Global warming, global cooling

Status
Not open for further replies.
SOURCE

June hasn't been this nice since ... 1913

by John Faherty - Jun. 19, 2009 12:00 AM
The Arizona Republic

Meteorologists are reluctant to call a month "nice." They have their data and their science and typically do not describe the weather in such subjective terms.

Except now, because the data prove it.

"It's probably the best June since I've been here, and I've been here most of my life," said the National Weather Service's Valerie Meyers, who is in her late 40s. "It's been really nice."

Possibly the nicest June ever.

It's that type of thing that is fun to say but hard to quantify.

Thursday, however, was the 14th consecutive day to stay below 100 degrees. That's the longest stretch of its kind in any June since 1913.

The lower temperatures have allowed people to sleep with windows open and drive with their arms out vehicle windows. Evenings, too, have been spent chatting with neighbors while children or grandchildren play. Those events are not life-changing, but they are, well, nice.

Typically in June, high-pressure systems begin to form above the Valley. High pressure means clear skies and little wind. And, in June, clear skies let in the sunshine, sending the temperatures soaring.

This June, though, has remained cool because of what Meyers called "a persistent area of low pressure off the West Coast."

The low pressure has prevented the high-pressure systems from getting into place.

Alas, all good things must come to an end. This weekend, the days will heat up. Temperatures are expected to be back in the 104-105 range by the middle of next week.
Click to expand...
 
May & June, in Phoenix, have always been outstanding. Though, under 100, is unusual.

Just wait 'til August.
 
Polar bear expert barred by global warmists

Mitchell Taylor, who has studied the animals for 30 years, was told his views 'are extremely unhelpful’ , reveals Christopher Booker.


Christopher Booker
Published: 5:20PM BST 27 Jun 2009

Comments 192 | Comment on this article
Ap Polar bears Polar bear expert barred by warmists
According to the world?s leading expert on polar bears, their numbers are higher than they were 30 years ago Photo: AP

Over the coming days a curiously revealing event will be taking place in Copenhagen. Top of the agenda at a meeting of the Polar Bear Specialist Group (set up under the International Union for the Conservation of Nature/Species Survival Commission) will be the need to produce a suitably scary report on how polar bears are being threatened with extinction by man-made global warming.

This is one of a steady drizzle of events planned to stoke up alarm in the run-up to the UN's major conference on climate change in Copenhagen next December. But one of the world's leading experts on polar bears has been told to stay away from this week's meeting, specifically because his views on global warming do not accord with those of the rest of the group.



Dr Mitchell Taylor has been researching the status and management of polar bears in Canada and around the Arctic Circle for 30 years, as both an academic and a government employee. More than once since 2006 he has made headlines by insisting that polar bear numbers, far from decreasing, are much higher than they were 30 years ago. Of the 19 different bear populations, almost all are increasing or at optimum levels, only two have for local reasons modestly declined.

Dr Taylor agrees that the Arctic has been warming over the last 30 years. But he ascribes this not to rising levels of CO2 – as is dictated by the computer models of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and believed by his PBSG colleagues – but to currents bringing warm water into the Arctic from the Pacific and the effect of winds blowing in from the Bering Sea.

He has also observed, however, how the melting of Arctic ice, supposedly threatening the survival of the bears, has rocketed to the top of the warmists' agenda as their most iconic single cause. The famous photograph of two bears standing forlornly on a melting iceberg was produced thousands of times by Al Gore, the WWF and others as an emblem of how the bears faced extinction – until last year the photographer, Amanda Byrd, revealed that the bears, just off the Alaska coast, were in no danger. Her picture had nothing to do with global warming and was only taken because the wind-sculpted ice they were standing on made such a striking image.

Dr Taylor had obtained funding to attend this week's meeting of the PBSG, but this was voted down by its members because of his views on global warming. The chairman, Dr Andy Derocher, a former university pupil of Dr Taylor's, frankly explained in an email (which I was not sent by Dr Taylor) that his rejection had nothing to do with his undoubted expertise on polar bears: "it was the position you've taken on global warming that brought opposition".

Dr Taylor was told that his views running "counter to human-induced climate change are extremely unhelpful". His signing of the Manhattan Declaration – a statement by 500 scientists that the causes of climate change are not CO2 but natural, such as changes in the radiation of the sun and ocean currents – was "inconsistent with the position taken by the PBSG".

So, as the great Copenhagen bandwagon rolls on, stand by this week for reports along the lines of "scientists say polar bears are threatened with extinction by vanishing Arctic ice". But also check out Anthony Watt's Watts Up With That website for the latest news of what is actually happening in the Arctic. The average temperature at midsummer is still below zero, the latest date that this has happened in 50 years of record-keeping. After last year's recovery from its September 2007 low, this year's ice melt is likely to be substantially less than for some time. The bears are doing fine.
Click to expand...

source
 
Obama has a plan to stop Global Warming.




520x.jpg


Anyone up for a little Nuclear Winter?



Perhaps we should skip that and head out to North Korea. I hear they are playing "Weekend at Bernie's".



kim-jong-il.jpg
 
Global warming is real- quantifiable.
How much it is caused by humans via deforestation, burning fossil fuels, etc., is debatable. Pretty much a moot point, though, because people sure as hell aren't going to take to the woods and live like the Indians again until/unless they have to. Even if they did, the climate is going to do what it's going to do. "Save the Planet"??? What a load of self-important crap. The planet will be here long after human extinction....and it's coming, folks! The 2012 comet- sent by the Vogons. I suggest getting drunk and putting a bag over your heads. It won't help, but it's something to do.
 
I'm pretty sure Save the Planet doesn't mean people are worried about the planet disappearing. You've obviously misunderstood something there.

It's note worthy that there is a vast area between doing nothing and taking to the woods to live like indians used to. I would also say that those who refuse to make any effort or take any responsibility are the ones acting self important.
 
Spike, that was my attempt at facetious humor.
Of course we should take responsibilty and do what we can to save and conserve what we've got, reduce pollution and make it a better place for ourselves and future generations. We have the most selfish reasons to do so, and there's nothing wrong with that.
Me, I've dropped Archaeology and taken up Water Management. It's not much and I probably won't be able to make much of a difference, but if I can do a little good before I expire- well, that's something.
 
No Spike, what most people mean by "Save the Planet" is that somebody else should do something about it. Most of them have the attitude, "I would but I have to microwave this popcorn then drive the SUV down to the mall and buy the newest Iphone."

The sea levels will rise some but not as much as the doom criers predict. The climate will continue to change (it has only been doing it for about five billion years) whether we're here to contribute or not but probably not in the way predicted. Too many variables to count. There will continue to be drought and famine and natural disasters and the poorest and weakest will suffer the most. I find it laughable that any of this surprises and/or offends people.
 
Some of us do what we can. We recycle all cardboard, mixed paper, plastic (#1, #2, #5), tin and aluminum cans. We get about a 50% savings on garbage that way. We drive small cars that more than suit our needs and save us gas. I don't know jack about BBQ grills, but we use charcoal because it is tastier and easier for us.

Oh and I have an iphone 3G and not a 3G S!

All that bitching about ginormous cars I can do guilt free, and I also pass land yachts most times anyway because I hate not being able to see past them and also the fact its usually a soccer mom with more attention on her iphone than on the road. At least with my brain rotting bluetooth (which is the law) in my ear you can trust my reaction times.
 
It's not the phone in the hand, it's the distration of the conversation.
 
Gonz said:
It's not the phone in the hand, it's the distration of the conversation.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Responsible drivers don't cellphone and drive. Of course, if you follow that argument, maybe we shouldn't listen to the radio, either. But what about people who daydream and drive, or pay more attention to the roadside scenery than what's in front of them? How about that jungle of billboards along the Interstate? Speaking of distractions, who hasn't gotten a BJ while cruising? Come on- you know you're guilty. (wink, nudge, grin)
"Lord, Mr. Ford, I just wish that you could see
what your simple horseless carriage has become"
- Jerry Reed =D
 
Gonz said:
It's not the phone in the hand, it's the distration of the conversation.
Click to expand...

Studies show the conversation can have an effect but holding a phone more. I also almost only call folks on deserted country roads. Otherwise I have the bluetooth to catch important calls, and use the phone quite infrequently while driving. The soccer moms, alone in the ginormous SUVs spend 90% of their driving time on the phone, in one hand, and many of them spend the other 10% texting while driving (no hands for driving I guess?). I repeatedly watch the near miss accidents around here. I am really amazed that no serious one has killed someone yet, but it will happen someday, more likely sooner than later.
 
JTP said:
Agreed. Responsible drivers don't cellphone and drive. Of course, if you follow that argument, maybe we shouldn't listen to the radio, either. But what about people who daydream and drive, or pay more attention to the roadside scenery than what's in front of them? How about that jungle of billboards along the Interstate? Speaking of distractions, who hasn't gotten a BJ while cruising? Come on- you know you're guilty. (wink, nudge, grin)
"Lord, Mr. Ford, I just wish that you could see
what your simple horseless carriage has become"
- Jerry Reed =D
Click to expand...

It's no news that when someone's looking for an address, they habitually turn down the radio.
 
randomJACKASS said:
Some of us do what we can. We recycle all cardboard, mixed paper, plastic (#1, #2, #5), tin and aluminum cans. We get about a 50% savings on garbage that way. We drive small cars that more than suit our needs and save us gas. I don't know jack about BBQ grills, but we use charcoal because it is tastier and easier for us.
Click to expand...
As do I. Still makes us the exception rather than the rule.


randomJACKASS said:
Oh and I have an iphone 3G and not a 3G S!
Click to expand...
Really?

randomJACKASS said:
All that bitching about ginormous cars I can do guilt free, and I also pass land yachts most times anyway because I hate not being able to see past them and also the fact its usually a soccer mom with more attention on her iphone than on the road. At least with my brain rotting bluetooth (which is the law) in my ear you can trust my reaction times.
Click to expand...
The latest studies I've seen say that being hands free doesn't really improve your reaction times significantly. When you're driving a car, you are operating heavy machinery (even if it's a small car). It might be best if you avoided the distraction, don't you think?
 
I'd like to see a study of talking on the phone vs.a 6-pack of beer while driving.

Well shit, now I'm thinking of a bunch of distractions to add to the challenge. Crying kids, fighting kids, sneezing fit, dog in the back barking, dog in the back crapping, cat on the dashboard, subwoofers booming, Limbaugh, Stern, half a joint, 3 cups of cofffeee, cold medicine, snow, rain, vomit, etc. Could be good TV.

Let's send it to Mythbusters...and they have to do combinations.
 
If walking and chewing gum taxes your abilities
then don’t converse on a cel while driving.
Sheesh next you are going to have some kind of
requirements for people who want to become parents!
 
spike said:
I'd like to see a study of talking on the phone vs.a 6-pack of beer while driving.

Well shit, now I'm thinking of a bunch of distractions to add to the challenge. Crying kids, fighting kids, sneezing fit, dog in the back barking, dog in the back crapping, cat on the dashboard, subwoofers booming, Limbaugh, Stern, half a joint, 3 cups of cofffeee, cold medicine, snow, rain, vomit, etc. Could be good TV.

Let's send it to Mythbusters...and they have to do combinations.
Click to expand...

I do believe Mythbusters already chewed this bone to death. Then end result was ... any distraction is bad juju. But I do like the comparison with cell phones and a 6 pack. Both should be illegal behind the wheel.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top