jump to last post 1-11 of 11 discussions (31 posts)

Where is that Pesky Global Warming when you need it?

  1. MikeNV profile image74
    MikeNVposted 6 years ago

    Coldest Russian Winter in 30 years... that's crazy.  Everyone knows the planet is getting warmer.  Those Russians must be up to something hoarding all that cold air.

    Can't Al Gore do something about this deep freeze in Russia.  Maybe he could work on some charts and graphs showing how it is actually not the coldest winter?

    SAINT PETERSBURG (AFP) – Walking along a Saint Petersburg Street immersed in music, Milana Kashtanova, became the latest victim of falling icicles and ice blocks that have killed five people and injured 147 in the city following Russia's coldest winter in 30 years.

    1. kerryg profile image87
      kerrygposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Russians get killed by falling icicles all the time. I studied abroad in St. Petersburg and it was actually something they warned us about before we left. With reason, as it turned out. Several of us just missed getting hit, myself included.

      Regardless, on a global scale, we had the warmest January on record, and March is on track to be one of the top 5 warmest on record. Unusually cold weather in one spot doesn't mean the weather is unusually cold everywhere else, especially in an El Nino year, which this is.

  2. 0
    Madame Xposted 6 years ago


  3. 0
    Justine76posted 6 years ago

    it ran off today. its snowing again...

  4. Maddie Ruud profile image82
    Maddie Ruudposted 6 years ago
    1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
      Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this


      and sad at the same time.

  5. The10DollarMark profile image61
    The10DollarMarkposted 6 years ago

    It's a common belief that global warming should mean warmer weather.

    But that's actually not what global warming means.

    Global warming is a warming of the overall atmosphere, especially at the poles where weather current is least engaged, which causes the snow caps to melt. Although the water is melted, it is still very cold. So as this new cold water traverse through its natural ocean channels towards the other continents, it cools down the oceans. Since a large part of our weather is affected by oceans, it ends up creating colder winters and warmer summers. It also increases the strength of typhoons and hurricanes, while lessening the frequency of such events (so less of them, but they're a whole whopping stronger).

    That's the effect of global warming to our climate in a nutshell.

    Now what happens once the ice caps fully melt is still speculation. However, according to theory, if the overall atmosphere gets hot enough to completely melt the ice caps, there will be so much cold water in the oceans that it will cause strong winter weather - or an ice age if you like. Because of the temperature imbalance, this will actually be able to eventually reduce the overall temperature of the atmosphere back down to a normal rate. However by that time, many species would have died from the extremely cold and harsh temperatures.

    1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
      Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Informative, but the Jon Stewart version is more entertaining.

      1. The10DollarMark profile image61
        The10DollarMarkposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Sadly I'm not a comedian, that guy's hilarious. Science just can't compete with him.

    2. 0
      Home Girlposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I think it's global conspiracy to scare chicken sh** out of all of us!
      By the way in Toronto Canada it is not much warmer than in Sait Persburg. it's just in Toronto people do not like to wear hats and fur coats and  in St P. they do!

      1. The10DollarMark profile image61
        The10DollarMarkposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        that's also a possibility

        I'm not denying the possibility that research may have been twisted around to provide a fear outlet for politicians and environmentalists to take advantage of.

        I'm just reporting what global warming is supposed to be, whether it's really happening right now or not.

    3. BDazzler profile image83
      BDazzlerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I see, ... tell you what, you go research Hurricane Lili (2002) and explain to me why:  when they couldn't predict that a Category 4 hurricane suddenly transforming itself to a Category 2 hurricane in thirteen hours against all known computer models, with a hurricane hunters in the air, and wind and temperature buoys through out the Gulf transmitting data constantly ... and yet even with:

      1) an even more complex system with more variables and
      2) less consistently collected data, and
      3) methodology being called into question by reputable scientists

      You expect us to accept that the computer models that couldn't predict the change in a single hurricane can predict the average global temperature in 10 or more years?

      Even if we had not seen credible evidence a geo-political-corporate system that encourages cases of "fudging" data for the "greater good" ... indicating that the people doing this research are not entirely honorable ... the idea that science that can't predict weather six hours into the future while continually monitoring and observing can somehow tell us what the weather will be in 10 years stretches credulity.

      Seriously, get me a definitive agreement what happened with hurricane Lilly ...then we can talk about global models.

      Just take a look at this graph:


      Note the sudden drop off just before it hit land.... it was completely unpredicted by all computer models...

      Consider this quote from Forecaster Avila:

      11 AM EDT THU OCT 03 2002


      Yet, your guys can tell me the weather in 10 - 20 years.  Good luck with that.

      1. The10DollarMark profile image61
        The10DollarMarkposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Well exact weather and weather trends are two different types of studies.

        Though I do agree with you that it sounds rather implausible that they could be able to calculate such an indefinite portion of science, especially when they still have trouble doing [relatively] simple weekly forecasts.. I just wanted to make sure the OP knew what the theory of global warming really entailed.

    4. sannyasinman profile image84
      sannyasinmanposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Yes, and none of this is man-made.

      Human CO2 emissions are not the cause of global warming, CO2 is not a pollutant and more of it will in fact be highly beneficial to plants, crops, trees. Who knows, with more CO2 in the atmosphere, Africa might become more fertile and be able to grow more food.

      1. The10DollarMark profile image61
        The10DollarMarkposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        well I wouldn't say "none" is man made. However, whether we are actually producing enough to have such an effect on the entire planet is definitely up to question.

        CO2 isn't a pollutant but it is a greenhouse gas, but once again - are we actually producing enough to change our entire climate? Or is it just a scare?

        1. BDazzler profile image83
          BDazzlerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Dude! You actually seem to have a reasonable grasp on the whole question! How refreshing!

    5. thisisoli profile image72
      thisisoliposted 6 years ago in reply to this


      This 'fact' appeared when even the global warming elite had to admit that despite predictions of global warming heating the Earth, temperatures were in fact dropping.

      They fail to explain how the fact that

      a) The ice caps speed of melting has reduced (Which would in turn have caused warmer seas through their own theory)


      b) How areas unaffected by polar water currents are seing vast temperatur drops.

      LRC blogger - while cancer is not necessarily linked to pollution, I do agree that pollution is a problem.  I also believe that if even half the money spent on global warming hype had been redirecto towards say, replanting the rainforest, or providing clean technology to China to help protect hte great barrier reef, we would be protecting two of the worlds most important natural atmospheric resources.

  6. 0
    Madame Xposted 6 years ago

    I still don't see how the ice caps are melting. It's 50 below zero at the poles.

    1. Steve 3.0 profile image60
      Steve 3.0posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      And the sea level hasn't risen significantly.  I look at photos from over 100 years ago and the tide marks haven't changed.

      It was cold in the UK this winter, they were saying it was going to be like southern Spain here a few years ago but when it gets colder, that is also due to global warming.  Then they wonder why so many people aren't taking it seriously.

  7. Doug Hughes profile image60
    Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago

    From Krugman (Nobel Prize Lauriate)

    March 18, 2010, 2:10 pm
    Hot Stuff
    Hmm. When the Northeast had an unusually snowy winter, it proved that global warming was a myth. But when temperatures are much higher than usual for mid-March … crickets chirping.

    Meanwhile, here’s global temperatures so far this year. The yellow line shows 2005, the warmest year to date.

    http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/0 … amp;st=cse

    The graph shows that we are on a tend for the warmest year GLOBALLY - on record. Of course Mike is going to take a single weather report - and a hahaha- and think he proved something.

    He wasn't posting about the lack of snow at the Winter Olympics - I think there was a place in Alabama that was colder. Sadly Mike's crafted deception WILL have an effect on people who don't know or won't find facts.

  8. LRCBlogger profile image60
    LRCBloggerposted 6 years ago

    For all the Global warming naysayers, here is my question:  Even if you do not believe in Global Warming, do you not agree that filling our air with toxins is bad for us?  We have among the highest cancer rates, birth defects, etc in the world.  I guess I could understand that you do not support pollution controls to stop global warming (since you don't believe in it).
    Do you not believe that pouring tons of toxins into our air is going to have a negative affect on our health?  Did you also know that cap and trade was first proposed by Regan and then enacted by Bush Sr to reduce acid rain.  The program is widely considered a huge success.
    Should you not support similar programs in the interest of keeping our air clean and less full of toxins?

    1. BDazzler profile image83
      BDazzlerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      The obvious answer is "of course toxins are bad" ... but CO2 is not a toxin. It's a necessary component of our atmosphere.

      Cap and tax does not address toxins.  It addresses CO2.

      Certain powerful individuals are using the scare tactics of the obvious problem with toxins to line their own pockets and calling it "green".  Have you seen the stats on the devastation to the avian populations in areas where "clean" wind farms are being built? 

      The noise pollution?

      They are not fixing anything, they are just lining their pockets while denouncing the greed of the oil companies.

      1. LRCBlogger profile image60
        LRCBloggerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Is it really possible to reduce CO2 and not reduce other toxins as a side affect?  I do hear what you are saying and somewhat agree but simply reducing CO2 does greatly reduce other toxins.  It is pretty hard to single out one item and not the others.

        1. thisisoli profile image72
          thisisoliposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Co2 in the atmosphere is 149 parts in a million, and human based carbon emissions are around 4% of total carbon emission, most of which is caused by agriculture.

          Man kind really has little effect on earths carbon levels, especially when compared to other natural carbon emissions.

          As to the scientists and statisticians supporting global warming, it is an ever decreasing number, and nearly all the reports promoting global warming are either government funded, or green party funded. 

          Any scientist or university that goes against the theory of global warming is threatened with cuts in government funding.

          By global warming elite I refer to those who have made a living by purporting their propaganda. They constantly change their reasoning, and their facts, while completely failing to provide any real evidence other than manipulated graphs and stats.

          I prefer to trust elite meteorologists (barely any believe global warming is anything more than a natural pattern) and elite scientists who are unbiased on the issue.

          The truth of the matter is that a natural correlation between temperature and carbon has been misconstrued by environmental lobbies to further their own agenda.

          This annoys the hell out of me since I am a strong supporter of several environmental groups which actually set out to reduce pollution, help protect the rainforest, and help protect the great barrier reef.

          Putting the global warming nuts in with the same people who study for years to become doctors, dentists, and even engineers, is a great fallacy, since most global warming websites simply repeat their own manipulated facts back to each other (I should know, I have been paid to write some of them).

          Global warming is just another media panicked frenzy, it happened 30-40 years ago with global cooling, when the people who talked about global cooling wanted to blanket the polar caps in carbon to prevent heat reflecting. Now we have global cooling, where we are being told we should have governments force extra costs on to industries during the middle of a recession, in taxes and hardware, while millions of people get put out of work.

        2. BDazzler profile image83
          BDazzlerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Sorry, I do disagree with that. Reduce real toxins, and if CO2 happens to go down, fine, but C02 is an inaccurate measure of other toxins.

          Before I changed majors and got my degree in Computer Science, I had 3/4 of my Chemical Engineering degree completed.  You don't reduce airborne toxins such as sulfur, by measuring how much CO2 is being produced. 

          My transitionary project was a stack gas analytical simulation.

          Sorry, it just doesn't work that way. The politicians are pulling a fast one on you.

  9. Will Apse profile image90
    Will Apseposted 6 years ago

    I can understand why no one wants to believe the scientists and statisticians but sometimes you just have to be strong and face up to reality.

    As for the 'global warming elite' I'm assuming you mean the professions who study the issue. Why would these be the last people to believe? Do you distrust the 'medical elite' (doctors)when you need medial attention? Do you let unqualified dentists fix your teeth? Do you refuse to fly on an aircraft that was designed by 'elite' aircraft designers?

    What other area of life would you trust to amateurs besides the climate change issue?

    1. sannyasinman profile image84
      sannyasinmanposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Now let's look at the Big Picture . . . the agenda behind the Great Global Warming Hoax is not and never has been about science or saving the planet. Its about politics and global governance.   

      The IPCC is a political organisation who's "raison d'être" is to prove that global warming is man-made and that the consequences will be catastrophic unless we all agree to carbon taxes, paid directly to the UN. This is the real mandate for the IPCC, and scientists are handsomely funded to do the "research" to prove this.

      Scientists who try to do real independent research are ridiculed, ostricised or lose their funding. The powers at be are not interested in knowing the truth about global warming, they are only interested in "proving" that it is man-made. And the degree of collusion is staggering.

      If you don't believe this, just try and get an article published in any mainstream newspaper which puts the other side of the argument. People like Christopher Monckton and Fred Singer can't get anything into the main stream, nor can they get a real debate on the issue.

      There is blatant global warming propaganda appearing in the press and on TV daily - even when most of what they quote has been proved to be alarmist claptrap. They are now even scaring our children by putting nonsense about sea  levels rising etc, into their books and fair stories, plus TV adverts (UK).

      This has moved beyond science and into the realms of political propaganda.

    2. BDazzler profile image83
      BDazzlerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      When I use it, I refer to the politicians who fund only those projects with conclusions that support their agenda and the so-called "professionals" who cow-tow to them.

      Most of these predictions are based on complex computer simulations. I have a degree in computer science.  I have been recognized as an expert witness in Software Engineering in federal court. 

      I have written artificial intelligence for Microsoft, and computer based physics simulations for ABC Sports and Jeff Gordon as well as lesser known entities.

      I'm telling you, as an elite professional in computer simulation, that I do not believe the models used can be reliable enough to justify the level of panic and regulation, with the attending economic and unintended localized environmental disruption being imposed on us by politicians and "justified" by "science".

  10. Will Apse profile image90
    Will Apseposted 6 years ago

    Thisoli- every National Academy of Science in the world accepts that Global Warming is real and is man made. These are deeply conservative bodies. Evidence needs to accumulate for many years and be overwhelming before The National Academy of Sciences in the US, the Royal Academy in the UK, The Chinese Academy etc, etc comes out with firm statements.

    A link to the American Association for the Advancement of Science  AAAS website
    http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2009/ … ment.shtml

    http://royalsociety.org/Climate-Change/ UK Academy.

    A starting place in the US National Academies website
    http://www.nationalacademies.org/headli … 91207.html

    1. sannyasinman profile image84
      sannyasinmanposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      As I said before, the scale of collusion to keep the “catastrophic man-made global warming” ship afloat is truly staggering. Let’s not be taken-in simply because the word “Royal” appears in the title. Let’s not confuse ROYAL with REAL. 

      The Royal Society in the UK, has provided the names of the scientists to do the “independent” inquiry into the Climategate scandal. Two have already had to withdraw because their established vested interests in “proving” the science became known. I think we can all safely predict what the outcome of this “independent” inquiry will be.

      And now your noble and honourable Royal Society is trying to silence the scientists who oppose its “official” global warming position. See below:
      http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 … l.business

      And Lord Martin Rees President of the Royal Society is beginning to look a bit foolish for trying to defend his position at any cost.   

      Plus the Met. Office has now agreed that it needs to review its forecasting methods . . it goes on and on.

      Most of the reports relied upon by the various “academies” and “royal” societies around the world come from the same source; the Climategate scientists in East Anglia CRU and Michael “hockeystick” Mann and others who receive funding specifically to prove AGW.  This is not independent scientific research.

      1) If the science is so certain and clear, why the need to silence the opposition? The scientific proof should stand on its own. 

      2) Why do the alarmists continue to perpetuate the exaggerations, scaremongering and  Armageddon scenarios, all of which have been proven to be FALSE!! Please explain this to me. 

      3) And now they are even targeting our children. This is outright propaganda. 

      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/enviro … verts.html

  11. Steve 3.0 profile image60
    Steve 3.0posted 6 years ago

    I wouldn't mind so much if the politicians weren't such big hypocrites.  I am being made to feel guilty about driving my car when they could of made fuels that aren't as damaging quite easily by now.  They prefer to add more and more tax to fuels that pollute.  They also seem to spend most of their time traveling around the world telling us we shouldn't travel.  It just baffles me, if this is serious, they should set an example.