Global Warm-Mongers Again Ignore Contrary Evidence
A professor has told the Associated Press the heat and storms that have slammed the country are "what global warming looks like." He won't say it's global warming. But he keeps the fear campaign rolling.
Blistering heat, deadly storms and virulent wildfires have dominated recent news cycles. It's been hot in the heartland, stormy on the East Coast and smoky out west. Jonathan Overpeck, a University of Arizona professor of geosciences and atmospheric sciences, says the severe weather "is what global warming looks like at the regional or personal level.
"The extra heat increases the odds of worse heat waves, droughts, storms and wildfire," he said. "This is certainly what I and many other climate scientists have been warning about."
He's right. That's exactly what some have been saying. But that doesn't mean that they are right when they say that increased carbon dioxide emissions from man will cause the planet to overheat.
If what we've seen in parts of the U.S. recently is what global warming looks like, we have to wonder what the low temperatures in other regions indicate. During just one day in the last week of June, 46 cities across the country set or tied record lows, says Mark Johnson of newsnet5.com in Cleveland.
While we might expect Gulkana, Alaska, to register a low of 29 degrees, five degrees colder than its previous record low, who would have thought that on the same day, the Daytona Beach, Fla., International Airport would see its record low for June 28 fall to 63 degrees from 67? Or that the record in Smithville, Tenn., fell from 50 degrees to 43, again on June 28.
Add comment
Before posting a comment, please read the Terms of Service (click here). Long links are shortened but still work.
PLEASE report all spam/inappropriate comments using the 'Report to administrator' link. If you find your post gone, it's because you violated the TOS.
Comments
Considering that the jet stream must contain quadrillions or even quintillions of watts, the effect of wind mills on wind energy is comparable to a thimble of water taken out of the ocean.
The answer Roy, wind energy would be reduced more by the buildings in a small city or by the total number of street light poles in a medium city.
Gator, I think you should waive Roy's membership fees and immediately instate him on your Council of Wrong.
Talent like this should not go to waste.
Your own example son, the same concept of scale applies just as well to all the claims you and your alarmist pals make about CO2.
At least you have figured out that buildings alter wind patterns. Perhaps if you actually thought about it for once you'd figure out how that contributes to UHI and higher temps in cities due to landscape changes with CO2 having nothing to do with it.
You really should know by now the only thing you accomplish by showing up here is to expose your own stupidity.
.0015% of our atmosphere drives the climate!
The sun's output has been studied for decades and is measured very very accurately. The main reason why the vast proportion of Climate Scientists are so sure that man is contributing to global warming is because they are certain that the sun is not.
The jet stream sets the weather patterns. Pre-school 101.
Hey Gator, have you and Anne seen the Arctic ice volume lately?
Obviously the boy has not had enough.
Quote:No Cool Whip, noone has ruled out the Sun, we have been over this a thousand times. The reason the vast majority of
climate scientistschicken littles believe in global warming is because they want to, and because it serves their world view.Quote:Yes, and the fact that there is ice there at all, further proves my point. The Arctic has been ice free before, and is not now. In fact, there is more ice now than the average of the last 9000 years.
Now please provide that ever elusive paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any global climate change.
I have a room to paint, and I am sure I will be done before you can find that paper.
Quote: Professor Richard Feynman, Nobel Laureate in Physics.
Utterly meaningless statement meant to strike fear on a regional and personal level. Scumbag.
How could anyone deny the drastic changes from the extra 50ppm of CO2 that we now have. 50/1,000,000 = 1/20,000
The evidence is everywhere, you just have to know how to look. Drought, floods, heat, cold, more/less snow, arctic ice gone, glaciers melting etc. Doesn't anyone here watch TV?
Droughts, floods, heat, cold, etc. etc. are nothing new. Neither is the frequency or lack thereof. The only difference today vs. 30 years or more back is how quickly we hear about these occurrences.
Yet people like you still blather on that because we now hear about them sooner it means there are more of them never once considering that it is the advances in communications that is why we hear about them sooner and more often.
Don't you study history? It would be far more beneficial for you than watching TV for your "knowledge."
Or are you another "one of those" like some of my relatives who let the TV tell you what to think rather than thinking for yourself?
Speaking of "studing history" please explain the three different settlement eras in Greenland. Claimed by some to be named "Greenland" by clever Viking real estate agents after their unsuccessful "Iceland" development. Now under 20 feet of ice we discover Medieval, Roman and Minoan stone dairy barns with period artifacts. No doubt, clever deniers "planting" evidence under thick ice sheets to thwart modern warmists. GET REAL ! ! !
Greenland being in the same vicinity as the arctic implies to me that the arctic would similarly have had less ice on these occasions.
This actual data implies that the current warming is not unprecedented and therefore very likely to be natural, or at least nothing to get alarmed about.
What do you reckon Drewski?
Typically when we see someone going on about the evidence it is some alarmist nitwit trying to convince us how the manipulated and distorted data constitutes some sort of evidence. Or that because it is warmer than average somewhere, or because somewhere else had a hurricane, or yet somewhere else had a drought, etc. etc. it proves anything.
Perhaps NoFreeWind forgot the /sarc tag as it wasn't readily obvious to me if that was intended as sarcasm.
My point, to those who think the TV is a reliable source of information regarding any of this, is that none of this is new. Severe weather patterns have occurred before and will do so again. The perceived frequency, the claimed "trend" where supposedly more of these events are occurring now, is nothing more than better and faster communications combined with a media that finds it beneficial to highlight these events more so than would have been done in the past.
But it proves nothing beyond the fact that nature can be a real bitch to deal with. That is what history would teach those who actually pay attention to it for more than 20 or 30 years.
I'd say that is about as real as one can get.
Well here at Chez Joker things are really dull, me and Mrs Joker are sittin in the house watching the rain, it's rained almost non stop for the past week and it's cold. So far we've only had 1 BBQ this summer. Nostalgia is a creepin' in here, those long lost days when Global Warming was in full swing now seem just a distant memory. Those were the days when weekend BBQs were guranteed, no need to worry about the weather, long evenings out in the garden, summer clothes etc etc. all a distant memory now that Global Warming has been conquered, perhaps Al Gore should start is mystical dances and get Global Warming going agin, Hee Hee Hee
So hot some places, colder in others. Only let the dog out long enough for her to do her business then brought her in so she wouldn't overheat.
Haven't done any grilling this year, maybe later as we get near fall. Too many other things to worry about.
But I'm not worried about the heat, been through heat waves before. More concerned with what the winter is going to be like this year.
If we could do it I'd trade you some of our warm weather for some rain, but it wouldn't be till around mid-August when I, hopefully, get some seed down in the back yard. No one has maintained the lawn here for ages so last year I killed the back yard off and raked it down to dirt. Didn't get the seed in before winter then so going to try to get it in this fall. That rain would be nice once I do. I suspect I'll be running up the water bill instead.
sorry about that
You had me thinking I'd found another delusional member of the CO2 cult to scold...