Big snow flakes fell early Friday evening, turning Downtown Boise into a giant snow globe for people on their way home from work. The snow caught many people off guard, including this bicyclist heading down Idaho Street between 8th and 9th around 5:45 p.m. Across the Treasure Valley, tree branches heavy with wet, snow-covered leaves fell on power lines, causing scattered power outages. This is the earliest measurable snowfall in Boise since recordkeeping began in 1898, according to the National Weather Service. At 10 p.m., the Weather Service said 1.7 inches of snow had fallen. The previous earliest recorded snowfall was Oct. 12, 1969
You need to drive more and warm it up. So much for getting $20 this month riding your bike. I wouldn't ride it for 20 buck a day in that weather.
You don't get it do you? Global warming is now "Climate Change". So no matter what the weather, it is still the fault of us evil car owners. :mad:
Didn't you watch the end of "The Day After" where global warming causes an ice age, destroys the US and kills millions of Americans? At the end they have a scene where some astronauts are looking down on the frozen, destroyed US and remarking: "Looks beautiful, doesn't it?"
So drive if you will but be prepared to get the blame for everything from early snow to toenail fungus.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
Gary, every time you post something about coldness, I'm going to post something about warmness to show people that local weather is not global climate.
It sure didn't feel like fall on much of the Central Coast Monday, especially at some local beaches.
Local residents couldn't believe how warm it was, but they said they will take it, because this unusually warm weather gave them a gorgeous beach day.
Temperatures climbed anywhere from 80 to 85 degrees near the coast Monday, bringing a lot of foot traffic out, especially near the waters. Folks who live here on the Central Coast said they planned the day around the warm conditions.
We did get a couple warm days. Yesterday dropped like a rock. 16 degrees below normal and 1 degree above the record for cold. 90 one day and 66 degrees the next. You take the good with the bad. That is the way weather has ALWAYS been. Trying to pin the blame on man is like blaming man for a volcano eruption. Oh, I forgot the GW/CC cult did blame man for volcanoes.
"...I'm going to post something about warmness..."
Yesterday it was a perfect 70 degree day here in the northeast. As a result I walked where I would normally have taken the car. So you could say that global warming caused less use of cars than if it were normal temps.
I bet those folks out in Idaho weren't walking...unless their SUV got stuck in a snow drift. :sick:
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
There is the beauty of Climate Change. One man's flooding is another man's opportunity to grow a garden that was not possible for the last 700 years. Last time Galveston was wiped off the map there were very few cars. I wonder if they blamed whoever was President at the time? Or is our generation just STUPID?
"Given some of the so called half baked theories passing as FACT"
What half baked theories are you referring to?
The following quote is interesting. "... "People have simply no idea how serious this issue is." It's so serious, he said, that unless we reach a point where we stop emitting greenhouse gases entirely, 80 per cent of the world's species will become extinct, and human civilization as we know it will be destroyed, by the end of this century."
The intensity of the scientist's comment is worth considering. We need to understand this issue and fairly soon. If we do not understand the issue or cannot make a reasonable prediction finding a solution will prove difficult. And, if we find that change is not possible, we would at least understand the issue well enough to be able to adapt.
The irony of all this is that high oil prices will likely have a bigger impact in the near term on transportation than any Global Warming. The change taking place in the auto industry is truly amazing. We are in the middle of some amazing changes (hybrids, electric cars, ULSD, E10, E85, hydrogen....).
It is a strong sentiment, and it does give me pause. Mr. Weaver is apparently a very smart man. His credentials, background, and position are impressive. I think he has forgotten that we normal folk tend to have a natural reaction to such extreme statements, we tend to react with disbelief. We have heard Armageddon stories before, we have faced disturbing issues before, and we are still here. So, we have been conditioned to approach such extreme positions cautiously with a good portion of skepticism.
Reading further we find this quote from Weaver. "Yes, it does bother me to be put in this position, but I've been so incensed by what has happened in Ottawa, by the war on science in Ottawa, that this has driven me and others to say, 'Enough is enough.'" This immediately strengthens my skepticism. I wonder if his strong sentiment is motivated by a genuine concern over a serious environmental threat, or if he is motivated by a desire to fight back against a perceived threat to science. Is it science or politics?
Balance all that with the very real situation of others with impeccable credentials, background, and positions who express less extreme possibilities, and the whole thing just gets more muddy. Back and forth bickering ensues, and reasonableness goes right out the window.
Mr. Weaver probably should have trusted his first inclination and stayed out of the fray. I am not sure his strong sentiment really helps.
Rather than re-listing some of the things covered in my past posts (your question indicates you haven't read them anyway), it is as easy as: we rather burn more (rug to pug) than less!!!! (diesel) which gets 25-40% better fuel mileage over RUG to PUG and emits LESS C02. At what percentage? In the USA we have 98% of the passenger vehicle fleet getting 25-40% worse fuel mileage vs like model diesels. But truly there are precious few like model cars that burn less fuel than gassers already available. One easy example, 03 VW 2.0/1.8T getting 30 mpg vs a 03 VW TDI 1.9T getting 49/50. Burning more is preferable to burning less.
..."The following quote is interesting. "... "People have simply no idea how serious this issue is." It's so serious, he said, that unless we reach a point where we stop emitting greenhouse gases entirely, 80 per cent of the world's species will become extinct, and human civilization as we know it will be destroyed, by the end of this century." ...
This is not interesting at all! It is really an indicator of continuing the status quo. It is just one of many narcotizing statements made by well meaning (or not well meaning as the case may be) folks. So for example, Al Gore speaks well about the subject, but he and his lifestyle/s are all about carbon and co2 EXCESS among other excesses !!!! If I had half a brain, I would do well to emulate Al Gore!
And as I have said in past posts it goes on and on. So for example what do you think would happen to the soda water industry if they stop putting C02 in the product? Do we stop brewing beer because it produces C02? Do we shoot fat folks for it has been confirmed they generate more C02?(this is obviously not PC but might make the point clearer).......Not to mention they are literally taking the food out of starving folks mouths (in whatever 3rd world country you would care to cite).
"80 per cent of the world's species will become extinct, and human civilization as we know it will be destroyed, by the end of this century."
Well that's interesting but no one knows now how many species there are, and ones thought extinct continually pop up as still around. And I think that statement is a little misleading as it ignores that new species are always being created, while others go extinct.
Human civilization will undergo change. To improve the old must be relegated to the garbage can (destroyed). So hopefully we can destroy this current civilization of inequities and intolerance.
The irony of all this is that high oil prices will likely have a bigger impact in the near term on transportation than any Global Warming.
While demand may go up or down slightly, it is fairly constant 90M or 87M bbd is not a big difference. Whether the oil is $50/barrel or $140/barrel, there still is going to be 87M barrels pumped per day. If in 20 years most of the U.S. has converted to electric cars, this really just reduces the cost of oil and frees it up for the other 5.7B people in the world to use. Until you get the WHOLE world on bikes or electric cars, high amounts of oil will be burned. How long will it take to make the batteries and the 1 billion electric cars? When do you address the needs of growing desperate populations like the Nigerian villages who will do anything - including chopping open pipes - to get oil?
The price of oil is an interesting case in point. All that has happened in this so call Global meltdown is the year over year % OVER 100% has slowed! The demand for example keeps growing, albeit 102% vs 104% for example . Indeed! For example in Beijing, China has had a relatively easy time in going from a nation that used mostly bicycles (sans the political elite) to having MASSIVE traffic jams and exponentially (for them anyway) more vehicles. It is NOT like they had to FORCE folks into cars...... This is pretty interesting in light of the fact the very expensive costs of ownership are again almost exponentially higher than ours and more importantly Europe's (as the costs are even higher) from a percentage of per capital income point of view.
The demand for example keeps growing, albeit 102% vs 104% for example.
Correct. Other points.
1) Until it costs more to produce oil then it does to produce some other convenient fuel - that can be accessed worldwide, oil will be used. Keeping warm and transport will always be preferred over "maybe a 1F increase in many years".
2) There is a lot of demand for oil. The true demand may be 10X higher than what is produced. This is the amount we would use if we had unlimited money. We in the U.S. want more oil/gasoline then we currently use, and if we want more certainly other parts of the world where there is less used per capita want the conveniences that oil and gasoline allow.
3) Based on 2) - if you take the top users of oil/gasoline and convert them to electric, all you're doing is shifting demand to somewhere else in that mass of unmet demand. The 90M bbd will still be pumped, at a price-point that these other countries can afford. If it costs $20/barrel today to produce and refine oil, the oil will be pumped as long as a profit can be made. AS LONG AS SOMEONE IS WILLING TO PAY MORE FOR OIL THAN IT COSTS TO PRODUCE, THE OIL WILL FLOW SOMEWHERE IN THE WORLD.
This post is not necessarily in response to your valid points, but small response to someone asking about half baked ideas.
In light of alternative energy's normally costing more than RUG to PUG products(Hybrid, E10, E 85, MTBE etc), the fact of the matter is that keeps almost unrelenting demand on RUG to PUG aka oil! What a lot of folks do not know nor as you mentioned even acknowledge is the SWAG of 10 x GREATER OIL demand if oil were so called "more affordable" to those who for whatever reasons can/do NOT afford it.
So for example all things being equal (they are obviously NOT) if the government/s really wanted to stimulate the USE of an alternative fuel like DOMESTIC bio diesel, (b5,b10,b20 etc etc,) What would choke off demand for (foreign oil, as it usually is domestically refined) petro diesel would be 5 dollar petrol diesel and 3 dollar domestic B100!!! Combine that with a 25%-40% better fuel mileage than RUG to PUG and you have to be stupid not to be a happy camper! AIN''T GOING TO HAPPEN!! When it does (off line) and they catch the so called "revenue directors" they through them in jail on felony convictions!!!
( several nexus': 1. production of bio diesel from algae is a net consumer of C02 2. production of bio diesel from algae is a net producer of OYXGEN 3. production of bio diesel from algae is a net producer of FOOD albeit you or I might not be net consumers of this food, but it can be feed to livestock instead of higher consumptive farming products 4. algae production efficiencies per acre are literally phenomenal 5. production of bio diesel from a plethora of on going waste streams-further reduces WASTE.)
If one has NOT been following the issue, bio diesel R& D, VC, new business' and support has all been CRUSHED by the CRASH of oil pricing from a high of 147 to current levels. Indeed current oil prices are estimated to drop to 55-65 dollar a barrel levels FROM 147 a barrel!!!! . So what is the SWAG now about the demand when it hits those lower prices!??? Keep in mind the current economic crisis aka 147 barrel to 76.60 link title has only truncated the world wide growth over 100% per year!!!!!!???? Indeed there are some that say that high per barrel oil prices are defacto taxes on the economy that has to use it @ those higher prices.
The same thing is true with plug in electric (any fuel source) It would of course need to be put into comparison terms (equalized-levelized, etc) like how many miles one gets per kilowatt etc. They are NOT going to do that and for obvious reasons. The only thing built in are higher per mile costs and greater C02 emissions.
No, I have seen many of your posts. I understand that diesel is more efficient and as long as the price is right people will save money. See the link below
The Yaris 1.4 D-4D achieved 84.66 mpg, but the Toyota Aygo, with a 1.0-litre petrol engine netted 82.39 mpg. Not too bad for a RUG engine.
I think you misunderstood my post. If the scientists are concerned we should listen. That does not mean we need to rush out and make a change.
Not sure where you are going with the soda example. Putting soda in a bottle is different than burning fossil fuels. In the later case we are adding CO2 to the air that had been in the ground.
Most Alaskan Glaciers Retreating, Thinning, and Stagnating, Says Major USGS Report http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=2033 In this report we have some of the best scientists in the world making an observation. This is another report that shows climate change is happening.
"While demand may go up or down slightly, it is fairly constant 90M or 87M bbd is not a big difference."
When you say constant, what time frame are referring to - 5 years, 20 years or a longer time frame?
As to the question of getting most of the U.S. converted to electric cars, I am not so sure we will get over 50%. There are a few bumps in the road on the way. That and I would predict that we would still have a sizable population of RUG and diesel cars in 20 years. There is plenty of oil out there especially if the price per barrel is over $150 a barrel.
I agree also. A very thoughtful and well written post. It sort of sums up my feelings about a lot of the extreme rhetoric going around these days. The sky may indeed be falling but these guys have just cried wolf too often and much too stridently.
Two hundred years of glacial shrinkage in Alaska, and then came the winter and summer of 2007-2008.
Unusually large amounts of winter snow were followed by unusually chill temperatures in June, July and August.
"In mid-June, I was surprised to see snow still at sea level in Prince William Sound," said U.S. Geological Survey glaciologist Bruce Molnia. "On the Juneau Icefield, there was still 20 feet of new snow on the surface of the Taku Glacier in late July. At Bering Glacier, a landslide I am studying, located at about 1,500 feet elevation, did not become snow free until early August.
"In general, the weather this summer was the worst I have seen in at least 20 years."
Never before in the history of a research project dating back to 1946 had the Juneau Icefield witnessed the kind of snow buildup that came this year. It was similar on a lot of other glaciers too.
The Grape growers will be running their SUVs to try and warm up the area.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008 at 5:26 a.m.
A record cold snap in Mendocino County over the weekend caused little damage to wine grapes but chilled the hearts of farmers who already have suffered huge losses this year.
"It's just one more thing on top of one more thing. You kind of hold your breath," said Potter Valley wine grape grower Bill Pauli.
Temperatures dropped to 31 degrees in the Ukiah Valley on Saturday night and early Sunday morning, the coldest Oct. 12 morning since record keeping began in Ukiah in 1893, said Troy Nicolini, a meteorologist with the National Weather Service in Eureka. The previous record was 34 degrees in 1916.
From CA to AK record cold temps. Since before the advent of the SUV. The bright side is all the wackos in San Francisco may have to do without their wine due to the early frost.
Cold temperatures set several new record lows this weekend, including a low of 22 Saturday in downtown Pendleton that broke a 118 year-old record of 24.
Record lows started falling Thursday with a new low of 20 for Meacham, four degrees cooler than the previous record from 2006, according to information from the Web site for the National Weather Service Forecast Office in Pendleton.
Where is Al Gore when you need him to explain. Probably laughing at the schmucks that believe his crappola. Out on the boat burning fuel in his jetski.
No, he is finishing up his new book warning about the coming ice age and how it is a direct result of global warming. I'm sure millions will fall for it and believe it makes perfect sense. :confuse:
Global warming grips Greenland, leaves lasting mark http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081012/NEWS06/810109858/0/NE- WS08 "Although millions of people across the world still aren't convinced global warming exists or that it's as big a problem as scientists claim, symptoms of the planet's warming pop up everywhere in Greenland."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7573530.stm "Exotic species of spiders are making their homes in the UK, scientists say. Researchers believe arachnids arriving in imports of food and plants are now able to survive and spread thanks to the UK's increasingly mild climate. "
As you can see, I can come up with many examples of climate change. Year to year weather changes are not the key to understanding GW. You need to look at the climate not the weather.
When the high priest of CC says the glaciers receding is an imminent sign of Global Warming, I am relieved to let him know that the glaciers are not receding as he claimed.
My contention is that the GW Cult uses weather related data to draw their conclusions. Such as Katrina. Why then are weather related items such as coldest winter on record in many parts of the World, NOT considered part of the data?
I believe that the data received by the media is directly relative to the grants received by those posting the data.
The people pushing a Global Warming agenda are in it for the money. There is no money in denying GW. No carbon credit scam. No big World government grants. Only getting the truth out to the masses that bought into crap like the Al Gore fictional movie.
Thank you for posting the "anti" side of things. I told Gary I was going t post a "local weather WARMER" story for every "local weather COLDER" story he posts.
You beat me to it and saved me the trouble. Thanks !!!!
Financial meltdown just a curtain-raiser to what we face with global warming
Like subprime assets, carbon assets keep many complex risks hidden from investors. Cost impacts from extreme weather events and legislation on greenhouse gases are expected to emerge as risk factors in pricing stocks and assigning credit and asset valuations. A warmer planet is joining capital and labour as the new resource constraint likely to alter production costs. And carbon emissions are also likely to increase the size of liabilities in key industries, from power plants to airlines.
Climate change will affect all parts of the financial services industry and all classes of investment. The global electricity market is worth trillions of dollars a year and energy is fundamental to economic growth. And, with $US6 trillion ($A8.5 trillion) in market capitalisation, the banks will play a critical role as they are the world's capital providers and the lead risk management experts.
We could all be in a deep freeze and your GW buddies would be out trying to legislate carbon credit taxes. It will cost all of US more money for utilities to satisfy their ignorance. We need a revolution against Congress before they destroy our economy worse than they already have.
As you can see, I can come up with many examples of climate change. Year to year weather changes are not the key to understanding GW. You need to look at the climate not the weather.
Unless, of course, you are an advocate of man made GW. Then it is perfectly alright to cite every little weather blip to to forward your agenda.
As you can see, I can come up with many examples of climate change.
The fact that the climate has changed, is changing, and will continue to change, is not in dispute. The problem is to discern if the current change is any different than what has historically happened (and we're not just talking the last 200 years), and is it caused by man.
Secondly if there is change, is it necessarily bad? I don't see a warming as bad, for many reasons. I tend to see the glass 3/4 full on any warming. I hope we all have Hawaii type weather and environment soon.
Not to use Hawaii as a passing example, but then again Hawaii is indeed a study in contrasts. They might lose tourist trade if those trademark weather signatures are available in multiple places. On the other hand Hawaii emits more C02 than a plethora of other places- keeping in mind the active volcanos aka the BIG Island, etc.. Indeed C02 might be almost benign, given the 27/7 emitting of tons upon tons of unmitigated poisonous gasses. :shades: :lemon:
"My contention is that the GW Cult uses weather related data to draw their conclusions. Such as Katrina. Why then are weather related items such as coldest winter on record in many parts of the World, NOT considered part of the data?"
Both extremes use the data to push their agenda. The records can be interesting but they do not necessarily signify a trend, which is what we want to get a handle on.
Calling people who disagree with you a cult and using words like crap would suggest you are falling into Argument By Emotive Language (using emotionally loaded words to sway the audience's sentiments instead of their minds). Say it isn't so :surprise:
"I believe that the data received by the media is directly relative to the grants received by those posting the data."
Yes, but companies like Exxon will also push their agenda.
I am beginning to get the feeling that both extremes are driven by fear. Some are worried about the change in the environment while the other side is more concerned with impacts to their lifestyle.
"The people pushing a Global Warming agenda are in it for the money. There is no money in denying GW."
I would disagree. There is a lot of money in trying to deny GW. Making changes to deal with GW could be very expensive for coal power plants, oil companies and car makers to name a few. They are going to try to protect their own self interest.
Making changes to deal with GW could be very expensive for coal power plants, oil companies and car makers to name a few. They are going to try to protect their own self interest.
I see it as costing ME the consumer. The coal or oil or energy providers just pass the cost onto ME the consumer. So those spending money to keep a balance in the GW/CC debate are working for the Consumer. While those that are pushing the man made GW/CC agenda are out to make money on carbon credits. I do not see Al Gore and company (is that better?) doing anything for me the consumer. I cannot see one iota of good from those that push man made Climate Change. It is a political agenda to gain control over the masses. And naturally politicians like it as it is another way to tax US.
From my vantage point, Al Gore is a political hack making $100 million over the last 7 years with a scam he cooked up while on our payroll. Calling man made GW/CC a "done deal" is nothing more than a scam artist pushing an agenda for his own personal benefit. If it was a hundred years ago, Al Gore would be labeled a snake oil salesman. Sadly many scientists have so little integrity they will twist the data to say whatever the person paying the bill wants. It happens in pharmacy, agriculture, environment, energy etc etc. So what makes this CC agenda any different?
There is a Green Party. Most memorably they ran Ralph Nader for President in 2000. Thankfully he got enough Democrat votes to keep Al Gore from winning Florida and the Presidency. So I say GO, GO Green Party.
This is an interesting map that shows how different parts of the earth can have different CO2 concentrations. They did say:
"The zonal flow of the southern hemisphere mid-latitude jet stream results in a belt of enhanced carbon dioxide girdling the globe, fed by biogenesis activity in South America, forest fires in both South America and Central Africa, and the clusters of gasification plants in South Africa and power generation in southeastern Australia."
No mention of automobiles and CO2. It would be nice if they could identify additional sources or have a daily map for each day of the year. Add in other green house gases and we would certainly get a better understanding of climate change.
" ...out to make money...political agenda...control over the masses...scam..cooked up...scam artist...snake oil salesman...twist the data..."
As the evidence for global warming and a man made influence grows your argument or your words do not look all that logical or rational. Attacking these people is of little value and will likely backfire.
Saying that scientists have little integrity is just false. I am a scientist and I have worked with a lot of scientists and engineers. They are people just like a business man or an artist. Maybe you have been watching to many science fiction movies with mad scientists in them.
And just for the record, I have never falsified data. I work at a place where we can tell it like it is.
Vehicles do contribute to global warming. How much and what we should do about it is another story. I suspect that China, India and the Middle Eastern countries will decide how high CO2 levels go.
Maybe you should go to a conference on GW and meet the scientists. I doubt you would ever do that because then you would find there is logic to their research and that they do have a great deal of integrity.
Your take, while your opinion is a misread of what he means. Perhaps it was a knee jerk reaction, as you see yourself as part of "that" group (a scientist) and felt he was broad brushing YOU. He was NOT (per se). It was more than obvious YOU felt you resembled that remark. .
If you want to list a real case, where all the most "treasured" institutions let the CA taxpayer down: we need only go to the CA state process of certifiying MTBE and the ultimate and continuing fiasco. Many, many, many, scientists (among the other interested/disinterested, etc parties that Gagrice refers to) gave what is ultimately called a "neg dec," aka negative declaration. This is all in the CA state public record, (as most other states proceedings are). You can verify/discredit easily what I have been saying.
Maybe you should go to a conference on GW and meet the scientists. I doubt you would ever do that because then you would find there is logic to their research and that they do have a great deal of integrity
Do you mean like the UN conference in Bali, where scientists with opposing viewpoints were not invited or blocked from attending? I have no doubt that much of the science surrounding the GW/CC is legitimate. When the politicians take it and pull out what they want to use, then claim a consensus, all that scientific evidence becomes suspect.
Vehicles do contribute to global warming. How much and what we should do about it is another story
Possibly so. Livestock, volcanoes, burning of land to grow corn, sugar and soybeans all emit GHG. And I believe the SUN may play a part in all this climate change.
Maybe you have been watching to many science fiction movies with mad scientists in them.
Attached is a link to a recent(ish) story in "The Independent", a respected U.K. daily newspaper. The story didn't make the BBC News and only appeared in a couple of other 'papers, AFAIK, in the U.K. at least. Don't know if the U.S. media covered it.
If it bears out I think we can probably forget worrying about CO2 emissions from cars. We're - possibly - doomed regardless. Will the Earth miss us ? Not even slightly. Enjoy.
Yes I think "inconveniently" "scientists", et al, are conveniently forgetting that MANY to all the DEFINING major global catastrophies have happened before man had CARS. Indeed most evidence indicates a lot happened before MANKIND !!!!!!!?????
We work hard to dis- acknowledge GOD, yet attribute god like powers to an ICE.!!!???? :lemon: Bas ackwards if you axe me, but that is my unscientific .02 cents. Scientifically? Well... ya got to play the game if you want to remain in the career!!???
Arctic air temperatures climb to record levels Thu Oct 16, 2008 6:01pm EDT
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Fall air temperatures have climbed to record levels in the Arctic due to major losses of sea ice as the region suffers more effects from a warming trend dating back decades, a report released on Thursday showed.
The annual report issued by researchers at the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and other experts is the latest to paint a dire picture of the impact of climate change in the Arctic.
It found that fall air temperatures are at a record 9 degrees Fahrenheit (5 degrees C) above normal in the Arctic because of the major loss of sea ice in recent years that allows more solar heating of the ocean.
That warming of the air and ocean impacts land and marine life and cuts the amount of winter sea ice that lasts into the following summer, according to the report.
In addition, wild reindeer and caribou herds appear to be declining in numbers, according to the report. The report also noted melting of surface ice in Greenland.
"Changes in the Arctic show a domino effect from multiple causes more clearly than in other regions," James Overland, an oceanographer at NOAA's Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory in Seattle one of the authors of the report, said in a statement.
"It's a sensitive system and often reflects changes in relatively fast and dramatic ways."
Researchers at the National Snow and Ice Data Center, part of the University of Colorado, reported last month that Arctic sea ice melted to its second-lowest level this summer.
The 2008 season, those researchers said, strongly reinforces a 30-year downward trend in Arctic ice extent -- 34 percent below the long-term average from 1979 to 2000, but 9 percent above the record low set in 2007.
..."Someone better find out what is causing this or the Polar Bear, reindeer, and caribou are doomed..........: "...
Rest assured there are people and orgainizations that already are. However if you look back in that "kind" of history many many species of most categories have done exactly what you fear- gone extinct. Indeed because we do not believe in God anymore...it is....NATURAL. Indeed the only thing that is constant is....CHANGE.
Underground stores of methane are important because scientists believe their sudden release has in the past been responsible for rapid increases in global temperatures, dramatic changes to the climate, and even the mass extinction of species. Scientists aboard a research ship that has sailed the entire length of Russia's northern coast have discovered intense concentrations of methane – sometimes at up to 100 times background levels – over several areas covering thousands of square miles of the Siberian continental shelf.
The amount of methane stored beneath the Arctic is calculated to be greater than the total amount of carbon locked up in global coal reserves so there is intense interest in the stability of these deposits as the region warms at a faster rate than other places on earth.
Better get Palin's pipeline to the Midwest going. So they can tap into those massive stores of Methane. Oh, I forgot no trespassing on the tundra. We know that the Arctic was tropical at one time. It may be headed in that direction again. It was never tropical feeling the 25 years I spent in the Arctic.
..."It was never tropical feeling the 25 years I spent in the Arctic. "...
At a base I was stationed 34-32 years ago, they had @ least once a week flights to Iceland. I was never a taker, especially in the winter. It was sort of like: it is more than cold here and I want to spend hours and hours to go to a place much colder !!?? To listen to some folks now, it is the new Miami!
Comments
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
LOL That gives the term "global warming" a dirty sound to it too. :surprise:
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
You need to drive more and warm it up. So much for getting $20 this month riding your bike. I wouldn't ride it for 20 buck a day in that weather.
You don't get it do you? Global warming is now "Climate Change". So no matter what the weather, it is still the fault of us evil car owners. :mad:
Didn't you watch the end of "The Day After" where global warming causes an ice age, destroys the US and kills millions of Americans? At the end they have a scene where some astronauts are looking down on the frozen, destroyed US and remarking: "Looks beautiful, doesn't it?"
So drive if you will but be prepared to get the blame for everything from early snow to toenail fungus.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
Gary, every time you post something about coldness, I'm going to post something about warmness to show people that local weather is not global climate.
Hit the Beach
It sure didn't feel like fall on much of the Central Coast Monday, especially at some local beaches.
Local residents couldn't believe how warm it was, but they said they will take it, because this unusually warm weather gave them a gorgeous beach day.
Temperatures climbed anywhere from 80 to 85 degrees near the coast Monday, bringing a lot of foot traffic out, especially near the waters. Folks who live here on the Central Coast said they planned the day around the warm conditions.
Yesterday it was a perfect 70 degree day here in the northeast. As a result I walked where I would normally have taken the car. So you could say that global warming caused less use of cars than if it were normal temps.
I bet those folks out in Idaho weren't walking...unless their SUV got stuck in a snow drift. :sick:
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
What half baked theories are you referring to?
The following quote is interesting.
"... "People have simply no idea how serious this issue is."
It's so serious, he said, that unless we reach a point where we stop emitting greenhouse gases entirely, 80 per cent of the world's species will become extinct, and human civilization as we know it will be destroyed, by the end of this century."
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=919ae159-35e1-4106-804f-c- 0a4d486a3c8
The intensity of the scientist's comment is worth considering. We need to understand this issue and fairly soon. If we do not understand the issue or cannot make a reasonable prediction finding a solution will prove difficult. And, if we find that change is not possible, we would at least understand the issue well enough to be able to adapt.
The irony of all this is that high oil prices will likely have a bigger impact in the near term on transportation than any Global Warming. The change taking place in the auto industry is truly amazing. We are in the middle of some amazing changes (hybrids, electric cars, ULSD, E10, E85, hydrogen....).
Reading further we find this quote from Weaver. "Yes, it does bother me to be put in this position, but I've been so incensed by what has happened in Ottawa, by the war on science in Ottawa, that this has driven me and others to say, 'Enough is enough.'" This immediately strengthens my skepticism. I wonder if his strong sentiment is motivated by a genuine concern over a serious environmental threat, or if he is motivated by a desire to fight back against a perceived threat to science. Is it science or politics?
Balance all that with the very real situation of others with impeccable credentials, background, and positions who express less extreme possibilities, and the whole thing just gets more muddy. Back and forth bickering ensues, and reasonableness goes right out the window.
Mr. Weaver probably should have trusted his first inclination and stayed out of the fray. I am not sure his strong sentiment really helps.
..."The following quote is interesting.
"... "People have simply no idea how serious this issue is."
It's so serious, he said, that unless we reach a point where we stop emitting greenhouse gases entirely, 80 per cent of the world's species will become extinct, and human civilization as we know it will be destroyed, by the end of this century." ...
This is not interesting at all! It is really an indicator of continuing the status quo. It is just one of many narcotizing statements made by well meaning (or not well meaning as the case may be) folks. So for example, Al Gore speaks well about the subject, but he and his lifestyle/s are all about carbon and co2 EXCESS among other excesses !!!! If I had half a brain, I would do well to emulate Al Gore!
And as I have said in past posts it goes on and on. So for example what do you think would happen to the soda water industry if they stop putting C02 in the product? Do we stop brewing beer because it produces C02? Do we shoot fat folks for it has been confirmed they generate more C02?(this is obviously not PC but might make the point clearer).......Not to mention they are literally taking the food out of starving folks mouths (in whatever 3rd world country you would care to cite).
Well that's interesting but no one knows now how many species there are, and ones thought extinct continually pop up as still around. And I think that statement is a little misleading as it ignores that new species are always being created, while others go extinct.
Human civilization will undergo change. To improve the old must be relegated to the garbage can (destroyed). So hopefully we can destroy this current civilization of inequities and intolerance.
The irony of all this is that high oil prices will likely have a bigger impact in the near term on transportation than any Global Warming.
While demand may go up or down slightly, it is fairly constant 90M or 87M bbd is not a big difference. Whether the oil is $50/barrel or $140/barrel, there still is going to be 87M barrels pumped per day. If in 20 years most of the U.S. has converted to electric cars, this really just reduces the cost of oil and frees it up for the other 5.7B people in the world to use. Until you get the WHOLE world on bikes or electric cars, high amounts of oil will be burned. How long will it take to make the batteries and the 1 billion electric cars? When do you address the needs of growing desperate populations like the Nigerian villages who will do anything - including chopping open pipes - to get oil?
.
Indeed! For example in Beijing, China has had a relatively easy time in going from a nation that used mostly bicycles (sans the political elite) to having MASSIVE traffic jams and exponentially (for them anyway) more vehicles. It is NOT like they had to FORCE folks into cars...... This is pretty interesting in light of the fact the very expensive costs of ownership are again almost exponentially higher than ours and more importantly Europe's (as the costs are even higher) from a percentage of per capital income point of view.
Correct. Other points.
1) Until it costs more to produce oil then it does to produce some other convenient fuel - that can be accessed worldwide, oil will be used. Keeping warm and transport will always be preferred over "maybe a 1F increase in many years".
2) There is a lot of demand for oil. The true demand may be 10X higher than what is produced. This is the amount we would use if we had unlimited money. We in the U.S. want more oil/gasoline then we currently use, and if we want more certainly other parts of the world where there is less used per capita want the conveniences that oil and gasoline allow.
3) Based on 2) - if you take the top users of oil/gasoline and convert them to electric, all you're doing is shifting demand to somewhere else in that mass of unmet demand. The 90M bbd will still be pumped, at a price-point that these other countries can afford. If it costs $20/barrel today to produce and refine oil, the oil will be pumped as long as a profit can be made. AS LONG AS SOMEONE IS WILLING TO PAY MORE FOR OIL THAN IT COSTS TO PRODUCE, THE OIL WILL FLOW SOMEWHERE IN THE WORLD.
2)
In light of alternative energy's normally costing more than RUG to PUG products(Hybrid, E10, E 85, MTBE etc), the fact of the matter is that keeps almost unrelenting demand on RUG to PUG aka oil! What a lot of folks do not know nor as you mentioned even acknowledge is the SWAG of 10 x GREATER OIL demand if oil were so called "more affordable" to those who for whatever reasons can/do NOT afford it.
So for example all things being equal (they are obviously NOT) if the government/s really wanted to stimulate the USE of an alternative fuel like DOMESTIC bio diesel, (b5,b10,b20 etc etc,) What would choke off demand for (foreign oil, as it usually is domestically refined) petro diesel would be 5 dollar petrol diesel and 3 dollar domestic B100!!! Combine that with a 25%-40% better fuel mileage than RUG to PUG and you have to be stupid not to be a happy camper! AIN''T GOING TO HAPPEN!! When it does (off line) and they catch the so called "revenue directors" they through them in jail on felony convictions!!!
( several nexus':
1. production of bio diesel from algae is a net consumer of C02
2. production of bio diesel from algae is a net producer of OYXGEN
3. production of bio diesel from algae is a net producer of FOOD albeit you or I might not be net consumers of this food, but it can be feed to livestock instead of higher consumptive farming products
4. algae production efficiencies per acre are literally phenomenal
5. production of bio diesel from a plethora of on going waste streams-further reduces WASTE.)
If one has NOT been following the issue, bio diesel R& D, VC, new business' and support has all been CRUSHED by the CRASH of oil pricing from a high of 147 to current levels. Indeed current oil prices are estimated to drop to 55-65 dollar a barrel levels FROM 147 a barrel!!!! . So what is the SWAG now about the demand when it hits those lower prices!???
The same thing is true with plug in electric (any fuel source) It would of course need to be put into comparison terms (equalized-levelized, etc) like how many miles one gets per kilowatt etc. They are NOT going to do that and for obvious reasons. The only thing built in are higher per mile costs and greater C02 emissions.
See the link below
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/10/13/toyota-yaris-aygo-win-world-mpg-marathon- -with-80-mpg/
The Yaris 1.4 D-4D achieved 84.66 mpg, but the Toyota Aygo, with a 1.0-litre petrol engine netted 82.39 mpg. Not too bad for a RUG engine.
I think you misunderstood my post. If the scientists are concerned we should listen. That does not mean we need to rush out and make a change.
Not sure where you are going with the soda example. Putting soda in a bottle is different than burning fossil fuels. In the later case we are adding CO2 to the air that had been in the ground.
Most Alaskan Glaciers Retreating, Thinning, and Stagnating, Says Major USGS Report
http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=2033
In this report we have some of the best scientists in the world making an observation. This is another report that shows climate change is happening.
I would agree. The whole GW debate has turned into a war with deniers battling it out with the sky is falling crowd.
When you say constant, what time frame are referring to - 5 years, 20 years or a longer time frame?
As to the question of getting most of the U.S. converted to electric cars, I am not so sure we will get over 50%. There are a few bumps in the road on the way. That and I would predict that we would still have a sizable population of RUG and diesel cars in 20 years. There is plenty of oil out there especially if the price per barrel is over $150 a barrel.
"The U.S. Faces Serious Risks of Brownouts or Blackouts in 2009, Study Warns"
http://www.nextgenenergy.org/nextgen+blackout+study.aspx
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
Unusually large amounts of winter snow were followed by unusually chill temperatures in June, July and August.
"In mid-June, I was surprised to see snow still at sea level in Prince William Sound," said U.S. Geological Survey glaciologist Bruce Molnia. "On the Juneau Icefield, there was still 20 feet of new snow on the surface of the Taku Glacier in late July. At Bering Glacier, a landslide I am studying, located at about 1,500 feet elevation, did not become snow free until early August.
"In general, the weather this summer was the worst I have seen in at least 20 years."
Never before in the history of a research project dating back to 1946 had the Juneau Icefield witnessed the kind of snow buildup that came this year. It was similar on a lot of other glaciers too.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/53884.html
Tuesday, October 14, 2008 at 5:26 a.m.
A record cold snap in Mendocino County over the weekend caused little damage to wine grapes but chilled the hearts of farmers who already have suffered huge losses this year.
"It's just one more thing on top of one more thing. You kind of hold your breath," said Potter Valley wine grape grower Bill Pauli.
Temperatures dropped to 31 degrees in the Ukiah Valley on Saturday night and early Sunday morning, the coldest Oct. 12 morning since record keeping began in Ukiah in 1893, said Troy Nicolini, a meteorologist with the National Weather Service in Eureka. The previous record was 34 degrees in 1916.
http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20081014/NEWS/810140335/-1/frontpage?Title=- Frost__one_more_thing__for_grape_growers
Cold temperatures set several new record lows this weekend, including a low of 22 Saturday in downtown Pendleton that broke a 118 year-old record of 24.
Record lows started falling Thursday with a new low of 20 for Meacham, four degrees cooler than the previous record from 2006, according to information from the Web site for the National Weather Service Forecast Office in Pendleton.
http://www.eastoregonian.info/print.asp?SectionID=13&SubSectionID=48&ArticleID=8- 3885&TM=29612.53
Where is Al Gore when you need him to explain. Probably laughing at the schmucks that believe his crappola. Out on the boat burning fuel in his jetski.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
Burn the book for heat!!!
http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081012/NEWS06/810109858/0/NE- WS08
"Although millions of people across the world still aren't convinced global warming exists or that it's as big a problem as scientists claim, symptoms of the planet's warming pop up everywhere in Greenland."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7573530.stm
"Exotic species of spiders are making their homes in the UK, scientists say. Researchers believe arachnids arriving in imports of food and plants are now able to survive and spread thanks to the UK's increasingly mild climate. "
"Record temperatures destroy wheat crops"
http://news.theage.com.au/national/record-temperatures-destroy-wheat-crops-20081- 002-4sa6.html
Researchers Study Coastal Hazards of Increasing Wave Heights, Rising Sea Levels
"http://www.physorg.com/news142863701.html"
"Climate warms, creatures head for the hills "
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/37485/title/Climate_warms,_creatures_- head_for_the_hills
Woes of climate change
http://www.fijitimes.com/story.aspx?id=102286
"Develop a greater understanding of the projected impacts and prepare for these changes."
As you can see, I can come up with many examples of climate change. Year to year weather changes are not the key to understanding GW. You need to look at the climate not the weather.
My contention is that the GW Cult uses weather related data to draw their conclusions. Such as Katrina. Why then are weather related items such as coldest winter on record in many parts of the World, NOT considered part of the data?
I believe that the data received by the media is directly relative to the grants received by those posting the data.
The people pushing a Global Warming agenda are in it for the money. There is no money in denying GW. No carbon credit scam. No big World government grants. Only getting the truth out to the masses that bought into crap like the Al Gore fictional movie.
You beat me to it and saved me the trouble. Thanks !!!!
Illinois: Temperatures were much warmer across Illinois this past week. Producers are reporting a decrease in corn moisture levels, but most are still choosing to harvest soybeans first. There were 5.8 days suitable for fieldwork. The average temperature was 6.6 degrees above normal.
Financial meltdown just a curtain-raiser to what we face with global warming
Like subprime assets, carbon assets keep many complex risks hidden from investors. Cost impacts from extreme weather events and legislation on greenhouse gases are expected to emerge as risk factors in pricing stocks and assigning credit and asset valuations. A warmer planet is joining capital and labour as the new resource constraint likely to alter production costs. And carbon emissions are also likely to increase the size of liabilities in key industries, from power plants to airlines.
Climate change will affect all parts of the financial services industry and all classes of investment. The global electricity market is worth trillions of dollars a year and energy is fundamental to economic growth. And, with $US6 trillion ($A8.5 trillion) in market capitalisation, the banks will play a critical role as they are the world's capital providers and the lead risk management experts.
That would require that we stop breathing. I'm sure that is the ultimate goal of such GW/CC kooks.
To those radicals I say "YOU FIRST".
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
I have no faith in either party, as the lobbyists own both of them thru election and other contributions.
Unless, of course, you are an advocate of man made GW. Then it is perfectly alright to cite every little weather blip to to forward your agenda.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
The fact that the climate has changed, is changing, and will continue to change, is not in dispute. The problem is to discern if the current change is any different than what has historically happened (and we're not just talking the last 200 years), and is it caused by man.
Secondly if there is change, is it necessarily bad? I don't see a warming as bad, for many reasons. I tend to see the glass 3/4 full on any warming. I hope we all have Hawaii type weather and environment soon.
Oil dips below $75 as OPEC cuts demand forecast By STEVENSON JACOBS, AP Business Writer
link title
Both extremes use the data to push their agenda. The records can be interesting but they do not necessarily signify a trend, which is what we want to get a handle on.
Calling people who disagree with you a cult and using words like crap would suggest you are falling into Argument By Emotive Language (using emotionally loaded words to sway the audience's sentiments instead of their minds). Say it isn't so :surprise:
"I believe that the data received by the media is directly relative to the grants received by those posting the data."
Yes, but companies like Exxon will also push their agenda.
I am beginning to get the feeling that both extremes are driven by fear. Some are worried about the change in the environment while the other side is more concerned with impacts to their lifestyle.
"The people pushing a Global Warming agenda are in it for the money. There is no money in denying GW."
I would disagree. There is a lot of money in trying to deny GW. Making changes to deal with GW could be very expensive for coal power plants, oil companies and car makers to name a few. They are going to try to protect their own self interest.
Here is something to sink your teeth into.
http://www.energy.ca.gov/low_carbon_fuel_standard/index.html
I see it as costing ME the consumer. The coal or oil or energy providers just pass the cost onto ME the consumer. So those spending money to keep a balance in the GW/CC debate are working for the Consumer. While those that are pushing the man made GW/CC agenda are out to make money on carbon credits. I do not see Al Gore and company (is that better?) doing anything for me the consumer. I cannot see one iota of good from those that push man made Climate Change. It is a political agenda to gain control over the masses. And naturally politicians like it as it is another way to tax US.
From my vantage point, Al Gore is a political hack making $100 million over the last 7 years with a scam he cooked up while on our payroll. Calling man made GW/CC a "done deal" is nothing more than a scam artist pushing an agenda for his own personal benefit. If it was a hundred years ago, Al Gore would be labeled a snake oil salesman. Sadly many scientists have so little integrity they will twist the data to say whatever the person paying the bill wants. It happens in pharmacy, agriculture, environment, energy etc etc. So what makes this CC agenda any different?
Here is their not so impressive website:
http://www.gp.org/
This is an interesting map that shows how different parts of the earth can have different CO2 concentrations. They did say:
"The zonal flow of the southern hemisphere mid-latitude jet stream results in a belt of enhanced carbon dioxide girdling the globe, fed by biogenesis activity in South America, forest fires in both South America and Central Africa, and the clusters of gasification plants in South Africa and power generation in southeastern Australia."
No mention of automobiles and CO2. It would be nice if they could identify additional sources or have a daily map for each day of the year. Add in other green house gases and we would certainly get a better understanding of climate change.
As the evidence for global warming and a man made influence grows your argument or your words do not look all that logical or rational. Attacking these people is of little value and will likely backfire.
Saying that scientists have little integrity is just false. I am a scientist and I have worked with a lot of scientists and engineers. They are people just like a business man or an artist. Maybe you have been watching to many science fiction movies with mad scientists in them.
And just for the record, I have never falsified data. I work at a place where we can tell it like it is.
Vehicles do contribute to global warming. How much and what we should do about it is another story. I suspect that China, India and the Middle Eastern countries will decide how high CO2 levels go.
Maybe you should go to a conference on GW and meet the scientists. I doubt you would ever do that because then you would find there is logic to their research and that they do have a great deal of integrity.
If you want to list a real case, where all the most "treasured" institutions let the CA taxpayer down: we need only go to the CA state process of certifiying MTBE and the ultimate and continuing fiasco. Many, many, many, scientists (among the other interested/disinterested, etc parties that Gagrice refers to) gave what is ultimately called a "neg dec," aka negative declaration. This is all in the CA state public record, (as most other states proceedings are). You can verify/discredit easily what I have been saying.
Do you mean like the UN conference in Bali, where scientists with opposing viewpoints were not invited or blocked from attending? I have no doubt that much of the science surrounding the GW/CC is legitimate. When the politicians take it and pull out what they want to use, then claim a consensus, all that scientific evidence becomes suspect.
Vehicles do contribute to global warming. How much and what we should do about it is another story
Possibly so. Livestock, volcanoes, burning of land to grow corn, sugar and soybeans all emit GHG. And I believe the SUN may play a part in all this climate change.
Maybe you have been watching to many science fiction movies with mad scientists in them.
I did not see "An Inconvenient Truth".
If it bears out I think we can probably forget worrying about CO2 emissions from cars. We're - possibly - doomed regardless. Will the Earth miss us ? Not even slightly. Enjoy.
METHANE AS GHG
We work hard to dis- acknowledge GOD, yet attribute god like powers to an ICE.!!!???? :lemon: Bas ackwards if you axe me, but that is my unscientific .02 cents. Scientifically? Well... ya got to play the game if you want to remain in the career!!???
Arctic Glowing Red
Arctic air temperatures climb to record levels
Thu Oct 16, 2008 6:01pm EDT
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Fall air temperatures have climbed to record levels in the Arctic due to major losses of sea ice as the region suffers more effects from a warming trend dating back decades, a report released on Thursday showed.
The annual report issued by researchers at the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and other experts is the latest to paint a dire picture of the impact of climate change in the Arctic.
It found that fall air temperatures are at a record 9 degrees Fahrenheit (5 degrees C) above normal in the Arctic because of the major loss of sea ice in recent years that allows more solar heating of the ocean.
That warming of the air and ocean impacts land and marine life and cuts the amount of winter sea ice that lasts into the following summer, according to the report.
In addition, wild reindeer and caribou herds appear to be declining in numbers, according to the report. The report also noted melting of surface ice in Greenland.
"Changes in the Arctic show a domino effect from multiple causes more clearly than in other regions," James Overland, an oceanographer at NOAA's Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory in Seattle one of the authors of the report, said in a statement.
"It's a sensitive system and often reflects changes in relatively fast and dramatic ways."
Researchers at the National Snow and Ice Data Center, part of the University of Colorado, reported last month that Arctic sea ice melted to its second-lowest level this summer.
The 2008 season, those researchers said, strongly reinforces a 30-year downward trend in Arctic ice extent -- 34 percent below the long-term average from 1979 to 2000, but 9 percent above the record low set in 2007.
Rest assured there are people and orgainizations that already are. However if you look back in that "kind" of history many many species of most categories have done exactly what you fear- gone extinct. Indeed because we do not believe in God anymore...it is....NATURAL. Indeed the only thing that is constant is....CHANGE.
Underground stores of methane are important because scientists believe their sudden release has in the past been responsible for rapid increases in global temperatures, dramatic changes to the climate, and even the mass extinction of species. Scientists aboard a research ship that has sailed the entire length of Russia's northern coast have discovered intense concentrations of methane – sometimes at up to 100 times background levels – over several areas covering thousands of square miles of the Siberian continental shelf.
The amount of methane stored beneath the Arctic is calculated to be greater than the total amount of carbon locked up in global coal reserves so there is intense interest in the stability of these deposits as the region warms at a faster rate than other places on earth.
Better get Palin's pipeline to the Midwest going. So they can tap into those massive stores of Methane. Oh, I forgot no trespassing on the tundra. We know that the Arctic was tropical at one time. It may be headed in that direction again. It was never tropical feeling the 25 years I spent in the Arctic.
At a base I was stationed 34-32 years ago, they had @ least once a week flights to Iceland. I was never a taker, especially in the winter. It was sort of like: it is more than cold here and I want to spend hours and hours to go to a place much colder !!?? To listen to some folks now, it is the new Miami!