Comments on: Two New Global Warming Studies Spell Trouble for Lake Tahoe

By: Michael F. Sarabia

Michael F. Sarabia — Sat, 05 Feb 2011 00:11:17 +0000

I. “While the researchers note that there is always some uncertainty when predicting far into the future, they also point out that the computer models they used are based on 100 years of data describing the changes in temperature and precipitation that have already occurred in the Tahoe area.”
I understand the key driving forces Warming the Globe, they are true and logical but, (you knew there was going to be a “but”, right?).
But, to claim support of a major, catastrophic, change on the Earth based on any “100 years of data” seems self-contradictory. If you fail to see this failure, nothing I say will alter your views.
II. Those of us who understand Global Warming, you know, you and me, sorry, we’re a few, a shrinking few, know, with the certainty of logic and our identity, that energy in the atmosphere is increasing and this is manifested (and clearly seen by us, the remaining few believers) by more cyclones, hurricanes and the unprecedented “swarms” of tornadoes and lightnings (both noted in the last couple of years in the US). All of these might have been predicted, if we understood Global Warming better than we understand the “normal” weather. Remember how many times the TV says “maybe you best take your sunglasses and the raincoat”? But, we want to know how soon will tourism die in Lake Tahoe, right?
I would hope that we might predict storms, like Katrina, a little better, don’t you?
The point of all this is that while many of us are sure the globe is getting warmer, on the average, and we know, therefore, the ocean Vapor Pressure will increase, more clouds will form and more rain will fall, some of it in the form of snow.
Therefore, the water sports, and the population, in Lake Tahoe will grow at an INCREASING rate. If you don’t understand why, maybe you don’t understand Global Warming, right?

By: MKGemmell

MKGemmell — Wed, 01 Dec 2010 21:50:07 +0000

THANK YOU Daniel Andrews. I was beginning to wonder if everyone that commented here was completely uneducated. Ignorance can lead to so much destruction. I have been leading by educating others for the past five years on this topic. It is our responsibility to be caretakers of our land, regardless of what we may feel “correct or incorrect.”

My Dad is a diver for a living. He has always said, “I don’t have to watch an Inconvenient Truth, I’ve seen Global Warming with my own eyes under the water over the past 10 years.” I could spend an hour writing a reply here, but I don’t feel it’s necessary. I hope the others that have commented will take your advice and start to learn the truth as well.

Hy’Shqe!

By: Daniel J. Andrews

Daniel J. Andrews — Wed, 01 Dec 2010 21:08:51 +0000

Before you say, “It’s the sun”, “we don’t know”, “we’ve only tracked temps for 100 years”, “we can’t predict the weather so how can we predict climate”, “it was hotter x years ago that now” (logical fallacy even if it was true), or getting confused about local conditions versus global conditions, you should read what the science says so you will recognize when you are about to utter unadulterated B.S.

Of the 16 people who have commented here, 14 of you don’t have even have a beginning of a basic understanding of what you’re talking about. So why do you so confidently jump into comment sections to express your view on something you know next to nothing about to contradict every national academy of science around the world and 98% of the experts in the subject?

If you want to learn, start with skepticalscience.com (follow the links to the science to make sure they’ve summarized it correctly—they also have beginner, intermediate and advanced sections for a lot of the material).

Also, go to realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/ which has beginner to advanced sections and will give you the same background.

And absolute must-read is a Discovery of Global Warming-A History here
aip.org/history/climate/index.htm

If you have more background and want an actual course in climatology, go here.
geoflop.uchicago.edu/forecast/docs/lectures.html

Dr. Archer from U of Chicago has videotaped his lectures and put them on-line. You can even order the textbook to do the exercises. Contact Dr. Archer and he will send you a pdf of the answers.

If you’re not willing to learn this material, but still willing to comment then at least recognize that you are commenting from the vast pool of your own ignorance. You have no right to get upset when you are called on it by people who have been putting up with this kind of blind willful ignorance for over a decade now. What you “believe” on the subject is irrelevant–this is science, not philosophy.

If you are willing to learn more though, then scientists and those knowledgeable in the subject are usually pleased to answer any questions you have if you can demonstrate you are putting in the effort to learn. You might be surprised how approachable they are when they’re not being accused of collective incompetence, corruption on a global scale or being part of a world-wide conspiracy.

By: Yonderman

Yonderman — Tue, 30 Nov 2010 19:29:51 +0000

LMAO!!

Each side accuses the other of dilusions of some form. Each side claims the the other side only supports their theories because of the profit to be had in supporting it. Can’t we all just get a long and try to understand the other side’s thinking… if that thinking can be expressed logically that is?

Is Global warming real? Yes. Is it caused by humans? Maybe – we don’t know that considering we’ve only tracked global tempratures for the last 100 years or so. But if humans do have an effect; green house gasses are the least of our worries. And of the green house gasses; Methane is a far bigger worry than Carbon. But in my opinion; the fact that we continue to build and expand the roadways, and build more and bigger homes is the biggest cuplrit of man-aided global warming. We continue to clear away vegetation to build more. And in the winter, those roads, sidewalks, and buildings are cleared of the snow that reflects the sunlight away. That exposed ground, and the homes, soak up sunlight which heats the earth. In turn the melts the snow cover faster exposing more ground. Less vegetation and more exposed ground during the winter is what we need to be the most concerned with … not gasses.

By: Ed

Ed — Tue, 30 Nov 2010 17:12:39 +0000

Predictions are BS from the people who have that degree. Heck we can’t even predict the weather. It is the only job where you can be partly correct some of the time (partly cloudy or 35% chance of snow or not) and still keep your job. Imagine if business had quality control like that.
Scientific Method is being corrupted by Belief In Something. No longer do we prove or challenge with expermentation but Tell the masses it’s good for them and make them Comply.
Then who is responsible for the out come? The weather predictors? The rule makers?
There is no peer group and no Hard Data from our solar system because the research is being cut off from the space program to make us ignorant and belief relient. People in the 1900′s said we had enough knowledge and everything had been invented This was the result from Predictions.
Today we know better but do we know that today about global warming? I predict not!

By: Bill

Bill — Tue, 30 Nov 2010 08:13:20 +0000

The sun must play a role in global warming. We played no part in the interglacial warming period we are now in, nor did we play a role in the past ice ages. The Pleistocene Epoch started about 1.6 million years ago and is the most recent global ice age. The freezes last about 100,000 years with interglacial periods or warm-ups lasting about 20 to 30 thousand years. this has happened 4 or 5 times. We are about 18,000 years into this interglacial period and it stalled a time or two after it started. The mini ice age was just a hiccough in this interglacial period.
There has been many fluctuations in the climate since the beginning of the interglacial period. Some were warmer, some cooler. Look at the painting of George Washington crossing the Delaware River. He had a hard time crossing it because it was full of ice floes. That was an effect of the “Little Ice Age” and hasn’t been seen for a couple hundred years when the Little Ice Age ended, yet that “extreme” climate was normal for several generations.
I suspect the sun goes through periods of “helium digestion” following tens of thousands of years consumption of hydrogen. Helium probably accumulates in the core until it interferes with the solar furnace, then has to be re-distributed resulting in “turbulent” times for the sun causing lots of solar eruptions sending lots of energy at us, causing the interglacial periods. Once the helium is re-distributed, the sun quiets down resulting in another freeze.
This is not to say we are not polluting our planet. The entire planet is badly polluted including the oceans, atmosphere, skies and the space above us. If we don’t clean up our act, we will choke on it. This could have an exacerbating effect.
Records of the past show elevated levels of CO2 during the warmest climates. Who is to say if this is a cause, or an effect. Perhaps the CO2 rises with the temperature, not the temperature rising with the CO2 levels. We don’t know. I suspect the CO2 is an effect, not the cause.

By: rontheking

rontheking — Tue, 30 Nov 2010 01:17:59 +0000

what could scientists possibly have to gain from a worldwide conspiracy promoting the theory of global warming? the relative few dissenting scientists are the ones who are getting all the grant money from the fossil fuel industry. if you are going to insist that this is all one big conspiracy, then you should be able to explain who would benefit and how…without a motivating factor your conspiracy theory makes no sense at all….

By: Donna R

Donna R — Tue, 30 Nov 2010 00:10:53 +0000

I read an article in a science magazine that suggests that if the Earth heats up. more water will evaporate and more clouds will form, cooling the Earth back down. I believe that all the pollution and carbon emissions are bad for the earth and our health. I also believe that the electric cars is the way we need to go. If nothing else, it will save gasoline and we wont be sitting around wondering how we’ll get around when the oil runs out.

By: Dr.Chuck1

Dr.Chuck1 — Sun, 28 Nov 2010 18:41:10 +0000

because politicians are fighting over what to do or not to do doesn’t change global warming into just being all politics-the deniers are just ignorant or just trolling

By: Michael

Michael — Sun, 28 Nov 2010 12:51:07 +0000

“GLOBAL WARMING”, the finniest thing i have ever heared. i do not believe in global warming at all, that is not because i have stron scientific evidence, because it is something made by politics and Politicians, not science, i am quite sure about this.