Unfortunately, Obama will still very likely push through very strict anti-Global Warming legislation. It's going to be really interesting to be living through a repeat of the "little ice age" with politicians who are telling us "GLOBAL WARMING IS ACCELERATING! WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING!"
My hope is that over a period of a few months the greater common sense will kick in and with all the other problems it will shift to the back burner. By then perhaps the science will finally be seen generally that shows the Global Warming Swindle to be what it is.
Well For those who dont believe in Warming. Well when I was a kid I remember lots of snow in eastern colorado. Now were lucky to see 10 inches in all of winter. I see more 50 and 60 deg days through the winter then alot of southern states. Yes this is in Colorado in the winter. We dont see rain eather. It left and went somewere else.
IP: Logged
12:05 PM
frontal lobe Member
Posts: 9042 From: brookfield,wisconsin Registered: Dec 1999
I think Global Warming is just another term that is over-used, mis-used, and mis-understood.
"Climate Change" is the proper word IMO, and I agree the climate IS changing - whether it be cooling or warming, good or bad, cyclical or not.
We (Southern Ontario) got absolutely hammered with snow last year 2007/2008, then we were walloped rain this year (2008) in the spring/summer, and the precipitation is continuing into the winter months in the form of snow again. They are already saying we might break the record for snow fall that was set last year at this time; in the Greater Toronto Area.
I've definitely noticed a change in the last 5 years. Especially the high winds and rain fall in the summer months - there were some crazy days in June/uly 2008.
------------------ 1986 Pontiac Fiero SE 3.4L | The Fiero Blog (Since April 2000) ----------------------------------------------------------- My Portfolio site | JustinChristie.ca
IP: Logged
12:57 PM
Formula88 Member
Posts: 53788 From: Raleigh NC Registered: Jan 2001
Yet in WV, we havent had more than 3-4 inches fall at any given time in almost 10 years, i think 1994 or so was the last good snowfall we had, about 18" fell in 36 hours
now that being said, parts of WV have seen great snowfall's but charleston WV has not seen a good snowfall in years, i think we got about 2 inches the last week of 0-30 degree weather.
ROTHERA BASE, Antarctica (Reuters) - Antarctica is getting warmer rather than cooling as widely believed, according to a study that fits the icy continent into a trend of global warming.
A review by U.S. scientists of satellite and weather records for Antarctica, which contains 90 percent of the world's ice and would raise world sea levels if it thaws, showed that freezing temperatures had risen by about 0.5 Celsius (0.8 Fahrenheit) since the 1950s.
"The thing you hear all the time is that Antarctica is cooling and that's not the case," said Eric Steig of the University of Washington in Seattle, lead author of the study in Thursday's edition of the journal Nature.
The average temperature rise was "very comparable to the global average," he told a telephone news briefing.
Skeptics about man-made global warming have in the past used reports of a cooling of Antarctica as evidence to back their view that warming is a myth.
IP: Logged
03:29 PM
WhiteDevil88 Member
Posts: 8518 From: Coastal California Registered: Mar 2007
Yep Car smog causes global warming just like second hand smoke causes Lung cancer. Let me smoke and I will let you drive your car.
I don't mind smoking, just don't do it while I am eating. If you don't mind me driving over you while you smoke, I guess that you can smoke while I eat. (PS, I smoked for 20 years.)
The same article points out that the warming is on the west side of Antarctica not the east, which is cooling. It also points out that ocean currents can account for this.
Lest we forget Al Nina and Al Nino.
Arn
IP: Logged
04:50 PM
Jan 22nd, 2009
fierobear Member
Posts: 27083 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
This map of Antarctica shows the approximate boundaries of areas that have warmed or cooled over the past 35 years. The map is based on temperatures in a recently-constructed data set by NCAR scientist Andrew Monaghan and colleagues. The data combines observations from ground-based weather stations, which are few and far between, with analysis of ice cores used to reveal past temperatures. (Credit: Illustration by Steve Deyo, UCAR)
IP: Logged
01:31 AM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27083 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
People are the leading cause of volcano's. All the moving about we do causes vibrations that set off the volcano's. In order to fund more study a moving about tax/credit plan will be needed. For those that need to move about more you can pay for moving about credits.
If you really love your planet you can start helping by stopping moving around as much as possible. Plan your movements carefully. See if you can do your moving about at the same time do someone else's moving about. Buy only approved moving about shoes.
Working together we can stop moving about and that helps everyone.
WASHINGTON — The Earth's lone holdout to climate change, Antarctica, is actually warming, says a new study in today's edition of the journal Nature.
Scientists had long thought that while some isolated parts of Antarctica had been warming, much of the continent had been cooling over the past 50 years. But the new analysis found that since 1957, when measured as a whole, the continent's temperature has risen about 1 degree Fahrenheit .
"The thing you hear all the time is that Antarctica is cooling — and that's not the case," says study lead author Eric Steig, a University of Washington professor of Earth and space sciences. "If anything, it's the reverse, but it's more complex than that. Antarctica isn't warming at the same rate everywhere."
WASHINGTON — The Earth's lone holdout to climate change, Antarctica, is actually warming, says a new study in today's edition of the journal Nature.
Scientists had long thought that while some isolated parts of Antarctica had been warming, much of the continent had been cooling over the past 50 years. But the new analysis found that since 1957, when measured as a whole, the continent's temperature has risen about 1 degree Fahrenheit .
"The thing you hear all the time is that Antarctica is cooling — and that's not the case," says study lead author Eric Steig, a University of Washington professor of Earth and space sciences. "If anything, it's the reverse, but it's more complex than that. Antarctica isn't warming at the same rate everywhere."
It doesn't say the whole continent is warming. Its average temp is warming and there are places its cooling. Its just that since there is a volcanic ridge on the warming part it is warming at a greater rate and bringing the average temp up. Great swaths on the land mass are still colder or the same as before.
IP: Logged
10:07 AM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27083 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
WASHINGTON — The Earth's lone holdout to climate change, Antarctica, is actually warming, says a new study in today's edition of the journal Nature.
Scientists had long thought that while some isolated parts of Antarctica had been warming, much of the continent had been cooling over the past 50 years. But the new analysis found that since 1957, when measured as a whole, the continent's temperature has risen about 1 degree Fahrenheit .
"The thing you hear all the time is that Antarctica is cooling — and that's not the case," says study lead author Eric Steig, a University of Washington professor of Earth and space sciences. "If anything, it's the reverse, but it's more complex than that. Antarctica isn't warming at the same rate everywhere."
The study includes Michael Mann. If you see his name, you should be very wary. He's the guy who came up with the (in)famous "hockey stick" graph that was based on his interpretation of temperature proxy data based on bristlecone pine tree rings. It has been completely discredited because analysis showed that his algorithm for interpreting the data was flawed. Basically, you could input random numbers and you'd get a hockey stick shaped output.
Anyway, you might want to consider this criticism of the technique used to come to this conclusion. Evidently, there were problems with the equipment that gathered the ground-based data, and there were large gaps in the data which they had to fill in with extrapolations which call the quality of data into question:
Technique questioned
Researchers in this study developed a new technique that combined data from satellites and automated weather stations in Antarctica to make what they say is the best estimate of the continent's temperature so far. However, there are very few weather stations on Antarctica, and the satellite data have been available for only the past 25 years.
This troubles some scientists.
"One must be very cautious with such results because they have no real way to be validated," says atmospheric scientist John Christy of the University of Alabama-Huntsville, who was not part of the study. "In other words, we will never know what the temperature was over the very large missing areas that this technique attempts to fill in so that it can be tested back through time."
=====================================
The study is fairly new, but here are comments from Climate Audit, a site with a lot of good science-based discussion. Many of the comments are from scientists, and there are links to further comments.
IP: Logged
10:17 AM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27083 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
Here is a comment to the article (originated from AP) from climate scientist Roger Pielke:
An AP article was released today which reports on a Nature paper on a finding of warming over much of Antarctica. I was asked by Seth Borenstein to comment on the paper (which he sent to me). I have been critical of his reporting in the past, but except for the title of the article (which as I understand is created by others), he presented a balanced summary of the study.
My reply to Seth is given below.
I have read the paper and have the following comments/questions
1. The use of the passive infrared brightness temperatures from the AVHRR (a polar orbiting satellite) means that only time samples of the surface temperature are obtained. The surface observations, in contrast, provide maximum and minimum temperatures which are used to construct the surface mean temperature trend. The correlation between the two data sets, therefore, requires assumptions on the temporal variation of the brightness temperature at locations removed from the surface in-situ observations. What uncertainty (quantitatively) resulted from their interpolation procedure?
2. Since the authors use data from 42 occupied stations and 65 AWSs sites, they should provide photographs of the locations (e.g. as provided in http://gallery.surfacestati...in.php?g2_itemId=20) in order to ascertain how well they are sited. This photographs presumably exist. Do any of the surface observing sites produce a possible bias because they are poorly sited at locations with significant local human microclimate modifications?
3. How do the authors reconcile the conclusions in their paper with the cooler than average long term sea surface temperature anomalies off of the coast of Antarctica? [see http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/P...ight.1.15.2009.gif]. These cool anomalies have been there for at least several years. This cool region is also undoubtedly related to the above average Antarctic sea ice areal coverage that has been monitored over recent years; see http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.ed...ent.anom.south.jpg].
4. In Figure 2 of their paper, much of their analyzed warming took place prior to 1980. For East Antarctica, the trend is essentially flat since 1980. The use of a linear fit for the entire period of the record produces a larger trend than has been seen in more recent years.
In terms of the significance of their paper, it overstates what they have obtained from their analysis. In the abstract they write, for example,
“West Antarctic warming exceeds 0.1C per decade over the past 50 years”.
However, even a cursory view of Figure 2 shows that since the late 1990s, the region has been cooling in their analysis in this region. The paper would be more balanced if they presented this result, even if they cannot explain why.
Please let me know if you would like more feedback. Thank you reaching out to include a broader perspective on these papers in your articles.
Regards
Roger
IP: Logged
10:35 AM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27083 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
high is 67 here today.... we have been having unusually warm weather but drive 2hrs and you get just the opposite.. its kinda nice though had the sunroof out yesterday in the fiero, windows down... garage tomorrow because high is 29 with snow.
[This message has been edited by AJ7 (edited 01-22-2009).]
high is 67 here today.... we have been having unusually warm weather but drive 2hrs and you get just the opposite.. its kinda nice though had the sunroof out yesterday in the fiero, windows down... garage tomorrow because high is 29 with snow.
Its snowing to the south but not here.
[This message has been edited by Phranc (edited 01-22-2009).]
The volcano in Antarctica is causing local warming. Fair enough, but what set it off?
I'd say it is the increased truck traffic in the Northern Hemosphere which transmits increase vibration through the earth's crust and therefore a volcano that is basically in an unstable state is triggered by the trucks.
If Al Gore can put forward a theory which makes as much sense, so can I.
We need to urgently work to build trucks that are vibration free and slow them down to under 50 mph to ensure a minimal amount of vibration hits the earth's crust. In the event of a Global Recession we should see a reduction in volcano activity due to less vibration caused by the trucks. In this way the Global Recession is good for the environment.
How's that for a theory?
Arn
IP: Logged
11:56 AM
frontal lobe Member
Posts: 9042 From: brookfield,wisconsin Registered: Dec 1999
I know a lot of guys on the forum have never experienced a Canadian blizzard. Winds can hit 100mph driving snow with them. You can get caught in a blizzard and freeze to death really quickly. You haven't lived until you've watched sleet coming in sideways or when your car has been moved by snow slamming into the side.
If you watched the Day After Tomorrow, it showed blizzard action while touting it to be caused by "global warming". Nice fiction but, the depiction of a violent winter storm was pretty good.
While some like sarcasm, I don't unless it is funny. As we have said climate change may be occuring, it doesn't mean we can do anything about it or caused it.
IP: Logged
03:43 PM
Pyrthian Member
Posts: 29569 From: Detroit, MI Registered: Jul 2002
So what exactly is our ' target ' temperature? When will we know we've achieved that target? When it was -20 drgrees below zero last week ( the coldest it's been in 13 years, by the way ), what should the temperature have been? -15? What is our goal? How far are we from that goal? When was the last time we were at that goal? When will the truth come out?
IP: Logged
04:28 PM
Pyrthian Member
Posts: 29569 From: Detroit, MI Registered: Jul 2002
Originally posted by Firefox: So what exactly is our ' target ' temperature? When will we know we've achieved that target? When it was -20 drgrees below zero last week ( the coldest it's been in 13 years, by the way ), what should the temperature have been? -15? What is our goal? How far are we from that goal? When was the last time we were at that goal? When will the truth come out?
.
had the sunroof out yesterday in the fiero, windows down... garage tomorrow because high is 29 with snow.
