Coldest winter in a decade coming?

posted at 12:55 pm on September 29, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

The East Coast should brace for its coldest winter in a decade, and oil commodities traders for sharply higher prices, says a forecaster who serves the commodity markets.  This comes as two people on the East Coast introduce a bill designed to combat global warming by imposing emissions controls on the energy industry — which will also make prices go higher, but for much longer and much less reason:

The U.S. Northeast may have the coldest winter in a decade because of a weak El Nino, a warming current in the Pacific Ocean, according to Matt Rogers, a forecaster at Commodity Weather Group.

“Weak El Ninos are notorious for cold and snowy weather on the Eastern seaboard,” Rogers said in a Bloomberg Television interview from Washington. “About 70 percent to 75 percent of the time a weak El Nino will deliver the goods in terms of above-normal heating demand and cold weather. It’s pretty good odds.”

As a result, the oil traders have stockpiled heating oil to levels not seen in 27 years.  Even with the huge inventory, prices have still risen, and hedge funds have kept betting on long positions for oil.  They’re expecting a long, cold winter with plenty of demand for heating oil.

On the other hand, we have noted meteorologists John Kerry and Barbara Boxer, insisting that the world is growing warmer:

Ending some nine months of closed-door deliberations, Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and John Kerry (D-Mass.) will release global warming legislation Wednesday that they hope will be the vehicle for broader Senate negotiations and an eventual conference with the House.

The bill’s authors said last week that they expect to start hearings early next month on the bill, with a markup in Boxer’s Environment and Public Works Committee to follow soon thereafter. They also acknowledged that their legislation is just a “starting point” in a bid to win over moderate and conservative Democrats, as well as Republicans. …

Kerry last week sought to change the vernacular surrounding the climate bill and sell its concepts more broadly, insisting it is not a “cap and trade” proposal but a “pollution reduction” bill. “I don’t know what ‘cap and trade’ means. I don’t think the average American does,” Kerry said. “This is not a cap-and-trade bill, it’s a pollution reduction bill” (E&E Daily, Sept. 25).

But a leading GOP opponent to the Senate climate effort quickly pushed back on the Democrat’s strategy.

“No matter the semantic games employed, or the extent to which Democrats wish to hide the truth from the American people, cap and trade will mean more job losses, more pain at the pump, and higher food and electricity prices for consumers,” said EPW Committee ranking member James Inhofe (R-Okla.).”

Jules Crittenden wonders why no one will explain why the El Nino didn’t get stronger rather than weaker, considering the global-warming activists insist that we’re on an inexorable path to Saunaville:

I’m confused about this bit, though. El Nino is a periodic warming in the eastern Pacific. The article doesn’t explain why it isn’t warming as much as it usually does, which is odd. I thought everything is getting warmer. El Nino is a somewhat mysterious and poorly understood phenomenon, like much of the often subtle underpinnings of weather. In fact, the article, focused mainly on what great news a cold winter is for energy traders, doesn’t mention the bigger “warming” picture at all.

Global warming, that is, which this Nobel Laureate in Economics … speaking of poorly understood, mystery-shrouded, in fact notoriously inexact sciences … insists is beyond questioning.

Related, senators John Kerry and Barbara Boxer are getting ready to lead the charge on the big climate change bill in the Senate. NYT. I take this as good news. Rank partisans in charge of a rank partisan bill, in the wake of the rankly partisan health-care debacle, should go nowhere. Correction: Inept rank partisans …

Global-warming activists insist that we can’t take an assumption from a single year.  However, if the CWS forecast turns out to be correct, we will have gone eleven years without any warming at all — eleven years in which carbon emissions did not decline in any significant manner.  How does one begin to explain that?  And how will Kerry and Boxer and the rest of their Democratic colleagues try to sell cap-and-trade as a scientific necessity while people spend a fortune heating their homes in the coldest winter in a decade?

Great timing, Senators!

Addendum: It looks like a colder and longer winter for us in Minnesota, too, and that follows the 2008-9 winter, one of the coldest and longest in the last 15 years.  The temperatures have dropped 15 degrees since last week.  We got snow in October last year, and we may see that this year again, although it will have to drop down quite a bit farther for that.  This follows a summer in which we never saw a 90-degree day.  Global warming?  Not so much in the upper Midwest.

Update: Is the “hockey stick” dead?  Using a wider collection of data seems to eliminate the warming spike shown to argue for global warming.

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: 1 2 3 4

What exactly is the “ideal” temperature?

infidel on September 29, 2009 at 1:00 PM

For frauds like Al Gore, when their bodies assume room temperature that’s when it would be considered perfect….when they would stop polluting mother earth by both their bodies and mouths.

poxoma on September 29, 2009 at 1:30 PM

Youmust have an outside stove.

upinak on September 29, 2009 at 1:24 PM

No, a coal stoker in the basement, a fireplace insert upstairs where we burn wood, and electric heat grid in the ceiling plaster that we never use. I’d like to castrate the idiots who thought it was a good idea to place electric heat in the ceiling. A ranch house built in the 70′s, thank you Jimmy Carter.

CBP on September 29, 2009 at 1:31 PM

Also, “global warming” jihadists have never explained just how “global warming” would even be bad for the environment.

Seems to me it would be good for the environment: Warmer winters = less gas and oil needed to heat homes.

Gabe on September 29, 2009 at 1:32 PM

Great. Living in Boston surrounded by hard core liberals AND snow. Not looking forward to winter at all…

On an unrelated note: how do we post comments on MM’s blog?

BeantownModerate on September 29, 2009 at 1:32 PM

If you like your temperature, you can keep your temperature.

LibTired on September 29, 2009 at 1:33 PM

Every year the same thing.
It’s going to be the coldest ever winter
The hottest ever summer
A hundred hurricanes
cats sleeping with dogs
Etc
They cant even get the weather right 3 day’s out and they are telling us this crap again.
Yawn…

faol on September 29, 2009 at 1:33 PM

The East Coast should brace for its coldest winter in a decade,

Oh, goody.
As if last winter wasn’t cold enough. I think I’m going to have to look into buying a face mask.

Count to 10 on September 29, 2009 at 1:34 PM

I can hear Obama ratcheting up the thermostat in the Oval Office right now… he’s got three settings–
Like Hawaii
Like Kenya
and Jusst Riiight

climate change for thee, not for me
–BHO

ted c on September 29, 2009 at 1:34 PM

CBP on September 29, 2009 at 1:31 PM

Electric heating in the ceiling? Wait.. Electric Heating period was a bad choice!

Now my question is how many times do you clean out the coal dust so you don’t have a fire?

upinak on September 29, 2009 at 1:34 PM

Actually, it’s not that global warming “isn’t real.” The globe warms and cools all the time, sometimes radically. For example, there are times when the Sun God disappears into the mud puddle for about twelve hours and the temperature will inexplicably drop a dozen degrees. Then man-made global warming will cause the Sun God to get angry and reappear. Not that the Sun God or the cycles related to the Sun God circling the Earth have anything to do with global temperatures.

Noew khan I haz ten billionty trillion tax dolorz?.

Beagle on September 29, 2009 at 1:34 PM

Global-warming activists insist that we can’t take an assumption from a single year. However, if the CWS forecast turns out to be correct, we will have gone eleven years without any warming at all — eleven years in which carbon emissions did not decline in any significant manner. How does one begin to explain that? And how will Kerry and Boxer and the rest of their Democratic colleagues try to sell cap-and-trade as a scientific necessity while people spend a fortune heating their homes in the coldest winter in a decade?

With fingers in their ears screaming loudly, we can’t hear you. What are you talking about, Serf.

larvcom on September 29, 2009 at 1:34 PM

Also, “global warming” jihadists have never explained just how “global warming” would even be bad for the environment.

Seems to me it would be good for the environment: Warmer winters = less gas and oil needed to heat homes.

Gabe on September 29, 2009 at 1:32 PM

The main argument is that it will melt the polar ice caps and drastically raise sea levels, flooding much of the world.

CityFish on September 29, 2009 at 1:35 PM

Update: Is the “hockey stick” dead? Using a wider collection of data seems to eliminate the warming spike shown to argue for global warming.

This is the Alexander Ovechkin stick….broke in half after a slapshot!

larvcom on September 29, 2009 at 1:37 PM

Also, “global warming” jihadists have never explained just how “global warming” would even be bad for the environment.

Seems to me it would be good for the environment: Warmer winters = less gas and oil needed to heat homes.

Gabe on September 29, 2009 at 1:32 PM

Mostly they just freak about any change at all. They have baseless speculation about storms and droughts, both of which actually get worse as temperature go down. The only “real”, solid concern one might have about global temperatures going up is that it raises the sea level, and a lot of these people have beach-front houses or live on the docs.

Count to 10 on September 29, 2009 at 1:37 PM

“Update: Is the “hockey stick” dead? Using a wider collection of data seems to eliminate the warming spike shown to argue for global warming.”

Don’t forget that the IPCC studies/reports are based on tweaked temperature record data the base data for which isn’t available to other members the scientific community for review and replication of results, because, at first, they “might find something wrong with it” and now because “‘the dog’ ate the data”.

It’s gonna be real cold because the cyclical warming is over and there is no AGW.

Dusty on September 29, 2009 at 1:38 PM

God is against Cap & Tax!

A prayer for thanksgiving.

OT:

Cuda’s book is available for pre-purchase at Amazon and B&N. Speculators might drive up the price so move quick.

Sapwolf on September 29, 2009 at 1:38 PM

The main argument is that it will melt the polar ice caps and drastically raise sea levels, flooding much of the world.

CityFish on September 29, 2009 at 1:35 PM

Right, except the ice already floating on water displaces the water so it doesn’t cause any actual rise in sea level. But if the entire South Pole melted tomorrow, perhaps due to all the CO2 produced by jet-setting climate change summiteers, I’d need a bigger boat.

Beagle on September 29, 2009 at 1:39 PM

upinak on September 29, 2009 at 1:34 PM

Chimney fires are only a problem when burning wood, because of the creosote. Usually 2 or 3 times a year I need to clean the chimneys. Only a short horizontal section of the stovepipe for the coal stove needs cleaned. It collects the fine dust, which shuts off the draft to the chimney as the pipe opening gets smaller. Then you have to worry about carbon monoxide poisoning. I have an alarm for that.

Electric heat was all the rage in the 70′s, when electricity was a lot cheaper, but yea, it’s a terrible choice for heat.

CBP on September 29, 2009 at 1:40 PM

If you like your temperature, you can keep your temperature.

LibTired on September 29, 2009 at 1:33 PM

I don’t care who you are, that there’s funny.

Tom_OC on September 29, 2009 at 1:40 PM

No, a coal stoker in the basement, a fireplace insert upstairs where we burn wood, and electric heat grid in the ceiling plaster that we never use. I’d like to castrate the idiots who thought it was a good idea to place electric heat in the ceiling. A ranch house built in the 70’s, thank you Jimmy Carter.

CBP on September 29, 2009 at 1:31 PM

Didn’t you know that liberal engineering/physics, heat falls and cold air rise. The have the same logic for tax increase, higher means more because rich people will be happier paying the higher rate.

larvcom on September 29, 2009 at 1:41 PM

Beagle on September 29, 2009 at 1:34 PM

NO, NO, NO, it doesn’t get colder when the sun goes down! You are spreading lies again. How can we have a respectable, honest debate with people like you around.
/sarc.

CBP on September 29, 2009 at 1:42 PM

Ed,

You need to go to the source on the latest Hockey Stick story. Steve McIntyre at climateaudit.org has several posts up now on the work he has done with the new data, and the comments are worth a look too. He has destroyed the HS.

What we need to do now is get his work out to a wider audience. To hell with the MSM (or “FMSM” [formerly] as I have read recently). Get the big center to center-right blogs to start linking this. Make this too big to ignore.

Mann and the Hockey Team need to be made accountable for their misrepresentations. They’ve behaved despicably.

nukemhill on September 29, 2009 at 1:43 PM

The hockey stick was discredited a few years ago.

SirGawain on September 29, 2009 at 1:43 PM

Right, except the ice already floating on water displaces the water so it doesn’t cause any actual rise in sea level. But if the entire South Pole melted tomorrow, perhaps due to all the CO2 produced by jet-setting climate change summiteers, I’d need a bigger boat.

Beagle on September 29, 2009 at 1:39 PM

Well, to be perfectly honest, there are also glaciers elsewhere that would contribute, but the rise in the sea level has actually slowed down since we started burning fossil fuels in earnest. In the twentieth century, it only went up something like a quarter as fast as the average for the previous few centuries.

Count to 10 on September 29, 2009 at 1:43 PM

It is getting cold outside. How do we heat things up? Drive old cars more, keep the grill going through the winter? Maybe we could fire up some factories to help warm things through the winter. (oops the auto industry is down so we can’t rev them up.) Summer 365 days a year is the ideal weather (grew up in So Cal and lived in Singapore 2 years). We need to propose treaties that are exact opposite to the environmental treaties being discussed so we can increase carbon, pollution, and temperatures.

jerseyman on September 29, 2009 at 1:44 PM

I like it when the globe is warm.
Which it wasn’t this summer-hence people are having trouble getting everything combined out here in SW ND etc.
Last spring was evil-lots of dead stuff: deer, calves, coyotes, etc.
Now I get to gear up for another nasty winter.
I’m predicting more time from school, winter disasters decklared by the governor, & then I’m betting next spring will be nast again.
At least wee are not calving out heifers again like last year.
I cannot bear more death & destruction of that magnitude.
And they spew global warming?
It’s called a global cycle morons.
All I have to do is study the rock record & I know the past climate.
It’s gonna get cold again & warm again.
And the point?
You morons in Congress STILL do not understand the relationship btwn atmospheric C & temperature.
Ugh.

Badger40 on September 29, 2009 at 1:44 PM

The same thing will happen with Global Warming as every other environmentalist scam.

DDT scare? Nothing.
Global Cooling scare? Nothing.
Multi-limbed frogs due to pollution? Nothing.
Ozone Depletion from CFCs? Nothing.

Those are the four I can think of off the top of my head. I’m sure there are more. DDT has been shown to not have any significant adverse effects on humans. Global Cooling, obviously never happened. The multi-limbed frogs were caused by parasites. The model linking CFCs to ozone depletion was later shown to have been off by several orders by the same guy who linked the two.

Each of those outbreaks of lefty hysteria has been later debunked. Something else will come up and the topic will change. Everyone will forget about global warming for the new scare. The left will yet again get hysterical about the new thing and will beat us all over the head with accusations of Neanderthalism for our skepticism.

jhffmn on September 29, 2009 at 1:44 PM

CBP on September 29, 2009 at 1:40 PM

I have a couple fireplaces. But never burnt coal… yet. There is quite a few old coal mines around my area, that people are driving out to and shoveling the lignite coal for heat. LOL and the State can’t do anything about it as there is no law on stealing…. rock!

upinak on September 29, 2009 at 1:44 PM

“What’s this?” thought Barack Obama. “I can feel nothing warmer at all! That is terrible. Am I stupid? Am I a flat-earther? Am I a denier? Am I not fit to be President? That would be the most dreadful thing that could happen to me. “Oh, it is very hot!” Barack Obama said aloud. “It has my highest approbation.” And Barack Obama nodded in a contented way, and gazed outside, for he would not say that he felt no Global Warming. The whole entourage that he had with him tried and tried but felt no warming, any more than the rest; but, like Barack Obama, they said, “It is so warm!” and counseled him to always say that he felt warm when he was out in public. “It is warm, hot even!” went from mouth to mouth. On all sides there seemed to be general warming, and Barack Obama gave Al Gore the title of Imperial Master of Global Warming Science.

So Barack Obama went in procession, and every one in the streets said, “How incomparable warm it is! What a warm day it is!” No one would let it be perceived that he could not feel warming, for that would have shown that he was not fit for his office, or was very stupid or a flat-earther or a denier. No day of Barack Obama’s had ever been as warm as this one.

“But I’m freezing my a$$ off out here!” a little child cried out at last. “Just hear what that innocent says!” said the father: and one whispered to another what the child had said. “But it is cold out here!” said the whole people at length. That touched Barack Obama, for it seemed to him that they were right; but the thought within himself was, “I must go through with feeling all the Global Warming. I do not dare to do otherwise” And so he held himself a little higher, and his aides held on tighter than ever, and proclaimed the Global Warming which did not exist at all.

MB4 on September 29, 2009 at 1:46 PM

I bet I know what’s gonna happen in major city areas where people have access to firewood like the Seattle area.
Burn bans.
They’ll force everyone to heat their homes with electricity, heating oil, propane etc.
Meanwhile, poor people won’t be able to heat the homes effectively.
Luckily, I’m sure here in ND they won’t be banning burning firewood to heat my home.
Old Smokey the wood stove is gonna be cranked up high this winter.
I can see propane going through the roof again.

Badger40 on September 29, 2009 at 1:46 PM

We will just have to endeavor to weather the weather.

fourdeucer on September 29, 2009 at 1:47 PM

On the other hand, we have noted meteorologists John Kerry and Barbara Boxer, insisting that the world is growing warmer

Will John Kerry, and Barbara Boxer please stand away from the mic. John Kerry, Barbara Boxer, please stand away from the mic. It is NOT global warming. Barbara, you are experiencing what is commonly known as menopause. Hot flashes are common. Kerry? Not sure what the hell your problem is, but I can only assume that protruding forehead, and droning voice might be the cause. Otherwise, it’s probably hotflashes for you too!

capejasmine on September 29, 2009 at 1:47 PM

The hockey stick was discredited a few years ago.

SirGawain on September 29, 2009 at 1:43 PM

But not proven to be a fraud. McIntyre finally got ahold of the raw data that certain individuals had based the graph off/ attempted to keep out of his hands for years. It’s 100% toast now, along with the scientific models that used it as a resource.

BadgerHawk on September 29, 2009 at 1:48 PM

The hockey stick was discredited a few years ago.

SirGawain on September 29, 2009 at 1:43 PM

Was that not in 1993 when the Montreal group identified the verifiable flaws in McSorley’s work?

Tom_OC on September 29, 2009 at 1:48 PM

Electric heat was all the rage in the 70’s, when electricity was a lot cheaper, but yea, it’s a terrible choice for heat.

CBP on September 29, 2009 at 1:40 PM

When you have central air conditioning all ready (like most of CA), it’s natural to use it as a heat pump (basically just reverse its function), because it actually pulls heat in from the outside in addition to the heat generated by operation. However, the gain on this gets smaller and smaller the colder it gets outside, so it probably isn’t that efficient in places that get really cold.

Count to 10 on September 29, 2009 at 1:49 PM

lignite coal for heat.
upinak on September 29, 2009 at 1:44 PM

We’ve got lignite deposited all along the riverbanks of the Cannonball here.
I can just go & pick up big chunks out along the banks in my pasture.
But I’ll just burn wood first.
It smells better!

Badger40 on September 29, 2009 at 1:49 PM

It is the end of September and temperatures are still reaching 100°F here. All hail global warming!

/s

TwinkietheKid on September 29, 2009 at 1:50 PM

Global Warming Cooling Whatever is Bush’s fault. If he hadn’t invaded Iraq, Gaia wouldn’t be trying to get revenge on the US.

Laura in Maryland on September 29, 2009 at 1:50 PM

We finally had a cool day here in So. Cal. It’s always hard for me to relate to these articles.

AnninCA on September 29, 2009 at 1:51 PM

Badger40 on September 29, 2009 at 1:49 PM

Yeah but people are shoveling it in truck loads!

But I still think it is funny as a State Trooper friend of mine was asking… How do you arrest someone for stealing Rock on State land. I looked at him and said, you are kidding right?

upinak on September 29, 2009 at 1:51 PM

along with the scientific models that used it as a resource.

BadgerHawk on September 29, 2009 at 1:48 PM

And there it is.
Scientists need to start going back & ID the methods of their peers’ conclusions.
Those that are founded falsely upon errant & irrelevant data need to be tossed out & discredited.
How much research is out there in ANY discipline that continues to get cited when the underlying data that supported these false models & conclusions has been found wanting?!

Badger40 on September 29, 2009 at 1:51 PM

If only King Arugula would learn how to use the weather machine Bush left in the basement…

itsacookbook on September 29, 2009 at 1:52 PM

We all know that this is a farce. Congress knows it too. Once more looking to exploit a crisis that never existed except in their feeble minds. They named it thought it up for the cause of Socialism, to get control, and make money.
The twits like Feinstein and Boxer are just that, Kerry, Gore and the rest of the ilk are out to double their money. Jeff Immelt of GE is a fine example, he bet the farm on this hoax.

larvcom on September 29, 2009 at 1:52 PM

How do you arrest someone for stealing Rock on State land.
upinak on September 29, 2009 at 1:51 PM

They’ll find a way somewhere.
Maybe not up there unless it’s near something environmentally sensitive.
Then someone will be prosecuted I’m sure.

Badger40 on September 29, 2009 at 1:53 PM

The main argument is that it will melt the polar ice caps and drastically raise sea levels, flooding much of the world.

CityFish on September 29, 2009 at 1:35 PM

Just for the record, if the polar icecap melted, sea levels would go down, not up. Water expands when frozen.

Vashta.Nerada on September 29, 2009 at 1:53 PM

Dateline February 13, 2010:
Voting on the cap and trade bill was delayed for the third day in a row after severe snow prevented legislators from getting to the Capitol.

Concerns have be growing steadily amongst the bill’s supporters with one quoted as saying, “We really need to pass this Global Warming bill before we freeze to death.”

Rocks on September 29, 2009 at 1:54 PM

Each of those outbreaks of lefty hysteria has been later debunked. Something else will come up and the topic will change. Everyone will forget about global warming for the new scare. The left will yet again get hysterical about the new thing and will beat us all over the head with accusations of Neanderthalism for our skepticism.

jhffmn on September 29, 2009 at 1:44 PM

There are some issues that are important (particulates, smog, acid rain), but I don’t think they end up so high key, and the solutions end up being workable.
Which may be why they move on to the nutty ones.

Count to 10 on September 29, 2009 at 1:54 PM

Amazing how, when it’s hotter, it’s due to AGW, and when it’s colder, voila, it’s due to AGW.

I’ve actually heard some claim that colder winters “prove global warming”.

Nitwits.

mr.blacksheep on September 29, 2009 at 1:55 PM

I always wondered about the melting glacier/ice cap concern leading to rising sea levels. Haven’t these people watched a large river empty into the ocean? Just spend a few MINUTES watching the Mississippi, St. Lawrence, Colorado, Delaware, Hudson, or Amazon, not to mention countless other rivers dumping water in large amounts EVERY MINUTE! And yet the oceans do not rise! What gives?

jerseyman on September 29, 2009 at 1:55 PM

If only King Arugula would learn how to use the weather machine Bush left in the basement…

itsacookbook on September 29, 2009 at 1:52 PM

Do you mean the Touchstone device?

Badger40 on September 29, 2009 at 1:55 PM

The hockey stick was proven wrong some time ago, as they cherry-picked data to get it. I believe it was the they conveniently left out the Medieval warming period, but I cold be mistaken on that one. For a great web site to refute this garbage, go to the link below.

http://www.friendsofscience.org

mwdiver on September 29, 2009 at 1:55 PM

The El Nino didn’t grow stronger because we are experiencing a negative cycle of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.

During a negative PDO, La Nina’s are strong, and El Nino’s are weak. During a positive PDO, like we have experienced over the last 30 years, the opposite is true.

The last negative PDO cycle ended in the late 70′s. Coincidentally, during the late 70′s everyone was talking about the coming ice age.

MarkTheGreat on September 29, 2009 at 1:56 PM

upinak on September 29, 2009 at 1:44 PM

If you have a stove with grates so you can burn the larger coal, mix it with your wood. Burning together, they make a great fire. You get a more even temperature and the wood lasts longer. Coal is hard to get started and needs more added much quicker than you would expect if burning it alone, otherwise it will go out, unless you have forced air. One or two large pieces of wood will keep a nice bed of coals going for much longer.

Another trick is to take an old boiler style furnace and use it to burn used motor oil. Set up a bucket of oil with a tube running out of the bottom and a valve on the bottom so the oil will drip slowly out of it. Run the copper tubing into the combustion chamber of the furnace. Put in a big chunk of wood and start a fire with some paper on top of the piece of wood. Start the oil dripping onto the fire, and viola, you have your own waste oil furnace. The wood will slowly burn up, but it may take all day. My brother did this in his large work shop. Makes a nice fire, but you do get a little oil odor.

CBP on September 29, 2009 at 1:57 PM

Just for the record, if the polar icecap melted, sea levels would go down, not up. Water expands when frozen.

Vashta.Nerada on September 29, 2009 at 1:53 PM

It wouldn’t change the level either way. Because ice expands, the amount that it expands by sticks up out of the water, obeying the Archimedes principle that a floating object displaces its weight in water.
However, should the liquid water that isn’t close to freezing increase in temperature, it will expand, which would go toward increasing the sea level, though you would also expect an increase in water vapor, which would go toward lowing it.

Count to 10 on September 29, 2009 at 1:59 PM

Arggh, I must not have had enough sleep last night. Could someone please explain to me in single syllable words what that link about the hockey stick represents?
I swear, I’m usually not this slow.

redshirt on September 29, 2009 at 2:00 PM

Count to 10 on September 29, 2009 at 1:59 PM

That, plus the fact that only 2.5% of all water on Earth is frozen, so any impact would be virtually nonexistent.

Vashta.Nerada on September 29, 2009 at 2:01 PM

Just for the record, if the polar icecap melted, sea levels would go down, not up. Water expands when frozen.

Vashta.Nerada on September 29, 2009 at 1:53 PM

Antarctic ice is on land, if it melted it would raise sea levels.
I’m not saying it is melting. I am just saying what would happen if it did.

redshirt on September 29, 2009 at 2:02 PM

I don’t think that global warming is a farce at all. I do think the solutions are a farce.

It’s honestly too late.

AnninCA on September 29, 2009 at 2:02 PM

CBP on September 29, 2009 at 1:57 PM

Awesome idea.
Thanks for sharing.
We just have an old potbellied woodstove in our entryway.
This is an interesting idea.

Badger40 on September 29, 2009 at 2:02 PM

Each of those outbreaks of lefty hysteria has been later debunked.

It is just a way for these socialists to pass anti-capitalist measures. Create a new environmental crisis.

Anyone else remember the “acid rain” hysteria in the 1980′s? I remember it in the school textbooks, and the claim was ALL the trees in the Northeast and in Central Europe were going to die if we didn’t take immediate action.

Gabe on September 29, 2009 at 2:02 PM

It’s just too late to turn things around. We’ll just have to deal.

I doubt that humans will surve ourselves. I do trust that the Earth will survive.

AnninCA on September 29, 2009 at 2:03 PM

Could someone please explain to me in single syllable words what that link about the hockey stick represents?
I swear, I’m usually not this slow.

redshirt on September 29, 2009 at 2:00 PM

The red line represents the CRU data set, with 12 picked sites. The black line represents a larger data set, showing temperatures actually decreasing.

Vashta.Nerada on September 29, 2009 at 2:04 PM

I always wondered about the melting glacier/ice cap concern leading to rising sea levels. Haven’t these people watched a large river empty into the ocean? Just spend a few MINUTES watching the Mississippi, St. Lawrence, Colorado, Delaware, Hudson, or Amazon, not to mention countless other rivers dumping water in large amounts EVERY MINUTE! And yet the oceans do not rise! What gives?

jerseyman on September 29, 2009 at 1:55 PM

Don’t get too hung up on that one. A lot more water gets cycled each year by evaporation an condensation than what we are talking about with these melting trends, but it doesn’t end up changing anything because it isn’t locked away in ice semi-permanently like in Antarctica. The sea level has gone up hundreds (thousands?) of feet since the last full ice age.

Count to 10 on September 29, 2009 at 2:05 PM

It’s honestly too late.

AnninCA on September 29, 2009 at 2:02 PM

Just curious, have you ever sifted through the data & looked at any of the models created using any of the biased data sets out there?
Have you ever taken any science classes dealing with current or paleoclimate at all?
Just curious is all.
Bcs that’s a hell of an ignorant statement.

Badger40 on September 29, 2009 at 2:05 PM

The atheistic-Marxist-Left has gone through a series of ‘victims’ in the attempt to control the masses.
FIrst, the workers, but then as conditions improved the workers decided they wanted no part up the ultimate agenda.
Second, the poor, but then as they become more prosperous, the ‘old’ poor/’new’ middle class decided they wanted no part of the ultimate agenda.
Third, they turned to the animals as endangered. But the animal victimhood approach ran into problems and resistance as most people value humans over animals.
Finally, they went after the ‘Planet’. Who could be against clean air and water? But as pollution decreased and things improved they are losing their support.
Global Warming is their last refuge – there are no victims left.

jerseyman on September 29, 2009 at 2:05 PM

Antarctic ice is on land, if it melted it would raise sea levels.
I’m not saying it is melting. I am just saying what would happen if it did.

redshirt on September 29, 2009 at 2:02 PM

Arctic ice is floating, and Greenland under the ice is below sea level in most places, and perhaps parts of Antarctica as well. Besides Archimedes principle as noted above, any impact would be minimal.

Vashta.Nerada on September 29, 2009 at 2:06 PM

I doubt that humans will surve ourselves. I do trust that the Earth will survive.

AnninCA on September 29, 2009 at 2:03 PM

Go back to college & learn the real science behind all these fatalistic claims.
You will be able to sleep much better at night when you have the skills & knowledge behind you on this subject.
Worry about something more looming:
like an asteroid impact.
Or the Yellowstone caldera erupting.
These are more pressing worries.

Badger40 on September 29, 2009 at 2:06 PM

Those Hockey Stick fraudsters should be thrown in jail for their lies and the billions upon billions of wasted tax dollars.

First they tried to hide the maedieval (sp?) warming period by using bad data. This was to give the impression of a nice straight line long-term temperature (the long hockey stick handle).

Then they used thin and totally unrelated data from 400km away to build the hockey stick blade – the alarming sudden rise in temperature over the last century.

As it now turns out – the data they have tried to hide for many years has been total garbage. Garbage in – Garbage out.

Fake-Fake Data!

Ogabe on September 29, 2009 at 2:07 PM

Just for the record, if the polar icecap melted, sea levels would go down, not up. Water expands when frozen.

Vashta.Nerada on September 29, 2009 at 1:53 PM

Actually sea levels would remain constant. Ice still displaces it’s equivalent volume in terms of mass when floating in a body of water.

Ice does expand, but the increase in volume results in a decrease in density and the difference is what floats about the surface.

If all ice in the ocean melted, sea levels would not change.

jhffmn on September 29, 2009 at 2:07 PM

The sea level has gone up hundreds (thousands?) of feet since the last full ice age.

Count to 10 on September 29, 2009 at 2:05 PM

]
And think of all the really cool archaelogical sites that are under water right now!

Badger40 on September 29, 2009 at 2:08 PM

Vashta.Nerada on September 29, 2009 at 2:04 PM

Thank you, the gears in my head finally clicked in place with that. It makes sense now.

redshirt on September 29, 2009 at 2:08 PM

It’s just too late to turn things around. We’ll just have to deal.

I doubt that humans will surve ourselves. I do trust that the Earth will survive.

AnninCA on September 29, 2009 at 2:03 PM

Who pays you to write this stuff? The hockey stick is a bigger fairytale than Jack in the Beanstalk, and we’re all supposed to trade our economy for Al’s magic beans.

Laura in Maryland on September 29, 2009 at 2:08 PM

It’s just too late to turn things around. We’ll just have to deal.

I doubt that humans will surve ourselves. I do trust that the Earth will survive.

AnninCA on September 29, 2009 at 2:03 PM

It wasn’t in our control to start with. Of course we’ll deal — its what humans do.

Of course we won’t survive ourselves. But our decedents will probably stick around for as long as there is liquid water on the surface of the Earth, whatever form they take. Maybe longer. Who knows what will happen in the billions of years it will take for the sun to go red giant on us.

Count to 10 on September 29, 2009 at 2:09 PM

Arctic ice is floating, and Greenland under the ice is below sea level in most places, and perhaps parts of Antarctica as well. Besides Archimedes principle as noted above, any impact would be minimal.

Vashta.Nerada on September 29, 2009 at 2:06 PM

Agreed impact is minimal, but just wanted to point it out anyways.

redshirt on September 29, 2009 at 2:09 PM

I don’t think that global warming is a farce at all. I do think the solutions are a farce.

It’s honestly too late.

AnninCA on September 29, 2009 at 2:02 PM

It’s both the cause and effect are farce. The entire concept is a con. As I stated earlier post it’s another road to socialism through the Dem party.

That large fireball in the center of our solar system is the cause and effect of climate changes. We are currently in for a low energy output cycle from our star. Fourteen year magnetic storm(sunspots) cycle. When producing more energy, more sunspots appear and they happen in 11 year cycles. I think that we will see ice on Virginia Beach something that we haven’t seen in a long time.

larvcom on September 29, 2009 at 2:10 PM

And think of all the really cool archaelogical sites that are under water right now!

Badger40 on September 29, 2009 at 2:08 PM

Atlantis!

Count to 10 on September 29, 2009 at 2:10 PM

MB4 on September 29, 2009 at 1:46 PM

Wow. But you left out the video they played on MSNBC to illustrate the crisis. There were people on the verge of collapse in the streets despite shorts and light tops, kids weakening and falling to the grass, and, finally, sweating men in a fog of moisture with towels around their waists trying to get a breath in the stifling heat. Several other sourses used the film or photos.

Ruining the whole thing, FOX later reported that the video was comprised of clips from various sources.

The clips were garnered from folks in shorts in a marathon, kids in a sports training practice and overweight men in a turkish bath.

IlikedAUH2O on September 29, 2009 at 2:10 PM

So, I’d better get working on those blankets, sweaters, scarves, hats, and mittens then, huh? I have a feeling it will be cold this winter, if only because this will be a winter where we won’t have a lot of money. Also, my knee hurts something fierce.

Anna on September 29, 2009 at 2:11 PM

If “they” understand the El Nino, then how do they understand global warming as a whole???? Hmmmm….

Oil Can on September 29, 2009 at 2:11 PM

Atlantis!

Count to 10 on September 29, 2009 at 2:10 PM

Sorry, Atlantis is in the Pegasus galaxy…
Set your DVRs for Friday night, scifi channel, geeks of the world!

redshirt on September 29, 2009 at 2:12 PM

Brain fart ” don’t understand the El Nino”

Oil Can on September 29, 2009 at 2:12 PM

Anna on September 29, 2009 at 2:11 PM

afghans rock.. I am talking the blankies!

Nice to see you. :)

upinak on September 29, 2009 at 2:13 PM

The main argument is that it will melt the polar ice caps and drastically raise sea levels, flooding much of the world.

CityFish on September 29, 2009 at 1:35 PM

The arctic ice caps are floating, melting them will have no impact on sea levels.

Most of Antarctica is 30 or 40 degrees below zero. The world would have to warm up by 60 to 70 degrees before it started melting. And despite what the models predict, Antarctica has been getting colder, not warmer over the last 30 years.

MarkTheGreat on September 29, 2009 at 2:13 PM

Honestly, I’ll be long dead. Debate away.

It’s clear to me that global warming is real. It’s also clear that human beings didn’t handle their power too well.

We’ll probably go extinct.

But I’ll not be one of those.

AnninCA on September 29, 2009 at 2:14 PM

I don’t think that global warming is a farce at all. I do think the solutions are a farce.

It’s honestly too late.

AnninCA on September 29, 2009 at 2:02 PM

I’m shocked! Shocked, I say, that noted critical thinker AnninCA
buys into it blindly.
/s

Tom_OC on September 29, 2009 at 2:14 PM

Rising seas? So what? Humans can adapt.

redshirt on September 29, 2009 at 2:14 PM

That, plus the fact that only 2.5% of all water on Earth is frozen, so any impact would be virtually nonexistent.

Vashta.Nerada on September 29, 2009 at 2:01 PM

My impression is that we are getting close to peaking on the sea level (in the very long term).

Count to 10 on September 29, 2009 at 2:15 PM

When you have central air conditioning all ready (like most of CA), it’s natural to use it as a heat pump (basically just reverse its function), because it actually pulls heat in from the outside in addition to the heat generated by operation. However, the gain on this gets smaller and smaller the colder it gets outside, so it probably isn’t that efficient in places that get really cold.

Count to 10 on September 29, 2009 at 1:49 PM

Spot on. Heat pumps were meant for southern states. They are great for taking the chill out of the air, but imagine $300+ electric bill for a small townhouse in the midatlantic when the thermostat stays at 67 in the winter. Heaven forbid we use natural gas.

Laura in Maryland on September 29, 2009 at 2:15 PM

How much dry land ice (Antarctic-South Pole region) needs to melt to raise the ocean (2/3s of the global surface) sea level, say 6 inches ?

jerseyman on September 29, 2009 at 2:15 PM

We’ll probably go extinct.

But I’ll not be one of those.

AnninCA on September 29, 2009 at 2:14 PM

Um, you won’t go extinct because you will be dead?

redshirt on September 29, 2009 at 2:16 PM

Rising seas? So what? Humans can adapt.

redshirt on September 29, 2009 at 2:14 PM

To the extent that we are allowed to exploit resources.
(Nifty beach house. That’s the kind of thing I would build if I were building in a flood plain)

Count to 10 on September 29, 2009 at 2:17 PM

My impression is that we are getting close to peaking on the sea level (in the very long term).

Count to 10 on September 29, 2009 at 2:15 PM

Me too. Everyone get ready for the next ice age, coming soon, in geologic terms (15,000 years or so).

Vashta.Nerada on September 29, 2009 at 2:17 PM

Oh Boy can humans adapt!

redshirt on September 29, 2009 at 2:17 PM

Just for the record, if the polar icecap melted, sea levels would go down, not up. Water expands when frozen.

Vashta.Nerada on September 29, 2009 at 1:53 PM

Water expands when frozen, which is why ice floats. Anything floating is by definition, in equilibrium. So when it melts, there is no change.

However water does expand when it heats. So if the oceans were to warm, the oceans would rise from that affect alone.

Fortunately, the Argos probes have found that the oceans are cooling, not warming.

MarkTheGreat on September 29, 2009 at 2:20 PM

Atlantis!

Count to 10 on September 29, 2009 at 2:10 PM
Sorry, Atlantis is in the Pegasus galaxy…
Set your DVRs for Friday night, scifi channel, geeks of the world!

redshirt on September 29, 2009 at 2:12 PM

Wah! I don’t have Dish or cable. I feel so alone!
I have been waiting to watch season 10 of Stargate & have not yet started watching Stargate Atlantis.
I am geekily excited by this new series!

It’s clear to me that global warming is real. It’s also clear that human beings didn’t handle their power too well.

We’ll probably go extinct.

But I’ll not be one of those.

AnninCA on September 29, 2009 at 2:14 PM

Where is this data that exists that makes it ‘clear’ to you?
I’m thinking no scientific topic is very ‘clear’ to you if you are ‘convinced’ of this myth.
Seriously, what is your educational background? Do you read any legitimate scientific journals on climatic & PALEOCLIMATIC data?

Um, you won’t go extinct because you will be dead?

redshirt on September 29, 2009 at 2:16 PM

I’m guessing that’s what she means. Bcs mothing else she’s said about this topic makes any sense as to why she is ‘clear’ that APGW is real.

Badger40 on September 29, 2009 at 2:21 PM

They’re now using the phrase: Climate Justice.

Go figure

CPT. Charles on September 29, 2009 at 1:29 PM

Captain Climate Justice????

Oil Can on September 29, 2009 at 2:21 PM

The other thing that gets me about the co2 theory of global warming, is co2 only absorbs a small bandwidth of solar/heat energy.

I’d have to ask my brother about the specifics, but that would suggest to me that CO2 would have diminishing returns as it’s added to the environment. I’d assume given the logarithmic nature of CO2′s effect, we are long past the point where additional CO2 impacts the environment.

jhffmn on September 29, 2009 at 2:22 PM

not to mention countless other rivers dumping water in large amounts EVERY MINUTE! And yet the oceans do not rise! What gives?

jerseyman on September 29, 2009 at 1:55 PM

It’s called evaporation. It’s what moved the water from the ocean onto the land, so that it can flow back to the oceans.

MarkTheGreat on September 29, 2009 at 2:22 PM

the hockey stick has been dead for a long time. The overemphasis of tree ring data was discovered a long time ago. Also the report on antarctic warming was pretty well thrashed as well.

Get your sleds and snow machines out kiddies.

Fighton03 on September 29, 2009 at 2:22 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4