Hey, take a look at Global Warming in action:
An extra-cold winter on the Alaska Peninsula has frozen sea otters out of the bay and pushed them onto the tundra near Port Heiden where they’re easy prey for wolves, humans and hunger.
Some of the starving animals — with ribs showing — have waddled or belly-slid several miles inland, residents said. Others have been attacked by dogs near houses, killed by villagers for their hides, or died on sea ice where eagles and foxes pick at their remains.
The animals haven’t come ashore in large numbers since 2000, the last time the bay froze, he said.
Partially enclosed by spits of land, the bay hardened into a solid surface of ice this winter after a cold spell — beginning in January and lasting through March — dropped temperatures to zero and below, he said.
And:
NASHVILLE, Tenn. Nashville has recorded its coldest-ever Easter morning. The National Weather Service recorded 23 degrees at 6:05 yesterday.
That 23-degree reading yesterday morning also broke the record low for the date, which was 27 degrees, set in 1990. It tied the coldest temp ever recorded in April, set on April seventh, 1982.
And:
A historic cold weather outbreak shattered records this morning in Charlotte and elsewhere in the Carolinas, producing bone-chilling conditions for Easter sunrise services.
Forecasters say a slow warming trend will begin today, but we face one more night of freezing weather.
The polar air outbreak that began Thursday reached the bottom this morning, when temperatures dropped to 21 degrees at 7 a.m. at Charlotte/Douglas International Airport.
That not only broke the low-temperature record for the date, but it was the coldest for any April day in Charlotte history.
Cold cold cold….do we hear any shrill cries about the end of the world? No. Rest assured when Summer comes and it gets a bit warm we will hear about the effects of "global warming"
Of course the debate is over according to CNN. Listen to this 5 minute segment of the Mike Church show today in which he plays a CNN segment that will have you rolling:
Yes, we should all stop debating science and just believe. Fall to your knee’s and pray to the Goracle because we MUST believe. And according to this CNN reporter the VAST majority of climate scientists all agree. Reason Online states that the global warming fanatics have the "strongest consensus", baloney. Here is MIT Professor of Meteorology Richard Lindzen:
Judging from the media in recent months, the debate over global warming is now over. There has been a net warming of the earth over the last century and a half, and our greenhouse gas emissions are contributing at some level. Both of these statements are almost certainly true. What of it? Recently many people have said that the earth is facing a crisis requiring urgent action. This statement has nothing to do with science. There is no compelling evidence that the warming trend we’ve seen will amount to anything close to catastrophe. What most commentators—and many scientists—seem to miss is that the only thing we can say with certainly about climate is that it changes. The earth is always warming or cooling by as much as a few tenths of a degree a year; periods of constant average temperatures are rare. Looking back on the earth’s climate history, it’s apparent that there’s no such thing as an optimal temperature—a climate at which everything is just right. The current alarm rests on the false assumption not only that we live in a perfect world, temperature wise, but also that our warming forecasts for the year 2040 are somehow more reliable than the weatherman’s forecast for next week.
Or how about those 2600 some odd scientists who DONT agree?
The science isn’t there, but the money sure is. And that is the root cause for this hysteria. The money is there to pay people for their research, to pay people to come to conclusions that bolster the Goracles.
Still, with all we don’t know, with the science NOT coming to a consensus, these religious fanatics want us to ruin our economy and now want our national security policy to be governed by it:
WASHINGTON — The CIA and Pentagon would for the first time be required to assess the national security implications of climate change under proposed legislation intended to elevate global warming to a national defense issue.
The bipartisan proposal, which its sponsors expect to pass the Congress with wide support, calls for the director of national intelligence to conduct the first-ever "national intelligence estimate" on global warming.
The effort would include pinpointing the regions at highest risk of humanitarian suffering and assessing the likelihood of wars erupting over diminishing water and other resources.
The measure also would order the Pentagon to undertake a series of war games to determine how global climate change could affect US security, including "direct physical threats to the United States posed by extreme weather events such as hurricanes."
Unbelievable.
UPDATE
Want an inkling on how much we don’t know about our climate?
According to the new study, forests in mid- to high-latitude locations – such as boreal forests of Canada, Scandinavia and Siberia — may actually create a net warming. The study concludes that by the year 2100, these mid- and high-latitude forests may make some places up to 10 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than would have occurred if the forests did not exist.
The research, led by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory atmospheric scientist Govindasamy Bala, appears in the April 9-13 online edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Forests affect climate in three different ways: they absorb the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and help keep the planet cool; they evaporate water to the atmosphere and increase cloudiness, which also helps keep the planet cool; and they are dark and absorb sunlight (the albedo effect), warming the Earth. Previous climate change mitigation strategies that promote planting trees have taken only the first effect into account.
"Our study shows that only tropical rainforests are strongly beneficial in helping slow down global warming," Bala said. "It is a win-win situation in the tropics because trees in the tropics, in addition to absorbing carbon dioxide, promote convective clouds that help to cool the planet. In other locations, the warming from the albedo effect either cancels or exceeds the net cooling from the other two effects."
"If we really want to do something about global warming," said JunkScience.com’s Steve Milloy, "providing chainsaws to Canadians, Swedes and Russians would seem a better investment than economy-killing greenhouse gas emissions reductions."
The real value of the study, Milloy said, is that it illustrates how little we know about the global ecosystem and climate. "Imagine that folks in Congress are actually contemplating harming our economy by making energy more expensive and more scarce based on exceedingly limited knowledge about the ecosystem and climate," added Milloy.
Yeah…imagine.
Other’s Blogging:
- The Bullwinkle Blog
- Blue Crab Boulevard
- Roger Pielke Sr.
- Save the GOP
- Penraker
- An Ol’ Broads Ramblings
- Ace of Spades HQ
- Roger l. Simon
- Newsbusters
- Moonbattery
See author page
Someone give me a number of how many btu’s of heat are sent into the air by all the air conditioner and refrigeration units each year.
Then tell me how much heat radiates from solar heating of roads and parking lots and tin roofs.
Slide your naked butt down I-95 in south Georgia in the middle of August as a test.
I don’t think there is much disagreement that warming is occurring. The debatable issue is what is the cause of the warming. Carbon dioxide certainly contributes to this effect, but the environment is always changing and we do not understand the process.
As warming occurs, the atmosphere will undergo massive pattern changes to accomodate the new heat distribution dynamics, hence the wierd weather. That it is cold in Snorkville is irrelevant, the environment is doing what environments do – vary over time.
THe solution to the problem, is of course obvious. Unfortunately, the solution is politically incorrect and beyond the comprehension of the political mind. The solution, of course, is terraforming. Think about it and perhaps you will comprehend.
I tried that last year on I-95 in South Carolina. It wasn’t much fun.
Urgh – it bears repeating as often as this argument is made, I suppose: single datapoints cannot be used to extrapolate a general trend in noisy datasets. From this sort of logic, I might conclude from a single dice roll that my dice always comes up 6, but you would certainly consider me an idiot to so suppose. Let’s not do the same, shall we? A number of studies have been done studying the general trend in temperature using careful analyses correcting for known variables. The warming trend is well-observed and absolutely not in dispute. So why cite some examples of cold weather? Do you mean to counter the studies showing a warming trend? Then cite some studies that do so – anecdotal evidence does not fly.
Lindzen’s strawman argument is a commonly used one, and almost DOESN’T bear answering – but, to be brief: when I roll a marble down a rocky hill, I cannot say what path it take, but I am fairly confident that it will end up at the bottom. Similarly the weather. Trends are easier to predict than specific events, as illustrated by your cold-weather examples above.
As to your last update, I’m uncertain what point you mean to make by citing, approvingly, a paper based on global climate models (GCMs), when those are routinely used to attribute the balance of the recent warming trend to man-made greenhouse gases. Confusion?
“So why cite some examples of cold weather? Do you mean to counter the studies showing a warming trend? Then cite some studies that do so – anecdotal evidence does not fly.”
Oh, you mean like the anecdotal evidence given by the Goracle environazis on the Left, in the media and in Congress every day when some area of the world is experiencing warmer than normal temperatures? I agree, that anecdotal evidence of “man caused global warming” does not fly.
In case you missed it, the point of those of us who call BS on catastrophic “man caused global warming” (CMCGW) using anecdotal evidence of colder than normal weather is to mock those who use anecdotal evidence of warmer than normal weather to back up their religion of CMCGW.
Hey…someone gets me…someone really gets me!
Well said Michael in MI, that was exactly the point I was trying to make which so easily flew over the environazi’s head. Go figure.
My point, which you may have missed due to lack of clarity on my part, was that there is plenty of non-anecdotal evidence for warming. Indeed, you’d be hard-pressed to find a global temperature time-series which did NOT indicate warming. I would think this is by far the more significant evidence to counterpose – you may be correct that a few ignorant individuals point to isolated events as evidence of a warming trend, but their testimony is hardly the basis for most of the alarm. They’re only echoing, imperfectly, their understanding of the above-mentioned robust data. As I said, I’m not aware of any studies demonstrating that a warming trend is not happening. So I fail to understand the utility in arguing on the subject – even if some people are wrong in the particulars, surely the overall trend is clear?
As to my being called an “environazi”, I have to protest. I engaged you in discussion in good faith; it’s not necessary to throw up barricades immediately.
“…even if some people are wrong in the particulars, surely the overall trend is clear?”
Yes, just as clear as it was in the 1970s, when some people were wrong in the particulars, but the overall trend of global cooling was clear.
Honestly, do you only know how to construct strawmen? And not even original ones, but ones that have been taken apart thousands of times? There was never a strong scientific consensus on the subject of global cooling – there was some speculation, magnified by a sensationalist press. In this case, there IS a strong scientific consensus on a warming trend. You will not find any credible doubters on that subject – even Lindzen and Christy agree with it. But I’m not sure you’re interested in having this debate, since you’re apparently refusing to concede particulars.
Oh come on. You believe there IS a strong scientific consensus because you dismiss the scientists that do not agree with your beliefs. Like these 2600 scientists. There are plenty more on my blog under the enviroment category….check it out.
These idiotic doomsday calls do no one any good except keeping people employed by the environazi companies. Anyone who recommends destroying our nations economy on science that IS not complete, that has NOT proven that humans are causing global warming, is just that…an environazi.
TUES APR 10 Illegal Immigration Hard-Liners and the Development of Conscience
April 10, 1970 — The Beatles broke up and now there are only two….