17 Comments

• Tex says:

  October 15, 2009 at 4:59 pm

  Study: Arctic Ice Will Melt in 10 Years
  British Explorers Return from North Pole with Ice Data Suggesting it Will Soon Disappear in Summer Months
  http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/15/tech/main5385527.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody
  • popcorn says:

    October 15, 2009 at 11:03 pm

    The Catlin Arctic Ice (media) expedition cracked me up. It’s what you call “garbage in – garbage out”. The ice was thick and old but they had their agenda in full court (media) press in the UK.
• Eliz says:

  October 15, 2009 at 5:50 pm

  You don’t have to convince me!
• CarmaDogma says:

  October 15, 2009 at 7:04 pm

  Again, it sounds like more selective data extraction to make the case they are trying to make. What did July and August tell us? Doesn’t anyone else remember the freezing ocean temps we had earlier this summer?

  Also, consider this: the leading greenhouse gas is water vapor. Through natural and modest climate shift, temps go up and melt more arctic ice, introducing more water available to be vaporized, meaning more greenhouse gases meaning warmer temperatures. One good volcanic eruption will likely reverse the process and send us back on a cooling trend, and then the “sky is falling” alarmists can start warning us about global cooling like they did in the 70′s.

  As for the deforestation issue, I can’t speak for other parts of the country but have you ever driven the 118 freeway and looked down into SFV? You’re looking at a whole valley of trees where naturally there would be nothing but dead grass 7 months out of the year.

  We need to focus more on real pollution issues, like getting rid of that giant, growing plastic island out in the Pacific.
  • CarmaDogma says:

    October 15, 2009 at 7:05 pm

    clarification – not an island of plastic per se, a debris field of plastic the size of Texas from what I just read
    • popcorn says:

      October 15, 2009 at 11:21 pm

      But that’s coming from activists.
  • I love southern california says:

    October 15, 2009 at 7:19 pm

    First off, let me tell you something, yes SFV would be full of dead grass, but were there be a massive pollution making city like l.a?
    No. There are trees, but that doesn’t mean anything.why? simply because all those trees do NOT negate all the pollution a metro are of about 20 million people!!
    I just don’t get why people fight against this global change/warming. All people like you do is complain that it changes the name from warming to change, or that it’s a bit colder than normal, so why is it still global warming?
    Well, if you look at it as LONG term, you will notice RAISING temps, but there are a few dips, but when those dips are over, temps will increase higher than before! It’s like the classic graph we always see, it’s generally going up, but has it’s dips and spikes…
    I understand that you do care about the enviroment, but you dint use logic. We have to change the cars, etc etc I don’t want to go unto to that because you’ve heard it enough..
    My point is, just because you see trees, doesn’t mean we have clean air. Or jut because it rained yesterday, and it usually never rains around this time does it mean our climate is not changing weather. use LOGIC!
    • jimmydee says:

      October 15, 2009 at 8:39 pm

      Love the way you start off “….First off let me tell you something…”

      Quite endearing. LOL LOL LOL

      Anyway…..yes there obviously is pollution in the LA Basin. It is much less polluted than 20, 30 or 40 years ago, however. And it emits less pollution than other cities its size. Climate and topography conspire to create smog.

      Kudos to you for knowing that the Valley (as well as much of the LA Basin and coastal Orange County) was pretty much a treeless steppe prior to urbanization.
    • popcorn says:

      October 15, 2009 at 11:17 pm

      Global climate change is a natural phenomena. The earth has been warming since the little ice age, It’s a gradual thing and remember, the 1930′s was the warmest decade in the US.

      Out of curiosity, whats the optimum median temperature.
      • jimmydee says:

        October 15, 2009 at 11:45 pm

        Historically, warmer = more plant life/animal life and rainfall.

        Whether that is optimal or not is subj. to interpretation.
• OC says:

  October 15, 2009 at 7:33 pm

  Is it warm tonight or is it just me?
• Lori says:

  October 15, 2009 at 8:13 pm

  CarmaDogma got it right…just ONE big Volcanic eruption and we won’t be having this conversation. Anyone remember that England was in a Volcanic winter for so long that it killed thousands upon thousands of people because they couldn’t grow any food? YES, we are polluting this planet and attention must be paid…that plastic “floating island” is a stunning example of the trashing of our ocean’s. We need to keep our wits about us and make the changes we can, other than that…our world and it’s weather patterns are ever changing on it’s own…you can’t mess with Mother Nature and you can’t always blame the weather on all those foul people (oh, and remember, include YOURSELF as one of those foul people) So act accordingly.
• ralph williams says:

  October 15, 2009 at 8:27 pm

  global warming due in large part is a consensus opinion by far greater than 450 of the world’s top climate scientists—- no brainer right wing nuts are the last to know
• Frank Hamann says:

  October 15, 2009 at 9:53 pm

  Is the Global Warming Debate Over?
  Written by Rebecca Terrell
  Thursday, 15 October 2009 17:00

  An article published by the BBC has shocked both sides in the global-warming debate because it quotes scientific research that disproves the claims of climate-change fearmongers.

  In “What Happened to Global Warming?” the author, Paul Hudson, raised eyebrows by admitting that the Earth has been cooling since 1998. But don’t be fooled by his white flag. Hudson gives less-than-equal coverage to skeptics and ends with quotes from global-warming proponents that seem to undermine the opposition.

  He opens by explaining that global temperatures have steadily decreased over the past decade, despite rising levels of man-made carbon dioxide and climate models that predict the Earth will soon reach its boiling point. The warming trend in the last half of the 20th century seems to have ended in 1998, which comes as no surprise to climate-change critics since they attribute natural warming and cooling patterns to solar activity and ocean cycles.

  Hudson reports that Piers Corbyn, a solar scientist with the forecasting company, WeatherAction, has evidence that activity of the sun is almost entirely responsible for fluctuations in global temperatures. However, both the Royal Society and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) say their research indicates average surface temperature over the last 20 to 40 years has little to do with solar activity (though the sun accounts for 98 percent of the Earth’s heat).

  Research conducted by scientists at Western Washington University (WWU) also relates the Earth’s temperature to ocean cycles. Much of the planet’s heat is stored in oceans which tend to oscillate from warm to cool in 30-year cycles. The latest oceanic cycles coincide with global surface temperatures, so WWU Professor Don Easterbrook forecasts 30 years of global cooling ahead. But scientists at the UK Met Office’s Hadley Centre, who say their models already incorporate solar activity and ocean cycles to forecast temperatures, claim that trends in global temperature over the past century show the Earth’s temperature rising despite short-term cooling periods. Professor Mojib Latif with the IPCC agrees. He admits a short cooling phase but ominously warns that “the overwhelming force of man-made global warming” will soon follow. Hudson describes Latif as “one of the world’s top climate modelers.”

  The article closes with an admission that the debate is far from over. There is ample scientific evidence disproving the idea that global warming is man-made and that to avoid imminent eco-catastrophy, we must shackle ourselves with crippling government regulations to curb carbon emissions. Though Hudson’s reporting is hardly objective, he at least gives voice and legitimacy to a modicum of that evidence. Most of his eco-savvy colleagues would not have that decency.
• JT says:

  October 15, 2009 at 10:00 pm

  October will be the coolest month in many years
• Radiojunkie2006 says:

  October 16, 2009 at 11:28 am

  Where in the hell do they get this BS from? Chicago has had one of the coolest summers since 1967 and September’s average temperature was a mere 74°F! And we’re having one of the coldest starts to October in years; it’s a balmy 46°F at 1:30PM CDT. The only good thing about our past summer was we didn’t have the normal heat & humidity that Chicago normally suffers with.
• ocbear says:

  October 16, 2009 at 12:21 pm

  Part of the solution is increased use of nuclear power and to get people to stop eating so much artery-clogging meat (cows produce more carbon emissions than cars do!)