We used to self shuttle up by Mt.Figueroa and the snow was about 12-18" base and sucked but we had to say we did that.
That was the early 80's.
Our house up at Nacimiento lake one year it snowed about 3-4 feet and my mom scored me a "Ski Atascadero" shirt when they got unstuck at the lake, at the Mobil station in A-town.
Probably not happening again in my lifetime.
It's more likely they will be in a boat, looking at the top of the courthouse! If more of the Greenland shelf melts off and coastlines will rise considerably. Where will this all end? Not in ice, but fire and water.
Is that why climate champions Bill Gates and the Obama's all bought houses worth tens of millions of dollars literally on the water? They're claiming we're going to have drastic sea level rise in the near future and then go invest tens of millions in ocean front real estate. Does no one see how contradictory this is?
10:45 AM, very rich people can enjoy their oceanside homes now, and buy a house on a mountaintop later.
You'll make excuses for them until the cows come up, wake up!
11:02, is that meant for me? I’m not making excuses, just stating a fact.
Why would billionaires refrain from purchasing a beautiful seaside home with gorgeous views just because they think the sea level will rise in the future? Should those concerned about sea level also stop visiting the beach? Makes no sense.
Somebody couldn't help themselves from saying Obama and Bill Gates in somehow trying to negate observable evidence of global warming.
Obama's not even close to being a billionaire. Again, you'll make excuses till the end of time but their actions are more telling than their words.
11:35 - Obama not being a billionaire is completely irrelevant to the point. No one is making excuses, we're just pointing out the glaring flaw in your "argument." You think, because Obama and Gates have recently purchased seaside homes, that it's evidence that the sea levels aren't rising in the future. Do you see the lack of logic there?
So.... is this saying the earth is cooling, rather than warming? It may not be warming as fast/much as some are warning, but it certainly isn't cooling!
It wasn’t that long ago that scientists were making predictions about a coming ice age. Today sea level rise is in favor. It’s always something. The key to making doomsday predictions is to avoid being specific about a timeframe and to be vague about what the doomsday scenario will be. Under no circumstances can the prediction or the theory behind it be falsifiable. For example, saying that downtown Santa Barbara will be underwater due to global warming in 10 years would not work out very well because it won’t be. It’s also foolish to continue to predict global warming will occur at all. Not only is it possible that temperatures will decrease in the future, it’s also really hard to attribute catastrophic cold weather events like the recent freeze and power outages in Texas to global warming. The smart approach for those in the business of doomsday predictions is to say severe and extreme weather events will occur due to climate change in the future. It’s impossible to prove this wrong because there is no timeline and any destructive weather related event, hot or cold, can be claimed as proof of the prediction coming true.
CHIP - what do you think is causing the polar ice caps to melt? That's not a "theory" or "conspiracy," it's an observable, verifiable fact. What is causing it?
Chip, information, and the way we interpret it, changes over time. New data, new information, new understanding. It’s not all political.
@ 10:46 Exothermic Core Theory.
Observations and measurements from all over the world provide strong evidence that the climate has already started to change.
Arctic sea ice extent is diminishing.
Ocean heat content is increasing.
Air temperature over ocean is increasing.
Sea surface temperature is increasing.
Global sea level is rising.
Humidity is increasing.
Temperature of the lower atmosphere is increasing.
Air temperature over land is increasing.
General, there is a huge amount of uncertainty in the claims you are making. Sea ice: satellite data only goes back to the 70s, and if you go to the NSIDC website and check out their arctic sea ice extent graph the extent for 2022 is actually higher than the 2011-2020 average. Does that mean sea ice extent is increasing? Not necessarily but it is compared to the last 10 years. It’s all relative. In addition, if you look up satellite data on the sea ice extent from prior to 1979 you will see the early 1970s actually has the lowest sea ice extent ever measured by satellite. Sea level rise: there is no change in long term sea level trends as measured at tide gages dating back to the 19th century. Look up the gage at the battery in New York City on the noaa website and you will see a steady linear trend from present to before the civil war. If the sea level is abruptly changing, why can’t tide gages measure the deviation from the long term trend? Air temperature: the oldest historical data we have on air temperatures is a network of measuring stations where daily highs and lows were recorded by hand. This data doesn’t go back all that far, and it can’t be directly compared to satellite data. If you look at the data from temperature stations, you will find the 1930s was the hottest time period on record. Satellite data doesn’t go back that far and is not comparable to hand measured temperature station data. In Santa Barbara, our temperature station (see noaa website for data) shows we have been cooling since the 30s and this cooling trend has actually accelerated in recent years. There simply isn’t enough data to conclude that catastrophic climate change is occurring.
There's only uncertainty if you ignore facts you don't like. Sorry, but that's not how the real world works. Nature doesn't care about your biased opinions.
You can learn about the science here:
(We all know you won't, however.)
10:59 - Exothermic core "theory" is total poppycock, with no supporting data.
I had to look up "exothermic core" and the first few hits on Google were from video game sites for the World of Warcraft. I'm not sure I can take this seriously as an explanation for the melting ice caps. Video games aren't real, so...........
AGW denier myth #197 - Heat from the Earth's core causes warming.
Of course, measuring ice extent does not tell you anything about the thickness of the ice, but that is conveniently ignored by climate science deniers. Ocean levels are much more accurately measured by satellites than by tidal instruments dating to the 1860s, and they show that levels are rising, and the rate is accelerating faster than the most dire predictions. All you have to do to think AGW is not real is ignore the mountains of data you don't like, and do a Chip Cherry Pick.
I fail to see the humor in it, or even the point being made. Perhaps you could explain it? I’d be ever so grateful...
It's because the left can't meme...
10:45 - this isn't a "meme," it's a cartoon comic. Also, neither side has a monopoly on humor. I've seen hilarious memes from both sides of the aisle.
It appears to be a comment/dig at those who ignore and don't believe climate scientists by depicting a drastically different climate in Santa Barbara. Is this exactly what scientists predict will happen in SB? No, but it's a cartoon and I believe meant to poke fun at those edhat commenters who think climate change is all bunk, given the quote.
You need to be a special kind of ignorant to not believe climate change is real. It's already happening! Ice shelfs and glaciers are disappearing, people are physically fighting over shrinking water supplies (i.e. Syria, Sudan, Egypt), the seasons are all messed up, extreme weather events are growing more common, and low-lying islands and coastal areas are already being inundated. I may not be alive to see the endgame, but for people who pride themselves on caring about children and the unborn, the cons sure are kicking a giant can down the road that will hit younger generations in the face.
CHILLIN - exactly. Kicking the can is literally the Republican MO.
If this was really the catastrophe you and many others claim nuclear would solve this in short order but too many have fallen for anti-nuclear propaganda. Also, no one is saying climate change isn't a thing, everyone knows the climate is always in a state of flux, the argument is over the extent of the anthropogenic impact on climate.
Fallen for anti-nuclear propaganda? Like Fukushima?
Syria is a fight over oil. Its is also a fight over oasis, but that is because in that desert 1000 years ago, or now, the people that control the Oasis control the travel route and can levy a tax for passage.
Sudan and Egypt have been in a drought since the Sahara began to transition from green to desert 5000 years ago. I've read that global warming could actually bring back a green Sahara if the warmth effects the monsoon season
All of this happened before fossil fuels were in extensive use.
Edney: It's interesting that you chose that single item to nitpick, but it makes sense given it's the only one that has some precedent and is subject to different interpretations and angles. The Syrian civil war was/is a revolt against a repressive government and like all similar conflicts it needed tinder to start burning. That "tinder"was the mass of unemployed military-age men who were small or tenant farmers and moved to urban areas starting in 2006 due to a severe drought. Control of oil and the patronage it allows is one strategic objective for the combatants, but not an underlying, immediate or even a significant cause of the conflict. Egypt and Sudan are facing similar demographic and environmental problems. Yes, the area has been arid for millennia and people have been fighting over water in the Middle East since biblical times. But now there are far more people fighting over less and it's on a national scale.
I'm going to need a link from you to back up your assertions on AGW causing drought forcing people to relocate in Syria because there have been many historic droughts in the region that predate the use of fossil fuels
Sacjon, your a special kind of special to think kicking the can down the road isn't the standard operating procedure of nearly every politician, on both sides of the isle, from city council to the white house. Lots of talk, no action, more talk about what they'll do next election.
8:55 (VOICE) - I'm "special?" Gee, how ableist of you. Either way, sure most politicians do this, but only 1 party claims to care about the children (the present), but refuses to take any measures to actually help them (thereby kicking the can down the road). See environmental policies, refusal to fund planned parenthood, stances on welfare/low-income services, public school funding, etc etc etc...... By enacting and pushing policy that ignores the future (our children and our environment), they are, by definition, "kicking the can down the road."
What a very one-way view you have there which requires ignoring/dismissing so much information in order to maintain.
VOICE at 10:12 - list some liberal policies that hurt our future (environment, children, etc) and we can talk. Until then, you're doing nothing but throwing out insults.
I'm going to need a link to back up your belief that climate change caused by humans hasn't obliterated ice sheets and glaciers, submerged islands and coastal areas (including in the US), contributed to unprecedented forest fires and droughts, and posed an existential threat to our existence as a species. Do you have anything to say about my other assertions or are you just going to wander into the weeds about Middle Eastern politics? I'm not the one going against global scientific consensus, you have the burden of proof. Even Exxon and Aramco acknowledge the role of carbon emissions in climate change, and the latter is making big investments in carbon capture tech. Maybe you should catch up on the oil companies' latest talking points before acting as their shill.
ChllinGrillin, you were on point until.... "existential threat to our existence as a species." that is where you departed climate science and entered climate alarmism. When people do that, and so many do, they turn away many others who would otherwise be supportive of the effort.
10:46AM: Oh no! I'm alarmed about the environment being degraded to the point where there is a high chance of massive species die-offs, unprecedented droughts, inundation of coastal population centers, massive population displacement, and ecological/agricultural collapse that could lead to widespread civil unrest and even regional or global wars? How extremist of me!
1:04 - Perhaps you should bone up on the hazards associated with fission power. You can even start close to home:
Did you read the article @11:12 beyond the headline? The issue presented wasn't the minor water leak to a backup cooling system, which never ceased functioning, and there was no contaminate/meltdown concern whatsoever. The issue the article goes into is the US Nuclear Regulatory commission, a government entity, was not doing their job appropriately or effectively (not surprisingly, it is the government). The problem was with the government, and them not doing the job they were supposed, not the power plan or its operators. Here is a more accurately titled, though less sensational sounding, article on what happened: https://www.noozhawk.com/article/nrc_didnt_properly_inspect_diablo_canyon_equipment_ahead_of_leak_report
1:49 - Did you read the articles? Are you OK with the inspectors who rubber-stamped an inspection that wasn't properly carried out? Does negligence have to proceed all the way to a full-fledged disaster before you care?
Really, it's amazing how idiotic the excuses are for all the dangers associated with fission power and its waste products.
Lets forget about billionaires beach houses and ask why the city of SB is going to put the new SBPD building on what they claim will be the breakwater in 40 years?
Not to mention that snow in SB is thought to be gone forever soon by most climate people.
"As Earth Warms are Snowfalls a Thing of the Past?"
In 2000, the British Independent printed an article quoting numerous experts saying children born in 2000 would never see snow.
I realize the narrative changed from Global Warming to Climate Chaos, but the trend is said to still be away from snow and towards warming
Your basing your thoughts on Climate change from an Independent article from 2000? Yeah, that's part of the issue. I think the new police station will be fine in 40 years - 33 feet above sea level.
Experts 20 years ago when the article was written said we would never see snow again.
Now we are a ski resort. Forgive me if experts opinions on what will happen 20 years from now are found to have been less than dumb
Maybe it is because when I look into my 40 year prediction crystal ball, I only see a crystal ball.
"I may not be alive to see the endgame, but for people who pride themselves on caring about children and the unborn, the cons sure are kicking a giant can down the road that will hit younger generations in the face"
I don't get it
I'm right there with you. Don't get it.