low 80's for st. louis in july???? boy, it's really going to have to start heating up quickly if were going to destroy ourselves in 9 years..i say 9 years because algore is STILL saying 10 years, yet he originally said 10 years about two years ago.
2007-07-21 01:43:00 · 10 answers · asked by federalistcapers 2 in Environment ➔ Global Warming
Didn't you know that this is a sign of global warming? It SHOULD be in the 70s now in StL - C'MON GET WITH THE PROGRAM!!!
2007-07-21 20:41:54 · answer #1 · answered by 3DM 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Ask the people in Florida and Europe who are suffering in a heatwave if they agree with you.
The clue should be in the name - GLOBAL warming, it's about trends across the whole globe, trends over periods of many years. One month in one city is of little consequence, when factored in to what's happening in every other city around the world we find that the planet is warmer now then it's ever been in the entire time humans have been around.
If you go back through previous questions on here you'll find the same question has been asked many times over by those seeking to refute global warming. Strangely they go very quiet when it warms up again. Why would that be?
2007-07-21 12:16:20 · answer #2 · answered by Trevor 7 · 5⤊ 0⤋
There is a difference between predicting specific weather events compared to the probabilities that such events will occur. Compare with playing cards in Las vegas. The house won't be able to predict which hand you will get or who will win in a certain hand. However, the probabilities is on their side and they ensure that they( the House) will win in the long-term. In the same way it can be said what the trends will lead to over longer periods.
""Even though climate is chaotic, with weather states impossible to predict in detail more than a few days ahead, there is a predictable impact of anthropogenic forcing on the probability of occurrence of the naturally-occurring climatic regimes.
In our chaotic climate, it is impossible (indeed meaningless) to try to attribute a specific (eg severe) weather event to anthropogenic global warming. Hence, it is a false dichotomy to suppose that some recently-occurring drought or flood is either on the one hand caused by global warming, or on the other hand is merely due to natural climate variability.
Rather, the correct way to address such an issue is to ask instead whether anthropogenic climate change will increase or decrease the probability of occurrence of the type of drought or flood which we (or journalists pursuing some weather story provoked by a recent drought or flood) are interested. Such probabilities can be obtained, for example, from the JSC/CLIVAR Working Group on Climate Modelling's multi-model ensemble, made for the IPCC fourth assessment report.
In a chaotic climate, one cannot expect the time-series of global temperature to increase monotonically under the impact of anthropogenic climate change. Hence, for example, global mean temperatures were especially warm in 1998 because of the occurrence of a substantial El-Niño event. By the bullet above, it is meaningless to attribute the 1998 El-Niño event to global warming. Only by looking over long enough periods of time can one see the trend in global mean temperature due to anthropogenic climate change, above the "noise" of climatic variability."
This means that there is no predectibility for specific events, but the trends can be predicted.
Hope this helps.
2007-07-21 08:52:12 · answer #3 · answered by Anders 4 · 4⤊ 0⤋
54 degrees here in Floyd, Virginia this morning. Very cool for this time of year, and according to the liberal global warming alarmist Weather Channel it is unusually cold now in over half of the US. I find it amusing that global warming alarmists will believe Algore and not their own thermometer. I have to correct you regarding Algore. It was 13 years ago that Algore started saying we only had 10 years left, so according to Algormath we all died about 3 years ago and didn't notice. Maybe that's why it's cooler now.
2007-07-21 09:11:22 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 4⤋
Global warming deniers like to talk about short term variations in weather in one place, as if it says anything at all about long term global warming. Or about Al Gore as if he has anything to do with science.
Both simply demonstrate that either they are ignorant (weather is not climate) or simply that they have no scientific arguments (maybe both) and so just spout nonsense.
Congratulations, you've hit the Daily Double.
Good websites for scientific information about the reality of man made global warming:
http://profend.com/global-warming/
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/
http://www.realclimate.org
"climate science from climate scientists"
2007-07-21 09:35:38 · answer #5 · answered by Bob 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Because you are looking at the measuring local air tempature on one specific day not global tempature increases, weather trends, or changes in climates.
2007-07-21 08:49:36 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 0⤋
climate is not the same as weather. you've fallen prey to the concept of trying to clarify scientific principles by obfuscating them and then discombobulating the opposing viewpoint.
it works, but credibility is shot... best to open a window and enjoy that free A/C.
2007-07-21 14:28:57 · answer #7 · answered by patzky99 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋
cause it doesnt work on local weather its global and for asking such a stupid question you are demoted to moron level in yahoo answers.
signed the administrator.
2007-07-21 09:28:21 · answer #8 · answered by jgold49 3 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Move to Texas...
You will sweat in a jiffy here...
2007-07-21 15:16:32 · answer #9 · answered by aspenkdp2003 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Don't you read?
http://twm.co.nz/DSuzuki_1.htm
2007-07-24 01:55:40 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋