3,000 Low Temp Records Set This July!

[StColette]

[quote name='notardillacid' post='1940648' date='Aug 4 2009, 07:43 PM']Uh yeah. We left on Sunday. Which was a nice day. 1st one since we entered that accursed state. I got rained on more those 10 days than my entire life. Four thunderstorms in one day. Not just once but twice.[/quote]

lol believe me, it caught us by surprise too. Usually our Summers are very dry and we usually remain under a burn ban until October lol Most of our boat launches are still closed because of high water.

[TeresaBenedicta]

The Northwest has had an unusually hot summer. Over a week and a half of 100+ degree weather. Usually only 2-3 days of that in a year!

And we had a very unusual amount of snow during the winter. Yet back East, where I am now, we've had a very mild summer and little snow during the winter.

[cmotherofpirl]

Its afternoon and the temp finally broke 70 degrees. I have been drinking hot tea and working on an afghan, and this is AUGUST!!!! The tomatoes are confused and refusing to ripen and its been way to cool to swim at Idlewild Park.
I am more and more worried about what kind of winter will follow such a cold summer.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='morostheos' post='1932725' date='Jul 26 2009, 05:52 PM']Firstly, why do you think the term "Global Climate Change" implies causality of any sort? It simply describes a lack of stasis in the global climate. The earth has gone through many periods of non-human caused global climate change throughout its history (for example - ice ages).[/quote]
No matter how well read one may be on a particular scientific hypothesis the end result is a matter of opinion.

[morostheos]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1941233' date='Aug 5 2009, 02:15 PM']No matter how well read one may be on a particular scientific hypothesis the end result is a matter of opinion.[/quote]

I agree, but what does that have to do with what you quoted?

[Hassan]

[quote name='kamiller42' post='1933586' date='Jul 27 2009, 11:45 PM']Money should not go to cases which aren't compelling including those which are publicly compelling but scientifically aren't.[/quote]

The mainstream scientific community has accepted the evidence for global warming as conclusive.


[quote]Therein lies the problem. No matter what evidence is raised to the contrary, it's ignored, lampooned, insulted, or all the above. The global warmists have dogmatically dug-in and have claimed any question of their claims is an attack on intelligence, "truth," and even an [url="http://www.amazon.com/Assault-Reason-Al-Gore/dp/0143113623/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1248750980&sr=8-1"]assault on reason[/url]. Why is it okay to question contrary evidence if it comes from energy companies, but not people like Al Gore or global warming alarmists? Don't they have an interest in being right, even a profitable one?[/quote]

I'd assume Al Gore does. Although I don't know much about his situation or him in general as I was in 6th grade during the 2000 election and have yet to see his movie. When the overwhelming majority of scientists, across countries and continents all agree that the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly supportive of global warming that should give us pause. When many of the global warming skeptics take to the arena of media punditry rather than peer reviewed scientific journals and are receiving generous pay from energy companies that would give most people pause.

[quote]And there are scientists who say there are fluctuations in temperature.[/quote]

Of course global climate temperatures fluctuate regularly over great spans of time.

[quote]It's normal, but to conclude it's a straight path to a global meltdown is ridiculous. To say man is responsible for the majority of CO2 is beyond ridiculous. (I do admit that classifying CO2 as a poisonous gas is a clever way for the government to raise taxes, taxing air.)[/quote]

Who said that man has to be responsible for a majority of CO2? The increased levels of CO2 had lead to increased temperatures which has caused the ice shelves to melt even faster than previous models have predicted, the melting ice is releasing substantial amounts of methane which is an even more damaging greenhouse gas than CO2.

[quote]If all the CO2 in the atmosphere was represented by a crowd of 20,000 in a stadium and they were all standing and cheering, asking those people responsible for all of man's contribution to sit down would result in 645 out of 20,000 people to sit down. That's less than a row of people and would make negligible difference with 19,354 people still cheering. (645 is grossly inflated because it assumes everyone ceases to exist.)[/quote]

Source?






[quote]Nuclear exchange is not normal human behavior.[/quote]

Neither is industrial activity. Not on the whole scan of human history anyway.


[quote]The claim by the alarmists is day to day human activity is causing the planet to warm. To be quite honest, when the dust settles, no, a nuclear exchange will not permanently alter the climate.[/quote]


Point being what? Would a massive nuclear exchange, a human activity, have a long term and substantial effect on the global climate?


I'm pretty sure he answer is yes. Unless there are some brave, truth telling nuclear winter skeptics courageously deconstructing that "myth" as well.

Edited August 6, 2009 by Hassan

[kamiller42]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1941769' date='Aug 6 2009, 04:21 AM']The mainstream scientific community has accepted the evidence for global warming as conclusive.[/quote]
There is enough dissenting opinion which the global warming alarmists should address but haven't. If it really is a majority, it won't be the first time a majority of the scientific community has been wrong.

[quote]I'd assume Al Gore does. Although I don't know much about his situation or him in general as I was in 6th grade during the 2000 election and have yet to see his movie. When the overwhelming majority of scientists, across countries and continents all agree that the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly supportive of global warming that should give us pause. When many of the global warming skeptics take to the arena of media punditry rather than peer reviewed scientific journals and are receiving generous pay from energy companies that would give most people pause.[/quote]
Do you really believe the alarmists don't participate in media punditry? I have seen constant pounding of "the sky is falling" propaganda.

If you charge scientists who have some funding from energy companies with conflict of interest and therefore disqualifies their opinions, then remove every scientist who receives government funds directly or indirectly from the voice of opinion. The government has an interest in finding great causes to address. There are legacies to build.

How can contrary evidence be reviewed when it's shouted down? The scientific community has established an environment where discrediting global warming is discrediting yourself. Really ironic for a community where many hold Galileo and what he experienced in high regard.

Here is another knuckle dragger, [url="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/28/forecasting-guru-announces-no-scientific-basis-for-forecasting-climate/"]Dr John S. Theon[/url], former chief at NASA. I am sure he is familiar with the peer review process. And he has reviewed global warming evidence provided by his peers and calls them out on its flaws.

[quote]Of course global climate temperatures fluctuate regularly over great spans of time.[/quote]
So how did man contribute to the melting of the four ice ages in the past?

[quote]Who said that man has to be responsible for a majority of CO2? The increased levels of CO2 had lead to increased temperatures which has caused the ice shelves to melt even faster than previous models have predicted, the melting ice is releasing substantial amounts of methane which is an even more damaging greenhouse gas than CO2.[/quote]
Majority is a poor word. I would say the claim man produces a significant amount of CO2.

[quote]Source?[/quote]
[url="http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html"]Granted[/url].


[quote]Neither is industrial activity. Not on the whole scan of human history anyway.[/quote]
If you view "industrial" as strictly production via mechanical machinery, then you are right. I view man's ability to produce and create spanning all time, since his creation. Mechanical means not necessary and potentially affect the environment. So, yes, I view it as man's normal behavior, for more than nuclear war.

[quote]Point being what? Would a massive nuclear exchange, a human activity, have a long term and substantial effect on the global climate?

I'm pretty sure he answer is yes. [s]Unless there are some brave, truth telling nuclear winter skeptics courageously deconstructing that "myth" as well[/s].[/quote]
I am not sure the answer is yes or no. I do know we grossly underestimate the power of natural forces and strength of the earth. The sun, which has the strength far exceeding all nuclear weapons combined, has been pounding the earth for billions of years, and it keeps on ticking. Thank you God.

[jkaands]

Well, we've been averaging 8-10 degrees hotter than usual this summer, and so has Tucson and Phoenix, AZ.

That's[i] hot![/i]

[jkaands]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1932522' date='Jul 26 2009, 02:52 PM']There are hundreds of reputable scientists who agree its a politically correct myth.[/quote]

um...

try this:

today's NY Times:

[url="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/science/earth/09climate.html?hp"]http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/science/...climate.html?hp[/url]

[kamiller42]

[quote name='jkaands' post='1943678' date='Aug 8 2009, 05:06 PM']um...

try this:

today's NY Times:

[url="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/science/earth/09climate.html?hp"]http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/science/...climate.html?hp[/url][/quote]
I think the left and mainstream media, mostly one and the same, would call this "fear mongering." It wasn't right with Bush and not with the Anointed One.

[dauntingknight]

I don't pay attention to global warming cause their's a thing about relying on God.(to a point)

[jkaands]

[quote name='kamiller42' post='1943970' date='Aug 9 2009, 12:04 AM']I think the left and mainstream media, mostly one and the same, would call this "fear mongering." It wasn't right with Bush and not with the Anointed One.[/quote]

How do you know what the Anointed One thinks about global warming?

[Jarrah]

My home town had the coldest July in 5 years - and that's official.

[Chestertonian]

[quote name='jkaands' post='1944000' date='Aug 8 2009, 11:45 PM']How do you know what the Anointed One thinks about global warming?[/quote]

The Anointed One=Barack Obama

[kamiller42]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1941769' date='Aug 6 2009, 04:21 AM']Point being what? Would a massive nuclear exchange, a human activity, have a long term and substantial effect on the global climate?


I'm pretty sure he answer is yes. Unless there are some brave, truth telling nuclear winter skeptics courageously deconstructing that "myth" as well.[/quote]
I stand by my claim about nuclear weapons. Saw this pop up on one of the liberal leaning sites I follow. [url="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3598/3790865581_8dc23e7c64_o.jpg"]Food for thought[/url].

[img]http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3598/3790865581_8dc23e7c64_o.jpg[/img]