Global Warming can lick my bean bag

Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum

Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

MikeFlynn74

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2007
Messages
3,875
Reaction score
22
Location
ANCHORAGE!!
http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/story/473786.html

We got new snow in the mountians right outside of anchorage. We dont normally get that until late sept/oct

Gloomy summer headed toward infamy

CHILLY: Anchorage could hit 65 degrees for fewest days on record.

By GEORGE BRYSON
[email protected]

Published: July 24th, 2008 12:10 AM
Last Modified: July 24th, 2008 04:56 PM

The coldest summer ever? You might be looking at it, weather folks say.
Click to enlarge

Right now the so-called summer of '08 is on pace to produce the fewest days ever recorded in which the temperature in Anchorage managed to reach 65 degrees.

That unhappy record was set in 1970, when we only made it to the 65-degree mark, which many Alaskans consider a nice temperature, 16 days out of 365.

This year, however -- with the summer more than half over -- there have been only seven 65-degree days so far. And that's with just a month of potential "balmy" days remaining and the forecast looking gloomy.

National Weather Service meteorologist Sam Albanese, a storm warning coordinator for Alaska, says the outlook is for Anchorage to remain cool and cloudy through the rest of July.

"There's no real warm feature moving in," Albanese said. "And that's just been the pattern we've been stuck in for a couple weeks now."

In the Matanuska Valley on Wednesday snow dusted the Chugach. On the Kenai Peninsula, rain was raising Six-Mile River to flood levels and rafting trips had to be canceled.

So if the cold and drizzle are going to continue anyway, why not shoot for a record? The mark is well within reach, Albanese said:

"It's probably going to go down as the summer with the least number of 65-degree days."

MEASURING THE MISERY

In terms of "coldest summer ever," however, a better measure might be the number of days Anchorage fails to even reach 60.

There too, 2008 is a contender, having so far notched only 35 such days -- far below the summer-long average of 88.

Unless we get 10 more days of 60-degree or warmer temperatures, we're going to break the dismal 1971 record of only 46 such days, a possibility too awful to contemplate.


• 70-degree days. So far this summer there have been two. Usually there are 15. Last year there were 21. In 2004 there were 49.

• 75-degree days. So far this summer there've been zero. Usually there are four. It may be hard to remember, but last year there were 21. In 2004 there were 23.

So are all bets off on global warming? Hardly, scientists say. Climate change is a function of long-term trends, not single summers or individual hurricanes.

Last year the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded that it's "unequivocal" the world is warming, considering how 11 of the warmest years on record have occurred in the past 13 years.

So what's going on in Alaska, which also posted a fairly frigid winter?

LA NINA

Federal meteorologists trace a lot of the cool weather to ocean temperatures in the South Pacific.

When the seas off the coast of Peru are 2 to 4 degrees cooler than normal, a La Nina weather pattern develops, which brings cooler-than- normal weather to Alaska.

For most of the past year, La Nina (the opposite of El Nino, in which warmer-than-normal ocean temperatures occur off Peru) has prevailed. But that's now beginning to change.

According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Web site, water temperatures in the eastern South Pacific began to warm this summer -- and the weather should eventually follow.

The current three-month outlook posted by the national Climate Prediction Center in Camp Springs, Md., calls for below-normal temperatures for the south coast of Alaska from August through October -- turning to above-normal temperatures from October through December.
 
My sister is down on the Kenai peninsula and my Dad is working up by Willow this year. They are always talking about the cool temps this year.

The thing that irks me about cool weather vs. global warming is that some scientists will claim that global warming is causing the cooling.

For you Mike, just brew lots of big heavy ABV beers to warm you up.
 
Global warming is a bit of a misnomer since it only applies in certain areas, in others a cooler, damper climate is setting in. That is why most scholarly articles refer to it as "climate change" now where as fearmongerers and the ill-informed use the term "global warming".

Here in Colorado for example we have had little to no rain (where normally it rains for about 15min every afternoon in the summer) and has been hot as balls (90+ for 15 days and counting). Winters have been more extreme also, with tons of snow and cold, even in the front range. From what I've heard and exerpienced the Pac-NW from Oregon up through BC and parts of AK have milder summers, and wetter, shorter winters.
 
global warming is a general term, katrina and crap like that will be more commmon due to increased (worldwide) temps and water. warming is still in the .10s of degrees.
 
I think I could re-adapt to the Alaskan climate with no problem. I remember wearing a T-shirt on summer days in the mid-50's, and those long summer days kicked a@@.
 
Global warming is a bit of a misnomer since it only applies in certain areas, in others a cooler, damper climate is setting in. That is why most scholarly articles refer to it as "climate change" now where as fearmongerers and the ill-informed use the term "global warming".

Very true... Global climate change can lick my bean bag
 
I love how the experts claim that the "temperatures today are warmer than they have been in the last 500 years". Implicit in that statement is that it was this warm 500 years ago. What caused the the temps to be this warm 500 years ago? Cow farts and campfires maybe?
 
I love how the experts claim that the "temperatures today are warmer than they have been in the last 500 years". Implicit in that statement is that it was this warm 500 years ago. What caused the the temps to be this warm 500 years ago? Cow farts and campfires maybe?

Implicit in this statement is that the further back you go in time, the more uncertain temperature reproductions become because less proxies are available, their temporal resolution decreases, and samples are spatially heterogeneous.

Hypotheses that humans have significantly altered climate as early as 6000 years ago, have been largely discredited as orbital forcing became better understood. When we are talking about timescales of multiple centuries in the absence of anthropogenic forcing, we are pretty much left with short-term solar forcing and system-internal feedbacks that occur due to the vastly differing response rates of the various components of the climate system. This variability isn't usually expressed globally, and it's probably what explains the temperature anomalies between 1000-1900, which were most expressed in the North Atlantic basin, which also happens to be one of the most sensitive components of the climate system.
 
I think that we would all have to be fools to downright deny the climate changes that are happening.

and yeah it's because we are driving cars etc, and putting mass amounts of carbon in the air. I would be extremely surprised if all those nasty fumes didn't do anything to the environment...

*runs and ducks for cover* :mug:
 
I think that we would all have to be fools to downright deny the climate changes that are happening.

and yeah it's because we are driving cars etc, and putting mass amounts of carbon in the air. I would be extremely surprised if all those nasty fumes didn't do anything to the environment...

*runs and ducks for cover* :mug:

I this we can all agree that it's foolish to think that humankind has no effect on the environment. Obviously there must be some effect - that exhaust isn't going to just disappear on it's own.

Where I become a little more doubtful is in two areas: First, that human kind has a signifigant impact on carbon levels on a global scale. It certainly can have an effect locally within our cities, but think of the entire scale of the earth. Our cities take up a tiny fraction of the overall land mass, which in itself it a fraction of the overall surface of the earth.

And second, that anthropogenic climate change is bad. When did we decide that today's climate is the best climate the world has ever had or ever will have, and that it should not change? the climate has always changed, and this will have both good and bad effects. In the areas in which the effects are positive, we should take advantage (maybe we can start growing hops in northern canada to help with the shortage. in the areas in which the effects are negative, we'll need to adapt.
 
My hop plants are all struggling and the blackberries are still in bloom. Three years ago, I was picking blackberries by now. This month's high was well above the average high, but most mornings is been cold.

Never confuse weather with climate.
 
I this we can all agree that it's foolish to think that humankind has no effect on the environment. Obviously there must be some effect - that exhaust isn't going to just disappear on it's own.

Where I become a little more doubtful is in two areas: First, that human kind has a signifigant impact on carbon levels on a global scale. It certainly can have an effect locally within our cities, but think of the entire scale of the earth. Our cities take up a tiny fraction of the overall land mass, which in itself it a fraction of the overall surface of the earth.

And second, that anthropogenic climate change is bad. When did we decide that today's climate is the best climate the world has ever had or ever will have, and that it should not change? the climate has always changed, and this will have both good and bad effects. In the areas in which the effects are positive, we should take advantage (maybe we can start growing hops in northern canada to help with the shortage. in the areas in which the effects are negative, we'll need to adapt.

Great post! Unfortunately, ideas like that do nothing to put money in Al Gore's pocket or undermine our capitalist system.
 
Great post! Unfortunately, ideas like that do nothing to put money in Al Gore's pocket or undermine our capitalist system.

Are you kidding me? Do you have any idea how much money is out there to be made from building and installing the energy systems of the future? If it was going to undermine the capitalist system you would not see the big corps putting so much money into it. Do you realy think T. Boone Picket would throw away the billions he is spending on that big wind farm if he thought it would loose money?
 
Three years ago, I was picking blackberries by now. This month's high was well above the average high, but most mornings is been cold.

Last year I had had about 20 jars of red huckleberry and salmon berry Jams by this time. Blackberries were also starting to come out. This year, I have 4 jars of jam. I just can't find any ripe fruit on the bushes.

Personally, I do not believe that we are responsible for all of this climate change. I do believe that we could be more responsible about our emissions and waste. I also believe that many people are over-hyping this thing to make money.

Here are a couple of links to Times articles back in 1974 saying we are heading for an Ice Age:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,910467,00.html
 
Not another ******* global warming thread, please! Yeah, let's throw together a bunch of people who know next to nothing about the science behind the issue, and let them blather on and on about what they "believe" because, hey, today's hot, or today's cold. Really?

Global Warming has to be the most stale, beat-to-death excuse for a topic in all of HBT history.
 
Global Warming has to be the most stale, beat-to-death excuse for a topic in all of HBT history.

Really? :D

Perhaps it is because more and more BS is coming to light about it. Lots of folks are embarrassed about being suckered in on the climate change TWICE now by the media.

I find it humorous every time and quite refreshing.

/stir-stir :cross:
 
Not another ******* global warming thread, please! Yeah, let's throw together a bunch of people who know next to nothing about the science behind the issue, and let them blather on and on about what they "believe" because, hey, today's hot, or today's cold. Really?

Global Warming has to be the most stale, beat-to-death excuse for a topic in all of HBT history.
I agree. Especially since the people posting about it are normally just talking about todays good weather in their town.
Other places in the the world are in flood or drought,. What is outside some HBT members window doesn't prove or disprove anything.
 
Really? :D

Perhaps it is because more and more BS is coming to light about it. Lots of folks are embarrassed about being suckered in on the climate change TWICE now by the media.

I find it humorous every time and quite refreshing.

/stir-stir :cross:

That's not it at all. Like I said, the level of actual knowledge here has a pretty low ceiling, and so the level of discourse can only reach a certain terminal point before everything starts to sound exactly the same. Either side can cherry pick stuff to make their point in some fashion, and as much as I agree with you on this issue, Ed, I still find this topic to be quite inane in such a setting.

*I don't know how cool it is for a forum moderator to be bragging about "stirring the sh*t". Not that I mind it personally, really (I do stir it myself from time to time ;)), but I think it could create problems if a "civilian" gets suspended or even banned for sh*t-stirring.
 
I did not start this thread, so I'm just jumping in my opinion. The /stir-stir was meant to be humorous, hence the smiley face.
 
Where I become a little more doubtful is in two areas: First, that human kind has a signifigant impact on carbon levels on a global scale. It certainly can have an effect locally within our cities, but think of the entire scale of the earth. Our cities take up a tiny fraction of the overall land mass, which in itself it a fraction of the overall surface of the earth.

And second, that anthropogenic climate change is bad. When did we decide that today's climate is the best climate the world has ever had or ever will have, and that it should not change? the climate has always changed, and this will have both good and bad effects. In the areas in which the effects are positive, we should take advantage (maybe we can start growing hops in northern canada to help with the shortage. in the areas in which the effects are negative, we'll need to adapt.

In regard to your first point, most anthropogenic greenhouse gases are well-mixed in the troposphere, meaning that their average concentrations don't vary all that much no matter where you are (on landscape scales and above). Climate change is regionally diverse mostly because the way in which elevated anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations interact with the most important greenhouse gas of all (water vapor), as well as atmospheric and oceanic circulation patterns. Urban heat island effects are a different, much more local phenomenon that is negligible on the global scale.

Re: your second point, the problem is the rate of change we are experiencing, which is extremely rapid - too rapid for many biota to adjust and respond to, especially given all the other stresses that are acting on them and depressing their resilience. Globally, we are talking of orders of magnitude faster than what most species we currently share this planet with have experienced in their recent evolutionary history.

Climate change, and especially climate change ecology, is about as intuitive as quantum physics. When you have a heart attack, you trust a doctor who went through years of medical school, residency and practice to stabilize you and save your life. You don't second-guess every incision he makes during your bypass surgery even if it "doesn't seem to make sense". Does he make mistakes from time to time? Sure, but in general he knows exactly what he needs to do and does just that.
The same applies to topics like climate change - don't presume you know better than those of us who have worked on it nearly every day of our lives for many years because it "doesn't seem to make sense". And by "us", I don't mean talking heads on Fox News and CNN working for the PR branch of some nutjob advocacy organizations or Al Gore or James Inhoffe (or whatever his name is).
 
Climate change, and especially climate change ecology, is about as intuitive as quantum physics. When you have a heart attack, you trust a doctor who went through years of medical school, residency and practice to stabilize you and save your life. You don't second-guess every incision he makes during your bypass surgery even if it "doesn't seem to make sense". Does he make mistakes from time to time? Sure, but in general he knows exactly what he needs to do and does just that.

The same applies to topics like climate change - don't presume you know better than those of us who have worked on it nearly every day of our lives for many years because it "doesn't seem to make sense". And by "us", I don't mean talking heads on Fox News and CNN working for the PR branch of some nutjob advocacy organizations or Al Gore or James Inhoffe (or whatever his name is).

Yes, but "those of us who have worked on it nearly every day of our lives for many years" don't even agree. Where do you think all the cute talking points laymen toss about came from in the first place....
 
In regard to your first point, most anthropogenic greenhouse gases are well-mixed in the troposphere, meaning that their average concentrations don't vary all that much no matter where you are (on landscape scales and above). Climate change is regionally diverse mostly because the way in which elevated anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations interact with the most important greenhouse gas of all (water vapor), as well as atmospheric and oceanic circulation patterns. Urban heat island effects are a different, much more local phenomenon that is negligible on the global scale.

Re: your second point, the problem is the rate of change we are experiencing, which is extremely rapid - too rapid for many biota to adjust and respond to, especially given all the other stresses that are acting on them and depressing their resilience. Globally, we are talking of orders of magnitude faster than what most species we currently share this planet with have experienced in their recent evolutionary history.

Climate change, and especially climate change ecology, is about as intuitive as quantum physics. When you have a heart attack, you trust a doctor who went through years of medical school, residency and practice to stabilize you and save your life. You don't second-guess every incision he makes during your bypass surgery even if it "doesn't seem to make sense". Does he make mistakes from time to time? Sure, but in general he knows exactly what he needs to do and does just that.
The same applies to topics like climate change - don't presume you know better than those of us who have worked on it nearly every day of our lives for many years because it "doesn't seem to make sense". And by "us", I don't mean talking heads on Fox News and CNN working for the PR branch of some nutjob advocacy organizations or Al Gore or James Inhoffe (or whatever his name is).

you're missing my point regarding the difference between local urban warming and global warming (although I could have been more clear) I'm not trying to mix the two, I agree that they are distinct phenomena. the point I was making is keep a perspective on mankind's impact on the environment. It seems great to those of us who live in the cities, but you have to consider how that effect is diluted once it's mixed into the whole tropospere. The earth is a lot bigger than we sometime realize, It's been around a lot longer than humans have been, and it'll be around for a lot longer after we're all dead and gone. The earth may not be very stable, and climate change certainly doesn't add to that stability, but it's far from fragile.
 
Back
Top