UK Independent: Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past- Oh wait that was 2000

[Steerpike]

Which has, exactly what to do with the topic of the thread?

You warmers can't seem to just read the article in the OP, then shake your head and say, "That's really stupid of them" like rational people would. Or even at the very least, ignore it and move on. Instead, you have to somehow, try to defend this. Erect straw men, change the subject, employ logical fallacies, whatever it takes.

Is this dishonesty with yourself and others intentional? And to what purpose exactly?

It is almost impossible to have a rational discussion on the issue. That's be shown on these message boards and elsewhere. On both sides, you just get a lot of name-calling and an inability to think for oneself.

 

[Liability]

Didn't you get the memo? Increased temperatures are causing the record cold.

That's not even a joke. These AGW Faithers even have a mystical name for that part of their Faith. They call it a "paradoxical effect."

Today's first Hymnal Song expresses it eloquently:

Oh Susanna!

* * * *

It rain'd all night the day I left, The weather it was dry,
The sun so hot I froze to death; Susanna, don't you cry.​

 

[LibocalypseNow]

The UK is full of snivelling whiny Doomsday wankers. They're scared of their own shadow at this point. They predict the End of the World on a daily basis. Mere whiny Chicken Littles at this point. I suggest some new hobbies for UK Residents. Their End of the World predictions really are pretty stale & lame at this point.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Which has, exactly what to do with the topic of the thread?

You warmers can't seem to just read the article in the OP, then shake your head and say, "That's really stupid of them" like rational people would. Or even at the very least, ignore it and move on. Instead, you have to somehow, try to defend this. Erect straw men, change the subject, employ logical fallacies, whatever it takes.

Is this dishonesty with yourself and others intentional? And to what purpose exactly?

It is almost impossible to have a rational discussion on the issue. That's be shown on these message boards and elsewhere. On both sides, you just get a lot of name-calling and an inability to think for oneself.

I of course understand that. But it still doesn't answer one of the questions. As in, when obvious indefensible stuff like this comes along, why can't the warmers just ignore it, at the very least? Why are they compelled to try to mount some kind of defense, instead of just shaking their heads and moving on?

Very thin-skinned, it seems. Like most every other religious fundie.

 

[BlindBoo]

I know you guys call me names, but I love you. Seriously. You're so predictable and unimaginative.

Imagine this, the sun heats the ocean, the water turns to "water vapor". The vapor "floats" over land. Being winter, the land is "cool". The upper atmosphere is "very cold". So the "water" that evaporated from the "ocean" falls to the ground as "snow".

The reason there is so much "more" snow, is because the heat made more water evaporate than in the past.

Please read the article linked in the OP, and ask yourself why the scientists quoted didn't seem to know this as lately as 2000. I'll wait to see if you can answer that.

They had a very mild winter in Europe in 2000, so here we are, these scientists using that to claim that snow was a thing of the past, children of the future wouldn't know what snow is, all of that. Did you bother reading the article?

FTA-Heavy snow will return occasionally, says Dr Viner, but when it does we will be unprepared. "We're really going to get caught out. Snow will probably cause chaos in 20 years time," he said.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

I know you guys call me names, but I love you. Seriously. You're so predictable and unimaginative.

Imagine this, the sun heats the ocean, the water turns to "water vapor". The vapor "floats" over land. Being winter, the land is "cool". The upper atmosphere is "very cold". So the "water" that evaporated from the "ocean" falls to the ground as "snow".

The reason there is so much "more" snow, is because the heat made more water evaporate than in the past.

Please read the article linked in the OP, and ask yourself why the scientists quoted didn't seem to know this as lately as 2000. I'll wait to see if you can answer that.

They had a very mild winter in Europe in 2000, so here we are, these scientists using that to claim that snow was a thing of the past, children of the future wouldn't know what snow is, all of that. Did you bother reading the article?

FTA-Heavy snow will return occasionally, says Dr Viner, but when it does we will be unprepared. "We're really going to get caught out. Snow will probably cause chaos in 20 years time," he said.

Yes, I saw his caveat. It seems to run contrary to his earlier mantra, in the same article. But he's still wrong, it's snowed in GB every year since 2000. Children there, still seem to know what snow is.

But, congratulations! You're apparently the only one besides myself who actually read the article.

Can you tell me what you think of the article in general? Was it balanced? Was it promoting an agenda? Was it propaganda? Hyperbole?

 

[Midnight Marauder]

In 2000 they were saying, a warmer planet because of human combustion activity would cause much less snow. In fact, they said snow would be rare, children wouldn't know what it is.

NOW they're saying, a warmer planet because of human combustion activity causes colder winters and MUCH MORE SNOW.

The first "Earth Day" was all about "global cooling" and the "new ice age." Now it's "global warming."


How many times does politically polluted conjectural "science" have to be wrong, before some healthy skepticism starts?

 

[rdean]

Australia is getting hotter, the seas surrounding it are rising, and rainfall patterns are changing.

Which has, exactly what to do with the topic of the thread?

You warmers can't seem to just read the article in the OP, then shake your head and say, "That's really stupid of them" like rational people would. Or even at the very least, ignore it and move on. Instead, you have to somehow, try to defend this. Erect straw men, change the subject, employ logical fallacies, whatever it takes.

Is this dishonesty with yourself and others intentional? And to what purpose exactly?

This is why I love you guys, seriously. First, "Which has, exactly what to do with the topic of the thread?" I'm guess a thread on "Global Climate Change" includes the "entire globe". But I could be wrong.

Then, from the article everyone claims wasn't read:

David Parker, at the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research in Berkshire, says ultimately, British children could have only virtual experience of snow. Via the internet, they might wonder at polar scenes - or eventually "feel" virtual cold.

"COULD" and "MIGHT" being the "operative" words. Hardly "written in stone" predictions.

6%

 

[rdean]

In 2000 they were saying, a warmer planet because of human combustion activity would cause much less snow. In fact, they said snow would be rare, children wouldn't know what it is.

NOW they're saying, a warmer planet because of human combustion activity causes colder winters and MUCH MORE SNOW.

The first "Earth Day" was all about "global cooling" and the "new ice age." Now it's "global warming."


How many times does politically polluted conjectural "science" have to be wrong, before some healthy skepticism starts?

Did you just get caught telling a "lie"? Are you quoting the sentence where "could" was used and you changed it to "would"? Changing quotes into a lie is against the rules. Do I have to go back and read the entire article again?

OK, I went back and read it. You escaped telling an outright lie.

However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event".

 

[Oddball]

I know you guys call me names, but I love you. Seriously. You're so predictable and unimaginative.

Imagine this, the sun heats the ocean, the water turns to "water vapor". The vapor "floats" over land. Being winter, the land is "cool". The upper atmosphere is "very cold". So the "water" that evaporated from the "ocean" falls to the ground as "snow".

The reason there is so much "more" snow, is because the heat made more water evaporate than in the past.

Please read the article linked in the OP, and ask yourself why the scientists quoted didn't seem to know this as lately as 2000. I'll wait to see if you can answer that.

They had a very mild winter in Europe in 2000, so here we are, these scientists using that to claim that snow was a thing of the past, children of the future wouldn't know what snow is, all of that. Did you bother reading the article?

FTA-Heavy snow will return occasionally, says Dr Viner, but when it does we will be unprepared. "We're really going to get caught out. Snow will probably cause chaos in 20 years time," he said.

Translation: No matter what happens, we'll still find a way to blame it all on industrial man's activities.

 

[rdean]

I know you guys call me names, but I love you. Seriously. You're so predictable and unimaginative.

Imagine this, the sun heats the ocean, the water turns to "water vapor". The vapor "floats" over land. Being winter, the land is "cool". The upper atmosphere is "very cold". So the "water" that evaporated from the "ocean" falls to the ground as "snow".

The reason there is so much "more" snow, is because the heat made more water evaporate than in the past.

Right wingers will call this, "The Theory of Evaporation" and say it's not mentioned in the Bible so they will be skeptical.

The rest of the world will laugh and laugh and laugh. The hilarity will be lost on Republicans.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/science-and-technology/147134-can-scientists-be-republicans.html

Oh no Deanie we don't beat dogs either. Water vapor has a residency time of about ten days, so how do you get the water vapor to stick around for all those months till the temps drop and you can get the snow to form?

Whoopsie, that theory doesn't stand even a basic high school science smell test. SORRY!

Stick around? All rain and snow are the result of evaporation. You know that right?

Wait a second. You do know where snow comes from, right?

 

[rdean]

Republicans and science are like "Lucy" singing, "Little Known Facts".

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIZpUXJc9Rc[/ame]

 

[Midnight Marauder]

In 2000 they were saying, a warmer planet because of human combustion activity would cause much less snow. In fact, they said snow would be rare, children wouldn't know what it is.

NOW they're saying, a warmer planet because of human combustion activity causes colder winters and MUCH MORE SNOW.

The first "Earth Day" was all about "global cooling" and the "new ice age." Now it's "global warming."


How many times does politically polluted conjectural "science" have to be wrong, before some healthy skepticism starts?

Did you just get caught telling a "lie"? Are you quoting the sentence where "could" was used and you changed it to "would"? Changing quotes into a lie is against the rules. Do I have to go back and read the entire article again?

OK, I went back and read it. You escaped telling an outright lie.

However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event".

In 2000 they were saying, a warmer planet because of human combustion activity would cause much less snow. In fact, they said snow would be rare, children wouldn't know what it is.

NOW they're saying, a warmer planet because of human combustion activity causes colder winters and MUCH MORE SNOW.

The first "Earth Day" was all about "global cooling" and the "new ice age." Now it's "global warming."


How many times does politically polluted conjectural "science" have to be wrong, before some healthy skepticism starts?

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Republicans and science are like "Lucy" singing, "Little Known Facts".

Not all of the heretics of your religion are republicans. I certainly am not.

I'm just a fella who has seen this conjectural "science" be a lie, many times.

Just because you want something to be true, even fervently wish it so.... Does not make it so.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Then, from the article everyone claims wasn't read

You did NOT read it, until it was shown someone else actually did.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

I'm guess a thread on "Global Climate Change" includes the "entire globe". But I could be wrong.

There's plenty of such threads. This isn't one of those. THIS thread is about the 2000 prediction that "snowfalls will be rare."

You won't address that at all, instead you merely try to deflect, reflexively defending your sad, failing religion.

 

[rdean]

I'm guess a thread on "Global Climate Change" includes the "entire globe". But I could be wrong.

There's plenty of such threads. This isn't one of those. THIS thread is about the 2000 prediction that "snowfalls will be rare."

You won't address that at all, instead you merely try to deflect, reflexively defending your sad, failing religion.

We have had ten years of study since 2000. People understand things better all the time. Computers now have models that didn't exist 10 years ago.
This is why Republicans don't do well with science. They don't study, they don't learn. For many of them, the only book they read was written by primitives living in the middle east thousands of years ago. Their God believed in slavery. These days, in this country, slavery is illegal. See how things have changed?

 

[westwall]

I'm guess a thread on "Global Climate Change" includes the "entire globe". But I could be wrong.

There's plenty of such threads. This isn't one of those. THIS thread is about the 2000 prediction that "snowfalls will be rare."

You won't address that at all, instead you merely try to deflect, reflexively defending your sad, failing religion.

We have had ten years of study since 2000. People understand things better all the time. Computers now have models that didn't exist 10 years ago.
This is why Republicans don't do well with science. They don't study, they don't learn. For many of them, the only book they read was written by primitives living in the middle east thousands of years ago. Their God believed in slavery. These days, in this country, slavery is illegal. See how things have changed?

Yes, the computer models now are no better than they were then. They still can't accurately tell you what has allready happened. This is a link to a peer reviewed study that shows just how bad the climate models are.

A comparison of local and aggregated climate model outputs with observed data - Hydrological Sciences Journal

Keith Briffa has publicly admitted he could not reproduce his own work. Do you have a clue just how bad that is for a scientist to admit that? About his own work?

 

[Neotrotsky]

There's plenty of such threads. This isn't one of those. THIS thread is about the 2000 prediction that "snowfalls will be rare."

You won't address that at all, instead you merely try to deflect, reflexively defending your sad, failing religion.

We have had ten years of study since 2000. People understand things better all the time. Computers now have models that didn't exist 10 years ago.
This is why Republicans don't do well with science. They don't study, they don't learn. For many of them, the only book they read was written by primitives living in the middle east thousands of years ago. Their God believed in slavery. These days, in this country, slavery is illegal. See how things have changed?

Yes, the computer models now are no better than they were then. They still can't accurately tell you what has allready happened. This is a link to a peer reviewed study that shows just how bad the climate models are.

A comparison of local and aggregated climate model outputs with observed data - Hydrological Sciences Journal

Keith Briffa has publicly admitted he could not reproduce his own work. Do you have a clue just how bad that is for a scientist to admit that? About his own work?

From the New York Times, 128 years of looming polar doom:



Hey the left has been a "roll" for years why stop them now




• 1881: “This past Winter, both inside and outside the Arctic circle, appears to have been unusually mild. The ice is very light and rapidly melting …”
• 1932: “NEXT GREAT DELUGE FORECAST BY SCIENCE; Melting Polar Ice Caps to Raise the Level of Seas and Flood the Continents”
• 1934: “New Evidence Supports Geology’s View That the Arctic Is Growing Warmer”
• 1937: “Continued warm weather at the Pole, melting snow and ice.”
• 1954: “The particular point of inquiry concerns whether the ice is melting at such a rate as to imperil low-lying coastal areas through raising the level of the sea in the near future.”
• 1957: “U.S. Arctic Station Melting”
• 1958: “At present, the Arctic ice pack is melting away fast. Some estimates say that it is 40 per cent thinner and 12 per cent smaller than it was fifteen years [ago].”
• 1959: “Will the Arctic Ocean soon be free of ice?”
• 1971: “STUDY SAYS MAN ALTERS CLIMATE; U.N. Report Links Melting of Polar Ice to His Activities”
• 1979: “A puzzling haze over the Arctic ice packs has been identified as a byproduct of air pollution, a finding that may support predictions of a disastrous melting of the earth’s ice caps.”
• 1982: “Because of global heating attributed to an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide from fuel burning, about 20,000 cubic miles of polar ice has melted in the past 40 years, apparently contributing to a rise in sea levels …”
• 1999: “Evidence continues to accumulate that the frozen world of the Arctic and sub-Arctic is thawing.”
• 2000: “The North Pole is melting. The thick ice that has for ages covered the Arctic Ocean at the pole has turned to water, recent visitors there reported yesterday.”
• 2002: “The melting of Greenland glaciers and Arctic Ocean sea ice this past summer reached levels not seen in decades, scientists reported today.”
• 2004: “There is an awful lot of Arctic and glacial ice melting.”
• 2005: “Another melancholy gathering of climate scientists presented evidence this month that the Antarctic ice shelf is melting - a prospect difficult to imagine a decade ago.”

 

[Oddball]

Chaotic scenes as snow paralyzes Europe - Yahoo! News Photos