December 27, 2010 1:43 am at 1:43 am #593769December 27, 2010 4:07 am at 4:07 am #723029CedarhurstMember
Thank You Mr. Hirsch. B”H for global warming.December 27, 2010 5:33 am at 5:33 am #723030ZachKessinMember
Um hate to break it to you but global warming acutaly predicts that there will be *MORE* snow globally. By warming up the tropical areas there will be more water vapor in the air, which has to fall out somewhere, and if it is cold there, well you get snow.
Actually no one doubts global warming, some people argue over weather or not it is a result of human activity.December 27, 2010 5:34 am at 5:34 am #723031
???? ????? ???? ?’ ???? ???December 27, 2010 6:11 am at 6:11 am #723032yankdownunderMember
All that wonderful healing Vitamin D from the UV Rays of the Sun. Great for the Skeletal Sysytem, the Spinal Chord, the mind thank you Hashem.December 27, 2010 1:49 pm at 1:49 pm #723033
no one doubts global warming
quite far from the truth. especially among those that hold that the earth is 5,000,000,000 years old, a few hundred years of temperature recording, maybe 50 of widespread and accurate recording, and some gigantic extrapolation from earth cores leaves plenty of room for reasonable doubt.
and THEN among those that accept it there is controversy as to the cause.
but you wont see this in the established media.December 27, 2010 2:13 pm at 2:13 pm #723034
I’m skeptic about Global Warming as a whole. I don’t think that it’s man-made and I don’t think it’s warmer. The records haven’t changed since 1998 and some are even forcasting an ‘Ice Age.’ The “environmentalists” predicted a warm and dry winter; yet, it wasn’t nether warm nor dry in a December setting new records. As many have already noted with irony, whatever the temperature or weather – it is due to Global Warming. When we had many hurricanes, that was the cause. Recently, with a hurricane truce, the lack of hurricanes was because of global warming. When there were some snow-less years, it was climate change and when blizzards are back – it is the cause once again.
You (might have) answered the snow question, what about the the record freezing temperatures that’s killing the same very wildlife that the “environmentalists” are always so concerned about?December 27, 2010 5:30 pm at 5:30 pm #723035
Zach is correct, there was actually a New York Times article a few days ago that explained the science behind the fact that some climate zones will become more wet because of global warming. And wet combined with thirty degree weather means snow!
Mod-80 and Dave,
There is NO question that the earth has warmed over the past 130 years. That is the period over which we have decent temperature series worldwide. Being a sceptic about that is like being a sceptic about whether a pig is kosher — the data are that clear.
While the increase does correlated with increased fossil fuel consumption and increased intensive agriculture, that is not an absolute proof as correlation does not automatically prove causality. Furthermore, the association between other potential factors are not strong enough to explain the associations between the human activity and the warming. Therefore most scientists agree that human activity probably is responsible for at least some of the warming. However, it is possible that some other factor may eventually be discovered.
Also not completely well understood is why the greatest temperature increases have been in the Arctic. Increases in temperate zones have been relatively small by comparison. Fortunately the melting ice in the Arctic is sea ice, which does not increase the sea level.
One of my former professors, Dr. Richard Lindzen, is well known as one of the “sceptics” but he is simply unconvinced about the causes of the warming, not that the warming exists. Another one of the sceptics, Prof. Bjorn Lomborg, still thinks it is a serious enough problem that we need to take action. In short, the question is NOT whether global warming has happened: There is NO doubt about that. The question is what to do about it.December 27, 2010 5:42 pm at 5:42 pm #723036
There WILL be some countries that will benefit from global warming in the long run, most notably Russia and Canada. More land will be habitable, more land will be arable, and the Northeast and Northwest passages will become navigable more of the year. However even in the short run they are suffering; both countries had horrible forest fires this past summer because of heat and drought.
For most of the rest of the world, there isn’t much benefit. And if the sea level does rise, we will be facing Katrinas all over the world.December 28, 2010 4:55 am at 4:55 am #723037
You might want to try the links I post, you would become more informed about what goes on outside DailyKos. I actually linked to the hilarious NYT opinion above (that was published just now, on December 25, with the blizzard for NYC on the horizon while others were already hit). Nevertheless, I like facts and numbers, and they don’t seem to support it .December 28, 2010 6:42 am at 6:42 am #723038simcha613Participant
I don’t know many details about global warming and I certainly don’t understand why whether it exists is subject to political or philosophical debate. However, I do notice that people tend to focus only on the evidence that seems to support them. While many on this site seem to laugh at global warming because of the blizzard in New York, I’m sitting here in E”Y in probably one of the hottest and driest December’s that E”Y has seen in a long time.December 28, 2010 9:44 am at 9:44 am #723039Josh31Participant
“we will be facing Katrinas all over the world”
While there is wide consensus that warming is occurring as you correctly detailed above, no one storm or event can be attributed to this warming.
“The question is what to do about it.”
Some of the proposed solutions which crush personal autonomy and / or threaten Global Economic Depression scare me more than warming itself. We already know what a 10 year long Depression leads to. Dictators and would be dictators love such crises as Global Warming as excuses to more tightly control our lives.
However, there are many common sense actions that can be taken which do not threaten personal autonomy or economic downturn. They will also make the USA less dependent upon the oil that some of the above mentioned dictators control. Yesterday we traded in the gas guzzler.December 28, 2010 4:08 pm at 4:08 pm #723040December 28, 2010 5:30 pm at 5:30 pm #723041
Josh31 is correct on both points. You can’t definitively attribute any one storm or event to global warming. It is the long term trend that is clear.
And indeed too-draconian restrictions on energy use could potentially have a severe effect on economic productivity. That would be insane. But reasonable restrictions and/or higher taxes on fossil fuel use will improve the environment, create jobs in countries that have few energy resources (and the US now falls into that category as essentially all of our easy-to-reach oil reserves have been drilled out), and reduce the power of the oil-wealthy anti-Semites in Latin America and the Arab world. There is really no downside here and I don’t understand why more Jews don’t realize this.
Regarding Dave Hirsch’s call for more facts and figures, with a quick internet search will find many time series that clearly show the warming — and none that don’t. Anything prior to about 1880 is based on limited data and/or imputation from descriptions of climates. After about 1980 we also have satellite temperature data. Further evidence is the melt of sea ice, retreat of glaciers, and the advancing of deserts, all of which have been well documented.December 28, 2010 6:17 pm at 6:17 pm #723042
It is the long term trend that is clear
the long term trend!!?
according to science the earth has had up and down temperature trends and trends within the trends and sub sub trends, etc for 5.000.000.000 years. we have meaningful records of a few hundred of those years at best
picture a graph of the temperatures during this time stretching from chicago to new york. it would take you a few months to walk along cursorily examining the data as you walk along the graph.
THAT would give you some insight into the significance of the trend in the last 50 years or so.
unfortunately we are only able to see the last inch of the graph.
the rest of the graph is “supposed” by unproven theory, speculation, and wild extrapolation which may or may not be validDecember 28, 2010 9:50 pm at 9:50 pm #723043
I didn’t ask for anything, I already have my answer. Click on the links above to prove your “long-term trend” theory false. The first link proves that Central Park has seen significant amounts of snow since records were recorded. Nothing seemed to have changed due to the tropical winds. The second link discusses the sea levels and glaciers. Both prove this theory wrong.
Charlie, don’t get me started on energy (with 5 buck a gallon gas in view), our dependence on foreign oil is largely in our hands. We have ANWR and offshore reserves, Drill Baby Drill… If Obama wants to “bankrupt” the coal business and curb nuclear energy we might be in even a bigger dilemma.December 28, 2010 10:17 pm at 10:17 pm #723044
There is NO question that the earth has warmed over the past 130 years. That is the period over which we have decent temperature series worldwide
it has cooled down over the last 5 minutes, is that an indication of a the trend for the last 130 years?
there is approaching ZERO significance to a warming trend of 130 years in relation to the pattern over 5 billion years.December 28, 2010 10:40 pm at 10:40 pm #723045
“Drill, Baby Drill” got us the Deepwater Horizon disaster.
But the fact that you repeat that mantra shows that you don’t understand energy economics. The US does not have ANY easily extracted petroleum reserves left. None. Saudi Arabia has huge amounts. It could, if it wished, dump so much oil on the world market at such low prices that ever well in America would be unable to recover its production costs. Higher costs are GOOD for American oil production because it makes more wells competitive.
Coal is a terribly dirty and dangerous fuel in every respect. People die from its extraction and burning. And it is unsuitable for motor vehicle fuel unless you want to bring back steam railway locomotives, which would require huge government subsidies. And most of the easily accessible coal in the Eastern US was mined out decades ago.
Natural gas is a fuel that is in plentiful supply in the US, but much of the gas requires advanced “fracking” techniques that are very problematic environmentally and very expensive. If such production ever comes to the Catskills, New York City will have to spend ten to twenty billion dollars on a new water treatment plant, as will all the upstate communities that rely on either Catskill groundwater or NYC surface water. NYC residents will see increased taxes and some of those small commuities might go bankrupt. The alternative is to make the gas producers pay for these externalities, but there probably isn’t the political will to do this, and in any case it would make the cost of the gas noncompetitive. It should be pointed out that the current ban on drilling for oil and gas in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico is in part based on the fact that the people in Florida think that their beaches are of greater economic value than the oil.
Nuclear power has not been cost effective in the US for decades. And it only works as an electricity generator. Electric cars have not taken the country by storm, to say the least.
Biofuels are generally not cost effective without subsidies.
Hydroelectric power has reached its maximum potential in the US.
Use of wind and solar power is increasing but they will never make up more than a small fraction of the energy supply in the US.
The truth is that it will take a combination of most if not all of these to meet America’s future energy demands. “Drill, baby, drill” is a mantra not an energy plan. And higher energy prices are good because it will encourage more of these energy alternatives and potentially reduce the flow of dollars to the anti-Semites.December 28, 2010 10:43 pm at 10:43 pm #723046
“there is approaching ZERO significance to a warming trend of 130 years in relation to the pattern over 5 billion years. “
The last time the sea level rose substantially, about 11,000 years ago, we didn’t have over a billion people living at the old sea level. That is NOT non-significant.December 28, 2010 10:55 pm at 10:55 pm #723047
besides the fact that the interplay of all the contributing factors to sea level is complex and they have no idea other than pure guesswork as to prominent cause 11 thousand years ago, even the very fact of determining the world wide sea level 11 thousand years ago is not an established fact, in fact it cant be, any physical measurement 11, 000 years ago can only be based on theoretical assumptions and tremendously lengthy extrapolations
of course if one is bamboozled by the authority of scientism even on the deep theory end of the scientific continuum, you can come to believe anything
even that the gases and metals and rocks and water on the earth (which itself, along with the rest of the universe came into being by the explosion of something smaller than a poppy seed)
these atoms and molecules picked themselves up by their bootstraps and became you.December 28, 2010 10:57 pm at 10:57 pm #723048
by the way i have no idea, indeed it is impossible to have an informed opinion on the matter, whether or not there is global warming, and if there is, its cause.
maybe there is global warming.
maybe there is global cooling.
you got meDecember 29, 2010 12:17 am at 12:17 am #723049☕️coffee addictParticipant
Um hate to break it to you but global warming acutaly predicts that there will be *MORE* snow globally. By warming up the tropical areas there will be more water vapor in the air, which has to fall out somewhere, and if it is cold there, well you get snow
i live in miami beach and its in the “tropical area” and its actually getting colder hereDecember 29, 2010 12:34 am at 12:34 am #723050☕️coffee addictParticipant
global warming is a belief not a fact!
you can’t impose beliefs on other people, only factsDecember 29, 2010 12:58 am at 12:58 am #723051Flatbush DudeMember
Now I’m not siding with the proponents of Global Warming (a.k.a. Al Gore), but to be honest, their claims are that the weather has increased a few degrees in recent times. This explains how we can still have cold winters.
Although 2-3 degrees farenheit doesn’t mean much to us here, it actually has enormous weight near the Poles, where melting glacial masses as a consequence of Global Warming may mean increasing high tides and flooding for coastal cities worldwide in the not-so distant future.
Just saying, not siding with those people.December 29, 2010 3:28 pm at 3:28 pm #723052
“…melting glacial masses as a consequence of Global Warming may mean increasing high tides and flooding for coastal cities worldwide in the not-so distant future.”
Which is why Al Gornisht recently bought 2 expensive beachfront properties.December 29, 2010 4:32 pm at 4:32 pm #723053
There’s an excellent rebuttal to the NYT BS on American Thinker.December 30, 2010 2:20 am at 2:20 am #723054MDGParticipant
Global warming has set itself up to always win.
If it gets hotter and drier, well that’s global warming.
If it gets colder and snowier, that’s global warming too.
If anything happens, it’s global warming.
As we saw from the stolen emails last year, they will fix the data (and/or analysis) to make their calculations fit their agenda.December 30, 2010 5:35 am at 5:35 am #723055December 30, 2010 10:01 pm at 10:01 pm #723056Trying my bestMember
Two more “proofs” of global warming:
1. THIS WINTER MAY BE COLDEST IN 1000 YEARS
2. Last Winter Was Fifth Warmest on Record
See, coldest winter, warmest winter, doesn’t matter. Either way, proof of “global warming”.December 31, 2010 1:32 am at 1:32 am #723057popa_bar_abbaParticipant
Popa has a problem with climate change theory, which I have never even seen anyone attempt to address.
The world has been warming and cooling as long as it existed. Even in very recent history (the past 500 years), we can point to climate change and have historical evidence. In 1700 CE, there was a “Little Ice Age” in Europe.
So, why is anyone surprised that the temperature is rising a couple degrees?
And why would you assume it is due to something we are doing?
If something has been happening for thousands of years and continues to happen, it is probably happening for the same reason as always.
Does anyone know anything to address this?December 31, 2010 3:32 pm at 3:32 pm #723058
but i did address this here
and a little differently in other threads
the temperature of the earth varies over times and there are variences within the variences and smaller variances within those, trends within trends
to take an infinitesimal period of time and chart the trend during that time tells you close to NOTHING about the larger trend, and where that larger trend fits in the even larger trends.
besides how do you measure the earth temperature?
on the surface?
a mile high?
an average of all heights?
the ground temperature, how many locations, which locations?, the ground temperature varies quite widely all over the surface of the earth. right now where i live the temperature near the lake and a mere 2 miles away is 10 degrees different.
anything less that millions and millions of measurements many times during the day will be innacurate.
the sea temperature, how deep in the sea, an average of all depths?
what horizontal locations?
do you average all locations or give more weight to some?
average the ground temperatures with the sea temperatures?
how about the ice temperatures below the surface?
and the locations of measurement must be consistent throughout time
do we have even ONE DAY with temperature measurements all over the globe horizontally, all over the globe vertically from the depths of the ocean to the heights of the atmosphere.
to claim there is global warming is the epitome of stupidity, short-sightedness, and arrogance
which the scientism of deep theory has always been guilty of
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.