Check your owner's manual - many manufacturers just say to wash your car occasionally and don't even mention wax. Paint is lots better than its ever been and wax - to quote an expert around here - is just for glamour.
Someone better find out what is causing this or the Polar Bear, reindeer, and caribou are doomed.
I got both AC units going full blast and the Freezers standing open. Are we freezing up the Arctic yet?
This and the other article about the seeping methane show how futile man's attempts to control the climate really are.
Does anyone really think that we could all stop using fossil fuel and this phenomenon would reverse itself. We will either adapt to whatever comes along or die. Very simple.
"Your take, while your opinion is a misread of what he means. "
No, it was not my opinion but a response to the statement below.
"Sadly many scientists have so little integrity they will twist the data to say whatever the person paying the bill wants."
I find it interesting that you know what he means while ignoring the actual statement. The word 'many' means amounting to a large but indefinite number. He may have meant something different, but the above sentence is what showed up on the screen.
"...as you see yourself as part of "that" group (a scientist) and felt he was broad brushing YOU. He was NOT (per se). "
It is not a question of me seeing myself as that group. I am a scientist. It is a simple factual statement. And his statement was a broad brush against all scientists. It is a type of fallacious argument where a person attacks or generalizes about a group.
Using that type of reasoning you could never take any medication because medications are formulated by scientists who are just doing the evil bidding of the drug companies. How many things have been developed by scientists over the last few hundred years? Better not use any; it is all a scam. :P
And as to the question of MTBE, the refinery industry wanted to use MTBE even though they knew it would leak out of fuel tanks and pollute local ground water. It was a bad decision. But it also illustrates why we need to do a better job of defining GW before we jump to solutions.
This article was interesting in that it did not try to tie the dry spell to global warming. And that was a good thing because we do not know if there is a connection.
It did make me think of how when weather is normal people do not think much about climate. As soon as you start seeing unusual weather events people begin to wonder why.
One area where I see a lot of progress in is computers. We are starting to see some really powerful PCs and supercomputers. Given enough time scientists should be able to model our weather and climate well enough to make better predictions.
We are starting to see some really powerful PCs and supercomputers. Given enough time scientists should be able to model our weather and climate well enough to make better predictions.
A computer is only a number cruncher. The results are only as good as the formulae that are put into, and that it works on. It is getting the formulae right that is the difficult part. You need to 1) identify all the variables that go into changing the climate and 2) how much each affects the climate ( and this can be complicated by that fact that each variable affects the other - sunlight, deforestation, population growth, GDP, CO2, methane, cloud cover, chemical reactions in the atmosphere, solar flares, ozone and magnetic field protection from cosmic rays, amongst others ...). How fast the computer runs is secondary.
..."It is not a question of me seeing myself as that group. I am a scientist. It is a simple factual statement. And his statement was a broad brush against all scientists. It is a type of fallacious argument where a person attacks or generalizes about a group. "...
What made you think I douted the validity of your assertion that you are a scientist? Like I said: little touchy are you? Correction: WAY touchy! Funny as scientist in every field as part of scientific inquiry build on successes or add to the scrap heap of failed and successful hypothesis, either proven or not. So a thin skin can perhaps be a liability. So get over it, you are really whining to the choir.
..."Using that type of reasoning you could never take any medication because medications are formulated by scientists who are just doing the evil bidding of the drug companies. How many things have been developed by scientists over the last few hundred years? Better not use any; it is all a scam"...
That certainly is your take, but it is certainly not mine, nor a logical conclusion of the reasoning presented. But keep in mind you all would be working for peanuts if it wasn't for the high cost of insurance to cover the exceptions; when those very same drugs are prescribed to the general population. Lethality in the medical field is absolutely rampant. But as you probably would agree, your response and my response to yours is off topic.
More on topic:
..."And as to the question of MTBE, the refinery industry wanted to use MTBE even though they knew it would leak out of fuel tanks and pollute local ground water. It was a bad decision. But it also illustrates why we need to do a better job of defining GW before we jump to solutions. "...
Indeed NOT !! To me this was a case of a product in search of a problem!!!!?? This is about as back wards as it gets! This clearly illustrates what Gagrice said is true! What magically changed in the calculations (after)? NOTHING! However what became apparent/revealed actually) (especially as you say if it was totally known beforehand) were the costs FAR (exponentially by the way) outweighed the so called benefits !!!!???? Indeed it was that way from the start! Indeed as I have said in the past, it took literally BILLIONS to legislate, BLIIONS to implement, billions to reconfigure, billions to test and REVEAL/find out (even as it was known all along) and billions to de-leverage. All WASTE !!!! To boot not only nothing was mitigate, but the products had to be cleaned up! Thats the good news! The bad news? Absolute travesty!!
So was lack of integrity a portion of the equation? Absolutely!
Let me ask another way, do you think they would have listened to an actor like Damon Wayans doing his drunk ghetto guy schticked, complete with his misuse of industry buzz words?
It is a simple factual statement. And his statement was a broad brush against all scientists
You are right. I clumped you all together as I would lawyers and politicians. That was not entirely fair. I do know scientists that studied everything from tundra grass, bears, bowhead whale migrations to ice core samples. And as a whole they were very serious about their field of study. I have no doubt they presented their superiors with accurate data to the best of their ability. The problem and I have discussed it with the scientists in the field is what happens to that data you sent to town? One marine biologist that was tracking whales told me she had little say in what actually happens with the data. This was in the early 1980s. She was making $25k per year with a PHD in Marine Biology. Her boss that did nothing but sit in San Diego submitting the grants and passing on the data made $85k per year. She could have gone to work at Sea World for triple what she got from the outfit she worked for. She loved studying whales in the Arctic.
That said, when I bad mouth scientists it is aimed at the ones that are in the middle doing whatever they are told to do by the entity paying the bills. I know they are not above lying to preserve their jobs. So if you are one of the dedicated scientists out in the field or doing research without a preconditioned conclusion. I apologize and assume you are part of the majority of good scientists.
My take on MTBE. Bad science used by greedy lobbyist, paying off corrupt politicians.
"... little touchy are you? Correction: WAY touchy! "
Nope, If I was way touchy I WOULD WRITE WITH THE CAP LOCKS ON and use a lot of !!!!!!!!! This is only a blog after all. :shades:
My point about the medications was an analogy. Other examples would be; if you did not trust airline pilots, would you want to fly or if you did not trust engineers, would you want to travel in an elevator or cross a bridge?
The MTBE issue was a good example of how the Air Quality folks at EPA pushed a bit to hard on the oxygenates without understanding the water quality ramifications. Another example of that is solid waste folks wanting to incinerate trash when it was looking like we would run out of landfills. The next thing you know we have an air pollution issue because of mercury in the trash (old thermostats and thermometers with mercury in them).
More on topic: Cooling climate ‘consensus’ of 1970s never was
"The team’s survey of major journal papers published between 1965 and 1979 found that only seven articles predicted that global average temperature would continue to cool. During the same period, 44 journal papers indicated that the average temperature would rise and 20 were neutral or made no climate predictions."
..."The MTBE issue was a good example of how the Air Quality folks at EPA pushed a bit to hard on the oxygenates without understanding the water quality ramifications. "...
The first part of your sentence is true, the second part is not. They knew fully. They just neg dec'ed it. . All you need do is look at the public record on the subject.
..."More on topic: Cooling climate ‘consensus’ of 1970s never was"...
Just as there are no warming consensus (operatively) in 2000's.
Isn't it interesting that the environmental activist concept that boosting the price of a barrel of oil brings down use? Indeed doing what they advocate has not only increased the prices but actually increased year over year growth (i.e.,104% to 106 %)
What has cut the percentage of growth (rather dramatically I might observe) year over year (i.e., 104 to 102%) has actually been a DECREASE (DIRECT opposite if one continues to overlook the blantantly obvious) in the price of a barrel of oil (147 per barrel to current levels 74/75).
OPEC have declared EMERGENCY meetings for they fear it (not cutting production aka price of a barrel of oil) will start the price of a barrel of oil to further SLIDE ( to 50/55!!!!????) :lemon:
First is an article. This made me chuckle. Seems the British government paid for a study of the carbon footprints of disposable and regular cloth diapers. (that's almost funny enough all by itself) The study found that regular cloth diapers had a larger carbon footprint than disposables. Whoops! Not exactly what they wanted to hear. So, now government officials have instructed civil servants to not talk about the study and take a "defensive" stance on the study's findings. What a hoot.
Second is a blog entry. Mentions many of the arguments that refute anthropogenic GW and much of the polemic surrounding the issue. The interesting point is an assertion that in the very recent, average global temp has actually gone down giving up most of the recent warming, so we may be in for an extended cooling period. The comments that follow the entry are fun as well.
I remember reading about the cloth/disposable controversy 25 years ago and I don't even have kids (disposable diapers were washing up on the beaches of Nome back then raising a stink).
It's like coffee cups - things aren't always as they seem. Ceramic mugs take more energy and resources to make and clean than disposable Styrofoam, at least per one older study. But drinking coffee isn't green anyway.
Getting to the "Nothing surprises me" stage now; especially where the U.K. Government is concerned.
On a lighter note..............today saw the commissioning of Britains latest off-shore wind turbine farm, (just off my local coastline). This now makes Britain the largest generator of electricity from offshore wind turbines. We just overtook Denmark. Just when I thought we were doing something right, they announced that the minister responsible would be going to see the new installation by helicopter. It's only a short trip by boat for heaven's sake. Why burn all that kerosine ? Maybe the fact that we don't really have a Royal Navy or a fishing fleet, any more, might explain it. Still, yippee for the turbines.
Disposable diapers have been a popular target of greenies for a long time. Used to be about biodegradability and landfill space, yada yada. As often happens, environmentalist took too narrow a view of the issue. I had to laugh that now there is some concern over their contribution to global warming. Some of this stuff is just too weird. :confuse:
Well, just being aware that doing stuff has consequences is a big part of the battle, even if it takes a few decades to reach a consensus about what the right thing to do is (or to rethink that consensus - think Smokey the Bear).
Last summer friends were here and we all went to the grocery and I forgot my cloth bags (no doubt loaded with pesticide and herbicide residue, but that's another story....). Anyway, I put my groceries in plastic and got chastised for not using paper bags. I'm like, dude, you and your wife own four cars and you want to lecture me about plastic/paper? (I'm not convinced that paper is better anyway).
It does get fun sometimes. And yes, it can take time for the whole picture to become clear.
If you into the reusable bags, check these out. Chico Bag. They're a bit more expensive, but I like the way they store easily. Most of the reusable bags from stores tend to be bulky in any reasonable quantity.
I've learned to leave mine in the cars, but yeah, they are too bulky for a pocket. But I already have a dozen bags - a few I purchased at a yard sale, but most of them were freebies from trade shows. I saved .24 cents just the other day with the bag credit (6 cents a bag). :shades:
Anyway, I put my groceries in plastic and got chastised for not using paper bags.
Next time someone gives you guff about that - remind them a tree was cutdown with a diesel machine, it was hauled on a truck, the factory used harsh chemicals to process the pulp into paper (ever see all the energy a paper plant uses? - the steam being emitted).
Of course you could counter by asking "How many refills do you get out an egg-carton before it falls apart?"
BTW - I know this is weather and not climate, but we're expecting snow flurries tonight, and a high of about 40F tomorrow. Since this is rather cold and I don't see it being any warmer until mid-April next year, I again pray for that arctic or Greenland warming to come this way.
"...Anyway, I put my groceries in a plastic bag and got chastised for not using paper bags..."
"...Next time someone gives you guff about that..."
Next time someone gives you guff about that haul off and smack them right in the mouth. Then tell them to "stick THAT in your paper bag". :mad:
Who the hell are these people who want to lecture you on how to run your life as if you are too stupid to make your own choices. Usually they are just puppeting some BS given to them by someone running an adgenda. "Useful Fools" I think Stalin called them.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
Oh relax, these are great friends of mine and we jabber about politics and stuff all the time. They just think paper is better than plastic and I just pointed out that there's more to the story than first glance may indicate.
Temperature for speech breaks 125 year old record for low temperature.
Dear Members of the Harvard Community,
Although today's weather will hardly remind us of the serious problem that is global warming, today's event - the Harvard Sustainability Celebration, with a keynote address by former Vice President Al Gore - will go on, as scheduled, in Tercentenary Theatre with a program beginning at 4 p.m. We very much hope that you will attend and enjoy the festivities.
Starting at 3 p.m., we will be serving hot cider and soup to keep everyone warm; please dress for our changeable New England weather. Henry Longfellow, onetime Harvard professor and longtime Cantabrigian, once remarked, "The best thing one can do when it's raining is to let it rain." We sincerely hope that, this afternoon, it won't rain. But even if it does, Harvard celebrates Sustainability with spirits undampened.
I went to a 2003 graduation at Brown University (Rhode Island). The whole time I was there it was cold beyond belief! It even had record cold rains on the very day of the event. It literally rained all day and all night. This was LATE MAY !!! Looks like NE can still use more.... regional global warming. They sure as hell gooble up literally shiploads of heating oil and other winter petro products.
Perth is officially in the grip of an October heatwave, with the temperature rising above 32C for the third consecutive day - a new October record.
It is also the fourth day the mercury has gone above 30C, beating a record set in October 1969.
Yesterday’s minimum of 21.3C was the second warmest October night recorded in Perth since 1991. The maximum temperature of 35.7C recorded about 2pm made yesterday the ninth hottest October day since 1996.
Nothing in this country surprises me anymore. When an old hack politician can generate $100,000,000 on a scam that convinces people their SUV is making it warmer half way around the globe, anything can happen. Ain't America grand?
PS They better be running those SUVs off the road in Perth to cool it down a bit. Send them all to NE where they are freezing their a___ off.
Man-made global warming is bs. The earth is dynamic; it heats and cools continuously. Was the industrialization of humans responsible for the end of the last ice age? It simply an excuse to drain your wallet.
That effectively makes you broke, if you've been honest - playing by the rules: 1) after you pay your taxes, and 2) lose your 401K in the stock market. Oh and do you think social security is going to have $, as our leaders spend us into many trillions of debt?
So drain, drain, drain, drain. This certainly doesn't seem like the U.S. that Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin helped spearhead the creation of. :mad:
Anyone who believes in GW and wants to stop it, please send me some $ then to pay my heating bills.
Nitrogen trifluoride is new but we've been hearing about methane for a while. The landfill near me collects it and burns it to make electricity.
I thought one of the methane release scenarios was that burning carbon fuels was warming the climate, resulting in more methane getting dumped into the atmosphere from a warming arctic, making the cycle more vicious?
To answer your question indirectly, indeed there is a (scientific) theory that one of the reasons why planes in the Bermuda Triangle disappear ( aka- not frozen waters but more tropical) is so called massive enough releases of methane, so when the plane fly through it loses altitude very quickly while the instruments show altitude gain.
So barring base line release studies in artic/antartic conditions, etc. weather scientists probably are unwilling to link the hypothesis (or make the leap just yet), as to whether you get greater or lesser releases @ a-z temperatures.
They already know and or surmise there is literally inexhaustible methane "locked" and at times (24/7) released by the massive H20 pressures exerted by oceans.
Man is altering the climate. Hundreds of millions of vehicles, hundreds of coal power plants, deforestation, agriculture, dams, cities...they all add up. The important question is what impact are we having and what if anything can we do about it.
"The earth is dynamic; it heats and cools continuously. "
What part of the earth are you referring to? The ocean, atmosphere, the mantle or the core? Just because a system is dynamic does not mean you cannot alter the rate of change or the amplitude. One of the keys to understanding GW and climate is getting a handle on all the feedback loops.
Was the industrialization of humans responsible for the end of the last ice age?
Spoken like a true non-scientist. What I find funny is that people have no problem dropping $40,000 or $50,000 on a vehicle just because of the trinkets they throw in. But if you mention anything to do with spending money on understanding GW they have a cow.
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. "
I shall go on record now as to expressing imho that it will be an exceptionally cold winter. Please feel free to respond, I welcome a good spirited debate. Though it will defy global warming, in the near term as theory, I am willing to take the risk. Should my analysis not prove correct, I shall be the first to eat crow.Tia.
Of course mankind has an effect; everything has an effect. But what is having the main effect. Well it is the Sun. The Sun effects the climate by warming the Earth an average of 520F. If there is no Sun the Earth is just a frozen rock in space at -459F. The Sun is putting out enough energy in all directions, to do this at 93 million mile distance. And it does this century after century after century. This BY FAR dwarfs any contribution mankind will make to climate change.
That is why even small changes in solar activity matter greatly.
One day there will be a great GW of hundreds of degrees, as the Sun grows in size. It is the Sun that determines our current and future. And since out orbit isn't circular or even constantly elliptical our orbt around the sun determines the climate of the Earth.
It is the Sun that determines our current and future.
That is the bottom line. Unlike, man made Global Warming Fanatics, I would like to see more LEGITIMATE research. I do not think any government is capable of Totally Honest research on the subject. Nasa and other Federally funded scientists have complained that their data was distorted or covered up by both Clinton and Bush administrations. Government agencies are usually taken over by zealots of one persuasion or another. That pretty well determines the results we see from the scientist they hire. I would like to believe that our Universities are capable of honest debate and conclusions. Even they seem to be over run with predetermined results on just about every scientific subject.
This is not a direct response to your post, but the truth I learned this kind of stuff in GRAMMAR school, anywhere from 39 years to 43 years ago. Funny what you have said is almost totally discounted.
It might be a reason the "arm chaired" scientists do not assign numbers, %'s to "man's contribution: stuff like grandma/grandpa driving her cream puff weekly to bingo night, etc.
Actually, I have a strong scientific background. No conclusions should ever be made as to one's background based on a one-liner in a forum such as this. I just like to cut to the chase and enjoy the reactions to such posts to liven up the commentary. Let me be clear: I concur that all living things including humans affect the environment continually and that this has always been true. I also agree humans' present effect on the environment is greater than probably at any time in the past. This tells us nothing about whether human actions are of consequence in the context of all factors. What I find hilarious is not the question of whether or not humans have any impact on global warming; we may. However I think the default position must be that we don't until such proof is offered that we do. What I find hilarious is the doomsday predictions of some blindly believed by many that drastic climate change is only a few decades away. The same sort of predictions were made in the 1970s. These were largely based on the consistent rise in temperature in any number of major cities around the world. No one bothered to consider that these increases were due to the population explosion in those cities and were merely local events, not global. Additionally, temperatures have been recorded for a tiny portion of time relative to the earth's history. My previous post was simplistic; the point was humankind's impact on global temperatures is as yet unknown. Future predictions of catastrophe due to humans is a bit premature. Okay? I have no problem with money being spent on anything - just not taxpayers' money. Many well meaning organizations never solve problems because that would mean an end to their funding stream...
The 1970's were the decade of dire predictions of global winter. You almost could not graduate college, unless you took at least one course about it and mouthed the mantra. :lemon: along with all power to the people! (wonder how they granted folks like me the degree. ) Then, they got me back by shipping me to upstate New York (during the winter, GEEZ) Over population would bring the DEEP freeze, yada yada, etc.. Must be global warming now that we got rid of lead in leaded regular and now use RUG?
"the point was humankind's impact on global temperatures is as yet unknown. Future predictions of catastrophe due to humans is a bit premature. Okay?"
I would agree that predicting catastrophe is a bit premature, however, we have enough evidence to suggest there will be some changes in the future. It does make sense to keep funding research into climate. If we can make our climate predictions more accurate we can do a better job of planning.
" I have no problem with money being spent on anything - just not taxpayers' money. "
Gotta disagree with you on this one. Government is one of the few organizations that can adequately fund research. Exxon is not going to do it. Having said that I don't disagree with the idea of limiting the money spent. In other words, no blank checks. In fact I would guess we will be lucky to keep funding where it is now. The country faces some rather hefty bills in the future for infrastructure replacement (roads, bridges, water and wastewater systems.....).
Having said that I don't disagree with the idea of limiting the money spent. In other words, no blank checks.
I could support that (continuing research). However what we have today is beyond unbiased research. We have a group who put in some study, collect some short-term data - over a stretch they like, and want the glory and power of proclaiming "we have found a major issue, and we all must act!". IMO - 1) they are crying wolf because a bush is rustling, and 2) they have a psychological need to be recognized as important; or 3) they see $ in it for them or their institution.
So research is fine; but there are far too many examples throughout history where even the greatest of scientists proclaimed understanding; only to find the Earth wasn't flat.
So no I am not about to get the whole village up everytime someone sees a bush rustle.
"If there is no Sun the Earth is just a frozen rock in space at -459F. "
Minor correction, absolute zero is −459.67 degrees on the Fahrenheit scale. The earth generates heat internally that will keep it above absolute zero. And the universal background radiation has been measured at about 2.7 degrees K.
" This BY FAR dwarfs any contribution mankind will make to climate change. That is why even small changes in solar activity matter greatly. "
Yes minor changes in the suns output matter a great deal. That is why we have been lucky that changes have also been minor. We humans live in a rather narrow range of temperature and weather. It is possibly that human activities are having a bigger impact then you think. Is it 10, 50 or 90%. I do not know and I suspect we don't have enough information to make the call yet.
If we are responsible for 10% of the GW we would not want to put money into reducing CO2 emissions. The change will happen at about the same time even if we cut emissions by 50%. The overall GW change would still proceed at 95%. We would be better off preparing for the inevitable change.
At 50% man induced GW we still would likley not want to put that much money into reducing GW. Cutting our contribution by 50% would still see the change proceeding at 75% (50% natural & 25% man). Inexpensive or no cost options might be considered, but again, we would want to brace ourselves for the change.
At 90% man induced GW we would want to see what cost effective solutions are out there. Still, this would need to be a world wide effort. If China, India and the Middle East countries keep expanding it won't matter all that much what the U.S. or Europe does.
I have to disagree there. The 25 years I spent in the Prudhoe Bay Oilfield there were 100s of scientists studying everything from tundra grass to ice crystals in the upper atmosphere. Many if not most of the studies were paid for by BP and the other oil companies. They came from Universities all over the World to further their knowledge of the Arctic and the impact of oil exploration and production.
Even Drudge is reporting the "...temps at mid-January levels in Carolinas" headline this morning.
It would be curious to see how many weather records have been broken this decade vs the previous one. I'm sure a computer model could compensate for the difference in the length of time.
Then we could find another computer modeler to compare weather to climate.
Funny how global warming has bypassed upstate NY (for 34 years for the purposes of our two posts)!! As I remember, it is starts to snow FAR earlier during global warming than global winter !!! Funny how that works eh? You would think by now significant portions of NYC would be under water due to the artic melting ...
I am now in shorts and short sleeve polo shirt (not in upstate NY). But then it was that way before I left for upstate NY, and by all indications 34 years later is pretty much the same. I might have to put on socks to break this global warming cloud cover that is fixing to burn off, and go to 77 degrees.
The earth generates heat internally that will keep it above absolute zero.
The Earth only has a molten core because the sun keeps it relatively warm on the outside. The Earth - in the cold of space, absent the sun, would be frozen solid fairly early in its 4 billion year history. There would be no daily rotation, and no magnetic fields generated in the core.
There is a relatively minor amount of radioactive materials that might provide a degree or 2 of heat. The Sun thru its gravity provides the rotational energy, and the bathing radiation and light, and warmth to keep the core molten, the ocean's unfrozen and the magnetic fields around and in the Earth. The Sun is the original source of all energy that has, is and will be used on Earth.
"The first basic question about the Sun is how bright is it? It puts out A LOT of energy every second. How much? The answer from our measurements is 4 × 10(X26) watts. Such a large number is beyond most of our comprehension, so let's put the Sun's total energy output (ie., its luminosity) in more familiar units. It is equal to 8 × 10(X16) of the largest power plants (nuclear or hydroelectric) on the Earth. Our largest power plants now can produce around 5,000 Megawatts of power. Another way to look at this is that the sun puts out every second the same amount of energy as 2.5 × 10(X9) of those large power plants would put out every year---that's over two billion!"
Comments
Check your owner's manual - many manufacturers just say to wash your car occasionally and don't even mention wax. Paint is lots better than its ever been and wax - to quote an expert around here - is just for glamour.
Mr_Shiftright, "Teflon Paint Sealants Revisited" #7, 10 Jul 2003 10:33 am
I got both AC units going full blast and the Freezers standing open. Are we freezing up the Arctic yet?
This and the other article about the seeping methane show how futile man's attempts to control the climate really are.
Does anyone really think that we could all stop using fossil fuel and this phenomenon would reverse itself. We will either adapt to whatever comes along or die. Very simple.
No, it was not my opinion but a response to the statement below.
"Sadly many scientists have so little integrity they will twist the data to say whatever the person paying the bill wants."
I find it interesting that you know what he means while ignoring the actual statement. The word 'many' means amounting to a large but indefinite number. He may have meant something different, but the above sentence is what showed up on the screen.
"...as you see yourself as part of "that" group (a scientist) and felt he was broad brushing YOU. He was NOT (per se). "
It is not a question of me seeing myself as that group. I am a scientist. It is a simple factual statement. And his statement was a broad brush against all scientists. It is a type of fallacious argument where a person attacks or generalizes about a group.
Using that type of reasoning you could never take any medication because medications are formulated by scientists who are just doing the evil bidding of the drug companies. How many things have been developed by scientists over the last few hundred years? Better not use any; it is all a scam. :P
And as to the question of MTBE, the refinery industry wanted to use MTBE even though they knew it would leak out of fuel tanks and pollute local ground water. It was a bad decision. But it also illustrates why we need to do a better job of defining GW before we jump to solutions.
This article was interesting in that it did not try to tie the dry spell to global warming. And that was a good thing because we do not know if there is a connection.
It did make me think of how when weather is normal people do not think much about climate. As soon as you start seeing unusual weather events people begin to wonder why.
One area where I see a lot of progress in is computers. We are starting to see some really powerful PCs and supercomputers. Given enough time scientists should be able to model our weather and climate well enough to make better predictions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_climate_model
I decided to join the climateprediction.net (BOINC) using a spare computer. Only 552 hours, 57 minutes till we get an answer. :shades:
A computer is only a number cruncher. The results are only as good as the formulae that are put into, and that it works on. It is getting the formulae right that is the difficult part. You need to 1) identify all the variables that go into changing the climate and 2) how much each affects the climate ( and this can be complicated by that fact that each variable affects the other - sunlight, deforestation, population growth, GDP, CO2, methane, cloud cover, chemical reactions in the atmosphere, solar flares, ozone and magnetic field protection from cosmic rays, amongst others ...). How fast the computer runs is secondary.
What made you think I douted the validity of your assertion that you are a scientist? Like I said: little touchy are you? Correction: WAY touchy! Funny as scientist in every field as part of scientific inquiry build on successes or add to the scrap heap of failed and successful hypothesis, either proven or not. So a thin skin can perhaps be a liability. So get over it, you are really whining to the choir.
..."Using that type of reasoning you could never take any medication because medications are formulated by scientists who are just doing the evil bidding of the drug companies. How many things have been developed by scientists over the last few hundred years? Better not use any; it is all a scam"...
That certainly is your take, but it is certainly not mine, nor a logical conclusion of the reasoning presented. But keep in mind you all would be working for peanuts if it wasn't for the high cost of insurance to cover the exceptions; when those very same drugs are prescribed to the general population. Lethality in the medical field is absolutely rampant. But as you probably would agree, your response and my response to yours is off topic.
More on topic:
..."And as to the question of MTBE, the refinery industry wanted to use MTBE even though they knew it would leak out of fuel tanks and pollute local ground water. It was a bad decision. But it also illustrates why we need to do a better job of defining GW before we jump to solutions. "...
Indeed NOT !! To me this was a case of a product in search of a problem!!!!?? This is about as back wards as it gets! This clearly illustrates what Gagrice said is true! What magically changed in the calculations (after)? NOTHING! However what became apparent/revealed actually) (especially as you say if it was totally known beforehand) were the costs FAR (exponentially by the way) outweighed the so called benefits !!!!???? Indeed it was that way from the start! Indeed as I have said in the past, it took literally BILLIONS to legislate, BLIIONS to implement, billions to reconfigure, billions to test and REVEAL/find out (even as it was known all along) and billions to de-leverage. All WASTE !!!! To boot not only nothing was mitigate, but the products had to be cleaned up! Thats the good news! The bad news? Absolute travesty!!
So was lack of integrity a portion of the equation? Absolutely!
Let me ask another way, do you think they would have listened to an actor like Damon Wayans doing his drunk ghetto guy schticked, complete with his misuse of industry buzz words?
You are right. I clumped you all together as I would lawyers and politicians. That was not entirely fair. I do know scientists that studied everything from tundra grass, bears, bowhead whale migrations to ice core samples. And as a whole they were very serious about their field of study. I have no doubt they presented their superiors with accurate data to the best of their ability. The problem and I have discussed it with the scientists in the field is what happens to that data you sent to town? One marine biologist that was tracking whales told me she had little say in what actually happens with the data. This was in the early 1980s. She was making $25k per year with a PHD in Marine Biology. Her boss that did nothing but sit in San Diego submitting the grants and passing on the data made $85k per year. She could have gone to work at Sea World for triple what she got from the outfit she worked for. She loved studying whales in the Arctic.
That said, when I bad mouth scientists it is aimed at the ones that are in the middle doing whatever they are told to do by the entity paying the bills. I know they are not above lying to preserve their jobs. So if you are one of the dedicated scientists out in the field or doing research without a preconditioned conclusion. I apologize and assume you are part of the majority of good scientists.
My take on MTBE. Bad science used by greedy lobbyist, paying off corrupt politicians.
Nope, If I was way touchy I WOULD WRITE WITH THE CAP LOCKS ON and use a lot of !!!!!!!!! This is only a blog after all. :shades:
My point about the medications was an analogy. Other examples would be; if you did not trust airline pilots, would you want to fly or if you did not trust engineers, would you want to travel in an elevator or cross a bridge?
The MTBE issue was a good example of how the Air Quality folks at EPA pushed a bit to hard on the oxygenates without understanding the water quality ramifications. Another example of that is solid waste folks wanting to incinerate trash when it was looking like we would run out of landfills. The next thing you know we have an air pollution issue because of mercury in the trash (old thermostats and thermometers with mercury in them).
More on topic: Cooling climate ‘consensus’ of 1970s never was
"The team’s survey of major journal papers published between 1965 and 1979 found that only seven articles predicted that global average temperature would continue to cool. During the same period, 44 journal papers indicated that the average temperature would rise and 20 were neutral or made no climate predictions."
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/37590/title/Cooling_climate_%E2%80%98- consensus%E2%80%99_of_1970s_never_was
The first part of your sentence is true, the second part is not. They knew fully. They just neg dec'ed it. . All you need do is look at the public record on the subject.
..."More on topic: Cooling climate ‘consensus’ of 1970s never was"...
Just as there are no warming consensus (operatively) in 2000's.
Isn't it interesting that the environmental activist concept that boosting the price of a barrel of oil brings down use? Indeed doing what they advocate has not only increased the prices but actually increased year over year growth (i.e.,104% to 106 %)
What has cut the percentage of growth (rather dramatically I might observe) year over year (i.e., 104 to 102%) has actually been a DECREASE (DIRECT opposite if one continues to overlook the blantantly obvious) in the price of a barrel of oil (147 per barrel to current levels 74/75).
OPEC have declared EMERGENCY meetings for they fear it (not cutting production aka price of a barrel of oil) will start the price of a barrel of oil to further SLIDE ( to 50/55!!!!????) :lemon:
Blow to image of ‘green’ reusable nappy
Second is a blog entry. Mentions many of the arguments that refute anthropogenic GW and much of the polemic surrounding the issue. The interesting point is an assertion that in the very recent, average global temp has actually gone down giving up most of the recent warming, so we may be in for an extended cooling period. The comments that follow the entry are fun as well.
Thirty years of warmer temperatures go poof
Enjoy!
It's like coffee cups - things aren't always as they seem. Ceramic mugs take more energy and resources to make and clean than disposable Styrofoam, at least per one older study. But drinking coffee isn't green anyway.
Nothing is as simple as it seems on the surface.
On a lighter note..............today saw the commissioning of Britains latest off-shore wind turbine farm, (just off my local coastline). This now makes Britain the largest generator of electricity from offshore wind turbines. We just overtook Denmark. Just when I thought we were doing something right, they announced that the minister responsible would be going to see the new installation by helicopter. It's only a short trip by boat for heaven's sake. Why burn all that kerosine ? Maybe the fact that we don't really have a Royal Navy or a fishing fleet, any more, might explain it. Still, yippee for the turbines.
Last summer friends were here and we all went to the grocery and I forgot my cloth bags (no doubt loaded with pesticide and herbicide residue, but that's another story....). Anyway, I put my groceries in plastic and got chastised for not using paper bags. I'm like, dude, you and your wife own four cars and you want to lecture me about plastic/paper? (I'm not convinced that paper is better anyway).
If you into the reusable bags, check these out. Chico Bag. They're a bit more expensive, but I like the way they store easily. Most of the reusable bags from stores tend to be bulky in any reasonable quantity.
Next time someone gives you guff about that - remind them a tree was cutdown with a diesel machine, it was hauled on a truck, the factory used harsh chemicals to process the pulp into paper (ever see all the energy a paper plant uses? - the steam being emitted).
Of course you could counter by asking "How many refills do you get out an egg-carton before it falls apart?"
BTW - I know this is weather and not climate, but we're expecting snow flurries tonight, and a high of about 40F tomorrow. Since this is rather cold and I don't see it being any warmer until mid-April next year, I again pray for that arctic or Greenland warming to come this way.
"...Next time someone gives you guff about that..."
Next time someone gives you guff about that haul off and smack them right in the mouth. Then tell them to "stick THAT in your paper bag". :mad:
Who the hell are these people who want to lecture you on how to run your life as if you are too stupid to make your own choices. Usually they are just puppeting some BS given to them by someone running an adgenda. "Useful Fools" I think Stalin called them.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
Dear Members of the Harvard Community,
Although today's weather will hardly remind us of the serious problem that is global warming, today's event - the Harvard Sustainability Celebration, with a keynote address by former Vice President Al Gore - will go on, as scheduled, in Tercentenary Theatre with a program beginning at 4 p.m. We very much hope that you will attend and enjoy the festivities.
Starting at 3 p.m., we will be serving hot cider and soup to keep everyone warm; please dress for our changeable New England weather. Henry Longfellow, onetime Harvard professor and longtime Cantabrigian, once remarked, "The best thing one can do when it's raining is to let it rain." We sincerely hope that, this afternoon, it won't rain. But even if it does, Harvard celebrates Sustainability with spirits undampened.
Sincerely,
The Sustainability Celebration Committee
Office of the President
http://www.green.harvard.edu/
Perth Be Smokin' !!!
Perth is officially in the grip of an October heatwave, with the temperature rising above 32C for the third consecutive day - a new October record.
It is also the fourth day the mercury has gone above 30C, beating a record set in October 1969.
Yesterday’s minimum of 21.3C was the second warmest October night recorded in Perth since 1991. The maximum temperature of 35.7C recorded about 2pm made yesterday the ninth hottest October day since 1996.
Steve's friends will be turning him in for using plastic.
We of course, will deny ever knowing him lest we get hauled off to a GW re-education camp .
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
I remember before I got into the service I remember wildly delusional fantasies of being stationed there.
Nothing in this country surprises me anymore. When an old hack politician can generate $100,000,000 on a scam that convinces people their SUV is making it warmer half way around the globe, anything can happen. Ain't America grand?
PS
They better be running those SUVs off the road in Perth to cool it down a bit. Send them all to NE where they are freezing their a___ off.
It simply an excuse to drain your wallet.
That effectively makes you broke, if you've been honest - playing by the rules: 1) after you pay your taxes, and 2) lose your 401K in the stock market. Oh and do you think social security is going to have $, as our leaders spend us into many trillions of debt?
So drain, drain, drain, drain. This certainly doesn't seem like the U.S. that Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin helped spearhead the creation of. :mad:
Anyone who believes in GW and wants to stop it, please send me some $ then to pay my heating bills.
Interesting "PRE" man hypothesis!
link title
I thought one of the methane release scenarios was that burning carbon fuels was warming the climate, resulting in more methane getting dumped into the atmosphere from a warming arctic, making the cycle more vicious?
So barring base line release studies in artic/antartic conditions, etc. weather scientists probably are unwilling to link the hypothesis (or make the leap just yet), as to whether you get greater or lesser releases @ a-z temperatures.
They already know and or surmise there is literally inexhaustible methane "locked" and at times (24/7) released by the massive H20 pressures exerted by oceans.
Man is altering the climate. Hundreds of millions of vehicles, hundreds of coal power plants, deforestation, agriculture, dams, cities...they all add up. The important question is what impact are we having and what if anything can we do about it.
"The earth is dynamic; it heats and cools continuously. "
What part of the earth are you referring to? The ocean, atmosphere, the mantle or the core? Just because a system is dynamic does not mean you cannot alter the rate of change or the amplitude. One of the keys to understanding GW and climate is getting a handle on all the feedback loops.
Was the industrialization of humans responsible for the end of the last ice age?
Maybe.... "New research suggests humans were influencing the world's climate long before the Industrial Revolution."
http://news.mongabay.com/2005/0909-niwa_csiro.html
"It simply an excuse to drain your wallet. "
Spoken like a true non-scientist. What I find funny is that people have no problem dropping $40,000 or $50,000 on a vehicle just because of the trinkets they throw in. But if you mention anything to do with spending money on understanding GW they have a cow.
" So Warm !!!
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. "
I shall go on record now as to expressing imho that it will be an exceptionally cold winter. Please feel free to respond, I welcome a good spirited debate. Though it will defy global warming, in the near term as theory, I am willing to take the risk. Should my analysis not prove correct, I shall be the first to eat crow.Tia.
Of course mankind has an effect; everything has an effect. But what is having the main effect. Well it is the Sun. The Sun effects the climate by warming the Earth an average of 520F. If there is no Sun the Earth is just a frozen rock in space at -459F. The Sun is putting out enough energy in all directions, to do this at 93 million mile distance. And it does this century after century after century. This BY FAR dwarfs any contribution mankind will make to climate change.
That is why even small changes in solar activity matter greatly.
One day there will be a great GW of hundreds of degrees, as the Sun grows in size. It is the Sun that determines our current and future. And since out orbit isn't circular or even constantly elliptical our orbt around the sun determines the climate of the Earth.
That is the bottom line. Unlike, man made Global Warming Fanatics, I would like to see more LEGITIMATE research. I do not think any government is capable of Totally Honest research on the subject. Nasa and other Federally funded scientists have complained that their data was distorted or covered up by both Clinton and Bush administrations. Government agencies are usually taken over by zealots of one persuasion or another. That pretty well determines the results we see from the scientist they hire. I would like to believe that our Universities are capable of honest debate and conclusions. Even they seem to be over run with predetermined results on just about every scientific subject.
It might be a reason the "arm chaired" scientists do not assign numbers, %'s to "man's contribution: stuff like grandma/grandpa driving her cream puff weekly to bingo night, etc.
Let me be clear: I concur that all living things including humans affect the environment continually and that this has always been true. I also agree humans' present effect on the environment is greater than probably at any time in the past.
This tells us nothing about whether human actions are of consequence in the context of all factors. What I find hilarious is not the question of whether or not humans have any impact on global warming; we may. However I think the default position must be that we don't until such proof is offered that we do. What I find hilarious is the doomsday predictions of some blindly believed by many that drastic climate change is only a few decades away. The same sort of predictions were made in the 1970s. These were largely based on the consistent rise in temperature in any number of major cities around the world. No one bothered to consider that these increases were due to the population explosion in those cities and were merely local events, not global. Additionally, temperatures have been recorded for a tiny portion of time relative to the earth's history. My previous post was simplistic; the point was humankind's impact on global temperatures is as yet unknown. Future predictions of catastrophe due to humans is a bit premature. Okay?
I have no problem with money being spent on anything - just not taxpayers' money. Many well meaning organizations never solve problems because that would mean an end to their funding stream...
That may be the Most astute saying yet on GW/CC research. Once you have solved the riddle you are out of a job.
I would agree that predicting catastrophe is a bit premature, however, we have enough evidence to suggest there will be some changes in the future. It does make sense to keep funding research into climate. If we can make our climate predictions more accurate we can do a better job of planning.
" I have no problem with money being spent on anything - just not taxpayers' money. "
Gotta disagree with you on this one. Government is one of the few organizations that can adequately fund research. Exxon is not going to do it. Having said that I don't disagree with the idea of limiting the money spent. In other words, no blank checks. In fact I would guess we will be lucky to keep funding where it is now. The country faces some rather hefty bills in the future for infrastructure replacement (roads, bridges, water and wastewater systems.....).
I could support that (continuing research). However what we have today is beyond unbiased research. We have a group who put in some study, collect some short-term data - over a stretch they like, and want the glory and power of proclaiming "we have found a major issue, and we all must act!". IMO - 1) they are crying wolf because a bush is rustling, and 2) they have a psychological need to be recognized as important; or 3) they see $ in it for them or their institution.
So research is fine; but there are far too many examples throughout history where even the greatest of scientists proclaimed understanding; only to find the Earth wasn't flat.
So no I am not about to get the whole village up everytime someone sees a bush rustle.
Minor correction, absolute zero is −459.67 degrees on the Fahrenheit scale. The earth generates heat internally that will keep it above absolute zero. And the universal background radiation has been measured at about 2.7 degrees K.
" This BY FAR dwarfs any contribution mankind will make to climate change. That is why even small changes in solar activity matter greatly. "
Yes minor changes in the suns output matter a great deal. That is why we have been lucky that changes have also been minor. We humans live in a rather narrow range of temperature and weather. It is possibly that human activities are having a bigger impact then you think. Is it 10, 50 or 90%. I do not know and I suspect we don't have enough information to make the call yet.
If we are responsible for 10% of the GW we would not want to put money into reducing CO2 emissions. The change will happen at about the same time even if we cut emissions by 50%. The overall GW change would still proceed at 95%. We would be better off preparing for the inevitable change.
At 50% man induced GW we still would likley not want to put that much money into reducing GW. Cutting our contribution by 50% would still see the change proceeding at 75% (50% natural & 25% man). Inexpensive or no cost options might be considered, but again, we would want to brace ourselves for the change.
At 90% man induced GW we would want to see what cost effective solutions are out there. Still, this would need to be a world wide effort. If China, India and the Middle East countries keep expanding it won't matter all that much what the U.S. or Europe does.
Would all you SUV owners please drive up here and rev your engines until spring returns?
Come quick, I'm getting chilly.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
I have to disagree there. The 25 years I spent in the Prudhoe Bay Oilfield there were 100s of scientists studying everything from tundra grass to ice crystals in the upper atmosphere. Many if not most of the studies were paid for by BP and the other oil companies. They came from Universities all over the World to further their knowledge of the Arctic and the impact of oil exploration and production.
I guess it got misdirected. We got it here in So CA. It was 93 yesterday and a record for this day in history. So I guess I don't get to drive my SUV.
It would be curious to see how many weather records have been broken this decade vs the previous one. I'm sure a computer model could compensate for the difference in the length of time.
Then we could find another computer modeler to compare weather to climate.
I am now in shorts and short sleeve polo shirt (not in upstate NY). But then it was that way before I left for upstate NY, and by all indications 34 years later is pretty much the same. I might have to put on socks to break this global warming cloud cover that is fixing to burn off, and go to 77 degrees.
The Earth only has a molten core because the sun keeps it relatively warm on the outside. The Earth - in the cold of space, absent the sun, would be frozen solid fairly early in its 4 billion year history. There would be no daily rotation, and no magnetic fields generated in the core.
There is a relatively minor amount of radioactive materials that might provide a degree or 2 of heat. The Sun thru its gravity provides the rotational energy, and the bathing radiation and light, and warmth to keep the core molten, the ocean's unfrozen and the magnetic fields around and in the Earth. The Sun is the original source of all energy that has, is and will be used on Earth.
http://www.astronomynotes.com/starsun/s3.htm
"The first basic question about the Sun is how bright is it? It puts out A LOT of energy every second. How much? The answer from our measurements is 4 × 10(X26) watts. Such a large number is beyond most of our comprehension, so let's put the Sun's total energy output (ie., its luminosity) in more familiar units. It is equal to 8 × 10(X16) of the largest power plants (nuclear or hydroelectric) on the Earth. Our largest power plants now can produce around 5,000 Megawatts of power. Another way to look at this is that the sun puts out every second the same amount of energy as 2.5 × 10(X9) of those large power plants would put out every year---that's over two billion!"