Gunboards Forums banner
1 - 11 of 11 Posts

· Banned
5,986 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Ha! Why it's globalwarming dont' you know?

With a week away, and a sure sign of things to come, is making preparations on the server to handle the traffic from this next event. UJEAS is in line with the majority if not all the other models in keeping a near historical arctic air mass into the Southern California region.

With a warm November, Southern California is finally ready for cold storms to make their way in. Resort level snow will be likely next week, and in pretty hefty amounts if things stay on track. Meteorologist Kevin Martin predicts a 50 year event. While Martin is usually conservative on these events, the pattern highly favors it.

"We are in a pre-1950 type pattern, "said Martin. "We know we are due for a winter storm sometime this year. The type we may be dealing with will be ranked up there with the known years before 1950, which set record low daytime temperatures into the forecast region. With this, may come low elevation snow."

Forecaster Cameron Venable is seeing very cold temperatures in the Los Angeles areas as well. Torrance is not usually known for winter weather, thus making this an interesting event for Venable to track.

"Temperatures in Siberia, Russia will be -81 degrees this week, "said Martin. "With those type of temperatures the arctic air mass has to spill somewhere. Our answer of the exact track will become more clear this week. All residents in the mountain communities should prepare this week for very cold, winter weather, with snow."

Indications are a second, colder storm could hit near the 18th-22nd time-frame. The details on that will have to be sorted out. staff

More information:

· Registered
1,744 Posts
Here in Northern Kali it's cold but dry. We'll take any precipitation we can get at this point- even if it's hail.
No we won't. Not hail, real hail that is: too many people park their cars on the street or driveway. Snow and sleet will paralyze urban and coastal California and that's about the limit. I know we need the rain but there's no need to go overboard on this. SoCal is headed for a climate similar to northern Chile's Atacama Desert and nothing can stop it, so no hail.

Besides, I thought I was the only one on this board who believed in Global Warming.

· Silver Bullet member
36,347 Posts
I don't "believe" in Global Warming. Or Global Cooling. I believe in the scientific method.

The supporters of Anthropic Global Warming have a lot in common with the old fire and brimstone preachers, or the medieval popes selling indulgences. Instead they peddle "green" technology programs and sell carbon credits to save your soul along with the planet.

This automatically switches on my skepticism. Having been lied to during my professional career by eminent scientists, engineers and aerospace corporation executives I have no problems in disbelieving the statements of political hucksters like Al Gore or the myriad of "Global Warming scientists" with their hands out for government grants. In both cases the immense profits and career boosters overwhelm the facts and otherwise perfectly rational and ethical professionals can convince themselves of the truth of a convenient and profitable lie.

If we are causing any significant amount of global warming, PROVE IT!

So far the proof, that various gases such as CO2 and cow fart methane have much real world impact on the "Greenhouse Effect", is pretty dubious thanks to the lack of a firm and accurate temperature baseline going back more than a couple decades. Evidence contra our being much responsible for any warming is the historical, biological, geological and paleontological data showing things have neen a lot warmer than today, and the climate a lot different, even in the last couple millenium. A couple of things to note are the recent Little Ice Age, the Medieval Optimum, the cold spell, possibly triggered by volcanic eruptions, that occurred during the fall of the Roman Empire and brought on the Dark Ages, and archeological evidence that the climate was substantially warmer during peak Roman Imperial times. And long before that the geological and paleontological evidence shows that we are just in a warm phase of the long series of ice age cycles.

And even accepting the calculations of the global warming theorists, the maximum possible effects of all their grossly expensive, even impoverishing, "solutions", is down in the level of a .01 degree drop in temperature.

So Anthropic Global Warming may not be of any significance, and even if it is we can't do anything about it.

Skepticism on climate change
By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist | December 7, 2008

THE MAIL brings an invitation to register for the 2009 International Conference on Climate Change, which convenes on March 8 in New York City. Sponsored by the Heartland Institute, a Chicago-based think tank, the conference will host an international lineup of climate scientists and researchers who will focus on four broad areas: climatology, paleoclimatology, the impact of climate change, and climate-change politics and economics.

But if last year's gathering is any indication, the conference is likely to cover the climate-change waterfront. There were dozens of presentations in 2008, including: "Strengths and Weaknesses of Climate Models," "Ecological and Demographic Perspectives on the Status of Polar Bears," and "The Overstated Role of Carbon Dioxide on Climate Change."

Just another forum, then, sounding the usual alarums on the looming threat from global warming?

Actually, no. The scientists and scholars Heartland is assembling are not members of the gloom-and-doom chorus. They dispute the frantic claims that global warming is an onrushing catastrophe; many are skeptical of the notion that human activity has a significant effect on the planet's climate, or that such an effect can be reliably measured or predicted. Some point out that global temperatures peaked in 1998 and have been falling since then. Indeed, several argue that a period of global cooling is on the way. Nearly all would argue that climate is always changing, and that no one really knows whether current computer models can reliably account for the myriad of factors that cause that natural variability.

They are far from monolithic, but on this they would all agree: Science is not settled by majority vote, especially in a field as young as climate science.

Skepticism and inquiry go to the essence of scientific progress. It is always legitimate to challenge the existing "consensus" with new data or an alternative hypothesis. Those who insist that dissent be silenced or even punished are not the allies of science, but something closer to religious fanatics.

Unfortunately, when it comes to climate change, far too many people have been all too ready to play the Grand Inquisitor. For example, The Weather Channel's senior climatologist, Heidi Cullen, has recommended that meteorologists be denied professional certification if they voice doubts about global-warming alarmism. James Hansen, director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, wants oil-company executives tried for "crimes against humanity if they continue to dispute what is understood scientifically" about global warming. Al Gore frequently derides those who dispute his climate dogma as fools who should be ignored. "Climate deniers fall into the same camp as people who still don't believe we landed on the moon," Gore's spokeswoman told The Politico a few days ago.

But as the list of confirmed speakers for Heartland's climate-change conference makes clear, it is Gore whose eyes are shut to reality. Among the "climate deniers" lined up to speak are Richard Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT; the University of Alabama's Roy W. Spencer, a pioneer in the monitoring of global temperatures by satellite; Stephen McIntyre, primary author of the influential Climate Audit blog; and meteorologist John Coleman, who founded the Weather Channel in 1982. They may not stand with the majority in debates over climate science, but - Gore's dismissal notwithstanding - they are far from alone.

In fact, what prompted The Politico to solicit Gore's comment was its decision to report on the mounting dissent from global-warming orthodoxy. "Scientists urge caution on global warming," the story was headlined; it opened by noting "a growing accumulation of global cooling science and other findings that could signal that the science behind global warming may still be too shaky to warrant cap-and-trade legislation."

Coverage of such skepticism is increasing. The Cleveland Plain Dealer's Michael Scott reported last week that meteorologists at each of Cleveland's TV stations dissent from the alarmists' scenario. In the Canadian province of Alberta, the Edmonton Journal found, 68 percent of climate scientists and engineers do not believe "the debate on the scientific causes of recent climate change is settled."

Expect to see more of this. The debate goes on, as it should.

· Gold Bullet Member and Noted Curmudgeon
102,166 Posts
A few years ago they had a major hail storm in the Dallas-Fort Worth area that i understand amy have been the most expensive weather loss to insurors in Texas history. Roofs not just damaged, but in a number of cases destroyed (beaten in and collapsed). Windows broken. Cars - you don't really want to know. Dealer's lots looked like thousands of berserk vandals had been busy with machinist's hammers on thousands of cars.

· Platinum Bullet Member
41,519 Posts
I don't think anyone REALLY knows what's going on with climate in the long term. And to prove this I offer a little food for thought. This planet is what.......4 or 5 billion years old, we've only been keeping accurate weather records for about 125 years? That's like watching the last .00000001 second of a movie and trying to tell me what the movie was about, I just don't buy it.
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.