of some sort of science class.
So he would know that local weather is not world climate.
 | Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years. Thanks, CNET Support |
General discussion
Al Gore blames recent storm on global warming
?The odds have shifted toward much larger downpours,? Gore said. ?And we have seen that happen in the Northeast, we?ve seen it happen in the Northwest ? in both of those regions are among those that scientists have predicted for a long time would begin to experience much larger downpours.?
But Gore had a specific example in mind. He explained this recent soaking in the Northeastern United States was ?consistent? with what global warming alarmists were projecting.
?Just look at what has been happening for the last three days,? Gore said. ?The so-called skeptics haven?t noted it because it?s not snow. But the downpours and heavy winds are consistent with what the scientists have long warned about.?
--------------------------
We've had weather before. It's not unusual. There have been much worse storms in the past. Does he have even the tiniest shred of evidence connecting last weekend's storm to global warming?
Discussion is locked
31 - 60 of 66 Posts
- Collapse
- Collapse -
- Collapse -
(large amounts of it, preferably) and facts that the "downpours and heavy winds" are NOT consistent with global warming? That seems the only way to counter the claim they are.
Please tell us.
Kees
- Collapse -
It is up to him to prove that global warming is responsible for the downpours and heavy winds. "Consistent with" means nothing. A cause and effect has to be shown.
These are NOT unusual events.
- Collapse -
It's not the same as opinion. What Gore's supporters think is not proof of anything.
- Collapse -
which is subsequently shown to be untrue, it is a fact that the claim is incorrect. Who believes it or doesn't is not relevant.
- Collapse -
Then why do they call them "HISTORIC", at least that's what they're calling them in New England...where you live.
Red River, last year a 1 in 100 year flood, this year another 1 in 100 year flood, so that would be a 2 in a 101 year flood?
- Collapse -
Are you talking about the 1 in 100 flood level contour lines on the U.S. Geological Survey maps? They started doing them in 1901. In 1897 there was a flood that old info shows a level of just over 40 feet. Currently, the river is at about 31 feet.
As time passes, the validity of those original map contour lines can change. I think about the farm on which I lived just before I bought the one I bought. It was bordered by a creek. It was just within the 100 year flood plain, but there were floods there twice that I know of within the last 100 years. Something quite important to remember about that is that since those contours were drawn, the area drastically changed from a collection of small farms to a mass of subdivisions and homes. All of this building of homes, stores, roads, schools, etc. altered the land itself and the water runoff.
- Collapse -
And I was talking about this:
http://nd.water.usgs.gov/photos/1897RedFlood/index.html
Have you ever seen a map with 100 flood plains marked? As I said before, changes the the land can alter the validity of those flood plain areas. In the case of the particular farm I mentioned, construction of a raised roadway to new subdivision areas caused problems if you were on the "wrong side" of that roadway.
- Collapse -
"Historic" doesn't mean it never happened before. There have been plenty of "historic" floods,droughts,storms and extreme weather events over the years.
I think this is known by everyone.
- Collapse -
no it doesn't.
a once in a hundred year event doesn't mean it never happened before,
BUT
Since most people don't live to be 100, it only means it probably never happened before in their lifetime.
If history stopped/started for everyone after anyone died, but it doesn't.
- Collapse -
he had large amounts of evidence to counter Al's claim. Now you say Al's claim can't be countered. The two of you don't seem to agree.
Let's take an example.
- I claim "It freezes". You say you have evidence to counter that claim. I ask you what evidence you have. So you show my your thermometer and I have to agree.
- Al says "this is consistent with global warming". Mike says he has evidence to counter that claim. I ask him what evidence he has. He didn't answer yet. And I doubt if he has.
Kees
Kees
- Collapse -
Not everyone agrees completely with another person. That's why it's a discussion. I think you are distorting what was said anyway.
I think Mike and I agree that Gore is a fraud.
- Collapse -
no responsible person should get up in front of an audience and make the statements he did and expect to be taken seriously.
- Collapse -
...is just last month he was talking about how the extra cold winter in the US and all the snow blizzards couldn't be used to judge Global Warming as being inaccurate. Now, a month later he's doing the same over a few rain clouds. Maybe he was doing a rain dance out in his backyard?
- Collapse -
Climate Change is Climate Change.
Weather is not Climate Change.
Mark
- Collapse -
- Collapse -
"But Gore had a specific example in mind. He explained this recent soaking in the Northeastern United States was ?consistent? with what global warming alarmists were projecting."
That's weather
- Collapse -
he said, "He explained this recent soaking in the Northeastern United States was ?consistent? with what global warming alarmists were projecting.
Mark
- Collapse -
with normal weather patterns. So why is he saying it at all?
If anything, Gore hurts his "cause" with such silly nonsense.
CNET Forums
Operating Systems
Software
Electronics & Gadgets
Hardware
Tablets & Mobile Devices
General Help
Roadshow Autos
Chowhound
Comic Vine
GameFAQs
GameSpot
Giant Bomb
TechRepublic