Global Warming Discussion

[Bill Shaw]

Originally Posted by hork

i'm curious why is it on these boards so many are so quick to illustrate things like the recent snow in vegas (you all missed the new orleans storm) and tout that as evidence against global warming yet,

as is typically the case we never see any stories about heat waves, droughts, etc (especially those atypical ones) offered to show evidence for the phenomenon?

i've stated my position on the whole issue before so i'll not rehash that, but we've so often seen folks rail on andrew for biased posting (among others) and yet not a word regarding the posts on this topic???

So...

It's not ridiculously cold?

Because...people don't note when it's hot.

I can't speak for anyone else, but my concern with Andrew's "posting" is that is pretty much amounts to hyperbolic Subjects assigned to, at best, mildly related (and absurdly long) articles that are 'cut & paste' from dubious (or extremist) sources.

The impression left is there is an abject lack of independent thought involved, and the hit & run style betrays zero interest in accountability.

But that might just be me.

[hork]

Originally Posted by Bill Shaw

So...

It's not ridiculously cold?

Because...people don't note when it's hot.

nope it's just calling a spade a spade nothing more, nothing less.

[Bill Shaw]

Originally Posted by hork

nope it's just calling a spade a spade nothing more, nothing less.

Ok.

So, it's hot in Summer.

And cold in Winter.

You busted us.

Must be a grant in there somewhere for you.

[hork]

Originally Posted by Bill Shaw

Ok.

So, it's hot in Summer.

And cold in Winter.

You busted us.

Must be a grant in there somewhere for you.

not for the weather issue but if only i were a social psychologist.......

[Bill Shaw]

Originally Posted by hork

not for the weather issue but if only i were a social psychologist.......

:P

[P562045]

I am just giving evidence such as the snow in Las Vegas that it may not be global warming after all.

But what is the main reason global warming is discussed in the first place?

We have the actual ability as individuals to save the planet by our actions alone. Just for the record I don't even know enough about how the planet works to even know if this is possible or not.

But there are two other reasons why people latch on to the global warming as well that are not nearly discussed as much as when I mention people saving the planet.

1. Make a ton of money for some people. Al Gore comes to mind immediately for some reason. T. Boone Pickens and his wind farm scheme is another name as well but it may take him quite a while to make money on his wind farm.
2. Tax this that and the other thing in order to convince ourselves that we are actually saving the planet but I have yet to hear a real discussion on how to actually do this.

Now when I mention these two things from time to time are they usually even discussed when global warming is even mentioned?

And if the answer to my question is no why is that?

[P562045]

This is a story about democrats brilliance.

They are the party that runs around and says that renewable energy is part of the equation when it comes to getting us out of this recession right.

Just as a side note I will predict long before it happens that the next recession will be caused by our great desire for renewable sources of energy. Let's see a ton of money was invested in the .com revolution but it really could not make money for everyone that tried so that bubble burst. Now of course some companies are going to fail but what I just mentioned was one of the reasons why the president we have now started out with a recession. Then we had so many people invested in wall street that when it could no longer sustain growth wall street had a huge contraction this year alone. And what did wall street do with some of this money people invested. Wall street made some very poor decisions with the money people gave them and that is a big part of the reason why we will be going into a recession next month. The crap started to hit the fan in July and there must be six months of a decline in growth for it to be a recession. Let's not blame Obama for this current recession but we will get to blame Obama for his little we so need to save the planet scheme causes the next recession.

Wind energy which really sounds great partly because it is a very clean energy source only produces about 1% of our energy output. If it is so great why isn't wind energy being used much more? Just part of the answer to the question is there are many extra costs and that is even before the windmill is even put up. These costs include such things as finding out where is the best place to put the windmill to get the most amount of energy. Then there are some different fees and licenses in order for someone to put such a thing on their property.

I digress but I don't really know how a story like this got in the New York Times but there are actual drawbacks to several energy resources during the winter months in certain places.

"This time of year, wind turbine blades ice up, biodiesel congeals [freeze up] in tanks and solar panels produce less power because there is not as much sun. And perhaps most irritating to the people who own them, the panels become covered with snow, rendering them useless even in bright winter sunshine."

I wonder if a person got a shovel to get the snow off a solar panel if scraping off the snow would in some way damage the solar panel?

I guess this would really only effect the Northeast and Upper Midwest but those two areas do have at least some population.

Now as someone who was very critical of ethanol as an energy source this story just proves to me even more clearly that we better think of the problems we create by using these renewable energy sources. I think we are being very cautious about how we use these energy sources which is a good thing. How do I know we are being somewhat cautious in the first place. If these energy resources were the cure to even some of our ills wouldn't they be used a lot more than we currently are?

This is one area I will be watching Obama to see what he does as president.

Stupid skip this ad thingie.



Well at least the skip this ad thingie does not come up all the time.

I already quoted the most important part of the story already in my post.

Story Here

[yon Beast]

Originally Posted by P562045

I wonder if a person got a shovel to get the snow off a solar panel if scraping off the snow would in some way damage the solar panel?

I have seen people use a leaf blower, compressed air or a vaccuum...I am as certain as I could be that scraping snow off these panels would cause damage to the point of failure!

[P562045]

Well "Plan B" needs to be implemented as soon as possible.

"Plan A" of course is to tax people more in order to think they are actually saving the planet when in reality they are doing no such thing.

I sure do hope here in the U.S. only the top 5% will be paying for this. Obama so promised this during his campaign for president.

Well what does "Plan B" consist of?

Injecting air with particles to reflect sunlight.
Creating low clouds over oceans.
Iron filings so need to go into the sea.
Move around the water deep within an ocean.
Giant mirrors in space.

Just so a person does not think I am crazy.

These are actual proposals in a newspaper over in the United Kingdom.

I do find it rather interesting that many of these scientists that a majority of them so agree "Plan B" needs to supplement "Plan A" are from universities, places where such research is conducted, and even a Nobel prize winner. Why does this not surprise me in the least?

Story Here

Hopefully Obama will find some much more suitable things for his we must save the planet scheme. But this scheme will have the exact same effect as the various things that so need to be tried in order to save the planet in this particular news story.

[StormJr]

Originally Posted by hork

i'm curious why is it on these boards so many are so quick to illustrate things like the recent snow in vegas (you all missed the new orleans storm) and tout that as evidence against global warming yet,

as is typically the case we never see any stories about heat waves, droughts, etc (especially those atypical ones) offered to show evidence for the phenomenon?

i've stated my position on the whole issue before so i'll not rehash that, but we've so often seen folks rail on andrew for biased posting (among others) and yet not a word regarding the posts on this topic???

Ok, how about this: The UN panel on Climate Change predicted 2008 would be the warmest on record....when in fact, 2008 was the coolest since the year 2000.

Ever wonder what temperatures go into the climate models that produce the global warming claims? Take a looksy at this gem.

Originally Posted by www.surfacestations.org

I’m surveying climate stations of record around California and documenting their condition as part of a larger project I’m doing. You’ll see more about it here in the near future.

Today I visited Marysville’s Fire Station, just off Hwy 70 at 9th and B Street, where they have the station of record for the city using the MMTS electronic sensor installed by the National Weather Service. The data from this station is part of the USHCN (US Historical Climatological Network) and is used in the computer modeling used to predict climate change.

The Marysville station is located behind the fire department building on a patio and is probably the worst site visited so far. In addition to the sensor being surrounded by asphalt and concrete, its also within 10 feet of buildings, and within 8 feet of a large metal cell tower that could be felt reflecting sunlight/heat. And worst of all, air conditioning units on the cell tower electronics buildings vent warm air within 10 feet of the sensor. Oh and lets not forget the portable BBQ the firefighters use a “couple times a week.” The area has been constantly added to, what was once a grass rear yard was turned to a parking lot, then more buildings added, then a cell tower with one, then two electronics buildings and the air conditioners…no report on how long the firefighters were BBQ’ing back there, when they figured out why I was asking all the questions they clammed up.

I can tell you with certainty, the temperature data from this station is useless. Look at the pictures to see why, and is it any wonder the trend for temperature is upward?




Above: Vehicles with hot radiators park within 6 feet of the temperature sensor!


Now compare Marysville to Orland, just 50 miles away, where there’s not been any significant change in the last 100 years at the measuring location. Its obvious that Marysville is measuring UHI (Urban Heat Island) effects.

That is from a gentleman named Anthony Watts, not funded by any group but himself. He started up the site www.surfacestations.org to audit the sensors that are used in the US climate data. He also has this interesting information. The NCDC has their own rating system for these stations and he has rated them himself using the "classes" and their definitions listed below:

Climate Reference Network Rating Guide - adopted from NCDC Climate Reference Network Handbook, 2002, specifications for siting (section 2.2.1) of NOAA's new Climate Reference Network:

Class 1 - Flat and horizontal ground surrounded by a clear surface with a slope below 1/3 (<19deg). Grass/low vegetation ground cover <10 centimeters high. Sensors located at least 100 meters from artificial heating or reflecting surfaces, such as buildings, concrete surfaces, and parking lots. Far from large bodies of water, except if it is representative of the area, and then located at least 100 meters away. No shading when the sun elevation >3 degrees.

Class 2 - Same as Class 1 with the following differences. Surrounding Vegetation <25 centimeters. No artificial heating sources within 30m. No shading for a sun elevation >5deg.

Class 3 (error 1C) - Same as Class 2, except no artificial heating sources within 10 meters.

Class 4 (error >= 2C) - Artificial heating sources <10 meters.

Class 5 (error >= 5C) - Temperature sensor located next to/above an artificial heating source, such a building, roof top, parking lot, or concrete surface."

So basically you can deduct that any temperature readings from a class 4 or higher sensor are being affected via an unnatural source. And as you can see, by the stations surveyed, almost 70% of the stations that are being introduced into the climate models have been affected by artificial heating sources! You throw in the Class 3 stations that are being affected by about 1 degree C and that is nearly 90%.

[tymy]

With no disrespect intended to Storm's very thoughtful post.......all I know is the next couple of day's in Chicago will be the coldest in almost twenty years.

So much for global warming.

[P562045]

Originally Posted by StormJr

So basically you can deduct that any temperature readings from a class 4 or higher sensor are being affected via an unnatural source. And as you can see, by the stations surveyed, almost 70% of the stations that are being introduced into the climate models have been affected by artificial heating sources! You throw in the Class 3 stations that are being affected by about 1 degree C and that is nearly 90%.

So basically they are trying to alter the numbers to make it appear warmer than it really is?

Well I guess we should not to the United Nations for our temperature forecast I guess.

[StormJr]

Originally Posted by P562045

So basically they are trying to alter the numbers to make it appear warmer than it really is?

Well I guess we should not to the United Nations for our temperature forecast I guess.

Not exactly. We aren't trying (well some aren't) to alter the numbers. We are just practicing bad techniques when taking temperatures and not accounting for artificial heat sources. You may say to your self, well the exhaust from an AC unit isn't going to affect the sensor that much. Well, when we are predicting temperature rises on the order of 0.5C, then it doenst have to be much!

And yes, it was cold here too.... in fact, it's -27 here right now in the western burns of Minneapolis. HOWEVER, make sure you know the difference between weather and climate. One big cold snap is not climate.

[P562045]

Altered is such a poor word to use. They are not altering anything. But this portion of the quote is all I need to know that the people making the climate models are using only certain data that is used for their own specific purposes.

Thank you for getting me to make it more clear why I wanted to discuss this in the first place.

Originally Posted by StormJr

And as you can see, by the stations surveyed, almost 70% of the stations that are being introduced into the climate models have been affected by artificial heating sources! You throw in the Class 3 stations that are being affected by about 1 degree C and that is nearly 90%.

[StormJr]