Global Grilling Bakes Easter
Above: The Easter Bunny sweats it out
Weather for Washington, DC Saturday, April 7, 2007: 32°--snow
Ever get the feeling that God is trying to tell us something?
"Yeah!" the pagan environmentalist would frown, "It's that we've made the climate go awry!"
How about that blizzards in early Spring on the very days that Global Grillers marched and Al Gore lectured-- and now snow on Easter weekend below the Mason-Dixon line-- is essentially God drawing us a picture--IN BOLD STROKES-- to illustrate to us knuckleheads that there are LIES afoot?
The blast of cold weather is played down by the Grillers as "Well, it's all part of climate change," as if they weren't surprised, but they never saw that coming.
You can be sure that if we had July weather in March instead of January weather, they would most certainly have exploited that to their advantage.
But anyway, and of course, even entertaining the notion that a transcendent God condescends to intervene in the affairs of men is silly--if not primitive.
So they're just inconvenient coincidences.
The priests we must heed on pain of damnation are the "scientists" at the UN--as ordained by the papal infallibility of world-renowned expert climatologist Bill Clinton of the worldwide and heavily-tithed Church known as "The Clinton Global Initiative."
[Disclaimer: Again, Republicus is not a "head-in-the-sand" Global Warming "Denier" per se, only that it is self-evident that the self-appointed "experts"--and their "peer reviews" (for what that's worth--they're all in the same club)--themselves have a lot more to learn before seeing fit to imperiously boast of possessing "The Facts" and prescribing sweeping, macroeconomic remedies that themselves are, by cornered admission, based on some pretty big "IFS" (i.e. The Precautionary Principle). Case in point: If Republicus had publicly predicted--as recently as last January--that there would be snowfall on Easter weekend (which is after the vernal equinox) he would most assuredly had been jeered by the Global Grillers.]
posted by John | 4:49 AM
15 Comments:
global freezing here also - right after we put most of our winterwear away.
yes, the Weathermaker IS making a fool out of the screaming mimi's!
you gotta love the irony.
you are invited to a party of sorts at curtains and longrange.
Thank you Nanc. I'll be sure to drop by.
Hi you two,
Since you obviously don't understand the difference between weather and climate I'll let the scientist at NASA - Goddard institute explain it to you.....
Climate modeling is also fundamentally different from weather forecasting. Weather concerns an initial value problem: Given today's situation, what will tomorrow bring? Weather is chaotic; imperceptible differences in the initial state of the atmosphere lead to radically different conditions in a week or so. Climate is instead a boundary value problem — a statistical description of the mean state and variability of a system, not an individual path through phase space. Current climate models yield stable and nonchaotic climates, which implies that questions regarding the sensitivity of climate to, say, an increase in greenhouse gases are well posed and can be justifiably asked of the models.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_04/
BTW
get back to me if you figure out the difference then we can have a meaningful discussion on climate change caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gases.
Waitasec, Neo, you can't just link weather and climate one day and then separate the two in the next.
Actually, I guess you can, because you did.
Maybe what's going on is like the Genesis planet from *Star Trek III: The Search for Spock *(when the dead moon of Seti Alpha V became a tropical paradise by the Genesis Device but an imbalance in the matrix--because of human error!-- caused weather/climate chaos and then it started snowing before the planet got volcanic, all in the space of 24 hrs.).
Wow...
Seriously, Neo, I think I understand what you mean. Say we take the 98.6 degree fahernheit temperature of the human body and call that "the climate." Now we may be involved in all sorts of activities and operate in different environments and alternatingly shiver and sweat in the process, and let's call those different reactions the "weather."
Now all those "weather patterns" (e.g. sweating, shivering...) manifest themselves in relation to a stable climate system of 98.6 degrees.
However, if there is a "climate change"--say a fever of 100 degrees--then the "weather patterns" shift and go awry: Cold sweats, the shivers, etc.
How's that? I'm just trying to visualize where you're coming from.
In all honesty there is a human tendency to look for evidences of what one believes. For example, in Texas here, every summer, we always hit temps above 100 degrees at one point or another. In recent years, that is when people really get going about global warming. At first it was amusing, and lately it has become more of an irritant. Also, the last five years there has been a drought. Again, this has happened all through recorded history, and plenty of evidence that it has happened repeatedly over the millenia. There is evidence, for example, that it was drought that caused the Anasazi tribe to leave their buildings rather suddenly.
Likewise, and we must be honest, when a good cold snap happens, the opponents of "man-made global warming" will take a minute to point out that snow and ice are not, in fact, very warm.
The real argument is whether mankind is the one responsible for the increase in global temperatures. I have my doubts about that, as you know, where the new left-wing greenies (i.e., Al Gore) have no doubts about it whatsoever.
pelonius - and to think i was just pleased as punch when they started making women's boxer briefs!
fact of the matter is we (as in all things) are deteriorating rather than regenerating - there's not a dayamed thing we can do about it. even some stars we see in the here and now have eons ago flamed out.
knowledge is the ONLY known thing which speeds forward and never stops increasing.
that makes my mind hurt.
thanks for coming to my party, john.
Obviously, James, I have my doubts as well. I must concede, however, that in the discussions of the last several posts devoted to this, guest Neo has convinced me that CO2 increases as belched out by human industry must have a contributive effect--however incremental--in the trapping of heat in the atmosphere.
The argument, it seems, can be boiled down (no pun intended) to whether the industrial activity of mankind is the *causus causata* and driver of the phenomenon and whether it is "accelerating" and has already triggered a chain reaction that is leading to "Runaway Global Warming" that can, at best, be slowed down and made less severe by an agressive slowdown--if not shutdown--of human-produced greenhouse gas emissions.
...which are, again, a percentile of a percentile of greenhouse gases which themselves comprise a percentage of C02 which itself comprises about half a percentile of atmospheric gases.
I get the point that "size doesn't matter" (in that regard, anyway), as, for example, a fluctuation of a percentile of temperature in the human body can disrupt the well-being of the entire organism, but were talking percentiles of percentiles of half a percentile, and the greenhouse gas output from the Jersey Turnpike in a year can not compete with what the earth can belch out of a (small) volcano in a day.
P.S. Correction: The name of the Genesis planet was not Ceti Alpha V (or VI).
Happy Anniversary, Nanc.
John,
not a bad analogy on the body temp versus climate. The concept of climate versus weather in climate modeling is probably one of the most misunderstood.
As far as volcanos go : over long term average they release 3% of what human activity does.
As a long-term average, volcanism produces about 5X10^11 kg of CO2 per year; Current fossil fuel and land use practices now introduce about a (net) 1.76X10^13 kg of CO2 into the atmosphere. Hence, volcanism produces about 3% of the total CO2 released with the other 97% coming from anthropogenic sources.
.... Morse and Mackenzie, 1990, Geochemistry of Sedimentary Carbonates.
Neo, I'm ready to stand corrected on volcanoes vs. Volvos, but that's a pretty wide discrepancy and I'm skeptical about the figure (from 1990? Not exactly prehistoric, to be sure, but...and are Morse and Mackenzie's research unchallenged and unrevised?).
Are you saying that of the 100% of released CO2, 97% is made up of human induced emissions and the remaining 3% of volcanic ones?
That doesn't sound right (unless you include cattle--among other CO2 emitters--as an "anthropogenic source"?).
Stick around, though, Neo. You're like the requisite Vulcan at the science station of the starship U.S.S. Republicus (just don't forget who the captain here is, mister, and remember Spock's own occasions of befuddlement contrary to what he thought logic or science should have ascertained).
John, I must say Neo, with his conflicting opinion on the subject, is still a breath of fresh air in the stream of moonbats. Neo brings with him a point of view worthy of discussion. I did not say that I agree with him...rather, he is level headed and intelligent.
Now, on the subject at hand...
Nice analogy, John. We could take it a step further. What would be causing this "climate change" in the person? If he/she had a fever was it caused by internal (virus, germs, etc.) or by external (sun burns, heat exhaustion, fire and the like).
I was going to expand this more, but I am WaY tired and keyboard prints do not look good on foreheads.
I like Neo.
And that's a fine extension of the analogy, Kelly.
Could it even be hypochondria?
Hypochondria assumes that the "patient" has other issues. Hmmm... now there is a thought ;)
Mother earth has a case of moonbatitis. It's starting to believe those 'inner' voices.
So, sorry, it's been one of those days.
Post a Comment
<< Home