By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
We have a LOT of common ground. Vote the Cap n Traders out of Congress in 2010.
Even if MMGW is true, there will STILL be ice storms, snow storms, heatwaves, mudslides, floods, hurricanes, "coldest day EVERs" etc etc.
You mean because they are moving to cleaner power sources than dirty coal they might charge you more?
That move has it's own merits, and does not need AlGore to show it's benefits.
The trend has been up since the mid-70s. It might be trending a little flatter or down right now.
The 00's were one of the hottest decades on record, apparently.
The question remains: Why?
Apparently in the minds of those who wanted to prove GW, and those who feel peer pressure to also support GW, and it may be warming very, very slightly; those same people screwed up their believability by 1) proclaiming to have answers when the models are crude and the working of the climate is not understood, 2) adjusting and losing data, and 3) using totally unproven remarks - such as the demise of the Himalayan glaciers - a statement surely meant to scare the global populace!
Leaving that glacier remark in that report was as accidental as when I see a pricing mistake on my supermarket receipt, and 99% of the time I'm overcharged (has anyone noticed that they give you the difference, but it sure doesn't look like they're fixing the price on the computer system, and others will get overcharged?).
The trend has been up since the mid-70s. It might be trending a little flatter or down right now.
OK. Why's that any different than when the glaciers were a mile thick here in NH, and the climate changed and they melted away? The climate has changed up and down for 4 billion years, far more extreme than what the IPCC thinks is going to happen in another 100-200 years.
The 00's were one of the hottest decades on record, apparently
And that is a few hundred years out of 4 billion? What was it you said over in the Toyota-recall forum the other day? Something like why is everyone getting concerned when it's only a few hundred Priuses out of millions sold. :P
Recent temperature TRENDS are important. Temps that happened 50 million years ago are irrelevant because that planet is not this planet any longer.
Temps trending high means something is warming up the Earf. What? Temps trending down means something is cooling the Earf. Why?
Just as Toyota recall TRENDS are important.
Toyota recalls trending high means Toyota quality (in specific areas) might be falling down a little bit. Why?
But that does not mean that EVERY OTHER Toyota built in the last xx years (the ones not involved in the recall) is a piece of crap. All it means is that the cars which have the problems are the ones which have the problems. It also means that all the (hugely higher number) other Toyotas are fine.
The question remains: Why?
Three points:
One. Valid climate data for that time period simply does not exist. It is all tainted.
Two. Your question should be "why not". Weather is very fickle. It is always changing.
Three. Ten years is not enough time to show a trend. Get back to me in about 1000 years.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
Sure, they're more important to US.
Temps that happened 50 million years ago are irrelevant because that planet is not this planet any longer
No they are important to the issue of understanding if what we're experiencing is normal or abnormal. If the Sun rose in the East everyday of my life, then I understand tomorrow morning that the Sun rising in the East is normal. Only by looking and remembering history, do I know that if the sun rises in the West tomorrow that that is abnormal.
Why?
It is always nice to know "why". But because we know that the climate has gone up and down many times, and this is natural despite us not knowing why exactly, because the earth's climate today is going up or down, does not lead me to the conclusion that mankind is doing it.
But that does not mean that EVERY OTHER Toyota built in the last xx years (the ones not involved in the recall) is a piece of crap. All it means is that the cars which have the problems are the ones which have the problems.
If it is a software issue then every vehicle built using that software has the problem. You should know from the history of Microsoft's updates over the years, that they have had hundreds of bugs in the software. They do not affect everyone's PC because certain situations must be happening for the problem to become apparent. Even if a defect is in something more material like a tire, not everyone is going to experience a failure. Some tires may fail in the first month, others at 10,000 miles, and the majority may just wear-out. If failing tires from a manufacturer are killing people then all the tires must be recalled and sorted through if they can tell the good from the bad.
When Toyota can tell the consumer the source of the problems, that they can diagnose the problem, and they'll look at each potential vehicle and replace the part or update the software, that's when we'll know all the defects have been found or fixed.
Every single computer with "operating system version xyz" might have a bug that gets through testing. Then that bug finally gets found out when one of the thousands or hundreds of thousands of users creates the scenario which will demonstrate the negative effect of the bug, in the form of an error message, or a lockup, or a "Blue Screen of Death."
Now, that does NOT mean that EVERY computer with that operating system will crash because of that bug. Only the ones who force the program to line up the perfect set of circumstances that will create the problem.
Same with cars.
Software in the car will "fail" only with a certain set of circumstances. That's why EVERY SINGLE CAR which might have the "acceleration bug" or the "braking bug" has not accelerated out of control and/or had a braking issue. It's because that particular set of circumstances that will create the problem has not occurred.
So those cars are most likely safe and can be recalled and updated and likely NEVER have the bug occur on the road.
Ah, not so fast my friend.
If this current storm lives up to the OMG!!! hype (unlikely, but the red glaring headlines on Drudge are fun), it will lend credence to the theory that global warming causes more frequent weather extremes.
I have to call my sister in Virginia now and make sure she's stocked up on milk and toilet paper for the duration.
(ha, I was right, got her machine. She's surely out emptying the shelves at the grocery store).
We have gone over this several times. The State of CA has mandated alternative energy such as wind and solar. SDG&E must provide 20% by this year or pay fines to the state for excess CO2. We have not had any coal power in SoCA in decades. It is mostly natural gas. That is not an alternative. As I have also pointed out several wind and solar projects are on hold due to other government agencies, Environmentalists and the NIMBYs. So far the only success has been adding wind generators on Indian reservations where the STINKING environmentalists have no say. Those fines and millions spent to try and put in alternative power has raised our utility bills to some of the highest rates in the USA.
You use a lot more dirty coal power in AZ than we do in CA. Think about that when you turn on your AC.
Oh, I do think about, but just like you in your situation, I'm powerless to change that. I just complain less about it than you do....:)
That's why my solar panels are now on my roof. Most of the day I'm feeding the grid now. Solar panels went online last Friday. Have generated about $26 so far.
The record that DC/Baltimore needs to beat was set way back in the dark ages of February, 2003. :shades:
DC's record goes back to 1922.
They are merely weather events.
I saw that in that movie "The Day after Tomorrow". There was so much warming, most of the world was frozen. :confuse: Up is Down, and Left is Right. You are now asleep and under my control.
But their frequency of occurrence may be indicators of climate change. We're not talking weather variability but more frequent extremes.
It's in all the green blogs.
By doing that, they can safely (by their rationalization) "Poo-Poo" any future Global Warming data that comes out.
Very convenient for them. Makes their having to come up with a real argument a moot point.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
No. I do not see where the IPCC scientists have claimed those e-mails talking of how to manipulate data to meet the current expected warming , weren't really their e-mails. "The "opposite of Warmers" uncovered the truth and put it out there for everyone to read.
What I want is scientists who are not prejudice to look at the issue. This means the data and models are presented unadulterated and with all their flaws and missing pieces of information to be available.
I do not want to see the lead scientists who are looking into GW to a) having financial investments that will benefit based on their results, b) being paid advisors and speakers to environmental or corporate groups, and c) to have a history that shows they have no prejudice on the issue (to be more like a judge, rather than a prosecutor).
If you want to blame anyone for making the IPCC look foolish, you have no further than the IPCC people who wrote things that incriminate themselves, or to put flimsy unsubstantiated scare-propaganda of melting Himalayan glaciers in their most prestigous reports.
Netherlands adds to UN climate report controversy
Feb 5 08:36 AM US/Eastern
The Netherlands has asked the UN climate change panel to explain an inaccurate claim in a landmark 2007 report that more than half the country was below sea level, the Dutch government said Friday.
According to the Dutch authorities, only 26 percent of the country is below sea level, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will be asked to account for its figures, environment ministry spokesman Trimo Vallaart told AFP.
The incident could cause further embarrassment for the IPCC, which recently admitted a claim in the same report that global warming could melt Himalayan glaciers by 2035 was wrong.
IPCC experts calculated that 55 percent of the Netherlands was below sea level by adding the area below sea level -- 26 percent -- to the area threatened by river flooding -- 29 percent -- Vallaart said.
"They should have been clearer," Vallaart said, adding that the Dutch office for environmental planning, an IPCC partner, had exact figures.
Correcting the error had been "on the agenda several times" but had never actually happened, Vallaart said.
The spokesman said he regretted the fact that proper procedure was not followed and said it should not be left to politicians to check the IPCC's numbers.
The Dutch environment ministry will order a review of the report to see if it contains any more errors, Vallaart said.
I am amazed that it could snow in DC, what with all the 'hot air' coming out of congress, the trillions of dollars being burned on 'hare-brained BO schemes', and all the heat from 'The People' holding Dems feet to the fire!!
I will start thinking about surviving GW, but after I see if we survive BO!! :sick: :lemon:
As the old song says: "It was so hot, I froze to death!"! :shades:
Let me fill in for the naive scam-supporters. "Gary now c'mon you know the Netherlands is very small, and GW is a global problem. So what if this Netherlands information is in error; the author can make a mistake and everything else in the report is accurate. I know it's accurate because the authors said it was accurate. The authors have the data and the computer model, and the scientists of this group have well funded grants to work on this issue, and prove that the data and models agree. And all you folks from around the country and world who keep posting year after year after year that the weather is cold and the beaches the same as they were 40 years ago, should be ashamed of yourselfs for reporting this, as these paid scientists with their political backers have proven that it is warming other places."
Well now that I've helped the pro-GW group here, I'll go get some orange juice. I'm guessing though that I'm going to have to give that up this year, as all that GW a few weeks ago killed off the citrus crop in Florida.
That really is not the issue. The issue is do we want to understand the change taking place. Humans build cities and infrastructure on the coasts of all oceans. A three foot rise in sea level would destroy a lot of infrastructure and displace tens of millions of people. Regardless of the exact cause, we should try to understand the issue. I would rather be proactive if possible.
"... the Earth's average temperature is 59F, which is substantially below the optimum human comfort-zone. "
This is not about the optimum comfort zone. GCC is about the impacts to all the systems both human and non-human. Will a change bring permanent drought to California and other states? What other changes can we expect? What are the impacts?
And what is your point? We can read about drought and famine all the way back to Bible times. You really think man can change the climate to be perfect year round? How much will it cost me? We have built up enough debt that my grandson's will be living in 3rd world conditions trying to pay it back. All the money spent on studies will NOT change the climate, temperature, frequency of hurricanes one little bit. It is tax dollars down the TOILET of history. With nothing to show but a bunch of fraudulent reports by the biggest bunch of frauds on the planet. The United Nations.
Maybe if those scientists would go spend their time developing crops to grow in adverse places they could be of some service to their fellow man. Instead of sitting around in fancy resorts trying to figure out how to screw the US taxpayer along with others out of $billions of dollars.
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/cndy/2010-02/05/content_9431578.htm
"It's high time for all of us to take global warming seriously and think about what we can do to save the earth."
I don't know, there are some many things a person could say about this article. First, this is not about saving the Earth. GCC is all about understanding climate and how it will impact various systems. :mad:
China daily is the state run news outlet so.......
I wonder if seriously means they will slow their economic expansion to limit GHGs. Probably not. [This would be a good place for that Bob Newhart sarcasm emotorcon]
Anyway, it gave me an excuse to go check out what wikipedia says about coal production and auto production.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_power_in_China
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_automotive_industry
Automobile production by year Year Production (in million units)
1992 1.0
1999 1.2
2000 2.07
2001 2.33
2002 3.25
2003 4.44
2004 5.07
2005 5.71
2006 7.28
2007 8.88
2008 9.35
2009 13.83
I think we can guess where all that new Iraq oil will be going!!!
The top IPCC liar is trying his writing style on a different kind of fiction. If you fail at one try another.
Revealed: the racy novel written by the world's most powerful climate scientist
The chair of the UN's panel on climate change Dr Rajendra Pachauri has taken a break from writing academic papers on global warming to pen a racy romantic novel.
In breathless prose that risks making Dr Pachauri, who will be 70 this year, a laughing stock among the serious, high-minded scientists and world leaders with whom he mixes, he details sexual encounter after sexual encounter.
The book, which makes reference to the Kama Sutra, starts promisingly enough as it tells the story of a climate expert with a lament for the denuded mountain slopes of Nainital, in northern India, where deforestation by the timber mafia and politicians has "endangered the fragile ecosystem".
But talk of "denuding" is a clue of what is to come.
GW Porn
Stay tuned to hear about sea turtle eggs cooking as a result of so called GW.
" All the money spent on studies will NOT change the climate, temperature, frequency of hurricanes one little bit."
The studies will not change anything except our understanding. We do not know what our best options are yet. We may end up riding out the storm so to speak..
According to your logic we should shut down all the weather centers. Science is bogus according to you. Let people get whacked by hurricanes, tornadoes and storms. It would be much better if we are :surprise: ddddd
" Instead of sitting around in fancy resorts trying to figure out how to screw the US taxpayer along with others out of $billions of dollars. "
Interesting statement. It describes almost exactly what CEOs/businesses do. I would change it just a bit to read:
They sit around fancy offices or resorts trying to figure out how to sell useless products and services worth trillions of dollars just so that they can have millions of dollars to buy luxury versions of those same useless goods and services.
And so it goes....
"Global Warming"
The purpose of which is to control your Life, LIberty, and Property. Trillion's are at stake.
It seems that the public schools have accomplished their mission.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
I would agree with that. But then why should they limit their growth?
"By 2016 we will be living in tent cities eating soylent green",
A rather pessimistic comment don't you think? So really you are a doom and gloomer just like the AGW crowd. I am beginning to see why this topic gets so heated. People from opposite ends bring their uncompromising & opposite beliefs to the table.
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6031#more
"And it has NOTHING to do with GW.'
Ok, so why do you keep talking about it?
"We are being forced into a downward spiral by the ideology that spawned the GW scam. "
No, the ideology you refer to is really the "free market" grow forever economics that is creating the issues. All those free market folks thought it was "cute" when McDonalds first showed up in China. Oh look, they are becoming like America. Yup, they sure are. The problem is that the little primates in America didn't realize that once the 800 pound gorilla in China started eating bananas there would be less for the other primates. And there is nothing the other monkeys can do about it.
http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/mcs/2010/mcs2010.pdf
http://www.popsci.com/cars/article/2009-09/your-prius-hogging-all-rare-metals
Science may not know all the "why's", but science has documented quite extensively that the continents, their shape, the climate and sea-levels have been changing since the beginning of time. There are many, many thousands of books documenting this, based on physical fossil proof.
I wish unbiased climatologists and scientologists all the luck in trying to understand Nature. They have not made a very good case that the change occurring now, is significantly different than any other changes that naturally occurred during many millenia.
GCC is about the impacts to all the systems both human and non-human. Will a change bring permanent drought to California and other states?
GCC is not MMGW. GCC as been happening naturally for several billion years. The Sahara was full of animal and plant life not too many thousands of years ago. The American West could turn into the next Sahara and that really wouldn't be that shocking. The Earth has been frozen solid all the way to the equator. It could naturally happen again. Your 3' rise in sea-level and such examples are pittances compared to what Nature does on its own.
One medium size asteroid or comet impact far surpasses anything mankind can do. The energy emanating from the Sun and striking the earth's atmosphere far surpasses the energy mankingd can produce. The biomass of the earth produces about 95% of the CO2, again far surpassing what man puts out. ...
That is the tactic used by the warmers to discredit the skeptics. IF AGW is so conclusive, why the fear by so called scientists of peer review and opposing studies?
Interesting statement. It describes almost exactly what CEOs/businesses do.
Nice try at diversion. There is a difference between CEOs wasting stockholder's money, in fancy resorts, and politicians and their lackey scientists wasting our tax dollars. We just got a close up of the whole business in Copenhagen. $600 a night rooms with caviar cocktail parties. And nothing done because the emerging World does not want to stay in the caves.
I think you are taking a very myopic view of the whole Climate Change issue. And if it is your livelihood I can understand it. Scientists are known for a very tight focus on their area of expertise. They run into trouble when they link up with politicians that want to use them for their own evil ends. The Hansen Gore unholy alliance is a prime example. And of course the UN/IPCC is totally political with a smattering of science to fool the masses.
No one's against study of the climate. It can be reasonably funded as it has since the science started. What we are against is the use of the science to prematurely conclude MMGW is significant (I"m sure we do some small amount), in order to further environmentalists' general goals, and to gain people $$ and power from this issue.
As you noted China is greatly increasing it's industrialization and auto ownership. So are many other areas of the world, such as India. The fact is that with global growth any and all resources will be used. None of these countries and people around the world are willingly going to agree not to increase their lifestyles, they simply want the developed world to cut-back on their resource use, and willingly give our place in the world-order to them. This was pretty much the conclusion of those that reported on Copenhagen, and why the Kyoto agreement also was weak.
I have used the same argument with a slightly different slant. Basically we are trading one import, OIL, for another rare earth materials. When a much simpler solution would be to use less oil with simple diesel engines to reduce our consumption by at least 30% and probably more. Hybrids are a poor substitute with all the exotic metals and technology required. We are not going to manufacture the batteries here. We don't manufacture the solar panels that some think are the perfect solution.
I agree that we have played a part in China becoming the big gorilla. I think it was inevitable. You cannot keep countries isolated with satellite TV beaming our opulent lifestyle around the globe. You can go to some of the most remote villages in Africa and see a satellite dish attached to a mud hut. Do you think they will be happy if you want them to give up electricity to power their TV. Not only that they want a vehicle to drive like everyone else. And a refrigerator. So much talk of the Chinese passing US buying cars. Think about how much electricity it takes to put a refrigerator in every Chinese & Indian home. Then you understand why China is building a new coal fired generation plant every week.
That's what this is all about.
The case is being made as we speak. We are still early on in the process of discovery. I am not in a panic about this. The level of funding is OK in my opinion. I am not for some of the draconian measures some people propose, like shutting down all the coal power plants or cap & trade. I would like to see a few more observational satellites over time. They would give us a better understanding of our weather and climate.
" Your 3' rise in sea-level and such examples are pittances compared to what Nature does on its own. '
Not necessarily, the rate is the key factor. If we continue to see a change of about 3 mm + 10% or so a year I wouldn't get very excited. People will adapt. If on the other hand the rate should start increase to 10mm+ per year and exponentially, then we will probably want to look a little closer at the issue. In any case, I think we have time to study the issue. In another decade or two we will have a better understanding of the issues.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise
Now we are sharing common ground. I think if you look at the skeptics overall, it was those crazy tax and spend ideas you point to that raised the level of dispute. Cleaning up coal fired plants is a good plan. The campaign rhetoric of "NO MORE COAL". Was sheer idiocy. We have lots of coal. Burn it as cleanly as possible. Nothing we do is perfectly clean and safe. Wind and Solar are far from perfect sources of energy. Alternatives are good to fill in the gaps. Common sense must prevail.
Science is rarely conclusive, but sometimes you should act on what you know at the time. Papers are peer reviewed. There are opposing studies.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100205091825.htm
"How Well Do Scientists Understand How Changes in Earth's Orbit Affect Long-Term Natural Climate Trends?"
As you can see scientists keep plugging away.
"I think you are taking a very myopic view of the whole Climate Change issue."
No, quite the opposite, I am open to the idea that man could be influencing the climate a little or a lot. Your position is the more narrow view that man is not impacting climate in a meaningful way. I do agree with you in general that we should not implement costly "solutions". My reasoning is that we do not have enough information to determine exactly how man is impacting the climate. Understanding and accurate predictions come before costly solutions.
Myopic: unable or unwilling to act prudently; shortsighted. lacking tolerance or understanding; narrow-minded.
By using terms like "evil ends" and "unholy alliance" a person would get the impression you were preparing to fight a holy war. Get a grip on your senses.
Overall, I am pretty optimistic about how things are going. People are continuing to make minor changes. The technology continues to provide new and better solutions. One only has to look at the VW L1 concept to see the potential down the road - 170 mpg and CO2 emissions of about 60g/mile? as opposed to about 422g/mile for the average vehicle in 2009.
http://www.wired.com/autopia/2009/09/volkswagen-l1-concept/
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/cert/mpg/fetrends/420r09014.pdf
Consider the 2011 Hyundai Sonata, it is projected to get 23/35 mpg and 200 HP (6.5 tons CO2/yr?). Back in 2001 the Sonata was only 138 HP and 18/26 mpg (8.7 tons CO2). I call that progress. :shades:
It is a holy war against a group with cult like beliefs. If people like Gore kept to the TV and maybe Universities, I would not mind so much. The AGW cult has infiltrated the grade schools telling our little children that if mommy and daddy don't repent and get rid of their SUV all the polar bears will die. To me that is teaching a religion as much as if an Islamic Cleric were allowed to go into the schools and spread their religion.
OK, the myopic adjective does not fit you. Accept my apology.
I don't watch TV and radio is very hit and miss in the car going to the store or PO. The person that really got me to thinking about the subject of AGW was John Coleman. He hits the weather right more than any of the other weathermen. It is hard for me to believe anyone can predict the weather 100 years from now when most have a hard time getting it right 24 hours in advance.
And another fun link from Desmogblog.com:
Hockey stick bashers revealed as industry goons
Lord Monckton Thrashes DeSmog Blog Editor in High-Profile Global Warming Debate
DeSmog Blog editor Richard Littlemore concedes defeat
News Releases > August 2008
Lord Christopher Monckton, a global warming expert and former senior policy advisor to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, has challenged Al Gore, and other ardent proponents of the theory that humans are causing a global warming crisis, to publicly debate the issue.
While Gore and most other prominent proponents of alarmist global warming theory refuse to publicly debate or defend their claims, Richard Littlemore, editor of the DeSmog Blog Web site, agreed to debate Lord Monckton on Sunday, August 17, on Canada’s Corus radio network. Corus host Roy Green moderated the debate.
Green
Let me have Lord Christopher respond to that.
Monckton
Well let’s first of all begin on this question of funding, and let us talk about the funding for DeSmog Blog. Now DeSmog Blog was founded with $300,000 of money from a man called John Lefebvre who is an Internet gaming fraudster convicted last year of making hundreds of millions of dollars -- a large chunk of which he is now being made to pay back to the U.S. government -- by unlawfully laundering money to do with unlawful Internet gaming.
He is the person who got into bed with Mr. Littlemore’s boss at a PR [public relations] company, a Mr. James Haugen, and they took up the DeSmog Blog, whose job of course is not to debate the science of climate, but to inaccurately misrepresent the alleged or supposed or imagined funding of anyone who dares to challenge the supposed consensus on the climate. So let’s get that thing clear first of all. DeSmog Blog was founded, is funded, and is run by a convicted and self-confessed crook, and furthermore that crook is now in the business of running a solar energy corporation and therefore has a direct vested interest in peddling the climate change scare.
I would start by making it clear that Mr. Littlemore is a public relations executive working for a convicted Internet fraudster.
The Debate
Pew Environment Report Says Melting Arctic Could Cost a Minimum of $2.4 Trillion by 2050
http://www.pewtrusts.org/our_work_report_detail.aspx?id=57161
Near the end of the report they state:
"For the year 2010, the estimated global costs are $371 billion. This rises to a cumulative total by 2050 of $24.1 trillion. Over the century, the cumulative economic costs are estimated to be $91.3 trillion." :surprise:
I did not see all that many details on how they arrive at the costs. The benefit to ocean shipping didn't appear to be listed, but it is getting late and maybe I missed something.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pew_Charitable_Trusts