Call off the warming

MTdream · 04-10-2007, 12:55 PM

THIS WEEK (8-14 APR): Last year was record warm, this year record cold! April is currently tracking as the coldest April in 113 years - a dramatic change from last years #1 warmest ever. Even after some late month moderation, April 2007 will likely keep the month in the top 7 coldest in history. The Southwest is the one exception, but even here temperatures will cool dramatically late in the week. And, the snow is not over! Short range computer models hint at the possibility of a stronger snow storm from Colorado to Wisconsin late in the week into the weekend.

well, call off the debate...we are freezing...science is settled...

er wait...cold or hot, storms or not, averages met or averages exceeded, it is all proof of anthropogenic global warming...I forgot....

Here is linky for additional context

oh and you just have to love this picture....

AVengeance · 04-10-2007, 01:05 PM

it's like the horroscopes. If you're broad enough, you're almost always right. You can then be specific every once in a while and be wrong, because you're still right "most of the time".

Roonie · 04-10-2007, 01:47 PM

Today April 10. Currently we are just over a week into April and already they are saying April is the coldest in years. For someone who doesn't believe models are accurate at predicting weather or any climate change you sure have a lot of faith in this post I guess.

Also from your link above........

MARCH 2007 RECAP

United States
The five week retail month was the warmest in three years and will likely rank in the top 10 warmest in 113 years of national records. Record high temperatures were broken during the middle of the month while record lows, and record snowfall amounts were broken at the end of the month. Precipitation amounts were down 13% for the country as a whole compared to a year ago, but the Northeast and Central States had 2 to 5 times more precipitation than last year. There were a couple of major snowstorms throughout the month making the mid-March period the snowiest in 14 years, and the final week of the month (week prior to Easter) was also the snowiest in at least 14 years. The record cold and snowy weather during the week prior to Easter was certainly a very negative factor for retail, but the much warmer weather compared to a year ago during the middle three weeks of the month was very favorable and will help boost sales. Same-store sales gains should be better than expected when announced on Thursday by ICSC.

ballz2wallz · 04-10-2007, 01:51 PM

I think he's making fun of those that make such claims regarding warming.

MTdream · 04-10-2007, 02:24 PM

Originally Posted by Roonie

Today April 10. Currently we are just over a week into April and already they are saying April is the coldest in years. For someone who doesn't believe models are accurate at predicting weather or any climate change you sure have a lot of faith in this post I guess.

.

Yeah, and I have quoted other stupid things too, doesnt mean I believe/accept/ or promote them...

anyone reading my post would concur I was pointing fun at the issue...but me thinks there is an alarming level of defensiveness around this topic to ever allow any valuable debate...

I wonder why?

MTdream · 04-10-2007, 02:25 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

I think he's making fun of those that make such claims regarding warming.

by george I think you have it!!!

MTdream · 04-10-2007, 02:31 PM

Originally Posted by Roonie

Today April 10. Currently we are just over a week into April and already they are saying April is the coldest in years. For someone who doesn't believe models are accurate at predicting weather or any climate change you sure have a lot of faith in this post I guess.

Also from your link above........

MARCH 2007 RECAP

United States
The five week retail month was the warmest in three years and will likely rank in the top 10 warmest in 113 years of national records. Record high temperatures were broken during the middle of the month while record lows, and record snowfall amounts were broken at the end of the month. Precipitation amounts were down 13% for the country as a whole compared to a year ago, but the Northeast and Central States had 2 to 5 times more precipitation than last year. There were a couple of major snowstorms throughout the month making the mid-March period the snowiest in 14 years, and the final week of the month (week prior to Easter) was also the snowiest in at least 14 years. The record cold and snowy weather during the week prior to Easter was certainly a very negative factor for retail, but the much warmer weather compared to a year ago during the middle three weeks of the month was very favorable and will help boost sales. Same-store sales gains should be better than expected when announced on Thursday by ICSC.

isnt it interesting tha tyou can make any quote say anything....

precipitation down compared to alst year...but how was last year compared to average? cause...global warming...

(if there is such a thing)

wow, 2-5 times the precipitation of last year...cause....global warming...

major snowstorms making it the snowiest in 14 years...cause...global warming...

I captured each of these thoughts in my commentary...

record cold...global warming...

record warm...global warming...

extreme weather...global warming...

average weather...global warming...

glaciers melt...global warming...

glaciers expand...global warming...

got gas??? global warming...

DosEquis · 04-10-2007, 03:10 PM

We have a cool month amongst many of the warmest months and years, so we can call off global warming.

I am curious.. is it that you dismiss warming entirely ..or are you dismissing that people contribute to it? Possibly that people contribute but it is so small that we should say screw it and just keep doing what we are doing? What are your (and anyone else) thoughts about it in 6 sentences or less.

Here is mine: I think global warming and cooling is part of a natural cycle. It is going to happen no matter what. We are accelerating the warming process but how much I am not sure. I think we should do things today to reduce our energy consumption and GHG output, not only for warming sake but more importantly our health.

I think Al Gore should alter his approach. He should compaign on the savings and business behind alternative energy and energy conserving items like CF blubs, LED lighting, etc. If he put a profit/loss statement and made it capitalist in nature, while dropping the tree hugging hippy approach, he might break through to you guys. I mean, just leave warming implications, CO2 stats, and everything else completely out of it. Just refer to the personal savings on energy bills, the jobs it would create, and business that can be invested in and the potential return that comes with it from investment.

I think the problem is trying to merge two groups into one. He needs to keep the groups seperate because the tree hugging hippies and the screw yourself pure capitalists will never come together. However both groups can take steps to achieve the common goal, in this case energy conservation in effort to reduce CO2 production. The hippies have already bought global warming, we just need to sell the rest on energy savings and the profit that can come from developing energy saving items and alternative fuels.

MTdream · 04-10-2007, 03:23 PM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

We have a cool month amongst many of the warmest months and years, so we can call off global warming.

I am curious.. is it that you dismiss warming entirely ..or are you dismissing that people contribute to it? Possibly that people contribute but it is so small that we should say screw it and just keep doing what we are doing? What are your (and anyone else) thoughts about it in 6 sentences or less.

Not dismissing entirely...dismissing alarmism...and there is not enough real data that shows it is abnormal to the known record (i.e. medieval warm period)

"people contributing to it"...despite popular opinion, it is unknown as to what extent if any humans have on it...generally, people think we are more powerful than we are...i.e. impact of the oceans, and volcanic, and vegetation impact, etc. I think there is some evidence that the increase in cattle is causing a methane issue, but is that more than the other animals that used to swarm the plains pre-colonization in teh States???? (have you seen buffalo crap? BIG!!!)...etc.

Sorry was eight lines...not sentences...

MTdream · 04-10-2007, 03:25 PM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

I think Al Gore should alter his approach. He should compaign on the savings and business behind alternative energy and energy conserving items like CF blubs, LED lighting, etc. If he put a profit/loss statement and made it capitalist in nature, while dropping the tree hugging hippy approach, he might break through to you guys. I mean, just leave warming implications, CO2 stats, and everything else completely out of it. Just refer to the personal savings on energy bills, the jobs it would create, and business that can be invested in and the potential return that comes with it from investment.

not trying to be sniping here...btu I doubt Gore will do this...there is no money in it...and no prominance in it...

VictorLy · 04-10-2007, 03:34 PM

Originally Posted by MTdream

not trying to be sniping here...btu I doubt Gore will do this...there is no money in it...and no prominance in it...

And maybe that's why so few Americans are fighting global warming. It's unfortunate how so much of America is run by money and not ethics and compassion.

Victor

Roonie · 04-10-2007, 03:36 PM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

What are your (and anyone else) thoughts about it in 6 sentences or less.

Here is mine if it isn't obvious already; I think it is a natural cycle that we have accelerated due to man's influence. Why do I think this? Because all the top thinkers in the field believe this to be happening and have even come together to make a comprehensive report about it called the IPCC. Just like when the doctor says I need anti-biotics and rest to get over Pneumonia. I believe his advice as he is the expert in that field even though a very small minority says I can probably get over it without taking antibiotics I would rather be safe then sorry when it is concerning my future. In general I like to give more than take... as a life philosophy.

MTdream · 04-10-2007, 03:40 PM

[quote=Roonie;98182]Just like when the doctor says I need anti-biotics and rest to get over Phnemonia.quote]

what is phnemonia? is it contagious?

Roonie · 04-10-2007, 03:44 PM

[quote=MTdream;98189]

Originally Posted by Roonie

Just like when the doctor says I need anti-biotics and rest to get over Phnemonia.quote]

what is phnemonia? is it contagious?

drop the h

Pneumonia is an illness of the lungs and respiratory system in which the alveoli (microscopic air-filled sacs of the lung responsible for absorbing oxygen from the atmosphere) become inflamed and flooded with fluid. Pneumonia can result from a variety of causes, including infection with bacteria, viruses, fungi, or parasites.

and yes it is contagious

DosEquis · 04-10-2007, 04:13 PM

Originally Posted by MTdream

not trying to be sniping here...btu I doubt Gore will do this...there is no money in it...and no prominance in it...

There is quite a bit of potential if it is done right. If someone told you that you could make minor changes and a small investment in the stuff you use every day, that it would reduce your energy bill by 30%, would you not at least listen? Especially if it was as easy as using a different type of light bulb? Now if you could do it for reasonable money, that means millions of other home owners can do it. Demand for those goods would be created by the money they saved on energy bills. Saving money on energy = using less energy = less green house gas. The money people are happy and the hippies are happy.

If he made that presentation more people like yourself would listen i think, and indirectly addressing global warming by directly helping the GHG problem.

When more demand is out there competition comes up and it makes those alternatives cheaper. The intial savings would be solely on the energy bill but eventually the alternatives would be nearly as affordable as your basic light bulb.

Roonie · 04-10-2007, 04:20 PM

» Money Saved Using Compact Flourescent Bulbs*on*Blueprint for Financial Prosperity

Here is a basic calculation of money saved on one flourescent light bulb compared to a regular bulb for a year. Those not willing to look at article it comes in roughly around $15.21 savings a year on one light bulb.

MTdream · 04-10-2007, 05:00 PM

Originally Posted by Roonie

» Money Saved Using Compact Flourescent Bulbs*on*Blueprint for Financial Prosperity

Here is a basic calculation of money saved on one flourescent light bulb compared to a regular bulb for a year. Those not willing to look at article it comes in roughly around $15.21 savings a year on one light bulb.

Lots of unknows around CF bulbs...the energy saving is only part of the equation...i.e. how do you dispose of them? they contain mercury...when broken (very common) they release that mercury, and should never be vacuumed and measures should be taken to immediately ventilate the area...

Here is an article on it...

So, we cant really dispose of them like other bulbs...they cant be recycled...and they contain known hazardous chemicals requiring special treatment in their disposal i.e. driving to different location to accept hazardous chemicals....

additionally, CF bulbs can interfere with electronics...and an unknown impact on new medical devices in testing right now, that use wireless signals to manage dosage levels...like insulin etc. etc. (todaay this is fairly rare, but as usage goes up...)

here is link to GE info on the subject

Roonie · 04-10-2007, 05:07 PM

Yes but flourescent's have an average life of 10,000 hours compared to an average bulb that has a 750 average hour lifespan so they last a very, very long time. That means one bulb can run non-stop for 416.7 days before burnout compared to an average bulb who has a continous run time of 31.25 days before burnout. That means you will go through an average of 14 regular bulbs for one flourescent bulb.

As they become more popular disposal of them will become more refined.

MTdream · 04-10-2007, 05:15 PM

Originally Posted by Roonie

Yes but flourescent's have an average life of 10,000 hours compared to an average bulb that has a 750 average hour lifespan so they last a very, very long time. That means one bulb can run non-stop for 416.7 days before burnout compared to an average bulb who has a continous run time of 31.25 days before burnout. That means you will go through an average of 14 regular bulbs for one flourescent bulb.

As they become more popular disposal of them will become more refined.

as someone whom has switched to CF's I can assure you, they do NOT have a lifespan much greater at all than standard incandescent...

i.e. had sale on them at Costco (3 months ago), bought 4 packs for our can lights in house, and guess what...3 of four have since died...not quite 10,000 hours...