Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Snow and Ice in the South

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • captnjak
    replied
    Originally posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    The line about snow in southern CA was meant as sarcasm.

    The statement about the great "97% Myth" was meant in total seriousness. It refers to a questionnaire that was sent out several years ago with 2 very generic questions regarding the warming of the world since 1800 with No reference at all in the questions to man-made warming or the effects of human activity on global warming. Very few true climatologists replied to the survey, resulting in a very low number of entries into the data pool.

    That is where the magical "97%" number has come from, and it's quite bogus given both the lack of reference to manmade warming or human activity generated warming as well as the very low participation rate by true climatologists.

    I would suggest you do some research yourself, and that way, you can find out how bogus the 97% myth actually is.

    By the way, the earth has cooled since 1997.
    I don't really care about one survey that says 97% of climatologists believe global warming is real. One survey is not enough of a sample to be considered reliable. You say it's a bogus survey. Fine. But that is not evidence that global warming is a myth. No doubt there are climatologists who believe it is real.

    Leave a comment:


  • tree68
    replied
    Originally posted by captnjak View Post
    Some will say that global warming could very well be part of a naturally occurring long range pattern. This may absolutely be accurate. But we don't have historical samples to prove it.
    That is my take, although I do agree that mankind has had some effect as well.

    Politics notwithstanding, blaming the whole of climate change on mankind is a human conceit. Krakatoa had a bigger effect on the climate of the earth in a day or two than mankind has had over the past century.

    Leave a comment:


  • LaFireEducator
    replied
    Originally posted by captnjak View Post
    I think it is important to realize that LOCAL WEATHER events have no place in the discussion on GLOBAL CLIMATE change. Global warming has to be looked at over a period of time across the entire world. A dusting of snow in southern California is no more proof that there is NO global warming than a mild heat wave in Alaska is proof that there IS global warming. To believe so is just ignorant.

    I believe scientific opinions should be based on scientific data and not on the platform of one's chosen political party. We need to get politics out of science or we won't be able to trust the science. Because it will no longer really be science.

    The reason that the right wing refutes global warming is they want relaxed standards on pollution. It is in line with their business friendly stance. Nothing wrong with business by the way. IMO, less government is better government. But we've seen what big business will do when left entirely unchecked and it isn't pretty. Not just in the area of pollution either. Of course, it would be silly to say pollution is desirable so they have to attack the science instead. Pretty weak tactic if you think about it.

    Some will say that global warming could very well be part of a naturally occurring long range pattern. This may absolutely be accurate. But we don't have historical samples to prove it.

    Nobody can yet say that carbon emissions are fully responsible for a permanent change to global climate. But even if it's just a likelihood or a possibility, it sure makes sense to do something about it if we can. Can anyone make the case that pollution is good? Or even slightly acceptable? Does anyone think that the air pollution just goes harmlessly out into space?
    The line about snow in southern CA was meant as sarcasm.

    The statement about the great "97% Myth" was meant in total seriousness. It refers to a questionnaire that was sent out several years ago with 2 very generic questions regarding the warming of the world since 1800 with No reference at all in the questions to man-made warming or the effects of human activity on global warming. Very few true climatologists replied to the survey, resulting in a very low number of entries into the data pool.

    That is where the magical "97%" number has come from, and it's quite bogus given both the lack of reference to manmade warming or human activity generated warming as well as the very low participation rate by true climatologists.

    I would suggest you do some research yourself, and that way, you can find out how bogus the 97% myth actually is.

    By the way, the earth has cooled since 1997.

    Leave a comment:


  • scfire86
    replied
    Originally posted by captnjak View Post
    I think it is important to realize that LOCAL WEATHER events have no place in the discussion on GLOBAL CLIMATE change. Global warming has to be looked at over a period of time across the entire world. A dusting of snow in southern California is no more proof that there is NO global warming than a mild heat wave in Alaska is proof that there IS global warming. To believe so is just ignorant.

    I believe scientific opinions should be based on scientific data and not on the platform of one's chosen political party. We need to get politics out of science or we won't be able to trust the science. Because it will no longer really be science.
    Thank you. LAFE needs to stick to something he knows something about. Which is anyone's guess.

    So far it looks like he is good at railing against government while going on junkets at taxpayer expense.

    Leave a comment:


  • islandfire03
    replied
    ^^^^^^
    How dare you respond with common sense and science to argue against politicians and their toadies
    what is this forum coming to??????

    Leave a comment:


  • captnjak
    replied
    I think it is important to realize that LOCAL WEATHER events have no place in the discussion on GLOBAL CLIMATE change. Global warming has to be looked at over a period of time across the entire world. A dusting of snow in southern California is no more proof that there is NO global warming than a mild heat wave in Alaska is proof that there IS global warming. To believe so is just ignorant.

    I believe scientific opinions should be based on scientific data and not on the platform of one's chosen political party. We need to get politics out of science or we won't be able to trust the science. Because it will no longer really be science.

    The reason that the right wing refutes global warming is they want relaxed standards on pollution. It is in line with their business friendly stance. Nothing wrong with business by the way. IMO, less government is better government. But we've seen what big business will do when left entirely unchecked and it isn't pretty. Not just in the area of pollution either. Of course, it would be silly to say pollution is desirable so they have to attack the science instead. Pretty weak tactic if you think about it.

    Some will say that global warming could very well be part of a naturally occurring long range pattern. This may absolutely be accurate. But we don't have historical samples to prove it.

    Nobody can yet say that carbon emissions are fully responsible for a permanent change to global climate. But even if it's just a likelihood or a possibility, it sure makes sense to do something about it if we can. Can anyone make the case that pollution is good? Or even slightly acceptable? Does anyone think that the air pollution just goes harmlessly out into space?

    Leave a comment:


  • LaFireEducator
    replied
    Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
    Not at all. Like most intelligent beings they believe the 97% of climatologists who believe climate change is real.
    I think you should do some reading up on where that 97% number came from. It might surprise you and it's not accurate.

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014...78462813553136

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014...78462813553136

    These are just a couple of articles. The simple fact is the 97% figure came from a 2 question survey with 2 very vague non-specific questions. And in fact most climatologists did not even return the survey so it was an extremely small sample.
    Last edited by LaFireEducator; 03-03-2015, 06:26 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • scfire86
    replied
    Originally posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    I saw some pictures of the snow on the beach.

    That must have freaked some people out.
    It was more like a surprise. No freaking out being done that I saw.

    Originally posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    And played havoc with some of the "Hollywood Types" Global warming agenda.
    Not at all. Like most intelligent beings they believe the 97% of climatologists who believe climate change is real.

    Leave a comment:


  • LaFireEducator
    replied
    Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
    This was our day yesterday.

    Never seen anything like this in the 3+ decades I've been living here.
    I saw some pictures of the snow on the beach.

    That must have freaked some people out.

    And played havoc with some of the "Hollywood Types" Global warming agenda.

    Leave a comment:


  • scfire86
    replied
    This was our day yesterday.

    Never seen anything like this in the 3+ decades I've been living here.
    Attached Files

    Leave a comment:


  • islandfire03
    replied
    I've lived in the south's hurricane alley, midwest tornado alley, California with the santa anna driven firestorms, & in the north with it's winter blizzards.
    I'll take 8 feet of snow any time over the other options. We can deal with snow.

    Leave a comment:


  • NCFF2014
    replied
    Snow doesn't really cause THAT many problems for us in my part of North Carolina. The bigger weather-related issue that we have usually occurs in the spring and summer: severe thunderstorms (with an occasional tornado). We'll run a few extra calls when it snows. When we get a nasty storm, we won't see the station. Wrecks, power lines down, and either fighting lightning-related fires or backfilling other parts of the city that have their own fires. Never seen this place as chaotic as when a nasty boomer comes in and wallops us.

    Leave a comment:


  • LaFireEducator
    replied
    Tomorrow (Tuesday) we'll be 70 degrees.

    Calling for more freezing rain overnight Wednesday with .25-.5" of accumulation and possibly 2-4" inches of snow Thursday AM through the day here in north Louisiana.

    Crazy man. Just crazy.

    Didn't have that many extra calls last week when we got the ice on Monday and then 3" of snow on Wednesday. This time it may be a little bit different as it looks like the freezing rain will settle in and then the snow will come in on top of it. It should make the roads nastier and the driving trickier, and may leave more weight on the trees.
    Last edited by LaFireEducator; 03-02-2015, 06:52 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • scfire86
    replied
    What a country! There is someplace for everyone.

    Leave a comment:


  • tree68
    replied
    On the other hand, we do get earthquakes here in northern NY. Although the usual reaction is "really? I didn't feel it!"

    We're actually above freezing for the first time in a month. I'd wash the truck, but we're back under a winter weather advisory for tomorrow night...

    Last week we had all of one night that the overnight temperature didn't dip below zero.

    The forecast for next week has some lows in the single digits, including a couple below zero, but the highs are looking a lot better...

    On the other hand, that two feet of snow in my back yard probably isn't going anywhere any time soon...

    I still like it better here than southern California. The central coast, maybe.

    Leave a comment:

300x600 Ad Unit (In-View)

Collapse

Upper 300x250

Collapse

Taboola

Collapse

Leader

Collapse
Working...
X