Thankyou for the intellectually stimulating rhetoric!

 

Hey EASTTEXASDICKSMOKER I'm more conservative,antibuckwheat Obama,against climate change bullshit then your queersteer Texas ass could ever be so STFU.

 

they make you, as a motorist, less dependent on oil ...assuming you can find a windmill to charge at. Still, the lifetime enviro impact of a hybrid, from manufacture to recycle, is larger than an efficient gas or diesel. Doesn't that fly in the face of those who truly are concerned with the environment?

The phrase 'penny wise but pound foolish' comes to mind...

 

In complex equations, small changes in variables can have a huge impact on the result. Dispute that?

The data used in their variables has been suspect, and later confirmed, to contain manipulated data. Dispute that?

1) These scientists are dependent on favorable policy to continue their grants (their income.)
2) Scientists who dissent are broiled/ejected/silenced and destroyed.

If nothing in there makes you question their integrity or motives then bummer, I can't help you. Just please make sure you understand the real cost of this idea, as in a dramatic decrease in available energy (constant brownouts, limitations on usage, etc) and skyrocketing prices of everything.

Very big cost for unknown, and perhaps zero, benefit. Of course, one will just claim that "it would have been worse if we didn't do X" like with the economy, based on similarly sketchy logic.

 

Its just a scam so stupid liberals spend their money on more shit they dont need.

The earth has been warming since the dawn of time, anyone remember the fucking ice age?

Liberals will buy into it, as Al Gore flies a leer jet around and uses limos to go to his book signings, which consume more gas then we do, to preach about conserving. Irony at its best eh?

 

New Weather Extremes Consistent With Global Warming

*not_secure_link*motherjones.com/blue-marble/2011/07/new-weather-extremes​

Get Used to New Weather Extremes

Yep, it's hot. And climate records—wettest, driest, warmest, coldest, snowiest, stormiest, fieriest—are falling all around the globe.
By Julia Whitty | Tue Jul. 19, 2011 3:09 PM PDT
Smoke from the Wallow Fire, as seen in Albuquerque, N.M. John Fowler [1]/Wikimedia
We're seeing records fall in all directions this year—wettest, driest, warmest, coldest, snowiest, stormiest, fieriest—across the globe. In the US alone, in the month of July alone, 1,079 total heat records have been broken or tied. That's 559 broken, 520 tied...so far. The map below, generated today at NOAA's US Records page [2], shows how records have fallen nationwide, including in Alaska and Hawaii.
NOAA [3]
In fact, every state except Delaware has broken heat records so far this month.
In Iowa yesterday, the heat index exceeded 130°F/54.4°C—an extremely rare occurrence in this part of the world. According to Jeff Masters, writing at his Wunderblog [4], the only place where a 130°F heat index is common is along the shores of the Red Sea in the Middle East.
Predicted heat index for July 22 (Friday). NOAA [5]
However, Delaware won't dodge the heat bullet much longer. Its own records will likely tumble hard later this week.
The image above shows the predicted maximum heat index (combined heat and humidity) for July 22. Parts of all but 3 states—Idaho, Oregon, and Washington—are predicted to exceed 100°F/37.7°C. Delaware—in scary yellow—is predicted to rise above 115°F/46.1°C.
Ricky Rood points out in his Weather Underground blog [6] that much of July's heat in the US is compounded by extremely high humidity. And much of the extreme humidity this year is fueled by the extreme floods and saturated soils still plaguing the Midwest.
Missouri River basin. The top image, acquired July 18, shows flooding. Compare this to the bottom image—acquired a year ago— which shows no flooding. MODIS Rapid Response Team, Goddard Space Flight Center [7]/NASA
Extreme humidity combined with extreme heat creates extreme consequences for human health. As Ricky Rood writes [6]:

Now if I was a public health official, and I was trying to understand how a warming planet might impact my life, then here is how I would think about it. First, the Gulf of Mexico and the Pacific are going to be warmer, and hence, there will be more humid air. This will mean, with regard to human health for the central U.S., heat waves will become more dangerous, without necessarily becoming hotter. It is also reasonable to expect heat waves will become more frequent and last longer, because those persistent, stuck high pressure systems are, in part, forced by the higher sea surface temperatures. If I am a public health official here is my algorithm—heat waves are already important to my life, and they are likely to get more dangerous, more frequent, and of longer duration.
​

In other parts of the country this year, the extreme heat is compounded by extreme drought—with extreme outcomes, including the haboob that struck Phoenix on July 5. The time lapse video is amazing.
From Christopher Burt's weatherhistorian blog [8]:

The drought in the south central and southeast of the United States reached epic proportions. Carlsbad, New Mexico, went 233 days with no measurable precipitation until a meager 0.01 inches fell on June 2nd and it has not rained again since (as of July 15th). Pecos, Texas, just received 0.02 inches of precipitation on July 14th, its first measurable amount since September 23, 2010 (293 consecutive dry days). Albuquerque, New Mexico, has only had 0.19 inches of precipitation since January 1st (as of July 15th). For the period of January through June, this year has so far been the driest on record (117 years) for the states of New Mexico, Texas, and Louisiana.
​

Predicted heat index for July 22 (Friday). NOAA [3]
The above image shows the latest drought conditions in the US where "exceptional" drought is plaguing much of the south. The trend is worsening, as you can see in this 12-week animation [9].
Another way of looking at this map is to realize the dark red areas are places where crops are going to fail this year.
Fire map. Jacques Descloitres [10]/NASA. (Fire detection algorithm developed by Louis Giglio. Blue Marble background image created by Reto Stokli.)
Of course drought fuels wildfires too. Arizona and New Mexico both experienced their largest wildfires in history during June and July. In the image above, you can see the global fire situation between June 30 and July 9. As bad as the fires in the US, obviously, they're a whole lot worse elsewhere.
Las Conchas Fire. John Fowler [11]/Wikimedia

According to the National Interagency Fire Center [12], the number of wildfires in the US as of the beginning of July this year is 36,424...and counting. These wild lands blazes have burned 4.8 million acres. That's an average of 132 acres per fire—which, by the way, is the largest burned acreage ever recorded in the US during this time period.
Jesse Allen [10]/NASA (Using data provided by the AIRS science team at NASA/JPL.)
Where there's fire, there's carbon monoxide. The images above show high concentrations of carbon monoxide from Arizona's Wallow Fire [13] drifting across the US from June 3 to June 6. Highest concentrations are in dark red. As described by the Earth Observatory [14]:

Carbon monoxide is a colorless, odorless gas that damages human health [15] by limiting the flow of oxygen through the body. It is also a key ingredient in the production of harmful ground-level ozone and urban haze.
​

NOAA's HMS analysis [16]
Today's mega-smoke producers are found in eastern Manitoba and central Ontario. In the image above you can see the moderate-to-dense smoke plume crossing the border.
The US Air Quality Smog Blog. [17]
And where there's smoke, there's particulate. You can see above how Canada's wildfires are driving today's poor air quality (yellow dots) in the Great Lakes region.
Thick smoke from drought- and heat-ravaged Canada streams south towards US. Wildfires outlined in red. Jeff Schmaltz [18]/MODIS Rapid Response Team at NASA GSFC
Alone, heat, humidity, and smoke are lethal. Combined, they're a juggernaut. In Russia last year, a combination of extreme heat and extreme smoke from wildfires killed an estimated 56,000 [19] people.







Source URL: *not_secure_link*motherjones.com/blue-marble/2011/07/new-weather-extremes
Links:
[1] *not_secure_link*commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wallow_fire_smoke_in_ABQ.jpg
[2] *not_secure_link*www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/records/daily/maxt/2011/07/00?sts
[3] *not_secure_link*www.hpc.ncep.noaa.gov/heat_index_MAX.shtml
[4] *not_secure_link*www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1850
[5] *not_secure_link*www.hpc.ncep.noaa.gov/heat_index_MAX.stml
[6] *not_secure_link*www.wunderground.com/blog/RickyRood/article.html?entrynum=200
[7] *not_secure_link*earthobservatory.nasa.gov/NaturalHazards/view.php?id=51388
[8] *not_secure_link*www.wunderground.com/blog/weatherhistorian/show.html?entrynum=32
[9] *not_secure_link*www.drought.unl.edu/dm/12_week.gif
[10] *not_secure_link*rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/firemaps
[11] *not_secure_link*en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Las_Conchas_Fire.jpg
[12] *not_secure_link*www.nifc.gov/fire_info/nfn.htm
[13] *not_secure_link*earthobservatory.nasa.gov/NaturalHazards/event.php?id=50872
[14] *not_secure_link*earthobservatory.nasa.gov/NaturalHazards/view.php?id=50934
[15] *not_secure_link*www.epa.gov/airquality/carbonmonoxide/health.html
[16] *not_secure_link*www.osdpd.noaa.gov/ml/land/currenthms.jpg
[17] *not_secure_link*alg.umbc.edu/usaq/
[18] *not_secure_link*earthobservatory.nasa.gov/NaturalHazards/view.php?id=51224
[19] *not_secure_link*www.terradaily.com...ters_killed_295000_in_2010_reinsurer_999.html

 

Most of those low information people believe in the literal truth of the Genesis Creation Story. Many think the Rapture will happen any day now, so the temperature of the earth a century from now will not matter.

Now I'm a Christian myself, but I think God wants us to be good stewards of the earth. When and if Jesus comes again He does not want to come to a polluted planet with the Holy Lands under water.

 

Excerpt from Robert Brown's Blog from this past spring

May 25, 2011
Ho Hum, More Scientific Data, Another Nail in the Global Warming Denial Coffin

I’m not looking at the record setting tornado stats of this year for April; or record flooding along the Mississippi, and in Australia and Pakistan; or record droughts in the southwest USA with record fires across America; or the record weather caused crop failures in Russia, Queensland, France, Germany and Texas; or the record number of records. Records are broken all the time, and of course we can’t link any specific event above to the slow process of Global Warming. We do note that all of these events are consistent with what the climate models have been predicting as a result of fossil fuel increased CO2.
The nail I refer to is the little note from NSF about a study that has been going on for 11-years of observing 13-species of common Mid-Western plant species, where the plants are exposed to higher CO2 levels as in GW. The results suggest that plants’ capacity to absorb extra carbon from the atmosphere as CO2 levels rise may be less than expected. This indicates that the carbon cycle model in climate models overpredict plant CO2 absorption, hence underpredict CO2 levels and consequently: “What this all boils down to,” says Reich, “is that the world could warm even faster than we thought.”
The findings are published in the current issue of the journal Global Change Biology by Tali Lee, Susan Barrott & Peter Reich.
We’re all looking for that piece of data that shows that the globe is not warming. But as I comb the scientific literature, it does seem that the pile of Global Warming compatible events is constantly getting taller while the global warming cooling or stable observations are sparse, or even absent.

 

I agree with you.

 

Good morning Whitey, still fighting the good fight I see. Think your making any progress along that front?

From the BBC

 

What about Greenland

Well what about Greenland. It isn't overly green,,is it?

Pretty damned cold really and if that sheet of ice melts we'll all nee snorkels to breath.

Google Vikings and Greenland. It used to be green, grass grew there, beasts of the field grazed, crops were harvested.

So now we are looking at global warming that falls far short of that and we are supposed to be worried.

For Christ's sake, why?

 

When it was "green", it was green on the coast near the southern tip. The ice sheet had not melted. When it HAS melted (the last time was some 110,000 years ago, long before the arrival of human beings), global sea level was at least 23 feet higher than today.

 

According to what I've read, the Greenland ice sheet could melt entirely in a few hundred years, which indeed could cause a rise in sea levels of some 20+ feet. And further that this warming trend is for the most part irreversible, the best we can do is to slow it some, but if we do nothing it will likely accelerate.

So as I pointed out in a thread almost two years ago, shouldn't the politicians and such, be at work on a plan to move coastal population centers?

 

Probably so, but it isn't likely to happen as long as powerful interests continue to argue that the whole thing is a hoax.

 

Who are the powerful interests? Less than 30% of the population?

 

And you think that's what matters? They're the 30% with most of the money to influence politicians with. They're the 30% who control the media.

 

Whoa, are you now claiming that the media is biased against the climate change proponents?

The article that I linked earlier didn't say that, it did say that the whole idea of presenting balanced news is more difficult when the subject is boring science.

Face it the communications to the lay person have been horrible, egotistical scientists can not possibly communicate with the average Joe.

 

I absolutely do think that. But the way it manifests itself is fairly subtle. Instead of doing real fact-checking, for example, the media is more likely to simply allow both sides to present their case, treating them as if they were equally legitimate. It's as if Newton were put on a panel discussion with someone arguing that gravity doesn't exist, with the two given equal time. It may be more laziness on the part of the media than bias, but I have little trust in the corporate-owned news media to aggressively pursue the truth about global warming.

 

So you think the news media should be biased to your way? To my knowledge news media are supposed to report what made news, not to take one side of an issue and only report on it.

On the subject of news media actually doing what you say they should, tell me how many news medias documentaries on climate change have been made that supported the skeptics? How about those supporting the advocates?

 

The news media should be biased toward the facts. If 1,000 climate scientists conclude that global warming is happening and is caused primarily by human activity, and one scientist being paid by Exxon says it's not, should the media give equal time to both sides?

The news media has given far more attention to the climate change deniers than they deserve on the merits.