Quote :

"But there's this:"

thank you captain obvious. It's a shame, though, that it has to be said. Record cold doesn't disprove AGW any more than record heat proves it.

1/8/2010 2:46:22 PM

^however, the media sure does hype up global warming in the summer time. funny how in the winter they don't talk about record snow falls, record low temperatures, or all the deaths that resulted from such.

1/8/2010 3:10:25 PM

yep. that's why I don't turn to the media for my science.

1/8/2010 3:12:25 PM

Increasing heat in the summer has farther reaching negative implications then a week of snow which makes it easier target for sensational stories. Especially in areas of the country starting extend their drought streak to a decade. Not that daily temperature reflects long term trends anyway.

1/8/2010 3:15:08 PM

^^^ LOL! I want one.

1/8/2010 3:18:39 PM

^^way to show your ignorance. Significantly more people die in the winter as a result of the cold than of heat in the summer.

Quote :

"How cold turns up the heat on health By Clare Murphy Health reporter, BBC News The cold can make you more susceptible to germs Global warming dominates the headlines, but in the UK the cold of winter is much more hazardous to health - especially for the elderly and the sick. For every degree the temperature drops below 18C, deaths in the UK go up by nearly 1.5%. This year, any new year's resolutions that involve strenuous outdoor activity - at least for those with existing health problems - could be best put on ice. Heart attacks and strokes rise as temperatures fall. This is because when confronted with the cold, the blood vessels in the skin contract to conserve heat by preventing blood from flowing to the surface. The composition of the blood also changes. The heart has to work harder to pump blood through narrower vessels, while the change in concentration means it is more liable to clot, with all the ensuing health problems. The British Heart Foundation says: "There is growing evidence to suggest that heart attacks are linked with extreme weather conditions, especially cold weather. "If you have a heart problem and are outside in cold weather, you should avoid sudden exertion - for example, shovelling snow or pushing a car. "In very cold weather it may be best to stay indoors." ... Studies of weather-related mortality have found that with heat-related deaths there tends to be a significant level of death "displacement" - put bluntly those who were likely to die anyway simply died sooner, so the period after a heat wave tends to see fewer than average deaths. "But this doesn't appear to be the case with winter deaths," says Dr Gavin Donaldson, a specialist in respiratory medicine at University College London. "There has been much focus on hot weather and global warming, but in this country we see many more days of cooler temperatures. It really does need highlighting that winter can take its toll in this way, particularly on the elderly."

full article here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8442413.stm

[Edited on January 8, 2010 at 3:29 PM. Reason : even the BBC agrees]

[Edited on January 8, 2010 at 3:31 PM. Reason : [s]]

1/8/2010 3:24:30 PM

Not at all, I didn't say anything about deaths, I said there are farther reaching implications. I'm not arguing which is better or worse either, but rather why I think the coverage is skewed.

Implications such as:

Increased wild fires burning towns and cities.
Dwindling fresh water availability.

Both of these facts have huge economic impact which make them more important by default then old people and poor people freezing to death.

*not to mention that the end of summer rolls into hurricane season.

[Edited on January 8, 2010 at 3:28 PM. Reason : >.<]

1/8/2010 3:27:16 PM

^ Money is more important than lives?

Quote :

"Not at all, I didn't say anything about deaths, I said there are farther reaching implications. I'm not arguing which is better or worse either, but rather why I think the coverage is skewed. Implications such as: Increased wild fires burning towns and cities. Dwindling fresh water availability. Both of these facts have huge economic impact which make them more important by default then old people and poor people freezing to death. *not to mention that the end of summer rolls into hurricane season."

QFT.

[Edited on January 8, 2010 at 3:30 PM. Reason : .]

1/8/2010 3:29:33 PM

^^my apologies then.

However, there is no proof hurricanes are influenced by global warming. That has already been discussed in this blog.

Droughts and wildfires are natural phenomena, you can't blame them on AGW. And water shortages? Maybe we should build more desalinization plants..if only the greenies wouldn't protest that. And maybe we shouldn't build in the desert

Quote :

"Talking About The Weather ‘Snow blindness’ spreads in newsrooms by Harold Ambler on January 6, 2010 Somewhere along the way, mainstream journalism lost its way regarding climate. Journalists at the top of their game and the top of their field, lacking nothing for resources or good intentions, lost the ability to see winter, even when it was right in front of their noses. Beyond being of interest to those who follow the media, this modern form of “snow blindness” is actually dangerous. For snow and cold are killers. Britain maintains records on cold-related deaths, which, predictably, fall disproportionately among the elderly. In that single European nation, more than 300,000 people have died during winter during the decade just ended. Tallies in the rest of Europe are similar. As for the winter just begun, it is likely to be especially deadly. While few single weather events, months of extreme temperatures, years of abnormal temperatures, or even decades of the same can be called a change in climate without someone calling foul, the mainstream media has again and again used warm-weather events as proofs of the global warming that it would convince us of. Wildfires, Katrina, heat waves, floods, all have been laid at the feet of this modern bogeyman."

http://talkingabouttheweather.wordpress.com/2010/01/06/snow-blindness-spreads-in-newsrooms/

[Edited on January 8, 2010 at 3:35 PM. Reason : full article at link]

1/8/2010 3:31:12 PM

bullshit, SS. the coverage is skewed because hot temperatures make great soundbites for global warming.

btw, this is a cool fucking picture, even though it adds nothing to the discussion.


what's this I'm now hearing that more CO2 may be beneficial for calcium-bearing marine organisms? Sounds like bullshit to me. Anybody heard anything about this?

1/8/2010 3:51:42 PM

Hey, how about this wonderful act of scientific professionalism: delaying publication of a paper in print for ELEVEN MONTHS in order to publish another paper which hadn't been written alongside that paper. The second paper was to be a rebuttal to the first, but was printed instead as an original article so as to prevent the first paper from being able to effectively respond to the claims of the second paper and "have the last word," as is customary in scientific journals.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/a_climatology_conspiracy.html

And guess who is behind all of this? Why, our beloved Phil Jones!

1/8/2010 4:30:06 PM

synthetic 'trees' absorb over 1 ton of carbon per day. build a few thousand of them and you could actually reverse man-made global warming on a dime.

/thread.

but where do you store all that carbon?? look up 'carbon storage utah research'
just put the trees right on the storage locations. there ya go. now we can emit c02 and actually be 'balancing' the environment.

1/10/2010 9:41:51 PM

some conservatives are too ignorant to realize that "global warming" isn't even the proper name. Its called global climate CHANGE. Most of the warming is felt at the poles and will ultimately lead to a DRASTIC cooling in the midlatitudes.

Ignore whats going on elsewhere because if the arctic cap melts, everythings fucked. Not fucked in the way of fear mongering apacolypes but fuck in terms of complete climate chaos as a result of the conveyor system shutting down.

The funny thing about Copenhagen is that these climate 'freaks" you call extremists are actually moderates when it comes to climate change. Several models show that even if we STOP 100% of carbon exaust globally, its too late to keep the arctic from melting since CO2 stays in the atmosphere for 100 years.

The best solution would be to come up with plans and technology to adapt to a post arctic ice cap world with raised sea level, abscence of fresh water, very very cold climate in midlatitude regions on the gulf stream and many other drastic changes of climate that are currently affected by the mean ocean salinity-balance driven global ocean conveyer.

1/10/2010 10:10:02 PM

Quote :

"some conservatives are too ignorant to realize that "global warming" isn't even the proper name. Its called global climate CHANGE. Most of the warming is felt at the poles and will ultimately lead to a DRASTIC cooling in the midlatitudes."

That makes no sense. The only mechanism for CO2 to cause climate change is through warming. Without warming, there cannot be climate change. Therefore, cold temperatures are an argument against AGW, not evidence of CO2 climate change.

And the north pole could melt tomorrow, we might have a foot or two rise as the warmer water increases displacement. For the south pole to melt the planet would need to warm many tens of degrees, so don't hold your breath.

1/10/2010 10:20:51 PM

^Ocean currents man. have you not seen day after tomorrow?

1/10/2010 10:34:04 PM

There are way too many dynamics behind the atmosphere and weather of the planet to simplify things to just air temperature. CO2 traps and re-emits IR radiation only and IR heats the air. The air is not heated by visible light which is what ice caps reflect almost 100% of. When the ice caps melt it exposes open sea which is exactly the opposite in that it absorbs almost all of incoming radiation. Absorptions of radiation by the ocean doesn't have an effect on air temperature but it has the largest possible effect on climate. You should know that the ocean has a high heat capacity so it stores this heat that would've been reflected by ice. Now the ice is melting at an exponentially high rate as warmer oceans melt it from below as well-positive feedback loop.



The more fresh water you dump into the ocean from melting ice the less efficient(less normal) the conveyor acts. This process would obviously cause more violent extremes in not just hot but cold spells as the main source of heat distribution from the tropics to the midlatitudes is increasinly weak.

Regardless of any of that, the weather behaves through waves in the atmosphere. Just like with the ocean, waves have average heights and sometimes a wave may not come for a while and sometimes unsually large waves may come. To simplify this week, an unsually cold wave has arrived in north america as the jet stream has dipped unsually far south. Nothing to do with how much IR the CO2 in the atmosphere is trapping and re-emitting to warm the air.

1/10/2010 10:38:06 PM

O I C

Katrina is proof of global warming

Hot summers are proof of global warming

But a record smashing cold winter is just a freak occurrence in an otherwise warming planet. Gotcha!

1/10/2010 10:56:05 PM

Where did I say anything about Katrina or hot summers? The media can be silly frontrunners to either side of an argument.

1/10/2010 10:57:47 PM

unfortunately only one side

1/10/2010 10:59:00 PM

Somebody hasn't watched fox news lately.

You must also understand the difference between weather and climate. Weather is now. Climate is long run average. Thats why this cold spell, katrina, and any other weather event are moot and calling this whole thing "global warming" is a bit misleading.

[Edited on January 10, 2010 at 11:03 PM. Reason : albeit warming refers to increase in total heat not just air temperature]

1/10/2010 10:59:54 PM

Fox News is a very tiny sliver of the media industry. Even though its the number one cable news channel, the cable news market is itself a very tiny sliver of the media industry.

Sorry, Fox News isn't your get out of liberal media bias free card.

1/10/2010 11:02:27 PM

I would not call it a bias. Its just like if someone brings a few pieces of circumstatial evidence against someone who CLEARLY commited a crime.

A liberal bias would be the media deliberately stating carbon tax/cap and trade need to be implemented or something like that.

Stating there is a problem which is clearly a fact but using a few bad pieces of evidence doesn't account for a bias.

Foxnews however, is clearly a bias because their false facts are supporting a blatantly false argument that nothing serious is going on at all.

[Edited on January 10, 2010 at 11:08 PM. Reason : fundamental difference there]

1/10/2010 11:07:52 PM

guys what u arguing about. i fixed global warming with those synthetic trees. whats the problem.

1/10/2010 11:44:21 PM

seems like that would cost more than dealing with the effects

[Edited on January 10, 2010 at 11:52 PM. Reason : eff aff]

1/10/2010 11:51:53 PM

^^I wish innovative solutions like that were discussed more because there are a lot of them, and some of them just might work.

1/11/2010 12:34:30 AM

Innovative solutions are banned by governments because of the possibility of far-reaching negative implications. See Planktos.

[Edited on January 11, 2010 at 6:16 AM. Reason : Just hope we don't kill all the birds in the world with wind turbines.]

1/11/2010 6:15:27 AM

these aren't wind turbines. these trees are a composite that absorb 1 ton of co2 a day, and can be rinsed with water to wash the carbon right off.

just did my research and math. humans emit 60k tons of co2 a day. if we build 60k of these total. that's like 3-5k per 1st world rich country, we not only end the co2 problem but we could literally reverse it.

--oh and mambagrl is starting to sound like he/she/it watched ferngully too much last weekend. the tidal waves are coming. better build your raft.



[Edited on January 11, 2010 at 10:13 AM. Reason : 6]

1/11/2010 10:08:00 AM

where does that CO2 go once you wash it off? link?

1/11/2010 10:14:12 AM

google 'utah carbon storage project' for tons of info:

here is a bit:

way up there i knew teh big question on everybodies mind would be 'but wehere does the carbon go???'

Quote :

"A joint venture between the U and Headwaters Inc. has been created to offer carbon management services to CO2-emitting companies, from carbon storage engineering to risk and liability management. The first project will be to develop and operate a regional CO2 storage site to serve several power plants in central Utah. "

now IF this works, (in the tests/labs so far it is working fine, these things absorb carbon like crazy, and you just hose em down once a day) we could literally plan out our emissions and tear down/ build more of these things depending on human output.

i bet we'll see if this works soon and who knows, in 10 years this project could be under way.

[Edited on January 11, 2010 at 10:25 AM. Reason : 7]

1/11/2010 10:19:51 AM

You guys are missing the point. The goal of "combatting" global warming is not to reduce CO2, but rather to give the gov. an ability to tax businesses and pick economic winners/losers. Think planned economy.

1/11/2010 10:36:17 AM

^ no i totally agree. nanny state is the goal here 100%.

just saying. if we want to have permafrost and rainforests on this planet 100 years from now, i mean the solution is staring us right in the face.

1/11/2010 10:43:54 AM

Who let the idiots loose in this thread?

BTW carbon trapping with those "trees" won't do much of anything, since CO2 isn't a main driver of the climate.

1/11/2010 1:00:17 PM

^lol @ this fuck.

1/11/2010 1:16:41 PM

A short article about how CO2 capture and sequestration is being addressed by MIT:

http://www.physorg.com/news182420883.html

1/11/2010 1:36:57 PM

We should all just buy carbon credits and it'll make everything better, right?

1/11/2010 1:40:50 PM

carzak and tketeg are right. let's just put aside any possible solutions and let al gore lead us to the promised land. his carbon credits should be able to salvage everything pretty much. no biggie.

1/11/2010 1:48:10 PM

SURELY SEQUESTERING a trace gas that makes up 0.03% of the atmosphere will save us all.




You idiot. And correct me if I'm wrong, but you were a skeptic just a few pages ago in this
thread. Idiot.

1/11/2010 4:39:21 PM

I would caution you against disparaging the importance and effects of trace gases in our atmosphere. . .

1/11/2010 5:58:26 PM

TKE-Teg is like an actual scientist. Plus I'm pretty sure he has an emergency 2012 barge just in case al gores predictions come true.

1/12/2010 1:17:13 PM

^ You are PinkandBlack, aren't you?

1/12/2010 1:18:46 PM

^^Actually I just know that a theory is suspect when it violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

1/12/2010 1:40:41 PM

i think tke-teg and others just dont want this to happen:



highways of the future dudes. get used to it. throw some of the solar road panels they are drumming up to be possible



man even some free wifi on these things with the free energy captured. bam. co2 emissions reversed.

fuck tke-keg while he rots as a grandpa in the corner mumbling nonsense about al gore credits he invested in.
edit: ha and i'll let his assinine thermodynamics statement get obliterated by somebody else. lmfao.

[Edited on January 12, 2010 at 1:45 PM. Reason : 34]

1/12/2010 1:43:07 PM

who would be paying for those roads?

1/12/2010 2:30:06 PM

no this idea is expensive for sure. but do-able? maybe. just do a little bit at a time. just want to reach c02 equilibrium point at least one day. we'll see.


[Edited on January 12, 2010 at 3:52 PM. Reason : 3]

1/12/2010 3:45:29 PM

Copenhagen Summit Turned Junket?
Exclusive: At Least 20 Members of Congress Made the Trip to Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen Last Month
WASHINGTON, Jan. 11, 2010

Quote :

"(CBS) Few would argue with the U.S. having a presence at the Copenhagen Climate Summit. But wait until you hear what we found about how many in Congress got all-expense paid trips to Denmark on your dime. CBS investigative correspondent Sharyl Attkisson reports that cameras spotted House Speaker Nancy Pelosi at the summit. She called the shots on who got to go. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, and embattled Chairman of the Tax Committee Charles Rangel were also there. They were joined by 17 colleagues: Democrats: Waxman, Miller, Markey, Gordon, Levin, Blumenauer, DeGette, Inslee, Ryan, Butterfield, Cleaver, Giffords, and Republicans: Barton, Upton, Moore Capito, Sullivan, Blackburn and Sensenbrenner. That's not the half of it. But finding out more was a bit like trying to get the keys to Ft. Knox. Many referred us to Speaker Pelosi who wouldn't agree to an interview. Her office said it 'will comply with disclosure requirements' but wouldn't give us cost estimates or even tell us where they all stayed. Senator Inhofe (R-OK) is one of the few who provided us any detail. He attended the summit on his own for just a few hours, to give an 'opposing view.' 'They're going because it's the biggest party of the year,' Sen. Inhofe said. 'The worst thing that happened there is they ran out of caviar.' Our investigation found that the congressional delegation was so large, it needed three military jets: two 737's and a Gulfstream Five -- up to 64 passengers -- traveling in luxurious comfort. Add senators and staff, most of whom flew commercial, and we counted at least 101 Congress-related attendees. All for a summit that failed to deliver a global climate deal. As a perk, some took spouses, since they could snag an open seat on a military jet or share a room at no extra cost to taxpayers. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) was there with her husband. Rep. Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV) was also there with her husband. Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) took his wife, as did Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI). Congressman Barton -- a climate change skeptic -- even brought along his daughter. Until required filings are made in the coming weeks, we can only figure bits and pieces of the cost to you. -Three military jets at $9,900 per hour - $168,000 just in flight time. -Dozens flew commercial at up to $2,000 each. (CBS) -321 hotel nights booked - the bulk at Copenhagen's five-star Marriott. -Meals add tens of thousands more. Steve Ellis of Taxpayers for Common Sense, wasn't against a U.S. presence. But he said, 'Every penny counts. Congress should be shaking the couch cushions looking for change, rather than spending cash for everybody to go to Copenhagen.' Nobody we asked would defend the super-sized Congressional presence on camera. One Democrat said it showed the world the U.S. is serious about climate change. [LOL!] And all those attendees who went to the summit rather than hooking up by teleconference? They produced enough climate-stunting carbon dioxide to fill 10,000 Olympic swimming pools. Which means even if Congress didn't get a global agreement - they left an indelible footprint all the same."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/01/11/cbsnews_investigates/main6084364.shtml

Sweet Jesus.

DRAIN

THE

SWAMP

1/13/2010 4:07:07 AM

Quote :

"Senator Inhofe (R-OK) is one of the few who provided us any detail. He attended the summit on his own for just a few hours, to give an 'opposing view.'"

But what about the big and bad Truth Squad???? Haha. Now there's some fail for you.

1/13/2010 5:19:22 AM

This is not as simple as just putting these things up. It would costs trillions just to make enough to put up all over the world, then it would be much more complex than just putting them up. You have to have people with models and research making sure TOO MUCH isn't taken in and send us into an ice age. This research would cost billions and then you have to be able to change the rate at which co2 is being taken in depending on how much emmissions are taking place.

It surely would cost more than letting climate change run wild and dealing with its effects directly.

1/13/2010 8:16:30 AM

too much CO2 taken out now sends us into an ice age.

you guys do realize this is a trace gas in our atmosphere, right?

1/13/2010 8:51:12 AM

So is O3 and I would dare say you'd question its validity.

1/13/2010 9:06:00 AM

^^without co2 the global average would fall to about 14F. That wouldn't really matter because as co2 levels decreased, plants would die, especially the ones adjacent to your "scrubbers".

1/13/2010 11:28:48 AM