

Yes, Global Warming Could Mean More Snow - rblion
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2010-02-14/news/ct-oped-0214-page-20100212_1_global-warming-term-climate-change-snow

======
Luyt
The weather is not the same as climate. When climate changes (and it has
always changed in the past) some places become hotter, others become colder.
Some places will get more precipitation, other places will become dryer.

The ice core drillings in deep layers of ice are a great way to learn about
the history of climate. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core>

~~~
TomOfTTB
I'm sorry and I mean this in the least insulting way I can manage but how on
earth can you not see the contradiction there? You actually said...

 _The weather is not the same as climate. When climate changes (and it has
always changed in the past) some places become hotter, others become colder._

And then one sentence later say...

 _The ice core drillings in deep layers of ice are a great way to learn about
the history of climate_

An Ice Core is a snapshot of conditions present in the area where the snow
that makes it up froze. Weather readings from an Ice Core are only accurate to
determine the weather in that one area not the overall climate.

I don't even care about the Global Warming angle (every HN thread I've ever
seen on the topic just devolves into partisan bickering) but the fact that you
can't see that contradiction is disturbing.

~~~
moe
Why not read the wikipedia page he linked before attacking him like that?

    
    
      An ice core from the right site can be used to reconstruct an 
      uninterrupted and detailed climate record extending over 
      hundreds of thousands of years, providing information on
      a wide variety of aspects of climate at each point in time.

~~~
TomOfTTB
How would that work? I mean, I'd like you to explain to me how an ice core
from one specific location could give you an accurate reading on the global
climate? And if it's really possible to determine global climate from one
location than why do we have all these weather stations around the world?

The answer is "because it isn't possible". Ice cores can provide climate
information such as soot in the atmosphere and CO2 levels but it can only give
you information on the specific location it was taken from. Any information
determined from that regarding the global climate is extrapolation.

The text you quote is describing an extrapolation as an absolute. Or in other
words just because you read something on Wikipedia doesn't make it true.

~~~
moe
_I mean, I'd like you to explain to me how an ice core from one specific
location could give you an accurate reading on the global climate?_

    
    
      The properties of the ice and the recrystallized inclusions within the  
      ice can then be used to reconstruct a climatic record over the age range 
      of the core, normally through isotopic analysis.
    

_Ice cores can provide climate information such as soot in the atmosphere and
CO2 levels but it can only give you information on the specific location it
was taken from._

    
    
      The variety of climatic proxies is greater than in any 
      other natural recorder of climate, such as tree rings or 
      sediment layers. These include (proxies for) temperature, 
      ocean volume, precipitation, chemistry and gas composition 
      of the lower atmosphere, volcanic eruptions, solar 
      variability, sea-surface productivity, desert extent and 
      forest fires.
    

_Just because you read something on Wikipedia doesn't make it true._

See, I'm not a climate scientist. Neither do I believe everything I read on
wikipedia. But the article has plenty links and references to suggest there
are many institutions and universities involved with this kind of research.

Sure, it could all be one big conspiracy. But somehow I find it easier to
believe that you're just too lazy to read.

~~~
TomOfTTB
Either I'm too lazy to read or you're too dumb to realize what the word
"extrapolate" means. Here's a quote for you...

 _In mathematics, extrapolation is the process of constructing new data points
outside a discrete set of known data points._

<http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/extrapolate>

When you're taking other information and trying to combine it to reconstruct a
climate history that's extrapolation. That means you don't have an actual
record and you're making an educated guess as to how other factors might be
combined to provide you that missing record.

And again you haven't answered my most basic question. If you could get an
accurate reading on the global temperature from one location than why do we
bother with all the weather stations?

~~~
moe
I have no idea what kind of axe you have to grind here, but _of course_ it's
extrapolation and approximation. What else do you expect, SD Cards with
digital weather records from 10k years ago buried into the ground?

The point is that many people who are much more familiar with the subject than
us two seem to agree that the extrapolation is accurate enough to draw certain
conclusions from.

If you aren't too busy with your ad hominem attacks then it would be nice if
you could make a factual point beyond "Wikipedia is wrong" and "The climate
research community is wrong".

What exactly are they doing wrong?

 _If you could get an accurate reading on the global temperature from one
location than why do we bother with all the weather stations?_

Well, I think we do the ice thing to learn about the time _before_ we had
weather stations.

Also all it takes is a look at the TOC of that wikipedia page to notice
they're using not _one_ but _dozens_ of core sites on multiple continents.

I'm almost sure they're not extrapolating from just a single block of ice, as
you're trying to suggest here...

------
zeteo
"...scientists have been warning for at least two decades that global warming
could make snowstorms more severe."

Names? Papers? Dates and predictions?

~~~
ugh
It’s a newspaper article. Those don’t come with citations and never have. To
expect them is just crazy.

------
jameskilton
This is why people are using the term "global weirding" or just "climate
change" instead. Yes, the Earth actually is warming. The average temperature
of the entire Earth is going up. If you've taken elementary Math you'll
understand that if an average increases that means the extremes of the dataset
have gotten more extreme (more extreme colds, more extreme heat).

How we came to be a society that views science, logic, and rational thought as
the enemy of social progression I'll never know. I'm sure there's money in it
somewhere.

~~~
anon2345
Climate change is not logical nor is it scientific, whatever happens is
construed as evidence of 'climate change'. There's no falsifiable hypothesis.

~~~
ugh
If average (!) temperatures don’t increase over the next few decades (!),
climate change is falsified. Easy as that.

------
viggity
Everything can't be proof of global warming. The climate is not getting
"weirder". The weather is the weather; It is intrinsically random.

[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870442220457613...](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704422204576130300992126630.html)

~~~
rblion
I don't think everything is proof of 'global warming'. I honestly don't how
much is in our hands and how much isn't.

Interesting article. I like what he wrote... "That's not to say we're
helpless. There is at least one climate lesson that we can draw from the
recent weather: Whatever happens, prosperity and preparedness help."

------
cletus
Global warming pisses me off because it isn't so much science as it is
religion.

Whether it gets hotter, colder, drier, wetter or whatever some will take that
to be "proof" of global warming just as others will claim the opposite.

The really offensive thing to me is the science part. Papers that don't
provide facts or, in some cases, sources for their facts, publications that
give such shoddy work a free pass because it happens to agree with their
editorial stance. Organizations that go out of their say to smear and silence
skeptics. The list goes on.

Whatever the case climate models have a pretty poor track record when it comes
to making predictions.

Last month I saw something about climate on Discovery. It was talking about
"Snowball Earth", the period nearly 600 million years ago when ice extended to
the equator. The show claimed that we could trigger such an event. What's
more, snow and ice reflect sunlight that could cause a (excuse the pun)
snowball effect: as the ice grows it gets colder.

What many seem to forget are two things:

1\. What they're describing is called a divergent system. We don't live in
such a system because, if we did, the earth would've either frozen solid or
boiled away in the last 4 billion years and we wouldn't be here; and

2\. The earth is an incredibly complex system with many interplaying variables
such that making predictions and identifying cause and effect is incredibly
hard.

They way I see it, the pro-AGW crowd need to:

1\. Prove the earth is warming. This is far from fact. For one, it depends on
your point of reference. Compared to 1890 it's warmer and for this reason the
link to the Industrial Revolution and fossil fuels likes to be drawn but what
about 500 years ago? 5000? 5 million? The earth has been an awful lot hotter
than it is now.

2\. that warming is man-made;

3\. That warming is bad. It'd be bad for some but I guarantee you it'd be good
for others.

4\. Human intervention can alter the result;

5\. That cost isn't prohibitive.

as far as I'm concerned we haven't even settled (1) yet.

In the meantime those that raise such questions are demonized. Those that
benefit from offending industries aren't the least bit interested in the truth
either. Instead of science we have politics and religion.

But I for one am sick of hearing that whatever happens is somehow proof of
global warming.

~~~
ugh
You should really read scientific papers and not get your information about
climate change from TV shows …

~~~
nika
I find it amazing that global warming proponents who, frankly, never seem to
know anything about the actual science are so snide whenever they encounter
someone who does know the science and who points out holes.

If science really were on your side, you could make scientific claims, instead
you just attack him.

This is proof that you reject science, and that you are defending a religious
belief.

