Global Warming Update
by Mark Noonan on February 26th, 2008 at 01:00am
The dratted snow is entirely messing up this global warm….errr, I mean…climate change thingy:
Snow cover over North America and much of Siberia, Mongolia and China is greater than at any time since 1966.
The U.S. National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) reported that many American cities and towns suffered record cold temperatures in January and early February. According to the NCDC, the average temperature in January “was -0.3 F cooler than the 1901-2000 (20th century) average.”
China is surviving its most brutal winter in a century. Temperatures in the normally balmy south were so low for so long that some middle-sized cities went days and even weeks without electricity because once power lines had toppled it was too cold or too icy to repair them.
There have been so many snow and ice storms in Ontario and Quebec in the past two months that the real estate market has felt the pinch as home buyers have stayed home rather than venturing out looking for new houses.
In just the first two weeks of February, Toronto received 70 cm of snow, smashing the record of 66.6 cm for the entire month set back in the pre-SUV, pre-Kyoto, pre-carbon footprint days of 1950.
Looking out from my neighborhood, I’ve noticed that Mt. Charleston has a much thicker snow cover than usual (yes, we’re in sight of snow here in the Las Vegas valley) - started snowing up there earlier, and has snowed up there far more often than I’ve seen over my 13 years in Las Vegas. Heck, even the hills behind my house have received several dustings of snow this winter.
I wonder what it all means? Oh, I know - it doesn’t matter; more snow = climate change. Less snow = climate change. Higher temperatures = climate change. Lower tempuratures = climate change. The perfect theory of everything - climate change.
Click here to create an account on Blogs For Victory and post comments!
February 26th, 2008 at 1:25 am
Why is Big Mac hanging upside down?
February 26th, 2008 at 2:01 am
We could get up to 10″ tomorrow night, the most we’ve had in a while, and it’s ‘posed to get blisterin’ cold, with a pounding wind!!
For further updates and detail I refer to Accuweather.com
–Jeremiah–
February 26th, 2008 at 2:14 am
Drink too much water… kills ya. Drink too little water… kills ya. Too much drought… kills ya. Too much rain… kills ya. Too hot… kills ya. Too cold… kills ya.
But who cares if SUVs and coal powerplants disrupt life-sustaining weather patterns. The Rapture is coming, so all we’re doing is leaving those left-behind sinners hell on earth.
Serves them right.
February 26th, 2008 at 2:39 am
The Rapture is coming, so all we’re doing is leaving those left-behind sinners hell on earth.–Congressive.
Hogwash!
Shortly after Jesus returns, there’ll be no more earth. Then is when we can say, instead of “global warming,” it will be “global inferno.”
2 Peter 3:10 - But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up.
–Jeremiah–
February 26th, 2008 at 2:57 am
Where’s that list of liberal tendencies I posted the other day?
Derogatory. Fake Science. Dismissive. Insulting. Attacking religion. It’s hard to pack that much liberalism into two sentences - but congressive managed to do it. Impressive.
February 26th, 2008 at 3:16 am
Yeah, I saw this earlier. Here’s the title of the article:
“Forget global warming: Welcome to the new Ice Age”
Bwahaha!
:)
February 26th, 2008 at 3:42 am
Kahn, get a grip.
You’re suggesting that a rational adult should ignore the scientific consensus re global warming BUT respect a belief in the Rapture, or Jeremiah’s rather literal view that a man will come down from the sky and the earth will burn up?
February 26th, 2008 at 4:57 am
Jeremiah, you rock!
:)
Hey Congressive and Bongoman, become Christians today, right now, so you both will know that whatever happens you both will know that you will spend eternity in Heaven with Almighty God! :)
Steps to Peace With God
Also, there aren’t any SUV’s or coal powerplants on Mars or Saturn yet the planets of our solar system have experienced global warming similar to what Earth has experienced. Coincidence? Hardly. It’s the Sun and solar radiation fluctuations. Science!
February 26th, 2008 at 5:38 am
It’s pretty painful to watch you continuously post weather (not climate) statistics to make your little anti-science innuendoes.
You can’t argue science by throwing out pop-culture “doncha know” type statements like this. Sure, some people say “it’s hot, must be the global warming,” but you seem to think that’s some kind of scientific theory to refute.
Like the way to refute the people who say “it’s hot, must be the global warming,” is to incessantly point out every freaking time you see a report of cold weather or snow, “see, it’s not the global warming.” Sounds to me like a playground taunt, and it’s frankly pathetic.
Climate is about trends. Get it through your skull. You know this, you can comprehend it. It is the trends that are interesting, and perhaps you should focus your “scientific refutations” on something meaningful. You know, the things scientists are studying, not the what the guy at the barbershop said.
February 26th, 2008 at 8:14 am
I wonder if the scientists who point out that “man-made global warming” are “anti-science”? No, they just get attacked for not following along with the new PC of “consensus.” Instead of knee-jerking the howls of “anti-science” how about just reading the linked article instead? For example:
According to Robert Toggweiler of the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory at Princeton University and Joellen Russell, assistant professor of biogeochemical dynamics at the University of Arizona — two prominent climate modellers — the computer models that show polar ice-melt cooling the oceans, stopping the circulation of warm equatorial water to northern latitudes and triggering another Ice Age (a la the movie The Day After Tomorrow) are all wrong.
“We missed what was right in front of our eyes,” says Prof. Russell. It’s not ice melt but rather wind circulation that drives ocean currents northward from the tropics. Climate models until now have not properly accounted for the wind’s effects on ocean circulation, so researchers have compensated by over-emphasizing the role of manmade warming on polar ice melt.
But when Profs. Toggweiler and Russell rejigged their model to include the 40-year cycle of winds away from the equator (then back towards it again), the role of ocean currents bringing warm southern waters to the north was obvious in the current Arctic warming.
And there you go, these climate modelers discovered something that was being overlooked. But they will be attacked as “Big Oil Shills” because they were seen filling up their vehicles at an Exxon station.
February 26th, 2008 at 8:39 am
Kahn, to a mind oriented toward the will of the collective, science IS and SHOULD be a matter of “consensus”. If enough people vote on global warming, then it becomes fact, if you subscribe to that way of thinking.
Or non-thinking.
At the same time the global warming hysteria was building up to a fever pitch, a group of Japanese scientists evidently reached a consensus of their own, because they issued a warning that within a decade or two we would be facing a new mini-Ice Age, due to decreasing solar activity.
Sun=heat
Less sun=less heat
There was actually a consensus that this made sense.
“El Nino”, the warm Pacific current that has such an effect on weather patterns, was discovered and named (for its appearance close to Christmas, thereby the name “The Son”) a couple of centuries ago. Not a lot of carbon emissions in South America back then, eh?
The global warming belief system would have a little more credibility if it were simply treated as the hypothesis it is. But we have people weeping uncontrollably about the drowning polar bears, and New York being under water, etc. We have true believers becoming enraged at those who have not been converted. We have wild exaggerations and outright lies, ranging from real climate changes to how many scientists buy into the global warming theory.
BTW, did anyone read about a story Rush Limbaugh told Monday about a Virgin Atlantic plane flying on vegetable oil? According to Rush, the global warming people were not excited about the possibility of powering engines with something other than petroleum products, they were upset because according to them what we SHOULD be doing is just not flying at all.
I said in a letter to some people off-blog, about alternative energy sources to power engines, that these sources would not make this faction happy, because their real goal is to impose some philosophical ideal upon us, and that they not be happy to have gas at $1.50 a gallon or to have abundant sources of fuel to power cars and trucks and planes—they really want fewer cars and trucks and planes.
It’s not objective science, it is just a secular religion………
February 26th, 2008 at 9:05 am
bongoman, there is NOT the consensus you speak of. That is an ignorant statement. I’ve read plenty of articles and papers dismissing Global Warming. But once the left made up its mind, it stopped listening.
Liberalism is the only religion I know of that promises dispair and self-loathing. Must be great.
February 26th, 2008 at 10:04 am
The global warming belief system would have a little more credibility if it were simply treated as the hypothesis it is.
It would also have some more credibility if its believers would recognize the concept of “evidence to the contrary”. If Al Gore, etc., would say, “Gee, this winter is cold, maybe we might just be a tad bit wrong” or “Let’s be careful about this before asking our government to sign any treaties”, then they would have more credibility. They might also help their credibility by refraining from claiming that global warming is the cause, both when we have an unusually mild winter and when we have an unusually severe one.
Climate is about trends.
This is true, but such caution seems to come from the believers only when colder-than-normal weather (i.e., evidence contrary to their beliefs) happens. When we had the two hurricane-filled years of 2004 and 2005, at least some believers were telling us that our CO2 emissions (which were Bush’s fault, of course) caused all those hurricanes, but when 2006 and 2007 were duds, few if any of the Goreans said, “There’s fewer hurricanes even though we haven’t decreased CO2, so maybe something else caused them.” Going back a while, global temperatures declined somewhat from 1940 to 1970, even though CO2 emissions increased. I’d say that 30 years counts as trend.
If anything is “anti-science”, it’s the Gorean’s willingness to seize upon any warmer/stormier-than-usual weather as evidence that they’re right, while dismissing colder/calmer-than-usual weather as mere “fluctuations”.
Shortly after Jesus returns, there’ll be no more earth. Then is when we can say, instead of “global warming,” it will be “global inferno.”
In Revelation 16:8, there’s the Angel who pours his bowl of God’s wrath upon the Sun, which then scorces men with fire. This is before the return of Jesus. The Lake of Fire occurs later.
February 26th, 2008 at 10:15 am
The SUN GOD causes hurricanes to be stronger. The SUN GOD causes hurricanes to be weaker. The SUN GOD causes more hurricanes. The SUN GOD causes less hurricanes. The SUN GOD causes more tornadoes. The SUN GOD causes less tornadoes. The SUN GOD causes stronger tornadoes. The SUN GOD causes weaker tornadoes. The SUN GOD causes everything.
The GREAT MUMBO JUMBO causes hurricanes to be stronger. The GREAT MUMBO JUMBO causes hurricanes to be weaker. The GREAT MUMBO JUMBO causes more hurricanes. The GREAT MUMBO JUMBO causes less hurricanes. The GREAT MUMBO JUMBO causes more tornadoes. The GREAT MUMBO JUMBO causes less tornadoes. The GREAT MUMBO JUMBO causes stronger tornadoes. The GREAT MUMBO JUMBO causes weaker tornadoes. The GREAT MUMBO JUMBO causes everything.
The GLOBAL WARMING causes hurricanes to be stronger. The GLOBAL WARMING causes hurricanes to be weaker. The GLOBAL WARMING causes more hurricanes. The GLOBAL WARMING causes less hurricanes. The GLOBAL WARMING causes more tornadoes. The GLOBAL WARMING causes less tornadoes. The GLOBAL WARMING causes stronger tornadoes. The GLOBAL WARMING causes weaker tornadoes. The GLOBAL WARMING causes everything.
But if the GLOBAL WARMING priest believed that, why do they kill windmill power? Why not build nuclear plants? Why fly in private jets, own 30,000 square foot houses, own fleets of SUV’s, and huge yachts? Why don’t they move as much of the worlds production as they can to the most productive and efficient nation on the planet - the United States of America?
February 26th, 2008 at 11:22 am
Plenty of snow fell this winter, but in a day or two it all melts off, except some in shady spots. The only piles of snow you see are the banks from the plows and I live in a cold place
February 26th, 2008 at 11:32 am
Morris, which religion are you going to blame?
February 26th, 2008 at 11:39 am
“It has been said that a liberal is someone that won’t take his own side in an argument. The fact is, liberals find so many of their own ideas so unconvincing that they spend most of the time bickering.“
February 26th, 2008 at 11:40 am
Well, this is certainly not good news for the Warmers. Actually, it’s not good news for anyone.
February 26th, 2008 at 11:45 am
Oops, I didn’t realize it was exactly the same article as the one in Mark’s post. I actually found it linked at another site.
Heh, I guess great minds think alike. Carry on.
February 26th, 2008 at 11:50 am
Check out the 3 photos of Mt. Kilimanjaro in the update at the bottom of this post.
Winnowhead, do you notice a “trend” since 2000? I guess Algore can’t use the 2000 picture in his slide show anymore. On second thought, he’s dishonest enough that he probably will anyway.
February 26th, 2008 at 11:59 am
The evidence contained in this post and its resultant comments demonstrates what is one of the most defining and malign characteristics of the current Administration. For Republicans who are devoted to the George W. Bush version of fake-conservatism, everything is to be politicized, be it the DoD, the Justice Department or NASA. It is the American version of Lysenkoism starring people like Michael Brown and George Deutsch .
Logically, former Vice-President Al Gore could have been positioning himself over the last year for a successful run at being the Democratic nominee for President. Instead, he earned a Nobel Prize for working to highlight the dangers of global warming. However, for those steeped in the Karl Rove school of Republicanism, the idea that the consensus of scientific opinion is that global warming is going to severely impact our collective future is just a political issue. The fact that even the American Association of Petroleum Geologists has, as of June 2007, reluctantly acknowledged the problem in noting that “the AAPG membership is divided on the degree of influence that anthropogenic CO2 has on recent and potential global temperature increases” but that they support several steps, including:
is just politics. Thus, observations about transient local weather effects are imagined as being relevant to the long-term changes to the atmospheric system of the entire planet when, in fact, those swings in local weather events might be more analogous to the erratic oscillations seen as a gyroscope or top slows down just before falling over.
February 26th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
Hey… I am not sold by any means at this time on this whole Global Warming thing. I guess I am just not sold that it is as dire as some lead on. In my opinion, it is something to watch and consider at this point. However…… if you read or at least try to understand what Global Warming could cause, well then Spook…. you spoke right into it.
Global Warming could cause more extreme weather. Not necessarily HOTTER weather, but more extreme. Less glaciers and more water causes more snow and rain. More lake effect snow could be a result because those lakes should be more frozen and not more water. More hurricanes could be a cause as the waters in the gulf are warmer.
So if you people want to blast Global Warming, at least blast it with real information. Not just… hey it is 20 degrees today or hey it is snowing in March.
February 26th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
Retired Spook,
If you follow the links and read the International Herald Tribune story that the photo was cribbed from you find this:
Again, the issue is not about local weather but about climate. Atmospheric scientists pay attention to the distinction. Others don’t.
February 26th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
Joe, and yet if you read what an atomic bomb would do to one of our cities it would be pretty bad. Yet no=one gives credit to Bush for stopping development of them in three hostile nations.
The seriousness of the charge, does not make it true.
February 26th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
keep bringing that up Kahn. I hear you say it over and over again. Those 3 nations will never mess with nuclear material again thanks to W.
February 26th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
Al Gore, scientist? Who knew?
February 26th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
Kahn, get a grip.
You’re suggesting that a rational adult should ignore the scientific consensus re global warming BUT respect a belief in the Rapture, or Jeremiah’s rather literal view that a man will come down from the sky and the earth will burn up
7. bongoman | February 26th, 2008 at 3:42 am
Sounds like a perfectly logical belief to me, bongoman. No matter how hard you may search, you’ll never find an individual with more logic than Jeremiah.
—————- —————— —————
Liberalism is the only religion I know of that promises dispair(sic) and self-loathing.
11. Kahn | February 26th, 2008 at 9:05 am
Liberalism is a religion? Wow, Kahn, this sounds like a religion I might want to embrace. Do these liberals have a ‘church’ I could attend?
February 26th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
Hi everybody!
My name is Timmy The Climate Change Bear.
Today we are going to talk about… e v a p o r a t i o n.
When it’s cold outside at your house that doesn’t mean it’s cold at every one’s houses. Some kids might live in a neighborhood a few hundred miles away where it is nice and warm. They can hit the beach while you have to bundle up to stay nice and toasty warm.
Let’s say Jimmy lives in Florida. Jimmy is experiencing what the weather man calls “warmer than average temperatures”. Jimmy is playing outside and hitting the pool. It seems a bit hot but at least there’s a pool.
You might say, “But Timmy, I thought we were going to talk about evaporation?”
Ok, Jimmy’s lives in Florida next to the ocean. There are lakes and rivers around his neighborhood as well.
While Jimmy is enjoying the heat the oceans, rivers, and lakes are experiencing higher than normal evaporation. When it’s hot outside water is soaked up into the sky. It forms clouds and these clouds are blown by winds and will move around to other places.
When there is more heat, there is more evaporation, when there is more evaporation, there is more water in the clouds, when there is more water in the clouds and they go to a cold place, your neighborhood for instance, the result is more snow or ice or freezing rain.
So you see, a warmer climate in Jimmy’s neighborhood in the south, means more snow and ice in your neighborhood in the north.
MORE HEAT = MORE MOISTURE (snow or rain)
Seriously, Mark. I know you think this is hilarious and all but my question to you is:
Do you see a change in the climate?
Do you see the effects of warmer climate in terms of weather patterns and more evaporation via warmer oceans and bodies of water?
Or do you think the climate has a liberal bias?
February 26th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Or do you think the climate has a liberal bias?
No, SteaM, what we think is that Liberals have a liberal bias when it comes to using scare tactics WRT natural phenomena to achieve political power.
BTW, assuming you were King of the World and had complete control over everything and everyone; what past climate would you try to emulate, what would you do to get there, and what evidence do you have that the policies you would enact would, in fact, achieve the desired results?
February 26th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
Who is trying to achieve political power? Scientists?
February 26th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
It’s always a hoot discussing science with those who firmly believe that ten thousand years ago, a giant bearded ghostlike father figure wadded up a hundred and seventy pounds of mud, then breathed into a couple of holes in it’s face, and voila! Man!
I suppose that’s a bit more enlightened than “turtles, all the way down.”
More comedy gold.
February 26th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
Winnow,
And a trend is a series of incidents - seems like we’ve got a lot of recent cold weather incidents…when do they start to equal a trend?
February 26th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
incidents… trends…
Whatever, get on with Mark.
Mark,
I know you will answer this eventually…
February 26th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
I always wondered where SteaM got his name, and now I know—he just has a passion for vapor.
Which also explains his political leanings.
Global Warming is a belief system, not a science. Like all belief systems, it depends on faith and on trust in its leaders, and dismisses what does meet its narrow parameters.
And it has its evangelical element, as do most other belief systems, accompanied by indignation at those who do not fall in line and accept it, who do not shout ” I BELIEVE!!!” and rush to the altar to be anointed.
Like other belief systems, it has its hypocrites—-one system has a minister who visits prostitutes, another has a minister who writes of getting rid of the internal combustion engine yet flies around in fuel-sucking private planes.
And, like all belief systems, we will have to wait a long long time to see who was right.
In the meantime, we will be stuck with one side which asks for reason, objectivity, and acknowledgment of conflicting theories, and the other, which rails at the unbeliever, hurls insults, and sits, smug in its own self-defined intellectual and moral superiority, at the altar of its chosen god.
February 26th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
Almiranta: another has a minister who writes of getting rid of the internal combustion engine yet flies around in fuel-sucking private planes.
That is the ONLY arguement I’ve ever heard on this site. “But but but… Al Gore flies around in a jet. He can’t talk about global warming!”
I guess he could walk from speaking engagement to speaking engagement. He could sure stand to lose some weight, but does that really make sense?
If someone flies in a jet, why can they not talk about global warming?
If someone is rich (John Edwards), why can’t he talk about the differences between poor and wealthy?
You people have some odd ways of opposing things.
February 26th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
Joe, cuz they don’t have a valid argument when faced with the overwhelming consensus that climate change is caused by humans and science is attempting to understand it more but knows enough to say it’s our fault and it’s getting worse and we are killing off a lot of species of animals in the meantime.
See, Joe, “God’s creation” is important to religious people until they are told that they are helping to destroy it. Then they attack the science rather than try to embrace reality. They create the myth that there is a legitimate debate when there certainly is not.
February 26th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
DOH!
http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Worldwide+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm
Joe,
“You people have some odd ways of opposing things.”
So, if a scientist, who at one time took a grant from Exxon, he can criticize the theory of global warming?
A white Republican can represent blacks?
Rich Republicans (few and far between) can talk about the differences between poor and wealthy?
Funny, it doesn’t work that way in the real world.
February 26th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
That is the ONLY arguement I’ve ever heard on this site
Then you simply haven’t been paying attention, Joe, or else you’re just a hopeless dufus.
SteaM, still waiting to hear who you’d save the world if you were in charge. So far, nothing but crickets. Come on, surely if you believe all this hooey, you have some ideas on how to make it all better. Just tell us what you’re doing in your personal life to help change the climate for the better. Surely you’re doing SOMETHING, even if it’s just exhaling half as often. And if you’re doing that, think how much bigger a difference it would make if you would just quit exhaling altogether. Just a thought.
February 26th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
See? My point exactly.
For example, tiredoflibbullshit, is blowing hot air. He’s all upset that he can’t understand science and therefore it must not be true.
February 26th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
You people have some odd ways of opposing things.
We aren’t opposed to global warming, Joe. It’s global cooling we’re opposed to, and you should be too. Historically a lot more people have died because of cold than have died because of heat.
February 26th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
Sorry, SteaM, that should have been “how” you’d save the world.
February 26th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
Diana, you are a hoot!! I never saw you as a budding comedienne, yet your post #21 is priceless. After one gets past the sneering assigment of your own bias as fact in referring to what you call “malign characteristics of the Bush adminstration” you proceed to lecture us, again applying the Diana-centric viewpoint that George Bush represents “fake-conservatives”, on how those who support the President feel that “EVERYTHING is to be politicized”.
This, coming from a Socialist, is pure comedy. Your passionate defense of all that represents the intrusion of government into every aspect of life in America, while simultaneously lamenting what you claim is “politicalization” of something you and your ilk are demanding be taken over by the government, is beyond bizarre. It has to be an attempt at humor.
Hey, Di, it’s YOUR SIDE demanding that the government get involved in this issue, demanding incentives and mandates and regulations and complex carbon offset plans and the whole enchilada of government intervention in business and private lives. Isn’t it the Left demanding higher mileage standards for vehicles, based at least in part on those fears of GLOBAL WARMING?
Standards to be set by the government, of course—but evidently the part of government that is not political.
This in a post which insists on not only dragging the President into a discussion about climate change but which then tries to impose your own narrow-minded and totally political viewpoint.
Nice try, by the way, on sounding intellectual in your psuedo-erudite reference to “Lysenkoism”. I said you tried, not that you succeeded.
You tried to dodge the issue with the caveat that you were talking about “the American version” of Lysenkoism, but in fact the original, Soviet, version is exactly what the radcial Left is trying to achieve regarding the Global Warming scare tactics.
One reference to Lysenkoism says: “Party-controlled newspapers inevitably applauded Lysenko’s “practical” efforts and questioned the motives of his critics.” And what Lysenko was promoting, of course, was fake science.
This, my dear is exactly the tactic being used by your beloved Left regarding efforts to introduce some reason into the Global Warming claims, and to make it a true debate based on science rather than a hysteria-based semi-political movement.
The Agenda Media routinely applaud the efforts of the man-made catastrophe crowd. while questioning the motives of its critics.
I’m sure you got a lovely red star for your performance when you studied Lysenko, but you just tried to make an impossible comparison. But it was sure fun to toss out that big word, wasn’t it? Bet you got a bonus for that.
February 26th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
Joe, you are so full of it! But a perfect example of what passes for intellectual polticial commentary from the radical Left.
This blog has presented fact after fact, cited study after study, for the years I have been coming here, yet YOU can only cite references to Al and his plane.
OK, I can easily believe that this is the only reference you were capable of understanding, all that time. But please refrain from claiming it was the only argument ever presented.
You’re becoming an embarassement to a movement not easily embarrassed.
My comment was not only accurate, it was in context, of the fact that every belief system has its leaders who fail to meet the standards they demand of their followers.
February 26th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
Some might be interested in what Toggweiler & Russell are really saying. And if you read the article I just cited I daresay you will, like I did, wonder what Lorne Gunter (the author of the National Post article Mark cited, is talking about). T & R’s results don’t support the notion of an impending ice age. In fact, their results suggest exactly the opposite. Specifically, they argue that the circulation of the oceans WON’T break down. And thus they will continue to bring warm air from the tropics toward the poles. Thus, no ice age. And the reason they argue the circulation won’t break down is because of the heretofore unappreciated effect that anthropogenic global warming has on the westerly winds. In other words, they’re not attempting to argue against the notion of AGW, they’re just disputing the mechanism mediating its effects. Specifically, they contend that (a) that AGW has strengthened the winds, and (b) the winds are a primary driver of ocean circulation with the thermohaline system of secondary importance. Current climate models, they argue, mostly have it the other way around.
And yet Gunter somehow interprets that as evidence of an impending ice age. I don’t get it. Rather, it seems to me like he’s trying to pound a very square peg into a round hole.
It is a fact, though, that the sun is in the midst of an “inactive phase”, at least with respect to sunspot activity. As Gunter indicated, there are indeed a few scientists who are predicting that (a) the lull will continue for years, and if so (b) global temperatures will drop precipitously. However, neither of those things are at all certain.
In fact, the smart money is against both. For one thing, the current lull in sunspot activity was predicted years ago. We are in the transition between solar cycles 23 and 24. The best guess estimate is that cycle 24 won’t start for another few months. But that’s not hard and fast — it could be delayed for another several months past that prediction. So it seems a bit premature, and maybe even a little self-serving, to suggest that it won’t ever occur.
Still, there is a chance that it won’t. Certainly extended sunspot minima have happened in the past. The best known and longest lasting example was the Maunder Minimum, which corresponded to the Little Ice Age. Another, and most recent example, was the Dalton Minimum, which occured around the turn of the 19th century and lasted for about 25 years. The Dalton minimum was associated with a drop in global temperatures of no more than 0.25C degrees — and that’s assuming you select the most extreme estimate. Given the current global temperature, a 0.25C drop would hardly constitute an ice age. Rather, it would only bring things back to where they were in the 1990’s. And of course, one would have to assume no additional GHG forcing.
Okay, that’s the science. I’m sure we’re all now up to speed, lol! I suppose it’s also worth mentioning that a recent Pentagon report concluded that climate change over the next 20 years could result in a global catastrophe costing millions of lives in wars and natural disasters. What a pleasant scenario, eh? Then again, I understand that the Pentagon is filled with a bunch of dirty stinkin’ hippies, and you know how those hippies are.
Also worth mentioning is the recent meeting of CERA, arguably the most esteemed think tank on energy matters, and one of the last bastions against the notion of an impending peak oil. However, even they acknowledge that oil supply will not keep up with demand unless (a) there is a significant world-wide recession, or (b) rapid progress is made in finding transportation fuel alternative, or (c) both (a) and (b).
So let’s review: the Gorians warn that perpetuating the status quo could lead to environmental crisis, the dirty stinkin’ hippies at the Pentagon warn that perpetuating the status quo could lead to a national security crisis, and the biggies in the oil industry warn that perpetuating the status quo could lead to and economic crisis.
Gee, what to do, what to do.
February 26th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
OK Tired…
So, if a scientist, who at one time took a grant from Exxon, he can criticize the theory of global warming?
Umm… that would be a conflict of interest. That would not be the same thing as flying in jets and talking about global warming. Bad example.
A white Republican can represent blacks?
If it ever happens, then I have no problem with it.
Rich Republicans (few and far between) can talk about the differences between poor and wealthy?
Again, when it happens, let me know and I will applaud it.
Were those the best opposites you could come up with?
February 26th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
Almiranta…
yeah yeah, so what part of the science are you disputing?
So far you are just blowing hot air.
I’ve never seen someone type so much yet say so little. You could work as a keyboard tester… you’d be really good at it.
“yep, boss, this one’s good quality!”
February 26th, 2008 at 4:35 pm
Almiranta (and Diana), the reference to Lysenkoism reminds me of an email I got last fall from Professor Bob Carter. He and I had a couple email exchanges as a result of a comment of mine at a climate blog where a video presentation of his had been featured. Among other things, I had asked him how he thought this whole GW debate would eventually shake out. Here was his response:
Finally, to your question.
It is apparent that the AGW “shake out” is going to take many years if not decades to occur. Despite the complete lack of alarming evidence, and the low likelihood of either evidence or dangerous warming eventuating, the political world is in the grip of an amazing anti-scientific hysteria on the issue. Hysteria is, of course, not treatable by using rational arguments (i.e. scientific method), and especially not if it is suffered by people who have the power of democratic vote.
The blame for this state of affairs lies with a now tightly integrated (though not initially consciously conspiratorial) group of corrupted people and organizations foremost amongst which are doctrinaire environmentalists and green NGOs, self-interested scientists and science organizations, and ignorant, moralistic journalists and public celebrity figures.
The environmental debate in general, and AGW in particular, have already inflicted profound damage on our post-enlightment society and are attacking the very roots of the scientific method, and future historians are going to look back and marvel at our stupidity which, Lysenkoism apart, is unparalleled in history. Most sinister of all is the fact that around 3 generations of school children (all since around 1990) have now been indoctrinated with an anti-scientific attitude to environmental matters, and the most able and oldest of these persons are already starting to move into senior managerial positions. (emphasis added)
We are therefore going to pay dearly for a long time yet for our abandonment of the enlightment principles of the use of evidence and experiment to understand the world around us, and participation in rational discourse to deal with its problems. Democratic politics that are based instead upon post-modernism and fuzzy warm feelings towards environmental issues are disastrous.
Sorry to go on so, but you did ask!
Kind regards.
Bob Carter
Professor R.M. Carter
Marine Geophysical Laboratory
James Cook University
Townsville, Qld. 4811
AUSTRALIA
Lame doesn’t even begin to describe Diana’s attempt at an analogy.
SteaM, come on, man. For someone who knows as much about this subject and is a smart as you — those are not tough questions. This debate has been going on for nearly 2 decades. Surely someone on your side has come up with workable solutions to reverse this awful warming trend. There must be some peer-reviewed papers on solutions and their measurable effects. Time’s a-wastin’ — we only got 8 years left.
February 26th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
pfft… I disagree with Bob Carter especially when he uses the phrase “fuzzy warm feelings” when talking about science.
Sounds like he’s a got a case if being bitter and really doesn’t back up his statement. He’s the one who has “feelings” rather than science.
Well, since you think I am a genius you could try just trusting me :)
What’s your point. All of that stuff is available. I know you are being sarcastic but where are you going with all that?
Not me, I’ll adapt and find a way unless some super-flu or virus gets me first I’m going to try to survive what ever happens.
Hey, in my opinion those who adapt have a better chance of surviving. Unfortunatly not all species of animals have the controlled atmospheres (as in air conditioning, heating, running water) that us humans do. So they may not be as lucky.
February 26th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
Global warming update
http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Worldwide+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm
February 26th, 2008 at 5:07 pm
Joe,
What about the windmills Kennedy killed?
What about the total lack of new nuclear plants?
Do you actually think that we could get away with building another hydro-electric project - anywhere in the US?
And, well what about those private jets, huge houses, big yachts, and fleets of SUV’s. NOTE - this does NOT just applt to Al Gore. It applies to all the rich Hollywood crowd. The Internet and software money. Opra. The Kennedys, the Clintons, the Kerrys, the Kohl’s, the Byrds, The Rockefellers, the Reids, the Pelosis, the Edwards, and on and on.
You SAY you believe it. Yet your leaders OBVIOUSLY don’t. They care little for conservation in their own lives. They kill wind projects that may spoil their view. The won’t hear of any new hydro or nuke projects. And they are OK with treaties shifting production (Kyoto) to less efficient and higher polluting nations like China and India. That looks more like wealth redistribution than good eco-sense.
Sooooo, just what are even talking about? YOUR OWN PEOPLE have killed or greatly hinder the three best alternatives to carbon emitting power. Water, nuke, and wind.
February 26th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
SEW:
First comment on that article you posted is…
That’s the real question. I have my theories and so I cut way back on my carbon footprint. But there needs to be much larger changes made that are out of my hands except as a consumer which doesn’t work with energy companies and vehicle manufacturers. Especially since Exxon is actively searching out and giving cash to scientists and General Motors ceo thinks climate change is a “crock of shit”.
February 26th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
Joe and MeatS……
two people who are completely out of touch with reality.
Joe - conflict of interest? It doesn’t matter what he received a grant for could be anything not climate related - fuel additives for cleaner combustion - in your eyes he is not qualified.
So when an environmentalist/politician , who receives money for pushing global warming - it is not a conflict of interest?
You are so simple minded it’s pathetic.
MeatS,
Can’t understand science? HAH! Your “example” of Timmy the Climate Change Bear is one step below Al Gore’s - A Convenient Lie. I am only pointing out conflicting evidence to the junk science you report as fact. Funny, how the measurements you people used before to show warming are now showing cooling. But in light of that evidence you simple ignore it.
It is obvious you did not read the article or are you too simple minded to understand.
Here are the facts once you get past the “weather pattern descriptions”:
“No more than anecdotal evidence, to be sure. But now, that evidence has been supplanted by hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA’s GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously.
Meteorologist Anthony Watts compiled the results of all the sources. The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C — a value large enough to erase nearly all the global warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year time. For all sources, it’s the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down.
Scientists quoted in a past DailyTech article link the cooling to REDUCED SOLAR ACTIVITY which they claim is a much larger driver of climate change than man-made greenhouse gases. The dramatic cooling seen in just 12 months time seems to bear that out. While the data doesn’t itself disprove that carbon dioxide is acting to warm the planet, it does demonstrate clearly that more powerful factors are now cooling it.
Let’s hope those factors stop fast. Cold is more damaging than heat. The mean temperature of the planet is about 54 degrees. Humans — and most of the crops and animals we depend on — prefer a temperature closer to 70.
Historically, the warm periods such as the Medieval Climate Optimum were beneficial for civilization. Corresponding cooling events such as the Little Ice Age, though, were uniformly bad news.”
MeatS, you are just another simple minded fool who swallows what Gore pumps his head full of without scrutiny.
February 26th, 2008 at 5:21 pm
Speaking of comedy gold, we have Almiranta throwing herself down on the floor and flailing away with balled fists and feet saying, “You’re a LIAR! Liar! Liar! Liar!” That’s certainly a lot more entertaining in 436 words than addressing the substance of the issue which even the AAPG has felt compelled to acknowledge.
Of course, we have the perfect example of psychological projection with the idea that the Global Warming Conspiracy, Inc. wants to harness the machinery of government to unscientific political ends when, in fact, that’s one of the primary punchlines (with the people of the United States as the butt of the joke) of the last seven years. One of its most obvious characteristics, to those not blinded by heart-fluttering devotion, is the Bush Administration’s blatant hostility towards science of which it doesn’t approve as in the unfortunately typical case of George Deutsch (oh, he of the faked resume and the “theory” of the Big Bang).
Of course, faux-conservatives are much like the White Queen in that they take pride in believing as many as “six impossible things before breakfast.” (I’m sure that reference to Alice in Wonderland will prompt Almiranta to feel yet another peculiar impulse to attack me as being “pseudo-erudite”) Thus, we have the martyred conservatives-as-perpetual-victims using their dying breath to blame the “Agenda Media” for their failures at governance. Well, duh. They have an agenda. It’s called satisfied shareholders which means corporate-friendly policies from which political party? The Republican Party, you say? Full marks for you, you clever lad!
February 26th, 2008 at 5:23 pm
I never try to argue about gloabl warming/cooling/climate change with Liberals.
I figure, they respect my religion, its only fair if I respect theirs.
February 26th, 2008 at 5:35 pm
I am simple-minded?
You are citing a meteorologist by the way. What is his training in?
This is a La Nina year. I’d say that has something to do with it. The entensity of La Nina is probably due to climate change involving the ocean somehow.
February 26th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
LiberalNitemare,
har har, nice joke.
And I’m an atheist. And I like nature. It’s too bad we as humans are wrecking it.
Kudos! Especially for those who supposedly actually give a shit about God’s Creation.
February 26th, 2008 at 6:03 pm
The White Queen was in Through the Looking Glass. She doesn’t appear in Alice in Wonderland. Unless your resource is Disney; which explains your understanding of politics.
February 26th, 2008 at 6:09 pm
Dasein Libsbane,
You are quite correct and I should have remembered it that way given that I own a copy of The Annotated Alice by the excellent Martin Gardner. I have scrupulously avoided the Disney version of Alice but thanks for the gratuitous insult, anyway.
February 26th, 2008 at 6:15 pm
SteaM, excellent job of dodging my questions. I always say, if you can’t dazzle them with your brilliance, then baffle them with your bullshit. Anyone else is welcome to take a stab at it. Winnowhead, bongoman, SAR, Joe, Diana, how about it? (Rico’s not eligible; he actually has some good ideas, although I’m not sure what, if any impact they would have on global climate.)
Here are the questions again:
Assuming you were King of the World and had complete control over everything and everyone; what past climate would you try to emulate, what would you do to get there, and what evidence do you have that the policies you would enact would, in fact, achieve the desired results?
Come on, I’ll even spot you one of the easiest answers: outlaw incandescent lightbulbs — I mean, that’s a no-brainer (literally, heh, heh).
February 26th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
which explains your understanding of politics.
Nice shot across the bow, Bane.
but thanks for the gratuitous insult, anyway.
It’s not like you don’t deserve it, Diana. You can dish it out, but you sure can’t take it.
February 26th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
Who says that I can’t take it, Retired Spook? I was just noting it. In general, I think you would agree that I don’t insult individuals in the manner that others are routinely insulted here.
February 26th, 2008 at 6:25 pm
And I do mean routinely…
February 26th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
There is nothing gratuitous in my insult. Perhaps a dictionary would help you out; in the meantime, since you leveled unqualified assault on Almiranta’s post, perhaps you could be so kind as to put some substance to your assertions.
Start here; if the “conservatives” are perpetuating “corporate-friendly” policies which, one assumes is in the interest of the nebulous enemy of the American people; the CORPORATION, then the antithesis of that would be the eco-friendly policies of the environmentalists advocating government control and care of CORPORATIONS to prevent or forestall AGW. How, then is Almiranta’s proffer, which you characterized as “Global Warming Conspiracy, Inc. wants to harness the machinery of government to unscientific political ends” inaccurate? Seems to me you’ve stated in paragraph the answer to paragraph three.
Having trouble keeping up? Then try this; you accuse Almiranta of using the epithet “liar” when in her post she clearly stated that you were being hypocritical; not lying per se. Can you point to an example where Almiranta accused you of lying? Didn’t think so.
Once in over your head I suggest Spook’s first rule of holes; pretend you have an important engagement and hope everyone will forget you were here.
February 26th, 2008 at 6:29 pm
First off….
Kahn, yes… we all know Kennedy opposed the wind farm. You people bring that up all the time too. And every time we explain that most Dems don’t agree with Kennedy in his opposition. Wait… there was another big name that opposed it too. What was his name?? I don’t remember. he was the Governor of Mass at the time…. Mitt something??
Next…. I love this comment when you talk about those riding in a fleet of SUV’s!
It applies to all the rich Hollywood crowd. The Internet and software money. Opra. The Kennedys, the Clintons, the Kerrys, the Kohl’s, the Byrds, The Rockefellers, the Reids, the Pelosis, the Edwards, and on and on.
That is too funny. You left off the other Dem whipping boys…. The Feingolds, The Murthas, etc.
How about giving Pelosi a little prop. She asked for a bigger plane to get to Calif and back to DC. The idea was that she can fly with more people that have to make that flight. That would save on gas! I don’t know of the “fleets of SUV’s”, so I don’t know what to tell you. Have you actually seen these fleets?
Tired, in your original question, you didn’t say what that the scientist got the grant for, so I assumed it had to do with something climate related or else why the hell would you ask me the question? Don’t be a fool.
The environmentalist/politician that receives money for “pushing” global warming is getting the money for his speaking engagements. Not for “pushing” a belief.
Don’t ask a question, then change the meaning of the question in order to play gotcha. It makes you look like an idiot.
February 26th, 2008 at 6:34 pm
Spook,
Did you read that blurb: “<a href=”Compact fluorescent lamps - those spiral, energy-efficient bulbs popular as a device to combat global warming - can pose a small risk of mercury poisoning to infants, young children, and pregnant women if they break, two reports concluded yesterday. “>Compact fluorescent lamps - those spiral, energy-efficient bulbs popular as a device to combat global warming - can pose a small risk of mercury poisoning to infants, young children, and pregnant women if they break, two reports concluded yesterday“?
If the enviro-whacks are saving us from global disaster, whose going to save us from the enviro-whackos?
February 26th, 2008 at 6:36 pm
I have not seen one liberal post that makes sense since I asked my questions above. So:
IF YOU ARE SERIOUS;
What about nuclear? Why are liberals blocking it?
What about wind? Why are liberals blocking it (The Kennedy ploy to stop it on the cape virtually stopped it everywhere)?
What about hydro-electric? Can you name a valley you think we could dam? may build a nice big power plant with all kinds of wires running to it?
Those hybrids, electric cars, and hydrogen cars have to get their power from someplace. The power you plug them into or use to extract hydrogen may not be converted on the road - but it has to come from someplace. Right?
So I ask you - why should WE take you seriously when your own leaders don’t?
I’d actually support more of any of the above projects. Doesn’t matter to me whether you’re right or wrong. But, is the ONLY solution you can come up with to shrink our ecomomy while big inefficient polluters like China and India increase theirs? How does THAT help?
February 26th, 2008 at 6:36 pm
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/02/26/mercury_leaks_found_as_new_bulbs_break/
February 26th, 2008 at 6:44 pm
Kahn,
Kennedy OPPOSED (didn’t KILL) the wind farm in Nantucket Sound. That is one Dem. Not the entire party. I don’t know what his opinion is of other wind farms.
Nuclear. There is that minor problem of the nuclear waste! Just a minor environmental issue. Who really knows the effects of that waste on the surroundings? Hey Noonan, you are in Nevada. Do YOU want that waste in Yucca Mtn? Maybe you don’t mind. I don’t know.
Find a good place for Hydro-electric. Let’s do it. Can you name any Dems that have opposed that? Maybe you can, I haven’t looked into it, but I haven’t heard a lot of proposals for it either.
So I’ll give you the Dems opposed/killed the Nuclear one, but wind and water were not killed by the Dems at all to the best of my knowledge.
So please prove that they killed these things and I’ll believe you. I’ll look it up as well.
February 26th, 2008 at 6:50 pm
Once in over your head I suggest Spook’s first rule of holes; pretend you have an important engagement and hope everyone will forget you were here.
Heh, heh; that’s worth a gold star.
Spook, Did you read that blurb: “Compact fluorescent lamps - those spiral, energy-efficient bulbs popular as a device to combat global warming - can pose a small risk of mercury poisoning to infants, young children, and pregnant women if they break, two reports concluded yesterday.”
Is that the report that said, rather than try to clean it up if one breaks, you should cut out the section of carpet? I sorry, you just can’t make this stuff up.
February 26th, 2008 at 7:02 pm
Yep, it’s a profit thing!!
I think Tim Robbins said it best; “Let me explain to you how this works: you see, the corporations finance Team America, and then Team America goes out… and the corporations sit there in their… in their corporation buildings, and… and, and see, they’re all corporation-y… and they make money.”
NOW it’s clear why we can’t let CORPORATIONS control what they do; they’ll make money! Damn them, anyway!
February 26th, 2008 at 7:44 pm
Well, it appears we’ve run through yet another global warming thread without any of our Lefties answering the question: how do we stop it? What’s the point if you can’t answer that simple question? Seriously, what’s the point?
February 26th, 2008 at 7:46 pm
Bane, I hope Tim Robbins has a smart financial adviser.
February 26th, 2008 at 8:10 pm
Uh, MeatS-head, yes simple-minded,
?No more than anecdotal evidence, to be sure. But now, that evidence has been supplanted by hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA?s GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously.”
A fifth grader can take temperature data and plot it on a graph and illustrate them. Again, you regurgitate the “he’s not a climatologist” line. Sheesh, I guess it is too complicated for you. These are the same data tracking outlets that has been used by you global warming, climate change people to show an “oncoming irreversible crisis”.
La Nina (wow we are desperate in the presence of facts)? Oh, and if I am not mistaken - in 1998, supposedly the warmest year on record, was during El Ninio, but according to you sycophants that had nothing to do with it. Also, according to you USELESS IDIOT sycophants the sun activity has nothing to do with it as well - even though other planets are experiencing the effects and now solar activity is down and you easily dismiss as the effects of climate change.
Probably? Somehow? Sounds like you are grasping at straws. What is your training in?
For a group that uses climate change to cover all bases - snow, rain, drought, floods, tornadoes, hurricanes or lack thereof, etc. etc. - your so-called “science” has too many holes in it.
February 26th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
joe,
why do you even try……but who am I to stop you from making yourself look like an ass!
Kennedy not only opposed the windfarm he successfully pushed through legislation to make it harder to set even ONE generator up not to mention making it next to impossible to set up a wind farm.
I have a friend in California who bought one for his ranch. That was almost 10 years ago - it’s still in the crate!!!! He is having to jump through hoops with both federal and state regulations, permits, environmental studies, etc. etc. He has spend hundreds if not thousands more in bullshit.
So yeah, check your facts before responding. But, if you want to keep making an ass of yourself, be my guest.
Oh, and learn to read. I was specific in my post. I guess I should have made it completely idiot proof so someone with your USELESS IDIOT mentality could understand.
February 26th, 2008 at 9:24 pm
Joe, Kennedy and Kerry and other Mass liberals put in a Federal law requiring expensive and very complicated environmental impact (as if wind is bad?) statements in addition to those already existing for wind mill projects. EFFECTIVELY, this stopped all US windmill projects. These two could not pass a law alone. Liberals killed wind.
And so YOU yourself oppose nuclear (for the reasons you state).
And I’m just assuming that the Sierra Club and all the envirowackos would keep us from damming ANY valley. NPR would do endless stories on the poor displaced families. Come on, you know what it would be like.
So, no wind, no water, no nuke. Whats the plan then. Look - YOU PEOPLE are the ones saying there’s a crisis, remember? Your only plan seems to be to shrink our (EFFICIENT) economy and ship manufacturing to China and India. Both of those nations, and other “developing” nations have very inefficient and highly polluting manufacturing plant.
So? If Global Warming is so important. Why do you oppose every possible solution and propose one that’s counter-productive to solving it?
Answer THAT, and we’ll take you seriously.
February 26th, 2008 at 10:23 pm
Spook: Rico’s not eligible; he actually has some good ideas, although I’m not sure what, if any impact they would have on global climate.
It’s not fair that I don’t get to play King of the World!
So I will anyway, despite my ineligibility…
And first let me say that I think Spook’s question is based on a false premise: Even the King of the World would not be able to prevent climate change if it occurred as a result of natural events: i.e., fluctuations in solar irradiation or cosmic rays, or the earth’s internal dynamics, or gigantic space rocks slamming into the planet (although hopefully we could take some action on the space rock thing). What we’re really talking about is managing anthropogenic GHG concentrations along with land use. And even then, and even if you attempted to mandate the most draconian interventions you’re not going to stop it — not for quite a while anyway. And chances are that if you tried to get too draconian you’d meet up with a Brutus somewhere along the line (figuratively speaking, one would hope). Anyway, it seems to me that the best path to the future is one that ensures to the highest degree possible a trajectory that is both versatile and sustainable while at the same time being as painless as possible.
With that in mind, this is what I propose:
1. Tell the people burning down the rain forests to knock it off.
2. Eliminate all subsidies and tax breaks currently enjoyed by any facet of the fossil fuel industry. There are better places for that money to go.
3. Immediately start a crash campaign to dramatically spread the adoption of no-till farming practices.
4. Decouple profits from energy consumption rates in the utility industries. The idea here is to reward rather than penalize energy conservation strategies. By the way, this kind of decoupling has worked very well in California — surprisingly (and despite the very real traffic nitemares that have become part of CA lore), surprisingly, CA is the second lowest of all states in terms of per capita GHG emissions. Top honors go to Rhode Island, by the way. I’m not sure why.
5. Standardize codes and regulations associated with energy grid deployment. Right now it’s a freakin’ nightmare to cross jurisdictions. Of course this would likely give a bunch of lawyers fits, which is an added benefit.
6. Start a world-wide carbon auction system — or a carbon tax (in principle they’re quite similar, but “carbon auction system” doesn’t have the T-word in it). Hey, I’m King of the World, right? I can do that.
7. Use some of the proceeds of #6 to offset other forms of taxes and some of the proceeds to incentivize the development of alternative, carbon-mitigating, carbon-neutral and carbon-negative fuel sources. Part of this incentivization would be in the form of more funds to finance research and development. Part would be in the form of participating in the investment in “green” manufacturing and deployment companies as well as work force retraining, so as to bring them up to economy of scale more quickly. This would also include the world wide deployment of smart grid technology.
8. Round up all the advocates of grain-based ethanol and shoot them. Okay, I’m kidding — about the shooting part anyway. Maybe I’ll just send them to re-education camps. I might even appoint Spook to be Supreme Commander of said camps. That shows how serious I am about it, lol!
Well, that’s what I can think of off the top of my head. With a little time I could probably come up with other stuff (although most of it would probably be derivative). But since no one else has offered anything at all, I figure I’m well ahead of the curve.
While I do feel the evidence on global warming merits serious concern, I don’t consider myself much of an alarmist. I am of the opinion that there are significant reasons over and above concern about global warming to justify a concerted effort to bring alternative energy sources on line as quickly as possible. I am also of the opinion that if done right, such a concerted effort doesn’t have to hurt the economy very much — and would probably hurt considerably less than doing nothing at all. There is now an already huge and still growing market for clean energy technologies. Stripped down to its essence, the basic choices are to invest in that market or ignore it. If we invest we pay now. If we ignore it we pay later. And as always, it is to those that supply the technologies go the spoils. That may sound Polyannish to some. But if this blog allowed it I could provide links to study after study, and report after report to justify what I say. We are in a very real sense sitting on top of a huge goldmine, yet instead of discussing how much we should invest in picks and shovels (as is most of the rest of the world) we’re arguing whether a record cold snap in China means anything at all. Man, talk about simple-minded — or at least short-sighted.
And if you have a problem with CFLs, here’s a thought… wait for the next generation of LEDs. They should be out in a few years. And of course if you’re really worried about CFLs poisoning your kids, you might also want to keep them away from fish and Chinese toys too. In fact, I’d do that before I worried about CFLs.
But I have another, related question: are there really people who honestly believe the current status quo is perfectly fine? Are there those who honestly believe that drilling in ANWR and the Gulf will render us energy self-sufficient? Canada’s oil sands are plentiful, but they are also slow, expensive, “dirty” to extract, and require copious amounts of water. And when it comes to nuclear power, where do you think we get the uranium to run the things? And more importantly… what kind of future trajecory do those things provide?
February 26th, 2008 at 11:25 pm
Retired Spook | February 26th, 2008 at 7:44 pm
Well, it appears we’ve run through yet another global warming thread without any of our Lefties answering the question: how do we stop it? What’s the point if you can’t answer that simple question? Seriously, what’s the point?
I have no clue how to change the climate. I do know that anything that reduces pollution is a good thing.
Everything is a trade off. CFL’s reduce energy consumption, but pose a disposal issue.
However, I do think that if Americans were not so materialistic, perhaps energy consumption wouldnt be such a great issue.
I would like to point out the one country in this world that has a perfect Nuclear power solution…the bane of conservatives and environmentalists…France.
February 26th, 2008 at 11:43 pm
brett, Fance is conservative again. Haven’t you heard?
Yes, we’re materialistic. The richest of the rich are liberal. They abuse worse than anyone. Sorry, it’s true.
But the OTHER nations are worse. You want to make something and not worry about pollution laws? Set up shop in China, or India, or just about any third world country. They are competitive because of their dirt poor labor costs. That and the fact that they are willing to use any form of energy necessary. #Want to see a beautiful steam train? Take a ride in China.
So here’s my take… maybe you’re right. MAYBE, your right. So? Your leaders oppose just about every solution. Oh, they want higher mileage requirements for cars. And the unions aren’t too sure thats a good idea.
IF you liberals are serious, then offer a solution. I like wind. I like nuclear and I understand the issue of waste). I like hydroelectric (given we could actually find a valley to build a dam and flood. Better efficiency? Sure - why not? All these things help lessen our addiction to foreign oil. I’m 100% for that even if global warming isn’t correct.
So do it. Stop blocking nukes. Get mad at Kennedy and Kerry and tell them to stop blocking wind mills. Look around, maybe Vermont could be flooded and provide water for New York and Boston and power to boot.
OK? Where’s the conflict? I don’t think a conservative poster here would have a problem with these actions.
But close down an efficient steel plant in Pennsylvania so production can go to some awful steel plant in China? That’s just stupid.
February 26th, 2008 at 11:57 pm
Kahn | February 26th, 2008 at 11:43 pm
But the OTHER nations are worse. You want to make something and not worry about pollution laws? Set up shop in China, or India, or just about any third world country. They are competitive because of their dirt poor labor costs. That and the fact that they are willing to use any form of energy necessary. #Want to see a beautiful steam train? Take a ride in China.
And who is the number #1 buyer of Chinese goods? Materialistic Americans.
So here’s my take… maybe you’re right. MAYBE, your right. So? Your leaders oppose just about every solution.
Who exactly are “your leaders”? I have voted for both Warners. I voted for Bush. I voted for Jim Webb.
I dont vote along party lines….and I seem to remember that you don’t either..although I might have you confused with another poster from Virginia.
I think nuclear is a fantastic solution. Part of the reason our rates in Va are so stable is because of the Lake Anna complex.
“America’s” leaders (not “your’s”) are responsible. The issue of energy was around when the Democrats were in power and it was around when the Republicans controlled congress and the presidency. Yet nothing has changed.
But close down an efficient steel plant in Pennsylvania so production can go to some awful steel plant in China? That’s just stupid.
Again this happened because we are materialistic. Time again when we go shopping we ignore “Made in America” and just look for the lowest price. I remember when Wal-Mart used to PROUDLY display throughout their store “Made in America” signs over every product that was.
They stopped doing that because Americans really needed to finance their granite countertops and chose to buy cheap Chinese made goods.
Look around, maybe Vermont could be flooded and provide water..
I’ve been to Vermont. They should change their name to Vermont “The state of healthy people.”
Obesity is a rare thing in Vermont. After spending 2 weeks there I didn’t even notice it until I came back to Va. Most of their citizens are rural people living in small towns. Neighbors look out for one another. There is strong sense of community and fellowship in that state…it would probably be the last state I would think of harming.
February 27th, 2008 at 12:26 am
Kahn: Set up shop in China, or India, or just about any third world country. They are competitive because of their dirt poor labor costs. That and the fact that they are willing to use any form of energy necessary.
That is rapidly becoming less true. I offer this Wikipedia article primarily because it covers a lot of ground, and because I believe it’s generally representative of many other things I’ve read. The bottom line is that China is pouring billions and billions of dollars into renewable fuels. In fact (excepting hydroelectric), they are about to surpass the US in total amount of energy capacity generated by renewable sources. They are not bit players anymore. The Chinese are getting very serious. And why shouldn’t they? There’s big bucks in it.
February 27th, 2008 at 1:53 am
Rico - OK, but not all renewable fuels are pollution free. Wood and alcohol both burn.
Brett, are you being deliberatly obtuse?
1. Obviously I didn’t really mean flood Vermont. I mean that getting enviromental buy in to another big hydro deal seems unlikely. EVEN though it would help reduce pollution - I believe this to be true.
2. Yep, Lake Anna. But you yourself argued against NEW atomic energy plants. There haven’t been any built here since three mile island. Lets get over it. We need to choose ONE STANDARD design like France and build the crap out of it.
3. “Your leaders”, sorry I assumed you were Democrat. My sincerest apologies.
4. How does our being “materialistic” make a less efficient plant in China a good idea. If your point is that we should stop shopping based solely on price? Well - yah I agree. But the left argues for Kyoto all the time. Kyoto shifts production from efficient nations (like us) to less efficient nations (like China and India). The rules it imposes on us sound good (I guess). But there are few rules on the big two and they can absorb the manufacturing we give up.
Meanwhile - I see the liberal posters here arguing the GW religion without stopping to realize that many conservatives (like me) are actually willing to do many of the things you’d need to do to help with solving GW, but for completely different reasons. And well, you all want solutions - or are you just interested in “winning” an argument? If Hydro, Atomic, and wind power can make you happy for environmental reasons and make me happy for national security and competitiveness reasons - who cares? Can’t we all agree that these things would be good? We don’t even need to compromise, because we both get what we want anyways.
February 27th, 2008 at 4:43 am
Sounds great to me!
:)
February 27th, 2008 at 8:46 am
Kahn: Rico - OK, but not all renewable fuels are pollution free. Wood and alcohol both burn.
True enough. But it is also true that plants capture virtually all of their carbon content from the atmosphere. So considering just the plant cycle (i.e., from seed to end product), using a plant to generate fuel is always carbon negative (i.e., more carbon is sequestered than released). The issue really revolves around all the other impacts incurred in the production and use cycle — e.g., land use, water use, fertilizer use, and the amount of energy and other materials expended in planting, growing, harvesting, transporting, and refining the fuel.
February 27th, 2008 at 9:29 am
Rico,
What part of “not eligible” didn’t you understand?
Great ideas, BTW, particularly:
8. Round up all the advocates of grain-based ethanol and shoot them.
As you know, I feed shelled corn to the deer in my woods. A year ago I paid $8.50 for 200 lbs.. Last Saturday I paid $20.00 for the same 200 lbs.. Converting food for fuel may not be the absolute dumbest idea ever supported by politicians, but it certainly has to be near the top of the list.
I fell asleep in front of the TV about 8:30 last night, and didn’t wake up till after midnight. The first thing I noticed as I was catching up on this thread this morning was that none of the Lefties that I invited to present solutions took me up on my offer. I think for most, if not all of them, this whole issue is about winning the debate, rather than, as you so eloquently point out, just winning, period.
February 27th, 2008 at 9:48 am
I would like to point out the one country in this world that has a perfect Nuclear power solution…the bane of conservatives and environmentalists…France.
Brett, that’s been pointed out here a number of times before. The nuclear plant design used by the French is generally considered to be the best around. Unfortunately, the time for us to have emulated them was about 25 years ago. I’m not sure, at this point, that nuclear (fission) is the way of the future.
The energy landscape, particularly in this country, would look vastly different if the Left had not consistently set up roadblock after roadblock to prevent us from achieving energy independence. Look at the history of efforts to drill in ANWR, for example. It was first discussed in 19-frickin’88 — TWO @$#&*! DECADES AGO. Assuming an 8 or 9 year lead time, we should have been pumping oil from there while Bill Clinton was still President.
And, As Rico points out, what do our politicians do instead? Push subsidies to convert food products to fuel — not only dumb but incredibly, unbelievably, monumentally STUPID!!
February 27th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
Ok, I can buy this. Really, I believe this is true.
So what are us liberals and you conservatives planning on doing to solve climate change?
Do you think that the government needs to do something or do we as consumers need to do something by forcing the market to make the needed changes?
February 27th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
“Do you think that the government needs to do something or do we as consumers need to do something by forcing the market to make the needed changes?”
Well meathead, if you are considering the latter then, that is the first intelligent thing you have said in this entire thread.
Why can’t liberals use the power of the market, the power of the dollar to achieve their goals? Put their money where their mouth is. Why do they have to use big brother?
February 27th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
Meathead is a very nice name. I’d rather you just stuck with that rather than “idiot”. Thanks.
I am open to either idea or a combination of both. Here’s the deal, you assume I wouldn’t do that because I am liberal. Well, I’m open to whatever works not whatever makes me “feel” better. This is about making progress by supporting policies that work not to support those that won’t just to “get” conservatives.
And, thank you very much, I am a liberal and I spend as much money as I can afford on using my dollar to encourage the market to make these changes. However, that is not enough. It’s slow and gradual, I’ve seen progress, but what I fear is that there is a large group of people who are actively fighting against this by refusing to purchase environmentally responsible products just to “get” those “crazy liberals” and their “crazy global warming” bullshit.
Seriously, how do you feel about that?
Yes, I am frustrated, you have no idea how much effort I have put towards pushing the market to change and how much MORE effort there has been (and increasingly aggresive) to push back on me the consumer. The CEO of General Motors said the other day that global warming was a “crock of shit”. His words exactly. So what? That’s just his opinion. Doesn’t mean it’s company policy and he has the right to his opinion. However, in the meantime, companies with more progressive and “liberal” leadership (like Google) are investing in creating solar powered power plants that have little to no greenhouse gas emissions.
Which company is more likely to make the swift changes in response to the market and the science and the public outcry? The guy who thinks it’s a crock of shit or the guy who embraces it?
February 27th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
Uh, would it be the crock of shit that embraces it? I’ right, aren’t I?
February 27th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
SteaM wrote - “Do you think that the government needs to do something or do we as consumers need to do something by forcing the market to make the needed changes?”
Welllll, how about you stop blocking windmill projects nationwide? How about OK’ing a nuclear design and building some nuclear power plants? How about finding a valley someplace and building a big new public works project power plant?
THOSE solutions, which except for wind will take years to come to fruition, ad power into the grid that could allow you turn off coal and other polluting power plants. These clean sources of energy would allow you to have your electric and hydrogen cars - thus removing burning gas or alcohol on the roads.
So - who do you think is blocking wind and nuclear power? I know the hydro one is a little far fetched. But only because the idea of actually attempting a project like that would face so much opposition I don’t think anyone is considering it. Of course, China is building one. I remember listening to NPR stories about some (not all) poor villagers who said they got a raw deal for their land.
Are you rejecting these out of course, or what? Is regulation the only answer you see? Really - what’s YOUR plan?
February 27th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
Kahn: Welllll, how about you stop blocking windmill projects nationwide?
You keep saying that windmill projects have been stopped nationwide, but that’s not how I understand it. As far as I know windmill farms are being built with increasing frequency. Perhaps you are referring to offshore farms? At any rate, I was wondering if you have a credible source for that claim.
Also with regard to the Cape Wind project, my understanding is that Kennedy got a lot of help obstructing the project from a number of Republican friends, particularly Ted Stevens, Don Young, and Mitt Romney. At any rate, I think it’s fair to say that both support and opposition to the project came from both sides of the aisle, and on several different levels. Be that as it may, it is also my understanding that the last hurdle has finally been cleared, so it appears the project will be built.
However, I think it is also fair to say that the Cape Wind project does serve to illustrate the incredible maze of red tape endeavors of this type have to deal with. And that problem has to be addressed, IMO.
February 27th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
Thanks Bane (and Spook) – I’ve read many of references to Spook’s first rule of holes but have never seen it listed anywhere.
” Once in over your head I suggest Spook’s first rule of holes; pretend you have an important engagement and hope everyone will forget you were here.”
February 27th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
We refer to it as Spook’s because he drew our attention to it; it’s actually the First Rule of Holes: when you find yourself in one, stop digging.
My “important engagement” is a corollary to Spook’s Rule.
Ricorun,
The Sierra Club has opposed wind power in five states that I’m aware of. See my post above for one such reference.
February 27th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
A couple of challenges:
Take a look at what you throw away. Keep in mind where it will go (landfill or recycle). What effect it will have on the environment if it goes to a landfill. How much energy it will take to recycle. Take a look at what is thrown away and how much of it is made from oil…
Then, think about ways to reduce the amount of trash and recylables. Reusable containers for bringing lunch to work are a great way to reduce trash. Also I brought some old utensils to work and just wash them when I am done. Everyone else uses plastic forks and spoons that they throw away after their meal.
These are things that your government does not force you to do but they are things you can choose to do.
Also, watch for wasted energy like phone chargers left plugged in but not charging anything.
Replace light bulbs with energy efficient bulbs. Refer to the packaging for information on disposal of these products.
Buy local organic meats and vegetables.
Buy things made in the US by companies who are environmentally responsible. Many companies exist that produce things with wind power and try to use recycled products and/or leave out nasty unnatural chemicals.
Turn off the air conditioning in your car and your home for an entire summer no matter how hot it gets (well, use fans so no one dies of course). This will give a nice perspective on how hot it really is outside and will save a lot of money and energy.
Ride a bike or walk if you just need to go a few blocks.
Doing these things, even if you think climate change is merely the suns fault and nothing to do with humans, will save money and will make us and our families healthier.
Gardening indoors and out is great as well. Best tasting food you can get as well as confidence that it was produced without chemicals.
February 27th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
Dasein: The Sierra Club has opposed wind power in five states that I’m aware of. See my post above for one such reference.
I didn’t detect any reference to the Sierra Club in any of your comments. However, I did find this reference to the Sierra Club’s participation in a dispute involving wind farms in five different states. But they weren’t opposed to the farms. Rather, they sued the Pentagon for dragging their feet, delaying construction of the farms.
February 27th, 2008 at 4:55 pm
Post #73
“Sierra Club opposed to wind turbines”
Complete w/audio of Sierra Club operative December of ‘07.
February 27th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
What the Hell is this Your comment is awaiting moderation.?????
sorry Rico, I posted almost 24 hours ago and it’s still in limbo.
Wind & Water An Ill-Conceived Hydroelectric Project Would Destroy a Prized Recreational Area ~Sierra Club briefing
February 27th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
Hydro plant opponents sound off
February 27th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
Sierra Club opposes coal gas plant
There were more links, should I keep going? (I wondered why no one responded to the Sierra Club’s efforts to derail alternative energy.)
February 27th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
Sierra Club Democrats vs. National Security. I think this one was my favorite.
February 27th, 2008 at 5:35 pm
Dasein,
Dont have time to read all of those but the last one’s wording points to obvious conservative bias and liberal hatred.
So they talk about the Republicans wanting to drill in ANWR and the Democracts saying it’s not a solution and is harmful to the environment.
Uh, because it’s not a solution and is harnful to the environment.
Then it goes on to talk about how hooked we are on mideast oil which is causing a lot of problems.
Which is true and we should find alternative sources. Wind, water, and sun are my favorites.
February 27th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080227/D8V2CFRO0.html
February 27th, 2008 at 6:35 pm
steam,
The links were in response to “Joe’s” contention that democrats (liberals) haven’t killed “wind and water” power alternatives; which they have.
February 27th, 2008 at 6:52 pm
SEW,
But, that’s weather not climate.
Climate change would be like when Ted Turner was asked if global warming was real, Ted responded, “Of course it’s real, haven’t you been outside? It’s hot out there, man.”
February 27th, 2008 at 7:56 pm
Dasein…
Re #98: That guy’s objection doesn’t sound very well thought out. It’s as if he assumes the state’s (or nation’s?) energy portfolio will consist of wind. Gosh, thousands of windmills? Horrors!
Re #99, 100: This is the first I’ve heard of this idea. I used to hang out in Lake Elsinore often. And I have to say, the idea of pumping water from Lake Elsinore anywhere strikes me as a little creepy. I hope they plan on rubbing the canyon down with disinfectant. And what if it catches fire? There is a subtle irony in the fact that the canyon they’re talking about is in the Cleveland National Forest, don’t you think? Lol! All kidding aside, Morrell Canyon is a nice area, and an easy bike ride from the city of Lake Elsinore — the pedal kind I mean. Although that whole area along Ortega Highway (Rt 74) is also a favorite of the ringetty-ringetty and VROOOM-muthafoka-VROOM species of bikers too. So there’s that. Then there’s the hang gliders. I’m not sure how they’d be affected though. It seems to me they’d float down the other side of the ridgeline. Be that as it may, I’m not sure a reservoir nestled in the hills would be a net negative, aesthetic or otherwise. And heaven knows there are plenty of live oak groves in that area. Still, the description of the project sounds weird. Obviously it’s intended as an energy storage mechanism. So it appears the essential question is… is this the best way to go about it? In that respect I think the question should be considered seriously regardless who raised it.
Re #101: I’m afraid a one sentence description doesn’t do it for me. I would hope it doesn’t do it for you either.
Anyway, I regard the Sierra Club in much the same way as I do most other organizations with an axe to grind: sometimes I agree with them, sometimes I don’t. It all depends on the details, not knee-jerks.
February 28th, 2008 at 12:49 am
The wife and I used to cruise the Ortegs long before we married. Remember the Colony Kitchen at Ortega Highway and I-5? I was the manager and the wife was a waitress more than 30 years ago when I-5 was a four lane highway winding through orange groves.
.
The point of the links and my original post was that for liberant group.ls to claim obstructionism from republicans they should look to their own history of obstruction. Nuclear, geothermal, wind, off-shore drilling, ANWR should all be under consideration and objections should be considered and thoughtful. A thousand; hundred thousand? Is that a reasonable objection or unreasonable posturing?
The Sierra Club is a democrat fro
February 28th, 2008 at 10:53 am
nt organization.
btw, you once asked about books of economics and the economy. I can’t believe I didn’t think of it at the time. My daughter asked me last weekend about the Washington dictate and globalism; her teacher wrote a paper, published, that dealt with the issue and asked the class to read a critique it. Quick as a flash I responded, “Thomas Sowell wrote two books on economics.” It’s actually four books, but after she found them and read the sections on global economies she understood far more than the book the teacher recommended (Wealth of Nations).
May 8th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
Cum Gay Cum Shot Cum Whore
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
May 14th, 2008 at 4:41 am
Aaron
Hats off to you my good man.
May 18th, 2008 at 2:23 am
Polar Heart Rate Monitors Online
You always fall when youre training, thats sort of part of the process. If youre not falling, youre not training hard enough. ~ Michelle Trachtenberg
May 27th, 2008 at 9:21 pm
where hippies hypocrites
Maggie Hall
May 28th, 2008 at 10:22 am
Real Estate House Of Representatives House Md
I didn’t agree with you first, but last paragraph makes sense for me