The following headlines were found on Drudge this morning and the stories high-light the record winter conditions that have gripped most of the US and Canada. Weather extremes and record conditions are the norm in meteorology. Every day there are new records for hottest, coldest, driest, wettest, windiest, etc. somewhere in the world. Climate truthers rush to report all of these as if they were something new and unexpected, always leaving the impression, explicitly or implicity, that all such occurrences are due to man-made “global warming.”
The cold spell that has swept across most of North America is remarkable for the fact that Al Gore is not here, but in Europe. It is a scientifically provable fact that wherever the Goracle speaks on Global Warming, the local weather fails to cooperate and attendees to these events usually have to brave severe cold or unseasonably cool weather.
Winter Weather Hits Las Vegas
New York May Get 6 Inches of Snow in Storm Tomorrow
Winter Storm Warning Issued For Chicago Area
FRIGID STORM CLOSES CALIFORNIA FREEWAYS, DROPS SNOW IN MALIBU
Spokane Shut Down By Snowstorm
Let's pray the Mr. Gore extends his visit to Europe until at least April; a return before this current spell passes could precipitate a mini-Ice Age.
Featured Article
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Al Gore Not Responsible For Winter Blast
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
'Global warming' refers to an increase in the average temperature of the Earth, not that every place on Earth is warm all the time.
I get that you are kidding but I still hear the "it snowed here yesterday so global warming is false" logic alot from conservatives.
I really fail to comprehend what part of the link some people can't understand...
1. Humans produce lots of carbon dioxide.
2. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse case.
3. Greenhouse gases have a warming effect on the atmosphere.
Therefore, humans are having a warming effect on the atmosphere.
Or do you dispute one of those statements?
Braden, you're making assumptions not in evidence.
You probably went to public school, so they might have missed teaching you this in favor of education on acceptance of homosexuality and how to skillfully put on a condom, but trees consume the carbon dioxide that human beings give off, which makes those trees grow strong and healthy.
You know, it's such an ingenious system how humans give off what plants need, and plants give off what humans need, one would almost think the system was designed. (Of course, that would take us in icky theological directions).
And there is also stronger evidence that warming results in increases of greenhouse gasses, not the other way around. Such evidence would likely point to that huge hot star in the middle of our solar system as the source of any warming...but then, that's not as exciting (nor as useful to socialists) as anthropogenic global warming.
Boy, and they claim Christians believe in fairy tales!
Braden, your logic is simplistic and full of fallacies, but yours is the argument that many Global Warmers expound. Things are much more complicated, even elegant.
Have you ever heard of the "CO2 sink?" CO2 dissolves readily in water, and the colder the water the more CO2. A bottle of soda is an example. Very cold soda releases CO2 slowly, whereas warm soda bubbles over readily. Atmospheric CO2 dissolves in ocean water readily. Elevated CO2 causes an increase in the proliferation of diatoms (small creatures that have a calcium carbonate shell)that die and sink to the bottom, thus excess CO2 is bound up in the ocean sediments for long periods of time.
Like Mr. Ellis said, higher atmospheric temps cause some of the dissolved CO2 to escape from the ocean and return to the atmosphere. Sun spots produce elevated temps, therefore sun spots (and increased temperatures) cause elevate atmospheric CO2.
QED
"I really fail to comprehend what part of the link some people can't understand..."
"but trees consume the carbon dioxide that human beings give off, which makes those trees grow strong and healthy."
Oh really, I didn't know that. It would be nice if you were able to have a civil conversation and avoid trying to talk down to me. I scored in the top 1% in my ACTs and LSATs. I'm not a stupid person.
Trees do use carbon dioxide, which animals produce. There is a delicate balance between the production of oxygen by plants, and the consumption of it by animals; just as there is a balance between the production of CO2 by animals and plant's use of it in photosynthesis. However, when humans began to produce large quantities of CO2, the balanced was tipped. More CO2 is being produced than consumed, which leads to accumulation of it in the atmosphere. Understand?
"And there is also stronger evidence that warming results in increases of greenhouse gasses, not the other way around."
That is obviously not the case, as ice core samples from Anarctica prove. Increases in CO2 levels are always followed by increases in temperature, not the other way around as we would expect if your statement was true.
"Such evidence would likely point to that huge hot star in the middle of our solar system"
Since 1975 solar input has varied between 1367 and 1365 W/m^2, reaching peaks around 1981, 1990, and 2002. Despite the fact that solar input has increased and decreased (not significantly) 3 times in the last 30 years, global temperatures have continued to rise. You would be hard pressed to find a relationship between fluctuating solar output and continually rising temperatures.
"Sun spots produce elevated temps, therefore sun spots (and increased temperatures) cause elevate atmospheric CO2."
Sun spots are areas of the Sun with temperatures lower than the areas around them. They are colder, which is why they are darker. The Sun is at its coldest when it has lots of sun spots. Are you expecting me to believe that cold (relatively) areas of the Sun lead to global warming?
Sorry, Braden. It's just hard for me to get my hands around the reality of someone running out in public and saying such incredibly ignorant things...in opposition to such obvious facts. Education obviously doesn't automatically translate into (a) being correct, nor (b) the ability to analyze information. You've allowed yourself to be taken in by a socialist flight of fancy wrapped in a facade of "science." You're not alone, though; most people will indeed be taken in by a lie if you just package it as "science."
Remember the CO2 sink Dr. Theo mentioned? It's not only the trees consuming the CO2, though the healthier those trees are, the more they'll consume.
There is plenty of evidence which shows a correlation between solar activity and heat on planet earth; you just won't find much of it on CNN, PBS and the New York Times.
Here's one on solar winds, another on the solar link, another on solar activity and cyclic temperature change, another on sunspots, one on warming on Mars (the last I checked, there were no SUVs or coal-fired power plants or human beings at all to spread their evil warming on Mars), and another on solar activity and sunspots.
And these are just a handful of the evidence contrary to anthropogenic global warming fantasies.
Not only does the science not support the idea, it doesn't even pass the smell test. Just because somebody has a degree or wears a lab coat doesn't mean they're infallible, nor does it mean they're above perpetrating a fraud based on their biases.
Learn to think for yourself...and look beyond the "mainstream" media for information.
" trees consume the carbon dioxide that human beings give off". so, does this mean that trees like it when we fart on them?
Braden. Congratulations on your education and on some great elucidation. thank you and keep it up. America needs you.
What a shame to see people actively espousing following fringe "science" in place of fact and to actually fall back on the tired 'socialist' card yet again. keep it up, it's tired and doesn't work any more, just like your ideas.
before a tsunami the tides fall back into the sea leaving the shore line barren.
what tsunami!? water? what water? big wave, huh?
it's snowing in las vegas, therefore there MUST not be global warming.
what a farce. crackpot science.
Yes, motostrano, the theory of anthropogenic global warming is fringe science...though it's a stretch to even call it "science." It doesn't even pass the smell-test for veracity, much less a more rigorous scientific examination.
Socialism, too, is a tiring route. It's been discredited in many countries over and over around the world, yet some people still push it and fall back on it.
Crackpot science and crackpot political theory, indeed!
Post a Comment