Yep - I'm no climatologist, but my science background says if you took larsb's chart back to the time when the glaciers covered North America, that the average temperature might have been in the 30's F. or the fact that there is so much oil in Alaska and Siberia indicate that they were once much warmer having had large amounts of organic matter - like a jungle?
So has the Earth changed temperatures naturally - yes. I see nothing unnatural if the earth is warming. I do see a major problem with comparing temperatures taken from 125 years ago, 50 years ago and currently, as the devices' technology and precision would be completely different. I use Watlow PID temperature controllers in our factory, and though they are "calibrated", we can see differences between those of + or - 2F and yet call them accurate. Every instrument has measures of accuracy and precision, and the error of the observer reading something like a mercury thermometer.
Therefore I find it hard to believe any comparision of data from different eras. There has not been enough temperature increase or sea-level increase to really be noticeable. As I can still go to the same beach that I went to 45 years ago, I see nothing dramatic happening during that time-frame.
Now see here kernick, you are just being too darn rational and using your own common sense too much. You are not qualified to think for yourself, you are supposed to believe everything those discredited "scientists" have to say !
And you thought I wasn't reading your posts all these months. :shades:
Some people think the studies are just going to confirm most of the other studies though (i.e., that GW is human caused, or at least acerbated by people), and think the money would be better spent at this point on mitigation.
Since clamping down on emissions can have more benefits than negative impacts (even economically), I tend to commiserate with the AGW mitigation crowd. Your "Man's pollution is on a steadily upward swing" point perhaps.
Living off the grid for 5 weeks will do that to you.
That is why we cannot "assume to know" that Man is not having an effect.
Well looking at the graph that you posted in #8328, whether that +1-2F increase that is supposedly occurring (meaning can you trust 1880's temperature reading s with mercury thermometers to the current, it really is not much change. If it is accurate data - whether that little increase is natural or manmade, it is very, very small.
Negative or positive it may be, but all indicators I can find point to negative.
It certainly isn't. I don't know about you, but I like 70 - 75F. What's #8328 say the average temperature is? In the 50's right? That sounds too cold for me. There is much, much more land in the world that is uninhabitable because it is too cold to live there, or too cold to farm; then there is land where it is too hot to live. 30% of the Earth is sparsely populated because it is too darn cold. How much of the world is sparsely populated because it is too hot - 10%? most of which is the Sahara desert.
Face the facts, most of the population of the Earth likes warm weather. Most retirees in the U.S. move South. Most northern countries see little population growth compared to those in temperate and tropical regions. Life flourishes where it is warm - like in the Amazon. There are many positives to life in warmer climates.
like in the Amazon. There are many positives to life in warmer climates.
The Amazon and surrounding countries are experiencing the coldest winter ever. Lots more people and cattle are dying there from the cold than people dying from the heat. So the negatives of it being cold far outweigh the negatives of it getting warmer. Larsb must love it hot. He lives in the hottest part of the USA.
Of course we all know the that melting ice does not raise the levels of the ocean. That is just part of the lies from Al Gore's cult. Latest I read melting ice in the Arctic is more tied to wind direction than global warming.
Much of the record breaking loss of ice in the Arctic ocean in recent years is down to the region's swirling winds and is not a direct result of global warming, a new study reveals.
Ice blown out of the region by Arctic winds can explain around one-third of the steep downward trend in sea ice extent in the region since 1979, the scientists say.
The study does not question that global warming is also melting ice in the Arctic, but it could raise doubts about high-profile claims that the region has passed a climate "tipping point" that could see ice loss sharply accelerate in coming years.
Of course we all know the that melting ice does not raise the levels of the ocean.
Er, I think that's only if the ice is floating initially. Melting land ice would raise the level of an adjacent water body.
Think Eagle River - on a hot day, you can literally watch the water rise from the glacial melt from ankle high to thigh high over a few hours. So when you are hiking Crow Pass, you're better off hitting the river crossing earlier in the day.
If the Earf warms up enough to make the currently "uninhabitable" locales "habitable" then that means the current "hot spots" on Earf will them become TOO hot for habitation.
We may gain some land in Antarctica, but we'd lose the American southwest, the Middle East, North Africa, and many other hot spots in the currently configured world.
A river rising from snow or ice melt is a bit different than raising the level of an ocean. Any ocean. If it had risen over the last century due to man made pollution, I would think the AGW bunch would be showing the evidence. With some places having as much a 39 feet changes due to tidal action, one inch would not make much difference.
I doubt Antarctica will ever get that warm. However there is much known fertile soil in Canada and Greenland that would make dandy farms AGAIN if it got a few degrees warmer. The evidence is there. It was once productive farm land.
Relentlessly scorching temperatures have July flirting with the record books — the hottest month since weather data were first collected more than a century ago.
Cities such as New York, Washington and Las Vegas are on track to set record average temperatures for any month. Philadelphia, Phoenix and Raleigh, N.C., are on pace for their second-warmest month, the National Weather Service says.
The hottest month in U.S. history came during the Dust Bowl in July 1936, when the national average temperature for the 48 contiguous states hit 77.43 degrees, according to the National Climatic Data Center.
New York City's average temperature so far this month has been 81.8 degrees, which would break the city's record of 81.4 set in July 1999.
The typical July — the hottest month of the year — sees an average reading of 76.5 degrees in New York, whose records date to 1869.
"Never, ever, have I felt like this," says Arabinda Biswas, 41, who lives in the Bronx, delivers mail and works at an outdoor fruit stand in Manhattan. "The sun comes off the street and blinds my face. I sweat all day long, through all my clothes."
Cool weather in the Northwest may keep July from setting a national heat record, says Deke Arndt of the climatic data center. Much of the Midwest and Deep South have been significantly warmer than average in July, but no records should be set in those areas.
Las Vegas so far this month has recorded an average of 96.1 degrees, which would beat the previous record of 95.4 in July 2007.
July's national climate data will be released Aug. 9.
The heat is taking its toll.
"People just go nuts," says Tulio Martinez, 48, who lives in Queens and cooks at the China Grill in Midtown Manhattan. "People do things they're not supposed to do. They open the hydrants and go walking almost naked in the street."
People just go nuts," says Tulio Martinez, 48, who lives in Queens and cooks at the China Grill in Midtown Manhattan. "People do things they're not supposed to do. They open the hydrants and go walking almost naked in the street."
Throw some rum into the mix, and I'll be there. I'll save $1,500 on a week-vacation in Jamaica.
To all you Einstein's out there - if you build a city full of concrete and blacktop, without having a lot of greenery in-between, you're going to create quite the heat-sink. And then when you run your AC to cool the interior of the buildings, you dump that heat outside. Running your AC's make it hotter outside! So yes I can see how a city that is much bigger than 50 or 100 years ago, and now has AC in many buidings and houses, can register higher temperatures.
That is a VERY valid point. How much hot air do all the AC units in Las Vegas put out keeping the Casinos at a cool 70 degrees when it is 110 degrees outside. So in that case yes man has an impact on the temperature in the area they over build in.
Looking at LV temp they are right at normal for this time of year. I have been there in the summer many times when it hits 113 degrees. Still cooler than Lake Havasu where I was living at the time and flying out of Vegas.
So we have a concrete jungle with AC blowing hot air and people wonder why it is warmer in the cities. Duh :sick:
PS So we have the cities that are known to cause GW. First step is tear down all the cities and force people out into the country to live.
We are only talking one half of a degree rise in the last 130 years. That could easily be caused by big cities running AC much of the year. First step outlaw AC units. Next step demolish the cities. Dig caves in the surrounding hills and give people the option. Run for the hills or be blown up with these polluting cities. :shades:
You have convinced me that it is man using AC and building city heat sinks, that has caused the globe to warm. What are you planning to do about it? Phoenix and LV being the major portion of the problem, those are good places to level first. :P
My electric bill was about $81 for July (including solar lease payment).
Not good enough. Your AC is still spewing heated GHG out into the atmosphere. To the caves with ya. We got to level Phoenix. It is heating up the Eastern USA where all the important people live.
PS I would slit my wrist if I ever got an electric bill for $440.
I am amazed that a global warm period (if in fact we're in one) is considered a bad thing. This whole forum is based on this assumption and nobody has explained, to my satisfaction at least, why we make this assumption.
Ask a farmer in Europe during the medieval warming period what he thought about a little warming!
By the way, Willard Carrier and Henry Ford improved the quality of life for more Americans (And it is American lives which concern me most) than any environmentalist who ever lived.
And while I'm at it; "Where'd all the oil go?" Alarmist media strikes again. Mother nature trumps man's feeble machinations as usual.
My a/c runs from late April into Sept. 3 of my family are home all day in the summer. About 10 cents an hour to be comfortable. If I want to be colder, the basement is around 62 degrees year round. Would GW make it 63 degrees in the basement and 10.1 cents an hour for a/c? doesn't sound too scary. Cap and Trade? Obama is a huge beneficiary to the company that will be the carbon credits broker/auctioneer. Wonder if my coal derived home electric would go up by a mere 1% under Cap and Trade?
My guess is coal powered generators will be the major target of the scoundrels tied to Cap n Trade. It is just another tax on the middle class. Add those additional penalties to the electric users and the current inflation on most everything you buy and it is going to get tight for those on a budget.
Worst part is the Portland cops dropped the sex charges against the high priest of AGW and Grand Poobah of the Crazed Sex Poodles.
"The endangerment finding is based on years of science from the U.S. and around the world. These petitions -- based as they are on selectively edited, out-of-context data and a manufactured controversy -- provide no evidence to undermine our determination. Excess greenhouse gases are a threat to our health and welfare," said EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson. "Defenders of the status quo will try to slow our efforts to get America running on clean energy. A better solution would be to join the vast majority of the American people who want to see more green jobs, more clean energy innovation and an end to the oil addiction that pollutes our planet and jeopardizes our national security."
The basic assertions by the petitioners and EPA responses follow.
Claim: Petitioners say that emails disclosed from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit provide evidence of a conspiracy to manipulate global temperature data. Response: EPA reviewed every e-mail and found this was simply a candid discussion of scientists working through issues that arise in compiling and presenting large complex data sets. Four other independent reviews came to similar conclusions.
Claim: Petitioners say that errors in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report call the entire body of work into question. Response: Of the alleged errors, EPA confirmed only two in a 3,000 page report. The first pertains to the rate of Himalayan glacier melt and second to the percentage of the Netherlands below sea level. IPCC issued correction statements for both of these errors. The errors have no bearing on Administrator Jackson's decision. None of the errors undermines the basic facts that the climate is changing in ways that threaten our health and welfare.
Claim: Petitioners say that because certain studies were not included in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, the IPCC itself is biased and cannot be trusted as a source of reliable information. Response: These claims are incorrect. In fact, the studies in question were included in the IPCC report, which provided a comprehensive and balanced discussion of climate science.
Claim: Petitioners say that new scientific studies refute evidence supporting the Endangerment Finding. Response: Petitioners misinterpreted the results of these studies. Contrary to their claims, many of the papers they submit as evidence are consistent with EPA's Finding. Other studies submitted by the petitioners were based on unsound methodologies. Detailed discussion of these issues may be found in volume one of the response to petition documents, on EPA's website.
Climate change is already happening, and human activity is a contributor. The global warming trend over the past 100 years is confirmed by three separate records of surface temperature, all of which are confirmed by satellite data. Beyond this, evidence of climate change is seen in melting ice in the Arctic, melting glaciers around the world, increasing ocean temperatures, rising sea levels, shifting precipitation patterns, and changing ecosystems and wildlife habitats.
Did you expect any different from the EPA. Their jobs depend on being in compliance with the thinking of the President. That would be all the evidence they can get to push through Cap n Trade. Has NOTHING to do with good solid science, and everything to do with politics as usual. Just because the agency name starts with the word Environment, does not mean they are concerned about it.
PS If science was involved they would ask for more peer review and research. Not the same old Gore line, Its a Done Deal.
That argument works NOW, but what about the 8 Bush years?
While AGW had political overtones, Bush and then McCain jumped on the Wagon. They did not push for higher taxes to fight this unknown Boogie Man. CnT did not get much time in the discussion until the Dems took over Congress. States like CA have caused damage to our economy by jumping on the AGW without really thinking it through. It is Political. Has little to do with Honest Science. If it did there would not be the constant barrage of those that question the unproven scientific reports by CRU and the UN. Climategate gave those that are truly interested in FACTS another chance.
Sounds like a lot of "hemming and hawing" on your part.
Anyway, the EPA petition reply tells the real story of what ClimateGate REALLY was:
The EPA reviewed every e-mail and found this was simply a candid discussion of scientists working through issues that arise in compiling and presenting large complex data sets. Four other independent reviews came to similar conclusions.
Anyway, the EPA petition reply tells the real story of what ClimateGate REALLY was:
Only if you believe the EPA is an honest operation which most of American's DO NOT. Just like the lies from Toyota, Americans are tired of being lied to by our governments. City, State and Federal. The EPA is filled with power hungry individuals as are most of the Federal agencies. Your belief in them does not make them honest. That report by the Brits was shot down, when it was divulged the person making the report has a long history of saying what he is told to say. Sadly that is how you get ahead in government.
Well we see eye to eye on that subject. Your first clue on AGW was the "Done Deal" coming from the International folks. All of which stand to get money from the Good Ole USA. They were lined up at Copenhagen, like it was a soup kitchen during the depression or an iPhone store the first morning they are sold. From very early on those with opposing scientific evidence were shunned by the global AGW establishment. Many countries jumped on the bandwagon when it was not going to cost them anything. Australia was the first major country to say wait a minute. Then China, India and Russia. Who is left that believes? Who is left that does not have a money making agenda?
When the EPA was founded it was badly needed. It fulfilled the need and now is just resting on the laurels and trying to find new reasons for their existence. They should be downsized considerably along with most other agencies in the US government. Too much waste with little to show for it. Too much redundancy with CARB setting standards that are more strict. Either tell CA to butt out or let them set the standard for the rest of the USA. I am paying tax dollars for wasted duplication.
Heck larsb, it might be all the missing bees that are causing it to heat up. All those wings buzzing along acted like little fans to cool things off. Line up boys, we really need to study that one. Get out those grant applications. We simply must have more data and info on the bees....Bee population goes down, temp goes up. It's a done deal...
The last thing those "scientists" want to do is solve anything. They just want to keep studying, studying and studying some more.
Look at all the research and brainpower that goes into getting a new drug on the market these days. And look at the money those guys are raking in. Think for a minute and tell me how many serious diseases they have actually come up with a cure for in the last 50 years. I honestly can't think of anything they have cured and most of the time the new miracle drug has to be eventually recalled because it is worse than the disease.
But they still charge 10 times what their worthless drugs actually should cost in order to fund more...... "research".
Well, like anything else. there are examples both good and bad of virtually any action.
There are plenty of examples of "useful" research also.
Just because a disease has not been "cured" does not mean that there are no effective medications to control it.
Sometimes all we can do is control it (AIDS, Herpes, Flu) and that research is very helpful for the people living with the diseases.
I don't think anyone needs to be of the opinion that "research" is a naughty word.
P.S. Now, do I agree with you that drug companies make obscene amounts of money? Oh, Yes, they do. But the system supports that. Maybe it won't forever, but it does now.
I don't think anyone needs to be of the opinion that "research" is a naughty word.
It is the Feds that have made research grants a naughty word. Just look at what some of the stimulus money has gone to research. The sex lives of college women. Now that is something that should be useful. My guess more money is wasted on nonsense than useful research. Much is pay backs for political favors from corporate donors.
Whether or not the Tea Partiers end up being the catalyst, I hope a strong message is sent to Washington in November and that a bunch of the do nothing crooks are sent home, both Republicans and Democrats.
A chunk of ice four times the size of Manhattan has calved from Greenland's Petermann Glacier, scientists announced today.
The last time the Arctic lost such a large chunk of ice was in 1962.
"In the early morning hours of August 5, 2010, an ice island four times the size of Manhattan was born in northern Greenland," said Andreas Muenchow, associate professor of physical ocean science and engineering at the University of Delaware.
Satellite imagery of this remote area at 81 degrees north latitude and 61 degrees west longitude, about 620 miles (1,000 kilometers) south of the North Pole, reveals that Petermann Glacier lost about one-quarter of its 43-mile- (70-km-) long floating ice-shelf.
Trudy Wohlleben of the Canadian Ice Service discovered the ice island within hours after NASA's MODIS-Aqua satellite took the data on Aug. 5, at 8:40 UTC (4:40 EDT), Muenchow said.
Petermann Glacier, the parent of the new ice island, is one of the two largest remaining glaciers in Greenland that terminate in floating shelves. The glacier connects the great Greenland ice sheet directly with the ocean.
The new ice island has an area of at least 100 square miles (260 square kilometers) and a thickness up to half the height of the Empire State Building, which is 1,454 feet (443 meters) from the ground to the top of its lightning rod.
"The freshwater stored in this ice island could keep the Delaware or Hudson rivers flowing for more than two years. It could also keep all U.S. public tap water flowing for 120 days," Muenchow said.
So man in his wanting to control nature can get some tug boats and haul that berg up along the Eastern Seaboard and start using the massive supply of cool fresh water.
I don't think any of the AGW crowd can top this for ecological disasters caused by it being too warm. read the comments.
(3 Aug. 2010 - Update: The number of dead fish and other water-dependent wildlife has increased to about 6 million.) ---------- Over 1 million fish and thousands of alligators, turtles, dolphins and other river wildlife are floating dead in numerous Bolivian rivers in the three eastern/southern departments of Santa Cruz, Beni and Tarija. The extreme cold front that hit Bolivia in mid-July caused water temperatures to dip below the minimum temperatures river life can tolerate. As a consequence, rivers, lakes, lagoons and fisheries are brimming with decomposing fish and other creatures.
Unprecedented: Nothing like this has ever been seen in this magnitude in Bolivia. Inhabitants of riverside communities report the smell is nauseating and can be detected as far as a kilometer away from river banks. River communities, whose livelihoods depend on fishing, fear they'll run out of food and will have nothing to sell. Authorities are concerned there will be a shortage of fish in markets and are more concerned by possible threats to public health, especially in communities that also use river water for bathing and drinking, but also fear contaminated or decaying fish may end up in market stalls. They've begun a campaign to ensure market vendors and the public know how to tell the difference between fresh and unhealthy fish.
In university fish ponds and commercial fisheries the losses are also catastrophic.
Not to mention the 100s of people that have died as a direct result of the extreme cold temps in South America. I vote for whatever it takes to warm up the planet.
Gary says, "Not to mention the 100s of people that have died as a direct result of the extreme cold temps in South America. I vote for whatever it takes to warm up the planet. "
That number pales compared to the fate of Russia recently. Up to 5,000 dead so far.
Comments
So has the Earth changed temperatures naturally - yes. I see nothing unnatural if the earth is warming. I do see a major problem with comparing temperatures taken from 125 years ago, 50 years ago and currently, as the devices' technology and precision would be completely different. I use Watlow PID temperature controllers in our factory, and though they are "calibrated", we can see differences between those of + or - 2F and yet call them accurate. Every instrument has measures of accuracy and precision, and the error of the observer reading something like a mercury thermometer.
Therefore I find it hard to believe any comparision of data from different eras. There has not been enough temperature increase or sea-level increase to really be noticeable. As I can still go to the same beach that I went to 45 years ago, I see nothing dramatic happening during that time-frame.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
And you thought I wasn't reading your posts all these months. :shades:
Some people think the studies are just going to confirm most of the other studies though (i.e., that GW is human caused, or at least acerbated by people), and think the money would be better spent at this point on mitigation.
Since clamping down on emissions can have more benefits than negative impacts (even economically), I tend to commiserate with the AGW mitigation crowd. Your "Man's pollution is on a steadily upward swing" point perhaps.
Living off the grid for 5 weeks will do that to you.
BUT. We. Need. To. Know. If. We. Are.
And if there are steps we can take to pollute FAR FAR less.
Research is needed. Don't poo-poo any research grants. Let them do their work.
In the meantime, what we know SO FAR can help us pollute less.
Nothing we know about can or will change THAT aspect of climate.
BUT -
We have never before populated Earf with 6.5 billion peeps and all the accompanying pollution created by supporting that much life.
That is the "unknown" factor which cannot be re-created by looking at the past.
That is why we cannot "assume to know" that Man is not having an effect.
Negative or positive it may be, but all indicators I can find point to negative.
Well looking at the graph that you posted in #8328, whether that +1-2F increase that is supposedly occurring (meaning can you trust 1880's temperature reading s with mercury thermometers to the current, it really is not much change. If it is accurate data - whether that little increase is natural or manmade, it is very, very small.
Negative or positive it may be, but all indicators I can find point to negative.
It certainly isn't. I don't know about you, but I like 70 - 75F. What's #8328 say the average temperature is? In the 50's right? That sounds too cold for me. There is much, much more land in the world that is uninhabitable because it is too cold to live there, or too cold to farm; then there is land where it is too hot to live. 30% of the Earth is sparsely populated because it is too darn cold. How much of the world is sparsely populated because it is too hot - 10%? most of which is the Sahara desert.
Face the facts, most of the population of the Earth likes warm weather. Most retirees in the U.S. move South. Most northern countries see little population growth compared to those in temperate and tropical regions. Life flourishes where it is warm - like in the Amazon. There are many positives to life in warmer climates.
The Amazon and surrounding countries are experiencing the coldest winter ever. Lots more people and cattle are dying there from the cold than people dying from the heat. So the negatives of it being cold far outweigh the negatives of it getting warmer. Larsb must love it hot. He lives in the hottest part of the USA.
Of course we all know the that melting ice does not raise the levels of the ocean. That is just part of the lies from Al Gore's cult. Latest I read melting ice in the Arctic is more tied to wind direction than global warming.
Much of the record breaking loss of ice in the Arctic ocean in recent years is down to the region's swirling winds and is not a direct result of global warming, a new study reveals.
Ice blown out of the region by Arctic winds can explain around one-third of the steep downward trend in sea ice extent in the region since 1979, the scientists say.
The study does not question that global warming is also melting ice in the Arctic, but it could raise doubts about high-profile claims that the region has passed a climate "tipping point" that could see ice loss sharply accelerate in coming years.
Er, I think that's only if the ice is floating initially. Melting land ice would raise the level of an adjacent water body.
Think Eagle River - on a hot day, you can literally watch the water rise from the glacial melt from ankle high to thigh high over a few hours. So when you are hiking Crow Pass, you're better off hitting the river crossing earlier in the day.
If the Earf warms up enough to make the currently "uninhabitable" locales "habitable" then that means the current "hot spots" on Earf will them become TOO hot for habitation.
We may gain some land in Antarctica, but we'd lose the American southwest, the Middle East, North Africa, and many other hot spots in the currently configured world.
July Smokin' Hot
Relentlessly scorching temperatures have July flirting with the record books — the hottest month since weather data were first collected more than a century ago.
Cities such as New York, Washington and Las Vegas are on track to set record average temperatures for any month. Philadelphia, Phoenix and Raleigh, N.C., are on pace for their second-warmest month, the National Weather Service says.
The hottest month in U.S. history came during the Dust Bowl in July 1936, when the national average temperature for the 48 contiguous states hit 77.43 degrees, according to the National Climatic Data Center.
New York City's average temperature so far this month has been 81.8 degrees, which would break the city's record of 81.4 set in July 1999.
The typical July — the hottest month of the year — sees an average reading of 76.5 degrees in New York, whose records date to 1869.
"Never, ever, have I felt like this," says Arabinda Biswas, 41, who lives in the Bronx, delivers mail and works at an outdoor fruit stand in Manhattan. "The sun comes off the street and blinds my face. I sweat all day long, through all my clothes."
Cool weather in the Northwest may keep July from setting a national heat record, says Deke Arndt of the climatic data center. Much of the Midwest and Deep South have been significantly warmer than average in July, but no records should be set in those areas.
Las Vegas so far this month has recorded an average of 96.1 degrees, which would beat the previous record of 95.4 in July 2007.
July's national climate data will be released Aug. 9.
The heat is taking its toll.
"People just go nuts," says Tulio Martinez, 48, who lives in Queens and cooks at the China Grill in Midtown Manhattan. "People do things they're not supposed to do. They open the hydrants and go walking almost naked in the street."
Throw some rum into the mix, and I'll be there. I'll save $1,500 on a week-vacation in Jamaica.
To all you Einstein's out there - if you build a city full of concrete and blacktop, without having a lot of greenery in-between, you're going to create quite the heat-sink. And then when you run your AC to cool the interior of the buildings, you dump that heat outside. Running your AC's make it hotter outside! So yes I can see how a city that is much bigger than 50 or 100 years ago, and now has AC in many buidings and houses, can register higher temperatures.
Looking at LV temp they are right at normal for this time of year. I have been there in the summer many times when it hits 113 degrees. Still cooler than Lake Havasu where I was living at the time and flying out of Vegas.
So we have a concrete jungle with AC blowing hot air and people wonder why it is warmer in the cities. Duh :sick:
PS
So we have the cities that are known to cause GW. First step is tear down all the cities and force people out into the country to live.
They right now are just a few blips on the thousands of worldwide data points.
Wait, Wait, Gary. Hold on.
You are the one who has always stuck by the opinion that man can do NOTHING to influence global climate.
NOW to support another statement, you are backtracking and blaming a few cities (i.e. MAN) for RAISING THE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE????
I'm confused a tad about your stance now.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
If everyone in Phoenix used as little A/C as I do, we'd be the efficiency capital of the WORLD !!!
My electric bill was about $81 for July (including solar lease payment).
The AVERAGE July bill for my utility was around $440.
So the average utility customer in Phoenix outspent me by 81.5%.
P.S. Actually, I spent 18.4% of what the average customer spent was the correct way to say that......
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
I corrected it with a P.S. in that original post....
Not good enough. Your AC is still spewing heated GHG out into the atmosphere. To the caves with ya. We got to level Phoenix. It is heating up the Eastern USA where all the important people live.
PS
I would slit my wrist if I ever got an electric bill for $440.
Ask a farmer in Europe during the medieval warming period what he thought about a little warming!
By the way, Willard Carrier and Henry Ford improved the quality of life for more Americans (And it is American lives which concern me most) than any environmentalist who ever lived.
And while I'm at it; "Where'd all the oil go?" Alarmist media strikes again. Mother nature trumps man's feeble machinations as usual.
Regards, DQ
Worst part is the Portland cops dropped the sex charges against the high priest of AGW and Grand Poobah of the Crazed Sex Poodles.
U.S. EPA rejects claims of flawed climate science
"The endangerment finding is based on years of science from the U.S. and around the world. These petitions -- based as they are on selectively edited, out-of-context data and a manufactured controversy -- provide no evidence to undermine our determination. Excess greenhouse gases are a threat to our health and welfare," said EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson. "Defenders of the status quo will try to slow our efforts to get America running on clean energy. A better solution would be to join the vast majority of the American people who want to see more green jobs, more clean energy innovation and an end to the oil addiction that pollutes our planet and jeopardizes our national security."
The basic assertions by the petitioners and EPA responses follow.
Claim: Petitioners say that emails disclosed from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit provide evidence of a conspiracy to manipulate global temperature data.
Response: EPA reviewed every e-mail and found this was simply a candid discussion of scientists working through issues that arise in compiling and presenting large complex data sets. Four other independent reviews came to similar conclusions.
Claim: Petitioners say that errors in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report call the entire body of work into question.
Response: Of the alleged errors, EPA confirmed only two in a 3,000 page report. The first pertains to the rate of Himalayan glacier melt and second to the percentage of the Netherlands below sea level. IPCC issued correction statements for both of these errors. The errors have no bearing on Administrator Jackson's decision. None of the errors undermines the basic facts that the climate is changing in ways that threaten our health and welfare.
Claim: Petitioners say that because certain studies were not included in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, the IPCC itself is biased and cannot be trusted as a source of reliable information.
Response: These claims are incorrect. In fact, the studies in question were included in the IPCC report, which provided a comprehensive and balanced discussion of climate science.
Claim: Petitioners say that new scientific studies refute evidence supporting the Endangerment Finding.
Response: Petitioners misinterpreted the results of these studies. Contrary to their claims, many of the papers they submit as evidence are consistent with EPA's Finding. Other studies submitted by the petitioners were based on unsound methodologies. Detailed discussion of these issues may be found in volume one of the response to petition documents, on EPA's website.
Climate change is already happening, and human activity is a contributor. The global warming trend over the past 100 years is confirmed by three separate records of surface temperature, all of which are confirmed by satellite data. Beyond this, evidence of climate change is seen in melting ice in the Arctic, melting glaciers around the world, increasing ocean temperatures, rising sea levels, shifting precipitation patterns, and changing ecosystems and wildlife habitats.
PS
If science was involved they would ask for more peer review and research. Not the same old Gore line, Its a Done Deal.
That argument works NOW, but what about the 8 Bush years?
Bush was a "denier" for the most part, and the EPA still had Global Warming on it's agenda.
If you 'splain it now because we have a Lefty Socialist in the 'House, how do you explain it when we had a Righty Denier in there?
HHHMMMMM???? HHHHHHMMMMM???????
While AGW had political overtones, Bush and then McCain jumped on the Wagon. They did not push for higher taxes to fight this unknown Boogie Man. CnT did not get much time in the discussion until the Dems took over Congress. States like CA have caused damage to our economy by jumping on the AGW without really thinking it through. It is Political. Has little to do with Honest Science. If it did there would not be the constant barrage of those that question the unproven scientific reports by CRU and the UN. Climategate gave those that are truly interested in FACTS another chance.
Anyway, the EPA petition reply tells the real story of what ClimateGate REALLY was:
The EPA reviewed every e-mail and found this was simply a candid discussion of scientists working through issues that arise in compiling and presenting large complex data sets. Four other independent reviews came to similar conclusions.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
Only if you believe the EPA is an honest operation which most of American's DO NOT. Just like the lies from Toyota, Americans are tired of being lied to by our governments. City, State and Federal. The EPA is filled with power hungry individuals as are most of the Federal agencies. Your belief in them does not make them honest. That report by the Brits was shot down, when it was divulged the person making the report has a long history of saying what he is told to say. Sadly that is how you get ahead in government.
Can you define it?
I can.
"An organization which consists of people who never tell lies."
By that definition, there are no honest organizations on Earf.
Sure, there is evidence that man PROBABLY is not causing the Earf to heat up.
But there is VASTLY MORE saying it MIGHT be man that is contributing.
Thus, more research needs to be done.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
Grant check in the mail for 84 trillion dollars.
Or maybe we can pay you in carbon credits?
Look at all the research and brainpower that goes into getting a new drug on the market these days. And look at the money those guys are raking in. Think for a minute and tell me how many serious diseases they have actually come up with a cure for in the last 50 years. I honestly can't think of anything they have cured and most of the time the new miracle drug has to be eventually recalled because it is worse than the disease.
But they still charge 10 times what their worthless drugs actually should cost in order to fund more...... "research".
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
There are plenty of examples of "useful" research also.
Just because a disease has not been "cured" does not mean that there are no effective medications to control it.
Sometimes all we can do is control it (AIDS, Herpes, Flu) and that research is very helpful for the people living with the diseases.
I don't think anyone needs to be of the opinion that "research" is a naughty word.
P.S. Now, do I agree with you that drug companies make obscene amounts of money? Oh, Yes, they do. But the system supports that. Maybe it won't forever, but it does now.
Sort of back to the topic:
Time to Make Like a Tree Hugger -- and Leaf?
(Edmunds CarPool)
It is the Feds that have made research grants a naughty word. Just look at what some of the stimulus money has gone to research. The sex lives of college women. Now that is something that should be useful. My guess more money is wasted on nonsense than useful research. Much is pay backs for political favors from corporate donors.
But you don't sacrifice the good research by killing the stupid research.
If anyone ever gets to Washington and makes REAL HOPE AND CHANGE a reality, maybe the system can change.
Right now, we have the Tea Partiers as the best future hope for scaling some of this BigGuv down.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
A chunk of ice four times the size of Manhattan has calved from Greenland's Petermann Glacier, scientists announced today.
The last time the Arctic lost such a large chunk of ice was in 1962.
"In the early morning hours of August 5, 2010, an ice island four times the size of Manhattan was born in northern Greenland," said Andreas Muenchow, associate professor of physical ocean science and engineering at the University of Delaware.
Satellite imagery of this remote area at 81 degrees north latitude and 61 degrees west longitude, about 620 miles (1,000 kilometers) south of the North Pole, reveals that Petermann Glacier lost about one-quarter of its 43-mile- (70-km-) long floating ice-shelf.
Trudy Wohlleben of the Canadian Ice Service discovered the ice island within hours after NASA's MODIS-Aqua satellite took the data on Aug. 5, at 8:40 UTC (4:40 EDT), Muenchow said.
Petermann Glacier, the parent of the new ice island, is one of the two largest remaining glaciers in Greenland that terminate in floating shelves. The glacier connects the great Greenland ice sheet directly with the ocean.
The new ice island has an area of at least 100 square miles (260 square kilometers) and a thickness up to half the height of the Empire State Building, which is 1,454 feet (443 meters) from the ground to the top of its lightning rod.
"The freshwater stored in this ice island could keep the Delaware or Hudson rivers flowing for more than two years. It could also keep all U.S. public tap water flowing for 120 days," Muenchow said.
So man in his wanting to control nature can get some tug boats and haul that berg up along the Eastern Seaboard and start using the massive supply of cool fresh water.
(3 Aug. 2010 - Update: The number of dead fish and other water-dependent wildlife has increased to about 6 million.)
----------
Over 1 million fish and thousands of alligators, turtles, dolphins and other river wildlife are floating dead in numerous Bolivian rivers in the three eastern/southern departments of Santa Cruz, Beni and Tarija. The extreme cold front that hit Bolivia in mid-July caused water temperatures to dip below the minimum temperatures river life can tolerate. As a consequence, rivers, lakes, lagoons and fisheries are brimming with decomposing fish and other creatures.
Unprecedented: Nothing like this has ever been seen in this magnitude in Bolivia. Inhabitants of riverside communities report the smell is nauseating and can be detected as far as a kilometer away from river banks. River communities, whose livelihoods depend on fishing, fear they'll run out of food and will have nothing to sell. Authorities are concerned there will be a shortage of fish in markets and are more concerned by possible threats to public health, especially in communities that also use river water for bathing and drinking, but also fear contaminated or decaying fish may end up in market stalls. They've begun a campaign to ensure market vendors and the public know how to tell the difference between fresh and unhealthy fish.
In university fish ponds and commercial fisheries the losses are also catastrophic.
http://www.boliviabella.com/1-million-fish-dead-in-bolivian-ecological-disaster.- - html
Not to mention the 100s of people that have died as a direct result of the extreme cold temps in South America. I vote for whatever it takes to warm up the planet.
That number pales compared to the fate of Russia recently. Up to 5,000 dead so far.
Russia's devastating summer heatwave has cost almost 5,000 lives, according to officials who conceded yesterday that the state was struggling to gain control over the worst wildfires in decades.