I've been having fun ribbing my old Anchorage friends about it staying light past 10 pm so they have plenty of daylight to shovel snow in. :shades:
The paper up there listed the late season record snow days and something like 4 of the last 5 have occurred since I moved south in 2000. In the decade before I left all the spruce trees were dying because the winters weren't cold enough to keep the beetle population in check. It's a big issue when your woods consist mostly of spruce and aspen and not much else.
Meanwhile the sea ice came back but much thinner than normal.
I think at least part of the problem is that we don't actually know what the climate is like when it's "in whack", if there is such a phrase. This allows the manipulators to sway the gullible; especially when they back it up with pseudo-science.
Wetlands, swamps, etc. are notorious creators of C02 also. Yet this is precisely what environmental types advocate keeping and expanding. The other thing is there have been no longer term study of what effects so called carbon "sequesting" would have. For all we know it has unintended consequences.... like global warming!!?
Well then it does litte to change the operative behavior to burn MORE and not less!?
Why burn diesel that gets 20-40% mpg and emits LESS GHG's when you can burn RUG to PUG!!?? With 98% of the passenger vehicle fleet on more burning RUG to PUG, why EVERYBODIES doing it (almost) !!
I would like to know when exactly these scientists think the earth's atmosphere is balanced: "From a steady 10 percent – the level at which dinosaurs flourished – the oxygen percentage rose to 17 percent 50 million years ago and then to 23 percent by 40 million years ago."
Why is "current" balanced anymore than when the Earth had 23% or 15% oxygen? It currently has 21% (I believe)? So historically there hasn't been any thermostat for any of the gases in the atmosphere.
When people talk of mankind increasing CO2 even after all these years, they're talking ppm increase of CO2, not %. What we're changing the atmosphere is very small compared to what Nature has gone through all on its own.
So you think all we need to do is switch to electric cars to reduce CO2 emissions and save money? Well since our electricity mainly comes from coal and coal is getting expensive ...
One of the downsides of a cheap dollar. Our few remaining natural resources will demand higher prices as exports than we like to pay keeping them here. Electric in Hawaii is mostly oil generated. Currently it is selling for 45 cents per KWH. Not going to be economical for EVs if they ever materialize. They had several coal fired generators and have converted most to oil fired.
That is something you do not see much of here compared to CA. I did consider it when I was paying the electric bill. Now the renters pay their own. You would think with all the new construction here that some of the homes would have solar. I think the angle of the sun is also less conducive to Solar in Hawaii. The home does not have heat or AC. It is only for refrigerator, hot water, lights and entertainment. I put in a propane cook stove. I don't think the Hawaii electric company is into subsidizing CFL lights as SDG&E is doing. This condo is all incandescent. My renters have bought the expensive CFLs to cut their bills.
The person that rents my main house has cut the bill from $500 per month to about $150 per month. She is a very frugal school teacher.
"This is one of the largest, if not the largest, state government solar initiatives in the nation," said Ted Liu, director of the state Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism.
A 34-megawatt photovoltaic system will reduce Hawai‘i’s need for approximately 130,000 barrels of fuel oil per year and would generate enough power to supply about 9,000 homes per year.
The added power will be welcome as the island state is 92 percent dependent on fossil fuel, all of it imported.
Not only does that Volvo get poor mileage, it requires the more costly Premium gas. Of the three the GL320 CDI is way out ahead in my book. I know those that are getting close to 30 MPG with them.
I very highly recommend Lawrence Solomon's new book titled "The Deniers." It should be required reading for all policy makers and anyone who wants to understand the true nature of the science and politics behind the global warming movement.
I glanced at and picked up Censoring Science off the new book shelf at the library a couple of weeks ago thinking it was a "denier" book.
I hope Solomon's book isn't as dry - I've barely been able to skim through the prologue about the James Hansen one.
Meanwhile, Gore investment body closes $683 million fund to invest in early-stage environmental companies and has mounted a robust defence of green investing. Closed here means they figure they've raised enough money and won't let any new investors in. (Financial Times)
Regarding books - You have a state Senator, Brent Hill, CPA, who has just published his latest book, "A Matter of Principle". I give it a very high recommedation.
April 30 (Bloomberg) -- Parts of North America and Europe may cool naturally over the next decade, as shifting ocean currents temporarily blunt the global-warming effect caused by mankind, Germany's Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences said.
Average temperatures in areas such as California and France may drop over the next 10 years, influenced by colder flows in the North Atlantic, said a report today by the institution based in Kiel, Germany. Temperatures worldwide may stabilize in the period.
The study was based on sea-surface temperatures of currents that move heat around the world, and vary from decade to decade. This regional cooling effect may temporarily neutralize the long- term warming phenomenon caused by heat-trapping greenhouse gases building up around the earth, said Richard Wood, a research scientist at the Met Office Hadley Centre, a U.K. provider of environmental and weather-related services.
``Those natural climate variations could be stronger than the global-warming trend over the next 10-year period,'' Wood said in an interview. ``Without knowing that, you might erroneously think there's no global warming going on.''
The Leibniz study, co-written by Noel Keenlyside, a research scientist at the institute, will be published in the May 1 issue of the journal Nature.
This is just another example of the flaws in these computer models forecasting future climate. I just wish they could predict what the weather will be tomorrow. They rarely get that correct.
Green-car amendment makes lawmakers see red By Richard Simon Los Angeles Times Article Launched: 05/01/2008 01:33:16 AM PDT
..."Under the legislation, the Environmental Protection Agency will determine which vehicles lawmakers will be allowed to lease."...
...""I will start driving a green car once Pelosi starts ballooning back and forth from coast to coast to save jet fuel," said Rep. Tom Feeney, R-Fla., referring to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco, who has made climate change a top priority."...
(Sen Pelosi drives the next in line Air Force 3,4,5, etc or whatever number, to and from CA the Sen.'s home state!! . )
In the RAG version a picture in this article shows:
..." Rep Charles B. Rangel, D-NY will have to give up his leased Cadillac under a law requiring leased vehicles in the House to be eco-correct."...
I got a few questions. If only 130 members out of 435 lease a vehicle, how do the others get around? Do they buy their own and charge mileage and expenses? Are they on a tax payers CC? Do they just call a Limo service? I would say no more Limo services that are not qualified for the lease. It sounds like a typical Congressional mess.
We need to vote out the lot of them and start over. It also should be mandated that the cars they lease are made in the USA. Anyone for a Tahoe hybrid?
While it has been a while since I personally had direct knowledge to your questions, I would IMAGINE those agencies responsible would have their own stables. I am sure there are a ver few minority who do buy their own and charge mileage and expenses.
In a past life, I was told by a (government) superior to lose the bicycle or he would bring up insubordination charges if he call a meeting in 10-15 mins and it took me 20-40 mins to get there by bike. Imagine going to Fed Prison being 10 to 20 min late to a meeting because you commuted by bike..
..."The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates one-in-four cars and one-in-three light trucks and SUVs has one or more tires under-inflated by 8 pounds per square inch (psi) or more.
The Carnegie Mellon University Sustainable Earth Club studied 81 random vehicles in a parking lot and found that 80 of the 81 had under-inflated tires. The average rate of under-inflation was 20% -- soft tires, indeed.
The EPA estimates that for every 1 psi of under-inflation, fuel economy drops by 0.4%. That's not much, but if the tires are under-inflated by 8 pounds, that's a 3.2% drop in fuel economy. About 1.2 billion gallons of fuel are wasted annually due to under-inflated tires, the NHTSA estimated in 2005."...
"Our employees' tires were under-inflated by an average of 2.33 psi (pounds per square inch) or 7 percent – far above than the government’s estimate of 26 percent (probably because so many Edmunds drivers are automotive enthusiasts.)"
A lot of people at Edmunds overinflate their tires, it turns out.
And no, being "off-site", I didn't get one of those nifty digital pressure gauges to play with. :sick:
The Leibniz study, co-written by Noel Keenlyside, a research scientist at the institute, will be published in the May 1 issue of the journal Nature.
Nature should be embarrassed at publishing something like that. The "regional" cooling they are talking about is actually global and, in effect, they are telling us that we should not believe the data when it conflicts with the party line. Global climate models have never been able to get ocean surface temperatures right and now that the oceans are headed in "the wrong direction" we're supposed to suspend disbelief.
It's like the shadows on the wall disappear when you shine the light on them but you just have to believe me when I say the shadows are still there and they WILL harm you!
Not until we have a consistent trendline which shows Global Cooling for several years."
Sorry, until you have a consistent trend line for a couple of centuries at the very least, you really have nothing to talk about as weather cycles here on Earth routinely last centuries if not millennia.
NONE of the so called "true believers" in GHG's being the precurser of psychological, sociological, economic, religious, etc, etc, etc, armageddon advocates inventing machines that use C02 as an energy source (well maybe the soda companies...burp...... ) That is a whole lot of organizations groups, areas of expertise, NOT throwing down the John F. Kennedy challenge and putting the feet to the fire. (moon shot speech)
Even if global warming due to human action is true, (it isn't) you would still have an alternative source of energy, now would you not?
There is that little FACT that several of the USA's warmest years on record having been in the last 15 years.
To be more precise, as of last January:
"The past nine years have all been among the 25 warmest years on record for the contiguous U.S., a streak which is unprecedented in the historical record."
2007 was another sizzling year for the planet — the warmest year ever recorded for the Earth's land areas, federal scientists at NOAA's National Climatic Data Center reported Tuesday, with an average temperature about 1.84 degrees above the long-term average. Global weather records began in 1880.
For the entire Earth's surface, including the oceans, scientists report that the global temperature was the 5th-warmest on record.
"2007 was very warm in large parts of Asia and the high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere, including the Arctic," says climatologist Jay Lawrimore of the NCDC. The unusual Arctic warmth led to the lowest amount of sea ice ever recorded.
Whether that is natural or man-enhanced is up for debate, but the fact that we have warmed is not up for debate.
(Of course, by saying "it's not up for debate" I just added gasoline to the fire of the debate itself. Fire Away, folks !!!)
Some say it's warming, so what? Let's say for the sake of argument it is warming, and let's say for the sake of argument that we experience a ten, fifteen or even twenty-five year warming trend; what does it mean? Nothing. Weather trends take so much longer than that to develop and last so much longer than that, that such a warming trend is irrelevant and simply a statistical blip on the over-all trend line.
"In the U.S., a warmer climate and the heavy, extended rains it brought likely helped spread the hantavirus. In other places, a warmer world is helping expand the ranges of insects that carry diseases like dengue and yellow fever. People who historically had little or no risk of getting these diseases could soon have to worry about them."
"More hot days mean better conditions for creating smog that can trigger asthma and other breathing problems. Children are most at risk."
"The U.S. heat wave of 2006 was one of the worst in recent memory -- not only because of its severity, but also because of its reach and length. It lasted nearly a month and swept across the entire country, cutting a swath of record or near-record temperatures from southern California to the East Coast. Hundreds of people died, crops withered, wildfires raged, roads buckled and electric grids struggled to provide power to sweltering customers. Tens of thousands of New York residents lost power for over a week."
"Heat wave in Chicago in 1995 kille 739 people. Chicago's temperature spike began July 13 when the temperatures hit a record 106 degrees Fahrenheit. The mercury didn't fall below 90 degrees Fahrenheit for five days. In those five days, a lethal combination of high humidity and hot nighttime temperatures offered little or no escape from the heat. Vulnerable populations, such as the elderly and low-income people, were hit especially hard."
"The world's deadliest heat wave on record struck Europe in 2003, considered the hottest European summer in five centuries. High temperatures broke records in many countries. England hit a historical high on August 10 when the thermometer in Gravesend-Broadness, Kent hit 100.6 degrees Fahrenheit. In Germany, an all-time record of 104.4 degrees Fahrenheit was set on August 8. The extreme temperatures led to a tragic loss of life. A staggering 27,000 people died as a result of the relentless heat, breaking all records for heat-induced fatalities. In France alone, where hospitals were overwhelmed, more than 14,000 people died."
"Warmer waters, more acidic oceans and stronger storms are taking their combined toll on coral reefs. "Coral reefs may prove to be the first ecological victims of unchecked global warming," says Environmental Defense scientist Rod Fujita. Loss of coral reefs would translate into huge economic losses in coastal regions dependent on reefs—they provide about $375 billion each year in food and tourism income. (U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy)"
Higher Pollution levels. More Flooding due to sea levels rising. Water shortages. Species extinctions.
I could make this a 10,000 word post and STILL not put all the problems that a warmer Earf will cause it's inhabitants.
Is it so bad to want to reduce man's impact on something that bad for all of us?
"Higher Pollution levels. More Flooding due to sea levels rising. Water shortages. Species extinctions."
It's alarmist prattle like this that makes folks who push this agenda so easy to marginalize.
"I could make this a 10,000 word post and STILL not put all the problems that a warmer Earf will cause it's inhabitants."
Sorry, but nothing you or your "Sky is falling" crowd have ever said convinces me that the "Earf" is warming (or cooling) any faster than it otherwise would if we weren't here.
"Is it so bad to want to reduce man's impact on something that bad for all of us?"
Have I or anybody else around here ever suggested (with a straight face) that cleaning up our act and husbanding the resources that we have is a bad idea? I don't think so. What many of us (me included) are saying is that your alarmist attitude and all of your references to questionable supporting factoids do nothing but harm the overall thrust of those that are proponents of a balanced ecological approach to using the resources available to us.
There is that little FACT that several of the USA's warmest years on record having been in the last 15 years.
"On record" isn't a very long time in terms of climate. 150 years out of a few Apparently it was very hot 70,000 years ago and nearly killed everything on earth. I'd say this is part of "on record".
What were humans doing then that changed the climate so much - to be so harsh? You aren't ignoring these facts are you (cherry-picking only what agress with what you want to believe).
Can you find a post where I, personally, have said anything alarmist on my own accord? I mostly post information that other people have already researched.
I am far from an alarmist. Don't even own an alarm clock. (LOL)
"The past nine years have all been among the 25 warmest years on record for the contiguous U.S., a streak which is unprecedented in the historical record."
But, historical records only go back about 150 years. Lets see, 150 years out of a few hundred million - 150 years is like a tear drop in the ocean.
How long the period is irrelevant, as long as it's long enough to indicate a definable trend. Nine out the the last 25 years have been the warmest in 150 years.
It's affecting us NOW and NOW is what we should be concerned about. Not 12,000 years ago.
Much of what you post IS from an Alarmist viewpoint. It follows the chicken little the sky is falling rhetoric. As shipo has pointed out it is a polarizing position that leaves folks wondering if any of the environmental movement is necessary.
Most of your data has turned out to be erroneous even though you cling to it like your life depended on it. All the studies of ocean temperature over the last decade indicates there is NO change. And that the ocean is the major factor in 80% to 90% of our climate change.
This latest Nature report is just a whitewashing to confuse the masses into believing that Al Gore and his GW groupies are not all wet.
If GHG causes the climate to change upward and we have not cut back at ALL on our GHG emissions. There is no good explanation for ANY cooling of the planet. Unless like most here that question our political hacks, can see they have been lying to push an agenda. GW, carbon credits are all part of a HUGE scam to bilk millions out of people. I think Gore already started with his new GW fund.
NOW is what we should be concerned about. Not 12,000 years ago.
How about 700 years ago? You have skirted the KNOWN 6 degree temperature rise in what would be recent history. We know it was not man made. We know that the Vikings were farming in Greenland on land that is now too cold to farm. It is natural for the climate to change. You and Al Gore can move into a cave and walk to work. It will not make ONE iota difference in the climate 100 years from now.
Nine out the the last 25 years have been the warmest in 150 years.
Have you questioned why they only used the last 150 years. The modern thermometer has been around for right at 300 years. I would think that we could get readings further back than 150 years. Or just maybe that would not make the study look the way the ALARMISTS would like for it to look....
PS NOAA has been in existence over 200 years. That might be a better time frame to use. http://www.history.noaa.gov/
All you guys who think GW is bunk need to face one fact....
The debate is not going away.
Lars, you haven't been keeping up with the talking points. They clearly state that the debate is over.
GW cannot be "dismissed out of hand"
No one is dismissing anything out of hand. People rightfully question the quality of the science and it is woefully lacking. The fact that the "adherents" cannot successfully argue or present the science can in no way be construed as the "other side" casually dismissing anything. If anyone is dismissing anything, it is the "adherents" tossing aside millions of years of history and data along with some basic tenets of science.
BTW - you would be doing yourself a truly great favor by reading Lawrence Solomon's book that I referenced earlier. There are many highly respected scientists questioning the science and that includes eminent climatologists and environmentalists.
until you have a consistent trend line for a couple of centuries at the very least
Well, not quite. Aside from a few fluctuations, the trendline has been upward but the key point is that the trendline has been upward for over 400 years!. That is a fact conveniently neglected by the "adherents." Why, you may ask? SImple. 400 years predates any possibility of mankind being the cause of global warming. Most folks want to start the clock ticking at around 1800 to coincide with the industrial revolution. It's called cherry picking.
Are they questioning the accuracy of the historical record?
Because if not, then whatever "science" they are questioning has nothing to do with the fact that 19 of the last 25 years in the USA have been the hottest in the last 150.
Maybe I'm just naive, but that doesn't to me seem like something that should be poo-pooed. That arctic ice is not melting itself.
Whether it's "natural" or not should be somehow proven to be true or not. How do we do that?
Comments
The paper up there listed the late season record snow days and something like 4 of the last 5 have occurred since I moved south in 2000. In the decade before I left all the spruce trees were dying because the winters weren't cold enough to keep the beetle population in check. It's a big issue when your woods consist mostly of spruce and aspen and not much else.
Meanwhile the sea ice came back but much thinner than normal.
Sort of sounds like the climate is out of whack.
Except when you compare it to times like when the sea covered Utah, or just going back some thousands of years - when the Sahara Desert didn't exist.
I think at least part of the problem is that we don't actually know what the climate is like when it's "in whack", if there is such a phrase. This allows the manipulators to sway the gullible; especially when they back it up with pseudo-science.
"By "sequestering" carbon - absorbing carbon dioxide and releasing oxygen - forests offset other both natural and human sources of C02.
But now studies suggest that decomposing trees killed by beetles are creating carbon dioxide faster than the live trees are absorbing it."
Are pine beetles adding to global warming? (Idaho Statesman).
Maybe we can collect them, crush them and turn the sludge into fuel for our SUVs?
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/04/24/close.call.ap/index.html
I guess the world isn't a paradise if we just go "green".
This study today suggests that there's a natural carbon thermostat at work.
"Scientists have found new evidence that the Earth's natural feedback mechanism regulated carbon dioxide levels for hundreds of thousands of years.
But they say humans are now emitting CO2 so fast that the planet's natural balancing mechanism cannot keep up."
BBC
Why burn diesel that gets 20-40% mpg and emits LESS GHG's when you can burn RUG to PUG!!?? With 98% of the passenger vehicle fleet on more burning RUG to PUG, why EVERYBODIES doing it (almost) !!
"From a steady 10 percent – the level at which dinosaurs flourished – the oxygen percentage rose to 17 percent 50 million years ago and then to 23 percent by 40 million years ago."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/10/051003080102.htm
Why is "current" balanced anymore than when the Earth had 23% or 15% oxygen? It currently has 21% (I believe)? So historically there hasn't been any thermostat for any of the gases in the atmosphere.
When people talk of mankind increasing CO2 even after all these years, they're talking ppm increase of CO2, not %. What we're changing the atmosphere is very small compared to what Nature has gone through all on its own.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/2008-04-28-electricy-rates-coal_- N.htm
Those 2000 people mentioned in the article were probably just rich Republicans who burned up all the firewood for their own selfish enjoyment. :P
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
The person that rents my main house has cut the bill from $500 per month to about $150 per month. She is a very frugal school teacher.
Go Solar in Hawaii
From this story:
Hawaii State Guvmint makes huge solar investment
"This is one of the largest, if not the largest, state government solar initiatives in the nation," said Ted Liu, director of the state Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism.
A 34-megawatt photovoltaic system will reduce Hawai‘i’s need for approximately 130,000 barrels of fuel oil per year and would generate enough power to supply about 9,000 homes per year.
The added power will be welcome as the island state is 92 percent dependent on fossil fuel, all of it imported.
Place your bets on which of these two is the cleaner vehicle:
It sold out the first day at Amazon. Of course, there is always Barnes and Noble.
I hope Solomon's book isn't as dry - I've barely been able to skim through the prologue about the James Hansen one.
Meanwhile, Gore investment body closes $683 million fund to invest in early-stage environmental companies and has mounted a robust defence of green investing. Closed here means they figure they've raised enough money and won't let any new investors in. (Financial Times)
By Jim Efstathiou Jr.
April 30 (Bloomberg) -- Parts of North America and Europe may cool naturally over the next decade, as shifting ocean currents temporarily blunt the global-warming effect caused by mankind, Germany's Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences said.
Average temperatures in areas such as California and France may drop over the next 10 years, influenced by colder flows in the North Atlantic, said a report today by the institution based in Kiel, Germany. Temperatures worldwide may stabilize in the period.
The study was based on sea-surface temperatures of currents that move heat around the world, and vary from decade to decade. This regional cooling effect may temporarily neutralize the long- term warming phenomenon caused by heat-trapping greenhouse gases building up around the earth, said Richard Wood, a research scientist at the Met Office Hadley Centre, a U.K. provider of environmental and weather-related services.
``Those natural climate variations could be stronger than the global-warming trend over the next 10-year period,'' Wood said in an interview. ``Without knowing that, you might erroneously think there's no global warming going on.''
The Leibniz study, co-written by Noel Keenlyside, a research scientist at the institute, will be published in the May 1 issue of the journal Nature.
This is just another example of the flaws in these computer models forecasting future climate. I just wish they could predict what the weather will be tomorrow. They rarely get that correct.
By Richard Simon
Los Angeles Times
Article Launched: 05/01/2008 01:33:16 AM PDT
..."Under the legislation, the Environmental Protection Agency will determine which vehicles lawmakers will be allowed to lease."...
...""I will start driving a green car once Pelosi starts ballooning back and forth from coast to coast to save jet fuel," said Rep. Tom Feeney, R-Fla., referring to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco, who has made climate change a top priority."...
(Sen Pelosi drives the next in line Air Force 3,4,5, etc or whatever number, to and from CA the Sen.'s home state!! . )
In the RAG version a picture in this article shows:
..." Rep Charles B. Rangel, D-NY will have to give up his leased Cadillac under a law requiring leased vehicles in the House to be eco-correct."...
link title
We need to vote out the lot of them and start over. It also should be mandated that the cars they lease are made in the USA. Anyone for a Tahoe hybrid?
"Rep. Earl Blumenauer of Oregon is a cycling fanatic who rides one of his seven bikes to his Capitol Hill office everyday."
Congressmen commuting to work in DC
Trek frames are all made in Waterloo WI afaik.
In a past life, I was told by a (government) superior to lose the bicycle or he would bring up insubordination charges if he call a meeting in 10-15 mins and it took me 20-40 mins to get there by bike. Imagine going to Fed Prison being 10 to 20 min late to a meeting because you commuted by bike..
The Carnegie Mellon University Sustainable Earth Club studied 81 random vehicles in a parking lot and found that 80 of the 81 had under-inflated tires. The average rate of under-inflation was 20% -- soft tires, indeed.
The EPA estimates that for every 1 psi of under-inflation, fuel economy drops by 0.4%. That's not much, but if the tires are under-inflated by 8 pounds, that's a 3.2% drop in fuel economy. About 1.2 billion gallons of fuel are wasted annually due to under-inflated tires, the NHTSA estimated in 2005."...
link title
Results of Earth Day Tire Pressure Project
"Our employees' tires were under-inflated by an average of 2.33 psi (pounds per square inch) or 7 percent – far above than the government’s estimate of 26 percent (probably because so many Edmunds drivers are automotive enthusiasts.)"
A lot of people at Edmunds overinflate their tires, it turns out.
And no, being "off-site", I didn't get one of those nifty digital pressure gauges to play with. :sick:
Nature should be embarrassed at publishing something like that. The "regional" cooling they are talking about is actually global and, in effect, they are telling us that we should not believe the data when it conflicts with the party line. Global climate models have never been able to get ocean surface temperatures right and now that the oceans are headed in "the wrong direction" we're supposed to suspend disbelief.
It's like the shadows on the wall disappear when you shine the light on them but you just have to believe me when I say the shadows are still there and they WILL harm you!
The debate is not going away.
Not until we have a consistent trendline which shows Global Cooling for several years.
And even then, the effects of CO2 oversaturation in the atmosphere is going to continue to contribute to the greenhouse effect.
This debate has legs and GW cannot be "dismissed out of hand" as of yet, folks, regardless of how badly some of you WANT to dismiss it.
Not until we have a consistent trendline which shows Global Cooling for several years."
Sorry, until you have a consistent trend line for a couple of centuries at the very least, you really have nothing to talk about as weather cycles here on Earth routinely last centuries if not millennia.
Even if global warming due to human action is true, (it isn't) you would still have an alternative source of energy, now would you not?
To be more precise, as of last January:
"The past nine years have all been among the 25 warmest years on record for the contiguous U.S., a streak which is unprecedented in the historical record."
And also:
2007 was a HOTTIE on Earf's land mass
2007 was another sizzling year for the planet — the warmest year ever recorded for the Earth's land areas, federal scientists at NOAA's National Climatic Data Center reported Tuesday, with an average temperature about 1.84 degrees above the long-term average. Global weather records began in 1880.
For the entire Earth's surface, including the oceans, scientists report that the global temperature was the 5th-warmest on record.
"2007 was very warm in large parts of Asia and the high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere, including the Arctic," says climatologist Jay Lawrimore of the NCDC. The unusual Arctic warmth led to the lowest amount of sea ice ever recorded.
Whether that is natural or man-enhanced is up for debate, but the fact that we have warmed is not up for debate.
(Of course, by saying "it's not up for debate" I just added gasoline to the fire of the debate itself. Fire Away, folks !!!)
"More hot days mean better conditions for creating smog that can trigger asthma and other breathing problems. Children are most at risk."
"The U.S. heat wave of 2006 was one of the worst in recent memory -- not only because of its severity, but also because of its reach and length. It lasted nearly a month and swept across the entire country, cutting a swath of record or near-record temperatures from southern California to the East Coast. Hundreds of people died, crops withered, wildfires raged, roads buckled and electric grids struggled to provide power to sweltering customers. Tens of thousands of New York residents lost power for over a week."
"Heat wave in Chicago in 1995 kille 739 people. Chicago's temperature spike began July 13 when the temperatures hit a record 106 degrees Fahrenheit. The mercury didn't fall below 90 degrees Fahrenheit for five days. In those five days, a lethal combination of high humidity and hot nighttime temperatures offered little or no escape from the heat. Vulnerable populations, such as the elderly and low-income people, were hit especially hard."
"The world's deadliest heat wave on record struck Europe in 2003, considered the hottest European summer in five centuries. High temperatures broke records in many countries. England hit a historical high on August 10 when the thermometer in Gravesend-Broadness, Kent hit 100.6 degrees Fahrenheit. In Germany, an all-time record of 104.4 degrees Fahrenheit was set on August 8. The extreme temperatures led to a tragic loss of life. A staggering 27,000 people died as a result of the relentless heat, breaking all records for heat-induced fatalities. In France alone, where hospitals were overwhelmed, more than 14,000 people died."
"Warmer waters, more acidic oceans and stronger storms are taking their combined toll on coral reefs. "Coral reefs may prove to be the first ecological victims of unchecked global warming," says Environmental Defense scientist Rod Fujita. Loss of coral reefs would translate into huge economic losses in coastal regions dependent on reefs—they provide about $375 billion each year in food and tourism income. (U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy)"
Higher Pollution levels. More Flooding due to sea levels rising. Water shortages. Species extinctions.
I could make this a 10,000 word post and STILL not put all the problems that a warmer Earf will cause it's inhabitants.
Is it so bad to want to reduce man's impact on something that bad for all of us?
It's alarmist prattle like this that makes folks who push this agenda so easy to marginalize.
"I could make this a 10,000 word post and STILL not put all the problems that a warmer Earf will cause it's inhabitants."
Sorry, but nothing you or your "Sky is falling" crowd have ever said convinces me that the "Earf" is warming (or cooling) any faster than it otherwise would if we weren't here.
"Is it so bad to want to reduce man's impact on something that bad for all of us?"
Have I or anybody else around here ever suggested (with a straight face) that cleaning up our act and husbanding the resources that we have is a bad idea? I don't think so. What many of us (me included) are saying is that your alarmist attitude and all of your references to questionable supporting factoids do nothing but harm the overall thrust of those that are proponents of a balanced ecological approach to using the resources available to us.
"On record" isn't a very long time in terms of climate. 150 years out of a few Apparently it was very hot 70,000 years ago and nearly killed everything on earth. I'd say this is part of "on record".
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/04/24/close.call.ap/index.html
What were humans doing then that changed the climate so much - to be so harsh? You aren't ignoring these facts are you (cherry-picking only what agress with what you want to believe).
That would be silly.
Are we negatively affecting an already natural weather trend?
Dang sure might be. MIGHT BE. To say "there is no way we are" is shortsighted and dismissive, and that's not the attitude we need, really, is it?
P.S. And pointing out the facts that apply to the MOST RECENT data is not really cherry picking, is it? Is it not merely using the most current data?
Isn't it most logical and reasonable to use the most recent weather for tracking trend data, rather than something that happened EONS ago?
Has anyone ever said "man is the only reason Earf has ever warmed?" I think not.
Can you find a post where I, personally, have said anything alarmist on my own accord? I mostly post information that other people have already researched.
I am far from an alarmist. Don't even own an alarm clock. (LOL)
But, historical records only go back about 150 years. Lets see, 150 years out of a few hundred million - 150 years is like a tear drop in the ocean.
It's affecting us NOW and NOW is what we should be concerned about. Not 12,000 years ago.
Most of your data has turned out to be erroneous even though you cling to it like your life depended on it. All the studies of ocean temperature over the last decade indicates there is NO change. And that the ocean is the major factor in 80% to 90% of our climate change.
This latest Nature report is just a whitewashing to confuse the masses into believing that Al Gore and his GW groupies are not all wet.
If GHG causes the climate to change upward and we have not cut back at ALL on our GHG emissions. There is no good explanation for ANY cooling of the planet. Unless like most here that question our political hacks, can see they have been lying to push an agenda. GW, carbon credits are all part of a HUGE scam to bilk millions out of people. I think Gore already started with his new GW fund.
How about 700 years ago? You have skirted the KNOWN 6 degree temperature rise in what would be recent history. We know it was not man made. We know that the Vikings were farming in Greenland on land that is now too cold to farm. It is natural for the climate to change. You and Al Gore can move into a cave and walk to work. It will not make ONE iota difference in the climate 100 years from now.
Have you questioned why they only used the last 150 years. The modern thermometer has been around for right at 300 years. I would think that we could get readings further back than 150 years. Or just maybe that would not make the study look the way the ALARMISTS would like for it to look....
PS
NOAA has been in existence over 200 years. That might be a better time frame to use.
http://www.history.noaa.gov/
The debate is not going away.
Lars, you haven't been keeping up with the talking points. They clearly state that the debate is over.
GW cannot be "dismissed out of hand"
No one is dismissing anything out of hand. People rightfully question the quality of the science and it is woefully lacking. The fact that the "adherents" cannot successfully argue or present the science can in no way be construed as the "other side" casually dismissing anything. If anyone is dismissing anything, it is the "adherents" tossing aside millions of years of history and data along with some basic tenets of science.
BTW - you would be doing yourself a truly great favor by reading Lawrence Solomon's book that I referenced earlier. There are many highly respected scientists questioning the science and that includes eminent climatologists and environmentalists.
Well, not quite. Aside from a few fluctuations, the trendline has been upward but the key point is that the trendline has been upward for over 400 years!. That is a fact conveniently neglected by the "adherents." Why, you may ask? SImple. 400 years predates any possibility of mankind being the cause of global warming. Most folks want to start the clock ticking at around 1800 to coincide with the industrial revolution. It's called cherry picking.
Because if not, then whatever "science" they are questioning has nothing to do with the fact that 19 of the last 25 years in the USA have been the hottest in the last 150.
Maybe I'm just naive, but that doesn't to me seem like something that should be poo-pooed. That arctic ice is not melting itself.
Whether it's "natural" or not should be somehow proven to be true or not. How do we do that?