Cold days=no global warming. Ergo….
Today’s forecast from The Oregonian:
It’s already near 70 at 5 a.m. and the thermometer is headed for 104. Today’s forecast also calls for north northeast winds 5 to 9 mph. The low tonight is a balmy 65.
There’s no relief on Saturday, with the high expected to hit 104 again. Winds kick up a bit 10 to 13 mph. The low dips to 59. Sunday remains sunny with a high of 91. Temperatures cool next week, with highs in the mid 70s and hey, a chance of rain on Wednesday.
I got an iced mocha and global warming went away! But then I had a toasted sandwich and it came back.
This climate change stuff sure is confusing, which is why I try to ignore it and drive around a lot to think about it while listening to talk radio. Paris Hilton!
Good point. Conservatives (especially the radio kind), sarcastically like to comment on global warming when we have a cold streak, but remain oddly silent when we have record-breaking temperatures.
Last April, in a comment on this very blog, I pointed out that, despite the snow, we hadn’t set a daily record low during the entire month of April though we did in fact set a daily record high. One of our resident winguts complained that my argument was like saying that a dry month wasn’t really dry, because it had rained very heavily on one day.
I suppose some credit is due, because, after I’d pointed out that my argument was exactly the same argument wingnuts have used to deny global warming, I haven’t seen that particular wingnut raise the argument again.
But, there still remain some idiots who seem to not grasp the meaning of the word “global”.
If those evil SUV drivers would stay off other planets maybe not all the planets in the solar system wouldn’t have to suffer global warming.
It’s graduation day for wingnut SUV drivers! Permit me to introduce the class of Muni Court Traffic Education ’08. They even get a certificate.
Jon–
I agree anyone can use anecdotal evidence to prove or disprove climate change.
CHANGE must be relative to some baseline however.
A fair question is “What is your baseline data when you refer to climate change Jon?”
It’s also problematic in identifying the primary cause of this change. I happen to believe there are many causes…one of which is man. Is man the primary cause? I have yet to see overwhelming evidence that that is the case. Should we all do what we can to limit the amount of Greenhouse gasses and conserve energy?? Absolutely!
We should do it for economic, health & environmental reasons. Having adult onset asthma, I’m all for cleaner air.
My wife & I have driven approx. 30% less miles the past 12 months vs. the 12 months prior to that. Living rural, we do have an SUV that gets 18 MPG, a pick-up that gets 15MPG but also have a smaller vehicle that gets nearly 30MPG. We use the smaller vehicle whenever possible…although not too practical when the snow flies.
Is Algore a hypocritical lying bastard?
Absolutely. His book is filled with well-documented BS, unproven theories etc. under the guise that “SOME SCIENTISTS SAY”. Gore said that about Global Warming causing more hurricanes which is now highly unlikely.
As a Conservative, I encourage my fellow conservatives to “conserve”….for economic, environmental & health reasons.
We frequently have transfers to our office from Japan. When the first hot days arrive, they are always curious about why we don’t have air conditioners in our houses and apartments in Seattle (for the most part). I point out that for the three or four days a year when the temperture approaches 90 degrees, it is hardly worth the investment.
But this year, a colleague reminded me that I told him the same thing back in June. He asked me if I could guarantee to him that this week’s tempertures are the last of our “summer heat wave”. Of course, I couldn’t.
No doubt the screech monkeys are going to get a lot of mileage out of a newly-released report that the arctic icepack isn’t receding as much as expected this summer. This is most likely to a tide/wind cycle that has a period of something like three or four years.
It still remains that 20 years ago the Russians realized that the arctic ice was thin enough that the Lenin’s quarter-million nuclear horsepower could shove its heavily armored hull to the North Pole in midsummer (which wasn’t the case when the ship was built) and started offering well-heeled tourists “adventure cruises” there. Now you can get there in a Zodiac with a 20-horse kicker. Betcha before I shuffle off this mortal coil there’ll be folks getting there in kayaks.
5 Well, good on ya, Cyn! Glad you understand that there are plenty of reasons to try and burn up the dead dinosaurs a little more slowly, even if you don’t agree with one or two of ’em. Didn’t hurt too much now, did it? Now you can spend the money you saved on something more interesting.
@5 “Is Algore a hypocritical lying bastard?”
I do believe that he’s the wrong person to be the messenger on this issue. Too devisive. Too pompous. Too many issues with his own lifestyle. This is something we all need to come together on. Self-appointed as he is, I’m not sure how to fire his ass.
9 Hey, at least somebody stepped up to the plate. Gore is at least well enough off and sufficiently self-assured to be able to do a “sticks-and-stones” shrug-off of the critics. Most of the scientists who might have something to say about all this draw their paychecks, directly or indirectly, from a hostile Federal government and are reeling from nearly eight years of outright attempts at intimidation. Far too many other politicians have allowed themselves to become beholden to benefactors who have a vested interest in keeping our society’s excesses going at full speed.
The likes of Gandhi and Cindy Sheehan aside, most of the people who manage to get much attention on the world stage are somewhere pretty far up the food chain, and it’s pretty stupid to tell anyone who wishes to lead that it’s a requirement to put on a hair shirt and live in a cave.
Cyn @ 5
You’re so far out in left field that you’re not even in the parking lot outside the stadium. Let’s start with this:
Is Algore a hypocritical lying bastard?
The question is both ad-hominem and completely irrelevant. I don’t believe in anthropogenic global warming merely because Al Gore says so, and the fact that I appreciate his efforts to bring the issue into the public spotlight is not in any diminished by his own conduct.
The facts are the facts, and they surely don’t need Al Gore’s endorsement in order to make them true. So, let’s leave Al Gore’s character out of the discussion.
Second, you assert:
I agree anyone can use anecdotal evidence to prove or disprove climate change.
Before you agree or disagree with me, you had better understand what I’m saying, and clearly you don’t.
First of all, the data I cited, year-over-year frequency of daily record high temperatures vs year-over-year frequency of daily record low temperatures, isn’t “anecdotal evidence.” It’s a local trend.
Secondly, while the local trend doesn’t prove the global hypothesis, it remains entirely consistent with the global hypothesis. Indeed, it’s so consistent with the global hypothesis that we can rightly claim that the local trend data confirms the global hypothesis.
It’s also problematic in identifying the primary cause of this change. I happen to believe there are many causes…one of which is man.
Frankly, I couldn’t give a rat’s ass what you believe. What I care about is what the peer-reviewed science says. And, to that end, the peer-reviewed science is unequivocal: anthropogenic global warming is as true as the theory of gravity.
The only relevant questions, the only things worth debating on this issue, are how long we should wait before doing something reasonable about the problem, and what are some of the reasonable things we can do. Delaying that discussion through an ostrich-like denial of the problem is among the most idiotic and short-sighted things we can do about the problem.
Now, are you willing to cease the denials and have a well-reasoned discussion about the important questions, or are you just going to be an idiot?
@11 Let’s hope science has a better grasp of the cause of global warming than they do gravitational force. The notion coming from M-Theory that gravity might be a force leaking from a parallel universe, thus accounting for its weakness, is the latest I’ve heard.
@ 12
Let’s hope science has a better grasp of the cause of global warming than they do gravitational force.
I don’t think any such hope is in any way necessary. Whatever refinements come out of M-Theory, they won’t suddenly cause relatively small objects within Earth’s gravitational field to accelerate towards Earth at some rate wildly divergent from 32 ft/sec^2.
12/13 Let’s see…where did I put that golden compass?
@13 Newton’s still hanging in there.
Who here knows that Al Gore is not a climatologist? Show of hands, please…
But there are climatologists, thousands of them, who have been examining this issue for decades. They’re called the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC (www.ipcc.gov). Their conclusions represent the overwhelming consensus of the scientific comunity that, in the words of the Fourth Assesssment Report published this year,
But the side discussions are interesting, though trivial.