Global Warming Update

i didn't read most of this thread, but im sure its the same old stuff back and forth about Al Gore. anyway, it is stupid to ever assume that global warming is the cause of some random warm day or month in the year, or that if it isnt warm, then global warming doesn't exist. there will be some places (especially the northeast united states and europe) that will get much colder due to global warming. but that is not what is going on right now. El Nina is the cause of current cold global temperatures, just read:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7329799.stm

And for everyone who has linked global warming to changes in the sun's cosmic rays, here is this article:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6290228.stm

There is no correlation between solar activity and global temperatures. if you take a basic astronomy class in college, you'll also learn that there shouldn't be because solar flares aren't a significant increase in the amount of energy output by the sun.

You're using pesky things like numbers and facts to argue against the impending apocalypse that lefties just know is around the corner. Everyone knows it and if you don't, you're just, like, stupid or a nazi.

Also, it doesn't matter what the definition of a recession is - we're in one! See, George Bush is bad and everything bad in the world is his fault. And anyway, it's not really important whether we're in a recession. What's important is that we scare people into doing the "right" thing. People are stupid sheep and can't be trusted to think for themselves, so we'll just do it for them.

The American Idol generation is ruining intellectual thought.

Apparently you are not familiar with the Maunder Minimum, Dalton Minimum, Sporer Minimum, etc.The Dalton Minimum was a period of low solar activity, lasting from about 1790 to 1830 [1]. Like the Maunder Minimum and Sporer Minimum it coincided with a period of lower than average global temperatures. Low solar activity seems to be strongly correlated with global cooling.The Maunder Minimum is the name given to the period roughly from 1645 to 1715, when sunspots became exceedingly rare, as noted by solar observers of the time. It is named after the solar astronomer Edward W. Maunder (1851–1928) who discovered the dearth of sunspots during that period by studying records from those years. During one 30-year period within the Maunder Minimum, for example, astronomers observed only about 50 sunspots, as opposed to a more typical 40,000–50,000 spots.Little Ice AgeThe Maunder Minimum coincided with the middle — and coldest part — of the Little Ice Age, during which Europe and North America, and perhaps much of the rest of the world, were subjected to bitterly cold wintersThe Spörer Minimum was a period of low solar activity which lasted from about 1420 to 1570 (some say 1450 to 1550). It occurred before sunspots had been directly observed, and was discovered instead by analysis of the proportion of carbon-14 in tree rings, which is strongly correlated with solar activity. the Spörer Minimum coincided with a time when Earth's climate was colder than average.

Man of Science wrote:

And for everyone who has linked global warming to changes in the sun's cosmic rays, here is this article:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6290228.stm

There is no correlation between solar activity and global temperatures. if you take a basic astronomy class in college, you'll also learn that there shouldn't be because solar flares aren't a significant increase in the amount of energy output by the sun.

WaffleHouseWaitress wrote:

where the fvck is "here"?

See handle (South Joisey)

Hey SC24,

What is going to be your post on Monday when it is 90 degrees in Denver? 20 above normal.

Maybe then you will realize how stupid it is to bring in daily weather to a Global Climate change debate.

Now go away.

SC24 wrote:

Source: Global ∆T °C

HadCRUT

- 0.595

No one uses HadCRUT anymore, it has long been replaced by HadCRUT2, which has been replaced by HadCRUT3.

Did you mean the UK Met Office (Hadley Centre) HadCRUT3 dataset?

Furthermore, unless you tell us what your reference points for your Global ∆T °C are, it doesn't mean much - it's just random numbers.

Is it 2007 compared with 2006, or 1997, or 1987 or 1960, or maybe the first year of the HadCRUT dataset - 1850, or something else?

The last year that the HadCRUT3 dataset published a negative value for the best estimate anomaly was 1985.

1983 0.187

1984 -0.011

1985 -0.018

1986 0.022

You might also observe that because it goes down one year, we can't use this to predict a trend as HadCRUT3 from the late 1990's shows...

1995 0.276

1996 0.123

1997 0.355

1998 0.515

1999 0.262

Unless you look at long term trends your numbers are totally meaningless.

Today in Davis, CA. 101 Degrees

Forecast for tomorrow. 103 Degrees

All time record for tomorrow's date 101 Degrees

Tomorrow's forecast for Seattle, WA 87 Degrees

All time record for tomorrow's date. 85 Degrees

Oh, it's real alright.

Junk Science: McCain’s Embarrassing Climate Speech

Thursday , May 15, 2008

By Steven Milloy

While no one knows who first uttered the sentiment "It’s better to say nothing and seem a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt," Republican presidential hopeful John McCain’s speech this week on climate change certainly supports the phrase’s validity.

McCain spoke at the facilities of Vestas Wind Technology, an Oregon-based firm that manufactures wind-power systems. The irony of the setting was rich given McCain’s outspoken opposition to pork-barrel spending.

He even risked his presidential hopes by criticizing ethanol subsidies ahead of the all-important Iowa caucuses. Next to solar power, however, wind power is the most heavily subsidized form of energy.

Taxpayers cough up an astounding $23.37 per megawatt hour of electricity produced, according to the Wall Street Journal. In contrast, coal and natural gas are only subsidized to a tune of 44 cents and 25 cents, respectively.

McCain lauded wind as a "predictable source of energy." He must have missed this Feb. 27 headline from Reuters: "Loss of wind causes Texas power grid emergency." The electric grid operator was forced to curtail 1,100 megawatts of power to customers within 10 minutes.

"Our economy depends upon clean and affordable alternatives to fossil fuels," McCain stated.

What he’s talking about is not quite clear since our current economy is about 75 percent dependent on fossil fuels and will remain that way for at least the next 25 years, as solar and wind technologies remain only marginal sources of energy.

If anything, we are likely to be even more dependent on fossil fuels in the future as nuclear power, which provides about 20 percent of our electricity, shrinks in availability as a supply of energy.

Although our energy needs are ever-growing, construction of nuclear power plants is not keeping pace — not one has come online in the last 30 years. Even if a few nuke plants are constructed during the next decades, they will not supply enough power to keep nuclear power at the 20 percent level.

McCain then demonstrated how little he knows about the science of global warming.

"No longer do we need to rely on guesswork and computer modeling, because satellite images reveal a dramatic disappearance of glaciers, Antarctic ice shelves and polar ice sheets. And I’ve seen some of this evidence up close…"

Global warming alarmism, however, is entirely based on the "guesswork and computer modeling" that McCain says isn’t necessary. The reason the United Nations relies on "guesswork and computer modeling" is because the glaciers that are receding have been doing so since at least the 19th century, before significant human output of greenhouse gases.

In any event, the melting of glaciers is not evidence that humans are involved. Glaciers have been advancing and retreating for hundreds of millions of years. Just because humans are witnessing changes in glaciers does not mean that humans are causing them; moreover, Antarctic ice is expanding while any melting of Arctic ice is not likely due to warmer air temperatures.

"We have seen sustained drought in the Southwest and across the world average temperatures that seem to reach new records every few years. We have seen a higher incidence of extreme weather events," McCain stated.

But that "sustained drought" is why the Southwest is commonly known as a "desert" — and it was a desert long before industrial emissions of greenhouse gases.

As to global temperature, the world has cooled since 1998 and the latest research from U.N.-approved researchers indicates that more global cooling is on the way. With respect to extreme weather events, I can’t think of a single scientist — even an alarmist scientist — who has the temerity to stand up and link specific weather events with climate change.

McCain’s apparent climate mentor, Al Gore, learned this lesson the hard way last fall.

McCain touted a so-called cap-and-trade system for controlling greenhouse gas emissions, citing the supposed success of the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments’ cap-and-trade system for the sulfur dioxide emissions linked to the alleged phenomenon of acid rain.

But even if acid rain were a genuine environmental problem — and studies leading up to the 1990 law cast significant doubt — controlling sulfur dioxide emissions is many orders of magnitude easier than controlling greenhouse gas emissions.

The volume of sulfur dioxide emissions to be eliminated is much smaller, the sources (coal-fired power plants) are relatively few and the smokestack technology is comparatively inexpensive.

McCain said that "A cap-and-trade policy will send a signal that will be heard and welcomed all across the American economy." This is unlikely since cap-and-trade’s economic harms have been exposed and condemned by the likes of the Congressional Budget Office, the Environmental Protection Agency and renown economists such as Alan Greenspan and Arthur Laffer.

Even the Clinton administration warned of the economic harms that would be caused by cap-and-trade.

Although China, the world’s biggest greenhouse gas emitter, vows not to reduce its emissions, McCain says the U.S. should act anyway. So as China, India and other developing nations become the world's greenhouse gas smokestacks, thereby nullifying any reductions made by the U.S., McCain willingly condemns the U.S. to more expensive and less available energy supplies for no environmental benefit whatsoever.

Undaunted by facts, McCain appears to be programmed with every nonsensical green platitude and policy — a truly worrisome situation since global warming regulation is shaping up to be the most important domestic policy issue of the upcoming election.

Many McCain supporters believe he is the candidate to lead the country at a time of war. But there is a war of sorts at home, too — the struggle against the greens for control over vital domestic energy and economic policy. We can’t afford to lose the latter war, either.

Steven Milloy publishes JunkScience.com and DemandDebate.com. He is a junk science expert, advocate of free enterprise and an adjunct scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

mwangibabangi wrote:

Today in Davis, CA. 101 Degrees

Forecast for tomorrow. 103 Degrees

All time record for tomorrow's date 101 Degrees

Tomorrow's forecast for Seattle, WA 87 Degrees

All time record for tomorrow's date. 85 Degrees

Oh, it's real alright.

Yup, since this thread started on the premise that cold temps in one city spelled doom for those that believe in global warming, then I guess we can end it on the heat wave hitting the west now.

In San Fran it might hit 100 today, in many parts of the west/northwest, it will be TWENTY degrees above normal.

Okay OP, we played by your rules, and so now global warming is real, right???

SC24 wrote:

A quick update on global warming.

~29 degrees in Denver this morning, snow is expected on Monday night and Tuesday morning. The record low for today was 28, so we missed it by one degree.

12 inches of snow was forecast for Winter Park, Colorado in the latter half of last week.

Solar Cycle 24 is putting a crimp in the style of the Global Warming crowd.

mwangibabangi wrote:

Today in Davis, CA. 101 Degrees

Forecast for tomorrow. 103 Degrees

All time record for tomorrow's date 101 Degrees

Tomorrow's forecast for Seattle, WA 87 Degrees

All time record for tomorrow's date. 85 Degrees

Oh, it's real alright.

He's right. The thread is over.

You know what is really "embarassing" mr. GOP Voter?

Quoting Steven Millory as an expert on anything. They guy is shill for the oil, gas and tobacco industries. A man who once claimed the harmful effects of smoking are debatable.

This dillhole has the balls to call real science as "junk" because is doesn't agree with his corporate masters or his paycheck. And ignorat people like you believe it! What does the GOP have against intellect?

And to further play the game. I keep hearing about cooling temperatures, but it turns out that the "cool" first quarter of the year was the 14th warmest on record.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2008/apr/global.html

so the point we've come up with, that we all can a agree on is that, there isnt enough data for any of it... so stop being a liberal prick/pawn and stop your scientifically proven bull, because there is absolutely no evidence of global warming from an unbiased, reliable source... because according to global warming wannabe's water vapour is a "greenhouse gas" want to dry out the atmosphere? s

hey dingus - if you look at the rate of cooling, it was ~.6 C cooler on average - that is huge!

the guys at noaa in boulder are doing all they can to cover their a$$es at the moment and are now putting a nice spin on things. one a$$hat scientist was running his mouth back in 2004 in the Colorado Daily - he didn't appreciate the lifting of his comments and pasting them into an email addressed to him along with the suggestion that perhaps he should be a bit more guarded in his comments.

just wanting to point out that solar physicists and astronomers has been an established science for a number of years. climatologists on the other hand, are but mere children when compared to astronomers and physicists.

you guys look like idiots arguing about temperature change.

who cares about temperature?

the real point is pollution and oil consumption. CO2 emissions are a byproduct of this. Reguardless of the temperature, the point is that the environment's being affected negatively, and there's no reason for this pollution.

arguing about the temperature is about the dumbest thing I've heard of.

"no I'm right it's hot"

"no I'm right it's cold"

"no it's hot!"

"no it's cold!"

Ummmm, do you even know what you're arguing about?

Troll 45 wrote:

you guys look like idiots arguing about temperature change.

who cares about temperature?

the real point is pollution and oil consumption. CO2 emissions are a byproduct of this. Reguardless of the temperature, the point is that the environment's being affected negatively, and there's no reason for this pollution.

arguing about the temperature is about the dumbest thing I've heard of.

"no I'm right it's hot"

"no I'm right it's cold"

"no it's hot!"

"no it's cold!"

Ummmm, do you even know what you're arguing about?

You don't even know what you're talking about. CO2 isn't a pollutant, in fact, mans contribution is less than 2 tenths of a percent.

Remember that large amount of snowcover in January and February? Well, it all disappeared soon, and snowcover was far below normal in March:

http://moe.met.fsu.edu/snow/

(scroll down to the graph below the first two pictures)

Oh, and BTW, snowcover is a bit below normal now. "Normal" refers to the average snowcover between 1996 and 2005, which was actually a warm period compared to the mid-late 20th century.

Al Gore Eco-hypocrite wrote:

You don't even know what you're talking about. CO2 isn't a pollutant, in fact, mans contribution is less than 2 tenths of a percent.

You don't even know what YOU'RE talking about. I didn't call it a pollutant. I said it was a byproduct of the pollution and destruction that was being caused. Just like temperature. Who cares if the temperature changes? We should all care about what we're doing to the planet that provides our habitat.