I am a College educated Meteorologist..HOW in the he-ll can people be SO BLIND to Global Warming??

Question

It's AMAZING to me.The Polar Icecaps MELT and people still say "Oh it's called weather it's just normal" are these the same type of people who would stand still while a Grizzy Bear was gnawing off thier left arm???Please help me to understand this total insanity.

Answer 1

Welllll, since the first time I heard a meteorologist speak of Global Warming on any national media was less than a year ago ... you tell me.

I knew this was happening 30 years ago when it was called the Greenhouse Effect. Yet everytime we get 6" of rain in 2 hours followed by 40deg weather and a smog alert and I tell people to thank Global Warming they look at me the same way the farm animals looked at Chicken Little.

Thirty years later the only question left in my mind isn't "Does it exist?", it's "Are hairless apes worth saving?".

I'm sure lots of people would stand around and watch for the entertainment value alone, but I wanna keep both my arms, esp my left arm, thank you very much!!! ;-)

Answer 2

So-called Global Warming could also be called the "natural cyclical temperature fluctuation". In other words, yes, the temperature is going up, but it is expected and perfectly natural. "After a few geologic/meteorlogic years, the temps will start dropping (but not due to anything we do today or in the future). The big difference with the current cylce of warming is that there are more people around to observe and track the phenomena.

Antarctic Ice Melt: Yes, a portion of the Antarctic shelf is melting. However, a corresponding area of the Antarctic shelf ice shelf is actually growing. Net change is zero.

Kilamanjaro Ice Cap: Not from Global warming, but from the striping of all trees from arouds the area, causing localized climate change.

Increased Hurricanes/Typhoons: Simply not true and no way to predict the future. Case in point: How many "experts" predicted a brutal Atlantic hurricane season in 2006 (the year after Katrina, Rita & Wilma) and attributed their prediction to Global Warming???? They were all wrong!

Al Gore: He will find another topic to study and becopme an "expert" and will sell more books. But he should not be considered ":The Source". He needs to go away or find new hobby like woodworking or growing zuccini....

Answer 3

With all due respect for your college education, but hold on and think for a moment.

I agree that global warming has been happening over the last few years, due to increased solar activity, which also caused the CO2 dry ice caps on Mars to recede. We down here on earth have no involvement in Mars's atmosphere of Carbon Dioxide. Where else would Mars warming come from, other than the sun's increased energy?

Furthermore, the earth's ionosphere has been acting up over the last few years, reflecting radio waves like never seen before in a long time. What possibly could affect the ionosphere other than the sun's increased bombardment of energy? Certainly not the exhaust emissions of cars here on earth. The sun's 11 year cycle appears to be out of sync, that's what it is.

Does man made global warming exist? Yes absolutely, just drive around with your car for 10 minutes, then open the hood and feel the oven-heat wafting out of the engine compartment, this is part of man made global warming, but it is so minute compared to the incredible energy the sun has been warming up the planet in the last few years. So what else can be done about this other than nothing, since the sun is out of our jurisdiction.
I don't think it is a good idea to drive people (the not so bright in particular) nuts with all this scaremongering, it wouldn't change a thing other than lining the pockets of scrupulous green energy charlatan's pockets with the green stuff, as in green back dollars and this is actually the only green color involved here.

My personal opinion, I can only hope the sun is calming down
(and it appears that this is the case since the ionosphere has shown back to normal conditions lately) otherwise we really could have a very very serious problem in the near future, which again, we could do nothing about it. So lets hope for the best!

Answer 4

let us look at a few things here shall we? in the early 70's the environmental pundents were screaming that something had to be done or the world would enter a new ice age. that obviously didn't happen. in 95 an article was written that something had to be done about global warming otherwise with in the next 30 years it would be irreversible. that article was written in 1895. so much for irreversible global warming. has the global temperatures been rising, yes they have. they have in fact been documented over the last 150 years. one degree during that time. if you look at the geological record, when the earth came out of the last major ice age, the global temperature rose 10 degrees in far less time. why? science doesnt know. some sciences are fairly cut and dried, mathematics, chemistry, and physics for example. but these sciences are still dynamic. we learn new things everyday. also in these sciences we can use cause and effect observation because that is what these sciences are based on. geology is another science that is pretty much cut and dried. botany, not so much. when we come to environmental science though, there is much we dont know or understand. cause and effect dont apply here much of the time. this is a science where there is still much conjecture as part of the science, and experiments are not always repeatable in their results.

you run an experiment and get one set of results. you run it again, and get the same results. however when someone else runs that same experiment they get different results. now the two of you are at odd with each other. which of you is right? according to the results, both of you are right. or both of you are wrong. so what now? who do people side with? that depends on which set of results matches you point of view. since the science behind how the climate works is largely unknown, we really cant say for sure that man is the one behind global warming.

one thing that your professors should have taught you in college is the law of unintended consequences. let us say that we do what Mr Gore would like us to do, eliminate greenhouse gas emissions, change over the economy to support "green energy". now let us say that it indeed works, we have eliminated greenhouse gas emissions, and brought the levels of greenhouse gases inline to where they should be according to what we currently know. we look on this as a good thing, but the global temperature keeps rising, in fact it rises faster. now what? we would have spent trillions of dollars to raise the global temperatures at a faster rate. real good there guys.

or lets say that we do the above, and global temperatures indeed drop, like the earth hasnt seen in 600 million years, and we hit a runaway ice age. one to where the thickness of the ice on the oceans at the equator is 11ft thick. again, now what? nice job there folks we have become planet snowball again. granted these are extreme cases, but none the less plausible.

Answer 5

I am confused. I just watched a program on the discovery channel last night that had several scientists measuring the thickness of the glaciers as part of a global warming measurement program. They stated that the glaciers come and go every 5000 (5000 building up and 5000 melting away)years as part of the normal weather cycle. They stated this has occurred over and over and is normal.

They stated that this is normal, but it appears this cycle may be going faster than previously. They think it could be due to the extra CO2 from mans activities.

I have read this in other papers as well. I am very surprised that your college teaches something totally different. Maybe that explains why TV meteorologists are wrong all the time.

I was born at night, but not last night.

Answer 6

For me, the issue is not whether global warming is happening; I think we all agree that it is. Nor is there any debate that we are contributing to it; CO2 levels *are* increasing, and we are the likely cause of most of this increase, and CO2 *is* a greenhouse gas, so we would expect an increase in CO2 levels to cause some warming.

However, that’s all we can agree on.

There are several reasons I’m not running around like a headless chicken screaming “we’re all going to die!”…

1. There is no consensus about exactly how much of an effect CO2 has on temperatures.

No one has conclusively demonstrated exactly how much the temperature will rise as a result of a given amount of extra CO2 in the atmosphere. It could be the case that CO2 has a very minor role in affecting global temperature change. Certainly this was the case in the past. Ice core records show that changes in CO2 *followed* changes in temperature by hundreds to thousands of years. This means that, at the end of past warm periods, temperatures fell, while CO2 levels continued to rise. Clearly CO2 was having little effect back then. Is contemporary CO2 more powerful than prehistoric CO2? Is contemporary CO2 magic, perhaps?

Thus, I have no confidence in the dire predictions of large temperature rises claimed by the Global Warming Alarmists.


2. The predictions for the future assume that we will carry on as we are doing now.

For this to happen, mankind would suddenly have to stop our several millennium long trend of technological development. This clearly isn’t going to happen. Who knows what technology we will be using for transport and power by 2100? As an illustration, consider the crisis facing New York in 1900; what was their biggest environmental problem? Horse poo. With everyone in the city using horses, it was everywhere and was causing major difficulties. Anyone today worried about the environmental problems of horse poo? Of course not, because within a few short years, everyone was driving cars. The problem solved itself without anyone having to do anything. Do we really believe that we will be using fossil fuelled cars and power stations a hundred years from now?

Thus, I believe that it’s entirely likely that future technology will solve the problem, if there even is one.


3. I have serious doubts about claims of the “catastrophic” consequences of global warming.

Global Warming Alarmists talk about climate change as if it’s going to be the end of the world. I just don’t see it. Historically warm periods have brought good times. The Medieval Warm Period, for example, when it was up to 3°C warmer than today, caused us to emerge from the dark ages and sparked the building of the great cathedrals. The literature of the time didn’t talk about any catastrophic climate problems. Ice ages cause vastly more species extinctions than warm periods. Research has estimated that while warming will cause more human deaths in the summer, it will prevent ten times as many deaths in the winter. It’s cooling we should be worried about, not warming.

Thus, I’m not convinced that global warming will cause us any major problems.


Many people will respond to this by saying “Yes, maybe, but shouldn’t we do something just in case?”

The answer is, of course, no. Why? Because we already have major problems facing us *right now*. Just one example; two million children die every year due to a lack of clean drinking water. How many of those children should we allow to continue to die so that we can divert the money that could save them towards dealing with an issue that *might* be a problem in the future, *if* the scientists have their calculations right, and *if* future technology doesn’t solve it anyway.


In short, we haven’t got the money to sort out the problems we face that are *real* and are happening *now*. Unless and until we have resolved our current problems, I don’t think we should be wasting money on “phantom” problems.

Answer 7

So in which of your college classes did they tell you that the Polar Icecaps DON'T melt. Go ahead - explain it to everyone. Show us the studies that verify that the caps don't go through any melting from year to year. You can't because it's ridiculous. Of course they melt every year, the question is to what extent. For someone who is supposed to know a little about Arctic weather patterns and how it affects the continent(s), you apparently know squat. I guess you must be one of those weather "readers". How many courses did you have to take to master the blue screen?

Answer 8

In the event that you are searching for woodworking plans you can discover a huge number of woodworking plans here:

http://woodworking.toptips.org

It's the perfect result in the event that you are simply starting with woodworking and also in case that you have already experience with it.

You can discover a ton of woodworking arrangements and you will have the capacity to deal with the projects with a CAD/DWG software. It permits you to alter the projects and to alter the arragements.if you are a beginner this is a great approach to start. It's the best approach to woodworking; and on the off chance that you already have experience you will discover a considerable measure of plans and inspirations to improve your capabilities with woodwork.

Answer 9

and you continue to drive your car and run your airconditioning in summer and heating in winter don't you?

here's how we can reduce co2 emissions. we can raise the price of gas to $25/gal and raise your utility bill by six fold that would surely reduce the use of fossil fuels. i'm sure everyone would peacefully comply.

are you starting to understand

try looking to the positive side effects of a warmer planet instead of only seeing negative.

more hurricaines - less snow storms
no polar ice caps - more grazing land for carabu
florida is under water - minnasota becomes more habitable
new tropical species evolving
longer growing seasons for crops

the earth has always changed and there's not much we can do about that. florida was under water before so what if it happens again. stuff happens, we adapt.
try looking to the positive and accept the fact that things may be different than what we are used to but we will adapt and probrably thrive in a warmer climate. why are you so negative?

Answer 10

Jake: "you can't even predict the weather and we're supposed to believe that you know what will happen 50 years from now..not a chance"
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.

Larry: "If you look at the climate history of the Earth, you will realize that climate change is very normal."
Noone is disputing that. However, the natural RF sources alone are not enough to cause the current climate change

Gaby: "They stated that the glaciers come and go every 5000 (5000 building up and 5000 melting away)years as part of the normal weather cycle."
They don't come and go every 5000 years. They have continuos ice core samples from Antarctica showing that it has lasted that long.