TexaninOregon
100+ Posts
One of the coldest Winters/Springs on record. Snow packs at 110% or greater throughout the state!! Gotta' love that Global "WARM"ing!!!
35 Degrees and Snow!!
- Thread starter TexaninOregon
- Start date
B
Bluepies
Guest
Meanwhile, in Texas, we had a warmer-than-normal Winter.
Disproving global warming based on "It was cold in one location at this one time" is like saying all even numbers must be prime because 2 is prime.
Disproving global warming based on "It was cold in one location at this one time" is like saying all even numbers must be prime because 2 is prime.
hornpharmd
5,000+ Posts
Today is cooler in my location than it was yesterday. Disproves global warming and on this trend we must be headed towards an ice age.
O
Oilfield
Guest
This is the weirdest spring I recall in Houston. So dry, everything is turning brown. Very unusual for us.
Y
YoLaDu
Guest
coolest May in Austin that i can remember. Staving off the summer heat for at least a couple of weeks has been very welcome.
in regard to climate change:
Proving or disproving global warming based on a single day/month/season in a single location is pretty silly.
in regard to climate change:
Proving or disproving global warming based on a single day/month/season in a single location is pretty silly.
ProdigalHorn
10,000+ Posts
"New calculations applied to a U.S. Senate report reveal the Environmental Protection Agency’s plan to combat global warming through regulation of greenhouse gases would theoretically take over $700 trillion, seven times the world’s gross production, to drop the earth’s temperature only 1 degree Celsius.
The report released last year by Sen. James Ihnofe, R-Okla., then-ranking minority member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, quotes the EPA’s own stats and experts to break down the numbers, including one researcher who called the Obama administration’s plan “absurd.”
Citing a study by the EPA’s Dr. Linda M. Chappell and various other sources, the Senate report asserts, “EPA has called the consequences of regulating greenhouse gases under the [Clean Air Act] ‘absurd,’ affecting 6.1 million sources, introducing $78 billion in annual costs, causing ‘at least a decade or longer’ of permit delays, ‘slowing’ construction nationwide for years, ‘introducing burdens that are administratively ‘infeasible,’ ‘overwhelming,’ that will ‘adversely affect national economic development,’ while impacting sources ‘not appropriate at this point to even consider regulating.’”
You’ve suspected it, now here’s the proof: A top meteorologist documents how “global warming” is just a cynical, Marx-inspired wealth-grab.
And the net effect of the greenhouse gas regulations that the Republican senators are decrying?
The EPA calculates in 75 Federal Register 25,495: “Global mean temperature is estimated to be reduced by 0.006 to 0.015 degrees Celsius by 2100.”
So in effect, by the year 2100, 90 years worth of $78 billion per year in spending – a total of over $7 trillion dollars – would have lowered the earth’s temperature by about one-hundredth of a degree Celsius.
In other words, the U.S. would be paying for a global warming elixir that reduces temperatures at the net rate of $700 trillion per degree. Numbers-crunchers estimate that would amount to roughly 700 warehouses filled with $100 bills, or a stack of the bills nearly 70 miles high."
More from an astrophysicist....The Link
The report released last year by Sen. James Ihnofe, R-Okla., then-ranking minority member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, quotes the EPA’s own stats and experts to break down the numbers, including one researcher who called the Obama administration’s plan “absurd.”
Citing a study by the EPA’s Dr. Linda M. Chappell and various other sources, the Senate report asserts, “EPA has called the consequences of regulating greenhouse gases under the [Clean Air Act] ‘absurd,’ affecting 6.1 million sources, introducing $78 billion in annual costs, causing ‘at least a decade or longer’ of permit delays, ‘slowing’ construction nationwide for years, ‘introducing burdens that are administratively ‘infeasible,’ ‘overwhelming,’ that will ‘adversely affect national economic development,’ while impacting sources ‘not appropriate at this point to even consider regulating.’”
You’ve suspected it, now here’s the proof: A top meteorologist documents how “global warming” is just a cynical, Marx-inspired wealth-grab.
And the net effect of the greenhouse gas regulations that the Republican senators are decrying?
The EPA calculates in 75 Federal Register 25,495: “Global mean temperature is estimated to be reduced by 0.006 to 0.015 degrees Celsius by 2100.”
So in effect, by the year 2100, 90 years worth of $78 billion per year in spending – a total of over $7 trillion dollars – would have lowered the earth’s temperature by about one-hundredth of a degree Celsius.
In other words, the U.S. would be paying for a global warming elixir that reduces temperatures at the net rate of $700 trillion per degree. Numbers-crunchers estimate that would amount to roughly 700 warehouses filled with $100 bills, or a stack of the bills nearly 70 miles high."
More from an astrophysicist....The Link
I will say it again the next few years are going to be VERY interesting in terms of Global Warming theory. The reason? Currently we are still barely within the "range" of what was reasonable expectations for global warming predictions but we are certainly at the bottom of it. Most "experts" were predicting more warming than what we have seen. Now, I readily admit that we are still within the predictions, but that's only because the low end of the predictions were so low as to be hardly above normal in terms of rate of rise which is where we are currently. We just came off a very "average" winter in terms of historically it was not warm even going back many decades. But the funny thing about the predictions were that the "A" scenario showed the most warming but was based upon predictions of increased greenhouse gases that actually fall BELOW the reality. Scenarios "B" and was for greenhouse gas growth that was far below the reality and "C" was if we managed to greatly reduce greenhouse gases. Turns out that even though we have dramatically increased GHGs we are nonetheless closer to the C and B scenarios than the A scenario.
and don't forget the prediction that the Northern Hemisphere was going to see less and less snow cover due to AGW. How do you think that prediction is coming?
[image]http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/namgnld_season1.gif?w=600&h=400&h=400[/image]
and don't forget the prediction that the Northern Hemisphere was going to see less and less snow cover due to AGW. How do you think that prediction is coming?
[image]http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/namgnld_season1.gif?w=600&h=400&h=400[/image]
Rex Kramer
1,000+ Posts
I am more worried about this (more things we cannot control)
GENEVA (AP) -- A senior official at the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration says solar storms pose a growing threat to criticial infrastructure such as satellite communications, navigation systems and electrical transmission equipment.
NOAA Assistant Secretary Kathryn Sullivan says the intensity of solar storms is expected to peak in 2013 and countries should prepare for "potentially devastating effects."
Solar storms release particles that can temporarily disable or permanently destroy fragile computer circuits.
Sullivan, a former NASA astronaut who in 1984 became the first woman to walk in space, told a U.N. weather conference in Geneva on Tuesday that "it is not a question of if, but really a matter of when a major solar event could hit our planet."
GENEVA (AP) -- A senior official at the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration says solar storms pose a growing threat to criticial infrastructure such as satellite communications, navigation systems and electrical transmission equipment.
NOAA Assistant Secretary Kathryn Sullivan says the intensity of solar storms is expected to peak in 2013 and countries should prepare for "potentially devastating effects."
Solar storms release particles that can temporarily disable or permanently destroy fragile computer circuits.
Sullivan, a former NASA astronaut who in 1984 became the first woman to walk in space, told a U.N. weather conference in Geneva on Tuesday that "it is not a question of if, but really a matter of when a major solar event could hit our planet."
NEW: Pro Sports Forums
Cowboys, Texans, Rangers, Astros, Mavs, Rockets, etc. Pro Longhorns. The Chiefs and that Swift gal. This is the place.
Pro Sports Forums
Pro Sports Forums
Recent Threads
-
The Media Industry
- Started by texas_ex2000
- Replies: 8K
- West Mall
-
Trump Administration Accomplishments
- Started by LonghornCatholic
- Replies: 457
- West Mall
-
Elon Musk Stuff
- Started by LonghornCatholic
- Replies: 525
- West Mall
-
Insanity, thy name is public education
- Started by ProdigalHorn
- Replies: 48
- West Mall
