BajaNomad - Climate Change

Climate Change

Pages: 1 2 3

JESSE - 8-10-2009 at 05:27 PM

Does anyone know where can i find info about projected Climate Changes (next 10-30yrs) for the Baja Peninsula?

Gracias.

bajaguy - 8-10-2009 at 05:33 PM

Algore.com :lol:

Osprey - 8-10-2009 at 06:02 PM

INAH has studied kitchen middens of people using our beaches 4K + years all along our southern beaches and concluded the Indians might have occupied this area for over a thousand years ~ before that. The ones all around our village are 30 to 60 feet above our current high water mark. Unless these strange people ate all their meals underwater the sites become a pretty good benchmark for the future. The Indians, ancient tourists from the seas and Amerindians all referred to suspected changes in the climate in the future in mathmatical terms = Algoreythms.

woody with a view - 8-10-2009 at 06:26 PM

what in the algore ever happened to "GLOBAL WARMING?"

:lol:

mtgoat666 - 8-10-2009 at 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by JESSE
Does anyone know where can i find info about projected Climate Changes (next 10-30yrs) for the Baja Peninsula?

Gracias.

ask david k :lol:

Alan - 8-10-2009 at 06:51 PM

You're not contemplating installing AC are you?

Paula - 8-10-2009 at 07:01 PM

Or ask this guy:

http://www.billmckibben.com/articles.html

I listened to a talk he gave on NPR's Alternative Radio while driving today. He discussed the need to get the carbon count in the air down from 550 ppm to 350 ppm as a starting point to save the planet. He mentioned a possible conesquence of not taking action: the rising of the oceans by several feet before the end of the century.

The part of me that loves Montana but hates snow said YAY!!!! Montanans for Global Warming (Don Alley, president, Paula Alley, sole member) will win out, and we will have a tropical paradise in the north!

But the part of me who spends most of the year in Baja felt a bit nervous. I'm not sure I could adjust
to life behind a snorkel mask

norte - 8-10-2009 at 07:14 PM

David K's website. He is an expert

gnukid - 8-10-2009 at 09:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by JESSE
Does anyone know where can i find info about projected Climate Changes (next 10-30yrs) for the Baja Peninsula?

Gracias.

Jesse,

The widely published US Gov approved IPCC 2007 Climate Forecast calls for Temperature increase 0.2 c per decade.

While many other scientists estimate Global Temp Cooling 0.1-2.0 c over the next 10-30 years.

Most reports suggest climate changes are more pronounced at higher elevations. And some areas may be cooler while others are warmer than baseline levels. Many regions have record cooling. In either case the differences between scientists consensus toward predictions is not huge. Sea life, plants and humans will be fine. Climate cycling change is normal phenomena.

http://www.lanacion.com.ar/nota.asp?nota_id=962453

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F50B1FFD395D...

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=24023

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/quikscat-200...

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/news/2008-01-02-florida-free...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/article134634.ece

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily....

climate change

BajaDanD - 8-10-2009 at 09:08 PM

try this link

http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php

BMG - 8-10-2009 at 09:52 PM

I don't believe that any "projected" climate change models can be trusted. Or rather, which ones do you trust? 10-30 years from now we will have a few people that called it right on and most that missed on their forecasts. Take your pick and get back to us in 2019.

Here is an interesting example on climate change that defies the doom & gloom predictions. According to National Geographic, much of the Sahara region in Africa is greening up to the benefit of millions living there. article

JESSE - 8-10-2009 at 10:38 PM

I am not trying to figure out if its true or not, i just want to see some models.

woody with a view - 8-11-2009 at 05:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by JESSE
I am not trying to figure out if its true or not, i just want to see some models.

http://www.playboy.com for starters..........

[Edited on 8-11-2009 by woody in ob]

ELINVESTIG8R - 8-11-2009 at 06:25 AM

Taco de Baja - 8-11-2009 at 07:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by JESSE
I am not trying to figure out if its true or not, i just want to see some models.

Some models will no doubt show warming, some will show cooling, some will have no change. Take your pick. Depending on where in Baja you are interested in, at least one of them will be right. That's why it's now called "climate change". Although 10-30 years is a very small window. In 1979 could anyone have predicted that the "climate" in Baja would be like now? Is there really any change form 1979? What is the climate in Baja anyway? Is it the conditions in TJ? Ensenada? La Paz? the 9,000+' San Pedro Martir? Mulege?

Pescador - 8-11-2009 at 10:32 AM

Try http://www.climatedepot.com
they do have the charts but also have the disputed information. Actually, most of the scientists concur that we have been, and continue to be in a global cooling period which show an overall lowering of .02 degrees F. for 2008, which is projected to last 2023.

Cypress - 8-11-2009 at 10:36 AM

It's already feeling like fall up here in the north woods. :yes:

Bajahowodd - 8-11-2009 at 01:24 PM

Since air conditioning Jesse's restaurant would be quite a trick, I'd bet that probably the single most important issue for Baja regarding climate change would be the sea level. Just read the other day that glaciers appear to be melting at an increased rate. So, those oceanfront lots may just become part of the ocean.

Okay... enough already!

David K - 8-11-2009 at 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bajahowodd
Since air conditioning Jesse's restaurant would be quite a trick, I'd bet that probably the single most important issue for Baja regarding climate change would be the sea level. Just read the other day that glaciers appear to be melting at an increased rate. So, those oceanfront lots may just become part of the ocean.

At an 'increased rate'? Have they been melting (and not re-freezing elsewhere) at all? The sea lever has been static the past 50 years... *In-other-words, places that got wet during highest tides are still getting wet ONLY during the highest tides.

One can see the 'sameness' along Bahia Concepcion where the homes, palapas and old road (from the 1950's) at sea level are still at sea level... and not under sea level.

I would also mention the tidal flats and beach below San Felipe are also no deeper underwater after all these years... but Concepcion is a rock coast and the excuse about sand buildup keeping the beach above water doesn't apply there.

The sky isn't falling and Nature is more powerful than man... RELAX and don't buy into the hysteria, as it only serves to make has-been politicians rich and give government more power over you with NO change other than what is natural change.

JESSE - 8-11-2009 at 02:27 PM

We are in August here in La Paz and the weather has been surprisingly nice at night, going down to the high 70´s. Last years at this time it was hell. I am just curious as to the posibilities.

David K - 8-11-2009 at 02:28 PM

It is the coolest August (so far) here in San Diego that I can remember, as well!

Bajahowodd - 8-11-2009 at 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by David K

Quote:

You go to your church and I'll go to mine. I have personally witnessed the decline of North American glaciers. To suggest that the runoff just ends up become new glaciers elsewhere overlooks the fact that there are no reports of glacier building anywhere. If the water enters the sea, it's ultimately going to raise sea level. I'd be glad to help in an experiment wherein you sit in your tub, full of water, and allow me to dump bags of ice into it.

[Edited on 8-11-2009 by Bajahowodd]

mtgoat666 - 8-11-2009 at 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bajahowodd

Quote:

Originally posted by David K

Quote:

Originally posted by Bajahowodd
blah, blah, blah

bla, blah, blah,... [big-industry talking points],... blah, blah, blah

[Edited on 8-11-2009 by Bajahowodd]

actually, the largest source of sea level rise will be due to thermal expansion of ocean water volume.

the hot air from nomads will be directly responsible for 3 cm of sea level rise :lol:

Bajahowodd - 8-11-2009 at 04:11 PM

Front row of tables at The Office in Cabo are doomed!

Barry A. - 8-11-2009 at 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bajahowodd

You go to your church and I'll go to mine. I have personally witnessed the decline of North American glaciers. To suggest that the runoff just ends up become new glaciers elsewhere overlooks the fact that there are no reports of glacier building anywhere. If the water enters the sea, it's ultimately going to raise sea level. I'd be glad to help in an experiment wherein you sit in your tub, full of water, and allow me to dump bags of ice into it.

[Edited on 8-11-2009 by Bajahowodd]

Au contraire, "-----no reports of glacier building anywhere."????? Reports from the USFS/USGS concerning Mt. Shasta reveal that the substantial glaciers on that volcano ARE building up over the past few years.

----at least that is what I have read, and heard.

-----but again, it is a cycle which has been going on since the creation, and I doubt that we have much, if anything, to do with it.

Barry

Taco de Baja - 8-11-2009 at 04:44 PM

There is also a net growth of glaciers in Antarctica, in addition to several locals around the world including several others in the USA. Just because the media ignores this fact does not mean it's not happening.

With "climate change" some areas will get warmer, some colder, some dryer, some wetter. Nothing new. The animals, including us humans, can and do adapt quite readily.

tripledigitken - 8-11-2009 at 04:57 PM

Pity, but it's getting more and more difficult to stay on that "Man Induced Global Warming Train".

Anyone questioning the validity of that a year ago was accused of being a flat earther, including right here on this forum.

Ken

Mexitron - 8-11-2009 at 05:03 PM

I think Taco de Baja is basically right, although I would also be interested in some models of data which compare humans total output versus naturally occurring events like volcanos--my cousin said he read a Caltech article which showed that the output of just Krakatoa, which affected earth's climate for a couple years, was equal to our entire output up to 1926...something like that. If natural events dwarf our own output then I would be inclined to conclude that our effect is somewhat minimal. Taco--any reports like that you have access to?

Pescador - 8-11-2009 at 06:47 PM

Okay, the Chicken Littles are drinking Kool Aid and are convinced the sky is falling. A couple of recent reports indicate that the sea ice is not melting as predicted by the naysayers.

http://www.canada.com/technology/chokng+Northwest+Passage+Of...
and:

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice extent.htm

norte - 8-11-2009 at 06:55 PM

Ahhh I knew it. David K to the rescue.. Don't need no facts man... just look at the ocean. its the same this year as last year.

GOTSAND

OLIGUACOMOLE - 8-11-2009 at 09:14 PM

Does anyone know where I can get some sandbags????hahah

Paula - 8-11-2009 at 09:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bajahowodd
Front row of tables at The Office in Cabo are doomed!

The glaciers in Glacier National Park are clearly shrinking. Measurements and photos show this to be true.

Maybe folks here will wake up to the facts when prices at the Office go even higher due to the loss of that front row :lol:

Barry A. - 8-11-2009 at 09:43 PM

Paula------I have not noticed one comment in this thread that claims that climate change is not happening-------we all admit it is.

It is the "cause" that I have problems with.

I was the Bear Management Officer for Glacier Natl. Park in 1968 and 1969, and yes, the Glaciers were considerably larger then------

Climates change, and are constantly doing so--------that's a given. Just look at the Great Salt Lake desert and notice the "bathtub rings" high on the sides of the surrounding mountains------that represents a huge change, and it happened relatively lately.

A report I just saw the other day stated that many of the oasis in the Sahara Desert were greening up, and expanding, much to the delight of the inhabitants---------now that is Change we can believe in.

Barry

OLIGUACOMOLE - 8-12-2009 at 07:01 AM

In eight years the water seems to have invaded the most in the last two years. Tides go up and down so I guess we can make a measure from the highest mean. With the exeption of storms the high tides invade several times per year, flooding the camping area and pushing salt water all the way to our entrance. Do I think sea level is rising......yes I do.

Maybe someone needs to ask Bertha at Playa Burro what she thinks!

oxxo - 8-12-2009 at 08:01 AM

NASA says that this is the second warmest July on record globally: http://global-warming.accuweather.com/2009/08/second_warmest...

So if the preponderance of scientists say that global warming, in this case, is caused by green house gases, we should listen to Nomads because they know better.

Taco de Baja - 8-12-2009 at 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by oxxo
NASA says that this is the second warmest July on record globally: http://global-warming.accuweather.com/2009/08/second_warmest...

So if the preponderance of scientists say that global warming, in this case, is caused by green house gases, we should listen to Nomads because they know better.

So we are now going to predict furure global warming based on one month?

In the same link they also state:
"Here are the same two images, but this time using the July 2005 to July 2009 time period. Note: Many more regions have seen a cooling trend compared to the longer July 2000-2009 period.

Thusly PROVING that depending on the time period you chose you can get ANY result you want. :rolleyes:

As they say in many parts of the world. "Don't like the weather? Wait a few minutes."

mtgoat666 - 8-12-2009 at 09:16 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Taco de Baja
So we are now going to predict furure global warming based on one month?

no. the final authoritative opinion will be from david k, and his "global change research park" established in 1972 on shell island south of san felipe.

David K - 8-12-2009 at 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Taco de Baja

Quote:

As they say in many parts of the world. "Don't like the weather? Wait a few minutes."

Another point is that NASA is a government agency, and the government now is controlled by those who wish to have all the power in their hands. Using the false science of 'man-made climate change' helps them to take away more freedom from private citizens.

bajalou - 8-12-2009 at 09:31 AM

There is difference of opinions regarding cause/effect of this "global Warming" among the scientific community.

But here's a paper regarding sea level changes.

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/environment/waterworld.html

mtgoat666 - 8-12-2009 at 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by David K
Another point is that NASA is a government agency, and the government now is controlled by those who wish to have all the power in their hands. Using the false science of 'man-made climate change' helps them to take away more freedom from private citizens.

aha! a conspiracy theory! of course! i bet you think the moon landing was a giant govt hoax staged in a studio at area 51.

David K - 8-12-2009 at 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by bajalou
There is difference of opinions regarding cause/effect of this "global Warming" among the scientific community.

But here's a paper regarding sea level changes.

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/environment/waterworld.html

That's a great link Lou... Hey MyGoat, take a look!

Cypress - 8-12-2009 at 09:44 AM

Being on the Climate Change bandwagon is politically correct right now, but the wheels are beginning to wobble. :biggrin:

Climate has changed in the past and will change in the future. Just like the seasons. :biggrin:

Crusoe - 8-12-2009 at 09:56 AM

In Europe country's such as Norway, Denmark,Sweeden,Finland,Greenland,Iceland and Russia have been scientificaly studying global warming for over 40 years.They have spent millions on research and development of electronic tracing and information gathering devices (instruments) that they install on ice fields and galaciers which they monitor on a monthly basis. They helicopter in scientists every month and they brave extreme weather conditions to read and collect data as to what is happening. Many devoted scientists have been living in crude makeshift weater info. gathering staions and huts, in severe conditions, to understand what is relly happening. Scientific info. gleaned from satilite photos and animal and fish info. also gathered from wildlife bioligists is entered into this equation also. In Australia many huge and complicated atmosphere collection disks have been built that are able to measure incredidle things, like the ozone layer, and can detect temperatures and changes to the onehunderedth of degrees.All these scientists have accepted and agree that there is just to many studies that confirm man made polution is causing the planet to heat up.And that Global Warming is a serious threat! ++C++

mtgoat666 - 8-12-2009 at 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by David K

Quote:

That's a great link Lou... Hey MyGoat, take a look!

dk,
that's an opinion piece, not a peer reviewed paper. try again, ditto head

Barry A. - 8-12-2009 at 10:20 AM

Crusoe said, "All these scientists have accepted and agree that there is just to many studies that confirm man made polution is causing the planet to heat up.And that Global Warming is a serious threat! ++C++ "

I don't buy it---especially the "all these scientiests" part------------I would like references to this info source--------I have heard and read just the opposite--------much controversy still over that much put forth "conclusion".

Barry

By the way, a "fact" is what David (and others) have observed over time (reference Shell Island)---------but I agree that the conclusions reached by observing that "fact" are not scientific, but THEY ARE relevant, at least to me.

tripledigitken - 8-12-2009 at 10:23 AM

Pompano,

How about your observations of water levels at your "sea wall" over the last 30 years? Any noticable change?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Ken

JESSE - 8-12-2009 at 10:26 AM

Have i created a monster??

David K - 8-12-2009 at 10:38 AM

In 1966, the old road along Bahia Concepcion would get covered at lunar high tides and it still does at lunar high tide... If the sea levels have risen any noticible amount, the old road at sea level would be covered all the time.

In 1966, El Requeson island was connected by a sand bar at low tide... In 2009, it is STILL connected by a sand bar at low tide.

REAL TIME OBSERVATIONS BY SOMEONE WHO HAS NO FINANCIAL GAIN FROM 'GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE' (me)!

Taco de Baja - 8-12-2009 at 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by JESSE
Have i created a monster??

Si!

Politics, religion, and global warming....Always lead to wars. Remember, never bring these subjects up on a first date :light:

Heather - 8-12-2009 at 11:05 AM

I've got what I think is a bigger problem for all you Baja-loving people. It is called the, North Pacific Gyre or more commonly the North Pacific Garbage Patch.
This is definitely a man-made problem and will affect us all, if it isn't already!

www.seaplexscience.com

Research of this problem is in its infancy, but I think it will have more affect on the oceans and our lives than the imminent global warming! Saludos, Heather

mtgoat666 - 8-12-2009 at 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by David K
If the sea levels have risen any noticible amount, the old road at sea level would be covered all the time.

In 1966, El Requeson island was connected by a sand bar at low tide... In 2009, it is STILL connected by a sand bar at low tide.

dk,
regarding your road observations, what is tidal range? would you really expect a 5 cm SL rise to "cover all the time?" until the day you do land survey work to support your visual observations and memories, your scientific approach is highly suspect.

sand bars are not static, infrequent visual observations of sand bars are generally meaningless. the grade of sand bars can rise or fall with every storm/wave/current event. when you see a sand bar ask yourself, why has it not eroded? what processes are adding sand to location to cause accumulation? if you start asking yourself these questions, you will may learn that sediments and land surfaces are dynamic, not static.

k-rico - 8-12-2009 at 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by JESSE
Have i created a monster??

I thought that was your intent.

Come on, you knew better!

Bajahowodd - 8-12-2009 at 11:31 AM

Jesse- Maybe you should have jusst asked your priest. He's probably as knowledgeable as any of us.

David K - 8-12-2009 at 11:31 AM

Mtgoat... Why is it so important to you to believe the new age observations of the past 'few months' over my 43 years going to the same sea level places (rock and sand, not just sand) OR better still the scientific papers in the link provided by bajalou?

I am not saying things don't change... they do... I see fossil sea shells dozens of miles from and hundreds of feet HIGHER than the ocean. So, the oceans have DROPPED since then! If they rise back up... then it IS a NORMAL thing and man has NOTHING to do with the normal change... It will change regardless if man is here or not. Thinking that man is more powerful than nature is foolish that man causes the climate to change or sea levels to rise is ignorant of natural history.

Since man cannot change the natural order, then I conclude the giving government powers to restrict our normal activities ONLY serves to take power away from the people by the (neo-Marxist) administration, now in control. Don't you trust yourself to know what is best for you and your family? Would you really prefer that a bureaucrat in Washington dictate your every move?

I am for personal freedom and happiness... for everyone, not just 'party members' in their jets and limmos.

gnukid - 8-12-2009 at 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by David K

I am not saying things don't change... they do... I see fossil sea shells dozens of miles from and hundreds of feet HIGHER than the ocean. So, the oceans have DROPPED since then! I...

In addition to tectonic plate activity and water level changes, is it also possible be that indians carried shells and dropped them at different locations and higher elevations for ceremony, by accident or just for fun or that even modern man has carried shells to high mountain tops? hmmm Have you ever seen a burial ground with rocks from all around the world?

Barry A. - 8-12-2009 at 11:46 AM

35 years ago I was the Natl. Park Service Ranger-pilot for Cape Hatteras/Cape Lookout Natl. Seashore, etc.. At the time we were experiencing what appeared to be severe and on-going errosion of the Outer Banks of North Carolina. All (or most) the "scientific" studies, of which there were many, indicated that the Outer Banks would be breached in multiple places, and the sand banks themselves would be essentially destroyed within 10 years (?) exposing the North Carolina inner-coast to face the onslaught of the Atlantic Ocean during the famed Nor-easterner storms, and occasional hurricanes.

Today the Outer Banks are still intact, tho errosion has rearanged things substantially. Scientific studies are certainly helpful, but decisions that affect everybodies livelyhood should not be hastily made until we know for sure what is actually going on, in my opinion.

As a Geographer, I can say with reasonable certainty that what is often scientifically projected to be happening is often not at all what eventually and actually does happen.

Like "reforming" Health Care, we should move slowly, and study thoroughly before actually implementing plans that have enormous consequences, in my opinion.

Barry

David K - 8-12-2009 at 11:49 AM

The sea shells eaten by Indians hundreds or even thousands of years ago are not yet fossil rocks or petrified in stone...

What I was talking about are millions of years old, pre-man...

mtgoat666 - 8-12-2009 at 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by David K
Mtgoat... Why is it so important to you to believe the new age observations of the past 'few months' over my 43 years going to the same sea level places (rock and sand, not just sand) OR better still the scientific papers in the link provided by bajalou?

I am not saying things don't change... they do... I see fossil sea shells dozens of miles from and hundreds of feet HIGHER than the ocean. So, the oceans have DROPPED since then! If they rise back up... then it IS a NORMAL thing and man has NOTHING to do with the normal change... It will change regardless if man is here or not. Thinking that man is more powerful than nature is foolish that man causes the climate to change or sea levels to rise is ignorant of natural history.

Since man cannot change the natural order, then I conclude the giving government powers to restrict our normal activities ONLY serves to take power away from the people by the (neo-Marxist) administration, now in control. Don't you trust yourself to know what is best for you and your family? Would you really prefer that a bureaucrat in Washington dictate your every move?

I am for personal freedom and happiness... for everyone, not just 'party members' in their jets and limmos.

dk, you provide comedic relief :lol:

thanks for the chuckle :bounce:

David K - 8-12-2009 at 11:55 AM

Come on now and answer the three questions... it's okay, because we want you to be free and happy, afterall:

1) Why is it so important to you to believe the new age observations of the past 'few months' over my 43 years going to the same sea level places (rock and sand, not just sand) OR better still the scientific papers in the link provided by bajalou?

2) Don't you trust yourself to know what is best for you and your family?

3) Would you really prefer that a bureaucrat in Washington dictate your every move?

Kill the Fish

OLIGUACOMOLE - 8-12-2009 at 12:05 PM

I know you guys are much smarter than me.
What if we just deplete the fish stocks more as a way to stop the rising tide!?

oxxo - 8-12-2009 at 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by David K
1) Why is it so important to you to believe the new age observations of the past 'few months' over my 43 years going to the same sea level places (rock and sand, not just sand) OR better still the scientific papers in the link provided by bajalou?

Wrong! This research is NOT "new age observations of the past 'few months.'" It is credible scientific research over the last several years including available data from before that.

I'm sure the scientific community is waiting with bated breath to enlighten them with your observations at Shell Island over the last 43 years.

Quote:

2) Don't you trust yourself to know what is best for you and your family?

Yes I do, and relying on DavidK's "scientific observations" is NOT what is best for me and my family.

Quote:

3) Would you really prefer that a bureaucrat in Washington dictate your every move?

That's not we are talking about here. We are talking about an unqualified Nomad with 43 years of observations trying to dictate my every move. In general, scientists are not bureaucrats. You are totally confused about what bureaucrats want to do.

mtgoat666 - 8-12-2009 at 12:21 PM

Quote:

It is not important to me. But I am a scientist, and I trust good science more than your memories. If you were collecting data and documenting your observations in something even resembling scientific method, that would be another matter.

Quote:

Originally posted by David K
2) Don't you trust yourself to know what is best for you and your family?

Of course I do, and your question is assinine.

I think rapid climate change due to pollution does not bode well for our world, and should be mitigated if we can do so.

Quote:

Originally posted by David K
3) Would you really prefer that a bureaucrat in Washington dictate your every move?

Not my every move. But I trust a bureaucrat and scientists more than a politician or exxonmobil to make informed choices about regulating pollution to protect my interests.

oxxo - 8-12-2009 at 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Taco de Baja
There is also a net growth of glaciers in Antarctica,

Source please.

Quote:

With "climate change" some areas will get warmer, some colder, some dryer, some wetter. Nothing new. The animals, including us humans, can and do adapt quite readily.

Just like the dinosaurs adapted?

We are NOT talking about whether last month was warmer or colder than the year before, we are talking about TRENDS. The scientific community is concerned and alarmed by the current TRENDS.

Barry A. - 8-12-2009 at 12:24 PM

Oxxo---------your vitriol, sarcasm, and character assasination is so refreshing!!!! You are not living up to your stated state of happiness----------in fact you seem pretty grouchy, to me.

Barry

ps the dinosaurs were probably desimated by a one time huge explosion from an impact from space????? No amount of scientific study could have prevented it.

[Edited on 8-12-2009 by Barry A.]

oxxo - 8-12-2009 at 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bajalou
There is difference of opinions regarding cause/effect of this "global Warming" among the scientific community.

You are technically correct - 95% of the scientific community is concerned about the effect of greenhouse gasses on global warming and 5% of the scientific community is not. Most of those 5% are on the payroll of companies with a vested interest in the outcome.

Barry A. - 8-12-2009 at 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by oxxo

Quote:

Originally posted by bajalou
There is difference of opinions regarding cause/effect of this "global Warming" among the scientific community.

That is a preposterous statement!!! Sources please.

Barry

Taco de Baja - 8-12-2009 at 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by oxxo

Quote:

Originally posted by Taco de Baja
There is also a net growth of glaciers in Antarctica,

Source please.

Quote:

With "climate change" some areas will get warmer, some colder, some dryer, some wetter. Nothing new. The animals, including us humans, can and do adapt quite readily.

Here's one:

Quote:

While the news focus has been on the lowest ice extent since satellite monitoring began in 1979 for the Arctic, the Southern Hemisphere (Antarctica) has quietly set a new record for most ice extent since 1979.

The Southern Hemispheric areal coverage is the highest in the satellite record, just beating out 1995, 2001, 2005 and 2006. Since 1979, the trend has been up for the total Antarctic ice extent.

While the Antarctic Peninsula area has warmed in recent years and ice near it diminished during the Southern Hemisphere summer, the interior of Antarctica has been colder and ice elsewhere has been more extensive and longer lasting, which explains the increase in total extent.

Indeed, according the NASA GISS data, the South Pole winter (June/July/August) has cooled about 1 degree F since 1957 and the coldest year was 2004.

This winter (2007) has been an especially harsh one in the Southern Hemisphere with cold and snow records set in Australia, South America and Africa.
link

here's another:

Quote:

Ice is expanding in much of Antarctica, contrary to the widespread public belief that global warming is melting the continental ice cap.

The results of ice-core drilling and sea ice monitoring indicate there is no large-scale melting of ice over most of Antarctica, although experts are concerned at ice losses on the continent's western coast.

Australian Antarctic Division glaciology program head Ian Allison said sea ice losses in west Antarctica over the past 30 years had been more than offset by increases in the Ross Sea region, just one sector of east Antarctica.

Ice core drilling in the fast ice off Australia's Davis Station in East Antarctica by the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Co-Operative Research Centre shows that last year, the ice had a maximum thickness of 1.89m, its densest in 10 years. The average thickness of the ice at Davis since the 1950s is 1.67m.

A paper to be published soon by the British Antarctic Survey in the journal Geophysical Research Letters is expected to confirm that over the past 30 years, the area of sea ice around the continent has expanded.
link

Speaking of TRENDS, where do you think the stock market will be on Dec 31? Some economists are alarmed by the current trend, I'd like your take, not that I'd rush out and buy or sell tomorrow...

gnukid - 8-12-2009 at 01:06 PM

K-Rico

The following is criticism of the biased presentation of the Royal Society of Science UK Climate Change report by the Royal Society of Science New Zealand.

http://www.heartland.org/publications/environment%20climate/...

Written By: Muriel Newman
Published In: Environment & Climate News > October 2008
Publication date: 10/09/2008
Publisher: The Heartland Institute
The Royal Society of New Zealand (RSNZ) in June 2008 issued a special statement designed to clear up the “controversy over climate change” and “possible confusion among the public.”

The statement from the Society’s Climate Committee asserts, “The globe is warming because of increasing greenhouse gas emissions” and “human activities” are to blame.

The statement reinforces the New Zealand government’s position that in order to prevent climate disaster, legislation must be passed to force the public to make personal sacrifices and reduce their consumption of energy.

Statement Stirs Controversy

According to its Web site, the Royal Society is an independent, national academy of sciences representing nearly 20,000 scientists, technologists, and technicians. They administer science and technology funds worth $40 million to $50 million for the government, publish science journals, offer advice to government, and promote science and technology. The society operates on a budget of more than $5 million per year.

In response to the Climate Committee’s statement, a longstanding member of the Royal Society, Dr. Vincent Gray, resigned. Dr. Gray, a climate consultant and expert reviewer of all four of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Assessment Reports, said his resignation was in protest against major inaccuracies in the society’s climate statement.

His concerns include the fact that the globe is now cooling, not warming, and that there is “no evidence whatsoever for a human contribution to the climate.”

‘Biased and Inadequate’

The society’s climate change statement also drew strong criticism from the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition.

The coalition was founded in 2006 by a group of climate experts (including the late atmospheric science professor at the University of Wyoming, Augie Auer) who had become increasingly alarmed about the misleading information being disseminated about climate change and so-called anthropogenic (man-made) global warming.

In a detailed response to the Royal Society, the coalition stated, “It beggars the imagination that an expert committee can launch a public statement about climate change that is so partial in its arguments and so out of date in its science.”

Conflict of Interest

The coalition document says the society has a major conflict of interest in benefiting from global warming alarmism.

“Six of the eight members of the expert committee carry the conflict of interest that they work for institutions that garner research funds to investigate the human influence on global warming. ... Five members are employed by NIWA [the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research], one member works within a global change research institute and one is associated with ‘carboNZero’—which is a ‘greenhouse gas emissions management and reduction scheme offering carbon credits.’”

The coalition statement continues, “Incredibly, the committee contains not a single person drawn from research agencies other than NIWA, nor any independent climate scientist rationalists. The chairman of the committee—through senior positions that he holds at NIWA and within the IPCC—also advises government on climate change. ... In view of such manifest conflicts, it is not surprising to discover that the RSNZ statement on climate change is both biased and inadequate.”

Dr. Muriel Newman (muriel@newman.co.nz) is founder and director of the New Zealand Centre for Political Research. This article was first published on the group’s Web site and is reprinted with permission.

[Edited on 8-12-2009 by gnukid]

tripledigitken - 8-12-2009 at 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by oxxo
.....scientists are not bureaucrats......

You do know that scientists to a large degree get their funding from bureaucrats. Is there a relationship between funding and the direction of scientific research, most certainly.

Ken

spell check :rolleyes:

[Edited on 8-12-2009 by tripledigitken]

Taco de Baja - 8-12-2009 at 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tripledigitken

Quote:

Originally posted by oxxo
.....scientists are not bureaucrats......

You do know that scientists too a large degree get there funding from bureaucrats. Is there a relationship between funding and the direction of scientific research, most certainly.

Ken

...and remember, bureaucrats get their funding from lobbyists.....

Cypress - 8-12-2009 at 01:47 PM

Barry A., Your advice is well worth taken. :bounce:

mtgoat666 - 8-12-2009 at 01:56 PM

People who don't believe science of climate change are typically overweight and drivers of oversized gas hogs -- and their guilt at being wasteful is behind their denial, the denial that is necessary to enable their guilty wastefulness.

Fat energy hogs.

Yes we can!!!!!!!

tigerdog - 8-12-2009 at 02:08 PM

Always follow the money (and the political affiliations).

In this case, regarding The Heartland Institute, funding from big oil and tobacco lead the way, and while they claim to be non-partisan they clearly are closely aligned with the conservative movement. See:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institu...

Funding: MediaTransparency reported that the Heartland Institute received funding from politically conservative foundations such as the Castle Rock Foundation, the Sarah Scaife Foundation, the John M. Olin Foundation, and the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation.

Some of their funding from ExxonMobil:

Heartland Institute has received $676,500 from ExxonMobil since 1998.

1997
$unknown Mobil Corporation
Source: Heartland material, present at 3/16/97 conference

1998
$30,000 ExxonMobil Corporate Giving
Source: ExxonMobil 1998 grants list

2000
$115,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
Climate Change
Source: ExxonMobil Foundation 2000 IRS 990

2001
$90,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
Source: ExxonMobil 2001 Annual Report

2002
$15,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
Source: ExxonMobil 2002 Annual Report

2003
$7,500 ExxonMobil Corporate Giving
19th Aniversary Benefit Dinner
Source: ExxonMobil 2003 Corporate Giving Report

2003
$85,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
General Operating Support
Source: ExxonMobil 2003 Corporate Giving Report

2004
$10,000 Exxon Corporation
Climate Change Activities
Source: Exxon Giving Report 2004

2004
$15,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
Climate Change Efforts
Source: Exxon Giving Report 2004

2004
$75,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
General Operating Support
Source: Exxon Giving Report 2004

2005
$29,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
Source: ExxonMobil 2005 DIMENSIONS Report (Corporate Giving)

2005
$90,000 ExxonMobil Corporate Giving
Source: ExxonMobil 2005 DIMENSIONS Report (Corporate Giving)

2006
$90,000 ExxonMobil Corporate Giving
General Operating Support
Source: ExxonMobil Corporate Giving Report 2006

2006
$10,000 ExxonMobil Corporate Giving
Anniversary benefit dinner
Source: ExxonMobil Corporate Giving Report 2006

2006
$15,000 ExxonMobil Corporate Giving
General Operating Support
Source: ExxonMobil Corporate Giving Report 2006

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/wiki/index.php/Deniers:_Heartland_Institute"

MORE:

Quote:

Our research into the listed "sponsors" for the Heartland Institute's upcoming "International Conference on Climate Change" finds that these organizations have received over $47 million from energy companies and right-wing foundations, with 78% of that total coming from the Scaife Family of foundations.

According to the Media Transparency project the Scaife Family of Foundations is, "financed by the Mellon industrial, oil and banking fortune. At one time its largest single holding was stock in the Gulf Oil Corporation. Became active in funding conservative causes in 1973, when Richard Mellon Scaife became chairman of the foundation. According to a recent article, 'In 1993, the Carthage and Sarah Scaife Foundations...gave more than $17.6 million to 150 conservative think tanks.'"

Here's the breakdown:
ExxonMobil (1998-2006): $6,199,000
Koch Foundations (1986-2006): $4,438,920
Scaife Foundations (1985-2006): $36,868,640
Grand Total: $47,506,560

http://www.desmogblog.com/heartland-institutes-2009-climate-...

How unbiased do you really think they are, and how much do you think they can be relied on for honest scientific information?

Taco de Baja - 8-12-2009 at 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by mtgoat666
People who don't believe science of climate change are typically overweight and drivers of oversized gas hogs -- and their guilt at being wasteful is behind their denial, the denial that is necessary to enable their guilty wastefulness.

Fat energy hogs.

Source?

Besides my personal observation, over the last 40 years, that rising obesity curve for the US population exactly matches the rising global temperature curve.

David K - 8-12-2009 at 02:16 PM

Hmmm... we have Nomads posting mature answers vs. Nomads posting insults and hysteria.

I go with the mature answer everytime!

If it was 'science', then they wouldn't have a politician (Al Gore) be their head spokesman and they wouldn't have needed to re-name their (myth) 'Global Warming' to the new and more versatile phrase 'Climate Change'.

Science is the ONGOING collection of data and CONSTANT evaluation of that data. The global 'alarmist' say that man-made 'climate change' is a forgone conclusion. That alone proves there is NOTHING scientific about it.

[Edited on 8-12-2009 by David K]

gnukid - 8-12-2009 at 02:18 PM

Quote:

Not one poster has denied climate change-there is consensus among scientists and neophytes.

Not one poster denies that pollution is bad and may affect climate change.

The fine point is that there is no consensus on evidence of *significant* affect of human created CO2 on climate change versus natural causes.

And even if there was evidence of significant affect on climate change caused by human generated CO2 that by no means justifies creating legislation to punish people for breathing and eating etc... nor justifies an absurd Carbon Unit currency market.

These natural issues observed as points toward the conclusion = let's create a new highly contrived carbon unit speculative financial market plus invasive *smart grid* is a non-sequiter, based on no empirical logic.

The smart grid and carbon unit proposals were created by Enron's Ken Lay and by Al Gore. Ken Lay was subsequently charged and proven guilty of with corporate fraud that stole billions.

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=gore+enron&emb=0&a...

http://xmmlbchat.blogspot.com/2009/06/al-goreenron-in-dress-...

Taco de Baja - 8-12-2009 at 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tigerdog
Always follow the money (and the political affiliations).

Well said!
Al Gore went from a net worth of ~$2 million when he left the White House to well above $100 million after pushing global warming....
98 million reasons not to trust guy, or what he is selling.

arrowhead - 8-12-2009 at 02:30 PM

Quote:

What has that to do with climate change? Are you aware that all the planets in the solar system have warmed up over the last century? Since the other eight planets don't have any fossil fuel burning, the only other explanation is that the energy output of the Sun has increased. In fact the energy output of the Sun is variable, which accounts for Earth's numerous ice ages and warm periods before humans existed.

What the so-called "scientists" do is make a finding that the Earth's temperature has increased, and then jump on the most likely explanation for it, without doing any real looking for other reasons.

Back in the middle Ages, scientists were certain that their existed an "ether" upon which light waves traveled. This was long before the understanding of electromagnetic forces. The proof that "ether" existed was that fact that light waves traveled. That is just as likely as the "proof" that global warming is caused by burning fossil fuels.

The name for this logical fallacy is: Cum Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc. Just becuase two events occur together does not mean one event causes the other.

Cypress - 8-12-2009 at 02:32 PM

tigerdog, $10K here and there is chump change compared to what's going on now. How 'bout several trillion being tossed down the rat hole? :light:

mtgoat666 - 8-12-2009 at 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by arrowhead

Quote:

Lux sit!

(it's probaably too late for you)

tigerdog - 8-12-2009 at 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Cypress
tigerdog, $10K here and there is chump change compared to what's going on now. How 'bout several trillion being tossed down the rat hole? :light:

And that's relevant to who is funding the Heartland Institute in what way?

Mexitron - 8-12-2009 at 02:49 PM

Well, there's this:

"Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous (global warming) is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are..."

former Vice President Al Gore
(now, chairman and co-founder of Generation Investment Management--
a London-based business that sells carbon credits)
(in interview with Grist Magazine May 9, 2006, concerning his book, An Inconvenient Truth)

I found it in a report on global warming which is rather informative and provides weight to the idea that man's activities are having minimal---not none---but minimal effects:

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html#anchor210826...

I'm sure Taco de Baja can find some other examples, perhaps better, since he is a paleontologist.

The upside to scaring folks into the global warming hysteria is that we could accelerate our way into energy independence---by not finding new sources of energy we are kept in the mire of Middle East politics...always a paradox, good and bad......

Barry A. - 8-12-2009 at 02:58 PM

Good points, Mexitron---

Al Gore's statement is a retreat into intellectualism that is often utilized by the "elite", and I think is short-sighted and so transparent. When a controversial position is over-stated, many folks become suspicious and tend to fight it, just on principal. Those tactics appear to work in active debates, but, IMO, have the opposite effect when folks are free to digest the info.

It constantly amazes me that the intellectuals (including some of my friends) don't seem to understand that concept.

Barry

arrowhead - 8-12-2009 at 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by mtgoat666
Lux sit!
(it's probaably too late for you)

Good response, Goat. It sure is easy to spot the person with the vacuous argument. Instead of responding to a debate with facts, he just calls the other guy a name (Ad Hominem fallacy). Now, if you would like to try again to argue your position by pointing to the scientific studies which have eliminated the variable energy output of the Sun as a factor in the current warming trends, and positively correlated greenhouse gasses as the sole factor, please present them.

bajalou - 8-21-2009 at 02:20 PM

Here is a report by some other scientists who are independent of governmental funding.

http://www.climatechangereconsidered.org/

(I haven't read the all of report, just some short reviews of it.)

I tend to give more credence to reports by people who are not paid to come up with a pre-determined answer.

Crusoe - 8-21-2009 at 04:50 PM

And There is This- The final word....IN HOT WATER....WORLD SETS OCEAN TEMPERATURE RECORD!!!!....In Scarborough, Maine, a 26 yo man Steve Kramer goes swimming in 72 degree water. At Ocean City, Md. the water temp hit 88 degrees. Kramer said its the first time I'ever swam for so long off the town I grew up in. Its not just the ocean off the Northeast coast, that is super warm this summer.....July was the hottest the worlds oceans have been in almost 130 years of record keeping. The average water temp worldwide was62.6 degrees. according to the Natl. Climatic Data Center which is the branch of U.S. Govt. that keeps world weather records.....Meteoroligists say there is a combination of forces here at work. The resulting ocean heat is already harming threatened coral reefs. It could also hasten the melting of the artic sea ice and help hurricanes strenghten.The gulf of Mex. where warm water fuels hurricanes, has temps. dancing around 90 degrees. Most of the water in the Northern Hemisphere has been cosiderably warmer than normal. Hotter temparatures are the rule in the Pacific and Indian oceans as well. The heat is most notable near the Arctic,where water temps are 10 degrees above average. The tounges of hot water will help melt sea ice from below and even cause thawing of ice sheets on Greenland, say the head climate scientists at the Earth and Science Observation center at the Univ. of Colo..BREAKING HEAT RECORDS IN WATER is more omnimus,as a sign of global warming than breaking temperature marks on land, because water takes longer to heat up and does not cool offas easily as land. ++C++

David K - 8-21-2009 at 05:10 PM

ooooh... now I am scared!

What can I do? Give money to algore for carbon offsets? How does that change the ocean temperature?

How do you know that water warming [this year] isn't 'normal' or natural? How do you know if the water wasn't warmer 1000 years ago (when the Vikings came to North America... called places Greenland and Vineland that are covered in ice now or recently).

How does believing in the false science of man made global warming or 'climate change' benefit you? Why scare schoolkids with that kooky movie... When will volcanoes and solar flares, the real culprits in climate change, get the credit they deserve.. . and nobody can do a darn thing to change either.

Taco de Baja - 8-21-2009 at 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Crusoe
July was the hottest the world’s oceans have been in almost 130 years of record keeping. The resulting ocean heat ... could also ...help hurricanes strengthen. The gulf of Mex. where warm water fuels hurricanes, has temps. dancing around 90 degrees. Most of the water in the Northern Hemisphere has been considerably warmer than normal.

Yeah, that explains why in AUGUST we are only up to Hurricane Bill for the Atlantic season. B as in the second one! No Hurricanes for June...none in July...none in early August....That has only happened a handful of times since record keeping began. We should be up to Hurricane Nicholas or Odette, based on that theory.

How about Seattle having such a COLD December last year the SNOW shut down the City Seattle most snow in a decade and the Mayor mishandled it so badly he just lost the runoff election Incumbent Loses 3rd Term Bid as Seattle’s Mayor….Maybe that cancelled out all the hot water in the Atlantic and decreased formation of hurricanes? :light:

Seriously, Stop with the scare stories...The climate is going to do what it wants, with or without us. I’m really surprised no one has suggested we try sacrificing a few virgins like the Mayans did in an attempt to change the weather. :rolleyes:

monoloco - 8-22-2009 at 06:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by David K
The sea shells eaten by Indians hundreds or even thousands of years ago are not yet fossil rocks or petrified in stone...

What I was talking about are millions of years old, pre-man...

Whoa, the earth was only created 6000 years ago when Adam and Eve were riding dinosaurs. You need to check out the Dinosaur land creationist theme park down in Florida.

No it's National Security

wessongroup - 8-23-2009 at 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Taco de Baja

Quote:

Really liked the "sacrificing a few virgins" good one...

But there is a new group who are concerned the US Military see link

http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,17307...

you will have to cut and paste the link, can't get the link in

[Edited on 8-24-2009 by wessongroup]

gnukid - 8-23-2009 at 07:45 PM

Thank goodness Chu our energy czar is so certain about global warming.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=symYfq51aho

[Edited on 8-24-2009 by gnukid]

Taco de Baja - 8-24-2009 at 07:26 AM

Listen to them squirm. What to do when the actual temps don't match your models or predictions. They are in denial that the climate will do want it wants.

Quote:

WASHINGTON Official government measurements show the world's temperature has dropped a bit since reaching its most recent peak in 1998.

That's given global warming skeptics new ammunition to attack the prevailing theory of climate change. Skeptics argue the current stretch of slightly lower temperatures means that costly measures to limit carbon dioxide emissions are ill-founded and unnecessary.

Many scientists agree, however, that hotter times are ahead. A decade of level or slightly lower temperatures is only a temporary dip to be expected as a result of natural, short-term variations in the complex climate system, they say.

“The preponderance of evidence is that global warming will resume,” Nicholas Bond, a meteorologist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory in Seattle, said in an e-mail.

“Natural variability can account for the slowing of the global mean temperature rise we have seen,” said Jeff Knight, a climate expert at the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research in Exeter, England.

According to data from the National Space Science and Technology Center in Huntsville, Ala., the global high temperature in 1998 was 1.37 degrees Fahrenheit above the average for the previous 20 years. So far this year, the high has been 0.76 degrees Fahrenheit above the 20-year average, cooler than before.

“It's entirely possible to have a period as long as a decade or two of cooling superimposed on the long-term warming trend,” said David Easterling, chief of scientific services at NOAA's National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C.

“The temperature peak in 1998 to a large extent can be attributed to the very strong El Niño event of 1997-98,” Bond said. “Temperatures for the globe as a whole tend to be higher during El Nino.”

Link

Quote:

The beleaguered polar bear population around Canada’s Hudson Bay got a brief reprieve from global warming this summer.

Cooler temperatures resulted in sea ice lasting longer than it has in years, allowing the bears extra time to hunt seals from the ice and raise healthier cubs.

“Even just one or two weeks out on the sea ice can make a difference in how many seals they kill and how much fat they’re able to store on their bodies,” said polar bear specialist Andrew Derocher of the University of Alberta.

But experts warn that a single summer’s break from global warming in much of Arctic Canada doesn’t mean that polar bears are out of danger.

“The overall prognosis for bears on a worldwide basis still remains dim at best,” said Robert Buchanan, head of California-based Polar Bear International. “This is an aberration,” he told Canadian Press.

Polar bear observers in Churchill, Manitoba, on the western shore of Hudson Bay, say that while the animals appear to be doing well this summer, even the largest of the species aren’t as big as they once were.

Link

Cypress - 8-24-2009 at 07:31 AM

It was 39 degrees this morn. here in north woods.

oxxo - 8-24-2009 at 07:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Taco de Baja
Yeah, that explains why in AUGUST we are only up to Hurricane Bill for the Atlantic season. B as in the second one! No Hurricanes for June...none in July...none in early August....That has only happened a handful of times since record keeping began. We should be up to Hurricane Nicholas or Odette, based on that theory.

Quote:

Originally posted by Taco de Baja
So we are now going to predict furure global warming based on one month?

Quote:

How about Seattle having such a COLD December last year the SNOW shut down the City Seattle most snow in a decade and the Mayor mishandled it so badly he just lost the runoff election Incumbent Loses 3rd Term Bid as Seattle’s Mayor….Maybe that cancelled out all the hot water in the Atlantic and decreased formation of hurricanes? :light:

Quote:

Originally posted by Taco de Baja
So we are now going to predict furure global warming based on one month?

oxxo - 8-24-2009 at 07:55 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Taco de Baja
Listen to them squirm. What to do when the actual temps don't match your models or predictions. They are in denial that the climate will do want it wants.

Quote:

Originally posted by Taco de Baja
So we are now going to predict furure global warming based on one month?

Taco de Baja - 8-24-2009 at 08:34 AM

Exactly how many computer climate models incorporate the biological formation of clouds/rain/hail/snow into their GIGO data?

The next great frontier in the search for new life may not be 6.5 miles deep in the ocean, but up to 40 miles up in the atmosphere and determining exactly what this life does to affect life down here.

Quote:

A team of atmospheric chemists has moved closer to what's considered the "holy grail" of climate change science: the first-ever direct detections of biological particles within ice clouds.

Airborne dust and microbial matter appear to play large role in ice formation in clouds.

Analysis of the ice crystals revealed that the particles that started their growth were made up almost entirely of either dust or biological material such as bacteria, fungal spores and plant material.

The team, led by Kimberly Prather and Kerri Pratt of the University of California at San Diego, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, sampled water droplet and ice crystal residues at high speeds while flying through clouds in the skies over Wyoming.

Results of the Ice in Clouds Experiment - Layer Clouds (ICE-L), funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF), appear May 17 in the advance online edition of the journal Nature Geoscience.

Aerosols, ranging from dust, soot, and sea salt to organic materials, some of which travel thousands of miles, form the skeletons of clouds.

The findings suggest that the biological particles that get swept up in dust storms help to induce the formation of cloud ice, and that their region of origin makes a difference. Evidence is increasingly suggesting that dust transported from Asia could be influencing precipitation in North America, for example.

Researchers hope to use the ICE-L data to design future studies timed to events when such particles may play a bigger role in triggering rain or snowfall.

link

Crusoe - 8-24-2009 at 08:45 AM

The primary problem is GREENHOUSE GAS which is created and supplied by mostly automobiles! Plain and simple. ++C++

Crusoe - 8-24-2009 at 08:50 AM

And on to another subject which is probably happening quicker to destroy our environment and quality of life on this planet is OCEAN ACIDAFICATION! ++C++

Zero population growth

wessongroup - 8-24-2009 at 09:49 AM

Chasing the tail... what is the carrying capacity of the earth? :?:

k-rico - 8-24-2009 at 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Crusoe
The primary problem is GREENHOUSE GAS which is created and supplied by mostly automobiles! Plain and simple. ++C++

Thought I would check that out since I didn't know.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Main_Page

[Edited on 8-24-2009 by k-rico]

Pages: 1 2 3