Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

@okie,

Okie wrote

Quote:

The entire point that I tried to make about this issue was that the average amount of water vapor, the most important greenhouse gas by far, far more important than CO2, in the atmosphere around the planet has probably varied throughout history, yet the climate modelers have insufficient data to plug into the analysis, they instead "assume" constant humidity or some such thing. I am still not impressed by that.

Not probably have varied. Definitely have varied.

There are sea fossils imbedded in the rock on the top of Sandia Crest (10,600+ ft) that forms the eastern boundary of Albuquerque. After those rocks were pushed up on the mountain this entire area was lush rain forest. We are now high desert with average rainfall Over the Millenia the Earth's climate has changed and changed again with recurring periods of heat and cold, plentiful precipitation and drought, all with no or minimal human contribution.

In the mid 1980's when we first moved back to New Mexico, we were getting plenty of rain and snow, but by the end of the 1980's we were into a prolonged drought that still persists. But, in the mid 1980's, summer temperatures exceeding 100 degrees were common while we haven't seen a 100 degree day for years now except that it did hit 100 briefly for one day in 2007. (I took the summer month's individual data out of the following to make it easier to read here but you can see that from the link.)

Quote:

100 Degree Days in Albuquerque since 1990
1990 104 on 6/25 & 6/29
1991 101 on 6/25
1992 100 on 7/5 & 7/6
1993 100 on 6/27, 6/28, 7/2 & 7/7
1994 107 on 6/26
1995 103 on 7/27 & 7/28
1996 100 on 6/21
1997 98 on 6/30 & 7/2
1998 102 on 6/29
1999 100 on 6/30 & 7/1
200099 on 6/15
2001 98 on 7/1
2002 101 on 7/1
2003 104 on 7/14
2004 97 on 7/21
2005 99 on 7/11 and 7/19
2006 98 on 6/5, 6/19, & 7/14
2007 100 on 7/3
2008 97 on 6/17 & 18, 7/31 & 8/1

100 Degree Weather Facts for Albuquerque:

For the period 1893-2007, the mercury reached at least 100 degrees in 50 of those 116 years, or 43 percent of the years

Since 1931, the mercury has reached at least 100 degrees in 44 of 77 years, or 57 percent of the years

Since 1931, the mercury reached at least 100 degrees 227 times, for an average of 3 times a year

The hottest temperature ever recorded was 107 degrees, June 26, 1994.

The greatest number of consecutive 100 degree days was nine (June 22-30, 1980)

The earliest date 100 degrees or higher was reached in any year was June 7, 1981 (max of 100 degrees)

The latest date 100 degrees or higher was reached in any year was September 5, 1979 (max of 100 degrees)

Average number of days between the first and last occurrence of 100+ degrees is 17 days

The highest frequency of 100+ maximum temperatures occurs between June 28th and July 2nd. Since 1931, 100+ temperatures have been observed 45 times during that five day period. The temperature reached at least 100 degrees the most often on June 28th.
http://www.srh.noaa.gov/abq/features/100DegreeWXFacts/100_degree_thru_2008.php

The point is that we have been cooler and drier in the summers in recent years than we were 25 years ago and we have been somewhat warmer and drier in the winter than we were 25 years ago. And this is nothing unusual for this area and, as anecdotal evidence, means diddly squat re global warming. Climate changes over hundreds and thousands of years occur with a high degree of regularity here on the high desert just as it does in other places.

But our Congressional delegation and our Governor, left wingers all, are adament that if we do not take extreme measures immediately to cap CO2 emissions, we are doomed here in New Mexico. It is insane!

Our own Harrison "Jack" Schmidt (PhD geologist who has walked on the moon) is in his mid 70's now, but he recently quit the Planetary Society when it refused to reject what Schmidt identified as bogus science supporting global warming. According to Schmidt, few serious scientists now support the hype re global warming but there are still many who won't say that publicly for fear of losing their funding. You don't get funding for scientific research projects these days if you are not a pro-AGW advocate he says. Most serious and honest research is done are in settings that do not depend on government funding either directly or indirectly.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Rather a long post presenting anecdotal evidence when you admit this in the middle of it

Quote:

And this is nothing unusual for this area and, as anecdotal evidence, means diddly squat re global warming.

Yes, anecdotal evidence means diddly when it comes to global warming.

The fact that the continents drift an sea shells end up on mountains means diddly when it comes to global warming.

The fact that times without humans have had different temperatures means diddly when it comes to human's effect on the climate. To use that is similar to claiming humans can't push rocks down hills because before humans all rocks rolled down hills naturally without human interference.

1 Reply

@parados,

But the one principle left out of all those diddlys is that the diddlys do happen, anecdotally and on very large scales, intermittantly, and somewhat regularly in the grand scheme of things. And to omit that principle while promoting the theory that current warming trends are unprecedented and/or cannot be attributed to anything other than human generated CO2 production is not only implausible, but it appears more and more to be intentionally dishonest.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

I guess you don't realize that in Albuquerque if the temperature was 70 degrees the humidity would be about 18% if the water vapor stayed the same.

What I am showing is that the models do account for changes in water vapor when they keep humidity constant.

On what basis do you believe the Albuquerque area always had constant relative humidity? That seems to be a pretty tall tale to believe. In fact there are alot of reasons to believe otherwise.

2 Replies

@okie,

Yup, on a summer day before the monsoon starts arriving, the humidity can be under 10%. Once the monsoon comes up from Mexico usually in early to mid July, however, the temperature can be about the same, but the humidity will almost constantly be above 30% and is usually significantly higher and will stay there most of the time for six to eight weeks depending on how strong or weak the monsoon is on any given year.

0 Replies

Amid headlines that General Motors is probably negotiating a bankruptcy proceeding as we speak, they've put this out as their answer to green up the environment. I don't know about you guys, but I'm not taking this thing out in Albuquerque rush hour traffic.

http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OB-DL221_segway_G_20090407005950.jpg

Chrysler's smart car isn't a whole lot better, but I think I would feel less claustrophobic:

http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/smart-car-1.jpg

3 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

I don't know about you guys, but I'm not taking this thing out in Albuquerque rush hour traffic.

From the BBC report about this GM-Segway project:

Quote:

The personal scooters came to international prominence when US President George W Bush fell off one while on holiday in 2003.

But I must admit that I liked the "conventional" version of such, the BMW C1

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Chrysler's smart car isn't a whole lot better, but I think I would feel less claustrophobic

Which seems to be a general view of many US-Americans: we are used to such cars.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

I wonder how your per capita serious injury/death rate due to car crashes compares to ours?

But do you drive these tin cans on the freeways alongside busses, 18-wheelers, big SUVs and mega sized pickups not to mention the uninspected and unsafe vehicles out there, many driven by unlicensed drivers?

If everybody was in bitty cars I would not feel so vulnerable.

(It doesn't look like the door on that BMW would close the gap there.)

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Chrysler's smart car

It's actually Daimler's Smart car...

And, in other news, Tesla Motors has unveiled the Tesla S sedan - a fully electric car with a 300 mile range that accelerates to 60 in 5.5 to 6.0 seconds, can fit up to seven people and will cost about $50,000:

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2009/03/teslamodelslive_08_opt.jpg

1 Reply

@old europe,

You're probably right bout Daimler. It was marketed by a Chrysler dealer and that's where I picked up the Chrystler name. I don't spend $50,000 on a vehicle though and couldn't if I wanted to which I don't. Ford's new Fusion Hybrid gets 40 mpg in town though, is far more practical than a 300-mile range vehicle, and retails for well under $30,000 which I also can't afford. My little Subaru Impreza Outback cost me $13,000 new. (I horsetrade really well) I've had it for going on 14 years, and it still gets better than 30 mpg in town; does better on the highway, and costs me less than $150 in maintenance per year. I figure no more miles than I drive in a year, I'm green enough with it.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

I wonder how your per capita serious injury/death rate due to car crashes compares to ours?

Traffic-related death rates:

Code:

                 Road fatalities        Road fatalities

                 per 100,000            per 1 billion

                 inhabitants            vehicle-km



Germany          6.2 	                  7.4

United States    14.7 	                  9

(Source: "Road accident data". OECD International Traffic Safety Data and Analysis Group.)

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

I don't spend $50,000 on a vehicle though and couldn't if I wanted to which I don't. Ford's new Fusion Hybrid gets 40 mpg in town though, is far more practical than a 300-mile range vehicle, and retails for well under $30,000 which I also can't afford. My little Subaru Impreza Outback cost me $13,000, I've had it for going on 14 years, and it still gets better than 30 mpg in town; does better on the highway, and costs me less than $100 in maintenance per year. I figure no more miles than I drive in a year, I'm green enough with it.

Yes, it's obviously marketed as a luxury sedan.

If you don't need that much power and luxury, and if you want to spend less money, here's another option:

1 Reply

@old europe,

If all I did was run around town, I might be able to get by with a 300-mile range vehicle at 45 mph but I would be really dangerous on the freeway and really frustrated if I needed to run up to Santa Fe or down to Socorro, especially if I didn't have that much distance left on the battery. And it would be plain dangerous to take such a vehicle into many parts of New Mexico where you do not want to be stranded and where there would no place with an electric plug in for 50 to 100 or more miles.

I'm sure there are practical applications for electric cars in densely populated areas where such vehicles are easily accommodated. Much or most of America is not densely populated, however, with long distances to be covered at high speeds between towns.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Who is omitting that principle?

You pretend to know what is in the models but when questioned you don't seem to have a clue.

The statement was made that the models don't allow for changes in water vapor. It was pointed out that they DO by keeping humidity constant. Now you are back to claiming they don't allow for it. Rolling Eyes

If anyone is being dishonest here Fox. It is those making the argument that something is omitted when it clearly isn't.

0 Replies

@okie,

What reasons do you have to believe otherwise?
Do you have evidence of major flooding in the last 1000 years?
Do you have evidence of major plant growth consistent with a non desert environment?
Please provide us with your reasons why you think Albuquerque has had a different climate in the last 1000 years. You seem to know about tall tales. So, spin one for us okie and tell us when Albuquerque had large changes in water vapor while providing evidence of it.

1 Reply

Climate change is likely to overshoot a 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 F) rise seen by the European Union and many developing nations as a trigger for "dangerous" change, a Reuters poll of scientists showed today.

Poll: Warming to exceed EU's "dangerous" threshold

Quote:

* Global warming likely exceed EU's "dangerous" threshold
* Evidence mankind to blame gets stronger since 2007
* Arctic summer ice thawing, seas rising above projections

By Alister Doyle and Gerard Wynn

OSLO/BONN, April 7 (Reuters) - Global warming is likely to overshoot a 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 F) rise seen by the European Union and many developing nations as a trigger for "dangerous" change, a Reuters poll of scientists showed on Tuesday.

Nine of 11 experts, who were among authors of the final summary by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2007 (IPCC), also said the evidence that mankind was to blame for climate change had grown stronger in the past two years.

Giving personal views of recent research, most projected on average a faster melt of summer ice in the Arctic and a quicker rise in sea levels than estimated in the 2007 report, the most authoritative overview to date drawing on work by 2,500 experts.

"A lot of the impacts we're seeing are running ahead of our expectations," said William Hare of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research.

Ten of 11 experts said it was at best "unlikely" -- or less than a one-third chance -- that the world would manage to limit warming to a 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit) rise above pre-industrial levels. For poll details, click on [ID:nL7934606]

"Scientifically it can be done. But it's unlikely given the level of political will," said Salemeel Huq at the International Institute for Environment and Development in London.

And David Karoly, of the University of Melbourne, said the world was "very unlikely" to reach the goal.

"The concentration of long-lived greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is already enough to cause warming of more than 2C above pre-industrial levels, and we are continuing to emit more and more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere," he said.

... ... ...

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

I'm sure you would have been very sceptical towards the first cars. I'm sure you'd have been concerned about the range. I'm sure you'd have argued that it was easy to feed your horse, but where would you possibly get something like gas?

See - nobody's forcing you to get a new car. But finally, after decades of a virtual monopoly, new car companies are springing up, and they seem to be way ahead of what Detroit is currently coming up with. As somebody who supposedly believes in competition and free markets, one would assume you'd be happy about those developments.

2 Replies

@old europe,

I am happy about all new good things that are innovations from a free market economy and initiated and implemented by private enterprise. IMO, our car industries were the pride of the country and thriving and the envy of the world until three things happened:

1) Our society shifted from a mostly common sense one to a litigious one where you have predatory lawyers just looking for anything or anybody to sue and successful class action suits can net a law firm millions.

2) We encouraged and allowed unions unprecedented power that almost closed down the railroads and several other previously thriving industries and that have made it more and more difficult for our auto manufacturers to be competitive.

3) The government began meddling more and more with regulation and mandates that made it even more difficult to compete with burgeoning foreign markets. Our auto makers cut so many corners trying to be competitive that they earned a reputation of making inferior cars coupled with making cars nobody wanted. The foreign auto makers seized a large chunk of the pie. The American automakers corrected that are now making superb automobiles again but have had a tough time regaining their reputation. Amerians had become conditioned to think foreign cars are better.

So. . . . .if the government would butt out of all but requirements of safety standards and reasonable enviromental criteria, if the unions could be defanged at last enough to back off their most crippling demands, and if the U.S. auto makers were free to assess what the people want and build it for them, I think our auto manufacturers would be profitable again in no time.

But what do I know other than I know that I personally buy the product that is the most affordable that also is aesthetically pleasing and meets my needs. When they make an affordable electric car that is practical and aesthetically pleasing and meets my needs more than an internal combustion powered vehicle, I'll certainly buy one. I have no quarrell with electric cars. I do have a BIG problem with a government that seems hell bent on forcing me to buy one rather than letting the free market determine when the time is right for that.

2 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter, what is the evidence--and not a poll of a limited set of scientists--that:
(1) Climate change is likely to overshoot a 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 F) rise seen by the European Union and many developing nations as a trigger for "dangerous" change;
(2) The evidence that mankind was to blame for climate change had grown stronger in the past two years;
(3) The concentration of long-lived greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is already enough to cause warming of more than 2C above pre-industrial levels;
(4) There will be an average a faster melt of summer ice in the Arctic and a quicker rise in sea levels than estimated in the 2007 report.

0 Replies

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know