoil, the only fuel in that fire is US involvement in Israel and Iraq, Israel itself, Iran, and the way the British and French screwed up by going back on promises made to the Arabs of the area in 1916. UN peacekeepers are just that - peace keepers, but they are understaffed, under equipped and underfunded, and lack the necessary mandates to start a war with those who fire upon them. I'd hoped the US pulling out of Iraq would mean more troops would be diverted to Sudan, where there are real problems. Unfortunately for the people of Darfur there is no oil in the area, so US involvement seems unlikely.

There is no conspiracy theory for Global Warming, the only conspiracy theory comes from deniers. These theories do not stand up to scientific standards. None are peer-reviewed, as scientific studies have to be. Just as with the belief that 9/11 was carried out by the US government, that man didn't land on the moon and previous conspiracies about fluoridation of water, there are few, if any, truths in this conspiracy theory.
 
the planet warms and cools every few thousand years, most scientists are not trying to say that its completely man's fault, it just that the green house effect has been proven, otherwise our planet would be unbearably cold, and our pumping billions of tonnes of gh gasses into the atmosphere aint exactly helping the situation, and lets say every little while, the earth gets to the edge of the proverbial cliff, it aint like burning through our planets resources at both ends aint pushing it ever so closer to the edge, and if we get too close to the edge, the ground might give way beneath us. But anyone who thinks that man is solely responsible is incorrect. but we can do more to keep the earth further from the edge.
 
you idiot. they said humans aren't directly speeding up Global warming, not so much that it "didnt exist or is a hoax". they said nature is doing it as it always has.
 
Can we hurry this up people, I'm waiting for the global warming debate to be solved once and for all on a forum for a hardware review site. As soon as it's solved I can wait for the religious debate to finally be solved on my favorite dinner recipes website's forum.
 
One thing to always remember here. There is no hype, everything is fully professional, just like this:
A description of the coming storm as a ``snowicane'' by State College, Pa.-based Accuweather Inc. touched off criticism - one newspaper called it a ``smackdown'' - by the National Weather Service.

On Tuesday, 48 hours before the storm was to hit, Accuweather called it ``hurricane-like,'' a ``monster,'' and a ``powerful storm of historical proportions'' that would wreak havoc from Pennsylvania to Maine and by Wednesday was using the term ``snowicane.''

That prompted a stern response from National Weather Service meteorologist Craig Evanego.

``It's almost inciting the public, inciting panic,'' he said.
Philadelphia, which has had its snowiest winter with more than 70 inches and is still digging out from earlier back-to-back storms, could see as much as a foot of snow.
http://channels.isp.netscape.com/news/story.jsp?flok=FF-APO-1110&idq=/ff/story/0001%2F20100224%2F2001735359.htm&sc=1110&floc=NI-ne2

Now, they wouldnt want to get people excited now would they?
Oh yea, Philly has had its snowiest winter ever, good thing we have global warming, or theyd never dig out. This includes the little ice age periods as well
 


This is emergency planning pure and simple, by claiming that it's a snowicane they implied that it was going to be a strong as a hurricane when such an even this highly unlikely and an unrealistic assessment of the storm. What many people do when there is a hurricane is evacuate, and the last place you want to be when a blizzard hits is on the roads, hence this wasn't an attack on some one who was saying this somehow disproves global warming, rather it was a caution not to incite panic when it is unnecessary.

But really, JDJ, I assumed your were better than this, and that you could tell weather from climate. Yes, it is colder in Central Asia, northern europe, and the west coast of america, but it is a lot HOTTER in the Mediterrean area of Europe, west asia, and your nations very own state of Alaska, along with much of the top of canada. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/8446278.stm (slide 4) (but that is a month and a half old) Really all this statement appears to prove is you have the inability to discern weather from climate.

This is a weather event, not a shift in climate as it is too early to draw that (highly unlikely) conclusion. Moreover it isn't even a global weather event that trends to colder, as the colder areas seem to be balanced out by warmer areas.

Please don't be daft, weather does not equal climate.
 
Anyone knows, Alaska is always warmer when the lower 48 are colder, read up on it, it natural, something people touting GW shouldnt ignore, as this has been going on since forever.
As for warnings, the NWS and NOAA have said this is an attempt at sensationalism, which is where alot of GW is at right now, and THEY shouldnt be calling the kettle black
 
In the end you will just have a wealthier politician and elite while global weather change still happenes. All these taxes will do nothing but create that. All the lemmings will be happy they stopped global warming while they remain debt slaves waiting for their next goverment handout living in their box under the bridge. Al Gore is richer but the weather is still changing , how can this be?

Hopefully the frequency and harmonics changes in 2012 and everyone will see what a con has been going on all these 100's of years. .

The enviromentlist movement is as facist as wall street and all the past and current president. One big mind control cluster fuch.
 


Well, I didn't know that if Alaska is warmer the lower 48 states (i assume this is what you mean by lower 48, rather than lower than 48 degrees North.) and I can't find any literature on it, can you provide a link detailing its effects?

I've highlighted the reasons why this was said in my prior post. This is nothing to do with global warming it's emergency planning.

Moreover, this isn't even climate change. It is a weather event. You know I saw an article in New Scientist detailing new evidence on why there have been so many droughts in Australia - it explained that the research points to the weather pattern (and with it the rain) shifting southwards, towards or over Antarctica. And guess what. They didn't blame global warming. At the end they said that they didn't know whether global warming was to blame. Just a point that scientists don't blame everything on climate change.

Weather events =/= climate

@maximiza. Wow, I've been being told that environmentalism is communist, not facist.

In a capitalist system you will make the rich richer and the poor poorer, inspite of the BS capitalists say about helping the poor.

You seem to be suggesting that 2012 will see the toppling of the bourgeois class system. We can but hope.
 
I used to live in northern Minnesota, and wed laugh at how much colder it was there than Alaska, and its widely known that when its colder there, its warmer in Alaska, its the currents as they go, au natural.
We took much pride in the fact Alaska was often much warmer than northern Minnesota, especially when it wa 30 below F for 2 weeks in a row, in those temps, youve a need to kick someone somehow.
I cant find it as "fact" off hand, theres a few links mentioning a little of this, or really general temps, but really doesnt address the shifting of temps, as we experienced and relished? in Minnesota
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_ney_york_the_coldest_state_in_the_US
I lived 60 miles south of International falls, which is colder than Alaskas cities, and personally dealt with temps as cold as 56 below zero, and had to work outside as well
 


The link you've given me seem to relate to the average temperature, not some sort of 'warm Alaska-cold 48 states' systems as you seem to describe. I don't think I can simply except hearsay without evidence I'm afraid. You may have misinterpreted that graph it is temperature difference to average, rather than absolute temperature. Then again you may not have.

I also direct you to this quote from the link - 'Alaska turns out of have 15 weather stations with average annual temperatures colder than International Falls. ' Which suggests that places in Alaska are colder, but whether these weather stations are in Alaskan cities isn't mentioned.

If you could dig out a link to provide evidence for a warm-Alaska-cold 48 states effect I'd appreciate it.
 
Where are those higher temps youre refering to regarding Alaska? if its the cities, then its not those 15 points where it is colder, mainly inland and at the very northern end of the state.
I dont need you or anyone to confirm/believe or anything else, and no, I dont expect you to believe me either, so its no biggy, but I do know what I know.
While I lived in Northern Minnesota, I experienced the coldest winters on record 3 times, starting in 1987 til 97.
We also experienced its largest blizzard and snow fall amounts and coldest ever temps as well.
Now again, I dont expect you to believe me, but again, I know what I know.
When you see Lake Superior freeze solid several times, when it only happens usually once in decades or longer, maybe a century, you know its been cold. But again, unless Im bothered to look up what Ive lived thru for you to believe me, I dont expect you to, cause Im not looking these things up
 


I don't know why you'd take a 2010 as less factual than a 2003 article, considering they each refer to there specific winters then the 2010 article would be of MORE relevence as far as observation is concerned for this winter.

This still fails to show any warm-alaska-cold 48 states sytem. As you described thusly:
'Alaska is always warmer when the lower 48 are colder'

It shows that central North America gets bitterly cold, same as with central Asia in the winter.

All your links are equally factuous. Your second link even has pictoral evidence, which is hard to disprove, especially when you look at the satellite date (which the second link contains a link to) at http://coastwatch.glerl.noaa.gov/modis/modis.cgi/modis?region=s&page=1 The images go back to the 11th and show a pretty much ice free lake. I feel this image is the least cloud covered - http://coastwatch.glerl.noaa.gov/modis/modis.cgi/modis?region=s&page=2&template=sub&image=t1.10050.1628.LakeSuperior.143.250m.jpg It shows the ice largely confined to bays, even then some of the smaller bays of the north-northeast part of the lake remain ice free (or is this region urbanised? It's hard to tell)

The ice coverage this year, looking at the other two years you provided me links to, is a lot less and is comparatively non-existant. It is a trend? I wouldn't know, but it suggests that something, possibly warmer air, is keeping Lake Superior free of much of its ice. Looking at this data - http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/data/ice/atlas/daily_ice_cover/daily_averages/plots/superior/supgallery/index.html - it's hard to say what the trend is.
But it shows that the 1970s had one year when the ice failed to reach 50%, the 80s had two years and the 90s had three years that didn't reach 50%, and the 00s matched that instantly (00, 01 and 02). This would indicate to me that the trend of ice coverage is downward, but the data does run out at 2002, so data for the last 7 seven years would play a part in determining whether the first three years of the millenium was a blip or something more long term.
 
In the last 15 years, the lake has frozen over completely, and you need to put this into perspective, as to its depth and its mean temps and size and location (winds etc)
In 15 years time, the lake has frozen over 3 times completely, which is 4 times the norm, so having 1 year where it wasnt frozen in 35+ years takes more precedence? Youre making my point, TY.
Ive experienced this, and yes, the area is large, like central asia, and it can be cold, but even Philadelphia is now experiencing a winter its never seen before in snowfall.
Now, what does snowfall do?
Its not just Philly either, but the vast majority of the east coast, you know, the same one where the sea levels are to increase by 20 feet?
Another huge area.
So, my pointing out huge areas where we see the coldest, the most snowfall, exceptio0nal freezwes etc are nothing because other areas are more important?
This is another proble I have with this, if its cold, GW says, its supposed to be, if its has record cold, GW says its supposed to be, if its record snowfalls, GW says its supposed to be. In other words, theyve covered anything that may happen heheh, and still cant predict the weather 5 days from now, yet 20 years, no problemo.
Too many claims, too many things to ignore, too many hidden agendas, too many hidden facts etc etc , but most of all, too many taxes and control
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom