A Brown Christmas?

[worth]

We've only been recording temperatures for a few hundred years, so I'm not sure if we can accuratley compare whats happening now if we don't have a large or accurate sample size.

Again, just because Calgary's winters are different from what they previously were in no way proves that humans have anything to do with climate change.

[SpitFire40]

Originally Posted by worth

We've only been recording temperatures for a few hundred years, so I'm not sure if we can accuratley compare whats happening now if we don't have a large or accurate sample size.

Again, just because Calgary's winters are different from what they previously were in no way proves that humans have anything to do with climate change.

I agree here... Considering the difference in 10 years. It's pretty impossible to suggest humans are directly responsible for such changes. El Nino anyone? That's pretty much exactly when things turned around. It's just a weather pattern, something that will revert... but when?

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by worth

We've only been recording temperatures for a few hundred years.

Again, just because Calgary's winters are different from what they previously were in no way proves that humans have anything to do with climate change.

Actually they have means of measuring temperature and CO2 levels for the past couple thousands years. So global warming isn't just based on the past couple hundred years.

EDIT: If anyone wants to read about global warming, I recoment this book. Weather Makers By Tim Flannery. It gives an easy to follow explain and overview of global warming with facts, not opinion.

[Cube Inmate]

Originally Posted by Burninator

Whoa let's all dog pile on Burninator here for his one tongue in cheek sentence.

Sorry for the directed attack.... The thing is, I'm getting a little tired of every single story related to the weather being used as evidence of global warming, as seems to be the case now. I admit that you didn't use this "White Christmas" story as evidence, but you implied as much in your response, and I have no reason to believe that you researched the relationship between snow depth in Canada and global temperature.

In the media, it usually goes like this:
"More hurricanes? Must be global warming!"
"Fewer hurricanes? Must be all that unpredictability caused by global warming!"
"Dry winter? Global warming is keeping all the moisture up in the air!"
"Snowy winter? Warmer sea temperatures are contributing to more moisture in the air!"
"Warm summer? Global warming!"
"Cool summer? Glob...er...climate change!"

It has become a cult, not science. The infamous "hockey stick" graph has been repeatedly disproved as nothing more than methodical error, yet the UN intergovernmental panel on climate change still presents that graphic on its website: http://www.ipcc.ch/present/graphics/...mall/05.16.jpg. If the pro-Kyoto establishment so recklessly accepts bad science that favours their position, why would anyone in their right minds think that the resultant international treaty is based on anything more than dogma?

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by Cube Inmate

Sorry for the directed attack.... The thing is, I'm getting a little tired of every single story related to the weather being used as evidence of global warming, as seems to be the case now. I admit that you didn't use this "White Christmas" story as evidence, but you implied as much in your response, and I have no reason to believe that you researched the relationship between snow depth in Canada and global temperature.

In the media, it usually goes like this:
"More hurricanes? Must be global warming!"
"Fewer hurricanes? Must be all that unpredictability caused by global warming!"
"Dry winter? Global warming is keeping all the moisture up in the air!"
"Snowy winter? Warmer sea temperatures are contributing to more moisture in the air!"
"Warm summer? Global warming!"
"Cool summer? Glob...er...climate change!"

It has become a cult, not science. The infamous "hockey stick" graph has been repeatedly disproved as nothing more than methodical error, yet the UN intergovernmental panel on climate change still presents that graphic on its website: http://www.ipcc.ch/present/graphics/...mall/05.16.jpg. If the pro-Kyoto establishment so recklessly accepts bad science that favours their position, why would anyone in their right minds think that the resultant international treaty is based on anything more than dogma?

There is lots of misinformation on both sides out there. Which isn't helping anyone. On one side you have moron alarmists like Green peace that are misinformed and seem to lack a logical direction, saying the world will lose 3/4 of it's animals in the next 50 years. And you have right wing politictians/media that refuse to listen scienctists and instead draw their own conculsions and inform the public thusly. So it is hard to people (inculding myself) to come up with a real solution or conculsion instead of blindly throwing money at the problem.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Burninator

And who doesn't believe global warming is happening?

Most people do not dispute that global warming is happening....it is the cause that is in dispute.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Most people do not dispute that global warming is happening....it is the cause that is in dispute.

It would sure suck though if and when we have proof that we are contributing to and causing global warming, it is too late. I'd rather err on the side of caution in this important matter and decrease our emmisions.

[Flames_Gimp]

Originally Posted by SpitFire40

Nothing is better than a nice snowy evening, especially during Christmas

christmas can lick my beanbag

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

It would sure suck though if and when we have proof that we are contributing to and causing global warming, it is too late. I'd rather err on the side of caution in this important matter and decrease our emmisions.

Well, it's unlikely that we are going to see any really horrible effects for another 50 years, so I'll be near the end of my time on this planet, so I'm all for burning all the fossil fuels we can get our hands on.

Pave the earth, MFs!!!

[Freeway]

Pointing the finger JUST at hurricanes being an indicator of global warming: We've had the kind of sophisticated monitoring for hurricanes for...maybe 15 to 20 years, tops. The jumps and dips in hurricane numbers could be statistical background noise, or could be a small part of a larger pattern, or could be the ENTIRE pattern. Nobody really knows because we've only had a small amount of data to make realistic conclusions with.

Apply that to the entirety of atmospheric science. I'm not saying that all of it is BS. I'm saying that it's important to take the data in the context that it's recorded in, instead of jumping to wild "EVERYTHING IS GLOBAL WARMING, OH NOES!!" conclusions.

EDIT: That being said, both sides are completely to blame for distorting/interpreting the results to fearmonger a tad.

[Teh_Bandwagoner]

On a slightly similar note, I saw a neat documentary on the History Channel a few weeks back regarding an event known as the Little Ice Age. Apparently there was a period in the Middle Ages where there was a spike in temperature, followed by a severe drop in temperature over a couple of decades.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

[CrusaderPi]

Someone once told me (on a message board) that Calgary was the year round home to brown grass.

[Teh_Bandwagoner]

Oh and why not? I'll post this one too lol.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Most people do not dispute that global warming is happening....it is the cause that is in dispute.

Not to be an a-hole. But who is saying this? I have heard lots of scientists say that we are causing global warming and lots of media saying the opposite. There is one I trust more than the other. But if you or anyone could point me in this direction because I would like to read something that takes a logical standpoint on the opposite side.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by SpitFire40

I agree here... Considering the difference in 10 years. It's pretty impossible to suggest humans are directly responsible for such changes. El Nino anyone? That's pretty much exactly when things turned around. It's just a weather pattern, something that will revert... but when?

hmm, whom should i believe? the vast majority of the scientists in the world who have countless experience and knowledge about the subject.....or JB from Calgarypuck who is probably just tired of hearing about global warming, and therefore chooses to ignore it.

this one's going to be tough.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Burninator

Not to be an a-hole. But who is saying this? I have heard lots of scientists say that we are causing global warming and lots of media saying the opposite. There is one I trust more than the other.

And there's your answer.....the vast majority of people who don't believe that global warming is caused by humanity are people who really have no education or knowledge of science. They are often politicians, lobbyists, and loud-mouth media clowns who are trying to turn this into some sort of political issue when it really shouldnt be. It's sort of like asking your accountant what he the thinks is the cause of your heart condition.

When you talk to people that actually know science.... such as, um you know, scientists....the answers are pretty consistent.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Eagle Eye

Just checked out weather canada and since 2002 calgary has had brown christmas every year (snow on ground was 0 cm)

If a "White Christmas" requires there to be snow on the ground at 7:00am Christmas Day, that's true, but just a couple of years ago (Christmas 2004, IIRC), we had a pretty bad blizzard that rolled in on during the afternoon of Christmas Day. I went to my sister's place in Black Diamond for Christmas dinner and the drive back to Calgary was horrible.


I'm just hoping for snow in May because "If it snows in May, the Flames go all the way".

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by Burninator

Whoa let's all dog pile on Burninator here for his one tongue in cheek sentence.

Who said I don't know what I'm talking about it? I never claimed to be an expert, but I haven't based what I know from a CTV article either. I have read books on global warming, and they tend to lean far away from the theory of natural "global climate change." I haven't read anything on this theory that is in favour of it. But I am more than willing to entertain other theories.

I am just recently getting into this whole "global warming" thang. So I am still reading up on it. But don't label me a doomsday global warming activist. I don't think the sky is falling. But I do think lots of people are misinformed about global warming. The media is generally a poor source as journalists mistake themselves for scientists.

I appreciate when people take some time to learn about a topic before they become 'experts'. The one thing I'd reply with is, not unlike journalists, authors can mistake themselves for scientists ... and scientists can mistake themselves for lobbyists.

[FlamingLonghorn]

I debated this topic for a year on the college debate team and I had to argue both sides. There are scientists out there that believe humans are not contributing to global warming. They are outnumbered by a large majority by those who believe we do. Also, some of the scientist's who say we don't have studies funded by big oil. I believe from the massive amount of research that I did on the topic that one year that we do contribute, but I pretty much have given hope up that people actually give a **** so I pretty much hope that whatever survives whats to come it is not anything like the POS species we call the human race...

[browna]

Back to the original topic....yes, it is.
Feel free to PM and tell me where I can pick up the gifts you got me.

Regards,
brown-a