No Global Warming eh??

[ehbuddy]

Lets see........Nov 22.......Edmonton.........plus 16 today........

[Spinner]

+15 in YQM and raining.

Sounds like Newfoundland eh.

[SierraPoppa]

Lets see........Nov 22.......Edmonton.........plus 16 today........

Currently +20C in Calgary.

A new record high for this date.

Old record +17.8C set in 1928

[raven54]

METAR CYCB 222000Z 02007KT 10SM FEW150 M30/M35 A3004 RMK AC0 IC
SLP179=
METAR CYBK 222000Z 33020G25KT 1/2SM IC BLSN SCT075 SCT210 M26/M30
A2963 RMK BLSN1AC2CI0 SLP036=

.....really warm

[Axial Flow]

Raven54 Wrote:

METAR CYCB 222000Z 02007KT 10SM FEW150 M30/M35 A3004 RMK AC0 IC
SLP179=
METAR CYBK 222000Z 33020G25KT 1/2SM IC BLSN SCT075 SCT210 M26/M30
A2963 RMK BLSN1AC2CI0 SLP036=

.....really warm

In Cambridge it still feels like +20 from the microwave heating you get from the big ass Dew Line radar site.

[cyyz]

*waits for the chinook so he can preach how the apocalypse is comming*

[DeskDriver]

It should be noted that one cannot determine proof positive of global warming merely due to a single anomalous temperature. Anecdotal evidence on top of a limited dataset is equally fallacious. Although very few people dispute that global warming is occurring. This is not the debate over global warming. That we Canadians are able to step outside and not run into a glacier is certain evidence that the temperature of the Earth has been gradually increasing over time.

The debate about global warming centres around whether the rate of warming has been greater over the last century or two, and whether human's are the causal factor in this increase. Therefore, the debate must be handled with two separate proofs.

Proof one requires a clear demonstration that there has been a nonlinear increase in temperature over a fixed period of time. Though this sounds rather simple, it becomes quite complicated due to the need to look at Earth as a systemic climate. Merely taking the temperature data from Edmonton over 150 years is insufficient. Vast amounts of data from all over the world need to be compiled, averaged, and compared with data from thousands of years ago. The limited dataset from recorded sources has been inadequate for a clear demonstration one way or the other. Other climate data has been used, but most often it is highly inferential. Finally, the basic mathematical model which was used to "show conclusively" that there has been a nonlinear increase in temperature over recent time has been shown to be mathematically bias. The famous "hockey stick" graph is just plain old bad science.

The second part of the debate is more interesting, as it requires one to show proof that human activity influences the global climate in a significant way. This too is not easy; for though there are excellent laboratory models which demonstrate the "greenhouse effect", nobody has been able to determine that the Earth, with all her complex feedback systems, will or would succumb to this greenhouse effect.

But probably above all the debate, the most interesting question to ask is "So what"? So what if the environment is changing? It has before, and it will again. So what if human's are influencing it? A beaver influences the course and flow of a river. We, as humans, are very bit a part of nature. We are merely a clever little primate. And we'll go extinct one day too. Be it in 10 years, or 10,000 it really matters not in geological time. Much of the green-movement stems not from desire to "save the planet" but from human arrogance in believing that we are above nature itself.

[Lands Like Brick]

METAR CYSB 221900Z 35013KT 15SM -SHSN DRSN BKN028TCU M08/M14 A2967
RMK TCU6 SLP070=

METAR CYSB 222000Z 35012KT 15SM -SHSN DRSN BKN023 M09/M14 A2966 RMK
SC5 SLP068=

METAR CYSB 222100Z 34014G19KT 15SM DRSN BKN028 M09/M14 A2967 RMK SC5
SLP070=



TAF CYSB 221939Z 222008 35012G22KT P6SM FEW020 OVC030 TEMPO 2002 2SM
-SHSN OVC020
BECMG 0002 35008KT
RMK NXT FCST BY 02Z=

[Hedley]

very few people dispute that global warming is occurring

uh, no. Global warming is probably the biggest fraud of the 20th century. "Bad science" is too charitable a term. Read this:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/mcmaken/mcmaken55.html

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. This is especially true when you are dealing with someone as ignorant as a typical "environmentalist" that likely lives in downtown Toronto.

Here's an interesting fact for you: environmentalists are responsible for more deaths than Stalin and Hitler combined. Seriously. Years before most people were born here, DDT was considered carcinogenic (it wasn't) and after some fierce environmentalist lobbying, it was effectively banned. Problem is that Malaria resurged in a big way because the mosquito population exploded without DDT. Since DDT was banned, FIFTY FUCKING MILLION additional people died from Malaria, above the death rate previous to the banning of DDT.

People are stupid. Environmentalists are even more stupid. Intentions don't matter, results do. Congratulations, environmentalists. Keep on killing people.

[SierraPoppa]

It should be noted that one cannot determine proof positive of global warming merely due to a single anomalous temperature. Anecdotal evidence on top of a limited dataset is equally fallacious. Although very few people dispute that global warming is occurring. This is not the debate over global warming. That we Canadians are able to step outside and not run into a glacier is certain evidence that the temperature of the Earth has been gradually increasing over time.

The debate about global warming centres around whether the rate of warming has been greater over the last century or two, and whether human's are the causal factor in this increase. Therefore, the debate must be handled with two separate proofs.

Proof one requires a clear demonstration that there has been a nonlinear increase in temperature over a fixed period of time. Though this sounds rather simple, it becomes quite complicated due to the need to look at Earth as a systemic climate. Merely taking the temperature data from Edmonton over 150 years is insufficient. Vast amounts of data from all over the world need to be compiled, averaged, and compared with data from thousands of years ago. The limited dataset from recorded sources has been inadequate for a clear demonstration one way or the other. Other climate data has been used, but most often it is highly inferential. Finally, the basic mathematical model which was used to "show conclusively" that there has been a nonlinear increase in temperature over recent time has been shown to be mathematically bias. The famous "hockey stick" graph is just plain old bad science.

The second part of the debate is more interesting, as it requires one to show proof that human activity influences the global climate in a significant way. This too is not easy; for though there are excellent laboratory models which demonstrate the "greenhouse effect", nobody has been able to determine that the Earth, with all her complex feedback systems, will or would succumb to this greenhouse effect.

But probably above all the debate, the most interesting question to ask is "So what"? So what if the environment is changing? It has before, and it will again. So what if human's are influencing it? A beaver influences the course and flow of a river. We, as humans, are very bit a part of nature. We are merely a clever little primate. And we'll go extinct one day too. Be it in 10 years, or 10,000 it really matters not in geological time. Much of the green-movement stems not from desire to "save the planet" but from human arrogance in believing that we are above nature itself.

Have you no snese of humour?

I'm pretty sure the OP was not serious in his assertions, I know I certainly wasn't.

[DeskDriver]

uh, no. Global warming is probably the biggest fraud of the 20th century. "Bad science" is too charitable a term. Read this

Actually, if you read my post, you might realize that I went into some depth regarding the Global Warming Debate. However, you'll also notice that I said global warming has been occuring. We can tell this by the fact that we're not in an ice age.

Really folks, I wonder why I bother illuminating you folks when you don't bother to read what I say.

[x-wind]

From what I understand aircraft that fly in the stratosphere are a major cause of global warming. This is because the water vapor produced by the contrails stays up at the altitude as opposed to coming back down. Therefore a big heat sink is produced.

[Mitch Cronin]

Sad isn't it.... and there are probably more than a few here who buy the crap about 911 being some diabolical plot from GWBush.... and it really wasn't an airplane that hit the Pentagon....

....riiiight... global warming is bad science eh?.... sure. ...And the Sun revolves around the Earth too I guess?

I disagree the Humans are any part of nature though.... I think we're the only critters on this planet that don't work in any sort of harmony with nature.

We're aliens!

[Driving Rain]

From what I understand aircraft that fly in the stratosphere are a major cause of global warming. This is because the water vapor produced by the contrails stays up at the altitude as opposed to coming back down. Therefore a big heat sink is produced.

Interesting stuff. After 9-11 the sky over the entire planet was clear of contrails for a few days. I think some scientest used that window as an opportunity to conduct some tests. Never did hear or read the results.

Further to the contrail theory the ash from the burning of JET fuels and Diesel produces small black carbon particles. I've read they've plans to blast particles like these into the high atmosphere to reverse or slow the effects of global warming by blocking sunlight. It's said it could produce mini ice ages like what happened in some years following the large volcanic eruptions of volcanos in Indonesia.
Unfortunately what goes up must eventually come down. These small, very small, carbon black particles do finally fall many coming to rest on glaciers and ice caps, when the sun hits these particles the tendancy then is to accelerate the melting of the glaciers and ice caps. That's the latest theory anyway.

[privateer]

METAR CYYJ 222300Z 00000KT 3/8SM FG VV001 05/05 A3017 RMK FG8 VIS E 1/2 SM SLP216=

METAR CYWH 222300Z 05006KT 2SM BR BKN002 BKN240 07/06 A3016 RMK ST6CI1 SLP214=

METAR CYVR 222300Z 33005KT 5/8SM BR VV002 05/05 A3017 RMK FG8 SLP215=

METAR CYQQ 222300Z 00000KT 0SM FG VV002 04/04 A3017 RMK FG8 SLP217=

METAR CYPW 222300Z 00000KT 0SM FG VV000 04/04 A3016 RMK FG8 SLP217=

METAR CYAZ 222300Z 00000KT 1/4SM FG VV004 07/07 A3011 RMK FG8 SLP197=
SPECI CYAZ 222316Z 05002KT 1/2SM FG SKC RMK FG6=

METAR CYCD 222300Z 00000KT 1/8SM FG VV001 05/05 A3018 RMK FG8 SLP219=


oh man.

[desksgo]

Yes Global Warming...

The Desksgo Tuesday Night Forecast for Mouse Ears, FL:

Tonight
Clear...colder. Lows in the upper 30s. Northwest winds 10 to 15 mph. Lowest wind chill readings 32 to 35 after midnight.

That's not Celcius!

[. ._]

It should be noted that one cannot determine proof positive of global warming merely due to a single anomalous temperature. Anecdotal evidence on top of a limited dataset is equally fallacious. Although very few people dispute that global warming is occurring. This is not the debate over global warming. That we Canadians are able to step outside and not run into a glacier is certain evidence that the temperature of the Earth has been gradually increasing over time.

The debate about global warming centres around whether the rate of warming has been greater over the last century or two, and whether human's are the causal factor in this increase. Therefore, the debate must be handled with two separate proofs.

Proof one requires a clear demonstration that there has been a nonlinear increase in temperature over a fixed period of time. Though this sounds rather simple, it becomes quite complicated due to the need to look at Earth as a systemic climate. Merely taking the temperature data from Edmonton over 150 years is insufficient. Vast amounts of data from all over the world need to be compiled, averaged, and compared with data from thousands of years ago. The limited dataset from recorded sources has been inadequate for a clear demonstration one way or the other. Other climate data has been used, but most often it is highly inferential. Finally, the basic mathematical model which was used to "show conclusively" that there has been a nonlinear increase in temperature over recent time has been shown to be mathematically bias. The famous "hockey stick" graph is just plain old bad science.

The second part of the debate is more interesting, as it requires one to show proof that human activity influences the global climate in a significant way. This too is not easy; for though there are excellent laboratory models which demonstrate the "greenhouse effect", nobody has been able to determine that the Earth, with all her complex feedback systems, will or would succumb to this greenhouse effect.

But probably above all the debate, the most interesting question to ask is "So what"? So what if the environment is changing? It has before, and it will again. So what if human's are influencing it? A beaver influences the course and flow of a river. We, as humans, are very bit a part of nature. We are merely a clever little primate. And we'll go extinct one day too. Be it in 10 years, or 10,000 it really matters not in geological time. Much of the green-movement stems not from desire to "save the planet" but from human arrogance in believing that we are above nature itself.

If this is you're own, nice post!

If this is copied and pasted, I'd like to know the source. You did that once before, and didn't cite the source, so that's why the doubt. No offence.

Cheers!
-istp

[Chantal]

Rain, I think that could be a possibility but its probably not a major cause of melting ice caps. Global warming is probably happening because climate change doesn't occur as fast as it is now, and also, there are so many signs in the oceans, in the weather. The lack of ozone layer combined with the lack of rain forest is probably making it impossible for the planet to stabilize. I think as the planet tries to stabilize when it's getting warmer that maybe we could have an Ice Age, to Stabilize the planet.

[Rowdy]

Temps today just outside of vancouver this glorious foggy afternoon are 2 degrees Celcius!

[Chantal]

Oh my gosh! Temperatures here are in the minuses and ice is everywhere, we are walking around like mountain goats.

[Walker]

Just my idea, but why don’t we leave conclusions about global warming to people who have spent their life studding it…. There are REAL scientists out there who are on both sides of the fence as to how much of an effect we are having… And like all things in the world a small percentage of people bend facts when they decide to make an argument… Hence the reason there is a peer review process in the world of academia… IE the reason the faults in that study were found…
AND as for that libertarians argument that global warming would be a good thing……. I won’t walk down that path, I suppose we just have different ideas as to what good and bad are…

[Bede]

DeskDriver,

I like your Mensa avitar. Are you a member? If so, why are you dumb enough to be in aviation??

[Guido]

It should be noted that one cannot determine proof positive of global warming merely due to a single anomalous temperature. Anecdotal evidence on top of a limited dataset is equally fallacious. Although very few people dispute that global warming is occurring. This is not the debate over global warming. That we Canadians are able to step outside and not run into a glacier is certain evidence that the temperature of the Earth has been gradually increasing over time.

The debate about global warming centres around whether the rate of warming has been greater over the last century or two, and whether human's are the causal factor in this increase. Therefore, the debate must be handled with two separate proofs.

Proof one requires a clear demonstration that there has been a nonlinear increase in temperature over a fixed period of time. Though this sounds rather simple, it becomes quite complicated due to the need to look at Earth as a systemic climate. Merely taking the temperature data from Edmonton over 150 years is insufficient. Vast amounts of data from all over the world need to be compiled, averaged, and compared with data from thousands of years ago. The limited dataset from recorded sources has been inadequate for a clear demonstration one way or the other. Other climate data has been used, but most often it is highly inferential. Finally, the basic mathematical model which was used to "show conclusively" that there has been a nonlinear increase in temperature over recent time has been shown to be mathematically bias. The famous "hockey stick" graph is just plain old bad science.

The second part of the debate is more interesting, as it requires one to show proof that human activity influences the global climate in a significant way. This too is not easy; for though there are excellent laboratory models which demonstrate the "greenhouse effect", nobody has been able to determine that the Earth, with all her complex feedback systems, will or would succumb to this greenhouse effect.

But probably above all the debate, the most interesting question to ask is "So what"? So what if the environment is changing? It has before, and it will again. So what if human's are influencing it? A beaver influences the course and flow of a river. We, as humans, are very bit a part of nature. We are merely a clever little primate. And we'll go extinct one day too. Be it in 10 years, or 10,000 it really matters not in geological time. Much of the green-movement stems not from desire to "save the planet" but from human arrogance in believing that we are above nature itself.

If this is you're own, nice post!

If this is copied and pasted, I'd like to know the source. You did that once before, and didn't cite the source, so that's why the doubt. No offence.

Cheers!
-istp

Not sure, but this sounds like something out of Michael Crichton's book "State of Fear".

[Guido]

Just my idea, but why don’t we leave conclusions about global warming to people who have spent their life studding it…. There are REAL scientists out there who are on both sides of the fence as to how much of an effect we are having… And like all things in the world a small percentage of people bend facts when they decide to make an argument… Hence the reason there is a peer review process in the world of academia… IE the reason the faults in that study were found…
AND as for that libertarians argument that global warming would be a good thing……. I won’t walk down that path, I suppose we just have different ideas as to what good and bad are…

There are bound to be people on both sides of the fence. Remember, there are also people who think the Holocaust was a great idea (Hope I didn't just Godwin this thread).

The fact is, the vast majority of scientists agree that Global Warming is a fact, and that it is caused/accelerated by humans. There are a few dissenters in any group, but this is accepted science.

[cyyz]

Remember, there are also people who think the Holocaust was a great idea (Hope I didn't just Godwin this thread).

The fact is, the vast majority of scientists agree that Global Warming is a fact, and

that it is caused/accelerated by humans.

And the Swiss pay them 10 billion every so often.

Global warming is happening, yes...

Accelerated? Lets, see, they have a problem with the earth being created in a metaphorical "7 days" but they seem to think global warming is happening "to fast," they can go bite me...