Indian Government Marginalizes UN IPCC
- Thread starter T'Girl
- Start date
But snow cover is now, all of the sudden, a sure sign of global warming. That means 7 of the 9 previous winters show a lack of global warming, except that when they occured they were taken as evidence of global warming. So 7 of the 9 winters had a lack of snow which showed global warming, and 2 of the 9 winters had heavy snow which showed global warming.
The theory is non-refutable, just like creationism.
It's a sign of "climate change". It being colder on one point on the planet doesn't negate the fact that the entire planet is warming. To say otherwise shows you don't understand the fundamentals of the discussion and have the scientific understanding of a 13th century monk.
And the Newsweek article? Are we bringing up scientific articles from decades ago now as proof that something isn't currently happening? Then I've got something that'll prove that smoking isn't bad for you because it was endorsed by doctors in the 40s.
I'm not the one reciting the modern equivalent of "God works in mysterious ways."
We're not talking about one point on the planet. We're talking about the entire Northern Hemisphere. The snow extent is the second greatest on record. It's not just North America, but also Europe and Asia.
As for the planet warming, even Phil Jones is now saying that the extent and speed of the late 20th century warming isn't unusual, with two other 20th century warming periods match it.
Warmists are so gullible they'll believe anything. Heavy snow and snow extent, along with freezing, occurs during cold periods, such as the Maunder minimum. Snow lessens during warm periods, such as the Medieval Warm period.
This is so well established that the BBC is shopping around for a source of better forecasts than they've been getting from the British Met office, which failed to predict the recent record British snowfalls because all the CRU research said there would be little or no snow in the future.
David Parker, at the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research in Berkshire, said "Children just aren't going to know what snow is. Ultimately, British children could have only virtual experience of snow. Via the internet, they might wonder at polar scenes - or eventually "feel" virtual cold."
So the leading warmists apparently have no more understanding of climate than a 13th century monk, because Senators in Washington are building igloos out of the stuff.
Or, all the available evidence happens to support the theory. The circular logic you're attempting to use is astounding; apparently you believe that evidence of climate changes proves the opposite. But considering you seem to think that the Alps and the eastern seaboard are the same thing...
Or, all the available evidence happens to support the theory. The circular logic you're attempting to use is astounding; apparently you believe that evidence of climate changes proves the opposite. But considering you seem to think that the Alps and the eastern seaboard are the same thing...
You misunderstand "non-refutable". All scientific theories can be refuted by repeatable observations which contradict them, requiring the theory to be modified or discarded.
That's not the case with global warming.
For the set of all possible and significant observations x, x is evidence of global warming.
Decreased snow is a sign of global warming. Increased snow is a sign of global warming. Increased hurricane activity is a sign of global warming. Decreased hurricane activity is a sign of global warming. Increased droughts are a sign of global warming. Increased rainfall is a sign of global warming.
You can call it "climate change" but the AGW theory says the climate will be changing one way, toward higher temperatures, and record snowfalls all over the world say it's changing in the opposite way.
http://img641.imageshack.us/img641/1575/getfilephp.gif
Notice how the last datapoints on that graph dropped back down from the high's of the mid-1990's to mid-2000's period? If warming caused snow we'd have seen massive snowfalls for the past 15 years. We didn't. The snow has hit now that the temperatures are lower.
http://img194.imageshack.us/i/getfilephp1.gif/
See that. Normal or below normal temperatures in most states, normal being the 115-year average.
http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/6342/getfilephp2.gif
Note that the Northern Hemisphere snow cover was less during the recent hot years and more during the cold 1970's. This contradicts the idea that increased snow cover is a sign of warming.
But you warmists believe it because to believe otherwise would mean temperatures can drop without a corresponding prior decrease in human sin.
Last edited by a moderator:
This is not only a gross oversimplification but it is factually inaccurate. Once again, your argument was to take one article talking about a decrease of snow in the Alps and another talking about an increase of snow on the eastern seaboard and to act as if they were talking about the same thing. Either that belays a complete lack of understanding for the (fairly simple) fact that the world climate is diverse and complicated, or just represents an attempt to confuse and misrepresent the issue.
The core problem here is that you insist on trying to boil everything down to a simple cause and effect. Either climate change must cause more snow or less snow which would perhaps be the case if you were talking about a simple system. Climate is not a simple system. It is very complicated with a great number of interdependent variables involved with a whole lot of semi-independent subsystems. As overall temperatures rise on long timescales, local weather will begin to behave differently in different ways in different locations. All of this can, and has, been modeled and for you to just jump in and shout "it's too complicated so it must be false!" is extraordinarily incorrect. You're practically resorting to blatant lies in this thread which gives you absolutely zero credibility to dole out what is or is not actual science.
Oh, so you're back to "God works in mysterious ways."
The current snow topic is that top scientists are now, all of the sudden, saying that increased snowfall is expected due to global warming. Up until a month ago increased snowfalll was NOT expected, and in fact they were saying that snowfall in temperate climates would cease to exist.
Then we have people in this thread claiming it's "science" that increased temperatures should cause increased snowfall, and since the globe is heating up this snow is expected. False on BOTH counts. Late 2009 was not especially hot, certainly not hotter than the previous years that saw little snow, so unless this snow was hanging around in a cloud from 2008, increased temperatures didn't cause this snow.
Solar scientists are saying the sun just went into a period like the Dalton minimum (1790 to 1830), and of course that means more snow and cooler temperatures. That is science based on observation. Here's a 2006 paper on it. More recent papers are even better, but I want to illustrate that solar scientists have been saying this for years.
The current snow topic is that top scientists are now, all of the sudden, saying that increased snowfall is expected due to global warming. Up until a month ago increased snowfalll was NOT expected, and in fact they were saying that snowfall in temperate climates would cease to exist.
Then we have people in this thread claiming it's "science" that increased temperatures should cause increased snowfall, and since the globe is heating up this snow is expected. False on BOTH counts. Late 2009 was not especially hot, certainly not hotter than the previous years that saw little snow, so unless this snow was hanging around in a cloud from 2008, increased temperatures didn't cause this snow.
Solar scientists are saying the sun just went into a period like the Dalton minimum (1790 to 1830), and of course that means more snow and cooler temperatures. That is science based on observation. Here's a 2006 paper on it. More recent papers are even better, but I want to illustrate that solar scientists have been saying this for years.
Gturner, you have to upload those images to either your own webspace or an image hosting site.
I took care of it for you this time, but please don't do it again.
I took care of it for you this time, but please don't do it again.
Not all of the sudden. Increased precipitation was mentioned in the original report as one of the proofs. They've been talking about that for decades.
The Alps are a mountainous region (Alpines!), and increased temperatures mean the snow line will be higher up.
2009 was still one of the hottest years on record.
The Alps are a mountainous region (Alpines!), and increased temperatures mean the snow line will be higher up.
2009 was still one of the hottest years on record.
The rules are most vague. I got perma-banned from the TNZ for posting an on-topic non-racial image that I hosted myself, whereas another TNZer flamed me a couple times a week with a wildly racist image from my own site, without my permission and much to my horror, and never received even a warning.
Anyway, as NOAA is a government website, I own part of it, as do we all. My mistake. I'll have to call Mitch McConnell and talk about reducing their budget.
Oh no, so sorry.
The correct answer was actually "Thank you, Locutus. It was nice of you to upload the images I hotlinked to an image host even though you disagree with everything I say. That was completely unnecessary, but appreciated."
We would have also accepted "I know you don't care about anything that happened in TNZ before you became a mod, so I'll just say that I agree that hotlinking images from a site that's not mine is against the rules and I won't do it again. Thanks."
But we have some lovely parting gifts for you. First is a year's supply of Turtle Wax. And also a set of Ginsu knives. Buh bye.
But the image that got me banned from the TNZ wasn't hotlinked. For a year I was spammed and flamed by people hotlinking images from my own site against my wishes and of course without my permission, but nothing was done. They were winked at because they support Obama. Thus the complaints by others in misc. that the TNZ has become just an Obama support group.
I just hope I don't get banned here for mentioning the barest details of something that happened five or six months ago.
As for hotlinking government sites, they don't pay the bill for it. We do.
But I won't do it again and thank you for fixing things.
I just hope I don't get banned here for mentioning the barest details of something that happened five or six months ago.
As for hotlinking government sites, they don't pay the bill for it. We do.
But I won't do it again and thank you for fixing things.
Dude, who cares? I can't do anything about it, so complaining to me is pointless, and I bet there was a lot more to it than what you're describing since two of the three mods in TNZ aren't even Obama supporters and the other is a dirty Canadian. It takes a hell of a lot to get banned from TNZ (posting racist images, which you just admitted to doing, being one of the things that will do it). Besides, what does that have to do with the current situation?
I didn't post a racist image, I posted a photoshop of Obama as a Polynesian medicine man in a thread titled "Are Democrats using false claims of racism to silence Obama's critics?" Nobody in the thread had any actual examples. The image I provided was spread by a doctor who was an executive in the American Medical Association and who was obliged to step down as a result.
And that was it. I thought it was a deliciously ironic way to go, so I didn't protest.
As for posting racist images, those who did it several times a week, on top of doing it by hotlinking, are still there. So go figure.
And that was it. I thought it was a deliciously ironic way to go, so I didn't protest.
As for posting racist images, those who did it several times a week, on top of doing it by hotlinking, are still there. So go figure.
For one, you posted a picture of Obama as a witchdoctor, a pic already so racist that the doctor who forwarded it had to leave the AMA, in the 'Why racists won't admit they are racist' thread, and you didn't bring it up as a point of discussion, but just said 'This is cute'. Which was enough to get an instant consensus from all TNZ mods to boot you, which really doesn't happen all that often.
For seven, this is the thread where we take two old fat guy's public words and beat each other over the head with them until someone either looks smart or gets bored and reads a book on climatology. Which I keep having to do for this thread......
For seven, this is the thread where we take two old fat guy's public words and beat each other over the head with them until someone either looks smart or gets bored and reads a book on climatology. Which I keep having to do for this thread......
Now that that's settled, let's get back to the Topic, please. TNZ doesn't exist in this Universe.
Aw, crap – did I fall through the hole in reality again?