Printable View
Don't they predict on average 1-2 major hurricanes making landfall each year? Major meaning Cat 3-5. And if you are referring to the path that Katrina took over NO and the MS Gulf Coast, all of that is a crap shoot and odds are that 2-3 might take that path over the next 10-20 years.Quote:
Originally Posted by altadawg
Meathead? That sure isn't a nice way to start a reply.Quote:
Originally Posted by altadawg
An article about warm ocean water can only be about two things: surfing and HURRICANES!!!!
More evidence that global warming is impacting the USA.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=aEGcNnT1qzuw
boy, wouldn't it be a shame if all of the glaciers went away? i'm going to petition my congressman today to save the glaciers!Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
So you admit that global warming is taking place but it is no big deal?Quote:
Originally Posted by arkansasbob
i don't have to admit anything. if the glaciers are receding, then they are receding. sounds to me like that is either the result of increased local temperatures or decreased local precipitation. but if it is a result of "global warming" then yes, it's no big deal.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
Its a HOAX!
"Climate change and health care bills written in a back room, read by NOBODY in the legislature and passed by “paid for” public serpents, er… servants. They are Benedict Arnolds to their oaths to uphold the constitution and partners in the corruption."Quote:
Originally Posted by glm47
http://marketoracle.co.uk/Article12596.html
Military analysts say that global warming is a threat to our security.
http://www.businessinsider.com/milit...ecurity-2009-8
.“We will pay for this one way or another,” Gen. Anthony C. Zinni, a retired Marine and the former head of the Central Command, wrote recently in a report he prepared as a member of a military advisory board on energy and climate at CNA, a private group that does research for the Navy. “We will pay to reduce greenhouse gas emissions today, and we’ll have to take an economic hit of some kind.
“Or we will pay the price later in military terms,” he warned. “And that will involve human lives.”
We are 1 1/2 months into hurricane season and not a named Atlantic storm, yet. Yeah, the worst of the season is still ahead of us, August-September, but it's been really quiet thus far.
In 2005, one of the worst hurricane seasons on record, global warming enthusists were giddy with excitement stating uncategorically that this was PROOF of GW. Yep, they said, they stake their reputations and ALL their scientific evidence on the continuation of horrible hurricane seasons, getting worse than 2005 going forward, unless of course, we could stop man-made GW!
Then.....oooops! Much like every other attempt to pass off pseudo-science as real science (such as the pro-evolution crowd) they got bit on the ass! Back in 2005 the director of the National Weather Service's Hurricane Center was quoted many, many times stating that 2005 was nothing more than a natural spike in activity and was NO proof that conditions had changed in the Atlantic region. (of course, algore and his ilk tried to discredit him). Now, 5 hurricane seasons later we see he was right.
Again, Dawg80 posted on this forum, that the '05 season was just an anomaly and REAL science knows not to put any credence into blips in the records. Oh, I take no credit for anything. To me it's as easy as predicting the sun will rise tomorrow.
Be careful.......you might just spook things for the folks in N.O.Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
Why does the EPA attempt to cover up dissenting points of view within its own staff?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124657655235589119.html
Quote:
Originally Posted by glm47
Doesn't seem to be a cover-up here.
http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eed.n...f!OpenDocument
Dr. Carlin is an economist, not a climate scientist. So the EPA should not pay attention to his opinion about the science of global warming.
WSJ is a Murdoch rag these days.
Dr. Carlin has a degree in physics, he is qualified to discuss to global warming issues.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
Sure, on an internet chat message board. The freaking EPA has professional climate scientists who are laughing their butts off at Alan.Quote:
Originally Posted by glm47
real scientists laugh their butts off at "professional climate scientists."Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
putting "professional climate" in front of "scientist" is like putting "rhythmic" in front of "gymnast."
It is kind of like being a paid expert witness.Quote:
Originally Posted by arkansasbob
Remember, what the global warming folks said was there would be an increase in the power of the worst hurricanes, not that there would be an increase in the number of hurricanes.Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
Anyway, Earth is a big planet and hurricanes occur in other oceans besides the Atlantic. Check out the current typhoon season in the Pacific Ocean.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090810/.../as_asia_storm
You are just plain wrong about that.Quote:
Originally Posted by arkansasbob
Not really.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
http://www.forumspile.com/O_RLY-Quite.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
Global warming causes floods?
http://www.whittierdailynews.com/news/ci_13028431
"In terms of property damage and long-range liability to the state," said Patzert, who is not involved in ARk Storm, "a great flood will make Katrina look minor league.
"January and February are the months we're at really high risk, the months that should really scare residents with the Godzilla of El Ni os."
Scientists forecast the hypothetical storm to originate near the equator, resulting in an "atmospheric river" of moisture that will expand, gather speed and with the ferocity of a hurricane slam into the West Coast, hurling driving winds and rain for weeks.
The six-week storm could dump as much as 8 feet of rain in the mountains, sowing massive destruction on the flats.
To help prepare for such a 200-to-500-year flood, 10 teams of experts are studying everything from weather, forecasting, flooding, debris flows, coastal erosion, engineering, cost and the impact to the environment and public health.
I thought they already made a fiction movie about that one, called The Day After Tomorrow.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
whereas your statement i was replying to was purely factual. :icon_roll:Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
Global warming believers call for termination of GM's 240 mpg Volt.
http://www.smthop.com/article.aspx?newsnum=1222
Detroit, Michigan - The recent announcement by General Motors that its new Chevrolet Volt electric car is expected to get 230 miles per gallon in the city and triple digit mileage on the highway has supporters of Global Warming up in arms, calling for an immediate end to production of the car and execution of all employees associated with its development.
"How are we supposed to warm up the Earth with insane gas mileage like that," said Tom Brown, avid hater of the environment and supporter of Global Warming. Brown is especially interested in Global Warming due to his purchase of billions of acres of Nevada desert, which he believes will one day be oceanfront property due to rising sea levels causes by Global Warming. He also hates penguins due to a property dispute with one especially boisterous bird four years ago and hopes Earth's rising temperature level will kill them all sooner rather than later (which it probably will).
Every day people like Brown unnecessarily drive hundreds of miles to destinations they don't need to reach for the sole purpose of creating more carbon dioxide, one of the main contributors to Global Warming. The really dedicated anti-environmentalists also pull boats, trailer homes, or overweight movie stars. The fear by Global Warming supporters is that by reducing carbon emissions of vehicles, the effects of Global Warming could be slowed or even reversed.
"Imagine a world where each day is 1 to 3 degrees cooler, where the air is safe to breath, and thousands of species of plants and animals are not becoming extinct," Mario Jenkins, President of Citizens for Global Warming (CGW), told Smooth Operator in an interview earlier last week that we're only talking about now in an ironically related story. "The horrors of such a world are unimaginable... zombies roaming the land, fire raining down from the sky, new episodes of the Chevy Chase show... I soiled myself just thinking about it."
In a press release earlier today, CGW has promised to burn any GM dealership to the ground that sells the Volt vehicles and give the "evil eye" to any consumer who purchases one.
Are you suggesting that only part of the globe is warming, in this case, the Pacific region?Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
As for that first point, there is no evidence to support that contention either. There has been only one 'cane that has matched Camille in power, and that is 40 years now. Camille occurred in 1969. And there were two KNOWN 'canes that dwarfed Camille in sheer force that occured 100 years before that.
I emphasize "known" because it has been pointed out that modern technology is able to detect and tract every 'cane that occurs. As recent as the 1950's 'canes would pass thru many oceans undetected, and it is only thought, in some cases, given discovered damage to islands, that a 'cane might have occurred.
I read and listen to hurricane experts on this issue. And they insist there is no evidence to support a notion that 'canes are getting worse, cuz of GW or for any other reason.
NOAA: July Temperature Below-Average for the U.S.
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories...julystats.html
The average July temperature of 73.5 degrees F was 0.8 degrees F below the 20th century average. Precipitation across the contiguous United States in July averaged 2.90 inches, which is 0.14 inches above the 1901-2000 average.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
Does this mean that Georgw W. Bush is not responsible??? This is really good news, but it takes away some of the amunition of the Bush Bashers!!! :D :D :D
TD :cowboy:
~~
An article about hurricanes getting worse because of global warming.Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
http://www.time.com/time/health/arti...839281,00.html
"...are storms getting stronger, and if so, what's causing it? According to a new paper in Nature, the answer is yes — and global warming seems to be the culprit. Researchers led by James Elsner, a meteorologist at Florida State University, analyzed satellite-derived data of tropical storms since 1981 and found that the maximum wind speeds of the strongest storms have increased significantly in the years since, with the most notable increases found in the North Atlantic and the northern Indian oceans. They believe that rising ocean temperatures — due to global warming — are one of the main causes behind that change. "There is a robust signal behind the shift to more intense hurricanes," says Judith Curry, chair of the school of earth and atmospheric sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. "
Well if July temps were down, we are moving in the right direction. I'd like to thank Al Gore for this progress and the meaningful steps he took to reduce temperatures.
OK. I read that article in Nature or Science or whatever. It pisses me off. The skeptics are told with equal frequency to look at the big picture and look at what's happening now. They use a window of only 24 years to show that they are getting stronger and then conclude that this is correlated with GW.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
Duckbill, apparently you haven't been to enough sessions of the Church of Global Warming. I suggest you stop arguing and give in to Al Gore and these environmental geniuses.
FishingBack, you need to do a little critical thinking like your LA Tech professor taught you. July temperatures are down in the continental USA.Quote:
Originally Posted by FishingBack
Question: what percentage of the global land mass is in the continental USA?
Question: Does the fact that temperatures are down in July in the continental USA mean that they were down for the rest of the global land mass?
I'm on your side here, championing the chosen one of environmentalism - Al Gore. His efforts in this country have brought the temps down in this country. Obviously since he has fixed the problem here, we should ship him somewhere else.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
I enjoy your humor but I hope that you know that Global warming is going to ruin the future for you grand kids. I hope will enjoy your humor 40 years from now.Quote:
Originally Posted by FishingBack
Go tell the chinese and Indians - they aren't buying what you're selling.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
Fixed it for you.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
Obama scares me more than Al Gore's church of global warming. There's a far greater chance that 40 years from now I'll be feeling the pain he's inflicting.
The 40th anniversary passed quietly: August 17, 1969 when Camille clobbered the Gulf Coast area.Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Camille
The most powerful 'cane this century was in 1935, the 2nd most in 1969, tied, by Allen, in 1980... if GW was causing 'canes to intensify, why has it been 29 years since Allen, and why haven't we seen the 1935 storm surpassed in intensity?
Again, all the evidence points the opposite direction, hurricanes are NOT getting more instense. If anything, the trend is less intense!
Why have recent 'canes caused so much damage then? Obviously more people are living, and thus building structures, in 'cane-prone regions and local environmental issues, such as the disappearance of sandbars and wetlands (as is the case in Louisiana) are allowing more of the storm surge to reach populated areas.
It's no more complicated than that and has NOTHING to do with alledged GW. Period.
2 in a row. Wow. Any takers on August?
That "pop up" T.S. the other day will become the norm.
NOAA: Warmest Global Ocean Surface Temperatures on Record for July
August 14, 2009
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories...obalstats.html
NOAA understands and predicts changes in the Earth’s environment, from the depths of the oceans to surface of the sun, and conserves and manages our coastal and marine resources.
Bill has a chance to set records! If it does, then obviously it will be proof that GW is real and I for one will be junking my big SUV and stupid, useless, obnoxious toys like my Harley and 4-wheelers.Quote:
Originally Posted by altadawg
I am even considering getting goats so I won't have to crank the mower anymore!
BTW, NOAA is doing a chitty job "managing" our coastal and marine resources...
I actually enjoy this now. It's fun to watch the weather because of you. I see "Bill will be as high as a Cat 4 when it passes Bermuda" and I think... altadawg will post this in the global warming thread. Up next is either calling me a name or saying this has nothing to do with hurricanes or global warming.Quote:
Originally Posted by altadawg
The invention and proliferation of affordable air conditioning....Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
Lies Revealed — Greenpeace Leader Admits Arctic Ice Exaggeration
http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/am...-exaggeration/
The outgoing leader of Greenpeace has admitted his organization’s recent claim that the Arctic Ice will disappear by 2030 was “a mistake.” Greenpeace made the claim in a July 15 press release entitled “Urgent Action Needed As Arctic Ice Melts,” which said there will be an ice-free Arctic by 2030 because of global warming.
Under close questioning by BBC reporter Stephen Sackur on the “Hardtalk” program, Gerd Leipold, the retiring leader of Greenpeace, said the claim was wrong.
“I don’t think it will be melting by 2030. … That may have been a mistake,” he said.
Sackur said the claim was inaccurate on two fronts, pointing out that the Arctic ice is a mass of 1.6 million square kilometers with a thickness of 3 km in the middle, and that it had survived much warmer periods in history than the present.
The BBC reporter accused Leipold and Greenpeace of releasing “misleading information” and using “exaggeration and alarmism.”
Leipold’s admission that Greenpeace issued misleading information is a major embarrassment to the organization, which often has been accused of alarmism but has always insisted that it applies full scientific rigor in its global-warming pronouncements.
Although he admitted Greenpeace had released inaccurate but alarming information, Leipold defended the organization’s practice of “emotionalizing issues” in order to bring the public around to its way of thinking and alter public opinion.
Has Greenpeace ever accomplished anything worth while?
Yes! they stopped the Nips from whaling....Quote:
Originally Posted by Rus-La
Oh wait, no, they didn't do that either :icon_roll:.
Yep!Quote:
Originally Posted by Dwayne From Minden
I always get confused by this. Some scientists say the earth will warm by a half a degree in the next 100 years and some people say our grand kids will be affected. Then Ted Turner says we will all be cannibals by 2013. It is very hard to follow.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
They are all sort of right. Once Congress makes it more expensive to produce energy and food with all the carbon taxes and ethanol subsidies, people will start eating each other. That will affect your grandkids, because they, too, will be eaten. The half-degree warming is just speculative, but there is probably a 50% chance that it might happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by T_Won
Here ya go:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090820/...ci_warm_oceans
I'm convinced! That's it, party is over. No more joy riding. Yeah, most of us have to drive to get to work. But it's that extra, unnecessary driving that must stop. And no more polluting vehicles that serve no useful purpose, like: motorcycles, pick-up trucks (other than those used for work), RVs, ATVs, etc.... park 'em, people. The Earth needs you to.
Oh, the only exception to this edict is this: Tech fans can drive to Ruston for football games, but please, try to carpool, if ya can. Thanks!
This topic hasn't been raked over the coals lately. Interesting article from the BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm
Combined surface air and ocean temperature is the highest in 100 years.Quote:
Originally Posted by tenacious_dog
Today's report of the Sun shows zero sunspots. We are at the low point of the sunspot cycle. When it starts back up on the other side I think you get some action on the surface air temperature.
http://spaceweather.com/
http://spaceweather.com/glossary/spo...8cr7u88rskq6l7
Even if you don't buy into the global warming theory doesn't it just make sense to start passing legislaton for 100% tax rebates for all businesses/homeowners on the installation of solar/water cistern/ICF form building and any other associated "Green" technologies available today? And here's another question for you guys: Why do we not pass strict, national, building codes for ALL new construction that mandates the usage of all of the available green/super insulative/longer lasting/more conservative technologies/building materals, ect that are avialable today? It would save the common man a ton of money, ease the strain on natural resources, and decrease air/water pollution. Just makes sense to me.
The same reason we don't pass regulations that say you can't sell red meat because it contributes to heart disease.Quote:
Originally Posted by marketdawg
It takes one symbol as to why it can't/won't happen - $.Quote:
Originally Posted by marketdawg
I love it and would support it... but... Where's the power? By the federal government paying for weatherizing existing homes, they get to decide who gets money and of course funnel it to other projects. That way, we spend more money, less efficiently, BUT Congress can be powerful. Welcome to the problem with federal government.Quote:
Originally Posted by marketdawg
BTW - Perfectly reasonable solution. Not carbon credits paid to Al Gore or taxes for people who have to commute.
I know the building code legislation is a pipedream but if there was a 100% tax rebate (I'd be happy with 25% or so per year so that the gov't won't whine too much about tax revenue lost) I'd go solar at home/business immediately and I'd imagine that a lot of Americans would do the same. Besides, the extra tax revenue from the solar manufacturer/reatilors/installers would offset the tax rebate for the consumer- the consumer ultimately being the driving force.
The spike in demand would cause solar prices to go up, and it is currently not profitable to use solar unless the capital costs are heavily subsidized. The taxpayer ends up footing the bill for the ordeal and no one really comes out ahead. It would be alot like the ethanol subsidy.Quote:
Originally Posted by marketdawg
You think so? I'd think that the spike in demand would increse competition driving cost down some. The only reason I say this is that this is a building commodity and not a consumeable. I'm definitely no analyst and this is all "off the top of my head" and I do appreciate any input. ANother question I have is the "not profitable" part. Why is there all the talk about a 10 year or so return on solar investment?
Energy in > Energy out. Solar cells take alot of energy to make. It used to be that you would never recoup the energy put into making a solar cell in output, but I do not think that is the case anymore. They are still capital intensive and produce a DC output. If you are running DC devices that is not a problem, but energy intensive items run on AC, and to convert DC to AC requires an inverter (which causes a big loss in efficiency).Quote:
Originally Posted by marketdawg
initially it would drive prices up until it became profitable for others to get into the business. Then pricing would come down.Quote:
Originally Posted by marketdawg
I'm aware of the converter but you're still converting free solar DC to free solar AC and there are tons of products out there that take a lot of energy to produce that give 0% back. The sun- not coal/NG/methane will power your home. I'd be interested to see if the energy in to produce solar panels vs. the energy saved by solar, even given the inverter power loss, is comparable. I try to remind myself, daily, as I plan my new home, that this is an evolution, not a revolution.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
So, IMO, power lost during a solar power conversion is power not lost at all but a % comparison to greenhouse gas producing energy production model as this was just sunlight not being used beforehand. The power to build/ship/install solar is still an interesting subject and I love the years to recoup estimates that are out there. For me: I like the idea of having the sun hit my panels and make me electricity. Also, IMO, if more of us start using solar then more local Co.'s will start building them- shortening shipping times/production times/cost due to increased demand/increased competition. In the long-run I feel that it may be our only hope.
Quote:
Originally Posted by marketdawg
It costs alot of energy to make the solar cells. This energy produces greenhouse gases. The energy you use to run them (the sun) costs you nothing and does not emit greenhouse gases.
It takes alot of solar power to run a house. Just to give you an idea... At our camp we run a single solar panel (MSRP $1000) to keep a bank of deep cycle batteries ($250) charged via a charge controller ($100). The batteries provide DC to a DC refrigerator ($1500) to keep the beer cold. When we watch the TV, we switch on the inverter ($500) and the TV usually can run for about 2.5 hours off the two batteries. We then have to crank on the generator. If we want to run our window air conditioning unit (AC powered), the batteries are good for about 1.5 hours. The lights are all DC, but not very bright.
To run our setup exclusively off of solar power, we can get AT BEST 2 hours PER DAY (assuming every day is a sunny day) of power off of our investment of $3000 (subtracting out the costs of a comparable AC fridge). This is minimal AC, minimal light, and minimal yet constant refrigeration). If we had AC, we could probably use the same amount of daily power for 15 years before we paid $3000 in electric utility cost.
Obviously, there are economies of scale to be gained from adding solar panels, adding batteries, and upgrading the inverter, but still....
Quote:
Originally Posted by marketdawg
If nothing else, investigate solar heating your water to some extent, and heat/cool your home geothermically. I don't know what the latest is out there on the market and the benefit if you don't plan on staying put. .... maybe nothing much.
I'm planning my design with ICF construction/metal roof/energy plus windows/polished concrete flooring/active solar (as much as possible including water heating)/all energy star appliances and plan on integrating as much passive solar as possible/ and last but not least water cistern system for lawn and garden irrigation. It's from this home to the old folks home for me so I'm gonna do it right. plus I bought (a major fixer-upper that is now fixed-up) in a great area at the right time so I should be able to get a nice profit when I jump to the next place.
When I built my current house about 18 years ago, I used a passive solar design. You can tell the difference on those days when it is overcast. One advantage tp a passive solar design is that the south facing roof slope is ideal for retro solar hot water heating or solar panels.Quote:
Originally Posted by marketdawg
May the Force be with you!!Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091015...ronmentscience
I'm not a big global warming guy at all, and I have my doubts about alot of it, but someone please explain this to me. If these studies are true, something CAN'T be right. Am I supposed to believe this information was just made up?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mentechsters
Everybody and their plumber has an opinion on it. If true, the Russkies get their warm water port, and the coastguardsmen who break ice on the Polar Star and North Star spend their summers on the bottom of the planet. Now, is Everybody Happy?....probably not algore. : )
Historically, we have gone through long cycles (~200,000 year cycles) of cooling and warming. The human contribution element of the phenomenon is vastly overstated. It occurred long before humans ever came along. Anthropogenic CO2 (CO2 that humans are responsible for emitting) is infinitessimally small compared to the non-anthropogenic carbon cycle (exchange of CO2 between atmosphere and geo/hydro/pedosphere). The bottom line is that we have virtually no control over the greenhouse effect or global temperatures.Quote:
Originally Posted by mentechsters
I agree with that, but don't you think arctic ice melting can create some serious problems. I'm no expert on it, but it doesn't sound good to me, man-made or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
If it happens there is nothing that could have ever been done to prevent it. Just be glad we are on the warmer side of the cycle and not the cooler side. And I am not suggesting that it is going to happen either. The only thing that these climatologists are good at is being wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by mentechsters
Quote:
Originally Posted by mentechsters
But isn't that the point? When we have problems with our planet we adapt and deal with them. Will it be simple and easy and can we all just stand around singing kum ba ya, absolutely not. But the GW alarmist are not dealing with how do we adapt to the changes. They have an agenda, and that agenda is tearing down the capitalist system. That is what algore and his cronies are all about. It really has nothing to do with "saving the planet" (which is horseshit anyway the planets going to be here, it's the humans that are in trouble).
This does not look good at all. A 4C degree (7.2F) rise in surface land and ocean temperature by 2060 is a real possibility.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...global-warming
Mark New, a climate expert at Oxford who has organised the conference, said: "If we get a weak agreement at Copenhagen then there is not just a slight chance of a 4C rise, there is a really big chance. It's only in the last five years that scientists have started to realise that 4C is becoming increasingly likely and something we need to look at seriously." Limiting global warming to 2C could only be achieved with new technology to suck greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. "I think the policy makers know that. I think there is an implicit understanding that they are negotiating not about 2C but 3C or 5C."
When the polar ice caps melt the level of the ocean will rise significantly. Ever see that lousy movie Waterworld....well, it wasn't just a movie, but an accurate depiction of what's coming. My advice is to buy a boat, a big boat....no, not a boat, an oil tanker, like that one in Waterworld. Outfit it with greenhouses for growing....ah, never mind, that won't be necessary. The world's climate will be such there will be no more cold weather ever again.Quote:
Originally Posted by mentechsters
I hope they can put Aillet on barges so we can all still go to Tech games.
I don't think it's possible to increase global temps by 5CQuote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
Why?Quote:
Originally Posted by FishingBack
Quote:
Originally Posted by FishingBack
I don't think it's possible for liberals not to worry themselves sick about it... but if it wasn't this, there is still plenty left in their "closet full of anxieties" that's gonna sneak out and bite them on the a$$. It's no wonder conservatives have a sense of humor. :D
Yep, I have a conservative friend who listens to Rush and Hannity and Savage every fricking day. He has a great sense of humor and doesn't worry about anything. Just the other day the local police pulled him over driving his '95 Blazer. Seems he was driving with an expired license (more than 1 year), an unregistered vehicle, no insurance, and a warrant for not paying State income taxes. Oh, and the "open container" didn't help matters.Quote:
Originally Posted by hoppinmad
He says that "global warming" is a hoax.
That whole anecdote just the disparage AGW naysayers.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
I have a buddy whose aunt swears by Keith Olberman and never watchs anything but CNN. Her kids were arrested for drug trafficing charges and she is worried that the police will raid her place too.
She does believe in man made global warming.
90% of the viewers of WE network believe in man made global warming. 'Nuff said. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by atobulldog
And 95% of the listeners of the EIB Network believe that Global warming is a hoax. Nuff said. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by duckbillplatty
Now, what does the MET Office say about AGW?
Which, by the riveting account of your conservative friend's dilemma, means that the earth's temperature will surely rise the 5 degrees. I wasn't fully convinced until you threw in the open container part.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
I only know that it is a true story because he called me from the police station and said, "Salty, can you bring me $871 to the police station. I have the money at my house."Quote:
Originally Posted by marketdawg
Actually, this has nothing to do with global warming.......something to do with a sense of humor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
So the associatative bold has something to do with nothing or were you trying to associate drunk conservatives,who were woefully unprepared for the local police while driving a smog producing 95 (I believe yoiu said Blazer..thanks for the positive ID on the conservative vehicle in question),who happen to need exactly $871......
Positive Proof of Global Warming:
http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:r...al-warming.jpg
I knew it! Those are Salty's red ones on the far right!Quote:
Originally Posted by nadB
Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
Jeepers Salty, if you can't tell a lie any better than that, I believe I'd stay at home and bolt the door. :laugh: You can't work the kitchen sink in there too?
The only true parts of that tale appears in red.
It's 100% true. A typical EIB listener.Quote:
Originally Posted by hoppinmad
Now, back to the regularly scheduled broadcast.
Interesting article.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../321/5895/1481
Climate models suggest that extreme precipitation events will become more common in an anthropogenically warmed climate. However, observational limitations have hindered a direct evaluation of model-projected changes in extreme precipitation. We used satellite observations and model simulations to examine the response of tropical precipitation events to naturally driven changes in surface temperature and atmospheric moisture content. These observations reveal a distinct link between rainfall extremes and temperature, with heavy rain events increasing during warm periods and decreasing during cold periods. Furthermore, the observed amplification of rainfall extremes is found to be larger than that predicted by models, implying that projections of future changes in rainfall extremes in response to anthropogenic global warming may be underestimated.
Is his last name Kennedy?Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
How much more rain will global warming bring?
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten...urcetype=HWCIT
Climate models and satellite observations both indicate that the total amount of water in the atmosphere will increase at a rate of 7% per kelvin of surface warming. However, the climate models predict that global precipitation will increase at a much slower rate of 1 to 3% per kelvin. A recent analysis of satellite observations does not support this prediction of a muted response of precipitation to global warming. Rather, the observations suggest that precipitation and total atmospheric water have increased at about the same rate over the past two decades.
Makes sense. GW will melt the ice caps and a lot of that freed-up water will take the form of water vapor, because of increased temps. More water vapor, means higher humidity, means more precipitation.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
I'm into phase 2 of the building my ark. No, I do not plan to take two of each kind of animals with me. Disgusting creatures like roaches, fire ants, fleas, liberals, snakes, etc...will have to fend for themselves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
...but, as disgusting as they are, liberal creatures will sue you for a free ticket....plus three free squares per day.
Quote:
Originally Posted by altadawg
North Atlantic Hurricane Season slowest since 1997
Global and Northern Hemisphere Tropical Cyclone Activity remains near 30-year historical lows -- three years in a row now of considerably below-average activity globally.
http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/
and what would the end result (water level-wise) be if the artix ice melted?Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
not likely. The average annual temperature of Antartica is -58 def F.Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
http://www.antarcticconnection.com/a.../climate.shtml
dawg80, increasing water vapor doesn't need the ice caps to melt.......plenty of water in the oceans as it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
If surface land and ocean temperatures go up by 5 degrees C, that means a 35% increase in rainfall. Couple that with the expected increase in drought in some places and you have the making of some super-duper cloud bursts over large areas of land, say 3 or 4 counties, dropping 8, 10, 12, 20 inches of rain in a few hours. I saw something like that a couple of years ago on my weather radar in the southwest corner of Kansas. Totally unbelievable storm that covered at least 2 counties. My neighbor who is from Kansas told me that the local farmers had driven their farm implements onto the railroad tracks to escape the flooding and that the river of water in some places was 10 to 12 feet and swept them off of the tracks.