Does this sound like "global warming" to you?

Question

read and witness my fellow brothers and sisters:

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSGOR25761920080312

Answer 1

judging from the pic, i guess not.

Answer 2

I love it !! Let's send our great Academy Award winner Al ("It's getting hot in here") Gore up to our fellow brethren in Canada to get a reality check...While he's trapsing up north- send him a little further north to see that nearly all the Artic ice pack has gotten back to normal size.

Answer 3

nooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

Answer 4

Weather can overcome global warming for a short time.  It happened in 1982, 1991-1992, 1999-2000.  EVERY TIME global warming came back stronger than ever.  Proof.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/

discussed in detail, with confirmation, at:

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/01/24/g...

As long as we keep making greenhouse gases in enormous amounts, global warming will dominate in the long run.  It's simple physics.

http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/earthguide/di...

Answer 5

I get your drift.

Answer 6

It sounds like an article about snow.  NOAA has posted a very detailed description of this past winter, if you want to look at information other than out of the polular press.  It says that we had a lot of snow due to La Nina (as we alway do in La Nina years).  It also says that one the whole the winter was pretty warm, compared to other winters.  It was cold compared to recent winters (like the last 10 tears) but warm compared to all of them that are on record.

"The combined global land and ocean surface temperature was the 16th warmest on record for the December 2007-February 2008 period (0.58°F/0.32°C above the 20th century mean of 53.8°F/12.1°C)".

Answer 7

SNOW?  In Quebec?  In the WINTER?  OMG, that proves all those climate scientists are a bunch of nutcases!!!

[sarcasm off]

I'd suggest you educate yourself on what global warming is all about.  No climate scientist has ever said global warming meant the end of snow in Quebec (or any place else).  It's a slowly increasing global average temperature.

Here's some sites that might help you understand:

***** Demonstrating the strength of the consensus *****

http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_...





***** Good overviews *******

http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2007/12...

http://dels.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/clim...





***** Good Global Warming FAQs *****

http://www.ucar.edu/news/features/climat...

http://earth.geology.yale.edu/~sherwood/...

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/glob...





**** Good misc. sites ****

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/

http://www.philipclarkson.blogspot.com/

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/



**** Good sites addressing the errors of skeptics *****

http://www.skepticalscience.com/

http://scholarsandrogues.wordpress.com/2...

http://environment.newscientist.com/chan...

Answer 8

Thanks dd k.  The perfect sentence:

"You are arguing the specific with the general, a common error in dwarf intellects. "

Answer 9

Yea, global warming came back stronger than ever.... LMAO

Answer 10

I know what you sound like - an ill informed hack that knows nothing about the science of Global Warming. What's you education level?  Have you ever had a meteorology course?  Read below to educate yourself.  And next time think before you post or you will end up looking like an idiot again.

Isotopes of carbon may hold a key to determining the source of the increased carbon in the atmosphere (4,5,7). The studies are based on the ratio of the three different carbon isotopes in atmospheric CO2. Carbon has three possible isotopes: C-12, C-13 and C-14. C-12, which has 6 neutrons, is by far the most prevalent carbon isotope and is a stable isotope. Carbon 13 is also a stable isotope, but plants prefer Carbon 12 and therefore photosynthetic CO2 (fossil fuel or wood fuels) is much lower in C-13 than CO2 that comes from other sources (e.g.: animal respiration) Carbon-14 is radioactive. Studies of carbon isotopes in CO2 has resulted in the following findings (5,7,8).

There has been a decline in the 14C/12C ratio in CO2 that parallels the increase in CO2. In 1950 a scientist named Suess discovered that fossils do not contain 14C because they are much older than 10 half lives of 14C.

There has been a parallel decline in 13C/12C ratio of atmospheric CO2. This has been linked to the fact that fossil fuels, forests and soil carbon come from photosynthetic carbon which is low in 13C. If the increased CO2 was due to warming of the oceans, there should not be a reduction in the ratios of C-13 and C-14 to C-12.

There are other clues that suggest the source of increased CO2 is not related to the warming of the ocean and subsequent release of CO2 from the ocean. There has been a decline in the oxygen concentration of the atmosphere. If ocean warming was responsible for the CO2 increase, we should also observe an increase in atmospheric O2, because O2 is also released as the water is warmed.

The ocean is a sink for atmospheric carbon, and the carbon content of the oceans has increased by 118±19 PgC in the last 200 years. If the atmospheric CO2 was the result of oceans releasing CO2 to the atmosphere, the CO2 in the ocean should not be rising as a result of ocean warming.