Warming is here now
The answer to letter writer Carrie McKoy’s question of March 1 (“Brrr!) — “Where did ... ‘global warming’ go?” — is that it is already here. Unusual, out-of-control weather all over the United States including our own state’s horrific snowstorms for 10 weeks on end and Europe’s everlasting fall and now already spring and no snow there.
Read the weather reports. Get a clue. Bush has not paid any attention to it either for six years as “our king.”
Mathilde Morris, Denver
"Horrific snowstorms," Ms. Morris? Where are you from? Florida? I grew up here, Ms. Morris, and what you saw this winter was just about A NORMAL WINTER, like we always had up until somewhere between 1985-1990. What you have been seeing for 15-20 years is ABNORMAL weather, with less snow that normal. THIS year was more like "normal." So, calm down, drink a cup of herbal tea, and quit freaking out over the rantings of the crisis merchants.
Posted by Michael Trimble on March 19, 2007 03:00 AMYep the warming is here, just as it is every year about this time. I also predict that it will get warmer in the next 6 months and then go back to a cooling period.
Weather for today? Mostly light during the day and wide scattered darkness tonight.
.."and now already spring and no snow there."
What the hell does this statement mean???
First, spring does not arrive until Wednesday, March 21st. It is STILL WINTER!!!
And "no snow there"??? WHERE?? What does this mean? It is nonsensical, as the leftwing ecoNUTS seem to always be on this topic.
Earl - Did you steal your forecast from George Carlin's "hippie-dippie watherman"?? That was a funny bit - though Carlin leans so far to the left as to need a rope to keep him upright!!
Posted by Michael on March 19, 2007 06:49 AMMichael:
Your comment about George Carlin reveals you know nothing about the man, or his excellent, satirical take on things. He regularly skewers BOTH sides of the political spectrum, and has little patience for political correctness, or people who make blanket statements without taking the time check the veracity of their stance. HTH.
These GW alarmists built themselves the most efficient propagand vehicle I've ever seen. When there's a heatwave... it's global warming. Denver gets snowed in, global warming again. Drought? Must be global warming. Hurricanes? Damn, global warming again. No matter which way the wind blows these guys have the answer ready and waiting.
Now that they've identified the culprit (man), hurry and line up at Al's Gores office and put your paychecks in the collection plate. They say its going to take an aweful lot of money to fix this disasterous problem just like the global coolinig scare of the 70's. Wait, what happened with that again?
Posted by KW on March 19, 2007 08:59 AMOk KW, so tell us how we will know if there is global warming or not, and whether man is causing it or not.
How would we tell, what should we look for?
Posted by Spud on March 19, 2007 10:59 AMI agree Mathilde, it is hard to believe people could be so stupid to think a harsh winter and 3 feet of snow in Denver suddenly reverses the receeding glaciers and the melting polar ice caps.
Posted by hikingartist on March 19, 2007 11:48 AMSpud
Why not discredit the author of this thread? Why not tell her that a short period of time nor region makes up the science? This is a global experiment.
You are quick with the gun on the other blogs when it comes to setting this straight.
The political and financial ramifications to this issue are becoming too great to comprehend here. When does the "science" of this issue become nothing more than a Grant Request?
If the "scientific facts" are so overwhelming, why the threats to career and life in the discussion of GW? Is it the emotions? Facts? $$$$?
Ms Morris
Bush is responsible for Global Warming? Or at least responsible for not containing it?
While others claim that Bush is responsible for covertly trying to reduce GW by using "chem-trails" to limit solar affects on the planet. Which is it? Or is it the hatred you feel towards our (yours and mine) president?
What are you doing to help your community, country and world to help conserve? Hopefully it is better than the limousine conservationists.
Posted by bwr on March 19, 2007 11:53 AMNo Hikingartist. She is saying that GW has caused our winter.
Posted by bwr on March 19, 2007 11:56 AMbwr, I am not exactly a "public conveyance" so I have no duty to answer all postings. I answer those that most grab my attention or where I think I can actually contribute to an understanding of science.
However, I take your point, so...
Mathilde, don't be a blockhead.
Although the weather was in conformance with the expectations of GW models, there is no way to determine if this particular series of winter storms were significantly different due to Global Warming until very intense study has been done. The only way we can see the hand of GW in weather patterns is in the big numbers and statistical models and it will be many months or even years before anyone will be able to say if GW was a player in this case – and then only if anybody is actually going to do the research which is expensive and resource-consuming.
In the same way that the anti-GW folks are mistaken if they think that they can look out the window and determine that the temperature is not on average 0.8 C higher than it should have been, neither can you look at the storms and conclude that GW was at play.
Neither of you have the theoretical or computational or sensory instruments to determine such things.
Spud - I asked this question last week but never saw a response.
Many of the dissenting scientists cite the data being programmed into these computer models as being faulty. They claim some are actually grooming the data to achieve desired results. They have expessed interest in debating this with the IPCC scientists but so far no discussion is taking place.
Do you know why the IPCC guys haven't agreed to discuss these claims? Some are saying it's all part of the "there's no room for dissention" attitude these IPCC scientists have displayed.
Posted by KW on March 19, 2007 12:39 PMSigh! If only global warming were true.
Hopefully if woud cause the polar Ice caps to one day melt so fast that the cesspool cities of New York, Chicago, San Francisco and Los Angeles that all of Al Gore's supporters, especially the ones that voted for him would be washed out sea before they knew what hit them and would cleanse our coastlines as well as our political landscape of these vermin.
Oh well, one can dream can't they?
Posted by Wishful Thinking on March 19, 2007 12:52 PMYes KW, you keep claiming that it's all a big scam and that there are all these dissenting voices who are actually correct and being quashed. You say they have evidence that data is being falsified.
How you know this and the journals don't is a mystery, but you still didn't asnwer my question.
Again, tell us how we will know if there is global warming or not, and whether man is causing it or not.
How would we tell, what should we look for?
I do have one question on Global Warming doomsday predictions. Someone PLEASE explain to me how melting polar ice caps will flood the coast lines, make LA, NY and New Orleans 100% vanish into the ocean, all by having ice melt, since ice displaces water at a variance of 65.97 - 78.25% (link to verify measurements: http://xn--1lq90ic7f1rc.cn/academic/xb/97/_97egp_a.html) and would therefore, with melting, evaporation, and air escape have a net gain of 0 to -2 feet? Someone?
Posted by Dan2 on March 19, 2007 01:08 PMRemember the good ol' days before the panic over global warming, when liberals panicked over global cooling?
http://denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm
Posted by JohnII on March 19, 2007 01:50 PMThey're the ones claiming faulty programming data Spud, not me. Just wondered what your take on that would be but I guess we'll have to wait for another time.
To answer your question (AGAIN) I've never said we're not warming. Have been since the last iceage and will continue until we start cooling again. Then I'll have to listen to that panic repeat itself like we heard back in the 70's (global cooling, oh the humantiy).
Try looking for the scientists who aren't in anyones pockets and you'll get the straightest answers, warming or cooling.
Posted by KW on March 19, 2007 01:53 PMKW, I didn't ask you if you thought warming was taking place.
I asked you how we would know this and how we would know if it was anthropogenic.
You didn’t say the models were immature or inaccurate, you said that scientists had falsified results and data on purpose to match what their funders wanted to hear. Big difference.
I don’t see anything in the journals or newsletters with such claims, I do see arguments about whether some of the assumptions need modification, or whether one model is better than another in some specific way, but these are things that get refined as they are tested out and results are available, and this process is quite normal.
You think all scientists are “in somebody’s pocket” since pretty much no scientist is able to do research without funding and a salary.
So it’s unclear where you think you will get these virginal scientists from.
Spud - I said some scientists are claiming faulty programming procudures. I NEVER claimed it to be one way or the other. My question was why haven't the IPCC scientists agreed to engage in debate over these claims? Now, quit putting words in my mouth and just answer the question.
Posted by KW on March 19, 2007 03:14 PMKW, I notice that you still didn’t answer the question, could it be that you don’t actually know how global warming could be detected or how anthropogenic effects could be distinguished?
Your initial claim wasn’t about the IPCC.
So are you now saying that you know of scientists who are accusing the IPCC panel of falsifying results to please sponsors? Where are these accusations, perhaps you could link to them?
Your initial claim was about falsification of data and results, you seem to have altered that claim to “faulty programming procedures” (sic), can you explain what you mean by this?
Spud - Oh ye of global warming faith, if you can't remember my question go back and reread it. Or go away.
"Someone PLEASE explain to me how melting polar ice caps will flood the coast lines"
Are you forgetting that most of the ice that everyone is worried about is on land? Specifically, the continent of Antarctica? If it were all floating in the ocean (like it is at the other end of the planet), it probably wouldn't be a big deal. But if you have a lot of water on land that melts and runs into the ocean -- TA-DA! Lots more water in the ocean!
Posted by The Penguin of March on March 19, 2007 04:59 PMKW, not only do you seem to have me mixed up with somebody else, but you also seem to have lost track of your own assertions.
So let’s, go through this again shall we?
- I am not a GW "believer", I am here to explain what the current scientific thinking and consensus is on many issues, and to explain how science works. "Faith" doesn't enter into the picture.
- You have made some claims about malpractice, and you have accused the editor of Science magazine of effectively having taken a bribe to produce false research results.
Your specific accusations seem to shift about somewhat, sometimes referring to data, sometimes to results, and now to faulty "programming procedures” (sic).
So I will wait for you to settle on a specific accusation, and then we can take it from there.
I will however remind you again that making direct accusations of malpractice is actionable and that you may find yourself defending in court against charges of slander or libel if you keep this up.
A scientist’s reputation is considered very important and an accusation of fraud is taken very seriously. You are welcome to shoot holes in a theory or the arguments of a finding, but saying fraud was committed is another thing entirely.
Holy Bicentennial Minute! Still with the cracks about how in the '70s global cooling (or "coolinig," as KW cutely spells it the first time) was being predicted. That's right, and we're still listening to 8-tracks and driving Pintos. And Farrah Fawcett's still a foxy chick.
Now, KW and JohnII, I want you to put down your CB radios and write down 100 times: THE '70s HAPPENED THIRTY YEARS AGO, AND SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY HAVE ADVANCED SINCE THEN. And no, you can't watch "Laverne and Shirley" until you're finished.
Posted by Hans Christian Brando on March 19, 2007 06:52 PMMr. Brando,
As to your comment:
THE '70s HAPPENED THIRTY YEARS AGO, AND SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY HAVE ADVANCED SINCE THEN.
I think we can all agree with that poignant and daring statement.
Posted by JohnII on March 19, 2007 08:00 PMFrom Newsweek, April 28th 1975:
"To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. “A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.”
"Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality."
Posted by John II on March 19, 2007 08:20 PMJohnll
It's always funny to look in retrospect at how wrong science often is, but that doesn't give us a replacement for science.
Science is probably wrong now, but we don't know which bits are wrong, and we have no better system of enquiry available.
So the prudent choice is to side with science but avoid scientism.
Posted by Spud on March 19, 2007 08:45 PMSpud,
I agree with you. But which science do we side with? Rarely do we see 100% consensus.
What humors me is not so much the doomsday scenarios some scientists conjure up, but how quickly liberal alarmists pull their hair out and jump overboard before realizing the ship is not sinking.
Posted by John II on March 19, 2007 09:05 PM"THE '70s HAPPENED THIRTY YEARS AGO, AND SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY HAVE ADVANCED SINCE THEN"
Of course it has Hans. But considering this is the fourth attempt by scientists to tell us of an impending catastrophy we would be foolish to accept this theory without scrutiny.
Remember, those who choose to forget the past are doomed to repeat it.
And those here who feel a need to critique spelling errors are anal.
Posted by KW on March 20, 2007 09:22 AMSo what do you propose should be done KW?
Posted by Spud on March 20, 2007 10:13 AMSpud - These are the kind of things I see going on and they make me very, very worried:
1) Planktos Inc. of Foster City, Calif., last week launched its ship, the Weatherbird II, on a trip to the Pacific Ocean to dump 50 tons of iron dust. The iron should grow plankton, part of an algae bloom that will drink up carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
AND
2) NASA is putting the finishing touches on a report summing up some of these ideas and has spent $75,000 to map out rough details of the sun shade concept....One of the premier climate modeling centers in the United States, the National Center for Atmospheric Research, has spent the last six weeks running computer simulations of the man-made volcano scenario and will soon turn its attention to the space umbrella idea.
AND THIS TAKES THE CAKE
3) Last fall, the University of Arizona astronomer Roger Angel proposed what he called a "sun shade." It would be a cloud of small Frisbee-like spaceships that go between Earth and the sun and act as an umbrella. About 800,000 of these would be stacked into each rocket launch. It would take 16 trillion of them. And the cost: at least $4 trillion over 30 years, probably more.
And that would just be covered by the government, er, I mean, the taxpayer, right?
Spud - I don't have the solutions but these ideas surely don't seem to be in our best interests.
Posted by on March 20, 2007 11:19 AMI don't have the solution Spud. But I'm affraid when I see what other people think is a good solution. Read on...
Last fall, the University of Arizona astronomer Roger Angel proposed what he called a "sun shade." It would be a cloud of small Frisbee-like spaceships that go between Earth and the sun and act as an umbrella. About 800,000 of these would be stacked into each rocket launch. It would take 16 trillion of them. And the cost: at least $4 trillion over 30 years, probably more.
And that would just be covered by the government, er, I mean, the taxpayer, right?
KW, you didn't even read what you linked to, did you?
"For the past year, Angel has been looking at ways to cool the Earth in an emergency. He's been studying the practicality of deploying a space sunshade in a global warming crisis, a crisis where it becomes clear that Earth is unmistakably headed for disastrous climate change within a decade or two"
Emergency being the key word here, yes?
I take it that you either didn't read this properly, or you are suggesting that even if the planet was "unmistakably headed for disastrous climate change" you would still not want public funding.
Which is it?
Posted by Spud on March 20, 2007 01:48 PMEmergency, being the key word here, is left to interpretation of the science. Are we doomed? Not likely. Definitely not enough to panic and spend trillions on a hum-dinger like this. These guys are getting paid a lot of money to keep coming up with ideas to save us. Why are you in denial about that?
You see Spud, YES, I do read what I link for you (what an idiotic comment), I just don't buy into like you.
Are you also a fan of the huge amounts of iron dust being dumped in the ocean to remove carbon dioxide? I'm sure that makes all the little fishies very happy too. And after they wreck the ocean do we fund another hundred trillion to fix that as well? Hell Spud, by then it'll be global cooling again. And who's gonna pay for that, hmmm?
Posted by KW on March 20, 2007 02:10 PMHere's the link Spud
Posted by KW on March 20, 2007 02:12 PMKW, ok, I thought I had made my role clear, but evidently not.
I don’t “buy into” any of these, I am here to explain the science, or offer links to authoritative sources, or most of all to explain how science is done.
You keep trying to position me as some kind of political representative or advocate of every notion out there, and this I am not.
If anything, I represent science education and the science bodies, but I am not championing any particular proposal, theory, or argument.
I see that you still aren’t following my advice about where to look for the more considered scientific news, so your trolling will continue to dredge up stuff that gets you all in a froth. Maybe you just enjoy being upset.
The “Frisbee” idea is one of many being floated for thought, and that is part of how science works, ideas are floated with facts and proposed mechanisms, some people shoot them down citing known mechanisms or test results, other people build on part of a previous idea, and we wiggle forward until we have some real contenders and understanding of what is going on and what can be done about it.
Ocean pH change is one phenomenon being observed and there are also loads of thoughts about how warming results in this and whether it can be mitigated in some way.
This is all “work in progress”, and hardly any of them will get to the point of being serious contenders for funding. Missile Defense was one that slipped through and got funded, but then that was the political mechanism at play, not the science.
If you don’t want to have your taxpayer money spent on the research or any attempts to mitigate global warming or its effects, then talk to your politicians.
It would be a truly bizarre wish, but you are free to tell your representative about it.