Global Warming Update
Tags: global warming.
Click here to get Caucus of Corruption: The Truth About The New Democratic Majority by Matt Margolis and Mark Noonan.
Ah, what a wonderous thing is global warming – it even causes glaciers:
The glaciers on Mount Shasta in California are growing because of global warming, experts say.
“When people look at glaciers around the world, the majority of them are shrinking,” said Slawek Tulaczyk, a University of California, Santa Cruz, professor who studied the glaciers.
But the seven glaciers on Shasta, part of the Cascade mountains in northern California, “seem to be benefiting from the warming ocean,” he said.
As the ocean warms, more moisture evaporates. As moisture moves inland, it falls as snow — enough on Shasta to more than offset a 1 C temperature rise in the past century.
The three smallest of the Shasta glaciers are more than twice the length they were in 1950.
Other glaciers in Norway, Sweden, New Zealand and Pakistan were in the same position as Shasta, but are now shrinking because rising temperatures have more than offset the increased snowfall.
Of course, they go on to say that 90% of the world’s glaciers are shrinking – which sounds like a made-up stat simply because most glaciers are in pretty inaccessible areas and thus can’t be measured and, more importantly, haven’t really been measured for any length of time which would permit us to say, definitively, that Glacier A is getting smaller overall than it used to be.
But is there anything that global warming can’t be used for? I heard on the radio the other day that global warming is causing a rise in kidney stones…I fully expect that global warming will eventually be blamed for literally everything…and the coolest thing about it is that no matter what happens, the global warming zealots can say it proves they are right…glaciers shrinking? Global warming. Glaciers growing? Global warming…and no fair pointing out that is some are growing and some are shrinking, wouldn’t this tend to indicate a cyclical nature of our climate rather than a theory that we’re all gonna die unless we listen to Al Gore?
Thank you for visiting Blogs For Victory. If you enjoy our content, please consider making a donation to help us cover the costs of our servers.Mark Noonan is co-author (with Matt Margolis) of Caucus of Corruption: The Truth About The New Democratic Majority. He also blogs at Nevada News and Views. Follow Mark on Twitter.
50 Responses to “Global Warming Update”
Caucus of Corruption
All I know is that the day after oeople ridiculed Bush for announcing he wants to drill, oil is down and the markets are up…..
I’ve come full circle in the last few years. When global warming first came to the fore I figured it was a total load of crap. Then a little (actually a lot) research indicated that, yes, the planet had warmed about a degree over the last century, but there was still a great deal of doubt as to how much of it was attributable to human emissions of CO2. Now that we’ve gone a decade with level or even slightly downward temperature movement while CO2 continues to rise, I’m back to the “load of crap” position.
It doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do everything possible to continue to keep our environment as clean as possible, but CO2 is not a pollutant. It doesn’t mean we shouldn’t continue to move forward to new, cleaner, more economical renewable forms of energy, but doing so in the next year or 2 or even 10 isn’t a life or death emergency as portrayed by Algoristas.
Many people once thought the sun rotated around Earth. it doesn’t
Many folks once thought the Earth was flat. It’s not.
Nature doesn’t really much care what we’ve figured out, it just does what it does.
btw..
The problem is GLOBAL warming, not Mt. Shasta warming.
Nature doesn’t really much care what we’ve figured out, it just does what it does.
Which is precisely why the Gorebots are so wrong.
G K Chesterton said something like, “When people stop believing in God they do not believe in nothing, they believe anything.”
08/NObama
http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/index.html
http://www.climatepolice.com/
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20070315&articleId=5086
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1923865/posts
Steve-o,
Thank you for reminding me why I ignore your posts.
And we might have a hard time convincing Alaskans about global warming right now.
Chill out — it’s just a normal cool summer
http://www.adn.com/anchorage/story/464849.html
If CO2 really is the culprit as the leftist environmental wackos suggest, then the answer is simple…they should all stop breathing. This might not stop global warming, but it will certainly reduce the hot air coming from the left.
Here’s a list of things caused by global warming.
Global warming is causing more problems than anyone knew – High court debates, skinny whales, more witchcraft executions, ginger bread houses collapse, more occurrences of kidney stones, and even the NFL is threatened!
Skim through the list. It’s funny and ridiculous at the same time.
Noonan writes – “most glaciers are in pretty inaccessible areas and thus can’t be measured and, more importantly, haven’t really been measured for any length of time which would permit us to say, definitively, that Glacier A is getting smaller overall than it used to be.“
Oh really?
Check out this extensive series of photographs of glaciers, most taken around 100 years ago, comparing to recent pictures of the same glacier taken from the same position:
http://www.gletscherarchiv.de/en/fotovergleiche/gletscher_liste
It’s not just one or two glaciers, but literally hundreds of glaciers where they’ve been able to clearly compare recent photographs with ones taken in the early days of photography. So your assertion, Mark, that there are not any measurements that show that “Glacier A is getting smaller overall than it used to be” is obviously wrong.
Please take a few moments to look at these photos. Who are you going to believe? Plain as day evidence in front of your own eyes… or something Mark Noonan casually pulled out of you know where?
Are folks here really so completely emotionally invested in comforting wingnuttery as to reject what your own eyes tell them?
Are folks here really so completely emotionally invested in comforting wingnuttery as to reject what your own eyes tell them?
Noonan is–he considers photography to be an advanced form of lying.
I got a rock in my shoe toady. Damn Global Warming.
Kahn,
I thought by now you’d know that rocks in your shoes are due to weather, not climate change. You are just not paying attention.
CH
actually, we are in a global cooling trend now…
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/03/16/the-coming-global-cooling/
Gotbrains,
Just out of curiosity, so you know what they found when all those glaciers melted?
The reason I ask is because here’s what they found under the Schnalstal glacier in the Ötztal Alps, near Hauslabjoch on the border between Austria and Italy when it melted. I’ll leave the significance of such a discovery to your imagination.
its strange…3k year old mummy under a glacier that was what…50 million years old?
imagine that….
gotbrains,
Ah, a picture is worth a thousand words…but, of course, each one of them is a lie because a picture cannot give us context.
At any rate, that is just a few glaciers – we’re assured by the news report that 90% of the world’s glaciers are shrinking…most of the glaciers are not accessible to a person with a camera….someone would have to go there and do careful measurements starting 100 years ago in order for us to be sure.
Mark retorts, “…most of the glaciers are not accessible to a person with a camera….someone would have to go there and do careful measurements starting 100 years ago in order for us to be sure.”
oh my. That’s so lame.
Not accesible? Please. With remote sensing, pretty much every square inch of the earth’s surface is “accesible”. (Remote sensing isn’t just for zooming in on your trailer-park with Google Earth, you know)
And you don’t need to go back 100 years to take measurements that conclusively show that a particular glacier is shrinking. The olden time photos are good for showing how striking the shrinkage has been over a longer time frame. But scientists are observing very clear, measurable shrinking in satellite images taken 20-40 years ago as opposed to today. Example are these satellite photos taken of the glacier on Kilimanjaro in 1976 compared to today:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1025601/Dramatic-satellite-images-reveal-Africas-vanishing-lakes-glaciers.html
Last year, a comprehensive satellite survey of 466 mountain glaciers in the Himalayas, for example, measured an overall shrinkage by area of approximately 21% as compared to satellite images from the late 1960’s.
So yes, scientists are able to say with confidence that approximately 90% of the worlds mountain glaciers have experienced measurable shrinkage.
Whatever else you think about global warming – ie how fast it might really be happening, what affects this might actually have on weather, food, and water availibility, how much of it is due to fossil fuel burning, etc, – is all something you can debate. But what is not debatable here is that your statement that we are unable to definitively show “that Glacier A is getting smaller overall than it used to be”, is demonstrably wrong.
You should just concede the point, Noonan. Sometimes, seeing really is believing. When you deny what is obvious to anyone with a pair of eyes, you look like a brainwashed loon.
Just how brainwashed, I’m not sure. I would guess about 90% brainwashed – but I would have to measure it.
Ever heard about something called a wheather satellite?
Plus you do realise that you dismiss these photos as “just a few glaciers”, or as too small a sample, in other words, on the evidence of a single glacier?
P.S. Sorry for the spelling mistake in my post before.
gotbrains and french,
Well, we’re only 50-odd years into satellite technology and, additionally, we didn’t have a large number of really good Earth-observing satellites until about 10 or so years ago…the data from such pictures is good for a lot of things, but not for teaching us about long term trends…not yet; about 50 more years should do it.
Meanwhile, those pictures you’re so on about – you’d think by now that even people as relentlessly incurious about the world as you are would start to figure out that the reason propagandist focus their efforts on pictures is because of their very effective way of distorting or hiding the truth. Do you really know where the pictures came from? What time of year they were taken in? Conditions of light? Quality of photograph? No chance at all that someone didn’t do a bit of photo-shopping? You lack sufficient data about those pictures to use them as a means of making a definitive ruling…only long term studies taking into consideration variations in temperature and snowfall over a significant period of time can tell you if you’re on to something or not…in other words, you’d have to submit yourself to a lengthy course of research with an open mind…
Thanks for the belly laugh! This post is the best!
“Of course, they go on to say that 90% of the world’s glaciers are shrinking” like ten percent of what they claim is absolutely true and fully destroys the myth of global warming… the other 90%… pay no attention to those lies!
Funny stuff!
ok…… http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/search?src=hw&site_area=sci&fulltext=melting+glaciers&search_submit.x=0&search_submit.y=0&search_submit=go
various studies done on the subject, if you want you can even read the abstract.
A couple years ago a post like this would have generated 100-150 comments. It’s no longer the hot (pun intended) topic it once was. Groups around the world, when asked to prioritize spending public resources on the various problems facing mankind (disease, clean water, education, violence, etc.) put global warming at or near the bottom of the list. Why? Because the average person, whether they actually believe the propaganda or not, just doesn’t think it’s all that important.
Three questions I’d love to see asked of both presidential candidates (who both appear to buy into the AGW baloney) is: (1) How much of the Federal budget would you request be dedicated to solving the GW crisis? (2) What would your goal be with regard to a reduction in global temperature — what it was in the 30’s and 40’s? What it was in the 60’s and 70′? (3) If Congress and the American business community were to cooperate 100% on everything you say you need to solve this crisis, what do you rate the odds that you would achieve your goal?
I’d especially love to see Obama answer those questions without a teleprompter.
Really, what is the ideal temperature of the earth? And have our liberals ever thought of the fact that a million+ year old planet just may have 500 or 1000 year cycles that we just are unaware of?
Or do they really think that in just a short 100 years, we have figured out everything?
And Spook, I would love to ummm, uh…..watch ummmm, uh…….Obama, uh………..hmmmm, answer some, ummm……….uh………questions without uh………….umm…a….ummm…..a……ummm….a teleprompter.
peace, neocon
Is global warming true? I really wouldn’t be able to say. The world naturally goes through cycles (ice ages) which will occur regardless of humanities interference. Have we been speeding up the process, maybe. Anyway, I really could care less whether it’s true or not. The debate has lead to a move towards sustainability and renewable resources. This in and of itself is a huge step forward from the crap consumers used to purchase IMO. Regardless, I recently purchased an excellent Helly Hansen suit rated for up to minus 70 degrees Celsius and a kick a$$ Burton snowboard. So I say bring on that snow and cold.
Ah, a picture is worth a thousand words…but, of course, each one of them is a lie because a picture cannot give us context.
Ha! What’d I tell you?
Pretty soon, Noonan will be arguing that photography steals your soul.
Tractatus,
Re: the picture of Obama in Muslim garb from sometime back, could you please put that into context for us?
Thanks a bunch
neocon
Spook: A couple years ago a post like this would have generated 100-150 comments. It’s no longer the hot (pun intended) topic it once was.
I don’t bother getting involved anymore because, first, there’s rarely anything new said. It’s usually a “find a place that’s unusually cold (or in this case, snowy) and it’s proof that global warming doesn’t exist” type of story. It gets old.
Second, solutions have become more important to me. And one of the interesting things there is that even many people that think global warming is poppycock favor of many of the kinds of solutions that have a significant effect on the issue. Their reasons differ, of course, but that’s okay. The economics of many alternatives are simply getting pretty attractive, so it’s getting to be an easy argument regardless of one’s opinion about global warming.
The economics of many alternatives are simply getting pretty attractive, so it’s getting to be an easy argument regardless of one’s opinion about global warming.
You and I are pretty much in agreement, Rico. I’d love to live long enough to see the era of fossil fuels end, if for no other reason than they’re getting damned expensive. My bet is, though, that if mankind were to stop emitting CO2 tomorrow, it would make the planet a much nicer place to live, but it would have a negligible effect on global climate.
RS, I also agree with you and Rico. Where I am fairly young now I believe I may live to see the day when fossil fuels are no longer the primary or even secondary source of energy. It is a very exciting concept. I would also Agree that eliminating CO2 emissions or becoming carbon neutral will not make the world a safer place. I think it would fill the wallets of the middle class however. No longer having to spend so much money at the pump or to heat your home would most certainly lead to a thriving economy.
Another thing which is coming out of this is Sustainability. Products are being made to last and last for years. The auto industry is a prime example of this. Even GE have been forced to engineer a new incandescent light bulb to compete.
I read recently there is a new form of concrete available which uses CO2 in it’s 7 to 28 day strengthening process. It was even suggested, if all the buildings in New York were of this new concrete, smog would no longer be a problem.
So the global warming debate continues and industry changes. Besides, when has less pollution ever been a bad thing?
Mark, you’re skewing what the article says. Warmer ocean temperatures cause more evaporation to get to the glacier in the form of precipitation. While temperatures at the glacier have increased, it’s still cold enough to freeze the precipitation and add to the glacier. Do you not understand basic high school science?
Jeez Noonan, you’re really being obtuse here. If someone presents you with mountains of statistical data and measurements, you poo-poo that. And if you’re presented with photos that show clear signs of shrinkage to your own eyes (Glacier in 1900: very big; Same glacier in 2000: stunningly smaller), you poo-poo that as well.
“Do you really know where the pictures came from?… No chance at all that someone didn’t do a bit of photo-shopping?” – uh, no – photoshopping shenanigans are the purview of Fox News and Iranian missile testers. I highly doubt that the respected scientists publishing these images doctored them. Any such photoshopping would be easily revealed. Sean Hannity would then be screeching about it non-stop, and the involved scientists would be laughing stocks stripped of any professional memberships.
“What time of year they were taken in? Conditions of light? Quality of photograph?” Please – give it a rest. Do you know how truly lame you sound? You might as well be questioning the moon landings by saying the photos of Neil Armstrong could have been concocted in a studio. To answer your question, the new images were taken during the same time of year it was estimated to have been in the old photos. However, time of year doesn’t make any difference with glaciers – as enormous ice masses that remain for thousands of years, they are the same size in both summer and winter.
Please, just concede the point Mark. Contrary to your assertion, there is in fact ample and visually obvious evidence (as well as hard measurements) for particular glaciers having shrunk.
(3) If Congress and the American business community were to cooperate 100% on everything you say you need to solve this crisis, what do you rate the odds that you would achieve your goal?
I should have added a qualifier to this last question:
And can you briefly explain, in layman’s terms, the science behind what it will take to achieve your goal. (the answer from both candidates should provide a chuckle or two)
The following sugeests the debate continues despite the efforts of Gorebots to shut it down:
There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for the global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution.
http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/editor.cfm
Remeber the ‘consensus’ on global warming??
The leadership of the American Physical Society, an organization representing nearly 50,000 physicists, had previously called the evidence ‘incontivertible’.
Seems they are now having second thoughts:
http://www.dailytech.com/Myth+of+Consensus+Explodes+APS+Opens+Global+Warming+Debate/article12403.htm
Seems that many of their members are opposed to the idea of manmade global warming.
So much for consensus science.
36. phnx | July 17th, 2008 at 10:35 pm
Sorry phnx. If you read at the very bottom of the bogus dailytech story, it says in oh so tiny letters:
“Update 7/17/2008: After publication of this story, the APS responded with a statement that its Physics and Society Forum is merely one unit within the APS, and its views do not reflect those of the Society at large.”
The few toadies like Lord Monckton (well known shill) who claimed they were speaking for APS and its members are in no way to be considered the “leadership” of APS, as you put it, nor do they speak for anybody but themselves.
Further, if you go to the official website of the American Physical Society (http://www.aps.org/), you’ll see just posted right there on the front page a statement regarding the article you just linked to:
Next time, before making a fool of yourself by gleefully linking to wild misinformation posted on wing-nut websites, you might do just a tiny bit of questioning first.
you mean OBAMA? the picture from KENYA? ya…he visited his fathers family…they are ALL muslims…you just gotta know it…his cousin ran for president there…and lost…then his people locked a bunch of christians in a church and…burned it to the ground…
his garb was muslim…it did show his solidarity with his people in kenya…not about anything major…just that he supported these folks…you should have heard what the elected president of kenya said after OBAMA disrespected him…by supporting the terrorist group that these muslims are…that follow his cousin…
luckily…the rest of the world really is being played for fools…because the MSM goes to great lengths to NOT print ALL OF THE FACTS about OBAMA…
gotbrains,
Not at all – present me your mountains of data…I’ve been waiting the better part of 20 years for it…but all I get are computer models, assertions of “consensus”, assertions that “the debate is over”…no real data.
You’ve got pretty pictures – which are meaningless; much as that picture of the polar bear on the melting ice floe was meaningless.
And, by the way, glaciers do melt in the summer months…even before global warming.
I fell asleep on the couch. Damn Global Warming.
Now, Mark; there are some global warming photos that you can take to the bank — like this one. OOPS!
Meanwhile, the big boys are jumping heavily into the solar PV market…
http://www.ajc.com/business/content/business/stories/2008/07/16/solar_0717.html
Global warming or no, I suspect solar panels are about to get as cheap as dirt. Well, at least coal.
From the people, who sit around all day, quantifying physical science into mathematics (what weather and climate models are based on):
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/press/proved_no_climate_crisis.html
In short, IPCC scientists and their models overestimated the affect of CO2 on climate between 500% and 2000%.
Imagine that.
It is a non issue because humans do not live long enough to accurately compute the effects or see the signs of such climactic events until it is too late.
The Global climate on Terra moves in 40K year cycles. Last time I checked none of you short lives ere really living with any quality for more than 80 to 85 years. The the last 2 are usually spent like the first two in a diaper babbling funny nonsense.
There is absolutely no sense in arguing this if the climate of terra is shifting warmer there is not a damned thing any of you can do about it except turn up the air con.
Noonan -
“And, by the way, glaciers do melt in the summer months…even before global warming.”
Look, you asserted that there is no evidence that “Glacier A is getting smaller overall than it used to be.” That statement is clearly bunk.
You then when on to question the photos, asking what time of year they were taken. Clearly, you are somehow implying that glaciers appear hugely larger during the winter than they do during summer. That too is bunk. Yes, when glaciers do melt off (as they are clearly doing) most of that occurs in summer. But glaciers do not hugely expand and contract with the seasons. Overall, glaciers are pretty much the same size in summer as winter. So, no, time of year that pictures were taken doesn’t explain the photographs which clearly show glaciers which have contracted enormously over the last 100 years – contrary to your erroneous assertion. Nice try though.
Again, whatever else you want to say about global warming, your statement that there is no evidence that “Glacier A is getting smaller overall than it used to be” is clearly wrong. You’d do much better to concede that you misspoke on that one.
what a bunch of misfits..it really matter if glaciers are shrinking…obviously…they have shrunk before…and reality is…they were not there at one time in world history…and will not be eternal through the rest of history either…
the real point is this…the green tree hugging liberals represent that gas burning SUV’s and toyota prius all are causing the not quite so warming of the atmosphere…based on nothing but conjection…because certainly there is no empirical scientific proof that any warming that may have occured was anything outside of nature doing its thing….
this whole thing is based on shakey at best data….and biased conclusions….because if this global warming was as real as they say it is….it could be caused by any one of a million reasons…and certainly…science is not that advanced nor can they say that every other possible cause has been ruled out….
so its all BS…typical demogoguary illusions that really do nothing with actual facts….its just a manipulation of data to draw a preconcieved conclusion….or in lay terms…a lie….
i lived by Mt Raineer long ago…its got a huge glacier up there…ever year it got smaller…and then bigger…and the next year it got smaller…
what, do you think they will last forever?
js: the real point is this…the green tree hugging liberals represent that gas burning SUV’s and toyota prius all are causing the not quite so warming of the atmosphere…
Actually, to me the real point is that the prius burns less fuel per mile. Personally though, I’d rather have one of these: http://www.afstrinity.com
pleasebangmywife.com
bang my hot wife | wife stories | free wifeysworld | wife pics | swinging wife | cheating wifes | cuckold wife
http://www.angelfire.com/matureadult/drunk-wife.html
http://www.angelfire.com/matureadult/wife-stories.html
http://www.angelfire.com/matur...