MORE GLOBAL WARMING: SNOW

Fiedor Report On the News #303 ^ | 2-23-03 | Doug Fiedor

[forest]

Federal offices were ordered to remain closed in Washington last Tuesday while road crews tried to dig the nation's capital out from under what was billed as "one of the worst snowfalls in decades."

This news brings back memories of some previous years when the global warming crowds scheduled major meetings in Washington, D.C. about this time of the year and were sometimes snowed out. There was no word of that happening this year, so maybe they have learned that global warming often forgets the District of Columbia.

Actually, this year global warming forgot the whole Northeastern section of the United States. As sometimes happens, after a couple moderate winters, the average annual snowfall statistics bounced back to normal with one big dump.

As far as we could find, only CNN was crass enough to run a global warming article last week. But, if we wait a while, some bright light in that misguided movement will somehow blame the Presidents Day snowstorm of '03 on global warming. They'll try, anyway.

Last week's storm dumped on a wide area of the Northeast. For instance: Garrett County, MD got 49 inches; Seven Springs Ski Resort, PA, 40; Berkeley Springs, W.VA, 37; Linden, VA, 35; Winchester, VA, 30; Monroe, NY, 30; Red Lion, PA, 30; Upper Strasburg, PA, 29; Boston, 27.5; West Milford, NJ, 26; Westchester County, NY, 26; and the Baltimore-Washington Airport was hit with 26 inches of snow.

According to the National Weather Service, West Virginia's Berkeley County was hit with 37 inches of new snow. The monitor in New York City's Central Park recorded 19.8 inches.

There's an interesting fact about New York City, which thinks of itself as the financial capital of the world: City government officials immediately started whining that snow removal there costs a million bucks an inch. So, of course, the world's financial capital is asking for federal money to help pay for digging out of the snow emergency.

Interesting that. New York City seems to be the hometown of a disproportional number of global warming activists. Massive cold fronts and huge snow storms, it would seem, is exactly what these groups must want. Which means, they should also be willing to pay for their own snow removal.

Unfortunately, as so often happens, there were at least 35 deaths directly attributed to the snow storms. Also, more than 250,000 homes and businesses went without power for a day or more.

Nonetheless, there is still a vocal faction out there attempting to show that man is warming the earth to dangerous levels. It doesn't seem to matter that, statistically, there has been little (if any) significant change in the average annual participation or temperature within the United States as a whole for as long as records are available.

Some groups would have us return to an Ice Age, it seems. Problem is, Mother Nature has other ideas. We are still coming out of the last Ice Age and nothing man can do will change that.

Even if we could, are huge snowstorms and artic winds what we want every winter? Perhaps this might be a good time to present that question to our friends and relatives living in our nation's Northeast states.

   

 END

[forest]

Past global warming crowds scheduled major meetings in Washington, D.C. but were snowed out. 8<) This year global warming forgot the NE, except CNN. But wait -- same bright light will blame the blizzard on global warming

NYC thinks it is the capital capitol and is home to global warmists, but they want money to shovel snow. Huh? Do they want perpetual winter? Fact is, we are still coming out of the last Ice Age and dinky Man can not alter that.

[wizzler]

The question of global warming is a scientific one and cannot be answered by emotion or faith -- on either side. It's ridiculous to take a single snowstorm in a single locale and imply that it refutes the theory of global warming. Just as it's ridiculous to take one sequence of melting icebergs and hold it up as proof.

Only detailed analysis of ongoing, longterm, global trends will give the right answer. Anything else is laughably speculative. How did we become a nation of armchair scientists, where everybody looks out their own front window and makes sweeping proclamations about the world?

[Libertarianize the GOP]

http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/bump-list

[jimtorr]

How did we become a nation of armchair scientists, where everybody looks out their own front window and makes sweeping proclamations about the world?

Tell that to the chicken little crowd over at The Avenue of the America's.

The rest of America got involved as a way of mocking the global warming fanatics at the U.N.

[wizzler]

The rest of America got involved as a way of mocking the global warming fanatics at the U.N.

But that's my point: Nobody's got the leverage to be "fanatical" on either side. It's one thing to respond to global-warming fanatics by saying, "Well, we can't yet say with certainty if the earth's temperature is rising in the longterm. And if it is rising, we can't yet say why that's the case."

It's another thing altogether to say, "THERE'S NO GLOBAL WARMING! THERE'S NO GLOBAL WARMING!" The bottom line is that we don't know either way. And we won't for a long time. This is something that will require lifetimes' worth of data, yet some people seem to think they can use the latest daily readings on the Weather Channel to make a point. It's such a myopic grasp of reality.

It's silly to use a single snowstorm or cold spell as some kind of "evidence." Period.

[The Great RJ]

Gosh--it's supposed to be -15 out here on the tundra this weekend not including the wind chill factor. I better get out and drive my SUV some more to help Osama and get that global warming started sooner.</sarcasm>

[ancient_geezer]

It's another thing altogether to say, "THERE'S NO GLOBAL WARMING! THERE'S NO GLOBAL WARMING!" The bottom line is that we don't know either way. And we won't for a long time.

How long a time frame do you want? There is no global warming trend that hasn't been there long before mankind came on the scene. In fact since mankind has been a factor starting with introduction of agriculture it can be argured that the the "Global Warming" trend, overall, is towards cooling, and that not particularly due to anything man has done.

Mankind's impact is only 0.28% of Total Greenhouse effect

" There is no dispute at all about the fact that even if punctiliously observed, (the Kyoto Protocol) would have an imperceptible effect on future temperatures -- one-twentieth of a degree by 2050. "

Dr. S. Fred Singer, atmospheric physicist
Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia,
and former director of the US Weather Satellite Service;
in a Sept. 10, 2001 Letter to Editor, Wall Street Journal

 

Ice Ages & Astronomical Causes
Brief Introduction to the History of Climate
by Richard A. Muller

Origin of the 100 kyr Glacial Cycle

 

Figure 1-2 Climate of the last 2400 years

 

Figure 1-3 Climate of the last 12,000 years

Figure 1-4 Climate of the last 100,000 years

Figure 1-5 Climate for the last 420 kyr, from Vostok ice

[bobg]

Your reply is correct, if you do not limit your sources of data. If all science is considered your reply is off the wall. If you are able to look at both sides of the global warming fuss go to the following web sites and seriously study them..You will find there "ongoing, longterm and global trends.... www.visiion.net.au/~daly, www.sepp.com,
www.junkscience.com. Have fun...

[katana]

Further to your point, the existing research data is actually very mixed as to whether a global warming trend is due to human activities or is a continuation of the general trend of the past ten thousand years. Also, even if it is, do the effects justify the dismantling of modern American industrial civilization.

[jimtorr]

It's one thing to respond to global-warming fanatics by saying, "Well, we can't yet say with certainty ........

Right, try telling those folks that. What you get back is something like, "...But it might be true!. Can we afford to take the chance? It would be irresponsible not to make the effort."

Suddenly you have a cavalier attitude about their childrens future, and are nearly criminally irresponsible. Sensible attitudes only get you grief with these people. I know, I've talked with quite a number of the freaks.

No, the only way is mockery and certainty. If they counter your equally absurd statement with something sensible, then you can try to have a reasonable discussion.

[swampfox98]

Federal offices were ordered to remain closed in Washington last Tuesday while road crews tried to dig the nation's capital out from under what was billed as "one of the worst snowfalls in decades."

algor remains strangly silent.

[MinorityRepublican]

Sept. 10, 2001 Letter to Editor, Wall Street Journal

The day before the warm indian summer Tuesday that everything would change in the world.

[meyer]

It appears that we take temperature readings much more frequently now than we did tens of thousands of years ago. :^)

[ward_of_the_state]

Went for a good brisk walk this afternoon...ain't no global warming.

[alaskanfan]

Here in Alaska, No ice or snow on the deck. It's rough duty grilling salmon out on the deck in this weather. But as Cogitator would tell me, weather has nothing to do with climate. Thank God.