It's going to be cold in California

#1

MG1968

That’s No Moon…
Joined
Sep 17, 2006
Messages
28,387
Likes
19,291
#1
Thanks to minus 81° degree temps in Siberia.

paging Al Gore, how's it feel to be so wrong?

Rare 50 year Arctic Blast Sets Sights On Southern California. : Conejo Valley : Ventura County Star

"Temperatures in Siberia, Russia will be -81 degrees this week, "said Martin. "With those type of temperatures the arctic air mass has to spill somewhere. Our answer of the exact track will become more clear this week. All residents in the mountain communities should prepare this week for very cold, winter weather, with snow."

Indications are a second, colder storm could hit near the 18th-22nd time-frame. The details on that will have to be sorted out.

I know the alarmists have changed their tune and are now calling it "Climate Change", but whatever they choose to call it, their personal religion is continuing to let them down. Further, there is no way they can blame "8 years of failed Bush environmental policies" on the temps in Siberia nor the fact that those temps eventually make their way to California.
 
#2
#2
I'm nowhere close to an environmentalist, but progressive statistics show the world gradually heating up.

The most logical reason I've seen so far is it's just par-the-course and a natural stage in the continued evolution of our Solar System... as other planets are seen to be heating up as well.


Pssssh. What's the use of factual science when you can be an alarmist?
 
#6
#6
Thanks to minus 81° degree temps in Siberia.

paging Al Gore, how's it feel to be so wrong?

Rare 50 year Arctic Blast Sets Sights On Southern California. : Conejo Valley : Ventura County Star



I know the alarmists have changed their tune and are now calling it "Climate Change", but whatever they choose to call it, their personal religion is continuing to let them down. Further, there is no way they can blame "8 years of failed Bush environmental policies" on the temps in Siberia nor the fact that those temps eventually make their way to California.

Much like lawyers, you can find a scientist to construe the arguement either way.

All I know, growing up in west TN we had cold winters with snow days home from school every year. I have photo albums of me every winter building snowmen and sledding.

I have a 7 year old who has seen a couple of inches of snow in his life. If we get anything it is gone in a few hours.

I don't know what that means for global warming but I can tell you that the winter wonderlands are few and far between today versus 30 years ago.
 
#7
#7
I don't know what that means for global warming but I can tell you that the winter wonderlands are few and far between today versus 30 years ago.

I've noted that too, but I don't ascribe it to the activities of man
 
#8
#8
every stat i've seen shows that we haven't had global warming the last 5 years.

Increase your data set to be more accurate and better predictive. The global warming claim is, like has been said already, based on progressive statistics. I love all these "people that don't understand" that come out and say "we had record snowfall this year, therefore global warming is false!" or "California is going to have a colder than usual winter this year, therefore global warming is false!".

Parse your statement with data over the last 100 years (or even better, approximated data over the last 1000) and it sings a different tune. The planet is warming, but it is more than likely due to natural cycles as opposed to greenhouse emissions. I think the tree-hugging Al Gore types are really out there, but these knee-jerk statements based on single data points and a complete lack of knowledge on how the calculations are computed don't help either.
 
Last edited:
#9
#9
Increase your data set to be more accurate and better predictive. The global warming claim is, like has been said already, based on progressive statistics. I love all these morons that come out and say "we had record snowfall this year, therefore global warming is false!" or "California is going to have a colder than usual winter this year, therefore global warming is false!".

Parse your statement with data over the last 100 years (or even better, approximated data over the last 1000) and it sings a different tune. The planet is warming, but it is more than likely due to natural cycles as opposed to greenhouse emissions. I think the tree-hugging Al Gore types are really out there, but these knee-jerk statements based on single data points and a complete lack of knowledge on how the calculations are computed don't help either.

I'm happy to know that you think I'm a moron.

where are my crayons?
 
#10
#10
Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png


Global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Last edited:
#11
#11
From the map with average temperature fluctuations in the graph on the link posted what are we to make of the areas that are warming the most being the areas that are the least populated, coldest areas on earth?

Also what do we make of the evidence that other planets are also warming at a somewhat similar rate?
 
#12
#12
I love all these morons that come out and say "we had record snowfall this year, therefore global warming is false!" or "California is going to have a colder than usual winter this year, therefore global warming is false!".

Likewise the ones that use any weather even (Katrina) and say it's evidence of GW?
 
#13
#13
Yes, because we all know that a few solid cold snaps in southern California means there's absolutely nothing to worry about.

Similarly, we know that a good blood letting cures the plague and that witches can be held at bay with the tooth of a white wolf.
 
#14
#14
As little as 30 years ago the talk wasn’t about global warming, it was about an imminent ice age.
Is an ice age likely?

Even possible?

Consider this: There have been more than 20 glacial advances, or ice ages, in just the last two million years.

And we know from geological evidence that each glaciation lasted anywhere from 20,000 to 100,000 years—no one knows why the disparity—separated by warm periods that last some 10,000 to 15,000 years.

What we can be reasonably sure of is that we’re now in one of the warm periods, and this one is already 13,000 years old.

Some scientists think it’s at an end and a new ice age is about to begin.

No one really knows what causes ice ages.

Theories abound.

They include perturbations in the earth’s orbit, changes in ocean currents, the earth periodically passing through galactic dust that obscures the sun, variations in the sun’s energy output, changes in continental positions, uplift of continental blocks, reduction of CO2 in the atmosphere, etc.

Evidence or experiment may eventually resolve which of the theories wins out, or it may turn out that a combination of theories are true.

It may even be that none of the current theories proves satisfactory and some entirely new theory ultimately explains their cause.

But what is pretty certain is how they take place.

It was once common wisdom to believe that the advent of an ice age took place over centuries or even millennia, and that they ended the same way.

It was thought that the changes were so slow that, if people were around to witness them, each generation would hardly notice any change.

If the next glaciation were to come on slowly,and we recognized it as the beginning of an ice age, maybe there would be time for civilization to adjust: to begin food storage, to develop crop hybrids that will endure shorter growing seasons, to move populations, factories,
and technology—the core of our civilization—into southern climates, etc.

But we now have evidence that ice ages come on with an abruptness that will catch us by total surprise.

Physical evidence indicates that when the last ice age started, the British Isles went from a temperate climate to being completely covered with glaciers hundreds of feet thick in just 20 years.

Do scientists think it’ll happen that way again?

Yes. And if the next ice age starts here’s how it may occur: At first we wouldn’t even realize it, so the first few years we’d feel we were just having one or two bad winters.

But after a few years rivers will freeze all-year-round, snow from the previous years won’t completely melt, glaciers will begin to form, and some of what is currently now the world’s most fertile ground will become unfarmable.

Countries bordering on both sides of the Atlantic will change radically as a result of changes in the Gulf Stream, and Europe, which today is almost 20 degrees warmer than other parts of the world at the same latitude, will become as cold and dry as Siberia.

The Sahara may again become forested while the Amazon basin becomes a desert. Florida may also become a desert, as it was in a previous ice age.

(good, nothing like seeing a gator die of thirst!!)gs

At the same time, if the climate changes enough to disturb the monsoon season that fuels agriculture from Africa to China, where over half the world’s six billion people now live, hundreds of millions will starve when the climate abruptly changes.

There’s no way to prepare them for that.

Canadian and Russian wheat will fail completely. American agriculture, on which much of the world depends, will be scaled back by shorter growing seasons.

Not only will we not have enough food forexport, we won’t be able to grow enough to sustain even our own current population.

And jobs? Factories will close, service businesses will disappear, stocked supermarkets will become a thing of the past.

Get ready for your standard of living to drop like a rock while you and your kin go hungry.

How far will the ice fields extend?

In North America they will most likely reach as far south as present day Chicago.

But they may go further.

And this isn’t going to be some picture postcard winter landscape. At the height of the last ice age, the ice fields covering much of North America were up to two miles thick.

So, expect the great northern cities, such as New York, Boston, Detroit, Toronto, Montreal, etc., to be swept away before advancing glaciers.

In the meantime, sea levels will drop and more of the continental shelves will be exposed.

You’ll be able to walk from Siberia to Alaska, from California to the Channel Islands, from Britain to France, from Australia to New Guinea.

But when is this really all likely to happen?

Because no one knows what causes ice ages, there’s no way to forecast when the next one will start, how bad it will be, or what effect the (allegedly man-made) global warming taking place today will have on it.

We can’t tell whether it will be less severe than the last one, when the ice sheets only extended as far south as Wisconsin, or as bad as some of the glaciations of half a billion years ago when ice sheets formed all the way to the equator.

Although this latter scenario is unlikely, no one can be sure. But if it does, kiss the human race good-bye.

What seems fairly certain is that we will go from the world as it is today to full-blown glaciation in less than 20 years, maybe in as little as four or five. And there is no way the United States can adjust to and survive a climate change this abrupt.

Can we stop it?

We can’t even stop a single snow storm.

Imagine trying to stop an ice age that’s going to go on for tens of thousands of years.

Did we dodge another ice age a couple of hundred years ago??

In the worst year of that period, 1816, Tennessee saw sleet and snow in July and frozen over ponds in August.
 
#15
#15
Likewise the ones that use any weather even (Katrina) and say it's evidence of GW?

Absolutely. Show me data where Hurricanes have increased in average strength progressively over time, and correlate it with rising global temperatures, and that might be something interesting to investigate further. Until then, all assertions are completely anecdotal.

Likewise, I don't believe Katrina was an act of God or anything else. The whole disaster was nothing more than a perfect combination of unusually high gulf water temperatures, poorly design/upkeep of levees, inadequate evacuation plans, and gross incompetence of disaster relief at all levels of government.

Single data points are worthless. Trends, averages, and data regressions are what matter in the analysis.
 
#16
#16
Global warming does more than just increase the average temperature around the world. It can also cause cold snaps, as antithetical as that may seem. If you want proof of warming, just look at the ice caps and glaciers saying bye-bye at an ever increasing rate. Not to mention the permafrost which will release a large chunk of methane into the air once they are gone. Standing around pretending it's not happening won't make it go away.
 
#17
#17
Yes, because we all know that a few solid cold snaps in southern California means there's absolutely nothing to worry about.

Similarly, we know that a good blood letting cures the plague and that witches can be held at bay with the tooth of a white wolf.
:eek:lol:
 
#18
#18
From the map with average temperature fluctuations in the graph on the link posted what are we to make of the areas that are warming the most being the areas that are the least populated, coldest areas on earth?

Also what do we make of the evidence that other planets are also warming at a somewhat similar rate?

The arctic and antarctic regions are most sensitive to any climate change, so these areas would see the largest temperature changes. There are a host of reasons for this all the way from the Coriolis effect to changing ice levels. Also land masses rather than oceans will always be predicted to warm more. I don't know if that answers your question about the plot though....

...as far as other planet data...I would imagine that other planets would warm as we warm and cool as we cool.....the sun will drive that....the question is whether or not man is exacerbating the warming periods and lessening the cooling....
 
Last edited:
#20
#20
Absolutely. Show me data where Hurricanes have increased in average strength progressively over time, and correlate it with rising global temperatures, and that might be something interesting to investigate further. Until then, all assertions are completely anecdotal.

Likewise, I don't believe Katrina was an act of God or anything else. The whole disaster was nothing more than a perfect combination of unusually high gulf water temperatures, poorly design/upkeep of levees, inadequate evacuation plans, and gross incompetence of disaster relief at all levels of government.

Single data points are worthless. Trends, averages, and data regressions are what matter in the analysis.

Take a look at Kerry Emanuel's work on tropical systems and global warming....there's some interesting stuff there...he published the original work in 2005 just prior to Katrina...but he went back and reworked some of it recently....
 
#21
#21
Global warming does more than just increase the average temperature around the world. It can also cause cold snaps, as antithetical as that may seem. If you want proof of warming, just look at the ice caps and glaciers saying bye-bye at an ever increasing rate. Not to mention the permafrost which will release a large chunk of methane into the air once they are gone. Standing around pretending it's not happening won't make it go away.

Looking at melting ice caps and glaciers isn't evidence of anything alone...in no way is it proof of anything more than *warming*, not necessarily "anthropogenic" warming...which is what we're focused on. Unfortunately, it is almost impossible to study climate change without modeling so that we can predict what should be happening without the increased CO2 levels and with the increased CO2 levels (and other greenhouse gases). I'm not disputing that if we continue to warm, we'll have big problems such as a huge positive feedback in the release of methane from the permafrost....and I'm not saying that man is not responsible for a part of the warming....but I don't think that melting glaciers is any more evidence that "Mr. Gore is right" than a cold snap in Siberia is evidence that "Mr. Gore is wrong"....
 
#22
#22
every stat i've seen shows that we haven't had global warming the last 5 years.

It depends on how you measure this. We haven't warmed any since 1998. Yet, we have warmed in over half the years since 1998 (I think). So, what's up with that? 1998 was a huge anomaly in temperature increase....that's why they typically use 5 or 10 year running averages. I don't think that the 5 or 10 year average has been decreasing for the last 5 years. However, I do think that the moving average did decrease recently.
 
#23
#23
Increase your data set to be more accurate and better predictive. The global warming claim is, like has been said already, based on progressive statistics. I love all these morons that come out and say "we had record snowfall this year, therefore global warming is false!" or "California is going to have a colder than usual winter this year, therefore global warming is false!".

There are just as many, if not more, morons that cite every instance of undesirable form of weather, earthquake, or cicada swarm as evidence of global warming. Nevermind, I see another poster beat me to it.
 
#24
#24
Increase your data set to be more accurate and better predictive. The global warming claim is, like has been said already, based on progressive statistics. I love all these morons that come out and say "we had record snowfall this year, therefore global warming is false!" or "California is going to have a colder than usual winter this year, therefore global warming is false!".

Parse your statement with data over the last 100 years (or even better, approximated data over the last 1000) and it sings a different tune. The planet is warming, but it is more than likely due to natural cycles as opposed to greenhouse emissions. I think the tree-hugging Al Gore types are really out there, but these knee-jerk statements based on single data points and a complete lack of knowledge on how the calculations are computed don't help either.
I love how those who worship at the Altar of Science will buy into the "approximated data over 1,000 yrs"..."Approximated data" is not data!
 
#25
#25
I love how those who worship at the Altar of Science will buy into the "approximated data over 1,000 yrs"..."Approximated data" is not data!

I don't know exactly what he is talking about, but we should be able to use isotopic analysis of core samples up to the last ice age - and this is hard data. Now - how do you analyze this data...that is when approximations may come into play (I would guess)....but that is science (and good science tends to avoid bad assumptions)....
 

VN Store



Back
Top