A different Climate change / Global warming thread

[olevetonahill]

Mainly Id like to keep Politics out (Yea I know:rolleyes: )

Anyone who does not believe the climate has been changing , Must live in a cave and never come out .

It has indeed warmed up a Lot here in OK. in the last 30 years.
I have a question for the Scientist type folks we have here.

Are we Really supposed to believe that this is Man made/caused?

I ask this because just this morning . Yahoo news was reporting that Kids who had eaten candy were more likely to grow up to be criminals :eek: :confused:

I am all for science but come on can we get real with it ?

[olevetonahill]

Skull I tried to make sure I speled right and stuff , but I have had a beer er 4 :P :D

[Beef]

The 1 foot radius around me just warmed up a little.

[olevetonahill]

The 1 foot radius around me just warmed up a little.

Farted dint ya ?

[Beef]

I haven't checked yet to see if that's all I did.

[olevetonahill]

LOL
I was gonna make a Joke
But id really like a serious discussion here :cool:

[Petro-Sooner]

I believe man has caused an increase in the amount of CO2. Now is that attributed to a "warming"? Possibly.

[olevetonahill]

My point Petro

Somethings happening
But who or what is causing it is up for debate to me .

[Petro-Sooner]

As well as the science community as a whole. :) It will all balance out on a geologic time scale.

[mdklatt]

As well as the science community as a whole.

Yeah, not so much.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Statements_by _dissenting_organizations


With the release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change.

[Petro-Sooner]

Well I stand corrected then.

[olevetonahill]

MD im not saying We as Humans haven't influenced what is goin on .
Im just wondering what we as laymen should believe ?
IE the Candy study

[mdklatt]

Well I stand corrected then.

The Wikipedia article describes AAPG was wishy-washy on the subject, but their official statement still seems like a denial to me.

"The AAPG membership is divided on the degree of influence that anthropogenic CO2 has on recent and potential global temperature increases ... Certain climate simulation models predict that the warming trend will continue, as reported through NAS, AGU, AAAS and AMS. AAPG respects these scientific opinions but wants to add that the current climate warming projections could fall within well-documented natural variations in past climate and observed temperature data. These data do not necessarily support the maximum case scenarios forecast in some models."

[olevetonahill]

The Wikipedia article describes AAPG was wishy-washy on the subject, but their official statement still seems like a denial to me.

"The AAPG membership is divided on the degree of influence that anthropogenic CO2 has on recent and potential global temperature increases ... Certain climate simulation models predict that the warming trend will continue, as reported through NAS, AGU, AAAS and AMS. AAPG respects these scientific opinions but wants to add that the current climate warming projections could fall within well-documented natural variations in past climate and observed temperature data. These data do not necessarily support the maximum case scenarios forecast in some models.

This is MY point here ( the Bold)

The average American citizen, hears this, and then, that.
Most of just go MEH yall are all full of it .

[Petro-Sooner]

Sorry, didnt read the link. Doesnt surprise me though with the division. I get their monthly publication and their always seems to be a healthy debate regarding some type of issue.

[mdklatt]

MD im not saying We as Humans haven't influenced what is goin on .
Im just wondering what we as laymen should believe ?
IE the Candy study

One one side of the debate you have virtually every climatologist on the planet. They base their opinions based on the collected evidence in thousands of articles in reputable research journals. Multiple lines of inquiry from multiple disciplines all keep pointing to the same basic conclusions. Virtually every reputable scientific organization and professional association agrees with the same basic facts.

On the other side you have the Heartland Institute (in the 90s they were spreading FUD for the tobacco industry, now they're doing it for the fossil fuel industry) and related righ-wing "think tanks"; a bunch of "scientists" who know nothing about anything remotely related to climatology, some of who lie about their credentials; know-nothing right-wing media pundits and bloggers; conspiracy theorists and other cranks; fiction writers (Michael Crichton); a few legitimately respectable scientists who really ought to know better but are too old to give a **** what people think (Freeman Dyson, Richard Lindzen); and a handful of guys like Roy Spencer who say one thing to get their research published and then go out and contradict themselves when they're sidelining for the fossil fuel industry or trying to sell their latest denier book.

[mdklatt]

This is MY point here ( the Bold)

The average American citizen, hears this, and then, that.
Most of just go MEH yall are all full of it .


That is one out of all the organizations listed in that Wikipedia article. And I hardly think the American Association of Petroleum Geologists is going to be completely objective on the issue. Look at all the geology organizations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Earth_science s) who don't dispute AGW. Those guys are a lot more likely to be involved in actual climate research than petroleum geologists.

[mdklatt]

I ask this because just this morning . Yahoo news was reporting that Kids who had eaten candy were more likely to grow up to be criminals :eek: :confused:



BTW, media coverage of science is complete ****. If they ever get anything right, it's an accident.

http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1623#comic

[PDXsooner]

let's face it -- most of us are not climatologists. so our collective "opinions" don't mean anything unless we're forming them by reading the information that scientists are giving us.

at this point, the only scientists denying man has an influence on climate change are the ones paid by the fossil fuel companies or the extreme minority that are considered "crackpots" within the scientific community.

[olevetonahill]

BTW, media coverage of science is complete ****. If they ever get anything right, it's an accident.

http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1623#comic

My Point again thank you .:rolleyes:

[49r]

Most - if not all - of the stuff you see in media these days is sensationalist BS. Any source, any time. It's going to be utter crap fluff pieces. Entertainment repackaged and presented to us as "news". It's gotten so bad that even politics has turned into some kind of spectator sport where opposing sides battle against each other over "issues" but in the end game it all is just pointless.

I think this debate is one of the footballs they use in the political sport.

Fortunately we have forums like this one where people can congregate and discuss matters that are important to them, it's probably way more productive than watching the evening news or a cable news channel. I just wish there were more threads like this that didn't devolve into a screaming flame war. Thanks, olevet.

[Okla-homey]

May I ask, does it really matter if climate change is anthropogenic? In the sense that people aren't going to change their behaviors even if it is eventually proven. Humanity doesn't have a good track record for taking positive steps to overt predictable disasters. e.g. the NOLA levee system, allowing our schools to become dysfunctional, demanding Hitler knock-it-off in 1939, preventing teen pregancy, refusing to quarentine HIV positive people, allowing residential development in the LA foothills (that burn every summer), etc., etc.

[I Am Right]

Keep politics out of Global Warming, that is all Global Warming is. Take politics out of it and you have nothing, and I mean nothing.

[1890MilesToNorman]

Scientists have very closed minds for the most part and are not open to what they consider fringe ideas about things. Some of histories greatest thinkers were considered on the fringe or even crazy, only to have their ideas validated centuries later.

[I Am Right]

Fringe ideas? Global Warming-main stream socialism.

[Penguin]

Yes, climate change is happening. Glaciers are retracting in Sweden. John McCain looked at that personally in the early 2000's. He said that there is land touching the air for the first time since Jesus walked on the Earth.

Germany just lost their last permanent glacier last summer.

Our CO2 levels are at the highest point in 1.8 million years. Sure, we could be at the peak of a naturally occurring 3.6 million year cycle, but if you believe that, I have an awesome bridge I could sell ya!

[Okla-homey]

Yes, climate change is happening. Glaciers are retracting in Sweden. John McCain looked at that personally in the early 2000's. He said that there is land touching the air for the first time since Jesus walked on the Earth.

Germany just lost their last permanent glacier last summer.

Our CO2 levels are at the highest point in 1.8 million years. Sure, we could be at the peak of a naturally occurring 3.6 million year cycle, but if you believe that, I have an awesome bridge I could sell ya!

Even so Pen, WTF to do about it?

The Indians and the Chinese ARE ADAMANT they aren't about to change the way they do things. Not to mention the entire Third World that is desperately struggling to bring their countries into the 20th century - let alone the 21st.

My question is, can the US, by making deep cuts in levels of greenhouse gasses we emit, make the required difference to put the world on a positive vector as to reversing global warming? Because if we can't, aren't we just rearranging deck chairs while the Titanic goes down?

[Penguin]

Bah! I think we're already past the point of no return. I fully expect there to be websites popping up soon keeping count of all of the drowning polar bears. :D

[Penguin]

http://jasonschaeffer.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/polar-bear-on-a-peak-of-an-iceburg.gif

[I Am Right]

Yes, climate change is happening. Glaciers are retracting in Sweden. John McCain looked at that personally in the early 2000's. He said that there is land touching the air for the first time since Jesus walked on the Earth.

Germany just lost their last permanent glacier last summer.

Our CO2 levels are at the highest point in 1.8 million years. Sure, we could be at the peak of a naturally occurring 3.6 million year cycle, but if you believe that, I have an awesome bridge I could sell ya!

I have also looked at them personally, and the Glaciers are GROWING.

[KABOOKIE]

I have also looked at them personally, and the Glaciers are GROWING.

You must have been to Germany to see the Zugspitze is still there.

[Curly Bill]

It's cold outside right now!

Global warming is crap!

[Penguin]

I just hope everybody has the correct perspective. Even if average temperatures rise 10 degrees and all of our glaciers melt, the world's not going to end. We're humans. We'll survive. We'll find a way. Don't buy into the whole Day After Tomorrow junk.


If we should worry about anything, we should keep an eye on that ozone layer. Sure, if it goes away, we can survive for a while and we can all wear long sleeves and wear SPF 1,000,000. It's just that the UV radiation will be doing crazy things to every living thing's DNA. Goodbye, food supply.

[Jacie]

It will all balance out on a geologic time scale.


True, but human beings as a species, let alone individuals, have not nor will exist on a geologic time scale. At least, up to this point, no species has done so yet. The climate change that is happening now is doing so at rates detectable on a human scale and that is alarming!

[Okla-homey]

True, but human beings as a species, let alone individuals, have not nor will exist on a geologic time scale. At least, up to this point, no species has done so yet. The climate change that is happening now is doing so at rates detectable on a human scale and that is alarming!

You know, there's another way to look at it. Odds are none of us will ever get to meet our great-great-grandchildren (our grandchildren's grandchildren). Therefore...party on. ;)

And we're toast anyway...

Hz86TsGx3fc&feature

[BermudaSooner]

"Climate Confusion - How Global Warming Hysteria Leads to Bad Science, Pandering Politicians and Misguided Policies that Hurt the Poor" by Roy Spencer is an interesting read on the subject. For those interested, pick up a copy.

http://www.amazon.com/Climate-Confusion-Pandering-Politicians-Misguided/dp/1594032106/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254858402&sr=8-1

Basic premise--the world has heated up 1 degree over the last 50 years. Co2 has increased. Noone has been able to prove one has caused the other. It is a possibility, but by no means a certainty. Further, those that criticize the lack of scientific evidence proving man's culpability are ridiculed. Politics due to the money involved are the main concern, not science. No one receiving huge government grants wants that taken away and will defend their junk science.

Some may ask, "So, shouldn't we cover ourselves and err on the side of caution?" Maybe, but lets make sure what we are doing. Imposing caps and taxes that hurt productivity could lead to greater damage than doing nothing.

Interesting story in the book discusses the ban on DDT. Many will remember DDT as a pesticide used for controlling, among others, mosquitoes. DDT was also postulated to cause a thinning of the egg shells in some birds, and that DDT was causing problems throughout the food chain. Governments soon began to ban DDT. The result? Millions upon millions of malaria deaths in Africa.

The point is, politicians likely are causing more harm than good--particularly when we really don't have hard evidence that man has contributed to global warming, and whether man can do anything about it.

[Penguin]

Oh, I see. No DDT = 5 million dead. Perfectly logical.

Highest CO2 levels in 800,000 years = warmer atmosphere? NOT FREAKING POSSIBLE!

[LosAngelesSooner]

Ya know, my sweet grey haired old mother has lived almost all of her 73 years in Tulsa, Oklahoma. She's a devout Catholic who never misses Sunday Mass and is a staunch Conservative Republican. She's not a fan of Obama at all and can't find much nice to say about any Democrat around.

That said, even SHE has noticed the change in climate in Oklahoma. She's told me of how each year is warmer and warmer and the thunderstorms seem to be getting worse and worse. She misses the old White Christmases that she had when she was growing up and is sad that they are so rare nowadays. In fact, she's commented that she never once saw an armadillo north of Texas when she was growing up, but in the 80's they started appearing and now she sees them all the time in Tulsa as they slowly move northward.

Scientific? Not even remotely. But those observations that she's personally witnessed were all it took for her to believe in Man Made Climate Change.

Relevance? Probably none. But I thought it was an interesting observation from someone who's lived in the area for a whole lot longer than just about all of us.

[LosAngelesSooner]

preventing teen pregancy,Please tell me how you're gonna get horny teens to stop ****ing?

refusing to quarentine HIV positive people,PLEASE tell me you're joking about this one. Seriously?! Quarantine people who are sick from something that isn't even transmittable by water or air? Jesus, dude...

allowing residential development in the LA foothills (that burn every summer)a)The same foothills don't burn every year. The one that burned this year hadn't burned in 75 years.
b)The wildfires have been increasing in SoCal because of drought...caused by climate change.
c)Why not stop people from living by rivers that flood? Or in South Florida? Or in the entire mid-west where tornadoes strike TWICE a year, every year?

Dude...you've gotta be kidding me. :rolleyes:

[LosAngelesSooner]

Even so Pen, WTF to do about it?

The Indians and the Chinese ARE ADAMANT they aren't about to change the way they do things. No so fast...

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601080&sid=a5aOJ8geVvPQ



Sept. 23 (Bloomberg) -- China pledged for the first time to reduce its greenhouse-gas emissions in proportion to economic growth in a new effort to fight global warming that lacked numerical goals.
President Hu Jintao (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Hu+Jintao&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1) offered to reduce the so-called carbon intensity of factories and power plants in the world’s third- biggest economy by an unspecified amount at a United Nations summit on climate change yesterday in New York.It's a start.




My question is, can the US, by making deep cuts in levels of greenhouse gasses we emit, make the required difference to put the world on a positive vector as to reversing global warming? Because if we can't, aren't we just rearranging deck chairs while the Titanic goes down?Well: a) it can't hurt to try b) if we don't start, then we can't pressure other countries to start because we'll be hypocrites and c) we're the world's largest polluter and consume more than any nation...so we WILL make a difference, all by ourselves.

[LosAngelesSooner]

I have also looked at them personally, and the Glaciers are GROWING.:rolleyes:

Dude...didn't you see where OleVet asked people to keep politics out of this thread? Three posts from you and all three are partisan B.S. crap. Not to mention that he said this thread was to debate HOW to address the situation, not IF it exists and asked all those who doubt it to just stay out.

And, unlike you, I actually DID just get off 2 different glaciers only 3 days ago...and they are retreating at present.

[Turd_Ferguson]

:rolleyes:

Dude...didn't you see where Homey asked people to keep politics out of this thread? Three posts from you and all three are partisan B.S. crap. Not to mention that he said this thread was to debate HOW to address the situation, not IF it exists and asked all those who doubt it to just stay out.

And, unlike you, I actually DID just get off 2 different glaciers only 3 days ago...and they are retreating at present.The VET will NOT be happy.:pop:

[LosAngelesSooner]

The VET will NOT be happy.:pop:Whoops. :D

[I Am Right]

You must have been to Germany to see the Zugspitze is still there.

Yes I have, damnit.

[I Am Right]

:rolleyes:

Dude...didn't you see where OleVet asked people to keep politics out of this thread? Three posts from you and all three are partisan B.S. crap. Not to mention that he said this thread was to debate HOW to address the situation, not IF it exists and asked all those who doubt it to just stay out.

And, unlike you, I actually DID just get off 2 different glaciers only 3 days ago...and they are retreating at present.

Good call, "Mr Obvious"

[LosAngelesSooner]

Rad. You try to disprove the truths that even you admit are "obvious."

I was leaning towards believing you were Tuba's Troll, but not I'm leaning towards RLiMC.

Either way, you're a sub-par Troll handle.

[Okla-homey]

see below.


Please tell me how you're gonna get horny teens to stop ****ing? Can't stop the skronkin', but there are ways to stop teens from conceiving.
PLEASE tell me you're joking about this one. Seriously?! Quarantine people who are sick from something that isn't even transmittable by water or air? Jesus, dude...You can't deny that the transmission of this disease could be stopped by quarantine. I realize of course, there is no political will to do so. Nevertheless, if bodily fluid exchanges with healthy folks are prevented, the disease would die with the last infected person. That fact is indisputable. Sure, in the meantime, we try to cure it, but dang, we could "cure" it through its own extinction. At least here in the US.
a)The same foothills don't burn every year. The one that burned this year hadn't burned in 75 years. But some part of the foothills burn. Every year in recent memory. Lather, rinse, repeat.
b)The wildfires have been increasing in SoCal because of drought...caused by climate change. WTF does causation have to do with it? Frankly, if climate change is making it worse, that's just more reason to ban residential building in the foothills. NOW!
c)Why not stop people from living by rivers that flood? Or in South Florida? Or in the entire mid-west where tornadoes strike TWICE a year, every year?
Tornados are random. OTOH, if you build in a flood plain, its not a matter of "if" (like with tornados) but "when" you'll inevitably be flooded out. Therefore, stop building in flood plains and hurricane prone coastal areas situated a foot or two above sea-level for cryin' out loud.
Dude...you've gotta be kidding me. :rolleyes: Nope.

[KABOOKIE]

Ya know, my sweet grey haired old mother has lived almost all of her 73 years in Tulsa, Oklahoma. She's a devout Catholic who never misses Sunday Mass and is a staunch Conservative Republican. She's not a fan of Obama at all and can't find much nice to say about any Democrat around.

That said, even SHE has noticed the change in climate in Oklahoma. She's told me of how each year is warmer and warmer and the thunderstorms seem to be getting worse and worse. She misses the old White Christmases that she had when she was growing up and is sad that they are so rare nowadays. In fact, she's commented that she never once saw an armadillo north of Texas when she was growing up, but in the 80's they started appearing and now she sees them all the time in Tulsa as they slowly move northward.

Scientific? Not even remotely. But those observations that she's personally witnessed were all it took for her to believe in Man Made Climate Change.

Relevance? Probably none. But I thought it was an interesting observation from someone who's lived in the area for a whole lot longer than just about all of us.

My grand pappy would have said your mother was either born yesterday or fell off the turnip truck cuz in his words, "There hasn't been no hotter summers in Oklahoma than 1934-1937. And air conditioning was sticking your face in the horse trough."

[LosAngelesSooner]

see below.Dude...this is America. You can't tell people they can't rebuild their homes. You can't quarantine people that you're afraid might get you sick if you **** 'em.

And I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that if AIDS wasn't considered a "gay disease" you wouldn't feel that people should be quarantined.


My grand pappy would have said your mother was either born yesterday or fell off the turnip truck cuz in his words, "There hasn't been no hotter summers in Oklahoma than 1934-1937. And air conditioning was sticking your face in the horse trough."Well, my nana would think your grandpappy was a young whippersnapper because she was born in 1896 and she said that the weather in OK has changed NOTICEABLY since she came here on a wagon train from Colorado Springs. :pop:

[SicEmBaylor]

May I ask, does it really matter if climate change is anthropogenic? In the sense that people aren't going to change their behaviors even if it is eventually proven. Humanity doesn't have a good track record for taking positive steps to overt predictable disasters. e.g. the NOLA levee system, allowing our schools to become dysfunctional, demanding Hitler knock-it-off in 1939, preventing teen pregancy, refusing to quarentine HIV positive people, allowing residential development in the LA foothills (that burn every summer), etc., etc.

Quarantine HIV people?

Good God...

I know Vet wanted politics kept out of this thread, but every now and then you make statements like this that scare the bejesus out of me. It's like you're a caricature of every leftist's nightmare about a nationalistic right-wing government.

I'm not sure why having HIV should be a reason to lose your constitutional rights.

:shudder:

[LosAngelesSooner]

Seriously.

Why not quarantine everyone with any kind of contagious disease? Let's quarantine everyone with the flu. And why not make it illegal for people with genetic disorders to have children? THAT would eradicate quite a few diseases and disorders from the U.S. (sarcasm intended)

Or could you imagine government agents walking up to you and your family as you stand over the smoldering ruins of your home and all your possessions after they were burned to the ground in a wildfire (Ok gets regular wildfires too, btw) and telling you that you weren't allowed to re-build your home and re-start your life on your land that you paid for because there was a likelihood that a wildfire might happen there within the next 75+ years? :rolleyes:

And then you complain about "big government infringing on your freedoms and rights" in the very next breath (or thread).

Homey...you're a smart guy...but you do say scary things every now and then. The above post is scary on many levels. The scariest part is you combine your very obvious intelligence with the absolute conviction that your way is the right way...when what you are suggesting borders on evil.

Sorry, dude.

[KABOOKIE]

Well, my nana would think your grandpappy was a young whippersnapper because she was born in 1896 and she said that the weather in OK has changed NOTICEABLY since she came here on a wagon train from Colorado Springs. :pop:

Really? I guess thats why Oklahoma was so heavily populated with native americans before the white man ever came because of it's mild climate.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Answering as a Meteorologist...

I don't disagree that the data that people have been showing indicates either change in CO2 levels or possibly some temperature change. However, no one speaks of the lessening in sun spot activity or the amount of solar radiation we are getting.

By any means, we do not have enough definitive data to say that any of this is human caused, we certainly don't know if this is a natural cycle or something has changed and we are seeing the perturbations. I am more likely to believe that the changes are due to natural cycling of the earth, axis tilting, lack of sun spots and changes in the solar radiation. I think that many of the things that AlGore wants and the carbon sequestering are only drops in the ocean compared to the onslaught of climatic and solar processes.

That being said, if you want to lessen your footprint on the globe, be my guest. Just don't force my taxes to go up or force me to drive an electric car, etc. We just don't know enough about what is going on to say anything would change the outcome with certainty.

[olevetonahill]

See this is what Im talking about .
There are far too many differing opinions on the cause.

So what are we as laymen supposed to believe ? To do ?
Hell I believe the shats Changin . Its the Cause/cure Im confused about .

[hellogoodbye]

See this is what Im talking about .
There are far too many differing opinions on the cause.

So what are we as laymen supposed to believe ? To do ?
Hell I believe the shats Changin . Its the Cause/cure Im confused about .

With a lot of topics lately, it seems that you have either the right belief, or the wrong belief. Your either progressively forward thinking, or your a creationist Philistine. great times....

[BermudaSooner]

Well: a) it can't hurt to try b) if we don't start, then we can't pressure other countries to start because we'll be hypocrites and c) we're the world's largest polluter and consume more than any nation...so we WILL make a difference, all by ourselves.

Actually, it can hurt. And Penguin, listen up. That was the point of the DDT analogy--the greenies got all worked up and did much more harm than good. What's the danger here? Well, there is clearly a cost to imposing restrictions on individuals and businesses. Is that cost worth it?

What if the cost was $1 per family in the US? Well, then it is probably worth it.

What if the cost is much much more? What if the cost means we send less foreign aid to Africa, for example. Or don't help out the Philippines in a devastating natural disaster.

Or, the more likely scenario, our economy doesn't grow as much as it would have be it for the government mandates. Who suffers then? It is the poor people, who get poorer, who lose their jobs, who can't afford to take care of their children.

What can it hurt? It can and will hurt our economy. That doesn't mean you have to wait one more year to buy a new Ford Mustang, it means many people suffer from it.

And all based upon conjecture.

[JohnnyMack]

Answering as a Meteorologist...

I don't disagree that the data that people have been showing indicates either change in CO2 levels or possibly some temperature change. However, no one speaks of the lessening in sun spot activity or the amount of solar radiation we are getting.

By any means, we do not have enough definitive data to say that any of this is human caused, we certainly don't know if this is a natural cycle or something has changed and we are seeing the perturbations. I am more likely to believe that the changes are due to natural cycling of the earth, axis tilting, lack of sun spots and changes in the solar radiation. I think that many of the things that AlGore wants and the carbon sequestering are only drops in the ocean compared to the onslaught of climatic and solar processes.

That being said, if you want to lessen your footprint on the globe, be my guest. Just don't force my taxes to go up or force me to drive an electric car, etc. We just don't know enough about what is going on to say anything would change the outcome with certainty.

This.

[JohnnyMack]

Record High
Jan 82°F (1909)
Feb 90°F (1996)
Mar 99°F (1907)
Apr 102°F (1972)
May 100°F (1934)
Jun 108°F (1911)
Jul 113°F (1936)
Aug 115°F (1936)
Sep 109°F (1939)
Oct 98°F (1979)
Nov 89°F (1909)
Dec 80°F (1966)

Here are the record high days for the city of Tulsa by month along with the year that they occured. 8 of them are from before WWII. Now I know that this doesn't mean much in and of itself, but the argument that we're seeing hotter temperatures than ever before is just silly. We may be going through a phase in which the overall average is higher by a degree or two, but no one has shown me yet that it is 100% caused by man's actions. And I wouldn't say that we don't have a responsibility to do right by our mother earth, I just don't know that this planet hasn't experienced more extreme weather shifts long before man and his evil machinations showed up.

[Turd_Ferguson]

Glacier's be melt'n.

[olevetonahill]

Glacier's be melt'n.

If you and Flag would quit Fartin so dayum Much we wouldnt have this Prob.:mad:

[Turd_Ferguson]

If you and Flag would quit Fartin so dayum Much we wouldnt have this Prob.:mad:Pfft! This was the fallout from your last fart...

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/polar_bears480.jpg

[I Am Right]

BELLEVUE -- Just one week ago, we were bracing for a "cool down" from the 80s to the 60s.

Now, it's getting downright wintry. And in some parts of our viewing area, snow is piling up.

This may be one for the record books, not only how early this heavy fall snowstorm is, but the fact that it appears to have created the earliest snow day in the history of the Blaine County School District.

“We got dumped on last night, you can see that by looking around here. We weren't quite ready for it. It did cause us some issues in the school district," Lonnie Barber, Blaine County Superintendent.

Not just the school district, but throughout the county. At least 3,500 Idaho Power customers in the Wood River Valley were without electricty today. Utility officials blame heavy wet snow for knocking out power in Bellevue and Hailey. Outages were also reported in Fairfield and Carey.

Since the trees haven't had time to shed their leaves, the snow accumulated and burdened the branches to their breaking point. Many of which landed on power lines.

After about an hour and a half, the Blaine County superintendent said it was time to call it a day for those at Bellevue Elementary School -- the only school left in the dark.

"At about 9:30 this morning we mobilized and started making calls. We didn't want students in the cold, very quick response. Within minutes parents had picked up all but 18 kids, an hour later, all students were at home. Unfortunately we lost one day of school, but only in one of our schools. This is the only school that had the power outage," said Barber.

And, as luck would have it the power got restored just as the last few students were reunited with their parents.

[I Am Right]

Boasting its earliest opening day in 40 years, Loveland officials opened for skiing today. Arapahoe Basin announced it would open Friday.

Loveland is the first ski area in North America to open its season, with $44 lift tickets. Loveland trail crews were able to begin snowmaking operations on Sept. 21.

"We took advantage of the cold temperatures and got an early start making snow this year," said Eric Johnstone, snowmaking and trail maintenance manager. "Now we can move some equipment to other trails and try to open more terrain as quickly as possible."

As usual on opening day, Loveland opened Chair 1 with 1,000 vertical feet of terrain on Catwalk, Mambo and Homerun.

Friday will mark the earliest opening in Arapahoe Basin's 64-year history. The Exhibition chairlift will open at 9 a.m. Friday with skiing on the intermediate High Noon run and six features in the High Divide Terrain Park. There will be no beginner skiing.

[I Am Right]

LAS VEGAS -- The 2009-2010 season at the Las Vegas Ski & Snowboard Resort is underway, the earliest the resort has ever been open.

Unseasonably cold nighttime temperatures and aggressive snowmaking efforts have produced snow on Chair Three, Rabbit Peak, the only lift and trail scheduled to open.

“There are many skiers and snowboarders who love to jib on our freestyle terrain features, and we expect many families to take advantage of this great opportunity to learn the sport and have fun so early in the season,” said Base Operations Manager Craig Baldwin.

[49r]

I take it back. You suck olevet*. So does this thread. :mad:


*not really, good try at starting a useful thread anyway.

[PDXsooner]

someone please close this thread -- just reading it will make one's IQ drop 10 points...

[KABOOKIE]

My grand pappy would have said your mother was either born yesterday or fell off the turnip truck cuz in his words, "There hasn't been no hotter summers in Oklahoma than 1934-1937. And air conditioning was sticking your face in the horse trough."



Well, my nana would think your grandpappy was a young whippersnapper because she was born in 1896 and she said that the weather in OK has changed NOTICEABLY since she came here on a wagon train from Colorado Springs. :pop:


Record High
Jan 82°F (1909)
Feb 90°F (1996)
Mar 99°F (1907)
Apr 102°F (1972)
May 100°F (1934)
Jun 108°F (1911)
Jul 113°F (1936)
Aug 115°F (1936)
Sep 109°F (1939)
Oct 98°F (1979)
Nov 89°F (1909)
Dec 80°F (1966)



I'm beggining to think nana came to Oklahoma on the turnip truck.

[Okla-homey]

Seriously.

Why not quarantine everyone with any kind of contagious disease? Let's quarantine everyone with the flu. And why not make it illegal for people with genetic disorders to have children? THAT would eradicate quite a few diseases and disorders from the U.S. (sarcasm intended)

Or could you imagine government agents walking up to you and your family as you stand over the smoldering ruins of your home and all your possessions after they were burned to the ground in a wildfire (Ok gets regular wildfires too, btw) and telling you that you weren't allowed to re-build your home and re-start your life on your land that you paid for because there was a likelihood that a wildfire might happen there within the next 75+ years? :rolleyes:

And then you complain about "big government infringing on your freedoms and rights" in the very next breath (or thread).

Homey...you're a smart guy...but you do say scary things every now and then. The above post is scary on many levels. The scariest part is you combine your very obvious intelligence with the absolute conviction that your way is the right way...when what you are suggesting borders on evil.

Sorry, dude.

Don't get your panties in a twist over this. I know we can't do anything about it now. You can't put toothpaste back in the tube. But, if we had rounded-up everyone with this disease in the early eighties and stashed 'em on some Pacific atoll -- you know, like a TB sanitarium or leper colony, it would be gone by now.

[Barry Stoops]

someone please close this thread -- just reading it will make one's IQ drop 10 points...

Then don't read it. Seems simple to me.

[JohnnyMack]

Well, my nana would think your grandpappy was a young whippersnapper because she was born in 1896 and she said that the weather in OK has changed NOTICEABLY since she came here on a wagon train from Colorado Springs. :pop:

Who the hell took a wagon train from Colorado Springs to OK? That don't make no sense.

[Turd_Ferguson]

Then don't read it. Seems simple to me.[hairGel] YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND!!!! WE AREN'T SMART ENOUGH TO DISCUSS THIS!!!!

[Barry Stoops]

[hairGel] YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND!!!! WE AREN'T SMART ENOUGH TO DISCUSS THIS!!!!

:O

[Fraggle145]

Scientists have very closed minds for the most part and are not open to what they consider fringe ideas about things. Some of histories greatest thinkers were considered on the fringe or even crazy, only to have their ideas validated centuries later.

This post really bothers me... As a scientist I can tell you that most of us do not have closed minds. You dont get to have "beliefs" in science. We accept what the data is telling us until it is disproven even if it is highly improbable. Of all the fields out there I would say scientists in general have more open minds than the average person.

[LosAngelesSooner]

Actually, it can hurt. And Penguin, listen up. That was the point of the DDT analogy--the greenies got all worked up and did much more harm than good. What's the danger here? Well, there is clearly a cost to imposing restrictions on individuals and businesses. Is that cost worth it?

What if the cost was $1 per family in the US? Well, then it is probably worth it.

What if the cost is much much more? What if the cost means we send less foreign aid to Africa, for example. Or don't help out the Philippines in a devastating natural disaster.

Or, the more likely scenario, our economy doesn't grow as much as it would have be it for the government mandates. Who suffers then? It is the poor people, who get poorer, who lose their jobs, who can't afford to take care of their children.

What can it hurt? It can and will hurt our economy. That doesn't mean you have to wait one more year to buy a new Ford Mustang, it means many people suffer from it.

And all based upon conjecture.Yes. Everything in the above post is based on conjecture. It also fails to take into account all the industry/jobs/money/taxes that would be created BY the new green industry.



But all of this is hubub. We're all going green. Don't believe me? Talk to the heads of almost every major industry. They are ALL going green across the board.

And you guy won't be complaining in 10 years when all this new research finally comes up with a hydrogen cell powered hover car. :cool:

[Turd_Ferguson]

And you guy won't be complaining in 10 years when all this new research finally comes up with a hydrogen cell powered hover car. :cool:I could care less if it's spit'n out depleted uranium....as long as I got a hover car...:D

[LosAngelesSooner]

Who the hell took a wagon train from Colorado Springs to OK? That don't make no sense.My Nana did. Don't know why...but that's what she did. (technically she went to Missouri first)


Don't get your panties in a twist over this. I know we can't do anything about it now. You can't put toothpaste back in the tube. But, if we had rounded-up everyone with this disease in the early eighties and stashed 'em on some Pacific atoll -- you know, like a TB sanitarium or leper colony, it would be gone by now.This entire train of thought is Nationalistic and scary.


Blahblahblah I found something that said it's cold somewhere and this really doesn't prove anything but it makes me feel like putting on a sweater blahblahblahFixed.


I'm beggining to think Nana came to Oklahoma on a very nice covered wagon.Don't **** with my Nana. :mad:

[LosAngelesSooner]

I could care less if it's spit'n out depleted uranium....as long as I got a hover car...:DAnd that...is my point. :D

[Barry Stoops]

Wow
The OP wanted it seems an Intelligent conversation.

Didn't turn out that way did it?

[Turd_Ferguson]

Wow
The OP wanted it seems an Intelligent conversation.

Didn't turn out that way did it?Don't you have an appointment for an asss whoop'n over in the Football Forum?

[olevetonahill]

I take it back. You suck olevet*. So does this thread. :mad:


*not really, good try at starting a useful thread anyway.

Who sucks me? Hell I wanta know :hot:

[49r]

TOTP BITCHES!

[I Am Right]

No Kidding: Snow on Sunday!
What’s worse than the snow is the below freezing temperatures that are expected to accompany it
By ANDREW GREINER
Updated 8:15 AM CDT, Thu, Oct 8, 2009

Print Email Share Buzz up!TWITTER FACEBOOK

Shutterstock Start cursing the weather gods, Chicago.

Snow could be coming to town as early as this weekend.
That’s right, snow. Flurries and flakes.

The forecast says that Saturday night rain will turn into the white stuff early Sunday morning.

If the snow sticks, it would be the earliest recorded measurable snowfall in Chicago. The record was set just three years ago when it snowed on Oct. 12.
But it won’t be a complete anomaly – Chicagoans are used to strange, disappointing weather.

Chicago has played host to October snowstorms before. Back in 1989 we got hit with 6.3 inches for the month.

What’s worse than the snow is the below freezing temperatures that are expected to accompany it.

It's not too late to get out of town for the Columbus Day Weekend!

[Fraggle145]

Seriously, dude? I am Right, cut it out. Vet asked for it to be serious thread. You should know by now that weather and climate are not the same thing. I know it has been mentioned numerous times.

http://www.roflcat.com/images/cats/270911970_db35fdd4ca.jpg

[I Am Right]

Dont' gripe at me Fraggle- I did not write the story!

[BermudaSooner]

Yes. Everything in the above post is based on conjecture. It also fails to take into account all the industry/jobs/money/taxes that would be created BY the new green industry.



But all of this is hubub. We're all going green. Don't believe me? Talk to the heads of almost every major industry. They are ALL going green across the board.

And you guy won't be complaining in 10 years when all this new research finally comes up with a hydrogen cell powered hover car. :cool:

Well, given that I own a lot of stock in Ballard Power Systems, I agree, I won't be complaining. There are significant more benefits from getting off oil than just reducing CO2--a completely different thread.

I have no problem with "green" industries. Whether they are taking advantage of people's sense to "be green" or be like Leonardo DiCaprio, or whatever. That is innovators seeing a need in a market and acting on it. Good stuff.

I am against government mandating things that could be harmful. At the risk of taking this off topic too much, I recall when I was in college seeing anti Gulf War I protesters walking around with signs that said "No Blood for Oil." Really? What if there was no oil except for in the middle East and they wouldn't sell us any? Blood then? What would no oil mean to the US? No cars, no industry, little electricity, no heavy manufacturing, no life as we know it. Are you sure, no blood then?

The analogy is relevant today as well. What does cap and trade mean for our economy? What does 10+% unemployment mean? Think about it.

Capitalism works very elegantly. When you start mucking around with it, you get problems. Cap and trade mucks around with it. If the people want green cars, markets will arise and supply (if possible) will be there. Taxing all of us based upon unproven science that is politically motivated is not the answer.

[I Am Right]

Dont' disagree, he will call you names and the thread will be closed.

[PDXsooner]

Seriously, dude? I am Right, cut it out. Vet asked for it to be serious thread. You should know by now that weather and climate are not the same thing. I know it has been mentioned numerous times.

http://www.roflcat.com/images/cats/270911970_db35fdd4ca.jpg

he's the kind of guy that would turn on the TV during a Vikings game, see AD get the ball and get stuffed for a 1-yard loss, and turn the TV off and deduce that AD must suck because he got stopped for a 1-yard loss.

[Turd_Ferguson]

he's the kind of guy that would turn on the TV during a Vikings game, see AD get the ball and get stuffed for a 1-yard loss, and turn the TV off and deduce that AD must suck because he got stopped for a 1-yard loss.I bet your the kinda guy that would **** a man in the *** and not even have the ***damn common courtesy to give him a reach around. I'll be watch'n you!:D

[PDXsooner]

I bet your the kinda guy that would **** a man in the *** and not even have the ***damn common courtesy to give him a reach around.

did you just make that up? oh wait, my 3rd grade teacher just called and needs to use that insult again!!!:P

[PDXsooner]

I bet your the kinda guy that would **** a man in the *** and not even have the ***damn common courtesy to give him a reach around. I'll be watch'n you!:D

oh, and for the record, i always give a courtesy reach-around!! :texan:

[hellogoodbye]

Well, given that I own a lot of stock in Ballard Power Systems, I agree, I won't be complaining. There are significant more benefits from getting off oil than just reducing CO2--a completely different thread.

I have no problem with "green" industries. Whether they are taking advantage of people's sense to "be green" or be like Leonardo DiCaprio, or whatever. That is innovators seeing a need in a market and acting on it. Good stuff.


This. Efficiency, independance, green whatever let's do it. Let's do it for the right reasons (so we all can be on board with it). There's money to be made in AGW\CC, but the real money is going to be going to the guy\organization who develops an energy source that is at least half as efficient as fossil fuels. It could be 3X as expensive, but if the efficiency is there = SUCCESS.

[Fraggle145]

Dont' gripe at me Fraggle- I did not write the story!

You mean you copy/pasted something else? Color me surprised.

And it had absolutely no bearing on climate change and the topic of the thread? I am shocked.

[tator]

Just my opinion, but it seems that we as a whole must be very full of ourselves to suggest that we have any control over this earth at all. I think Global Warming is a scientific fact that really can't be disputed (in regards to the recent trends), how that relates directly to the activity of human beings on this earth has not been proven. It is alot of speculation about things that we don't end up controlling as much as we would like to think.

Again, my opinion.

[I Am Right]

You mean you copy/pasted something else? Color me surprised.

And it had absolutely no bearing on climate change and the topic of the thread? I am shocked.

Hey Frag, I can use a mouse also!

[LosAngelesSooner]

Well, given that I own a lot of stock in Ballard Power Systems, I agree, I won't be complaining. There are significant more benefits from getting off oil than just reducing CO2--a completely different thread.

I have no problem with "green" industries. Whether they are taking advantage of people's sense to "be green" or be like Leonardo DiCaprio, or whatever. That is innovators seeing a need in a market and acting on it. Good stuff.

I am against government mandating things that could be harmful. At the risk of taking this off topic too much, I recall when I was in college seeing anti Gulf War I protesters walking around with signs that said "No Blood for Oil." Really? What if there was no oil except for in the middle East and they wouldn't sell us any? Blood then? What would no oil mean to the US? No cars, no industry, little electricity, no heavy manufacturing, no life as we know it. Are you sure, no blood then?

The analogy is relevant today as well. What does cap and trade mean for our economy? What does 10+% unemployment mean? Think about it.

Capitalism works very elegantly. When you start mucking around with it, you get problems. Cap and trade mucks around with it. If the people want green cars, markets will arise and supply (if possible) will be there. Taxing all of us based upon unproven science that is politically motivated is not the answer.Problem is we're not running a truly capitalistic economy right now...and haven't for years.

Cap and Trade is good for America. Being against it is purely partisan.

And your "No Blood for oil" analogy doesn't work. Just because another nation has a resource that you want doesn't justify you invading that nation. Shoot...that was WHY we defended Kuwait...because they had resources that Saddam Hussein wanted so he invaded them.

If another nation decides not to sell us stuff, guess what? We're effed. Period.

But the whole "no blood for oil" slogan was inaccurate crap anyway, so why are we even discussing it?


Dont' disagree, he will call you names and the thread will be closed.When have I ever called you a name you overly-simplistic Cut-n-paste Monkey?

Whoops...

[Fraggle145]

Hey Frag, I can use a mouse also!

Too bad you can't use your sense of decency and treat vet's thread with some respect.

[KABOOKIE]

When have I ever called you a name you overly-simplistic Cut-n-paste Monkey?

Whoops...

For you to call anyone out for cut-n-paste......

[Condescending Sooner]

Cap and Trade is good for America. Being against it is purely partisan.


You spout uninformed crap like this and expect to be taken seriously? You are delusional.

[I Am Right]

Too bad you can't use your sense of decency and treat vet's thread with some respect.

Whine, Whine Whine, Good Grief Dude. Just read the posts and don't take them personally. You don't have to agree or disagree, but the personal attacks.

[BermudaSooner]

Cap and Trade is good for America. Being against it is purely partisan.



Please elaborate why taxes are good for America.

[I Am Right]

Taxes? Taxes? We don't need no stinking Taxes!

[Soonersince57]

There's too many texicans.

[I Am Right]

RUSH: The Loveland ski area opened Wednesday, Arapahoe Basin on Friday, "boasting its earliest opening day in 40 years." Loveland officials today announced the area will open for skiing today. Other ski resorts are opening, too, and some Idaho school kids enjoyed an early snow day. Better get that cap and trade passed fast, Bamster! It's getting cold out there!

[I Am Right]

Find a "For Hybrid Parking Only" space and park my Hummer H3 there!

[LosAngelesSooner]

Please elaborate why taxes are good for America.Please explain why protecting the environment is bad for America.

Then I'll explain how taxes help pay off those massive debts that Bush created and our children will be weighted down with for years.

[LosAngelesSooner]

Blahblahblah There's more snow falling somewhere on Earth which scares me even though winter is starting and I think snow in fall and winter means that the Earth is cooling or something because I don't know science BlahblabhblahFixed again.

We get it RUSHLIMBAUGHisMyClone!...you got a new Troll and like to cutty pasty with it. :rolleyes:

[I Am Right]

Fixed again.

We get it RUSHLIMBAUGHisMyClone!...you got a new Troll and like to cutty pasty with it. :rolleyes:

If it doesn't fit your template, you just ignore, or defame

[I Am Right]

Crude Oil and Commodity Prices
October, Friday 9 2009 - 20:26:48
Crude Oil
$72.29
▲0.52 0.72%
20:31 PM EDT - 2009.10.09







Gold Price
$1049.60
▲1.80 0.17%
20:31 PM EDT - 2009.10.09








Crude Oil Price by OIL-PRICE.NET ©
Price Change Trades Volume
20:31 - $ 72.29 0.52 0.72% 98,122 281,719
Range Open 52 Wk Range 1 Year Forecast
70.62 - 72.35 72.29 55.31 - 75.39 $ 83 / Barrel


Woop, Woop

[I Am Right]

Al Gore "it will be hotter this summer, than all year", no ***t Sherlock

[LosAngelesSooner]

If it doesn't fit your template, you just ignore, or defamePot, meet Kettle.

I'm starting a new policy of locking and ending every political thread that I start on Saturdays in honor of the Sooners.

I think it would be nice if everyone else followed suit.

No need to keep bumping up old threads forever just to duke it out when the Sooners are playing football. Especially ones like this that have long since run their course.

Just my opinion. It might make things around here more civil and remind some of us that R or D, we're all Americans...and we're all Sooners.

Boomer!

[KABOOKIE]

How about you just do us all a favor and never post the stupid ****ing trash to begin with?


Oh and uh... BOOMER!

[LosAngelesSooner]

:rolleyes:

I'll make a bet that I can go longer not posting in or starting political threads than Tuba, RLiMC and 85.

And my threads are dripping with substance compared to their tin foil hat crapfests.

P.S. - The proper response was SOONER! (are you an impostor?) ;)

[I Am Right]

Coldest temp for this day, Record.

[KABOOKIE]

:rolleyes:

I'll make a bet that I can go longer not posting in or starting political threads than Tuba, RLiMC and 85.

And my threads are dripping with substance compared to their tin foil hat crapfests.

P.S. - The proper response was SOONER! (are you an impostor?) ;)

That would be a great bet. Why don't you have a meeting of the minds and make the bet? First one to break gets banned for 6 months. :D

[LosAngelesSooner]

If they will agree to it, I will take the bet. NO PROBLEM.

[Okla-homey]

This heretical article is from the BBC, not exactly Fox News. Today.


What happened to global warming?

By Paul Hudson
Climate correspondent, BBC News

This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.

But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.

And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise.

So what on Earth is going on?


The rest of the article is here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm

[KABOOKIE]

Climate models didn't forecast this? GTFO!

[Curly Bill]

The cooling of the earth is no doubt due to Gore's buying all those carbon offsets. Thanks again Al. This internet thing is way cool too.

[Petro-Sooner]

WAY!

[SicEmBaylor]

I'm cold natured as hell. Call me selfish, but I wouldn't mind having the Earth warm up a few degrees purely for my benefit.

I'm going to do my part by doing what I've always done -- not give a flying **** about global warming and consuming as much energy as I want with ZERO thought given to its impact.

[PDXsooner]

I'm going to do my part by doing what I've always done -- not give a flying **** about global warming and consuming as much energy as I want with ZERO thought given to its impact.

sad

[SicEmBaylor]

sad

I'll cry myself to sleep over it, promise.

[Turd_Ferguson]

sadanal.

[I Am Right]

hey Fraggle dissaprrove this:Global Warming 101

Global Warming Theory in a Nutshell
Every scientific theory involves assumptions. Global warming theory starts with the assumption that the Earth naturally maintains a constant average temperature, which is the result of a balance between (1) the amount of sunlight the Earth absorbs, and (2) the amount of emitted infrared (”IR”) radiation that the Earth continuously emits to outer space. In other words, energy in equals energy out. Averaged over the whole planet for 1 year, those energy flows in and out of the climate system are estimated to be around 235 or 240 watts per square meter.

Greenhouse components in the atmosphere (mostly water vapor, clouds, carbon dioxide, and methane) exert strong controls over how fast the Earth loses IR energy to outer space. Mankind’s burning of fossil fuels creates more atmospheric carbon dioxide. As we add more CO2, more infrared energy is trapped, strengthing the Earth’s greenhouse effect. This causes a warming tendency in the lower atmosphere and at the surface. As of 2008, it is believed that we have enhanced the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect by about 1%.

Global warming theory says that the lower atmosphere must then respond to this energy imbalance (less IR radiation being lost than solar energy being absorbed) by causing an increase in temperature (which causes an increase in the IR escaping to space) until the emitted IR radiation once again equals the amount of absorbed sunlight. That is, the Earth must increase its temperature until global energy balance is once again restored. This is the basic explanation of global warming theory. (The same energy balance concept applies to a pot of water on a stove set on “low”. The water warms until the rate of energy loss through evaporation, convective air currents, and infrared radiation equals the rate of energy gain from the stove, at which point the water remains at a constant temperature. If you turn the heat up a tiny bit more, the temperature of the water will rise again until the extra amount of energy lost by the pot once again equals the energy gained from the stove, at which point a new, warmer equilibrium temperature is reached.)

Now, you might be surprised to learn that the amount of warming directly caused by the extra CO2 is, by itself, relatively weak. It has been calculated theoretically that, if there are no other changes in the climate system, a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration would cause less than 1 deg C of surface warming (about 1 deg. F). This is NOT a controversial statement…it is well understood by climate scientists. (As of 2008, we were about 40% to 45% of the way toward a doubling of atmospheric CO2.)

BUT…everything this else in the climate system probably WON’T stay the same! For instance, clouds, water vapor, and precipition systems can all be expected to respond to the warming tendency in some way, which could either amplify or reduce the manmade warming. These other changes are called “feedbacks,” and the sum of all the feedbacks in the climate system determines what is called ‘climate sensitivity’. Negative feedbacks (low climate sensitivity) would mean that manmade global warming might not even be measurable, lost in the noise of natural climate variability. But if feedbacks are sufficiently positive (high climate sensitivity), then manmade global warming could be catastrophic.

Obviously, knowing the strength of feedbacks in the climate system is critical; this is the subject of most of my research. Here you can read about my latest work on the subject, in which I show that feedbacks previously estimated from satellite observations of natural climate variability have potentially large errors. A confusion between forcing and feedback (loosely speaking, cause and effect) when observing cloud behavior has led to the illusion of a sensitive climate system, when in fact our best satellite observations (when carefully and properly interpreted) suggest an IN-sensitive climate system.

Finally, if the climate system is insensitive, this means that the extra carbon dioxide we pump into the atmosphere is not enough to cause the observed warming over the last 100 years — some natural mechanism must be involved. Here you can read about my favorite candidate: the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.

[I Am Right]

RUSH: I would like to play a role, ladies and gentlemen, it obviously is a role because this doesn't describe me, but I wish to play a role now as a confused and troubled man asking his God some things. "Please, God, I am a confused and troubled man. I need your guidance. My government says manmade global warming is destroying the planet you have so generously provided. They say the breath of all God's creatures is poisoning and heating the atmosphere you created. They say if I do not give up my car and give in to higher taxes on the energy that keeps me alive, the world's oceans will boil and that we will all die. Please help me, God. Should I believe them? Is man heating and destroying the planet you created? Or do you control earth's temperatures? Please, God, just show me a sign."

And after this confused and troubled man's plea to his God was complete, guess what happened? Sunspots larger than the earth itself suddenly disappeared, the sun cooled, global temperatures plunged, the highest recorded year temperature-wise, 1998. It's now 2009. Summer has vanished in many places. The snows of winter came earlier than ever before. Children shivered and millions of families around the world needed cheap, plenty, readily available energy for warmth. So a question for the all-knowing, all-caring, all-sensing, all-feeling, all-concerned Maha Rushie. Was all this a sign to that confused and troubled man? Did God give us the answer to this troubled man's question?

[I Am Right]

RUSH: Let's go to the BBC, Friday, October 9th: "'What Happened to Global Warming?' -- This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998. But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures. And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise. So what on Earth is going on?" This is from the BBC. "Climate change skeptics, who passionately and consistently argue that man's influence on our climate is overstated, say they saw it coming. They argue that there are natural cycles, over which we have no control, that dictate how warm the planet is. But what is the evidence for this? During the last few decades of the 20th Century, our planet did warm quickly.

"Skeptics argue that the warming we observed was down to the energy from the Sun increasing. After all 98% of the Earth's warmth comes from the Sun. But research conducted two years ago, and published by the Royal Society, seemed to rule out solar influences. The scientists' main approach was simple: to look at solar output and cosmic ray intensity over the last 30-40 years, and compare those trends with the graph for global average surface temperature.
And the results were clear. 'Warming in the last 20 to 40 years can't have been caused by solar activity,' said Dr Piers Forster from Leeds University, a leading contributor to this year's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). But one solar scientist Piers Corbyn from Weatheraction, a company specialising in long range weather forecasting, disagrees. He claims that solar charged particles impact us far more than is currently accepted, so much so he says that they are almost entirely responsible for what happens to global temperatures.

"According to research conducted by Professor Don Easterbrook from Western Washington University last November, the oceans and global temperatures are correlated. The oceans, he says, have a cycle in which they warm and cool cyclically. The most important one is the Pacific decadal oscillation (PDO)," about which we've been told by our own climate specialist, Dr. Roy Spencer. "For much of the 1980s and 1990s, it was in a positive cycle, that means warmer than average. And observations have revealed that global temperatures were warm too. But in the last few years it has been losing its warmth and has recently started to cool down. These cycles in the past have lasted for nearly 30 years. So could global temperatures follow?

"So what can we expect in the next few years? Both sides have very different forecasts. … One thing is for sure. It seems the debate about what is causing global warming is far from over." Of course, the BBC in this story felt obligated to pretend that the warmers have an answer for all this but they really don't. In fact, even though they have figured in the sun and the oceans as factors all along, they are disapproved by this indisputable fact for the last 11 years: We have not observed any increase in global temps and our climate models did not forecast it, even though manmade carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible, has continued to rise. An answer from God? And there are some discoveries that have taken place that are shoving the global warming tax hikes in politicians' faces. Just when the smug control freaks were ready to fleece all of us, God shut down the sun, opened up fossil fuel reserves like we've never seen. Oil, gas, coal, shale, discoveries are so many and so vast, they are hard too keep up with.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Fraggle145]

hey Fraggle dissaprrove this:Global Warming 101

Global Warming Theory in a Nutshell
Every scientific theory involves assumptions. Global warming theory starts with the assumption that the Earth naturally maintains a constant average temperature, which is the result of a balance between (1) the amount of sunlight the Earth absorbs, and (2) the amount of emitted infrared (”IR”) radiation that the Earth continuously emits to outer space. In other words, energy in equals energy out. Averaged over the whole planet for 1 year, those energy flows in and out of the climate system are estimated to be around 235 or 240 watts per square meter.

Greenhouse components in the atmosphere (mostly water vapor, clouds, carbon dioxide, and methane) exert strong controls over how fast the Earth loses IR energy to outer space. Mankind’s burning of fossil fuels creates more atmospheric carbon dioxide. As we add more CO2, more infrared energy is trapped, strengthing the Earth’s greenhouse effect. This causes a warming tendency in the lower atmosphere and at the surface. As of 2008, it is believed that we have enhanced the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect by about 1%.

Global warming theory says that the lower atmosphere must then respond to this energy imbalance (less IR radiation being lost than solar energy being absorbed) by causing an increase in temperature (which causes an increase in the IR escaping to space) until the emitted IR radiation once again equals the amount of absorbed sunlight. That is, the Earth must increase its temperature until global energy balance is once again restored. This is the basic explanation of global warming theory. (The same energy balance concept applies to a pot of water on a stove set on “low”. The water warms until the rate of energy loss through evaporation, convective air currents, and infrared radiation equals the rate of energy gain from the stove, at which point the water remains at a constant temperature. If you turn the heat up a tiny bit more, the temperature of the water will rise again until the extra amount of energy lost by the pot once again equals the energy gained from the stove, at which point a new, warmer equilibrium temperature is reached.)

Now, you might be surprised to learn that the amount of warming directly caused by the extra CO2 is, by itself, relatively weak. It has been calculated theoretically that, if there are no other changes in the climate system, a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration would cause less than 1 deg C of surface warming (about 1 deg. F). This is NOT a controversial statement…it is well understood by climate scientists. (As of 2008, we were about 40% to 45% of the way toward a doubling of atmospheric CO2.)

BUT…everything this else in the climate system probably WON’T stay the same! For instance, clouds, water vapor, and precipition systems can all be expected to respond to the warming tendency in some way, which could either amplify or reduce the manmade warming. These other changes are called “feedbacks,” and the sum of all the feedbacks in the climate system determines what is called ‘climate sensitivity’. Negative feedbacks (low climate sensitivity) would mean that manmade global warming might not even be measurable, lost in the noise of natural climate variability. But if feedbacks are sufficiently positive (high climate sensitivity), then manmade global warming could be catastrophic.

Obviously, knowing the strength of feedbacks in the climate system is critical; this is the subject of most of my research. Here you can read about my latest work on the subject, in which I show that feedbacks previously estimated from satellite observations of natural climate variability have potentially large errors. A confusion between forcing and feedback (loosely speaking, cause and effect) when observing cloud behavior has led to the illusion of a sensitive climate system, when in fact our best satellite observations (when carefully and properly interpreted) suggest an IN-sensitive climate system.

Finally, if the climate system is insensitive, this means that the extra carbon dioxide we pump into the atmosphere is not enough to cause the observed warming over the last 100 years — some natural mechanism must be involved. Here you can read about my favorite candidate: the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.

Who's website did you copy and paste that from? I would rather read it from the person themselves as well as be able to check out their data before I make any conclusions about its validity or how I integrate what it says into my knowledge base. Overall this doesnt say very much other than this is what I work on.

But the entire argument hinges on the above part in bold. All I can tell from this is that his research doesnt appear to be all that definitive or he wouldn't need the "potentially" modifier. I know because I have had to use that modifier myself for some of my own work.

[Fraggle145]

RUSH: Let's go to the BBC, Friday, October 9th: "'What Happened to Global Warming?' -- This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998. But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures. And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise. So what on Earth is going on?" This is from the BBC. "Climate change skeptics, who passionately and consistently argue that man's influence on our climate is overstated, say they saw it coming. They argue that there are natural cycles, over which we have no control, that dictate how warm the planet is. But what is the evidence for this? During the last few decades of the 20th Century, our planet did warm quickly.

"Skeptics argue that the warming we observed was down to the energy from the Sun increasing. After all 98% of the Earth's warmth comes from the Sun. But research conducted two years ago, and published by the Royal Society, seemed to rule out solar influences. The scientists' main approach was simple: to look at solar output and cosmic ray intensity over the last 30-40 years, and compare those trends with the graph for global average surface temperature.
And the results were clear. 'Warming in the last 20 to 40 years can't have been caused by solar activity,' said Dr Piers Forster from Leeds University, a leading contributor to this year's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). But one solar scientist Piers Corbyn from Weatheraction, a company specialising in long range weather forecasting, disagrees. He claims that solar charged particles impact us far more than is currently accepted, so much so he says that they are almost entirely responsible for what happens to global temperatures.

"According to research conducted by Professor Don Easterbrook from Western Washington University last November, the oceans and global temperatures are correlated. The oceans, he says, have a cycle in which they warm and cool cyclically. The most important one is the Pacific decadal oscillation (PDO)," about which we've been told by our own climate specialist, Dr. Roy Spencer. "For much of the 1980s and 1990s, it was in a positive cycle, that means warmer than average. And observations have revealed that global temperatures were warm too. But in the last few years it has been losing its warmth and has recently started to cool down. These cycles in the past have lasted for nearly 30 years. So could global temperatures follow?

"So what can we expect in the next few years? Both sides have very different forecasts. … One thing is for sure. It seems the debate about what is causing global warming is far from over." Of course, the BBC in this story felt obligated to pretend that the warmers have an answer for all this but they really don't. In fact, even though they have figured in the sun and the oceans as factors all along, they are disapproved by this indisputable fact for the last 11 years: We have not observed any increase in global temps and our climate models did not forecast it, even though manmade carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible, has continued to rise. An answer from God? And there are some discoveries that have taken place that are shoving the global warming tax hikes in politicians' faces. Just when the smug control freaks were ready to fleece all of us, God shut down the sun, opened up fossil fuel reserves like we've never seen. Oil, gas, coal, shale, discoveries are so many and so vast, they are hard too keep up with.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So you read the other global warming thread where Homey actually posted a link to this article? or did you have to have Rush spoon feed you what to say again?

[LosAngelesSooner]

That's what Troll handles do.

And that's why RLiMC created this one.

[KABOOKIE]

Speaking of trolls.

[I Am Right]

Gave it to you before Fragg, but you did not read. DR. ROY SPENSER.

[I Am Right]

Would you like me to cut and past the link?

[Fraggle145]

Actually you didnt. His name was in a totally different post than the one you asked me to respond to. And did it dawn on you that there could be more than one climate scientist that researches the PDO?

Secondarily, I was reading the second post for content. Sometimes when I do that I dont catch every single little thing, but I save myself a lot of time not reading a lot of unnecessary words. So most of the Rush crapola was edited out, the name got edited out with it.

And if you actually want to show you know how to post a link I would be ****ing shocked.

Edit: man I had a lot of typos in there.

[I Am Right]

Actually you didnt. His name was in a totally different post than the one you asked me to respond to. And did it dawn on you that there could be more than one climate scientists that researches the PDO?

Secondarily, I was reading the second post for content. Sometimes when I do that I dont catch every single little thing, but I save yourself a lot of time not reading a lot of unnecessary words. So most of the Rush crapola was edited out, the name got edited out with it.

And if you actually want to show you know how to post a link I would be ****ing shocked.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/

[KABOOKIE]

And if you actually want to show you know how to post a link I would be ****ing shocked. (http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/finger-in-socket-1.jpg)

[PDXsooner]

this must be what jane goodall felt like trying to teach gorillas how to speak. you can show them over and over and over, and they may surprise you at the end of the day with a random hand gesture.

but when all is said and done, they just can't comprehend it.

[KABOOKIE]

this must be what jane goodall felt like trying to teach gorillas how to speak. you can show them over and over and over, and they may surprise you at the end of the day with a random hand gesture.

but when all is said and done, they just can't comprehend it.


But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.

SCOREBOARD! ;)

[LosAngelesSooner]

:les: TEH EARTH IZ FLAT!!! MAH EYES SAY SO!!!

[KABOOKIE]

:les: TEH EARTH IZ FAT!!! MAH EYES SAY SO!!!

Why yes. The Earf is fat.

SCOREBOARD!

[olevetonahill]

:les: TEH EARTH IZ FAT!!! MAH EYES SAY SO!!!

LAS you just get dumber with each post .

[SicEmBaylor]

Honestly, anyone who doesn't think the Earth is one fat assed bitch is some chubby chasing pervert.

[LosAngelesSooner]

LAS you just get dumber with each post .:rolleyes: Typo. *shrug*


Why yes. The Earf is flat.

SCOREBOARD!AGGIE! :rolleyes:

[KABOOKIE]

Um, Sooners have the SCOREBOARD!!!

[LosAngelesSooner]

:les: STALKER!!!

:D

[I Am Right]

Oh the humanity.

[I Am Right]

Fragg Enjoy

PUBLIC INFORMATION STATEMENT...UPDATED NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE MISSOULA MT 644 AM MDT WED OCT 14 2009 ...ARCTIC COLD SNAP PRELIMINARY EVENT SUMMARY... A STRONG ARCTIC AIR MASS PUSHED ACROSS THE CONTINENTAL DIVIDE SETTLING VERY COLD AND DRY ARCTIC AIR INTO THE VALLEY LOCATIONS ACROSS WESTERN MONTANA AND NORTH CENTRAL IDAHO. THE INITIAL PUSH OF THE ARCTIC AIR WAS BROUGHT THROUGH A SURFACE COLD FRONT THAT BROUGHT SNOW TO PART OF WEST CENTRAL MONTANA FRIDAY MORNING. FOR THE FOLLOWING WEEKEND DAYS...COLD TEMPERATURES WERE THE HEADLINE FEATURE...KEEPING AFTERNOON HIGHS AND OVERNIGHT LOWS WELL BELOW SEASONAL NORMALS. SEVERAL RECORDS WERE BROKEN...SOME BY A DIFFERENCE OF ALMOST 15 DEGREES IN THE COLDEST LOCATIONS. BELOW IS A PRELIMINARY SUMMARY OF NEW TEMPERATURE AND SNOWFALL RECORDS FROM THURSDAY OCT 8 THROUGH TUESDAY OCT 13. BELOW ARE LISTED THE NEW RECORDS WITH THE PREVIOUS RECORD VALUE AND THE YEAR IT WAS LAST OBSERVED. ------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------ THURSDAY OCTOBER 8 ------------------------ *** NEW RECORD LOW MINIMUM TEMPERATURES *** LOCATION NEW RECORD / OLD RECORD KALISPELL 14 / 16 (1985) ...COOPERATIVE OBSERVER STATIONS - WESTERN MONTANA... WEST GLACIER 18 / 18 (2000) (TIED) PHILLIPSBURG 9 / 11 (1985) *** NEW RECORD SNOWFALL *** LOCATION NEW RECORD / OLD RECORD ...COOPERATIVE OBSERVER STATIONS - WESTERN MONTANA... HERON 2 NW T / T (1985) (TIED) POLSON T / T (1932) (TIED) ...COOPERATIVE OBSERVER STATIONS - NORTH CENTRAL IDAHO... LEADORE #2 0.1 / T (1973) -------------------------------------------------------------------

[I Am Right]

LA Enjoy

October Cold Snap Sets 82-Year Record
High On Tuesday Was Only 47 DegreesCHICAGO (CBS) ― Click to enlarge1 of 1
The skies looked almost wintry in Chicago on Oct. 13, 2009, when temperatures topped out at 47 degrees for an 82-year low.
CBS

Close




numSlides of totalImages Related Slideshows You Can't Do That Here! World's Most Useless Facts Hollywood's Hottest New Starlets Top 10 Smartest And Dumbest Dog Breeds The Tattooed Ladies of Hollywood Hottest Female Athletes Real Or Fake? October in Chicago is usually equal parts balmy T-shirt weather and nippy light jacket temperatures, but if it's felt more like winter coat weather this year, it's not your imagination.

Chicago has spent the last 17 days with below-average temperatures, and a high of a mere 47 degrees made Tuesday the coldest Oct. 13 in 82 years, CBS 2's Mary Kay Kleist says.

Comparing temperatures for the first 14 days of October 2008 to this year seems like comparing the tropics to the tundra.

Last year, there were 10 days with highs in the 60s and three with highs in the 70s between Oct. 1 and 14. There was even a warm spell more befitting of early September – it was 72 degrees on Oct. 10, 79 on Oct. 11, 84 on Oct. 12, and 77 on Oct. 13.

But this year, there have been a mere four days with highs in the 60s, five with highs in the 50s, and five with highs in the 40s.

Kleist says the trend will continue through the upcoming weekend. While the normal high for this time of year is 64 degrees, the highs will top out only in the 40s on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday, and in the 50s on Saturday and Sunday. We may hit 60 degrees by Monday.

Cold though this October has been so far, at least there hasn't been any snow. A forecast for snow this past Sunday night turned out not to materialize.

But there have been many years where snow has fallen in October. The most recent was 2006, where 0.3 inches of snow fell on Oct. 12. But that was nothing compared with 1989, when Mother Nature dumped 3.8 inches of snow on the city on Oct. 18, and the whole month netted a total of 6.3 inches.

CBS 2's Mary Kay Kleist contributed to this report.
(© MMIX, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.)

[PDXsooner]

*sigh*

[KABOOKIE]

When will you simpletons get it?!?! Cooling. Warming. It's ALL climate change.

[LosAngelesSooner]

^^^ This. ^^^

[LosAngelesSooner]

I Am Right is bedazzled by the wonder that is...Winter.

Oh, seasonal changes...why don't you happen every yea...er...what? They do?

Never mind.

:D

[Steve Lurkle]

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gTIPEPUFPfv4_rMVSHnn6Klx-XYwD9BB5G5O0

Explorers: North Pole summers ice free in 10 years
By MARESA PATIENCE (AP)


LONDON — The North Pole will turn into an open sea during summer within a decade, according to data released Wednesday by a team of explorers who trekked through the Arctic for three months
The Catlin Arctic Survey team, led by explorer Pen Hadow, measured the thickness of the ice as it sledged and hiked through the northern part of the Beaufort Sea in the north Pole earlier this year during a research project. Their findings show that most of the ice in the region is first-year ice that is only around 1.8 meters (six feet) deep and will melt next summer. The region has traditionally contained, thicker multiyear ice which does not melt as rapidly.
"With a larger part of the region now first-year ice, it is clearly more vulnerable," said Professor Peter Wadhams, part of the Polar Ocean Physics Group at the University of Cambridge which analyzed the data. "The area is now more likely to become open water each summer, bringing forward the potential date when the summer sea ice will be completely gone."
Wadhams said the Catlin Arctic Survey data supports the new consensus that the Arctic will be ice-free in summer within 20 years, and that much of the decrease will happen within 10 years.
Martin Sommerkorn of the World Wildlife Fund said the Arctic sea holds a central position in the earth's climate system. "Such a loss of Arctic sea ice cover has recently been assessed to set in motion powerful climate feedbacks which will have an impact far beyond the Arctic itself," he said.
He added: "This could lead to flooding affecting one-quarter of the world's population, substantial increases in greenhouse gas emissions from massive carbon pools and extreme global weather changes."
Global warming has raised the stakes in the scramble for sovereignty in the Arctic because shrinking polar ice could someday open resource development and new shipping lanes. The rapid melting of ice has raised speculation that the Northwest Passage linking the Atlantic and Pacific oceans could one day become a regular shipping lane.
The results come as negotiators prepare to meet in Copenhagen in December to draft a global climate pact.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

When will you simpletons get it?!?! Cooling. Warming. It's ALL climate change.

However, it is doing neither or both. The models don't know what in the heck is going on and people "interpreting" them don't know any more than the models. And the models are not complete or may be missing key components. So a model must be scientific, however, no one is much speaking of if this is a NATURAL occurrence. Should we do something if it is natural?

[49r]

should we not do something if it isn't? If we don't know exactly what's going on or if we need to do something or not, what's the best course of action? Most of us would like to err on the side of caution. But what side is the best side to be cautious on?

[I Am Right]

I Am Right is bedazzled by the wonder that is...Winter.

Oh, seasonal changes...why don't you happen every yea...er...what? They do?

Never mind.

:D

Winter starts Dec 21st not October 15th

[PDXsooner]

again, none of you message board surfers are scientists. so it's your job to find credible, unbiased sources to rely on in regards to climate change and our impact on it.

and until you're interested in pursuing the truth based on data that professional, independent climatologists are gathering, and not seeking sources that will confirm your already-made-up-mind, you'll continue to be a part of the problem, and not the solution.

if it makes you feel any better, conservatives were the original CONSERVationists, playing a huge role in establishing our national parks.

i can't be sure, but i have a gut feeling if george bush's administration and subsequently all of the AM radio hosts would have been on the side of global warming from the start, most republicans would be on board with accepting it finding solutions, and most democrats would find ways to deny it.

[I Am Right]

Mid-October Snow Shocks Tri-Staters
Parts North And West Of NYC Hit With Pre-Halloween Surprise; Some Spots Could See As Much As 4 InchesNEW YORK (CBS) ― Click to enlarge1 of 1
A thin blanket of snow covered grass, trees, and cars in Vernon, N.J. on Oct. 15, 2009 as an early nor'easter pushed through the region.
CBS

Close




numSlides of totalImages Related Slideshows World's Most Useless Facts Celebs Who Lean To The Right Celebrities In Playboy Openly Gay Celebrities 2009 Celebrity Deaths, July-Dec. 2009 Celebrity Deaths, Jan.-June The Incredible Megan Fox -- Then & Now Jennifer Aniston Jessica Simpson: Then & Now Best Picture Blunders It's Oct. 15. Dig out those hats, scarves, and … snow shovels?

The tri-state was walloped by its first nor'easter of the season, and some parts of New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut saw heavy snow showers fall throughout the day.

CBS 2's Megan Glaros was in Vernon, N.J. where the flakes were still falling on Thursday evening.

"I hate it! This shouldn't be happening now," said Vernon resident Angela Warren. "I like it when it comes after Thanksgiving or right around Christmas, but it's too early for this."

The elevation in Vernon is about 550 feet, but CBS 2 drove to some higher elevations within the town and found snow sticking to cars, trees, roofs, and the grass.

"It's a little early, it's natural up here though," said Vernon resident Jack Valenti. "It's higher elevation up here. I talked to my brother back at home in Bergen County and it's raining down there, so, yeah, it's crazy."

CBS 2 spoke with many followers on Twitter, who reported snow all over the region, from Sparta in Sussex County, to Chappaqua in Westchester County, to Fishkill in Dutchess County, to Danbury in Fairfield County, Conn.

@edsteves wrote: "It's snowing in Newburgh NY! A little too early for my taste!"

@nycbklyngirl told @wcbstv it was snowing on I-80 and even took a picture of the thin blanket.

Even New York Jets kicker Jay Feely chimed in on the trending Twitter topic, writing on his Twitter account @jayfeely: "It is snowing here in Northern NJ right now!!! Mid October, way to early. [sic]"

WCBSTV.com Senior Producer Jeff Capellini snapped some video of the snow falling outside his home in Yorktown Heights in Westchester.

Sullivan County in northern New York was under a Winter Storm Watch and could see between 2 and 4 inches of snow by the time the storm exits. Dutchess and Ulster counties were under a Winter Storm Advisory and could produce 1 to 3 inches of snow when all is said and done.

[I Am Right]

again, none of you message board surfers are scientists. so it's your job to find credible, unbiased sources to rely on in regards to climate change and our impact on it.

and until you're interested in pursuing the truth based on data that professional, independent climatologists are gathering, and not seeking sources that will confirm your already-made-up-mind, you'll continue to be a part of the problem, and not the solution.

if it makes you feel any better, conservatives were the original CONSERVationists, playing a huge role in establishing our national parks.

i can't be sure, but i have a gut feeling if george bush's administration and subsequently all of the AM radio hosts would have been on the side of global warming from the start, most republicans would be on board with accepting it finding solutions, and most democrats would find ways to deny it.

Dr. Roy Spenser, that is-==drroyspenser.com

[Fraggle145]

again, none of you message board surfers are scientists. so it's your job to find credible, unbiased sources to rely on in regards to climate change and our impact on it.

and until you're interested in pursuing the truth based on data that professional, independent climatologists are gathering, and not seeking sources that will confirm your already-made-up-mind, you'll continue to be a part of the problem, and not the solution.

if it makes you feel any better, conservatives were the original CONSERVationists, playing a huge role in establishing our national parks.

i can't be sure, but i have a gut feeling if george bush's administration and subsequently all of the AM radio hosts would have been on the side of global warming from the start, most republicans would be on board with accepting it finding solutions, and most democrats would find ways to deny it.

I'm a scientist. Oh wait, shhh don't tell.

[PDXsooner]

Dr. Roy Spenser, that is-==drroyspenser.com

i'll check it out.

[SoonerNate]

Man made global warming is the greatest hoax perpetrated in the history of civilization.

[Curly Bill]

For the record: I enjoy being part of the problem. ;) :D


If for no other reason than to p*ss off those of you that want so bad for global warming to be real.

[I Am Right]

Man made global warming is the greatest hoax perpetrated in the history of civilization.

I agree.

[I Am Right]

I'm a scientist. Oh wait, shhh don't tell.

Act like one, I am by the way an Accountant. Is that a scientist?

[Fraggle145]

Yay for opinions :D

[Curly Bill]

Act like one, I am by the way an Accountant. Is that a scientist?

Sure, a numbers scientist. :P

[Fraggle145]

Act like one, I am by the way an Accountant. Is that a scientist?

Ummm I have been.

I've read the scientific literature and reached a conclusion that has yet to be disproven. The climate is changing and it is trending to be warmer. And the rise in warming is best modeled/predicted by an anthropogenically caused increase in carbon dioxide.

However, when I state where the scientific literature point me, I get told to quit talking down to everyone, that just because I'm a scientist doesnt make the data that form my conclusion true, and that I dont know any better than anyone else, when actually I do.

Obviously I am making up 20+ years of research to fit my agenda.

I am still trying to figure out what my agenda is...

[SoonerNate]

Act like one, I am by the way an Accountant. Is that a scientist?

Actually, I happen to be an accountant

[Curly Bill]

Actually, I happen to be an accountant

From now on you may refer to yourself as a numbers scientist. ;)

[I Am Right]

Ummm I have been.

I've read the scientific literature and reached a conclusion that has yet to be disproven. The climate is changing and it is trending to be warmer. And the rise in warming is best modeled/predicted by an anthropogenically caused increase in carbon dioxide.

However, when I state where the scientific literature point me, I get told to quit talking down to everyone, that just because I'm a scientist doesnt make the data that form my conclusion true, and that I dont know any better than anyone else, when actually I do.

Obviously I am making up 20+ years of research to fit my agenda.

I am still trying to figure out what my agenda is...

I am not as learned as you in science, however, carbon dioxide is rising and temp are dropping in the last 10 yrs. I think the sun has more to do with temp than carbon dioxide. It was warmer in 1879 than it is now and I don't think man has anything to do with it. I am just saying. On another note, you made a good post. I like it when we can discuss without castigation.

[Fraggle145]

I am not as learned as you in science, however, carbon dioxide is rising and temp are dropping in the last 10 yrs. I think the sun has more to do with temp than carbon dioxide. It was warmer in 1879 than it is now and I don't think man has anything to do with it. I am just saying. On another note, you made a good post. I like it when we can discuss without castigation.

Its hard to discuss without castigation when your posts start out "hey fragg" and then a weather report. I probably havent been the best about it either, but dude to call out my scientific integrity... well lets just say that is uncalled for at best.

I would like to see a link to the data that temps are dropping over the last 10 years and how it was warmer in 1879.

I am not saying that to be a dick, i really want to see it.

[CK Sooner]

I Am Right.

Looks like you have a good husband.

[PDXsooner]

If for no other reason than to p*ss off those of you that want so bad for global warming to be real.

i'm not sure who actually wants it to be real. i would prefer to not believe in it. but i'd rather just believe based on the facts and not what i want.

[PDXsooner]

i'm actually surprised that there aren't more conservatives on board with energy alternatives if for no other reason than to stop funding our enemies (ie Saudi Arabia and the arab gulf states, Russia, Venezuela)

[Turd_Ferguson]

i'm actually surprised that there aren't more conservatives on board with energy alternatives if for no other reason than to stop funding our enemies (ie Saudi Arabia and the arab gulf states, Russia, Venezuela)Drill baby drill!!:rolleyes:

[SicEmBaylor]

i'm actually surprised that there aren't more conservatives on board with energy alternatives if for no other reason than to stop funding our enemies (ie Saudi Arabia and the arab gulf states, Russia, Venezuela)

I've been a proponent of this proposal for a long time. So has Sen. Coburn...

As for your earlier comment, there is a VERY big difference between conservatives supporting basic and common sense attempts at conservation and a restructuring of our economy and way of life based on a scientific theory that has plenty of detractors. And by the way, TDR was not a conservative. The conservative opposition within the party to TDR was led by Taft.

[olevetonahill]

I just wanted to Know what WE as Laymen who dont know shat about it
Should do ?:confused:

[Petro-Sooner]

Plenty of natural gas in the US! Keep the bit going.

[Fraggle145]

I just wanted to Know what WE as Laymen who dont know shat about it
Should do ?:confused:

Tankless water heater is a good start :D

[Curly Bill]

Tankless water heater is a good start :D

I give lots of tanks to my water heater, I love's me some hot water. ;)

[olevetonahill]

Tankless water heater is a good start :D

Good point
Ima gonna start a thread abouts it :D

[TheHumanAlphabet]

again, none of you message board surfers are scientists. so it's your job to find credible, unbiased sources to rely on in regards to climate change and our impact on it.

and until you're interested in pursuing the truth based on data that professional, independent climatologists are gathering, and not seeking sources that will confirm your already-made-up-mind, you'll continue to be a part of the problem, and not the solution.

if it makes you feel any better, conservatives were the original CONSERVationists, playing a huge role in establishing our national parks.

i can't be sure, but i have a gut feeling if george bush's administration and subsequently all of the AM radio hosts would have been on the side of global warming from the start, most republicans would be on board with accepting it finding solutions, and most democrats would find ways to deny it.

I'm a Ph.D. scientist.

[hellogoodbye]

Ummm I have been.

I've read the scientific literature and reached a conclusion that has yet to be disproven. The climate is changing and it is trending to be warmer. And the rise in warming is best modeled/predicted by an anthropogenically caused increase in carbon dioxide.

However, when I state where the scientific literature point me, I get told to quit talking down to everyone, that just because I'm a scientist doesnt make the data that form my conclusion true, and that I dont know any better than anyone else, when actually I do.

Obviously I am making up 20+ years of research to fit my agenda.

I am still trying to figure out what my agenda is...

Honest question - Can you not see why there are folks out there, degreed (or not) at various levels (in a myriad of diciplines) that have a problem with conclusions based on the above highlighted? Models as evidence for conclusion?

Climate change is a given. Burning fossil feuls is bad. Heckuva lot better than burning wood, eh? I just cannot get worked up about the CO2 we have produced. Not to say theres a lot to be worked up about. There are a lot of us - that does have consequenses.

[I Am Right]

We hooked two (2) 50 gallon tanks together, never out of hot water.

[I Am Right]

Its hard to discuss without castigation when your posts start out "hey fragg" and then a weather report. I probably havent been the best about it either, but dude to call out my scientific integrity... well lets just say that is uncalled for at best.

I would like to see a link to the data that temps are dropping over the last 10 years and how it was warmer in 1879.

I am not saying that to be a dick, i really want to see it.

So, upset that I called you Fragg, would you rather I call your Fraggle

[Fraggle145]

Honest question - Can you not see why there are folks out there, degreed (or not) at various levels (in a myriad of diciplines) that have a problem with conclusions based on the above highlighted? Models as evidence for conclusion?

Climate change is a given. Burning fossil feuls is bad. Heckuva lot better than burning wood, eh? I just cannot get worked up about the CO2 we have produced. Not to say theres a lot to be worked up about. There are a lot of us - that does have consequenses.

But thats how science works! the only way you can truly know something is to disprove it. So you try again and again and again to disprove something... When you can't disprove it but you have tried (A LOT) you accept it until it is disproven. I understand (believe me, I understand!) that it is frustrating, but it is the best way to logically go about it.

And the models get tested using the data, its not like it is all out of thin air. For a model to be accepted is not an easy thing. I mean I know they arent always as fulfilling as seeing it in real life with your own eyes. But sometimes that isnt always possible. Climate isnt as easy to see as weather. Its a global phenomenon. And when we are trying to prognosticate what is going to happen then people use models. I mean they use thme in everything else advertising, economics, politcs, I dont understand why they arent just as acceptable in this situation.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Fraggle, they are acceptable. However, they are not couching them in terms of probability and certainly not hedging in their comments. I seriously doubt that the models today are anywhere near close to predicting future occurences. If the "scientists" would apply a little skepticism to their models as they were taught in grad school, then we wouldn't be getting these extrapolated comments that run from the Earth is going to freeze (1970s) to we are going to cook (now). I think they have major political and personal agendas that are trying to ramrod and that is never good science.

An honest look at the science today would yield an uncertain future, perhaps one with warming as a possibility, but unsure as to its origins (natural or manmade).

[LosAngelesSooner]

I love it. Somebody posts that the North Pole is going to be ice free in 10-20 years for the first time ever creating new shipping lanes and leaving a bunch of polar bears homeless and a bunch of coastal cities flooded...

...and I Am Right (RLiMC's Troll) replies with a snow report in a mountain.

Bravo, Science.

Bra...wait for it...

[I Am Right]

But thats how science works! the only way you can truly know something is to disprove it. So you try again and again and again to disprove something... When you can't disprove it but you have tried (A LOT) you accept it until it is disproven. I understand (believe me, I understand!) that it is frustrating, but it is the best way to logically go about it.

And the models get tested using the data, its not like it is all out of thin air. For a model to be accepted is not an easy thing. I mean I know they arent always as fulfilling as seeing it in real life with your own eyes. But sometimes that isnt always possible. Climate isnt as easy to see as weather. Its a global phenomenon. And when we are trying to prognosticate what is going to happen then people use models. I mean they use thme in everything else advertising, economics, politcs, I dont understand why they arent just as acceptable in this situation.

Rant, Rant, Rant. Did I hit a nerve or something. Take a prozac.

[I Am Right]

Hey, LA Sooner and Fraggle-- post away, call me what you want, imply what you what, project what you want. You have no power over me because I do not let you have power. Better yet, whine to someone else

[KABOOKIE]

I love it. Someone can't tell the difference between opinion and fact.

[SoonerNate]

Rant, Rant, Rant. Did I hit a nerve or something. Take a prozac.

No doubt. I'm so glad I'm not an angry liberal.

[LosAngelesSooner]

No doubt. I'm so glad I'm not an angry liberal.Me too.


Hey, LA Sooner and Fraggle-- post away, call me what you want, imply what you what, project what you want. You have no power over me because I do not let you have power. Better yet, whine to someone else
http://thenashvilleminx.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/26407mstuart-smalley-posters.jpg

[LosAngelesSooner]

I love it. Somebody posts that the North Pole is going to be ice free in 10-20 years for the first time ever creating new shipping lanes and leaving a bunch of polar bears homeless and a bunch of coastal cities flooded...

...and I Am Right (RLiMC's Troll) replies with a snow report in a mountain.

Bravo, Science.

Bra...wait for it...

...vo!

[I Am Right]

Me too.


http://thenashvilleminx.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/26407mstuart-smalley-posters.jpg

isn't that guy a senator now?

[I Am Right]

RUSH: Have you seen the weather in the northeast? They're going to be playing a playoff baseball game tonight in mid-30 degree weather with spitting rain tonight and tomorrow night and this is just the first game of a best-of-seven series. The World Series is going to go into early November if both these championship series go -- well, it's going to go into November anyway, the dates are set. Now, it's supposed to rain through Monday, but 30 degrees, I saw pictures of the Yankees working out at the stadium. In Pennsylvania they've already had snow. There's record cold all over the place in the northeast. I'm going to tell you what's going to happen, folks. This is going to happen. Obama is going to have to pay off millions of Americans who cannot pay their heating bills this winter. It is going to probably be a bad winter. And while he's paying off -- they're going to have to do it -- they're having to extend unemployment compensation, they're going to have to do it, this is all part of the plan.

You have to understand it's all part of the plan, people can't take care of themselves, by design, Obama's going to do it and he's going to get the credit for it. "I will see to it that you don't freeze. We need an emergency heating bill, energy bill to help people pay their heating bill." And the Democrats in Congress will go, "Yeah, we gotta keep people from freezing to death." Now, what's interesting is all that's going to be going on while Obama is trying to sell a brand-new economy destroying program based on global warming. They call it climate change now. And they're calling it cap and trade. It's cap and tax. They're going to be arguing while Obama's paying off these people's heating bills in the northeast, they'll be arguing that global warming requires the passage of cap and tax. This is what's going to happen when people can't afford to heat their homes this winter. I'm talking about the employed and the unemployed, heating bills are gonna eat up millions of people's household budgets just when Obamacare taxes kick in, not to mention cap and tax.

[SoonerNate]

The globe warms due to sun spots, it cools do to lack of sun spots. Man made global warming is as big a hoax as Falcon's balloon ride. If you disagree with me then you are racist.

[LosAngelesSooner]

Jesus...the "quality" of our newest posters is in the ****in' ****ter.

As evidenced by these yahoos...

[LosAngelesSooner]

The sides in this debate:


Scientists: "The polar caps are melting for the first time in modern history and all of our data has led us scientists (who spend every day working on things like this after completing 12 years of schooling and studying on this subject and then writing/reading studies that read like dry toast and none of you could possibly comprehend) all to agree (which almost never happens) that it's being influenced heavily by man made CO2 emissions and we could do something to stop it and should if we want to avoid global disaster."
versus


Rush Limbaugh: "Ehhhh The news report for today says there's snow in the North East in October! See?! SNOW! The globe ain't warming! It's snowing!!!! It's a conspiracy! It's the greatest hoax ever played on man! You disagree with me and you're racist! I never equivocate or extrapolate! Dirty Libz, nyuck nyuck nyuck! It's all politics and a smoke screen to get the ratings up on the Weather Channel! Nom Nom Nom...I like Oxycodone...Nom nom nom!"

Guess who our newest "contributors" side with?

I rest my case.

[SoonerNate]

Many scientists believe we are in the early stages of an ice age.

[LosAngelesSooner]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Like I said, I rest my case.

[KABOOKIE]

Poles melting for the first time in.....MODERN HISTORY.

But this time, it's because man did it. :rolleyes:

[LosAngelesSooner]

Followin' me around like a little puppy...

[SoonerNate]

Keep drinking that Kool Aid LA

[LosAngelesSooner]

LOL.

Go watch Glen Beck and listen to Rush Limbaugh some more...then come tell me I'm "drinkin' the Kool Ade," buddy. :rolleyes:

[SicEmBaylor]

Anyone who takes Limbaugh and Hannity seriously while toeing the party-line and defending asshats like Alberto Gonzales have Z-E-R-0 credibility and no place telling someone else they're drinking the Kool-Aid.

[PDXsooner]

Keep drinking that Kool Aid LA

ha ha ha

[SoonerNate]

http://www.oism.org/pproject/

Enjoy comrades.

[ELP Sooner]

I have worked as a meteorological technician for the past 25 years. What I do is take..encode and disseminate hourly weather observations at airports. My only comment on this is 1. change of location and 2. instrumentation. On point 1 many places in the USA and I imagine worldwide have changed locations of the "official weather station"...for example Chicago has gone from downtown on the lakefront...to south of the city at Midway to O'Hare. O'hare does not have the moderating effects of Lake Michigan nearly as much as downtown. Therefore O'Hare is warmer for max temps. Almost all cities have moved their official site from where it was originally. Also to note is urbanization. Cement and brick holds in heat where open fields do not . That warms things up. On point 2 I know for a fact that when the NWS went from using the instrument shelters (those white boxes with thermometers) to the HO-83 (automated temp sensor) that the HO-83 reads about 1.3 degrees higher.

[LosAngelesSooner]

I have worked as a meteorological technician for the past 25 years. What I do is take..encode and disseminate hourly weather observations at airports. My only comment on this is 1. change of location and 2. instrumentation. On point 1 many places in the USA and I imagine worldwide have changed locations of the "official weather station"...for example Chicago has gone from downtown on the lakefront...to south of the city at Midway to O'Hare. O'hare does not have the moderating effects of Lake Michigan nearly as much as downtown. Therefore O'Hare is warmer for max temps. Almost all cities have moved their official site from where it was originally. Also to note is urbanization. Cement and brick holds in heat where open fields do not . That warms things up. On point 2 I know for a fact that when the NWS went from using the instrument shelters (those white boxes with thermometers) to the HO-83 (automated temp sensor) that the HO-83 reads about 1.3 degrees higher.Now THIS ^^^ is an excellent and informative post.

Thank you.

[SoonerNate]

Now THIS ^^^ is an excellent and informative post.

Thank you.

Plants doubt in your boy Al Gore's argument doesn't it?

[Curly Bill]

Good, argument over! You warmers admit you were all full of sh*t and lets call it a day.

[LosAngelesSooner]

Plants doubt in your boy Al Gore's argument doesn't it?Not even a single bit.

Dude...you are a freakin' simpleton...


Good, argument over! You warmers admit you were all full of sh*t and lets call it a day.
Sure. Us "warmers" will shut up as soon as you "flat earthers" give up the fight. ;)

[SoonerNate]

Not even a single bit.

Dude...you are a freakin' simpleton...


Sure. Us "warmers" will shut up as soon as you "flat earthers" give up the fight. ;)

I'm a Simpleton for not wanting the Government to run everything in my life?

I'm telling you LAS, it's a myth. One volcano eruption puts out more Carbon Dioxide in a single year than the entire population of Earth.

I happen to be an environmentalist. I think we should stop with producing so much plastic which ends up in the oceans and never degrades. But, I know better than to follow your myth about man made global warming. Look at my previous post with the petitions. See all those PHD's? I assume they are also "Simpletons?"

Don't be a sucker. Al Gore is banking off of folks like you.

[LosAngelesSooner]

Yep.

'Cause Al Gore is hoping that the "Green Movement" will make him rich.

:rolleyes:

I guess all those scientists who've spent all those decades analyzing all that data are all wrong. Yup yup.

Dude...you're a freakin' simpleton.

Cue I Am Right's latest snow report

in

3

2

1

[SCOUT]

Dude...you're a freakin' simpleton.


As someone who consistently complains about others attacking you, this sure sounds like a personal attack. Surely you wouldn't do that...right?

[LosAngelesSooner]

I am human.

[olevetonahill]

I am human.

Had Me fooled .:rolleyes:

[Harry Beanbag]

Trolls are human?


http://www.thirdwayblog.com/images/400/troll.0.jpg

[Harry Beanbag]

.

[Harry Beanbag]

.

[I Am Right]

I am human.

no your not!

[I Am Right]

Cue I Am Right's latest snow report

in

3

2

1

Snowing!

[KABOOKIE]

Trolls are human?


http://www.thirdwayblog.com/images/400/troll.0.jpg

Holy ****! Is that the rare Trollus San Fernandus?

[LosAngelesSooner]

no your not!
My not, what? :rolleyes:

[hellogoodbye]

But thats how science works! the only way you can truly know something is to disprove it. So you try again and again and again to disprove something... When you can't disprove it but you have tried (A LOT) you accept it until it is disproven. I understand (believe me, I understand!) that it is frustrating, but it is the best way to logically go about it.

And the models get tested using the data, its not like it is all out of thin air. For a model to be accepted is not an easy thing. I mean I know they arent always as fulfilling as seeing it in real life with your own eyes. But sometimes that isnt always possible. Climate isnt as easy to see as weather. Its a global phenomenon. And when we are trying to prognosticate what is going to happen then people use models. I mean they use thme in everything else advertising, economics, politcs, I dont understand why they arent just as acceptable in this situation.

For me (and thanks for the answer!), the problem isnt the method of modeling, but the evidence of causality. And let's face it, you cant justify or falsify models. It is all about the data (which is flakey prior to 50-80 years ago), and the weighting, etc. As with statistics, you can make it go anywhere you want to take it. I can program a model that will say (with certainty) that monkeys will grow and fly out of each and every one of our butts in 7.5 years. eh...

Also, as with the examples you give (fantastically simple compared with global climate) - modeling is a usefull tool (agree with you), only if you accept the premise that there is a very good chance they are wrong most of the time. Of course, those examples are dealing a lot with human behavior, but a failed advertising campaign, or not forcasting an economic downturn, an unforseen political change.... kind of small beans compared to what is being proposed re: climate \ C02 causality, based on models. Dramatically scary scencarios, great visuals, but unconvincing to me, in regards to C02.

[swardboy]

And now for an MIT scientist's newest findings....

New Scientific Study Could Destroy Global Warming Theory (http://www.globalclimatescam.com/?p=555)

A newly released scientific study (http://www.seas.harvard.edu/climate/seminars/pdfs/lindzen.choi.grl.2009.pdf) published by MIT climate scientist Richard Lindzen has the potential of destroying one of the fundamental underpinnings of global warming theorists. The study collected 15-years of long wave radiation measurements from a satellite orbiting the earth. The study correlates the change in the earth’s surface temperature with the change in outgoing long wave radiation. Lindzen’s study shows that as the earth warms, the amount of radiation being bounced-back into outer space actually increases. This is exactly the opposite result that is assumed to occur in the UN climate models. The UN models predict that more radiation is trapped in the earth’s atmosphere as the temperature rises. Lindzen’s findings blow a hole a mile-wide in the arguments used by global warming evangelists.

[Harry Beanbag]

Obviously, Richard Lindzen isn't qualified to be speaking on the subject. ;)

[I Am Right]

Lindzen isn't scientist enough.

[I Am Right]

Obviously, Richard Lindzen isn't qualified to be speaking on the subject. ;)

How dare he, not agree with the UN.

[Fraggle145]

His paper is interesting...

The abstract you present there from the website is written a little heavy-handedly if you read through his results though. The abstract form the paper itself is a bit more informative.


Climate feedbacks are estimated from fluctuations in the
outgoing radiation budget from the latest version of Earth
Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE) nonscanner data.
It appears, for the entire tropics, the observed outgoing
radiation fluxes increase with the increase in sea surface
temperatures (SSTs). The observed behavior of radiation
fluxes implies negative feedback processes associated with
relatively low climate sensitivity. This is the opposite of
the behavior of 11 atmospheric models forced by the same
SSTs. Therefore, the models display much higher climate
sensitivity than is inferred from ERBE, though it is difficult to
pin down such high sensitivities with any precision. Results
also show, the feedback in ERBE is mostly from shortwave
radiation while the feedback in the models is mostly from
longwave radiation. Although such a test does not distinguish
the mechanisms, this is important since the inconsistency of
climate feedbacks constitutes a very fundamental problem
in climate prediction.

Basically he says the climate system isnt as sensitive as predicted by the 11 models he tested it against largely due to the direction of the feedback of Short/long wave radiation. However, the data he compares them to are based on climate models for the tropics not for the entire world (at least as I understand it). Not saying the results arent relevant, they definitely are, but it will be interesting to see if it holds for other systems. He does give the caveat in the results that this negative feed back factor may be reduced in higher latitude systems. Also it will be interesting to see what comes of his cloud height data as he says clouds can have a large effect on his dataset.

Finally, just to throw this out there as well (not saying this fact negates the research he is doing, which is good) Lindzen is a known skeptic that is a member of Exxon/Mobil's think tank, thus he has a vested interest in one side of the discussion. Again, not saying the results aren't valid, they just need to be as heavily scrutinized for where they are coming from as they would from any other scientist.

[Harry Beanbag]

Finally, just to throw this out there as well (not saying this fact negates the research he is doing, which is good) Lindzen is a known skeptic that is a member of Exxon/Mobil's think tank, thus he has a vested interest in one side of the discussion. Again, not saying the results aren't valid, they just need to be as heavily scrutinized for where they are coming from as they would from any other scientist.


I KNEW IT!!!!111!!!1!

[Fraggle145]

For me (and thanks for the answer!), the problem isnt the method of modeling, but the evidence of causality. And let's face it, you cant justify or falsify models. It is all about the data (which is flakey prior to 50-80 years ago), and the weighting, etc. As with statistics, you can make it go anywhere you want to take it. I can program a model that will say (with certainty) that monkeys will grow and fly out of each and every one of our butts in 7.5 years. eh...

Also, as with the examples you give (fantastically simple compared with global climate) - modeling is a usefull tool (agree with you), only if you accept the premise that there is a very good chance they are wrong most of the time. Of course, those examples are dealing a lot with human behavior, but a failed advertising campaign, or not forcasting an economic downturn, an unforseen political change.... kind of small beans compared to what is being proposed re: climate \ C02 causality, based on models. Dramatically scary scencarios, great visuals, but unconvincing to me, in regards to C02.

Right, but to have a credible model you often use the actual data to verify the model. Like you use half to build it and half to test it. And you can disprove/challenge them. This paper by Lindzen shows how you can go about doing that.

Believe me I get the skepticism, it's the vehement opposition to any mention of the possibility and potential action by some who are often less informed that I dont get.

[KABOOKIE]

Amen for skeptics.

[hellogoodbye]

Believe me I get the skepticism, it's the vehement opposition to any mention of the possibility and potential action by some who are often less informed that I dont get.

There is a possibilty as you stated, but there are a lot of catastrophic possibilities (asteroids, supervolcanos, FSM, yadayada), right?. I dont deny the possiblity of AGW, I think there are a lot of possiblities of bad things happening due to the fact that we as a species are successful, and there is now a crap load of us.

It's a dirty energy source, granted. It's the other stuff in the byproduct that makes it dirty.

I would suggest that (despite all the extravagant rhetoric), the other side of the opposition has equal amounts of less informed folks, and copiously more amounts of smugness and vitriol (edit - OK at least equal amounts :) ). Too much of the talking points, and not enough critical thinking, IMO. And because people are people, a lot more gets rolled into it (world views, validations, fear of the unknown, fear of not being in control, etc).

There is a lot out there to unite folks re: pollution. But because it involves petro \ tax dollars, control based on fear (climate!differentthanbefore!causality!), etc, they keep beating on the C02 monkey. That is a shame to me, plus it pzs me off.

[SCOUT]

Believe me I get the skepticism, it's the vehement opposition to any mention of the possibility and potential action by some who are often less informed that I dont get.

I wish this were the prevailing wisdom. Please apply this statement to the other side of the argument. How many times have we heard things like, the science is settled, it is undeniable, you just don't understand how science works, that scientist is biased, etc...?

I greatly appreciate scientific inquiry and will readily admit that I am not a scientist. However, there are people who are truly scientists who have serious doubts about AGW. Can we let them sit at the scientist table too?

[Fraggle145]

I wish this were the prevailing wisdom. Please apply this statement to the other side of the argument. How many times have we heard things like, the science is settled, it is undeniable, you just don't understand how science works, that scientist is biased, etc...?

I greatly appreciate scientific inquiry and will readily admit that I am not a scientist. However, there are people who are truly scientists who have serious doubts about AGW. Can we let them sit at the scientist table too?

Sure, I mean Lindzen is a leading GW skeptic and he has a seat at the table and there are a few others. I wouldnt say it is undeniable or insurmountable the conclusion that climate change is caused anthropogenically. I will just say it would be a very, very large mountain to climb going the other way.

I think what bothers people that have reached the conclusion that I have (that it is anthropogenically caused, at least in part) and that have done the reading that I have or the research (or more) is that it is presented as if the two "sides" or conclusions have equitable amounts of support/evidence, which is not the case. I am not saying that some of the "skeptics" dont bring up valid points or anything else like that; just the evidence is not proportionate to the presentation. I mean if they are right then that's great and I will fully admit i was wrong on the conclusion I reached.

The problem is that on both sides they are fighting fire with fire, using sweeping generalization, heavy-handed language, fear tactics, and vitriol to spread their message. Both sides are condescending as hell when most of them dont even know what they are talking about. If people actually sit down and have a conversation and see where the other side is coming from it would be much easier to actually start reaching some perhaps better conclusions. But in today's society any argument turns into a screaming match and once we figure out we are different we refuse to agree on anything just on general principle. And I fully admit I can fall into it just as easily as anyone else.

I also think more of the scientists on both sides need to be more responsible in the presentation of their research. I mean the presentation of the Lindzen article is a perfect example of how the popular presentation on the website can overstate what the paper actually said (and this absolutely happens on both sides).

[I Am Right]

Sooooo-man is causing global warming with all of our carbon dioxide. What about the animals, don't they exhale carbon dioxide as well, maybe we should get rid of the animals. Some idiot thinks we should let people die as MAN is causing carbon dioxide increases, and pay people with birth credits to not have kids. I will tell you what is up with the warmers or changers--they don't like the fact most people believe in God. Man is the only cognizant being ever on the planet, A dog does not know it is a dog, man on the other hand wonders about things, and some have to much time on thier hands.

[Curly Bill]

Sooooo-man is causing global warming with all of our carbon dioxide. What about the animals, don't they exhale carbon dioxide as well, maybe we should get rid of the animals. Some idiot thinks we should let people die as MAN is causing carbon dioxide increases, and pay people with birth credits to not have kids. I will tell you what is up with the warmers or changers--they don't like the fact most people believe in God. Man is the only cognizant being ever on the planet, A dog does not know it is a dog, man on the other hand wonders about things, and some have to much time on thier hands.


I'm not sure this is a bad idea in many cases. ;)

[Fraggle145]

...I will tell you what is up with the warmers or changers--they don't like the fact most people believe in God. Man is the only cognizant being ever on the planet, A dog does not know it is a dog, man on the other hand wonders about things, and some have to much time on thier hands.

This is just retarded. If there is or isnt a God has little if anything to do with whether or not a person accepts global warming.

And you show your *** here. Many animals are cognizant of the fact that they are in fact alive. And they wonder about things. It can be argued that whales and dolphins may be as smart or smarter than us. Hell an Octopus is as smart as most 5 year-olds. Elephants and many other animals have been shown to mourn the loss of group members.

Why do you think man is better than every other plant, animal, or microbe on this planet?

[I Am Right]

This is just retarded. If there is or isnt a God has little if anything to do with whether or not a person accepts global warming.

And you show your *** here. Many animals are cognizant of the fact that they are in fact alive. And they wonder about things. It can be argued that whales and dolphins may be as smart or smarter than us. Hell an Octopus is as smart as most 5 year-olds. Elephants and many other animals have been shown to mourn the loss of group members.

Why do you think man is better than every other plant, animal, or microbe on this planet?

Wow, whales and dolphins know more about nuclear fission than man. I saw a horse once count with its hoof. About man is better, as I said before, it is a God thing. You may think you are no better than a microbe, but I for sure as *ell am.

[I Am Right]

Fraggle- need to show a little more tolerance to mentally challenged people. We don't call them retarded anymore.

[Sooner_Havok]

Fraggle- need to show a little more tolerance to mentally challenged people. We don't call them retarded anymore.

Did he offend you?

[I Am Right]

Dolphans and whales aren't aware they are dolphans and whales, man they don't even know they are in water. What happens when whales beach themselves, are they protesting something?

[I Am Right]

Did he offend you?

yes, he needs to show a little of that liberal tolerance.

[Sooner_Havok]

yes, he needs to show a little of that liberal tolerance.

Fraggle, apologize!! You hurt his feelers!!

[I Am Right]

Fraggle, apologize!! You hurt his feelers!!

feelers, feelers, I don't need no stinking feelers!

[Fraggle145]

Dolphans and whales aren't aware they are dolphans and whales, man they don't even know they are in water. What happens when whales beach themselves, are they protesting something?

Gee people never kill themselves... Only a stupid animal would do something like that.

[Fraggle145]

Wow, whales and dolphins know more about nuclear fission than man. I saw a horse once count with its hoof. About man is better, as I said before, it is a God thing. You may think you are no better than a microbe, but I for sure as *ell am.

If its a god thing then maybe you should learn to treat the planet and all of the things that he possibly created with a little more respect.

Once all the humans are gone, the only thing that will be left is microbes.

[Fraggle145]

Fraggle- need to show a little more tolerance to mentally challenged people. We don't call them retarded anymore.

If you knew how to read you would see where I said this is retarded. As in showing evidence of slow thought. Not that you were retarded, you jumped to that conclusion by yourself.