In case you haven't looked out the window tonight:
Snow is falling in Seattle and a handful of Western Washington cities this evening and more could be on its way Thursday and Friday.Praise is surely due to Mrs. Gregoire and the Democrats in the state Legislature. Their multi-billion dollar scheme to defeat global warming must already be working! Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at March 26, 2008 08:04 PM | Email This"We normally get snow in January, but by late March it's unusual to have snow showers in the Seattle area," said Jeff Michalski, metrologist with the National Weather Service.
Forecasters say the Seattle-area will continue to ease its way into spring, with cool temperatures and rain mixed with snow predicted for the rest of the week.
The unexpected cold spell will keep temperatures about eight to 10 degrees cooler than what's expected for late March.
BTW, the idea of increasing energy causing systemic instability is one aspect of "chaos theory", which itself comes from efforts to (all together, now) model the weather.
Posted by: tensor on March 26, 2008 08:58 PMWe've been liberating those dinosaurs from their graves, and pumping both their carbon and lots of heat into the biosphere, over the last quarter-millennium. The northern polar ice pack has now receded to an astounding degree (ice core samples allow us to estimate ice packs in previous ages), and a truly frightening hypothesis suggests the ice fields ringing Antarctica act as dams, holding the glaciers on the land. Thus, if the southern ice fields keep shrinking, the dam could burst, and the eighty percent of humanity living within 100 meters of sea level might have just a few years to find higher ground. If such a possibility even exists, you can understand the urgency around this issue.
Reading the work of real climatologists, oceanographers, etc. would teach far more than I can, though. I'm just an engineer who once made instruments for said scientists, which is how I learned all of this.
Posted by: tensor on March 26, 2008 09:33 PMhttp://z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Technology/index.php?showtopic=2050
Posted by: HW on March 26, 2008 09:52 PMGlobal warming my arse.
Posted by: Cydney on March 26, 2008 09:56 PMYes, the rising temperatures on the oceanic surfaces do power more violent storms, such as Katrina. We also see more of these storms recently, in line with the warming climate-change model.
Look, if you're too rigid to care about your fellow human beings, think of the property! Zillions of dollars of real estate and infrastructure will be submerged. What will the owners do, sue the fake scientists? Oil companies won't have refineries with which to make money (they're all at current sea level), and so the fake scientists won't have money, either. Property destruction on a grand scale. Doesn't that get you angry?
Posted by: tensor on March 26, 2008 10:09 PMThe garbage-in garbage-out computer models are increasingly deviating from the facts of reality. Their dire predictions are not coming true. These scientists should get up from their computers and actually go out into the real world and observe what nature is telling them without trying to shoehorn the data into some preconceived theory.
The Global Warming pseudo-science is taking on all the aspects of a later day Lysenkoism. It is fast becoming official state dogma and anyone that dares to oppose it risks becoming a non-person. At least they're not carting these apostates off to the Gulag. For now.
Posted by: Bill K. on March 26, 2008 10:16 PMBtw, Al Gore has a terrible conflict of interest in promoting this religion of global warming. He's trying to become a billionaire off of it. Once you know that, you understand why he's so interested in promoting the religion of global warming. His bank account is counting on it.
Posted by: Michele on March 26, 2008 10:18 PMBecause I'll tell you flat out, as the so called spokesman for global warming, he is a complete hypocrite.
As long as he continues to heat three F'n Mansions, making my carbon footprint out house size
As long as he continues to fly in a private Gulf stream that in one trip creates a larger carbon footprint than a year in my car....
I really can't get much interested!
In a more serious vein:
See the very interesting 22 March 2008 article in ''The Australian'' titled ''Climate facts to warm to'':
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23411799-7583,00.html
Just one of a number of very interesting statements at the above link:
''If Marohasy is anywhere near right about the impending collapse of the global warming paradigm, life will suddenly become a whole lot more interesting. A great many founts of authority, from the Royal Society to the UN, most heads of government along with countless captains of industry, learned professors, commentators and journalists will be profoundly embarrassed. Let us hope it is a prolonged and chastening experience.''
Unusual weather is normal. Exactly!
Now if only the AGW alarmists and cultists could figure that out we could save trillions of tax dollars.
Posted by: deadwood on March 26, 2008 11:08 PMAl Gore really wants it to be so, trouble is the yet to be understood large scale effects of the earth's magnetism, oceans, the sun's impact, sunspots, etc. are all working hard to make Al look like a fool. And only a real fool believes that despite being by far and away the greatest influencer of our climate, that the sun's output is entirely constant, and that its minor fluctuations won't have drastic impacts that could easily mute any and all of earth's greatest contributions to its climate, let alone a measly human contribution.
Ever look at Atlas? Fire up Google Earth and scroll around. Low and behold the Earth is essentially uninhabited. 2/3 ocean, with vast swaths of the remaining land-mass lying within latitudes with very inhospitable conditions. Mostly just empty forest, frozen tundra, desert, etc. Even the continental US has vast tracts of totally uninhabited land throughout the West. Driven through Nevada lately on US 50? A whole lotta nothing. And yet, these AGW nuts really want us to believe that a few very isolated spots on earth with urban density, are totally muting the impact of all of the rest of the Earth and Sun climate forces, that act over those vast open spaces of empty ocean, and empty land. It's ridiculous, but they'll keep lying and trying to sell the hoax.
And the lefty fools here are ignorant of even the dogma handed to them by their own ministers of truth. The IPCC revised downward the apocalyptic sea level predictions from 20 ft to 2 ft. And that's worst case. Let's split the difference and say it goes up a foot in fifty years. That's hardly a crisis. That's a little higher seawall, for even the lowest lying properties. And crisis is immediate, not over one hundred or more years. The average person is not going to panic over a one to two foot sea level rise that might effect their grandchildren. And even that's unknown.
But hey, yeah, it makes sense to plunge our country into economic ruin, severely limit our energy production, etc. And even then, that won't stop the growth of CO2, all for hysteria over theoretical worst case predictions that are decades away at best.
Why don't Al and his disciples have the guts to just come out and say they'd like to implement unbridled Marxism in the US?
Posted by: Jeff B. on March 26, 2008 11:46 PMBecause 'weather' and 'climate' are two different things. (BTW, I've found NOAA's local three-day weather forecasts to be very accurate.)
Models are always being refined. Scientists love to prove each other wrong; it's how their careers advance. The point here is risk vs. reward. What if we could get catastrophic, permanent flooding? Responsible science demands we investigate.
Please note that one need not invoke global warming to want pollution out of the air we breathe, or better use of what resources we have. Gasoline once contained lead, and automobile fuel efficiency was a fraction of current levels. Despite much caterwauling from oil and car companies, these gains were both possible and worthy. (Why such businessmen would claim their companies were incompetent, I don't know; perhaps they were secretly shorting their own stocks?)
Posted by: tensor on March 27, 2008 01:35 AMBecause 'weather' and 'climate' are two different things. (BTW, I've found NOAA's local three-day weather forecasts to be very accurate.)
Models are always being refined. Scientists love to prove each other wrong; it's how their careers advance. The point here is risk vs. reward. What if we could get catastrophic, permanent flooding? Responsible science demands we investigate.
Please note that one need not invoke global warming to want pollution out of the air we breathe, or better use of what resources we have. Gasoline once contained lead, and automobile fuel efficiency was a fraction of current levels. Despite much caterwauling from oil and car companies, these gains were both possible and worthy. (Why such businessmen would claim their companies were incompetent, I don't know; perhaps they were secretly shorting their own stocks?)
Posted by: tensor on March 27, 2008 01:35 AMJane, uh er Tensor you ignorant slut!
Never mind that the ocean temperatures are not up at all. You know, actual data. Blasphemers to the high priests and their followers of AGW.
Now, here is somthing from NPR, so you can't dismiss it as right wing, oil company haliburton, Cheny McChimp propaganda:
The Mystery of Global Warming's Missing Heat
by Richard Harris
EXCERPT:
Some 3,000 scientific robots that are plying the ocean have sent home a puzzling message. These diving instruments suggest that the oceans have not warmed up at all over the past four or five years. That could mean global warming has taken a breather. Or it could mean scientists aren't quite understanding what their robots are telling them.
This is puzzling in part because here on the surface of the Earth, the years since 2003 have been some of the hottest on record. But Josh Willis at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory says the oceans are what really matter when it comes to global warming.
In fact, 80 percent to 90 percent of global warming involves heating up ocean waters. They hold much more heat than the atmosphere can. So Willis has been studying the ocean with a fleet of robotic instruments called the Argo system. The buoys can dive 3,000 feet down and measure ocean temperature. Since the system was fully deployed in 2003, it has recorded no warming of the global oceans.
Posted by: pbj on March 27, 2008 02:10 AMYou SAY you are an engineer. Then you will be able to answer me this:
Q: How does the solubility of a gas in a liquid change with temperature?
ANS: As the temperature increases, the solubility of a gas decrease as shown by the downward trend in the graph .
More gas is present in a solution with a lower temperature compared to a solution with a higher temperature.
I hope Elmhurst isn't on the payroll of "big oil", because they have a helpful bit of info on this:
http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/174temppres.html
Why is the relevant? The oceans act as a store for CO2. CO2 coming out of the liquid oceans FOLLOWS a rise in temperature, not the other way around.
Thus a rise in temperature from, oh I dunno, perhaps THE SUN????????? This heats liquid oceans and CO2 levels rise as the dissolved CO2 comes out of the liquid.
In layman's terms, this is why the "fix" goes out of Soda pop more on a hot day than a cold day.
So far your side has cried wolf at least twice in the past 40 years and I am being generous because there are others as well. First with Paul R. Ehrlich n 1968 with "Population Bomb". We were all supposed to be dead now just like the 9th grade yeast experiment.
Then in 1975 In Newsweek, we were told of the impending ice age that never occurred.
REAL climatologists such as Dr William Gray of the Univ of Colorado, the man who sets the standard for Tropical Storm forecasting, says that AGW is a "Hoax". Link
Where did you get your engineering degree? In what area?
Posted by: pbj on March 27, 2008 02:57 AMSound Politics is a disgrace to science - whether or not global warming is real or imagined. Your brand of 'science' is the worst of all.
Posted by: Andrew Brown on March 27, 2008 06:05 AMThe Seattle City Council declared Seattle a "Hate Free Zone", and a "Circus Free Zone".
If we vote for an even cooler climate, and if CO2 is somehow involved, we should declare Seattle a "CO2 Free Zone".
It will cost us nothing and provide the same result as taxing us out of our cars and homes on behalf of our dread carbon footprints.
I like outdoor ice skating. Glad I don't have to move back to Michigan. I'm putting in an ice rink in my front yard. Not kidding. Come by for a skate.
Posted by: Bart Cannon on March 27, 2008 06:25 AMDo we understand the system perfectly? No. But to sit on one's hands and do nothing is a pathetic and cowardly response to suggestions that there may be something going on.
Posted by: bma on March 27, 2008 06:32 AMand here:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.anom.south.jpg
Notice how far above the 'normal' line the Antarctice ice coverage is!
Brilliant parody on the climate heroes.
Posted by: Bart Cannon on March 27, 2008 06:36 AMBut thanks for asking.
PS. Duff. So you trush what the UN say's right?
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on March 27, 2008 06:37 AMThe movie he narrated won an Oscar, and the award went to the director, Davis Guggenheim. Algore may have spoken at the Academy Awards, someone may have given him a statue, but Algore did NOT win an Academy Award.
Now that's an inconvenient truth. Google it.
Morons.
Posted by: Obi-Wan on March 27, 2008 06:41 AM(you said "weather" for "climate" )
Then why does YOUR side say GW everytime we have one hot day or drought.
Yep I really want to trust the LEFTwingers.
'Morons'
Thank you for the correction. I believe you could have done it without the added 'emphasis', but a quick judgement like that (without even knowing me) is telling. :)
Posted by: Duffman on March 27, 2008 06:52 AMPS. Duff, you been teaching Billary how to duck from sinper fire? (-:
No your kidding right.
He bud, I hate to tell you this. But her numbers are not looking good. You guys need more trash on Obama with you expect to make it.
NOW, get to work duffie. (-:
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on March 27, 2008 07:59 AMThe fact is she went into hostile territory, landed and went about her business irregardless. If she had been smart, she could have said that there was some 'fear' for her life.
But, she shouldn't have said she was under fire, but big deal, I got the point she was making.
Posted by: swatter on March 27, 2008 08:21 AMHave you noticed the GW people are not saying zip about the ocean temp, but neither is the MSN either. I wonder why. LOL
#46 Duff
If Hillary get's the super deg's over Obama at the convention. You'll see 1968 all over again and the dem party will come crashing down.
PS I can't wait for it...
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on March 27, 2008 08:30 AMOOOO-darn. LOL
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on March 27, 2008 08:47 AMSince 1820 the human population has risen from 1 Billion to 6 Billion, the same period that temperature increases started occuring.
Now, wouldn't that make Global Warming the biggest success story every told?
I mean, has Global Warming ever decreased population in a significant way? If not, then isn't GW by definition, a really good thing?
Posted by: John Bailo on March 27, 2008 09:02 AMTIA.
Posted by: Gary on March 27, 2008 09:31 AMThe book "America Deceived" is readily available on Amazon.
Ron Paul isn't going to be President. Get over it.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on March 27, 2008 09:34 AMYou are drawing the wrong conclusion from this data...since the temperatures started climbing as human populations started growing, CLEARLY the solution is to start killing off human beings...just think we can return Earth's global temp. to 1800 levels if we kill off a mere 5 billion people.
Posted by: Chaos Theory on March 27, 2008 09:37 AMNASA has been predicting the arrival of the latest solar minimum since 2006.
Then they announced that it was here in Januray of 2008. And that their prediction was pretty accurate.
But it can't be both two years off, and accurate. And experts agree that Sun Spot Cycle 24, is STILL not here yet. NASA keeps moving the goal posts, because they want desperately to sound authoritative on the Sun, since it is obvious that the Sun plays a large role in our climate.
But what they are really admitting is that they don't know what's going to happen, and that ultimately, they don't fully understand the climate. There is much to be learned, unless you are a gullible lefty that believes the science is settled, and that it is now time for drastic economic action.
The left is afraid of this real science, because it does not yield the answers they want.
Posted by: Jeff B. on March 27, 2008 09:54 AMGlad I'm not you.
Posted by: Gary on March 27, 2008 10:05 AM"...it was clear that Gore embellished the truth to create dramatic effect and she had written to the president of the Academy Awards asking for his Oscar to be rescinded.
"The truth, as inconvenient as it is to Al Gore, is that his so-called documentary contained critical distortions that are quite contrary to the principles of good documentary journalism,"
"This situation is not unlike that confronting sports bodies, when their sports stars are found to be drug cheats.
Then why does YOUR side say GW everytime we have one hot day or drought.
It's wrong to connect a single hot day to global warming, just as it is wrong to use a snowstorm in March to prove that global warming doesn't exist. Again, weather does not equal climate. Don't hold the science accountable for certain lay misconceptions about it.
@55:
What a fool. Pour yourself a drink, put some ice in it and let it set ALL DAY. Ice melts, drink doesn't run over glass.
What a fool. Take that glass of water and a funnel, set the funnel on top of the glass, put ice in the funnel, and let it set ALL DAY. Ice melts, glass overflows and you have a mess.
Glaciers in the Arctic and Antarctic have land masses underneath them, which means that they aren't simply bobbing on top of the ocean. Your comparison is quite flawed.
Posted by: bma on March 27, 2008 10:15 AMElecting a lying leftist scumbag like either of these two would be fine by them.... because, after all, they're THEIR lying scumbags.
Posted by: hinton on March 27, 2008 10:18 AMExactly right. What all the data is now showing, is that we are actually trending in to more cooling. And that cooling, which is entirely beyond our control, will have a much more drastic effect on our economies than any warming. People will starve due to lack of food producing capability. And, energy will become more expensive, if we don't get on with producing more supply.
This is not something to be happy about at all. It will be a difficult time for humans, as were previous cold periods in recent human history that have been well documented.
Yet if you are an AGW doom and gloomer, you actually look forward to more hurricanes, etc. to advance the hoax of warming.
It's only going to take another five years or so for this Solar Minimum to really start to show its face. At that point, Al Gore will be a laughing stock. Meanwhile, the rest of us will be trying to undo Ethanol subsidies, and create low cost energy that we will need.
Posted by: Jeff B. on March 27, 2008 10:20 AMIn the meantime let's all burn food in our engines and reduce the amount of wheat grown, and cause even more food shortages, so we can all *feel* good about the evil warming. It was funny until governments started making laws based on a huge scam.
Posted by: Gary on March 27, 2008 10:30 AMDuffman, you sick freak. It figures you'd enjoy it!
Posted by: pbj on March 27, 2008 10:37 AMPosted by bma at March 27, 2008 10:15 AM
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
So are you sir! Glaciers have beem melting for what 1000 of years.
They did just start melting 3 years ago?
Gezz talked about flawed.
Don't forget to use those cute toxic light bulbs!
Posted by: Smoley on March 27, 2008 10:49 AMNow, who sounds like the sick freak? You're your own worst enemy, continue self-destructing. :)
Posted by: Duffman on March 27, 2008 10:50 AMUmm, it is still you. Pulling your chain is such fun. :)
Posted by: pbj on March 27, 2008 10:56 AMFunny how shills for AGW like #32 just denigrate the forum, without providing any substance. Others of the Gorebal Smarming ilk that want to destroy our economy due to a theory exhibit a truely disturbing psychosis.
Posted by: Yaddacubed on March 27, 2008 10:59 AMI guess BMA never heard of snow and ice. Which adds to the mountains & guess what glaicers and where does that water come from. Heck I don't know, maybe something that's 2/3 of this planet?
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on March 27, 2008 11:02 AM@67: bma, I could be wrong here, but I don't believe there is a land mass under the Arctic.
Greenland?
@70: So are you sir! Glaciers have beem melting for what 1000 of years.
They did just start melting 3 years ago?
Gezz talked about flawed.
It isn't the fact that they are melting or falling into the sea. Glaciers supply much of the drinking water in the world.
It is, however, the rate of glacial melting that is a concern. If these glaciers melt faster than they can be replenished, what happens?
And hey, I'm a skeptic about certain aspects of these things as well... I think that there are a lot of unknowns that are here, and I'm quite willing to revisit my assumptions once more data becomes available.
However, to confuse "weather" with "climate", to cherry-pick your proof, and to be so close-minded to possibilities that you start becoming contrary just to fight the "libruls"... how does that help anything?
Posted by: bma on March 27, 2008 11:43 AMI'll say it again. YOUR group of GW freaks always use any change in temp or a strom to say it's caused by GW.
This is why people like me and others who have been around for a few years don't by it.
By the way, when I was younger and living in San Diego I watched it snow. (1960) Go figure.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on March 27, 2008 11:56 AMIt'll get colder BEFORE it gets warmer.
BTW: I'm still waiting for the Ice Age predicted, no PREACHED to me in the 70's and also Silent Spring. ** Well ? ? **
That just gave me a Jimmy Carter flashback...now I have a headache.
Posted by: Sam Adams on March 27, 2008 12:10 PMGezzz me too, thanks Sam.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on March 27, 2008 12:17 PMOnly for those of you that actually believe it exists. The rest of us are having a grand time with your gullibility.
Posted by: RagnarDanneskjold on March 27, 2008 12:39 PMIt is our duty to be skeptical about this, don't you think? I'm not trying to change your life. The burden of proof is one your side.
Posted by: Gary on March 27, 2008 12:50 PMThe AGW folks are in a tight bind. It's far harder to show a correlation between the entire earth climate and a single element such as CO2, than to make a correlation between the much larger and much more abundant inputs to the system, such as the Sun, Earth's internal and external terrestrial heat, water vapor, cosmic rays, etc. The conflicting science in answer to the AGW crowd is uh, just getting warmed-up. All it takes is one good paper to disprove such narrow analysis as to link all of the Earth's climate to one variable such as CO2. And real scientists are getting just about fed up with claims of total consensus, etc.
There are now hundreds of papers, and more coming every day that challenge the AGW hypothesis. It's only a matter of time before both empirical evidence in the obvious cooling of late, and the enormity of real scientists publishing serious and widespread challenges to the AGW theorists before they are completely discredited.
There is no way that it could not be so. It's obvious from any cursory analysis of the historical record. Earth has had many different climates over the eons. And all before man ever existed. No matter our efforts, there will be much larger forces working both for and against us. We should be concentrating on how we can use our minds and resources to solve the much more immediate and localized problems that confront much of the world, such as disease, fresh water, etc. and not how we can beat our heads against the wall trying to offset something as large as the Sun.
An Ugly and very Inconvenient Truth is that The Global Warmers will gladly throw the Third World to the mercy of a life without basic energy and technology needs. All for the sake of implementing Marxism in the First World economies.
Posted by: Jeff B. on March 27, 2008 01:04 PMread the rest here:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-03/tau-ika032708.php
Sorry I wasn't clear Gary, I was referring to the above portion of Jeff's post. :)
Posted by: Duffman on March 27, 2008 01:35 PMwake me up when Al Gore starts putting the alarmists on his plane to Guyana to start their own little commune....he'll call it "Gorestown"
Wait a minute, I think I've seen this movie before...
Posted by: Rick D. on March 27, 2008 01:47 PMWhat are the odds that CO2 is creating a warming crisis?
1) must be proven that earth is getting warmer
2) must be proven warmer because of CO2
3) must be proven that warming = bad
4) must be proven to be reversible
5) no other science can be introduced to explain warming
I'd say it's about 10000 to 1.
As far as weather vs. climate, the point skeptics are making is not that weather = climate, just that if the weather models are wrong, then the climate models are too.
The future's not ours to see. Que Sera Sera.
Would you rather be spending a trillion dollars of our tax money on a 'war' in Iraq or prioritizing it in other ways including doing what we can to further the cause of protecting and enhancing our 'planet' [discounting Al Gore].
Posted by: Duffman on March 27, 2008 02:29 PMBut seriously, I wish the climatologists would spend some more time researching cosmic rays effect on the climate, like this scientist did.
Posted by: Palouse on March 27, 2008 02:32 PMGOOD ANSWER! :)
Posted by: Duffman on March 27, 2008 02:39 PM[i]
In 500 years, all 3 "causes" will probably be listed in the same sentence of children's history books. "In primitive societies, mankind was very superstitious and believed they could control the weather. Naive men tried sacrificing virgins, killing witches, or even believed they could affect the weather by riding a bicycle."[/i]
This is not the topic of the thread, but I will answer briefly to say that the US does indeed have an interest in encouraging, and developing peace in the Middle East. Unfortunately, the Islamic leaders preach violence and hatred on a daily basis, and actively encourage and fund the training and recruitment of jihadists. As long as that is the case, there will be an unfortunate need to address Islam in a more forceful and less diplomatic manner. Not doing so, will lead to more attacks, and more death of innocent lives in the region. We know this from a long history of escalation, that predates any US war. And the continuance of the preaching of violence. Until the calls for violence stop amongst Islamic leaders, it will not stop. And they don't seem to be too interested in persuasion, take just Ahmadinejad as an example. Our words go in one of his ears, and out the other.
I think you have fallen for the poor rhetoric of the Bush Administration. And that's one of the worst legacies of the Bush Administration, is they failed to properly define the threat we face. Speaking of Islam as a religion of peace instead of its current practice as a virulent ideology leaves people confused. Talking about building Democracies also leave people confused. Our interest is in addressing violent Islam and the preaching of jihad, not in nation building. But, be that as it may, the current course has been set.
And none of the poor handling of the earlier stages of the war, or terminology will dismiss the virulence that is rife in Islam and in the region. The clerics there are actively growing the violence. And they encourage that violence to attack the US and her allies. That will demand a response in one way or the other. And since we've gone this far in Iraq, we now have no choice but to continue to address the violence there and to help them stabilize their government. Because if we don't then the Bin Ladens of the world, will treat our retreat exactly as they did the Soviet retreat from Afghanistan. It emboldened and encouraged them. The facts are clear on all of the above, you can deny them all you want, but that does not make them go away. And you can also mislabel that, or misunderstand that as "nation-building" but that also does not make it go away.
We do have a choice to save trillions though, and use that money as you implore, for the better purposes I list. If we don't waste it on Global Warming, and Universal Healthcare, etc. There's no where near enough evidence that we could effect the climate, even if we do all of the reductions claimed in the dubious AGW science. Therefore, that money would be better spent as outlined above on more immediate threats.
And we know that the price tag for Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, etc. is already in the trillions, we don't need to add trillions of dollars in Universal Healthcare spending, especially when that burden can and should largely be paid by productive individuals as it is now.
You are right, there are plenty of places to save money, but one of the largest places, is by not building a whole new wasteful, and economy destroying bureaucracy around trying to change the temperature of the Earth, which is primarily subject to the whims of the Sun.
Posted by: Jeff B. on March 27, 2008 02:59 PM1. What EXACTLY is the correct temperature for the planet?
2. If you can't tell me EXACTLY what the weather will be in 10 days, how can you tell me you know what the temperature of planet will be in 10 years?
Oh yeah, take that "You're confusing weather with climate" BS and stuff it. You can't have one without the other
Posted by: Sam Adams on March 27, 2008 03:05 PMSo, ask the AGW folks when the tipping point is, beyond which we can ask them to stop bothering us.
They always thinks that's pretty funny.
Warmer and more bothering us. Advantage = longer golf and fishing season, but more annoying AGW talk.
Colder and us laughing at them. It is fun, but burrr, it's cold today.
If only it was just rhetoric. Unfortunately, the dogma believers have taxing authority.
Posted by: Palouse on March 27, 2008 03:37 PMI'm not in favor.
Posted by: Mel on March 27, 2008 03:42 PMhttp://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1725678,00.html
I don't think Al Gore is anybody's answer, and with the money he is making I don't know why he would take a pay cut.
Enjoy the article and let me know what you think!
Posted by: gs on March 27, 2008 03:55 PMYes, and they've banned lawn darts and those chocolate eggs with toys inside! What's your point? I'm not seeing how phasing out lightbulbs has anything to do with personal freedom. It's only promoting the use of energy-efficiency lighting, which is incredibly important, and far less costly than building the additional capacity to power all of those lights.
In the same address Ike gave warning about the 'military-industrial complex', he also warned about a 'government-science complex' in which government would fund scientists to find things that give the govt power.
The quote is:
The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present, and is gravely to be regarded. Yet in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite. It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system – ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.
Your point is important, and does make sense given that democracy should not be beholden to technocrats. However, we live in a country of 303 million people, in a world that is globalized and incredibly complex. There needs to be the input of specialized practitioners of science into discussions of policy, otherwise we might as well throw darts at a dartboard to make important decisions.
Posted by: bma on March 27, 2008 04:53 PMThere are always papers that challenge the dominant paradigm, and mold and shape the consensus thinking about phenomena like this. However, to cherry-pick a few papers, or to assume that the presence of several dissenters in the field means that the entire field is faulty? That's not rational. You're just finding the results that you want to find, just as (and I will admit it) a number of scientists on the opposite side find what they want to find with regards to the presence of climate change.
Earth has had many different climates over the eons. And all before man ever existed.
Great! But the climate shifts over millions of years (or even thousands of years) happen at a *completely* different time scale. That line of thinking is just as flawed as seeing snow *one day* and assuming that estimates about the effects of climate change over the span of a century are flawed.
We should be concentrating on how we can use our minds and resources to solve the much more immediate and localized problems that confront much of the world, such as disease, fresh water, etc. and not how we can beat our heads against the wall trying to offset something as large as the Sun.
You know... I'd agree, but it doesn't seem as if people really give a crap about those issues either.
An Ugly and very Inconvenient Truth is that The Global Warmers will gladly throw the Third World to the mercy of a life without basic energy and technology needs. All for the sake of implementing Marxism in the First World economies.
Urrgh. Energy efficiency and minor (if even detectable) shifts in the economy will NOT throw the U.S. or the rest of the Annex I parties. Do you think that we'll suddenly be riding donkeys to work on the freeway or something?
And even then, many of these shifts are going to happen whether you like it or not. Energy prices are *not* liable to come down anytime soon.
Posted by: bma on March 27, 2008 04:54 PM@114: 2. If you can't tell me EXACTLY what the weather will be in 10 days, how can you tell me you know what the temperature of planet will be in 10 years?
Good luck if you tried to run a weather model out for as long as climate models are run! You'd need a computer far more advanced than any we have right now. But on the other side, try comparing weather predictions in the 1970s to those today, and tell me which are more accurate. Our understanding is improving.
Yes, the meteorological and climatological models that we have cannot precisely predict what may happen. There are too many unknowns in these systems. However, assuming that these models are completely useless because of that is bogus. Each model is not drawn out of thin air, and reflects our best knowledge about these systems.
Posted by: bma on March 27, 2008 04:56 PMYou were talking to a person who either has no background in climatology (or, given her reply, oceanography). Why are you assuming that because *she* doesn't know the precise mechanisms involved, that they are suddenly bogus?
It's very similar here, where people are claiming that snow means that global warming is a fraud. Are you climatologists? Meteorologists? Do you have a degree in atmospheric sciences? No? Well... if that's the case, *why* should I believe you more than authorities in the field?
Posted by: bma on March 27, 2008 04:58 PMNo one is cherry picking anything. All of the temperature indices and sun output data show that we are heading in to a minimum. The only thing that is not of course known, is how long does it last. Is it short lived, or longer. If history is a guide, then we have a very 70s like pattern occurring where there will be some cold winters for a decade or so. But it could be more. And how come it is getting cooler if man is having such a tremendous effect?
And the point of mentioning historical climate differences is not simply to point out that they are different. That's obvious. The point is that they happened without human input and were caused by forces that are most likely beyond our control. The thesis of the AGW folks is not so bad, it's their proposed solution of massively taxing our societies with carbon cap and trade schemes.
You pretend that it would not be much of a deal, but would be a big deal for those nations not as rich as ours.
Just another Marxist.
I'm not seeing how phasing out lightbulbs has anything to do with personal freedom.
Then you are not as smart as you think you are.
Phasing them out limits the one thing you liberals love in prgenancy CHOICE.
Many simply hate the kind of light the ugly swirly-twirlies put out: they want a CHOICE.
Many simple hate the COST of the the ugly swirly-twirlies: they want a CHOICE.
Many simply hate the idea the ugly swirly-twirlies are difficult to dispose of: they want a CHOICE.
Eliminating that choice is a loss of FREEDOM to decide for oneslef what is best for oneself.
If as you claim, promoting the use of energy-efficiency lighting, which is incredibly important is paramount let the inventors make them marketplace palatable.
And since you are concerned with costly than building the additional capacity to power all of those lights. I fully expect you will lead the bandwagon to promote safe, efficient nuclear power.
While we are waiting for your parade to come through, I reiterate what I said earlier: I'm going to become an dealer/pusher of illegal incandescent light bulb, preying on housewifes and hapless individuals hopelessly hooked on desk lamps. "Psst Hey Momma: want some nice bright light... I got your nightlights, I got your bath bulbs and oooh baby, I got some sizzlin hot outdoor spot lights".
And what's the big deal with incandescent bulbs for people who get their power from hydro anyway?
What does that have to do with AGW?
Why do you so easily give up your freedom?
Posted by: Gary on March 27, 2008 05:30 PMAl Gore didn't win the Pulitzer Prize.
He went to dinner and had "Pullet Surprise"
Posted by: Independent Voter on March 27, 2008 09:03 PMGregoire is trying to be politically correct as are the other politicians who climb on the bandwagon for Global warming. They don't give a rip how it will affect the economy (i.e. the taxpayers), just as long as it gets them reelected, by the hordes of stupid voters who will reelect these chumps. The climate data is showing that there may not be global warming, but there is a global climate change and in ten years, it looks like global cooliing. David Matthews has gone into hibernation under a big rock in the middle east where he has gone to convert to Islam - good riddance - stay away - ya freakin' moonbat !
Posted by: KS on March 27, 2008 09:28 PMToo bad you can't be as green as I am, Al!
Posted by: Michele on March 27, 2008 09:39 PMSomehow, I think even without climate change/global warming/insert catchall phrase here______, that little factoid would seem to cool people off towards the high priest of the "church of global warming".
Posted by: Rick D. on March 27, 2008 09:41 PMLOL. Maybe Rather can talk about the Gore papers, he's so good at papers you know!
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on March 28, 2008 06:37 AMPerhaps people are finally shaking off the cult-like trance they've been in over this scam, and
he's trying to revive it.
Nice one.
But we all know the only reason Al wants us to fall for this is, his own GREED!
If he can't be prez, then he'll be the worlds ECO leader.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on March 28, 2008 06:49 AMHave a good day you'all
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You to duff, have a good weekend. Try not to have any Billary nightmares. (-:
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on March 28, 2008 07:09 AMLook out the window, you dumb @#%&*. Global Warming is piling up on my front lawn, as it was on I-5 yesterday when I was driving to Portland. Stupid enviro-nazi kooks.
Oh, I seeeee....GW is just a scam to extort tax dollars to line the pockets of leftist universies for more "studies". Huh?....and let's not forget the phony environmentalist corporations that are poised to steal what's left of your wallet.
Ignorant earth worshippers.......
Posted by: Saltherring on March 28, 2008 07:12 AMIf he is starting an ad campaign, maybe we need more letters to the editor. Time to prep up.
Can I get E. Gore for plagiarism? I am the one who coined the phrase, "flat earthers", except my reference was to the Global Warming fanatics. They are not going to believe any evidence to the contrary.
For example, read the pro-GW articles on climatedebatedaily.com.
Posted by: swatter on March 28, 2008 07:18 AMOn the other hand, I think the global warming opposition want to go too far with their political agenda, also. Right now there is conflicting data, to me it is better to be safe than sorry, within reason (i.e., in essence John McCain's approach). I do like having natural areas that all the public can enjoy. I do agree with Ken Schramm that there really isn't any reason for handguns to be allowed in National Parks. I don't agree with opening ANWR for oil drilling, as long as there are other alternatives. I believe it is an oil industry goal, simply because it is is cheaper for them, instead of doing the hard work in coming up with better drilling methods for areas that are less prone to potential damage if there is a mistake. My opinion, the oil industry is being lazy and ANWR is a red-herring for their laziness.
Regarding Global Warming, I do argree we should raise the CAFE limits because it seems the only way to force the automakers to get to work. For a couple of decades, research and experimentation have found ways to increase efficiency and output of engines and store the reserve of energy generated when breaking or coasting, but the auto industry has not had the incentive to innovate. Finally, Detriot is getting it and them along with the Japanese are starting to explore ways of capturing the energy generated in vehicles and use it more efficiently. They also have found better ways of storing electrical energy (battery innovation) that helps in many other ways (like laptop and other electronics battery needs). Wind energy, hydroelectric, and nuclear energy need to be better explored. To me this is a research quest, much like the NASA's quest for the Moon in the 60's. All government needs to due is put the right carrot out their to spur industry's research. They don't seem to want to do it on their own. To me the right carrot is the fact of not being dependant on Middle East oil.
Posted by: tc on March 28, 2008 08:22 AMYou know... freedom, choice, liberty. That kinda thing. I don't understand why people are so willing to let politicians tell them what kinds of cars to drive, what kinds if light bulbs to use, where they can educate their children, etc, etc.
The govt isn't using a carrot. It's using law.
Posted by: Gary on March 28, 2008 08:40 AMI agree that no one should want to destroy the earth, but environmentalists have taken their earth worship to extremes.
Case in point: If Grand Coulee and other Columbia River dams were being proposed in 2008, they would never see the light of day. Even though those dams power virtually all homes and industry in the NW, as well as provide water for billions of dollars of crops, environmentalists would kill them in their infancy. There will never, ever be another hydroelectric project in the NW. And the bumper sticker I saw on an old farmer's truck said it best, "IT'S NOT ABOUT SALMON, IT'S ABOUT CONTROL".
Posted by: Saltherring on March 28, 2008 08:48 AMSOMETIMES????????????????
When have they not gone overborad on everything.
Yet the head leaders of these groups live in huge homes and fly around in jets.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on March 28, 2008 08:48 AMThe people in the alarm industry will make up anything to be alarmed about. Bank it. And there is endless stream of customers who drink it up.
Posted by: Gary on March 28, 2008 08:55 AMThese GREEN groups wants us all in mud huts!
You notice no-matter what the new idea is, they hate it.
Eco-groups are nothing but a bunch of crazies..
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on March 28, 2008 09:03 AMTC you wonder why we don't trust your ECO-freaks
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/03/24/how-not-to-measure-temperature-part-54-los-angeles-the-city/
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on March 28, 2008 10:08 AMNo one disbelieves in cyclical global cooling and warming. We are just not prepared to take the hit for the rest of the world to make everything fair.
The Obamessiah, Hillary, Queen Christine and Sims are shills for the greens with the delusion that 'green technology' is somehow productive. Read the fine print - they want to regulate your lives and lifestyle.
Posted by: Yaddacubed on March 28, 2008 10:26 AMDon't people understand that what has happened is that carbon dioxide has been legally declared a pollutant, which means that your very life is pollution? And people are like, "I'm cool with that." It's astonishing how people give themselves up in every manner.
Posted by: Gary on March 28, 2008 10:35 AMNice to see a bit of a walk back from you. You do have some integrity. That said, it's fine to be cautious, but being cautious about Global Warming means continuing to fund the science, not embarking on a hysteria laden set of economic policies within congress. Congress should continue to fund the research. It would be great to have more sattelites measuring temerature, and standardize the Surface Stations so as to eliminate the heat island effect that has fueled much of the hysteria. And get another SOHO sattelite on the back side of the sun. Etc.
But, all of that costs money, and there are more pressing problems. And there's no sign that those convinced of AGW are willing to back down and work to solve Global Cooling, if that instead turns out the be the problem.
That's why us rational folks are pissed. When Gore goes on 60 Minutes and compares anyone who is skeptical of his climate hysteria to moon landing deniers, he goes way too far. And he's only hurting himself, because the Sun and the Earth will play out the real story, and it will leave egg on Gore's face. That's been the case for billions of years, and it will be for the short future as well. Earth has corrected from volcanoes and other much larger than manmade CO2 phenomenon. I haven't see a single credible paper than shows that Earth does not have its own mechnaisms for keeping temperature somewhat stable. It's just the opposite. Every historical record, and the current record all show a cyclical rise and fall of temperature within a normal band. That's why the temperature indices have all turned down since about 2001. We are going in to a typical cooling cycle. It's absolutely normal. And absolutely what we expect from inputs that are much greater than the sun. The AGW crowd says that the sun is a relative constant. That's false, and the sun is proving that right now.
And you are wrong on CAFE as well. The way to spur energy advances is to incentivize new development, not punish existing development. If the government instead encouraged a space race like goal of a cheaper and better energy platform, and even issued prizes to those engineers and entrepreneurs that achived it, that would create what we are looking for. All CAFE will do is cause auto mfgs to build more smaller cars in to their fleets, while staying within the existing fuel paradigm.
Government is the problem. Let the scientists and egngineers solve the problems, not the politicians and the snake oil salesman like Gore. You can't legislate technology.
And a final note is that Gore has refused debate with everyone. No matter the credentials or the intent, he refuses all debate. Why is someone who is so sure about his theory that he calls everyone who challenges him a flat earther, unwilling to take questions and prove his points? Most likely because he is an outright liar, who only wants to create a carbon cap and trade business for his own enrichment.
Time will tell, and it is not on Al Gore's side.
Posted by: Jeff B. on March 28, 2008 10:35 AMBut hey, let's burn food in our cars and let the hungry people fend for themselves. Don't the starving people understand that people in Seattle need to *feel* good about *doing* something?
Posted by: Gary on March 28, 2008 10:46 AMGreat one.
gezzz, these green freaks are just plain fools.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on March 28, 2008 12:03 PMWell, except that whole aerosol thing. That'll put the hole right back in the ozone, and voila! Global cooling. Break out hair spray honey, I'm going back to spiked hair so I can save the world! =)
Posted by: Palouse on March 28, 2008 01:14 PMWeird. It's the most notable non-problem that humans face today.
Oh. Maybe not. Climate has been our number one antagonist since our before our first upright steps.
There is no chance that we can steer climate to our preference. We survive by ADAPTING to it.
The Washington DOT has extended the use of studded tires until the end of April.
Posted by: Bart Cannon on March 28, 2008 02:58 PMBart, that's because Global Warming is such an egregious hoax. I intend to keep fighting this until Gore is a laughing stock. And I know a lot of other people who will too. And fortunately, Al Gore is hurting himself.
Statements like what will be aired on CBS this Sunday are way outside the bounds of acceptable discourse for a man of Gore's alleged stature. He's going to regret his statements, big time.
Posted by: Jeff B. on March 28, 2008 05:06 PM"Scientists have revealed that Yellowstone Park has been on a regular eruption cycle of 600,000 years. The last eruption was 640,000 years ago...so the next is overdue. The next eruption could be 2,500 times the size of the 1980 Mount St. Helens eruption. Volcanologists have been tracking the movement of magma under the park and have calculated that in parts of Yellowstone the ground has risen over seventy centimeters this century.
http://www.solcomhouse.com/yellowstone.htm
There may be several super-eruptions large enough to cause a global disaster every 100,000 years. This means super-eruptions are a significant global humanitarian hazard. They occur more frequently than impacts of asteroids and comets of comparable damage potential.
Prof. Steve Sparks FRS (University of Bristol), co-lead author, said: "Several of the largest volcanic eruptions of the last few hundred years, such as Tambora (1815), Krakatoa (1883) and Pinatubo (1991) have caused major climatic anomalies in the two to three years after the eruption by creating a cloud of sulphuric acid droplets in the upper atmosphere. These droplets reflect and absorb sunlight, and absorb heat from the Earth - warming the upper atmosphere and cooling the lower atmosphere. The global climate system is disturbed, resulting in pronounced, anomalous warming and cooling of different parts of the Earth at different times.
Prof. Stephen Self (Open University) said: "Super-eruptions are up to hundreds of times larger than these, and their global effects are likely to be much more severe. An area the size of North America can be devastated, and pronounced deterioration of global climate would be expected for a few years following the eruption. They could result in the devastation of world agriculture, severe disruption of food supplies, and mass starvation. These effects could be sufficiently severe to threaten the fabric of civilisation."
http://www.solcomhouse.com/supereruption.htm
Nature has much more power than we do, and those of you concerned about what kind of fuel I put in my car, or what light bulb I use, should 1) get a life; and, 2) realize that we have very little impact on the global climate.
Here's a quarter; go buy a clue.
Last time I brought up bio-fuels, an SP poster claimed that real conservatives on SoundPolitics were mostly against them--i.e., they see them for the government scam that they are. In that poster's view, environmentalists were seen as responsible for the imposition of biofuel mandates.
Now I see the groupthink is going the completely opposite direction, aggreeing that environmentalists are the villains because they oppose biofuels.
I know spewing hate on environmentalists is loads of fun, but you can't have it both ways. Either they're villains because they're for bio-fuels or because they're against them.
Thanks all, New Left Conservative #1
Posted by: New Left Conservative #1 on March 28, 2008 11:02 PMFor all there has been a huge amount of sound and fury over warming, for practical purposes our everyday lives have been and will be more impacted by gov't actions already taken in the area of Bio-fuels.
The truth about Global Warming is that nobody can predict the future. Will the Wilkens Ice Shelf break apart next year? Nobody knows. SP posters are wise and I applaud them for demanding more himility from scientists, envs., policy makers and everybody coming with hat in hand over global warming. Sid Morrison, the ex-congressman from Richland, is classic in this regard as global warming is the biggest and first reason he cites for wanting 7 billion dollars for the gov't boondoggle they call Blackrock Dam.
But this isn't so for Bio-fuels. The numbers are already in and we already know the truth now: if we stopped growing food and only grew fuel, it would only reduce demand for gasoline by less than 20%. It may help farmers and we all love farmers, but it's a hoax.
So you folks should reduce anger and add just a touch of humility on the subject of global warming and make the opposite adjustment in the area of bio fuels.
Thanks all,
New Left Conservative #1
The left-wing pseudo-environmentalists* will not be happy with anything that is a real solution to a problem, especially if is a technical solution involving engineering, unless the solution involves starving or otherwise killing many humans or crippling an economy or two. So, even the fact that they are fighting against their own mis-guided "solution to global warming/coldening/staying-pretty-much-the-same, except in Seattle where I rode through a freaking blizzard on my bike yesterday at 200 ft elevation", is just interesting to see.
The left-wing view on nuclear power is a good example of this hatred for any solutions or improvement of man-kind (and chicks too, I suppose, of course).
* I use this term as opposed to real environmentalists - nature conservancy, hunters, bike riders (yeah, plug for me), and others who both care and have a un-pickled brain in their head.
Posted by: Dave Lincoln on March 29, 2008 01:26 PMI hope I'm not wearing out my welcome here!
Thanks for the comments. Like many left wing enviros, I'm massively "warming" to nuclear power. A left, green friend of mine has highly recommended the book: Power to Save the World: The Truth About Nuclear Energy by Gwyneth Cravens, and I'm about to read it. Thanks New Left Conservative #1
Posted by: new left conservative #1 on March 29, 2008 01:52 PM