Global Warming Update
February 12th, 2008 at 11:10am Mark Noonan
Was the Goracle recently giving a global warm…errr…climate change speech in Minnesota?
MINNEAPOLIS - It lived up to its name: The temperature in International Falls fell to 40 below zero Monday, just a few days after the northern Minnesota town won a federal trademark making it officially the “Icebox of the Nation.”
It was so cold that resident Nick McDougall couldn’t get his car trunk to close after he got out his charger to kick-start his dead battery. By late morning, the temperature had risen all the way to 18 — below zero.
“This is about as cold as it gets, this is bad. There’s no wind — it’s just cold,” said McDougall, 48, a worker at The Fisherman, a convenience store and gas station in the town on the Canadian border. “People just don’t go out, unless you have to go to work.”
Residents of the area use electric engine block heaters to keep their cars from freezing.
The wonderful world of climate change - anything that happens is the fault of CO2 in the atmosphere, which is the fault of the United States, which is the fault of Chimpy McSmirk BusHitler, working for Big Oil. Nifty to be a leftist - never have to think about things.
Entry Filed under: Environment
73 Comments
1. js | February 12th, 2008 at 11:15 am
The real lack of empirical science in the Global Warming ring is bound to show through eventually.
Next week it will change though, they will all start telling us we are going into another ice age!!
2. Obama Supporter | February 12th, 2008 at 11:18 am
I see you still can’t distinguish between climate and weather Mark, something most children learn at the 5th grade level. Let me know if you need any help with your math homework.
3. Mark Noonan | February 12th, 2008 at 11:21 am
Obama,
Please do - define weather and define climate.
4. OhioOrrin | February 12th, 2008 at 11:23 am
“the goracle” !!!
that’s rich…mind if I use that, Mark?
anyway, remember when CO2 was gonna cause an ice age?
errr, make that another ice age since, as we know, the earth warmed & the ice melted…all before man was a single-eyed plankton bent on ruling the world !!!!
5. Ricorun | February 12th, 2008 at 11:26 am
Mark: Nifty to be a leftist - never have to think about things.
John McCain is convinced climate change is real and a serious problem. Does that make him a lefty?
6. Retired Spook | February 12th, 2008 at 11:42 am
John McCain is convinced climate change is real and a serious problem. Does that make him a lefty?
Is that a rhetorical question, Rico? Seriously, I suspect that McCain’s public position on global warming is more political posturing that anything else. I’d be shocked if he actually believes what he’s stated publicly.
Now, that said, if McCain gets elected and uses the bully pulpit to promote an “Apollo” alternative energy project, designed to make the United States the leader in a new generation of abundant, clean and economical energy, I can’t imagine ANYONE having a problem with that.
7. SteaM | February 12th, 2008 at 11:56 am
This post is actually Mark baiting people.
He doesn’t understand the concept of man-made climate change. He won’t understand. He won’t except it as truth. Any science that proves it must be “made up” or funded by Soros or something.
Mark,
If posting this article is meant to intentionally bait people into disagreeing with your silly resistance to climat change science this so be it. I’m just pointing out how silly and childish that is. It’s also really sad and horrible in that in doing so you are making light of a very serious moral issue.
Read: http://www.weather.com/blog/weather/?from=secondarynav
8. Amanda | February 12th, 2008 at 11:59 am
Climate:
Climate in a narrow sense is usually defined as the “average weather,” or more rigorously, as the statistical description in terms of the mean and variability of relevant quantities over a period of time ranging from months to thousands or millions of years. The classical period is 30 years, as defined by the World Meteorological Organization. These quantities are most often surface variables such as temperature, precipitation, and wind. Climate in a wider sense is the state, including a statistical description, of the climate system.
Weather:
The weather is the set of all extant phenomena in a given atmosphere at a given time. It also includes interactions with the hydrosphere. The term usually refers to the activity of these phenomena over short periods (hours or days), as opposed to the term climate, which refers to the average atmospheric conditions over longer periods of time.
9. eric | February 12th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
SteaM,
How is this “a very serious moral issue”? Morality has nothing to do with global warming. It is about science and the science is still very debatable.
10. Obama Supporter | February 12th, 2008 at 12:16 pm
Mark,
Your posts and responses have become so outright dumb that you won’t be hearing from me again. You simply aren’t worth engaging with.
11. js | February 12th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
Twice you accuse mark of not being smart enough to figure out the difference between climate and weather.
Twice, you dont even present any evidence showing its true.
You liberals always lable people in a hurry. The only way they can claim global warming is true is if they stick to records over the last 100 +/- years. Going back further, shows the climate on the earth warming since long before written history.
As a matter of fact, every Climatologist will tell you the Earth’s temperature has been much hotter and colder than it is now. The changes these people are concerned about have happened before. In the 14th century, before we ever started using cars and trucks and planes, it was hotter than it is today. After that, it got colder. MUCH colder, and its been warming up evern since.
Global Warming is the proberbial Chicken Little, running about crying out that the sky is falling. Its just the earth, its done before, and its doing it again. The is absolutely no empirical science that proves anything else.
NONE.
12. eric | February 12th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
Mark,
Thanks for running off another left-wing kook. LOL.
My bet is that we have not seen the last of Obama Supporter.
13. Retired Spook | February 12th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
Obama Supporter,
Don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out, and please don’t come back.
SteaM, what was your link to the Weather Channel supposed to show other than your ignorance?
14. Mark Noonan | February 12th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
eric,
Probably not - but Amanda did come through with a pretty good definition…but it doesn’t explain how an average rise in global temperatures can result in colder local temperatures…I mean, the global mean is a mean of all measured temperatures, including the record low in Minnesota and such things as China having its coldest winter in 100 years…
15. SteaM | February 12th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
js,
are you serious!? You just labeled us in a hurry then said we will label people in a hurry… pfty.
Also, I am not going to even try to correct your misunderstanding of the basics of climate change science. Every time I do that on these baiting threads Mark and everyone jumps on me, and others, and in the end we wait a week or so and have the conversation again. All facts and information that was given to you guys is forgotten. It’s a waste of time to try to go over this all again. You refuse to listen to reason.
16. Mark Noonan | February 12th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
SteaM,
It is a bit of a bait - but I’m still not the master of such things.
17. SEW | February 12th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
This weekend I watched an old Discovery channel DVD, “we built this city Ney York”. About 3 minutes into the opening, there was a demonstration of the receding ice cover over the past 20,000 years. And then appeared land, previously entirely ice and snow, and there was Manhattan! And then the southern tip of Manhattan was settled by native Indians. No overcrowding, no suvs, no BushHitler. So Mr. Nobel Peace Prize,and now Mayor Bloomberg, please explain this phenomenon in terms of anthropogenic global warming. And while you’re at it, why is there decayed plant life, better known as oil, below the Middle East surface and below the vast northern hemisphers, before anthropogenic forces?
Oh, I forget, this has passed the stage of debate.
18. TiredofLibBullSh** | February 12th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
I love the way libs use “morality”.
If it is religious, they want no part of it. But, if it is used in their “religion” (anything liberal) then it’s open season.
We started with this BS as an increase in temperature 1 dec C over 100 years. That gave use GLOBAL WARMING. I guess that term was not working or acceptable by the populace. Now we have CLIMATE CHANGE which can explain any weather condition experienced (arid, wet, warm, cold, blizzard, hurricane, tornado). Since, weather patterns and weather events cannot be easily predicted nor is solid evidence to the cause observed for that particular weather event, chalk it up to CLIMATE CHANGE.
Perfect example, the recent tornadoes this past week. Kerry was the first politician to blame climate change. Where is the specific scientific evidence to support that assinine claim?
Climate change may be happening, but where is the solid evidence as to its specific cause - namely increased CO2 by man and to what extreme will this change take us?
What is the normal average temperature of this planet? The earth has been around for over 4 billion years - the data for “normal” is but less than a 0.00000025% of that time.
19. js | February 12th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
js,
are you serious!? You just labeled us in a hurry then said we will label people in a hurry… pfty.
/////\\\\\////\\\
Ya. Right. Suuure. The chicken little phenomenon has been going on for years. What makes you think I hurried. Use your head for something more than a led sled next time, ok?
////\\\\////\\\\
Also, I am not going to even try to correct your misunderstanding of the basics of climate change science.
////\\\\////\\\\
Ill take it that the “real” reason is because you dont have the facts to back you up. The Truth is all that you need. IF its true, then why hold back? Its beyond me how you think you are at a disadvantage, IF its true.
Than again, if its not, this is atypical of liberal retreat.
20. TiredofLibBullSh** | February 12th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
MeatS,
Your facts and “science” are cherrypicked worse than the Iraqi intelligence.
You people are making claims of concensus when you are far from it. Your favored discrediting reason is that so&so received grant money from big oil - where scientists who receive grant money from government have absolutely no agenda (how about keeping or getting more of the grant money).
“Every time I do that on these baiting threads Mark and everyone jumps on me…………..”.
Here’s two suggestions, stop swallowing the “science” without looking at the other side OR either grow a spine or get lost. If you want to keep spewing the goracle’s propaganda then be prepared to be challenged and answer with other than “big oil”, otherwise go away.
21. bagni | February 12th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
markwarmalicious:
you can argue whether the planet is cooling or warming ?
but
you’re not hearing ole’ mutha nature talking to you
she’s saying…..
’stop riding me hard and putting me away wet’
moving forward it should be about conservation
even ‘w’ has suggested that
ironically….your planets u.s.a.?
a nation that nurtures the notion that waste is a sign of strength
please…don’t even get the green ones started on this subject
22. Mark Noonan | February 12th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
bagni,
There are issues I care less about than global warming - paper or plastic, for instance.
I’m not too worried about it - I have a bit of humility which leads me to understand that our power to affect the global climate is quite limited.
23. Obama Supporter | February 12th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
11 - js
He himself asked to have the distinction between climate and weather pointed out to him, ergo he does not understand that there is a distinntion.
The above comment alone confirms that Mark Noonan is an outright moron. What’s so difficult to understand Mark, that specific local phenomena can vary from gerneralized global phenomena? Do you even know how to find an average for a sequence of numbers? Did you study math or science to even basic level at junior high? Don’t you feel ridiculously embarrassed to be blogging about global warming and science based topics when you are as ingnorant as you clearly are?
If you don’t understand that there is a distinction between weather and climate while attempting to comment about climate change you are a moron. Flat out, you are a simpleminded uneducated idiot. Mark is making postings about climate change and he doesn’t even understand this distincition? Are you kidding? We learn about that stuff in primary school at the age of 9 in Ireland where I was educated (the education being provided by those paragons of liberal leftism: Catholics nuns).
Seriously, I’ve occasionally stopped by this blog to check to see what keeps the dead-ender bush supporters ticking but I can see that engaging them in any meaningful form of debate is a waste of keystrokes. Mark, look at the kind of people who you get arguing your side of the case, look at the kind of company you are keeping. People like JS who appears to be barely literate (can’t spell, doesn’t understand even basic grammar) and who was caught out repeatedly stating facts that are verifiably untrue in a recent series of posts regarding your paranoid theories concerning the NIE’s Iran intelligence estimates. Or people like ‘Retired Spook’ above who is so far gone into weirdo paranoid land that he says he doubts McCain even believes his own statements about climate change. Or Almiranta who in the NIE thread said she was only interested in reading posts from people who have the same point of view as herself. What i’ve come to realize is - what is the point in debating people like this? You guys are totally and utterly hopeless, you’ve cleaved yourselves to an ideology like moluscs to rocks. That’s an unforgivably dumb way to apporach such a complex world as the one we live in.
Even though I support Obama in the current elections I myself am not a democrat and can fully understand anyone not supporting the democrats or getting angry at hell at their corruption and their generally crappy policies, but the republicans are even worse! You guys seem to approach your serious civic duties of electing officials as if you’re engaged in a team sport - “I’m a conservative republican and I will NEVER deviate from that cause”. Basically you’ve given up your civic responsibility to think for yourselves and to form judgements based on the available evidence regarding what’s best for the nation.
And as for the several posts above effectively saying “good riddance” to me, that just says a lot about you guys. You are completely uninterested in contrary points of view. Good luck hanging out in your personal little hall-of-ideological-mirrors in the armpit of the internet that is blogsforvictory.com
24. Retired Spook | February 12th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
bagni, forget to take your meds again?
25. SteaM | February 12th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
TiredofLibBullSh**,
You ask were evidence is of such claims? You’ll never know… it’s a secret! Scientists really figured it out but are keeping it from you!
ha! Even if we went on and on for a thousand posts on here with scientific evidence you’d still be asking the same questions because you refuse to change your mind.
26. Retired Spook | February 12th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
Boy, Obama Supporter, that was the shortest hiatus on record. What part of “get lost” don’t you understand?
27. Ricorun | February 12th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
Is that a rhetorical question, Rico?
To me it is. To others I suspect it isn’t.
Seriously, I suspect that McCain’s public position on global warming is more political posturing that anything else. I’d be shocked if he actually believes what he’s stated publicly.
In other words, you don’t believe the “Straight Talk Express” is all that straight. To be perfectly honest, I suspect you’re right. But not necessarily on this point. His record suggests it’s not all talk.
Now, that said, if McCain gets elected and uses the bully pulpit to promote an “Apollo” alternative energy project, designed to make the United States the leader in a new generation of abundant, clean and economical energy, I can’t imagine ANYONE having a problem with that.
Now we’re talking! And keep talking like that! The fact of the matter is, and as I’ve said many times before in many contexts, it’s never enough to just want to do the right thing. You also have to make every effort to do the right thing right. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. And it does worry me that the general Democratic approach tends to stress regulations over and above economic incentives. On the other hand, it worries me that the general Republican approach is to sweep the problem under the rug as much as possible, and/or to kick the can down the road rather than confront it head-on.
28. Zach | February 12th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
My dad lives near Minneapolis, actually he works in Minneapolis. He said during lunch break some co-workers and him go outside with a cup of water..They throw the water up in the air and by the time it hits the ground..It shatters..
Thats all I got for this thread..I thought that was cool..haha
29. eric | February 12th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
I was right Mark. Obama Support is already back. Do I win anything?
30. SteaM | February 12th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
FINE!
I’m not going to spew anymore “science” or “things Al Gore has said which he learned from scientists”.
If you want me to listen to your side then go ahead. Tell me your side so I can read it and consider it with an open mind.
Ok, your turn.
31. SteaM | February 12th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
tiredoflibbull, Mark, js,
come on guys. I want to hear your side. Why do we have record cold, record hot, record flood, record snow, record drought, record tornado outbreaks in february, record hurricaes…
Why?
Explain it to me!
32. Retired Spook | February 12th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
And it does worry me that the general Democratic approach tends to stress regulations over and above economic incentives. On the other hand, it worries me that the general Republican approach is to sweep the problem under the rug as much as possible, and/or to kick the can down the road rather than confront it head-on.
Which begs the question, Rico; is the time finally ripe for a viable third party that encompasses that vast 60-65% in the middle that actually agree on most issues and actually addresses and solves real-world problems rather than engaging in political posturing and class warfare?
SteaM,
You’re really embarrassing yourself. Better quit while you’re behind. Go find some nice left-wing science blog where your ignorance will be applauded.
33. Retired Spook | February 12th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
SteaM,
OK, here’s a pretty good
place to start. Do some searches on La Nina and PDO. It should explain a lot.
34. Mark Noonan | February 12th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
eric,
I don’t know - but if Obama Supporter goes tries out for soccor or some othe girlie, Democrat sport, then he can be called an Athletic Supporter…
35. Mark Noonan | February 12th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
Spook,
What they just don’t get - and won’t get - is that when we say “record” this or that vis a vis weather, it is “record” as far as we know…which isn’t very much. Hint: the thermometer was invented in the 18th century…prior to then, we have no accurate temperature records for the planet.
36. eric | February 12th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
Mark,
Easy on the anti-soccer talk. My in-laws are Brazilian. How about we pick on badminton or curling?
37. Ricorun | February 12th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
Spook: Which begs the question, Rico; is the time finally ripe for a viable third party that encompasses that vast 60-65% in the middle that actually agree on most issues and actually addresses and solves real-world problems rather than engaging in political posturing and class warfare?
I wish I could answer that question. Sometimes multiparty systems work well, sometimes they don’t. I’ve never actually sat down and studied them to try to glean what makes some work and some not. At any rate, I don’t see it happening anytime soon.
38. southerner | February 12th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
I have to say Mark, anyone who knows anything about any kind of science is not going to give you much credibility based on a lot of the statements you wrote above. You ought to study up on some of this stuff before making more of a fool of yourself. How can we know about the planet’s temperature record? Ever here of Ice Cores, to name just one technique…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core
39. SteaM | February 12th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
How is Global Warming Related to El Niño and La Niña?
Some scientists believe that the increased intensity and frequency—now every two to three years—of El Niño and La Niña events in recent decades is due to warmer ocean temperatures resulting from global warming. In a 1998 report, scientists from NOAA explained that higher global temperatures might be increasing evaporation from land and adding moisture to the air, thus intensifying the storms and floods associated with El Niño.
Another take on what’s happening is from Kevin Trenberth, a climatologist at the Colorado-based National Center for Atmospheric Research. Trenberth believes that the Southern Oscillation may be functioning like a pressure release valve for the tropics. With global warming driving temperatures higher, ocean currents and weather systems might not be able to release all the extra heat getting pumped into the tropical seas; as such an El Niño occurs to help expel the excess heat.
http://environment.about.com/od/globalwarming/a/elninolanina.htm
http://www.ucar.edu/communications/factsheets/elnino/
40. Retired Spook | February 12th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
Ever here (sic) of Ice Cores, to name just one technique…
Southerner, ice cores are one of a number of proxies used by climate scientists to attempt to reconstruct the climate history of the planet. Recent studies have called their accuracy into question
as such an El Niño occurs to help expel the excess heat.
What? I thought it was SUV’s and coal-fired power plants.
41. SteaM | February 12th, 2008 at 3:01 pm
Twisters tied to La Niña, record warmth
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23048491/
42. SteaM | February 12th, 2008 at 3:02 pm
Retired Spook,
I read your link. I don’t think it proves that scientists cannot get CO2 information from air bubbles in ice (isotopes).
I am interested in the amounts of CO2 over the past 600,000 to 800,000 years which is, so far, how far back they can go with ice cores.
43. TiredofLibBullSh** | February 12th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
MeatS:
“Why do we have record cold, record hot, record flood, record snow, record drought, record tornado outbreaks in february, record hurricaes…”
Record? Are you refering to weather? But weather and climate are two different things.
How far back do the records go in order for you to say that these are record events?
100 years? You can positively say that there are no other events in history that had similar events?
You data is still covers 0.000000025% of the time the earth has been around.
Let me simplify. Can a person learn everything there is to know about you by observing and measuring you for 1 second? 1 minute? 1 hour?
Climate models are only as good as the programming of them. The climate models that you libs keep refering to predict the course of our lives and what must be done to change it are faulty. A recent study showed that today’s climate models did not predict climate events (NOT WEATHER!) that have occured in the past. If those predictions did not match history, how can you say that future climate can be accurately predicted? It has been said by many libs on this blog that weather cannot be predicted but climate can.
I don’t have to present our side. I can just shoot holes in yours by showing that yours is as not as sound as you, Gore or scientists interested in keeping their grants say it is. Just like your “RECORD” weather, you cannot positively say that these “record” events only occured in the present.
So many questions, so little answers.
44. bagni | February 12th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
markacooler
maybe you should worry about paper/plastic?
14 plastic bags = 1 gallon of gas
keep wasting
in your lifetime when you run out of stuff
like oil, water, etc
you might then think…..
now…must go take my meds…..forgot this a.m.
they’re green horse pills
45. SteaM | February 12th, 2008 at 4:35 pm
TiredofLibBullSh** ,
And this is why I don’t talk about climate change with you guys. You don’t want to hear any science you just want to toss out the bait, wait for the fish, then shoot it out of the water (if there is water still left in the lake depending on where you are, hope it’s not Atlanta).
So there, you keep finding things to justify your denial of what is happening outside your home. Look out the window. Step outside.
You will never ever know what has happened in the past regarding weather. However something drastic has been happening since the 1970s. The change has been coming faster every year. The weather becoming more extreme.
It’s not hard to understand the basics but even those elude you skeptics.
I refer to “records” being broken because they are being broken. If you want to talk about how far back those records go to determine if they are really records then yes, you win. We cannot and will not ever know that information.
So now what? Sit and watch our weather change until it almost kills al animal and plant life?
Great plan genius.
But see, again, I must state. I am now pissed off because you guys baited me, I took the bait, you are too ignorant, stubborn, and blinded by ideology to see plain science even when it’s in your front yard. So what the hell am I even typing for!
46. Ricorun | February 12th, 2008 at 4:35 pm
ToLBS: I don’t have to present our side. I can just shoot holes in yours by showing that yours is as not as sound as you, Gore or scientists interested in keeping their grants say it is.
Thank goodness you aren’t sitting in Congress. Otherwise, nothing would get done.
47. Ricorun | February 12th, 2008 at 4:46 pm
ToLBS: A recent study showed that today’s climate models did not predict climate events (NOT WEATHER!) that have occured in the past.
Do you have a citation for that? I’d like to read it.
48. TiredofLibBullShit | February 12th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
“Thank goodness you aren’t sitting in Congress. Otherwise, nothing would get done.”
Uh, well, that would include Democrats. They have not presented any new legislation (same tired old failed ideas). They just sit back and attempt to shoot holes in the Republican’s legislation.
MeatS,
Uh, first you have to present the science. By science, I mean present real science not the “popular science” or “political science” of climate change.
You still have not given any evidence that CO2 causes climate change. Gore’s infamous chart where he states that everytime CO2 increases, temperature increases, actually shows the opposite - rises in CO2 follow rises in temperature. Any high school student, can read this graph and see it.
No matter how many times I present this simple error to you (and your cohorts) no one can explain that error.
But obviously you are not confident in your position since you are unwilling to step away from the propaganda that you have been fed. Anyone can carefully package data and make it fit an argument - that is what you libs claim Bush did with Iraq.
Again, the models your science uses cannot predict past climate - how can they predict the future. The future you say is going to hell. Scientists say that the climate in cyclical and have evidence for it, but you libs refuse to see this simple process.
Are you going to do some drastic action for something that may happen based on faulty models? Only to realize that it was based on faulty data and prediction models?
No baiting - legitimate questions that the true process of science will ask, but you, Gore, the IPCC and scientists who want to keep their grants refuse to address.
49. Retired Spook | February 12th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
Retired Spook, I read your link. I don’t think it proves that scientists cannot get CO2 information from air bubbles in ice (isotopes).
I never said it did, SteaM. The study merely cast doubt on the accuracy of determining past temperatures via ice cores.
I am interested in the amounts of CO2 over the past 600,000 to 800,000 years
Of what value is that information to you?
50. bagni | February 12th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
markwarm;
i need to reposition/reframe
my meds have kicked in
i heard a human say that perception is reality
and there’s millions of mkting case studies from the last 2000 years to prove that
so embrace the trend
global warming is hot!
the earthlings want the warm&fuzzy feature benefit of it’s fix
and whether they get it or not
the green thing has legs
bottom line…turn it into a positive revenue stream
for your country
if the u.s. of a. become the enviro tech leader
exporting all that tech
and at good prices cuz the dollar sucks so bad
oh…..the gdp……could be good/great?
why wouldn’t you embrace it……even if it’s just for the money
51. SteaM | February 12th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
None of us are scientists!
Which includes myself.
So it’s not exactly fair to either of us to let this debate die, calling it all a hoax, just because you cannot get me to produce evidence that you should think otherwise.
We are not the specialists with the information and expertise. Have you tried to read into this stuff really? It’s pretty complicated and I get lost in all of the science.
But does that mean just because you and I cannot exactly understand how it works that we should dub it a hoax? How irresponsible that is for all of us were this to all be true.
CO2 = Greenhouse gas. Traps in heat. Man adds more to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels: coal, oil, gasoline.
CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by about 35% since the beginning of the industrial age.
CO2 traps in heat in the atmosphere. We are putting more into the atmosphere than has been naturally occuring over the last 600,000 years based on what they have found in the air bubbles in the ice cores. Which is why that is interesting to me. It shows how unprecedented and unnatural our additions of CO2 have been in the last 30 years or so.
Keep adding more CO2. What’s going to happen?
Well, hang out for a while. Since no one seems to want to change this habit of burning fossil fuels for energy we are gong to find out what will happen.
52. Retired Spook | February 12th, 2008 at 6:58 pm
CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by about 35% since the beginning of the industrial age.
But the increase in the average global temperature has been less than 2% during the same time frame.
Keep adding more CO2. What’s going to happen?
I don’t know; do you? So far CO2 has increased pretty dramatically by historic standards, but temperature hasn’t followed to any significant degree, which makes sense, since increases in CO2 have historically lagged increases in temperature.
53. TiredofLibBullSh** | February 12th, 2008 at 7:13 pm
MeatS,
What debate? Those on the side of CO2 causing global warming refuse to a debate of any sort.
There is more debate going on in blogs like this than in the political and scientific community!
The U.N. disallowed dissenting opinions! Al Gore has not debated anyone! There have been no public debate because skeptics are dismissed as those in the pockets of “big oil”.
The so-called debate has been one sided, while attempts at legitimate disagreement are silenced, supressed and simply ignored. Gore’s data, most of which if not all is accepted by the IPCC has been proven to be incomplete and downright misleading - melting glaciers, icecaps of Khilamanjaro, etc etc.
You keep touting that CO2 traps heat and causes rising temperature, but Al Gore’s “infamous” graphs shows temperature leading CO2 - rises in temperature cause rises in CO2. Each rise, peak and fall of temperature is followed by CO2 by a time period of 800 years. So, rises in temperature were followed by rises in CO2 concentrations 800 years later. So concluding that the last 30 years is cause for concern is dubious at best.
Ice core temperatures from what I have read when first used were low resolution with errors (determining ice age vs gas age) as much as 1000 years.
This document give links to data, observed measurements and shows the flaws in the data sets being used by IPCC (a political Pseudo science organizaion). http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Evans-CO2DoesNotCauseGW.pdf
The climate science and our understanding is just too new to draw definite conclusions and the “sky is falling” attitude of the left.
54. SteaM | February 12th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
No.
It’s not an “attitude of the left”. This is why you are not the person to speak on this subject with any crediblity.
That statement right there. That this is all about an attitude of “the left” shows that you think this is political and that is all it is.
That’s just no correct.
You keep saying that Al Gore won’t debate anyone because he’s scared or something. That’s also incorrect.
You keep saying that tempature rises before CO2 rises. I have read things about this recently…
here ya go… have fun:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores
And
55. FmrMarine | February 12th, 2008 at 7:31 pm
steam;
I think NAMBLA; and it’s bath houses are the cause of MAN made - global warming, and OOOO the metane….think about it.
In the 1970’s a DIRE warning was splashed on the cover of time magazine warning of the consequences of GLOBAL COOLING, brought on by mans pollution.
Ever hear of GREENLAND? wonder why an ICE covered country was named that?
How about the “tropical paradise” in which the dinosaurs thrived?
56. Ricorun | February 12th, 2008 at 8:06 pm
FmrMarine: In the 1970’s a DIRE warning was splashed on the cover of time magazine warning of the consequences of GLOBAL COOLING, brought on by mans pollution.
Time Magazine — now there’s a respected, peer-reviewed scientific journal.
57. Retired Spook | February 12th, 2008 at 8:36 pm
OK, SteaM, I’m convinced. What next?
58. TiredofLibBullSh** | February 12th, 2008 at 8:50 pm
MeatS,
an article of “mights”, “mays”, “cans”, “coulds”, etc. etc. doesn’t prove anything. It is all theory and not scientific law.
Your own article speaks of cycles of 5000 years and CO2 does not explain the first 800 years of warming….but you want us to believe that CO2 has caused drastic weather conditions in the last 30? Come on, your arguments are flawed.
“From model estimates, CO2 (along with other greenhouse gases CH4 and N2O) causes about half of the full glacial-to-interglacial warming.” Global warming models are only as good as those who programmed them and have been shown to be flawed. They have not even predicted past climate conditions. You and others expect us to believe they are accurate in predicting the future?
“The sky is falling” is an attitude of the left…..listen to the Goracle, others and even yourself. If everything is as they say, why aren’t they following what they want to impose on the rest of us? Carbon credits are a joke. Why won’t they give up their SUVs, private jets and homes that uses 12x the energy the average US citizen uses?
Rico,
The Time Magazine article was based on the same junk science as global warming/climate change is today. In other words, many of the same scientists/politicians who screamed about the coming ice age are now screaming about the coming doom.
59. TiredofLibBullSh** | February 12th, 2008 at 8:59 pm
MeatS,
you cannot deny an agenda behind global warming…..
Look at the proposals that they (UN) wants to impose on developed country’s, while those with the most extreme pollution are exempt. It is nothing more that wealth redistribution on a global scale.
Look at the proposals of our own liberal in Congress, more taxes and fees, etc etc.
There is an agenda behind this all in the name of “saving the planet”. Like I said before, those who want to save the planet are not doing what they want to impose, by law, on us.
So, there is an attitude of “the sky is falling” coming from the left - you cannot deny it. That you do shows you are disconnected from reality and will swallow anything from the left and reject anything from legitimate science skeptics.
60. TiredofLibBullSh** | February 12th, 2008 at 9:16 pm
“CO2 does not initiate the warmings…….”
Whoa, whoa, whoa.
You stated that CO2 traps heat. How can something that traps heat not cause warming? We are talking basic thermodynamics.
Do you even read what you post? You state that you can’t understand it. I guess you just are going to take one side’s word for it and ignore the other because they tell you to.
61. SEW | February 12th, 2008 at 9:33 pm
He doesn’t read the posts, he just copies and pastes. He does look at the pictures.
62. SteaM | February 12th, 2008 at 11:57 pm
TiredofLibBullSh**,
OK, you’ve had your fun. Your username is “tired of liberal people’s bullsh*it”.
We I am tired of you and your bullsh*t.
Feel free to comment away and argue with me but I don’t really think it’s worth my time and energy to debate anything with you. You will no listen to me or my sources. They are no good enough for you and they will always be discarded for some B.S. reason that you can come up with.
SEW, if you ar erefering to me copy and pasting aritcles it is only because none of us are scientists so I have to post articles by scientists who can explain this better than you or I ever could.
No matter what your opinion is of this the truth is the science is complicated.
63. congressive | February 13th, 2008 at 2:41 am
Science made simple:
“Global warming” means the atmospheric pot is getting stirred. Higher highs, lower lows and weather extremes are the result.
The earth has experienced warming before, with the ensuing floods, famine and death, but it bounced back through natural carbon sequestering mechanisms, i.e. things like trees flourished in the warmth and sucked the carbon back out of the air.
Never in the planet’s history has there been any microbe or baboon or any living thing capable of sucking hundreds of tons of carbon per day out of it’s storage in the earth and farting it into the sky, day after day, decade after decade, as humans do now for fun and profit. This is truly unprecedented.
And suicidal.
64. TiredofLibBullShit | February 13th, 2008 at 6:38 am
MeatS,
and because it is so complicated and contradicting I do not accept the “sky is falling” scenario offered by the left and their scientists who are looking to keep their grants.
While other scientists disagree with their studies and supporting data I will still be on the fence reading and digesting and only until their is absolute conclusive proof will I act.
B.S. reasons? Hardly, your sources are contradicting and ignore the laws of thermodynamics - first you say CO2 traps heat and causes global warming and then you cut-and-past something that says CO2 does not initiate warming.
The science is not as sound as you were led to believe - It is still too early to accurately predict what will happen regardless of what the doom-and-gloomers say.
65. Ricorun | February 13th, 2008 at 8:06 am
ToLBS: first you say CO2 traps heat and causes global warming and then you cut-and-past something that says CO2 does not initiate warming.
Umm… like you said CO2 traps heat, it doesn’t generate it. Kinda like, oh, I dunno, a greenhouse. If you keep a greenhouse in the dark it’ll stay pretty chilly inside (i.e., no hotter than the outside), no matter how much glass you put in the ceiling and walls. Likewise, no matter how much sun you expose it to, if there’s no glass in the ceiling and walls the temperature won’t be any different inside the greenhouse than outside. However, as you add more and more glass, then it starts getting toastier and toastier — even if the intensity of the sun stays the same. Adding CO2 to the atmosphere is analogous to adding glass to the greenhouse.
But don’t worry ToLBS, chances are you’ll be dead before the situation reaches the level of “absolute conclusive proof” you seem to require. When it does though, it’s not like your kids are going to shoot holes in the glass (to borrow your metaphore).
66. TiredofLibBullShit | February 13th, 2008 at 9:13 am
Rico,
I never said generate…
Basic thermodynamics….heat cannot be put into a system and the system not increase in temperature.
I never said generate……learn to read.
Apparently libs don’t need absolute proof of something they want, the scare tactic is sufficient. But as in the case of Iraq libs required absolute proof when Bush was president and did not when Clinton was.
67. Ricorun | February 13th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
ToLBS: I never said generate……learn to read.
My bad. Then again, if you substitute the word “initiate” for “generate” the meaning doesn’t change.
68. TiredofLibBullShit | February 13th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
“Then again, if you substitute the word “initiate” for “generate” the meaning doesn’t change.”
Yeah, like if you substitute “invent” for “create”. As in, “…took steps in creating the internet.” for “…took steps in inventing the internet.”
Means the same, right?
69. Ricorun | February 13th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
ToLBS: Yeah, like if you substitute “invent” for “create”. As in, “…took steps in creating the internet.” for “…took steps in inventing the internet.” Means the same, right?
I don’t see why your question is relevant to the issue at hand. All I suggested was that you replace “initiate” for “generate” and read what I wrote again. I’m fine with that. Is that too hard?
But since you asked, in the context in which you asked it, I’d say yeah, the words “invent” and “create” could be used pretty much interchangeably. On the other hand, “invent” (or “create”) and “facilitate” cannot. And that’s what the flap was about.
70. SteaM | February 13th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
ToLBS:
The Al Gore “invent the internet” reference is a tired silly debunked load of b.s. If you do not know that by now you aren’t paying attention. If you need more info on where that came from and what the truth is about that myth I’ll be glad to go into detail when I have time.
In the case of Iraq, some “libs” (but not enough, the rest were blinded by nationalism and patriotism post-911) wanted proof from Bush. They never got it and the result was tragic.
And, I don’t think “absolute proof” that will reach your high standards is going to ever materialize in this climate change matter. It’s impossible to know everything about these complicated matters with the science and techonology we currently have. However there is a consenses in the scientific community that we are likely to be contributing to and speading up a natural cycle in an unnatural and unprecendented way.
And of course, finally, your comment regarding scientists only reason for backing climate change science and calling it something we need to take immediate action on is not just merely to keep their funding.
I know this because “the Heartland Institute, a front group for the fossil fuel industry that is sponsoring [a] conference.
They invited climate scientists and in their invitation letter it said this:
They are offering $1000 to anyone who will come and speak as long as they can side with the skeptics. They also are offering a free room in a very nice hotel.
It must be very important for these people to pay scientists to help them spread skepticism.
71. TiredofLibBullSh** | February 13th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
Thanks, MeatS for proving that skeptical climatologists are simply ignored and that there is no debate on the issue.
The conference’s purpose is to spur debate and to get the message from skeptical climatologists out and into the discussion. Which is what SCIENCE IS ALL ABOUT.
Having a consensus does not make a scientific theory a fact! There was a consensus that the world was flat (and there are those that still believe it along with the earth is the center of the universe).
“I know this because “the Heartland Institute, a front group for the fossil fuel industry that is sponsoring [a] conference.”
Typical leftwing “sky is falling” attitude. Because of sponsoring from big oil, you can ignore it, because of some nefarious cause. But, you are unwilling to say the same for the scientists of the pro-global warming side looking to save their funding.
the invent/create post was a joke, which flew over your head. A shame.
72. SteaM | February 13th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
73. TiredofLibBullSh** | February 13th, 2008 at 6:03 pm
MeatS,
your post is exactly what I stated:
“The purpose of the conference is to generate international media attention to the fact that many scientists believe forecasts of rapid warming and catastrophic events are not supported by sound science, and that expensive campaigns to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are not necessary or cost-effective.”
This is specifically designed to get the message out that there is not a complete consensus that the left and the media are lying about. To give them the media attention that they are being denied.
You prove my point again. The skeptics are being ignored and excluded from conferences. Especially , conferences where they discuss policy and “solutions” where dissent is discouraged and not allowed.
Sort of one sided, don’t you think? Wait, what am I doing, I am asking you to think? Go ahead and cut and paste a response.