Town Square

Global warming and social Engineering

Original post made by Rick Pshaw on Feb 10, 2011

The average temperature in January 2011 was 30.0 F. This was -0.8 F cooler than the 1901-2000 (20th century) average, the 37th coolest January in 117 years. Source: Web Link

Does anyone with reasonable scientific knowledge still insist that the earth is somehow getting warmer? The only reason the "Warmers" continue their rant is to change your lifestyle to something THEY approve of. This is also know as social engineering. Time to put a stop to their silly game.

And oh yes, they will claim this ongoing frigid weather is due to global warming. In fact, they will claim that EVERYTHING is due to global warming, including global cooling.


Posted by Jeremiah LaBoeuf, a resident of San Ramon Valley High School
on Feb 10, 2011 at 9:18 am

Trend line pretty clearly points out how you incorrectly interpret the data: Web Link

Besides, the claim of those concerned about climate change has been the problem of more severe climate events (extreme heat AND extreme snow/cold) that results from increased global temperatures.

Posted by Rick Pshaw, a resident of Danville
on Feb 10, 2011 at 9:26 am

Extreme snow and cold is a result of global warming??

LIke I said, "they will claim that EVERYTHING is due to global warming, including global cooling."

'Nuff said.

Posted by Botanist, a resident of Danville
on Feb 11, 2011 at 8:14 am

It's not global warming - haven't you been paying attention. It's GLOBAL CHANGE! Clearly you haven't been outside of your home and car on a regular basis in the last few decades. Anyone who regularly ventures into nature has seen changes over the last several decades. Changes even in one's "backyard". (Backyard extends beyond your property.) Go take a hike, literally, open your eyes and start to observe nature. You'll be better for it and maybe you'll take better care of this incredible place we call earth.

Posted by Rick Pshaw, a resident of Danville
on Feb 11, 2011 at 8:33 am

I stand corrected. The earth WILL be getting warmer...

...It's called summer.

AKA known as the CHANGE in seasons.

Posted by Julia, a resident of Alamo
on Feb 11, 2011 at 10:21 am

Hey Rick can tell them until you are blue in the face and they still won't hear you. You are so correct in everything you say. It's the crazy Gore group that can't see the trees from the forest.

Don't let them get the last word. I can't wait for a little summer time Global's been darn cold this winter.

Take care Rick...

Julia for Alamo

Posted by guynextdoor, a resident of Danville
on Feb 11, 2011 at 10:44 am

Rick nailed it. There's climate change alright. It's just not anthropogenic (man caused). It's ridiculous to think that man's dinky little activities are more influential than the sun. Read about its recent magnetic activity and you'll forget about anthropogenic climate change, a gimmic promulgated by resentful globalist/socialists who believe that we Americans must be made to redistribute our wealth among less developed countries.

Posted by Duffy, a resident of Danville
on Feb 11, 2011 at 10:45 am

There is a perfectly logical explanation. The earth is flat and we just turned it over from the hot side to the cool side. As soon as this side warms up we can turn it back to the other side.
See how easy it is to explain things when you are not encumbered by scientific reasoning!

Posted by Joe, a resident of Alamo
on Feb 11, 2011 at 12:06 pm

Don't say "global warming", say "climate change" because indeed that's what it is. Increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere as a whole contribute to a stronger greenhouse effect, meaning the entrapment of more infrared radiation. There is no doubt that CO2 levels in the atmosphere have been going up since the Industrial Revolution. Although a stronger greenhouse effect means a warmer average temperature on the surface of a planet, realize that this is just an average. With climate change, extremes become more extreme - temperature swings become more dramatic, storms become more severe, and droughts can be longer-lasting.

One cold January can't be proved to be a direct result of climate change. However, one cold January also can't be disproved to be a result of climate change. Climate is one of the most complex systems in the world - supercomputers that occupy entire buildings still have difficulty predicting how weather patterns only weeks in the future will occur.

I can assure you though, that once CO2 levels reach a "tipping point", a stronger greenhouse effect become inevitable. Future warming could easily release billions of tons of carbon dioxide into the air from thawing permafrost, as well as methane (CH4) from previously-frozen lakes. This would only fuel further warming, and thus, climate change.

If you want to read a very interesting and widely-accepted idea, look up the "Snowball Earth" hypothesis. It involves one of the most extreme periods of climate change the Earth has ever seen. Essentially, hundreds of millions of years ago, the position of the continents favored runaway glaciation. Some even believe that the entire plant, pole to pole, was covered in ice. However, over thousands of years, continuous volcanism released CO2 into the atmosphere. Eventually, the CO2 built up to such huge levels that a runaway greenhouse effect resulted. This melted the ice, and within only a few hundred (yes, hundred) years, the average temperature of the Earth had increased to somewhere around 150 degrees Fahrenheit.

Pretty cool, huh?

Posted by Mike, a resident of Alamo
on Feb 11, 2011 at 1:41 pm

Had the orginal commentor looked at the global summary on the NOAA website (which is what GLOBAL climate change is about), and not just the North American summary, he would have found the following:

"For 2010, the combined global land and ocean surface temperature tied with 2005 as the warmest such period on record, at 0.62C (1.12F) above the 20th century average of 13.9C (57.0F). 1998 is the third warmest year-to-date on record, at 0.60C (1.08F) above the 20th century average."

Web Link

Posted by C. R. Mudgeon, a resident of Danville
on Feb 11, 2011 at 4:38 pm

The trend line plot at the NOAA/NCDC web site indeed shows a 0.1 degree/decade increase, if the default time span of 1895-present is used. But picking different time spans gives widely-varying trend-line results. As just one example, the 1930-1980 time span shows a -0.57 degree/decade trend (five times as large cooling trend). And sure enough choosing other subsets can result in relatively large increasing temperature trend lines.

Of course, all of this is based on data that has its own issues, including the effect of urbanization around many of our temperature recording locations. Not to mention the chicken-and-egg question of whether CO2 concentrations are a significant contributor/cause of temperature increase, or merely a lagging indicator of solar-cycle effects.

The fundamental act of science is to keep asking questions.

Posted by askidoo, a resident of Alamo
on Feb 13, 2011 at 11:37 am

The fundamental role of citizens is to keep common sense (no Chicken Little) when reviewing the scientists data (A+ to CRMudgeon); to observe closely their computer modeling assumptions (difficult to find); and to question motivations when there is no direct consistent correlation between data/observations AND requested solutions.

The complications of daily weather change, seasonal change, any and all change, etc. has resulted in many theories but no consistent proof. Hypothesis on anthropogenic causes is premature and speaks more to political motivation of some rather than solid data showing a direct correlation.

Posted by Mike, a resident of Alamo
on Feb 13, 2011 at 4:19 pm

Since I am not qualified to argue the technical data of climate change in detail (as I suspect is the case with every other commentor here), I look to the scientific community and the technically related governmental agencies (e.g. NOAA, NSF, IPCC etc.) for information on the issue. So far, despite all of the political noise, they don't seem to have changed their minds.

The idea that scientists as a group have some ulterior motive to lie about climate change because they want to make life difficult for everyone or ruin the economy is laughable.

Better to study and discuss the conclusions of actual scientists and scientific agencies, and their qualificatons, credibility and level of consensus, rather than engaging in endless armchair techno-babble.

Posted by Rick Pshaw, a resident of Danville
on Feb 14, 2011 at 8:25 am

It's not the scientists of the world who have an ulterior motive (although some of them do), it's the Al Gores of the world who want to engineer society to their own definitions.

Posted by Mike, a resident of Alamo
on Feb 15, 2011 at 1:21 pm

Just because one doesn't like the politics of people like Al Gore or others who advocate trying to do something about climate change, is that a rational for doing nothing? If the scientific community's overall consensus is that human activity is the primary driver of current climate change and that there will be signifcant negative consequeces because of it, shouldn't we try to do something about it? If one doesn't like current proposal like cap and trade, energy efficiency standards, incentives for lower CO2 producing energy sources and disincentives for higher ones, what should we be doing?

Posted by askidoo, a resident of Alamo
on Feb 21, 2011 at 12:57 am

It is faulty to move forward with solutions such as limiting water in flushing toilets, changing washing machine front loading, adapting paint production and refrigeration, and changing lighbulbs to those with mercury which are great hazards when they burst. These small examples affect everyone and solve nothing. Providing government incentives to go to technologies that don't work like windmills is also the result of the thinking we must do something.

Posted by Citizen Paine, a resident of Danville
on Feb 21, 2011 at 8:44 am

Just thought I'd stop by the kids' table and see how far your discussion was proceeding. Assessment: not very.

Try reading The Tragedy of the Commons, here: Web Link, or on Wikipedia for the attention-challenged: Web Link

Posted by askidoo, a resident of Alamo
on Feb 21, 2011 at 6:00 pm

A not very helpful additon to suggest an old criticized social theory. It does highlight that the original pshaw suggestion about social engineering was exactly correct.

Posted by Mike, a resident of Alamo
on Feb 22, 2011 at 9:33 am

We have lower flow toilets because there is a shortage of water and they perform just as well. Is that a problem?

We have different paint and refrigerant formulatons because newer ones pose less threat to atmospheric ozone and have had a positive effect. The older paint formulatons could also sometimes be a health hazard.

CFL light bulbs can create a small mercury exposure if broken but they also use 75% less electricity. Fluorescent lighting has been around a long time without a great concern about the mercury it uses. Hopefully LED technology will advance soon the fill this niche.

And of course windmills work. Their expanded use would be beneficial to the country and is perfectly feasible.

These are all beneficial changes and hardly "solve nothing".

Posted by Citizen Paine, a resident of Danville
on Feb 22, 2011 at 10:36 am

"old" "criticized" "social" "theory"? Really, skid -- is that best you've got? You're oh-for-four, and The Commons on which we all depend is still in peril, because it's demonstrably being "over-grazed."

It's apparently in your individual perceived interest to play the ostrich, and I'm guessing you feel even better if you can try to cloak your sandy argument in the flag of freedom.

But your uncovered butt is about to suffer a severe sunburn and the flag can't help that. It wouldn't bother me much if your recalcitrance didn't subject me to one, too, but that's The Commons.

It'd be better if you were part of the solution, but if you can't bring yourself to do so, kindly at least get out of the way.