Climate Change: Snow in rome 2012

[Kolk]

Hello everyone, here placed a video on the snow in Rome on 4 February. The event is exceptional and testomonia the phenomenon of climate change.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAZEMpITkww

[Farmtalk]

While you were getting snow, we got only our third school delay this year, a two hour delay with the clipper system that moved through...we are WAY below snow averages this year

[Kolk]

hello

what is your average snow every year?  thanks and excuse my bad English!

[HailHunter]

I'm not quite sure how snow in Rome is a testament to climate change.

[Farmtalk]

I personally believe that there is a gradual warming of the planet, from both emissions and I also believe that the Earth is gradually warming. Though I do take global warming very seriously, scientists in the 1970s predicted that the northern US would be covered in ice in 2010...

[4wd]

The latest ploy in the propaganda campaign is to pretend any unusual event is enhanced by climate change.
I guess this is because the observed warming has fallen so far short of the exaggerated predictions that got policy makers 'on side' that they need to play up the extreme events enhancement idea to justify the position.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/ipcc_now_too_moderate_for_professional_scaremongers/

[gwwilk]

The latest ploy in the propaganda campaign is to pretend any unusual event is enhanced by climate change.
I guess this is because the observed warming has fallen so far short of the exaggerated predictions that got policy makers 'on side' that they need to play up the extreme events enhancement idea to justify the position.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/ipcc_now_too_moderate_for_professional_scaremongers/

Agreed.  The 'science' involved isn't worthy of any such appellation.  Their predictions are what are known to physicians as WAG's--Wild Ass Guesses.  Physicians at least recognize that when there's insufficient data to justify an opinion that their preliminary diagnoses are just WAG's.  Much of the art of medicine resides in recognizing such circumstances and delicately communicating this to interested parties while they gather more data.  Mature scientists live with and accept uncertainty and the limitations of their craft.  Pseudo-scientists provide, while politicians and their followers demand, premature, half-baked 'answers' which when acted upon only muddy the waters and prevent clarity.  Sound familiar?

[Farmtalk]

And global warming has created a huge market for more efficient products, a possible government conspiracy?

[gwwilk]

And global warming has created a huge market for more efficient products, a possible government conspiracy?

I would credit energy prices more than climate change for the increasing prevalence and popularity of energy-efficient products.  Why introduce an extraneous tangentially relevant factor into a fairly straightforward economic explanation?  Modern Western civilization has always sought out renewable, sustainable energy.  The price of such is high, and has historically been unable to compete with fossilized carbon-based resources.  We are nearing a watershed moment however, because no longer can OPEC stifle the search for alternatives.  The price of oil can no longer be determined by the OPEC cartel because they can't pump enough oil to keep its price below what's necessary to make alternatives profitable.  US oil producers and refiners can make MORE profit by selling overseas than in the US, so we have become exporters of oil to the tune of 1.2 million barrels/day.  Thus the price of a gallon of gasoline in the US is driven more by the price of North Sea Brent crude on the world market than the price of a barrel of oil on US commodities exchanges; this is why we've not seen relief from high gas prices to correspond with the recent drop in US crude oil prices.  This is going to be the driving force behind successful conservation efforts and a successful search for viable alternatives, NOT climate change.

[Kolk]

I personally believe that there is a gradual warming of the planet, from both emissions and I also believe that the Earth is gradually warming. Though I do take global warming very seriously, scientists in the 1970s predicted that the northern US would be covered in ice in 2010...

hello,
 it is 3 years when the snow falls in rome. Then this year was an exceptional event with 30 inches of accumulation, and this after a very mild winter. I think at least here in Italy there is a change that brings extreme hot and then cold. alternation.

[HailHunter]

The weather tends to go in cycles, even large cycles. For instance, in the Southern United States, we typically see short, mild Winters. If we saw a single Winter weather event in a season that dropped more than a quarter inch of ice/snow on us then we were running above average. That lasted from the time I was born until just a few years ago.

Then about 2005-2006 we started seeing each progressive Winter get worse and worse to the point that we actually got used to snow falling around here last year. We couldn't go a week without not only measurable snow fall but record breaking snow fall.

Now this year we had an average Winter with highs staying around 50-55 and lows between 25-35. It was probably the first full fledged "average" Winter we've had in my life time to be honest. Then we jumped into Spring with temperatures in the 80s.

After seven or eight years of increasingly colder Winters we suddenly sprang off to an above average Spring. There's actually nothing that unusual about that since weather can fall into a pattern for years at a time.

Even with severe weather, we went through several years of below average numbers on storms and then in the last few years things exploded. It's not global warming or climate change to blame for any of it, it's just regular old Mother Nature.

As for the record temperatures we've seen in March. That's not actually that impressive considering many of the official record books are still quite young themselves.

[Kolk]

Hello everyone, here placed a video on the snow in Rome on 4 February. The event is exceptional and testomonia the phenomenon of climate change.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAZEMpITkww

how can I view the video preview of ytube? thanks

[unbidden]

Hello everyone, here placed a video on the snow in Rome on 4 February. The event is exceptional and testomonia the phenomenon of climate change.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAZEMpITkww

how can I view the video preview of ytube? thanks

Older thread but the link worked for me, I viewed the video on my phone.

[blizzardof78]

I personally believe that there is a gradual warming of the planet, from both emissions and I also believe that the Earth is gradually warming. Though I do take global warming very seriously, scientists in the 1970s predicted that the northern US would be covered in ice in 2010...

hello,
 it is 3 years when the snow falls in rome. Then this year was an exceptional event with 30 inches of accumulation, and this after a very mild winter. I think at least here in Italy there is a change that brings extreme hot and then cold. alternation.

You are correct. It's called CYCLICAL PATTERNS

[KF]

I agree with all the comments. I've become very cynical and grumpy as I reach the run-in to my final destination. I guess I shouldn't bring politics to the weather forum, but we only have ourselves to blame for voting in the current crop of elected members who religiously promote this propaganda - and that applies to both sides of the Atlantic! I suspect they have banned the incandescent bulb in the USA as part of the drive to save the world from catastophic climate meltdown. Anyway I ensured that I purchased enough of them before the ban to see me through till death and live life with a decent bright light at home. When the time comes I will spend enough time in the dark!

Merry Christmas and God Bless

KF

[bwc]

Funny to see an old thread brought back to life.

So, I have to ask… what's the balance on these boards? Climate change believers versus climate change deniers?

[PaulMy]

So, I have to ask… what's the balance on these boards? Climate change believers versus climate change deniers?

Personally, from past discussions (you should find plenty from search) I would prefer the question not be asked.

Paul

[bwc]

heh. I hear you. I'm not interested in debating it, I was just curious what the percentages were, curious how that compares to the general public, etc. It was on my mind after having just read a story in Rolling Stone about how a perhaps surprising number of TV weathermen did not believe in human-driven climate change, back to back with an article that explored 14k peer-reviewed climatology papers, finding only 0.17% did not agree with the consensus of human-driven climate change.

I have my opinion. I was just curious of the balance of the board. Like you, I'm not interested in the debate itself, as its really hard to have productive discourse in a forum where politics come into play.

[Kolk]

I am happy to participate in a discussion on climate so interesting. in occasion I wish you all Merry Christmas!

[IMADreamer]

The break down is simple.  

People who believe in AGW:  scientist, academics, those who have studied the topic, generally more educated.  

People who don't:  religious types, uneducated, fox news viewers.  

That is not stereotyping or generalizing, it's fact.  When you survey people on their beliefs on AGW almost without fail they fall into those groups and under those beliefs.  

Everyone should ask the Pacific Island nations who are losing territory due to sea level rise if AGW is real, or the people of Greenland whose Glaciers are melting if AGW is real.  These aren't extreme weather events hyped by the media as AGW deniers like to think, these are climactic events caused by long term warming of the earth.  

AGW deniers, show me proof it isn't happening.  Show me a peer reviewed study that it isn't happening?  In fact show me thousands, because that is how many show it is.  Including one with my name on it I worked on under a professor as an undergrad in college.  We had no agenda, no politics, no money to be made by showing it was true.  We wanted to know for ourselves.  

The long we deny it, the longer we keep set in our ways the more damage we do.  As far as I can tell it's the deniers who have the most money to lose here.  Their propaganda campaigns are funded by big coal, big oil, and other fossil fuel interest.      

For the record, snow in Rome is not proof of AGW it is merely a singular weather event that may or may not be out of the ordinary.  Those have always happened, and always will.

[HailHunter]

People who believe in AGW:  scientist, academics, those who have studied the topic, generally more educated. 

People who don't:  religious types, uneducated, fox news viewers. 

Yeah, this thread might need to be locked up before we start getting more and more stuff like this. Replies like that are just begging to start a fight and there is no need for that here.

[DanS]

Funny to see an old thread brought back to life.

With this topic it's more like

[Dr Obbins]

I think they finally found the real culprit.

The presence of worms affects how much carbon dioxide is produced in the soil and how much escapes to the atmosphere. Scientists are concerned that earthworms increase greenhouse gas emissions - and that earthworm numbers are on the rise