It's So Cold Because of Global Warming

[TomBrooks]

The reason it's so cold in the Northern Hemisphere right now can be explained by Global Warming. If you don't understand that, just ask Al Gore.

[InchoateHand]

"Global Warming" hasn't been used in the scientific community for a good many years. If you want to try and make inane one-liners, I suggest you look into "Climate Change."

[CORed]

We had several days in a row with highs in the mid to upper 60's in Denver (but it snowed last night). Global warming is happening. Glaciers are receding world-wide. To what degree it is due to human-generated CO2 and to what degree it is due to natural causes is (somewhat) debatable, as is what (if anything) to do about it.

If you live less than 100 feet below sea level, you might want to think about moving.

[CORed]

[ QUOTE ]
The reason it's so cold in the Northern Hemisphere right now can be explained by Global Warming.

[/ QUOTE ]

The reason it's so cold in the Norther hemisphere right now can be explained by winter. It happens every year about this time.

I'd explain winter to you, but it would probably confict with your belief in a flat earth.

[tek]

I think global warming is a residual effect from all the dynasaur farts 65 million years ago. Either that or all hot air from Chicken Little types.

There may be global warming, but don't worry about it because it will take 100 years for enough glaciers to melt to cause any problems.

Nuclear missiles will be launched way before the melting glaciers raise the sea level to precarious levels.

[dcoles11]

Brace yourself for this but the reason its cold right now is......get this, its winter time. I know the cold seems extreme to you because a week before it got cold it was like 80 degree for a week in the middle of Jan. Note, there are three other seasons, fall, spring, and summer.

[dana33]

[ QUOTE ]
If you live less than 100 feet below sea level, you might want to think about moving.

[/ QUOTE ]
This statement makes no sense unless you mean "less than 100 feet above sea level". But even the true believers behind the IPCC report are predicting a sea level rise of only 9 to 88 cm by the year 2100. (See here (http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/ClimateFutureClimateSeaLevel.html) .)

[The once and future king]

You realise what a rise in 88cm would mean dont you?

Im assuming you dont because you use the word "only".

[JoeC]

[ QUOTE ]
We had several days in a row with highs in the mid to upper 60's in Denver (but it snowed last night). Global warming is happening.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh?? Do you really mean to use this as evidence for global warming?

In that case, it's been snowing a few days here in Carolina recently... we must be going back to the ice age.

[BCPVP]

I left work in Green Bay one morning (third shift /images/graemlins/frown.gif) and with wind chill it was 30 below. Hasn't been that cold in a long time. Individual incidents are not scientific evidence of a global scale event.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
You realise what a rise in 88cm would mean dont you?

Im assuming you dont because you use the word "only".

[/ QUOTE ]

Ding!

Also, it's pretty obvious that almost all of the posters in this thread are almost completely ignorant about Global Warming. Inchoate hand is correct in saying "Climate Change" is the preferred term. Some still use global warming, but the term seems to confuse the average mind. It's pretty sad that so many people are still this ignorant. Especially since not one paper in Science magazine (a peer review journal) within the last 10 years says it isn't happening.

[Izverg04]

For wacki:
Your zeal is understandable but a little tiresome.

Here's another interesting take on climate change and public policy.

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?pt=PH%2FX8WEgt%2BPGejA4hsV3oh%3D%3D


"Faced with the inescapable momentum of these socioeconomic trends as we clean up from the South Asian disaster, the crucial question is this: What can be done to better prepare the world--especially the developing world--for future disasters? It is absurd to suggest that reducing greenhouse gas emissions is an important part of the answer.

The chief reason is that the role of demographics in making a country vulnerable to disaster overwhelms that of a warming atmosphere. Indeed, the most recent assessment of the scientifically authoritative Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (ipcc) found no evidence to support the idea that human-caused climate change has discernibly influenced the rapidly increasing disaster toll of recent decades. While ipcc data and predictions indicate that human-caused climate change may have an effect on future disasters, our analysis of hurricanes and tropical cyclones, using ipcc data and assumptions, shows that, for every $1 of additional disaster damage scientists expect will be caused by the effects of global warming by 2050, an additional $22 to $60 of damages will result from the growth of economies and populations. Other studies of hurricanes, flooding, and heat waves lead to a similar conclusion: Socioeconomic trends, not climate change, will continue to drive increasing disaster losses.

The example of rising sea levels provides further illustration. Scientists expect that, by 2050, average global sea levels will rise by two to twelve inches. But no research suggests that the Kyoto Protocol, or even more ambitious emissions-reduction proposals, would significantly reduce this increase. Meanwhile, coastal populations will continue to grow by hundreds of millions, mostly in developing countries. Bangladesh alone, which suffered about 140,000 deaths from a cyclone in 1991, may add up to 100 million people to its population by 2050. The world will indeed be more vulnerable to tsunamis in the future, but, once again, the causes are primarily socioeconomic change, not climate change.

Yet assertions that global warming is directly linked to rising disaster losses persist. Such assertions may have short-term political benefits in the global warming debate, but they detract from serious efforts to prepare for disasters. Global climate change has been a potent focusing lens for environmental groups, governments, the scientific research establishment, and international bodies, especially the United Nations. The U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change--and its Kyoto Protocol mandating emissions reductions--occupies thousands of advocates, diplomats, scientists, lawyers, and journalists. The climate change policy agenda has also sucked into its maw a wide range of other issues, such as energy policy, water policy, public health and infectious diseases, deforestation, and, of course, disasters. Climate change thus captures a huge proportion of the public attention, political energy, and financial and intellectual resources available for addressing global environmental challenges--including disaster preparedness. "

[wacki]

Next time you post an article, please make sure the guy that is writing it knows what he is talking about. I don't know of one scientist that says Global Warming is going to be at disaster levels by 2050. It's 2050-2100 when projections say life is going to become very rough. And most published projections are at 2100. Then again most of us will be be dead, or on our death beds by then, so who cares. Let our kids and grandkids deal with it.

Holy cow, talk about selective reading/writing.

[slickpoppa]

Anyone who makes a comment about global warming based on the weather of the past week should automatically be ignored. It's just as bad as the people who post in small stakes about their 10bb/100 win rate after 1,000 hands.