Today's weather report: "Early season snow advisories issued for Washington Cascades"
Feel a bit chilly for early October? The National Weather Service forecast may make you shiver even more.That's more than a month earlier than last year's "first major snowfall" in the Cascades, which arrived on November 10.Snow is expected over the Cascade Range from central Oregon to the Canadian border by Wednesday night.
Al Gore is hundreds of miles to the south in Albuquerque tonight, so there must be some other explanation for the early snowfall.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at October 03, 2007 11:58 AM | Email ThisIt's WARMING folks, were all going to die.
Wow can't wait to ski. I have a nice fuel sucking 4X4 to get me there.
Now, I'm no math major or some high-fallutin climatologist with a political agenda to push, but 80 degrees appears to be warmer than snow-producing weather. And it appears that warmer weather happened in the past.
Posted by: jimg on October 3, 2007 12:23 PM
*But, before you go, if you are a high ranking event coordinator for your organization, consider paying Al Gore thousands of dollars to come to your event and tell you that we're all gonna die, in person. Note, there are lavish extras and other travel and expense perks to be paid for an audition with the messiah. See the backstage event rider for more details.
/sarcasm off now
Posted by: kim in vancouver on October 3, 2007 12:56 PMThis is a good opportunity for a liberal politician to start screaming about global cooling, and the need for government to step in and take action.
Posted by: moondoggie on October 3, 2007 01:07 PMBased on your longterm inanity, we will all be broke and chewing on roots in earthen domes. Unless of course the carbon credit schemes work and dumping iron dust into the ocean saves us all....
I don't suppose you wear sandals and socks?
And based on that wonderful GMA, there is a good chance Seattle will flood. Not to mention $600k to rebrand King County and we can't keep the gutters clean and free of debris to assist in run-off.
Posted by: Chris on October 3, 2007 03:30 PMTh other day I read the Congressional Report on the environment and global warming, and the entire document can be summed as follows:
1) There are only three factors driving heat in the atmosphere: the sun, reflection, and greenhouse gases.
2) The computer models cannot produce the measured amount of warming with solar and reflective effects alone, so the warming must be caused by greenhouse gasses.
3) There is no evidence that increased levels of greenhouse gas is caused by any natural phenomena, so it must be caused by human activity.
That's it. Nothing more. Nothing more sophisticated than high school level logic. No experimental results. No allowance for climatic cycles poorly understood by scientists. No allowance for variations in extra solar radiation, the effects of solar magnetic fields, the earth's internal heat sources, vulcanism, plate tectonics, or even the quite likely scenario that global heating itself naturally causes levels of CO2 in the atmosphere to increase. No proof of causation, just inference from simplified computer modeling. Why do you find this so convincing?
Posted by: srogers on October 3, 2007 03:50 PMI think the religion of Global Warming is the cat's meow for the next 1000 years because that is the time frame most experts give the zealots before their current predictions will or won't be disproven.
Stefan is ridiculing Mr. Nobel hisself, Alvin Gore, when he asserted that rivers would rise, waterfront will become flooded, etc. etc. in what- 15 years? And Stefan's proof is an early snow when we aren't supposed to have snow if there is a GW cycle? Your inane comment about rain during the season we get rain and sometimes snow just doesn't cut it.
You just don't get it, do you? Last week it was mocking Petraeus and comparing it to Blumenthal's butt-licking of Clinton. The comparison just don't compute.
Posted by: swatter on October 3, 2007 04:34 PMBreathe in a bag... aren't those Polar bears supposed to be good swimmers anyway? WTF?
Posted by: Acid Brain on October 3, 2007 05:57 PMAlso remember that the melting of floating ice cannot raise ocean levels, and that there is evidence (sea bottom fossils, mammoth tusks being revealed as glaciers retreat, etc.) that the arctic sea ice has melted completely before and that the arctic regions were much warmer than they are now. Before human activities could possibly have contributed to the warming cycle . . . .
Polar bears can and will adapt to a changing environment, that is, if complete summer melting of the arctic sea ice is indeed in store for the relatively near future. Who knows?
Posted by: srogers on October 3, 2007 07:13 PMPolar bears can and will adapt to a changing environment, that is, if complete summer melting of the arctic sea ice is indeed in store for the relatively near future.
Even if they can't, does it warrant spending TRILLIONS of dollars on something that MIGHT keep polar bears alive? Methinks, no.
When it's a choice between humans and polar bears, I'll take Humans for a thousand, Alex.
Same with the ANWR caribou. Mmmmm, caribou sausage.
Likewise, evoking the image of dying Polar Bears is a way to reach people emotionally to get them to agree with a dubious rational argument (that we need to sacrifice our economy to "stop" "AGW"). The image is false (polar bears won't die off), and the argumentative tactic is disingenuous, but the preachers of this new religion just don't care.
Posted by: srogers on October 4, 2007 09:09 AMMy previous post was somewhat tongue in cheek to those irrational AGW folks who like choosing animals above humans, even when the animals in question aren't really going to be harmed.
Posted by: Palouse on October 4, 2007 09:42 AM