• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans


Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.


Photo
* * * - - 9 votes

Global Cooling


  • Please log in to reply
659 replies to this topic

#571 biknut

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,892 posts
  • -2
  • Location:Dallas Texas

Posted 12 January 2009 - 01:07 AM

The Russian scientists know what they're talking about. I've now read enough on this subject to believe they have it right. These are the key points. Temperature rise precedes CO2 rise. In the past CO2 levels were much higher than they are now. We still had ice ages anyway. We will again.


Earth on the Brink of an Ice Age

11.01.2009

The earth is now on the brink of entering another Ice Age, according to a large and compelling body of evidence from within the field of climate science. Many sources of data which provide our knowledge base of long-term climate change indicate that the warm, twelve thousand year-long Holocene period will rather soon be coming to an end, and then the earth will return to Ice Age conditions for the next 100,000 years.

Ice cores, ocean sediment cores, the geologic record, and studies of ancient plant and animal populations all demonstrate a regular cyclic pattern of Ice Age glacial maximums which each last about 100,000 years, separated by intervening warm interglacials, each lasting about 12,000 years.

Most of the long-term climate data collected from various sources also shows a strong correlation with the three astronomical cycles which are together known as the Milankovich cycles. The three Milankovich cycles include the tilt of the earth, which varies over a 41,000 year period; the shape of the earth’s orbit, which changes over a period of 100,000 years; and the Precession of the Equinoxes, also known as the earth’s ‘wobble’, which gradually rotates the direction of the earth’s axis over a period of 26,000 years. According to the Milankovich theory of Ice Age causation, these three astronomical cycles, each of which effects the amount of solar radiation which reaches the earth, act together to produce the cycle of cold Ice Age maximums and warm interglacials.

Elements of the astronomical theory of Ice Age causation were first presented by the French mathematician Joseph Adhemar in 1842, it was developed further by the English prodigy Joseph Croll in 1875, and the theory was established in its present form by the Czech mathematician Milutin Milankovich in the 1920s and 30s. In 1976 the prestigious journal “Science” published a landmark paper by John Imbrie, James Hays, and Nicholas Shackleton entitled “Variations in the Earth's orbit: Pacemaker of the Ice Ages,” which described the correlation which the trio of scientist/authors had found between the climate data obtained from ocean sediment cores and the patterns of the astronomical Milankovich cycles. Since the late 1970s, the Milankovich theory has remained the predominant theory to account for Ice Age causation among climate scientists, and hence the Milankovich theory is always described in textbooks of climatology and in encyclopaedia articles about the Ice Ages.

In their 1976 paper Imbrie, Hays, and Shackleton wrote that their own climate forecasts, which were based on sea-sediment cores and the Milankovich cycles, "… must be qualified in two ways. First, they apply only to the natural component of future climatic trends - and not to anthropogenic effects such as those due to the burning of fossil fuels. Second, they describe only the long-term trends, because they are linked to orbital variations with periods of 20,000 years and longer. Climatic oscillations at higher frequencies are not predicted... the results indicate that the long-term trend over the next 20,000 years is towards extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation and cooler climate."

During the 1970s the famous American astronomer Carl Sagan and other scientists began promoting the theory that ‘greenhouse gasses’ such as carbon dioxide, or CO2, produced by human industries could lead to catastrophic global warming. Since the 1970s the theory of ‘anthropogenic global warming’ (AGW) has gradually become accepted as fact by most of the academic establishment, and their acceptance of AGW has inspired a global movement to encourage governments to make pivotal changes to prevent the worsening of AGW.

The central piece of evidence that is cited in support of the AGW theory is the famous ‘hockey stick’ graph which was presented by Al Gore in his 2006 film “An Inconvenient Truth.” The ‘hockey stick’ graph shows an acute upward spike in global temperatures which began during the 1970s and continued through the winter of 2006/07. However, this warming trend was interrupted when the winter of 2007/8 delivered the deepest snow cover to the Northern Hemisphere since 1966 and the coldest temperatures since 2001. It now appears that the current Northern Hemisphere winter of 2008/09 will probably equal or surpass the winter of 2007/08 for both snow depth and cold temperatures.

The main flaw in the AGW theory is that its proponents focus on evidence from only the past one thousand years at most, while ignoring the evidence from the past million years -- evidence which is essential for a true understanding of climatology. The data from paleoclimatology provides us with an alternative and more credible explanation for the recent global temperature spike, based on the natural cycle of Ice Age maximums and interglacials.

In 1999 the British journal “Nature” published the results of data derived from glacial ice cores collected at the Russia ’s Vostok station in Antarctica during the 1990s. The Vostok ice core data includes a record of global atmospheric temperatures, atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases, and airborne particulates starting from 420,000 years ago and continuing through history up to our present time.

The graph of the Vostok ice core data shows that the Ice Age maximums and the warm interglacials occur within a regular cyclic pattern, the graph-line of which is similar to the rhythm of a heartbeat on an electrocardiogram tracing. The Vostok data graph also shows that changes in global CO2 levels lag behind global temperature changes by about eight hundred years. What that indicates is that global temperatures precede or cause global CO2 changes, and not the reverse. In other words, increasing atmospheric CO2 is not causing global temperature to rise; instead the natural cyclic increase in global temperature is causing global CO2 to rise.

The reason that global CO2 levels rise and fall in response to the global temperature is because cold water is capable of retaining more CO2 than warm water. That is why carbonated beverages loose their carbonation, or CO2, when stored in a warm environment. We store our carbonated soft drinks, wine, and beer in a cool place to prevent them from loosing their ‘fizz’, which is a feature of their carbonation, or CO2 content. The earth is currently warming as a result of the natural Ice Age cycle, and as the oceans get warmer, they release increasing amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.

Because the release of CO2 by the warming oceans lags behind the changes in the earth’s temperature, we should expect to see global CO2 levels continue to rise for another eight hundred years after the end of the earth’s current Interglacial warm period. We should already be eight hundred years into the coming Ice Age before global CO2 levels begin to drop in response to the increased chilling of the world’s oceans.


The Vostok ice core data graph reveals that global CO2 levels regularly rose and fell in a direct response to the natural cycle of Ice Age minimums and maximums during the past four hundred and twenty thousand years. Within that natural cycle, about every 110,000 years global temperatures, followed by global CO2 levels, have peaked at approximately the same levels which they are at today.

About 325,000 years ago, at the peak of a warm interglacial, global temperature and CO2 levels were higher than they are today. Today we are again at the peak, and near to the end, of a warm interglacial, and the earth is now due to enter the next Ice Age. If we are lucky, we may have a few years to prepare for it. The Ice Age will return, as it always has, in its regular and natural cycle, with or without any influence from the effects of AGW.

The AGW theory is based on data that is drawn from a ridiculously narrow span of time and it demonstrates a wanton disregard for the ‘big picture’ of long-term climate change. The data from paleoclimatology, including ice cores, sea sediments, geology, paleobotany and zoology, indicate that we are on the verge of entering another Ice Age, and the data also shows that severe and lasting climate change can occur within only a few years. While concern over the dubious threat of Anthropogenic Global Warming continues to distract the attention of people throughout the world, the very real threat of the approaching and inevitable Ice Age, which will render large parts of the Northern Hemisphere uninhabitable, is being foolishly ignored.

Gregory F. Fegel

http://english.pravd...earth/106922-2/

#572 JLL

  • Guest
  • 2,192 posts
  • 161

Posted 12 January 2009 - 06:25 PM

There IS a scientific consensus about global warming.


Is there? According to Wikipedia consensus "is a general agreement among the members of a given group or community, each of which exercises some discretion in decision making and follow-up action." Certainly, if you take global warming alarmists as your given group, then you have consensus, but if you take every scientist in the world, then there isn't.

Yes there's about as large a scientific consensus as pratically possible:

http://en.wikipedia...._climate_change

Please list the scientific organisations who have issued a statement against AGW here so we can compare:


http://epw.senate.go...0b-bd9faf4dcdb7

" Over 650 dissenting scientists from around the globe challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore. This new 231-page U.S. Senate Minority Report -- updated from 2007's groundbreaking report of over 400 scientists who voiced skepticism about the so-called global warming "consensus" -- features the skeptical voices of over 650 prominent international scientists, including many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN IPCC. This updated report includes an additional 250 (and growing) scientists and climate researchers since the initial release in December 2007. The over 650 dissenting scientists are more than 12 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers."

#573 JLL

  • Guest
  • 2,192 posts
  • 161

Posted 12 January 2009 - 06:28 PM

You seem to be confused as well. They weren't calculating the odds of whether or not we would have 13 of the warmest years in a set period of time, they were calculating the odds of whether or not it would do that "naturally" or have to have some kind of external driver to produce that much warming. The probabilities pointed to an external driver. Just for the record, they did this buy looking at past events/history. Compared to these past events they determined that the odds of our present warming being part of these natrual cycles to be 10,000 to 1.


I see you didn't understand what I was saying. Probabilities can be confusing.

If you disagree, then point to one of these other periods in history and show me how it compares to today.


Oh, I dunno, take your pick:

http://www.scotese.c.../globaltemp.jpg

sponsored ad

  • Advert

#574 JLL

  • Guest
  • 2,192 posts
  • 161

Posted 12 January 2009 - 06:31 PM

http://www.canada.co...s...5df&k=65311

"EDMONTON - Only about one in three Alberta earth scientists and engineers believe the culprit behind climate change has been identified, a new poll reported today.

The expert jury is divided, with 26 per cent attributing global warming to human activity like burning fossil fuels and 27 per cent blaming other causes such as volcanoes, sunspots, earth crust movements and natural evolution of the planet.

A 99-per-cent majority believes the climate is changing. But 45 per cent blame both human and natural influences, and 68 per cent disagree with the popular statement that "the debate on the scientific causes of recent climate change is settled."

The divisions showed up in a canvass of more than 51,000 specialists licensed to practice the highly educated occupations by the Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysicists of Alberta.

"We're not surprised at all," APEGGA executive director Neil Windsor said today. "There is no clear consensus of scientists that we know of."

#575 biknut

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,892 posts
  • -2
  • Location:Dallas Texas

Posted 13 January 2009 - 01:38 AM

Here's more evidence of no consensus. I'm not going to bore you with all 10 things, just this one. You guys are going to love this.

Bush's Achievements

Ten things the president got right.


by Fred Barnes
01/19/2009,

Bush had ten great achievements (and maybe more) in his eight years in the White House, starting with his decision in 2001 to jettison the Kyoto global warming treaty so loved by Al Gore, the environmental lobby, elite opinion, and Europeans. The treaty was a disaster, with India and China exempted and economic decline the certain result. Everyone knew it. But only Bush said so and acted accordingly.

He stood athwart mounting global warming hysteria and yelled, "Stop!" He slowed the movement toward a policy blunder of worldwide impact, providing time for facts to catch up with the dubious claims of alarmists. Thanks in part to Bush, the supposed consensus of scientists on global warming has now collapsed. The skeptics, who point to global cooling over the past decade, are now heard loud and clear. And a rational approach to the theory of manmade global warming is possible.

http://www.weeklysta...15/986rockt.asp

#576 Zenob

  • Guest, F@H
  • 328 posts
  • 1

Posted 13 January 2009 - 01:55 AM

There IS a scientific consensus about global warming.


Is there? According to Wikipedia consensus "is a general agreement among the members of a given group or community, each of which exercises some discretion in decision making and follow-up action." Certainly, if you take global warming alarmists as your given group, then you have consensus, but if you take every scientist in the world, then there isn't.

Yes there's about as large a scientific consensus as pratically possible:

http://en.wikipedia...._climate_change

Please list the scientific organisations who have issued a statement against AGW here so we can compare:


http://epw.senate.go...0b-bd9faf4dcdb7

" Over 650 dissenting scientists from around the globe challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore. This new 231-page U.S. Senate Minority Report -- updated from 2007's groundbreaking report of over 400 scientists who voiced skepticism about the so-called global warming "consensus" -- features the skeptical voices of over 650 prominent international scientists, including many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN IPCC. This updated report includes an additional 250 (and growing) scientists and climate researchers since the initial release in December 2007. The over 650 dissenting scientists are more than 12 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers."


LOL
That's Inhofe's little press release of craziness. I remember when he came out with that garbage. THAT is what you are basing your beliefs on?!? LMAO
Inhofe is one of the biggest anti-science cranks and most PAID FOR congress critter on the Hill. Hell, he gets a lot of material from that other paragon of nuttiness Steve Milloy's website junkscience. THIS is what convinced you that global warming isn't real? The vast majority of his little press release was just made up bullshit that was demonstrated to be false within hours of his releasing it.

And his little list of deniers is just as bad if not WORSE then the Discovery Institutes list of "evolution doubters". For one thing a lot of them aren't climate scientists, and a lot of them aren't climate change deniers. Their names were added to this little list by Inhofe's staff without their knowledge. Here's a few quotes from some of these pissed off scientists when they found out: Link

Damn, that was BAD. If THIS is what you are basing your global warming denial on, you need to re-examine your position. LMAO

#577 Zenob

  • Guest, F@H
  • 328 posts
  • 1

Posted 13 January 2009 - 02:07 AM

http://www.canada.co...s...5df&k=65311

"EDMONTON - Only about one in three Alberta earth scientists and engineers believe the culprit behind climate change has been identified, a new poll reported today.

The expert jury is divided, with 26 per cent attributing global warming to human activity like burning fossil fuels and 27 per cent blaming other causes such as volcanoes, sunspots, earth crust movements and natural evolution of the planet.

A 99-per-cent majority believes the climate is changing. But 45 per cent blame both human and natural influences, and 68 per cent disagree with the popular statement that "the debate on the scientific causes of recent climate change is settled."

The divisions showed up in a canvass of more than 51,000 specialists licensed to practice the highly educated occupations by the Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysicists of Alberta.

"We're not surprised at all," APEGGA executive director Neil Windsor said today. "There is no clear consensus of scientists that we know of."


Ok, one more, just cuz this one is just so damn funny too(although I'm not even bothering to read Biknut's stupidity, I have him ignored for a reason). Wow, 68 percent of those guys think volcanoes or sunspots are to blame for global warming(which 99% of them agree is happening). Well, I guess that shows me...but well, you seem to have failed to notice that this survey was of ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS! This is right up there with the Discovery Institute's own little press release where they say "we found X number of professionals who think evolution isn't settled science" then you check their list and discover that there's not a damn biologist anywhere on it. lol

You see, this is what happens when your entire position consists of googling about shit you don't understand and then just cutting and pasting whatever you think supports you. ;)

#578 sUper GeNius

  • Guest
  • 1,501 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Phila PA USA Earth

Posted 13 January 2009 - 02:19 AM

http://www.canada.co...s...5df&k=65311

"EDMONTON - Only about one in three Alberta earth scientists and engineers believe the culprit behind climate change has been identified, a new poll reported today.

The expert jury is divided, with 26 per cent attributing global warming to human activity like burning fossil fuels and 27 per cent blaming other causes such as volcanoes, sunspots, earth crust movements and natural evolution of the planet.

A 99-per-cent majority believes the climate is changing. But 45 per cent blame both human and natural influences, and 68 per cent disagree with the popular statement that "the debate on the scientific causes of recent climate change is settled."

The divisions showed up in a canvass of more than 51,000 specialists licensed to practice the highly educated occupations by the Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysicists of Alberta.

"We're not surprised at all," APEGGA executive director Neil Windsor said today. "There is no clear consensus of scientists that we know of."


Ok, one more, just cuz this one is just so damn funny too(although I'm not even bothering to read Biknut's stupidity, I have him ignored for a reason). Wow, 68 percent of those guys think volcanoes or sunspots are to blame for global warming(which 99% of them agree is happening). Well, I guess that shows me...but well, you seem to have failed to notice that this survey was of ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS! This is right up there with the Discovery Institute's own little press release where they say "we found X number of professionals who think evolution isn't settled science" then you check their list and discover that there's not a damn biologist anywhere on it. lol

You see, this is what happens when your entire position consists of googling about shit you don't understand and then just cutting and pasting whatever you think supports you. ;)


Deleted.

Edited by FuLL meMbeR, 13 January 2009 - 02:21 AM.


#579 eternaltraveler

  • Guest, Guardian
  • 6,471 posts
  • 155
  • Location:Silicon Valley, CA

Posted 13 January 2009 - 03:06 AM

I've said before and I'm sure ill say again. The climate may or may not be changing as a result of human activity. This is not remotely the real issue at hand. The real issue at hand is if this possible change warrants intervetion(at least the level of intervention required to make a difference and doesn't just end up subsidizing china and india in fossil fuel use). I have yet to see a shred of evidence that it does, just alarmist statements and hand waving.

Furthermore the same people that tend to be on al gore's bandwagon also tend to be vehemently opposed to the one viable alternative to fossil fuels ; nuclear energy. If they were on the side of nuclear energy they may well have already achieved their goals. As it is oil will probably for the most part run out this century, and we will have the choice between nuclear power and our civilization collapsing.

#580 biknut

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,892 posts
  • -2
  • Location:Dallas Texas

Posted 13 January 2009 - 03:13 AM

Ok, one more, just cuz this one is just so damn funny too(although I'm not even bothering to read Biknut's stupidity, I have him ignored for a reason).


This is the kind on comment I would expect from a guy who's user name sounds like a growth that was surgically removed from a scrotum. Lucky he won't see this.

#581 Zenob

  • Guest, F@H
  • 328 posts
  • 1

Posted 13 January 2009 - 10:58 PM

I've said before and I'm sure ill say again. The climate may or may not be changing as a result of human activity. This is not remotely the real issue at hand. The real issue at hand is if this possible change warrants intervetion(at least the level of intervention required to make a difference and doesn't just end up subsidizing china and india in fossil fuel use). I have yet to see a shred of evidence that it does, just alarmist statements and hand waving.

Furthermore the same people that tend to be on al gore's bandwagon also tend to be vehemently opposed to the one viable alternative to fossil fuels ; nuclear energy. If they were on the side of nuclear energy they may well have already achieved their goals. As it is oil will probably for the most part run out this century, and we will have the choice between nuclear power and our civilization collapsing.


I'm fine with nuclear. I'd prefer clean fusion but the tech isn't there yet.

I can tell you exactly how this is going to go down. Everybody knows that oil is going away, one way or another. Either we are going to be using more then existing supplies can withstand or we are going to be forced by ever increasing climate volatility to quit using it. Either way the future for oil is done. Everyone who is paying attention knows this, including the saudis. As it stands, who ever can come up with the next major technological source of energy, be it nuclear, solar, bio, or something else we haven't yet dreamed up, that country is going to replace the Saudi states as the richest bastards in the known universe. Now, keeping that in mind, do you think it does us any good to have all these climate change deniers lying through their teeth about all the facts and science involved while some other country is dealing with REALITY and trying to come up with that new alternative? It isn't any different then how all the fundamentalists have set back biological research in this country by decades because of their constant attacks on evolution/stem cells/etc. Why do you think I always draw the connection between climate change deniers and creationists? Think about it.

#582 eternaltraveler

  • Guest, Guardian
  • 6,471 posts
  • 155
  • Location:Silicon Valley, CA

Posted 13 January 2009 - 11:13 PM

Zenob you quoted my post but you did not address the key point. Explain to me why the world should care enough about climate change to take the drastic actions global warming proponents say we need to take to stop it. Why not just live in a world that is a couple degrees warmer instead?

#583 sUper GeNius

  • Guest
  • 1,501 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Phila PA USA Earth

Posted 13 January 2009 - 11:23 PM

Zenob you quoted my post but you did not address the key point. Explain to me why the world should care enough about climate change to take the drastic actions global warming proponents say we need to take to stop it. Why not just live in a world that is a couple degrees warmer instead?


Yep. I made this point earlier in the thread. I'll add this though. Why take all that expensive action to cut carbon emissions? Why not spend those same huge sums to ameliorate the consequences of global warming?

I think it's easy to show that man is warming the earth. It's much harder to decide on the best action to take. It's less a scientific question than it is an economic, political, social and moral question.

#584 biknut

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,892 posts
  • -2
  • Location:Dallas Texas

Posted 14 January 2009 - 02:44 PM

Zenob you quoted my post but you did not address the key point. Explain to me why the world should care enough about climate change to take the drastic actions global warming proponents say we need to take to stop it. Why not just live in a world that is a couple degrees warmer instead?


Yep. I made this point earlier in the thread. I'll add this though. Why take all that expensive action to cut carbon emissions? Why not spend those same huge sums to ameliorate the consequences of global warming?

I think it's easy to show that man is warming the earth. It's much harder to decide on the best action to take. It's less a scientific question than it is an economic, political, social and moral question.


My comment is not directed at you, but at the scientists that believe this to be true.

Everyday that goes by this position is looking more and more ridicules. Everyday now more stand up climate, and solar scientists are coming forward and saying, hold on a minute we don't know what's causing this yet, and he climate models are wrong. We need to study this more before we come to any drastic conclusions.

The reason alarmist's are becoming more shrill is because as the climate is now cooling they know they're losing this argument.

Edited by biknut, 14 January 2009 - 02:45 PM.


#585 JLL

  • Guest
  • 2,192 posts
  • 161

Posted 14 January 2009 - 03:27 PM

The data is there for everyone to see. No matter how loud the alarmists scream, they still haven't disputed these facts:

1. This is not the warmest temperature the world has seen in its history.
2. The temperature increase graph from the beginning of the industrial age until now is not the steepest the world has seen in its history.

Therefore, it is very hard to prove scientifically that the current increases in temperature (about 1 celsius in the last 100 years) is man-made. The fact is, we've seen similar increases for millions of years.

#586 sUper GeNius

  • Guest
  • 1,501 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Phila PA USA Earth

Posted 16 January 2009 - 09:10 PM

Whoa! 50 below in parts of the US!

http://www.cnn.com/2...bush/index.html

#587 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 16 January 2009 - 11:41 PM

Whoa! 50 below in parts of the US!


Yeah Finally!

I have been waiting almost fifteen years for a normal winter.

#588 eternaltraveler

  • Guest, Guardian
  • 6,471 posts
  • 155
  • Location:Silicon Valley, CA

Posted 17 January 2009 - 12:42 AM

When I was a kid in Minnesota it would get that cold. They'd cancel school because of it. So I'd get to go play outside sledding instead ;)

Course I'm stuck in Miami at the moment. Everyone here thinks its feezing when it dips down to 60 at night.

Edited by elrond, 17 January 2009 - 12:44 AM.


#589 struct

  • Guest
  • 565 posts
  • 10
  • Location:Albania

Posted 17 January 2009 - 01:38 AM

Whoa! 50 below in parts of the US!

Talking about local weather:

Record heat in Alaska and California
The temperature swings this week in Alaska have been astounding. At Nenana, in central Alaska, the high was -42°F on Monday, with a low of -52°F. On Thursday morning, the temperature shot up 106°F from Monday, topping out at a positively tropical 54°F--the warmest January temperature ever measured in Nenana. Several other Alaska stations also set record highs for the month of January this week. Record highs for the month of January were also set at four California airports:

San Jose 75°F January 12
Sacramento 70°F January 12
San Francisco 72°F January 13
Red Bluff 78°F January 13 and January 15

More record highs than lows have been set at the 381 major airports across the U.S. so far this week, through Thursday. You can look up all the records at the National Climatic Data Center's excellent U.S. Records web site. Records for this week:

Jan 15
------
11 maximum high temperature records (CA, WA, NV)
11 minimum low temperature records (IA, ND, IN, ME, NE, NY, SD)

Jan 14
-------
14 maximum high temperature records (AK, CA, OR, NV)
8 minimum low temperature records (IA, MI, MN, ND, TX)

Jan 13:
-------
13 maximum high temperature records (CA, OR, AK, FL)
9 minimum low temperature records (IA, MI, MN, ND)

Jan 12:
-------
9 maximum high temperature records (CA, OR, WA)
2 minimum low temperature records (AK, ND)

Jan 11:
-------
7 maximum high temperature records (CA, OR, WA)
1 minimum low temperature record (CA)

What's causing all this wild weather?
As usual, a sharp kink in the jet stream is responsible for the wild weather we're having. A ridge of high pressure over Alaska is forcing the jet to bow northwards into northern Alaska, allowing warm air from the Hawaii area to stream northwards over the region. Whenever the jet contorts into such a pattern, there must be a return flow of cold air from the pole that develops. That is occurring over the eastern half of the U.S., bringing us our Arctic air blast. The -17°F at my house in Michigan yesterday morning was the coldest it's been since 1994, brrr!

http://www.wundergro...l?entrynum=1179

#590 sUper GeNius

  • Guest
  • 1,501 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Phila PA USA Earth

Posted 17 January 2009 - 02:00 AM

Whoa! 50 below in parts of the US!

Talking about local weather:

Record heat in Alaska and California
The temperature swings this week in Alaska have been astounding. At Nenana, in central Alaska, the high was -42°F on Monday, with a low of -52°F. On Thursday morning, the temperature shot up 106°F from Monday, topping out at a positively tropical 54°F--the warmest January temperature ever measured in Nenana. Several other Alaska stations also set record highs for the month of January this week. Record highs for the month of January were also set at four California airports:

San Jose 75°F January 12
Sacramento 70°F January 12
San Francisco 72°F January 13
Red Bluff 78°F January 13 and January 15

More record highs than lows have been set at the 381 major airports across the U.S. so far this week, through Thursday. You can look up all the records at the National Climatic Data Center's excellent U.S. Records web site. Records for this week:

Jan 15
------
11 maximum high temperature records (CA, WA, NV)
11 minimum low temperature records (IA, ND, IN, ME, NE, NY, SD)

Jan 14
-------
14 maximum high temperature records (AK, CA, OR, NV)
8 minimum low temperature records (IA, MI, MN, ND, TX)

Jan 13:
-------
13 maximum high temperature records (CA, OR, AK, FL)
9 minimum low temperature records (IA, MI, MN, ND)

Jan 12:
-------
9 maximum high temperature records (CA, OR, WA)
2 minimum low temperature records (AK, ND)

Jan 11:
-------
7 maximum high temperature records (CA, OR, WA)
1 minimum low temperature record (CA)

What's causing all this wild weather?
As usual, a sharp kink in the jet stream is responsible for the wild weather we're having. A ridge of high pressure over Alaska is forcing the jet to bow northwards into northern Alaska, allowing warm air from the Hawaii area to stream northwards over the region. Whenever the jet contorts into such a pattern, there must be a return flow of cold air from the pole that develops. That is occurring over the eastern half of the U.S., bringing us our Arctic air blast. The -17°F at my house in Michigan yesterday morning was the coldest it's been since 1994, brrr!

http://www.wundergro...l?entrynum=1179


I think you missed this part of the blog:

All-time state records are difficult to break. The last time a state record low was set was January 5, 1999, when Congerville, Illinois recorded -36°F. Only one state record high temperature has been set in the past the decade--the 120°F temperature measured in Usta, South Dakota on July 15, 2006.

This week's North American cold spell has been a notable one, with daily minimum temperature records falling in eleven states since Sunday. A record low for the month of January was set this morning in Caribou, Maine, which recorded -37°F. This is the second coldest temperature ever recorded in Caribou, next to the -41°F recorded on February 1, 1962. No other monthly records were set at any of the 381 major airports in the U.S., though Bismark, North Dakota came close yesterday morning (January 15), when the mercury hit -44°F. This was the second coldest temperature ever recorded in Bismark, and was only 1° from the all time low of -45° on January 13, 1916 and again on February 16, 1936. Bismark is also on pace for their snowiest season on record (61.2" so far).


#591 struct

  • Guest
  • 565 posts
  • 10
  • Location:Albania

Posted 17 January 2009 - 02:09 AM

I left it out intentionally.
I am trying to say that global warming is happening and I like it.

#592 sUper GeNius

  • Guest
  • 1,501 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Phila PA USA Earth

Posted 17 January 2009 - 02:11 AM

I left it out intentionally.
I am trying to say that global warming is happening and I like it.


Some do like it. Russia likes it, as they claim a hugh swath of the north pole as their territory, and all the oil and minerals below. No ice, no problems accessing those resources.

#593 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 1,999
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 17 January 2009 - 03:38 AM

Of course, we all know that weather != climate. We do all know that, right?

#594 biknut

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,892 posts
  • -2
  • Location:Dallas Texas

Posted 17 January 2009 - 05:19 AM

This is only the beginning of the cooling. It's not supposed to get really cold till 2015-2020. We shall see.

#595 JLL

  • Guest
  • 2,192 posts
  • 161

Posted 17 January 2009 - 12:50 PM

I think this would be a good time to invest in property in one of the warmer countries. The current mindset is that it will get too hot due to global warming and so people are already leaving for colder places - the "climate refugee" theory may be self-fulfilling. But in 10 years, when this global warming alarmism is gone and cooling kicks in, it's the cold places we'll be fleeing.

#596 Mind

  • Life Member, Director, Moderator, Treasurer
  • 19,058 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 17 January 2009 - 12:56 PM

Of course, we all know that weather != climate. We do all know that, right?


An interesting question is when does a short term weather trend become a "climate" trend. How many years before we say, yes, this is a notable turn in the climate. There were a couple times in the 20th century when the global temps decreased for a couple decades. The current global temp has gone down for the last decade (since 1998). If it keeps going down, how long before we can say there is some sort-of climate forcing other than humans that we have to account for in the models. So far most AGW theorists are ignoring the recent downtrend. Maybe it will only be a decade or two blip before the temp starts going up again.

#597 sUper GeNius

  • Guest
  • 1,501 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Phila PA USA Earth

Posted 23 January 2009 - 06:50 PM

Looks like the question of what action to take is not a done deal. I for one have no doubts that man is warming the planet. But it's far from a forgone conclusion that we ought to spend huge sums in order to reduce carbon emissions. That money might be better spent elsewhere.

http://www.npr.org/t...toryId=97998613

#598 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 23 January 2009 - 08:14 PM

Looks like the question of what action to take is not a done deal. I for one have no doubts that man is warming the planet. But it's far from a forgone conclusion that we ought to spend huge sums in order to reduce carbon emissions. That money might be better spent elsewhere.

http://www.npr.org/t...toryId=97998613


On this point FM we can agree.

While the reality of global warming is probably a certainty what to do about both in terms of a rational economic response AND a technological one in terms of climate are far from foregone conclusions. This is uncharted territory and one reason it is important to move the debate from it is or isn't happening, to what ARE we going to do about it.

What is also not a foregone conclusion is what will happen if global warming goes through its full process. Two considerably different possibilities exist, one a return to an Eocene like environment for decades, centuries or indefinitely, or a full blown Pleistocene Ice Age. The problem is that we never really ended the last Ice Age and the climate instability being caused now once full blown possibly becomes an oscillation between extremes before it settles into one long term global pattern again.

More and more as time goes forward the wide spread glaciated Ice Age result of climate destabilization seems to be gaining possibility. In geological terms the long term forecast for Earth is colder weather ahead. The core is cooling and the rotation is slowing down. The Sun is cooling and we are slowing moving father away from it. All the primary factors that drive weather, including the fact that the planet slowly but steadily is losing atmosphere indicate a long term cooling trend but the current issue is the Greenhouse effect not these geological trends trends measured in epochs.

What we need to be focusing on at present is stabilizing the current climate shift and preventing the worst of the oscillating effects, probably not trying to actually stop the over all trend. It is probably too late for that anyway.

The really issue is not global warming per se. The real question is how much is the contributory aspect of human behavior accelerating the process and what aspects are reversible or even controllable.

Also I want to thrown in the question of how much as a global society are we willing and able to develop true global weather control technology with all the geo-political and socioeconomic ramifications that implies. It probably will take the entire 21st century or more to fully develop and implement such technologies but it may be remarkably feasible to develop planetary wide climate control technology. However full blown weather modification tech is also not feasible for nation states as they presently exist.

For any single nation or group of nations to develop the technology and impose their control on the planet as a whole would be considered an aggressive act of war and trigger a major conflict.

While what I am discussing is still far off future tech in present terms, it is directly applicable to the social, economic, and political questions entailed in the analysis of the problem.

I am curious if you (and everyone else) have read the NIC's 2025 Global Trends Report?

They have been outlining the problems in great detail for a while and a considerable amount of their earlier predictions have been coming to pass.

#599 platypus

  • Guest
  • 2,386 posts
  • 240
  • Location:Italy

Posted 23 January 2009 - 10:51 PM

Zenob you quoted my post but you did not address the key point. Explain to me why the world should care enough about climate change to take the drastic actions global warming proponents say we need to take to stop it. Why not just live in a world that is a couple degrees warmer instead?

What's the acceptable cost for doing that? Say the sea level rises 5 meters within 400 years. Acceptable?

#600 struct

  • Guest
  • 565 posts
  • 10
  • Location:Albania

Posted 24 January 2009 - 01:52 AM

I am hoping the sea level rises 50 m within 400 years. Usually rich people live/occupy the shoreline so it's not big deal; they can gradually move from it or build new structures.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users