Forget global warming: Welcome to the new Ice Age — It’s always something.
Snow cover over North America and much of Siberia, Mongolia and China is greater than at any time since 1966.
The U.S. National Climatic Data Center NCDC reported that many American cities and towns suffered record cold temperatures in January and early February. According to the NCDC, the average temperature in January “was -0.3 F cooler than the 1901-2000 20th century average.”
China is surviving its most brutal winter in a century. Temperatures in the normally balmy south were so low for so long that some middle-sized cities went days and even weeks without electricity because once power lines had toppled it was too cold or too icy to repair them.
There have been so many snow and ice storms in Ontario and Quebec in the past two months that the real estate market has felt the pinch as home buyers have stayed home rather than venturing out looking for new houses.
In just the first two weeks of February, Toronto received 70 cm of snow, smashing the record of 66.6 cm for the entire month set back in the pre-SUV, pre-Kyoto, pre-carbon footprint days of 1950.
And remember the Arctic Sea ice? The ice we were told so hysterically last fall had melted to its “lowest levels on record? Never mind that those records only date back as far as 1972 and that there is anthropological and geological evidence of much greater melts in the past.
The ice is back.
Hmmmm, then how do you explain this post?
#58 – MrBloedumpSpladderschitt,
Glad to hear you take so many actions.
As far as vehicles goes we need to concentrate on creating more efficient vehicles that don’t cost more and are not smaller or less powerful.
Why not less powerful? I almost never floor the gas pedal. And, I drive faster than most people with far more powerful cars. Mine is a 4 cyl camry from 1992 and I consider it overpowered. I would rather have my 1987 back. It got 40 MPG highway instead of my current 30-32. It was big enough and fast enough.
This is all minor stuff that most everyone does to save money. I have no problem withh it and do most of it.
Unfortunately, most people do not do so. Else, we would not be using 5% of the grid power of the country to power the 17 clocks in our living rooms and have the TV partly on and waiting for you to hit the remote.
You’re not mentioning the social engineering crap the hysterics are proposing. Something like imposing a 2.00/gal gas tax to discourage consumption. That’s the flaming dogshit that pisses me off. It’s not only immoral, but grounds for summary execution.
You pay way more than that now on gasoline, as I pointed out in a prior post. You just don’t pay it at the pump. You pay it on your 1040. Why not shift the same cost out of your 1040 and over to the pump so we can all make more valid choices?
Oh wait, the prior post was on another thread. Here’s the link to the real price of gasoline, in case you missed it there.
http://tinyurl.com/yr2mh2
I, for one, would welcome paying it at the pump and reducing my income tax bill so that I don’t subsidize the fuel bills of someone else’s Naggravator. I shouldn’t be so hard on SUVs though. The flat SUVs are just as bad, see high end sports cars with 12 cyl engines. Yecch!! (And, I used to love those. Ick. Now they just look like SUVs that have been run over by steam rollers to me.)
# 62 MrBloedumpSpladderschitt
“you’re 20.00 orange juice is the direct cause of ethanol, gas taxes etc. causing production costs to go up.”
Are you retarded? Have you ever taken an economics class? Lack of supply will be a much larger determining factor in price than any gas tax will ever be.
Besides Don’t try to drive the debate away from the fact that there are many things that will be in short supply from a drastic climate change or shift. Blaming the increase in cost on a gas tax is just being a ignorant dumb ass!!
#60 –
(I know 80-100 years doesn’t seem fast, but the rest of existence isn’t so fascinated by our species individual longevity).
Excellent point. I hope we have 80-100 years though. Think about what happens when we have a billion climate refugees in 2050. That’s the conservative estimate of the ultra-conservative IPCC.
What will happen to the global economy when we need to care for an eighth of the world’s population who are now homeless and destitute?
Will we have global civilizational collapse? (IMNSHO, yes.)
This may not spell the death of the species, but will likely be the start of The Great Human Die-Off.
#66 “What will happen to the global economy when we need to care for an eighth of the world’s population who are now homeless and destitute?”
Who says WE are going to shell out for everyone else?
#67 – patrick,
How libertarian of you. Freedom to starve for an eighth of the planet’s population in 2050. If you can shorten that, it’d make a great campaign slogan.
I just hope you’re not going to claim the moral high ground for letting a billion people die.
(Note: in my post, I asked what would happen to the global economy. Who did you mean by We? We’re all We. There is no They in my mind.)
#68
How Utopian of you. Unfortunately, life is full of realities, not all pleasant.
If you want to see why we still “burn” crap to produce our energy and thus the problem, look no further than liberal lawmakers & environmentalists who have been long duped by the oil companies.
If you have 5 adults in your 4 cyl. and a 20′ boat on it and are doing 70 uphill, can you accelerate to pass someone? I’m not being facetious.
I’ve seen your fuel link before. Some incidental costs fully charged to fuel, other things counted more than once, more misintrepreted statistics. If I were more organized I’d be able to dig up the links on that, but I’ll probably never find them again. I’ve probably inhaled too many broken CFL’s.
#70
In this new People’s Republic of the U.S. the permits required to own a 20′ boat are issued only to high party officials.
So, your example is invalid. Now, back to the gulag with you!
#70 – MrBloedumpSpladderschitt,
buy the most fuel efficient well made vehicle that meets your needs
I don’t have your needs boatman. My boat fits in my Camry’s trunk. It’s an inflatable canoe. Did I say sell your boat? Did I say buy a vehicle that doesn’t meet your needs?
No.
I said by the most fuel efficient vehicle that does meet your needs. So, build all the strawmen you want. And knock them all down. Go ahead. Just don’t claim I said something that I didn’t.
Personally, I probably wouldn’t want to put myself or my family in a vehicle with a 20′ boat cruising 70 MPH behind me. But, that’s just me.
#69 – patrick,
life is full of realities, not all pleasant.
How true that is! One such reality is that the world governments will make some effort at humanitarian aid because we’re not all libertarians. Some of us value human life. And, the further reality is that the attempts at aid at a time when food is already in short supply just may break the global economy. And then all of us still alive will be in a very bad spot.
I will not have to deal with it. I need a valid supply chain to support my insulin habit. I will be among the first to go. In fact, I’ll make sure of it. I have no desire to live in such a world. And, it won’t be my kids dealing with it either. They’re safely locked up behind my tied and cauterized vasa deferentia.
#71 – Good Point!
#69
I’m very glad to hear you won’t be reproducing. That just contributes to the “global problem”
Let me add something here…
How many of you KNOW that 1/2 of the USA is/has been in DROUGHT for the past 10+ years??
This wont END, until the DROUGHT ends.
#75
The drought won’t end until the drought ends?
# 70 MrBloedumpSpladderschitt
“If you have 5 adults in your 4 cyl. and a 20′ boat on it and are doing 70 uphill, can you accelerate to pass someone? I’m not being facetious.”
Considering that scenario would be breaking the law in EVERY state. You don’t have a right to do that. The maximum speed in the US is 80 and that is limited to a very small section of Texas. In most places it is 70 or below. The speed limit on hills is NEVER the maximum for the state. Depending on the incline it would be reduced as low as 30 MPH. In addition the Maximum speed limits, in all states, only apply to passenger vehicles without a cargo trailer. Not to mention it is illegal to pass on a hill, especially with a cargo trailer, as you would notice when looking at the solid lines on the road or by taking the drivers test in most states.
So to break it down. You not only want to own a large gas guzzler but you think that you have the right to put others at risk by breaking the law while driving it. I think I already could have guessed that about you.
Look, global warming is a stupid name. As someone above said it should be called *climate change*.
This report if you go to the original is also being reported by climate data agency’s all around the globe. Not only has all of the Artic ice returned, but it’s actually thicker than before. It’s like Antartica, parts of it are warming, ice is melting, but over the vast majority of the continent nothing has changed, in fact there has been more snow build up than usual.
What all this says to me is this……that consensus Al Gore and the doomsayers talk about may have been declared a bit to early
(al la G.W.Bush declaring victory in Irag), I seriously think that a major, serious discussion needs to be had on what is actually happening. Something is happening…things are growing in Northern UK that have never grown there, and things are colder and wetter in Northern California than they have been in 20 years. Climate is changing, and it’s not all cold or all warming. It’s spotty, and not predictable. Climate experts need to push the so called GW experts out of the way and start thinking of a new consensus.
Rising and falling islands are not a sign of GW…it’s strictly a localized thing. The coral reefs are so delicatly balanced that it could be more than water temp changes, possibly increased or even diluted salinity. Manmade or not, something is going on and people need to stop claiming they know whats what and get their heads together and figure it out. The Russian scientist that I mentioned about a year ago in here and was attacked for it apparently has a few more followers now about sunspots and solar flaring. This activity has decreased and as it has, the ice and snow have increased. Also the scientists who feel that water vapors in the high atmosphere may be causing c,imate and warming trends are noticing changes since the solar flaring has decreased.
There are just to many unproven things for anyone(think Al Gore and his ilk) to declare the debate over.
#66…Misanthropic Scott….I just fininshed watching the 5 disc series from BBC and National Geographic called Planet Earth….excellent by the way. In the last 3 hours of the series they talk about the future, and since it is the BBC everything is looked at from a manmade GW point of view. But they did have a nice mix of eco/animal warriors represented. Several talked about optimal planet population. This is something that I know your very serious about(as well as I ). It was great hearing some of the people I respect the most in the Animal and Enviromental world talk about ways to reduce population to a sustainable level….what I was really surprised to hear was what that level was….500,000,000 to 1 and 1/2 billion tops. My God, that’s almost 5 billion below present world population and less than one fifth of projected world population by 2050. It sounds like we need to be secretly putting sperm and egg killers in water supplies all over the globe.
Of course there were a few who felt that 10 billion would be sustainable. How they can say that with all the stresses we are putting on the worlds eco systems at 6 billion is beyond me.
I may have a problem finding a cave to live in at this rate. 🙂
#78–Joshua==why is global warming a stupid name if the world is getting warmer?
2-Islands are not rising and falling–the mean ocean sea level is rising. Any site for the concern being sinking islands other than Venice and New Orleans?
3-You say “Climate experts need to push the so called GW experts out of the way and start thinking of a new consensus.” HAR!!!! The GW experts that have formed a new consensus are climate experts. Rarely is such garblefarb posted.
4. You say: “It’s spotty, and not predictable.” No, it very predictable and has been. Are you confusing weather with climate?
Silly.
To those who do not believe humans can affect the world, you must be living in some bubble. Science has shown beyond reasonable doubts that since humans have evolved from the trees into larger societies, that thousands of species have become extent. From the large birds of the Americas to Mammoths, everywhere humans have migrated they have wiped out species. During the the early 1900’s explorers would go to tropical valleys teaming with vast varieties or wildlife and within a few years, most would be wiped out. I agree that the majority or species that have lived on the Earth have become extent not because of humans but because of natural selection or natural disasters. Does this justify destroying the environment? Should we wipe out vast forests or coral reefs simply because it has happened in the past? I believe we have the ability to learn from the past and be conscious of what we are doing. I want to be able to go out and observe nature not look at it in a book. Sure, in the long run the sun will expand and fry the Earth. Does that mean we’re supposed to destroy it before that time. people who believe we humans have no affect on the Earth must be self-inflictedly ignorant.
hia
I’m doing Global warming in my ESB exam and i am really interested in it !!!!!
I was wondering if you can help me with a question.
1. when will global end ????