Global Warming Update

[DrLeftover]

I really wonder how they managed to screw up like that...

One would hope that it was a simple matter of incompetence instead of an actual attempt to misrepresent real data to favor a political agenda.



Maybe they found the truth somewhat 'inconvenient'.

 

[Evil Eye]

Given the price tag on those things they have quite a bit to lose by being wrong.

 

[DrLeftover]

They were probably shocked that anybody noticed.

 

[DrLeftover]

Baby it's cold outside

Winter returns to the Sierra; Snow above 7,000 feet

​

Posted: 10:33 am PDT October 4, 2011Updated: 10:40 am PDT October 4, 2011SAN FRANCISCO -- A cold weather front took aim at Northern California Tuesday, packing a potent punch with as much as 10 inches of snow for the Sierra peaks, the earliest return of winter conditions to Tahoe since 1969, according to weather forecasters. According to the Central Sierra Snow Lab, the flurries predicted with this storm will make the shortest duration between snow storms since 1969. The lab – located in Norden – got its last measurable snow on July 1 – 96 days ago.The National Weather Service issued a winter storm warning for the Sierra in advance of the storm. The forecasters predicted 5-10 inches of snow above 7,000 feet with winds gusting to 40 mph below the mountain ridges.

http://www.ktvu.com/news/29385123/detail.html

 

[DrLeftover]

You just gotta love it.



A bunch of tree huggers versus a bunch of bat huggers.

LILLY, Pa. — Thirty-five windmills at a western Pennsylvania wind farm have been silenced at night since a bat that belongs to an endangered species was found dead under one of the turbines.

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/na...ght_after_bat_death/srvc=home&position=recent

 

[DrLeftover]

Another green company takes your tax money, and closes up shop.



Getting to be a trend.



http://money.cnn.com/2011/10/31/technology/beacon_loan/?source=cnn_bin

 

[Katatonia]

Again, this is not from those haters at FOX.













http://www.reuters.c...E7634IQ20110704

Seems to me like they're looking at very small sample data. How can you make such radical decisions based on a few years of data? You can't penalize productivity just because it feels right.

 

[DrLeftover]

.... but isn't that what many of the green laws are doing?



Placating environmentalists at the cost of jobs and higher taxes.

 

[DrLeftover]

They have ice up there?



But the warmers said it all melted.



damn



http://news.yahoo.com/residents-alaska-city-could-9-gallon-gas-231347434.html

 

[Phazite]

They have ice up there?



But the warmers said it all melted.



damn

Nope, no one who knows the science would suggest such a thing. It is also very unwise to make judgements on the global climate based on local weather patterns such as cold fronts or heat waves. Climatologists look at climate on a global scale over long periods of time.

Remember, data can be confusing as well as contradictory at times...



Saying that paradoxes in the universe aren't real is just illogical thinking...



Many mysteries in the world, should always have an open mind not a closed one...



Saying that the Earth is either cooling or heating up is just premature thinking at It's best, especially to the Human Race due to the fact that Mankind thinks they know everything...

I'd say, paradoxes are a result of a lack of understanding about an problem. Data can be 'contradictory' when the sample size is too small to account for all the chaos due to the uncountable variables that effect it. We can measure temperatures globally and determine whether there is a warming or cooling trend. It has nothing to do with scientists thinking they know everything. In fact, scientists must realize how limited their knowledge is. The point of science is really to learn.

 

[DrLeftover]

My question has always been... when has the global climate ever been stable for a millennium or more? Let alone a geologically significant period of time.





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

Off Topix's Treasure Hunt

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

 

[Phazite]

The global climate doesn't actually need to be stable in order for there to be a global change. The local temperature can vary throughout the globe and there still be an overall shift in temperature in time.



This is true of systems in general. For example, in warming up an ideal gas, the kinetic energy of the individual particles can vary wildly so we cannot judge the energy of the system as a whole by measuring their individually, but take an average of the kinetic energy before and after the warming and an increase will be revealed.

 

[Temerit]

Dr. Leftover you realize in the quote from the article you posted at the very beginning of this thread...

[font=tahoma, helvetica, arial, sans-serif]The paper raised the prospect of more rapid, pent-up climate change when emerging economies eventually crack down on pollution.

The evidence is overwhelming, but a move toward sustainability and renewable energy is something that is going to have to happen eventually anyways with or without climate change.

 

[DrLeftover]

The change to a diversified energy base is a good idea, and will happen. Eventually. As you said.



Yes it will, and if done reasonably, it even makes sense.



And your point for bringing this up is.... ?

 

[Temerit]

Because that is the so called agenda that environmentalists are pushing for.



I'm bringing this up because even if every bit of data in support of climate change was fabricated, we would still have to make the very same changes that climate change advocates are pushing for in the near future regardless.



That being said, I feel that the body of data quantifying man's contribution to climate change is large and valid and tells us that we need to look at changing our consumption habits, and fast.

 

[DrLeftover]

Oh, T, did you see this one?



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...A-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html

 

[Temerit]

No, I only read scientific journals.

 

[DrLeftover]

Cool.



If I may ask, which ones?

 

[Temerit]

The American Journal of Preventative Medicine and the Journal of the Royal Society of Health.



Fact is that 97% of climate scientists agree that the evidence supports that humans are contributing significantly to climate change and that climate change is a reality.

 

[DrLeftover]

Sorry, the fact is that the UN bullied and threatened any scientist who dissented by telling them that they'd either have funding withheld or credientials withdrawn if they didn't sign.



That's not science.



And CLIMATE CHANGE has always been a reality. You cannot point to a geologically period of time where the global climate was stable.



However, you can point to everything from the Medieval Warm Period to the Little Ice Age to the warmer and wetter than now age of the dinosaurs to the contrary.



As to humans having an effect, if we did, why were China and India, with about half of the human population between them, exempt from the treaty, and when Russia said get lost the Global Warmers did.



From the NYT

Published: May 10, 2009

TIANJIN, China — China’s frenetic construction of coal-fired power plants has raised worries around the world about the effect on climate change. China now uses more coal than the United States, Europe and Japan combined, making it the world’s largest emitter of gases that are warming the planet.

... ...

Only half the country’s coal-fired power plants have the emissions control equipment to remove sulfur compounds that cause acid rain, and even power plants with that technology do not always use it. China has not begun regulating some of the emissions that lead to heavy smog in big cities.



Even among China’s newly built plants, not all are modern. Only about 60 percent of the new plants are being built using newer technology that is highly efficient, but more expensive.



With greater efficiency, a power plant burns less coal and emits less carbon dioxide for each unit of electricity it generates. Experts say the least efficient plants in China today convert 27 to 36 percent of the energy in coal into electricity. The most efficient plants achieve an efficiency as high as 44 percent, meaning they can cut global warming emissions by more than a third compared with the weakest plants.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/11/world/asia/11coal.html