60 replies to this topic

[Callao]

I recently ran another climate analysis on two sites in Utah, partly out of my own curiosity concerning the legitimacy of claims made by climate activists. I chose the two sites mostly because I was interested in their close-to-home relevancy, because they are rural (I thought urban sites might have skewed numbers as increasing development might change the local climate), and because they had quality, consistent data sets (meaning there were no large swaths of missing data). I chose Koosharem in the south-central part of the state, and Brighton in the north. The results were kind of surprising, so I share them here.

Koosharem, UT:
 Koosharem_Annual.JPG (31.67K)
Number of downloads: 45
 Koosharem_5_year.JPG (32.4K)
Number of downloads: 42

Brighton, UT:
 Brighton_Annual.JPG (37.7K)
Number of downloads: 30
 Brighton_5_year.JPG (35.97K)
Number of downloads: 32

I add in the "Previous 5-year Averages" because they show trends better, but remember that they show the average for the five previous years--not three back and two forward. With that heads-up, the graphs speak for themselves.

You can find all of my data sources (and sources for ground sites across the entire nation) at the Utah Climate Center.

[k2skier]

The previous 5-year averages show nicely how the last 8-10 (12) years have some of the highest temps of all. Not all climate change is/will heat all places up, some are/will cool some, but mainly it (global warming) adds more fuel (water to the atmosphere) to the weather engine that drives our planets weather.

[Andoman]

k2skier, on Jan 29 2009, 05:08 PM, said:

The previous 5-year averages show nicely how the last 8-10 (12) years have some of the highest temps of all. Not all climate change is/will heat all places up, some are/will cool some, but mainly it (global warming) adds more fuel (water to the atmosphere) to the weather engine that drives our planets weather.

You do have to remember the test locations and accuracy of testing for those graphs. A lot of the test locations skew data points due to refractory heating from pavement surfaces, nearby buildings, cars, etc. So using the data from a location located in a farm field in 1950 and over time the rural area becomes urban and wham-o you get artificially higher numbers that skew the graphs. These higher numbers are just like taking the acuweather.com "real feel" numbers as the actual high numbers when they are not. I'm not saying that I do or don't agree with global warming because the weather does change, however, I saw a report on some of these NOAA temp stations and the horrible conditions and locations that don't conform to ASTM testing procedures.

[k2skier]

What is ASTM? Yes, a lot of weather data is gathered at airports, huge heat sinks. But the real problems is in the receding ice, and the prema frost melting is releasing massive amounts of methane, 5X (or more) of a green house gas than CO2.

[CH3skier]

ASTM International (ASTM), originally known as the American Society for Testing and Materials, is an international standards organization that develops and publishes voluntary consensus technical standards for a wide range of materials, products, systems, and services.

When I worked at a ski shop and we mounted skis, the bindings release test with a torque wrench was using ASTM standards.

[aug]

The only constant with global weather trends is change. Is it naturally caused or human caused..... err isn't the human race a natural occurrence on this planet Earth? It seems to me that we think we do not belong here on our own planet of origin, an un natural species? If you think about it IF this recent global warming is caused by man it was due to the evolution of our intelect, the desire for knowlege,the desire to reproduce, and our desire for profit(read greed). Buy a ticket , take a ride. What Are YOU going to do about it?



Do you want a global thermostat with that monorail you just bought?(sing Monorail song here)

This post has been edited by aug: 29 January 2009 - 06:16 PM

[Andoman]

k2skier, on Jan 29 2009, 08:28 PM, said:

What is ASTM? Yes, a lot of weather data is gathered at airports, huge heat sinks. But the real problems is in the receding ice, and the prema frost melting is releasing massive amounts of methane, 5X (or more) of a green house gas than CO2.

ASTM - American Society for Testing and Materials they set just about every testing procedure used so everyone does it the same way every time.

Glaciers recede that's what happens after an ice age. They've been receding for a long time, in fact longer than the human race has existed, so who is to say what "normal" is? Is normal right now, 50 years ago, 100 years ago, 1000 years ago? Does Al Gore get to decide? Methane also comes from people's posterior, so I'll mail corks and a rubber mallet to Al and let him get dirty, butt ( ), I'd guess he's just buy carbon credits instead. God knows paying someone to plant baby trees will save the planet. Again, I'm not saying the temps aren't changing but the whole climate change leaders and supposed fixes are bunk, and it's just a way for people to make money off fear.

[WBSKI]

Obviously there are two sides to the argument, one one side we have the oil companies who try to convince everyone that there is nothing at all to worry about, on the other side we have the climate change "experts" who try to freak us out. Both sides are obviously biased to some extent. I agree the warming effect of growing cities is skewing some results but obviously something is going wrong when the polar ice cap is disappearing faster than ever. Once that is gone, things could get even warmer and weather patterns could change. So... We have two options: we can keep doing what we are doing right now (increasing our national debt by passing all our money to Middle Eastern countries in exchange for short term oil) and watch the ice caps melt away. Or we can innovate, and become increasingly self dependent by using renewable fuels, then sell our technologies to other countries, and offset some of the negative effects of climate change. This applies to Canada and the US.

[Andoman]

WBSKI, on Jan 30 2009, 12:16 AM, said:

Obviously there are two sides to the argument, one one side we have the oil companies who try to convince everyone that there is nothing at all to worry about, on the other side we have the climate change "experts" who try to freak us out. Both sides are obviously biased to some extent. I agree the warming effect of growing cities is skewing some results but obviously something is going wrong when the polar ice cap is disappearing faster than ever. Once that is gone, things could get even warmer and weather patterns could change. So... We have two options: we can keep doing what we are doing right now (increasing our national debt by passing all our money to Middle Eastern countries in exchange for short term oil) and watch the ice caps melt away. Or we can innovate, and become increasingly self dependent by using renewable fuels, then sell our technologies to other countries, and offset some of the negative effects of climate change. This applies to Canada and the US.

I agree with your first statement, however, I don't agree with "renewable" fuels, because I call renewable fuels burning food (that is with all/most current systems, I know different technologies exist, however, none are currently in production). Ethanol made from corn, switch grass, garbage, grass clippings, etc. is no different than burning oil because it emits CO2 and all the same pollutants. As for being slaves to the middle east's oil, in america we're slaves to canada and mexico more than anyone. In reality if we want to limit exhaust we need to fight for russia, india, brazil, and china to clean up, that would do more in the near term than anything we could do in america in the next 20 years. Alternatives will present themselves as time goes on, however, putting undue cost and strain on the american people right now is a poor choice. As for the ice caps, it's ice and it melts when exposed to solar radiation just like snow melts on your ski resorts when it's below freezing. Remember the last freak out - the hole in the ozone that will cause everyone will die from skin cancer? kinda like that but slower.

[k2skier]

http://1greengenerat...time.com/?p=366



According to the UN, the U.S. emits 21% of the world’s total CO2 emissions, while we comprise just 4.6% of the world’s population. China emits 17.3%, Russia 5.3%, Australia 1.1%… click on the map to find out how much your country emits.

[liftmech]

Green is the new trendy thing I say this as one who tries to use less, recycle more, buy organic foods, et cetera. What bugs me is the people who do this because it's now somehow 'cool'. I've always thought that it was the right thing to do, not so much because of global warming and the media hyping it wherever you look.

That being said-- I was on the global warming bandwagon for a while but I'm becoming a skeptic. We have no hard climate data further back than a few hundred years. We don't really know how things were back during the dinosaur age, the ice age, and so forth. Sure, we can talk about general trends (obviously there were massive glaciers 15-20,000 years ago) but we don't know why the Earth cooled off enough to permit that. To take relatively recent climate swings and use them to say that 'this is how it will be' seems ludicrous to me. Geologic time runs so much slower than human time that the current warming may be no more than a temporary bump in the road. We don't really know. I'm sure that, given time, we as a species could conceivably artificially warm our planet; it's been proven that our industrial plants/power plants/et cetera do pump out gasses that trap heat. I just think it's too soon for all the hysteria we're seeing.

[Andoman]

k2skier, on Jan 30 2009, 08:48 PM, said:

http://1greengenerat...time.com/?p=366



According to the UN, the U.S. emits 21% of the world’s total CO2 emissions, while we comprise just 4.6% of the world’s population. China emits 17.3%, Russia 5.3%, Australia 1.1%… click on the map to find out how much your country emits.

But if you look at the per person rates you'll see that the modern world is a lot closer than they would like you to believe. The U.S. emits 20.6 metric tons per person, Canada emits 20.0, Norway 19.1, Australia emits 16.2, Saudi Arabia 13.6, U.K. & Germany 9.8. I also have to question the accuracy of testing in places like china, india, and russia. When you get test results from communist countries you'll quickly learn to question the validity of the data your provided by the government, scientists (government) or local colleges (government). I've done some foundation projects for generators in china for GE and the first thing you learn when working in that country is question every piece of information you're given unless you witnessed the tests take place with your own eyes. The government in china has a serious fear of giving any kind negative information to anyone (or letting you run your own tests) even when it comes to things as dumb as ground conditions or soil boring results.

I have a tendency to lean toward Liftmech's position, minus the recycling and organic food. I recycle pop cans and bottles because it doesn't cost anything, however, the curb side recycling costs money in my rural area, and I refuse to pay someone to take something they're going to sell. If curb side recycling was free I'd do it, in fact I did when I lived in florida. As for the organic food, that whole thing confuses me so I don't spend additional cash on things stamped organic or natural.

[floridaskier]

I agree with Liftmech too. I think it's a good idea to not be wasting too much, but there's no need to freak out over global warming. I find it hard to believe that humans could have had that much impact on the world. That said, it's always been a good idea to recycle, not drive a big vehicle unless you need one, and turn lights off when you don't need them. My town has curbside recycling for newspapers and bottles, so we do it, but the political hype over both sides of global warming is just stupid.

[liftmech]

floridaskier, on Jan 31 2009, 09:24 AM, said:

...the political hype over both sides of global warming is just stupid.

Therein lies most of the reason for the hysteria.

[Carl]

Some of Alaska's Glaciers are growing!

Carl

[k2skier]

Carl, on Jan 31 2009, 08:54 PM, said:

Some of Alaska's Glaciers are growing!

Carl

Which ones? And over what time period? Please post some links to support your claim.

It's all about common sense and sustainability.

[LiftTech]

http://www.iceagenow...ng_Glaciers.htm

[WBSKI]

I also agree with Liftmech. Andoman: I totally agree with you about the biofuels issue - biofuels are not the answer because we do not have nearly enough land on earth to grow enough biofuels plus they do release CO2 (although less than your average gasoline).

I question the validity of the growing glaciers website. I just looked up the Helm Glacier (near Whistler) from that website listed as "growing" and looked it up. I see on the Canadian Glacier Inventory Project (by McMaster University) a graph of the terminus point of the glacier (it has receeded 800 meters between 1945 - 1994.
I am quite certain the Place Glacier is shrinking also as it is quite nearby Helm.

Another glacier in Norway on that website in photos: Briksdalsbreen Glacier http://envisense.org...anos/index.html
(shrunk 400m in 10 years)

Basically our glaciers are shrinking and this is a huge problem as many countries in Asia need this extra water in the peak of summer to prevent drought.

[aug]

Come on guys ... this topic has been raised before here and all of the same arguments are surfacing again. Let's look at the facts....
1). The climate on this planet has NEVER been static. That means the climate and the weather will change regardless of what we do or how much we talk about it .

2). "The Industrial Revolution" is responsible for the release of the stored carbon( stored solar energy) on our planet. It has always been there, it has just been stored underground. Us being such an inquisitive species have just released it before its time. (Fate?)

3). Population control is the only long term answer to this problem of releasing excess carbon into the atmosphere. How do you reduce the carbon footprint ? remove the feet ( no pun intended Emax)

4). The planet Earth is in no trouble here ...... just the earth as we know it.

[towertop]

Come on... we know plants use co2 for growth, so all you vegans eat MEAT! And stop killing our Earth.