http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?P ... 0804c.html


A Bit of History for Global Warmers: Look at 1930
By Randy Hall
CNSNews.com Staff Writer/Editor
August 04, 2006

(CNSNews.com) - People sweltering from a heat wave in the Mid-Atlantic region of the U.S. might find cold comfort in the fact that the temperatures of the past few days are not the hottest on record. That "honor" belongs to a summer 76 years ago -- decades before the controversy over "man-made global warming" began.

"From June 1 to August 31, 1930, 21 days had high temperatures that were 100 degrees or above" in the metropolitan Washington, D.C., area, Patrick Michaels, senior fellow for environmental studies at the libertarian Cato Institute, told Cybercast News Service. "That summer has never been approached, and it's not going to be approached this year."

Between July 19 and Aug. 9 of that year, heat records were set on nine days and they remain unbroken more than three-quarters of a century later. "That's hot," added Michaels, who also serves as professor of natural resources at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in Blacksburg, Va.

The summer of 1930 also marked the beginning of the longest drought of the 20th century. In 1934, dry regions stretched from New York and Pennsylvania across the Great Plains to California. A "dust bowl" covered about 50 million acres in the south-central plains during the winter of 1935-1936.

However, the first six months of this year were the hottest across the nation since the federal government began keeping records in 1890, according to Dennis Feltgen, a meteorologist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration who told NBC News that about 50 all-time high-temperature records were broken during the month of July.

But Michaels noted that high temperatures are common in the middle of the summer.

"Climatologically, the last week in July is the warmest week of the year on average, and when the atmospheric flow patterns get into anomalously warm configurations during this time of the year, temperatures will skyrocket," he said.

Along with an unusual upper-air pattern, the Washington, D.C., area "was exceedingly dry" during the summer of 1930, Michaels stated.

"Generally speaking, when the ground is moist here, temperatures cap out in the high 90s," he noted. "That's because the sun's energy is divided into evaporating water and directly heating the surface. If the surface is dry, then everything goes into heating the surface, and you get exceedingly hot temperatures like you saw in 1930.

"Big cities are getting warmer -- with or without global warming -- because the bricks and the buildings and the pavement retain heat," Michaels added. For that reason, he prefers to compare temperatures in nearby rural areas. "There's been very little change" in those areas, "so we trust the record to be a reliable indicator of base climate."

Residents of the nation's capital can look forward to some relief, as weather forecasts for the weekend call for a cooling trend. "If we were going to go into the 100s -- the 103 and 104 degree range -- we would have done it, but there's just a little bit too much moisture in the surface to allow that to happen," Michaels said. He noted, however, that temperatures are expected to rise again next week.

The mid-summer temperatures have provided more opportunities for environmentalists subscribing to the theory that man is responsible for the current global warming.

Jay Gulledge, senior research fellow for science and impacts at the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, told NBC News on Wednesday that "this heat wave and other extreme events we've seen in recent years are completely consistent with what we expect to become more common as a result of global warming, even though we can't be definitive on any single event."

Michaels acknowledged that "global temperatures have been warming slightly for several decades" and noted that the surface of the world "is a little bit warmer than it was in the 1930s" even though "temperatures dropped between 1940 and 1975."

"Usually, the way the jet stream breaks out is very hot in the East and relatively cool in the West or vice versa," he said. "This time around, it looks more like the summers of the 1930s," but he dismissed the idea that the extreme temperatures of that time were caused by man-made "global warming" since "it wasn't around then."

Although the recent heat wave have not convinced Michaels that "global warming" is a severe problem, it was apparently enough to make a "convert" out of conservative Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson.

"We really need to address the burning of fossil fuels," Robertson said during his "700 Club" broadcast on Thursday. The high temperatures in some regions of the U.S. East are "the most convincing evidence I've seen on global warming in a long time," he added.

So where is Gore's lie?

Hey LF, just a tip; when you title your posts in an asinine, inflamatory fashion, you ultimately only serve to lessen any validity that may be held in the articles that you post. Instead you just come across as being pretty bush league in your approach to intelligent discourse.

in other words, you fit in well with all the bush bashers

Thanks peeps; I was waiting for someone to bring this up. One large difference between most of the bush bashing threads and this one is that in most of the bush bashing threads, there is usually some direct link to Bush, his administration, or his policies. In this thread, LF shoots off some horseshit about Al Gore's lies, and the article has nothing to do with Al Gore. That's why I think its bush league.

I take it you've never read his book on global warming or have seen "An Inconvenient Truth."

Thank you for the criticism - I will take it into consideration in the future (I'm not being sarcastic).

Inflammitory, I agree. Asinine...that is subjective.

This article has nothing to do with Al Gore? Are you serious, or have you been living in a cave the past year?

Ever heard of a film called "An Inconvenient Truth?" Well, I don't know if you have seen it or are at all familiar with Al Gore and his connection with global warming. If not, I suggest you see it and then read the article I posted....then you can claim that I "shot off some horseshit about Al Gore's lies."

people just seem to get so edgy over what? geez people its a message board!

thanks for posting about Al gore

There's a difference between claiming global warming is happening and trying to blame the current heat wave on it. There's a vast difference. I have yet to see Gore ranting the past couple weeks saying "See, I told you so." Thus, this particular article has very little to do with Al Gore's opinions or research.

I never said that Gore has recently linked the current heat wave to global warming. I never denied that Global Warming exists (note the article does not dispute global warming either). What is in contention is whether it is a natural phenomenon or "man-made." Al Gore claims that we (humans) have created this global warming crisis and has said that if drastic changes aren't made then we will be dead in 10 years.
Now, let's go back to the article. If we are to accept Mr. Gore's "Truth," then temperatures should be going up at a steady pace since the industrial revolution. The only problem with the assertion is that Mr. Gore ignores the fact that average temperatures work in cycles (as do hurricanes). This is the point being made.....if humans were responsible for global warming, then how could it have been hotter back in 1930? Aren't there far more automobiles on the road now then back then? See....the logic doesn't hold up. And what about Mr. Gore's gloomy prediction of more and more hurricanes? There have been 3 so far this year, and none (thankfully) are his cat-5 monsters that he claims will be the norm, not the exception.

As far as the title of my post, I was using the word "lies" as in opposition of Mr. Gore's Inconvenient "Truth."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... d=rss.news


the fact also remains that top climatologists gave a thumbs up for the movie for accuracy.

of course, global warming isn't something that all of a sudden makes everything go crazy and hurrican after hurricane to appear the same year as gore's movie come out. anybody with any memory will remember how intense last year's hurricane season was.

i just got out of school, and was a geology minor. the class that left the biggest impact on me in geology was one on the earth's climate and environment. i'll only mention one fact from that class: the earth's mean temperature has risen 2 degrees celsius in the last century, when natural causes could, at most, account for one fourth of that increase. we are fucking up the environment, but that doesn't mean the earth's natural weather cycles totally stop.

yes, al gore and just about every serious scientific expert on climate change believes this


that's a lie.


they have been and are.


no, he doesn't ignore that at all.

you seriously equate a three to four week period with over a hundred year trend? that doesn't seem absolutely retarded to you?


yes.


firstly, it's about science, not logic. secondly, nothing you've said in any way impunes the logic behind human contributions to co2 levels being as important as natural contributions in terms of trapping heat in the earth's atmosphere. in fact, it's illogical to believe otherwise. essentially, you have to either believe carbon dioxide emitted due to human actions is less potent than that emitted naturally or carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere don't affect the earth's surface temperature. if you believe either of those you don't believe in human induced global warming. if you believe either of those your head must be in the sand. if you don't know what i am talking about please never post in this forum again.


good god. for one thing, it's the beginning of august. for another, did you just sleep through last year entirely?


there are more lies in your post than in his book and movie combined. from this post it's obvious you've never read the book nor watched the movie. please only comment on subjects you have at least a surface-level understanding of in the future, k?

I'm not going to respond to every retort in your post, as I can't get past your accusation that I'm lying.

I'm trying to remember which magazine I read that quote from, but it escapes me. In it I specifically remember how taken back I was by his 10 year doomsday warning, as well as his assertion that the occurance would be worse than a complete nuclear weapon exchange between the U.S. and the former Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War. Again, I don't remember the specific magazine with that interview, but here is something from the Washington Post when he was at Sundance....

"The morning after his debut as leading man, Gore pronounces this whole Sundance thing "a most excellent time." He is wearing earth tones again. He seems jolly . He brought Tipper and the kids. He is attending parties and posing for pictures with his fans and enjoying macaroni and cheese at the Discovery Channel soiree. He's palling around with Larry David of "Curb Your Enthusiasm," who says, "Al is a funny guy." But he is also a very serious guy who believes humans may have only 10 years left to save the planet from turning into a total frying pan."

Complete article here....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 02230.html


Now, you can believe whatever you want. Don't believe that I saw his documentary....fine. I can't prove to you that I did. But perhaps you should be a bit more vigilant before you accuse someone of lying, "K?"

I realize that, as a person who is conservative on some issues, that I am behind the eight ball in this forum. But I will always keep an open mind and will always try to keep the debate civil. And most importantly I will not make blank assumptions about someone....as you did. That being said, if people wish to shun dissenting views by telling them not to post unless certain conditions are met, that's fine. Having people agree with what you say and believe is always easier than being challenged. And if I'm to be run off the boards, so be it.

i apologize. i now know it was your misunderstanding and not a lie.

that doesn't mean he thinks we'll all die in ten years. it means if we don't do anything over that period the influence will be too much to overturn. the tide will have risen before we built a large enough flood wall, so to speak.


you can't possibly have watched it very closely if you actually believe all the assertions in your prior post. it's impossible because he specifically addressed and refuted basically everything you accused him of ignoring, both in the film and in the book.


the problem isn't conservatism, it's a lack of a fundamental basis in reality. i haven't said anything about your posts in the foreign policy threads nearly as strong as what i've said in this thread because you seem to have at least some grasp of the issues involved. but this thread is full of ignorant, untrue statements that don't have a place in public discourse.

An exaggeration by a newspaper writer is not the same as a quote.