By GI Korea on March 4th, 2011 at 5:42 pm

Global Temperatures Cool Due to La Nina Effect

• setnaffa
  11:12 am on March 4th, 2011 1

  The whole warming/cooling thing was presented by the alarmists with so much misinformation and hyperbole, I just don't believe any of them any more. The Himalayan Glaciers will not be gone in 30 years–or 300. Frogs are not dying all over the world. Polar bears are safe. And we the taxpayers continue to fund these enormous freedom-hating parasites.

  Frankly, I think the Korean cloning guy had more integrity than the whole group of weather-focused statists…

  Have you notice there are blizzards of nearly Biblical proportions every time Al Gore speaks?

  And yes, I did get the Flu when I was in Korea over Christmas. And I couldn't figure out how to ask for the right meds but muddled through by the grace of God and the Yak-Gook folks at E-Mart… (a short taxi ride from from my in-laws apartment.)

• Tom Langley
  12:12 pm on March 4th, 2011 2

  During the Christmas holidays my wife & I visited our son in who is stationed in CT. We visited NYC during the blizzard that almost brought the city to a standstill. It was very difficult to get around because of all the streets that were shut due to THE SNOW. If my son didn't have the GPS in his car we would really have been screwed. The Global Warming Wackos blamed the SNOW (that's FROZEN WATER FOLKS) on Global Warming. Give me a f'ing break!

• Teadrinker
  1:11 pm on March 4th, 2011 3

  Getting colder? Dude, I spent a huge part of January and February in Canada. When I was a kid, we'd get temperatures of -35C quite regularly in February. The coldest it got while I was there was -20C, and the average day was no colder than -10C.

• Teadrinker
  1:13 pm on March 4th, 2011 4

  #2,

  Snow is not due to colder weather but to warm and cold fronts colliding. You don't get much snow when it's really cold. We got lots of snow in Canada while I was there because the temperature would fluctuate one day to the other to just below freezing (when the air gets humid) to -10C. That's the "sweet spot" for snow.

• Retired GI
  1:37 pm on March 4th, 2011 5

  YaHOO! We WON!

• kushibo
  3:47 pm on March 4th, 2011 6

  Speaking of science being massaged or ignored outright in favor of someone's gain (NYT):
  

  When Congress considered whether to regulate more closely the handling of wastes from oil and gas drilling in the 1980s, it turned to the Environmental Protection Agency to research the matter. E.P.A. researchers concluded that some of the drillers’ waste was hazardous and should be tightly controlled.

  But that is not what Congress heard. Some of the recommendations concerning oil and gas waste were eliminated in the final report handed to lawmakers in 1987.

  “It was like the science didn’t matter,” Carla Greathouse, the author of the study, said in a recent interview. “The industry was going to get what it wanted, and we were not supposed to stand in the way.”

  E.P.A. officials told her, she said, that her findings were altered because of pressure from the Office of Legal Counsel of the White House under Ronald Reagan. A spokesman for the E.P.A. declined to comment.

• Glans
  9:20 am on March 5th, 2011 7

  Just open your eyes and look at that graph. You see it bouncing up and down, but with an overall upward trend.

• Cal
  10:35 am on March 5th, 2011 8

  @7: Yep, it sure does. Guess those map-reading skilz don't transfer to graph-reading skilz…

• JoeC
  11:15 am on March 5th, 2011 9

  La Niña and El Niño are short cycle (2 to 7 years) climate change phenomena. They may very well be independent (unrelated) cycles occurring on top of a larger trend.

  If there is meant to be a point here about the politics of Global Warming/Climate Change, this is probably what even global warming believing scientists would say:

  What is the relationship between El Niño/La Niña and global warming?

  The jury is still out on this. Are we likely to see more El Niños because of global warming? Will they be more intense? These are the main research questions facing the science community today. Research will help us separate the natural climate variability from any trends due to man's activities. We cannot figure out the "fingerprint" of global warming if we cannot sort out what the natural variability does. We also need to look at the link between decadal changes in natural variability and global warming. At this time we can't preclude the possibility of links but it would be too early to definitely say there is a link.

• Cloying Odor
  11:50 am on March 5th, 2011 10

  "Just open your eyes and look at that graph. You see it bouncing up and down, but with an overall upward trend."

  Oh yeah… all 32 years of the 4 Billion that Earth has been around. I don't think those 32 years make a 'trend' when compared to the rest of history.

  Here ya go, just the last 2000 years:

  http://www.theresilientearth.com/files/images-201…

  Doesn't look like an issue now does it?

• setnaffa
  12:51 pm on March 5th, 2011 11

  #10, it's an emergency! Save the Polar Bears! Lock up all technology not needed by Al Gore and Bono!/sarc

  My carbon footprint is smaller than the round-off error for most of the millionaires claiming we need to turn the little people back into serfs…

• Retired GI
  7:53 pm on March 5th, 2011 12

  I smell a “religious fever” all over these climate change believers.

• someotherguy
  4:43 am on March 6th, 2011 13

  *Cough*
  I guess they couldn’t hide the cooling trend even after manipulating, “averaging”, “weighing” and otherwise “modifying” the data to make it appear warmer. One of the head honcho’s responsible for all this “the world is going to end soon” jazz himself was forced to admit on public record that there was no statistically significant warming present. Every “fireball earth” model submitted to date has proven incapable of predicting both the past warming and past cooling trends. Upon close examination the models were found to be preprogrammed to ~always~ predict a “fireball” earth scenario regardless of the numbers put in, we could cut all carbon emissions and those models still predict exploding earth scenario. Its nothing but smoke and mirrors hand waving, something any serious scientist would never take seriously (unless there was project money involved).

• Teadrinker
  9:17 am on March 6th, 2011 14

  #1,

  You can't deny that oil exploitation has gotten increasingly harmful to the environment. Alberta's virgin forests are being turned into a lunar landscape covered in toxic sludge and its rivers and air are also being polluted. The Gulf of Mexico is polluted.

• Teadrinker
  9:21 am on March 6th, 2011 15

  Darn it. I meant #13.

• setnaffa
  9:33 am on March 6th, 2011 16

  So, #14 TD… Are you dissing BP, Canada, and Mexico?

• someotherguy
  11:39 pm on March 6th, 2011 17

  @14,

  Yes and no. Harvesting hydrocarbon fuels has actually become more environment friendly over the past two decades not less. Regulation and the fear of bad press has forced the hands of many. The only places that have environmentally unfriendly practices are those that don't have any environmental laws to begin with.

  And remember this isn't a simple black / white issue. Every nation in the world is in competition with China and others like it. If tomorrow all you greenies get your Christmas wish and congress somehow bans all hydrocarbons from being used the USA followed by most of the free world would economically collapse. The fall out would make the recent rescission look like an economic boom by comparison. Desolation, famine, halting of industry, and general disaster conditions would be in effect. The free world would turn into third world countries while the third would countries would blossom and prosper. Energy and its cost is the absolute central to the health and survival of any economy. The most expensive energy is per unit then the worse off that economy is, the cheaper it is the better off that economy is. By advocating we restrict ourselves from the cheaper energy source to instead use the more expensive source we force ourselves into a crippling position.

  So tell us TD, are you advocating the desolation and destruction of your home country? Do you deeply desire your family, friends, loved ones, fellow countrymen to be living a life of poverty? Do you secretly wish your country would fall and be taken over by the Chinese communists? Where does your allegiance lie? This is the hard decision that all the greenies avoid making. Their ultimate goal isn't clean energy production, but less energy production.

  We should protect our environment, its where we live and if we mess it up we'll pay the price in the long run. For this reason alone we should focus on developing better techniques to extract and process energy not deny an entire source. And thankfully they've done exactly that. The USA is currently supplying 80% of our own natural gas supply due to new techniques. This posed to grow until we're actually exporting more natural gas then we'll use. The same techniques have been adapted to be used on oil and the USA has more then five times the reserves then Saudi Arabia and more then three times the reserves of the entire middle easy. Foreign oil independence is very close, provided the greenies don't get their way.

  So everyone, every time you see or hear a greenie person talk about oil, remember their actually acting in ~favor~ of the foreign oil nations. Go figure how that works.

• kushibo
  4:54 pm on March 7th, 2011 18

  someotherguy wrote:
  

  Yes and no. Harvesting hydrocarbon fuels has actually become more environment friendly over the past two decades not less. Regulation and the fear of bad press has forced the hands of many. The only places that have environmentally unfriendly practices are those that don’t have any environmental laws to begin with.

  Yup, like environmentally friendly deforestation in Canada.

  You use a worst-case impossible scenario to skewer "the greenies," but what you're doing is simply ignoring environmental devastation that isn't in your field of vision.

  Hydrocarbon extraction is nasty, nasty business. Our new technologies to extract it from places we couldn't get it before have typically been new technologies that wreak more damage than before. Deforestation with the concomitant polluted runoff in the tar sands, massive oil spills from deep water drilling.

• Glans
  8:07 pm on March 7th, 2011 19

  James Woolsey was on C-SPAN today. He "and Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) participated in a panel discussion on energy and environmental issues and what they mean for security in the U.S. and Israel."

  Woolsey begins at 40:25. He distinguishes two very different energy problems, coal for electricity and oil for transportation.

  Here's the JCPA Conference.

• ChickenHead
  11:05 pm on March 7th, 2011 20

  How many sensational doomsday claims that are "backed by a consensus of leading scientists", but later found to be intentionally fraudulent, will it take some of you people to realize you are being repeatedly scammed?

  How can anyone be respected when they breathlessly echo a dumbed-down version of "complex science" in which they have absolutely no education… yet don't recognize obvious patterns of crappy human behavior which normal people have been aware of since elementary school?

  I guess it is this thinking that keeps the juicy bars, network marketing schemes, and mega-churches in business.

  And one other thing…

  The moment people start to blur the line between global warming and pollution as if they are the same thing, you can start ignoring them.

  And…

  The reason America doesn't want to drill for oil is that other nations are selling it dirt cheap… not seemingly at the moment… but it will be in retrospect when they have run out… and 10 billion people still need things like fertilizer and plastic.

• someotherguy
  10:58 pm on March 8th, 2011 21

  @18,

  And your alternative is the complete shutdown of hydrocarbon harvesting which would devastate / destroy all known first world countries. This isn't "worst case" scenario its the logical conclusion to the scenario. If the "western" nations refuse to use hydrocarbons and handicap their own economies that way, then the "eastern" nations of China / Russia who will ~not~ handicap themselves will instead surge ahead, eventually eclipsing the west in both infrastructure and military power. There is no other alternative once your start deliberately handicapping yourself. Now go back to your EWEM hating self righteous lifestyle while your sip a latte in a coffee house and praise on how great you are for adhering to the 'vision'.

  For the realists out there, AGW has been a scam for a very ~very~ long time. It was first proposed in the 1920's by a bunch of anti-USA pro-communist socialists who publicly stated they desired the western nations (of which they were citizens of) would crumble to make way for an ideal world. It didn't happen and the cold war started shortly after. The followers of these people later stated the world would freeze if we continued to use hydrocarbons (global cooling) and industry, this was in the 1970's, my mother often speaks of the protests about that very issue. Now its morphed BACK into "global warming" and again sponsored by the same people who desire for the western nations to fall to make room for a different ideology. And again the young of the generation faithfully flock to the 'vision' without carefully studying the facts, both past and present to see what the truth is.

  This comment here proves the ignorance of the speaker,

  "Our new technologies to extract it from places we couldn’t get it before have typically been new technologies that wreak more damage than before."

  It demonstrates their just talking out their fifth point of contact without actually researching the details of what their speaking about. Hydrolic Fracturing has been around a long time but was considered too expensive and too destructive to the environment to use before. Now combined with horizontal drilling, where you drill down then 3km horizontally to get to a spot under rocks and in-vitro extraction they can economically and safely remove the kerogen from the ground without destroying the local environment. It involves some pretty high tech solutions to include maintaining an ice wall around the heating / extracting element which is all underground.

  As for the greenies, NO amount of safety / environmental care will satisfy them. They could invent a method that magically extracted the hydrocarbon without drilling or even touching the environment and the greenies would still find something wrong with it and cry about it. This complete lack of judgment and balance is why the greens should never be listened to, ever. They advocating killing people, destroying the worlds food supply and sending humans back to the stone-age, all without the courage to admit to it.

• kushibo
  12:00 pm on March 9th, 2011 22

  someotherguy,

  Please consult a dictionary and look up the difference between "reduce" and "shut down."

  I am not a greenie and your views do notdescribe mine. I am an environmental realist. Heck, I support a dramatic increase in nuclear power, a capital offense to greenies.

• someotherguy
  1:26 pm on March 10th, 2011 23

  Greenies do not want to "reduce" they want to eliminate. The very core of their argument is anti-technology / anti-industry / anti-modernization, its an age old philosophy where the believer subscribes to the thought that a primitive simpler world is inherently better for mankind then a modern / advanced world. If it involves the deaths of billions of people its ok, as long as the individual involved is allowed to live and thrive in this

  "new better world".

  The statement you made that got you thrown into the "greenie" bucket was

  "Hydrocarbon extraction is nasty, nasty business. Our new technologies to extract it from places we couldn’t get it before have typically been new technologies that wreak more damage than before. "

  which is wrong on so many levels. Biggest of which is the failure to research the recognize the advances made in the last 40+ years. The oil companies really like profits but they also hate bad press, accidents like what you saw in the gulf aren't measured in the present money used for repairing but in the future money that won't be generated due to increased regulation and lost public image resulting in less contracts. It is in the best interests of the oil harvesting companies to be as safe and environmentally friendly as possible. Even the gulf spill wasn't the fault of upper management but sloppy middle and junior management in not following prescribed SOP's.

RSS feed for comments on this post | TrackBack URI