Global warming arrives in Minnesota
posted at 2:27 pm on December 15, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | regular view
Looks peaceful and placid, right? Not when you have to shovel the driveway and the wind is gusting up to 20 MPH. In order to get the barrels out this morning for the trash pickup, I had to clear the driveway first — and even bundled up and wearing my heaviest winter gloves, my fingers went numb about five minutes into the effort. I did manage to finish in about 20 minutes, getting back into the house at just the moment one of the First Mate’s friends informed us that they knew of a service that would have done the job for about twelve dollars. I probably would have spent that much to stay warm.
For the record, our below-zero days usually come in January and February, not December. It looks as though we will have a second long, cold winter in a row. That’s what makes this report from the AP so ludicrous:
When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, global warming was a slow-moving environmental problem that was easy to ignore. Now it is a ticking time bomb that President-elect Barack Obama can’t avoid. …
Mother Nature, of course, is oblivious to the federal government’s machinations. Ironically, 2008 is on pace to be a slightly cooler year in a steadily rising temperature trend line. Experts say it’s thanks to a La Nina weather variation. While skeptics are already using it as evidence of some kind of cooling trend, it actually illustrates how fast the world is warming.
The average global temperature in 2008 is likely to wind up slightly under 57.9 degrees Fahrenheit, about a tenth of a degree cooler than last year. When Clinton was inaugurated, 57.9 easily would have been the warmest year on record. Now, that temperature would qualify as the ninth warmest year.
Did the AP forget how to do research? The warmest years on record mostly occurred before Clinton became President — and before Clinton was born. John at Power Line, suffering under the same weather conditions as me at the moment, noted this last night:
This displays a remarkable level of ignorance on the part of the Associated Press. Global temperature records are nowhere near accurate enough to rank years, over a period of centuries, with any confidence. For the recent past, though, we have the world’s best data set here in the U.S. And it’s true that at one time, it was widely believed that the 1990s were the warmest recent decade. But that was before it was discovered that NASA’s James Hansen, Al Gore’s chief scientific ally, had been fudging the data, either accidentally or on purpose. NASA was forced to correct its data, with the result that the ten warmest years on record here in the US are as follows: 1934, 1998, 1921, 2006, 1931, 1999, 1953, 1990, 1938, 1939.
The AP apparently hasn’t gotten the word, perhaps because it is relying on the report of the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. But the IPCC report was a political document, not a scientific one, which deliberately ignored the most current research in the field.
They haven’t gotten the word? More likely, they have ignored it in order to engage in global-warming hysteria. Meanwhile, Hot Air readers in Minnesota should try to keep bundled up to avoid frostbite from all that global warming that just got delivered overnight.
Update: I forgot to mention that it was -8 when I woke up, and -6 when I cleared the driveway … with a -26 wind chill. Yee-haw.
Update II: Actually, I have both a longish driveway and a snowthrower — but the latter is in the shop at the moment. Believe me, I missed it this morning.
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
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »
So, how many hours of daylight are you getting now a days?
Count to 10 on December 15, 2008 at 3:21 PM
Please explain to me why supposedly Alaska’s three glaciers that have shrank the most.. Portage, Matanuska and Exit have all grown 20 ftt this last summer alone?
Hmmmmmm
upinak on December 15, 2008 at 3:21 PM
Argh – missed the 1999.
I guess that means we really are all doomed.
BTW, wouldn’t the the late 30s- early 50s be expected to have had much lower carbon emissions then say the 60s-now?
Between the great depression and the destruction of much of Europe and Japan’s industry in WWII one would expect relatively hot temperatures in the 20s-early 30s and then a hockey stick from the 60s on (which famously is NOT the case).
18-1 on December 15, 2008 at 3:21 PM
Anchorage is getting 5 hour 20 minutes or so.. losing a minute a day still.
upinak on December 15, 2008 at 3:22 PM
I’ll just mention how they found some of the weather reporting stations in ridiculous locations, i.e. close to the exhausts of motors, in the middle of macadam parking lots etc.
thegreatbeast on December 15, 2008 at 3:22 PM
I was shoveling about 4-5 inches of “global warming” over the weekend here in the Boulder area. What I find so funny though is the fact of the colder it gets, the more the Gore-a-holics think it actually proves global warming. So hot weather is caused by global warming, cold weather is caused by global warming and any weather in between, not to mention, other weather related events (hurricanes,etc.)are caused by global warming. That about covers it. Global warming has become today’s adult version of the “boogey man” that explains everything climate related and should be feared by all.
I wonder, when Americans were fighting the Revolutionary War and Washington was crossing the frozen Delaware River, which hardly ever freezes, was he aware global warming was taking place because we obviously have never had brutally cold winters before without it.
Planet Boulder on December 15, 2008 at 3:22 PM
Here’s your cite:
starfleet_dude on December 15, 2008 at 3:23 PM
Four of the ten warmest years were in the 1930’s. Blame it on FDR. Can’t do that–he was a Democrat!
Can’t complain for now–it’s 58 degrees in Hartford CT. But when cold polar air goes south somewhere, warm subtropical air must go north somewhere else. But that’s the whole problem with “global” warming models–climate isn’t global–it’s lots of short-term (on the order of days) unpredictable local phenomena all interacting, and trying to predict fluctuations of 1 degree in averages over 100 years is like looking for a 1-millimeter ripple on a series of tsunamis. There’s too much chaos in the system to predict long, gentle trends!
According to 2003 figures, the world emitted about 23 billion tons of CO2 that year. Even based on the worst IPCC predictions (10.8 degrees F in 100 years, now discredited by even the IPCC), that comes out to 10.8 / 100 / 23×10^9
= 4.7×10^-12 degrees F (4.7 Trillionths of a degree) per tonne of CO2, for which the global-warming taxers want to tax us $35/tonne. You couldn’t find that on a thermometer with an electron microscope!
One little factoid the apostles of Global Gore-ing do NOT tell the public–experiments have shown that high CO2 levels in the air increase plant growth rates and crop yields. During a cold La Nina period with few sunspots and shorter growing seasons, that could come in handy when trying to feed 6 billion people (or more, in the future). We might also want to start eating some of that corn we’re wasting on ethanol…
Steve Z on December 15, 2008 at 3:24 PM
The Pacific Decadal Oscillation has been in a warm phase for 30 years. Warmer Pacific. Shrinking glaciers. Well, now the Pacific Decadal Oscillation has entered a cold phase. 25-30 years of a colder Alaska. Growing glaciers are another piece of evidence that the big chill has begun. Add a quiet Sun and I believe it’s gonna get colder, not warmer, for several decades!
Ordinary1 on December 15, 2008 at 3:24 PM
no one is saying there aren’t changes in climate that occur naturally…
That’s exactly what climate alarmists say, that’s the point. Climate alarmists can’t admit to naturally fluctuating climatic conditions. The “science” isn’t good enough to determine to what affect, if any, humans may have outside of the natural variances.
As to carbon: You also realize that humans are not producing any more carbon or any other element that hasn’t existed in some form or other on this planet since time began? Fossil fuels were once, ummm, not fossils and CO2 levels in the atmosphere were into the MILLIONS of PPM –
yet life flourished.
What say you?
catmman on December 15, 2008 at 3:24 PM
They didn’t. You’re mistaking 20 feet of snow fall at the top for 20′ of ice on the bottom. There’s a biig difference in terms of the thermal mass of snow and ice, and it matters.
starfleet_dude on December 15, 2008 at 3:25 PM
Which started about 3 yrs ago. Just FYI from an Alaskan!
upinak on December 15, 2008 at 3:26 PM
And the High Goracle spoke all these words, saying: I am the Goracle your Oracle.
ONE: You shall have no other Oracles before Me.
TWO: You shall not make for yourself any carbon images–any likeness of anything carbon that is in heaven above, or of anything carbon that is in the earth beneath, or anything carbon that is in the water under the earth.
THREE: You shall not ever take the name of the Goracle your Oracle in vain.
FOUR: Remember my birthday, and keep it carbon free unless you have credits that you bought from me.
FIVE: Honor me instead of your father and your mother especially if they don’t believe in global warming.
SIX: You shall not ever malign me or else you be apostates.
SEVEN: You shall not commit adultery with my wife, but I can with your wife and your daughters.
EIGHT: You shall not ever steal my carbon credits.
NINE: You shall not raise any challenges to the most holy doctrine of global warming.
TEN: You shall not covet any of my mansions; you shall not covet my private jets, nor my SUV’s, nor my pizza, nor my Krispe Kreame dounuts, nor my Biggie Fries, nor my hot fudge sundaes.
MB4 on December 15, 2008 at 3:26 PM
But….but….I thought all the science was in and that we had all agreed to suspend the laws of the universe, ignore the volcanic activity under the arctic and the falling temperatures…everywhere…and blindly follow Madonna.
Phred on December 15, 2008 at 3:26 PM
Okay, so I am going to assume that you are in high school right now and haven’t taken all of your science classes.
If as you say glacial ice on land is melting and raising sea levels it would also mean that the salinity of the oceans would be decreasing. Glaciers on land are formed by fresh water. If they are melting and flowing into the oceans then a process called dilution would be taking place, meaning the oceans would be becoming less salty.
Just A Grunt on December 15, 2008 at 3:27 PM
Unless of course that weather is warmer then it is perfectly acceptable, nay scientifically necessary, to confuse them.
Remember Obama voters:
When it is hotter, it is due to AGW.
When it is colder, it is due to AGW.
When it is the same, it is due to AGW.
Now give me your money!!
jukin on December 15, 2008 at 3:28 PM
It’s the carbon dioxide being released by human activity into the atmosphere that’s the issue though, so what’s your point?
starfleet_dude on December 15, 2008 at 3:29 PM
Al started a hoax. Which started the whole world thinking they were going to be a frying.
But what Al didn’t see was that the joke would be on he.
Oh, no, Al started to cry, “I’m freezing!”. Which started the whole world laughing.
Oh, if he’d only seen that the joke would be on he.
Al looked at the skies. Running his hands over his frozen eyes.
And he fell from his throne. Hurting his head on the ice and feeling so silly from things that he’d said.
Till Al’s power finally died. Which started the whole world
livingdrilling.Oh, if he’d only seen that the joke would be on he.
Oh, no, that the joke would be on he.
MB4 on December 15, 2008 at 3:30 PM
It’s not even Christmas yet! I imagine we will still be talking about this in January and February. Bundle up :-)
Ordinary1 on December 15, 2008 at 3:31 PM
That is a worry, actually:
starfleet_dude on December 15, 2008 at 3:33 PM
I can’t find a reference. How does one measure the sealevel to mm precision? Can one even account for wind, tides, barometric pressure, etc at these levels?
Fogpig on December 15, 2008 at 3:35 PM
It’s the carbon dioxide being released by human activity into the atmosphere that’s the issue though, so what’s your point?
starfleet_dude on December 15, 2008 at 3:29 PM
My point is that human’s are not releasing aything (CO2)into the atmosphere or the environment that wasn’t already in the atmosphere or environment at some point in the planets past –
and life flourished.
catmman on December 15, 2008 at 3:36 PM
Are you smoking crack? Do I need to get a glacial geologist? Matanuska has grown 20 ft long.. Not high! The snow is absorbed into the glacier unless there is a heavy storm. Then it takes about a week or so for the snow to be absorbed depending on how much it on the glacier. Galciers suck out the moisture in the snow, and the air around it. Also most Glaciers are and have been know to make their own weather around them.
Most Glaciers have grown in the upper hemisphere this last summer due to below normal temps. Sorry to be the barer or you bad global warming hoax… but your information is wrong!
upinak on December 15, 2008 at 3:38 PM
Heavy rain in Madison last night, followed by rapidly dropping temps, led to my car being literally frozen to the ground when I tried to go to work this morning. The -20 wind chill made breaking the tires free a blast.
BadgerHawk on December 15, 2008 at 3:38 PM
In Alaska, but not across the entire Pacific:
So the PDO is a net wash in terms of global warming, not an explanation for it.
starfleet_dude on December 15, 2008 at 3:39 PM
The catch phrase “global warming” has been changed by the greenies to “global climate change”. I used to call the change in weather “seasons”. I guess I’m just not hip.
Anyway, being a former resident of Woodbury, MN and now living in socal…I have to honestly say I miss some aspects of the snow and frigid temps. Thanks for the memories Ed.
jbh45 on December 15, 2008 at 3:40 PM
As if we’re not adding carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere now by buring fossil fuels.
starfleet_dude on December 15, 2008 at 3:41 PM
I don’t believe in manmade global warming(or climate change). Never have, never will. But the weather has been pretty weird lately.
We got snow last Wednesday here in Houston. SNOW!!! Granted, we got some 4 years ago, but that was around Christmas Day and it melted as soon as it hit the ground. People actually had their lawns covered in snow this time.
And even stranger, it got back up in the mid-70’s yesterday. It was pretty warm this morning too. But by lunchtime, the temperature had dropped about 30 degrees outside.
I don’t mind the cold, but I wish it would make up it’s mind already. Either stay cold or stay warm!
Doughboy on December 15, 2008 at 3:41 PM
To hide the man made global warming, the global warming deniers used a giant snow machine.
Johan Klaus on December 15, 2008 at 3:41 PM
FYI, Fred Pearce is a journalist.. NOT a Scientist!!!
Get a clue will you.
upinak on December 15, 2008 at 3:42 PM
I know exactly how you feel, we had 1.5 inches the other day in Houston.
Aye, tis brutal.
TheSitRep on December 15, 2008 at 3:43 PM
How glaciers form:
So snow from one or even a couple of years doesn’t compress into ice that quickly.
What you may be seeing in that glacier you’re talking about is in fact warming at its base that’s causing it to flow more swiftly.
starfleet_dude on December 15, 2008 at 3:45 PM
upinak, mere reporting of the science done by others doesn’t invalidate it.
starfleet_dude on December 15, 2008 at 3:46 PM
His point is that all of that CO2 was once “free,” though most of it was in the ocean. Photosynthesis took out the ‘C’, and, with some water, gave use our Oxygenated atmosphere. But, when the air was dominated by CO2, rather than having only trace amounts, photosynthetic life was doing just fine. In fact, the Oxygen would have been the pollutant of the time.
Count to 10 on December 15, 2008 at 3:46 PM
As the saying goes, if you do not like the weather in Houston, wait a minute.
Johan Klaus on December 15, 2008 at 3:47 PM
As if we’re not adding carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere now by buring fossil fuels.
starfleet_dude on December 15, 2008 at 3:41 PM
I never said we weren’t adding CO2 to the air. The point is does it affect climate to the extreme’s stated by climate alarmists.
CO2 is CO2 whether it’s in the atmosphere now or 100 million years ago. And CO2 concentrations were much higher in the past than they are now –
and life flourished.
catmman on December 15, 2008 at 3:48 PM
Or maybe its just not melting.
Count to 10 on December 15, 2008 at 3:48 PM
You mean like we experienced from the 1400’s to the early 1900’s. Which begs the question are the warmer tempertures the norm or are the cooler temps the norm?
I realize all those Crusaders raping the Holy Land with their SUV’s led to the climate change back then not to mention some effect from Galileos telescope along with violations of Newtons law of Physics no doubt contributed.
So what is normal for the planet?
Just A Grunt on December 15, 2008 at 3:49 PM
Sure Count to 10, but the Earth was much warmer then thanks to all that additional CO2. Mind you, I’m not making a moral judgment about a warmer Earth being a worse Earth than a colder one, only that releasing massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere in a geologic wink of an eye has an effect on the Earth’s climate.
starfleet_dude on December 15, 2008 at 3:50 PM
I drove to work in San Francisco this morning through a freezing hail storm. We haven’t had one of those for years. There is snow on the East Bay hills, and on the higher peaks around the Bay Area such as Mt Diablo (5000 ft) and Mt Tamalpais (2500 feet).
My friend in Santa Fe told me this morning that the city is pretty much shut down due to snow and ice.
Gorebaloney.
sdillard on December 15, 2008 at 3:50 PM
I refuse to get into an argument with someone who is not a scientist and listens to someone who is not a scientist about something that requires at least a fundamental understanding of science. I shall just sit back and chuckle.(upinak, did you go pick up a couple of electric space heater for an emergency?)
thomasaur on December 15, 2008 at 3:51 PM
Sorry, but Alaskan glaciers have shrunk significantly over the past decades. Check out photos of Glacier Bay sometime for dramatic evidence about that.
starfleet_dude on December 15, 2008 at 3:51 PM
So what kind of SUV’s were being driven in the middle ages, when the climate was much warmer?
Johan Klaus on December 15, 2008 at 3:51 PM
So the PDO is a net wash in terms of global warming, not an explanation for it.
starfleet_dude on December 15, 2008 at 3:39 PM
So the Pacific Ocean, which covers I don’t know, a third or better of the Earth’s surface, would have no affect on climate?
The ocean’s have no affect on global warming – one way or the other, but 100 years of industrial activity and we’re all doomed?!
Huh?
catmman on December 15, 2008 at 3:52 PM
Combine the Cold Phase of the PDO with a quiet Sun and North America will be especially cold for the next 25-30 years. During warm phases of the PDO you get more, stronger El Nino’s. Those years were warm for the WHOLE PLANET. During cold phases you will get more, stronger, La Nina’s. Cooler for the planet. Add a calm Sun and it’s going to be very cold indeed.
Ordinary1 on December 15, 2008 at 3:52 PM
BWAHAHHAHAAAA! FYI that info on how glaciers form is old that you just copy/pasted since they have figured that and are doing tests on Matanuska, Portage, Knik, Eklutna, Exit Ice Field and a few other areas. Might wanna specify a link.. and not use Wiki so much. Since Wiki is updated by geology students most times.
And Dumb a$$. I go to matanuska quite often in the Summer. As well as Exit Ice Fiel (in Seward0 and Knik Glacier (by Palmer) and Portage (by Whittier) because I am lucky to live in an area that has these wonderful thing. Knick has grown 50 ft in 2 years. Do you have a link for that? Or Portage growing? Eklutna? or Matanuska growing? Or Exit Ice Field… since it is part of the BLM/MMS/Dept of Park and Recs? I doubt it.
And since I have lived up here most of my life and have watched them receed (and it was mostly in the 90’s) and now are coming back… reading your post on dribble from people who have no freaking clue and type up some report as they have never seen any of these glaciers other then what they reasearch via books and old USGS information, makes you just as bad as these retards who can’t get their butts up here to do some REAL research.
Go away star…. you aren’t going to win this arguement.
upinak on December 15, 2008 at 3:52 PM
Belief in Global Warming fosters oppression, belief in Global Warming fosters servitude, belief in Global Warming fosters cruelty; even more abominable is the fact that belief in Global Warming fosters idiocy.
Tav on December 15, 2008 at 3:53 PM
During the warm phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. Now that it’s flipped, they are growing again. Wow.
Good science can predict future behavior. Global Warming equals cooling??? That’s just bad science!
Ordinary1 on December 15, 2008 at 3:54 PM
To the GW fans here: read “Chaos: Making a New Science” by James Gleick.
The short story: We cannot accurately predict the future of complex chaotic systems such as the weather. Climate is simply the accumulated long-term “average” of weather. We can predict the weather out about a week or so with some accuracy. Beyond that, the predictions increasingly diverge from reality.
Climate is too complex to model accurately, and our input data is not even remotely adequate to the task anyway. The current climate models cannot even predict the present climate given past data as inputs.
Some say that, thermodynamically, increased atmospheric CO2 simply *must* increase the “average” global temperature: That would only be true if 1. There was a huge increase in CO2, or 2. the atmosphere was completely isotropic (thoroughly blended until it was perfectly uniform across the entire planet). A perfectly isotropic atmosphere would no longer be a complex chaotic system; it would be a simple and easy to model system and the GW predictions would be true. But it would not reflect reality.
ZenDraken on December 15, 2008 at 3:54 PM
…and now that it is colder they are apparently growing.
Count to 10 on December 15, 2008 at 3:54 PM
It’s been snowing on and off since late OCTOBER here in southern KENTUCKY. I was arguing with some AGW freaks online about a month ago and they told me: 1.) it was winter (November 20th) and 2.) I shouldn;t complain, because I chose to live in a “wintry” part of the United States.
I told them they needed a calendar and a map.
mikepatr on December 15, 2008 at 3:54 PM
thomasaur on December 15, 2008 at 3:51 PM
Very well put, ol’ buddy. I just found it funny to watch him argue about glaciers with somebody that lives closer to them than he does. It just struck me as funny. By the way, we’re expecting an ice storm this evening in Dixie. It just dropped from 60 degrees at Midnight to 32 right now. Some warming.
kingsjester on December 15, 2008 at 3:55 PM
Even though today’s temperatures spiked up to around 50 here, with rain, we’ve also had a brutal December here in Vermont. We also have dipped below 0… in fact it was -2 the other morning, with -19 windchill. December is supposed to be in the 30s here… high 30s for the first half, but it’s been a lot of teens and 20s, which as Ed notes, is more like January/February weather.
As for the AP’s incorrect information… they’d probably get away with the excuse that those “warmest” years were only in the US, but that the “global” temps hold firm…. Of course, as was noted, we have the most reliable data, and can you imagine how inaccurate and unreliable world data is? Not to mention, there is very little available in most parts of the world.
BTW, it seems more and more clear that the “cooling period” that real science has been predicting will last for perhaps 50 years, has arrived. I wonder how many years before the “science community” flips back to the 1970s scared tactics of “global cooling”.
RightWinged on December 15, 2008 at 3:55 PM
.
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=152843&l=66c19&id=1389037615
.
mikepatr on December 15, 2008 at 3:56 PM
…or maybe I should just let the Alaskan take care of business.
Count to 10 on December 15, 2008 at 3:57 PM
When Hell freezes over.
sdd on December 15, 2008 at 3:57 PM
The so-called “Little Ice Age” was probably the result of both a low in solar output and volcanic activity together. Certainly the “year without a summer” (1818) was caused by the eruption of Tambora.
As to whether warmer or cooler is the “norm”, it’s beside the point of how increasing levels of CO2 are warming the planet. I make no value judgment about warm vs. cold, but do note how things like rising sea levels pose a long-term problem for human populations numbering in the billions that live along the sea coast.
starfleet_dude on December 15, 2008 at 3:58 PM
From the American Thinker:
December 15, 2008
Changing stats on Arctic ice
Bruce Walker
Arctic sea ice is alleged to be diminishing due to global warming. Want to see a half million square kilometers of Arctic ice disappear overnight? Compare the Nansen sea ice extent charts, from the Norweigian Nansen Environmental & Remote Sensing Center, shown on these two websites:
This one has a “blink comparator” which alternates between both the original and the revision. It shows an initial extent of about 12.3 million square kilometers changing to 11.8 square kilometers overnight (data values as of December 11, 2008).
Here is today’s Nansen website, which has grown to 11.9 million square kilometers as of December 13, 2008.
The inflection point of the changes to the chart is about September 11, 2008. If the changes are to be believed, it means Nansen had shown inaccurate daily data for three months and has only now gotten around to fixing the data. Either that, or they are fudging the data by reducing sea ice extent to support the Arctic sea ice is melting meme.
Save the polar bears!
Repubtallygirl on December 15, 2008 at 3:58 PM
Humans contribute about 3% of global CO2. Soil contributes 30% due to decay of organic matter. Get rid of your compost pile and sequester that carbon from your leaves and grass clippings in a landfill will make more difference than buying a Prius.
crosspatch on December 15, 2008 at 3:58 PM
Global Warming my butt! Someone tell that to this girl right now! Right now I am waiting for the dang plumber to show up and the only thing making my fingers warm right now is typing!
upinak on December 15, 2008 at 3:58 PM
Under Obambi’s administration, this global warming thing will be renamed CLIMATE HOPE & CHANGE. :)
poxoma on December 15, 2008 at 4:01 PM
Oh man …
That sounds like the title of the new book for liberal idiots – “Morality and the Temperature of the Earth”. I’m sure it’ll sell millions.
Man, you are utterly hopeless. The fact is that you don’t have a clue what the effect of CO2 is on the climate. But don’t let that stop you. Your entertainment value is considerable – though you do wear thin after a page of comments.
Did you know that gloabl warming is Hoover’s fault? Maybe you could run with that one. Give yourself something new to do.
progressoverpeace on December 15, 2008 at 4:01 PM
LOL
Record Low in Denver…. -18…
You keepa useing that word… I don think it means what you thinka it means…
Romeo13 on December 15, 2008 at 4:03 PM
Woke up to -20 this am here in the Rockies and expecting a winter storm this pm. (hell it’s the winter)We’ve got a high mountain lake on the mountain we live at the base of, and for the last 2yrs it hasn’t completely thawed like it did the previous 2yrs that we have hiked to it. Actually witnessing these things beats any computer model ever generated.
thomasaur on December 15, 2008 at 4:03 PM
Sorry to ruin the fun, but an ice age cometh
All four agencies that track Earth’s temperature (the Hadley Climate Research Unit in Britain, the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, the Christy group at the University of Alabama, and Remote Sensing Systems Inc in California) report that it cooled by about 0.7C in 2007. This is the fastest temperature change in the instrumental record and it puts us back where we were in 1930. If the temperature does not soon recover, we will have to conclude that global warming is over.
We cannot really know, but my guess is that the odds are at least 50-50 that we will see significant cooling rather than warming in coming decades.
The probability that we are witnessing the onset of a real ice age is much less, perhaps one in 500, but not totally negligible.
All those urging action to curb global warming need to take off the blinkers and give some thought to what we should do if we are facing global cooling instead.
It will be difficult for people to face the truth when their reputations, careers, government grants or hopes for social change depend on global warming, but the fate of civilisation may be at stake.
In the famous words of Oliver Cromwell, “I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken.”
- Phil Chapman (A geophysicist and astronautical engineer who lives in San Francisco. He was the first Australian to become a NASA astronaut)
MB4 on December 15, 2008 at 4:04 PM
crosspatch, the pre-industrial levels of CO2 were 280 ppm (parts per million). Levels today are 387ppm. So that additional 104 ppm is almost all due to human activity. That’s a significant rise in the level of CO2 that can’t be hand-waved away.
starfleet_dude on December 15, 2008 at 4:05 PM
I was just reading a link someone here provided that included a claim that the rise of the ocean level in the 20th century was only a fraction of the rise seen in the previous centuries.
Besides, we are still talking centuries, here. People do move.
Count to 10 on December 15, 2008 at 4:05 PM
And you people who still confuse predictions generated by unproven computer models with actual science are an endless source of irritation to the rest of us.
AZCoyote on December 15, 2008 at 4:07 PM
katrina was not caused by global warming
rob verdi on December 15, 2008 at 4:08 PM
*sigh*
And what is your proof that CO2 drives climate? Don’t go for the Vostok ice core, since that shows that we are due for a MAJOR 10 centigrade drop in the longer-term future, besides the fact that the CO2 level follows temperature in that core.
But, I’m assuming you have some other evidence, since you are so sure that CO2 drives climate … You do have other something else, right?
progressoverpeace on December 15, 2008 at 4:09 PM
Not necessarily. The CO2 levels have a way of lagging behind temperature levels by around a thousand years, and a thousand years ago was the Medieval Warming period. There is also the problem that the increase in CO2 levels is too smooth to be an integral of the more sporadic levels of fossil fuel burning.
Count to 10 on December 15, 2008 at 4:09 PM
thomasaur on December 15, 2008 at 4:03 PM
Meanwhile, the Nobel Prize Winning Guru of this Cult has a huge energy-eating mansion and flies around in private jets telling us how we are all responsible for this “incovenient truth”. The “inconvient truth” is that he has suckered everybody and made a mint promoting a fictional crisis.
kingsjester on December 15, 2008 at 4:09 PM
Hear, hear.
progressoverpeace on December 15, 2008 at 4:09 PM
Screw the polar bears. -2 looks to be our high today. Even my samoyed won’t want to be out long tonight when it will get down to -15. I’m on my way to get a case of hair spray and poke a nail in all of em.
oakpack on December 15, 2008 at 4:10 PM
You wanna know something C02 isn’t all that and they can not get a definative amount out of ice because 1. it melts (every year depending) and 2. it is ice there for it is finite and not a useful scientific help unless looking for pollen and spores (even though the years aren’t acurrate either) via core samples. You can not understand climate via ice as it is constanly changing more so then… STONE! it is a proven FACT that ice has not been the focal point as most people with common sense know it is not useful to go by time with it.
And you not siting links for your crap is getting old.
upinak on December 15, 2008 at 4:10 PM
People can move but a 5 cm rise in mean sea level in fifteen years is considerable. And in places like Bangladesh and the Maldives, there is no place to move to. Not every place has the resources of the Netherlands, sad to say.
starfleet_dude on December 15, 2008 at 4:10 PM
Which puts more pollution into the air; one volcano eruption or all of the automobiles that were ever manufactured?
Johan Klaus on December 15, 2008 at 4:10 PM
upinak, if you have something that disputes the validity of ice core sampling, please feel free to share it. I don’t care if you have a link or not.
starfleet_dude on December 15, 2008 at 4:12 PM
I’m wondering what Man did to make a desert out of the sahara? 8,000 years ago it was mostly green. Then, pre-Egyptians started heavy industry and producing cars (proof is easily found in The Flinstones) and now it’s a barren desert. That experience shook the region so badly that they haven’t tried to get industry going since then.
progressoverpeace on December 15, 2008 at 4:14 PM
No place to move?
Count to 10 on December 15, 2008 at 4:14 PM
In the past few hundred years, it’s been we humans who have put more CO2 in the air than the volcanos have. Here’s why, from Grist:
starfleet_dude on December 15, 2008 at 4:14 PM
Not to mention a brain and a clue.
MB4 on December 15, 2008 at 4:14 PM
I doubt India would be inclined to accept millions of Bangladeshi refuges.
starfleet_dude on December 15, 2008 at 4:15 PM
The carbon tax on that gas guzzling thing is gonna be a bitch. Also, they put that dem stuff, ethanol, into the gasoline, and it fouls up your lawn equipment and boats something awful when the water separates. Better get something manual,and maybe a farm animal. When we’re back to pre-industrial, we won’t pollute the planet so much, and we’ll be more in line with the 3rd world, where the dems think we belong.
JiangxiDad on December 15, 2008 at 4:17 PM
A further addition from Grist on CO2:
starfleet_dude on December 15, 2008 at 4:17 PM
Not when you have to shovel the driveway and the wind is gusting up to 20 MPH. In order to get the barrels out this morning for the trash pickup, I had to clear the driveway first — and even bundled up and wearing my heaviest winter gloves, my fingers went numb about five minutes into the effort.
What no snow blower, they have ones with heated handles too. Keep the hands nice and toasty. Oh! They help with keeping that strain off ye ole back!
USMCDevilDog on December 15, 2008 at 4:17 PM
I don’t know about the rest of you but this Global Warming stuff is freezing my furry ass off.
FeralCat on December 15, 2008 at 4:18 PM
They are looking for microbs, not climate change:
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=321287
They are looking for pollen and such, not climate change:
http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/ast12mar98_1.htm
What I think is funny is that at one time greenland from “ice core sample” did not have any ice on many of the shore and even had sheep graving in the plateau areas yet they are now covered with ice. How is that possible?
If I can roll my eyes anymore, I would fall out of my seat due to the momentum of it.
upinak on December 15, 2008 at 4:19 PM
“Refuges”? Are you nuts? We are talking about glacial change in the shore line; generational choices of where to live. Not some catastrophic flood. And that’s the worst case.
Count to 10 on December 15, 2008 at 4:21 PM
Global warming might kill me, this I know,
Though my thermostat is turned down, oh so low.
Though my lights are all set on dim,
Still Lord Al bids me to scrimp more for Him.
Yes, Global warming might kill me!
Yes, Global warming might kill me!
Yes, Global warming might kill me!
The Goracle tells me so.
Though my Honda is oh so slow,
With my mind in his hands I’ll go.
On through life, to others let come what may,
He’ll be fling in a private jet going His Lordly way.
Yes, Global warming might kill me!
Yes, Global warming might kill me!
Yes, Global warming might kill me!
The Goracle tells me so.
Though I am no longer young,
I have learned so much which He’s begun.
Let me live in a cave like my ancestors did for The Goracle with a smile,
Go with Him the extra carbon credit pile.
Yes, Global warming might kill me!
Yes, Global warming might kill me!
Yes, Global warming might kill me!
The Goracle tells me so.
When the days are hot and long,
In my mind He puts a song.
Telling me in words so clear,
“Let Me be clear, I am The Goracle that you must hear.”
Yes, Global warming might kill me!
Yes, Global warming might kill me!
Yes, Global warming might kill me!
The Goracle tells me so.
When His work in America is done,
And His bank accounts weigh a ton.
He will take my roof above,
Then I’ll understand all about His love.
Yes, Global warming might kill me!
Yes, Global warming might kill me!
Yes, Global warming might kill me!
The Goracle tells me so.
I praise The Goracle, does he know?
Have I ever told Him so?
The Goracle loves to hear me say,
That I will buy His carbon credits every day.
Yes, Global warming might kill me!
Yes, Global warming might kill me!
Yes, Global warming might kill me!
The Goracle tells me so.
MB4 on December 15, 2008 at 4:22 PM
yeah nice, but the carbon tax on those babies is gonna be a bit*ch. Not to mention, the ethanol in the gas clogs those babies, and lawnmowers, and boats, etc. as the water separates. Thank your local dems for that.
You better get something mechanical, like your back. Pre-industrial America may have been backbreaking, but at least we didn’t lord it over the 3rd world so much.
JiangxiDad on December 15, 2008 at 4:23 PM
And here I thought IPCC stood for Ignorant Panel on Climate Change.
Socratease on December 15, 2008 at 4:23 PM
Last I saw -8 was in Richmond, Va., in January 1985, the day my furnace broke!! But I spent a year in Thule, Greenland, where we used to unbutton our parkas when it hit zero, so I was prepared. Not really. It’s all context. Minus 8 in a Southern state is simply unacceptable.
rivlax on December 15, 2008 at 4:23 PM
?
How does that square with volcanic emissions being 50% of CO2, and fossil fuels around 5%, on a yearly basis?
Count to 10 on December 15, 2008 at 4:24 PM
Dude, I do admire your ability to cut and paste. However, I choose to believe Meteorologist Roy Spencer:
kingsjester on December 15, 2008 at 4:26 PM
Kolkotta (Calcutta) used to be a smallish orderly city. It’s full of Bangladeshi illegals, and is a nightmare by comparison.
So many majority Muslim nations are utter failures, that the only solution to their seething cauldrons is to export their populations to release some steam.
JiangxiDad on December 15, 2008 at 4:26 PM
I’m just wondering, what is the official batsh!t crazy global warming position on the coal industry? Do we bail them out before we bankrupt them, or do we bankrupt them first and then bail them out? Just wondering.
progressoverpeace on December 15, 2008 at 4:26 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »