View Full Version : Goodbye, Global Warming?
03-09-2009, 11:02 AM
Where's global warming?
By Jeff Jacoby
Globe Columnist / March 8, 2009
SUPPOSE the climate landscape in recent weeks looked something like this:
Half the country was experiencing its mildest winter in years, with no sign of snow in many Northern states. Most of the Great Lakes were ice-free. Not a single Canadian province had had a white Christmas. There was a new study discussing a mysterious surge in global temperatures - a warming trend more intense than computer models had predicted. Other scientists admitted that, because of a bug in satellite sensors, they had been vastly overestimating the extent of Arctic sea ice.
If all that were happening on the climate-change front, do you think you'd be hearing about it on the news? Seeing it on Page 1 of your daily paper? Would politicians be exclaiming that global warming was even more of a crisis than they'd thought? Would environmentalists be skewering global-warming "deniers" for clinging to their skepticism despite the growing case against it?
But it isn't such hints of a planetary warming trend that have been piling up in profusion lately. Just the opposite.
The United States has shivered through an unusually severe winter, with snow falling in such unlikely destinations as New Orleans, Las Vegas, Alabama, and Georgia. On Dec. 25, every Canadian province woke up to a white Christmas, something that hadn't happened in 37 years. Earlier this year, Europe was gripped by such a killing cold wave that trains were shut down in the French Riviera and chimpanzees in the Rome Zoo had to be plied with hot tea. Last week, satellite data showed three of the Great Lakes - Erie, Superior, and Huron - almost completely frozen over. In Washington, D.C., what was supposed to be a massive rally against global warming was upstaged by the heaviest snowfall of the season, which paralyzed the capital.
Meanwhile, the National Snow and Ice Data Center has acknowledged that due to a satellite sensor malfunction, it had been underestimating the extent of Arctic sea ice by 193,000 square miles - an area the size of Spain. In a new study, University of Wisconsin researchers Kyle Swanson and Anastasios Tsonis conclude that global warming could be going into a decades-long remission. The current global cooling "is nothing like anything we've seen since 1950," Swanson told Discovery News. Yes, global cooling: 2008 was the coolest year of the past decade - global temperatures have not exceeded the record high measured in 1998, notwithstanding the carbon-dioxide that human beings continue to pump into the atmosphere.
None of this proves conclusively that a period of planetary cooling is irrevocably underway, or that anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions are not the main driver of global temperatures, or that concerns about a hotter world are overblown. Individual weather episodes, it always bears repeating, are not the same as broad climate trends.
But considering how much attention would have been lavished on a comparable run of hot weather or on a warming trend that was plainly accelerating, shouldn't the recent cold phenomena and the absence of any global warming during the past 10 years be getting a little more notice? Isn't it possible that the most apocalyptic voices of global-warming alarmism might not be the only ones worth listening to?
There is no shame in conceding that science still has a long way to go before it fully understands the immense complexity of the Earth's ever-changing climate(s). It would be shameful not to concede it. The climate models on which so much global-warming alarmism rests "do not begin to describe the real world that we live in," says Freeman Dyson, the eminent physicist and futurist. "The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand."
But for many people, the science of climate change is not nearly as important as the religion of climate change. When Al Gore insisted yet again at a conference last Thursday that there can be no debate about global warming, he was speaking not with the authority of a man of science, but with the closed-minded dogmatism of a religious zealot. Dogma and zealotry have their virtues, no doubt. But if we want to understand where global warming has gone, those aren't the tools we need.
Jeff Jacoby can be reached at [email protected]
03-10-2009, 02:45 AM
Earth to Jacoby: I Got Your Global Warming Right Here
Tags: Global Warming Resources, Bloggers, climate change, global cooling, global warming, global warming skeptics, Jeremy Jacquot, research, Science, Science, Science, Skeptic Generated News, Smogger, US
Not to let himself be outdone by his skeptic colleague in good standing, George Will, The Boston Globe’s Jeff Jacoby has penned an equally vacuous and misinformed column posing the thought-provoking question: “Where’s global warming?”
It’s hard to know where to start. From the outset, I was tempted to just rehash my previous post about “global cooling” and climate variability or to mine Mitchell’s George Will debunking posts for some good material. (This line, in particular, answers his question rather well: “In other words: if you want to see climate change, look out the window.”) In light of some of his other claims about global temperatures and Arctic sea ice, however, I thought I’d do some of my own snooping.
First, to give Jacoby his due, he is correct in stating that 2008 was the coolest year of the past decade and that the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) acknowledged a few weeks ago that an error in one of its satellite sensors had caused it to underestimate the extent of Arctic sea ice by 193,000 square miles (500,000 square kilometers) by mid-February. And, yes, Kyle Swanson and Anastasios Tsonis did note in their study that the recent cooling period appeared “unprecedented over the instrumental period.”
Jacoby’s problem, and that of his fellow know-nothings, is that he never elaborates on these points. Take the NSIDC data. While he doesn’t state it explicitly, Jacoby’s intent in citing the error is to generally cast doubt on the reliability of satellites and other climate monitoring technologies.
It’s certainly true that these advanced devices occasionally malfunction, which is why scientists regularly verify their progress, but, on the whole, they are very good at what they do. And though 500,000 square kilometers is not an insignificant figure, it bears repeating that the total Arctic sea ice extent for the month of February was 14.8 million square kilometers.
Nor did the error significantly affect the accuracy of NSIDC’s time series numbers, as Bill Chapman, a University of Illinois climate scientist explained to The Loom’s Carl Zimmer:
“As one check, we have been comparing our time series with those from the independent data source AMSR-E. They are just about identical so we are comfortable that our time series remain solid. Our time series and therefore the statement are unaffected by the recent satellite problems. If the sensor degrades a lot more, our numbers will be affected, but to date, they are not.”
More important, unlike its critics, the NSDIC quickly recognized its error and released a detailed analysis explaining how the satellite sensor had erred and what its impact on the data was. Another critical point that the deniers ignore: This type of near-real-time data never makes its way into the peer-reviewed literature and therefore has no bearing on the validity of past and current studies. As the analysis notes:
“As discussed above, near-real-time products do not undergo the same level of quality control as the final archived products, which are used in scientific research published in peer-reviewed journals.”
Jacoby’s claim that 2008 was the coolest year of the past decade also misses the point and perfectly illustrates deniers’ tendency to cherry pick the data. As both Joe Romm and Greenfyre’s Mike Kaulbars have pointed out, 2008 also happened to be the tenth hottest year on record.
Indeed, Jacoby’s point seems even more irrelevant when you consider that this has been the hottest decade to date so far according to NASA, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the Hadley Center. Moreover, the six warmest years in NASA’s record have all fallen within the last decade, and, as all scientists agree, global mean temperatures have been steadily increasing over the last 150 years.
The warmest year to date did occur in 1998, but that was largely due to the disproportionate influence of the El Niño – Southern Oscillation (ENSO) signal, as RealClimate’s Gavin Schmidt noted last year.
Removing the signal, as Gavin did, tells a slightly different story:
“The basic picture over the long term doesn't change. The trends over the last 30 years remain though the interannual variability is slightly reduced (as you'd expect). The magnitude of the adjustment varies between +/-0.25ºC. You can more clearly see the impacts of the volcanoes (Agung: 1963, El Chichon: 1982, Pinatubo: 1991). Over the short term though, it does make a difference. Notably, the extreme warmth in 1998 is somewhat subdued, as is last winter's coolness. The warmest year designation (now in the absence of a strong El Niño) is more clearly seen to be 2005 (in GISTEMP) or either 2005 or 2001 (in HadCRUT3v). This last decade is still the warmest decade in the record, and the top 8 or 10 years (depending on the data source) are all in the last 10 years!”
Jacoby’s complaint that the mainstream media has largely ignored the “recent cold phenomena” is hogwash, of course. As Joe and others have noted, it has actually been quite the contrary, with even The New York Times and The Guardian reporting on the “unprecedented” cooling.
He ends the column on this conciliatory note: “Dogma and zealotry have their virtues, no doubt. But if we want to understand where global warming has gone, those aren't the tools we need.” Good advice, Jeff. Now follow it.
One cooler winter does not prove anything.
Yet here in my location it never snowed this winter (average days with snow is 22). Yet it rained so much that our drought is over
03-10-2009, 07:20 AM
The real effects of global warming are not expected to kick-in for several decades.
03-11-2009, 02:56 PM
hsd:"The real effects of global warming are not expected to kick-in for several decades."Since global warming has failed to continue, much less get a lot worse as predicted, now the goalposts are being shifted down field in an attempt to shore up the crumbling theory.
o:"One cooler winter does not prove anything."Warming ended years ago.
o:Warming ended years ago.
2007 was the second warmest year in a century, 2008 was relatively cold for recent years due to La Nina, It was still the tenth warmest in 150 years. There is no indication that warming trends have ended. This in not shifting the goal posts - everyone knows that you will get anomalous years and it is the trend that is important. Either you know that and are being intellectually dishonest or you clearly know so little about this issue that your opinion is worthless.
03-12-2009, 06:19 AM
(PhysOrg.com) -- Climatologists at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City have found that 2008 was the coolest year since 2000. The GISS analysis also showed that 2008 is the ninth warmest year since continuous instrumental records were started in 1880. The ten warmest years on record have all occurred between 1997 and 2008.
The GISS analysis found that the global average surface air temperature was 0.44°C (0.79°F) above the global mean for 1951 to 1980, the baseline period for the study. Most of the world was either near normal or warmer in 2008 than the norm. Eurasia, the Arctic, and the Antarctic Peninsula were exceptionally warm (see figures), while much of the Pacific Ocean was cooler than the long-term average.
03-12-2009, 06:22 AM
You liar, 2007 was the second warmest year in a century, 2008 was relatively cold for recent years due to La Nina, It was still the tenth warmest in 150 years.
Please do not use personal attacks, but rather links and information to prove your point, thank you.
Please do not use personal attacks, but rather links and information to prove your point, thank you.
My apologies - I should have said you are wrong. The point still holds:
The year 2007 tied for second warmest in the period of instrumental data, behind the record warmth of 2005, in the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) analysis. 2007 tied 1998, which had leapt a remarkable 0.2°C above the prior record with the help of the "El Niño of the century". The unusual warmth in 2007 is noteworthy because it occurs at a time when solar irradiance is at a minimum and the equatorial Pacific Ocean is in the cool phase of its natural El Niño-La Niña cycle.
To equate this with "Warming ended years ago" does show a lack of understanding of the science (that trends are the important factor) or a deliberate attempt to cloud the issue.
03-12-2009, 10:39 PM
Spout all you want about "it ain't gonna happen",
I've watched the amount of snow in the Mid Atlantic reagion become less and less over the years.
Wanna have some fun? See this report from a guy who briefed the powers to be back in 2006,... and now he's even more pessimistic.
Have a nice life, and if you really believe it won't happen, go buy some land in Maimi, or the Florida keys.
03-13-2009, 05:07 PM
Climate facts to warm to (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23411799-7583,00.html)
March 22, 2008
CATASTROPHIC predictions of global warming usually conjure with the notion of a tipping point, a point of no return.
Last Monday - on ABC Radio National, of all places - there was a tipping point of a different kind in the debate on climate change. It was a remarkable interview involving the co-host of Counterpoint, Michael Duffy and Jennifer Marohasy, a biologist and senior fellow of Melbourne-based think tank the Institute of Public Affairs. Anyone in public life who takes a position on the greenhouse gas hypothesis will ignore it at their peril.
Duffy asked Marohasy: "Is the Earth stillwarming?"
She replied: "No, actually, there has been cooling, if you take 1998 as your point of reference. If you take 2002 as your point of reference, then temperatures have plateaued. This is certainly not what you'd expect if carbon dioxide is driving temperature because carbon dioxide levels have been increasing but temperatures have actually been coming down over the last 10 years."
Duffy: "Is this a matter of any controversy?"
Marohasy: "Actually, no. The head of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has actually acknowledged it. He talks about the apparent plateau in temperatures so far this century. So he recognises that in this century, over the past eight years, temperatures have plateaued ... This is not what you'd expect, as I said, because if carbon dioxide is driving temperature then you'd expect that, given carbon dioxide levels have been continuing to increase, temperatures should be going up ... So (it's) very unexpected, not something that's being discussed. It should be being discussed, though, because it's very significant."
Duffy: "It's not only that it's not discussed. We never hear it, do we? Whenever there's any sort of weather event that can be linked into the global warming orthodoxy, it's put on the front page. But a fact like that, which is that global warming stopped a decade ago, is virtually never reported, which is extraordinary."
Duffy then turned to the question of how the proponents of the greenhouse gas hypothesis deal with data that doesn't support their case. "People like Kevin Rudd and Ross Garnaut are speaking as though the Earth is still warming at an alarming rate, but what is the argument from the other side? What would people associated with the IPCC say to explain the (temperature) dip?"
Marohasy: "Well, the head of the IPCC has suggested natural factors are compensating for the increasing carbon dioxide levels and I guess, to some extent, that's what sceptics have been saying for some time: that, yes, carbon dioxide will give you some warming but there are a whole lot of other factors that may compensate or that may augment the warming from elevated levels of carbon dioxide.
"There's been a lot of talk about the impact of the sun and that maybe we're going to go through or are entering a period of less intense solar activity and this could be contributing to the current cooling."
Duffy: "Can you tell us about NASA's Aqua satellite, because I understand some of the data we're now getting is quite important in our understanding of how climate works?"
Marohasy: "That's right. The satellite was only launched in 2002 and it enabled the collection of data, not just on temperature but also on cloud formation and water vapour. What all the climate models suggest is that, when you've got warming from additional carbon dioxide, this will result in increased water vapour, so you're going to get a positive feedback. That's what the models have been indicating. What this great data from the NASA Aqua satellite ... (is) actually showing is just the opposite, that with a little bit of warming, weather processes are compensating, so they're actually limiting the greenhouse effect and you're getting a negative rather than a positive feedback."
Duffy: "The climate is actually, in one way anyway, more robust than was assumed in the climate models?"
Marohasy: "That's right ... These findings actually aren't being disputed by the meteorological community. They're having trouble digesting the findings, they're acknowledging the findings, they're acknowledging that the data from NASA's Aqua satellite is not how the models predict, and I think they're about to recognise that the models really do need to be overhauled and that when they are overhauled they will probably show greatly reduced future warming projected as a consequence of carbon dioxide."
Duffy: "From what you're saying, it sounds like the implications of this could beconsiderable ..."
Marohasy: "That's right, very much so. The policy implications are enormous. The meteorological community at the moment is really just coming to terms with the output from this NASA Aqua satellite and (climate scientist) Roy Spencer's interpretation of them. His work is published, his work is accepted, but I think people are still in shock at this point."
If Marohasy is anywhere near right about the impending collapse of the global warming paradigm, life will suddenly become a whole lot more interesting.
A great many founts of authority, from the Royal Society to the UN, most heads of government along with countless captains of industry, learned professors, commentators and journalists will be profoundly embarrassed. Let us hope it is a prolonged and chastening experience.
With catastrophe off the agenda, for most people the fog of millennial gloom will lift, at least until attention turns to the prospect of the next ice age. Among the better educated, the sceptical cast of mind that is the basis of empiricism will once again be back in fashion. The delusion that by recycling and catching public transport we can help save the planet will quickly come to be seen for the childish nonsense it was all along.
The poorest Indians and Chinese will be left in peace to work their way towards prosperity, without being badgered about the size of their carbon footprint, a concept that for most of us will soon be one with Nineveh and Tyre, clean forgotten in six months.
The scores of town planners in Australia building empires out of regulating what can and can't be built on low-lying shorelines will have to come to terms with the fact inundation no longer impends and find something more plausible to do. The same is true of the bureaucrats planning to accommodate "climate refugees".
Penny Wong's climate mega-portfolio will suddenly be as ephemeral as the ministries for the year 2000 that state governments used to entrust to junior ministers. Malcolm Turnbull will have to reinvent himself at vast speed as a climate change sceptic and the Prime Minister will have to kiss goodbye what he likes to call the great moral issue and policy challenge of our times.
It will all be vastly entertaining to watch.
THE Age published an essay with an environmental theme by Ian McEwan on March 8 and its stablemate, The Sydney Morning Herald, also carried a slightly longer version of the same piece.
The Australian's Cut & Paste column two days later reproduced a telling paragraph from the Herald's version, which suggested that McEwan was a climate change sceptic and which The Age had excised. He was expanding on the proposition that "we need not only reliable data but their expression in the rigorous use of statistics".
What The Age decided to spare its readers was the following: "Well-meaning intellectual movements, from communism to post-structuralism, have a poor history of absorbing inconvenient fact or challenges to fundamental precepts. We should not ignore or suppress good indicators on the environment, though they have become extremely rare now. It is tempting to the layman to embrace with enthusiasm the latest bleak scenario because it fits the darkness of our soul, the prevailing cultural pessimism. The imagination, as Wallace Stevens once said, is always at the end of an era. But we should be asking, or expecting others to ask, for the provenance of the data, the assumptions fed into the computer model, the response of the peer review community, and so on. Pessimism is intellectually delicious, even thrilling, but the matter before us is too serious for mere self-pleasuring. It would be self-defeating if the environmental movement degenerated into a religion of gloomy faith. (Faith, ungrounded certainty, is no virtue.)"
The missing sentences do not appear anywhere else in The Age's version of the essay. The attribution reads: "Copyright Ian McEwan 2008" and there is no acknowledgment of editing by The Age.
Why did the paper decide to offer its readers McEwan lite? Was he, I wonder, consulted on the matter? And isn't there a nice irony that The Age chose to delete the line about ideologues not being very good at "absorbing inconvenient fact"?
03-14-2009, 04:10 PM
Yup.... as this graph shows... it seems to have stabilized since 1998...
The problem is... I was born in the 1940's and I keep seeing less and less show in each winter.
Looking at trends, and picking your years seems a bit disengenious.
Anyone got stuff that goes back to the 1600's ?
It's interesting that even Krakatoa expolosion in 1883 only seemed to have slowed it down for about 5 years.
Ad's I expect to see in Southern Florida in 15 years...
"Beach frontage for sale. Cheap"
03-15-2009, 10:58 AM
The whole anthropogenic warming thing is a farce, It is a convenient excuse for Governments worldwide to introduce yet another stream of revenue to their coffers.
Carbon Tax, Emissions trading SCHEMES, Call it what you want, It all boils down to MORE TAX. And it wont be big business or polluters paying for it either it will be the end users/consumers that will provide this new revenue stream, You and I.
The Science is unproven, the Data is in most cases diabolically opposed, not to mention based on such a short time cycle as to be worthless and yet still most Governments are steaming ahead with plans to cut CO2 emission's via the handy little method of a TAX.
This tax will do Sweet FA for the environment, Zilch, Nada, Nothing, Yet all you Alarmist's out there will embrace it and support it as a holy grail that will save the Planet and teach those no good big oil and mining companies a lesson, no doubt they will increase their profit's just a little more by charging a $0.01 dickhead fee for every extra dollar they charge you and I in TAX to pay to the Government and for every dollar they pay to cover the Cost's of new regulations that will do Nothing and achieve nothing in Saving the Planet from......A totally unproven and unrealised threat.
IT JUST ISN'T REAL PEOPLE, The Earth Warms________________The Earth Cools
The Earth Warms_______The Earth Cools________ Add Infinitum...The Earth gets smashed by a Meteor, Are we gonna place a Tax on where it hit's?
Is the next move a Tax on Volcanoes based on the differing output of Gasses?, Livestock Farts and consumption per capita of Cabbage? You might smirk but in reality it is as silly as paying a CO2 Tax based on the Current evidence of Anthropogenic Warming.
We are being Conned, Just reading the Above articles should ring a few bells even in the most radical treehuggers head, The Data is suss, Why isn't the the above info frontpage news as it would be if it was the other way around? why is it that anything that contravenes the Anthropgenic Brigade never makes it to frontpage news?
Australia produced just over 400 Million ton's of CO2 back in 2006, just on those figures alone at $1.00 AU is a sizable tax revenue, bump it up to $20-$30 a ton and a Treasures multiple wet dream is reality. It will not be big business that pay's this tax, it will be the everyday person on the street.
Even 200 yrs of really really accurate data is not enough to discount the History of NATURAL CLIMATE CHANGE in Earth's history. We don't even have that, but it seems that a lot of people are willing to place their trust in unproven Science and Dodgy Data, Feel good politics and Trust...That might just be misplaced.
Howard (the best damn polly in Australian History) and Bush opposed the Kyoto Protocol for a reason. It wasnt accurate.
03-16-2009, 09:43 PM
Global and Northern Hemisphere Tropical Cyclone Activity [still] lowest in 30-years
Tropical cyclone (TC) activity worldwide has completely and utterly collapsed during the past 2 to 3 years with TC energy levels sinking to levels not seen since the late 1970s. This should not be a surprise to scientists since the natural variability in climate dominates any detectable or perceived global warming impact when it comes to measuring yearly integrated tropical cyclone activity. With the continuation (persistence) of colder Pacific tropical sea-surface temperatures associated with the effects of La Nina, the upcoming 2009 Atlantic hurricane season should be above average, as we saw in 2008. Nevertheless, since the Atlantic only makes up 10-15% of overall global TC activity each year (climatological average during the past 30 years), continued Northern Hemispheric and global TC inactivity as a whole likely will continue.http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/%7Emaue/tropical/global_running_ace.jpg
03-19-2009, 01:28 PM
Global warming shocker: Limbaugh, Hannity, and Steele all agree
:bob:An astonishing number of Republicans and conservatives believe that climate change, driven by global warming is some kind of hysterical hoax, being conjured up by radical left wing pseudo-scientists and tree huggers. They believe the melting of our polar ice caps is a natural course of events and we are in a cooling period, rather than a warming period. They don’t believe that the activity of six billion people living in industrialized areas, spewing out tons of pollution every day, could be connected to the thinning of the planet’s ozone layer, which protects us from the sun’s damaging rays. According to right wing talking-heads, it could only be a massive conspiracy fabricated by thousands of scientists and liberal politicians around the world, who are bent on using global warming as a means to control our freedom and increase our taxes.
“Man-made global warming is a hoax!” Rush Limbaugh, 2009
“Al Gore: ride in coach, save a polar bear!” Sean Hannity, 2009
“We are cooling, we are not warming…Greenland, which is covered in ice, was called Greenland for a reason, right?” Michael Steele, 2009
"It can't be man-made, because all the other planets in the solar system are warming at the same rate." Unidentified global warming blogger, 2009
According the Environmental Defense Action Fund, our society is under an all-out assault from the global warming detractors, who talk loud, propagate ignorance, and are demonstrably devoid of factual proof. Here are some of the statistics cited by the EDAF:
*$450 million: Amount spent on lobbying and political contributions by opponents of
global warming action in 2008.
*52: Public spokespersons engaged by polluters and the ideological right to spread
misinformation about global warming on line and in the media.
*2,340: Number of paid lobbyists working in Washington on climate change in 2008
*7 out of 8: Proportion of climate lobbyists advocating against climate action.
*45 million: Amount spent on global warming denial advertising by the coal industry in 2008.
On December 7, 2009, there will be representatives from 192 countries that will meet at a summit in Copenhagen for discussions to replace the Kyoto Protocol, which will expire in 2012. This time, the United States will participate. The Bush/Cheney administration refused to be involved and claimed the cost to curtail C02 emissions was too high. President Obama believes the cost of doing nothing is too high. As a result of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s recent trip to Beijing, the United States will be working in cooperation with China on the process of creating a global roadmap on energy and climate change, in the unified effort to revamp the global economy to be more low-carbon and more energy efficient. There are thousands of scientists, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), who believe that not doing anything will exacerbate increases in C02 levels and cause temperatures to increase by approximately 7 degrees Fahrenheit and sea levels to rise between 3-7 feet by 2100.
Whether the skeptics are right or wrong, what is the worst that could happen if we reduce C02 emissions, limit drilling for gas and oil, decrease pollution, and increase renewable energy? The reality is, like it or not, we would develop a world that has cleaner air, more green jobs, fewer land fills, cleaner water, more global cooperation, fewer contaminates in our food sources, decreased dependency on fossil fuels, and less threat of our ocean communities being swamped by sea levels.
Global Warming: The New Challenge with Tom Brokaw airs on March 18, 2009, on the Discovery Channel
More information on global warming:
03-19-2009, 01:57 PM
Whether the skeptics are right or wrong, what is the worst that could happen if we reduce C02 emissions, limit drilling for gas and oil, decrease pollution, and increase renewable energy?"We could trash our economy, choose loser energy strategies that will be an unworkable disaster in the long run, and make America a third-world nation as a result of this boneheaded strategy. Also, the idea that it is an 'either/or' between using fossil fuels and nuclear power, and decreasing pollution, is a lie.
03-20-2009, 01:10 PM
We could trash our economy, choose loser energy strategies that will be an unworkable disaster in the long run, and make America a third-world nation as a result of this boneheaded strategy. Also, the idea that it is an 'either/or' between using fossil fuels and nuclear power, and decreasing pollution, is a lie.What could be more of a "loser" energy strategy than one where price spikes that are controlled by the suppliers can trash our economy with certainty? Last summer's $140/bbl was just a taste of what is coming soon in a world of ever tighter supplies and increased competition for available fossil fuels.
Alternatives will take decades, decades we will not have. We should start now so we can avoid victimhood.
03-20-2009, 01:33 PM
What could be more of a "loser" energy strategy than one where price spikes that are controlled by the suppliers can trash our economy with certainty? Last summer's $140/bbl was just a taste of what is coming soon in a world of ever tighter supplies and increased competition for available fossil fuels.
I agree. I doubt there is manmade global warming. But the idea that we can just consume oil & gas without a plan is extremely short-sighted and guaranteed to destroy ourselves.
The sudden run-up from $20/barrel to $140/barrel was a glimpse of our future (and only reversed itself because of a severe int'l recession). We had better start figuring out how to synthesize energy some other ways before it's too late. Obama should take that $680Billion and stop worrying about carbon-trading nonsense and Kyoto-like-baloney and start worrying about energy alternatives.
We only have a few years left...
03-20-2009, 02:38 PM
Alternatives will take decades, decades we will not have. We should start now so we can avoid victimhood.
... We had better start figuring out how to synthesize energy some other ways before it's too late. ... We only have a few years left...
Eloquent arguments for nuclear power NOW, and bridge use of natural gas/clean coal.
03-20-2009, 04:17 PM
"It can't be man-made, because all the other planets in the solar system are warming at the same rate."
Do you have any evidence to back up that statement, or are we supposed to just take your word for it?
03-20-2009, 06:58 PM
"It can't be man-made, because all the other planets in the solar system are warming at the same rate."
"Not true."Do you have any evidence to back up that statement, or are we supposed to just take your word for it?
03-21-2009, 08:36 AM
Mr. Soon showed as long ago as the mid-1990s that the depth of the Little Ice Age -- the coldest period in the northern hemisphere in the past 1,500 years -- corresponded perfectly with a solar event known as the Maunder Minimum. For nearly seven decades there was virtually no sunspot activity.
Our sun was particular quiet. And for those 60 to 70 years, the northern half of our globe, at least, was in a deep freeze.
Is it so hard to believe then that the sun could be causing our current warming, too?
At the very least, the fact that so many prominent scientists have legitimate, logical objections to the current global warming orthodoxy means there is no "consensus" among scientists about the cause.
Here's a prediction: The sun's current active phase is expected to wane in 20 to 40 years, at which time the planet will begin cooling. Since that is when most of the greenhouse emission reductions proposed by the UN and others are slated to come into full effect, the "greens" will see that cooling and claim, "See, we warned you and made you take action, and look, we saved the planet."
Of course, they will have had nothing to do with it.
Global temperatures have leveled off since 2001.
UW-Milwaukee Study Could Realign Climate Change Theory
Scientists Claim Earth Is Undergoing Natural Climate Shift
POSTED: 3:18 pm CDT March 15, 2009
MILWAUKEE -- The bitter cold and record snowfalls from two wicked winters are causing people to ask if the global climate is truly changing.
The climate is known to be variable and, in recent years, more scientific thought and research has been focused on the global temperature and how humanity might be influencing it.
However, a new study by the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee could turn the climate change world upside down.
Scientists at the university used a math application known as synchronized chaos and applied it to climate data taken over the past 100 years.
"Imagine that you have four synchronized swimmers and they are not holding hands and they do their program and everything is fine; now, if they begin to hold hands and hold hands tightly, most likely a slight error will destroy the synchronization. Well, we applied the same analogy to climate," researcher Dr. Anastasios Tsonis said.
Scientists said that the air and ocean systems of the earth are now showing signs of synchronizing with each other.
Eventually, the systems begin to couple and the synchronous state is destroyed, leading to a climate shift.
"In climate, when this happens, the climate state changes. You go from a cooling regime to a warming regime or a warming regime to a cooling regime. This way we were able to explain all the fluctuations in the global temperature trend in the past century," Tsonis said. "The research team has found the warming trend of the past 30 years has stopped and in fact global temperatures have leveled off since 2001."
The most recent climate shift probably occurred at about the year 2000.
Now the question is how has warming slowed and how much influence does human activity have?
"But if we don't understand what is natural, I don't think we can say much about what the humans are doing. So our interest is to understand -- first the natural variability of climate -- and then take it from there. So we were very excited when we realized a lot of changes in the past century from warmer to cooler and then back to warmer were all natural," Tsonis said.
Tsonis said he thinks the current trend of steady or even cooling earth temps may last a couple of decades or until the next climate shift occurs.
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.