Irony of ironies, Gore's hometown Nashville Breaks 1877 Cold Temp Record... - Page 2

Hwy99 · 07-23-2009, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Wind is created when there are large enough temperature and/or pressure differences. Heat rises, cold sinks. Heat convection and all that.

Actually the heat are in their cores, not the atmosphere. Earth's core are very hot too.

Quote:

The warmer ocean has a moderating effect on temperature on coastal towns anywhere in Greenland. Just as the Arctic Ocean has a moderating effect on Barrow, Alaska when compared to Fairbanks during the cold months.

Yes, it's cold year round in Qaanaaq, the northern-most town ABOVE the Arctic Circle. Same thing for Barrow, Alaska but it's the ocean's heat that helps moderate the temperatures there in coastal areas. Now, a temperature of 70 might not seem warm to you but if you live in a cold place that 60, 65 or 70 degree weather would be heaven, especially with the sun shining. Temperatures are measured in the shade, not in the full sun. Standing in full sun you will feel considerably warmer than 70s if there is no or little wind.

Can you grow plants there? Now you see my point.

flip · 07-23-2009, 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kokonut

It isn't the denial about global warming per se but the idiocy to believe that man is responsible for global warming. That's the crux of the problem here. Global warming and cooling have occurred throughout the millions of years. And it continues to this day. It's cyclical. It's natural. Earth's system is very dynamic and changes with the sun's energy output. Quite a complex and very dynamic Earth system. There is not one report or evidence that can prove without a doubt that increasing CO2 concentration amount in the atmosphere is the sole major cause of global warming. Not one! So, therein lies a problem...most notably on those who actually believe that man has this capability to change the climate on a global scale (short of an all out nuclear war). We cannot even stop a tornado or even a hurricane, so what makes you think that man can control climate on a global scale? That's when fantasy begins. It's time to take the red pill. This is a policy driven agenda. Nothing more. Nothing less.

As for the "sole major cause", you are wrong. CO2 have been proved to increase temperature in controlled expirments in labs. The last 100 years, human activities are responsible for 30 percent of CO2 in the air. We know this by doing test of CO2 in the air with chemistry, and can track down where CO2 come from. We have measured an increase of temperature along with an increase of CO2, that correlate with lab tests. What we lack is a model that can explain the rise in temperature by natural causes. Skeptics are frantically trying to find scientifical models that can explain the temperature rise by natural causes, but have failed so far. The sun model is at it best, funny and have close to zero scientifical support, even NASA who study the sun and delivers the hard facts, confirms that global warming seems to be due to human activities like it said in your link.

Your arguments are based on beliving. You belive something is false, even if you don't have a scientifically supported model that can replace what you think is false.

flip · 07-23-2009, 04:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kokonut

Actually, we can. There are numerous ways to study what ancient climates were like using natural records such as tree rings, oxygen-isotope sea core studies, ice core studies, ancient lake bed sediments, rhythmites and varves, a variety of chemical analyses, radio carbon dating, paleomagnitism, geology and many more dating techniques out there. It's called paleoclimatology by using natural records that can go back thousands, hundred of thousands to million of years into the past to the present to help us understand what past paleoclimate was like.

The problem is trying to assign a single source as a the main cause of driving climate change. In this case, incredulously so, CO2 which makes up only .03 percent (not 3 percent but .03 percent or .0003) of the total atmospheric gases by volume while man contributes about .0009 (or .000009) percent of the total CO2 into the atmosphere. Vanishingly small when compared to water vapor that makes up as much as 3 percent of the total atmosphere gases which is quite significant in of itself compared to CO2 at .03 percent.

You seriouly think that climate researchers "knows" this and try to hide this fact from the public, or are so stupid they don't realize this?

flip · 07-23-2009, 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darkdog

Everything you just said there may be perfectly true, but it doesn't follow that our CO2 is to blame for it. Nor does it follow that it's a bad thing. Nor does it follow that we can fix it by destroying economic activity.

As far back as 2005, I used to believe in it and take the AGW advocates at their word. Then I noticed there were scientists that disagreed despite insistence that the debate was over. Those who even dared question the orthodoxy were maligned as deniers, big oil stooges, fascists, psychopaths, etc. I noticed a lot of group think. I also noticed complaints from scientists about losing funding or even worrying about losing their jobs for not toeing the party line. Additionally, the blatant hypocrisy from AGW elites like Al Gore, Laurie David, and Ariana Huffington doesn't help much.

I lost my trust that these scientists were acting in a scientific manner. If presented with data that completely destroys the hypothesis, I don't trust they would change their minds. I believe they would somehow "debunk" it away, resorting even to ad hominems and blatant dishonesty. The burden of proof is on them and their behavior has been very unconvincing.

EDIT: I should add, there are obviously some scientists honest enough to change their mind because that has happened. But when I think about guys like James Hansen, no way.

To bad this is a new science to many people, but if you did take your time to read the theory and research done by different parts, you would have to rely less on what people say about each other.

darkdog · 07-23-2009, 05:02 PM

It's not just a new science to laypeople- it's a new science to scientists themselves. Part of the difficulty lies in the fact that it crosses so many disciplines of science. I started to look into the science a while ago and realized that was a monumental task. Here's what I wrote in another forum in 2007.

Quote:

Here's the difficult part with global warming. It has become such a political thing that you don't know who's right any more. The green side says that skeptics are just in the pockets of big business and big oil and it's all about money. The skeptics say the greens are in bed with socialists and environmental groups who use fear to further their agenda. Greens say there's a vast consensus in the scientific community on the man-made global warming theory. Skeptics say scientists who don't agree with the theory have their funding pulled, suffer persecution, can't get their papers published, and even risk losing their jobs, so the consensus isn't objective.

Then we get into debunking. "The Great Global Warming Swindle has been totally debunked!" we hear the greens side say. "Well, An Inconvenient Truth has been totally debunked!" For every piece of science one could put up, there will be some website somewhere debunking it. Then there will be a website somewhere debunking the claims made in that website. Then there will be a website debunking that. Everything has been totally debunked somewhere by someone. People in internet forums go back and forth on the science debunking each other from information pulled off some website, yet these people don't really seem to know what they're talking about. Their knowledge just seems to be a product of their biased research from questionable sources.

So what can you do to get down to the truth of the matter? I'll tell you exactly what you can do. First, get a bunch of introductory level textbooks on climatology, chemistry, physics, mathematics, modelling, and research methods and learn the basics of those topics. Then, get higher level textbooks on those subjects and become more proficient. Then, look through all the research, study the data, and pay attention to methodology. Then, interview scientists on both sides of the debate. Then, conduct some research of your own. Then, go to your graduation ceremony and receive your diploma in climatology. By this point, you will hopefully have realized that the earth is extremely complex and even the most brilliant scientists can be wrong on anything and even science isn't immune from emotions, politics, and group think. Even still, you'll be able to say that you have formed an intelligent objective opinion, even if it is somewhat qualified. Then, go out to the world, proclaim the knowledge you have just obtained, and don't be too surprised when some website pops up debunking everything you have to say.

Until I find the time to do that, I'll have to be content to sit on the sidelines and see the behavior and motives of those pushing the hypothesis. Mankind is innocent until proven guilty and so far, the prosecution's behavior is very suspect.

**deafskeptic** · 07-23-2009, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rockdrummer

Global warming doesn't mean the entire globe will get warm. As I understand it global warming will equate to climate changes that could manifest in many different ways.

Exactly. Global warming should more properly be called climate change. Some sections of Earth like the Norweigian area are like to get colder rather than warmer while England could become almost tropical due to other factors that doesn't affect Norway.

**shel90** · 07-23-2009, 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deafskeptic

Exactly. Global warming should more properly be called climate change. Some sections of Earth like the Norweigian area are like to get colder rather than warmer while England could become almost tropical due to other factors that doesn't affect Norway.

I agree with you and Rockdrummer.

flip · 07-23-2009, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darkdog

It's not just a new science to laypeople- it's a new science to scientists themselves. Part of the difficulty lies in the fact that it crosses so many disciplines of science. I started to look into the science a while ago and realized that was a monumental task. Here's what I wrote in another forum in 2007.

Until I find the time to do that, I'll have to be content to sit on the sidelines and see the behavior and motives of those pushing the hypothesis. Mankind is innocent until proven guilty and so far, the prosecution's behavior is very suspect.

We know that 97 of climate researchers agree with each other from surveys, so it's not just something that the "Green side" claims.

"Skeptics say scientists who don't agree with the theory have their funding pulled, suffer persecution, can't get their papers published, and even risk losing their jobs, so the consensus isn't objective.". This one is a bit weird. Sounds like a classic conspiracy theory. Do you really belive it's a force out there that control 97 percent of climate researchers? If so, I suppose you belive other brances of science also suffers from this?

Also, your last claim, "Mankind is innocent until proven guilty and so far, the prosecution's behavior is very suspect.", does not work in this case. What if the prosectuor is right, but the man keep on denying, and suddenly, it's too late. People start to die from famine due to loss of food sources, drought, etc etc. It's even possible to deny darwin was right, it's possible to deny the whole science, but it does not mean it's smart or sane to do so.

kokonut · 07-23-2009, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PuyoPiyo

There you go.

The Dalles is much far from the ocean than Vancouver BC and are more drier, with strong windy. Now you wonder why The Dalles area are so yellow compare to Vancouver BC. Also I don't see that make you think The Dalles are near large body of water, The Dalles are only on the river while Vancouver BC are on the beach behind the islands from Washington to Victoria Island.

It's about the equivalent distance from Barrow (a coastal town) to Fairbanks (inland town) to that of Vancouver, BC (a coastal town) to The Dalles, Oregon (inland). Geography plays a role in those towns.

kokonut · 07-23-2009, 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PuyoPiyo

Actually the heat are in their cores, not the atmosphere. Earth's core are very hot too.

Can you grow plants there? Now you see my point.

Wind is created when there are temperature and pressure differences. It's all about heat exchanges. There is heat in the atmosphere, too. Heat is everywhere. There is heat in ice. Until you actually understand the physics of heat you'll get it. Right now, you do not. Please take the time to read up on these things.

Yes, you can grow plants in Greenland. You are so misinformed. They do have crops there believe it or not, even in Fairbanks which gets much more colder than southern Greenland. In Greenland they grow potatos, cauliflowers, brocollis, roots and herbs, cabbage, radish, and even carrots.
Read a learn for a change.
Greenland: land of ice goes green as warming turns the cabbages into kings - Times Online

Quote:

Farming on the island, which was previously limited, is now increasing due to a longer growing season and opening of new land to cultivation. Potato and radish crops had bumper years even as far north as Nuuk, only 185 miles from the Arctic Circle. The 2007 growing season marks the first time that Greenlanders have been able to grow broccoli. Carrots and cauliflower are also available from local farms, although all three crops still can't be produced in large enough quantities to feed the population without help from sources in Denmark. A growing number of sheep and cows have appeared, also taking advantage of a longer summer season.

Greenland : Weather Underground

kokonut · 07-23-2009, 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deafskeptic

Exactly. Global warming should more properly be called climate change. Some sections of Earth like the Norweigian area are like to get colder rather than warmer while England could become almost tropical due to other factors that doesn't affect Norway.

No. The premise all along has been about global warming and that is what this is all about. Global warming. Changing over to "climate change" is an attempt to cover-up and confuse people of what the agenda is about and that is....global warming. Ta da!!!

Hwy99 · 07-23-2009, 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kokonut

It's about the equivalent distance from Barrow (a coastal town) to Fairbanks (inland town) to that of Vancouver, BC (a coastal town) to The Dalles, Oregon (inland). Geography plays a role in those towns.

That is why I showed up the example of Vancouver, WA and Vancouver BC with the same geopgraphy to show that the difference of geography does affect the temperature, not just the heat.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kokonut

Wind is created when there are temperature and pressure differences. It's all about heat exchanges. There is heat in the atmosphere, too. Heat is everywhere. There is heat in ice. Until you actually understand the physics of heat you'll get it. Right now, you do not. Please take the time to read up on these things.

Yes, you can grow plants in Greenland. You are so misinformed. They do have crops there believe it or not, even in Fairbanks which gets much more colder than southern Greenland. In Greenland they grow potatos, cauliflowers, brocollis, roots and herbs, cabbage, radish, and even carrots.
Read a learn for a change.
Greenland: land of ice goes green as warming turns the cabbages into kings - Times Online

Greenland : Weather Underground

Then where's the tree? Also this link says that it is not enough without the source from Denmark.

kokonut · 07-23-2009, 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flip

As for the "sole major cause", you are wrong. CO2 have been proved to increase temperature in controlled expirments in labs. The last 100 years, human activities are responsible for 30 percent of CO2 in the air. We know this by doing test of CO2 in the air with chemistry, and can track down where CO2 come from. We have measured an increase of temperature along with an increase of CO2, that correlate with lab tests. What we lack is a model that can explain the rise in temperature by natural causes. Skeptics are frantically trying to find scientifical models that can explain the temperature rise by natural causes, but have failed so far. The sun model is at it best, funny and have close to zero scientifical support, even NASA who study the sun and delivers the hard facts, confirms that global warming seems to be due to human activities like it said in your link.

Your arguments are based on beliving. You belive something is false, even if you don't have a scientifically supported model that can replace what you think is false.

What they don't tell you is that as the concentration of CO2 increases it inversely get less effective as a "forcing agent" on increasing temperature. Besides, 90% of greenhouse warming is due to water vapor and clouds. Yet, carbon dioxide does play a role...albeit a very minor role when it comes to climate change. Yet, when we exhale our breath it contains about 4% CO2 by volume with the surrounding air. That is 40,000 parts per million, or about 100 times the current atmospheric concentration at 380 ppm. But what people do not understand is that CO2 is absolutely essential for life on earth! And it is certainly not a pollutant to begin with!

Again, are you sure that mankind is solely responsible for 30% of all CO2 in the air? We are still learning about Earth and how it is the biggest emitter and absorber of CO2. In fact, recently it was discovered that the decadal oscillating Atlantic ocean currents pump huge amount of CO2 every 65 years during the positive phase. We all know, well, at least some of us do, that the ocean acts as a huge CO2 sink during colder climate periods absorbing more and CO2 than during warmer years when water is warmer is less capable of absorbing CO2. Much like a warm cup of soda is unable to hold any of it's CO2 versus for long compared an ice cold cup of soda is able to hold it's bubbly CO2 for a lot longer. Same idea with the ocean but it has a lot longer lag time in absorbing and releasing heat.
http://www.biokurs.de/treibhaus/180C...y-bayreuth.pdf

Models are not proof. Any self-respecting scientists, such as I, can attest to that with my background in computational modeling in contaminant hydrogeology which was the basis of my 5 year thesis result. Bottom line, they are simply but predictive models that comes with parameters (unknown and known). the range of sensitivity for each parameter involved, temporal and spatial scales, unknown and known feedbacks, the issues of thermodynamics, entrophy, etc..etc..ad nauseum. There are several competing climate models out there and in order for a climate model to have any sense of validity the model must be actively validated somehow against the real thing. And that's extremely hard when it comes to climate modeling when meteorologists cannot even accurately predict the next hurricane two weeks out.

My arguments are based on facts and knowledge of geophysics, earth science and hydrology. BTW, where are your links to support your claims and arguments?

kokonut · 07-23-2009, 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PuyoPiyo

Then where's the tree? Also this link says that it is not enough without the source from Denmark.

You never said trees. Trees do grow in Greenland though not in great abundance like out here but enough so that they can be harvested. Gee, you do need to read more often.
The Forest Plantations - Skov & Landskab

kokonut · 07-23-2009, 08:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flip

We know that 97 of climate researchers agree with each other from surveys, so it's not just something that the "Green side" claims.

Ummm ... that would be 97% of the "climatologists" participating and not 97% of ALL climatoligists in the world. Yet they do not state how many of the 3,100 some odd scientists surveyed were actually climatologists. But funnily enough you and others conveniently ignore the facts there are reputable and professional scientists who disagree with the notion about global warming as man-caused.

Quote:

More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims Scientists Continue to Debunk

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...d-6e2d71db52d9

97%? Er, yeah. Right.

inspirabull · 07-23-2009, 08:47 PM

All I know is what I see up here. When I am on the Arctic coast I see a huge difference. I used to see an ice pack out there. I used to see chunks of ice floating everywhere all summer long. I used to see colder summer temperatures and winter came sooner. In my life time I have seen an overall winter change of several degrees no matter where I am at. It is warmer. It does not get as cold nor does it stay as cold. These observations match up with science as well. I am not an expert just a guy who was working outdoors with his hands on the Arctic coast in 1975 and in 2009 and many times in between.

**saywhatkid** · 07-23-2009, 09:14 PM

Here in Minnesota, there has been a noticeable change in summer humidity. The theory is that all of the farming south of the Twin Cities has increased the water levels in the air, because of irrigation. This more humid air is picked up when the winds blow from the south. And, since the southerly winds are already humid from the Gulf of Mexico, it has increased our humidity about 5-10 degrees on the dewpoint scale. I rarely recall dewpoints of 70 or higher in the 1980's. In the last 15 years, we have gone over 80 a few times, and 70+ for days at a time. I realize this is not exactly climate change, but it sure feels like it to me. The other thing to consider: humans are the only animal capable of changing climate. I cannot imagine a large chemical or petroleum company worrying about greenhouse gases or ozone holes when it might affect their profits.

kokonut · 07-23-2009, 09:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by inspirabull

All I know is what I see up here. When I am on the Arctic coast I see a huge difference. I used to see an ice pack out there. I used to see chunks of ice floating everywhere all summer long. I used to see colder summer temperatures and winter came sooner. In my life time I have seen an overall winter change of several degrees no matter where I am at. It is warmer. It does not get as cold nor does it stay as cold. These observations match up with science as well. I am not an expert just a guy who was working outdoors with his hands on the Arctic coast in 1975 and in 2009 and many times in between.

I suppose you remember this in a 1975 Newsweek article on the global cooling scare, too?

Yet, people are mum about the Antarctica (South Pole) and how it has increasingly gotten colder, even the ocean water and continued expansion of ice on land.
Antarctic Ice Increasing | EcoWorld

kokonut · 07-23-2009, 09:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saywhatkid

I cannot imagine a large chemical or petroleum company worrying about greenhouse gases or ozone holes when it might affect their profits.

That's because it's a myth about CO2 and even the "ozone hole" which isn't even a hole to begin with but a thinning that waxes and wanes.

**saywhatkid** · 07-23-2009, 10:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kokonut

That's because it's a myth about CO2 and even the "ozone hole" which isn't even a hole to begin with but a thinning that waxes and wanes.

What are you suggesting? Should we relax our pollution controls to enable these companies to operate cheaper? Do you think, even if this were done, that one penny of that extra profit would find it's way to John Q Public? Or would it become another penny in the CEO's inflated salary? What about the health implications of increased pollution: fact or fiction? Feel free to research this and more.

**saywhatkid** · 07-23-2009, 10:05 PM

BTW, just a joke here: does the fact that Al Gore's hometown is having record cold mean that he is not there, since he is one of those guys filled with Liberal Hot Air?

netrox · 07-23-2009, 10:20 PM

Oh brother - not again... do NOT jump to conclusions about "cold days" in summer. It doesn't mean anything until it's averaged out in the near future.

**sequoias** · 07-23-2009, 10:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by netrox

Oh brother - not again... do NOT jump to conclusions about "cold days" in summer. It doesn't mean anything until it's averaged out in the near future.

That's right. If it keeps doing that often, then that's an issue. I don't think we have to panic about that right now.

kokonut · 07-23-2009, 10:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saywhatkid

What are you suggesting? Should we relax our pollution controls to enable these companies to operate cheaper? Do you think, even if this were done, that one penny of that extra profit would find it's way to John Q Public? Or would it become another penny in the CEO's inflated salary? What about the health implications of increased pollution: fact or fiction? Feel free to research this and more.

What you've just committed is called a "Red Herring."

Pollution controls are fine when it comes down to regional and local scale where pollution does have an effect on our health (e.g. smog, acid rain, etc).

kokonut · 07-23-2009, 10:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by netrox

Oh brother - not again... do NOT jump to conclusions about "cold days" in summer. It doesn't mean anything until it's averaged out in the near future.

No conclusions here, just the fact that there were numerous record low temperatures. Which goes to show that climate change is out of our hands.

kokonut · 07-23-2009, 10:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sequoias

That's right. If it keeps doing that often, then that's an issue. I don't think we have to panic about that right now.

who says about panicking? Surely the same thing can be applied with this global warming thingy, too. No need to panic.

darkdog · 07-23-2009, 10:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flip

We know that 97 of climate researchers agree with each other from surveys, so it's not just something that the "Green side" claims.

I'd be interested to see what survey you're talking about. If, for instance, you're talking about this one (Survey Tracks Scientists' Growing Climate Concern - US News and World Report), then it's 97% who agree the Earth has warmed over the past 100 years, but only 74% who believe it was induced by humans. Less than half believe it will be catastrophic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by flip

"Skeptics say scientists who don't agree with the theory have their funding pulled, suffer persecution, can't get their papers published, and even risk losing their jobs, so the consensus isn't objective.". This one is a bit weird. Sounds like a classic conspiracy theory. Do you really belive it's a force out there that control 97 percent of climate researchers? If so, I suppose you belive other brances of science also suffers from this?

This isn't conspiracy theory stuff. Scientists themselves complain about it. For example, Richard Lindzen, a scientist at MIT, wrote about it in the Wall Street Journal.

Quote:

But there is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.

Extra - WSJ.com

And yes, I believe other sciences suffer from these problems. To quote Discover Magazine, "Science, like any other human endeavor, is susceptible to trends and pendulous swings of groupthink." How often does the term "than previous thought" pop up in science literature? Quite often.

The more complex the system, the more rigorous researchers must be. The more impact a scientific conclusion has on society, the more careful researchers must be to filter out their own biases. In that sense, physics is actually one of the easiest sciences because it is the simplest. It gets much more difficult as you move into biology, psychology, and sociology. It's much harder to avoid cargo-cult science with the sciences dealing in more complex phenomena.

Quote:

Originally Posted by flip

Also, your last claim, "Mankind is innocent until proven guilty and so far, the prosecution's behavior is very suspect.", does not work in this case. What if the prosectuor is right, but the man keep on denying, and suddenly, it's too late. People start to die from famine due to loss of food sources, drought, etc etc. It's even possible to deny darwin was right, it's possible to deny the whole science, but it does not mean it's smart or sane to do so.

Ahh, the precautionary principle. If that applied universally, we would be subject to the whims of anyone who wanted to scare us into doing anything they wanted. "You have to scrap your constitution and put us in charge of everything immediately so we can sterilize women and control the allocation of resources or else we'll all devolve into cannibalism within 10 years!!!" "Well, they may be wrong and they do seem a little power-hungry, but gee honey, what if they're right? Better go along with it, just in case."

The history of alarmism has shown us that the burden of proof should be on them and the public should be skeptical of alarmist claims.

Hwy99 · 07-24-2009, 01:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kokonut

You never said trees. Trees do grow in Greenland though not in great abundance like out here but enough so that they can be harvested. Gee, you do need to read more often.
The Forest Plantations - Skov & Landskab

I was just asking.

This proves the global warming do exist.

**Jiro** · 07-24-2009, 01:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kokonut

The sun always drive the climate. It's the main driver. Without it, Earth would be a completely uninhabitable, iceball of a planet. When energy output from the sun drops it affects how climate behaves. There are other factors as well such as a regional high pressure where there is little opportunity for cloud formation to occur. Besides, July and August are the hottest months for Washington. I live there, too.
http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/htmlfiles/wa/wa.90.html

precisely. Sun is the source of life for Earth. Want a proof of what happens if there is no sun? look at Pluto - a dead cold barren planet. What happens if you're too close to sun? a hot gaseous molting planet like Mercury and Venus. What happens if you're in between with a right distance and right temperature? an Earth

and what happens if you're just a little further from sun? Mars but it's barely dead and barren.

**Jiro** · 07-24-2009, 01:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sequoias

Ummm...it's hot here and been running about average here, high in the 80's in Western WA and 90's and 100s in East WA. I don't think it's caused by the sun, but caused by the strong El Nino or something like that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sequoias

That was not my point. The point is that strong El Nino is causing the climate to change for this year causing record lows in other regions while it's normal in other states. I don't think it's the sun spots causing the other states to have record lows.

It has been kinda warm and dry here in Washington state, that's one of the sign of El Nino year. We are possibility gonna have a drier and warmer than normal winter this year. That doesn't look good for snowpack in the mountains.

yes but everything points to sun. El Nino is affected by sun. Global Warming is affected by sun. everything is affected by sun. What's going on in Earth is a natural phenomenon affected by sun. not a manmade cause.

07-23-2009, 09:14 PM	#47 (permalink)
saywhatkid Emerging from the sun Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: In space Posts: 7,242 Blog Entries: 2	Here in Minnesota, there has been a noticeable change in summer humidity. The theory is that all of the farming south of the Twin Cities has increased the water levels in the air, because of irrigation. This more humid air is picked up when the winds blow from the south. And, since the southerly winds are already humid from the Gulf of Mexico, it has increased our humidity about 5-10 degrees on the dewpoint scale. I rarely recall dewpoints of 70 or higher in the 1980's. In the last 15 years, we have gone over 80 a few times, and 70+ for days at a time. I realize this is not exactly climate change, but it sure feels like it to me. The other thing to consider: humans are the only animal capable of changing climate. I cannot imagine a large chemical or petroleum company worrying about greenhouse gases or ozone holes when it might affect their profits. __________________ "Be faithful in small things because it is in them that your strength lies." ~ Mother Teresa

07-23-2009, 10:05 PM	#51 (permalink)
saywhatkid Emerging from the sun Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: In space Posts: 7,242 Blog Entries: 2	BTW, just a joke here: does the fact that Al Gore's hometown is having record cold mean that he is not there, since he is one of those guys filled with Liberal Hot Air? __________________ "Be faithful in small things because it is in them that your strength lies." ~ Mother Teresa

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Today
Deafness	Sponsored Links __________________ This advertising will not be shown in this way to registered members. Register your free account today and become a member on AllDeaf.com

07-23-2009, 08:47 PM	#46 (permalink)
inspirabull Registered User Join Date: Nov 2008 Posts: 434	All I know is what I see up here. When I am on the Arctic coast I see a huge difference. I used to see an ice pack out there. I used to see chunks of ice floating everywhere all summer long. I used to see colder summer temperatures and winter came sooner. In my life time I have seen an overall winter change of several degrees no matter where I am at. It is warmer. It does not get as cold nor does it stay as cold. These observations match up with science as well. I am not an expert just a guy who was working outdoors with his hands on the Arctic coast in 1975 and in 2009 and many times in between.

07-23-2009, 10:20 PM	#52 (permalink)
netrox Registered User Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 4,780	Oh brother - not again... do NOT jump to conclusions about "cold days" in summer. It doesn't mean anything until it's averaged out in the near future.