No global warming in Canada this winter, eh?

Back in the winter of 1962-63 it remained below 32F from January to March. Just before Christmas '62 it snowed, and snowed, and snowed. We had a blizzard in west London! Would be interesting to know what it was like in North America that winter.

Originally posted by Historian
Back in the winter of 1962-63 it remained below 32F from January to March. Just before Christmas '62 it snowed, and snowed, and snowed. We had a blizzard in west London! Would be interesting to know what it was like in North America that winter.

Here's a little historical tidbit from South Dakota:
"During the month of February 1962 Sioux Falls residents spent a lot of time digging themselves out of snow drifts. That February some 48.4 inches of snow buried Sioux Falls. The yearly average snowfall for Sioux Falls is around 40 inches, but February 1962 easily eclipsed that mark. That February of 1962 is the snowiest month on record in Sioux Falls. On average February is the second snowiest month of the year in Sioux Falls (March is first) with 8.3 inches of snow."

It's worrying that a lot of people still think that global warming and cold weather are somehow mutually exclusive ..... We could actually have a full blown, 60,000 year long ice age - and still be experiencing anthropogenic global warming! It just wouldn't be that noticeable under the much stronger ice age climate signal

If we enter a natural cooling trend that would normally drop temps by 1c but in fact they only drop by 0.8c then that's AGW How we actually prove (or dispprove) the underlying AGW trend in such a period of cooling I don't however know.

As for this winter - one hot day doesn't make a hot summer; one cold winter doesn't make a colder climate.

reply to post by masqua



Yes, a strong La Nina doesn't bode well for the South. Where's HAARP when you really need it? The South needs a good long soaking.

Weather is all about give and take and change and change. Can't have good weather someplace without the corresponding nasty stuff other places. That's one of the things that bugs me about GW proponents, they all talk about droughts and other bad stuff, but wouldn't GW increase rainfall in places as well? A mild GW wouldn't be a bad thing in some regions of the world

I would hope the extra moisture in the North would help the South somewhat, but that is just me hoping, no scientific reasoning behind it.

These last few winters have made us Canadians soft(at least here in London, Ont) We had our first real snow fall yesterday, and I couldn't even believe the number of people who used it as an excuse to not go to work lol. Last winter, there was only one real snowstorm, in January(maybe December) I think. It went from next to no snow when I got to work around 4pm est, and by the time I left at midnight, there was around 3 feet. Other than that, there was hardly any other snow storms that I can remember.

The winters I remember as a kid living right on Georgian Bay put any winter we've had in the last few years to shame. Welcome back winter, let's make it a good one.

Originally posted by Scalamander
There's a reason they've stopped calling it Global Warming and switched to the more PC term Climate Change. Since they can't actually prove that human activity is making everything hotter, they've now started saying that human activity changes the climate in various ways that are completely unpredictable from region to region. So basically you have to feel generally guilty whenever you look outside no matter what the whether is.

It has nothing to do with PC.

There was ice there.

Now there is water.

Stand in cool shade of the diminishing forest.

Stand in the VOC heat of the ever-expanding asphalt.

Global warming is truth. It happened and is happening.

Climate change is a result of Global Warming. It means the predictable climate we used to have; middle of the bell curve weather that you are acustom to is now less probable. Because of a small change in the inputs of a dynamic system you get large changes in outputs; forced emergent sytems of a higher harmonic. If the "square of the variance" of the weather was once a 1 or 2.... it is now a 2 or 3. What once blew through as a cold front now blows through as a freaky winter storm. What was rain is now an ominous thunderstorm. What was a sunny day is now radiative.

Maybe I'm the only one that has seen a tornado, a cat 4 and 3 hurricane, 2" hail, sun dogs, etc. in my back yard over the past 5 years.

Tune in. Protect yourself. Deny Ignorance.

Sri Oracle

Originally posted by Sri Oracle

Climate change is a result of Global Warming. It means the predictable climate we used to have; middle of the bell curve weather that you are acustom to is now less probable.

Climate Change is the Weather, Once the Sahara was a lush region, was that Global Warming too? Once the frozen permafrost of Canada and Siberia were once vast thriving warm grasslands what is the cause of them changing?

Predictable weather? As in the 1856-1865 (the "Civil War" drought), 1870-1877 and 1890-1896 and the 1930's and again in the 1950's drought? Weather has never been very predictable nor that stable for long. There are always cycles in weather patterns and we need to understand those cycles far more than we currently do.

I shudder to thinkwhat Al Gore would have made of the Roman warm period or the Medieval warm period or the Dust bowl of the 30's.

Yeh...and here I am in Wisconsin where we are under a good foot of snow. Global warming? Show me the money. Pure hogwash from my opinion. Kind of like the Y2K hysteria...once a politician starts talking about it you know it's 100% BS.

Originally posted by Scalamander
There's a reason they've stopped calling it Global Warming and switched to the more PC term Climate Change.

Do you want to know the reason?

Hundreds of Scientists Claim the White House Played Down Global Warming
At a hearing of Congress, scientists and advocacy groups described a campaign by the White House to remove references to global warming from scientific reports and limit public mention of the topic to avoid pressure on an administration opposed to mandatory controls on greenhouse gas emissions.

Such pressure extended even to the use of the words "global warming" or "climate change", said a report released yesterday by the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Government Accountability Project. The report said nearly half of climate scientists at government agencies had been advised against using those terms.
...
In the survey of 1,600 government scientists by the Union of Concerned Scientists, 46% had been warned against using terms like global warming in speech or in their reports. The scientists interviewed were working at seven government agencies, from Nasa to the Environmental Protection Agency.

Originally posted by Nohup
I remember back in the 70s when everybody was worrying about a new Ice Age happening.
[edit on 3-12-2007 by Nohup]

Everybody except the majority of climate scientists back then.

Was an imminent Ice Age predicted in the '70's? No

Note, this page only applies to scientific literature, not the popular press(aka the Mainstream Media).

The lesson? Don't believe a word of what the mainstream media says about a scientific subject because they will always mangle it beyond recognition. If you really want to learn then subscribe to a scientific journal or do a google scholar search and buy the articles as you see them. You'll notice that there are only about 16 or 17(if you count National Geographic which I don't) articles on that page. Contrast to the thousands of papers about Global Warming and this myth that an ice age was predicted crumbles to dust upon observation.

[edit on 9-12-2007 by sardion2000]