Posted on 01/19/2007 7:49:54 AM PST by cogitator
Yes. NASA observations. It's both a regional and global change, driven by the eccentric orbit of Mars and the significant effect of dust in the Martian atmosphere.
"We are rotating at over a thousand miles pre hour and wobbling. We are hurtling around a sun, on the arm of a spinning galaxy, in an expanding universe, and you and your pals have it figured out? It’s CO2 and cow farts right. Please!"
"to the extent it is sensible to speak of a mean temperature for Mars, the evidence is for significant cooling from the 1970's, when Viking made measurements, compared to current temperatures. However, this is essentially due to large scale dust storms that were common back then, compared to a lower level of storminess now. The mean temperature on Mars, averaged over the Martian year can change by many degrees from year to year, depending on how active large scale dust storms are."
She was actually right about that. They aren't (properly) called hurricanes in the Southern Hemisphere. Hurricanes occur exclusively in the North Atlantic and eastern Pacific (north of the equator).
So how does one explain the very warm conditions of the Mesozoic? The dinosaurs were the fossils so they were burning any fuels.
"This issue isn't going away."
That's what they told Columbus when they said his ships would sail over the side of the flat earth.
Well it should be and I'm sick of the piling on by people (business, media, etc.) whose fear mongering about impending doom can only lead to political action.
When I was in television that executive producer, now news director in a big city, was trying to "spread the gospel" of global warming. The meteorologist thought the idea was junk.
Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott has piled on the global warming B.S. express, too. I hope for the sake of his company, he gets the hell off.
Anyone who pushes this crap, including John McCain, who spoke about it as something to be dealt with when he visited the UK late last year, risks my anger and wrath.
So GWB had better keep this global warming mantra out of the State of the Union next week.
The threatening of meteorologists credentials is the last straw for me.
The global warming hysteria must stop now. We cannot be dragged into bad policy on the basis of bad science.....
She qualifies for application of my tagline.
Newsweek, April 28, 1975
The Cooling World
"There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production – with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now
There ought to be, as it is typical of what we see today. Yet, it is from a magazine article of 1975 hyping the then well-known threat of global cooling. It has all the features that we have come to know and love about the modern version – deductions from a recent random fluctuation in the temperature trend, accounts of increases in tornadoes, economic and social disasters including crop failures and much more.
Such apocalyptic warnings continued until 1983, when the scaremongers did an about turn, allegedly as a result of the prompting of the green civil servant Sir Crispin Tickel, who persuaded his boss, Margaret Thatcher, that she could use her political uniqueness in holding a science qualification to promote a new scenario, which was attractive to her as she was at war with the coal miners and the oil sheiks.
Although global warming via carbon dioxide had been mooted, it was then fashionable to believe that it was more than countered by the negative effects of pollution. The fantastic engineering solutions being promoted at the time were remarkable, only to be superseded by the economic suicide pact that was Kyoto.
BEFORE GLOBAL WARMING THERE WAS GLOBAL COOLING
Before today's scientists started predicting catastrophe due to global warming, there were scientists who were predicting catastrophe due to global cooling. And that was just thirty years ago.
George Will has a column titled "Cooler Heads Needed on Warming" in which he discusses scientists' and journalists' predilection for environmental doomsaying. Take a look at the predictions of distaster due to global cooling from scientists and "their journalistic conduits" back in the seventies:
Science magazine (Dec. 10, 1976) warned of "extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation." Science Digest (February 1973) reported that "the world's climatologists are agreed" that we must "prepare for the next ice age." The Christian Science Monitor ("Warning: Earth's Climate is Changing Faster Than Even Experts Expect," Aug. 27, 1974) reported that glaciers "have begun to advance," "growing seasons in England and Scandinavia are getting shorter" and "the North Atlantic is cooling down about as fast as an ocean can cool." Newsweek agreed ("The Cooling World," April 28, 1975) that meteorologists "are almost unanimous" that catastrophic famines might result from the global cooling that the New York Times (Sept. 14, 1975) said "may mark the return to another ice age." The Times (May 21, 1975) also said "a major cooling of the climate is widely considered inevitable" now that it is "well established" that the Northern Hemisphere's climate "has been getting cooler since about 1950."
Will ends his column with this:
About the mystery that vexes ABC -- Why have Americans been slow to get in lock step concerning global warming? -- perhaps the "problem" is not big oil or big coal, both of which have discovered there is big money to be made from tax breaks and other subsidies justified in the name of combating carbon.
Perhaps the problem is big crusading journalism.
So, a few decades from now we can expect predictions of doom about more global cooling.
________________________________________
When warmists wax on catastrophic climate change, one agency they quote a lot is the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a body comprised mostly of warmists bent on proving their man-made global-warming theory, the facts and their limited understanding of how climate works be damned.
The IPCC's last report in 2001 predicted planetary warming of up to 10 F and a sea-level rise of nearly 3 feet by 2100. Since then, it has been "refining" its numbers, weighing new data and supposedly developing a better understanding of climate science. Its "fourth assessment report," due out in February, will conclude civilization's threat has been overstated, so it will lower its warming projection to 2.7 F to 7.5 F, and adjust its guess on sea-level rise to 17 inches.
Still, the IPCC is worried because carbon-dioxide emissions have risen by 3 percent in the past five years. Relying on past IPCC work, The Earth Institute at Columbia University concluded this year that atmospheric concentrations of CO2, now 0.00038 percent, could reach 0.00055 percent "well before the end of the century, with potentially disastrous implications for human well-being and the Earth's natural systems." At the present rate, it would be more than 9,000 years before CO2 reached 1 percent.
Those numbers are meaningless without context, so here's some: CO2 is abundant on Venus, a hellishly hot planet that warmists say portends earth's fate unless mankind curbs its greenhouse-gas emissions now. But Venus' atmosphere is 97 percent carbon dioxide, giving it 255,000 times more CO2 by volume than earth's and making warmists' fears laughably overheated.
But even if fossil fuels were banned tomorrow, the effect on the climate would be at best immeasurably small. "So whether the climate changes we are observing are reversible is a nonissue," said Steve Milloy of junkscience.com. Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., put the IPCC's revisions in perspective: "Climate science is always going through these 'refinements.' The media (have) alternated between four separate global cooling and warming scares since 1895, (including) the erroneous prediction of a coming ice age in the 1970s." Still, the IPCC and other warmists should be encouraged to keep refining their data until this latest warming scare disappears.
There are several cycles that affect climate on the earth. Some of them are:
1. daily. earth spins.
2. yearly. earth goes around the sun
the tilt of the earth changes, producing the seasons.
the earth is at varing distances from the sun as it goes around the sun
3. the various cycles of the sun
there are many factors on earth that affect the amount of heat that the earth retains from the sun, or dissipates the heat into space
Some of them are:
1. surface reflectivity
2. cloud cover
3. CO2 in the air
4. Dust and particles in the air
there are many other factors that affect the earth's temperature and climate. All factors have to be considered.
I doubt that all factors are being considered.
How about more facts? How about a non-political discussion of the facts in the matter?
Yes, hurricane is simply another term for a tropical-cyclone based on where it occurs. The same is true for the term 'typhoon'. But the simple fact is that tropical-cyclones DO rotate clockwise, and to use such a silly argument should be beyond her education/knowledge.
She may be grammatically correct, but she's also misleading and thus it's a stupid point to make.
Heidi,
Let me know when your seasonal hurricane forecasts are more than 10% accurate. For that matter, let me know when your 2 week forecasts are more than 75% accurate.
"Our goal at The Weather Channel has always been to keep people out of harm's way. Whether it's a landfalling hurricane or global warming."
It's not their job to keep people out of harm's way, they are a commercial program on an information medium competing for advertiser's dollars which are supplied by consumers, you and me.
Her implication that they can somehow protect us from global warming, which by definition affects the only place to go, leaves us with no exit if evacuation is the only escape.
She doesn't seem to understand that her goal is beyond her grasp.
Another example of someone who is educated beyond her understanding and infected with the fatal crusader's disease.
Apt anagram!
That said, I would like to extend invitations to any of my colleagues in climatology or meteorology to join this discussion..
Ahhhhh, but what about: Geologists, Cosmologists, Physicists and/or Astro Physicists, Astronomers, etc, etc, etc.
You know Heidi, scientists that actually KNOW about how the Universe and our Solar System works, including that big ORANGE hot thing in the sky called the SUN. Not to mention how our orbit around it, the Earth's TILT and 'wobble', and how those pesky SOLAR Flares effect us and ... shock ... our weather.
BTW, This is what it looks like in case you forgot. Notice that 'thingy' arcing Heidi? It ain't a Hurricane or Cumulus Cloud. /s
ps: that other thingy in the sky you see at night Heidi is the MOON and that effects our tides - among other earthly things like our rotation duration time (day). Really Heidi, I'm not kidding.
pps: What's the weather gonna be like next week? Oh.. you don't know, uh-huh, I see.
Solar variation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation
Wonder what the mythic "heat index" is of that thing.
Sure, just like there's convincing evidence of the Bermuda Triangle. The same sorts of high-CO2 + warmer temps events happened before the rise of human civilizations, if you ask anyone who studies the prehistorical climate. What were those spikes caused by, cavemen in SUVs? What caused the most recent warming trend that produced bumper crops in Europe? What caused the Little Ice Age that followed? Was it cow flatulence? Knights on dirt bikes?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
