It was only in the 70s or 80s, I can't remember which, that the consensus amongst scientists was that we were soon to be heading into a mini Ice Age. Perhaps that's the science you were referring to in relation to the solar activity. At any rate, they were wrong; we entered a period of sustained warming. That all finished seventeen years ago. Maybe their timing was off. Weather has always been hard to predict, or 'climate' as we're supposed to call it now.
I believe the New Ice Age scare peaked in the late seventies just after the resource depletion hysteria and a decade after the population bomb hysteria. These things keep coming along, one after the other. None are ever true. Almost all have covert political agendas. I believe the New Ice Age was driven by a decade or two of cooling much like our more recently Global Warming hysteria. The key factor is some simplistic fact to dupe journalists, not that fooling them is that hard.
More recently questioning about cooling comes from a solar cycle that's not displaying that many spots when they should be peaking. The last time that happened roughly paralleled the Little Ice Age of the late 1600s and early 1700s.
Keep in mind that even a mild cooling trend is bad news. It reduces growing seasons, resulting in more crop failures, and because people spend more time indoors, often means more disease. In contrast, the prior time in history when there was a warming trend were during the heyday of the Roman empire and the golden period of the Middle Ages. For Europe at least, climatologists refer to them as "optimal," since for Europe the climate tends to be a bit cooler than is best for people.
The sole advantage of a global warming hysteria is what we've seen in roughly the last two decades. Especially when linked to carbon, it provides a rationale for a select few to run the rest of our lives. And of course all these hysterias (including 9/11) provide a context for crony capitalism, where politicians reward with subsidies their contributors. That was one of the primary occupations of the first two years of the Obama administration. A lot of money go wasted and efforts that could have gone toward improving the economy came to naught, particularly much-needed improvements to infrastructure.
You may use the word in that way, but that's an irregular and dictionary incorrect way to use it. Weather is a particular state at a particular time.
Climate is used as a way of comparing the weather of different countries. When you talk about somewhere being wetter or colder now than twenty years ago, you are describing the weather.
Depends how you phrase it. If you're saying that the weather today, or this week (or similar short term period) is better/worse than a similar length period that occurred twenty years ago, then sure, that's fine, you're just comparing instances of the short term.
If you're saying that the "weather" for the past twenty years has changed, then you're really talking about climate, by way of data points of weather, and you're using the wrong word.
Weather is not long term, but instances of weather can be measured over the long term to form a picture of climate, and over an even longer period to form a picture of climate change.
Climate is used as a way of comparing the weather of different countries. When you talk about somewhere being wetter or colder now than twenty years ago, you are describing the weather.
Yeah, with "now" being the instantaneous state of the weather. All the aggregated weather between then and now describes a climate.
So, after spending time researching stories on that site what article(s) do you have issues with?
It's a horrible web site, for one. The about page says nothing about the site. The ocean page is just a bunch of graphs demonstrating that the sea level is rising. Most of the pages go down for 1000s of lines of cherry-picking drivel. Most of the actual content appears to be media related (picking on videos or talk show appearances).
Other than that, it's clearly biased against anyone talking about data that the world is heating up. I figured I'd give it a shot, but in 30 minutes, I found nothing of use to show me, for example, that the oceans are not suddenly warming more than they have in the last 1000 years.
Reading the debunking of bill Nye's CO2 experiment reminded me of the black and white portion of an infomercial. Bumbling through his weekends trying to assemble the experiment and freaking out b/c he didn't know the equipment terminology when ordering parts.
Science hobbyists like this are not going to be my source for information.
The guy had 25 years in meteorology, Al Gore doesn't have 25 seconds in the subject.
So we're all to believe your squiggly graph but ignore an entire site dedicate to debunking the myth?
Your pictures are entertaining but draw away from the discussion. You can continue to keep your head in the sand but the walls of the argument for global warming have long started to fall, so much so that the term is now avoided by the same people who started the whole scam in the first place.
Sounds like your mind is made up, but be ready to make the leap to global cooling (again) in another year or two.
Interesting that you bring up that Chinese video. China has absolutely no intention of following any Western initiatives for cleaner energy. Along with China, India will become one the world's most polluting economies. You think pressure from the West will influence the totalitarian government of China to "think green?" Also funny is how organizations like Greenpeace seem to ignore China, Russia, Iran, and all the other totalitarian governments who would execute or imprison them if they showed up in those regions.
Actually, China has become reasonably progressive in regard to "going green". They have instigated a number of huge projects around this, because of the fact that the environmental situation is becoming so severe that there's a growing backlash in Chinese society about it - it's actually potentially a major destabilising situation for the Chinese government.
Having been to China recently, I can tell you that there's huge publicity and pressure around this within China itself.
In any case...having said that, we should all applaud Apple for making environmental concerns central to the company's mission and vision. They are one company that is trying to turn this into a marketable idea - that people will want to buy greener products, and that this can be a worthwhile business investment. That's not only smart, but probably necessary to get more players on board.
Criticising Apple for pursuing cleaner, greener policies is ludicrous, even for people who are science-deniers (such people will always exist, but hopefully they do not become even more influential in making broad decisions than they already are).
The guy had 25 years in meteorology, Al Gore doesn't have 25 seconds in the subject.
So we're all to believe your squiggly graph but ignore an entire site dedicate to debunking the myth?
Your pictures are entertaining but draw away from the discussion. You can continue to keep your head in the sand but the walls of the argument for global warming have long started to fall, so much so that the term is now avoided by the same people who started the whole scam in the first place.
Sounds like your mind is made up, but be ready to make the leap to global cooling (again) in another year or two.
The size of a site has nothing to do with its usefulness on a given subject.
Please point me to the article on that site that addresses the squiggly graph of sea temperature data. I'm genuinely interested in hearing a well presented argument that the oceans are not getting warmer.
Note that I have not once quoted Al Gore. Why go after an argument that nobody in this conversation is making? I'm talking about ocean temperature.
And you have to admit that web site is horribly organized. It comes off as a place for fans to pat each other on the back, not as a source to enlighten and change minds.
I learned a lot from that site, things you don't see covered anywhere else. Things like, back when every one was talking about the warming trends, this site had a database of where all the temperature stations were. It amazed me to see these stations location above portable air-conditioning units, out in the middle of blacktop parking lots, mounted on tin roofs, etc. Also no one else bothered to do the investigation that when stations came out of service it was units that were mounted in more natural surroundings. Selective data collection can make your story appear how ever you would like it to.
Another favorite of mine was 2-3 years back when one area of the Arctic had rapid ice loss. No one bothered to report an undersea volcano recently became active. The pictures of ice disappearing made an impact on the network news though. I just wish they'd also report how often these global warming expeditions get stuck in unexpected ice whenever they go out to try and make a point.
Look there isn't one person I know of for dirtier air or water, yet that's how all "deniers" are painted. I'm all for cars with better gas mileage, more efficient appliances, etc. Just don't force them down our throats before they are ready for primetime under the guise of the sky is falling. I expect more of Tim Cook, of who this article is about. To unquestioningly hop on the bandwagon because its the cool thing to do in the eyes of the media is a dangerous thing.
I learned a lot from that site, things you don't see covered anywhere else. Things like, back when every one was talking about the warming trends, this site had a database of where all the temperature stations were. It amazed me to see these stations location above portable air-conditioning units, out in the middle of blacktop parking lots, mounted on tin roofs, etc. Also no one else bothered to do the investigation that when stations came out of service it was units that were mounted in more natural surroundings. Selective data collection can make your story appear how ever you would like it to.
Another favorite of mine was 2-3 years back when one area of the Arctic had rapid ice loss. No one bothered to report an undersea volcano recently became active. The pictures of ice disappearing made an impact on the network news though. I just wish they'd also report how often these global warming expeditions get stuck in unexpected ice whenever they go out to try and make a point.
Look there isn't one person I know of for dirtier air or water, yet that's how all "deniers" are painted. I'm all for cars with better gas mileage, more efficient appliances, etc. Just don't force them down our throats before they are ready for primetime under the guise of the sky is falling. I expect more of Tim Cook, of who this article is about. To unquestioningly hop on the bandwagon because its the cool thing to do in the eyes of the media is a dangerous thing.
Reports of data collection anomalies is useful. I didn't find anything useful in 30 minutes on the site, but I was focusing my search on the ocean temperature history.
Reports of underground volcanic activity causing ice melt does nothing but support the data about global sea temperatures rising. Melting ice flowing into an icy ocean will raise the ocean's temperature.
The issue isn't wether the temperature in the sea is changing, it is always changing, the issue is whether it's man made change as some have complained. Those who believe it is man made want controls in place to give themselves some drastic powers that extend farther than what most people realize. Apple as a company would be greatly impacted if they were to be put in place and Tim Cook should be aware of this if he is out making such bold statements.
It's great Apple is working on new innovations with conserving resources but for a corporation to jump on this political bandwagon is suicide. You can't stop a volcano from erupting. Nature is not static, we have dinosaur bones and prehistoric glaciers to prove it.
Melted ice that is already in the water will not cause the oceans to rise. Fill a glass with ice and water to the brim. As the ice melts the glass does not overflow. Our water table has risen and fallen over the eons. As a cave diver I've seen stalactites and stalagmites in caves that don't form unless at one time that cave had just a small stream passing through it. Much of the central U.S. was an ocean at one time, all this happened without mans involvement.
Comments
It was only in the 70s or 80s, I can't remember which, that the consensus amongst scientists was that we were soon to be heading into a mini Ice Age. Perhaps that's the science you were referring to in relation to the solar activity. At any rate, they were wrong; we entered a period of sustained warming. That all finished seventeen years ago. Maybe their timing was off. Weather has always been hard to predict, or 'climate' as we're supposed to call it now.
I believe the New Ice Age scare peaked in the late seventies just after the resource depletion hysteria and a decade after the population bomb hysteria. These things keep coming along, one after the other. None are ever true. Almost all have covert political agendas. I believe the New Ice Age was driven by a decade or two of cooling much like our more recently Global Warming hysteria. The key factor is some simplistic fact to dupe journalists, not that fooling them is that hard.
More recently questioning about cooling comes from a solar cycle that's not displaying that many spots when they should be peaking. The last time that happened roughly paralleled the Little Ice Age of the late 1600s and early 1700s.
Keep in mind that even a mild cooling trend is bad news. It reduces growing seasons, resulting in more crop failures, and because people spend more time indoors, often means more disease. In contrast, the prior time in history when there was a warming trend were during the heyday of the Roman empire and the golden period of the Middle Ages. For Europe at least, climatologists refer to them as "optimal," since for Europe the climate tends to be a bit cooler than is best for people.
The sole advantage of a global warming hysteria is what we've seen in roughly the last two decades. Especially when linked to carbon, it provides a rationale for a select few to run the rest of our lives. And of course all these hysterias (including 9/11) provide a context for crony capitalism, where politicians reward with subsidies their contributors. That was one of the primary occupations of the first two years of the Obama administration. A lot of money go wasted and efforts that could have gone toward improving the economy came to naught, particularly much-needed improvements to infrastructure.
Quite.
Thanks for confirming what I've already said. Weather and climate are the same thing.
Sorry, you can't read? Should I send audio?
I have been blessed with vision; thanks for your concern.
In order to satisfy your pedantry, I will expand: weather and climate are two sides of the same coin.
I have been blessed with vision; thanks for your concern.
In order to satisfy your pedantry, I will expand: weather and climate are two sides of the same coin.
So, being the same thing, by your definition, you can't win a coin toss?
I have been blessed with vision; thanks for your concern.
In order to satisfy your pedantry, I will expand: weather and climate are two sides of the same coin.
So not the same then, since heads != tails.
Weather short term and local, climate longer term and regional. Pretty simple.
No. Weather can be long-term, too.
So not the same then, since heads != tails.
Weather short term and local, climate longer term and regional. Pretty simple.
You'd think. A good quote from Monday night... "How far back in the elementary school core curriculum do we have to go to get someone ... caught up?"
Here's what we're dealing with -- and these guys are the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology!
Climate is used as a way of comparing the weather of different countries. When you talk about somewhere being wetter or colder now than twenty years ago, you are describing the weather.
If you're saying that the "weather" for the past twenty years has changed, then you're really talking about climate, by way of data points of weather, and you're using the wrong word.
Weather is not long term, but instances of weather can be measured over the long term to form a picture of climate, and over an even longer period to form a picture of climate change.
Climate is used as a way of comparing the weather of different countries. When you talk about somewhere being wetter or colder now than twenty years ago, you are describing the weather.
Yeah, with "now" being the instantaneous state of the weather. All the aggregated weather between then and now describes a climate.
Ok. Sea temp is rising. Now what?
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/
For answers to that and many other exciting questions spend a little time here; http://wattsupwiththat.com
The truth will set you free!
For answers to that and many other exciting questions spend a little time here; http://wattsupwiththat.com
The truth will set you free!
Looks legit...
Ha, funny pic. Your uncle's van?
So, after spending time researching stories on that site what article(s) do you have issues with?
Ha, funny pic. Your uncle's van?
So, after spending time researching stories on that site what article(s) do you have issues with?
It's a horrible web site, for one. The about page says nothing about the site. The ocean page is just a bunch of graphs demonstrating that the sea level is rising. Most of the pages go down for 1000s of lines of cherry-picking drivel. Most of the actual content appears to be media related (picking on videos or talk show appearances).
Other than that, it's clearly biased against anyone talking about data that the world is heating up. I figured I'd give it a shot, but in 30 minutes, I found nothing of use to show me, for example, that the oceans are not suddenly warming more than they have in the last 1000 years.
Reading the debunking of bill Nye's CO2 experiment reminded me of the black and white portion of an infomercial. Bumbling through his weekends trying to assemble the experiment and freaking out b/c he didn't know the equipment terminology when ordering parts.
Science hobbyists like this are not going to be my source for information.
So we're all to believe your squiggly graph but ignore an entire site dedicate to debunking the myth?
Your pictures are entertaining but draw away from the discussion. You can continue to keep your head in the sand but the walls of the argument for global warming have long started to fall, so much so that the term is now avoided by the same people who started the whole scam in the first place.
Sounds like your mind is made up, but be ready to make the leap to global cooling (again) in another year or two.
Interesting that you bring up that Chinese video. China has absolutely no intention of following any Western initiatives for cleaner energy. Along with China, India will become one the world's most polluting economies. You think pressure from the West will influence the totalitarian government of China to "think green?" Also funny is how organizations like Greenpeace seem to ignore China, Russia, Iran, and all the other totalitarian governments who would execute or imprison them if they showed up in those regions.
Actually, China has become reasonably progressive in regard to "going green". They have instigated a number of huge projects around this, because of the fact that the environmental situation is becoming so severe that there's a growing backlash in Chinese society about it - it's actually potentially a major destabilising situation for the Chinese government.
Having been to China recently, I can tell you that there's huge publicity and pressure around this within China itself.
In any case...having said that, we should all applaud Apple for making environmental concerns central to the company's mission and vision. They are one company that is trying to turn this into a marketable idea - that people will want to buy greener products, and that this can be a worthwhile business investment. That's not only smart, but probably necessary to get more players on board.
Criticising Apple for pursuing cleaner, greener policies is ludicrous, even for people who are science-deniers (such people will always exist, but hopefully they do not become even more influential in making broad decisions than they already are).
The size of a site has nothing to do with its usefulness on a given subject.
Please point me to the article on that site that addresses the squiggly graph of sea temperature data. I'm genuinely interested in hearing a well presented argument that the oceans are not getting warmer.
Note that I have not once quoted Al Gore. Why go after an argument that nobody in this conversation is making? I'm talking about ocean temperature.
And you have to admit that web site is horribly organized. It comes off as a place for fans to pat each other on the back, not as a source to enlighten and change minds.
I learned a lot from that site, things you don't see covered anywhere else. Things like, back when every one was talking about the warming trends, this site had a database of where all the temperature stations were. It amazed me to see these stations location above portable air-conditioning units, out in the middle of blacktop parking lots, mounted on tin roofs, etc. Also no one else bothered to do the investigation that when stations came out of service it was units that were mounted in more natural surroundings. Selective data collection can make your story appear how ever you would like it to.
Another favorite of mine was 2-3 years back when one area of the Arctic had rapid ice loss. No one bothered to report an undersea volcano recently became active. The pictures of ice disappearing made an impact on the network news though. I just wish they'd also report how often these global warming expeditions get stuck in unexpected ice whenever they go out to try and make a point.
Look there isn't one person I know of for dirtier air or water, yet that's how all "deniers" are painted. I'm all for cars with better gas mileage, more efficient appliances, etc. Just don't force them down our throats before they are ready for primetime under the guise of the sky is falling. I expect more of Tim Cook, of who this article is about. To unquestioningly hop on the bandwagon because its the cool thing to do in the eyes of the media is a dangerous thing.
I learned a lot from that site, things you don't see covered anywhere else. Things like, back when every one was talking about the warming trends, this site had a database of where all the temperature stations were. It amazed me to see these stations location above portable air-conditioning units, out in the middle of blacktop parking lots, mounted on tin roofs, etc. Also no one else bothered to do the investigation that when stations came out of service it was units that were mounted in more natural surroundings. Selective data collection can make your story appear how ever you would like it to.
Another favorite of mine was 2-3 years back when one area of the Arctic had rapid ice loss. No one bothered to report an undersea volcano recently became active. The pictures of ice disappearing made an impact on the network news though. I just wish they'd also report how often these global warming expeditions get stuck in unexpected ice whenever they go out to try and make a point.
Look there isn't one person I know of for dirtier air or water, yet that's how all "deniers" are painted. I'm all for cars with better gas mileage, more efficient appliances, etc. Just don't force them down our throats before they are ready for primetime under the guise of the sky is falling. I expect more of Tim Cook, of who this article is about. To unquestioningly hop on the bandwagon because its the cool thing to do in the eyes of the media is a dangerous thing.
Reports of data collection anomalies is useful. I didn't find anything useful in 30 minutes on the site, but I was focusing my search on the ocean temperature history.
Reports of underground volcanic activity causing ice melt does nothing but support the data about global sea temperatures rising. Melting ice flowing into an icy ocean will raise the ocean's temperature.
It's great Apple is working on new innovations with conserving resources but for a corporation to jump on this political bandwagon is suicide. You can't stop a volcano from erupting. Nature is not static, we have dinosaur bones and prehistoric glaciers to prove it.
Melted ice that is already in the water will not cause the oceans to rise. Fill a glass with ice and water to the brim. As the ice melts the glass does not overflow. Our water table has risen and fallen over the eons. As a cave diver I've seen stalactites and stalagmites in caves that don't form unless at one time that cave had just a small stream passing through it. Much of the central U.S. was an ocean at one time, all this happened without mans involvement.