The Senate’s gearing up for a big global warming vote, so bring on the year’s first real snow
posted at 2:38 pm on December 4, 2007 by Bryan
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
No kidding. It was just up on Drudge. Here’s the vote:
A U.S. Senate committee is scheduled for an historic vote on a global warming bill this week, perhaps as early as Wednesday. Environmental groups are planning a flurry of press conferences tomorrow to try to influence the vote.
—
On the Federal level, the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on Wednesday is expected to debate amendments to a bill proposed by Sens. Lieberman of Connecticut and Warner of Virginia that would create a “cap and trade” system designed to cut total U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions. These systems require industries to pay fees when they emit carbon dioxide or other greenhouses gases above a set limit, with the money going to reward cleaner businesses.
And here’s the DC snow forecast:
Wednesday: Snow likely. Cloudy, with a high near 36. South wind 5 to 8 mph becoming east. Chance of precipitation is 60%. New snow accumulation of 1 to 3 inches possible.
The Senate has the exquisite timing of global warming hero Al Gore.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
I love the al gore effect.
lorien1973 on December 4, 2007 at 2:42 PM
I am on the fence with the issue of Global Warming. I’ve heard both sides shout things back and forth at each other, but I am still not convinced about either. Can someone give me a reasoned set of arguments backed by evidence for or against Global Warming? Thank you.
df4jc on December 4, 2007 at 2:42 PM
Predictions are that while most of the press conferences will go away by midday, expect to encounter lake effect press conferences featuring drifts up to 12 reporters high all day in certain counties.
James on December 4, 2007 at 2:44 PM
The very same question I was going to ask lorien1973!
Oh, could someone pass me the heating pad……… just shovled 20cm of wet snow out of the drive way.
Jim708 on December 4, 2007 at 2:46 PM
All indications are that we are entering an ice age. All evidence points to that…in the past 7 years the temp. has stabilized or dropped, world wide.
right2bright on December 4, 2007 at 2:46 PM
I think the world is warming up but I’m not sure how much of it is truly our fault or how much of it is the work of the sun’s cycles.
Defector01 on December 4, 2007 at 2:47 PM
Couldn’t we just go with the common sense idea that we cannot legislate the planet’s temperatures?
Kensington on December 4, 2007 at 2:48 PM
Fine, but how is that going to help with the larger truth that we need a way to have government take over all aspects of our economy?
pedestrian on December 4, 2007 at 2:51 PM
E X A C T L Y !
PBoilermaker on December 4, 2007 at 2:52 PM
Dress code for Global Warming event: BRING A THICK WINTER COAT!!!
JayHaw Phrenzie on December 4, 2007 at 2:52 PM
Planet 5 billion years old. Humans about 200,000 years old (or so). Industrial revolution about 150 years or so.
Here is a good 4 part series:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI
lorien1973 on December 4, 2007 at 2:54 PM
And BTW, if you think Kyoto is a scary attempt to steal are Sovriegnity (it is), then check out an even scarier attempt:
The Law Of the Sea Treaty
http://www.heritage.org/Research/InternationalOrganizations/wm470.cfm
JayHaw Phrenzie on December 4, 2007 at 2:54 PM
I cleared a foot of snow out of the drive on Sunday. Have another foot of snow today. Ten day forecast calls for lake effect snow for the entire ten day period, with another major storm coming in from the west.
Last two weeks in November, overnight low temps were single digits. Usually we get that cold in January, not November.
If you like to snowmobile, or ski, come on up, its perfect.
rockhauler on December 4, 2007 at 2:55 PM
This is the type of thing I’ve heard from both sides. Instead of presuming your answer correct, could you please lay out a reasoned case for why you believe that? Some things are not self-evident to all. I would greatly appreciate it.
df4jc on December 4, 2007 at 2:56 PM
Go browse around this site for awhile, if it doesn’t give you reason to pause and think…
doriangrey on December 4, 2007 at 2:57 PM
I just wish all the global warming zealots would find a less intrusive religion to fill their empty hearts.
(No, I’m not saying that non-religious people need religion, but I am saying that secular zealots are being religious whether they admit it or not)
Kensington on December 4, 2007 at 2:57 PM
Thank you. I will be watching this soon.
df4jc on December 4, 2007 at 2:58 PM
Here try this:http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html
Dr. Lindzen is the foremost authority on climate (Richard S. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology). Furthermore, his foes have taken huge sums of money for research to prove warming, Dr. Lindzen has stayed above the fray (dragged in by Gore who mis-quoted him), he takes no money from either side. The only scientist who I have found to be not tainted by the millions given to research to prove warming.
Of course, the global warming wackos hate him. But his credentials speak for themselves. Even his adversaries(we are talking about scientists, not screeching enviormentlalists), greatly respect him and seldom if ever debate him. His theories have proved basically bullet proof.
right2bright on December 4, 2007 at 3:00 PM
I do not remember his name but a Swedish climite scienist made a great statement: with out global warming our temperature would be absolute zero.
The web has been spamed with global temperature charts from the last 30 years,I wonder why, so it is hard to find the real charts showing global temperatures from the last hundred thousand years, but seek and you shall find. When you do find them you will see that we are in normal global temperature cycle.
allrsn on December 4, 2007 at 3:00 PM
Great. The Chinese win again?
;)
fogw on December 4, 2007 at 3:02 PM
It is Ra’s fault.
infidel on December 4, 2007 at 3:03 PM
I just got back from doin’ a little Chris… uh, holiday shoppin’ (don’t wana OFFEND anybody) and walking from the store to my car I about froze to death (a minor exaggeration) and as I’m runnin’ to the warmth of my big, mean, evil SUV I’m thinkin’ to myself “And I’m suppossed to feel sorry for polar bears?!” The ice is melting and they have no place to live? What they can’t live in Northern Canada … on land? And if Maurita Island is sinking, wouldn’t ALL the islands be sinking, and not just that one?
Tony737 on December 4, 2007 at 3:04 PM
I appreciate the link. This will definitely help. I have a question though. If the world is in fact cooling and not heating (which is the argument held from that link), then on what grounds do others say it’s becoming hotter? It has to be either one or the other, but not both. What would be the point in pushing forth false information like this?
df4jc on December 4, 2007 at 3:04 PM
So let me get this straight:
The Senate won’t pass a bill for funding the troops, but they will hold a grand debate on global warming as it snows outside.
This is easily the most do-nothingest do-nothing congress ever.
BKennedy on December 4, 2007 at 3:05 PM
There are several more. I have a very large file on global warming including atleast two historic temperature charts.
Also recall that NASA had to admit to a data error,error??, and had to correct their data. The 3 hottest years are now in the 30’s and 40’s not in the 90’s that Gore wants us to believe. I wonder has Gore corrected his 30 years charts the net has been spammed with?
allrsn on December 4, 2007 at 3:05 PM
Al Gore INC. and carbon credits.
infidel on December 4, 2007 at 3:06 PM
I’m surprised the Republican debates have not focused on the Global Warming scam. The first Republican that comes right out and says “In my administration, we will not legislate, regulate, encourage or tax the weather” will get my vote…
canvas on December 4, 2007 at 3:07 PM
The globe IS warming as it has hundreds of times before. We are in a normal temperature cycle with-in the normal temperatue differantial.
DO NOT forget global FREEZING of the 60’s and 70’s!!
allrsn on December 4, 2007 at 3:07 PM
Al Gore proposes that the earth is getting redder to make his pockets greener.
Conservationsists are genuinely concerned about the environment. The only green that matters to Al Gore is the green is his pocket. Al Gore puts more CO2 into the atmosphere flying around in his private jet castigating the rest of us than any other US citizen. His carbon footprint exceeds that of most towns and cities.
BKennedy on December 4, 2007 at 3:08 PM
People act like they can judge the weather by what happens in their short little lives. I remember 1988 being a particuarly hot summer … maybe it has something to do with the solar flares … or maybe ’cause I was workin’ outside building houses?
Last winter I broke an ice scraper tryin’ to get the frozen snow and ice (mini-glacier) off of my car. Well, that proves it! Global warming = colder winters!
Tony737 on December 4, 2007 at 3:11 PM
Well I’m just a young 23 year old fellow. In addition, I’ve only just scraped the surface of this debate. In regards to the temperature cycles I’ve heard what you said, but what followed was that our cycles are reoccurring at a faster rate than before. Is this true or false? What resource can back your stance on this?
df4jc on December 4, 2007 at 3:12 PM
Fantastic amounts of money to scientific grants, to general electric to build anti global warming equipment, and Al Gore who want his piece with his carbon credit corperation.
allrsn on December 4, 2007 at 3:12 PM
Anybody remember Mt. Pinatubo? It put more crap into the air in one day than we have in 100 years , yet we’re still alive!
How ’bout the Kuwaiti oil well fires? Over 700 wells buring unrefined oil right outta the ground for over a year … and yet somehow we still breathe.
Tony737 on December 4, 2007 at 3:13 PM
I do not recall seeing faster cycles from the charts. Like I said I have very large file on global warming, but it is not well organized.
allrsn on December 4, 2007 at 3:14 PM
Good point there are many more such as mt. st helen.
allrsn on December 4, 2007 at 3:15 PM
This is the sort of political jabbing that I even slightly care for with regards to this issue. The scientific evidence is what I’m after here. The political implications come after and I’m sure that will be fun. For now, however, I’m taking this one step at a time.
df4jc on December 4, 2007 at 3:16 PM
I’m sorry, but you’re not going to find anything sketpical that the global warming zealots won’t immediately decry as heresy. It’s like asking someone to prove their faith. No, strike that. It’s like asking someone who doesn’t acknowledge their faith to prove their faith.
Some things are self-evident, like the fact that global warming, if it’s real (and I’m prepared to consider that it is), cannot be stopped by Nancy Pelosi and higher taxes.
Kensington on December 4, 2007 at 3:18 PM
Fair enough. If you make a discovery in the next few days regarding this would you please post a link to it? I would greatly appreciate it.
df4jc on December 4, 2007 at 3:18 PM
Can’t be, the Air Force killed him 13 years ago.
Frozen Tex on December 4, 2007 at 3:18 PM
The Sahara was a rich tropical forest and Arizona was underwater. The earth is constantly changing. Too many things affect weather without mans influence.
infidel on December 4, 2007 at 3:19 PM
I like to get info from those who do not intend to provide it. Example, in the mid 90s, we found 4 P-38s and 1 B-17 that landed in Greenland during WW2. They landed the planes on snow and ice. We found those planes buried under 200 feet of ice! In total it’s about 1,100 feet thick. How did those planes get UNDER 200 feet of ice?
Tony737 on December 4, 2007 at 3:19 PM
No snow yet here in northern Virginia, but let’s see about tomorrow. Meanwhile, it is indeed freaking cold today. Maybe Al Gore’s carbon offsets are having an effect.
A suggestion for Michelle, Bryan, AP, etc.: How about a section of links (either posted by any of you or by commenters) that are, shall we say, inconvenient for Al Gore?
Bigfoot on December 4, 2007 at 3:20 PM
-27 celcius. Granted, I’m in Yellowknife, NT, Canada, but thats 10 to 15 dgrees celcius colder than is normal this time of year…
Frozen Tex on December 4, 2007 at 3:20 PM
Yes, some things are self-evident. However, some are not so easily detected. Aside from the political fallout from this issue I would rather see where the evidence leads me first. The evidence will help inform my political action. Therefore, I’m having to deal with the first issue. Any contribution you can make in helping me would be great.
df4jc on December 4, 2007 at 3:22 PM
-27 C?
Hence the name “Frozen Tex” eh? Nice reference to Stargate :-)
Tony737 on December 4, 2007 at 3:22 PM
Want to see an example of MANUFACTURED global warming ‘news’??
See this October 30, 2007, NBC Nightly news video of poor wildebeasts fighting not only crocs, but GLOBAL WARMING!!
Absoluteley no facts offered to connect ‘global warming’ with wildebeasts.
fred5678 on December 4, 2007 at 3:23 PM
A great book on the topic, by Fred Singer and Dennis Avery, “Unstoppable Glogal Warming: Every 1500 years” They go through the historical record, and show how the cycles are fairly regular, with some shorter term cycles imprinted on longer ones. They also debunk a lot of the myths, and discuss various mechanisms that control the global climate. If you are not a reader, watch “The Great Global Warming Swindle” on Youtube, easy to find with Google.
If you want to look at some actual data, rather than models created specifically to predict warming, check at the GISS website, you can look at temp records from all over the US. Not filtered, not modelled, just temp records. Focus on the areas labeled as rural, the urban heat island effect of growing cities is very strong. Scroll down to the map, and click on the area you want to see. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/
But even the station data in rural areas has a warm bias, due to placement of the sensors. For multiple examples, see http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/
Bottom line: It’s bunk. It is an attempt to take control of the world economy and redistribute wealth, nothing more. Stay warm.
iurockhead on December 4, 2007 at 3:24 PM
Power. Control. As Rush as said, the environmental movement is the new home for global socialism/communism.
jdawg on December 4, 2007 at 3:24 PM
It’s a balmy 51 degrees F in Montana today. G-d bless the Chinook!!!
(later on this week, back below 32 degrees again)
mjk on December 4, 2007 at 3:25 PM
Obviously, the result of global warming…
jdawg on December 4, 2007 at 3:25 PM
Faster than what? We have only been keep record of weather for about 100 years, go back further than that and all the best measurements are done in ten thousand year increments. Its absolutely impossible to tell what the normal or average fluctuations were on a day by day, month by month, year by year or even decade by decade basis when you models graduation is in thousands of years.
doriangrey on December 4, 2007 at 3:28 PM
There’s actually a great deal of eye-opening scientific data, rigorously sourced, scattered throught Michael Crichton’s otherwise mediocre novel State of Fear.
Here’s also a speech he gave to the National Press Club, using UN data to illustrate his skepticism over the “consensus.”
Kensington on December 4, 2007 at 3:29 PM
Excellent! This will keep my occupied during the great hot/cold weather that Texas brings. It was freezing last night and now it’s 70 degrees. Last week it was in the 80’s. You gotta love Texas!
df4jc on December 4, 2007 at 3:31 PM
iurockhead - “Focus on the areas labeled as rural, the urban heat island effect of growing cities is very strong.”
I’ve tried to explain this to my lib friends, but they refuse to hear it. We used to take temps ina field of grass, no where do we do? At the airport! That great big sheet of concrete, which absorbs heat. Grass does not, grass is cool. Libs don’t believe it? Go walk outside barefoot … oh wait, you can’t … YOU’LL GET FROSTBITE!
Tony737 on December 4, 2007 at 3:31 PM
Falling snow, buries the planes, turns to ice.
What did you think makes the glacier?
rockhauler on December 4, 2007 at 3:31 PM
Tony
Tony737 on December 4, 2007 at 3:34 PM
Exactly and precisely so; and thank you. “SG1″ is my favourite show; all 10 seasons on DVD, plus first 3 of “Atlantis”.
Frozen Tex on December 4, 2007 at 3:35 PM
Tony737 on December 4, 2007 at 3:36 PM
Don’t forget the TAX. They’re going to add a global warming tax to everything over one sheet of toilet paper (single ply).
Global warming has become such a religion that some people will never admit to being wrong about it. I remember in the early 90’s everyone called it global warming. Now it’s the catch-all “climate change”.
Carbon credits: the biggest scam evah.
redzap on December 4, 2007 at 3:38 PM
Note to self, use the “Close Tags” button.
Tex, the movie was better than the show, but it’s pretty cool. Best ep was the spoof on itself where they film a tv show based on the project as a way of ‘hiding in plain sight’.
Tony737 on December 4, 2007 at 3:39 PM
Didn’t Congress learn its lesson last year?
steveegg on December 4, 2007 at 3:41 PM
steveegg on December 4, 2007 at 3:41 PM
No. Nor will they ever, unless we remove them at the ballot box.
jdawg on December 4, 2007 at 3:42 PM
I forgot to mention that this past weekend, it was a not-so-balmy 0 degrees F. Quite miserable, I say.
I was freezing my bum off.
mjk on December 4, 2007 at 3:43 PM
This has been great. I’ve got more scientific resources than I expected. Thanks, everyone, for contributing on such a short notice.
df4jc on December 4, 2007 at 3:43 PM
Now go to a left-wing board, and they’ll call you a flat-earther for seeking information.
Kensington on December 4, 2007 at 3:46 PM
My daughter did a science fair project a few years ago, and (with my prompting) demonstrated a 6-7 degree F urban heat island effect in Midland, Texas, population about 100K. It’s much worse in big cities, and obvious enough that an 11-year old could document it (she got first place).
iurockhead on December 4, 2007 at 3:47 PM
BTW, what ever happened to all the major hurricanes predicted this season? What’s up with that?
d1carter on December 4, 2007 at 3:47 PM
Exactly how much of a so-called debate this will really be? Liberals are convinced global warming is real because the US is responsible for it. Conservatives believe the jury is still out on global warming because the evidence isn’t convincing. They also don’t blame the US for world problems.
The Democrats will vote “yes” and some (and boy do I grit my teeth by writing that) Republicans will vote no.
Weebork on December 4, 2007 at 3:49 PM
As hard as it was I already did that. The quack stage has past and I’m moving on!
df4jc on December 4, 2007 at 3:50 PM
I like the show better, more humor. Best was “Groundhog Day” idea, with O’Neill playing golf into the stargate. Or the 200th episode with a marionette feature, a la “Team America”.
Frozen Tex on December 4, 2007 at 3:50 PM
In that case I apologize for being overly brusque. My bad.
rockhauler on December 4, 2007 at 3:53 PM
Global warming is now causing freakishly mild weather where previously were expected awful hurricanes. We have to do something!
Kensington on December 4, 2007 at 3:53 PM
The Great Global Warming Swindle was a great film. After reading your post, I was reminded of the part where there is an American scientist, I forget his name but he had blondish hair and a mustache –anyway, he mentions that part of the hypothesis for man-made global warming was that a particular altitude would be warming up. So he and his team sent up weather balloons to measure that particular level of atmosphere. There conclusion? No noticeable rise in temperature!
To me, global warming debate ended there. If one of the cruxes of global warming is prediction A, and A proves to be wrong, then it’s fair to conclude the hypothesis is false.
Yehaaww!
Weebork on December 4, 2007 at 3:55 PM
If only Goracle and his followers would stop suckin up all my air, I could breathe easier.
infidel on December 4, 2007 at 3:56 PM
Well, technically a hypothesis isn’t ever “proved” wrong, per say, but evidence collected falsifies it. Details..details…
Weebork on December 4, 2007 at 3:57 PM
They are working on fixing that. By inflating the number of hurricanes and named storms.
http://www.nationalcenter.org/PR-NOAA-Hurricane-Prediction-Season-113007.html
http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/45690/story.htm
From the second link:
US weather experts posthumously upgraded Tropical Storm Karen to a hurricane as the 2007 Atlantic storm season drew to a close on Friday, making the year a near-average one for hurricane activity.
iurockhead on December 4, 2007 at 3:58 PM
John Christy
iurockhead on December 4, 2007 at 3:59 PM
Ok where is the real steveegg and what have you done with him??? The real steveegg would have known that congress has been infiltrated by brain dead liberal democrat socialists and is incapable of learning.
doriangrey on December 4, 2007 at 4:05 PM
To answer your question, it has been perceived that the earth’s overall temperature has been increasing. Scientists are attempting to explain why it is warming. Some believe it has to do with the greenhouse effect, where certain gases in the atmosphere trap incoming heat from the sun. If too much of these gases are present, it is thought the planet would heat up too much and be problematic for life to exist under too much heat.
So there is a group of scientists who believe man’s industrialization has released so much carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4), both greenhouse gases, into the atmosphere that is is causing the planet to warm up. They have come up with a hypothesis that is currently being tested for falsification.
There are also a collection of other scientists who do not attribute the warming of the planet to the activities of man and have proposed their own explanations. Examples of alternative explanations are the activity cycle of the sun (ie more output equals hotter temps), a process that deals with the relation between cloud formation and cosmic rays (I am leaning towards this one) which also includes the activity of the sun, normal ebb and flow of the climate, etc.
Thus the debate rages.
Weebork on December 4, 2007 at 4:05 PM
iurockhead,
Thanks for the name.
I’ll forget again, but the important part, the evidence, is all I really need to remember!
Weebork on December 4, 2007 at 4:07 PM
Very true.
I simply hit the “send” button too early. Besides, you do know me well enough by now (or at least should) to know that is part of the thought, even if unexpressed.
steveegg on December 4, 2007 at 4:08 PM
Rock, don’t apologize, your comment was great sarcasm!
Tony737 on December 4, 2007 at 4:09 PM
I stand corrected on the timeline; it was February 14, 2007. I knew there was a reason why I noted that earlier item.
steveegg on December 4, 2007 at 4:11 PM
Thanks, a good basic summery, but I did not ask that question, I think that was jf4jc.
allrsn on December 4, 2007 at 4:16 PM
Indeed it was I. Df4jc…but who’s taking notes?
df4jc on December 4, 2007 at 4:21 PM
Oh, ok!!!
Weebork on December 4, 2007 at 4:22 PM
I tried to be as neutral in explaining as possible.
I could give a revised addition that explains how I view the hypothesis that is global warming.
Well, rather than that, I will simply say that the global warming hypothesis is a weakly supported one. Moreover, as additional research is done, the hypothesis is further weakened. What we hear now is mostly dogmatic assertions that the hypothesis has been proved and we need to essentially stop being a civilization to fix it. By my experience, it has become a religion of anti-human, anti-capitialism believers. There is also a portion who believe they can profit off of global warming, like these carbon credit schemes.
Weebork on December 4, 2007 at 4:28 PM
df4jc - Curt & Co. at Flopping Aces have a great archive on posts about Global Warming/Climate Change/Environment issues. He touches on the political aspects of it, but also links to multitudes of resources concerning the science of it (and in some cases the junk science). A good resource if you want some background on the debate.
Flopping Aces: Environment Archive
Michael in MI on December 4, 2007 at 4:33 PM
There are two keys to the whold global warming debacle.
The US and Europe put in a LOT weather stations, and kept track of temperature change for the last hundred years or so.
Problem is that with population increases, these weather stations moved from country to city… and with more concrete and buildings around, the Heat Island Effect caused these same weather stations to have increases readings.
To proove global warming, they take the delta of all these stations, then (and this is documented and admitted by the people who do this in NASA and elsewhere) CHANGE the data to supposedly take out the effect of the heat island effect.
When using Satelite data, there is no global warming… at least none that cannot be directly attributed to sun cycles.
Currently the Northern Hemisphere is slightly warming… while the Southern Hemisphere is slightly cooling… but because there are so many MORE weather stations in the Northern Hemisphere, that temp difference has a greater impact on the overall number (these folks apparently don’t know basic statistics…).
Add in the natural suns cycle (which peaked a year or so ago, and is now in decline), WITH a large amount of undersea volcanic activity in the Pacific (more volcanoes and earthquakes on the rim)… and you have Oceans slightly changing their currents… which leads to both weird weather, and some Arctic Ice melt…
The whole CO2 thing is nothing more than a blatant way to control business and society. It has not been prooven that CO2 is driving climate change… and in fact the data shows that CO2 acutaly LAGS temperature change by a number of years.
Now… to the politics? Under what authority will the Feds regulate business to this large of an extent? This would be a BLATANT wealth redistribution.
Romeo13 on December 4, 2007 at 4:56 PM
The IPCC report is a good place to start if you want the anthropogenic global warming side of it. It summarizes the state of climate science supporting the theory. What I took away from it:
-According to temperature reconstructions (based mostly on tree ring proxies), the rate of warming over the last thousand years is accelerating.
-Reconstructions from ice core samples show a long-standing relationship between the amount of carbon in the atmosphere and the temperature at the site of the core samples. The apparent lag between carbon levels and temperature is explained by inherent latencies in the climate system.
-Computer models based on global warming theories agree well with the historical record, and predict warming will continue. Furthermore, when changes in solar energy are introduced into the models, there is no significant change in the amount of warming in the models.
Off the top of my head, I think that’s their whole case. FWIW, I think the temperature reconstructions and ice-core data are compelling. The results have been reproduced using different core samples, and different proxies, and they should be taken seriously. These two lines of evidence alone are not sufficient to convince me of anthropogenic global warming, however.
The temperature histories show only that temperature change is natural and common in the history of our planet. It’s been much warmer at times in the past, perhaps the recent past and certainly the distant past; and it’s been much cooler.
There is some relationship between greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and temperatures. If there weren’t a greenhouse effect warming the planet, life on Earth would be impossible in the first place. Humans introduce a fairly small change in the concentration of greenhouse gases, compared to other natural processes.
So how sensitive is our climate to small changes in the natural concentration of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere? The various computer models try to answer this question, but how reliable are they? The agree well enough with the recent temperature history, but there’s no way to know they haven’t been “tuned” to give a good result. The only way to find out if the models are worth anything is to wait and see which ones make the best predictions over the next, say, decade. Even then, if you think about it, there are ways that the models can give poor results, but still have a sound basis in theory. Or the models could end up being right, but all they really predict is a fairly linear increase in temperature, so one of them has a good chance of getting it right by chance.
I think the question we should be asking ourselves is, “does it matter whether the global mean temperature is somewhat higher over the next century?” Probably not.
RightOFLeft on December 4, 2007 at 5:28 PM
I found a few interesting papers following some links from Samizdata the other day - did a write up on a particularly thorough, well supported (by data/studies) compilation discussing solar cyclic activity and its interaction with complex weather patterns/trends on earth.
Interestingly, the paper points out that there’s basically a showdown about to come up that will prove which solar cycle predictive/descriptive model is actually right. One methodology (which the warmers seem to favor) indicates we’re about to get roasted, the other, based upon what appears to be a much broader range of data/indicators, potentially is predicting we’re about to enter a mini-ice age period, similar to ones experienced with a recurring periodicity of around 129 years or so. You may have heard the mentioned as either the Maunder minimum or Dawson minimums. And the data that will indicate which is the correct model will occur during 2008.
Interesting stuff. My post is here
Wind Rider on December 4, 2007 at 5:35 PM
To be REALLY cynical… thats exactly why the politicos are pushing Global Warming NOW.
If they push silly things like CO2 quotas through NOW, they will be able to later say they did somthing about Global Warming… and see??? it worked…
If it starts to cool before the Dems can take control of our economy, and the UN gets all these silly treatys through… then they loose that power permanently.
Romeo13 on December 4, 2007 at 5:39 PM
I think it is a shame that Sen. Inhofe is the only politician that will stand up to the global warming alarmist. Inhofe seems to be alone in the “Conservative Party” that will challenge these money grabbers. I am all for clean air, but not at the expense of our economy. Aside from a few legit tree huggers, this is all about money. Raising taxes you know.
chief on December 4, 2007 at 5:47 PM
Even if you believe global warming theory 100%, there is still a whole other layer of questions that should be asked about if the banning of CO2 is a legitimate way to solve it. Even proponets admit it basically would solve nothing. If CO2 is killing the planet then we need to double down and accelerate the technological and infustructural advancement of society, not shut down society and commit civilization suicide.
Resolute on December 4, 2007 at 6:57 PM
What are they going to do about water vapor?
Zorro on December 4, 2007 at 7:29 PM
Were in DECEMBER,the Twin Saults,
border town,we have about one foot of
snow,it’s not Global Warming,maybe
it’s a polar shift,oh brother!
canopfor on December 4, 2007 at 10:33 PM