NPR...:rotflm:I heard on NPR, from a learned fellow in Minnesota, that the frigid weather may help kill off the emerald ash borer.
The cold snap may also help with a tick problem in Maine.
Call me a climate denier if you want, but the key to this is "on record". A 100 year window (even a 1000 year window ) is a miniscule snapshot into the history of the Earth and is no indicator of "climate change". Just my $.02.
For many decades, thousands of scientists worldwide have dedicated their lives to studying climate. Trust me, they thought of volcanoes, sun spots, algae, and whatever else seems obvious to Joe Public. And the only reason those things concern Joe Public is because Joe Executive has been flooding the media and politicians with fake data, just as they did with cigarettes and lead pipes.
All one has to do is fly at 30,000 ft and look out the aircraft window to see how bad it has become. September was always the nicest month in NC, not last year!
Go to CO2.Earth and look at the 10,000 year curve by scrolling down.
It beats me how anyone is not alarmed by the facts.
Weird that we rely upon those who have devoted their lives to woodworking for their advice and guidance.
We then turn around and reject those who have devoted their lives to climate science - instead winging it on our own.
Dave, Im not trying to give any guidance here, just trying to understand the science. Because im pretty sure if I did a study and my study conclusively said that something was indeed happening based on .0000000222% of the total sample, Im quite certain no one would or should believe it. I believe in numbers, statistics and tangible things. Scientists are claiming we are warmer (by 1.63 degrees or some random number) now than we were 100, 500, 1000 years ago?. They have only recently been able to predict temperatures with any reasonable accuracy (+/- 3 degrees seems to be the norm) of what the temperature will be tomorrow.
I wasnt aware we monitored the Earths CO2 levels 10,000 years ago..... Interesting. That 10,000 year "curve" (speculation) does bring that percentage of the Earths age WAY up to .00000222 %. That number is so insignificantly small as a sample its impossible to quantify. The part of this equation that really puzzles me is if say tomorrow, all the scientists got all the funding they wanted, because lets face it, this IS about money. What would the checks be written for? .What are the deliverables?. More study?.. If its a scientific fact, that shouldnt be necessary.... Is the entire world ready to give up life as we know it today?. No more fossil fueled vehicles?. The entire human race would perish if that happened. So, Im asking what is it global warmers want EXACTLY?.
The relevance is this: Since the amount of time we are using as our baseline to determine a temperature change is SO short (relative to how long the Earth has existed) that the scientists are measuring would not even be a tiny blip on the total timeline , how do we know this has not occurred regularly naturally, say every 10 million years?. It could have happened hundreds, thousands of times perhaps and I doubt it could be detected by looking at frozen oxygen bubble levels in ice that could be MUCH younger than the last time it naturally occurred.I do not understand the relevance of your percentage calculation in this instance for relevance.