Author Topic: More proof Al Gore is out in left field (Read 2174 times)

Sourdough · « **on:** February 10, 2008, 10:32:21 AM »

Where is GLOBAL WARMING?

??!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It's 54 below this morning AGAIN, darn it's cold. Went for a walk last night and took a shotgun. Jumped a red fox. Fired the shotgun, it went poof, small kick, then lite up the world. Looked like most of the powder did not catch and burn till after it got out of the barrel. Shot had scattered all around in front of me, midway to the fox. After my sight came back after the blinding lite, the fox was still sitting there. It seemed stunned by the lite also. Slide on the shotgun stuck in the rear position, too cold to work. Walked back home, did not bother to look at the temp last night, just knew it was cold.

Dee · « **Reply #1 on:** February 10, 2008, 10:36:24 AM »

Who actually NEEDS more proof.

Graybeard · « **Reply #2 on:** February 10, 2008, 10:49:02 AM »

It's 65 today in sunny Bama. Yesterday I noticed a large maple putting out the new red growth that signals it's coming back to life. I went around thru my blueberry orchard today and noticed the buds that will become this year's blooms are trying to open. Seems too early for that and I hope they wait at least 45 more days but from the looks I just don't see it happening. Last year was like this and in late April the temp dropped into the low 20s for several days in a row and we got heavy frosts each night. We lost the entire blueberry crop last year after having a poor crop the year before due to a late frost/freeze.

For sure the weather patterns are gone crazy. My friend Barry who lives up in PA NE of Pittsburgh has had darn little snow this winter but lots of rain. It's too warm and muddy to kill the steer he has in the barn waiting on proper weather to butcher it. He hunted almost the entire season without snow on the ground.

Call it global warming or just messed up weather but nothing seems to be as it was when I was a boy and even in my young adult life. We're coming off a three year long drought that is the worst in recorded history for our region. We normally see 60" or more of rain a year here and last year I didn't get half that. This year is starting off a bit wetter so far but we've still had no multiple day long continuous rains in over two years. Those used to be common in winter.

billy_56081 · « **Reply #3 on:** February 10, 2008, 10:52:15 AM »

Geez! Don't ya know it's global cooling now.

oldandslow · « **Reply #4 on:** February 10, 2008, 12:38:12 PM »

My thermometer was showing 75 degrees about an hour ago. Three weeks ago we had a few days when it didn't get up to 32 degrees. Some of the bushes are budding. They will get frozen because it does this every year. It is dry, no moisture for a couple of months. The saying around here is if you don't like the weather just wait a few hours and it will change.

Leatherstocking · « **Reply #5 on:** February 10, 2008, 12:58:59 PM »

As bizarre as it may sound, cooling is part of "global warming". Global warming is a misnomer. It is truly "global climate change" and due to changes in global patterns some locations on the globe may actually get cooler as a result. Naturally the big question is whether it is man induced or not (or how much of it is man induced).

Dusty Wheeler · « **Reply #6 on:** February 10, 2008, 01:40:44 PM »

I wish 'global warming' would hurry up--driving in Idaho feels like a sequel to "Ice Truckers"...

Siskiyou · « **Reply #7 on:** February 10, 2008, 02:14:48 PM »

Sun Feb 10 16:19:16 PST 2008)
Date   Time(PST)   Snow WaterEquivalent(inches)   SnowDepth(inches)   Year-to-DatePrecipitation(inches)   CurrentTemp(degrees F)   Previous Day's Temp(degrees F)
                  Max   Min   Avg
02/04/2008   0000   14.7    63.8    17.0    20.1    32.3    20.2    26.6
02/04/2008   0100   14.7    63.3    16.9    16.8    32.3    20.2    26.6
02/04/2008   0200   14.7    63.0    16.9    15.5    32.3    20.2    26.6
02/04/2008   0300   14.7    63.1    16.9    15.1    32.3    20.2    26.6
02/04/2008   0400   14.7    63.6    16.9    11.3    32.3    20.2    26.6
02/04/2008   0500   14.7    63.2    16.9    7.3    32.3    20.2    26.6
02/04/2008   0600   14.7    63.5    16.9    10.2    32.3    20.2    26.6

63.8 inches of snow seems to move game down the hill.

I do not think I will be out there coyote hunting for a while.

Snow Course   Snow depth   Equivalent Water Content
Name   2-1-08   Av.   % Average   2-1-08   Av.   % Average

Middle Boulder #1   82.5"   51.5”   160%   25.6"   19.9”   129%
6600' elevation   (60 year average)
Middle Boulder #3   85.3"   50.1”   170%   22.5"   18.1"   124%
6200' elevation   (59 year average)
Dynamite Meadow   80.5"   39.1”   206%   21.5   12.7”   169%
5700' elevation   (50 year average)
Swampy John   126"   59.7”   211%   36"   20.4”   176%
5500' elevation   (47 year average)
Scott Mountain   76.5"   40.1”   191%   23.5"   14.6"   161%
5900' elevation   (22 year average)
Total average from courses above: 188% 152%
These snow measurements look great. Hopefully some folk’s wells will come back. It is going to take some very wet months to recover from long-term drought effects in N. California. This should provide good moisture to get new growth on the shrubs and fatten-up the does for fawning in a few months. The down side is it pushes the deer out of the mountains into the fields and the local poachers take their toll.

hellacatcher · « **Reply #8 on:** February 11, 2008, 01:51:18 AM »

The fall out from the moron's ideas are bankrupting us.

magooch · « **Reply #9 on:** February 11, 2008, 03:57:25 AM »

Quote from: Leatherstocking on February 10, 2008, 12:58:59 PM

As bizarre as it may sound, cooling is part of "global warming". Global warming is a misnomer. It is truly "global climate change" and due to changes in global patterns some locations on the globe may actually get cooler as a result. Naturally the big question is whether it is man induced or not (or how much of it is man induced).

My God, with this type of logic, you can justify anything. The Earth's climate has changed time after time and man has had nothing to do with it. That will continue. I favor global warming...real global warming, where it gets warmer everywhere and stays that way. Don't be amazed when the same idiots who have been ballying global warming do a 180. They've done it before and they'll do it again.

tomzuki · « **Reply #10 on:** February 11, 2008, 06:02:41 AM »

If the globe is warming, which has not been completely confirmed, think of all the additional farmland that will then be available for food production. The most Northern portions of N. America and Asia could produce rice, corn, wheat and beans to feed the six billion souls now here.

If warming is an uncontrolled problem

tomzuki · « **Reply #11 on:** February 11, 2008, 06:06:05 AM »

Sorry, Something happened while posting:

If warming is a problem, then why cant the atmosphere be "dusted" to reduce incoming solar radiation?? If erupting volcanoes can effect global temps with dust and gasses why cant we?? Just a thought.

deltecs · « **Reply #12 on:** February 11, 2008, 06:43:12 AM »

Quote from: tomzuki on February 11, 2008, 06:06:05 AM

Sorry, Something happened while posting:

If warming is a problem, then why cant the atmosphere be "dusted" to reduce incoming solar radiation?? If erupting volcanoes can effect global temps with dust and gasses why cant we?? Just a thought.

EPA on air quality.

Heavy C · « **Reply #13 on:** February 11, 2008, 09:20:05 AM »

It's all cyclical. Patterns change, some just don't come around as often. The media, of course, was utilizing the recent tornado outbreak in the south as a result of global warming. Our local weather man did some research on it and what do you know; there was a similar outbreak in the 1920's.

Personally Al Gore and his cronies can keep the global warming idea - I ain't buying.

ncsurveyor · « **Reply #14 on:** February 11, 2008, 03:27:58 PM »

I remember the BS that Global warming was supposed to melt the icecaps, and raise the ocean and cause more rain.

Somebody explain the regional drought here in Carolina?

And at 600' above sea level, when will I have ocean front property?

Can't wait, can't wait.

Leatherstocking · « **Reply #15 on:** February 16, 2008, 08:32:34 AM »

magooch,

It isn't a justification. What I stated is based on science. Global climate change will bring on extremes of all types, such as the drought in the SE and flooding elsewhere. Warming in some places and from resulting changes in global patterns, cooling in others. We see this all the time in the form of El Nino and other major climate changing events. Those are temporary however. Long term global climate change is occurring now and is not temporary. Again, I am not saying it is all man induced, but there certainly are some compelling data out there to say that we are definitely not helping matters.

deltecs · « **Reply #16 on:** February 16, 2008, 10:09:43 AM »

Quote from: Leatherstocking on February 16, 2008, 08:32:34 AM

magooch,

It isn't a justification. What I stated is based on science. Global climate change will bring on extremes of all types, such as the drought in the SE and flooding elsewhere. Warming in some places and from resulting changes in global patterns, cooling in others. We see this all the time in the form of El Nino and other major climate changing events. Those are temporary however. Long term global climate change is occurring now and is not temporary. Again, I am not saying it is all man induced, but there certainly are some compelling data out there to say that we are definitely not helping matters.

From what research I can find, the compelling data is based on computer models indicating Global Warming. Meterologists testing the accuracy of these models have used data from past records to see if the models arrive at known weather conditions. It seems that the models are extremely inaccurate in these predictions. So, by using these same models to predict Global Warming effects caused by man, any outcome is subject to skepticism. That to me is not compelling data, it is attempts by some to influence the outcome of a so called scientific study and application of emotional and personal conclusions to the effects. Remember Y2K?

Leatherstocking · « **Reply #17 on:** February 16, 2008, 01:55:29 PM »

deltecs,

I hear you, but to my way of thinking there is no harm in taking some actions now to avoid some potential serious consequences later. Ya' know the saying..... an ounce of prevention.......

The main compelling data to me is the direct relationship between carbon levels and temperature. I was always skeptical about the cries about global warming until I saw some of those data.

Regardless of the motives of some who may twist the data, I really don't see a down side to taking some actions. Also, it can be done without hurting the economy. And you should know that this is coming from a guy that works in the utility industry!

deltecs · « **Reply #18 on:** February 16, 2008, 02:28:03 PM »

Quote from: Leatherstocking on February 16, 2008, 01:55:29 PM

deltecs,

I hear you, but to my way of thinking there is no harm in taking some actions now to avoid some potential serious consequences later. Ya' know the saying..... an ounce of prevention.......

The main compelling data to me is the direct relationship between carbon levels and temperature. I was always skeptical about the cries about global warming until I saw some of those data.

Regardless of the motives of some who may twist the data, I really don't see a down side to taking some actions. Also, it can be done without hurting the economy. And you should know that this is coming from a guy that works in the utility industry!

I too worked in the utility business as a power lineman and electrical engineering tech before I retired 3 years ago. While I disagree with the masses regarding the cause and effects of man's actions on climate, I do not disagree with alternative renewable energy sources not carbon based. Especially oil. Our economy is too dependent on oil and its domino effects for a stable energy source as existing. I do believe and was instrumental in several hydroelectric projects in Alaska in order to reduce that dependency. We need to do more here and elsewhere in the US. I was a member of Anchorage Chamber of Commerce, Energy Committee, which researched our energy options in South Central Alaska in anticipation of the population explosion predicted by 2010. This prediction has come true. I advocate our national fuel taxes should be spent in conjunction with required utility expansion money, to construct new solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, and nuclear to further reduce or almost eliminate our dependence on carbon based fuels for all energy suppliers. Whether or not Global Warming exists is debatable. Whether or not it is caused by man is debatable. What is not debatable is the fragile stability of energy suppliers dependant on carbon based fuel suppliers. The cost of fuel is determined by market value; not by construction and maintanance espenses divided among the consumers over the life of the facitlity, as is in renewable sources. This would keep energy costs lower than the fluctuating, albeit increasing, costs of carbon based fuels over the long haul. I agree with you that we should move away from carbon based fuels, but not for the same reasons. However, more renewable energy suppliers would effectively accomplish the same end goals that we both desire; potential prevention and more stability.

magooch · « **Reply #19 on:** February 16, 2008, 02:42:32 PM »

Okay, everyone who believes this global warming crap, quit driving your carbon based fuel vehicles, your lawn mowers, your boats, skate boards and anything else that burns gas, or diesel and leave that awful fuel for those of us that don't care. I would even suggest that some of the believers quit exhaling, but that probably should be left to their own discretion.

billy_56081 · « **Reply #20 on:** February 16, 2008, 02:58:52 PM »

Well just my common sense approach to this global warming pseudo science. Why is ALGORE who so believes that mans carbon emissions are causing this "global warming". Why is he flying all over the world in private jets and in huge motorcades burning massive amounts of fossil fuel? Isn't ALGORE helping to cause this "global warming"? HMMMM is there an ulterior motive in his plan? If this "global warming", is such a threat why is ALGORE using more energy than the rest of us? Is he a hypocrite, or does he know that what he is pushing is pure BS? I say if your gonna talk the talk you need to walk the walk. If ALGORE believes in this BS he needs to walk or ride bike wherever he and live in a house with no electricity or gas. Till then he is a liar and hypocrite in my book nothing less.

woodchukhntr · « **Reply #21 on:** February 16, 2008, 03:48:07 PM »

The sky is falling, the sky is falling! And in 1975, Newsweek reported on global cooling: http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf

Leatherstocking · « **Reply #22 on:** February 16, 2008, 04:21:46 PM »

Quote

I agree with you that we should move away from carbon based fuels, but not for the same reasons. However, more renewable energy suppliers would effectively accomplish the same end goals that we both desire; potential prevention and more stability.

deltecs - All of your response was well said. With regard to the above comment I just wanted to let you know that I think we do agree for many of the same reasons, more than you think. I advocate less dependence on fossil fuels for many reasons, including security and stability. I am an environmental manager at a small utility and we are finding that renewables and energy efficiency make good business sense as well as being good for the environment. Some may find that hard to believe, but it's true- environmental protection and a good economy can coexist. In fact, I think each is essential to each other.

deltecs · « **Reply #23 on:** February 16, 2008, 04:48:37 PM »

I think with a US mostly reliant on renewable energy sources, while the rest of the world is still depending on oil or fossil fuels, will not only be cost effective, relatively environmental friendly, provide security, and stability, it will also help balance trade. By not importing fossil fuels for energy thus sending and spending dollars outside the US, we substantially reduce the trade deficit. By using cheaper energy sources for manufacturing of goods that are exported, they can be sold for less than competitors goods from another country, thus bringing in dollars, which further reduces the trade deficit. The technology is close for fuel cells, which may be used for small applications, such as autos and HVAC costs. When one considers the transportation of fossil fuels to the end comsumer, this would further substantially reduce dependency on fossil fuels and provide a stable, reliable standard of living for all classes of people. This is not as unrealistic as it may seem. The savings alone would pay for the cost of deportation of illegal aliens, disregarding the money spent on them here in addition. That would be reason enough for me to support alternative energy sources. One of the major reasons the US is a rich country was its available and relatively cheap sources of raw materials and energy. As these become depleted, Yankee ingenuity must find an alternative to remain thus. I believe alternative energy to be the answer to a great many problems facing the US today, including some political agendas. When the American people start, and it is starting, to cost them severely for the goods and services they are accustomed too, they blame government for the economic woes. If government does not begin to lessen the unrealistic demands for the construction of aternative energy facilities, you can bet the party that promises to provide those services will be in office.

Leatherstocking · « **Reply #24 on:** February 17, 2008, 02:15:06 AM »

deltecs,

We are definitely in agreement! i just hope that some other areas (especially China) embrace renewables though too. Otherwise, if there is some man-induced climate change going on, anything the US does will be useless when compared to the carbon emitted by China, India and some others.

magooch · « **Reply #25 on:** February 17, 2008, 03:07:05 AM »

Deltecs, could you be a little bit more specific about what exactly are these alternative energy sources. Would it be nuclear, or hydro, or is it pie in the sky? Personally, I would like to see more hydro power, but the enviroidiots will never allow that to happen. They're doing their damnedest to try to get dams torn down. Nuclear? Same thing. Solar? Not all that practical unless you live in Arizona. Wind? Not enough locations for this application to make a dent. Bio? This brings us back to combustion--CO2, or worse. I know you'll think I'm being negative, but believe me I'd love to think that there is something new just waiting to be developed. I'm afraid though, that we're going to be dependent on oil and coal and gas for a long, long time.

Even though the liberal thinkers believe that allowing the use of known reserves is just forestalling the development of these "alternative" energies of which you speak, I believe that in the interim, we should fully utilize what is available, like Anwar and get on with global warming. If we are successful with global warming to the extent that it reduces the need for heating homes etc., it could be a wash and I could quit having to cut firewood. That alone would reduce the CO2 I would be responsible for.

billy_56081 · « **Reply #26 on:** February 17, 2008, 05:03:44 AM »

Leather stocking do you find it Hypocritical that ALGORE uses many many times the energy as the average citizen? Isn't ALGORE one of the causes of this "global warming" problem? How about you? Being that you know that this is a problem have you stopped emitting carbons? Don't tell us it can't be done as for most of the history of man we did not use fossil fuels. Are you going to lead by example? What caused the last ice age? Minnesota was almost completely covered by a Glacier, hmmm mastodon farts? The earths climate has changed over the billions of years it has been here. This is not a movement to save the climate from changing, it is a movement to change a society into something more controlled and controlable.

ironglow · « **Reply #27 on:** February 17, 2008, 06:12:46 AM »

  I am in favor of less dependence on fossil fuels..but certainly not for the same reasons that Algore is. We should relieve our fossil fuel dependence so we don't
  have to trust such as Arabs, Russians, Chavez and other kooks for our fuel and thus, security.
   Three or four years ago the "Eco-freaks" claimed we would see many more and much worse hurricanes, tornadoes etc. The last couple or three years
  have been remarkably free of hurricanes.
   So, a couple months ago..the Eco-freaks started saying that the ABSCENCE of such storms was due to "global warming"..that was just before our midwest
  and south started getting pummeled with the recent spate of tornadoes !
   GB, we are well aware of the drouth that has hit the southeast, and pray that it abates..but the rain you haven't been getting, it appears the midwest and northeast
  has gotten..we have seen the floods in various areas. All cyclical weather patterns.

   Where I am, we had a relatively warm fore part of the winter, and the eco-freaks started talking..now we are having exceptional cold..but of course, that is due to
   ..."global warming".

   The global warming ruse is a great political ploy, giving such as Al Gore great leverage, especially if he can suck enough people into believing his tripe !

   Has anyone noticed that when great controversial questions come up, free societies lay out the facts and then debate the pros and cons ? This question is
   however different. The lib-loving media will not even entertain a debate on the question of global warming.
   When scientists say.."hold it; this is not proven and looks like a false assumption"..he is ridiculed, criticized and castigated, all the while never given a fair opportunity
  to present his case .

   The real proof of the pudding is the nature of the "sky is falling" gang...

   If the burning oif fossil fuels is the problem, why are Al Gore, John Kerry, John Edwards, Barbra Streisand and all their close global warming buddies
   running around in limos, private jets and living in 30,000 sq ft mansions ?

   They may be taken a bit more seriously in their religion.." The Church of the Awesome Ecology"....

   ...If Barbra Streisand truly gave all the fuel burning stuff up, and became the "Mother Theresa" of global warming...

   ...If Al Gore quit flying to England on a private jet and quit accepting $6,000 per minute for his "sky-is-falling" speeches and became a bit more
   like that Baptist missionary to the jungle that sure doesn't get $ 6,000 for any of his sermons.

   If John Kerry or John Edwards would give up their mansions in favor of a small 1,000 sq ft ranch house that was truly energy efficent..

   Perhaps then...a few more people may lend an ear... Until those things happen, we know they don't believe their OWN BS...

ironglow · « **Reply #28 on:** February 17, 2008, 06:18:13 AM »

Let's not forget, it is the enviro-whackos that keep complaining about the fossil fuel burning...but when other ideas need backing./.nuclear energy, wind farms off shore at Cape Cod etc...the libs are the loudest screaming against other "green" solutions..

Could it be they simply hate the USA... and WANT to cripple it's industry and commerce ?

deltecs · « **Reply #29 on:** February 17, 2008, 10:22:52 AM »

Quote from: magooch on February 17, 2008, 03:07:05 AM

Deltecs, could you be a little bit more specific about what exactly are these alternative energy sources. Would it be nuclear, or hydro, or is it pie in the sky? Personally, I would like to see more hydro power, but the enviroidiots will never allow that to happen. They're doing their damnedest to try to get dams torn down. Nuclear? Same thing. Solar? Not all that practical unless you live in Arizona. Wind? Not enough locations for this application to make a dent. Bio? This brings us back to combustion--CO2, or worse. I know you'll think I'm being negative, but believe me I'd love to think that there is something new just waiting to be developed. I'm afraid though, that we're going to be dependent on oil and coal and gas for a long, long time.

Even though the liberal thinkers believe that allowing the use of known reserves is just forestalling the development of these "alternative" energies of which you speak, I believe that in the interim, we should fully utilize what is available, like Anwar and get on with global warming. If we are successful with global warming to the extent that it reduces the need for heating homes etc., it could be a wash and I could quit having to cut firewood. That alone would reduce the CO2 I would be responsible for.

Yes, I can. In my post I iterated that the feds have to lessen restrictions on construction of alternative energy facilities. That is first. We as a people can demand that from Congress. All we have to do, is elect Congressmen more conservative than preservationists regarding environment. The US can in many places use different types of renewable energy sources particular to an area. Along the Coast Range, hydro, wind, and geothermal could supply the entire energy requirements. Geothermal there is somewhat readily available due the magma being close to the Earth's crust, such as Mount St. Helens area and others. Americas Great Basin has a very thin crust for geothermal and generally a steady breeze for wind. Solar too in the drier areas of the country. Nuclear could be used almost anywhere. With the newer technology of used uranium being refreshed, our radioactive waste can be re used again in the reactors. France has been doing this for years and even with terrorists attacks there, no reactor has been damaged. France currently uses nuclear reactors for electric generation for over 50% of its entire electric supply, and in fact, exports electricity to countries that have outlawed its use. Many places in the US could use small hydro for its electric supply, which in addition would prevent flooding, create lakes for recreation and abundant fresh water supply. Take the TVA, NW Arkansas, E Oklahoma, NW Pennslyvania for examples. The dams need not be excessive and shouldn't be. A series of smaller dams would lessen the effects of any catastrophic damage, reduce an area of power brown out or outage, and less costly for repair. All could be tied to a grid. Many places in the US can use hydro, wind, and solar on a micro level and any surplus can be metered back into the power grid. Some places, especially in Alaska could effectively use geothermal near hot springs and vocanic areas on a micro level. Added all up, this would substantially reduce our dependency on oil. I live in a remote area of Prince William Sound, Alaska. I'd like to construct and operate a small 15 Kw hydro plant near my property. I cannot due restrictions by the feds as the location is in a National Forest. The EPA impact statement alone, would cost over $100,000 with no guarantee to getting an permit. These unnecessary and grossly restrictive requirements only reduce the opportunities for growth. Right now I use approximately 250 gal of diesel fuel a month for my electric supply alone. Since I heat with firewood, maybe another 50 gals a year for chainsaw gas. My boats use 1 gal a mile in the smaller ones and over 3 gal a mile in the big one. My dependence on oil is substantial for my life style and business. Much of that could be decrease by greatly reducing restrictions required to protect the environment. The environment would still be protected by an EPA impact statement much less inclusive and thus costly. The feds could permit use on federal lands for certain small hydro projects that would not effect the forests designation or use. In order to get the approximately 3,000 gals of fuel to my location, I have to use those same boats to haul it at the mile per gal rates of them. A hydro installation just at my home, would save at least this 3,000 gals of diesel fuel, another 1,000 gals in boat transportation, another 500 gal from the refinery to the fuel supplier for this 4,000 gal, all the labor involved that could be used elsewhere more productive, and a reduction in potential pollution from oil spills in an accident. The monetary savings including construction, installation, and maintanance of a micro hydo here, compared to current existing costs over a 10 year period, would exceed $200,000. That money could be spent in expansion of my business and employment. By the way, I run the generator only 10 hours a day. With a micro hydro, it would provide electricty for 24/7. My operation is not unique to Alaska, nor a lot of other places in the US more populated. Even with access to an electric grid, many could substantially reduce their dependency on fossil fueled electric generation and our overall dependency on carbon based fuels.