Jump to content
Washington DC Message Boards

Why More Snow With Global Warming?


Guest Greenzen
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest Greenzen

Why is there more snow if our Earth is warming. The fact that the oceans are warmer now than they were, say, 30 years ago," top climate scientist Kevin Trenberth told NPR, "means there's about on average 4 percent more water vapor lurking around over the oceans than there was, say, in the 1970s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then I am sure you can explain why it has been cooling for the past 15 years?

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why is there more snow if our Earth is warming. The fact that the oceans are warmer now than they were, say, 30 years ago," top climate scientist Kevin Trenberth told NPR, "means there's about on average 4 percent more water vapor lurking around over the oceans than there was, say, in the 1970s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Danimal

Then I am sure you can explain why it has been cooling for the past 15 years?

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Why what has been cooling? The oceans or the climate? We're in a state of global cooling?? I don't understand your assertion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Temperatures have been cooling for the past 15 years. But wait!!! That could be Global Warming since Hot Air Rises, and Cold Air Sinks.

 

It could also be that your belief that in that Global warming is not a theory "A Fact", that you forget it’s just a THEORY.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why what has been cooling? The oceans or the climate? We're in a state of global cooling?? I don't understand your assertion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Danimal

Temperatures have been cooling for the past 15 years. But wait!!! That could be Global Warming since Hot Air Rises, and Cold Air Sinks.

 

It could also be that your belief that in that Global warming is not a theory "A Fact", that you forget it’s just a THEORY.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The NOAA's NODC says you're wrong, "Human," click below, read 'em, and weep my friend...

 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Ocean Temp. History

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Prove that the data is reliable.

 

 

http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/58948,news-comment,news-politics,five-key-battlegrounds-between-climate-change-sceptics-and-believers-glaciers

 

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The NOAA's NODC says you're wrong, "Human," click below, read 'em, and weep my friend...

 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Ocean Temp. History

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Danimal

Your stance is argumentative per se, not to mention gratuitous:

You *assume* I believe global warming is caused by man, which I do not;

I do believe the Earth is warming, but I do not believe it is being caused by man, I believe the Earth goes through cycles of warming and cooling, e.g., the ice age of 10,000 years ago.

The NOAA is a non-partisan entity and to answer your question: prove the data provided by the NOAA is not accurate, and please don't ask me to take the word of some random writer from the UK as I found the article full of conjecture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nasa's data is being called into question now, as well as NOAA. At least do your home work.

I will post no further.

Do as you please!!!

 

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your stance is argumentative per se, not to mention gratuitous:

You *assume* I believe global warming is caused by man, which I do not;

I do believe the Earth is warming, but I do not believe it is being caused by man, I believe the Earth goes through cycles of warming and cooling, e.g., the ice age of 10,000 years ago.

The NOAA is a non-partisan entity and to answer your question: prove the data provided by the NOAA is not accurate, and please don't ask me to take the word of some random writer from the UK as I found the article full of conjecture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Greenzen

Take a gander at Bjørn Lomborg's The Skeptical Environmentalist

 

Significant warming which will cause substantial environmental damage. Mitigating greenhouse gas emissions will reduce a fraction of the damages. However, given the perceived high marginal costs of mitigation, Lomborg argues that the “optimal” policy decision is to invest in mitigation only up to the point at which the marginal cost of emissions reduction equals the benefit gained in reduced environmental damage. This level of mitigation will reduce the total costs associated with global warming (i.e., damages plus costs of mitigation) from $4,850 billion (if no action is taken) to $4,575 billion (saving $245 billion) by 2100. In comparison, Lomborg estimates that stabilizing CO2 at a doubling would cost $8,500 billion over the same time period and implementation of a Kyoto-like policy (with global trading) would cost $4,759 billion and notes that neither of these two strategies would have significantly greater effects on slowing warming versus his “optimal” policy. Subsequently, the $245 billion saved through Lomborg’s “optimal” policy could then be invested in economic development projects in the developing world. Meanwhile, the $4,575 billion in climate change damages would have to be paid (either through direct losses or investment in adaptation to prevent losses), but these damages will be readily affordable in a wealthier world of the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Damage Control? That is the gift we give our children? How can we think such thoughts. Every thing has a price tag on it. Does every thing have to be an incentive. Companies that hire more employees should pay minimal taxes. Green tax credits should be given to all that follow energy and environmental standards. International corporations with factories in the United States should be given the same tax advantages. Can we all agree on this?

 

Throw away income tax. Move to a sales tax system on all goods. The treasury needs to exchange Gold certificates and Silver certificates as well as dollars.

 

We cannot go off the deep end as well. We will go bankrupt. The giving of grant money has to be more strict. Everything has to be crafted in America. We should put lower international tariffs on environmental goods. Waste components recycled more efficiently.

Edited by wiley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If anyone reading this thinks Mother Nature cannot take care of herself and is weak under the mighty power of human beings, ask the earthquake victims in Haiti if they feel Mother Nature is weak. Or the tsunami survivors' in Indonesia if they feel Mother Nature is weak.

Look: there are tsunami's, earthquakes, fires, floods, tornadoes, drought, landslides, avalanches, hurricanes, lighting, volcanoes, etc, etc, etc.

Does anyone actually believe when Mother Nature and God decide they have had enough of us the Earth won't shake all the humans off her back [read: Kill] like a dog shakes off a bad case of fleas??

Really??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...