How did this not make the news today??
http://wcbstv.com/topstories/local_story_233143509.html
NYC had their coldest August day in history today!

Global warming??
With all the heat wave stories that are going around... it is funny that they leave out that it is SUMMER.

OG

Of course the Earth's temperatures fluctuate. Whether it's man-made or not, is under debate (which I disagree with). Anyone who thinks that the climate we live in is 100% dependent on humanity is naive.

Attached Images

algoreinternet.jpg (14.2 KB, 2 views)

Yeah, it was pretty cold up here yesterday, but, to be fair, I heard that Tennesse recently had nine consecutive days of 100+ degree temperatures and that 40+ people died in the past couple of weeks in the South from heat exhaustion.

There was also the incredibly unusual heat wave that occured up here last December that culminated on January 2 with a temperature of 75 degrees. The average temperatures during that time is usually in the twenties.

I've noticed a marked difference in the global warming debate since the IPCC report was released last year. It's rare since then to see anyone making the claim that global warming is a myth. The debate has morphed into who or what is responsible. As usual for me, I tend to see find compelling arguments from boths sides, and my opinion is that we are partially responsible.

__________________
WARNING: In the unlikely event of an accidental agreement with any or all points made in the above post, contact a clinical psychologist immediately.

The views expressed in the above post are not necessarily those of Joker and/or any of his affiliates.

. "You have found the secret message. Do you have too much time on your hands? ...Let it go."

I am in South Central Texas... and it has only hit 100 2 times this year! It is amazing!
I am used to weeks in a row of 100+ but we are seeing high 80's to mid 90's...
Also any report that come out does not say "Conclusively" that global warming exists other than the natural cycles that have occurred forever.. What those reports do say is that there is a consensus among a lot of "experts".
Consensus does not equal fact...
If you have a class full of kids that come to a consensus that 5 x 5 = 20.... Are they right?? Is it then a fact?

I think that one of the biggest problems with (man-made) global warming is this human arrogance in the belief that the climate we live in right now is the "right" climate. The Earth is millions of years old! How do a bunch of subjective reports dictate what the "optimal" climate should be? What if the "optimal" climate is really 10° colder? What if the "optimal" climate is 20° warmer? What if the Earth just alternates from warm to cool, and there's just not a (*)(*)(*)(*) thing humans can do about it?

Right now, every single report that comes out, about global warming is almost immediately countered with a report that discredits it.

Case in point...all those hippies, over the weekend, getting naked and climbing all over some glaciers in Europe. They were protesting because this glacier, allegedly was melting from man-made global warming. They were trying to make some point that without mankind's involvement, this glacier has been, and always will be there.

But uh oh!...when the ice melted, they found an old silver mine! Oh no! Could it be that the Earth was warmer during another period of time? Heavens no! That doesn't make sense! There were no SUV's back then.

Al Gore's global warming is a CONVENIENCE. A convenience to those who want to profit off this worldwide scare tactic. A convenience to those who want to find new and exciting ways of defeating America, from an economic standpoint.

You know what REALLY worries me about Al's church of global warming? I'm afraid that enough people are going to invent enough things to alter the climate of this planet, and REALLY "break" something. Someone's going to start siphoning out all the carbon dioxide, and then suddenly plant life, around the world will start disappearing. Will people blame Al Gore for the massive worldwide famines that we would endure? Will people be stupid enough to pay money for "oxygen credits" so that some third-world country could start pumping CO2 into the atmosphere?

I don't suppose you have a link to back this up?

Meanwhile, the latest issue of Scientific American had a very informative overview of the state of climate science, including examining natural and man-made effects. I picked out the highlights here.
http://midtopia.blogspot.com/2007/07...te-change.html

And here's a post from a while back linking to all sorts of evidence that global warming is, indeed, real.
http://politicalforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=113074

Your larger point -- why are we so sure that the current climate is the "correct" one -- is valid. The world has been colder in the past; it has also been warmer.

The issue for us is twofold:

1. The climate changes occurring now appear unprecedented in speed; there seems to be an indisputable human component to the warming; and thus we have no idea if this will simply be the start of another long-term warming trend, or an artificial imbalance that will disrupt the cycle.

2. We have evolved to deal with the current climate. Humans are adaptable -- indeed, that is our prime adaptation -- so we will undoubtedly survive. But there are risks attendant with switching over to a climate for which we are less-than-ideally suited -- more diseases, loss of important cash and food crops, greater problems with insects and other fair-weather pests, etc.

There are financial costs as well, as sea levels rise (flooding coastal areas and salinating inland water supplies), global precipitation patterns change (prompting crop failures and new deserts in some areas and increased fertility in others) and weather gets more dangerous (more monster storms doing more damage). There's also things like loss of snow pack and glaciers, which often provide the drinking and irrigation water for the humans living in that watershed. Now that water will run off downstream rather than being stored in winter and slowly dribbled out through melting during the growing season.

There will be pluses: conceivably, more navigable waterways (like the polar regions), more farmable land (assuming warming frees up more cold acreage than it drowns on the coasts), less need to burn fossil fuels to stay warm (though increased need for air-conditioning), things like that. But those are really more silver-lining type things, given the expensive dislocations that will likely occur.

Should we spend trillions avoiding it? Maybe not. Should we ignore it? Again, probably not. There's no reason to welcome the changes with open arms. It's probably worth several hundreds of billions of dollars on a global scale to try to cut back on emissions, sequester carbon where we can, develop alternate energy sources, etc. All those things have payoffs beyond fighting global warming, so you get a twofer return.

__________________
Man up.

raytri...
I like your response... It is probably the most reasonable response to a global warming issue I have seen in a while...
I am not against conservation by those who desire to conserve... I am not against those who want to look for alternative fuels and energy sources... I am not against cleaning up the environment messes that we have created in the past and preventing others from happening.
I do have a problem with the hype that surrounds the issue... the sky is falling mentality that is generated by people like algore.
I question the methodology that says the earth is warming at a rapid rate... Where are they taking the temperature measurements??
Here is a site that is auditing the surface temperature stations around the United States... Their findings are alarming... There is a set of rules or guidelines for these reporting stations that details how they are to be maintained and located...
http://www.surfacestations.org/
Would you trust the "Official" temperature report if the station decided to install a new asphalt parking lot around the surface temperature station? Or had some with air conditioner exhaust aimed directly at them? Or brick buildings built beside them? Or jet engine exhaust directed toward them?
I went through the different stations and it would seem to confirm the rapid rise in temp that you are talking about... but can I trust those reports? Sorry. No.
Granted the site has only surveyed a little over 300 out of 1200+ stations... but if their findings on 300 stations are this (*)(*)(*)(*)ing... will the other 900 be any better?

OG

You're a little mixed up. The IPCC report released last September(?) reported that global warming in indeed a real phenomenon. The consensus was that the experts felt 99%(?) sure that man was effecting it. Interestingly, it also stated that it is very possible that nothing can be done to stop the trend over the next one hundred years.

A second IPCC report is supposed to be released detailed exactly what, if anything, can be done about the climate change.

__________________
WARNING: In the unlikely event of an accidental agreement with any or all points made in the above post, contact a clinical psychologist immediately.

The views expressed in the above post are not necessarily those of Joker and/or any of his affiliates.

. "You have found the secret message. Do you have too much time on your hands? ...Let it go."

Surface observations (discussed below), which measure surface temperature;

Satellite observations, which measure the temperature of the troposphere (the lowest level of the atmosphere);

Weather balloon observations, which measure the temperature of a vertical slice of air as the balloon rises.

All have their strengths and limitations, but all show a warming trend.

I'm not sure what the link proves. They have a list of odd sites here:
http://www.surfacestations.org/odd_sites.htm

But they're clearly exceptions. There are only nine of them, out of 305 stations surveyed so far. And I'd suspect that the reporting so far overcounts such oddities. Most of the stations checked thus far are in urban areas -- which makes sense, since they're the most easily accessible, but they're also the ones most likely to have their site overtaken by growth.

Another key component of surface temperature measurements comes from ships, which measure the temperature of the seawater at their engine intakes -- in other words, what is the temperature of the outside water being drawn in to cool the ship's engines. That record is far less susceptible to growth-related errors. Sea temperatures are also measured by satellite and buoys. Again, what you see is a warming trend.

The key thing to note here is not criticisms of aspects of individual measurement methods, but the preponderance of evidence. Whatever their individual weaknesses, all these measuring methods show warming. Further, we have independent evidence of warming, such as the melting of glaciers worldwide, the melting of the polar icecap, etc.

__________________
Man up.

So your saying that the earth is warming up?.... I am not disagreeing with that.

I just disagree that humans are the root of the problem... if there IS a problem.

What caused the Ice Age? How long did that take to occur? How do they know? What caused it to melt? how long did that take? How do they know.

Fact is ... the whole thing is a bunch of hype to generate money... If those groups like the IPCC were to conclude that there earth is normal and going through normal cyclical changes... they would lose their jobs and millions of dollars... Carbon credit companies would go out of business leaving thousand of tree planters without a job.
Global warming is a Big Money Business much the same as Racism.