Global Warming devastates Houston

[DarrinS]

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6156862.html




Falling snowflakes glimmered in streetlights, so wide that they billowed to the ground like parachutes, and so tantalizing that even awestruck adults reached out their hands or stuck out their tongues to catch one.

By Wednesday evening, the flakes were big enough to hold their shape for a moment on the street before melting into the pavement, and a dusting had collected on parked cars in some parts of town.

The flurries tied a record for Houston's earliest snowfall ever and warmed the hearts of winter weather lovers who have pined for snow since it last made an appearance on Christmas Eve 2004.

"I've got a pot roast in the Crock-Pot, and I'm going to go home, change into my warmest pajamas and eat pot roast and enjoy what may be the only real winter day we have all year," said Tina Arnold, an Illinois native who took advantage of the wintry backdrop to pick up Christmas presents Wednesday at The Woodlands Mall.

Since 1895, records indicate, snow has fallen this early just once — on Dec. 10, 1944.

[2centsworth]

the alarmist will argue that there's a chance it continues snowing for the next 365 days.

[balli]

Everytime I come a across a person who refuses to believe in global warming because of winter/cold weather, I silently call them an idiot, before going about the rest of my day.

If you don't even know what the fuck Global Warming is, it's probably best you not try to discredit it, based on a singular snow storm.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Everytime I come a across a person who refuses to believe in global warming because of winter/cold weather, I silently call them an idiot, before going about the rest of my day.

If you don't even know what the fuck Global Warming is, it's probably best you not try to discredit it, based on a singular snow storm.

Right, it's not like the global warming nazis pointed to Katrina as proof of global warming. Point taken.

[Anti.Hero]

Everytime I come a across a person who refuses to believe in global warming because of winter/cold weather, I silently call them an idiot, before going about the rest of my day.

If you don't even know what the fuck Global Warming is, it's probably best you not try to discredit it, based on a singular snow storm.

lol at this guy calling others idiot when he in fact is the idiot being controlled by his lovely big government.

[DarrinS]

Everytime I come a across a person who refuses to believe in global warming because of winter/cold weather, I silently call them an idiot, before going about the rest of my day.

If you don't even know what the fuck Global Warming is, it's probably best you not try to discredit it, based on a singular snow storm.



From Newsweek, 1975



There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production – with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas – parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia – where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.

The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree – a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars’ worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.

To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. “A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.”

A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.

To the layman, the relatively small changes in temperature and sunshine can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin points out that the Earth’s average temperature during the great Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest eras – and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age average. Others regard the cooling as a reversion to the “little ice age” conditions that brought bitter winters to much of Europe and northern America between 1600 and 1900 – years when the Thames used to freeze so solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and when iceboats sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New York City.

Just what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery. “Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at least as fragmentary as our data,” concedes the National Academy of Sciences report. “Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions.”

Meteorologists think that they can forecast the short-term results of the return to the norm of the last century. They begin by noting the slight drop in overall temperature that produces large numbers of pressure centers in the upper atmosphere. These break up the smooth flow of westerly winds over temperate areas. The stagnant air produced in this way causes an increase in extremes of local weather such as droughts, floods, extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons and even local temperature increases – all of which have a direct impact on food supplies.

“The world’s food-producing system,” warns Dr. James D. McQuigg of NOAA’s Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, “is much more sensitive to the weather variable than it was even five years ago.” Furthermore, the growth of world population and creation of new national boundaries make it impossible for starving peoples to migrate from their devastated fields, as they did during past famines.

Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap :wow by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.





So, they were wrong then, but I should believe them now?

[Viva Las Espuelas]

it should be called Regional Warming. i think i'd be happy if they switched it to that.
oh, and "global" warming hit southern louisiana as well.



let me guess
balijuana=:lmao

i think i'll be able to go about with the rest of my day knowing labia-wanga is laughing at me.

[Yonivore]

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=111846
Global Warming = Worst Scientific Scandal in History

[E20]

Wouldn't Global Warming eventually lead to cooler temperatures because of the warmer temperatures? If so it is working, because it's pretty damn cold here and it's getting pretty hot as well during the summers.

[Yonivore]

Wouldn't Global Warming eventually lead to cooler temperatures because of the warmer temperatures? If so it is working, because it's pretty damn cold here and it's getting pretty hot as well during the summers.
Kind of ruins the apocolyptic predictions of 20 feet of water in New York, etc...

The Church of Global Warming is clueless and, now, their ignorance is being exposed.

[E20]

Kind of ruins the apocolyptic predictions of 20 feet of water in New York, etc...

The Church of Global Warming is clueless and, now, their ignorance is being exposed.

I was just thinking that for Global Warming theorists their alarm should be much COLDER temperatures rather than Warmer temperatures, because I think the main fear is another ice age or something due to Global warming. I'm not sure since I don't really care about Global warming because if it exists it's drastic effects will not affect me in my lifetime so I don't bother to research about it. But IMO eventually there will be anotehr ice age sooner or later and I considered this before i ever heard of globabl warming because it happend before so it cna happen again.

[2centsworth]

Kind of ruins the apocolyptic predictions of 20 feet of water in New York, etc...

The Church of Global Warming is clueless and, now, their ignorance is being exposed.

Global warming only exist during Republican Presidencies, much like homelessness.

[MannyIsGod]

This thread and posts were more predictable than AHF going off on Pop after a loss. And thats pretty fucking preditctable.

[2centsworth]

This thread and posts were more predictable than AHF going off on Pop after a loss. And thats pretty fucking preditctable.

are you a global warming alarmist? not a challenge, just curious to know.

[MannyIsGod]

Not by a long shot. I'll be honest and say that I simply don't know. I'm looking forward to having access to a top notch meteorological department in a year or so because I feel I'll be able to get real knowledge and data on the subject first hand.

I'm not a fan of the IPCC and I've said so in the past, but that doesn't change that we are doing lots of harmful things to our planet. CO2 is killing the oceans, which in its own right may be just as bad as any climate change. I've also said in the past climate change may have many positive aspects.

Now, all of that being said, threads like this just make the OP look incredibly stupid. Singular weather events mean nothing in terms of climate. Its the equivlant of taking a Harold Minor dunk contest win and using that as justification of him being the best player of all time.

[doobs]

(1) Is the earth warming?

(2) If so, is that a bad thing?

(3) To what extent is human activity causing that warming?

(4) What can be done to actually solve the problem?


Which questions have been answered?

[The Reckoning]

funny how 30,000 scientists are suing Al Gore for fraud

[spurs_fan_in_exile]

Well, Monday could have been one for the Global Warmers in Houston. I went off to work in short sleeves and flip flops. Then 48 hours later we get snow. I don't know if global warming is real and if we humans are the cause, but I do know that Mother Nature is acting like one crazy bitch on the rag this week.

[Yonivore]

This thread and posts were more predictable than AHF going off on Pop after a loss. And thats pretty fucking preditctable.

What does that even mean?

Do you still buy the anthropogenic global warming crap? Seriously?

[Wild Cobra]

If you don't even know what the fuck Global Warming is, it's probably best you not try to discredit it, based on a singular snow storm.
I don't think the people here discredit it for that reason. There are plenty of other supporting factors.

Myself, I see it as one more sign that supports global warming fears as dogma.

[Wild Cobra]

From Newsweek, 1975

I like this part:

They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve.
They knew then the effects of black soot on ice, but the Alarmists never speak of it's impact.



So, they were wrong then, but I should believe them now?


Agreed. Especially when the news will blow everything out of proportion to sell their product.

[ploto]

Of the 4 years I lived in Houston, it snowed in December in 2 of those years- and that was almost 20 years ago.

[Wild Cobra]

Here are my opinions which are based on far more than the average citizen knows:



(1) Is the earth warming?

Possibly. It definitely has been over the long term, since the 1700's. I would say yes, except it there is strong evidence we have entered a cooling phase again starting about two to four years ago.



(2) If so, is that a bad thing?

Only if it's excessive. I will not pretend to know how much is too much. Considerations are several. Ocean acification is probably the biggest concern, but warming actually has a real small effect on it.



(3) To what extent is human activity causing that warming?

Nobody really knows. If you use the 0.7 C figure, I would say that our effect is about 0.3 C, and no more than 0.4 C. Most people would disagree. I would say about 0.04 C to 0.12 C from added CO2 and about 0.1 C to 0.3 C from black carbon on ice and snow. My less accurate educated guess would narrow that to about 0.07 C for CO2 and about 0.25 C for the soot, leaving about 0.35 for solar. I am very convinced that the sun accounts for at least 0.3 C of the warming and probably about 0.4 C since the 1700’s.



(4) What can be done to actually solve the problem?

I believe the most effective solution is to convince Asia that they need to update their coal burning power plants to clean burning facilities like most of ours are in the USA. The winds carry their soot over the northern ice, melting the ice and warming the water.



Which questions have been answered?

To my knowledge, none of them with any level of certainty. Even my numbers are my best guess, and I could be wrong.

[Wild Cobra]

Here's an interesting related article:

Houston ties earliest snowfall record (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/12/11/houston-ties-earliest-snowfall-record/)

Todays page; Watts Up With That? (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/); has this the first article and a great deal of interesting things below.

[DarrinS]

Not by a long shot. I'll be honest and say that I simply don't know. I'm looking forward to having access to a top notch meteorological department in a year or so because I feel I'll be able to get real knowledge and data on the subject first hand.

I'm not a fan of the IPCC and I've said so in the past, but that doesn't change that we are doing lots of harmful things to our planet. CO2 is killing the oceans, which in its own right may be just as bad as any climate change. I've also said in the past climate change may have many positive aspects.

Now, all of that being said, threads like this just make the OP look incredibly stupid. Singular weather events mean nothing in terms of climate. Its the equivlant of taking a Harold Minor dunk contest win and using that as justification of him being the best player of all time.




California is about to go bankrupt and their about to waste hundreds of millions of dollars fighting a non-issue. But I'm the stupid one?

[MannyIsGod]

In short, yes.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

Of the 4 years I lived in Houston, it snowed in December in 2 of those years- and that was almost 20 years ago.well it either snowed today or yesterday and again in 2003.

[E20]

CO2 is killing the oceans, which in its own right may be just as bad as any climate change.

If you look at the phase changes from liquid H20 to gas the ocean without a doubt is the biggest cause of releasing CO2 in the atomsphere.


However, it also as an alleviating effect, so the net CO2 release is downsized.

[Extra Stout]

If you look at the phase changes from liquid H20 to gas the ocean without a doubt is the biggest cause of releasing CO2 in the atomsphere.


However, it also as an alleviating effect, so the net CO2 release is downsized.
Thank you Gov. Palin.

[DarrinS]

In short, yes.


Even Obama will have the good sense not to dump money on this non-issue.

[MannyIsGod]

Well Obama also has the sense not to start threads like this.

I don't get how pointing out possible mistakes of others makes you look like any less of a moron, but feel fre to continue.

[Yonivore]

Well Obama also has the sense not to start threads like this.
Considering the people with whom he's chosen to associate with, worship with, employ and be employed by, over the past 20 years...I'm not so sure that's a true statement.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

........ makes you look like any less of a moron, but feel fre to continue.
oh really. yes feel fre

[DarrinS]

Well Obama also has the sense not to start threads like this.

I don't get how pointing out possible mistakes of others makes you look like any less of a moron, but feel fre to continue.



Wanna buy some carbon credits? I have a printer.

[rascal]

lol at this guy calling others idiot when he in fact is the idiot being controlled by his lovely big government.

Your controlled by conservative talk radio.

[Yonivore]

Wanna buy some carbon credits? I have a printer.

Does it use carbon based toner?

[George Gervin's Afro]

Considering the people with whom he's chosen to associate with, worship with, employ and be employed by, over the past 20 years...I'm not so sure that's a true statement.

:rolleyes

Let it go Yoni.. the 'associations' tag didn't work. the only people who are concerned are those who will never support him.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Your controlled by conservative talk radio.

Funny. I listen to talk radio quite a bit and I find it ironic when a caller talks about dems being kool aid drinkers.

[E20]

:lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao


Thank you Gov. Palin.


LOL I copied that straight out of my chemistry book. So the jokes on you guys not knowing simple phase changes and gas reactions when water evaporates with the atmosphere.

[Extra Stout]

LOL I copied that straight out of my chemistry book. So the jokes on you guys not knowing simple phase changes and gas reactions when water evaporates with the atmosphere.
omg i can copie sentins in colluj tecksbook i so smart i noes evrything

[E20]

LOL I loosely paraphrased so when I meant copied straight out, it was an exagerration. Also don't get mad because I take chemistry classes and try to incorporate what I learn to other areas.

[Extra Stout]

Y' know, the people I talk to, we're just ill about these simple phase changes goin' on in the oceans with the CO2. It's like, it's just some of those gas reactions and water evaporatin', but you got these scientists with their liberal agenda who don't tell you that's it's alleviatin' the CO2 also. And then there's the refraction of the sun's rays in the water, and, you just look at all the coral reefs. But China, China has just this enormous amount of pollution that they're puttin' out, and it's meltin' the ice caps, and that's makin' the CO2 hurt those little shrimp skeletons. But it's got to be all about job creation.

[Extra Stout]

I think I'm going to go read a page out of a constitutional law textbook, make a hilariously incoherent comment, and then lecture FWD about how dumb he is.

[E20]

Y' know, the people I talk to, we're just ill about these simple phase changes goin' on in the oceans with the CO2. It's like, it's just some of those gas reactions and water evaporatin', but you got these scientists with their liberal agenda who don't tell you that's it's alleviating the CO2 also. And then there's the refraction of the sun's rays in the water, and, you just look at all the coral reefs. But China, China has just this enormous amount of pollution that they're puttin' out, and it's meltin' the ice caps, and that's makin' the CO2 hurt those little shrimp skeletons. But it's got to be all about job creation.

So let me summarize the pargraph since you and Pimpo are being an ass about it, maybe this will save me some face and not make me look clueless:

Oceans cover more than 80% of the Earth's surface area and play a major role in CO2 intake, as well as the release of CO2. As much as 90% of the world's CO2 is concentrated in the Oceans, which makes it such a good thermal regulator for the Earth's climate and atmosphere, because it absorbs such a large amount of CO2. When water evaportes from the ocean, the final reactant is not always water vapor, other gaseous molecules as such O2 and H2 in there natural diatomic state are present as well, as well as CO2. Aquatic life also induces the relase of CO2 into the surrounding enviornemtn and eventually into the atmosphere, however plant life and other photosynthezing organisms like phytoplankton and zooplankton also help alleviate CO2 levels inside the oceans because of there metabolic systems. In short the oceans release a good deal of CO2, but also help alleviate CO2 levels because they absorb a larger amount than they release. (Zumdahl and Zumdhal)

That's what I basically meant. Oceans release adn absorb CO2 according to my book. If you disagree write to the Zumdhal family.

[E20]

I think I'm going to go read a page out of a constitutional law textbook, make a hilariously incoherent comment, and then lecture FWD about how dumb he is.

Also taht was never my intention, all I did was state soemthing and you made a snerky comment and I replied back with one. Dont' get butt hurt.

[E20]

Whoops. Doulbe post.

[DarkReign]

Last edited by Extra Stout : Today at 03:35 PM. Reason: Forgot to drop the g on alleviatin' also

:lmao

[Extra Stout]

CO2 is slightly soluble in water. More precisely, it reacts with water to form H2CO3, aka carbonic acid. The carbonic acid then dissociates to form bicarbonate (HCO3,-) and carbonate (CO3,2-) ions. Which form predominates depends on the pH of the water. At near-neutral or slightly basic pH, the HCO3 form predominates, though some H2CO3 and CO3,2- also exist.

There is always some H2CO3 breaking apart to release CO2 to the atmosphere, and some CO2 combining with H2O to form new H2CO3. When this is stable, the ocean-atmosphere system is in equilibrium.

There is a maximum amount of CO2 that can be dissolved into the ocean at a given temperature. As temperature rises, this maximum solubility goes down a little. Right now, we are still not at this maximum solubility, so when additional CO2 is added to the atmosphere, most of it can dissolve into the ocean. Not all of it does, however, because remember that there is always still some H2CO3 breaking back apart and releasing CO2. What happens is that the equilibrium between the ocean and the atmosphere shifts.

There are effects within the ocean when CO2 is added to the system. Since CO2 and water form carbonic acid, that means acid is being added to the ocean, which means the pH goes down. When the pH goes down a little, it means a few CO3,2- ions turn into HCO3- ions, and a few HCO3- ions turn into H2CO3 molecules. That sounds rather mundane until you realize that a lot of aquatic organisms have exoskeletons made out of calcium carbonate. As pH goes down, a little bit of that exoskeleton turns into calcium bicarbonate and dissolves. So it gets a little harder for creatures like plankton, or mollusks, or lobsters to survive. So the population of plankton declines a little. So, now the creatures that eat plankton have a little less to eat, so now you have a little bit fewer fish, etc.

Also, you get into a negative feedback loop, since in order to grow and to form those exoskeletons in the first place, those plankton pull carbon out of the water. When they die, their carcasses sink to the ocean floor, pulling the carbon away from the interface zone with the atmosphere. When you have fewer plankton, this happens less, so the negative effects of CO2 accumulation accelerate.

[E20]

CO2 is slightly soluble in water. More precisely, it reacts with water to form H2CO3, aka carbonic acid. The carbonic acid then dissociates to form bicarbonate (HCO3,-) and carbonate (CO3,2-) ions. Which form predominates depends on the pH of the water. At near-neutral or slightly basic pH, the HCO3 form predominates, though some H2CO3 and CO3,2- also exist.

There is always some H2CO3 breaking apart to release CO2 to the atmosphere, and some CO2 combining with H2O to form new H2CO3. When this is stable, the ocean-atmosphere system is in equilibrium.

There is a maximum amount of CO2 that can be dissolved into the ocean at a given temperature. As temperature rises, this maximum solubility goes down a little. Right now, we are still not at this maximum solubility, so when additional CO2 is added to the atmosphere, most of it can dissolve into the ocean. Not all of it does, however, because remember that there is always still some H2CO3 breaking back apart and releasing CO2. What happens is that the equilibrium between the ocean and the atmosphere shifts.

There are effects within the ocean when CO2 is added to the system. Since CO2 and water form carbonic acid, that means acid is being added to the ocean, which means the pH goes down. When the pH goes down a little, it means a few CO3,2- ions turn into HCO3- ions, and a few HCO3- ions turn into H2CO3 molecules. That sounds rather mundane until you realize that a lot of aquatic organisms have exoskeletons made out of calcium carbonate. As pH goes down, a little bit of that exoskeleton turns into calcium bicarbonate and dissolves. So it gets a little harder for creatures like plankton, or mollusks, or lobsters to survive. So the population of plankton declines a little. So, now the creatures that eat plankton have a little less to eat, so now you have a little bit fewer fish, etc.

Also, you get into a negative feedback loop, since in order to grow and to form those exoskeletons in the first place, those plankton pull carbon out of the water. When they die, their carcasses sink to the ocean floor, pulling the carbon away from the interface zone with the atmosphere. When you have fewer plankton, this happens less, so the negative effects of CO2 accumulation accelerate.

Thanks for the lesson, don't know why you are going so deep into my statement and taking it seriously but whatever. But since carbonic acid is metnioned you can also form carbonic acid when you breath. has something to do with the bohr shift. When the pH of the blood lowers hemoglobin in teh blood rleases CO2 and increases it's affinity for O2 and with the excess CO2, some of it reacts with H20 to form carbonic acid. Then it reverses teh process in teh alveoli back to CO2 and H20.

[Extra Stout]

Thanks for the lesson, don't know why you are going so deep into my statement and taking it seriously but whatever. But since carbonic acid is metnioned you can also form carbonic acid when you breath. has something to do with the bohr shift. When the pH of the blood lowers hemoglobin in teh blood rleases CO2 and increases it's affinity for O2 and with the excess CO2, some of it reacts with H20 to form carbonic acid. Then it reverses teh process in teh alveoli back to CO2 and H20.
i thot u was wantin 2 lern

[E20]

You're using a pretty bad accent for a dude who is from Afghanistan. So guess I was right after all.

[Extra Stout]

You're using a pretty bad accent for a dude who is from Afghanistan. So guess I was right after all.
Also November tag conference our?

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Y' know, the people I talk to, we're just ill about these simple phase changes goin' on in the oceans with the CO2. It's like, it's just some of those gas reactions and water evaporatin', but you got these scientists with their liberal agenda who don't tell you that's it's alleviatin' the CO2 also. And then there's the refraction of the sun's rays in the water, and, you just look at all the coral reefs. But China, China has just this enormous amount of pollution that they're puttin' out, and it's meltin' the ice caps, and that's makin' the CO2 hurt those little shrimp skeletons. But it's got to be all about job creation.

stick to bein a pundit brah
leave the jokes to me :smokin

[E20]

Also November tag conference our?

Ugh?

[Wild Cobra]

I'll be honest and say that I simply don't know.

----

CO2 is killing the oceans,
OK, you don't know about something earlier in regards to Global Warming. What makews you an expert that CO2 is killing the ocean? Is it because the Alarmists say so?

That's pure propaganda. Show me links that support their data with mathmatics.

Ocean acidity is affected by other things more than CO2 absorbtion. CO2 has an equilibrium that changes with acidity. Not the other way around.

[Wild Cobra]

LOL I copied that straight out of my chemistry book. So the jokes on you guys not knowing simple phase changes and gas reactions when water evaporates with the atmosphere.

I also forgot about that simplistic fact until you brought it up.

People, water absorbs CO2. When a given volume of water evaporates, the CO2 is no longer a dissolved gas in that water!

[Yonivore]

In the face of the current cooling trend, global warming alarmists have naturally gotten more hysterical than ever. This Associated Press article (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D952PP0O0&show_article=1) is typical: "Obama left with little time to curb global warming." Personally, I think Obama has a much better chance of walking on water than changing the weather. But the AP plods doggedly on:


When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, global warming was a slow-moving environmental problem that was easy to ignore. Now it is a ticking time bomb that President-elect Barack Obama can't avoid. ...

The 10 hottest years on record have occurred since Clinton's second inauguration. Global warming is accelerating. Time is close to running out, and Obama knows it.
This displays a remarkable level of ignorance on the part of the Associated Press. Global temperature records are nowhere near accurate enough to rank years, over a period of centuries, with any confidence. For the recent past, though, we have the world's best data set here in the U.S. And it's true that at one time, it was widely believed that the 1990s were the warmest recent decade. But that was before it was discovered that NASA's James Hansen, Al Gore's chief scientific ally, had been fudging the data, either accidentally or on purpose. NASA was forced to correct its data, with the result that the ten warmest years on record here in the US are as follows: 1934, 1998, 1921, 2006, 1931, 1999, 1953, 1990, 1938, 1939.

The AP apparently hasn't gotten the word, perhaps because it is relying on the report of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. But the IPCC report was a political document, not a scientific one, which deliberately ignored the most current research in the field.

Finally, the AP's claim that the last 11 years have included all of the 10 warmest "on record" is plausible only if you take a very narrow view of the record. It seems obvious that when we talk about the planet's climate, a broader perspective (http://www.heartland.org/custom/semod_policybot/pdf/22835.pdf) is necessary. So here is the broader perspective:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/media/WeatherData190.jpg

When we talk about "global warming" it is important to ask the right questions. Is the earth continuing to warm up from the "Little Ice Age"? Yes, it has been, at least until recently. Fortunately. Is the earth continuing to warm up from the last real Ice Age, around 10,000 years ago, when much of the United States was buried under ice a half mile thick? Yes, thankfully! Is the earth warming up compared to where it was five or ten years ago? No.

Many scientists believe that we are entering an era of global cooling. That may or may not be true; climate science is in its infancy and we cannot predict with any confidence what the weather will be 10, 20, or 50 years hence. What we can say for certain is that the way in which the weather "issue" is covered by the Associated Press and other media outlets is a disgrace.

My favorite quote from the AP article:


“While skeptics are already using it [a cooling trend] as evidence of some kind of cooling trend, it actually illustrates how fast the world is warming.”
:lmao

[ElNono]

For once I agree with you Yoni... :tu

[Wild Cobra]

In the face of the current cooling trend, global warming alarmists have naturally gotten more hysterical than ever. This Associated Press article (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D952PP0O0&show_article=1) is typical: "Obama left with little time to curb global warming." Personally, I think Obama has a much better chance of walking on water than changing the weather.

I think the truth is that they know Global Warming by their presentation is a farce.

They are running out of time to claim that they changed the trend!

[ClingingMars]

global warming makes me lol

with the temperatures at JMU, i say BRING IT, PLEASE

-Mars