Calling Al Gore: Where are you?

George_1950 · Jan 13, 2009, 10:00 AM

"BISMARCK, N.D. (AP) - Residents of the upper Midwest bundled up or just stayed inside Tuesday as a wave of bitterly cold air barreled south out of the Arctic, following on the heels of a fast-moving blizzard.
Some schools closed because of the cold and temperatures hit the single digits as far south as Kansas and Missouri.

The coldest air spilled across the Canadian prairie into the Dakotas and Minnesota. Grand Forks, N.D., dropped to a record low of 37 degrees below zero Tuesday morning, lopping six degrees off the old record set in 1979, the National Weather Service said.

In northern Minnesota, it was 35 below zero in Roseau and 36 below in Hallock, with wind chills down to 45 below in Hibbing. Just to the north, Winnipeg, Saskatchewan, also hit minus 36, according to Environment Canada.

In North Dakota, the Minot area got 6 inches of snow, on top of about a foot that fell late last week, and Bismarck collected 4. Bismarck, Fargo and Grand Forks all broke snow records for December, each with more than 30 inches."
Sharp cold wave shocks upper Midwest, temps to -36

Skell · Mar 16, 2009, 06:11 PM

I don't know Steve. You confuse me. Generally you post articles debunking climate change, now you post articles about the dangers of climate change simply simply so you can throw in a crack at Obama.
Im with Excon, you guys look so foolish when you post an article about a bit of snow fall in the US at an unusual time of year as proof that climate change doesnt exist.
Im not convinced either, but i know its a little more complex than cool fronts and weather patterns in the US. I know a lot of you forget there is a whole other world out there but you gusy are usually a little smarter than that.
Down under here we have had the worst bush fires in our history flamed by years of drought and extreme heat. 100's lost their lives and 1000's homeless. But me posting articles on that doesnt prove climate change exists anymore than you posting articles on a blizzards in Texas proves its a load of BS.

speechlesstx · Mar 17, 2009, 04:59 AM

Ah Skell, I don't generally post articles on a single event as "proof" of global warming, I post them for the irony - like when a major snowstorm hits on the day of a climate change rally or every time Gore shows up. Hence my comment on Gore not being around even though it snowed here last week. It was JOKE, as in It snowed in Texas last week so Al Gore must have been in town.

Sadly though, Obama wasn't joking when he claimed his selection "was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow." Any politician that makes a statement with such unbelievable hubris is going to receive a good amount of contempt in return.

Look, I know climate change happens, I've acknowledged it many times. You have my sympathies for the drought and fires you've experienced, I don't live in just my own little world with no regard for others. I'm also not going to roll over for a political agenda while there is so much evidence to the contrary being ignored.

speechlesstx · Mar 19, 2009, 09:43 AM

Scientists say the West Antarctic ice sheet is likely to melt...in one to two thousand years. Maybe. They don't know for sure because "there are still so many unknowns about how Antarctic ice behaves." Nevertheless, we need to set a "sea level limit" at about three feet of sea level rise" just to be cautious.

excon · Mar 19, 2009, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Nevertheless, we need to set a "sea level limit" at about three feet of sea level rise" just to be cautious.

Hello again, Steve:

I agree. And if the ocean breaks the law, it should be waterboarded.

excon

speechlesstx · Mar 19, 2009, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Steve:

I agree. And if the ocean breaks the law, it should be waterboarded.

LOL, very good, ex.

inthebox · Mar 19, 2009, 01:59 PM

Has "global warming" given way to "climate change."

I notice how they use them interchangeably.

Now the envirotyrants can claim that when when it is TOO HOT or TOO COLD it is mankind's fault, and they have solutions that entails either income redistribution through taxes or limiting liberty and choice.

Question is has climate NEVER CHANGED?
I bet you it was changing long before mankind was ever around - the dinosaurs would know

G&P

excon · Mar 19, 2009, 03:33 PM

Hello again,

At the risk of being a bore, I must point out that even if the Goricle is wrong, it's still not good to throw our trash into our atmosphere.

So, as long as the solution is correct, I could care less if the reason for doing the correct thing might have been wrong.

That is, of course, unless you don't think we're running out of oil.

excon

speechlesstx · Mar 23, 2009, 12:53 PM

Ex, at the risk of sounding repetitive, I think we all agree that trashing the air is a bad thing. But your reasoning? Sounds like something some conservative would say about the Iraq war...but, I digress.

Todays' global warming update comes courtesy of the State of California, home of Hollywood, TV, movies, all the reasons we're enticed to by that 40" plasma TV.

State considers ban on big screen TVs

Quote:

In their continuing quest to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, state regulators have uncovered a new villain in the war on global warming : your big screen TV

Couch potatoes, beware.

The California Energy Commission is considering a proposal that would ban California retailers from selling all but the most energy-efficient televisions. Critics say the news standards could take 25 percent of televisions off the market — most of them 40 inches or larger.

“The larger the television, the more at risk it is of being banned unnecessarily in California,” said Douglas Johnson, senior director of technology police for the Consumer Electronics Association.

Association officials say the standards are not only unnecessary – because the federal government already regulates energy efficiency through the voluntary Energy Star program — but also ill-timed. The last thing our economy needs now is products taken off the market, they say.

Furthermore, they say that with a weak economy, consumers are going out less and watching TV more.

“This is really about regulating entertainment, not energy use,” Johnson said.

Poppycock, says the commission.

Affordable big screen TVs will still be available under the new standards, spokesman Adam Gottlieb said. In fact, he said the regulations will save you money.

The commission calculates that if you buy televisions meeting the proposed standards it’ll cut your annual energy use by — drum roll, please — $18 to $30.

Is it about global warming? Ha! One of the supporters of the legislation is the LCD Manufacturers Association along with Wal*Mart, Sears, Costco, Sam's Club, and Frys, who I'm sure sell a lot of LCD TVs.

speechlesstx · Mar 26, 2009, 05:34 AM

Once again California is leading the way to a cooler planet. Up next for consideration, banning certain colors of cars.

California to reduce carbon emissions by... banning black cars?!

Quote:

In a move that will likely get California's consumers in a huff, impending legislation may soon restrict the paint color options for Golden State residents looking for their next new vehicle. The specific colors that are currently on the chopping block are all dark hues, with the worst offender seemingly the most innocuous color you could think of: Black. What could California possibly have against these colors, you ask? Apparently, the California Air Resources Board figures that the climate control systems of dark colored cars need to work harder than their lighter siblings – especially after sitting in the sun for a few hours. Anyone living in a hot, sunny climate will tell you that this assumption is accurate, of course. In fact, legislation already exists for buildings that has proven successful at reducing the energy consumption of skyscrapers.

So, what's the crux of the problem... can't paint suppliers just come up with new, less heat-absorbent dark paints? According to Ward's, suppliers have reportedly been testing their pigments and processes to see if it's possible to meet CARB's proposed mandate of 20% solar reflectivity by 2016 with a phase-in period starting in 2012, and things aren't looking good. Apparently, when the proper pigments and chemicals are added to black paint, the resulting color is currently being referred to as "mud-puddle brown." That doesn't sound very attractive, now does it? Windshields, backlights and sunroofs are also slated to get reflective coatings starting in 2012.

When we first heard of this issue, an internal debate immediately began as to whether this might be an elaborate early April Fool's joke, but it isn't.

Who'll be first for their "mud-puddle brown" Prius?

tomder55 · Mar 26, 2009, 06:12 AM

It's a given that emissions of pollutants are bad. It is NOT a given that C02 is a pollutant (despite the nonsensical ruling by SCOTUS)



At Ask Me Help Desk you can ask questions in any topic and have them answered for free by our experts. To ask questions or participate in answering them you must register for a free account. By registering you will be able to: Get free answers from experts in any of our 300+ topics. Accept money for answers that you provide. Communicate privately with other members (PM). See fewer ads. Sign Up!