Is it just me?????

[Xam]

Is it just me or does anyone else find it at least mildly amusing that Sheryl Crow kicked off her "Global Warming" tour during the coldest April in the last 113 years?

Xam

[KenToad]

It's just you.  Call it warming, climate change, whatever ... it's happening and it isn't funny.

Ok, maybe it's kind of funny.

Another thread on it's way to P & R.

[missioncontrol]

interesting facts sent to my noaa email address (work) in regards to the whether this weekend in Asheville, NC

A number of new records have been set for the Downtown Asheville COOP site:

Friday 6 April 2007:  Minimum temperature of 25 tied daily record set in 1920.
Saturday 7 April 2007:  Minimum temperature of 19 broke daily record of 22 set in 1982 AND broke monthly record of 20 set on April 1, 1923 and April 5, 1944.
Sunday 8 April 2007: Minimum temperature of 22 broke daily record of 28 set in 1994.

It snowed Saturday here pretty much all day, also funny since classes just let out for spring break.

[billf]

I do find it funny that the Cleveland Indians had to cancel 4 games because of snowSNOW.  Seems to me they needed more global warming.   

[boykster]

oddly enough on the same days that the east/midwest had their unusual cold snap, us up here in the Pacific NW had an unusually WARM few days.  I think it broke into the 80's a few places in western washington, and definately hit the upper 70's....close to 20 degrees above normal.

 

[FrizzleFried]

It's just you.  Call it warming, climate change, whatever ... it's happening and it isn't funny.

Ok, maybe it's kind of funny.

Another thread on it's way to P & R.

Not just him as I find is a bit funny myself.  I also loved it when they kicked off the Global Warming summit in DC on the coldest day on record there some month or two back...hehe...irony.

[ChadTower]

It's ironic if you think that the Global Warming concept only includes warming.  It doesn't.

[JackTucky]

It's just you.  Call it warming, climate change, whatever ... it's happening and it isn't funny.

 

I'm looking forward to palm trees in indiana, but I figure I won't live that long, and my kids, and my grandkids, and my great grandkids won't see them either

=J

[MikeQ]

We had some unusually cold weather (50-60 degrees) but by Saturday it will be in the 90's which is uncommonly warm.

As  Chad rightly pointed out:  Global warming is going to cause a redistribution of weather patterns.  The oceans are warming which will cause a shift in weather.  One of the most serious consequences is that water (rain) is being redistributed.

Lets see how funny you think it is when the midwest is a dust bowl and we can no longer grow the crops that feed our families.

[Crax]

Lets see how funny you think it is when the midwest is a dust bowl and we can no longer grow the crops that feed our families.

When is that going to be again, exactly?  If it does happen, all of us posting here will be dead so I'm not sure how things factor as funny when you aren't around. 

I'm sure all of you global warming guys can fully admit that nobody can say for certain that it will happen and if it does, it won't be in our lifetime anyway.  Not saying it's not bad if it does happen, but anyone that wants to say stuff like that above needs to realize that no matter how much you believe in global warming, the giant catastrophes that are supposedly predicted won't happen for a long time if any happen at all.

[ChadTower]

That's a pretty selfish view.

[Crax]

You misread me if you think that is what I was saying.  His post was an "The world will end next week, see who is laughing then" type post.  Yes, it would suck if that happened, but you and I both know for pretty certain that we will never see it, so why even say it?

[MikeQ]

I think you are the one misreading things.  Show me where I said "next week".  If it is a hundred years from now, it is just as bad as "next week".  I have very young children and I'd like to leave them and their children with a world that is inhabitable.

I'm not certain what will happen but to ignore the problem because it won't effect me if the worst happens is really lame.

This is one of those times where erring on side of caution is a good thing.

[Crax]

I think you are the one misreading things.  Show me where I said "next week".  If it is a hundred years from now, it is just as bad as "next week".  I have very young children and I'd like to leave them and their children with a world that is inhabitable.

Maybe I did misread you then.  Is it possible?  I guess it could be.  I haven't seen any science anywhere that predicts it even within the next 100 years though.  Do I think we should look into what we can do to help prevent it so it doesn't happen?  Yes, but I also think too many people are using global warming as a scare tactic to try and get people to listen to them.

[saint]

When is that going to be again, exactly?  If it does happen, all of us posting here will be dead so I'm not sure how things factor as funny when you aren't around. 

Within our lifetime.

[Crax]

Lets see how funny you think it is when the midwest is a dust bowl and we can no longer grow the crops that feed our families.

When is that going to be again, exactly?  If it does happen, all of us posting here will be dead so I'm not sure how things factor as funny when you aren't around. 

Within our lifetime.

First, that's the southwest and not the midwest.  Second, most of your crops don't come from utah, colorado,  arizona or other areas of the southwest being referenced in the article (by the picture at the top talking about water levels) so I think your family will be fed just fine. 

[shardian]

Two things we have now that we didn't have back in the original dustbowl: Hydroponics and genetics

[ChadTower]

While that would make it less desperate, hydroponics depends on having some water to use.  Water isn't easy to transport.

[Crax]

Oh, here is also a graph of the water levels at lake powell.  That article seemed to want to suggest that lower water levels at lake powell mean it's going to just get worse.  It did get low in 2005, but it looks like it is rising again......so take that however you want

[MikeQ]

Maybe I did misread you then.  Is it possible?  I guess it could be.  I haven't seen any science anywhere that predicts it even within the next 100 years though.  Do I think we should look into what we can do to help prevent it so it doesn't happen?  Yes, but I also think too many people are using global warming as a scare tactic to try and get people to listen to them.

Here is an articel on the "dust bowl" effect.

http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007Apr05/0,4670,DustBowl,00.html


edit:

Oops, Saint beat me to it.  I took too long to respond.

[Crax]

I thought we were talking about farmland in the midwest, you and saint are linking me articles about short water supplies(like always) in the southwest where it is always hotter and drier than the midwest.

[MikeQ]

I thought we were talking about farmland in the midwest, you and saint are linking me articles about short water supplies(like always) in the southwest where it is always hotter and drier than the midwest.

from the link:

"Currently, the majority of water in the Southwest is used in agriculture"

They must be growin a lot of something.

Also, If the Southwest dries up, wouldn't that be an indication of what could happen in the midwest too?

[Crax]

IF it dries up, than it might be an indicator, but so far, I haven't seen much more than conjecture in either of those articles.  Saint's article tries to make a big issue by measuring water at Lake Powell but doesn't even mention it's actually higher now than a few years ago.

[MikeQ]

IF it dries up, than it might be an indicator, but so far, I haven't seen much more than conjecture in either of those articles.  Saint's article tries to make a big issue by measuring water at Lake Powell but doesn't even mention it's actually higher now than a few years ago.

I don't know, on an issue like this, I don't think we want to wait to see IF it happens before we start doing something about it.  It is likely that we will hit a point of no return at which point we are incapable of fixing the problem.

I find it odd that we will wage war on another country on the prospect that they COULD do something to us but when it comes to our climate, so many people are willing to wait for a global disaster before they are willing to address the issue.

It seems to me, that the things we could do now only have beneficial outcomes and could actually put the U.S. in a better position in the future.

If we divest ourselves of Middle East oil and move to green solutions:

1) We can stop fooling around with countries that don't like us and cut off their source of income.

2) We can develop new technologies that will put us ahead of rest of the world.
    We can create new markets and rule them as we have in the past.

3) As a side benefit, If global warming is real, we solve the problem.

Look at the Japanese, they build the most fuel efficient cars and are doing very well.
The American manufacturers build gas guzzlers and they aren't doing well.

Regardless of why the American automakers aren't doing well, the Japanese aren't hurt by being greener.

[Crax]

I don't disagree with making more efficient auto's or being more "green" in some cases.  I do disagree with people trying to get people to change by trying to instill fear and using the "sky is falling" approach.  I'm sorry, but I don't believe that we will be starving anytime soon.

I'm not disagreeing that we can't do better or shouldn't.  I just don't agree with some of these predictions at all.

[MikeQ]

Well, it is all how you look at it.  Who would gain by convincing you that the "sky is falling"?  It isn't the automakers.  It isn't the oil companies.  Who is it?  Who would gain from us making the changes necessary to fight global warming? 

I don't think the scientific community is doing this so they can get a bunch of grant money.  I don't think the politicians are behind it.  They have terrorism to scare us with.

I can come up with a lot more companies that would rather you believe global warming is false because it means there way of doing business will change.  Most of these companies are very large and powerful and would rather things stay the way they are.

[shardian]

Well, it is all how you look at it.  Who would gain by convincing you that the "sky is falling"?  It isn't the automakers.  It isn't the oil companies.  Who is it?  Who would gain from us making the changes necessary to fight global warming? 

Well, Al Gore does buy carbon credits from his OWN company. That is a start from who can benefit.

[billf]

Well, Al Gore does buy carbon credits from his OWN company. That is a start from who can benefit.

What is this "buy carbon credits"?  Is this to "offset" his "carbon footprint"?

[ChadTower]

It's buying a nice little plaque that says "rather than make personal sacrifices, I wrote a check".

[shardian]

Well, Al Gore does buy carbon credits from his OWN company. That is a start from who can benefit.

What is this "buy carbon credits"?  Is this to "offset" his "carbon footprint"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_credit

[Crax]

Well, it is all how you look at it.  Who would gain by convincing you that the "sky is falling"?
....
I don't think the politicians are behind it.  They have terrorism to scare us with.

You answered your own question when you mentioned politicians after talking about who would gain.  Who was even talking about Al Gore before his movie?  I'm sure he did it cause he cares so much, and it wasn't politically motivated at all whatsoever.     Politicians aren't behind global warming, but they sure use it as a catalyst for their personal gain.

Also, one of the guys I went to school with works with his cousin selling a vegetable oil based fuel system for diesel engines.  He has been involved with it before global warming became a hot issue.  Guess who's making a lot more money now than before? 

Money and politics are heavily involved on both sides of global warming, don't try and tell me it's business on one side  and only people doing it to save the environment on the other.  I can recognize that global warming is an issue, but it doesn't mean I believe everything about it that some group feels like writing.   

[horseboy]

I still subscribe to the global cooling theory. Just you wait.

[ChadTower]

I think the problem is global dumbing.

[Crax]

I think the problem is global dumbing.

I agree

[ChadTower]

Brain dumps, no doubt.

[Crax]

Brain dumps, no doubt.

Yeah, I do that too
You reply far too fast for me to even fix something I misspost

[ChadTower]

I thought it was a tangent joke, actually, and chuckled.   

[Xam]

We had some unusually cold weather (50-60 degrees) but by Saturday it will be in the 90's which is uncommonly warm.

As  Chad rightly pointed out:  Global warming is going to cause a redistribution of weather patterns.  The oceans are warming which will cause a shift in weather.  One of the most serious consequences is that water (rain) is being redistributed.

Lets see how funny you think it is when the midwest is a dust bowl and we can no longer grow the crops that feed our families.

What facts do you base you this on? I have seen scientists on both sides of the issue. In fact one from MIT recently said that the fear is coming from a complete misunderstanding of the climate and how it works.
Looking through the history of the world, the earth has gone through cycles of warming and cooling. There really seems to be no concensus on this issue other than the fact that surface temperature is up.

Xam

[Xam]

Well, it is all how you look at it.  Who would gain by convincing you that the "sky is falling"?  It isn't the automakers.  It isn't the oil companies.  Who is it?  Who would gain from us making the changes necessary to fight global warming? 

I don't think the scientific community is doing this so they can get a bunch of grant money.  I don't think the politicians are behind it.  They have terrorism to scare us with.

I can come up with a lot more companies that would rather you believe global warming is false because it means there way of doing business will change.  Most of these companies are very large and powerful and would rather things stay the way they are.

If you think automakers and oil companies will not profit...you are sadly mistaken. Much as Dupont received billions in gov subsidaries to develope new refrigerants ($6.00 per pound of R-12 was a "tax" to pay for development of new refrigerants) rest assured the automakers will receive similar subs...as will oil companies so they can make "r&d" new cleaner fuels. These wonderful new technologies cost will of course be passed on to the consumer even though they have already been paid for by the feds.

There are issues that I believe in regarding being green. I don't think companies should be dumping mercury into our waters...that's a no brainer. Science even backs it. Its bad. The fever pitch regarding GW is nothing more than propaganda. I thought a scientist such as yourself would realize this. The GW scientists even admit they do not know what is causing the rise in temp.

Xam

[Xam]

This is becoming political...probably should have posted there. I didn't want it to be political though...it was just a humorous observation. Lighten up guys.

Xam

[shmokes]

Two things we have now that we didn't have back in the original dustbowl: Hydroponics and genetics

I would rather die of global warming than to have only hydroponics to eat.  They taste like ---Cleveland steamer---.  Hydroponic tomatoes are not even tomatoes, they are a near tasteless fruit/vegetable with a striking visual resemblance to tomatoes, but little other similarity.

Also, Utah pipes water to a lot of places.  I believe California uses more Utah water than Utah does, and California has an enormous agriculture industry.

[horseboy]

I would rather die of global warming

 

[ChadTower]

I always knew Utah was on the pipe.