Yesterday, it was global warming...

[cartman]

...and today it's the new Ice Age.

It was 85 degrees (30 C) yesterday here at El Rancho Cartman. Right now it's 42 (5 C) and dropping. The forecast is for the low tonight to be 25 (-4 C).

I'm glad I've got some chili cooking in the crockpot, and plenty of Dr Pepper and lemons on hand to make "Hot Dr Pepper".

[Zippo]

correct me if I am wrong but isn't it one of the signs of global warming to have unusually cold weather as well hot?

[cartman]

correct me if I am wrong but isn't it one of the signs of global warming to have unusually cold weather as well hot?

I think so. All I know for sure is that there is going to be a 50 to 60 degree change over a 24 hour period.

[JeeberD]

Tell me about it. I was burning up in my car when I was driving to work yesterday (around 5pm) because I didn't want to turn on the AC in February, but when I got out of work (around 930pm) I nearly froze my ass off with the arctic wind that was blowing...

[JeeberD]

Dola-

And this big temp swing certainly isn't going to help the cold I've been fighting for the past week... :mad:

[vex]

Tell me about it. I was burning up in my car when I was driving to work yesterday (around 5pm) because I didn't want to turn on the AC in February, but when I got out of work (around 930pm) I nearly froze my ass off with the arctic wind that was blowing...
Same here.

[Desnudo]

correct me if I am wrong but isn't it one of the signs of global warming to have unusually cold weather as well hot?

Yep, we're done for.

[gstelmack]

correct me if I am wrong but isn't it one of the signs of global warming to have unusually cold weather as well hot?That's part of what cracks me up about global warming. If it's unusually hot, it's global warming. If it's unusually cold, it's global warming. If the weather is bad, it's global warming. If the weather is nice, it's global warming. If the glaciers are shrinking, it's global warming. If the glaciers are expanding, it's global warming. If your area of the planet is getting warmer, it's global warming. If your area of the planet is getting cooler, it's global warming.

Gotta be a nice theory to believe in. Hey wait a second, are we sure global warming isn't the Grand Unification Theory the physicists have been looking for?

[rkmsuf]

Chuck Norris laughs in the face of global warming.

[finketr]

this is right up there with tk getting buried in snow and 2 days later it was all gone.

[GoldenEagle]

The Mid-South is suppose to be getting hit with a major ice storm this weekend.

[SFL Cat]

We've actually come full circle. Back in the 70s, when I was in high school, I remember all the environmentalist were screaming about how all the pollution we were producing was going to hasten the next Ice Age. For evidence, they touted alarming advances of glaciers and a series of severe winters we experienced.

In the 80s and 90s, environmental alarmism shifted to global warming, citing a string of unusually hot summers and rising ocean temperatures.

Now we've gone back to the Ice Age scenario with a nice twist, we're going to freeze to death because of global warming. Environmentalists are their own worst enemies. They've cried wolf one too many times for most people to listen, even if their dire predictions are halfway accurate, which I doubt.

[Jesse_Ewiak]

Gotta be a nice theory to believe in. Hey wait a second, are we sure global warming isn't the Grand Unification Theory the physicists have been looking for?

Yeah, the fact that Greenland’s glaciers are melting into the sea twice as fast as previously believed is no big deal. The fact that every major scientific research group or collective has said it is happening is no big deal. Maybe it's just 'intelligent warming.'

[CraigSca]

I remember in 8th grade science our teacher telling us that Manhattan would be 20 feet underwater in 20-25 years. I remember thinking at the time, "why the hell isn't anyone doing anything about this?!". Of course, that was 24 years ago.

[Eaglesfan27]

I remember in 8th grade science our teacher telling us that Manhattan would be 20 feet underwater in 20-25 years. I remember thinking at the time, "why the hell isn't anyone doing anything about this?!". Of course, that was 24 years ago.
There is still one more year.

[Dutch]

I think so. All I know for sure is that there is going to be a 50 to 60 degree change over a 24 hour period.

It might be Global Warming. Or it might be a cold front about to go over your area.

[CraigSca]

...and thus there's still time to do something about it :D

[Wolfpack]

Chuck Norris laughs in the face of global warming.

Actually, he contributes to it whenever he eats beans. A single release from him equates to all the methane output from all the cows on earth in a year.

[Desnudo]

Yeah, the fact that Greenland’s glaciers are melting into the sea twice as fast as previously believed is no big deal. The fact that every major scientific research group or collective has said it is happening is no big deal. Maybe it's just 'intelligent warming.'

Good, I'll buy a condo in Greenland in 2050.

[SFL Cat]

Actually, he contributes to it whenever he eats beans. A single release from him equates to all the methane output from all the cows on earth in a year.
But does he emit more CFCs than a volcanic eruption?

[sterlingice]

Didn't global warming cause the new Ice Age in Day After Tomorrow? ;)

SI

[sterlingice]

I remember in 8th grade science our teacher telling us that Manhattan would be 20 feet underwater in 20-25 years. I remember thinking at the time, "why the hell isn't anyone doing anything about this?!". Of course, that was 24 years ago.Time to get to work on that Cobra Commander-style "Weather Dominator", then. And God knows Manhattan would be my first target- actually, it'd probably be the rest of NYC ;)

SI

[Dutch]

Didn't global warming cause the new Ice Age in Day After Tomorrow? ;)

SI

I gathered from that movie that it was the inaction on the part of the movie's fictional current administration that caused it. :)

[gstelmack]

Yeah, the fact that Greenland’s glaciers are melting into the sea twice as fast as previously believed is no big deal. The fact that every major scientific research group or collective has said it is happening is no big deal. Maybe it's just 'intelligent warming.'Sure, groups and collectives have, but plenty of scientists have also said it isn't happening. Discover had a great interview a few months back with a key hurricane expert in the NOAA who thinks it's a bunch of hogwash, for example. There is a lot of politics involved (environmenalists, anti-American countries) and money (reports within NOAA that research that goes against global warming is being denied funding) that seem to be getting in the way of finding out what's REALLY going on. And as pointed out elsewhere in this thread, every 10 to 20 years there's some new theory about what's going on with the earth.


And read again what I wrote above. ANYTHING that happens with the weather is being used as evidence of global warming. Anything at all.

[sterlingice]

I gathered from that movie that it was the inaction on the part of the movie's fictional current administration that caused it. :)The fictional Republicrats? ;)

SI

[GoldenEagle]

All I know is I got my heater on and I am playing all the poker I can. The power will be out from. Sat. to at least Tues. They are talking about 5-6 inches of ice. That is going to a site to see.

[sabotai]

And as pointed out elsewhere in this thread, every 10 to 20 years there's some new theory about what's going on with the earth.More like every 10 to 20 years, the media hastly applies a label that is hardly accurate to what the scientific community is discussing

[KevinNU7]

I think so. All I know for sure is that there is going to be a 50 to 60 degree change over a 24 hour period.
We call that New England

[sterlingice]

We call that New EnglandOr the midwest

SI

[Ryche]

Middle of the day here, the temperature was -8. So don't complain about your 25 degree low :)

I'll take global warming over the alternative.

[mauchow]

There's no such thing as Global Warming.

[nilodor]

We had been having a real mild winter (around 0) than the last week it's just been spiteful cold (-30) with a north wind blowing all day.

[sterlingice]

Same- we've had an odd winter. We got a bunch of snow in December, which usually doesn't start until around finals time in mid-late December and not very much. Then we had a really mild January and now we've had a cold February where it's not going to break 32 for 3 or 4 days straight.

SI

[Desnudo]

...and today it's the new Ice Age.

It was 85 degrees (30 C) yesterday here at El Rancho Cartman. Right now it's 42 (5 C) and dropping. The forecast is for the low tonight to be 25 (-4 C).

I'm glad I've got some chili cooking in the crockpot, and plenty of Dr Pepper and lemons on hand to make "Hot Dr Pepper".

Hot Dr. Pepper? And is it true that Texas is the only place where Dr. Pepper still has cane sugar in it? I heard it's much tastier there.

[JeeberD]

I think there's one plant, and one plant only, that still uses cane sugar. The stuff that comes from there is supposed to be the Holy Grail of DP...

[JeeberD]

Dola-

It's the Dublin, TX plant that's supposedly uses real sugar.

[Desnudo]

Where is Dublin?

[JeeberD]

http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?searchtype=address&country=US&addtohistory=&searchtab=home&formtype=address&popflag=0&latitude=&longitude=&name=&phone=&level=&cat=&address=&city=dublin&state=tx&zipcode=

Just to the southwest of Stephenville, apparently.

[sovereignstar]

Middle of the day here, the temperature was -8. So don't complain about your 25 degree low :)

I'll take global warming over the alternative.

God dammit. I didn't have to go to class today and I forgot to "plug my car in" last night. Well, I won't be going anywhere tonight for at least a couple of hours.

[FrogMan]

Same- we've had an odd winter. We got a bunch of snow in December, which usually doesn't start until around finals time in mid-late December and not very much. Then we had a really mild January and now we've had a cold February where it's not going to break 32 for 3 or 4 days straight.

SI
odd winter in Quebec too. Similar pattern as described by SI, i.e. very cold in December, very mild in January (we're talking on and off rain for a week at one point, RAIN in Quebec in January!!!) and now it's back to crazy cold although today was freezing rain.

That freezing rain was split in two with just enough snow and crazy winds that caused me to take the day off. Cool, a day off, but damnit, power went out at 2:30 this afternoon, in the middle of a WSM2006 game, and just got back an hour ago. Without power, we went to order pizza, they didn't deliver, only did take outs. Still went out to get it, ate it by the candlelight with the kids. Talk about a crazy day at home...

FM

[cartman]

Two years ago at this time I was freezing my butt off in Helsinki. I was there for two weeks, and the temperature never got above -8 (-22 C). Man wasn't meant to live in those conditions. I nearly froze to death just walking to a casino that was two blocks from our hotel.

[Kobeck]

We've actually come full circle. Back in the 70s, when I was in high school, I remember all the environmentalist were screaming about how all the pollution we were producing was going to hasten the next Ice Age. For evidence, they touted alarming advances of glaciers and a series of severe winters we experienced.

In the 80s and 90s, environmental alarmism shifted to global warming, citing a string of unusually hot summers and rising ocean temperatures.

Now we've gone back to the Ice Age scenario with a nice twist, we're going to freeze to death because of global warming. Environmentalists are their own worst enemies. They've cried wolf one too many times for most people to listen, even if their dire predictions are halfway accurate, which I doubt.

I was in grade school in the 70s and not only should I be wearing a protective suite to go outside - because of the polluted environment, but I need to be within walking distance of work cause all the oil should have been gone a decade ago. I am so glad the alarmist nutjob grant seeking scientist are always wrong cause that would have been one miserable commute. lol

[Buccaneer]

Let me tell you about the year 1150 A.D. when the earth's temperature reached it's peak of the Medieval Warming Period, at a higher temperature than today.

[sterlingice]

Let me tell you about the year 1150 A.D. when the earth's temperature reached it's peak of the Medieval Warming Period, at a higher temperature than today.Is that what killed the dinosaurs, too? ;) :p :D

SI

[Buccaneer]

The dinosaurs were a little before my time.

[sterlingice]

The dinosaurs were a little before my time.Oh, ok. So, was it ever cold while building pyramids in Ancient Egypt? Or was it ok because it was a dry heat?

SI

[GoldenEagle]

Well my county is now under the Winter Storm Warning. They would not jsut issue that to be joking around. I wonder if I should go get some food or something.

[Kobeck]

I'd wait till morning no matter what. Seriously

[GoldenEagle]

I'd wait till morning no matter what. Seriously
Wait till the morning? Why would I do that?

[Kobeck]

even if you were despreatly hungry you would at least have sunlight to guide your way thru the winter storm.

[GoldenEagle]

even if you were despreatly hungry you would at least have sunlight to guide your way thru the winter storm.
I guess did not make myself clear. The winter storm has not started yet. I was going to go stockpile some food in case it did get bad. But I do not feel like going. I got water and fruit grain bars. What else can a man want?

[Glengoyne]

Let me tell you about the year 1150 A.D. when the earth's temperature reached it's peak of the Medieval Warming Period, at a higher temperature than today.I've yet to have one global warming advocate explain just what the hell mankind was doing 900 years ago, or 3000 for that matter when indications are it was warmer still.

Something about proclaiming that the earth's temperatures haven't been this high in thousands of years that makes me wonder if those making the proclamation are even listening to what they say. I have NO doubt...NONE...that the earth's average(or is it median?) temperature has gone up a degree or two in one hundred years. I'm not at all convinced that the causes are anthropogenic.

[Kobeck]

I guess did not make myself clear. The winter storm has not started yet. I was going to go stockpile some food in case it did get bad. But I do not feel like going. I got water and fruit grain bars. What else can a man want?

exactly. This might be helpful tomorrow though

http://media3.ugoto.com/pictures/needbeer-125.jpg

[Ryche]

Let me tell you about the year 1150 A.D. when the earth's temperature reached it's peak of the Medieval Warming Period, at a higher temperature than today.

Well, we could always go back to the Little Ice Age with snow in June and crop failures throughout the world. Now there's an appealing idea.

The climate is changing, oh no! Nevermind that it has been changing throughout the existance of humans and the entire world. People used to live and farm in the Sahara, the climate changed. Grapes used to grow in Newfoundland, the climate changed. The Navajo used to farm in the American southwest, the climate changed. It's a fact of life.

[thealmighty]

What else can a man want?
Austrian curling sisters?

[thealmighty]

dola...at the same time, of course.

[sterlingice]

Well, we could always go back to the Little Ice Age with snow in June and crop failures throughout the world. Now there's an appealing idea.

The climate is changing, oh no! Nevermind that it has been changing throughout the existance of humans and the entire world. People used to live and farm in the Sahara, the climate changed. Grapes used to grow in Newfoundland, the climate changed. The Navajo used to farm in the American southwest, the climate changed. It's a fact of life.Again, for the 87th time on FOFC, this is the mentality that baffles me. Yeah, we aren't 100% sure it's happening. But if it is happening, we kindof need to try to do something about it if we can.

The Navajo didn't have millions of people and trillions of dollars of infrastructure living on coasts that could be wiped out if the glaciers melt too much or vast stretches of farmland in the Midwest that get turned into deserts if it gets too warm or whatever. We kindof have a vested interest to keep the status quo.

SI

[Dutch]

Again, for the 87th time on FOFC, this is the mentality that baffles me. Yeah, we aren't 100% sure it's happening. But if it is happening, we kindof need to try to do something about it if we can.

The Navajo didn't have millions of people and trillions of dollars of infrastructure living on coasts that could be wiped out if the glaciers melt too much or vast stretches of farmland in the Midwest that get turned into deserts if it gets too warm or whatever. We kindof have a vested interest to keep the status quo.

SI

Any word yet on how much the EU has invested into Kyoto Protocols that they didn't prior to ratifying?

[Buccaneer]

Here's what it comes down to (using an extreme example). Let's say we (US and EU) put 90% of its GNP into curbing every bit of man-made greenhouse emissions. Everyone would be poor, unemployed and standard of living would be Third World. But what we trade for reduced emissions, we make up for it land and water pollution plus an increased de-forestation and resulting air pollution from wood smoke. After spending trillions, scientists would still be baffled as to why the earth's temperature is still going up. They would wonder whether or not it was really a geo-political ploy, nothing to do with Mother Earth, but as the mechanism to actually weaken certain capitalistic based economies? Anyway get a measure of how much greenhouse gases were released by the recent Alaska volcano?

Seriously, what we do is to let technology keep improving...and that takes a rich economy to do so. Education is a key in not accepting a polluted environment so we desire to have things better managed. The efforts of individuals to maintain a clean environment leads to a community having a more livable environment.

[dawgfan]

There is no question that climate change is a natural part of the Earth's history. There have been times in the Earth's history when temperatures have been both warmer and colder. These things are really not in dispute.

What appears to be in dispute is evidence from many climate (and other) scientists that show that changes in global climate have happened at a much faster rate since the beginning of the industrial age than at any point they can find in the Earth's history. The primary issue would seem to be that since we only have a few hundred years of reasonably reliable recorded data of actual temperatures, we have to rely on other means of figuring out what the climate was like in the past. While most scientists are comfortable with the methods being used to determine this data, there appear to be a few that dispute these methods and/or findings. Not surprisingly, most of these dissenters have some connection to vested interests that have much to lose if global warming is shown to have been accelerated by human activities.

So, it would appear there are two primary poles here - those that believe evidence shows that global warming has increased notably in conjunction with human activity (primarily since the beginning of the industrial era) and those that think any change in global climate is due to natural factors and that we simply don't have enough evidence to think otherwise.

Who to believe then? Some factors to consider:

1. Numbers: A large majority of climate scientists believe there is enough good evidence to show that human activities are accelarating global climate change, and most of the industrialized world has bought into this line of thinking (hence the Kyoto protocols);

2. Motivation: While there are clearly deep-pocketed interests that have much to lose financially by the assertion of human acceleration of climate change (oil companies, chemical companies) and have motivation to challenge these assertions, it's much less clear that there are similarly deep-pocketed interests that have much to gain financially by these assertions. Obviously there are "green" companies that benefit from more "environmentally friendly" methods and activities, but you'd have to go a long ways to prove to me that they have anywhere near the same kind of financial clout as those industries that are threatened

Now, while I'm sympathetic to environmentalist concerns here and I believe that there is enough evidence to show that mankind is affecting our climate, I'm also sympathetic to Bucc's point about what level of cost are we willing to go to as a society to combat this issue.

A big part of the problem is that even though we think we've identified the issue, climate is such an overwhelmingly complex system that we have a hard time predicting with great accuracy what results will happen from this issue. In the earlier days of environmental awareness, that uncertainty led to some extreme worst-case scenarios that were played up with great fanfare by the media and have not yet come to pass (i.e. dire predictions of rises in sea levels such that Manhattan would be flooding by 2000, etc.) Unfortunately this is a nasty side effect of issues of scientific uncertainty - worst-case scenarios are always the "sexiest" story and are the ones most hyped by the media, and so the general public begins to lose confidence in scientific accuracy when these worst-case scenarios don't come to pass. Add in to that factor the reality that there are always a few fringe nutcases that love to paint doomsday scenarios regardless of veracity, simpy to gain the spotlight, and you have a credibility problem for science as a whole.

As we ponder Bucc's point, what is frustrating is that the uncertainty in predicting the outcomes of the climate change issues means we have a hard time doing accurate cost/benefit analyses. It may well be that what seems like a heavy cost to pay now to address environmental issues will be dwarfed in the future as we attempt to deal with the changes wrought by our activities - this is the point of view of those solidly in the environmental camp. On the other hand, it may be that there are factors our current scientific level of understanding is missing that would mean expensive changes to make our society more "environmentally friendly" would have very little effect in changing outcomes down the line and would provide little return on our investment.

It would be nice if we could simply let the process of science figure these issues out without the meddling factors of politics and business, but that's the not the reality of the world we live in. Truly inquisitive people will continue to be forced to sift through the clutter of political taint to try and get at the truth, as best as our current levels of scientific understanding can provide.

[gstelmack]

2. Motivation: While there are clearly deep-pocketed interests that have much to lose financially by the assertion of human acceleration of climate change (oil companies, chemical companies) and have motivation to challenge these assertions, it's much less clear that there are similarly deep-pocketed interests that have much to gain financially by these assertions. Obviously there are "green" companies that benefit from more "environmentally friendly" methods and activities, but you'd have to go a long ways to prove to me that they have anywhere near the same kind of financial clout as those industries that are threatened
You're thinking economically and nationally, not politically and globally. There are global interests in this as well that would LOVE to see the US economy knocked down several pegs. That's one of the big fears behind the Kyoto protocols, as they primarily affect the US (as one of the largest producers of greenhouse gases).

[Glengoyne]

Again, for the 87th time on FOFC, this is the mentality that baffles me. Yeah, we aren't 100% sure it's happening. But if it is happening, we kindof need to try to do something about it if we can.

The Navajo didn't have millions of people and trillions of dollars of infrastructure living on coasts that could be wiped out if the glaciers melt too much or vast stretches of farmland in the Midwest that get turned into deserts if it gets too warm or whatever. We kindof have a vested interest to keep the status quo.

SISince you've been around here longer than I have, I'll give you some due, and guess that for about the 54th time here on FOFC, I've seen you respond with this, and most of the time my reply has been something along the lines of "Rage against the Planet?".


My point? Just what in hell do you propose that mankind do to prevent the planet from doing it's thing? If there is some magic idea that will absolutely positively work, then let's do it. I wouldn't mind the government(s) paying for it. The deal is, we have NO IDEA how to do what you propose..."keep the status quo".


So I do see your point of view, but I see little point in wasting resources attempting to stop the planet from progressing as it will. If we had a concrete plan with concrete evidence that it would work, that would be a different story.

[sterlingice]

My point? Just what in hell do you propose that mankind do to prevent the planet from doing it's thing? If there is some magic idea that will absolutely positively work, then let's do it. I wouldn't mind the government(s) paying for it. The deal is, we have NO IDEA how to do what you propose..."keep the status quo".

So I do see your point of view, but I see little point in wasting resources attempting to stop the planet from progressing as it will. If we had a concrete plan with concrete evidence that it would work, that would be a different story.Again, I'm not propsing the Cobra Commander Weather Dominator (TM- patent pending). But, would it be so awful to mandate higher emissions standards for vehicles that aren't a joke and not 20 years away but in the much nearer future like 5 years?

Let's look at the ozone example. I mean, geez, ozone hole isn't going to change life as we know it, but it causes big problems like an upswing in cancer and damage to the ecosystem. We saw the problem in the 70s Sweden banned them in 1978) but still didn't ban CFCs until the 1996 in the name of business. Has our economy cratered because of this? No, we found substitutes despite not having the technology at the time that the bans were being bantied about- the economy can also adjust and will go where the money is. Yes, the ozone hole depletion is slowing but it's still getting worse and will continue to get worse for decades before finally being able to fix itself. So, because we didn't act faster because of economic concerns and claims that it was just a measurement error we couldn't verify, we passed on a lot more damage to our kids, grandkids, etc. Does this sound familiar?

With this complicated of a problem there's never going to be "concrete proof" and "concrete evidence", particularly when you have factions working in their own best interests (political and economic) and not science. But I'd rather us try something that has a reasonable chance of working without a huge cost (again, take the emissions standards example- tho "huge" is relative) than just throw our hands up in the air and say "there's nothing we can do, if you live on a coastal city, get a boat and a gas mask" or even better "there is no problem, don't worry about it".

SI

[st.cronin]

But, would it be so awful to mandate higher emissions standards for vehicles that aren't a joke and not 20 years away but in the much nearer future like 5 years?

The problem isn't with the standards, it's with the enforcement. Lower standards and better enforcement would eliminate a significant portion of automobile pollution.

[BishopMVP]

When it comes to Kyoto, it is worth pointing out that even if the US/Europe held at current levels, the likes of India and China would ensure increased pollution levels. And that the US is closer to 1990 levels than Canada and much of Western Europe that ratified the Kyoto Protocol. It's not about signing some piece of paper, it's about concrete measures and enforcement. I'll also note that millions of Africans and southeast Asians have died unnecessarily because of environmental regulations enforced and encouraged by these environmental lobbies. So while I agree that global warming is occurring, none of these proposed solutions really appeal to me. I'd rather keep prospering and improving peoples lives, and then let darwinism take its course on people who build on flood plains.

Or maybe it's just that my callous attitude towards global warming comes from the fact the wind chill outside is -1 F while I type this.

[CraigSca]

Tell the American people to vote with their pocketbook rather than bitch and hope the government makes the decision for them.

We keep on talking about recycling, re-use, etcetera, and then fall all over ourselves when the latest microwaveable soup container or disposable "Yogurt-on-the-Go" comes out.

[FrogMan]

Two years ago at this time I was freezing my butt off in Helsinki. I was there for two weeks, and the temperature never got above -8 (-22 C). Man wasn't meant to live in those conditions. I nearly froze to death just walking to a casino that was two blocks from our hotel.
just steering away from the big kyoto talks and all to reply to this. :)

-22C is pretty common around here, although not in February, more like early-mid January. We had a good snowstorm yesterday that started with some freezing rain but changed to snow around early evening with very strong winds. At one point, I couldn't see the house on the other side of the street. The city snowplow made a couple passes in the evening, leaving a good foot, foot and a half of thick snow at the bottome of our driveway.

When that crap happens on a Friday evening, I usually wait until the Saturday morning to quietly go out and snowblow the thing and clear the driveway. Thing was, my wife was working today since neither she nor the other guy that was supposed to work with her could go to work on Friday. This means I had to go out at around 9pm, when I felt it had calmed down a little (boy was wrong) to snowblow the dang thing. It was -22C (-8F) without the wind, but with the wind, it was -31C (-24F) and some gusting winds they were. DAMN! It was the nastiest I'd had to go out to snowblow in...

FM

[sterlingice]

Hell, we had it down to 4F last night which wasn't super cold but we had wind chills at -19F because it was just howling outside.

SI

[Buccaneer]

You silly people. You are supposed to talk about Global Warming only in the summer time.

[duckman]

Damn pipes in the kitchen froze. :mad:

[dawgfan]

You silly people. You are supposed to talk about Global Warming only in the summer time.
Bucc, global temperature averages have been rising since we started keeping records in the mid to late 1800's. The difference in average yearly temperatures has been what seems like a small amount - 0.6 degrees C (give or take 0.2 degrees), and of course looking at any one particular year or especially a season can yield results that differ from the overall trend, but that's an error of small sample size.

People observing unusually cold weather right now and using that as a means to ridicule global warming would be like an NBA observer at a game where both teams score 120+ points saying how silly it is for people to claim that NBA scoring averages have dropped a great deal since the 1980's - it's a case of small sample size in the extreme.

[Buccaneer]

"started keeping records in the mid to late 1800's" is also a very small sample size.

[FrogMan]

Damn pipes in the kitchen froze. :mad:
yeah, that sucks. Reminds me of January 15, 2004. Why that date you ask? It was the day my wife was to be induced to give birth to our second child. Was so damn cold that the main water line partially froze in the basement, leaving us with a tiny trickle of water to wash ourselves in the morning. Let me tell you, the day that you know your wife is going to give birth isn't exactly the day where your mind is the most encline to deal with frozen pipes... We survived though and we'll always remember the day Matty was born as one of the coldest mornings in the Winter of 2004 :D

FM

[JonInMiddleGA]

Tell the American people to vote with their pocketbook rather than bitch and hope the government makes the decision for them.

We keep on talking about recycling, re-use, etcetera, and then fall all over ourselves when the latest microwaveable soup container or disposable "Yogurt-on-the-Go" comes out.

Sounds to me as though the American people ARE voting with their pocketbook.
The truth is that the majority of people will pick Gogurt in their SUV over greenery. And they'll damned sure pick 'wavable Cup-O-Soup over junk science.

[dawgfan]

And they'll damned sure pick 'wavable Cup-O-Soup over junk science.
Junk science in this case being any science that contradicts Jon's political worldview...

[dawgfan]

"started keeping records in the mid to late 1800's" is also a very small sample size.
Relative to the age of the Earth, it's a tiny tiny fraction indeed. But that evidence also corresponds with the other data climate researchers are using to extrapolate weather information from eras prior to reliable temperature readings and recordings.

You don't seriously dispute that the Earth is in a warming phase, regardless of what you believe the cause may be do you?

[BishopMVP]

People observing unusually cold weather right now and using that as a means to ridicule global warming would be like an NBA observer at a game where both teams score 120+ points saying how silly it is for people to claim that NBA scoring averages have dropped a great deal since the 1980's - it's a case of small sample size in the extreme.I can't speak for others, but it's not that I'm ridiculing global warming or denying the earth is getting warmer... it's that assuming the worst-case scenario, given the location and climate I have spent my life in, and will likely spend most of the rest in, I would actually welcome an additional 1-3 degrees celsius.

[gstelmack]

The earth may in fact be getting slightly warmer. What I disagree with (or better yet have not seen anything that comes close to conclusive proof of) are:

1) The severity of that increase and the claimed damages it will bring (along with ignoring benefits such as an increased growing season).
2) The claimed causes of that increase.

[Buccaneer]

Relative to the age of the Earth, it's a tiny tiny fraction indeed. But that evidence also corresponds with the other data climate researchers are using to extrapolate weather information from eras prior to reliable temperature readings and recordings.

You don't seriously dispute that the Earth is in a warming phase, regardless of what you believe the cause may be do you?
Not at all but only with the perspective of the 40-, 100-, 1500- and 10,000- yr warming/cooling cycles. I am a strong conservationist but not an environmentalistic (which has become a political-centric corruption of conservation ideals). While we each need to do our share for conservation and to let technology find better solutions (as it rapidly has been doing for 100 years), to make any radical changes in economies, transportation and industrialization in thinking that it will make a difference in the global warming/cooling trends is pure foolishness.

[Dutch]

Relative to the age of the Earth, it's a tiny tiny fraction indeed. But that evidence also corresponds with the other data climate researchers are using to extrapolate weather information from eras prior to reliable temperature readings and recordings.

You don't seriously dispute that the Earth is in a warming phase, regardless of what you believe the cause may be do you?
The stats also show that the nations that use the most co2 also are the least likely to suffer for pandemics, plagues, poverty, corruption, dictatorships, and crazed theocracies.

[cartman]

It appears that some people's "tongue planted firmly in cheek" meters are off. It's interesting the turns this thread has taken in response to my joking references to "global warming" and "new ice age" to describe a 60 degree change over a 24 hour period.

The cold has definitely taken root here. We don't have any salt or sand truck out here in the boonies. So all of the freezing rain and sleet just kept accumulating on the roads, turning them into skating rinks. I wasn't able to make it to my 8am soccer game this morning. It was a bad sign when I slid off of my driveway, and it got worse from there. :) I wasn't able to make it up the hill to get out of my neighborhood. I'd get about 10 feet up it, and just slide back down. I decided that if I was having this much trouble within a mile of my house, I couldn't guess what the remaining 39 miles would be like. So, remembering the phrase "discretion is the better part of valor", I decided that no recreational league soccer game is worth risking death over.

[dawgfan]

The stats also show that the nations that use the most co2 also are the least likely to suffer for pandemics, plagues, poverty, corruption, dictatorships, and crazed theocracies.
Are you seriously suggesting this is an either/or proposition?

[Dutch]

Are you seriously suggesting this is an either/or proposition?
Oh, so my stats aren't good enough for ya? I see how it is. :D

[Glengoyne]

Again, I'm not propsing the Cobra Commander Weather Dominator (TM- patent pending). But, would it be so awful to mandate higher emissions standards for vehicles that aren't a joke and not 20 years away but in the much nearer future like 5 years?It wouldn't be awful. In fact it is something I'm all for. Although if you get the Dems to propose something called the Weather Dominator...they just might get it funded.



What appears to be in dispute is evidence from many climate (and other) scientists that show that changes in global climate have happened at a much faster rate since the beginning of the industrial age than at any point they can find in the Earth's history.
A faster rate. Aren't we talking about one degree over a century? Just what is being used to qualify increases and decreeses that happened hundreds or thousands of years ago as not happening as rapidly as that. One degree in a hundred years doesn't exactly seem like a record breaking pace.


Not surprisingly, most of these dissenters have some connection to vested interests that have much to lose if global warming is shown to have been accelerated by human activities.
I think you are fooling yourself if you don't believe there is as big or even a bigger interest group pushing the "Global Warming Agenda" as the one opposing it. Up until the most recent UN reports on global warming, the scientist's claims were much less stunning than the cover sheet disseminated to the public for announcement. Of course a UN politcal apparatus produced those cover sheets and report "summaries". There are even claims that the bold statements made by the last commission's report, were the result of that political apparatus hand picking the scientists involved.

I also think it is foolish to believe that everyone who is a Global Warming skeptic have vested interests. Just as I would be foolish to believe that all GW proponents have them as well.

[dawgfan]

Oh, so my stats aren't good enough for ya? I see how it is. :D
Way to avoid the question.

[dawgfan]

A faster rate. Aren't we talking about one degree over a century? Just what is being used to qualify increases and decreeses that happened hundreds or thousands of years ago as not happening as rapidly as that. One degree in a hundred years doesn't exactly seem like a record breaking pace.
It doesn't take very much of an increase in average temperature to have a big impact. I believe in the warmest previous climates the average temperature was just a few degrees celsius warmer on average, and that had a significant impact on climate, water levels, flora and fauna.

One degree in a hundred years may not seem very fast, but consider that the Earth is around 4 billion years old, and a century is a blink of the eye in relation.

I think you are fooling yourself if you don't believe there is as big or even a bigger interest group pushing the "Global Warming Agenda" as the one opposing it. Up until the most recent UN reports on global warming, the scientist's claims were much less stunning than the cover sheet disseminated to the public for announcement. Of course a UN politcal apparatus produced those cover sheets and report "summaries". There are even claims that the bold statements made by the last commission's report, were the result of that political apparatus hand picking the scientists involved.

I also think it is foolish to believe that everyone who is a Global Warming skeptic have vested interests. Just as I would be foolish to believe that all GW proponents have them as well.
You didn't answer the question though - give me some reason to believe there are significant financial incentives to push the "global warming agenda" that come anywhere close to the obvious financial incentives to those industries threatened by these reports.

The fact remains that the vast majority of qualified scientists believes that the current period of global warming is being significantly influenced by human activities.

[sterlingice]

You didn't answer the question though - give me some reason to believe there are significant financial incentives to push the "global warming agenda" that come anywhere close to the obvious financial incentives to those industries threatened by these reports.

The fact remains that the vast majority of qualified scientists believes that the current period of global warming is being significantly influenced by human activities.Well, I'll actually be on Glen's side for about 30 seconds (ew.. icky!) and say you can't deny that international politics wouldn't have some influence. You know there are a lot of countries who would love to "handicap" American industry by putting some insane regulations on them for their own gain. That was part of Kyoto's problem.

Where I do disagree strongly is that I do believe global warming exists (and do actually want a Weather Dominator, but that's for personal use ;)). Not only that but it's a big deal- 1 degree across the entire planet for the entire yearly average is a lot of heat and if that keeps up or, even worse, accellerates, we have some big problems not only for us but future generations and stuff we won't be able to turn back nearly as easily then. Again, I also think our economy would be just fine if we made some changes for the better and had better enforcement of the current laws but we've already gone around on this already.

SI

[Glengoyne]

It doesn't take very much of an increase in average temperature to have a big impact. I believe in the warmest previous climates the average temperature was just a few degrees celsius warmer on average, and that had a significant impact on climate, water levels, flora and fauna.

One degree in a hundred years may not seem very fast, but consider that the Earth is around 4 billion years old, and a century is a blink of the eye in relation.


You didn't answer the question though - give me some reason to believe there are significant financial incentives to push the "global warming agenda" that come anywhere close to the obvious financial incentives to those industries threatened by these reports.

The one degree in one hundred years not seeming to be a record braking pace wasn't intended diminish the magnitude of the change...I believe that to be the case. I'm just not certain I'm convinced that we have the ability to accurately quantify similar climate changes hundreds or thousands of years ago. In other words, the claim that the climate/temperature is rising now faster than ever before, rings a little empty with me. One degree in a century doesn't seem to be too high of a bar to be considered the most rapid change of all time.

As for no dollars driving the GW agenda... Well who says that all agendas are driven by money. There are huge political gains to be made by the "green" parties of the world.

The fact remains that the vast majority of qualified scientists believes that the current period of global warming is being significantly influenced by human activities.I'm not so certain of the ground you stand on here. I certainly don't believe it is a "fact". I believe that the vast majority of scientists believe that the climate is warming. However even the UN reports on global warming have stated fairly clearly that they can't scientifically tie the trend to anthropogenic causes. Mostly they have claimed that technology today doesn't allow science to track or calculate all of the variables required to make such a claim. The cover sheets to the reports often proclaim man made ties, but such claims haven't been made in the body of the report, prior to the latest report. I don't think that the technology has progressed significantly enough in the four years between UN commission reports to make the latest claims credible.

[GMO]

There are lots of climate scientists that think that mankind has a minimal effect on climate or mankind's effects are unknown. But many don't want to say so until they get closer to retirement. Why? Because in the past it was difficult to get funding to do climate research. Now, if you mention the research has something to with climate warming, you get money thrown at you.

Also, many media reports say that most climate researchers say that human activity influences the climate. This is true and I believe it. Every time I breathe I'm producing more carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas. Every time a house is built, it affects the local climate because the environment is disturbed e.g. trees are cut down. If a farmer plants a crop, it changes the albedo (reflection).
But many, or most, climate scientists say the human effects are minimal or unknown at this point.
The earth's climate has been changing constantly since the earth began, without human activity.
The climatic forecasts are based on computer models, which are not necessarily very accurate.

Anyways, if the climate models are any good, why can't they forecast accurately more than 3 days in advance?

[Dutch]

Well, I'll actually be on Glen's side for about 30 seconds (ew.. icky!) and say you can't deny that international politics wouldn't have some influence. You know there are a lot of countries who would love to "handicap" American industry by putting some insane regulations on them for their own gain. That was part of Kyoto's problem.

Where I do disagree strongly is that I do believe global warming exists (and do actually want a Weather Dominator, but that's for personal use ;)). Not only that but it's a big deal- 1 degree across the entire planet for the entire yearly average is a lot of heat and if that keeps up or, even worse, accellerates, we have some big problems not only for us but future generations and stuff we won't be able to turn back nearly as easily then. Again, I also think our economy would be just fine if we made some changes for the better and had better enforcement of the current laws but we've already gone around on this already.

SI
I guess the big question I would have is what are the effects that we are talking about with a one degree rise in global temperature? As many have pointed out, especially in the frozen north, that they wouldn't mind one bit to gain a little heat.

[sterlingice]

I guess the big question I would have is what are the effects that we are talking about with a one degree rise in global temperature? As many have pointed out, especially in the frozen north, that they wouldn't mind one bit to gain a little heat.Seriously? "It only makes my weather a little warmer so I don't care"?

It didn't break 20 today but I don't think playing with polar ice and global ecosystems is the best way to warm my apartment.

SI

[Dutch]

Seriously? "It only makes my weather a little warmer so I don't care"?

It didn't break 20 today but I don't think playing with polar ice and global ecosystems is the best way to warm my apartment.

SI
To be fair, I was seriously asking a question because I don't know what 1 degree will do to the planet.

[sterlingice]

To be fair, I was seriously asking a question because I don't know what 1 degree will do to the planet.Not that wiki is the final arbiter of truth, but here's the wiki article on it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming

SI

[dawgfan]

There are lots of climate scientists that think that mankind has a minimal effect on climate or mankind's effects are unknown. But many don't want to say so until they get closer to retirement. Why? Because in the past it was difficult to get funding to do climate research. Now, if you mention the research has something to with climate warming, you get money thrown at you.
I'm going to call bullshit on this one. You really think the oil companies or the chemical companies wouldn't be tripping all over themselves to fund scientists that dispute the idea that human activity is driving the current global warming?

[Dutch]

Not that wiki is the final arbiter of truth, but here's the wiki article on it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming

SII agree that is not a very good source. It has lots of information, but not neccessarily about what we are talking about.

For instance, the August 2003 heatwave had very little to do with global temperature rises and more to do with....well, a heat wave. Those are pretty common. So I don't like the inference that global warming killed 22,000-35,000 people in August of 2003.

But regardless. You were stunned that I was clueless as to the effect. In your own words, what will 1 silly little degree shift in global temperature do over the course of a century? I don't see anything catastrophic is what I'm getting at.

[Glengoyne]

Well, I'll actually be on Glen's side for about 30 seconds (ew.. icky!) and say you can't deny that international politics wouldn't have some influence. ...

SI
It makes me feel a bit queesy as well.http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/images/smilies/tongue.gif

[duckman]

There is one advantage with this weather: school closings. :D

I now get an extra day of studying for my Spanish test thanks to the weather.

[dawgfan]

As for no dollars driving the GW agenda... Well who says that all agendas are driven by money. There are huge political gains to be made by the "green" parties of the world.
No, not all agendas are about money. But seriously, you think that politically green agendas are enough to influence the majority of qualified scientists to claim that current global warming is primarily attributable to human activity, despite the obvious financial incentives for them to be influenced by money from the oil and chemical industries?

I'm not so certain of the ground you stand on here. I certainly don't believe it is a "fact". I believe that the vast majority of scientists believe that the climate is warming. However even the UN reports on global warming have stated fairly clearly that they can't scientifically tie the trend to anthropogenic causes. Mostly they have claimed that technology today doesn't allow science to track or calculate all of the variables required to make such a claim. The cover sheets to the reports often proclaim man made ties, but such claims haven't been made in the body of the report, prior to the latest report. I don't think that the technology has progressed significantly enough in the four years between UN commission reports to make the latest claims credible.
I'm not making this up out of thin air - it's been widely reported to be the case. Here is the Wikipedia article on the subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

From that article:

"The scientific opinion on climate change, as expressed by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and explicitly endorsed by the national science academies of the G8 nations, is that the average global temperature has risen 0.6 ± 0.2 °C since the late 19th century, and that it is likely that 'most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities'"

And:

"The scientific consensus on global warming is that the Earth is warming, and that humanity's greenhouse gas emissions are making a significant contribution. This consensus is summarized by the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). In the Third Assessment Report, the IPCC concluded that 'most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities'. This position was recently supported by an international group of science academies from the G8 countries and Brazil, People's Republic of China and India."

I'd point you to other articles in the mainstream media I've read on the topic that say the same thing, but the two in particular I'm thinking of are archived and require registration to view, and the bugmenot passwords aren't working.

[Glengoyne]

I'll respond by mentioning things I've already mentioned. The IPCC's report from 2004 is where you are getting that piece about the last 50 years and the attribution to human activities. All previous reports from that commission have stated that no such link can be made. In fact they've said that we simply do not possess the technology to make such a claim. There are simply too many variables at play. NOTE: The cover sheets/summaries of each of these previous reports all made claims very similar to what you are proposing. The final cover sheets were prepared by the IPCC board. The political arm of the commission. They DO have an agenda to push. I don't believe that we've come so far technologically to be able to make their claim credible. I do believe that the IPCC has the weight to stack their stable of scientists with those not willing to make waves by contradicting their agenda.

[st.cronin]

Even if you do believe that all that is true, dawgfan, you have to concede there is NO unaminity or consensus about what the solution is, either in the scientific community, or anywhere else. Short of discovering fission power or inventing a nuclear powered car, I don't see any realistic way of reducing our emissions to any serious degree.

[SFL Cat]

We just need to pass legislation to prevent volcanos from erupting. Those suckers belch out more green house gasses in one eruption than mankind produces worldwide in a whole year. Problem solved.

[dawgfan]

Even if you do believe that all that is true, dawgfan, you have to concede there is NO unaminity or consensus about what the solution is, either in the scientific community, or anywhere else. Short of discovering fission power or inventing a nuclear powered car, I don't see any realistic way of reducing our emissions to any serious degree.
That's the rub - even if we are convinced that human activity is accelarating global warming, we still can't be sure exactly what the consequences will be.

However, I think there are reasonable steps we can take reduce our impact - enforcing tougher gas mileage standards would be one area where we could start. But admittedly that's just one piece of a very large puzzle. And unfortunately, some "green" ideas out there don't end up producing a net reduction of greenhouse emmissions, so there is some understandable trepidation about jumping on the "green" bandwagon when it comes to policy. This is an issue that deserves sober, well-reasoned and well-critiqued attention. Unfortunately, that's not a trademark of our short attention span society...

[Cringer]

Dudes, global warming was easy to figure out. I did it long ago, it is not my problem if no one listens to me. Here it is....

Global warming is caused by our own frickin' body heat. There are now something like 7 billion people in the world, that's a lot more body heat then there used to be. And even though China and India are well over 1 billion each, the good old U.S. of A. is still the main problem. 1 obese American body heat = 15 Chinese/Indians body heat.

It's all proven science my dudes. Stop farting, and god forbid stop making the 400 lb. guys get on the treadmill.

[st.cronin]

That's the rub - even if we are convinced that human activity is accelarating global warming, we still can't be sure exactly what the consequences will be.

However, I think there are reasonable steps we can take reduce our impact - enforcing tougher gas mileage standards would be one area where we could start. But admittedly that's just one piece of a very large puzzle. And unfortunately, some "green" ideas out there don't end up producing a net reduction of greenhouse emmissions, so there is some understandable trepidation about jumping on the "green" bandwagon when it comes to policy. This is an issue that deserves sober, well-reasoned and well-critiqued attention. Unfortunately, that's not a trademark of our short attention span society...

Higher gas mileage would have positive economic benefits, I believe. But as I said before, there's a lot more ground to be gained by better enforcement of emission standards. You're telling me nobody can invent a cheap monitor that attaches to the exhaust and can be read by any police officer (instead of having to go to a gas station once a year or less)? Emissions tests right now yield tons of false negatives - those tests are very easy to beat.

[RPI-Fan]

I guess did not make myself clear. The winter storm has not started yet. I was going to go stockpile some food in case it did get bad. But I do not feel like going. I got water and fruit grain bars. What else can a man want?


Haha, so on the local news, when they show the obligatory 15-minute lead story on the winter storm, you're the guy shoveling gallons of water and loafs of bread into a shopping cart, and getting plywood to board up your windows.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Those suckers belch out more green house gasses in one eruption than mankind produces worldwide in a whole year.

It must hurt to be that wrong. The total annual CO2 output of all the volcanoes in the world matches only 1% of manmade CO2 output. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide) (read the section titled Atmosphere)

[CraigSca]

It must hurt to be that wrong. The total annual CO2 output of all the volcanoes in the world matches only 1% of manmade CO2 output. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide) (read the section titled Atmosphere)
To be fair, greenhouse gases include more than just carbon dioxide. However, as you mentioned, man-made sources, by far, create more than natural sources.

Interestingly, the decrease in sulfur dioxide emissions (which creates acid rain) has actually hastened the greenhouse effect. Apparently, sulfur dioxide in the atmosphere reflects heat back into space. Therefore, where they've decreased the amounts of sulfur dioxide the most (Great Lakes, the Northeast), they've seen more localized warming. Go figure!

[Cringer]

Body heat and farts. See, no one believes me.

[GMO]

I'm going to call bullshit on this one. You really think the oil companies or the chemical companies wouldn't be tripping all over themselves to fund scientists that dispute the idea that human activity is driving the current global warming?

These research funds come from the government.
And yes, it's true.
If you mention that your research has something to do with Global Warming, you have a much better chance of being funded by the government.

And it's true that private companies have their bias, but never forget that the government has its bias, and the government is a lot bigger than any private company.

[gstelmack]

These research funds come from the government.
And yes, it's true.
If you mention that your research has something to do with Global Warming, you have a much better chance of being funded by the government.

And it's true that private companies have their bias, but never forget that the government has its bias, and the government is a lot bigger than any private company.
One of the big scandals starting to break over the last 6 months or so is how much research is skewed or out-and-out falsified just to keep grant money coming in. The South Korean cloning researcher is probably the biggest example, but there have been a couple others and we're likely to see more...