Residents in Houston are a bit concerned when Harris County police decided to call off a manhunt of an escaped prisoner because of the heat. The man was arrested for possession and suspected of robbery. However, he was able to get out of his handcuffs during transport and escaped. The police started the manhunt but then called it off because it was just to darn hot.
The escape occurred around noon and police decided the heat was taking its toll on the officers and their dogs. It does not appear that the man waited out of a sense of fair play for the temperature to drop.
Source: Khou
Most US States Set Their Record High Temperature Prior To 1940
Only one state set their record high during Hansen’s “hottest decade ever.” Forty-four states set their record high temperature before global warming became dangerous at 350 ppm.
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/wheat7.htm
79% of the country had their hottest year when CO2 levels were considered safe from global warming. 350 PPM is considered the safe zone.
Areas in red had their hottest year above 350 ppm. Almost all of those occurred in 1998.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/state.html
Gingerbaker 1, June 18, 2011 at 12:18 pm
Again, Climatology is made up of daily weather, then weekly, then monthly and then yearly.
A hot summer is defined as the hottest 1/3rd of the summers in the 1950 to 1980 period which is the period the Weather Bureau uses to define climatology.
Therefore I believe it is not a good idea to use the period 1950 to 1980 for which climatology is normally defined.
James Hansen NASA Goddard Institute for Space Study
June 23rd 1988
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Environment/documents/2008/06/23/ClimateChangeHearing1988.pdf
Gyges said:
Thanks. The going is somewhat slow, but things are progressing… but I think I’ll stick around and just try to comment occasionally instead of regularly for now.
And half of the things he posts don’t really support his positions in any case. He’s never addressed the argument I made over a year ago – that even if global warming is a complete hoax, controlling pollution is still in our best interest (and necessary to the survival of our society) – or any other argument that I’ve made for that matter… He’s clearly not interested in anything but trolling.
But slightly better than being a paid disinformation agent. He can’t engage with anyone – either he’s aware that his arguments have no merit or he’s deluded himself to the point where any argument he makes is necessarily fallacious (and usually obviously so).
Slart,
Off Topic:
Good to see you again. Seems like all your projects are going well.
On topic:
Have you noticed he never did answer my question about what Nasa hoped to accomplish by taking that page down? In all honesty, the reason I very rarely have anything to say to BDAman is because he just has these pet causes that he’s against, and when he finds anything at all that gets presented like it’s makes those causes look bad he posts them.
He’s not interested in a conversation, or even convincing anybody he’s right. He’s interested in “sticking it to ______.” Which in my opinion, is slightly worse than just being mindlessly pro something.
D’oh! – forgot an end tag there…
Jacker of Threads (aka Bdaman) posted:
Really? You’re complaining that I didn’t state my disclaimer strongly enough? YOU? Look up the definition of hypocrisy – and by the way, being a hypocrite is NOT a good thing. Also, I gave an additional link which had essentially the same information (with sources) – but you’re not competent enough to attack that one (well, you really weren’t competent enough to attack this one, either…).
And decrease as the technology improves (probably to zero with technologies like the one Otteray Scribe linked… [OS – very cool, by the way]).
And I can tell you how many posts “Bdaman” has made on this site (or is it “COPY/PASTER”?) – so what?
I’m just going to assume (based on the empirical data) that you’ve put an extremely disingenuous spin on this (you never address any of my arguments, why should I address any of yours? In any case they’ve all sucked so far… what are the odds this one is any different?) I’m claiming that correctly designed subsidies will work (and, as lottakatz pointed out, have worked, although they should be sunset after they’ve done their job…), not that ANY subsidy is good. I know that the straw men you create are the strongest opponents that you are capable of beating, but it’s a pretty dishonest (and obvious) tactic.
Rae (aka Roco) posted:
Tautology,
Ignoring one’s burden of proof isn’t good repartee, it’s being too cowardly to debate in good faith. I liked you better when you called yourself “Byron”, but I guess he was just another fake sock puppet… pity.
Has it ever occurred to either of you geniuses that if we can learn to remove large amounts of energy from the atmosphere then that reduces the amount of energy in the atmosphere? Do you understand what the effect of this would be? Or how much energy is available all around us if we can figure out how to use it? We’ve got about a 4,000,000,000 year supply of an Earth-sized swath of solar radiation (more if we can figure out how to get it) – would it not be better to use this than to use the raw material needed to make many plastics? A substance which also has a huge impact on public heath and safety (and environmental quality) when its combustion products are released into the atmosphere? The only people benefiting from the status quo are the oil companies – and the rest of us pay an extremely high price for their gluttony.
BDAman,
No answer to any of my questions? It’s o.k., I’ll keep reminding you.
There are more problems with wind turbines than just birds and noise. One has no idea how big each blade is until you see one on the back of a flatbed truck. Just one blade is a load for an 18-wheel truck. They are enormous. The towers are about 400 feet tall. Even though the blades appear to be turning slowly, tip speed is usually between 90 and 150 miles per hour. The centrifugal force on each blade makes it ‘weigh’ approximately the same as a fully loaded tractor-trailer truck. anything that causes it to be out of balance, such as ice or snow buildup, puts anyone and anything near it at risk.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Nws9odq7S8&feature=related
Also, each one has a brake to stop the blades, but brake failures do happen. Here is one in Denmark.
Very cool proposed wind power without blades:
http://news.discovery.com/tech/wind-power-without-the-blades.html
“Steve McIntyre was the first to break the story so if you don’t like Bookers review try McIntyre’s
http://climateaudit.org/2011/06/14/ipcc-wg3-and-the-greenpeace-karaok”
Steve MacIntyre is not a disinterested source and is a documented fraud.
Roco:
Nonsense. Your quote is merely the mantra of propagandists working for the petroleum industries. Green technologies are ready right now to replace carbon-based and can do it on an equal or better (if the true costs were applied to carbon) cost basis. If you look around the world, you will see green technologies already in place today doing the job.
And the cost ratios will only improve in future. Photovoltaics are already cost equal with most centralized sources, and PV costs go down substantially every year.
But it would not even matter if they were ten times the cost of traditional energy. We MUST convert immediately or our civilization will not survive as we know it. Have you seen the movie “The Road”. That is what it is going to look like by century end – make no mistake about it – if we do not act with *extreme* urgency.
It is simply a matter of will and national leadership. The carbon interests actually admit that they don’t want us to convert to a carbon-free economy and act against our interests – see recent statement by OPEC.
We already have technology available to completely replace our carbon-based energy needs. We *could* do this today if we had the will. And many people have, of course, going off the grid with their own decentralized energy sources.
But large-scale PV is cost-effective now as well:
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/06/09/241120/solar-is-ready-now-%E2%80%9Cferocious-cost-reductions-make-solar-pv-competitive/#more-241120
Go for the ribs, I’m not a fan of Pastrami. I gonna finish off the Red Fish and Flounder I caught last week blackened over red beans and rice with a pineapple salsa. Alright getting off now to enjoy the day with family.
Happy Fathers Day to all the dads here.
Was trying to point out how Pachauri head of the IPCC, who by the way, is not a climate scientist but a railroad engineer with a PhD in economics. How Pachauri has established an astonishing worldwide portfolio of business interests in green technology with bodies which have been investing billions of dollars in organizations dependent on the IPCC’s policy recommendations. The new IPCC report that nearly 80 per cent of the world’s energy needs could be met from renewable sources was written from someone from Greenpeace.
Steve McIntyre was the first to break the story so if you don’t like Bookers review try McIntyre’s
http://climateaudit.org/2011/06/14/ipcc-wg3-and-the-greenpeace-karaoke/
I am not a big fan of wind farms. They are ugly and do harm wildlife, especially large birds. There has to be a better way. There is a major downside to all the so-called ‘alternate energy’ sources available to use today.
What I would like to see is the equivalent of a Manhattan Project for alternate energy. I believe it will involve a marriage of chemistry and physics, but no way to yet know what it might be. Dr. Arthur C. Clarke once wrote that sufficiently advanced science is indistinguishable from magic.
Water contains an enormous amount of energy, with both fuel (hydrogen) and the oxidizer (oxygen) as the two atomic components. However, the molecular bond is powerful and requires violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics to break it and still make it work as an energy source. It is self-defeating to have to use more energy to get the energy out of water than what is recovered. That problem, hopefully, will be solved one day.
The problem is not going away, the clock is ticking, the global population growing, yet the energy companies are after short-term profits at the expense of putting the entire population of the earth at risk long-term.
Back at you Bdaman. Going off my diet today, either Ribs or pastrami will be my hardest decision.
“Mike here’s more on renewables, incredible.”
Bdaman,
Booker is a pro-corporate columnist at the London times, which was always pro-corporate (oil interests among them), but now has become more so since Murdoch bought it. It now has the credibility of the New York Post, with hack writers to match. Proof of your position, I don’t think so.
Morning Mike allow me to be the first, Happy Fathers Day
(disclaimer: this appears to be a wind industry PR firm’s site, although I have seen similar statistics elsewhere):
APPEARS? Says it at the top of the page
http://www.currykerlinger.com/birds.htm Consultants to the Wind Power Industry
on birds and other wildlife issues.
And of course the numbers of avian deaths per year due to turbines will increase with the increase in the number of more turbines adding to the problem. As far as the ESTIMATED numbers from the research of bird deaths, did you know that NOAA can actually tell you how many fish live in the ocean.
“You subsidize investment in green technology so it will be developed – the only way that green technologies will be developed is if there are enough incentives to make their use profitable enough to drive money into research to improve the technology.”
Spain has spent $32 billion in solar subsidies since 2002. For every new “green” job created, the rest of the economy lost 2.2 jobs. Spain is now ending this, as are Germany and France.
While at least three European countries are doing away with green energy subsidies, a recent article reports that another may soon follow.
Spain, Germany and France are pulling the plug on green energy subsidies, and according to Eric Reguly’s recent article in The Globe and Mail, the British may soon have no other option.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/commentary/eric-reguly/austerity-pulling-plug-on-europes-green-subsidies/article1883888/
“In this press release from the University of Mexico, Dr Velasco forecasts that we’re now headed into a mini ice age that will last 60 to 80 years.”
Roco,
Good catch, that is one of the predicted effects of man made climate change. Thank you for being honest enough to help make the case we’ve been arguing about.