Thank God for Global Warming or else we would really be cold here. Our nighttime temperatures continue to dip around freezing and sometimes colder. We had snow again last night where I live. Now I live at least 100 ft. higher than the Portland Airport, which is the official weather record point for Portland. A few days ago, maybe the 26th, they had measurable snow. If they did again last night, I don't know. However, the previous record for late season measurable snow was set on March 10, 1951. I still haven't figured out how in a time of global warming, we see record cold spells in places, and I get snow.
I'm just glad we have global warming, else I might be freezing my nuts off in the springtime.
The site above link is 2006 information where snow was a day early of tying the record. It confirms the 1951 date. I didn't find any March 2008 official data yet. NOAA has a February report, but we are still in March. I could probable find an article if I searched enough, but what's the point. I know it was reported in the area.
Somebody didn't watch The Day After Tomorrow...
The gyromoitors inside the global splines will cause reticulations to the temperate zones on the surface causing a global cooling effect in otherwise temperate regions.
In other news, the Earth is also governed by a 19ish year lunar cycle, as well as the 365-day solar one... which does, in fact, effect weather patterns... including temperatures rising and cooling, as well as precipitation changes.
Isn't global warming typically measured in either deep sea temperature or upper atmospheric temperature? In either case, the biggest direct effect for such a small increase as has been measured would be changes in global water/air currents which could bring any number of weather changes.
Not that I'm a proponent of man-made catastrophic warming, just pointing out that it's not so much how much it's warmed, but where, when determining weather effects.
OMG...
Such a fake movie, and you take it as gospel?
The theory is sound, except there really aren't any notable changes in the sea or the upper atmosphere that suggests anything other than natural cycles when you look at the solar factor.
I agree with you there. We know that we are releasing gasses, etc, that can prevent radial cooling, but there's not enough data to really suggest they are dense enough to affect much of anything yet, and we know the planet has seen much more drastic heating rates at a mul ude of times in the past.
Just for fun:
Please understand the direct thermal correlation from the sun. Anytime the alarmists say the sun has almost no influence, they are only talking about the forcing aspect of it's radiated power which is only about 8.1% of the full power the earth takes in.
Here is a simple greenhouse effect model:
The model has a few flaws, but it is one of the models used by the alarmists. I will start with the following assumptions:
The earth with no solar power would be very cold. Not absolute zero because of a hot magma, but it would be somewhere around 55 Kelvin. I chose 55 K for convenience of calculation. It could be +/- 50 easily.
The claimed greenhouse effect for this model is 32 Celsius, with a global temperature of 14 C.
14C – 32 C = -18 C or 255 K; 255 K – 55 K = 200 K (or C) range heat from the sun.
The model shows 67 watts + 452 watts creating the 32 C atmospheric warming. This equates to 16.22 watts per degree.
Now consider a 0.1% increase in solar power (11 year solar cycle exceeds this.)
The 168 watt figure becomes 168.168 watts and directly increase the earths temperature proportionally, or from 255 K to 255.2 K, a 0.2 C increase.
The extra solar heating not becomes more IR for the greenhouse effect. The 67 watt figure is now 67.067. The 452 figure is now 452.452. These also increase the greenhouse effect in a proportional manner, adding another 0.03 C. This is the effect of solar forcing that the alarmists claim the sun has. They never include the direct radiated heat from the sun.
The 14 C global average is now 14 C+ 0.2 C+ 0.03 C, or 14.23 C.
The alarmists don't exactly lie. They say a 0.1% increase in solar radiation only increases the greenhouse effect by the 0.03 C. This simply ignore the 0.2 C increase by direct radiation.
Now supposable, man kind has increased the temperature by 1 C in the last 100 years. To do this, the greenhouse effect of 519 must increase by 6.16%. Since they claim it's not solar, the 452 number must increase to 484, or a 7.08% (32 watt) increase. Greenhouse gasses are not proportional in forcing power, and CO2 is accepted to be 9% of the greenhouse effect. 9% of this 519 is 46.71 watts. To add another 32 watts is a 68.51% increase in forcing from CO2, yet at 280 ppm for century old levels, the CO2 already traps about 90% of what is can at 100% saturation! It is impossible for CO2 to add 1 C. This is asking that CO2 trap more than at 150% of saturation.
Now a 1% change or more in solar energy over times not recorded are expected to be certain. What does a 1% increase or decrease give us? Without going in complete detail, it is about:
1% hotter is about 16.32 C average global temperature.
1% cooler is about 11.68 C average global temperature.
Now when the oceans get cold enough to reabsorb most the CO2 in the atmosphere and/or reduce the water vapor in the atmosphere enough, we go into another ice age from the loss of the greenhouse gasses.
Yes, a completely silly movie. I was entertained, however, by the special effects and how the producers, writers, and director tried to jam every liberal meme (idea) they possibly could into the script ...
Global climate change(obvious)
Homeless guy in the library (society stole from him!)
Burning books in the library to keep warm (the librarian scolds them, you should NEVER burn books, only fascists do that)
The father-son rift
The Vice President who looks remarkably like Cheney, who denies global climate change and probably works for big oil
Americans crossing into Mexico en masse for warmer climate (obviously a reflection of their view on illegal immigration)
The Republican President dying (a liberal's wet dream)
Possibly the most unintentially hilarious movie of all time.
I thought the movie was hilarious.
Global Warming is a joke, historically temperatures have always had fluxuations and "warmer" and "colder" periods, what we are seeing now is nothing out of the norm if you look at the big picture. Global Warming was created as propaganda to further the agenda of those who could benefit from spreading this foolishness.
The real truth about Global Warming and it's "intended" consequences.
Poor Nations Demand Climate Money
By MICHAEL CASEY – 22 hours ago
BANGKOK, Thailand (AP) — Poor countries at a U.N. conference said Tuesday they won't sign a global warming pact unless industrialized nations guarantee them billions of dollars needed to adapt to the impact of climate change.
Island nations in the Caribbean and South Pacific recounted how they are being hit by worsening floods, rising seas and cyclones linked to climate change and don't have the money to build sea walls or relocate threatened villagers.
"Adaptation is critical to our very survival," said Selwin Hart, a delegate from Barbados who was speaking for the Alliance of Small Island States. "If a deal on adaptation is not part of this agreement, we have no incentive to be part of it."
Rich countries insist they are willing to help but disagree over how to provide assistance — whether it should be voluntary aid favored by the United States or a European proposal to use the trading of pollution permits to generate funds.
The weeklong conference of representatives from 163 countries launched a 21-month process Monday aimed at concluding a new climate change agreement to replace the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012, to rein in carbon dioxide and other "greenhouse" gases blamed for the rise in world temperatures.
Along with financing, countries are expected to wrangle over how best to reduce emissions in a new agreement.
The EU has proposed that industrialized countries slash emissions by 25 percent to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020. The U.S., which is one of the world's top polluters, has repeatedly rejected mandatory national reduction targets of the kind agreed to under the Kyoto Protocol a decade ago.
Japan, which is struggling to meet its emissions-cutting commitment under the Kyoto pact, is backing industry-based emission caps which are seen as a bid to reduce its obligations in a future agreement.
Assistance to impoverished countries almost derailed December talks in Bali at which world governments agreed to launch the current negotiations. Many poor nations argued that industrialized countries should take the first step in both reducing emissions and helping developing countries cope with rising temperatures.
Once that occurs, the developing countries agreed for the first time to take verifiable actions on their own to control greenhouse gases.
Financing dominated the climate talks in the first two days. John Ashe, chairman of the Group of 77 and China, a coalition of developing countries, said members of the group complained they cannot use their scarce resources to reduce greenhouse gases if their most urgent needs in adapting to global warming aren't met.
Yvo de Boer, executive secretary of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, which is hosting the Thailand meeting, said it is essential to figure out what the industrialized world is willing to pay to help out poorer countries.
"There is not going to be an international agreement ... without clarity on what resources will be on the table to help developing countries to limit their emissions and adapt to the impacts of climate change," he said.
Only up to $300 million annually will be available through a U.N. adaptation fund created in Bali, with a maximum of $1.5 billion a year projected if a climate agreement to succeed the Kyoto Protocol is approved.
That is much less than the nearly $86 billion the U.N. Development Program estimates is needed annually by 2015.
China called in Bangkok for developed countries to provide at least 0.5 percent of their gross domestic product annually to help poorer nations adapt.
In the United States, that would exceed $60 billion.
Many European nations led by Germany have suggested closing the funding gap by using a percentage of money generated from the trading of carbon credits — permits for companies to emit carbon pollutants. Others have suggested a tax on aviation or maritime fuels could be used to finance adaptation measures.
Most of the industrialized world, however, has focused on helping developing countries speed up the use of cleaner, more efficient technologies. The U.S., Japan and Britain, for example, said they will contribute to a clean technology fund, administered by the World Bank, that will dole out $5 to $10 billion over three to five years. The fund will begin operating in July.
On the Net:
* Conference site: http://unfccc.int/2860.php
Just follow the money and you will see what Global Warming is really about.
Turner: Global Warming Will Cause Mass Cannibalism
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-b...ng-cannibalism
On what will happen if global warming is not addressed immediately:
TED TURNER: Not doing it will be catastrophic. We'll be eight degrees hotter in ten, not ten but 30 or 40 years and basically none of the crops will grow. Most of the people will have died and the rest of us will be cannibals. Civilization will have broken down. The few people left will be living in a failed state -- like Somalia or Sudan -- and living conditions will be intolerable. The droughts will be so bad there'll be no more corn grown. Not doing it is suicide. Just like dropping bombs on each other, nuclear weapons is suicide. We've got to stop doing the suicidal two things, which are hanging on to our nuclear weapons and after that we've got to stabilize the population. When I was born-
CHARLIE ROSE: So what's wrong with the population?
TURNER: We're too many people. That's why we have global warming. We have global warming because too many people are using too much stuff. If there were less people, they'd be using less stuff.
Turner then made a blood sacrifice to Gaia at the Georgia Guidestones.
Sounds like we should go ahead and get started on the cannibalism thing.
ummm....some analysis are predicting a shortage of corn this year...
If that's the case, maybe we should go back to just using it for food.
Do liberals go better with a Zinfandel or a Cabernet?
Zinfandel. Save your Cabs for a well marbled conservative steak.
Just don't go too crazy on the conservatives, too much of that 'll give you gout.
Right on. I hear corn is an excellent source of food. I wonder if other countries know of this ...
Okay, Ted. You first.TURNER: We're too many people. That's why we have global warming. We have global warming because too many people are using too much stuff. If there were less people, they'd be using less stuff.[/I]
Depends on how much available fresh water those countries have. Corn is one of the most water hungry crops in existence.
What is gospel?
WC and other deniers say that global warming is nothing but just another sun cycle, not caused by man. So the real scientists attempt to refute:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7327393.stm
yeah, taking An Inconvenient Truth seriously is re ed.
-Mars
Don't play that "deniers" . The word is -- skeptic. And, year after year, more people are becoming skeptical, especially since warming has slowed significantly over the last 10 years.
The IPCC's assessment reports on climate change have become less and less doomsday-ish over the last 15 or so years. Why is that?
Meanwhile, Al Gore is spending 300 million to convince you that the debate is over.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
