Global cooling watch.

[Swampy]

I'll start this thread on falling temperatures all over the world.

BRUSSELS — Drought, frost and hail have combined to ravage Europe's wine grape harvest, which in key regions this year will be the smallest in half a century, vintners say.

That's cold weather, which is brought on by cold weather, or so I presume. But some Al Gores will say cold is brought on by heat - just as George Orwell would have predicted.

[Deleted]

What's your point?

[boxcar]

We all know that Global Warming is caused by Big Bird, and Romney is right not to fund him.

[Swampy]

What's my point? My point is that the world is seeing a lot of cold spells, but the religious believers of GW will not accept that, and they say cold weather is evidence of GW.

[Deleted]

I'm certainly not religious (as you put it) or fanatic about believing in climate change. However, I DO believe in it. This is another subject where there doesn't appear to be a middle ground. You either believe it's happening or you don't. It makes no sense to argue against either side and neither has any intention of listening to the other, much less agreeing with them.

[boxcar]

OK Denny, make believers out of us. By how many degrees has the climant warmed up in the last few years?

[Deleted]

Oct 18, 2012 14:50:13 GMT -5 boxcar said:

OK Denny, make believers out of us. By how many degrees has the climant warmed up in the last few years?

I'm going to pull a Don on you.

I don't know and don't care about this nonsense. ;D I just believe in it based on what I've read. It's not a topic on which I obsess and don't plan to waste my time arguing about it.

[boxcar]

I don't blame you Denny. Had you looked it up, you would not ave liked the answer. Ignorance is bliss.

[Deleted]

Despite my own misgivings, I decided to do a Google search on "climate change" and found any number of articles on it. I focused in one,
news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/12/1206_041206_global_warming.html (I STILL don't know how to make a kink and it drives me crazy!) because it comes from a source I've trusted over the years. It confirms my beliefs on the subject.

As I wrote earlier, you are either in agreement with there being CC or you aren't and neither side will change their mind. As far as ignorance being bliss on this topic, it's obvious to me that bliss isn't a word I would use to descibe how you feel about it. I'm certainly firm in my conviction of CC and very glad that I will be long dead before far more serious affects will impact this planet.

[boxcar]

>>• Average temperatures have climbed 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit (0.8 degree Celsius) around the world since 1880, much of this in recent decades, according to NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies<<

Oh my God, that is horrible. Can we live with 1.4 degrees in 130 years. The sky must be falling.

[boxcar]

President Obama’s unprecedented renewable energy subsidies, combined with unprecedented restrictions on conventional energy production and use, make no sense outside the realm of global warming policy. Wind power and solar power, the crown jewels of Obama’s American electricity agenda, are substantially more expensive than the coal and natural gas power that produces most of America’s electricity. Forcing Americans to directly subsidize these economic losers on the front end and then forcing them to purchase this more expensive energy on the back end is a sure-fire way to weaken our economy and weaken our nation.

[dontom]

Oct 19, 2012 14:33:53 GMT -5 boxcar said:

Oh my God, that is horrible. Can we live with 1.4 degrees in 130 years. The sky must be falling.

I think it's a bit more complicated than that. The average is 1.4C or whatever. Almost nothing. But that average could mean 20 degrees warmer in some areas and 19 degrees cooler in others, even though the average is only one degree. If it causes the ice to melt in Greenland because of it being 20 degrees warmer we can have some new problems, even though it's 19 degrees cooler near the equator on the same day.

-Don- SSF, CA

[Deleted]

Don - It's a battle you can't win on this forum, even if you were a climatologist.

[boxcar]

Don, you bring up a good point when you state, “as some spots get colder, other spots get warmer“. Because of this it is very important just where the temperatures were recorded. Was that area getting colder over the 130 year time period or was it getting warmer. This points to the accuracy of the investigation and the validity of the findings.

Then we look at the findings and if we take them as accurate, 1.4º F in a 130 year time span, is that really significant? What the Hell is all the fuss about except to sell books and secure more money for more research (data manipulation)?

[mcnoch]

The point why 1.4° C matter is that many of your vegetation is optimized to prosper within a given temperature range only (other than us humans) and that our vegetation is struggling to keep adjusting to these temperature and that they might fail in doing so if the rate of changes keeps accelerating. Many of our crops are not able to give such rich harvests in a warmer climate. For corn higher temperatures are okay, but not for wheat. So our base of nutrition and our natural landscapes will change.

I agree with Danny, that it makes absolutely no sense to discuss any scientific matters here as many people are inconvincible as they don’t want to understand because they prefer to believe in political ideologies instead and so help to destroy the society and its fundaments even faster while pretending to conserve it. The USA once was a major player in scientific progress, but since 15-20 years it slides back into scientific mediocrity, replaced by religious ideologies that even the Roman Catholic Church thinks are outdated. Europe and Asia see since about 5-10 years a massive immigration of well-trained scientists from the USA, often former Europeans or Asians who went to the USA for better possibilities. The exodus of scientists has its effect onto the quality of scientific debates inside the US public. The big scientific heritage in the USA might hold for another 5-10 years and be good for some additional Nobel prices, but then the science community in the USA starts to really get into deep problems.