Every change in the weather is a scientific omen for the worshippers in the Church of Global Warming. Hurricane Katrina, seasonal heat waves, and even thunderstorms represent harbingers of the doomsday to come for these primitive sophisticates. So what do the congregants in the CoGW make of the season's beatings we've been taking in the northeast? Maine and New Hampshire just broke snowfall records for December. In Boston, with more than two feet of the white stuff piling up, it was the second snowiest December on record. January started with another six inches of snow where I live. Weathermen predict snow, again, today, and that the mercury will hit 3 tomorrow. Unfortunately, their predictions on climate are more reliable than those of environmentalists.

To loosely paraphrase Tip O'Neil, all weather is local. It is local to place and time. It may be warming where you live, but it's not warming here--at least right now. All weather is fluid, too. The temperature changes from season to season. It changes from century to century, too. Heck, fifty-five million years ago snakes, alligators, and other critters dwelled within the Arctic Circle. There's been some global cooling since then.

The cold and snowy days recently experienced in the northeast disprove global warming as much as the hot and humid days of August prove it. They're both anecdotal, and when we are discussing trends occuring over millenia, we might as well view annual fluctuations in the same light. CoGW congregants will admit as much in these frigid days. But wait for the mercury to flirt with the triple digits, and one day's temperature will become evidence of the next century's temperature. This is idiotic, perhaps even more idiotic than using the arctic tundra that is my city to contradict global warming. If we were experiencing a massive warming trend, we wouldn't expect to be setting records for snowfall, would we? In other words, weather extremities would be confined to the other end--the hot end--of the charts.

But it is not so, and my aching back, worn out from snow shovelling, and my cold feet, prove it. Global warming would be pretty cool right about now.

Seriously though. Its too goddamn cold in Boston right now. My nose is gonna fall off.

Global Warming is like evolution for me. W/ both I don't have a problem w/ the basic claim or notion (sure okay, maybe man has contributed to warming the earth a couple degrees in the last hundred years or sure things evolve so maybe everything evolved) but I really can't understand the overarching claims or the seriousness w/ which people take them.

People really get emotionally invested in these scientific theories, and I just don't get it. It seems that everyone I query regarding the specific evidence of either theory/claim can't really give me anything other than their passionate confidence in the rightness of their worldview. I am willing to read more on the topics even but when I ask friends for info I get silly interest group released summaries of claims and projections, no evidence. For example, like what that Veronica girl linked to here in an earlier post.

What has become of disinterested science (i.e. philosophy)?

People really get emotionally invested in these scientific theories, and I just don't get it. It seems that everyone I query regarding the specific evidence of either theory/claim can't really give me anything other than their passionate confidence in the rightness of their worldview.

An apt description of my experience (and many others') in dealing with many Ron Paul supporters.

Sorry, couldn't resist. ;)

In any case, the theory of evolution is very different than the global warming. Evolution is a theory. Global warming is an observed phenomenon.

The theory, or idea, that global warming is primarily driven by humans is supported by way, way, way less evidence/facts than evolution. There is just no comparison. In fact, creationism or intelligent design has a lot more in common with Al Gore's version of global warming than evolution does.

Weather shifts and cycles on Earth have everything to do with the Sun.

By the way, forecast for Jacksonville Florida: snow.

Doug,

Again, lots of confidence in your correct attitude towards a scientific theory and precious little fact, evidence, info. You proved my point.

Are you just trolling to denigrate Ron Paul and supporters of him? That is the only thing that brought your appearance in the comments section here and seems to be the only thing that drives you.

All weather is local, sure. But show me where conservation of energy is being violated and you'll win a Nobel Prize for the most important discovery of the 21st century.

Until then, science says when one place cools down, that energy has to go somewhere else. If humans affect the rate that energy is absorbed into or released from the atmosphere, then humans affect the climate.

I doubt that that is true Brian. But, supposing it is? It's our climate, isn't it? And we seem to be getting along pretty darn well in it. So what's the problem?

The problem is that it is our climate. 'Our' being plural and 'climate' being singular. Nobody can limit their impact on our climate to the airspace over their property. Have an impact and it goes everywhere, and everyone's impact is additive. Climate change impacts other people's property without their consent. It's a tragedy of the commons.

First off, it has never been scientifically proven beyond a reasonable doubt that we have, as a species, affected our climate. Climate shifts have been cyclical over eons and weather patterns were erratic even before humans walked the Earth.

As far as I can see, we are not in any immediate danger from this alleged climate change. And have faith that if we ever do get to that point, rapid advances in technology will make sure that we survive by correcting any problems.

I find this hand wringing about our climate and supposed Global Warming (as I write this on a 9 degree day) to be more the egocentric ravings of leftists with way too much time on their hands. And, for those smart enough to understand these types, a way to make a business opportunity out of fear and junk science.

It hasn't been scientifically proved? We know for a fact that we're putting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. We even know the concentration both before this activity started and now. Most important of all, we know what effect those gases have on the climate. Take a look at this model of Earth's climate based on gas concentrations in the atmosphere. The output of the model is a very close fit to the actual historical temperature data over the last 100 years. See that spike in greenhouse gases? That's us.

If greenhouse gases warm the planet and human activity puts greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, then human activity warms the planet.

People bad, nature good? So what are we supposed to do, leave the planet? You must be one of those nuts who say the planet would be better off without us. Leave it for the flora and lower fauna, I guess.

Truth is that there is more sulfur, mercury, hydrocarbon, carbon monoxide and smog in general put into the atmosphere by volcanoes and natural occurring forest fires than there is by humans. That's a fact.

In the last 50 years, advances in technologies have helped us to make our world and environment better. That’s the best we can do and we’re aware and are constantly improving. Unless we just decide to go away.

If you believe in Global Warming, you'll believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and that John McCain isn't for amnesty for illegals.

I must have made a very good point, because all of the sudden you're in strawman-attack mode. But I'll address the strawman last, since there's a real argument wedged in the middle, and for me that takes priority.

The problem with your argument is that in addition to being released into the atmosphere by natural processes those gases you mention are also removed from the atmosphere through natural processes, and it happens at a rate proportional to their atmospheric concentration. This creates a steady equilibrium level of concentration.

But if we increase the rate that a gas is pumped into the atmosphere, it causes the equilibrium concentration to increase, and the system will eventually level out at the new equilibrium. Of course, if we keep increasing the output, perhaps exponentially, the concentration will keep going up without reaching an equilibrium. Now look at graph (b) here. Carbon dioxide concentration changed from being constant to having exponential growth. And it started with the Industrial Revolution. That's human activity.

In defense of human life, not expense, we must do something about this. It's really not that complicated, unless you insist on a libertarian solution, because there is no libertarian solution. It requires cooperation to limit greenhouse gas emissions. All humans have a shared interest in this, so it can be done.

Oh, I see. If it happens naturally, then the atmospheric systems adjust and equalize the affect. But, if it happens as a result of human existence (which, in itself is natural) then the natural processes that equalize greenhouse gases, don't? Interesting theory you've got there.

I linked to empirical evidence, but in any case, understanding this requires only basic algebra. It can be compared to a faucet pouring water into a bucket with a hole in the bottom. The water represents greenhouse gases. The faucet, a source of greenhouse gases, and the hole is a good model for the rate the gases are removed from the atmosphere.

The bucket drains at a rate directly proportional to the water pressure, which is determined by the amount of water in the bucket, w. The rate of change of w is w'. The variable i represents the rate of input to the bucket, and d represents the rate water is drained through the hole. The total rate of change for the amount of water in the bucket is simply the amount going in minus the amount coming out.

w' = i - d

Let's say the faucet pours a fixed 2 gallons per minute into the bucket.

i = 2 gal/min

Let's also say that for every gallon of water in the bucket, a half gallon per minute drains out the hole.

d = 1/2 gal/min per gallon * w = 1/2 per minute * w

Then,

w' = 2 - 0.5*w

If the water level is below a certain amount, the net rate of change will be positive and the water level will go up. If the water level is above a certain amount, the net rate of change will be negative and the water level will go down. The water level, w, will reach equilibrium when the rate of change, w', equals zero. Let's solve.

0 = 2 - 0.5*w

0.5*w = 2

w = 4 gal

So the bucket will even out at 4 gallons of water.

Let's add a second faucet, representing humanity, pouring out only 1 gallon per minute. Now,

i = 3 gal/min

w' = 3 - 0.5*w

So if w' = 0,

0 = 3 - 0.5*w

w = 6

Notice that the 'human activity faucet' supplies only one third of the water, but it raised the water level by 50%. Your claim is that the water level will remain the same even if the input rate is increased. That doesn't make sense.