Global Warming

[El Guapo 8]

Ask any solar astronomer and they'll tell you why its colder this year and will be next and most likely the year after. We have been at solar minimum now for 36 months. There is approximately a 30 month lag between solar activity and its weather impact. A solar minimum this long impacts weather more than greenhouse gases and has temporarily cooled the planet. It by no means challenges global warming theory.

So what happens when solar flares heat the core of the earth, do you know of anything currently being done to prepare for this?

[Sal Paradise 57]

I'm really liking this whole rolling definition of global warming. makes things so much easier. getting warmer? global warming! getting colder? global warming! more storms? global warming! drought? global warming! herpes? global warming!

[Balloon guy 158]

I'm really liking this whole rolling definition of global warming. makes things so much easier. getting warmer? global warming! getting colder? global warming! more storms? global warming! drought? global warming! herpes? global warming!

For the record, your inability to understand why global warming is true is caused by global warming.

[JoeyJoJo 18]

Don't mind him, Sal, that's just the global warming talking.

[solderz 0]

So what happens when solar flares heat the core of the earth, do you know of anything currently being done to prepare for this?

Science is really not the enemy. It gave us cars, planes, long life, and, most importantly, better weed.

[JoeyJoJo 18]

Science is really not the enemy. It gave us cars, planes, long life, and, most importantly, better weed.

It was a joke referencing the movie 2012.But even if it wasn't a joke, I'm not sure I understand your reply.

[dabetka 0]

I'm really liking this whole rolling definition of global warming. makes things so much easier. getting warmer? global warming! getting colder? global warming! more storms? global warming! drought? global warming! herpes? global warming!

Very well put sir

[dabetka 0]

Palm Springs Weather Forecast Fri Sat Sun Mon TueHi: 73 ° Hi: 74° Hi: 74° Hi: 75° Hi: 73°Lo: 48° Lo: 50° Lo: 49° Lo: 48° Lo: 50° Advanced Technology Engineering

What are the averages??? To me, this actually sounds about average, but I'm not sure??? For Nebraska right now, we are 30 degrees below the average low... My biggest point on all of this is, I don't think we have enough evidence that this stuff is actually real/man-made to warrant spending billions and billions of $$$'s that we don't have. Especially when the head advocate of this is set to line his pockets quite well from us doing so.

[solderz 0]

But even if it wasn't a joke, I'm not sure I understand your reply.

Sorry. Too much of that better weed I mentioned. I just think its funny that so many people automatically discount a theory that will have such a tremendous impact on future human standards of living. The correlation between high CO2 levels and temperature have been fairly conclusively shown going back 600k years in ice corps from Greenland. And we know for a fact that CO2 gas retains more heat and for longer than the other gases that make up a majority of our atmosphere. But we should throw that out the window because of a few cold years (which solar astronomers have a whole other reason for) and forget any restrictions.And for the record, I am not for severe cut backs in greenhouse emissions. Nor am I for cap and trade, because, quite frankly, they are focused on the wrong things (car mileage, coal plant emissions, etc.) when livestock and the human population themselves are much more to blame. I happen to believe that we should continue to research how fast temperature will rise, and what impact other events, such as the current solar minimum will have on temperature. And as we do we should be putting money into researching technology to help us counteract our effects on the planet, such as synthetic carbon sinks, and, in the long term, space-based solar shading and other tech. But to just ridicule the theory without offering an alternative is akin to the religious zealots arguing against evolution with no theory to replace it other than the story of creation (applicable to whichever crazy ass religion they happen to believe in).

[Balloon guy 158]

What are the averages??? To me, this actually sounds about average, but I'm not sure??? For Nebraska right now, we are 30 degrees below the average low... My biggest point on all of this is, I don't think we have enough evidence that this stuff is actually real/man-made to warrant spending billions and billions of $$$'s that we don't have. Especially when the head advocate of this is set to line his pockets quite well from us doing so.

Way above average, I think it should be around 69-70 range with lows in the high 40s.But, someone's got to keep Titlest stock moving so here we is!

[vbnautilus 48]

What are the averages??? To me, this actually sounds about average, but I'm not sure??? For Nebraska right now, we are 30 degrees below the average low... My biggest point on all of this is, I don't think we have enough evidence that this stuff is actually real/man-made to warrant spending billions and billions of $$$'s that we don't have. Especially when the head advocate of this is set to line his pockets quite well from us doing so.

Yep, it's way above average. We have been 8-10 degrees above average in L.A. too: Today: 75 Avg temp for this day: 67

[vbnautilus 48]

could you explain the part about places being colder as average temp rises? are you stating that average global warming is responsible for the cooling of some regions or just reminding us that average rise in temp does not preclude a localized cooling trend?

Both will probably happen in most models of rising climate change, simply due to the dynamics of the system, when you raise temperature in one location you have complex and wide-ranging effects in other, which will sometimes mean cooling.

also, I have not heard of winter storms being a result of global warming outside "the day after tomorrow"

One result of that change in dynamics is more severe storms, even in winter (in some models).Again, I'm not arguing for one side of this, it's just a matter of what kind of data is inconsistent with the predictions.

[Sal Paradise 57]

look, I don't know much about all this fancy "science" and "book learnin'," alls I know is that I'm FUCKING COLD.

[SCYUKON 0]

Yep, it's way above average. We have been 8-10 degrees above average in L.A. too: Today: 75 Avg temp for this day: 67

Both will probably happen in most models of rising climate change, simply due to the dynamics of the system, when you raise temperature in one location you have complex and wide-ranging effects in other, which will sometimes mean cooling. One result of that change in dynamics is more severe storms, even in winter (in some models).Again, I'm not arguing for one side of this, it's just a matter of what kind of data is inconsistent with the predictions.

Geez, I guess it being above average in California is buggering up the rest of the world. See here:http://www.populartechnology.net/2010/01/g...ng-in-2009.html

look, I don't know much about all this fancy "science" and "book learnin'," alls I know is that I'm FUCKING COLD.

You're not alone, see above.

[SCYUKON 0]

wow - is the BBC turning into Fox news? This poor bugger in the UK gets his rear handed to him by the BBC interviewer.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8BCnX8LIIY...player_embedded

[colonel Feathers 5]

wow - is the BBC turning into Fox news? This poor bugger in the UK gets his rear handed to him by the BBC interviewer.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8BCnX8LIIY...player_embedded

This is exactly why these GW phonies will never back down, the money flow that is being generated is staggering.Which is why no matter what the temperature does, its evidence of climate change.

[ahosang 0]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/art...l#ixzz0cIUWWRTnOh dear...'Climate Scientist' :"We're all gonna die in a fireball!! No, oh wait, I mean... We're all gonna die in an iceball!!"

[FCP Bob 1,312]

Danny Glover is a moron.

[Balloon guy 158]

GW is working again.Playing golf in 2 hours.Yesterday was a little windy, but the short sleeves were enough. Shot a decent score, but still having a problem with my fade.I blame the rotation of the earth

[Jeepster80125 0]

GW is working again.Playing golf in 2 hours.Yesterday was a little windy, but the short sleeves were enough. Shot a decent score, but still having a problem with my fade.I blame the bad science

[Balloon guy 158]

Danny Glover is a moron.

You know..he's not that stupid.I mean he is a complete waste of air, but this theory is actually probably the closest to being true of most of the global warming alarmist have been so far.I also told my wife before we went to bed that there would be an earthquake at home because of the big one in Northern California and the time line since our last decent quake.I suspect it will come soon.And it will come at an early morning hour, just as the sun is warming the mantle of the earth.And I hope Malibu slides off into the ocean

[SCYUKON 0]

A really good show from John Coleman on KUSA TV here:Global Warming - The Other Sidehttp://www.climategate.com/global-warming-...r-side-reviewed

[SCYUKON 0]

Documentation of the analysis showing that the US and other countries have systematically removed weather stations to show warming trends where none existed (this was mentioned in the KUSA piece above but this links to the actual study).http://icecap.us/images/uploads/NOAAroleinclimategate.pdf

[SCYUKON 0]

Your $4M (worth less now than when you bought it though I am sure) condo in San Francisco won't end up underwate, since the glaciers ain't gonna disappear after all Algore. But I am sure you knew that already when you bought it....http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geoffrey...ate-scientists/

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

The crumbling credibility continues, but they refuse to admit it actually makes any difference that they used misleading data and poor scientific methods to reach their conclusions. This is EXACTLY what many of have been saying all along, that "Global Warming Climate Change" is based on flawed science. We have been ridiculed and called names for having this point of view, and now it is proven that these "scientists" were scamming the public.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/01/2...dex.html?hpt=T2The U.N.'s leading panel on climate change has apologized for misleading data published in a 2007 report that warned Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035.In a statement released, Wednesday, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said estimates relating to the rate of recession of the Himalayan glaciers in its Fourth Assessment Report were "poorly substantiated" adding that "well-established standards of evidence were not applied properly."Despite the admission, the IPCC reiterated its concern about the dangers melting glaciers present in a region that is home to more than one-sixth of the world's population."Widespread mass losses from glaciers and reductions in snow cover over recent decades are projected to accelerate throughout the 21st century, reducing water availability, hydropower potential, and changing seasonality of flows in regions supplied by meltwater from major mountain ranges (e.g. Hindu-Kush, Himalaya, Andes)...""The chair, vice-chairs, and co-chairs of the IPCC," the statement continued, "regrets the poor application of IPCC procedures..."The apology follows a growing storm of controversy which initially forced the IPCC to concede that data relating to the Himalayan glacier melt included in the 2007 report was not backed up by sufficient scientific data.Speaking at the World Future Energy Summit in Abu Dhabi Wednesday, the IPCC chairman, Rajendra Pachauri admitted errors had been made but said it was not an excuse question the legitimacy of all global warming science."Theoretically, let's say we slipped up on one number, I don't think it takes anything away from the overwhelming scientific evidence of what's happening with the climate of this earth," he said, according to Agence France-Presse.The controversy centers on a paragraph in Chapter 10 of the 2007 report which states: "Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world, and if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate. Its total area will likely shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 square kilometers by the year 2035. " But is has recently emerged that the IPCC statement on Himalayan glaciers, which was based on information from a 2005 report by the World Wildlife Fund, was in turn gleaned from a article that appeared in the popular UK science journal, The New Scientist in June 1999. In the article, "Flooded Out," Indian glaciologist Syed Hasnain speculates that that the Himalayan glaciers could vanish within 40 years as a result of global warming. A glacier expert interviewed by CNN explained that the data published was flawed. Michael Zemp from the World Glacier Monitoring Service said: "There are simply no observations available to make these sorts of statements."Zemp says that the figures quoted in the report are not possible because 500,000 square kilometers is estimated to be the total surface area of all mountain glaciers worldwide."The other thing is that the report says the glaciers are receding faster than anywhere else in the world. We simply do not have the glacier change measurements. The Himalayas are among those regions with the fewest available data," Zemp said.In defense of the IPCC, Zemp says "you can take any report and find a mistake in it but its up to the next IPCC report to correct it."Zemp also believes that the errors shouldn't shake people's belief in climate science."Glaciers are the best proof that climate change is happening. This is happening on a global scale. They can translate very small changes in the climate into a visible signal," he said.