Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- UK Labour To Save The Planet
- “False Claims” And Outright Lies”
- Michael Mann Cancelled By CNN
- Spoiled Children
- Great Lakes Storm Of November 11, 1835
- Harris To Win Iowa
- Angry Democrats
- November 9, 1913 Storm
- Science Magazine Explains Trump Supporters
- Obliterating Bill Gates
- Scientific American Editor In Chief Speaks Out
- The End Of Everything
- Harris To Win In A Blowout
- Election Results
- “Glaciers, Icebergs Melt As World Gets Warmer”
- “falsely labeling”
- Vote For Change By Electing The Incumbent
- Protesting Too Much Snow
- Glaciers Vs. The Hockey Stick
- CNN : Unvaccinated Should Not Be Allowed To Leave Their Homes
- IPCC : Himalayan Glaciers Gone By 2035
- Deadly Cyclones And Arctic Sea Ice
- What About The Middle Part?
- “filled with racist remarks”
- Defacing Art Can Prevent Floods
Recent Comments
- Russell Cook on Michael Mann Cancelled By CNN
- arn on “False Claims” And Outright Lies”
- arn on Harris To Win Iowa
- William on Harris To Win Iowa
- William on Harris To Win Iowa
- arn on Michael Mann Cancelled By CNN
- Billyjack on Michael Mann Cancelled By CNN
- Disillusioned on Harris To Win Iowa
- czechlist on Michael Mann Cancelled By CNN
- oeman50 on Spoiled Children
Broncos Face Threat From Global Warming Today
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
danged vortex of global climate disruption change weirding…
I hate shoveling global warming in the winter. Let alone having to shovel the stuff in the fall.
For several years in the 1980’s I visited the USA for a week of business meetings (probably about 6 times in total). These were about the time of the World Series Baseball, or just after. Mid/Late-October? On a couple of occasions on the return trip my flights were delayed by snow. Once in Minneapolis and once at O’Hare. So not much has changed in 30 years as far as I can see.
As I recall the New York Mets and Minnesota Twins were winners on two of the visits, but not necessarily the years it snowed.
Who are the Broncos and why should I care ?
Canaries in a coal mine? Global warming starting the next glaciation? Our children will not know what football is?
And children just aren’t going to know who the Broncos are …
Sounds like a typical Pats fan.
I don’t believe that the Broncos and Patriots will be playing in snow today. Why? I’ve been told by trusted officials that snow is a thing of the past. So trusted are these officials that we should turn our entire lives over to them and do exactly as we are told.
Cue more warmist evah BS news release so the sheeple don’t believe their lying eyes that it is cold and snowy.
So that is where the heat has been hiding! Foxboro, MA. Who knew.
I saw my first sign of global warming today……snow on the top of the Catskills, visible from the Thruway near Kingston, NY. November 2 snow.
This is so strange! It is starting to snow in the fall just like in years past, like back in the ’70’s.
The world wonders, and should not fear, http://i39.tinypic.com/1118rnl.png , just remove all of the man-made adjustments and see that we are on the slide back down.
Hey that reminded me of THIS: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAwOLaZUh-k
I’m in Eastern Canada 47th latitude. Usually only snows mid to late November (going back to the 70’s). We’ve got several inches of snow already. Global warming is worse than we thought. It manifests itself in this white powdery stuff that’s really heavy to shovel.
Two-four inches of AGW fell in and around Columbia, SC last night.
@Steve: I have a serious question. I’ve looked into temperature data a few times. But recently, I’ve looked into CO2 contributions from humans. It seems to be at 4% an it has a half life of 4 years. Read up that the current increases in CO2 indicate a half life of 30-60 years. Doesn’t this by itself imply that humans cannot be responsible for CO2, both in percentage and in half life required of the increased CO2?
So we’re at 4%. Warming has been 0.8C max since the 70’s. 4% of .8C is 0.032C. Is it fair to say that humans have an upper limit of 0.032C that they’re responsible for? And no way has it been 4% during that entire time. If we shut down all CO2 emissions, in 4 years, it’ll be reduced by half that .016C. In 8 years, it’ll be ~.024C. No one can detect these changes.
Is all the fuss really over 0.03C?
Also, this 4% is based on cummulative CO2 production. It doesn’t take the half life into account and I don’t understand their math. It’s about 400GT since 1900. But there’s 750BT in the atmosphere. That’s 0.05%, not 5%. Let’s forget that CO2 effect is logarithmic because that throws too many wrenches into it. Let’s go with the half life of 4 years. We emit about 12GT per year now.
And 10 GT about 4 years ago. I’m just gonna round this out. (12*4 + 0.5 * 10*4 + 0.24 * 10*4 + ..125 * 4*8). That’s about 100GT upper limit of man-made CO2 that can remain in the atmosphere.
This is 0.013% of CO2. If we shut down all CO2 production, isn’t that going to have an upper limit of 0.01C? And that’s forgetting about the logarithmic effect of CO2? Even if I misread that as CO2 when it was carbon, it’s 3.6 times larger. At a whopping 0.05% of CO2. I’ve also read some dubious attempts at trying to use the increase in atmospheric CO2 and then determining what percentage that humans have over that, but that dismisses half life of man made CO2.
I must be missing something. Seems like the fuss is over 0.01C to 0.05C. Can you shed some light on this?
Thanks.
You are not missing anything. It is not about the climate, it is about control. The big lie is to create the big scare that is required for the big chains to be used to “save everyone”.
Just thought about this. But any substance that has a half-life, assuming we add the same amount every year, doesn’t this just add exactly the amount we’re losing through half-life of previous year’s output resulting in a nil effect?
You may also want to see http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/16/new-paper-from-lindzen-and-choi-implies-that-the-models-are-exaggerating-climate-sensitivity/ that talks about a paper by Lindzen and Choi*, released through the Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences. I haven’t read the full paper, but based on the abstract and conclusions, what they’re reporting is that, basically, the climate models used by the IPCC — and thereby used by Gore in ‘An Inconvenient Truth’, and by the EPA in pushing the CO2 regulation — overstate the effect on global average surface temperature of increased CO2 in the atmosphere. This paper is a re-evaluation of their 2009 results in response to criticisms.
The paper appears to have two important points: first, based on observational data (as opposed to modeling), the amount of GAST increase based on the observed increase in CO2 is between 0.5C and 1.3C, where the models show between 1.5C and 5C; second, that the temperature feedback is negative, or in other words, increasing CO2 concentration has decreasing effect on GAST, where the IPCC models show positive feedback.
*Lindzen and Choi paper is at –
http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/236-Lindzen-Choi-2011.pdf
from Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences at http://apjas.org/
That is why all the climate models over do CO2 effect by x3 to x6 to make it seem worse than it might be. Also keep in mind that the last report I saw said the out-gassing from the oceans, and the CO2 from the rainforests of S. America and Africa were this planets main source of CO2 – maybe the UN can turn them off.
Also see http://climatephysics.com/climate-models-exaggerate-the-effects-of-co2/