Return to the Hot Topics Forum | Post a Follow-Up

 o
Global warming revisited....

Posted by mrskjun 9 (My Page) on
Sun, Jan 29, 12 at 7:02

Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 "Climategate" email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." But the warming is only missing if one believes computer models where so-called feedbacks involving water vapor and clouds greatly amplify the small effect of CO2.

Here is a link that might be useful: link


Follow-Up Postings:

 o
RE: Global warming revisited....

I forget how it goes, but they've been able to rationalize the colder temps thru global warming. Whatever it takes to make them right. Global climate change, I'll agree with, but not global warming. That said, although last winter was one of the coldest on record, this winter has been one of the warmest. Our January thaw is now into its second week. THe end of last week, the temp saturday morning was 17 below at 7:30 am. This morning at the same time, it's 37, and although they're saying it's going to cool sime this next week, the temps will still be above normal.


 o
RE: Global warming revisited....

Speaking of (climate change(, read the following article yesterday and thought it interesting. It deserves a full read, not a quick glance.

Here is a link that might be useful: storm socialism


 o
RE: Global warming revisited....

  • Posted by vgkg 7-Va Tidewater (My Page) on
    Sun, Jan 29, 12 at 10:37

#111

I read the OP editorial opinion twice but cannot find much there other than the author's opinion that atmospheric warming might not be so bad. He doesn't deny that CO2 is steadily accumulating but just doesn't think it's such a bad thing. In summary he thinks that more study is needed. Funny how he starts off with a little doubt and then says :

"And it is likely that more CO2 and the modest warming that may come with it will be an overall benefit to the planet." Then he goes on to say how much plants will like it (good for them).

It guess it depends on one's definition of "modest".

As for your comment Mrskjun of "Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. " You may want to check out NASA's observations below, but then again NASA may be lying to us right?

Here is a link that might be useful: A lack of warming over the past decade? Not so fast...


 o
RE: Global warming revisited....

It wasn't my comment vgkg, it was the comment of those scientists.


 o
RE: Global warming revisited....

((Sigh)) Global warming is a lot more complex than tracking temperature records week to week or year to year. Lot of the increased energy represented by a warming biosphere is in the form of kinetic energy. Eg. increased velocity of winds, heavier rainfall, more intense and broader cyclonic systems...

Otherwise, the WSJ editorial is pretty useless and contradicted by too much evidence available for those willing to read, listen and watch more widely.


 o
RE: Global warming revisited....

  • Posted by vgkg 7-Va Tidewater (My Page) on
    Sun, Jan 29, 12 at 11:06

Yes Mrskjun, I see that the author implies that statement from some obscure email comment, not very scientific of him. I'll stick with NASA's observations. Again, the author's main argument seems to be that we can adapt without making changes in carbon production.


 o
RE: Global warming revisited....

Dial takes the worry out of being close!
Which brand do you prefer!
I prefer the one that makes me feel better & 4 outta 5 people who feel better are better!
In a nut shell.


 o
RE: Global warming revisited....

I wish the public spent less time arguing about global warming, climate change or whatever the term du jeur is, and spent more time discussing things like our declining fisheries and the chemicals we are dumping into our water sources and leaching into our food supplies.


 o
RE: Global warming revisited....

More money to be made in the global warming business bird.

If more people would spend the time cleaning up their own little corner of the world, amazing things could happen to our planet. But like so many things, we want the government to take care of it...or that other guy.


 o
RE: Global warming revisited....

Look back on 2011 and you'll notice a destructive trail of extreme weather slashing through the year. In Texas, it was the driest year ever recorded. An epic drought there killed half a billion trees, touched off wildfires that burned four million acres, and destroyed or damaged thousands of homes and buildings. The costs to agriculture, particularly the cotton and cattle businesses, are estimated at $5.2 billion - and keep in mind that, in a winter breaking all sorts of records for warmth, the Texas drought is not yet over.

In August, the East Coast had a close brush with calamity in the form of Hurricane Irene. Luckily, that storm had spent most of its energy by the time it hit land near New York City. Nonetheless, its rains did at least $7 billion worth of damage, putting it just below the $7.2 billion worth of chaos caused by Katrina back in 2005.

Across the planet the story was similar. Wildfires consumed large swaths of Chile. Colombia suffered its second year of endless rain, causing an estimated $2 billion in damage. In Brazil, the life-giving Amazon River was running low due to drought. Northern Mexico is still suffering from its worst drought in 70 years. Flooding in the Thai capital, Bangkok, killed over 500 and displaced or damaged the property of 12 million others, while ruining some of the world's largest industrial parks. The World Bank estimates the damage in Thailand at a mind-boggling $45 billion, making it one of the most expensive disasters ever. And that's just to start a 2011 extreme-weather list, not to end it.
snip

Tack on the Missouri/Mississippi river floods, all the horrible tornadoes - Joplin,, etc etc. 2011 was, far and away, the most economically destructive year for globally destructive weather events, and we're already off to a wonderful start in 2012, with how many winter tornadoes in the US? Massive flooding in Mozambique/South Africa?

No one single event, of course, can be proven to be due to climate change and the increased amount of energy in the atmosphere, however an increase in the number and severity of weather events is entirely consistent with the current models, and warnings, of atmospheric scientists.

Humans are altering the chemical composition of the atmosphere, and there are repercussions.

Linked is an article that talks about the role that 'Big Government" will likely play in recovering from the massive destruction caused by the increasing number of stronger weather events. It gives some sobering numbers of what is involved - its unfortunate the author added in his snark.

And finally .....

Photobucket

Here is a link that might be useful: link to article about role of gub'mint


 o
RE: Global warming revisited....

Follow the money folks.

"Green" is the Obama Administration's oil.

Can we say "Solyndra?"

Can we say "535 million tax payer dollars?"


 o
RE: Global warming revisited....

  • Posted by ohiomom 3rdrockfromthesun (My Page) on
    Sun, Jan 29, 12 at 11:53

Well obviously "some" did not bother to read my link, tis okay, but remember to "follow the money" when the next natural disaster hits home.

If you think that charities and churches can do the rebuilding of the decimated infrastructure, good luck with that.

Peace


 o
RE: Global warming revisited....

We had tornadoes and a major thunderstorm with hail last week. That is completely unheard of in January. Has never happened before.


 o
RE: Global warming revisited....

One news station reported that this year was the third highest record in our entire history for the number of tornados spawned.Unstable and increasingly extreme weather are one of the hallmarks of global warming. And we will ALL be in deep d---- if and when the gulf stream currents get shifted around or reversed....


 o
RE: Global warming revisited....

Our lake, 300KM's north of Toronto, has still not frozen solidly.

Maybe I don't mind this global warming thing so much...the snow machine crowd is thankfully absent from the lake. The silence is deafening :)


 o
RE: Global warming revisited....

the author's main argument seems to be that we can adapt without making changes in carbon production.

I see, a hack writing for carbon producing industries.

Wonder if he saw any money from the Koch brothers?


 o
RE: Global warming revisited....

It's now called climate change, and they raised all the gardening zones across the country. IMO unscientific comment , I think it actually started in the 80's. I remember visiting Boston in 88, and had a week of 100 degree days. In the past year 2011, we had many 100 days in July, a mini drought then, but ended the year 30 inches above normal with 70 inches of rain which broke the old Agnes record by 20 inches. We had many tornadoes, unheard of here ..one was two miles from my house, major tropical storm Lee which caused as much damage as Agnes did in 1972. We even had an earthquake also unheard of. . It wasn't major but the house shook and things fell of the wall. So just in one year and with the tornado season starting already in the south, weather is getting scary.Our winter temps are warm, no snow and the ski resorts are hurting. I even saw a robin this week. Idiots like Santroum call it a hoax. I put them in the flat earth category centuries ago.


 o
RE: Global warming revisited....

Weekly, monthly, even yearly temperatures are just a record of weather. Don't be misled by that argument.

Climate is measured over decades, centuries, millennium. The test will be what happens in 100 years, and the change over the last 100 years.

As you can see from the new USDA map of hardiness zones, temperate weather is moving north in North America, which seems to indicate climate change. I've always been in 6B, now I'm in 7A.

Few of us will be around to answer our great grandchildren when they ask us why we have behaved so foolishly.

Here is a link that might be useful: Hardiness zone changes... watch it change


 o
RE: Global warming revisited....

I find it interesting that the Hardiness Zone Map was changed to what it is now, TEN YEARS AGO. Then after a couple of weeks, the changes were rescinded and all was as it had been previously. ????. Are the changes permanent this time?

One thing I keep waiting to see is info on the affect of the shift in the Earth's axis from the earthquake in Japan last spring. It seemed there were a few comments on it in the press and then all comments disappeared. Interesting.


 o
RE: Global warming revisited....

Ohiomom, I linked to the same article but on a different website.

The figures are sobering. The limits of private insurance, limits of outfits like the Red Cross, and 'Personal Responsibility' isn't going to replace 500 bridges from a flood.

Here is a link that might be useful: same thing


 o
RE: Global warming revisited....

If more people would spend the time cleaning up their own little corner of the world, amazing things could happen to our planet. But like so many things, we want the government to take care of it...or that other guy.

The changes that need to be made are bigger than our "little corner of the world". These are changes that need to be coordinated worldwide. Unfortunately changes at that level frequently are needed through coordination of governments.


 o
RE: Global warming revisited....

  • Posted by sweeby Gulf Coast TX (My Page) on
    Sun, Jan 29, 12 at 21:45

"The early years of this century have already offered a number of examples of how disastrous too little government can be in the face of natural disaster, Katrina-inundated New Orleans in 2005 being perhaps the quintessential case. "

A very worthwhile read --

And as someone who suffered through the impact of California's infamous 'Prop 13', let me say reiterate that the idea of "No new Taxes! Ever! For any reason!" is just plain stupid. Short-sighted, foolish, and counter-productive.

And if I'm not mistaken, the Solyndra failure cost us what? The price of one high tech fighter plane?


 o
RE: Global warming revisited....

  • Posted by ohiomom 3rdrockfromthesun (My Page) on
    Mon, Jan 30, 12 at 8:30

Sobering, yes ... came across that article before this was posted on HT.

There is no way a community, village, city and/or state could handle this by themselves .. look at the damage in this article from just Irene !

And these mega storms IMO will increase.


 o
RE: Global warming revisited....

ohiomom, I can only address katrina. Camille, which happened in 1969, was every bit the storm that Katrina was. But at that time we had coastland which has since been eroded away, that acted as a buffer to these huge storms, so that by the time they reached land they had lost some of their punch. Include in that, the fact that it wasn't the storm that caused all the damage. It was the failure of the Corps of Engineers to properly build the levee that protected the city of New Orleans from the waters of Lake Pontchartrain. It was the failure of the levee, not the weather related storm. There was a category 4 hurricane that hit Galveston Texas in 1900 that still remains the deadliest hurricane ever. Can we say any of these storms were caused by global warming?


 o
RE: Global warming revisited....

  • Posted by ohiomom 3rdrockfromthesun (My Page) on
    Mon, Jan 30, 12 at 9:07

.....can I change that to "climate change" ? Yes I believe, as most people do, that there is climate change. The only difference in opinion is whether it is a "natural" change and/or mankind has contributed. Other than that I do not know anyone personally that denies climate change.

The articles David and I linked to examine the roll "government" has or should play in the mess left behind.

Those who cry for "government small enough to drown in a bathtub" may find themselves with little or no help. As the article states, there is no way a community/state can handle the massive re-building of the infrastructure (see Irene). Or do you believe that churches/charities can/would take over that roll ? Be silly for any of us to believe that.

Maybe it is just a case of being careful what you wish for?

Peace


 o
RE: Global warming revisited....

Katrina was estimated to have cost 81 Billion.

Here's a little slide show at the link, a stroll down memory lane for the 14 weather events that cost over a billion dollars each, in 2011 .......

Tornadoes, 28 $B, Ground hog day blizzard - 1.8 $B, Mississippi river flooding, 3-5 $B, Southern US Drought, 5 $B, Hurricane Irene and Tropical Storm Lee - 8.3 $B.

And we're off to great start in 2012 with January tornadoes, devastating high winds in the Rockies, etc.

Here is a link that might be useful: link to stuff that happened in 2011


 o
RE: Global warming revisited....

And this was a terrible time for weather as well.

Here is a link that might be useful: link


 o
RE: Global warming revisited....

The "sky has been falling" for a very long time, eh?


 o
hahahahaRE: Global warming revisited....

Not if you are Al Gore and selling carbon footprints lol.


 o
Really ????

  • Posted by ohiomom 3rdrockfromthesun (My Page) on
    Mon, Jan 30, 12 at 9:56

Well I for one have not said the "sky is falling" and did not "mock" anyone that held a different viewpoint. Was this the whole purpose of bring up the subject ??

I am DONE with this thread.

Peace


 o
and then 2010

Whoohooo!!! Al Gore Joke!!!!! Drink!!

And just think where New Orleans and the gulf coast would be today w/o any federal gvt assistance. As well as all the other declared disaster areas. That is the point we're discussing.

But we do realize that some here don't read links, just spout off;

Here's a link to the 10 major weather events in 2010.

Here is a link that might be useful: link to Christian Science Monitor article on 2010 weather events


 o
RE: Global warming revisited....

ohiomom, I'm sorry if you thought any of that was directed at you, it certainly wasn't meant to be. But we've had things like this before, politicians claiming that the sky is falling if we don't do this or that, only to find out later...not true. In the 70's it was the Ice Age that was coming.


 o
RE: Global warming revisited....

Posted by david52 z5CO (My Page) on
Mon, Jan 30, 12 at 9:59

And just think where New Orleans and the gulf coast would be today w/o any federal gvt assistance. As well as all the other declared disaster areas. That is the point we're discussing.

*

That's exactly right.
Where would Florida be, or California?
Last time I checked Louisiana residents paid taxes.
That would be a few weeks ago when I had to mail checks to both.

It's not like Louisiana got anything any other state wouldn't have under the same circumstances.


 o
RE: Global warming revisited....

There will be a cetain percentage of the U.S. population that will continue to deny global climate change even as parts of coastal areas are submerged in rising sea levels.

And that certain percentage will have ties to carbon producing industries.


 o
RE: Global warming revisited....

  • Posted by vgkg 7-Va Tidewater (My Page) on
    Mon, Jan 30, 12 at 10:19

"Those who cry for "government small enough to drown in a bathtub" may find themselves with little or no help.

Actually Norquist's goal is not to shrink government in the tub (that sounds better politically), it's really to let the water keep running and piling up (debt) until government drowns. This way Norquist won't even have to worry about leaving strangle bruise marks matching his hands.


 o
RE: Global warming revisited....

See, having all the taxpayers cough up money to help the victims of Katrina and the Gulf coast has nothing to do with poor life choices on where to live, because, you see, nasty weather events can hit anyone randomly - just the more expensive stuff seems to happen in hurricane prone areas.

This is totally unlike universal health care, and people who complain bitterly about having to pay the bills for somebody who made poor life choices.


 o
RE: Global warming revisited....

"In the 70's it was the Ice Age that was coming."

False. Even in that time period the majority of scientists believed in global warming. A few media outlets popularised the fringe view and the idiots believed it as they do now.


 o Post a Follow-Up

Please Note: Only registered members are able to post messages to this forum.

    If you are a member, please log in.

    If you aren't yet a member, join now!


Return to the Hot Topics Forum

Information about Posting

  • You must be logged in to post a message. Once you are logged in, a posting window will appear at the bottom of the messages. If you are not a member, please register for an account.
  • Please review our Rules of Play before posting.
  • Posting is a two-step process. Once you have composed your message, you will be taken to the preview page. You will then have a chance to review your post, make changes and upload photos.
  • After posting your message, you may need to refresh the forum page in order to see it.
  • Before posting copyrighted material, please read about Copyright and Fair Use.
  • We have a strict no-advertising policy!
  • If you would like to practice posting or uploading photos, please visit our Test forum.
  • If you need assistance, please Contact Us and we will be happy to help.


Learn more about in-text links on this page here