Record January temps

[cpg]

Here in MN, January was 16 degrees above normal. Being the left wing, pinko, commie, tree huggin' liberal that I am I'm willing to believe in global warming and conclude this is the reason for these abnormal temps. But as a cyclist that rides all year, I've enjoyed the above average temps. Still I can't help but feel a little conflicted. Suggestions? More beer?

Curt

[William]

Just in the news yesterday, Southern New England temps about 9 - 10 degrees above normal for January. I hear you, I believe in Global warming, but it sure has been some nice riding for January. :confused:


Do they make Hybrid Hummers???


William ;)

[coylifut]

temps normal here, rain way above normal. :butt: :confused: :argue: :bike: :crap:

[kidamaro]

Last I checked, the world consumes 28,000 million barrels of oil a day, 95 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and 6700 million tons of coal annually. Hard to believe that producing that kind of heat doesn't warm something up a little bit. As for the effects of the polution, who knows, but it is great riding weather for Jan. and Feb.

[William]

temps normal here, rain way above normal. :butt: :confused: :argue: :bike: :crap:

I hope you guys aren't getting one of those seasons where it stays gray & wet until July.





:D :D :D :D




William ;)

[bcm119]

Its very likely that global warming exists. But its not the cause of the warm january. Weather phenomena on short time scales, like a warm month or 2, is caused by the weather pattern... think jet stream and air masses. The whole time its been warm in the US, the arctic air was locked up on the other side of the world in Siberia. Siberia, eastern Asia and parts of Europe are having a record cold winter. So don't despair... the pattern is about to change, and mid-February is looking brutal for a lot of the US.

However, the fact that many people blame global warming for short time scale events like warm spells and hurricanes isn't a bad thing, even if it is incorrect. Its increasing awareness and concern, which is the first step.

[yeehawfactor]

Its very likely that global warming exists. But its not the cause of the warm january. Weather phenomena on short time scales, like a warm month or 2, is caused by the weather pattern... think jet stream and air masses. The whole time its been warm in the US, the arctic air was locked up on the other side of the world in Siberia. Siberia, eastern Asia and parts of Europe are having a record cold winter. So don't despair... the pattern is about to change, and mid-February is looking brutal for a lot of the US.

However, the fact that many people blame global warming for short time scale events like warm spells and hurricanes isn't a bad thing, even if it is incorrect. Its increasing awareness and concern, which is the first step.
i agree, but i think that the global warming argument is a waste of time

[sspielman]

There are of course, two sides to this debate...
www.junkscience.com

[fiamme red]

There are of course, two sides to this debate...
www.junkscience.comhttp://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20060206&s=thacker020606

From the article:

In his final column of the year, FoxNews.com science columnist Steven Milloy listed "the top 10 junk science claims of 2005." For number nine, Milloy attacked the research of Michael Mann, a Penn State scientist who, in 1999, published research showing a dramatic rise in global temperatures during the twentieth century, after hundreds of years with little climate change. Calling Mann's science "dubious," Milloy praised Representative Joe Barton of Texas, whose calls for an investigation into Mann's methodology last June were cut short when the scientific community and members of Congress protested it as a witch hunt. Representative Sherwood Boehlert, the chairman of the House Committee on Science, wrote to Barton, "The only conceivable explanation for the investigation is to attempt to intimidate a prominent scientist and to have Congress put its thumbs on the scales of a scientific debate."

Another conceivable explanation for the investigation is that Barton, as chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, is swimming in donations from oil companies. But that probably didn't bother Milloy, because he receives his own sponsorship from ExxonMobil. As revealed in Mother Jones last spring, between 2000 and 2003, ExxonMobil donated $90,000 to two nonprofits Milloy operates out of his house in Potomac, Maryland. Milloy's defense of Barton--and excoriation of Mann--is typical of his corporate-subsidized science reporting, in which he has attacked not only global warming, but also secondhand smoke studies and clean air regulations...

And it's not just the ExxonMobil money. Milloy has a long history of taking payment from industries that have a stake in the science stories he writes. The ethical standards are clear. "Not disclosing this is wrong," says Tom Rosenstiel, the director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism. The real question, then, is why Fox News continues to employ Milloy. Or, in the words of James Hansen, a climate scientist and the head of nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, "The question is, 'Why does a major news organization employ such a hack?'"...

It has become increasingly hard to defend tobacco or attack smoking studies, which is probably why Milloy's more recent targets have included climate scientists like Mann. "Tobacco has lost most of these battles, but there is still opportunity to spread doubt about global warming," says David Michaels, the chair of the Project on Scientific Knowledge and Public Policy at George Washington University. Corporations with a stake in the global warming debate have been distributing their funds accordingly: Of the $3,056,783 raised in 2003 by the libertarian think tank Competitive Enterprise Institute (where Milloy is an unpaid adjunct analyst), $465,000 came from ExxonMobil. Milloy and Borelli's latest enterprise is a mutual fund that seeks to counter pressure from environmental activists promoting corporate social responsibility...

[tv_vt]

This year, for the first time ever, in the month of January I actually rode my bike outside more times than I cross-country skied . Even though I love to ride, this is not a good.

T

[PeterW]

Here in MN, . . . Still I can't help but feel a little conflicted. Suggestions?Curt

As a "left wing, pinko, commie, tree huggin' liberal" visitor to your state last month (January), I says the weather s*cks! I LOVE to x-c ski and go to MN for cold weather for a week in January. It was 40 degrees most of the time. Spring conditions for the Sierras, not the northwoods in Jan.

BTW, cycling is my lifetime love, but X-C skiing is better in almost all respects. WHAT A SPORT.

And MN, what a great state! Great outdoors stuff, in a great outdoor culture. If I could find a high-paying, low-stress job I'd move my family there immediately!

I rode to work this morning in a oxford shirt and was too hot. It's 2/1! Hot weather is ng.

[JohnS]

Here in MI I consider every warm, dry winter day one fewer day that it can be cold and snowy. Spring is on the way!!!

[Richard]

In the interest of fairness, junkscience.com and Mr. Milloy are funded by corporations, rather than any independant source. Further, there is no peer review of any of the assertions whereas global warming theory, while incomplete, is accepted by the vast majority of scientists. As a balance, look at:
http://info-pollution.com/milloy.htm

[sspielman]

In the interest of fairness, junkscience.com and Mr. Milloy are funded by corporations, rather than any independant source. As a balance, look at:
http://info-pollution.com/milloy.htm

...In the interest of fairness, most research is funded by corporations rather than any independent source...

[Tom]

My nephew was showing us some pics he took of a hike around in Alaska with my neice's boyfriend (ah, 19 and footloose...) and he pointed to a valley full of dead trees and casually commented that they were all spruces, killed by a parasitic worm that used to only have time for one generation a summer so the trees were able to withstand it but now there are two generations a summer so they're all dead.

He also pointed to another place and casually said "That's where we got too close to the bear."

[cpg]

Its very likely that global warming exists. But its not the cause of the warm january. Weather phenomena on short time scales, like a warm month or 2, is caused by the weather pattern... think jet stream and air masses. The whole time its been warm in the US, the arctic air was locked up on the other side of the world in Siberia. Siberia, eastern Asia and parts of Europe are having a record cold winter. So don't despair... the pattern is about to change, and mid-February is looking brutal for a lot of the US.

However, the fact that many people blame global warming for short time scale events like warm spells and hurricanes isn't a bad thing, even if it is incorrect. Its increasing awareness and concern, which is the first step.


Thanks for the clarification. Makes sense to me. I hope you're wrong about that cold February though.

Curt

[Richard]

"In the interest of fairness, most research is funded by corporations rather than any independent source..."

Junk science.com does no "research" per say, but is funded by corporations to "rebut" research that doesn't fit their needs. If junk science.com produced peer reviewed research to support their arguments, then I suppose the funding source would be less germaine. That is not the case. They use the level of argument and proof that the "intelligent design" folks do.

[itsflantastic]

Look at the famous painting of Washington crossing the Delaware. The river is covered in ICE! This was in December (the 25th to be exact), here it is february and I rode in a t-shirt today. Fact is, you can find graphs that chart avg. worldwide temperatures and as soon as the industrial revolution happens. . . . . they started jumping. When the States were being colonized, many people saw places like New Jersey unfit to live in because of the harsh winters that would reach down below O degrees F!! The popular leisure activity of "gentleman" who did move here was ICE BOATING all winter on the Hudson. This does not happen now. It's a different climate all together.

Look at all those hurricanes. a few degrees temperature difference in the water goes a long way.

Anyway, on the bright side. there is stuff we can do- (not to get political but. . .) if only the head of the country would believe that it existed. sigh.
But- all in all, yes. it IS great for riding. Anyone want to buy some of my cold weather gear?

-my rant about global warming-
dan

[jerk]

how come the dutch can still speedskate now that their canals never freeze? answer the jerk that one all you scientists!

jerk

[zeroking17]

how come the dutch can still speedskate now that their canals never freeze? answer the jerk that one all you scientists!

jerk

Ask Cees about the Elfstedentocht (the amazingly insane Dutch ice-skating marathon). This "annual" race has not been held since 1997 because of insufficient ice conditions.

http://www.thehollandring.com/11stedentocht.shtml



.

[jerk]

Ask Cees about the Elfstedentocht (the amazingly insane Dutch ice-skating marathon). This "annual" race has not been held since 1997 because of insufficient ice conditions.

http://www.thehollandring.com/11stedentocht.shtml



.


yeah, its weird and sort of sad; tide of progress and all that.

jerk

[dbrk]

...In the interest of fairness, most research is funded by corporations rather than any independent source...


The view I have from inside a private (not State) research University in which tenured faculty answer professionally to peers is unambiguous. No serious scientist on our faculty believes there is the slightest doubt about global warning and all agree that those who somehow dismiss, disregard, or view it as mere "theory" are advancing falsehood, assuming a political posture, or are simply unqualified to comment. The evidence is simply overwhelming: it's not a matter of faith but of fact that has not been replaced by any other fact. As one colleague put it, "The jury is no more out on global warming than it is on evolution." Of course, one can believe anything one likes but that wouldn't make it true.

I am sure winter will soon strike western NY and with something of a vengence. It is simply unimaginable to sustain temperatures like this and not one really serious snow storm. But that belief is nothing more than that. I have no explanations or scientific beliefs about the weather. I defer to people whose opinions I am compelled to respect because they are professional scientists, not politicians (or religion professors).

dbrk

[Len J]

The view I have from inside a private (not State) research University in which tenured faculty answer professionally to peers is unambiguous. No serious scientist on our faculty believes there is the slightest doubt about global warning and all agree that those who somehow dismiss, disregard, or view it as mere "theory" are advancing falsehood, assuming a political posture, or are simply unqualified to comment. The evidence is simply overwhelming: it's not a matter of faith but of fact that has not been replaced by any other fact. As one colleague put it, "The jury is no more out on global warming than it is on evolution." Of course, one can believe anything one likes but that wouldn't make it true.

I am sure winter will soon strike western NY and with something of a vengence. It is simply unimaginable to sustain temperatures like this and not one really serious snow storm. But that belief is nothing more than that. I have no explanations or scientific beliefs about the weather. I defer to people whose opinions I am compelled to respect because they are professional scientists, not politicians (or religion professors).

dbrk

I am not convinced that it is anything outside of the normal planetary climate swings that have been happening since the beginning of the planet. This planet is self regulating, always has been. IMO environmentalists have latched on to this because it helps their cause.

Len

[bcm119]

I am not convinced that it is anything outside of the normal planetary climate swings that have been happening since the beginning of the planet. This planet is self regulating, always has been. IMO environmentalists have latched on to this because it helps their cause.

Len

Its an important distinction to make... the full term is "human-induced global warming", as opposed to changes caused by the long term climate cycles driven by the oceans. Human induced global warming does exist- this hasn't really been a debatable point in the science community for quite a few years. The rate and time scale signature of HIGW is distinctly different from those of natural oscillations associated with the oceans or sun cycles. Its an interesting and complex topic, but it is purely a scientific topic.
The reason politics have become involved is because policy makers are faced with the question of what to do about it. Obviously agendas are at stake and there is a lot of rhetoric and false information floating back and forth, some of which includes questioning the very existence of HIGW and the science behind it (and equally bad information from the other side). But to be clear, that questioning is not coming from the independent science community, and unfortunately there is far more media coverage of politics than actual science, so its hard for the general public to understand the facts. What to do about HIGW is debatable; that it is happening is not.

[pale scotsman]

Down here fruit trees are budding, tree frogs are chirpin', and I swear freakin' mosquitos are out already... :crap:

[gasman]

Its an important distinction to make... the full term is "human-induced global warming", as opposed to changes caused by the long term climate cycles driven by the oceans. Human induced global warming does exist- this hasn't really been a debatable point in the science community for quite a few years. The rate and time scale signature of HIGW is distinctly different from those of natural oscillations associated with the oceans or sun cycles. Its an interesting and complex topic, but it is purely a scientific topic.
The reason politics have become involved is because policy makers are faced with the question of what to do about it. Obviously agendas are at stake and there is a lot of rhetoric and false information floating back and forth, some of which includes questioning the very existence of HIGW and the science behind it (and equally bad information from the other side). But to be clear, that questioning is not coming from the independent science community, and unfortunately there is far more media coverage of politics than actual science, so its hard for the general public to understand the facts. What to do about HIGW is debatable; that it is happening is not.

Well said Brian.
Unfortunately we live in a country where the level of scientific knowledge is quite low. Most people in this country have not even had more than a little coverage of science in grade school and maybe high school. Surveys taken of the general public show that most can't give a defintion of an atom.

[pdxmech13]

Last I checked, the world consumes 28,000 million barrels of oil a day, 95 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and 6700 million tons of coal annually. Hard to believe that producing that kind of heat doesn't warm something up a little bit. As for the effects of the polution, who knows, but it is great riding weather for Jan. and Feb.

Exon Mobil quote
" Burn Baby Burn"

[William]

Here's and absurdly simple concept to latch onto:

The Earth is a fish bowl.

Albeit a more complex one then your average fish bowl, but self contained nonetheless. Sure there are normal fluctuations in climate temperature due to ocean currents, and the earths movements around the sun. Science has proved this. But to say that hundreds of millions of people (and growing rapidly) on a daily basis burning wood and fossil fuels for cooking, transportation (cars, trucks, motorcycles, airplanes, ships, trains etc...) and warmth, not to mention aerosols, trash burning, trash and chemical dumping in the oceans has not effect is silly. Countries like China and others have little to no pollution controls on their manufacturing. Heck, go hang out by a busy hi-way and really note how many cars, trucks, and busses go by in a one hour period. 24/7 there are vehicles moving up and down the hi-way. Now multiply that thousands of times for hi-ways all over the US and around the world. All that exhaust pumping out 24/7 has no effect? Add in power plants, homes, and manufacturing.... To say that it has no effect on climate is idiotic in MHO.

The Earth is a fish bowl.

A fish bowl/aquarium is a small self contained world. Anyone who has ever owned an aquarium understands that there is a point when you have things like ph, ammonia, nitrites, nitrates, and alkalinity in equilibrium. all is good. But if wastes start building up, the composition changes, ammonia levels rise, and pretty soon things are getting sick and dieing. To a point it will regulate itself, but it's a small margin and it will need help.

The Earth is a fishbowl.

Much more complex and better at regulating itself then an aquarium, but again, only to a point. And all the trash, waste, chemicals, exhaust, fossil fuels etc...are contained on terra firma or in our atmosphere. Some may dissipate out of your immediate proximity, but they're still in the bowl. I'm not a so called "tree hugging" environmentalist, heck, I was a forestry major for quite a while. The focus was on harvesting. But even lumber companies see the effects of so called acid rain, trees dying. I've walked the forests of the PNW all my life. Hiking, climbing, rafting, and eventually studying and I've seen the changes. It's even more prevalent in the forests of the east. Trees exchange Co2 for oxygen. When trees start dying off, obviously the rate of exchange goes down. The oceans produce oxygen as well. In fact, probably more then is produced on land. To be specific, Marine algae produce oxygen. What effect does chemical dumping, trash dumping, and oil dumping/spills in the ocean have on oxygen producing algae? I can pretty much guarantee that it's not "no" effect. Less exchange mean more Co2. More people means more Co2.

The Earth is a fishbowl.

So, outside of the earths normal temperature fluctuations, what effect does man's actions have on the planet's climate? I would say that the exact extent is not fully understood, but, that man is effecting climate change is without question.


William

[sspielman]

The view I have from inside a private (not State) research University in which tenured faculty answer professionally to peers is unambiguous. No serious scientist on our faculty believes there is the slightest doubt about global warning and all agree that those who somehow dismiss, disregard, or view it as mere "theory" are advancing falsehood, assuming a political posture, or are simply unqualified to comment. The evidence is simply overwhelming: it's not a matter of faith but of fact that has not been replaced by any other fact. As one colleague put it, "The jury is no more out on global warming than it is on evolution." Of course, one can believe anything one likes but that wouldn't make it true.

I am sure winter will soon strike western NY and with something of a vengence. It is simply unimaginable to sustain temperatures like this and not one really serious snow storm. But that belief is nothing more than that. I have no explanations or scientific beliefs about the weather. I defer to people whose opinions I am compelled to respect because they are professional scientists, not politicians (or religion professors).

dbrk


... I actually agree that global warming exists. The source of my skepticism is rooted in the fact that it HAS become a political debate. The right wing of the Incumbent Party does not have a monopoly on the rhetoric, either. The left wing has found the theory very useful at advancing all sorts of infringements on our daily lives through their control of the environmental movement....(having commandeered that grass roots movement years ago). As cynical populist, I view this debate as yet another way that the entrenched establishment utilizes the the political "debate" to effect a pre-determined goal or outcome...Hegel would be proud!

[Argos]

Well, either way...... It's gonna be 70 degrees today here and the Trek Trailer is still not in! That means a long walk with the stroller and an hour on the trainer during Naptime..... Dammit!!

Oh, and I believe.

[yeehawfactor]

... I actually agree that global warming exists. The source of my skepticism is rooted in the fact that it HAS become a political debate. The right wing of the Incumbent Party does not have a monopoly on the rhetoric, either. The left wing has found the theory very useful at advancing all sorts of infringements on our daily lives through their control of the environmental movement....(having commandeered that grass roots movement years ago). As cynical populist, I view this debate as yet another way that the entrenched establishment utilizes the the political "debate" to effect a pre-determined goal or outcome...Hegel would be proud!

thus it has lost much of its effectiveness. environmentalists argue that it is fact, that science is on their side. the right says well, the earth has always done this, so you may have proof that the earth is warming but we can't be sure it's humans fault. there are so many other issues that could have the attention and debate time that global warming is afforded, and for much better and greater results.