Coldest winter in years, Environment Canada warns

[Praxius]

More evidence that enviromentalist freaking about global warming could be wrong: (Global Cooling Trend in Effect)


Environment Canada map shows, which areas will be cooler than normal (seen in blue) and which will be warmer (seen in red) during this winter season.

CTV.ca | Coldest winter in years, Environment Canada warns

The weather phenomenon La Nina will bring Canada the coldest winter in nearly 15 years, Environment Canada warned Friday. Environment Canada's temperature forecast shows the majority of the country will experience a "temperature anomaly" of below-normal temperatures through the months of December, January and February. Much of Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan, Alberta and parts of British Columbia and southern Ontario will also see above-normal precipitation. David Phillips, senior climatologist with Environment Canada, told The Canadian Press that the temperature and precipitation abnormalities are likely the result of the weather phenomenon La Nina. La Nina, meaning the little girl, is the appearance of cooler-than-normal waters in the eastern and central Pacific Ocean. "La Nina is thought to occur due to increases in the strength of the normal patterns of trade wind circulation," Environment Canada's website says. "For reasons not yet fully understood, periodically these trade winds are strengthened, increasing the amount of cooler water." Jay Villeneuve takes refuge from snow squalls inside a bus stop shelter in Sault Ste. Marie, ON, Friday, Nov. 30, 2007. (Rachele Labrecque / THE CANADIAN PRESS) These cooler waters result in wetter-than-normal conditions in the northern hemisphere and changes to the jet stream over North America. "The shifted jet stream contributes to large departures from the normal location and strength of storm paths. The overall changes in the atmosphere result in temperature and precipitation anomalies over North America which can persist for several months," Environment Canada says. In the past, La Nina caused drought and floods around the world. It also whips up more hurricanes in the Atlantic. The effects of the weather phenomenon have already been felt in parts of Western Canada. Earlier this month, a fierce storm dumped nearly 80 centimetres of snow on Whistler, B.C. over 48 hours. The massive snowfall prompted management at the famous Whistler Blackcomb ski hill to open one week ahead of schedule.

This caught my eye when I was just watching the news about 5 mins ago and they interviewed David Phillips, and he mentioned that "Global Warming" has been getting way too much attention as of late, and it's known that their computer simulations that they all rely on, can't predict a week ahead in weather (Which I can certainly agree on, as the weather forecasts around here haven't been accurate in years.)

He mentioned there is actual solid evidence proving that a global cooling of one degree is in effect this year. The last time we had weather like this in Canada was 15 years ago, and apparently this should not come as any surprise, as this is a routine pattern.

He also commented that, for Canada anyways, that if the climate warms for us, it is much more easier to adapt to, then if the country begins to cool down considderably..... and while everybody is paying attention to the Global Warming debates, nobody is paying attention to this factor which is now apon North America.

It was not shown in this report, but the CTV Newsnet Interview I just saw, he mentioned that This cooling trend has been in effect since 1998 and the peak will be this winter.

I will certainly say, it's been cold as living hell outside.... and yes... in Canada, Hell is cold, not hot.

Time to thicken our skins some more.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Praxius and it's known that their computer simulations that they all rely on, can't predict a week ahead in weather

They're not designed to, Praxius. That's one of the dumber red herrings in the deniers book, that global warming can't predict local weather day to day. No one can and global climate models never pretended to.

In the mean time...

Arctic Melt Unnerves the Experts -- Oct. 2007

Quote by: Praxius He also commented that, for Canada anyways, that if the climate warms for us, it is much more easier to adapt to, then if the country begins to cool down considderably..... and while everybody is paying attention to the Global Warming debates, nobody is paying attention to this factor which is now apon North America.

So which is it? Canada's not warming, or it is warming but it's a good thing? That bit of rationalizing double-talk just kissed your credibility goodbye.

Quote by: Praxius This cooling trend has been in effect since 1998 and the peak will be this winter.

I don't know where he's talking about, but it sure isn't globally.

Quote by: Praxius It was not shown in this report, but the CTV Newsnet Interview I just saw, he mentioned that This cooling trend has been in effect since 1998 and the peak will be this winter.

No one has ever denied that the climate fluctuates, Praxius. To the contrary, we've pointed out how it fluctuates. But like the stock market, which also constantly fluctuates, the overall trend is ever upwards.

Quote by: Praxius' cut&paste La Nina, meaning the little girl, is the appearance of cooler-than-normal waters in the eastern and central Pacific Ocean.

Here... take a moment to educate youreself on climate fluctuation.

.

[Praxius]

Quote by: Sonart So which is it? Canada's not warming, or it is warming but it's a good thing? That bit of rationalizing double-talk just kissed your credibility goodbye.

Speaking of credibility... READ!

he said IF.... Not that it is.... Canada can substain itself if we were getting warmer..... as most of the government has been preparing for this.... now that we're heading into quite the cold snap, it's gonna screw everything up.

I don't know where he's talking about, but it sure isn't globally.

No it's not... he is stating what is about to occur here in Canada.... North America Generally, based on the cooling trends in both the Atlantic and Pacific.... since the Pacific and the Atlantic Oceans are closer together at North America compared to say.... Asia... we are going to feel most of this effect.

Here... take a moment to educate youreself on climate fluctuation..

I'm already educated on these things, I've been following weather since I was 10, the above link doesn't explain anything else that I already don't know. I don't believe you read the original post, as you already seemed in error when you thought I was contradicting myself when you missed the "IF"

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

In Relation yet on a slight different point... It's been a cold ass day today here, and looking at the weather report earlier today, central/western Canada is in a snow warning effect and we're getting the first pile of snow here as I type there, where I live.... when in the last few years, it would be quite mild and we wouldn't get much snow until after Janurary.....

Living and seeing it first hand brings a different perspective.

I'm not holding true to this like the bible or something, as time will only tell the truth, but I see more evidence occuring through November and already today in the new month..... I believe it is quite probable.

When I referred to Global Warming and this isolated situation for North America, I say there is a bit of a relation, since the weather spreads across the globe, as North America cools, so will the rest of the world gradually.

[Nono]

Prax, ol' fella, look at it this way: you can't get precipitation (snow) without prior evaporation (heat). The whole business is extremely complex.

And ask anyone living in the Arctic (i.e. someone who knows a thing or two about winter) whether they think things are warming up or cooling down.

Sorry, but local fluctuations due to the southern oscillation don't prove anything except that we're beginning to understand what a significant indicator that oscillation is for the world's climate.

The only thing that counts is the overall picture. As Sonart shows, there ain't much room for discussion.

[Praxius]

Quote by: Nono Prax, ol' fella, look at it this way: you can't get precipitation (snow) without prior evaporation (heat). The whole business is extremely complex.

Exactly, the last couple of years have been heating up a lot, and everybody has been freaking about it being a continual thing, but the environment balances itself out when it needs to...... many studies freak that this is due to pollution, and other studies say this occurs every 100 years or so....

When the planet heats up, we get stronger hurricanes to counter that. When that doesn't work... we get something like this.

And ask anyone living in the Arctic (i.e. someone who knows a thing or two about winter) whether they think things are warming up or cooling down.

I know about those, and seen some interviewed saying that when they were little kids they never seen this much ice melted before..... but were they around 100 years ago?

The only thing that counts is the overall picture. As Sonart shows, there ain't much room for discussion.

Considering Vancouver alone was 15 degrees below their normal temperature for the time of year just yesterday, and in the last three days alone most of Canada was just blanketed with snow and storms, including my own area of the country yesterday.... it sure doesn't go along the lines of global warming and the country getting above normal temps. In the last 10 years that I can remember, we never got this kind of weather until well after January and it would carry through up until the end of March.

There is plenty of room for discussion. You just relinked me to more of the same crap about El Niño as the previous post, which I am already aware of..... but you both appear to only be calculating El Niño and not this effect which was explained in post #1.

And no I'm not focusing directly on La Nina alone, as both climate effects go hand in hand..... but plain and simple, what is already affecting Canada this week is La Nina, not El Niño. Each one takes affect at certain times.

Quite simply, you can throw all the studies and reports at me all you want.... they don't beat out actual real life evidence as what is happening now, and considering I am currently living right in the middle of it compared to the two of you, I think I know a bit about if it's true or not.



^ Notice how the entire country is basically covered in cloud?

Now this week can and very well could be just a freak occurrence and the rest of the year could be just like the last couple of years.... I didn't say this is exactly what is going to happen without a doubt.... but the current evidence just recently compared to what I know first hand (Much like your arctic natives you spoke of) shows this isn't normal to what I have seen in the last couple of years.

What makes your arctic natives more sound in experience in comparison to myself, whom I have been keeping track of for quite some time as well? There isn't anything.... you're basing your judgment on someone's first hand experiences, such as my own.

Come back to me after the winter and tell me this report is wrong or not. I have more faith in a study of one year, as opposed to predictions of 30 years from now..... they don't have the first clue what's going to happen in 30 years.

Am I trying to promote not recycling and composting or reducing our pollution because of this? Nope.... those things still do help.

[Nono]

Quote by: Prax Considering Vancouver alone was 15 degrees below their normal temperature for the time of year just yesterday, and in the last three days alone most of Canada was just blanketed with snow and storms, including my own area of the country yesterday....

So what? Weather fluctuates. A lot.
While southern Ontario, say, was broiling through a hot, dry summer, we were having a cool, rainy one. So what?

Whereas last year we had the hottest autumn in seven or eight hundred years.

To which of these seasons do I attach greater importance? The latter of course. Funny how virtually all the 'somethingest something since such-and-such' these days involved the word "hot".
There's your indicator.

[Sandy]

I'm annoyed that when the weather fluctuates, it is based on some political action and the human race is blamed. I've lived in California for 70 years and when El Nino and Nina have appeared, we prepare for more rain in one case and drought as well. Many of us, who lived on well water along the central coast, did not plant grass and had huge water tanks placed on the property to catch rain and runoff water. It has always been the big cities that suffer from weather and yet they keep building more and more sky risers even in Phoenix that has so little rain that last night 2 inches nearly closed up the area.

I regret that our Governors are acting as politicos more than caretakers of the people within their state. We should be prepared for changes in the sun and earth and do something about building and repairing our reservoirs. In California the discussion of de-sal are very high but not as high as the cost of collecting water from the Pacific and draining out the salt.

I know one thing and that is our government is not ethical enough to take on any issue as important as weather fluctuations. D.C. cannot order toilet paper without a political statement as to why there is such an increase in bullshit.

I look to our Universities to take on these problems and I've been very impressed with Arizona State University and the University of Arizona. Both have excellent science programs and I can only hope they can come up with solutions for all of us on how to survive no matter which way the weather goes. I also look to The University of California at Berkeley working in conjunction with Caltech to get going on solutions. Californians have proven to be good survivalists as we learn to walk during earthquakes and always know how to outrun forest fires.

Have we Americans forgotten that we are the government and the politicos are our servants? We must stop these costly wars and concentrate on how we can improve our academics to get our citizens off handouts and start learning about economics and environmental issues.

I would love to see 5 or 6 political parties get into the actions of our elections so we can support and vote for real candidates and not just the lesser of two evils.

[Sonart]

.
Nono makes my point, Praxius. No advocate of global warming has every denied that climate fluctuates or that cold snaps will cease to happen. The point of the El Nino/La Nina links was to point out that they are yet another cycle but that it's been altered by the overall warming trend.

And yes, researchers do have a pretty good idea of what the climate was 100 years ago.

Quote by: Praxius Come back to me after the winter and tell me this report is wrong or not. I have more faith in a study of one year, as opposed to predictions of 30 years from now..... they don't have the first clue what's going to happen in 30 years.

Well, I have more faith in studies that have gone on for 30 years than a study for one year.

And try to remember... predictions made 30-20 years ago based on anthropogenic global warming have proven accurate, and where there's been a margin of error, that error has shown global warming happening FASTER than predicted.

Quote by: Praxius And no I'm not focusing directly on La Nina alone, as both climate effects go hand in hand..... but plain and simple, what is already affecting Canada this week is La Nina, not El Niño. Each one takes affect at certain times.

That's because they're cyclical.

.

[Praxius]

Quote by: Nono So what? Weather fluctuates. A lot. While southern Ontario, say, was broiling through a hot, dry summer, we were having a cool, rainy one. So what? Whereas last year we had the hottest autumn in seven or eight hundred years. To which of these seasons do I attach greater importance? The latter of course. Funny how virtually all the 'somethingest something since such-and-such' these days involved the word "hot". There's your indicator.

And in another 10 years, we'll all be saying "Cold" ~ Then "Hot" again.... that's all I'm getting at.

[Praxius]

Quote by: Sonart And yes, researchers do have a pretty good idea of what the climate was 100 years ago.

Researchers perhaps... a random person from the arctic as what I was point to.... No.

Well, I have more faith in studies that have gone on for 30 years than a study for one year.

Jesus Sonart READ FFFFFFS!

I have more faith in a study of one year, as opposed to predictions of 30 years from now

^ Not a one year study vs. a 30 year study. Come off it now.

And try to remember... predictions made 30-20 years ago based on anthropogenic global warming have proven accurate, and where there's been a margin of error, that error has shown global warming happening FASTER than predicted.

They haven't be correct, cuz when I was growing up in the 80's when they all brought about this pollution idea back then, they claimed the whole world would be flooded and turn to shit by the end of the 90's.... Now they're saying 30 more years from this year..... so which is it?

Neither because they're all just guessing at this point, and until we have a full 100 or 200 years of continual scientific study of global weather effects, that's all they're doing is guessing.

I haven't seen them predicted a lump of crap in a burning paper bag equivalent, let alone where the environment is heading half our lives away.

Yeah, Acid Rain has such and such effect, yeah, they seen the polar caps melting in the past years, then expand again, only to reduce more the following year.... this has happened in the past based on your own scientist's studies 100 years or so ago.

But about the Acid Rain, you wanna know something about that? I've seen more cases back in the late 80's, early 90's about animal mutations and deaths relating to acid rain then you hear today..... why because there is less acid rain today? I don't remember seeing any major reductions in overall pollution until the last couple of years, which wouldn't have made a difference.

All I'm saying, which I have always admitted and agreed to, is that pollution does have an effect on the environment, by prolonging or shortening normal effects, but what they're all talking about is greatly exaggerated.

And you wanna know why it's been exaggerated? Because these same scientists have been bickering about this stuff for 20+ years now and nobody took notice.... they hire Al Gore to make their movie and scare the snot out of everybody on reports that were the same 20+ years ago prediction the world going to hell in the turn of the century.... now it's 2030 or later.... wow.... talk about throwing out a date where by the time it occurs, nobody would be alive except us youngins to remember they screwed up.

That's what pisses me off about these reports.... they've been saying this for most of my life, right back when I was 5-6 years old... I know this because I was scared shitless I wouldn't live a normal life today.... here it is today, and they were wrong...... now they're pushing it 30 years from now.

Tell me something.... wouldn't it be logical that the predictions they had in the 80's would have come a lot sooner since the pollution and such hasn't really started to change until recently? Why would it be pulled back another 20-30 years?

Because they don't know WTF they're talking about, that's why, and they shoot out speculations of what will be coming years after these old cooks are long and dead, and by that time, they already got paid for something that can not be proven, therefore what do they care......

By the time 2030 comes around, they'll be saying 2050 or 2060..... Give me a break.

That's the only reason why i am skeptical overall, because I wasn't when they first started all this, and their predictions were wrong, much as they are now.

I find it funny that nobody took notice to any of this until Gore threw out that stupid movie..... it's all old news, and it's inaccurate.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Praxiius Not a one year study vs. a 30 year study. Come off it now.

My POINT, Prax, is that predictions have already been made - based on research - and have proven accurate. Therefore there is no reason NOT to accept 30 year predictions based on 30 years of research, over the results of one year of research. Y'follow?

Quote by: Praxiius They haven't be correct, cuz when I was growing up in the 80's when they all brought about this pollution idea back then, they claimed the whole world would be flooded and turn to shit by the end of the 90's....

Who did? Show me legitimate science that predicted such a world by the end of the 90's.

Quote by: Praxiius Neither because they're all just guessing at this point, and until we have a full 100 or 200 years of continual scientific study of global weather effects, that's all they're doing is guessing.

Beyond the fact that they're not "just guessing", what are you suggesting? Despite the fact that the vast majority of science believes anthropogenic global warming is a fact, because you think no one can predict the future we should wait until global warming brings us to the end of the world as we know it before doing something???

Wow, there's some dandy thinking. Unfortunately, it will be far, far too late.

Quote by: Praxiius this has happened in the past based on your own scientist's studies 100 years or so ago.

The Northwest passage has been navigable before??? When?

Arctic Melt Opens Northwest Passage

Quote by: Praxiius but what they're all talking about is greatly exaggerated.

No, it's not. Look around you... the once boundless oceans are being fished out, desertification is expanding at the equivilant of the area of Nevada every year, once mighty rivers are drying up, water tables are collapsing or salinifying, great coral reefs are dying en masse... on and on and on, the hand of man is choking the globe to death.

Quote by: Praxiius They hire Al Gore to make their movie

You liar! Who hired Al Gore??? Gore has been a visionary on global climate and pollution since at least the 80's, when he wrote 'Earth in the Balance' Gore put together a slide show, based on his second book, and had been flogging it single handed long before it was made into a movie.

Quote by: Praxiius That's what pisses me off about these reports.... they've been saying this for most of my life, right back when I was 5-6 years old... I know this because I was scared shitless I wouldn't live a normal life today.... here it is today, and they were wrong...... now they're pushing it 30 years from now.

How old are you? I'm sorry if something you couldn't comprehend scared you as a child, but that doesn't mean the real problem doesn't exist. When I was a child, it was Duck & Cover drills that had no chance of saving us from a nuclear attack... now THAT was being scare SH!TLESS, and unlike with climate change, there was nothing we could personally do to change the threat.

Quote by: Praxiius By the time 2030 comes around, they'll be saying 2050 or 2060..... Give me a break.

You don't actually read about current warming science, do you.

.

[another day]

Global warming is such a misleading term anyways. The same thing that leads to idiots sayign things like "So what anyways? Don't we like the sun"...

A better term is climate change.

[Praxius]

Quote by: Sonart My POINT, Prax, is that predictions have already been made - based on research - and have proven accurate. Therefore there is no reason NOT to accept 30 year predictions based on 30 years of research, over the results of one year of research. Y'follow?

Don't care, because it doesn't relate to the original post of mine you quoted, plus the additional comments I added, and I will also clarify more so why further down this post.

Who did? Show me legitimate science that predicted such a world by the end of the 90's.

oh cripes sake.... another lead by the hand *shakes head* All of your scientists of today are basis their studies and reports on the studies and reports I cited, which they even admitted existed back in the 80's when nobody listen to them.... shows what you truly know about the situation, of course, now I have to do some serious digging for evidence, considdering that back in the 70's/80's there wasn't an internet and most records of the time were on typewriters... this should be fun:

chill out

Global warming started long before the "Industrial Revolution" and the invention of the internal combustion engine. Global warming began 18,000 years ago as the earth started warming it's way out of the Pleistocene Ice Age-- a time when much of North America, Europe, and Asia lay buried beneath great sheets of glacial ice. Here the authors redefine "global warming". While the term usually refers to human caused warming, they use the term to include natural changes as well. A similar redefinition has been used with other environmental problems such as ozone depletion and acid rain. ("Global warming" has been increasingly replaced by the more accurate and inclusive "climate change"). In the 1970's concerned environmentalists like Stephen Schneider of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado feared a return to another ice age due to manmade atmospheric pollution blocking out the sun. Since about 1940 the global climate did in fact appear to be cooling. Then a funny thing happened-- sometime in the late 1970's temperature declines slowed to a halt and ground-based recording stations during the 1980's and 1990's began reading small but steady increases in near-surface temperatures. Fears of "global cooling" then changed suddenly to "global warming,"-- the cited cause: manmade atmospheric pollution causing a runaway greenhouse effect. This is the mythology. The reality is somewhat different. As William Connolley has pointed out, an eminent ice age was not predicted by scientists in the scientific literature. And concern about human caused global warming started long before the 1980s. The prospect of human caused global warming was first raised by in 1895 by Svante Arrhenius. In one of the earliest books to criticize the environmental movement, 1972's The Doomsday Syndrome, John Maddox wrote (page 8) that "Another [recipe for disaster] is that the accumulation of carbon dioxide produced by the burning of fossil fuels may so increase the temperature on the surface of the earth as to transform the present pattern of weather and perhaps even to melt the Antarctic ice." Global warming alarmists maintain that global temperatures have increased since about A.D. 1860 to the present as the result of the so-called " Industrial Revolution,"-- caused by releases of large amounts of greenhouse gases (principally carbon dioxide) from manmade sources into the atmosphere causing a runaway "Greenhouse Effect." Note the use of language. Global warming "alarmists" "fear" a "runaway greenhouse effect." In reality, almost no one believes that a runaway greenhouse effect is going to happen..... ........ Causes of Global Climate Change Climate change is controlled primarily by cyclical eccentricities in Earth's rotation and orbit, as well as variations in the sun's energy output. "Greenhouse gases" in Earth's atmosphere also influence Earth's temperature, but in a much smaller way. Human additions to total greenhouse gases play a still smaller role, contributing about 0.2% - 0.3% to Earth's greenhouse effect. As we shall see, their claims of "about 0.2% - 0.3%" is based on faulty reasoning that has been debunked several times. Playing with Numbers Global climate and temperature cycles are the result of a complex interplay between a variety of causes. Because these cycles and events overlap, sometimes compounding one another, sometimes canceling one another out, it is inaccurate to imply a statistically significant trend in climate or temperature patterns from just a few years or a few decades of data. Unfortunately, a lot of disinformation about where Earth's climate is heading is being propagated by "scientists" who use improper statistical methods, short-term temperature trends, or faulty computer models to make analytical and anecdotal projections about the significance of man-made influences to Earth's climate.

There isn't much on exact recorded predictions from the 80's once again, because they were in the 80's.

Beyond the fact that they're not "just guessing", what are you suggesting? Despite the fact that the vast majority of science believes anthropogenic global warming is a fact, because you think no one can predict the future we should wait until global warming brings us to the end of the world as we know it before doing something???

Sure, why not? Who cares? By the original predictions I studied in the past, we should have made the changes we are making today back in the early 90's to avoid a drastic effect.... imo, if "Global Warming" does exist.... it's far too late to make any changes to actually correct it.... it's already on it's way, which is why I laugh when people say "Oh we have to act before it's too late" ~ It's been too late for 15 years now.

And by the above link and quotes explains, most of these scientists are relying on faulty statistics which are quite narrow in view of the overall perspective, therefore cutting down on our pollution is a good thing, but it's too late to make any effect.

Wow, there's some dandy thinking. Unfortunately, it will be far, far too late.

It already is too late.... that's what I've been saying since I came on here.

The Northwest passage has been navigable before??? When? Arctic Melt Opens Northwest Passage

Don't forget that most of that ice once covered most of the planet in a glacier during the ice ages, it's a normal trend..... but neither you, I or any of the scientists today can prove on way or another that this occured hundreds of years before we even begun to explore the Americas, let alone exploring and recording history of the arctic.

No, it's not. Look around you... the once boundless oceans are being fished out, desertification is expanding at the equivilant of the area of Nevada every year, once mighty rivers are drying up, water tables are collapsing or salinifying, great coral reefs are dying en masse... on and on and on, the hand of man is choking the globe to death.

Yeah, was it also man's fault for the areas in Africa which used to be tropical that are now all desert? The planet changes, lands convert, species die, new ones are created...... Earth is far from turning into Mars.

You liar! Who hired Al Gore??? Gore has been a visionary on global climate and pollution since at least the 80's, when he wrote 'Earth in the Balance' Gore put together a slide show, based on his second book, and had been flogging it single handed long before it was made into a movie.

Blah blah....

Al Gore's 'Errors': The Verdict :: Mediacheck :: thetyee.ca

...The confusion was inevitable. Two days before Gore shared in the Nobel Peace Prize last week, a British high court judge ruled that Gore's film, An Inconvenient Truth, contains nine "errors." The court also observed that the film was "political." News stories reported that the judge found the movie to be "riddled" with errors. Some accounts said the judge found nine mistakes, others said 11. Climate change deniers, who have found themselves increasingly ignored over the past year, tried to use the judgment to rekindle a debate over whether there is such a thing as man-made climate change.....

How old are you?

Old enough, what does it matter? Age has no effect on what you learn, based on maturity.

I'm sorry if something you couldn't comprehend scared you as a child, but that doesn't mean the real problem doesn't exist.

*smacks head* It scared me about as much as it scares you today, nothing more or less..... If I could understand what WWII was all about at that age from what my father taught me, I think I can put two and two together on weather and climate.... it's not my fault you wern't as smart at that age.

[Praxius]

When I was a child, it was Duck & Cover drills that had no chance of saving us from a nuclear attack... now THAT was being scare SH!TLESS, and unlike with climate change, there was nothing we could personally do to change the threat.

So there, you agree to my point there is nothing we can do to change the threat.

Like I said, there isn't strong evidence either way in this debate on climate change.... or global warming as you put it..... and like scientific reasoning, we won't 100% know until it occurs and we have the evidence to say "well now we know"

You don't actually read about current warming science, do you..

Yes I actually do, which is why I hold the stance I do today, because the information that is out there now, which is all mostly based on Al Gore's "An Inacurate Truth" is contradicting and repetative of their older reports.

Basically in a nut shell.... I believe we are heading into an era of violitile weather effects, such as the Original Post, which we should be talking about to begin with, but nothing to the extent of Al Gore's Future Water World Scenario.

Don't forget, I used to believe it all just like you.... I even believed most of what Gore was presenting.... then I decided to look further into the details..... it just doesn't add up.

But either way, back to the topic at hand.... have you felt any effect of this storm front which has been looming over Canada for about a week now?

Apparently every part of Canada will be effected by this mass in one fashion or another today, and I have seen reports of similar storms in the US which are directly connected to this storm in Canada.

But I'm not sure if you're too south or not to be affected.

[Praxius]

Oh, in relation to the topic, and we're still weeks away from actual Winter:



Winter wallops Canada from coast to coast

Power is out, schools closed, rivers rising — it's fall in B.C.

Snowstorm settles over eastern Ontario, western Quebec

CTV.ca | Winter weather stretching from sea to sea

And these are three of the main headlines for the country as of today. The snow came piling down as I finished my last post above where I live.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Praxius And these are three of the main headlines for the country as of today. The snow came piling down as I finished my last post above where I live.

Yeah, so what? No one ever predicted the cancellation of winter. As Richard Mosset, a meteorologist with the Canadian Meteorological Centre, said, "We may have forgotten what Canadian winters used to be like."

Quote by: another day A better term is climate change.

Nah, Global Warming is perfect. The globe is warming, out of control, and we're causing it. Why sugar coat it?

Quote by: Praxius Don't care, because it doesn't relate to the original post of mine you quoted, plus the additional comments I added, and I will also clarify more so why further down this post.

{{SIGH}} Of course it relates, Praxius... you said, "I have more faith in a study of one year, as opposed to predictions of 30 years from now..... they don't have the first clue what's going to happen in 30 years."

I pointed out that folks made predictions 30 years ago that proved accurate. Therefore people do, in fact, have a good clue what's going to happen in 30 years. Deal with it.

.

[Praxius]

Quote by: Sonart Yeah, so what? No one ever predicted the cancellation of winter. As Richard Mosset, a meteorologist with the Canadian Meteorological Centre, said, "We may have forgotten what Canadian winters used to be like."

There you go, your own quote proves my point... and old Canadian Winter.... if Global Warming did exist, and warming was a continual thing, then we wouldn't be getting an Old Canadian Winter, now would we?