<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.18876">
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=2>If over a period of years the change in glacial ice mass would
be markedly positive, then the probability of long term global warming would
need to be re-evaluated.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>I'm am not nearly as up on this as Ted, but what I read weekly
in <EM>New Scientist</EM> is there are not many scientists publishing in
refereed journals that believe that human activity is the sole cause of global
warming. What is contested is how much human activity contributes, and
what might be done to reduce this component. There is evidence of past
volcanic eruptions such as Krakatoa <A
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krakatoa">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krakatoa</A> and
other natural activities having a very short term effect on world climates
because of the amount of ash, etc released into the atmosphere.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>The old theory when I took physical geography and geology
(which really dates me) was that increased moisture would lead to lower
temperatures, snow, and snow accumulation (bigger, better glaciers). That
was part of the explanation given for the four most recent ice ages. The
state of the ozone layer is currently used by some to explain that while there
appears to be more moisture in the atmosphere, more solar radiation is reaching
the earth's surface.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>I do not have global experience of the reported great loss of
glacial ice mass, but I have witnessed over the last 50 years, and especially
over the last 30 years the huge loss of glacial ice in the Canadian
Rockies. Alaskans tell me the same story about many Alaskan
locales.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>As far as I'm concerned, the earth has plenty of resources but
there are just too many people using them and using them unwisely which
contributes in part to global warming. I see no solution to this whole
over-population, over-consumption problem in the near future, but only that it
will get worse and with it, barring some unforeseen natural events, some very
life changing changes.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>But all this is speculation based on currently asserted
probabilities by a very large portion of the relevant scientific
community. Our knowledge and understanding in this area is far from
comprehensive at this point, and as with any knowledge claims, subject to
correction based on further observations.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>W.</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT: 10pt arial; BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=godshatter@yahoo.com href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com">Paul
Rumelhart</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=Vision2020@moscow.com
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">vision 2020</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, February 11, 2010 12:33
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> [Vision2020] Snow storms and
global warming</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>I've seen lots of articles on the web that describe how the
current record-breaking weather on the East Coast does not disprove global
warming. Here is a sampling:<BR><BR><A
href="http://mediamatters.org/research/201002090032">http://mediamatters.org/research/201002090032</A><BR><A
href="http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/02/no_the_snow_does_not_disprove.html">http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/02/no_the_snow_does_not_disprove.html</A><BR><A
href="http://thinkprogress.org/2010/01/12/cold-snap-global-warming/">http://thinkprogress.org/2010/01/12/cold-snap-global-warming/</A><BR><BR>I
don't dispute this. I'm pretty sure that global warming is happening on larger
timescales; I am just skeptical of the anthropogenic component being as
powerful a forcing as climate scientists and political leaders would like us
to believe. <BR><BR>It does lead me to wonder about one thing,
though. What kind of a winter would it take to disprove global
warming?<BR><BR>A mild winter would likely be blamed on the overall
temperature increase, where a stormy winter would likely be blamed on there
being more moisture in the air and more energy in the system. Would a
winter that was average in all ways be enough? Since winters vary so
much over the years, what would a completely average winter look like?
Would it take a winter that lasted all year? If it's likely that no
winter that could reasonably be expected to occur would disprove it, then is
it meaningful to say that the current weather was predicted by the AGW
hypothesis?<BR><BR>I've also been pondering the role of moisture in global
temperature. If the moisture content of the air is indeed increasing,
wouldn't that mean more snowfall and more clouds? Both of which change
the albedo of the Earth a significant amount which would cause more sunlight
to be reflected back into space. Would this serve as a negative feedback
process? From what I've read, the affect on clouds on global warming is
one of the biggest open-ended questions out there right now.<BR><BR>Just
curious what other people
thought.<BR><BR>Paul<BR><BR>=======================================================<BR> List
services made available by First Step Internet, <BR> serving the
communities of the Palouse since 1994.
<BR>
<A
href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</A>
<BR> <A
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</A><BR>=======================================================</BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>