scary new changes in the earth's eco-system

[Pumapayam]

Just as a random insert. . . . . IT MAY ACTUALLY SNOW THIS TUEDAY!

Ok, I am done!

Lower temps, but no more mix precipitation, just freezing rain now, that sucks for tree limbs.

[houstonmacbro]

Snow would be nice. Or at least cold weather for longer than a few days.

[dbigtex56]

I can't help but notice that this website does little more than to continue the argumentative pattern common to the subject of environmentalism as it is seen by the far left. The repeated attempt is made to discredit the person, in large part by use of circumstantial ad hominems, without discrediting the hypotheses or theories.

Really!? And here I thought it was the far right who are being argumentative.

In addition to discrediting the person, a few of the theories have been discredited, too (e.g., that absolute nonsense about calendars. The modern calendar is accurate. Even if it wasn't it would have no bearing on the measurement of global warming.)

The problem is that it's a lot easier to airily make these sweeping, unsubstantiated statements than it is to refute them. It's like cleaning a stable with a teaspoon.

[dbigtex56]

Less snow is good.

You've made statements such as this in the past.

Please consider that in many parts of the world snow is the primary source of water. In winter months snow accumulates in mountains, and then is gradually released through thawing in the warmer months. This provides a steady supply of fresh water.

If the precipitation falls as rain, it runs off rapidly, causing erosion, landslides, muddying streams and rivers, etc. It also serves to protect plant and animal life, as it's an insulator.

While snow can be an inconvenience when it falls where it's unwanted, the harm done by its absence is far greater than you seem to realize.

[TheNiche]

Really!? And here I thought it was the far right who are being argumentative.

In addition to discrediting the person, a few of the theories have been discredited, too (e.g., that absolute nonsense about calendars. The modern calendar is accurate. Even if it wasn't it would have no bearing on the measurement of global warming.)

The problem is that it's a lot easier to airily make these sweeping, unsubstantiated statements than it is to refute them. It's like cleaning a stable with a teaspoon.

Well I didn't see any attempt at discrediting the calendar theory except by you. And you didn't provide any supportive facts, so you'll have to excuse me if I don't consider your argument...well...not to be an argument.

You are correct that it is more difficult to refute theory than it is to come up with new theory. But that's the burden of science. And it applies to both sides of any issue, including this one.

[TJones]

You've made statements such as this in the past.

Please consider that in many parts of the world snow is the primary source of water. In winter months snow accumulates in mountains, and then is gradually release through thawing in the warmer months. This provides a steady supply of fresh water.

If the precipitation falls as rain, it runs off rapidly, causing erosion, landslides, muddying streams and rivers, etc. It also serves to protect plant and animal life, as it's an insulator.

While snow can be an inconvenience when it falls where it's unwanted, the harm done by its absence is far greater than you seem to realize.

"Many parts of the world" being ?

[TheNiche]

You've made statements such as this in the past.

Please consider that in many parts of the world snow is the primary source of water. In winter months snow accumulates in mountains, and then is gradually release through thawing in the warmer months. This provides a steady supply of fresh water.

If the precipitation falls as rain, it runs off rapidly, causing erosion, landslides, muddying streams and rivers, etc. It also serves to protect plant and animal life, as it's an insulator.

While snow can be an inconvenience when it falls where it's unwanted, the harm done by its absence is far greater than you seem to realize.

There are parts of the world where snow does not fall. They get by. ...and they get by without any of the dangerous conditions that snow brings with it. Rain may bring erosion, landslides, and muddied streams and rivers (oh no! muddy rivers! ), but snow and other freezing precipitation brings avalances, slick roads, potholes, falling ice sicles, and the expansion and contraction of rock, which also produces...you guessed it...erosion. That also causes sloping land to slowly creep. And on top of all that, snow is more of a health hazard than is rain. If you don't have enough clothes, you die very quickly from exposure.

Very cold temperatures also tend to result in less abundant vegetation, which means that there is less CO2 absorption capacity on lands that, if they were warmer, would be a carbon sink (and also be arable so that they could contribute to the global food supply, which would mean that rainforest land would be less in demand for agricultural and ranch uses).

[dbigtex56]

Well I didn't see any attempt at discrediting the calendar theory except by you. And you didn't provide any supportive facts, so you'll have to excuse me if I don't consider your argument...well...not to be an argument.

You are correct that it is more difficult to refute theory than it is to come up with new theory. But that's the burden of science. And it applies to both sides of any issue, including this one.

What is it that we are not understanding? Explain, please.

Why is our calendar inaccurate? (It isn't. It is constantly being adjusted to remain correct. Every now and then a leap second will be added or subtracted to maintain its accuracy.)

What does the accuracy of a calendar have to do with the measurement of global warming? (It has nothing to do with it. A year is a year. Even if the calendar gets out of whack with the actual seasons - which it has, in the past - that will not affect the measurement of whole years. If spring comes "too early, than it will be balanced by fall coming "too early" as well.)

If you have information which shows that current data being used to calculate global warming are inaccurate due to the inaccuracy of our calendar, please cite a source. Please explain how such a thing could happen.

[TheNiche]

I do not have data. Mark? Got anything? Something citable?

[dbigtex56]

"Many parts of the world" being ?

The Himalayas, the Alps, the Rockies, the Andes (to name a few) have watersheds which are dependent on the runoff from snowfall.

[TJones]

What is it that we are not understanding? Explain, please.

Why is our calendar inaccurate? (It isn't. It is constantly being adjusted to remain correct. Every now and then a leap second will be added or subtracted to maintain its accuracy.)

What does the accuracy of a calendar have to do with the measurement of global warming? (It has nothing to do with it. A year is a year. Even if the calendar gets out of whack with the actual seasons - which it has, in the past - that will not affect the measurement of whole years. If spring comes "too early, than it will be balanced by fall coming "too early" as well.)

If you have information which shows that current data being used to calculate global warming are inaccurate due to the inaccuracy of our calendar, please cite a source. Please explain how such a thing could happen.

Bigtex can you please site a source where these "many parts of the world" have recieved LESS snow this year, therefore "endangering" their way of life or at the very least, their source of water. Will there be a shortfall of water for these "many parts of the world" this year?

I guess we can go ahead and rule The Rockies OUT on this one.

[TheNiche]

Bigtex can you please site a source where these "many parts of the world" have recieved LESS snow this year, therefore "endangering" their way of life or at the very least, their source of water. Will there be a shortfall of water for these "many parts of the world" this year?

You know, I've got to wonder whether snowfalls in many moutainous areas may be threatened by Global Warming in any measurable sense. After all, parts of the Andes are at pretty tropical latitudes, and they still get snowfall.

[nmainguy]

What is it that we are not understanding? Explain, please.

Why is our calendar inaccurate? (It isn't. It is constantly being adjusted to remain correct. Every now and then a leap second will be added or subtracted to maintain its accuracy.)

What does the accuracy of a calendar have to do with the measurement of global warming? (It has nothing to do with it. A year is a year. Even if the calendar gets out of whack with the actual seasons - which it has, in the past - that will not affect the measurement of whole years. If spring comes "too early, than it will be balanced by fall coming "too early" as well.)

If you have information which shows that current data being used to calculate global warming are inaccurate due to the inaccuracy of our calendar, please cite a source. Please explain how such a thing could happen.

Go here: http://www.infoplease.com/spot/gregorian1.html ...or here: http://www.megalithicsites.co.uk/Calendar1.html ...or here: http://astro.nmsu.edu/~lhuber/leaphist.html

That's where barnes pasted his calendar info from. It has additional information that pretty much explains how the calendar is being constantly updated to take into account those pesky .10 seconds that slip away from time to time. I didn't really find anything about global warming there. Maybe barnes could paste another for us?

[northbeaumont]

Snow would be nice. Or at least cold weather for longer than a few days.

If it did snow, I'd hate to think what would happened on all of those crowded Houston freeways. Wrecker companies would make money, but insurance companies would lose money.

[dbigtex56]

Bigtex can you please site a source where these "many parts of the world" have recieved LESS snow this year, therefore "endangering" their way of life or at the very least, their source of water. Will there be a shortfall of water for these "many parts of the world" this year?

I guess we can go ahead and rule The Rockies OUT on this one.

New snowpack stirs hopes of plentiful water in 2007

But the experts say it's too early in the season to celebrate

Ellen Jaskol

[TheNiche]

"The five years of warming have taken a toll on the southern ice fields atop Kilimanjaro."

Additionally, it should be noted that snow reflects radiation back into space. The lack of snow results in a darker, more heat-absorbent landscape, which further accelerates global warming.

Five years of warming on Kilimanjaro? That's all? In geologic time, this is the most pathetic statistical insignificance.

And the first article that you listed does nothing except to oversimplify the matter. I'm still not convinced that runoff from the snowpack is all that important as compared to precipitation, generally. Perhaps we just need better ways to capture that precipitation, for instance, by impoundments, but water is water. And frozen water sucks for all the reasons I've stated previously. Fortunately, your source provides a list of primary sources. Looks like #44 and #45 might yield some meaningful data. Will look into it.

Accelerated global warming from reflected radiation? In my mind, that could still be beneficial to humanity. Possibly not so much to the American west, but then there's a larger population elsewhere anyways. More reason for people to come to Texas.

[dbigtex56]

Five years of warming on Kilimanjaro? That's all? In geologic time, this is the most pathetic statistical insignificance.

Read the whole article. That's not what's being said.

By comparing these with past data, they can calculate just how much of Kilimanjaro's ice has vanished. About 82 percent of the ice fields were lost between the time they were first mapped in 1912 and 2000.

And the first article that you listed does nothing except to oversimplify the matter. I'm still not convinced that runoff from the snowpack is all that important as compared to precipitation, generally.

Oversimplify the matter!? Note the source: Rocky Mountain News. This was written for an audience who lives with the effects of snowpack melts (or lack thereof) and how it pertains to the availability of fresh water. If you remain unconvinced, that's your choice - but apparently the people with firsthand knowledge feel differently.

Of course, you could go to Colorado and explain to people there why they really haven't suffered from droughts. If you're lucky, they'll only laugh at you.

[TheNiche]

Read the whole article. That's not what's being said.

By comparing these with past data, they can calculate just how much of Kilimanjaro's ice has vanished. About 82 percent of the ice fields were lost between the time they were first mapped in 1912 and 2000.

Wait a second...why am I arguing over single datapoints like Kilimanjaro anyway? That's been one of my premeses from the beginning. You sly devil, you...

Oversimplify the matter!? Note the source: Rocky Mountain News. This was written for an audience who lives with the effects of snowpack melts (or lack thereof) and how it pertains to the availability of fresh water. If you remain unconvinced, that's your choice - but apparently the people with firsthand knowledge feel differently.

Of course, you could go to Colorado and explain to people there why they really haven't suffered from droughts. If you're lucky, they'll only laugh at you.

The Rocky Mountain News is not a scientific journal. It is written for the purpose of acheiving ad revenue by inducing high circulation numbers and as such does very little to prove a point...you know, just like the Chronicle. Not only does it not do a great deal to prove a point, but one of the tactics that it will employ is to always make it look like there's a controversy and as though there is excessive threat to the reader. And while that doesn't necessarily mean that the information presented is incorrect, it does cast doubt on its veracity.

With respect to the water supply problems facing Denver and the American west, they may one day find that the area has exceeded its population carrying capacity. If that is the case, then the price of water in the region will increase such that economic development is displaced to areas with additional water supply. No big deal. Change happens. Alternatively, it may justify investments in artificial impoundments so as to capture water that has fallen as liquid precipitation. Adaptation also happens.

They may not like change or adaptation, but again, it isn't the end of the world, and their spatial locality doesn't matter in the big picture. No one's does, really. It's about humanity...not place.

[TheNiche]

What follows are excerpts from the Chronicle as of this afternoon.

Global warming, save us!!!

Jan. 16, 2007, 4:54PM

Forecast calls for mostly dry afternoon commute

Copyright 2007 Houston Chronicle

And, although HISD and other school districts, including Galena Park and Cypress-Fairbanks decided to hold regular classes as dawn came without rain and ice on the roads, some districts -- including the HISD -- canceled all after-school activities, including basketball and soccer games, just in case the weather turns sour.

"This will help us to be able to make sure all our children and staff get home safely from school today," HISD spokesman Terry Abbott said.

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

Monday night's cold produced overflow crowds at area homeless shelters.

At the Star of Hope shelter, about 350 men took refuge Monday night, about 50 over capacity, spokeswoman Marilyn Fountain said.

At the Salvation Army Harbor Light Center on North Main, some 500 homeless men, 200 more than normal, sought shelter, said spokeswoman Jincy Kunnacherry.

The numbers are expected to be the same or greater tonight at the shelters, officials said.

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

A thin layer of ice coated much of Austin during the morning commute, forcing Gov. Rick Perry and Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst to move their inauguration ceremonies indoors to the Texas House of Representatives chamber for the first time in five decades. They also canceled the traditional inaugural parade.

^^^ Five decades??? That's global cooling! That's another ice age! The sky is falling, the sky is falling! WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!

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

About 15 miles south of the Capitol, two people were killed on Interstate 35 near Buda when two tractor-trailers and a passenger vehicle collided, Department of Public Safety officials said.

Trooper Robbie Barrera urged people to stay home if possible and to drive slowly and carefully if they must venture out. DPS had already responded to at least 19 weather-related accidents by 10 a.m., including the fatal crash south of Austin, she said.

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

"Ice is very deceiving, and you really can't tell the difference between the ice and the water on the roadway," she said.

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

More than 20 flights out of Austin Bergstrom International Airport were canceled today, and most of the other morning flights were delayed.

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

Public schools in the Austin and San Antonio areas were closed today, as was the University of Texas. City of Austin offices also were shut down, along with the Municipal Court, public libraries, recreation centers and year-round swimming pools.

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

At least five people have died in traffic accidents on state roadways since the system entered the state Friday.

The Associated Press contibuted to this report.

[TJones]

Thanks for proving my point Bigtex. 7th driest of all time in Denver ? So, were the previous 6 driest from 1999 to 2005 ? Doubtful, like I said, we can write off The Rockies watershed "problems" for now. The people of Colorado aren't suffering from any droughts NOW, are they ? You doom and gloomers try to make it out that "Global Warming" just keeps making things worse and worse, so I guess your point would now be that "Global Warming" is taking a break ? Or, that it is just moving on to another part of the Earth for now and leaving Colorado alone ? "Global Warming" is just tired of drying out Colorado ?

I think the Niche brings up a valid point that perhaps the Rocky Mountain region has seen all the growth it can handle if it indeed relies on strictly snowfall as the source for all it's water. Wouldn't you agreee that population would be part of the problem with the region and not just "Global Warming" ? I would venture to guess that is ONE of the factors as to how the scientists in the region come to conclusion for how much water is needed in the region.

[dbigtex56]

What follows are excerpts from the Chronicle as of this afternoon.

Global warming, save us!!!

Yeah, I always love that joke.

Ha. Ha.

Keep your day job.

[dbigtex56]

So, were the previous 6 driest from 1999 to 2005 ?

Would you believe me if I told you?

No.

So why should I act as your damn secretary? Look it up yourself. And be sure to cite a source.

[Pumapayam]

Look it up yourself. And be sure to cite a source.

Where was that picture. . . oh yeah, hear it is!

Love it!

Of all the HAIF moderators, you are the most vocal by far, Jmanusco is probably the most quiet one I have seen.

[TJones]

Would you believe me if I told you?

No.

So why should I act as your damn secretary? Look it up yourself. And be sure to cite a source.

Why shouldn't I believe you, you wouldn't lie to me would you ?

It's Administrative Asst. btw , but that is neither here nor there. I will tell you that I already knew that they weren't , but I will go ahead and site a source for you, since you asked so nicely.

http://www.crh.noaa.gov/bou/cli/extremes/annsum00.php

Now go get me some coffee ! Cream, two sugars.

[Pumapayam]

I think the Niche brings up a valid point that perhaps the Rocky Mountain region has seen all the growth it can handle if it indeed relies on strictly snowfall as the source for all it's water. Wouldn't you agreee that population would be part of the problem with the region and not just "Global Warming" ? I would venture to guess that is ONE of the factors as to how the scientists in the region come to conclusion for how much water is needed in the region.

Sounds like that theory they used in those Category 6, 7 movies!

[TheNiche]

So why should I act as your damn secretary? Look it up yourself. And be sure to cite a source.

The odds of having seven years in a row of record-breaking drought are so statistically improbable as to suggest that TJones was making a rhetorical question.

Calm down bigtex. It'd be profoundly ironic if you were to get some acute stress-related illness in the course of trying (and failing) to convince people that GW is going to cause some serious problem for humanity.

[TJones]

The odds of having seven years in a row of record-breaking drought are so statistically improbable as to suggest that TJones was making a rhetorical question.

Calm down bigtex. It'd be profoundly ironic if you were to get some acute stress-related illness in the course of trying (and failing) to convince people that GW is going to cause some serious problem for humanity.

Eh! I was being a smartass, I am sure bigtex knew that those previous years weren't in the top ten either, but that doesn't help his argument of "Global Warming is HERE and NOW", he just needed a snappy comeback. He's an intelligent guy, I give him credit for his belief of Gloom and Doom. Just because I don't agree with anything he has to add to the debate, doesn't mean that either of us is right or wrong. These bits of info. are just how we translate the data presented to us.

[houstonmacbro]

Okay, I am gonna have to side with Dr. Stephen Hawking on this one. Sorry, but y'all's (and my) credentials just don't hold a flame to this dude.

***

Hawking warns world to wake up to impending Armageddon

London, Jan 18 (ANI): Noted physicist Stephen Hawking has said that climate change was as great a threat to the world as international terrorism and nuclear war, and ought to be tackled urgently.

He was speaking to the group of scientists who run the Doomsday Clock, a countdown to Armageddon that was begun in 1947. The clock's hands were moved two minutes closer to stand at five minutes to midnight to reflect climate change and the nuclear programmes of North Korea and Iran.

"Since Hiroshima and Nagasaki, no nuclear weapons have been used in war, though the world has come uncomfortably close to disaster on more than one occasion. But for good luck, we would all be dead," The Times quoted Prof Hawking as saying.

"As we stand at the brink of a second nuclear age and a period of unprecedented climate change, scientists have a special responsibility once again to inform the public and advise leaders about the perils that humanity faces. We foresee great peril if governments and society do not take action now to render nuclear weapons obsolete and prevent further climate change.

"As scientists, we understand the dangers of nuclear weapons and their devastating effects, and we are learning how human activities and technologies are affecting climate systems in ways that may for ever change life on Earth.

<a href="http://www.dailyindia.com/show/104689.php/Hawking-warns-world-to-wake-up-to-impending-Armageddon" target="_blank">

Full article here</a>

[CDeb]

Is global climate an area of Hawking's expertise?

[TheNiche]

Is global climate an area of Hawking's expertise?

...or for that matter the politics of nuclear proliferation?

Can you try fixing the link. I've been "forbidden permission". If he's presenting a realistic premise to his argument and/or making counterpoints to GW skeptics (although doubtful), then I'd like to read it.