[edited transcript]
RUSH: Dr. Spencer [ climatologist from the University of Alabama in Huntsville] , thanks so much for joining us today.
DR. SPENCER: You're welcome, Rush.
RUSH: Now, refresh people's memories. You called the program once a few weeks ago discussing why you deviate from the established belief of manmade global warming. Your hypothesis basically is that precipitation is one of the primary factors and the computer models don't measure precipitation because we can't figure out -- we don't have the equipment, sophistication to even measure -- total precipitation on the planet on a daily basis. Correct?
DR. SPENCER: Well, let's be a little more specific than that. Basically, precipitation systems act as the atmosphere's air conditioner. It's kind of like in your house, the air is constantly being recycled, right? Well, precipitation systems constantly recycle the atmosphere's air. The air you were breathing was probably, in the last few days, going through a precipitation system. Those systems are what cause most of the earth's greenhouse effect, which is water vapor and clouds.
RUSH: Precisely. I remember. When you say "most," could you attach a percentage of greenhouse-gases to water vapor?
DR. SPENCER: Over 90%. Our addition of CO2 has enhanced the greenhouse effect by maybe 1% so far.
RUSH: Okay. So that's automobiles, exhalation of human breath, factory smoke stacks, all these things that we're being told are really polluting the planet are really such a small percentage of the so-called greenhouse gases. By the way, is it a bad thing the planet might warm up?
DR. SPENCER: I don't know. I think that's a toss up.
RUSH: If you go back and look at -- I forget what it was called, but back in the days of the Vikings, they were able to grow crops and so forth in Greenland, able to traverse the North Atlantic and come to North America. The Northern Hemisphere was a lot more fertile than it was. My point is that the idea that global warming is destructive, calamitous and deadly is a bit absurd.
DR. SPENCER: Yes. I think a little bit warmer would actually be better and I think the extra CO2... They estimate crop productivity has gone up 15 percent just because of the extra CO2 we've put in the atmosphere.
RUSH: So it's a good thing in ways. All right. Now, I'm titillated here. Cold air, unusually cold air is responsible for the subtropical storm off the coast of Georgia?
DR. SPENCER: Yeah. The hint there is it's not a tropical storm; it's a subtropical storm. These things don't usually form. It's been a few years since we've had one like this. But it didn't happen because of unusually warm ocean water. It happened because there was unusually cold air that came unusually far south, and there was such a contrast between that cold air mass and the sea surface temperatures which are running about normal in that area that then that can lead to a storm. Remember, most storminess on the earth is related to temperature contrasts.
RUSH: Right. Unusually cold air that came unusually far south.
DR. SPENCER: Right. If we're going to start blaming that on global warming, then you can explain anything with global warming.
RUSH: No, they do! You didn't hear it, I don't think. Laurie David is blaming the Malibu wildfires on global warming. With every weather calamity, they do two things: they portray it as unique. They try to convince people that we're experiencing severe weather today unlike we've ever known or the planet has ever known, and that then is because of manmade global warming. It's a perfect political agenda the way they've got it set up. DR. SPENCER: Right, and you just reminded me of a news story that came out yesterday. You may not have noticed it. Do you remember the name Chris Landsea? RUSH: No. DR. SPENCER: Well, he's one of the Hurricane Centers lead researchers and forecasters. He had quit the IPCC because he thought it was becoming too political.Posted by Kate at May 12, 2007 9:09 PMRUSH: The UN body.
DR. SPENCER: The UN bunch, right. Anyway, he's now convinced that 2005 wasn't a "record year" for tropical cyclones, and it's mainly because we've only had satellites which can see the Central and Eastern Atlantic since 1970s. I've got a graphic I can e-mail you that maybe you want to put up. The previous record year was 1933. I've got this graphic that shows how all of those storms were in the Western Atlantic, and then the new supposed record year, 2005, they're everywhere. In other words, if we had satellites back in '33, there probably would have been five or six more storms that would have been seen, and 2005 then wouldn't be a record.
RUSH: We've been naming storms since 1951. Before 1951 they were called "wind" and "rain." Now they're called Hurricane X and Y and all of this. Well, something else about that. We say that hurricane season starts June 1. Now, this is a statistical thing, but it's only because of humans' desire, and probably necessity in some places, to name things and to create boundaries for things. Something that happens like this subtropical storm in April is said to be "unusual," when there have been -- since we've been paying attention to recording these things -- I read today, 17. This is the 17th named storm -- obviously, since 1951 -- in May. So it's not unusual.
DR. SPENCER: Right, and even if it were unusual, it's unusual from the standpoint that it was caused by unusually cold air --
RUSH: Well, I appreciate that.
DR. SPENCER: -- not because it's unusually warm out.
RUSH: In fact, I was watching this thing on Saturday on an aviation website, and I saw this big lull out there, and they had it graphically turning like a cyclone. I'm looking on various weather sites and nobody is saying anything about it or mentioning it. It looked pretty intimidating to me even though it was way offshore. It wasn't a couple, three days later that it happened to be categorized and named. But what's the difference in a subtropical storm and a tropical storm?
DR. SPENCER: Well, like I said, a subtropical storm forms from a contrast between sea surface temperatures that are just warm enough, but then with a cold air mass, there's such a big temperature contrast there that it can really feed the convection. So it starts out as sort of a high latitude, a regular low-pressure area, and it can sort of transition into a tropical storm. You might have remembered a few years ago there was the supposed "first-ever hurricane" off of Brazil.
RUSH: Yes, I do remember that.
DR. SPENCER: That was supposedly due to global warming. That was another one of those things. It formed in an unusually cold air mass and the water it was sitting over was not unusually warm.
RUSH: Now that you mention this, I played golf on Sunday, and it was unusually humid and sweltery. It was, "Drink a lot of water," on the golf course. Monday and Tuesday here, down here in south of Florida, we had lows in the low 60s, barely got to 70. Humidity was gone. It was unusually cold air that made it even this far south, farther south than the storm is. I've lived here since 1997. (Here we go with the same anecdotal stuff that the global warming people use, "I lived here since 1997.") I don't remember ever the lows -- inland here they got here to the high 50s in the first part of May. That's unheard of to me since I've been here for 10 years.
DR. SPENCER: It's been unusually cool here in Alabama. I've been here 23 years, and a couple of weeks ago, for the first time that I saw in 23 years, we had a late freeze that froze not just the flowers but half the trees. The new foliage died, and a lot of these trees are not going to come back. I've never seen that happen before. Some of them are 100-year old oak trees.
RUSH: We'll pray for them. The Gaia has been unkind to some of her subjects. Dr. Roy Spencer from the University of Alabama at Huntsville. Thanks for your time. It's always a pleasure to talk to you, and it's enlightening. So the subtropical storm out there, Andrea Mitchell, is the result of unusually cold air coming unusually far south.RUSH: From the left coast to the right coast, here on the EIB Network. Loveland, Colorado and Doug.
CALLER: I was raised in south Louisiana and I'm in Loveland now. My wife was laughing while reading the newspaper this morning, because of the story about the tropical storm.
RUSH: Subtropical storm.
CALLER: Well, that's what got her attention. We started talking. I even called some friends of mine that still live there. None of us could remember any press coverage about a subtropical storm. I went online and started doing some research into it here, and they used to call them "Alpha, Beta, Charlie," et cetera, all the way down the list back in the '70s, but they never really reported or talked about them until 2002 when they gave them regular names.
RUSH: Yeah, tropical storms are usually the first things named, not subtropical storms. -
CALLER: Well, it got my attention because, well... Due to you, I went ahead and purchased and read Michael Creighton's "State of Fear."
RUSH: Ahhh! Good book.
CALLER: Excellent book. Excellent book. I plan to make copies of all the graphs in it, et cetera -- and it brought to mind how things are misreported all the time, and because now that we can name subtropical storms, we can have more storms to blame! I don't know why they didn't call this one "AlGore."
RUSH: (laughing) Well, because these things are destructive.
CALLER: That's true.
RUSH: I think we need to start naming thunderstorm systems.
CALLER: Yes.
RUSH Every low-pressure system that starts in the west and moves east needs a name.
CALLER: Fronts, anything. Warm front, cold front should probably be named and we should be warned about it.
RUSH: (Chuckling). Cold front, yeah. We could make a mockery of this. I'll tell you, you know what's going to happen? I want to prepare you. The traditional beginning of the hurricane season, of course, is June 1st -- and this is only because we say so! God didn't decree it. Mother Nature didn't decree it. Now we've got a subtropical storm out there. Why don't we move the start of hurricane season to May 1st? Think what the bureaucrats can do that! Think of how they could encroach on our freedom and raise taxes by expanding the hurricane season, and help the insurance companies charge even more money, and help the people that sell siding. Yeah, you gotta get that siding and shutters and so forth. Anyway, I guarantee you (I know this is going to happen) on June 1st -- let me check. I want to find out here what day of the week June 1st is. June 1st... Oh! Perfect! It's a slow news day: Friday! June 1st is a Friday!
So here's what's going to happen. You're going to have network and cable network camera crews out there on the coast of Florida in the Gulf of Mexico, scanning the horizon, on the first of June. They know there won't be anything out there to see, because if there is something they can see, it means the hurricane is at least a week old. So they're going to go out there June 1st. There will not be any hurricane. They'll scan the horizon, and in a little box there will be a running b-roll of the destruction from Hurricane Katrina -- and they'll sneak in a couple blips of the destroyed town Greensburg, Kansas, even though that was a tornado. They'll have their reporters out there monitoring the circumstances and the situation, and we'll get all the statistics about how the death and destruction has occurred since 2005, "the peak hurricane year" -- which, of course, is BS -- and they'll be out there, and it's all to create a climate of fear. It's all to create tumult and chaos, and to get everybody all ratcheted up and ready for destruction, death and disaster -- and it will go on. They'll make a big deal out of it Friday June 1st since it is a Friday.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/5288
kate:
this kind of crap is exactly the reason why NO ONE (apart from the same 20 assholes who comment here everytime you fart) take you seriously.
this dumpsite becomes increasingly toxic as you scramble to find ways to increase the dope levels in your posts.
you're a pusher. plain and simple.
Posted by: jeff at May 12, 2007 10:31 PMWell, you'll just have to go surf one of those 200 visits per day voices of authority on the progressive blogroll.
Nice knowing ya!
[deleted - keep it civil, please - ED]
Posted by: Toontown Kid at May 12, 2007 10:53 PMEvery time the weather changes...
Posted by: Jema54 at May 12, 2007 10:58 PMJeffrey: Wow! Why the hissy fit? Either something in the post really poked you hard ... some truth perhaps ... or else you got sand in your ... never mind.
Posted by: Cjunk at May 12, 2007 11:01 PMSorry. Its just that I get tired of these lefties coming into Kate's house and crapping on the carpet.
Posted by: Toontown Kid at May 12, 2007 11:02 PMKate, must say I enjoyed reading the post. I know that Jeffey thinks I'm just a common everyday a$$hole, but I agree with Dr. Spencer. It would be nice to have the world a wee bit warmer! My wife and I had company tonight and we thought it would be nice to sit and have coffee in the front yard with a fire going. Well, we had the fire, but we had to get blankets and a propane heater as well because it was so cold. Lots colder than normal. Must be all that global warming, eh!
Posted by: Grumpy Old Man at May 12, 2007 11:02 PMGee, do you think we could be headed for another "cooling" period on this planet? Wouldn't that be a hoot watching all those Kyoto-ites, trying to explain that as "Global Warming" at it's worst. Heh.
Posted by: jt at May 12, 2007 11:02 PMThat's an interesting commentary by Dr Spencer.
One of the questions that has always puzzled me about this global warming is where does the COLD air come from, that sets the new record low temperatures which we see regularly?
Posted by: rockyt at May 12, 2007 11:03 PMAdd weather phobia to the long list of urban liberal fears.
Posted by: WL Mackenzie Redux at May 12, 2007 11:16 PMWhen the going gets tough, "climate change" pitch-hits for "global warming". So, yes, you *can* explain anything and everything with global warming -- it's a very convenient truth!
The main thing to remember is this: Man is bad. Seinfeld finger-man: "very, very bad". Except for environmentalists. They are good. And, because they are good, they must be exempt from the lifestyle constraints they wish to impose on the rest of us.
Posted by: Richard Ball at May 12, 2007 11:28 PMJeff, leave them alone they are comfortable in their delusions and they would prefer stay ignorant to reality. These people are by far out number by other Canadians who do care about the environment and through the electoral process will eventually be forced to conform to save the planet, whether they like it or not.
I've found out that trying to teach one of these people about global warming is like trying to teach a dog to play the violin. No matter how patient and understanding you are of its limitations, it’s simply not equipped to handle the task.
that funny alby. coming from a troll with a mind the size and ability of a flea.
Posted by: FREE at May 12, 2007 11:43 PMGee, do you think we could be headed for another "cooling" period on this planet? Wouldn't that be a hoot watching all those Kyoto-ites, trying to explain that as "Global Warming" at it's worst. Heh.
Oh, but you see, they now have an all encompassing term called CLIMATE CHANGE. The enviro-nuts once thought that an imminent ice age was upon us. Since that was debunked, they needed something new so they came out with "global warming". And since "global warming" has been laughed out of credibility, they now have CLIMATE CHANGE, which can conveniently range from cooling to warming to suit whatever they want to "prove".
Posted by: Lycan Stark at May 12, 2007 11:52 PMjeff, alby...
I come to the comments section at SDA for the comics -- like you 2 guys. If Fatty Arbuckle and Buster Keaton ever put pen to paper, it would have come out just like you 2 write.
You know, the science is turning 100% against that weird pie-in-the-sky manmade global warming balony that dough heads like you like to believe in. I'll bet you 2 idiots vote New Democrat... my sides are splitting!
Posted by: Joe B. at May 13, 2007 12:01 AM"You know, the science is turning 100% against that weird pie-in-the-sky manmade global warming..."
All that coming from a guy who can't spell "to".
Posted by: albatros39a at May 13, 2007 12:08 AM"two"
Posted by: albatros39a at May 13, 2007 12:08 AMI am sorry, that other guy is an embarresment to all the "jeff's" in the world.
I had a friend who said the climate was changing.
I said yup it was and asked why.
He said global warming caused by humans.
I asked if the last ice age melt was caused by humans.
He saw that climate changes over time.
Does anyone really think we could change the climate even if we wanted too?
Well Alby...I must say.You have truly proven your "higher level" of education. I guess nobody has informed you in your pre-kidergarden class that "two" means 2,as in a number. Are you off your meds,or just on cheap drugs??
Posted by: Justthinkin at May 13, 2007 12:23 AMKate, I'm just glad to see you survived mini-tornado Tiffany.
Posted by: EBD at May 13, 2007 12:30 AMWell Alby...I must say.You have truly proven your "higher level" of education. I guess nobody has informed you in your pre-kidergarden class that "two" means 2,as in a number. Are you off your meds,or just on cheap drugs??
Yeah, I saw that too
Liberals can't manage anything more complex than lighting a bong. ;)
Posted by: Toontown Kid at May 13, 2007 12:31 AMDon't you just love it when holier-than-thou types make smug little comments about spelling, then promptly screw it up?
Kinda like climatologists making smug proclamations and then get proven wrong by actual events and actual science.
No wonder they are getting defensive -- nobody enjoys being made to look like a bloody fool.
Posted by: Yukon Gold at May 13, 2007 12:33 AM"I asked if the last ice age melt was caused by humans."
Do you pretend to know what caused the last Ice Age to come to an end? Do you think it's the same thing that caused Venus' atmosphere to end up with run away greenhouse effect? Venus 97% CO2, Average temperature: 464 C
Well thanx alby for helping me understand how to spell the number 2.
Y'see its just that I can't seem to get a handle on complicated worldly concepts like that 'cause I think I'm a mouthbreather and I'm sure I drag my knuckles.
It is reassuring for us challenged types however ,that there are guys like you out there to spell out what we aren't able to grasp.
That, Alby, was the funniest set of comments I've seen all week. Bravo!
Posted by: Kate at May 13, 2007 12:37 AMIt was a bad (and admittedly failed) attempt a humour, deal with it.
Posted by: albatros39a at May 13, 2007 12:37 AMThe murderous "caring" of the left like Alby and Jeff have decided that their "moral cause" based on fraudulent science trumps the suffering of the developing world's poor.
They are despicable human beings.
Well Alby,I will give credit where it is due.Sorry if I missed the humour that you tried to get across. It is late.
Posted by: Justthinkin at May 13, 2007 12:44 AM"Well Alby,I will give credit where it is due.Sorry if I missed the humour that you tried to get across. It is late.
Posted by: Justthinkin at May 13, 2007 12:44 AM"
Well to be honest it did look funnier before I pressed the "post" button. I think you’re right, it is late.
jeff, alby...what a pair of bozos.
Are you trying to make lefies look like fools, alby? If so, you are doing a good job. Keep up the low-brow humor; we all need a good laugh - along with the spelling lessons - what a hoot!
Posted by: terrence at May 13, 2007 12:48 AMalby....climate does change
it has and it will.
if you want, I will debate weather humans are the cause of global warming on Mars too.
Posted by: jeff at May 13, 2007 1:15 AMjeff you will debate whether, not weather, humans are a cause of bad spelling?
Posted by: kelly at May 13, 2007 1:24 AMThere is no spell check on the posts.
You can spell better than me. You win.
Sorry Kate
How does my spelling weaken my argument climate change is a hoax?
How do my weak spelling skills lesson mypoint that the climate does and will change and humans could not affect it even if we wanted too?
And how bout(spelling) the argument that a warmer planet might be good?
Attack spelling and grammer all you want. Makes all of you look like intellectual blowhards.
Attack the message, I can respect that.
Posted by: jeff at May 13, 2007 1:39 AMKate:
Thanks for posting the Rush interview with Dr. Roy Spencer. Keep up the good work. I've had to cut back on my internet time but still check your site every day. I grew up in NE Alabama and spent 12 years sweltering in classroms in May. If it's hot there now it sure isn't anything unusual for May.
Jack
Posted by: jack grant at May 13, 2007 1:44 AMIf only there were some old book around that mentioned floods and droughts the people born yesterday might start to believe that weather isn't something new, that weather has actually been around for a couple millenia or more.
Posted by: philanthropist at May 13, 2007 1:56 AMwell jeff it was more of a grammar check than spell because while you spelled the word right it wasn't used in the right context, which is fine unless you're trying to prove a point...which I believe you were.
Posted by: kelly at May 13, 2007 2:11 AMjeff you can't just say "I'm write" and expect people to agree. I'm a pair pear pare tree! say what you mean and mean what you say. spelling is everything in my language
Posted by: kelly at May 13, 2007 2:25 AMA quick visit to Jeff's blog shows why he said what he did. He seems to take some glee in trashing both the Conservatives and Liberals although he really has it in for PMSH. He takes exception of Dr. Roy Spencer because he is in a faith based organization. In other words those who are religious are not permitted to have an opinion in Jeff's world be it based in science or not. My guess is that Jeff is either an anarchist of sorts, an idiot or a card carrying member of the NDP. Actually, being in the NDP would include the other two.
Peter
Posted by: Peter at May 13, 2007 3:02 AMI think there are two separate people named "jeff" posting on this thread in case some people missed that?
Posted by: Smash'em at May 13, 2007 3:07 AM..an anarchist, idiot or card carrying NDP? hell give me full blown idiot any day!
that's pretty funny peter
..an anarchist, idiot or card carrying NDP? hell give me full blown idiot any day!
that's pretty funny peter
As I have said many times, I have experienced climate change four times a year for (secret) years. It is called winter, spring, summer and fall. Today we had severe global warming in our house, until someone checked the thermostat and discovered it had accidentally been turned up to 76. And, think of the businesses that thrive on each change in climate, and if the change is late, they are in trouble.
Posted by: mary T. at May 13, 2007 3:17 AMJeff: "Does anyone really think we could change the climate even if we wanted too?"
That would a damn fine weapon, I'd say.
The new theory on a major weather driver is the amount of cosmic rays that are able to enter the earths atmosphere and cause water vapour to precipitate out into cloud formation!This is no longer a theory but has been proven in a lab by some scientists in europe.
Posted by: adrian smits at May 13, 2007 6:07 AMKate, you're such a liar. A big ol' liar. I'm surprised you've never been charged with anything...have you?
I guess the paranoia and dementia that keep you locked up in your rural hovel also keeps you out of trouble.
Posted by: K8t H8tr at May 13, 2007 6:31 AMi don't remember who said this but it seems to appy to what is being attemted with global warming. "men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction"
Posted by: jmorrison at May 13, 2007 7:30 AMJeff's site, like his photography, does not rise to a particularly high standard. Seems to be characteristic of most of the left. Why are they all so afraid of honest discourse? I have yet to come across a leftoblog that conducts itself in a reasonably intelligent manner, willing to entertain worthwhile discussion with a fact-based consideration of different viewpoints. Bitch all you want, SDA accomplishes this when the participants are willing.
And Alby, when you've finished spinning your wheels at U of M, go off to a real university, because you are apparently not getting a higher education there. The purpose of a university education is to open the mind and cultivate the skills that accompany advanced reasoning. You consistently demonstrate neither an open mind nor any advanced reasoning skills.
As for Jeff the snapshooter, Kate, you should consider suing him for his latest web entry - that appears actionable. Nice thing about defamation in Canada is that its not necessary to prove injury.
The purpose of a university education is to open the mind and cultivate the skills that accompany advanced reasoning.
Posted by: Skip at May 13, 2007 7:33 AM
The purpose of a university education is to indoctrinate you into the leftard/dipper/socialist philosophy of following the cult's reasoning as you get rid of the middle class.
There. Fixed that for ya Skip :)
Posted by: Justthinkin at May 13, 2007 9:05 AMJustthinkin: My age is showing. You may be right. In my day, there actually was a vigorous discourse around all sides of an issue... LOL!
Posted by: Skip at May 13, 2007 9:09 AMSkip; Wayyyyyyyy back when I attended an institute of higher learning like you, that was what it was, higher learning, with reasoned discourse and seeking to find the answers. Now? My 19 year-old niece just finished her first year at university. Funny as it may sound, she said the main concerns were how to schedule your day for the most time off and not screw up your course load, and what time the Friday drunk-fest started. Hehehhee...sounds familiar,but 2nd year will set her straight..lol
Posted by: Justthinkin at May 13, 2007 9:30 AMSometime in the last year, the "enviro-scientists", The Fruit Fly Guy and The Failed Presidential Candidate realized that "Global Warming" was being threatened by that darn "cold weather".
So they changed the term to "climate change" - now no matter what the weather, weather disaster, natural disaster, rain, snow, sun, heat, cold, tornados, earthquakes, volcano eruptions, hurricanes etc. etc. - they can blame "climate change"
Snake oil salesmen - the lot of them!
Unfortunately, there seem to be a great many gullible people in the world who fall for it hook, line and sinker and rush out to buy curly bulbs that will challenge their eyesight but they can feel good that they are saving the planet from certain doom.
They can't lose.
Posted by: Albertagirl at May 13, 2007 9:40 AMWhen I was at university, priority one was to have fun, priority two was to pass exams.
Just like today.
When I was at university, there was large contingent of noisy left wing and environmental radicals (both students and teachers), who made us liberals (business friendly, non-socialists) look like a small minority. (But it also created some really good debates.) In reality, the student body was not any more left wing than the general public.
Just like today.
When I was at university, the conservative middle aged crowd complained about today's irresponsible and radical youth, and about the decline of the education system.
Just like today.
I feel right at home.
Jeff's "rebuttal" is pretty funny. It begins and ends with an attack on Spencer and devotes not one word to the information he shares.
That's a clue, folks....
Posted by: Kate at May 13, 2007 9:58 AMThe seasons and temperatures change from bitterly cold winters to steaming hot summers on Earth and all it takes to accomplish that is for the Earth to tilt ever so slightly toward the Sun on its 92 million km radius (?) orbit...and some darn fool like Alby tries to use Venus as an example of the greenhouse effect.
Newsflash for you Alby, if Venus had NO ATMOSPHERE it would still be just as hot!
Duh!
Posted by: Eeyore at May 13, 2007 10:33 AM"If we're going to start blaming that on global warming, then you can explain anything with global warming."
I enjoyed this comment. I recall many years ago attending a presentation by an applicant for a faculty position at the then-fledgling Faculty of Engineering at UVic. The presenter gave a highly entertaining, yet intensely mathematical, discussion on his signal processing research. When questioned about one of his mathematical proofs, with a wry smile, he mused on general matters that if you let the value of any variable approach infinity, you can prove anything. This brought on sustained laughter, as intended.
Posted by: norm at May 13, 2007 10:55 AMVenus....hmmm 40 million kilometers closer to the sun, or about 28% closer....might have somthing to do with it.
Runaway greenhouse....you mean it is getting hotter every day??? thats what runaway would mean.
BTW here are the stats for Mars....
http://observe.arc.nasa.gov/nasa/exhibits/mars/voyage/atmos.html
97% C02....does that mean it has runaway greenhouse as well? And why is it colder? Oh year it is farther away from the sun.....
Posted by: Stephen at May 13, 2007 11:00 AMJustthinkin: Well, that first year was pretty brutal, and it was largely about drinking, from what I remember... The bloodletting at finals told the tale in the lineup at registration in second year. My year class went from about 200 to about 45 in the final exam slaughter, and about 28 of us graduated. The U was easy to get into, but tough to get out of with a degree...
Posted by: Skip at May 13, 2007 11:31 AMGetting back to the topic at hand: I used to post to the control-freaks who want our government "to do sumpthing" about all that GW. I suggested to them that wouldn't it be better to have a warmer winter in T.O., than to spend all that money and jet fuel flying south to Florida, to escape "winter"? The GW freaks kept posting back that Albertans were greedy rich-guys just hell bent on detroying the planet, and that we needed some outside force to control our excesses, like making a living. I pointed out to them that we only supplied products that they needed to heat their homes, propel their vehicles and drive their industries. It was legal, too. Some people are never satisfied with just letting other people do what they do best. They need to CONNNNTROLLLLL every body and their lives, in order to give meaning to their own.
Posted by: jt at May 13, 2007 12:04 PMAl Gore, David Suzuki and now Jeff are the reason it is becoming more and more difficult to have a reasoned debate on global warming. Those folks outright dismiss the other side's right to bring forth the case for the other side of the issue. They resort to name calling using terms like GW deniers - like it should have a close attachment to "holocaust deniers" - there is certainly some psychology at play here.
The whole issue is so hamstrung with politics and dare I say profit motive that maybe its time to give the ball over to a whole new set of players. With Al Gore in the carbon credit business while using twenty times the energy in his house that the average person uses in his, how can anyone give any creedance to what he has to say on the issue? Does the term "hypocrit" apply here?
But try to present the other side of the issue and the jealots go freaking postal. You get called an idiot or an asshole. I just want an open and honest debate on the issue with each side giving the other the right to present their position. That just doesn't seem possible right now and I lay it at the feet of the GW crowd.
Oh, and please, quit with the fear mongering with our children. There are reports by younger elementary school kids having nightmares of their house being swept away by rushing water caused by GW. Enough of that crap, please!
Posted by: a different Bob at May 13, 2007 12:15 PMEeyore,
You're wrong about the CO2 on Venus. The atmosphere on Venus, as on Earth, does contribute to the warming of that planet. Venus would be colder without an atmosphere. You're spot on noting the wide average temperature swings due to the Earth's 23 degree tilt, however.
There are those who've turned environmentalism into a type of religion - we need to have faith in what albatross says, or we'll suffer doom. Let's leave religious faith with the churches, and let science approach environmental issues with an even-headed approach (the way science is supposed to be done, not the politicized process that Kyoto-cultists have created).
Typical, when leftoid trolls arrive to defend their cult, rather than countering with a reasonable argument, they tellingly resort to personal attacks. (I wonder when 'climate racist' might make its way into their disturbed lexicon)
Further, the counter argument to global warming is increasingly being mounted by real climate experts, former authors for the IPCC, such as MIT's Richard Lindzen, etc. While the freaks give us unknown spectors, such as these 'vast majority' claims, without backing it up with any credible names.
But alas, they do have their failed presidential moonbat and a fruitfly scientist. And their insults.
Little wonder they're beside themselves.
Posted by: irwin daisy at May 13, 2007 12:55 PM (I wonder when 'climate racist' might make its way into their disturbed lexicon
Posted by: irwin daisy at May 13, 2007 12:55 PM
Great Irwin. Don't give them any ideas...LOL
Posted by: Justthinkin at May 13, 2007 1:47 PMA group of environmentalists are in Bonn Germany to attend a conference on climate change action after 2012, when the first round of kyoto ends.
Whole bunch of documents should have been submitted to the UN by Canada and that hasn't been done. Cdn delegation does not include reps from industry ect. Canada has been excluded from official delegation, as has the suzuki people.
Dale Marshal, rep from suzuki org, crying on QP just now. It appears Canada has abandoned Kyoto, after 2012, as have other countries. The main reason dion wanted an election, to become PM by 2008 was to commit Canada to Kyoto that comes into effect Feb 2008. We must see that doesn't happen.
A digression: Today is too much fun. KS getting her knickers knotted in one thread, Jeff the Photographer in his own website, when challenged about him living in a forest, in Toronto (according to his profile)..:
"Oh, and Jeff, there are no forests in Toronto (actually, even none in S. Ont). Woodlots do not a forest make.
Jeff: high park is 400 acres, winnie the pooh and christopher robin only had a 100 acre woods.
Just to be picky (LOL), thats 93 million MILES from the sun. If it was only 93M klicks, well,we would be fighting Venus for the orbit.
And Alby....stand 6' from a 300F oven. Now stand 3' away. Get a little hotter?
re: Climate Racist.
The climate change collective claim that Africa will be the first and most negatively effected by GW. Northern climates, of course, will benefit - longer growing seasons and so forth.
It's coming.
Posted by: irwin daisy at May 13, 2007 5:59 PMI don't think anyone is seriously blaming any particular event on global warming; yet we know that these kind of events will both increase in number and in intensity in the future.
As for "cool" spells: one can't refute the fact that the AVERAGE GLOBAL temperature is increasing by pointing to a local and particularized piece of data. That would be like trying to say that a person doesn't have a fever because they have cold hands.
Behold the non-uniformity.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20070208/169068main_temp_anom_w_date_320x240.mpg
Posted by: Justin at May 13, 2007 6:14 PMYou slept through Hurricane Katrina, I take it.
Posted by: Kate at May 13, 2007 6:26 PMUmmmmm...hey Justin. You just wake up like Ichabod Crane??? Everything except waking up in the morning has been blamed on global warming. Cripes....even the fact it gets warmer in the summer is because of GW. Get out of your Momma's basement more often!
Posted by: Justthinkin at May 13, 2007 6:42 PM"I don't think anyone is seriously blaming any particular event on global warming; yet we know that these kind of events will both increase in number and in intensity in the future."
Sorta like the Kyoto Kultists predication for the hurricane season of 2006?
Posted by: Justthinkin at May 13, 2007 6:50 PMAnd still AL GORE gose all over the place in his private jet and his 4 mpg limo and urges us to cat back our energy use what a hypotcrit
Posted by: spurwing plover at May 14, 2007 12:29 AM"I don't think"
Posted by: Justin at May 13, 2007 6:14 PM
This just in!
Just enough!
Eeyore,
Hey, ever considered that Venus may be really hot cause it's 40,000,000 km's closer to that big glowing orb in the sky we refer to as the Sun?
Posted by: Warwick at May 14, 2007 2:08 PM