Proving that no segment, be it even one on food trends, is safe from liberal bias, NBC's "Today" show food editor claimed, in a report on hot new food trends, that global warming was causing Napa Valley wines to become passe. On Thursday's "Today" show co-anchors Ann Curry and Hoda Kotb sipped wine, while Lempert claimed that North Carolina wines were going to be all the rage because Napa Valley wineries were being harmed by "global warming."
The following exchange occurred on the March 27 "Today" show:
ANN CURRY: Talk about the wines because now you're saying--
PHIL LEMPERT: Napa, Napa out!
CURRY: It's not out! It'll never be out. I'd quibble with that.
LEMPERT: Well, well now according to global warming studies--
HODA KOTB: Yeah?
LEMPERT: --what we see is it's getting warmer in Napa.
KOTB: Oh okay.
LEMPERT: So by the end of this century about six degrees warmer. So now the new wines are coming from North Carolina and--
KOTB: I think Ann you can taste that.
LEMPERT: You can taste the wine. And, and this is what's gonna be hot this year.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
I know nothing about
March 27, 2008 - 14:37 ET by ricklailI know nothing about growing grapes. I do know that the more sun a fruit/vegetable gets the sweeter it is. Seems that you would want a grape with a lot of sugar. They are producing some great wines up in the Yadkin Valley of NC. Duplin County NC, not far from here, has been producing wines for I know the last 30 years. So to say that GW is helping NC in wine production is just more crap from the GW alarmist. I would give credit to NCSU for developing a grape for the climate that they have around Yadkinville and that area. One of the wineries in that area is owned by the Richard Childress of Richard Childress Racing. By the way I am no expert on wine either other than the late Justin Wilson would say you don't cook with no wine you wouldn't drink. I cook with it but don't imbib much.
Areas west of the Yadkin Valley like in the Brushy Mountains and Blue Ridge are well known for their apples. It is because of the warm days and cools nights.
If you ain't the lead dog, the scenery never changes.-Lewis Grizzard
The Duplin wines are pretty good
March 27, 2008 - 16:19 ET by Matthew Sheffieldif you're looking for a sweet table wine or a sipping wine. I wouldn't recommend them to anyone who's a fan of drier, oakier wines or even medium-bodied ones.
MSN.com "Green" Joins The Wine Tasting Club
March 28, 2008 - 00:02 ET by zeestephenHave these guys started coordinating their stories?
The MSN.com homepage is highlighting an article titled, "Australia Wine Industry Withers."
Betcha can't guess what it's all about.
According to Reuters, southern Australia had an apocalyptic heat wave and drought last year.
Irrigated water costs more than oil, thousands of grape growers throwing in the towel (or vine), growers moving to Tasmania and New Zealand because global warming has made those once frigid islands ideal for vineyards, etc.
Living near wine country
March 28, 2008 - 10:55 ET by cleverpigLiving near wine country I've heard a fair amount of concern about this in local papers.
To explain, wine from Napa is good because of a very particular microclimate that can be easily disrupted. Namely, hot summers with regular cooling because of morning fog. If you disrupt the fog, which will happen if ocean temps rise, and probably if surface temps rise, then you lose that crucial element. I don't know why it's important... maybe the fog blanket helps the grapes tolerate higher temperatures that increase sugar. I don't know.
By the same token, places that had previously been too cold for producing wine will become more suitable. There won't be an end to wine or anything. But that doesn't help you if you own ridiculously expensive land in the Napa valley that won't be good for growing grapes any more!
Is the earth getting
March 27, 2008 - 14:34 ET by balboaIs the earth getting warmer?
bal, No not this year.
March 27, 2008 - 14:44 ET by upcountrywater<wake up>SAVVVE The Whales N' Earth; conserve N' recycle !
IranianUranium<sleep>Infrastructure/repair?/ROFLMAO
Not for a decade now,
March 27, 2008 - 18:40 ET by CortillaenNot for a decade now, according to some sources. Someone ought to track down Gore and ask him, on camera, what his response will be if global temperatures continue to fall over the next few years. Of course, it's moot point anyway: He'll dispute any scientific data with the numbers less scrupulous "scientists" are paid to provide, or provide at no charge just to further their own ideology. When you've people willing to tell you what you want to hear, truth disregarded, living a fantasy is simple.
www.rhjunior.com Great comics with a hefty dose of Christian and anti-nutjob goodness.
"With your mind as high as Mt. Fuji you can see all things clearly. And you can see all the forces that shape events; not just the things near to you." -Miyamoto Musashi
Critics Great-Grandchildren
March 27, 2008 - 14:50 ET by CaringwhiteguyOut intrepid critic's Great-Grandchildren might be around to evaluate his 6 degree warming "prediction". He sure as hell won't be. So drink up and enjoy.
I offer to flash-freeze him
March 27, 2008 - 18:16 ET by CortillaenI offer to flash-freeze him on the condition that I get to do it at my earliest convenience. That way, he'll last the remaining 92 years, and we won't have to hear any more of his ignorance. Of course, there's no guarantee that he'll be thawed out, either...
www.rhjunior.com Great comics with a hefty dose of Christian and anti-nutjob goodness.
"With your mind as high as Mt. Fuji you can see all things clearly. And you can see all the forces that shape events; not just the things near to you." -Miyamoto Musashi
No it is getting colder
March 27, 2008 - 19:01 ET by PopularTech2007, Coolest Winter Since 2001 For U.S., Globe, According To NOAA Data (Science Daily)
"The average temperature across both the contiguous U.S. and the globe during climatological winter (December 2007-February 2008) was the coolest since 2001, according to scientists at NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C.
During January alone, 170 inches of snow fell at the Alta ski area near Salt Lake City, Utah, more than twice the normal amount for the month, eclipsing the previous record of 168 inches that fell in 1967. At the end of February, seasonal precipitation for the 2008 Water Year, which began on October 1, 2007, was well above average over much of the West.
Mountain snowpack exceeded 150 percent of average in large parts of Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, and Oregon at the end of February. Spring run-off from the above average snowpack in the West is expected to be beneficial in drought plagued areas.
Record February precipitation in the Northeast helped make the winter the fifth wettest on record for the region. New York had its wettest winter, while Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Vermont, and Colorado to the West, had their second wettest.
Snowfall was above normal in northern New England, where some locations posted all-time record winter snow totals. Concord, N.H., received 100.1 inches, which was 22.1 inches above the previous record set during the winter of 1886-87. Burlington, Vt., received 103.2 inches, which was 6.3 inches above the previous record set during the winter of 1970-71."
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
not getting colder
March 27, 2008 - 23:54 ET by meteor79Yeah, it has been a pretty incredible winter, but the colder relative temperatures have not been that surprising given the moderate to strong La Nina. To say that the climate is getting colder because of one season is a distortion. It would be more more appropriate to say that this season is an example of how large interannual variability can be superimposed on the longer term climate signal, which is still warming. Keep in the mind that the same argument also holds true for very warm events like in 1998 when very warm temperatures were related to El Nino.
The Oceans have been cooling for the last 4-5 Years
March 28, 2008 - 00:09 ET by PopularTechShort-Term Ocean Cooling Suggests Global Warming 'Speed Bump' (Science Daily)
The Oceans Have Stopped Warming! (Canada Free Press)
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Still way too short....
March 28, 2008 - 00:35 ET by meteor79There is still too much interannual varability within a 4-5 year period to diagnose any long term climate trends. One of these articles even implies this and makes a case for AGW!! Perhaps you should start reading the links you post...
Exerpt from:
Short-Term Ocean Cooling Suggests Global Warming 'Speed Bump' (Science Daily)
Although the average temperature of the upper oceans has
significantly cooled since 2003, the decline is a fraction of the total
ocean warming over the previous 48 years.
"This research suggests global warming isn't always steady, but
happens with occasional 'speed bumps'," said Josh Willis, a co-author
of the study at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif.
"This cooling is probably natural climate variability. The oceans today
are still warmer than they were during the 1980s, and most scientists
expect the oceans will eventually continue to warm in response to
human-induced climate change."
The Ocean is still cooling...
March 28, 2008 - 02:25 ET by PopularTechOh I read the links I post, every one.
"The average temperature of the water near the top of the Earth's oceans has significantly cooled since 2003. [...]
Researchers found the average temperature of the upper ocean ... fell 0.055 degrees Fahrenheit from 2003 to 2005. [...]
The recent changes in ocean temperature run deep. A small amount of cooling was detected at the ocean's surface, consistent with global measurements of sea-surface temperature. The maximum amount of cooling was at a depth of about 1,300 feet, but substantial cooling was still observed at 2,500 feet, and the cooling appears to extend deeper."
People are free to make up their own minds.
"This cooling is probably natural climate variability."
Obviously when it cools it is natural but when it warms it is caused by man!
Nothing in the article makes a "case" for AGW, the commentary tries to make an EXCUSE for AGW.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
PopTech
March 28, 2008 - 02:45 ET by gfrrocksFunny how I read this article just yesterday and came to the same conclusion. EVERYTHING, no matter how, when,what or where.....causes AGW. These peeps are ingrained with destroying AMERICA. Where is the outrage with China and India?(crickets chirpping...) It's a "Salem Witchhunt"!!!!
AGW causes it all!
March 28, 2008 - 02:58 ET by PopularTechAGW causes it all! Literally. And they will make excuses for what ever does not fit the theory. Environmentalists are radical anti-capitalists and would like nothing better than to destroy the nation as we know it. Don't believe me? Ask any radical environmentalist: Capitalism or Socialism?
If they were so concerned about the environment they would be going after the real polluters such as China:
China rejects binding targets on greenhouse emissions (Forbes)
- Alarming Growth In Expected Carbon Dioxide Emissions In China, Analysis Finds (Science Daily)
- China surpasses United States in emissions (United Press International)
- 750,000 a year killed by Chinese pollution (Financial Times, UK)
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Pop T
March 28, 2008 - 03:02 ET by gfrrocksMy point exactly....They failed at communism and their only thing to latch onto is AGW to try destroy the U.S. What burns me is that they live here among us...aka AlGore and Co.
PT's cold logic wins everytime!
March 28, 2008 - 05:47 ET by Jack BauerPT -- God bless you for your extreme diligence of this subject on NBers.
Man.. I have no idea how you keep this up... confronting the WARM EARTHERS and logic deniers so I don't have to!
re: Pop Tech
March 28, 2008 - 14:04 ET by meteor79"Oh I read the links I post, every one."
Yeah, right.
The quotes you've cited from the article don't change anything! They are still only talking about a 2-year period.
"Obviously when it cools it is natural but when it warms it is caused by man!"
Keep distorting. I, in know way, implied this. Anomalously warm years (like '98) are also products of natural variability. The relevant question is... What is the longer term signal superimposed on the interannual fluctuations?
YES I read all my links
March 28, 2008 - 15:13 ET by PopularTechPlease don't insult my intelligence. Except for the peer-reviewed papers I have only read each one's abstract and conclusion but I have read many completely. I most surely have not memorized them. I have been researching this for many years but only intensely since Al Gore's propaganda movie and the start of the hysteria.
I am well aware many of my links include AGW excuses, this is unavoidable and has nothing to do with why I link to them which is clearly explained in my quotes. Alarmists like to cherry pick the AGW excuses.
A 2-year period of cooling. The other link talks about the longer continuation of the trend. Something I am sure the alarmists are waiting on releasing officially once they have added in enough AGW excuses to make it acceptable for publication.
The question is who decides where the longer term signal starts?
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
"A 2-year period of
March 28, 2008 - 15:59 ET by meteor79"A 2-year period of cooling. The other link talks about the longer continuation of the trend."
What!? The second link is a commentary (by Dennis Avery of all people; no agenda there), which simply discusses the exact same thing as the first link. Both links discuss 4-5 years of observations, which is way too short of a period to diagnose any long-term trends. How many times does this have to be explained! The second link (Dennis Avery's) is a gross mis-interpretation of the stuff cited in the first link, something Dennis Avery has a habit of doing:
http://www.desmogblo...
http://www.realclima...
This also highlights an annoying tactic of yours: using different links/references discussing the same thing to "pad" your infamous lists of links.
The Propagandist links to a smear site
March 28, 2008 - 18:56 ET by PopularTechPlease stop with the propaganda...
The first link talks about a 2-year ocean cooling trend because that article was released in 2006:
Short-Term Ocean Cooling Suggests Global Warming 'Speed Bump' (Science Daily)
"Researchers found the average temperature ... fell 0.055 degrees
Fahrenheit from 2003 to 2005"
The second link talks about a 4-5 year ocean cooling trend which is an obvious continuation of the 2-year trend documented in 2006 based on an interview on NPR in 2008:
The Oceans Have Stopped Warming! (Canada Free Press)
"The oceans, which contain 80 to 90 percent of the planet’s heat, have recently stopped warming! Over the past 4-5 years, “there has been a very slight cooling, but not
anything really significant,” Josh Willis of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory recently told National Public Radio."
You seem obsessed with discussing a long term trend of which I am trying to discuss a recent 4-5 year ocean COOLING trend.
Avery's article has nothing to do with the first one but rather a recent NPR interview.
Wow, it did not take you long to link to a far-left smear site:
www.DeSmogBlog.com by James Hoggan
$$$ Funded by John Lefebvre (Former President of Netseller Group)
- Who is James Hoggan? (Financial Post, Canada)
"So who is James Hoggan? He's a public relations man, based in Vancouver. His firm, James Hoggan and Associates, is positioned as a feel-good local operation with clients in all the "right" public and private sectors. He also sits on the board of the David Suzuki Foundation.
One of his side efforts is a blog operated out of Hoggan and Associates. Funded by retired Internet bubble king John Lefebvre, the blog has one full-time and three part-time staff. They spend their time tracking down and maliciously attacking all who have doubts about climate change and painting them as corporate pawns.
There has been no mention on the blog, nor on The Fifth Estate, of James Hoggan's client list. They include or have included the National Hydrogen Association, Fuel Cells Canada, hydrogen producer QuestAir, Naikun Wind Energy and Ballard Fuel Cells. Mr. Hoggan, in other words, benefits from regulatory policy based on climate change science.
But it is as a climate commentator that Mr. Hoggan gets carried away. On The Denial Machine, Mr. Hoggan is allowed to go on at some length about how climate skeptics are not true scientists, are not qualified, or have no expertise.
That takes some gall. Here's a totally unqualified small-town PR guy making disparaging comments about scientists he says are unqualified while he lectures the rest of us on the science. "If you look in the scientific literature, there is no debate," he tells Mr. McKeown. It doesn't seem to bother Mr. McKeown that Mr. Hoggan has no expertise. It is also a little rich to have a
member of the Suzuki Foundation board pronounce other scientists unfit and unqualified for climate assessments, while geneticist David Suzuki roams the world issuing barrages of climate change warnings at every opportunity."
...and of course realclimate.
I have an annoying habit of backing up what I talk about with facts and sources. I will try to stop doing that in the future or maybe NOT.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
"You seem obsessed with
March 28, 2008 - 20:45 ET by meteor79"You seem obsessed with discussing a long term trend of which I am trying to discuss a recent 4-5 year ocean COOLING trend."
Okay, that is fine if you are just noting a recent trend. However, do you agree that it is pointless to discuss such short term trends in the context of climate change? It seems that is what Avery and you are both trying to do.
That is fine if you take issue with Desmogblog or whatever; I don't really know anything about it. Although, I do find it slightly ironic that you take issue with realclimate. You wouldn't want to listen to actual climate scientists, would you? Guys like Avery and Singer who aren't climate scientists and haven't done actual science in decades ought to be much more knowledgeable!
Proof is in the puding
March 28, 2008 - 23:44 ET by dboIf that staement is true, how on earth (pardon the pun) can Hansen make his doomsday scenarios in 1988?
http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/MSUvsRSS.html
Let's face it... on a macro scale 100 years is a "short term". For Hansen to say the things he said in 1988 speaks more to his degree in mathematics than anything else.
Dr. Singer is not a climate scientist?
March 28, 2008 - 22:39 ET by PopularTechWhen he extensive experience in environmental sciences...
S. Fred Singer, B.E.E. Electrical Engineering, A.M. Ph.D. Physics, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia
1971-1994
Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA. Planetary science; global environmental issues (acid rain, greenhouse warming, ozone depletion); cost-benefit analysis; oil and energy(economics and public policy); economic and environmental impacts of population growth.
1970-1971
Deputy Assistant Administrator (Policy), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Also, chaired Interagency Work Group on Environmental Impacts of the Supersonic Transport.
1967-1970
Deputy Assistant Secretary (Water Quality and Research), U.S. Department of the Interior. Also, integrated atmospheric/oceanographic activities within the Department.
1964-1967
(First) Dean of the School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences, University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL. Expanded the oceanographic institute and added departments of atmospheric sciences and geophysics.
1962-1964
(First) Director, National Weather Satellite Center (now part of NOAA), U.S. Department of Commerce. Established operational systems for remote sensing and for management of atmosphere, ocean, and land surface data.
Unlike real-climate "experts" like:
Gavin Schmidt, Ph.D. Applied Mathematics
Interesting how 2004 is now "decades" ago:
Disparity of tropospheric and surface temperature trends: New evidence
(Geophysical Research Letters, VOL. 31, L13207, 2004)
- David H. Douglass, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer, Paul C. Knappenberger, Patrick J. Michaels
I don't think it is any more pointless then discussing a 30-year trend and relating the causation to man-made CO2.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
PopT
March 28, 2008 - 22:41 ET by BlondeIf I haven't said it before, thank you for keeping the warming trolls' ears pinned back.
It's so supremely tiresome to see them come here, day after day, week after week, with their usual propaganda. And blather on....and on....and on.
I just don't have any energy for this topic, any longer. But I do, sir, appreciate your tireless efforts in this regard.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
No Problem
March 28, 2008 - 22:53 ET by PopularTechThere is enough of us here to present the facts the other side likes to ignore.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Why don't you compare the
March 29, 2008 - 01:34 ET by meteor79Why don't you compare the number of peer-reviewed articles related to climate science published by Gavin Schmidt and Fred Singer? Here is the link to Schmidt's publication list:
http://pubs.giss.nas...
I counted 25 peer-reviewed articles for 2006-2007 in which Schmidt was author or co-author. How many does Singer have for this period. Lets see.... ZERO. hmmmm... who is actually actively engaged in the science?
More lies about Dr. Singer
March 29, 2008 - 01:56 ET by PopularTechYou are so desperate to spread your propaganda you will outright lie about Dr. Singer
A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions
(International Journal of Climatology, 5 Dec 2007)
- David H. Douglass, John R. Christy, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer
Why don't we compare the number of words typed at RealClimate.org? I mean surely whoever publishes the most papers and endlessly types words clearly is right. I had no idea science was determined this way?
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Okay, so that is 25 to 1.
March 29, 2008 - 02:02 ET by meteor79Okay, so that is 25 to 1. I'll finally admit, though, that you have a point... Publishing isn't a prerequisite for "being right". The point is that Singer is not actively engaged in climate science like much more respected scientists.
Dr. Singer is not actively engaged in climate science?
March 29, 2008 - 08:32 ET by PopularTechDr. Singer just recently gave a presentation at the Global Warming Conference in New York City, co-authored a peer-reviewed paper on global warming and released the second edition of his most recent book on climate change. Not bad for an 84-year old scientist "out of the loop".
Ah so you, the 'deciderer' also now determine who is "respected" or not? Is this a joke?
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Technicalities
March 29, 2008 - 10:01 ET by PopularTechSchmidt was only the lead author on 4 papers out of the 25 and another was a book review and another a "commentary". Almost every paper deals directly with modeling.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
The Peer Review MacArticles scam
March 29, 2008 - 08:44 ET by Jack BauerWow...
This guy really is the Big Mac of "peer reviewed MacArticles.."
Two a month... that's two weeks of "intensive research." Sure shows that Einstein up.
It's truly amazing how he churns out these "peer reviewed MacArticles" while at the same time "peer" reviewing all his mates other "peer reviewed" MacArticles.
And also doing MacScience research.
I guess once you get into the "peer reviewed Mac articles" scam, the world is your shytser. Never mind the quality, feel the Macwidth.
Does it ever cross your mind what a brainwashed, led by the Macnose dope you sound. I guess not.
Heavy emphasis on the word scam Jack
March 29, 2008 - 10:35 ET by dboIt's hard to believe that anyone could put "peer reviewed " and "Gavin Scmhidt" in the same sentence and talk with any credibility about the subject.
http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/others/07142006_Wegman_Report.pdf
I think it's fair to say the U.S. House exposed Schmidt's peer reviews to be nothing more than his beer drinking buddies. In case it's hard to understand english, Wegman even draws some nice fancy charts and graphs to show how cozy the relationship is with his "peer reviewed" pals. Among the highlights:
"Our findings from this analysis suggest that authors in the area of paleoclimate studies are closely connected and thus 'independent studies' may not be as independent as they might appear on the surface."
dbo -- no crap? I've never
March 29, 2008 - 10:42 ET by Jack Bauerdbo -- no crap? I've never heard of the guy... but I know the Warm Earthers constantly tout "peer review" as if that proves something -- other than a load of people predisposed to believe something and agree with you.
I mean, what sort of believe anything nut do you have to be, to wonder if someone churning out stuff at 2 a month isn't a little oh -- suspicious. What quality can that have?
I'll say it again ... science advances by scientists trying to falsify and refute hypothosis and theories. Find fault. Not stand around in a circle jerk.
Jack, the Wegman Report
March 29, 2008 - 11:08 ET by dboJack,
the Wegman Report was launched in the US House after Steve McIntyre exposed the Michael Mann hockey stick fraud. The report deals mainly with Michael Mann (shameless) but also looks at his peer reviewed buddies, one of which is Schmidt. I saw Mann, Schmidt and James Hansen on Larry King one time together-they're tight! Here's agreat article on the hockey stick fraud:
http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2007-03-04-1.html
So
March 28, 2008 - 00:22 ET by gfrrockshow are you going to explain that line of BS when the next few La Ninos or La Ninas are "normal". I'd consult "the scientist" alGore....he knows all............................about how to fly in jet planes and live in 30,000 sq/ft house and sell bogus carbon trade-offs while telling you that you should live in a mud hut and wash your clothes in a creek and dry them on a string. Yeah, that's the ticket...btw what is the "ideal" world temperature?
The same supposed "BS" will
March 28, 2008 - 00:40 ET by meteor79The same supposed "BS" will apply. Not all individual ENSO events affect temps in the same way, but they are still sources of natural variability. No need to consult the Goracle on that one.
"#69"
March 28, 2008 - 00:48 ET by gfrrocksSo, if it is extremely hot or cold it is still AGW. Yeah, that's the ticket and explains ALL. Increase in Sun activity would have nothing to do with it or alGore burning it up at his mansion and Lear Jets either....hypocrite. Whatever the event it is attributed to AGW. That sure makes it scientific "fact" as long as those on the AGW side says it's so.."the debate(there never was a debate, and alGore doesn't want a debate) is over"...puleeeeeeze. Bizarro World only need apply...
Stop obssessing....
March 28, 2008 - 01:08 ET by meteor79Whoa... maybe you should stop obsessing over Gore and take a good look at the actual science. Where did I invoke Al Gore? And what is so hard to understand about climate oscillating from year to year, but on average warming?
When did the "ice age" from
March 28, 2008 - 01:15 ET by gfrrocksWhen did the "ice age" from the 70s end and what is the ideal world temperature? It's just been said this week that the earth has been cooling since 1998. Wth you talking about?
gfrrocks, meteor79 is a total space cadet.
March 28, 2008 - 01:22 ET by R D HelmAnd, as his SN suggests, he is stuck in '79. Only problem was, we high schoolers at the time were being inundated with all sorts of horror stories of the coming ice age. :-O
It seems we are about to relive that trauma once again, given the climate data of the last ten years.
LOL-I think he missed a couple of decades in the cycle.
Theme for Election '08: I want my mommy!
R D
March 28, 2008 - 01:37 ET by gfrrocksFunny how these "enlightened" dolts can't answer the question. I wanna know when the "ice age" of the 70s ended and what is the ideal temperature of the earth? Btw, from what I gather from reading some of your posts, you sound like you live in the Atlanta, Ga area. Well, I am in the area on the north side of the suburbs.(I am, right now toasting a Dogfish 90 minute Imperial style IPA to you)...glub,glub.... ;-)
Ha! funny, even though I
March 28, 2008 - 01:42 ET by meteor79Ha! funny, even though I have no idea what you're talking about.
There was no ice age during the 70s and I don't know what the ideal temperature of the Earth is. Happy?
met#69
March 28, 2008 - 02:36 ET by gfrrocks....so if there is no ideal temp. for the earth, then how do you tell when man has it right?.....by how much $$$ is wasted on carbon credits?(TOTAL BS) What is the criterion? It is ridiculous and if you don't know the answer to that question then you lose the argument. If man, somehow goes too low in levelling the temperature that is thought to be right, what happens then.? You can't fu#$ with mother nature. Your whole premise is wrong not to know what the ideal earth temperature is then. "God what have we done"? Quit messing with mother nature, she takes care of us...mostly despite our help. Bottom line...to think that man can alter this planet in the way that has been suggested is delusional. Look at Europe and the mandates they implented and couldn't keep that did nothing, absolutely nothing to affect AGW. AGW is nothing short of a communist plot to destroy the economy of the U.S. and nothing more. Why do you think the countries that have signed on to the bogus Kyoto Treaty have done so........envy. They hate what we have and want (as the Democrats in this counrtry are wont to do)to level the playing field. This is their chance. Sign on, you mymidon, and keep your head in the sand of opposing facts...alGore has'em all..."the debate is over".
AGW is nothing short of a
March 28, 2008 - 09:25 ET by meteor79AGW is nothing short of a communist plot to destroy the economy of the U.S. and nothing more.
And you think I am delusional?! Get some help....
Rabbit socialism
March 28, 2008 - 10:03 ET by dbometeor79,
perhaps "communist plot" is a bit over the top but you can't deny that under the Kyoto protocol a huge transfer of wealth has taken place from rich nations to poorer nations.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601101&sid=akEM_x0ximjk&refer=japan
True there was no ice age
March 28, 2008 - 07:13 ET by danboTrue there was no ice age in the 70's though i heard the predictions.
If you look at global temperture annomalies there was an averaged decrease of .2C from about 1940 to about 1975. Actual yearly highs closer to about .5C. All while CO2 was increasing. There was a similar decrease from about 1875 to about 1910.
There was an increase in tempertures of more than .4C from about 1910-1940. This increase is interesting. There was a world depression and economic downturn. Thus a limited increase in fuel consumption.
Then we have the recent warming trend from the late 70's and early 80's. And it's looking like we're going into another cooling trend. And I'm sure in about 20 years as we approach the next change in cycle we'll be hearing about global cooling.
Correlation coefficients between world fuel consumption and temperture trends?
1875-1910 cooling descending -.71
1910-1940 warming ascending +.28
1940-1975 cooling descending -.88
1975-2000 warming ascending +.95
It's hard to get worked up as climate seems to be irrelevant to fuel consumption..
Source
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
While the media may have emphasized cooling...
March 28, 2008 - 01:39 ET by meteor79While the media may have emphasized global cooling during the 1970s, scientists believed no such thing. According to a recent BAMS (Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society) article in which a literature review for the period 1965 - 1979 was conducted:
---------------------------------------------------
In other words, during the 1970s, when some would have you believe
scientists were predicting a coming ice age, they were doing no such
thing. The dominant view, even then, was that increasing levels of
greenhouse gases were likely to dominate any changes we might see in
climate on human time scales.
-------------------------------------------------------
So, it has been cooling since 1998? Well, duh. If you draw in a trend from a recent anomalously warm year to a recent anomalously cool year then you'd get cooling. But this practice would not be appropriate for diagnosing long term climate trends, which still indicate warming despite the recent cool spell.
met#69"
March 28, 2008 - 01:56 ET by gfrrocksso we've been warming a total of how many degrees in the last 1200 yrs? Less than 1 degree? THE SKY IS FALLING!!! RUN FOR YOUR LIVES !!! What of the previous 1200 yrs? Got any "data" on that alGore? And what was once Greenland that is now ICE???? Hmmmm........just doesn't add up. And why does alGore and the AGW crowd ignore the 1800s of Industry build-up and AUTOMOBILES of carbon fuel yet the data is flat for that time period? Again...hmmmmmmmmm....doesn't fit the agenda. Ignore the increase in sun heating activity and that the surrounding planets of the earth are hotter yet there are no humans or activity from such that would lead to Mars or Mercury or Venus heating up? Please explain, grasshopper..you must learn the ways...
When you see Al with his
March 28, 2008 - 06:28 ET by danboWhen you see Al with his chart of world tempertures. Pay close attention to the chart. The baseline or mean isn't the true mean it's mean +. Apparently, Al didn't want you to see those periods above mean in the MWP.
Then notice. The older records are smoothed. Missing spiked. They were using average tempertures. Then look to the right. You see the spikes. They went from using means to using yearly tempertures. It's more dramatic to selling their brand of crises.
Another point. The older records are from proxy data. Rather than continue to use proxy data, they shift to surface tempertures.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
Global Cooling
March 28, 2008 - 02:54 ET by PopularTechSo we have documented evidence that the media does not report the science correctly? Thank you for proving my point:
1970 - Colder Winters Held Dawn of New Ice Age (The Washington Post)
1971 - U.S. Scientist Sees New Ice Age Coming (The Washington Post)
1974 - Another Ice Age? (Time Magazine)
1975 - Climate Changes Called Ominous (PDF) (The New York Times)
1975 - Climate Change: Chilling Possibilities (Science News)
1975 - In the Grip of a New Ice Age? (International Wildlife)
1975 - Scientists Ask Why World Climate Is Changing; Major Cooling May Be Ahead (PDF) (The New York Times)
1975 - The Cooling World (Newsweek)
1976 - The Cooling: Has the Next Ice Age Already Begun? (Book)
1976 - Worrisome CIA Report; Even U.S. Farms May be Hit by Cooling Trend (U.S. News & World Report)
1977 - The Weather Conspiracy: The Coming of the New Ice Age (Book)
Who decides where the starting place should be to determine these "long term" trends? The IPCC or Al Gore?
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
AlGore
March 28, 2008 - 02:58 ET by gfrrocksAnd AlGore has a degree in what science? As I recall he was basically inept at any sciences classes he took in college and failed all of them. "Roads"scholar? LMFAO!!! What a tool!! "I'm not any kind of scientist, but I play one in a gullible fools parade"...
We're talking about the
March 28, 2008 - 06:17 ET by danboWe're talking about the time period I was an undergraduate. I remember the professors speaking on the potential for cooling. Remember planet earth has a cold track record. I remember reading the articles.
This must be another of Oreskes sloppy studies.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
What science?
March 29, 2008 - 02:02 ET by DJEddleWe can take a look at the "actual science" when there is in fact, science.
The only science I have seen comes from people who perform such tasks as observation and experimentation. Climate models are neither, but that's the only thing the AGW advocates use to prove their hypotheses. Until they can come up with one - just one - verifiable experiment, then there is no "science" involved whatsoever.
Answer this for me...
According to the AGW hypothesis, increased carbon dioxide causes increasing temperatures. It's a simple path to follow. More CO2 = more absorption of radiation = higher temperatures. Since CO2 has allegedly risen consistently, why does the temperature continue to fluctuate year in and year out?
And just so you're aware...if the AGW hypothesis is correct, it would be IMPOSSIBLE to cause cooling trends or bring in a new Ice Age. Remember - it's a runaway effect, not a run back-and-forth effect.
*If you like the comments, check out the articles.
meteor79, address the SOOT issue, will ya!
March 28, 2008 - 00:55 ET by upcountrywaterSOOT
<wake up>SAVVVE The Whales N' Earth; conserve N' recycle !
IranianUranium<sleep>Infrastructure/repair?/ROFLMAO
"climate change"
March 28, 2008 - 01:11 ET by gfrrocksJust love the new use of that phrase...NOW I get it. The earth is in constant "climate change"??? Well who can dispute THAT?? That has been happening since the earths' conception. So that is the new AGW? Yeah, THAT'S the ticket..that explains everthing...even a child could be indoctrinated with that line of BS...oh wait they are.
The interval taken
March 28, 2008 - 08:52 ET by NL207The interval taken determines whether or not it is 'getting colder'. Consider this chart. If one considers the interval of interest to be the last 125,000 years, its gotten colder. If we consider the ;ast 20,000 years, its gotten warmer. If we look only at the last 5,000 years, it has not changed!
Similar views can be taken from other reconstructions and trmperature records. If one looks only at the last 9 years, we see this:
1998 .57 .57
1999 .32 .33
2000 .33 .33
2001 .48 .48
2002 .56 .56
2003 .55 .55
2004 .49 .49
2005 .62 .62
2006 .54 .54
It has gotten cooler.
Personally, I'd compare the two El Nino years, 98 and 05. These are so close to the same as to question the significance of the difference. They show .05 growth. The IPCC predicted no less than .14 degree per decade increase over this interval and has claimed the range is as high as .54 or more per decade. They are simply wrong.
"The interval taken
March 28, 2008 - 10:12 ET by meteor79"The interval taken determines whether or not it is 'getting colder'. Consider this chart.
If one considers the interval of interest to be the last 125,000 years,
its gotten colder. If we consider the ;ast 20,000 years, its gotten
warmer. If we look only at the last 5,000 years, it has not changed!"
Sure, but you're talking about the geological record. I'm talking about the current climate. So, like the last few decades.
"Personally, I'd compare the two El Nino years, 98 and 05."
Still not appropriate. The El Nino of 1998 was one of the strongest ever observed, while the 2005 one was weak. Plus, this is only a 7 year period. Also, realize that the IPCC predicted average per decade temperature changes. Thus, some decades could conceivably have lower or higher changes than predicted.
On another note, have you noticed that many AGW debates on this blog often spiral into accusations like:
"Environmentalists are radical anti-capitalists and would like nothing better than to destroy the nation as we know it."
"These peeps are ingrained with destroying AMERICA."
Not all of the skeptics are this delusional and paranoid... are they??
You can't talk about the
March 28, 2008 - 11:02 ET by NL207You can't talk about the "last few decades" and climate in the same breath. Simply put, climate is a geologic process which takes place in geologic time. Alarmists are as guilty as Realists whenever they do this. It is fundamentally flawed reasoning.
So, how would you define the
March 28, 2008 - 11:17 ET by meteor79So, how would you define the current climate? What time period is sufficient to identify slowly varying aspects of the atmosphere–hydrosphere–land surface system, without interference from interannual "noise"?
Why don't you and the rest
March 28, 2008 - 12:01 ET by NL207Why don't you and the rest of the AGW crowd try comparing the state of the climate today with that of the previous half dozen interglacial climate optima since we are presently about 10,000 years into one of those periods. I think the paleoclimate reconstructions presently in hand show that the mean surface temperature of this planet is often, and perhaps even normally, higher by up to several degrees than the present.
Do you think for one moment that if you told the public this truth there would be any great concern about AGW?
Another thing none of you Alarmists can explain and certainly could if you actually had a working model of this planet's climate: Why did these ice ages occur and why did they go away, all without human intervention?
You didn't answer my
March 28, 2008 - 13:39 ET by meteor79You didn't answer my question, but I'll humor those you've posed. Then perhaps you can answer.
"Why don't you and the rest of the AGW crowd try comparing the state of
the climate today with that of the previous half dozen interglacial
climate optima..."
Do you honestly believe this hasn't been done? Many studies refer to the Eemian, the most recent interglacial for which the most data is available. However, we can't use the past to predict the future, because recent human-induced changes in atmospheric composition and land-use, which are unprecedented during the last few millions of years of glacial-interglacial cycles, will impact climate.
"I think the paleoclimate reconstructions presently in hand show that
the mean surface temperature of this planet is often, and perhaps
even normally, higher by up to several degrees than the present. Do you think for one moment that if you told the public this truth there would be any great concern about AGW?"
Yes.
"Another thing none of you Alarmists can explain and certainly could if
you actually had a working model of this planet's climate: Why did
these ice ages occur and why did they go away, all without human
intervention?"
It is widely accepted that the approximate 100,000 year glacial-interglacial cycles are caused by the strongest component of Milankovitch cycles (changes in orbital parameters) which have a 100,000 year period. External or natural forcing, such as changes in orbital parameters, can affect climate, as well as anthropogenic forcing. What is so hard to understand about that?
Now can you answer my question?
So, how would you define the current
climate? What time period is sufficient to identify slowly varying
aspects of the atmosphere–hydrosphere–land surface system, without interference from interannual "noise"?
"However, we can't use the
March 30, 2008 - 00:31 ET by NL207"However, we can't use the past to predict the future, ..."
You can't use model that don't regress all known data sets either. But that hasn't stopped your team from trying to base public policy on such predictions one iota, now has it?
"because recent human-induced changes in atmospheric composition and land-use, which are unprecedented during the last few millions of years of glacial-interglacial cycles, will impact climate."
The empirical science says that aggregate human impact on the climate since the dawn of the industrial revolution has produced at most about 0.45 degree K impact on global climate. This is insignificant in comparison to natural forces. Moreover, it is insufficient to push global climate outside of the observed envelope of natural climate variation over the last 10,000 or even 800,000 years. Your team is reduced to making arguments that consider the last 1,000 or so years only.
"It is widely accepted that the approximate 100,000 year glacial-interglacial cycles are caused by the strongest component of Milankovitch cycles (changes in orbital parameters) which have a 100,000 year period."
Which translated, means you are arguing that the approximately 6% net variation in the intensity of incident solar radiation on the earth caused by the Milankovitch cycle is sufficient to account for the full 20 degree K range in global climate variation seen over the last 800,000 years. Why is it so difficult for your team to comprehend that the .05% per decade varaition in solar intensity observed in the last century could account for the lions share of the .17 degree K per decade change seen 1970-2000. Indeed, simple linear estimation suggests .05% Solar variatoin per decade ought to produce on the order of .16 degree K variation almost exactly the measured amount. What's so hard to understand about this?
To further answer your question, since you were unable to comprehend the last answer:
(1) I would define the current climate in terms of the previous interglacial thermal optima because that is what this period is. (2) Unless I understood a great deal more about how the system actually works than is presently known, I would not even attempt to make predictons about its near term behavior with models. (3) Identifying cause-effect relationships in a system this complex is a metrology problem. There are two paths: Paleoclimate reconstructions based on proxy data and direct measurements collected in the modern era. These tasks are going to take many years to make the sort of progress that is needed.
In the meantime, I would not be making press releases and raising alarms as the more controversial members of your team are wont to do.
"You can't use model that
March 30, 2008 - 02:32 ET by meteor79"You can't use model that don't regress all known data sets either."
Of course the models will never be perfect because they'll never be able to resolve all scales of motions down to the molecular level. However, very useful information can still be obtained from them as has been proven in many other areas of atmospheric science. IF (big if), uncertainties in model predictions are properly accounted for and communicated to policy makers, it is conceivable that public policy could be partially based on their results. Note that I am not saying they should be (valid arguments can be made that they shouldn't), just that it is possible in the future. Recall, though, my original point (before you brought up models) was that the current interglacial climate has, in fact, been compared to other other interglacial periods in numerous studies.
"The empirical science says that aggregate human impact on the climate
since the dawn of the industrial revolution has produced at most about
0.45 degree K impact on global climate. This is insignificant in
comparison to natural forces."
Since 1850, global temps have risen about 1 degree K and you imply that half of this rise is from human impacts. A contribution of one half of the total temperature change is not insignificant.
“Which translated, means you are
arguing that the approximately 6% net variation in the intensity of
incident solar radiation on the earth caused by the Milankovitch cycle is sufficient to account for the full 20 degree K
range in global climate variation seen over the last 800,000 years.”
This is not quite
what I am trying to argue. Obviously, feedbacks from changes in ice
and snow cover, atmospheric composition, and ocean circulation also
play a role in the large climate variations seen over the last few
millions of years. In addition, I am surprised you didn't mention
another key aspect about the ice age cycles: the transitions between
glacial and interglacial periods occur very abruptly (in the span of
centuries or less). Thus, it is likely that the the slow and gradual
orbital forcing has little impact on climate until some threshold is
reach after which perturbations begin to be amplified by positive
feedback mechanisms.
“Why is it so difficult for your
team to comprehend that the .05% per decade variation in solar
intensity observed in the last century could account for the
lions share of the .17 degree K per decade change seen
1970-2000.”
Actually, it is
estimated that changes in solar radiation and other natural processes
(like volcanic forcing) would have resulted in a slight temperature
decrease for the 1970-2000 period.
Thanks for answering the other questions.
"Recall, though, my
March 30, 2008 - 08:54 ET by NL207"Recall, though, my original point (before you brought up models) was that the current interglacial climate has, in fact, been compared to other other interglacial periods in numerous studies."
Recall seeing mention of this anywhere in the mainstream media? I can't, and as a a scientist in an allied field, I always have an eye for such articles. Such are simply **NOT** part of the public debate.
"Since 1850, global temps have risen about 1 degree K..."
This is at variance with the IPCC's latest report which cites a range of 0.6 - 0.9 K since 1900.
" ...and you imply that half of this rise is from human impacts. A contribution of one half of the total temperature change is not insignificant."
I don't imply anything. The published literature plainly attributes 45-50% of all warming since 1900 to solar influence. This caps Man's contribution to the range 0.3 - 0.45 K, assuming there are no other natural factors, which I consider to be an unsafe assumption. Considering that the recent historical range of normal climate variation is 20 K, and we are presenly more that 5 K from the maximum of this range, 0.4 is insignificant. It is LESS than the disruption we we could reasonably expect from a powerful VEI level 6 event. God help us if we experience a VEI level 7 or 8 event.
"the transitions between
glacial and interglacial periods occur very abruptly (in the span of centuries or less)"
I didn't bring up the gradualist vs. catastrophist debate in the interests of brevity. Long posts don't get read here. The available data says the transition OUT of the last Ice Age occurred very abruptly. The ice core data I have seen says less than one century.
I will offer this observation on that topic: If you have ever studied feedback control loops and switching functions, you would know that the strongest feedbacks forces occur at the extremes, where the system is trying to hardest restore the equilibrium and the greatest rates of transition always occur at the switching point. That time was 10,000 years ago and we won't see it again until the next Ice Age begins.
Now... YOU haven't mentioned the Beer-Lambert law. Application of this to the exponential atmosphere suggests that we get exponentially decreasing increases in greenhouse effect with increases in concentration of the absorbent species. In lay terms, increasing CO2 a lot doesn't much increase the effect. Most calculations I have seen suggest the present concentration is already well over the knee of that curve. This implies that in the absence of other factors, there won't be much additional warming with further CO2 releases.
Global Warming Selective ?????
March 27, 2008 - 15:01 ET by JEB StewartGee.....I thought Global Warming was effecting everyone, no just one state. Today NAPA, Tomorrow Hollyweird.
Any chance of "selective
March 27, 2008 - 18:42 ET by CortillaenAny chance of "selective global warming" turning just California into pure desert?
www.rhjunior.com Great comics with a hefty dose of Christian and anti-nutjob goodness.
"With your mind as high as Mt. Fuji you can see all things clearly. And you can see all the forces that shape events; not just the things near to you." -Miyamoto Musashi
Liberals are supposed to
March 27, 2008 - 15:25 ET by deerjerkydaveLiberals are supposed to question everything. But when Algore or NBC says that global warming will destroy planet earth within a couple of decades they turn into a bunch of lemmings.
The first amendment bans the establishment of a state religion, but the philosophy of Man-made Global Warming is borderline infringement.
Global Laming
March 27, 2008 - 21:12 ET by thoridflyNo matter who gets the presidency they are going to MAKE global laming the state religion.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition." - Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
"Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus ..." - Michael Crichton, A.B. Anthropology, M.D. Harvard
"The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly ... it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over." - Joseph Goebbels, Nazi Propaganda Minister
"A lie told often enough becomes the truth." - Vladimir Lenin
"Education is a weapon whose effects depend on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed." - Josef Stalin
I just checked the US
March 27, 2008 - 16:33 ET by danboI just checked the US Climatology Network for Petaluma, Heldsberg and Santa Rosa. They've all been cooling since 98. I think they need to look for another reason. If it's the temperture. They should be getting better.
Let's see if it lets me link to it? If not here's GISS which is more up to date..
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
That's an interesting sales
March 27, 2008 - 17:02 ET by radiofitz34That's an interesting sales pitch for North Carolina wines. Although I don't believe I'll be drinking wine when I'm 120 years old or so. I bet Napa didn't appreciate that too much.
But the "oh yeah" after anyone mentions global warming is funny in the sense that it doesn't require any brain power from the "believers".
Hmmm...one wonders how much
March 27, 2008 - 18:29 ET by DaBirdHmmm...one wonders how much the North Carolina wine producers pay Mr. Lempert for such comments?
Leon's Zen Moment of the Day
March 27, 2008 - 18:33 ET by LeonI have a friend who is an investment banker.
He seems to think that a $9 gallon of gas is a very real possibility in the near future.
What
are you going to do when that happens? Global warming or not,
you'll need to get more efficient. It's simple math.
»→ But Leon
March 27, 2008 - 18:41 ET by Cool ArrowWon't the dollar only be worth about 13 cents by then?
" Won't the dollar only be
March 27, 2008 - 19:17 ET by danbo" Won't the dollar only be worth about 13 cents by then? "
Is it worth that much now?
Thank Leon's boy, Jimmy Carter, for that.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
danbo, Don't blame me. I
March 27, 2008 - 19:21 ET by Leondanbo,
Don't blame me. I was born in 1981.
Learning to adjust for inflation
March 27, 2008 - 18:54 ET by PopularTechWhen that happens will you have finally learned how to adjust for inflation?
Give me a break - Oil Prices (Video) (5min) (John Stossel, 20/20)
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Exploring, drilling and
March 27, 2008 - 19:31 ET by fitzfongExploring, drilling and refining. Got it?
Leon you mean $8.53 a gallon?
March 27, 2008 - 19:40 ET by PopularTechI forget about the tax too...
- The average amount of tax on gasoline in the United States is 47.0 cents per gallon (API)
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
»→ PopTech
March 27, 2008 - 19:44 ET by Cool ArrowDo you have any figures on the actual profit these "evil oil companies" realize per gallon?
♣ a seal
Exxon makes only about 5 Cents per gallon net profit
March 27, 2008 - 20:31 ET by PopularTechThe average amount of net profit an oil company makes on gasoline is 5 cents per gallon (Source)
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
»→ Thanks, PopTech
March 27, 2008 - 21:45 ET by Cool ArrowSort of puts all this "price gouging" in perspective.
♣ a seal
Price Gouging is good!
March 27, 2008 - 22:18 ET by PopularTechNo problem, if only people realized that price gouging is a good thing:
Myth: Price-Gouging Is Bad (John Stossel, 20/20)
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Leon, if gas even approaches $9/gal, there will be a revolution.
March 27, 2008 - 21:21 ET by R D HelmAnd the no-drilling-here crowd is going to be in some seriously deep squeeze. There is just way too much oil right here in this country. There is no excuse even now for the price being what it is today, other than the spineless congress-critters of both parties.
If you have read your history, then you know that a revolution does not require anything close to majority participation to be successful.
And what is more, the revolution here will happen long before the price of gas gets anywhere near $9/gal.
Theme for Election '08: I want my mommy!
Why would you drill when we
March 28, 2008 - 08:02 ET by LeonWhy would you drill when we have viable alternatives?
Viable alternatives?
March 28, 2008 - 08:20 ET by NL207Viable alternatives? There ARE no viable alternatives at the current prices.
Even at $9 per gallon for fuel, there are no viable alternatives for fuel, just electricity, and THAT alternative is Nuclear Power, something your team has already run scare campaigns against and is in opposition to.
Leon, go ahead and pump that "viable alternative" into your tank
March 30, 2008 - 00:00 ET by R D HelmAnd see just how far it gets ya. :-)
Theme for Election '08: I want my mommy!
No offense mate, but here's
March 30, 2008 - 05:20 ET by Jack BauerNo offense mate, but here's were your economic illiteracy really shines. That's such a dumb statement.
Incredible really. I blame lefty teachers.
Here's a clue. Companies are interested in profit. If something is viable, the market itself would ensure the product was viable.
And the price of oil decides what's a viable investment for commerical oil production.
So essentially you want to subsidize unviable alternatives.
On this we do agree
March 28, 2008 - 08:38 ET by red_dragon311On this we do agree Leon, but it still has to be cost effective.
I was a professional twice over - an analyst and a therapist. The world's first analrapist
How about ~$12/gal?
March 30, 2008 - 06:02 ET by Giles Winterbourne"But the real economic impact of oil dependence is hidden to most
Americans. Energy economist Milton Copulos (who passed away this month)
calculated last year that the grand total of all external costs
associated with foreign oil dependence -- including the cost of
oil-related defense expenditures, amortized cost of supply disruptions,
and lost economic activity and tax revenues -- stands at $825 billion
per year.
To put the
figure in perspective, this is equivalent to adding $8.35 to the price
of a gallon of gasoline refined from Persian Gulf oil, making the cost
of filling the gasoline tank of a sedan $214, and of an SUV $321. At
today's oil prices, these costs would be even higher." (my bolding) http://www.miamihera...
No wonder so-many here are so-scared
March 30, 2008 - 06:24 ET by sarcasmoOf the hemp-hippies, even though nobody's willing to admit their abject fear of those long-haired capitalists amid the sneers at them. But that's part of why I'm here, to admit inconvenient fears for both sides. :) Even if those numbers are way-off (and it's the Herald, so they probably are...) it looks like industrial hemp could compete quite easily in an actually-free market.
JMR
A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.
data source
March 30, 2008 - 14:00 ET by Giles WinterbourneTHE ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF IMPORT DEPENDENCE ON MINERAL AND ENERGY
COMMODITIES TESTIMONY BEFORE THE HOUSE RESOURCES SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY
AND MINERAL RESOURCEShttp://www.nma.org/pdf/cong_test/copulos_030404.pdf
Global Warming Made My Sister Pregnant ...
March 27, 2008 - 21:05 ET by thoridfly... killed my dog, neutered my cat, caused my car to explode, is the true cause behind cancer and AIDS, was predicted by Nostradamus, is creating a baby boom in the Bigfoot population, is killing the Loch Ness monster, is bringing about increased UFO activity, and is destroying the habitat of the Burmese spitting fly ...
... is there anything these warming nuts won't link to "global" warming?
Things Global Warming Nuts Won't Blame on Global Warming
March 27, 2008 - 21:12 ET by Free StinkerThings Global Warming Nuts Won't Blame on Global Warming
They'll blame this stuff on Bush
Pledge to not support RINOs ever again!
Yep ...
March 27, 2008 - 21:21 ET by thoridfly... either Bush is the root of all evil or global warming ... or Republicans.
"I am a member of no organized political party ... I am a Democrat." - Will Rogers
"A Democrat never adjourns - he is born, becomes of voting age, and starts right in arguing over something." - Will Rogers
"Lord, the money we spend on government and it's not one bit better than the government we got for one-third the money twenty years ago." - Will Rogers
Maybe there's something to
March 27, 2008 - 21:44 ET by KarmaMaybe there's something to this afterall.
I have'nt noticed a difference in my wine, but my beer does seem to be warmer than in the past.
Did you try putting it in
March 27, 2008 - 23:39 ET by DJEddleDid you try putting it in the refrigerator?
If you like the comments, check out the articles.
Thanks for the suggestion,
March 28, 2008 - 06:54 ET by KarmaThanks for the suggestion, but I prefer my wine at room temperature.
DJEddle, welcome to NB and yeah, I liked the articles.
The warmers keep telling
March 28, 2008 - 07:19 ET by danboThe warmers keep telling me, that warming causes things to cool down.
You might try putting the beer in the oven. A setting of about 450 or 500 should get it nice and frosty.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
Hmmm...fire brew the
March 28, 2008 - 07:32 ET by KarmaHmmm...fire brew the Stroh's twice. I think I'll try it! Thanks danbo.
p.s. Should I use an oven mitt or my arctic gloves when removing it form the oven?
It's looking like a nice
March 28, 2008 - 08:05 ET by danboIt's looking like a nice spring day here. I'm thinking a pina colada would be nice.
Should I set the oven on broil for ice?
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
Yes, but you should coat
March 28, 2008 - 08:20 ET by KarmaYes, but you should coat your ice bucket with Icy-Hot ointment before placing in the oven.
We had a bitterly cold
March 28, 2008 - 01:46 ET by Cureboy675We had a bitterly cold winter in my neck of the woods this year. And its given me pause on Global Warming. But then you hear about these ice shelves falling apart in Antarctica. Both sides are going to frame it to make their position look better. So the jury is still out for me. But I don't see anything wrong with erring on the side of caution when possible.
But honestly, my real concern here is the fact that Ann Curry is drinking on the job. She is hard to take when she's sober. You get her all liquored up on air, and God knows what will happen.
And what would "erring on
March 28, 2008 - 01:50 ET by fitzfongAnd what would "erring on the side of caution" entail in this case?
Cureboy
March 28, 2008 - 02:19 ET by gfrrocksDo you honestly believe that this is the first time that ice shelves have fallen in Anarctica? They do this EVERY YEAR. The AGW wackos just want to highlight this as they always do...everything is extreme no matter where it is. Damn, it was cold this year in N. Dakota, then it was warm here in Atlanta,GA during the first part of December....NORMAL!!! Then it was cold as hell during the winter, this right up until recently to the beginning of SPRING for Christ sake. That too is extreme but that's the way nature IS. If "climate CHANGE" is your barometer you got a real problem because that's what climate does..............C H A N G E!! Btw, I caught Ann Curry doing a couple shots of Yaegermeister before going on air, so...........
Now now. I'm not quite
March 28, 2008 - 10:54 ET by Cureboy675Now now. I'm not quite ready to say lets change how the entire world does business...No matter how much it costs. But there's nothing wrong with conserving electricity when you can. There's nothing wrong with trying to develop new technologies that make us less dependent on oil. Because the oil aint gonna last forever.
Oil is not going to run out any time soon
March 28, 2008 - 23:29 ET by PopularTech"Peak vs Deep Oil" (Video) (8min) (CNBC)
Are We Running Out of Oil? (National Center For Policy Analysis)
Despite Popular Belief, The World Is Not Running Out Of Oil, Scientist Says (Science Daily)
Finding New Oil In Long-exhausted Oil Wells (Science Daily)
You conserve electricity to save on your electrical bill. Conserving electricity has absolutely NOTHING to do with oil because we only generate 1.5% of our electricity using oil, the rest comes from coal, natural gas, nuclear and hydroelectric.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Fair enough. But let the
March 28, 2008 - 23:37 ET by fitzfongFair enough. But let the market determine demand for these "new technologies" instead of having government policies forcing conservation and inferior "alternative technologies" down our throats. If you want to take steps to conserve electricity, good for you...but self-proclaimed "environmentalists" have a knack for attempting to force their conservationalist "values" on the rest of us. And I, for one, won't stand for it.
The Precautionary Principle is a stupid idea
March 28, 2008 - 22:48 ET by PopularTechUsing this emotional logic we should prepare for the possible alien invasion!
The Antarctic ice shelves have broken up before:
Antarctic Ice Shelf Retreats Happened Before (Science Daily)
And there is evidence of volcanic activity in antartica, you can do the math:
First Evidence Of Under-ice Volcanic Eruption In Antarctica (Science Daily)
Protective Ice Flow in Antarctica Linked to Warmth of Volcanoes (The New York Times)
Scientists Discover Undersea Volcano Off Antarctica (Science Daily)
Scientists Find Active Volcano in Antarctica (The New York Times)
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Antarctic volcano
March 30, 2008 - 06:17 ET by Giles Winterbourne"But while the Pine Island Glacier may be thinning because of the
volcano, it’s highly unlikely the thinning of Antarctica’s ice sheet as
a whole can be blamed on hidden volcanoes. For one thing, Antarctica
has very few active volcanoes. Most glacial scientists, including Dr.
Vaughan himself, blame warmer ocean waters for glacial thinning in West
Antarctica." (my bold) http://www.environme...
You're the dope who thinks
March 30, 2008 - 07:15 ET by Jack BauerYou're the dope who thinks the UK is going to have 10% of its national grid powered by wind farms by 2010.
Go back to sleep Giles.
GWB did 9/11
June 20, 2008 - 13:16 ET by Shooter1002Yeah, California wine sucks! Pass the word around! Global Warming is making Napa wines really bad. Its so bad they had to import Chinese wine by the tanker load and fill the Napa bottles with it.
More credible than 'GWB was responsible for 9/11'.
Imagine the environmental
June 20, 2008 - 13:20 ET by MassConservImagine the environmental impact if THAT tanker would run aground... lots of happy sea otters.