all-encompassingly

we still remember mitch hedberg

A severed foot is the ultimate stocking stuffer.

Nov 29th 2006

more proof of global warming: temperatures coldest in 110 years

With a forecast low of -31C today, Calgary could break the -27C record set on this day in 1896.
::::
[one meteorologist] said the normal daytime high at this time of year is 0C, with a low of -11C. “The last time it was really this cold in November was about 10 years ago,” he said. “We’ve hit rock bottom.” [source: calgary sun: cold set to snap city record

i blame global warming….or maybe el niño (spanish for “the niño”):

see also: mild hurricane season, global warming to blame

30 Responses to “more proof of global warming: temperatures coldest in 110 years”

  1. steve

    One data point Travis! Wow! Maybe the National Academy of Sciences will recant! Write to them and see.

    Oh wait. I live in Indiana and We’ve had the warmest November I’ve ever seen. It will be a balmy 69 today. Whoops there goes your proof.

  2. you mean there are different temperatures in different places? hmmm. i’ll have to verify that claim and get back to you.

  3. John

    I will never understand how or why politicians think they can have a debate with scientists over a scientific issue.

  4. I will never understand how or why politicians think they can have a debate with scientists over a scientific issue.

    actually, politicians are not debating the scientists. they are debating the environmentalists.

  5. *shakes head*

    how little they understand…..

    global warming does not mean that every place on the planet heats up. In fact, what will tend to happen is some areas will get much hotter than normal, with record highs continuing to climb higher, while other areas won’t be affected at all, while other areas will tend to get cooler. It depends on where you are. America will generally get hotter while Europe will generally get cooler, for example. But then in specific areas, the Northeast in America will get milder, while the West coast will see wilder weather. The South will see more hurricanes (at least when El Nino does not interfere).

    I really do wonder why you don’t research this stuff before you ridicule things.

    we mock what we don’t understand – Austin Milbarge

  6. ah, i see. when the earth gets warmer it is because of humans, but when it gets colder or less calamitous, the earth’s own weather patterns are in control.

    cool.

  7. travis,

    did you ever take geology in college? or physics in high school?

    look, the earth as a whole is a pretty perfected creation, with an ecosystem that runs very smoothly. you start changing things, even slightly, and you begin altering that ecosystem. you start to introduce greenhouse gases, and the greenhouse effect kicks in, heating up the earth. That does not mean all the air turns hot. But if you do get enough air to heat up, say closer to the poles, then what you get is an increase of sea water. This sea water affects meteorology. The more ice that melts, the warmer the ocean water becomes. Also the more ice that melts, sea level rises. Warmer oceans in both the Pacific and Atlantic lead to an increase in hurricanes and typhoons. In the Indian Ocean they lead to stronger monsoon seasons. El Nino occasionally shows up to cool the Pacific and Atlantic, which leads to wilder weather on the Pacific coast, but fewer hurricanes in the Atlantic.

    All this stuff is affected when you increase gases that do not escape the atmosphere, nor convert themselves back to something usable. C2O (Carbon Dioxide) and CO (Carbon Monoxide) are two gases released by humans and their technology that have a detrimental affect on the world around us. Thankfully plants need C2O and generally handle our output of C2O. But nothing on this earth uses CO. This is a wasted gas that has no escape, and builds up into a greenhouse, blocking the way out for other heated elements. Get enough of this in the air, and you start increasing the temperature.

    Travis,

    our generation won’t see the worst of this stuff. Our children and our children’s children will. Those who are thinking about the environment are not thinking about their generation, but about the future.

    One of my big complaints about our generation today (Baby Boomers to Generation Y) is that we really are a very selfish bunch, concerned more about our own luxuries and comforts without realizing what cost will come from them. Our generation will not be looked upon kindly by historians in the future.

  8. my question is, why is our generation so disinterested with stopping the eruption of volcanoes that put more CO2 into the atmosphere in one fell swoop than all of the SUVs ever invented? that is pure selfishness!

  9. Let’s all commute on bikes!

  10. Steve

    Travis,

    Increases in the earth’s average temperature do correlate with green house gas emissions originating from Human Use. Fact! We can do something about this. Let’s act now. If you want to propose something about stopping up volcanoes, I’m sure we can interest Superman in doing something like that.

    I agree with Dan. You don’t have the slightest physics background. You cant release 6E9 metric tons of CO2 emissions per year on this little planet and not expect to have a problem. Actually, right now we are fortunate that China a India haven’t cleaned up their air; global warming is just beating out global dimming by about 50%.

    I’ll tell you where you can start though. Do the little calculation that I’ve asked Ryan and Doug to do. They are obviously incapable.

    Ryan,

    Excellent point. We stop polluting and become more fit. Kill two birds with one stone. I like your thinking.

  11. so in other words, because it is inevitable, why not just add to it? why not just end our lives now? I mean, death is inevitable too…..

  12. doug

    Increases in the earth’s average temperature do correlate with green house gas emissions originating from Human Use. Fact!

    Increases in the earth’s average temperature do correlate with the media coverage of transgendered, non-racial musicians such as Michael Jackson. Fact!

  13. doug

    To claim, as Dan does, that “the earth as a whole is a pretty perfected creation, with an ecosystem that runs very smoothly” is just plain bizarre. We’ve got volcanoes, hurricanes, earthquakes, tsunamis, and dozens of other natural disasters.

    I mean, where the heck are the dinosaurs, woolly mammoths, saber-tooth tigers, and hundreds of other highly developed species that disappeared long before man even arrived on planet Earth?

    Earth is in constant flux. Fact!

    Man recently arrived on the scene. Fact!

    Man is the most egotistical species to ever exist. Fact!

    Us humans, with our machines and gadgets, are pretty destructive creatures and many of us have been poor stewards of the earth. To put it simply, from a religious point of view I think that if you love the painter (God) you take care of his painting (earth).

    But, to think that in just a few years our efforts alone will melt the polar icecaps, flood coastal cities, spawn horrible hurricanes, and generally wreck global destruction, has to be the height of arrogance.

    And asking me to help cripple the world economy by putting draconian pollution controls in place…that’s just rude.

  14. Steve

    Actually your joke this time was quite funny Doug. Are they positively or inversely correlated? I would imagine the latter as the media has to devote precious time to covering MJ.

    Stop the presses. Call the National Academy. Doug has spoken. Doug the scientist speaks up! Wow, I think I’ll take your word about whether or not global warming will have devastating consequences for millions of God’s children over the experts. That makes a lot sense. You don’t even see the importance of biodiversity so it doesn’t matter to you that global warming is already attributed to mass extinction. Got news for you doug. That’s bad news. Even biodiversity saved that fat junkie’s butt (Rush that is) in the way of a small microorganism found in Yellowstone National Park.

    You are right on one point though. Humans are very arrogant. You and dubbya demonstrate that with comments like this.

    As far as crippling the world’s economy, nonsense! Stop spewing nonsense! In many ways the world’s economy will benefit from a cleaner environment (health care ring a bell). Imagine as the US moves to the service economy how much more we would benefit. Wake up and stop listening to a doofas who has a pro-big oil energy policy.

    You are right about the constant flux of the environment. However, why add to or speed up destruction and create devastating consequences for millions of God’s children? Remember, it’s not all about you.

  15. steve

    Sorry. Meant to say doofus.

  16. Tiffany

    What are you guys trying to debate anyway? Science? Policy? That the other guy is stupider? I was just wondering because it certainly isn’t clear to me. For example, I did that “important calculation” (I was bored this afternoon and I’m a nerd). Using 1.37×10^9 km^3 as the volume of Earth’s oceans, I calculated the amount of energy required to raise the entire ocean one degree Celsius (although I doubt it would actually be uniform) as 5.7×10^24 Joules. This is a huge amount of energy (the total energy from the Sun that hits the Earth in 24 hrs. is approximately 1.5×10^22 J). But what does that tell you? Only that it takes a lot of energy to raise the oceans one degree. Were you trying to make a scientific argument about the validity of global warming? A comment on whether human activities cause global warming? I think you originally mentioned this figure in connection with increases in severe hurricanes, but I guess I just missed your weather argument as to how lots of energy could cause severe storms. You have been mentioning the greenhouse effect and I think this argument can be made, but I don’t see how this calculation makes that argument for you. To make a point about humans causing global warming, you would have to calculate the increase in the energy retained from sunlight due to increases in greenhouse gasses caused by human activities. I’m not saying that this can’t be done, just that you haven’t done it. Your “do the calculation” comment makes you sound like you are just trying to sound smart. But don’t worry, Travis doesn’t sound any better. He uses handwaving arguments to try and disprove a commonly excepted body of scientific evidence–assuming you are debating the scientific basis for global warming (are you?). Perhaps you should define what is being debated (science? policy?); it may help all of you actually think of something useful to say. However, if this is a male-ego “I must show that the other guy is stupider than I am” thing, I don’t know anything about that and I will leave it up to all of you.

  17. Tiffany for President and bikes for everyone!

  18. tiffany can iron my shirt whenever she wants.

    tiffany: What are you guys trying to debate anyway? Science? Policy? That the other guy is stupider?

    the last one.

    steve: Increases in the earth’s average temperature do correlate with green house gas emissions originating from Human Use. Fact!

    correlation does not equal causation. fact! i have pulled the following basic statistics lesson from a website called mathbits. i think it is a site for 3rd graders, but since you don’t understand the simplest concept, this is what i have to resort to:

    During the months of March and April, the weekly weight increases of a puppy in New York were collected. For the same time frame, the retail price increases of snowshoes in Alaska were collected. The data was examined and was found to have a very strong linear correlation.

    So, this must mean that the weight increase of a puppy in New York is causing snowshoe prices in Alaska to increase. Of course this is not true!

    The moral of this example is: “be careful what you infer from your statistical analyses.”

    correlation is not causation. other factors (some scientists call them “variables,” but that can be a science lesson for another day) may be involved.

    that SUV sales are growing at the same time climate change is occurring doesn’t mean SUV emissions cause climate change any more than that climate change causes people to buy SUVs.

    tiffany: [travis] uses handwaving arguments to try and disprove a commonly excepted body of scientific evidence–assuming you are debating the scientific basis for global warming (are you?).

    no one is debating whether the globe is warming. we have convenient facts, such as temperatures, plotted on graphs over time that show that the trend is real. however, (as john’s comment near the top of this thread fails to recognize) there is real debate among scientists as to how much the globe’s warming is due to human activity. this is because some scientists are looking for a causal connection, not just two graphs slanted the same way.

  19. Heddie Richards

    I’m glad someone finally pointed out that correlation is not causation!! The replies are interesting. However, because I am currently teaching earth science and am a Life Science/Evolution/Geology enthusiast and teacher, I would like to point out that the earth has gone through SEVERAL global warming periods (FACT), in fact they coincide EXACTLY with major extinctions-the Permian being the greatest and most recent (more commonly the dinosaur extinction). InFACT, we are currently coming out of a glacial age that has lasted for thousands of years. InFACT the FUV’s (hmm, SUV’s) that so many think are the blame, may prevent our beloved Earth from RETURNING to a glacial period and, if history repeats itself, another extinction. So keep the FUV’s humming-I’d much rather surf than snowboard-bring the heat baby!! However, I am very environmentally friendly and aware. Perhaps the issue that should be our greatest concern is biodiversity on our planet. Many scoff when we think of ‘saving a forest’ or the kangaroo rat, but in essence, our SURVIVAL depends on the sum of living organisms in an ecosystem. THIS is not heresay or trendy, the truth is many civilizations have caused their own collapse by destroying biodiversity-read Jared Diamonds most recent book Collapse-it talks about MANY civilizations that have done just that-so quite regurgitating these ridiculous arguements on global warming-ride your bike because obesity is the #1 friggin’ killer in the US and Americans are fat.

  20. Steve

    Heddie,

    Your are at odds with the majority of the scientific community on this. Most believe that human activity is responsible for a large portion of global warming. Second, we are already seeing extinction events from it (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/11/AR2006011102121.html). Third, mass extinction events (90% of ocean species and 70% of land species)have been correlated with large amounts of atmospheric CO2 (1000 ppm) and the greenhouse effect (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24732-2005Jan20.html). We are at ~390 ppm now and increasing at a rate of 2 to 3 ppm per year. That means by the turn of the century we will almost be there. I’m very suprised that one who values biodiversity so much would advocate burning more fossil fuels. I think you need to educate yourself a little more on this issue. It scares me that a teacher of earth science has so narrow a view. Maybe I should go into teaching to provide a fair and balanced perspective. Again, I’ll stick with the National Academy on this. I think their credentials are a little greater than yours.

  21. Tiffany

    Before you go bashing on scientists too much, make sure it is the scientists that are making the error. You must understand the data that has been collected and the conclusions that the researcher has made from that data. I must admit that I haven’t read the scientific literature (I don’t mean news articles on scientific topics–I mean the actual scientific journal articles) on global warming. I do however read lots of scientific literature every week and have noticed that often there is a huge disconnect between how the scientific community relays information and how the general population relays it. For example, to address your concern about correlation and causation, often scientists use language like: The data we have collected is consistent with hypothesis X. They are in no way saying that they have proven the hypothesis. While correlation many not mean causation, lack of correlation may disprove the hypothesis and this is a valid scientific point.

    I’m glad to know the debate is about who is stupider. I will let you get at it then.

  22. I think you need to educate yourself a little more on this issue. It scares me that a teacher of earth science has so narrow a view.

    translation: it scares me that not everyone teaching american children about science is a rabid al gore environmentalist.

    …..extinction events….have been correlated with….

    please. see the website for 3rd graders.

  23. While correlation many not mean causation, lack of correlation may disprove the hypothesis and this is a valid scientific point.

    yes. it is an open question. therefore, all i’m asking for is a little more open-mindedness, coupled with a little less condescending enviro-naziism.

  24. steve

    No Travis. It scares me that people teaching our children do not teach what is generally accepted in the scientific community. Rather they are teaching rabid right wing nut job conspiracy theories. Then you have stupid concepts like creation science taught with ideas such as irreducible complexity instead of evolution.

    While you guys have hammered home correlation does not equal causation, the scientific community largely agrees that in this case it does! Again this debate is over in the scientific community. Period.

    We have been open minded. We see a problem (not so unlike the problem of the ozone layer and CFCs -perhaps a remarkable success story). You are the people who have closed your minds. You are not studying the problem.

    If you even looked at what I’ve mentioned about the mass extinction occuring at when CO2 levels hitting 1000 ppm you would be concerned. Now is the time to be environmentally minded rather than corporation nazis.

    Tiffany,

    The reason I reference news articles is because they are written for the lay audience (you know the Travis and Doug type here). I can assure you, I have never laid any of the blame on scientists. All I have said is that by margins of 4 and 5 to 1, scientists disagree with what Travis and Doug have been saying. And irrespective of what Heddie has said, scientists are extremely concerned about the loss of biodiversity due to global warming. I assure you, I like scientists. I am one.

  25. […] steve writes: […]

  26. what is generally accepted in the “scientific community” generally doesn’t matter in real life.

    at one point, the notion that black-skinned people are genetically inferior to white-skinned people was generally accepted in the “scientific community.”

  27. Steve

    Jefferson are you just trying to show how foolish you are? What about HIV/AIDS? Should the continent of Africa be heeding our warning about HIV?

    You don’t have a clue because obviously your aren’t a scientist and are stuck back in the 19th Century.

  28. […] Steve, Nov 2006 [link] What are you guys trying to debate anyway? Science? Policy? That the other guy is stupider? I was just wondering because it certainly isn’t clear to me. You are the people who have closed your minds. You are not studying the problem. […]

  29. Gee, it’s getting pretty toasty on this thread… could that be global warming too???

  30. I think instead of spending all this time trying to figure out if global warming is a problem, we could be spending the time learning to live more lightly on the earth in general …