home » lesley's blog

global warming and all that...

submitted by lesley on fri, 2006-09-01 10:44.

As a person who likes to 'see for myself', I have found that all the information in the media about global warming have been a bit confusing. Some say it's really hot, others claim it's not. Some say it's happening fast, others not.

I found this website where I could do my own 'look-see'. Unfortunately, it only covers the U.S.

So for what it's worth, check out the National Environmental Satellite, Data and Information Service website. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/climateresources.html

From this page there are links to a ton of information: historical data, paleoclimatology (really fascinating stuff here), listing of extreme climate events and a lot more.

It a lot of info, but at least it's all in one place!

For Canada I found this site, the National Climate Data and Weather Archives: http://climate.weatheroffice.ec.gc.ca/Welcome_e.html

but it's not as comprehensive.

Happy Hunting!

« the book is finally here | honesty and bravery preferred...by chickens! »

lesley's blog | login to post comments | 687 reads | subscribe
global warming is like microwaving - uneven
submitted by susanjillian on fri, 2006-09-01 12:18.

These are great sources.. but as you know isolated weather is not really what it's about;) it's that the temperature of the entire planet is warmer. Sort of like when you put something in a microwave... there are always those hotter spots and those cooler spots. This does not mean that the whole thing did not get a zap of microwaves and is now warmer than when it went in.

David Attenborough was saying that rise in water levels forces cooler air to create colder surface areas in some places ... but the rise in water levels is due to the overall planet being warmer - and glaciers melting. This is of course not open to debate, they are melting. That is a fact that even the Rupert Murdocks of the world can't deny. That increase in temperature is not evenly distributed however - neither is the carbon emissions that is linked to the change. Human populations are dense in some areas - not in others. No pun intended.

Changes in temperature effect the little things faster than the bigger things. Amphibian populations are a good example of this. Unfortunately there are too many people who don't care much about loosing frogs in the next decade - they don't get that it means more insects. As for the bigger things - polar bears are at risk. And there are those who see bears as pests! After all they rummage through our garbage dumps - and are aggressive. Go figure..??
Anyway.. it's not daily weather.. it's overall change - and the real worry is drought and crop failure. Guess when we are hungry we will worry about it more.

This quote from a professor of geophysics: While some places have cooled, responded Henry Pollack, a professor of geophysics at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, far more places have gotten hotter. That's especially true, he added, for the 79 percent of the world that's covered by oceans.

One other reference (who - like Al Gore do not make money on this) James Hansen
can help shed some light on the issues.

login to post comments
on the other hand....
submitted by robertkamper on fri, 2006-09-01 22:50.


source --> http://picayune.uclick.com/comics/bwv/2006/bwv060901.gif

login to post comments
a picture's worth 1k words
submitted by robertkamper on sat, 2006-09-02 01:11.

see it for yerself over at:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif

login to post comments
this is an excellent and scary resource
submitted by susanjillian on sat, 2006-09-02 19:09.

Yes this picture is worth that many words.

The key to finding data is to stick with real scientists - and not ones that work for oil companies, but real driven, focused scientists. Consider this: because there are little to no weather reports in areas where you don't find people - like in the middle of the ocean - you need more of a geophysical focus, where evidence is collected based on wider criteria. Core samples from the Antarctic are another source that provides data that weather info would not.

While the naysayers want to imply that environmentalists are using scare tactics - just take a look at what non-Birkenstock wearing PHDs are writing. These are not media hounds like Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaaaaa (who get rich as contrarians) but people with credibility to back up their statements. That is what makes them so very scary. They know what they're talking about.

We have produced more CO2 emmissions in this last decade, and now we are paying a price. I really believe those that denounce it just don't want to make the effort. It means having to do more with less and there are a lot of people with a feeling of entitlement - who will tell you they worked hard for what they have, and they are not going to give it up now. And politicians feed on that sense of entitlement.

I got a call 2 days ago in which the person told me they could offer me a huge saving on my electricity bill if I opted for their plan. I told her to call me back and ask me to pay more money for something that benifits the Earth - not the individual - and I'd consider it. She was stunned. "But everyone wants to save money!" She said. I told her I want to save the Earth the additional burden of my misuse of it's resources. She hung up on me. I have become one of those annoying people who has a cause!!!

login to post comments
i was so moved by your comment. . .
submitted by robertkamper on mon, 2006-09-04 11:55.

. . . that I did an internet search for renewable energy plans in my section of the country. . .and found Green Mountain Energy, which offers 100% wind and water generated electricity. . . and switched providers from the one that has a nice advertising slant on their website, but hides the fact that only 4% (minimum required by law) of their electricity is generated from renewable sources. Today, in the local newspaper, another company has an almost full page ad about "What if...? an energy company helped improve air quality, expanded renewable energy, and improved air quality...? The latest press releases from the corporation refer to building 11 new coal powered plants and building nuclear power plants... They do offer a 100% renewable energy residential plan, but they charge more for it than the company with which I just signed on (jeez, can't figure out how not to end that phrase on something other than a preposition).

One of the selling points for the company I didn't sign with is that the environmental benefits are all in Texas, where other companies might purchase some of their wind or water power out of state. Yahoo! Texas Number 1! Yeehaw! As someone I know once told me, the Texas state flag is like the US Flag for someone with the intellect of George Bush. (I changed the term he used, as it might be considered offensive to people who live in villages).

So we're going to be back on the 100% renewable electric energy bandwagon.

Lesson learned - advertising is meant to manipulate, not to inform or help the consumer make the decision that is right for that consumer.

login to post comments
woohoo!
submitted by daniel on tue, 2006-09-05 06:18.

Way to go, Bob! That's excellent. And congrats for looking past the advertising to find the right service. Our provider, Bullfrog Power, is also 100% wind and water generated electricity.

How about "on with which I just signed"? A hanging preposition is something up with which I will not put. :)

login to post comments