Frozen Wasteland

[M. (hristine]

It's not the heat, it's the humidity.

[Sir Stewart]

To those who think it's as simple as "since it's snowing a lot, climate change is a hoax", I wonder what does an unseasonably warm day mean?

(Not asking anyone here, really. I just always wonder that.)

[M. (hristine]

To those who think it's as simple as "since it's snowing a lot, climate change is a hoax", I wonder what does an unseasonably warm day mean?

(Not asking anyone here, really. I just always wonder that.)

It means that climate is wildly variable and unpredictable. I am very comfortable with a multiple working hypothesis on this subject. The Farmers Almanac called for an unusually harsh and wet winter due to sunspot activity.

 

"The third ranking gas is CO2 (0.0383%), and it does not correlate well with global warming or cooling either; in fact, CO2 in the atmosphere trails warming which is clear natural evidence for its well-studied inverse solubility in water: CO2 dissolves rapidly in cold water and bubbles rapidly out of warm water. CO2 has been rising and Earth and her oceans have been warming. However, the correlation trails.

Svensmark of the Danish National Space Center has experiments scheduled for the Hadron collider to test his basement experiment. Elevated solar flux (> 10 protons per cc) appears to cause fog in the Great Lakes and clouds too. The hypothesis of the Danish National Space Center goes as follows: quiet sun allows the geomagnetic shield to drop. Incoming galactic cosmic ray flux creates more low-level clouds, more snow, and more albedo effect as more is heat reflected resulting in a colder climate. An active sun has an enhanced magnetic field that induces Earth’s geomagnetic shield response. Earth has fewer low-level clouds, less rain, snow and ice, and less albedo (less heat reflected) producing a warmer climate.

That is how the bulk of climate change likely works, coupled with (modulated by) sunspot peak frequency there are cycles of global warming and cooling like waves in the ocean. When the waves are closely spaced, all the planets warm; when the waves are spaced farther apart, as they have been for this century, all the planets cool.

Many answers yield many new questions: the change in cloud cover is only a small percentage, and the ultimate cause of the solar magnetic cycle may be cyclicity in the Sun-Jupiter centre of gravity. We await more on that.

Although the post 60s warming period appears to be over, warming and attendant humidity have allowed the principal green house gas, water vapour, to kick in with more clouds, rain and snow depending on where you live to provide the negative feedback that scientists use to explain the existence of complex life on Earth for 550 million years. We can likely kick much of the carbon economy sometime late the twenty-first century, but we must not rush to judgement for the wrong reason. The planet heats and cools naturally and our gasses are the thermostat. Nothing unusual is going on except for the Orwellian politics. In other words, it is not the heat; it is the humidity."

[Sir Stewart]

Wow, that geologist sure has a lot of aliases on a lot of blog posts.

[M. (hristine]

Wow, that geologist sure has a lot of aliases on a lot of blog posts.

Dr. Francis Manns. I like a grumpy naysayer thrown into the mix every now and again.

[Guest Speed Racer]

The planet heats and cools naturally and our gasses are the thermostat. Nothing unusual is going on except for the Orwellian politics.

 

I agree entirely that climate change is not a trend or even a political tool, but instead a natural reality of a complex planet. What we do not know, and do not have established data on, is how our recent consumption trends will affect, not affect, or override the planet's natural systems. I think it is natural, healthy, and smart to keep a close watch on these trends and even err on the side of caution.

[D-Dogg]

CO2 emissions from humans (natural or man-made), will not change the world for worse.

 

A volcano the size of Siberia that erupts for a millions years will change the globe, not humans and our vehicles.

 

And no I do not hate the environment, nor am I an evil businessman.

[u2roolz]

Speaking from my own personal experience dating back to January 15th, 2010: I think Southern N.H. has entered Global Warming.

 

Here's the evidence:

 

1. We missed that major bllzzard that hit Washington, D.C. How do I know that for sure? Well, I can thank the tv and internet.

2. We missed that major snowstorm yesterday and only got one inch. The only possible explanation would be global warming thus indication that the roads in Southern N.H. are warmer than anywhere else. Why believe the local news about what happened to Boston and south of them etc.? All that matters is how I am affected by the snow. It's a "me" country, isn't it? For all I know, James Cameron has his special Avatar cameras at every local news studio to make the appearance that it is snowing etc.

 

In fact, James Cameron is the visual advisor behind the NWO. Avatar is secretly a test to see who will fall in love with Pandora. You see, when this place is ready to "get the F out of dodge", that's we're the lucky ones will be taken.

 

Warning: The preceding may be dripping with sarcasm.

[Guest Speed Racer]

CO2 emissions from humans (natural or man-made), will not change the world for worse.

 

What evidence do you have to support this? What research have you done, whose studies are you thinking of? Or is it just anecdotal?

 

What harm can come from researching and employing alternative, renewable fuel-sources and manufacturing materials? I still haven't heard a decent answer to this question, ever.

[futureage1]

I'm not sure what to make of the whole global warming debate. The solution of carbon taxes is definitely a fraud. But I can't help thinking that people are being deliberately led to both of these false conclusions. Having lived in L.A. for many years, I can tell you pollution is real and it leaves a physical dusting all over everything out there. You can see it flying into L.A. on a clear day. I also recognize the doublespeak of Obama when he talks about "climate change" and then proposes in his State Of The Union about drilling for oil in this country and "clean" coal. There is no such thing. So the problem is either not real or manipulated for politics. I can't decide which it is. Pollution is real. Global warming is a theory. Where I differ from the Ron Paul crowd is I do blame the corporations and the govt,since these days they are one in the same.

 

Ron Paul with his Ayn Rand bullshit is leading his followers to a system just as controlled, which leads to anti-intellectual cultural populism a la Palin. I know they are not the same but they really don't disagree on much, mostly foreign policy. Economically they see eye to eye. I mean Rand Paul just got endorsed by her and called her a "giant of American Politics." If you can't see the corporations owning our Govt. is the problem, then you are truly blind. Ron Paul finds no fault with the corporations, just the banks. Both are equally problematic. Ron Paul says he follows the Constitution but refuses to support tariffs to fix our trade imbalances. Read how many references there are to tariffs in the Constitution. Our nation has always prospered with protective tariffs in place. Look up and see how many tariffs George Washington had in place during his administration, which is about as American as you can get. Ron Paul is nothing more than fraud preaching the same economics as the Chicago School.(Rockefeller Funded) Is it a coincidence that both he and Greenspan worship Ayn Rand and both are Libertarians? What is amusing is that Ron Paul supporters always think they are educating everyone else when they are just as light on facts. This is what Ron Paul is about... F*** Ron Paul and his dumb ass supporters. Who owns Russia Today? Ron Paul's favorite media outlet is owned by Russian intelligence. Wake up about Ron Paul and stop posting his talking points, just like Obama he is the exact opposite of what he claims to be.

 

 

Ron Paul: The Deep Dark Details (1 of 2)

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4P87p-Arcw&feature=PlayList&p=2EB51C8E00386D06&index=1

 

 

Ron Paul: The Deep Dark Details (2 of 2)

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCSZRuS2YfU&feature=response_watch

 

Ex KGB describing the exact playbook that anti American traitor/racist Ron Paul and "Campaign For Liberty" are running right now.

 

How To Brainwash A Nation

 

[OOO]

I think its a mistake to debate about whether climate change exists and whether humans are causing it. I think those of us who believe it's real and human's are causing it should not worry about convincing other people. I think if you boil down the position to "Pollution is bad, it harms the environment, and we need to do much less of it" then there is not much to argue with. If we get caught up in arguing over whether we need to look at the weather over 10 years or 100 years or just the temperature today, it sort of skirts the main point: We need to pollute less, period.

[Dude]

As anyone who lives in the colder regions can tell you, it is actually a bit warmer when it snows. Warm air holds more moisture, when it's really cold, the air is incredibly dry. If it were really a cold winter (30-50 below wind chills, etc.) it would result in more bitter cold periods with no snow which we haven't seen this winter.

 

Warmer air = the ability for the air to hold more moisture = bigger dumps of snow when it does indeed snow. But to a simple-minded caveman, more snow equals more cold, equals Al Gore is wrong, etc.

 

Here's a great, slightly scary graph of weather-related electric grid outages in the U.S. from 1992 - 2008:

 

[Guest Speed Racer]

As anyone who lives in the colder regions can tell you, it is actually a bit warmer when it snows. Warm air holds more moisture, when it's really cold, the air is incredibly dry. If it were really a cold winter (30-50 below wind chills, etc.) it would result in either more bitter cold periods with no snow, or more ice storms, neither of which we've seen this winter.

 

Exactly. We have about 25-30 standing inches in Minneapolis right now, but we haven't had any dumps over 12 inches this year, really. We just warm up a bit, melt for a day, get more snow, and then the temperature drops and we have a net gain of snow. It will occassionally snow when it's 5-10 outside, but it's made up of very tiny pellets, not the big honkin' flakes that accumulate greeting-card style.

[D-Dogg]

What evidence do you have to support this? What research have you done, whose studies are you thinking of? Or is it just anecdotal?

 

What harm can come from researching and employing alternative, renewable fuel-sources and manufacturing materials? I still haven't heard a decent answer to this question, ever.

 

Evidence is all over, you have all the answers as to why there is global warming, there are just as many as to why there is not global warming. Step out of your element and do some research against your ideals. It is a mind blowing experience.

 

In the 1970s we were in a hysteria about global cooling. Our answer was to melt the ice caps.

 

There is no harm to research and employ alternative sources of energy. The harm is subsidizing less efficient fuel sources and raising oil costs to force a change.

 

I also want all energy sources to have the same playing field as in no Government subsidy.

[Hoodoo Man]

I think its a mistake to debate about whether climate change exists and whether humans are causing it. I think those of us who believe it's real and human's are causing it should not worry about convincing other people. I think if you boil down the position to "Pollution is bad, it harms the environment, and we need to do much less of it" then there is not much to argue with. If we get caught up in arguing over whether we need to look at the weather over 10 years or 100 years or just the temperature today, it sort of skirts the main point: We need to pollute less, period.

 

[Guest Speed Racer]

Evidence is all over, you have all the answers as to why there is global warming, there are just as many as to why there is not global warming. Step out of your element and do some research against your ideals. It is a mind blowing experience.

 

So what you're saying is that you don't want to back up your statement?

[ikol]

All of the Huffington and Sullivan articles point to studies (not men in wife beaters, but like, science, dude) that address trends (things that happen over time, not, like, instances, dude). Do you deny that a longitudinal study of data will likely yield a more accurate long-term trend than a single one-time measurement of data (or a screenshot of a man in a wife-beater) will?

 

I'm here trying to be a smartass, and you're just determined to pin me down to a serious argument. I've never seen the Nobel-prize-winning treatise An Inconvenient Truth, but isn't the robot that presents the arguments in that film wearing an Al Gore mask, much like the one featured in the music video to which you refer? Yeah, all things being equal, longitudinal studies addressing trends are better than a dude in a wife-beater picking a banjo (or a dude in an Al Gore mask telling us Florida will be under water if we don't immediately stop using fossil fuels).

 

As you can see here, isadorah is not using the storm to validate global warming, but to define what the phrases "global warming" and "climate change" mean, in order to correct someone (OP) who was misuing the phrases - perhaps because he was not clear on the their definitions. She uses her knowledge of the definitions of "climate change" and "global warming," and her knowledge of these trends she talks about, to come to what she thinks to be a reasonable conclusion about the recent extreme weather systems occuring in her neighborhood.

 

OK, but climate change is an objective description of what happens naturally, not some Michael Bay big-budget disaster movie.

[Guest Speed Racer]

OK, but climate change is an objective description of what happens naturally, not some Michael Bay big-budget disaster movie.

 

And her description of the snow storm is also an objective description of something that happened naturally. Shall we name more natural occurances together?

[Dude]

There is no harm to research and employ alternative sources of energy. The harm is subsidizing less efficient fuel sources and raising oil costs to force a change.

 

I also want all energy sources to have the same playing field as in no Government subsidy.

 

If the alternative fuel sources are homegrown and not dependent on foreign nations to fairly charge us a lower price and not artificially raise it like OPEC has done for 30+ years, then what's the harm?

 

There's a much higher risk that oil cartels will artificially raise the price of oil than any carbon tax would. Think about it. A flat tax on a gallon of gas would raise it ten cents, but OPEC could cut production and raise the price of gas to be over $4 a gallon, and has done so in the past.

[M. (hristine]

I agree entirely that climate change is not a trend or even a political tool, but instead a natural reality of a complex planet. What we do not know, and do not have established data on, is how our recent consumption trends will affect, not affect, or override the planet's natural systems. I think it is natural, healthy, and smart to keep a close watch on these trends and even err on the side of caution.

A basic tenent of Buddhism is pratītyasamutpāda, or dependent co-arising. The environmental model only scratches the surface of how complex is Indra's web.

 

I see literally tons of food thrown into the dumpster every day at the grocery where I work. I can't even imagine the resources wasted in growing, packaging and shipping food that ends up to poison even more. This is one store. There is something intrinsically wrong in a culture that functions this way. Record snowfall which may or may not be caused by global warming or perhaps sunspot activity is the least of my worries.

 

I think if you boil down the position to "Pollution is bad, it harms the environment, and we need to do much less of it" then there is not much to argue with. If we get caught up in arguing over whether we need to look at the weather over 10 years or 100 years or just the temperature today, it sort of skirts the main point: We need to pollute less, period.

This

[Guest Speed Racer]

Record snowfall which may or may not be caused by global warming or perhaps sunspot activity is the least of my worries.

 

I wasn't trying to imply that the weather patterns are in fact what we should be most worried about above all else; what Oblivous wrote is pretty much a better version of what I was trying to get at.

[Edie]

 

 

In the 1970s we were in a hysteria about global cooling. Our answer was to melt the ice caps.

 

 

Really? I didn't remember this at all. So I did a little research and found this (one of many similar links)

 

 

Climate myths: They predicted global cooling in the 1970s

16 May 2007 by Michael Le Page

 

Indeed they did. At least, a handful of scientific papers discussed the possibility of a new ice age at some point in the future, leading to some pretty sensational media coverage (see Histories: The ice age that never was).

 

One of the sources of this idea may have been a 1971 paper by Stephen Schneider, then a climate researcher at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland, US. Schneider's paper suggested that the cooling effect of dirty air could outweigh the warming effect of carbon dioxide, potentially leading to an ice age if aerosol pollution quadrupled.

 

This scenario was seen as plausible by many other scientists, as at the time the planet had been cooling (see Global temperatures fell between 1940 and 1980). Furthermore, it had also become clear that the interglacial period we are in was lasting an unusually long time (see Record ice core gives fair forecast).

 

However, Schneider soon realised he had overestimated the cooling effect of aerosol pollution and underestimated the effect of CO2, meaning warming was more likely than cooling in the long run. In his review of a 1977 book called The Weather Conspiracy: The Coming of the New Ice Age, Schneider stated: "We just don't know...at this stage whether we are in for warming or cooling - or when." A 1975 report (pdf format) by the US National Academy of Sciences merely called for more research.

 

The calls for action to prevent further human-induced global warming, by contrast, are based on an enormous body of research by thousands of scientists over more than a century that has been subjected to intense - and sometimes ferocious - scrutiny. According to the latest IPCC report, it is more than 90% certain that the world is already warming as a result of human activity (see Blame for global warming placed firmly on humankind).

 

Update: A survey of the scientific literature has found that between 1965 and 1979, 44 scientific papers predicted warming, 20 were neutral and just 7 predicted cooling. So while predictions of cooling got more media attention, the majority of scientists were predicting warming even then.

[dondoboy]

This has been a very prolific winter.

[Guest Runaway Jim]

This has been a very prolific winter.

 

That bit's played, man.

[D-Dogg]

Really? I didn't remember this at all. So I did a little research and found this (one of many similar links)

 

 

Try again.

 

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html