coldest November-December U.S. temperature on record

API

My Indian name is "Runs with Beer"
Joined
Nov 4, 2007
Messages
7,748
Reaction score
59
Points
48
Age
76
Location
So Cal
Trying to be succinct, climate change is inevitable. Whether man made or a natural occurrence, change will happen and climate change will not cause human extinction. Around the globe, people are living in extreme climates today. The environment resulting from change may be different than the temperate zone we now enjoy, however, my faith is in the human ability to adapt and survive. Yes, we ought to be responsible stewards, but is that enough? Do we deny the impact of the Earth's natural change cycles? Do we suggest that those living prior to past climate changes acted irresponsibly and caused change to happen? I think the concern of most people when it come to the climate is their concern for the preservation of the life style they currently enjoy in a temperate climate. I would like to know the current thoughts on this subject from someone living in an intemperate zone. Do they even care? Changing technology and lifestyle make today's interface with the environment different than that of our forebearers. How much different? Is it really significant? I don't know. I am concerned though with the Jeremiah types who say we are past the "tipping point" and are heading for disaster. My brain just turns off when the Jeremiah type speaks. With the exception of a nuclear disaster, I think humans will be around in the prevailing climate 'til the end of time (whenever that is).
 

cduck

New Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2005
Messages
5,787
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Age
61
Location
Rancho Santa Margarita'ville
Your post reminds me of a song, Jay.......

In the year 2525
If man is still alive
If woman can survive
They may find........

In the year 3535
Ain't gonna need to tell the truth, tell no lies
Everything you think, do, or say
Is in the pill you took today

In the year 4545
Ain't gonna need your teeth, won't need your eyes
You won't find a thing to chew
Nobody's gonna look at you

In the year 5555
Your arms are hanging limp at your sides
Your legs got nothing to do
Some machine, doing that for you

In the year 6565
Ain't gonna need no husband, won't need no wife
You'll pick your son, pick your daughter too
From the bottom of a long glass tube

In the year 7510
If God's a comin' he ought to make it by then
Maybe he'll look around himself and say
``Guess it's time for the Judgement day''

In the year 8510
God's gonna shake his mighty head
He'll either say ``I'm pleased where man has been''
Or tear it down and start again

In the year 9595
I'm kinda wondering if man's gonna be alive
He's taken everything this old earth can give
And he ain't put back nothing...

Now it's been 10,000 years
Man has cried a billion tears
For what he never knew
Now man's reign is through
But through the eternal night
The twinkling of starlight
So very far away
Maybe it's only yesterday...

In the year 2525
If man is still alive
If woman can survive
They may find.......
 

API

My Indian name is "Runs with Beer"
Joined
Nov 4, 2007
Messages
7,748
Reaction score
59
Points
48
Age
76
Location
So Cal
Holy samoly Tim! Zager and Evans, 1969 from Lincoln, Nebraska. The only group to have a number one hit single and then never have another chart single for the rest of their career.
 

JDC

Itchin to pull the trigger
Joined
Nov 18, 2005
Messages
8,730
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
57
Location
Communist Republic of California
....but despite all the hype for Global Warming, it is still our responsibility to be good stewards of the Earth. We owe it to our kids.

I'm not disputing that we need to treat our planet with more respect than we have in the past, but I'm not buying "The Sky Is Falling" B.S.

The Ice Age occured. Either that or our ancestors had a way to move gazillion pound boulders thousands of miles south into places they don't belong. I doubt they had that kind of technology, and I think little green men from mars have better things to do than see how far they can move boulders from the northern reaches of the continent to the south to screw with future scientific research. Until someone can show me a feasable theory on how those big chunks of rock ended up so far away from their orgin, I will be a believer in the Ice Age.
 

Coondog

New Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2005
Messages
4,611
Reaction score
5
Points
0
Age
49
Location
Keller, TX
The whole problem with this is that the left has politicized this entire "theory" to the point that if you do not believe, "whole-heartedly", that global warming is man-made and that we only have a few hours left on this great planet, then you are labled as an idiot and a person who doesnt care about the planet, or our childrens future on this planet.. It is silly really.. It is nothing more than political "sky is falling" propaganda... You can, in fact, do your part on this planet, AND, think global warming is nothing but pure B.S....
 

Beastslayer

New Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2007
Messages
2,799
Reaction score
0
Points
0
The whole problem with this is that the left has politicized this entire "theory" to the point that if you do not believe, "whole-heartedly", that global warming is man-made and that we only have a few hours left on this great planet, then you are labled as an idiot and a person who doesnt care about the planet, or our childrens future on this planet.. It is silly really.. It is nothing more than political "sky is falling" propaganda... You can, in fact, do your part on this planet, AND, think global warming is nothing but pure B.S....

Funny on the difference in perspective.

My view is that it was the right that has politicized the whole issue mainly because if was Gore who delivered the initial compelling message. While the friends, donors and cronies of the right in the oil industry from Saudi to Texas funded the contrarian view since they see lose of obscene profit.

As a good crime detective would ask: Who has the greater motive (or in this case, the vested interests)?

The vested interest of the left is the future of their children, the planet and the protection of the environment.

Oil industry vests on profit but in which the right as their willing tool and puppet.
 

API

My Indian name is "Runs with Beer"
Joined
Nov 4, 2007
Messages
7,748
Reaction score
59
Points
48
Age
76
Location
So Cal
The vested interest of the left is the future of their children, the planet and the protection of the environment.

Snort! Guffaw! Giggle, giggle... Come ooooonnn Beastie. I believe I'll have some apple pie with my Kool aid... :smiley-bowdown-purple:
 

sdhunter

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2005
Messages
3,093
Reaction score
37
Points
48
Age
56
Location
Lincoln CA
You must admit, the whole Global Warming issue sure seems divided by the two major political parties as a whole.
 

cduck

New Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2005
Messages
5,787
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Age
61
Location
Rancho Santa Margarita'ville
So, Al Gore doesn't have a vested financial interest in perpetuating the Global warming crisis?

And the UN and the IPCC, probably the 2nd largest promoter of the Global Warming crisis after Gore, doesn't have a vested financial interest in perpetuating the crisis as well?

Is a scientist who allegedly gets a $10K grant from Exxon to say man doesn't cause Global Warming any worse than some UN IPCC scientist who gets paid to say the exact opposite??
 

Huntducks

New Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2013
Messages
3,695
Reaction score
2
Points
0
beetslayer

You have more verbarrhea flowing then a elephant on exlax, you truely need to quit drinking all the cool aid, big business is not evil and that includes the oil co.

I have come to the conclusion your involved with CTA or a socialist goverment worker.

I consider myself on the right and I want to pollute and poison all the water the air and kill every animal that walks fly's or swims, cut every tree down a bear planet would be great, and one more thing feed the condors a steady diet of lead heck even poison my two grandchildern while i'm at it, now does that make you feel better all us to the right hate this world we only want to destroy it.

But you on the left are the true savour of the planet :smiley-bowdown-purple: because that's the way you lib's like to paint it.
 

Beastslayer

New Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2007
Messages
2,799
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Colusa,

May I ask for some elaboration please?

How can a scientist paid by Exxon cheaply for $10,000 be the same as the NOAA or the U.N. scientists who are on fixed income? Regardless of what they write NOAA or U.N. scientists gets paid with the same salary.

And where is Gores vested interests when he actually lost income when he started making speeches for free on Global Warming instead of his former $200,000 lecture fee on global security and communication?

Huntduck That was a leap of conclusion on what I said. I dont remember accusing oil companies as evil. I just know that oil industry, like every business, would like to protect their profit.

No, I dont think the right wants to kill their grandchildren. Some of them just wont have grandchildren due to their liking for same-sex in airport toilets.

Beetslayer? That would put me in the same company as the zucchini slayer.
 

Huntducks

New Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2013
Messages
3,695
Reaction score
2
Points
0
You don't have to leap to any conclusion your key boads drools of it, so do you feel it's wrong to make a profit? if so you might be to the left of a true socialist what communist Berkeley is full of them.

Oh please there are more lib. leftys limp rest bath house back door operators in Santa Monica, Hollywood, and SF then all the red states together.

what's that fudge packing democRATS name barney frank........
 

cduck

New Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2005
Messages
5,787
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Age
61
Location
Rancho Santa Margarita'ville
(Beastslayer @ Feb 22 2008, 3:47 PM) And where is Gores vested interests when he actually lost income when he started making speeches for free on Global Warming instead of his former $200,000 lecture fee on global security and communication?

I understand he does charge for his speeches. Unfortunately our esteemed network nazis here at work deny access to any sites dealing with guns or politics, but I did manage to find one article that deals with his compensation on speeches that was dated December 2007.

2 Excerpts below and the entire article in the link below.

Al Gore has come under fire for making personal gain from his mission to save the planet after charging 3,300 a minute to deliver a poorly received speech.

Many of the audience at last month's Fortune Forum summit were restless as Mr Gore, who has won both a Nobel Peace Prize and an Oscar for his campaigning work this year, delivered the half-hour speech that netted him 100,000.

That's a $150K US...sure a bit less than $200K...but not much in the grand scheme of things.

UKMail

Do you think that a scientist associated with the UN who didn't support the UN's hypothesis on Global Warming would actually continue to have employment? I can't find any data to support this at this moment, but common sense tells me no. It has been no secret that the pro man-causes-Global Warming camp has closed off any dissent on this issue and people that do dissent are labeled "Flat Earth" believers or Holocaust deniers....take your pick.

In addition to their normal fixes salaries....there are intangible benefits to going along with the UN and their theory on GW. I read an article last week that stated all of the UN employees and associated scientists were invited to attend the GW conference in Bali held in December....all expenses paid! Additionally, many of the scientists were also at the earlier conference held in Spain earlier that same month. I also hear that the lunhes served at the UN are very decadent. If I were a scientist, that may be enough to sway my vote....

I think there are unclean hands in a lot of different areas involving the issue of GW......and not all of them conservative.
 

fish dog

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2007
Messages
5,398
Reaction score
190
Points
63
Age
67
Location
Huntington Beach, CA
There have been at least four major ice ages in the Earth's past. Outside these periods, the Earth seems to have been ice-free even in high latitudes.
The earliest hypothesized ice age, called the Huronian, was around 2.7 to 2.3 billion years ago during the early Proterozoic Eon.
The earliest well-documented ice age, and probably the most severe of the last 1 billion years, occurred from 850 to 630 million years ago (the Cryogenian period) and may have produced a Snowball Earth in which permanent ice covered the entire globe. This ended very rapidly as water vapor returned to Earth's atmosphere. It has been suggested that the end of this ice age was responsible for the subsequent Ediacaran and Cambrian Explosion, though this theory is recent and controversial.

Sediment records showing the fluctuating sequences of glacials and interglacials during the last several million years.
A minor ice age, the Andean-Saharan, occurred from 460 to 430 million years ago, during the Late Ordovician and the Silurian period. There were extensive polar ice caps at intervals from 350 to 260 million years ago, during the Carboniferous and early Permian Periods, associated with the Karoo Ice Age.
The present ice age began 40 million years ago with the growth of an ice sheet in Antarctica. It intensified during the late Pliocene, around 3 million years ago, with the spread of ice sheets in the Northern Hemisphere, and has continued in the Pleistocene. Since then, the world has seen cycles of glaciation with ice sheets advancing and retreating on 40,000- and 100,000-year time scales. The most recent glacial period ended about ten thousand years ago.
Ice ages can be further divided by location and time; for example, the names Riss (180,000130,000 years bp) and Wrm (70,00010,000 years bp) refer specifically to glaciation in the Alpine region. Note that the maximum extent of the ice is not maintained for the full interval. Unfortunately, the scouring action of each glaciation tends to remove most of the evidence of prior ice sheets almost completely, except in regions where the later sheet does not achieve full coverage. It is possible that glacial periods other than those above, especially in the Precambrian, have been overlooked because of scarcity of exposed rocks from high latitudes from older periods.

I wonder how we caused all those ice ages and the subsequent global warming after them? (Especially since we we're around for most of them). The earth's temperature fluctuates all the time.
 

Coondog

New Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2005
Messages
4,611
Reaction score
5
Points
0
Age
49
Location
Keller, TX
I know that I will get the usual "temperatures really have nothing to do with Global Warming" BS(which is funny, btw...) Or, even better, cold temperatures support Global WARMING! But, here is what I ran across today...

Forget global warming: Welcome to the new Ice Age
Lorne Gunter, National Post
Published: Monday, February 25, 2008

Snow cover over North America and much of Siberia, Mongolia and China is greater than at any time since 1966.

The U.S. National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) reported that many American cities and towns suffered record cold temperatures in January and early February. According to the NCDC, the average temperature in January "was -0.3 F cooler than the 1901-2000 (20th century) average."

China is surviving its most brutal winter in a century. Temperatures in the normally balmy south were so low for so long that some middle-sized cities went days and even weeks without electricity because once power lines had toppled it was too cold or too icy to repair them.

There have been so many snow and ice storms in Ontario and Quebec in the past two months that the real estate market has felt the pinch as home buyers have stayed home rather than venturing out looking for new houses.

In just the first two weeks of February, Toronto received 70 cm of snow, smashing the record of 66.6 cm for the entire month set back in the pre-SUV, pre-Kyoto, pre-carbon footprint days of 1950.

And remember the Arctic Sea ice? The ice we were told so hysterically last fall had melted to its "lowest levels on record? Never mind that those records only date back as far as 1972 and that there is anthropological and geological evidence of much greater melts in the past.

The ice is back.

Gilles Langis, a senior forecaster with the Canadian Ice Service in Ottawa, says the Arctic winter has been so severe the ice has not only recovered, it is actually 10 to 20 cm thicker in many places than at this time last year.

OK, so one winter does not a climate make. It would be premature to claim an Ice Age is looming just because we have had one of our most brutal winters in decades.

But if environmentalists and environment reporters can run around shrieking about the manmade destruction of the natural order every time a robin shows up on Georgian Bay two weeks early, then it is at least fair game to use this winter's weather stories to wonder whether the alarmist are being a tad premature.

And it's not just anecdotal evidence that is piling up against the climate-change dogma.

According to Robert Toggweiler of the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory at Princeton University and Joellen Russell, assistant professor of biogeochemical dynamics at the University of Arizona -- two prominent climate modellers -- the computer models that show polar ice-melt cooling the oceans, stopping the circulation of warm equatorial water to northern latitudes and triggering another Ice Age (a la the movie The Day After Tomorrow) are all wrong.

"We missed what was right in front of our eyes," says Prof. Russell. It's not ice melt but rather wind circulation that drives ocean currents northward from the tropics. Climate models until now have not properly accounted for the wind's effects on ocean circulation, so researchers have compensated by over-emphasizing the role of manmade warming on polar ice melt.

But when Profs. Toggweiler and Russell rejigged their model to include the 40-year cycle of winds away from the equator (then back towards it again), the role of ocean currents bringing warm southern waters to the north was obvious in the current Arctic warming.

Last month, Oleg Sorokhtin, a fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, shrugged off manmade climate change as "a drop in the bucket." Showing that solar activity has entered an inactive phase, Prof. Sorokhtin advised people to "stock up on fur coats."

He is not alone. Kenneth Tapping of our own National Research Council, who oversees a giant radio telescope focused on the sun, is convinced we are in for a long period of severely cold weather if sunspot activity does not pick up soon.

The last time the sun was this inactive, Earth suffered the Little Ice Age that lasted about five centuries and ended in 1850. Crops failed through killer frosts and drought. Famine, plague and war were widespread. Harbours froze, so did rivers, and trade ceased.

It's way too early to claim the same is about to happen again, but then it's way too early for the hysteria of the global warmers, too.
 

API

My Indian name is "Runs with Beer"
Joined
Nov 4, 2007
Messages
7,748
Reaction score
59
Points
48
Age
76
Location
So Cal
I know that I will get the usual "temperatures really have nothing to do with Global Warming" BS(which is funny, btw...) Or, even better, cold temperatures support Global WARMING! But, here is what I ran across today...


It's way too early to claim the same is about to happen again, but then it's way too early for the hysteria of the global warmers, too.

No sh*t? snicker, snicker.
 

cduck

New Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2005
Messages
5,787
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Age
61
Location
Rancho Santa Margarita'ville
Great article Larry!

The problem is that the global warming perpetuators are firmly entrenched in their beliefs and will not easily change. They have shut off any debate on the subject and will not ever admit that their hypothesis was flawed. It's hard to reason wirth folks that are that entrenched in their beliefs. They are really scary folks if you ask me.
 

API

My Indian name is "Runs with Beer"
Joined
Nov 4, 2007
Messages
7,748
Reaction score
59
Points
48
Age
76
Location
So Cal
Great article Larry!

The problem is that the global warming perpetuators are firmly entrenched in their beliefs and will not easily change. They have shut off any debate on the subject and will not ever admit that their hypothesis was flawed. It's hard to reason wirth folks that are that entrenched in their beliefs. They are really scary folks if you ask me.

Tim, you are way too kind. "Entrenched in their beliefs" is a euphemism for "hard headed loon". Do you remember reading Don Quixote in school? Cervantes would be astounded at all the Quixote like folks fighting the Global Warming windmills of their imagination. Man, I could put down a few thousand words here... Anyway, great literature is timeless. And in this case Cervantes help me forget about Al "Global Warming" Gore as the person "whose name I do not want to remember".
 

Lujack

Mr. September
Joined
Jan 25, 2006
Messages
3,201
Reaction score
10
Points
0
Age
52
Location
951
All I know is I heard on the news today that it has been so cold in the northern hemisphere this winter that there is now 1/3 MORE ice in the polar regions than normal. I'm sure global warming made it so cold up there, right?
 

cduck

New Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2005
Messages
5,787
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Age
61
Location
Rancho Santa Margarita'ville
Tim, you are way too kind. "Entrenched in their beliefs" is a euphemism for "hard headed loon".

:smiley-smoker-yellow: :rolleyes: :smiley-violin:

I have to laugh Jay because my wife always accuses me of being to harsh to people sometimes. Now I can tell her that my attempts at being kinder and gentler is working!!!
 
Top