Code blue

[DavidS]

Are you a meterologist, Dave, or do are you studying these long range forcasts for investment purposes?

I studied it back in college... always been a fascination of mine. Never could get anywhere with it. Guess I didn't persue it enough. There's larger, much much larger forces at work controlling our climate than many of us have knowledge of. People say, "Well, it's cold today." Why is it cold? "Well, a cold front just came." What created the cold front? "Do what now?"

You're either on the cold side of a low pressure or the cold side of a high pressure, but pressure influences climate. What causes pressure? Where is the NAO, PDO, PNA, etc. The Pacific influences our weather more than the Atlantic does. If there's a super typhoon in Japan in late September, early August, 9x out of 10 we get a major snowstorm during that winter and a cold start to Autumn. Now how the hell does a Super Typhoon effect our weather when it's making trouble off in Japan? Every single weather system is connected and is a cause and effect of each other. We are in the midst of a domino effect that started billions of years ago when our atmosphere was created. To say "It's warmer because of fossil fuels and CO2" is the stupidest reasoning you could come up with. Tell me we've damaged our atomsphere so that the tilt of the Earth changes so that we get longer summers and warmer winters... nope not telling me that.

Al Gore = Liar.

 

[Old Rocks]

His academic research involves studies of the role of the tropics in mid-latitude weather and global heat transport, the moisture budget and its role in global change, the origins of ice ages, seasonal effects in atmospheric transport, stratospheric waves, and the observational determination of climate sensitivity.[1] He has published numerous papers regarding meteorologic and atmospheric topics.[2]

Ross Gelbspan, journalist and author, wrote a 1995 article in Harper's Magazine which was critical of Lindzen and other global warming skeptics. In the article, Gelbspan reports Lindzen charged "oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; [and] his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels and a speech he wrote, entitled 'Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,' was underwritten by OPEC."[3]

A decade later Boston Globe columnist Alex Beam reported, based on an interview with Lindzen, that "he accepted $10,000 in expenses and expert witness fees from fossil- fuel types in the 1990s, and has taken none of their money since."[4]
In November 2004, climate change skeptic Richard Lindzen was quoted saying he'd be willing to bet that the earth's climate will be cooler in 20 years than it is today. When British climate researcher James Annan contacted him, however, Lindzen would only agree to take the bet if Annan offered a 50-to-1 payout. Subsequent offers of a wager were also refused by Pat Michaels, Chip Knappenberger, Piers Corbyn, Myron Ebell, Zbigniew Jaworowski, Sherwood Idso and William Kininmonth. At long last, however, Annan has persuaded Russian solar physicists Galina Mashnich and Vladimir Bashkirtsev to take a $10,000 bet. "There isn't much money in climate science and I'm still looking for that gold watch at retirement," Annan says. "A pay-off would be a nice top-up to my pension."[
Richard S. Lindzen - SourceWatch

 

[Old Rocks]

Dr. Timothy Ball is Chairman and Chair of the Scientific Advisory Committee of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (NRSP).[1] Two of the three directors of the NRSP - Timothy Egan and Julio Lagos - are executives with the PR and lobbying company, the High Park Group (HPG).[2] Both HPG and Egan and Lagos work for energy industry clients and companies on energy policy.[3]
Ball is a Canadian climate change skeptic and was previously a "scientific advisor" to the oil industry-backed organization, Friends of Science.[4] Ball is a member of the Board of Research Advisors of the Frontier Centre for Public Policy, a Canadian free-market think tank which is predominantly funded by foundations and corporations.[5]

Ball is also a writer for Tech Central Station.[6] Tim Ball - SourceWatch

 

[Old Rocks]

DavidS;


We are in the midst of a domino effect that started billions of years ago when our atmosphere was created. To say "It's warmer because of fossil fuels and CO2" is the stupidest reasoning you could come up with. Tell me we've damaged our atomsphere so that the tilt of the Earth changes so that we get longer summers and warmer winters... nope not telling me that.

WTF! Adding an additional 40% CO2 is going to change the tilt of the Earth? Where in the hell did you ever get the idea that anyone has said that? What kind of college did you go to that taught nonsense like that? Apperantly you haven't a clue as to what GHGs actually do in the atmosphere.

 

[DavidS]

DavidS;

We are in the midst of a domino effect that started billions of years ago when our atmosphere was created. To say "It's warmer because of fossil fuels and CO2" is the stupidest reasoning you could come up with. Tell me we've damaged our atomsphere so that the tilt of the Earth changes so that we get longer summers and warmer winters... nope not telling me that.

WTF! Adding an additional 40% CO2 is going to change the tilt of the Earth? Where in the hell did you ever get the idea that anyone has said that? What kind of college did you go to that taught nonsense like that? Apperantly you haven't a clue as to what GHGs actually do in the atmosphere.

I was tired when I wrote that. I didn't mean that CO2 caused the Earth to tilt differently. I meant that the only thing that could really change our weather patterns was the Earth tilting differently. Other than that, we're doing just fine. We've been a hell of a lot warmer than we are now, and we've been a hell of a lot colder than we are now. Humans changing the climate of the Earth is like an ant trying to build the Empire State Building.

 

[DavidS]

Update: There is now complete and total model consensus among the GFS, EURO, GGEM and NAM that sometime in the middle of this month, we could be looking at very, very frigid temperatures. I'm talking dangerous, life threatening temperatures. NYC may not make it above zero. Basically, an extremely strong vortex of polar high pressure is coming down from Alaska while a major low pressure system will be coming into the pacific northwest around the middle of the month. Much if not all of the country could be below freezing. We are talking about historic, historic cold towards the 12th or 13th of this month.

When you see a hurricane, and you get updates on hurricanes, you usually see millibar level of around 990. That's a good strong area of low pressure. The difference between a hurricane and a normal area of low pressure is the core... is it at the surface (warm core) or the atmosphere (cold core). Hurricanes are warm core and can only developn in warm ocean waters. Normal low pressure systems can develop anywhere. This pacific low pressure that I'm talking about has a pressure of about 956 mb, which would be a Category 3 hurricane if it were warm core. A normal high pressure is around 1010 or 1020. The area of high pressure that is going to bring the historic cold is progged to be 1065. If the High Pressure and the Low Pressure parallel each other, you could be talking about very very high winds due to the pressure gradient between the two. High winds + historic cold can plunge wind chill temperatures to 30-40 below zero. Spend some time this week if you can doing everything you can to prepare for this historic cold. Get some flannel blankets, extra heavy sweaters... prepare for this as if you were living in Miami before Andrew.

 

[Luissa]

Interesting. Here in the Northwest, we have over half of our normal January rainfall already. Alaska is very cold over the whole of the state right now, and that could spill down here for another cold snap like the one we just had. Still, by historical standards, hardly a cold winter. A couple of winters just prior to WW1, the Columbia froze hard enough at Portland that they were driving wagons across it.

We have never had this much snow during recorded weather history or whatever!
And does DavidS work for the weather channel which sucks I might add. One day we had already received eight inches of snow and it said we have 40% chance of snow!

 

[DavidS]

We have never had this much snow during recorded weather history or whatever!
And does DavidS work for the weather channel which sucks I might add. One day we had already received eight inches of snow and it said we have 40% chance of snow!

The weather channel, like most TV mets, aren't REALLY meteorologists. They're just people who know how to talk to the camera while talking about weather. Very few TV stations actually have true meteorologists. I'd say places in Florida do, a lot of places in the mid west, a couple here in NYC, maybe a few in the North West and that's about it. Everyone else just reads from the prompter what the NWS forecast is. The Weather Channel is under very new managment and is being re-written to actually talk about weather.

 

[editec]

I studied it back in college... always been a fascination of mine. Never could get anywhere with it. Guess I didn't persue it enough. There's larger, much much larger forces at work controlling our climate than many of us have knowledge of. People say, "Well, it's cold today." Why is it cold? "Well, a cold front just came." What created the cold front? "Do what now?"

You're either on the cold side of a low pressure or the cold side of a high pressure, but pressure influences climate. What causes pressure? Where is the NAO, PDO, PNA, etc. The Pacific influences our weather more than the Atlantic does. If there's a super typhoon in Japan in late September, early August, 9x out of 10 we get a major snowstorm during that winter and a cold start to Autumn. Now how the hell does a Super Typhoon effect our weather when it's making trouble off in Japan? Every single weather system is connected and is a cause and effect of each other. We are in the midst of a domino effect that started billions of years ago when our atmosphere was created. To say "It's warmer because of fossil fuels and CO2" is the stupidest reasoning you could come up with. Tell me we've damaged our atomsphere so that the tilt of the Earth changes so that we get longer summers and warmer winters... nope not telling me that.

Al Gore = Liar.

So what you're attemtping to tell us is that nothing that is effecting the atmosphere today is making any difference because the atmosphere was set upon a course by

a domino effect that started billions of years ago when our atmosphere was created.

??!!??

Now if you give that theory more than moment's thinking, Dave, I think you'll see how goofy that notion is.

Because in a system like our EVERYTHING effects EVERYTHING else.

Now that does not mean that I KNOW that global warming is mad-made, but it does mean that I KNOW that man's activities MUST BE HAVING SOME EFFECT on the atmosphere, too.

The question, the REAL question isn't : Is mankind changing his atmosphere? because we know that it and everything else that is happening is doing that.

No, the real question is: HOW MUCH is mankind changing our atmosphere in comparison to those things over which we have NO CONTROL?

I'm not smart enough to know, and to be perfectly frank, given what little I know about CHAOS THEORY, I don't think I or mankind will EVER be smart enough to really be able to answer that question.

 

[Old Rocks]

I was tired when I wrote that. I didn't mean that CO2 caused the Earth to tilt differently. I meant that the only thing that could really change our weather patterns was the Earth tilting differently. Other than that, we're doing just fine. We've been a hell of a lot warmer than we are now, and we've been a hell of a lot colder than we are now. Humans changing the climate of the Earth is like an ant trying to build the Empire State Building.

Well, you are completely wrong and easily proven so. The adrupt climate change that was the Younger Dryas was created by a huge outflow of water into the Arctic Ocean that changed the salinity and shut down the thermohaline circulation. That change only took a decade going in, and a decade coming out. And a very cold 1300 years inbetween.

Two examples of abrupt climate change

 

[Old Rocks]

So what you're attemtping to tell us is that nothing that is effecting the atmosphere today is making any difference because the atmosphere was set upon a course by


??!!??

Now if you give that theory more than moment's thinking, Dave, I think you'll see how goofy that notion is.

Because in a system like our EVERYTHING effects EVERYTHING else.

Now that does not mean that I KNOW that global warming is mad-made, but it does mean that I KNOW that man's activities MUST BE HAVING SOME EFFECT on the atmosphere, too.

The question, the REAL question isn't : Is mankind changing his atmosphere? because we know that it and everything else that is happening is doing that.

No, the real question is: HOW MUCH is mankind changing our atmosphere in comparison to those things over which we have NO CONTROL?

I'm not smart enough to know, and to be perfectly frank, given what little I know about CHAOS THEORY, I don't think I or mankind will EVER be smart enough to really be able to answer that question.

I find the idea of adding nearly 40% more of the primary greenhouse gas and not changing the weather patterns to be incongrous. Your point concerning CHOAS Theory is well taken. It is the joker in the deck. We simply do not know what the tipping point is where the feedbacks overpower the present driving forces. It may well be double what we have now, we may have already crossed that line, and it is just taking time for the forces to get in motion. What we do know is that the same processes that are putting GHGs in the atmosphere are also polluting the ground and water with lead, mercury, sulphates, and sulphides. All of which are damaging, particularly to children. To replace the fossil fuels in electrical production and transportation with clean energy is a double winner. That is what we should be trying for for several very good reasons.

 

[KittenKoder]

We are having our second snow storm ... so pretty.

Global Warming is still just a catch phrase, during the last 20 years we have not had close to this (I miss this snow) but the climate is in chaos, again, so we may be getting this for the next few years like the last time (about 20 years ago oddly). So yeah ...

 

[KittenKoder]

It's funny, the official reports still only go back to 1860 for some but most info only to 1960. Odd huh?
Global Warming Frequently Asked Questions

Oh, and also notice how almost all of it mention anomalies and very little actual warming?

 

[Old Rocks]

It's funny, the official reports still only go back to 1860 for some but most info only to 1960. Odd huh?
Global Warming Frequently Asked Questions

Oh, and also notice how almost all of it mention anomalies and very little actual warming?

At present, the overall warming is less than 1 degree C. However, the Arctic has warmed much more than that, and the equatorial region, hardly warmed at all. Yes, what we are seeing right now is primarily anolamies from the normal weather pattern. When we see a strong and overall change, it will already be too late to do anything about it.

The problem is that the results are not linear. Glaciers melting do not affect the flow of summer and fall irrigation water that much. However, when the glaciers are all but gone, then a very high percentage of the irragation water will also be gone. For the great rivers of Asia that almost all originate in the Himalyas, that will mean a very adrupt drop in the amount of food grown in those river basins.

The immediate result is really very simple. Weather swings will be wider and wilder, with an overall warming. This winter looks to be a very cold winter, at least for this month. November, 2008, was quite warm and dry here. The first half of December was the same. The we had the most snow for the longest period recorded in this area for December. Look at the summer of 1998, and then think of a year going that far in the opposite direction. Remember, prior to WW1, there were a couple of years that the Columbia froze over hard enough that they drove wagons between Portland and Vancouver. Also, they had as much as 60" total of snowfall a couple of times prior to WW1. We have not seen anything like that in over 90 years. So, should we get another spell like the one we just had, it will be the worst that we have seen in several decades, but hardly a record for the area.

 

[elvis]

like I said, when will the movie about global cooling come out?

Global Warming, climate change facts, articles

 

[elvis]

in regards to "arrogant assertions",

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece

 

[editec]

Maybe for the same reason we believed, 30 years ago, that global cooling was the biggest threat: a matter of faith. "It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species," wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976.

Global Warming, climate change facts, articles

I find it amusing that Global Warming skeptics continue to advance the mth that the world was terrible concerned about an impending ice age in the 60s and 70s.

I was there..many of us on this board were adults at that time, and they were there, too.

The world was not terrible concerned about an Ice Age, back in the 60s or 70s. That's a complete myth. Newsweek did an article about it, but to my knowledge no scholarly scientific journal gave it a moments concern.

The world leading scientists did not come together to warm of us an impending Ice Age as they have come together to warm of about Global warming.

Trying to make these two very different events similar is, of course, pure nonsense.

Those who keep claiming that the world's scientific community was concerned about an ice age in the 60s or 70s are either terrible misinformed or simply out and out liars.

 

[KittenKoder]

This just in, Al Gore has announce a threat bigger than Global Warming: Manbearpig!

 

[Old Rocks]

Perhaps such people as these are a bit more impressive than the people you present, Elvis;

3 scientific societies applaud climate change report
Consequences, causes of global warming outlined in assessment

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rattan Lal, Columbus, Ohio, is president of the Soil Science Society of America.

Click here for more information.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MADISON, WI, APRIL 10, 2007 -- The 11,000 members of three scientific societies with its roots in agriculture have been closely watching the reports coming out of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Henry Shands, Fort Collins, Co., is president of the Crop Science Society of America.

Click here for more information.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is the IPCC’s 4th Assessment Report released on April 6, "Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis" that points to the direct consequences of climate change. Leading scientists from all over the world contributed to the latest installment of this report that attributes ecosystem changes to human-induced global warming. Following the release of the report, the presidents of the American Society of Agronomy (ASA), Crop Science Society of America (CSSA), and Soil Science Society of America (SSSA) issued this statement today:

"The Climate Change report released by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change underscores the need to drastically improve the way we manage our agricultural resources. While the impacts of climate change will be positive in some areas of the world, such as those gaining longer growing seasons and those with sufficient water resources, other areas will be adversely impacted, and it is these areas that will need improved soil and water management practices. Society member scientists are poised to conduct further research into how we can effectively manage plant, soil, and water resources and how we can adapt our current knowledge and research to reduce these negative impacts."

The three scientific society presidents are:

ASA President Dr. Jerry Hatfield, Ames, IA
CSSA President Dr. Henry L. Shands, Fort Collins, CO
SSSA President Dr. Rattan Lal, Columbus, OH

The Societies applaud the work of the IPCC and the more than 2,500 scientific expert reviewers from more than 130 countries who have spent six years working on the report, which was unveiled at a meeting in Brussels, Belgium last Friday. Several member scientists of ASA-CSSA-SSSA contributed to the report.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jerry Hatfield, Ames, Iowa, is president of the American Society of Agronomy.

Click here for more information.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The second chapter of the IPCC's 4th Assessment takes a comprehensive assessment of the current scientific knowledge of the natural vs. human drivers of climate change, the ability of science to attribute changes to different causes, and projections for future climate change. A 23-page summary is available at: IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
3 scientific societies applaud climate change report

 

[Old Rocks]

Perhaps such people as these are a bit more impressive than the people you present, Elvis;

3 scientific societies applaud climate change report
Consequences, causes of global warming outlined in assessment

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rattan Lal, Columbus, Ohio, is president of the Soil Science Society of America.

Click here for more information.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MADISON, WI, APRIL 10, 2007 -- The 11,000 members of three scientific societies with its roots in agriculture have been closely watching the reports coming out of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Henry Shands, Fort Collins, Co., is president of the Crop Science Society of America.

Click here for more information.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is the IPCC’s 4th Assessment Report released on April 6, "Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis" that points to the direct consequences of climate change. Leading scientists from all over the world contributed to the latest installment of this report that attributes ecosystem changes to human-induced global warming. Following the release of the report, the presidents of the American Society of Agronomy (ASA), Crop Science Society of America (CSSA), and Soil Science Society of America (SSSA) issued this statement today:

"The Climate Change report released by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change underscores the need to drastically improve the way we manage our agricultural resources. While the impacts of climate change will be positive in some areas of the world, such as those gaining longer growing seasons and those with sufficient water resources, other areas will be adversely impacted, and it is these areas that will need improved soil and water management practices. Society member scientists are poised to conduct further research into how we can effectively manage plant, soil, and water resources and how we can adapt our current knowledge and research to reduce these negative impacts."

The three scientific society presidents are:

ASA President Dr. Jerry Hatfield, Ames, IA
CSSA President Dr. Henry L. Shands, Fort Collins, CO
SSSA President Dr. Rattan Lal, Columbus, OH

The Societies applaud the work of the IPCC and the more than 2,500 scientific expert reviewers from more than 130 countries who have spent six years working on the report, which was unveiled at a meeting in Brussels, Belgium last Friday. Several member scientists of ASA-CSSA-SSSA contributed to the report.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jerry Hatfield, Ames, Iowa, is president of the American Society of Agronomy.

Click here for more information.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The second chapter of the IPCC's 4th Assessment takes a comprehensive assessment of the current scientific knowledge of the natural vs. human drivers of climate change, the ability of science to attribute changes to different causes, and projections for future climate change. A 23-page summary is available at: IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
3 scientific societies applaud climate change report