|

It’s like heat wave in 1911 folks, not climate change

The 1911 Eastern North America heat wave was an 11-day heat wave in New York City and other Eastern cities that killed 380 people starting on July 4, 1911 – 101 years ago.

In Nashua, New Hampshire, the temperature peaked at 106 degrees Fahrenheit. In New York City, 146 people and 600 horses died.

I’ll bet there has been a history of  hot temperatures like what we are currently going through. It’s just a heat wave folks – not global warming!

Share:

92 Comments

  1. truth hurts

    Ok to all you global warming/climate change/whatever the flavor of the day wording is, lets look at some FACTS.

    1. Al Gore’s movie (where he won a now joke/nobel prize) “inconvient truth” was taken to a british court of law. You know what the ruling was? It was classified as a work of SCIENTIFIC FICTION due to over 6 PROVEN scientific inaccuracies (aka FALSEHOODS).

    2. The fossil data shows (even taking into account continental drift) that the climate overall was more tropical (aka hotter) with high seas (as being found evidence in such places as AZ, SD and even IL), and places such as iceland/greenland being green. Not until whatever hit the earth caused the global ice age.

    3. No one can PROVE what the earth temperature should be. If so give me proof.

    4. In the late 70-late 80′s the same “proof”/scientific concensious/supporters cried “global cooling”. Need proof just search the publications of the time. Time magazine had wonderful articles on the matter. It was even taught as a theory in environmental classes required of all students at SIU-C.

    So they were all now oil industry paid stooges then?

    5. Science is NOT BY CONSENCIOUS. It is by using scientific method to test a theory and ONLY becomes fact when it can regularly be re-created in a lab over and over. Then its a FACT NOT BEFORE.

    6. Most of the evidence of global warming is based on “computer modeling”. The same modeling is used to predict the hurricane season in how many there will be, broken down by category of severity and number.

    News flash it has been DEAD WRONG 4 years running. Both in how many total AND how many in each severity category.

    So they cannot EVEN COME CLOSE in a known weather event in our own back yard (as it were) but you can PROVE how the earth was, is and will be in the future. REALLY?????

    Lastly back to the global warming crowds “the scientific community has come to a concencious, case closed” is this. Here is some of those same “concencious” from the past.

    The earth is flat
    The earth is the center of the universe, with the planets rotating around it.
    The basic elements are earth, fire, air, water.
    That bathing make one vulnerable to the black death.
    We cannot break the sound barrier with maned aircraft.
    The smallest particles are electrons, protons, and neutrons.
    Brain damage is permanent.

    I could go on and on.

    All of this was proven wrong due to the scientific method and VERIFIABLE/RECREATEABLE experiments.

    So as ted and others have asked for I also ask again.

    1. What is the earths normal temperature supposed to be?
    2. Verifiable proof we are having a SIGNIFICANT EFFECT on it? Note not just because there are alot of us or otherwise places like india with more people per space than us should be unlivable.
    3. Proof other than faulty computer models and INCONVIENANT TRUTH FILMS
    4. Records where these temperatures were much lower in the past.
    Note the fossil records show HOTTER CLIMATE WITH HIGHER SEAS.

    I see in the future going from global cooling, to global warming, to 20 years from now articles on global neutrality.

    PS There are mispelled words so I give the liberals something to debate with some degree of irrelivant truth.

  2. Brian Opsahl

    Here’s the simple truth from the science side of this that cannot be ignored. The core samples have been recording CO2 temps that date back as far as 3000 years these samples have never been above 200 parts per million until…..the 1980s and it is climbing at a very rapid rate, thats what has everybody in a tizzy we are now approching 300 parts per million stage witch is off the charts.

    Ted this scientific data is exactly the kind of warning we are getting thats proven. The Ocean is having the same kinds of scary changes that have the Marine people on the edge of there seats.

    These are not all related without some commen cause , and again you cant really beleive that all those tail pipes and smoke stacks and billions of tons of toxins pumped into the air on a daily basis is NOT going to somehow damadge our planet ….Really !!

  3. @ truth hurts: “Brain damage is permanent.” could be accurate, when discussing Liberals.

  4. Brian Opsahl

    Ok, it’s back to name calling…again..! We can agree to dissagree thats called debate. Here’s the thing about the conclusion. If i’m wrong or the scientist that say that we have damadged our planet are wrong the worst that will happen is that we start doing a better job of taking care of our enviroment (good)

    If your wrong along with all those companys who agree with you that are the poluters, we ourselves will not be the ones who pay a terrible price but it will be our kids and there kids. (Bad)

    And to think that all we had to do was start taking more care now and change just a few simple things. how selfesh, what exactly doe’s Conservative mean anyway…?

  5. Dr, Gore had over 30 BS statements in “The Inconsistant Truth”. If it is such rock-solid science, why lie?

  6. kevind1986

    Juice – why bother with the truth when your minions will believe it anyway? It’s so dang HARD to investigate and share the real stuff and so EASY to just make it up.

  7. Brian Opsahl

    And you smart fellas i’m sure voted for Bush…what twice ? and your guna question me …huh ok and yea they made up the core samples and those fires they started ..oh my !! Idiots fox news is NOT science..and Rush is just a high paid wind bag of sh&t

  8. Given that the opposition was ultra-Liberals Gore and Kerry, the choice was clear. I would have preferred a more fiscally-conservative candidate, but that choice wasn’t there.

    Romney isn’t that perfect conservative, either (IMHO), but I don’t think this Country can survive four more years of the Obama regime, and still remain a Representative Republic, much less a major world power.

  9. Carol Foster

    At the bottom of the pile of asking for “truth” is Ted’s wallet as usual. He just wants the cheapest energy for his buck and the short amount of time he’ll be spending on this planet. How anyone else survives after that won’t be his concern.
    Do we all recall the former President altered what science had to say in reports coming from the White House in relationship to global warming? That President was watching out for his buddies wallets as well and not the American People.
    If I didn’t know some very nice Conservatives, and Ted was the example of that group, guess I’d have to think they hadn’t much to contribute to this nation. The ones I know might feel differently about gov’s role somethings, but they do recycle etc. and want to take care of the planet they live on over their price at the pump, Ted
    Again, Ted, I find you don’t represent most Conservatives on a topic of your choice. Trash day at the curb proves the point where streets are lined with recycle bins and they aren’t labeled Liberal nor Conservatice/Tea Party/Republican, or Libertarians etc.., but they are still there being used all the same by a majority of people. So take that fact and stuff it next to your wallet and see which is bigger. You can’t get people to do recycle bins when they don’t think it serves a purpose.

  10. Brian Opsahl

    If Romney wins, most of the rest of us will definitly lose 98 % and billionare MONEY will own our elections from now on. The middle class that shurnk under Bush will dissapeer under Romney.

    The middle class drives the economy when they have money to spend they spend it witch creates demand and starts the hireing process.

    Romneys only plan so far is to give an even bigger tax break to the millionares just like Bush did but bigger to do this he is going to raise the midde class taxes and start taxing those who live on basicly nothing you know the TRICKLE DOWN theory..that dosn’t work…

  11. Isn’t Professor Gore on Apple’s Board? Why are Apple components no longer catagorized as “green”? Interesting, profit over principle?

  12. shawnnews

    http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-07-10/news/ct-oped-0710-byrne-20120710_1_global-warming-climate-change-intergovernmental-panel
    It looks like Dennis Byrne from the Trib used your column idea or one similar a couple of days later. Of course, now you’ll just have to convince the science groups that believe global warming is man-made.

  13. More debunking of global warming…

    Tree-rings prove climate was WARMER in Roman and Medieval times than it is now – and world has been cooling for 2,000 years

    Study of semi-fossilised trees gives accurate climate reading back to 138BC
    World was warmer in Roman and Medieval times than it is now

    Read the rest at: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2171973/Tree-ring-study-proves-climate-WARMER-Roman-Medieval-times-modern-industrial-age.html#ixzz20KNrh0iD

  14. JRM_CommonSense

    This is really funny! Ice core samples a faulty science, but tree ring reading is are completely accurate and valid proof that it was warmer in medieval times. Someone must be looking at the plastic trees they have at the Medieval Times Restaurant over near Chicago…………

  15. As opposed to the termite-infested wormwood between your ears.

    Tree rings ARE scientifically proven to reveal year-to-year climate variations, as the following shows: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120516120304.htm

  16. truth hurts

    Well first carol to your comment about wanting “cheap energy” at all costs. While that may be your first ammendment right on judging teds opinion, it answers NOTHING on the facts and evidence those like myself bring up to challenge the “dogma” of global warming.

    As for the comment about brians co2 levels lets look at this comment. Lets for now say you are correct.
    This is one fact that by itself does not even come close to negating the over 10 facts I presented.

    Now lets take this in conjunction with the tree ring fact you so strongly mocked.
    Take the two at the same face value then you both have proven that the scientists have NO CLEAR CUT EVIDENCE OF GLOBAL WARMING.

    Now add to the fact the fossil records from AZ, SD and IL that the sea was in these areas (hmm can you say higher sea level than today) and that the climate was more hot and tropical overall.

    At best it reinforces the fact scientists still have a debatable theory at best, or unprovable theory at worst.

    Lastly one basic fact I have posed has remained unanswered and thus a factual thorn in the global warming debate.

    WHAT IS THE EARTH TEMPERATURE SUPPOSED TO BE and BACK IT UP WITH FACTS.

    Without a baseline “normal” temperature you are just blowing moke up a mules backside as to your assertion the earth is getting too warm.

  17. shawnnews

    You didn’t provide any facts that are backed up by a source — there’s nothing to negate — only statements some capital letters for emphasis to look at without a hyperlink.
    http://climate.nasa.gov/

  18. JRM_CommonSense

    @ SNuss, the insult queen, from Wikipedia:

    “An ice core is a core sample that is typically removed from an ice sheet, most commonly from the polar ice caps of Antarctica, Greenland or from high mountain glaciers elsewhere. As the ice forms from the incremental build up of annual layers of snow, lower layers are older than upper, and an ice core contains ice formed over a range of years. The properties of the ice and the recrystallized inclusions within the ice can then be used to reconstruct a climatic record over the age range of the core, normally through isotopic analysis. This enables the reconstruction of local temperature records and the history of atmospheric composition.

    Ice cores contain an abundance of climate information. Inclusions in the snow of each year remain in the ice, such as wind-blown dust, ash, bubbles of atmospheric gas and radioactive substances. The variety of climatic proxies is greater than in any other natural recorder of climate, such as tree rings or sediment layers. These include (proxies for) temperature, ocean volume, precipitation, chemistry and gas composition of the lower atmosphere, volcanic eruptions, solar variability, sea-surface productivity, desert extent and forest fires.

    The length of the record depends on the depth of the ice core and varies from a few years up to 800 kyr (800,000 years) for the EPICA core. The time resolution (i.e. the shortest time period which can be accurately distinguished) depends on the amount of annual snowfall, and reduces with depth as the ice compacts under the weight of layers accumulating on top of it. Upper layers of ice in a core correspond to a single year or sometimes a single season. Deeper into the ice the layers thin and annual layers become indistinguishable.

    An ice core from the right site can be used to reconstruct an uninterrupted and detailed climate record extending over hundreds of thousands of years, providing information on a wide variety of aspects of climate at each point in time. It is the simultaneity of these properties recorded in the ice that makes ice cores such a powerful tool in paleoclimate research.”

    Let me know where you can find an 800,000 year old tree.

  19. JRM_CommonSense

    If you need more, try this link. Very interesting look at Ice Core procedures and science.

    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Paleoclimatology_IceCores/

  20. JRM_CommonSense

    “WHAT IS THE EARTH TEMPERATURE SUPPOSED TO BE and BACK IT UP WITH FACTS.”

    What a silly question! To pretend that there is even a remote possibility of an answer is nothing more that a specious, disingenuous attempt to make people think that you have proved your point.

    No one could answer the question because when it comes to nature, there is no “supposed to be” anything. It is what it is! There is lots of historical data available to define average high and low temperatures in every place and climate that exists on the earth, but there is absolutely no way to determine a temperature that the earth is “supposed to be”.

    So if you think that your question could contribute anything to the scientific study of anything related to climate, you may be the one attemting to blow smoke up someone’s backside.

  21. truth hurts

    shawnnews I love that comment I have not provided a hyperlink.

    Please do you REALLY NEED NEED me to post pages of links (many that would have been repeated my the other posters here) that all you (and other global warming fanatics) will just say any of the following….

    They are oil company funded
    Fringe scientists not of the “group”
    Ranting of a tea bagger (or other degrogatory term)
    ect

    In short you are not interested in any FACTS that contradict global warming,

    Now from JRM_CommonSense.

    QUOTE “No one could answer the question because when it comes to nature, there is no “supposed to be” anything. It is what it is! There is lots of historical data available to define average high and low temperatures in every place and climate that exists on the earth, but there is absolutely no way to determine a temperature that the earth is “supposed to be”.

    Now lets look at your quote (which was very truthful and honest thank you).
    YOU PROVED MY POINT EXACTLY

    “there is absolutely no way to determine a temperature that the earth is “supposed to be” (YOUR QUOTE) then you CANNOT SAY WITH SCIENTIFIC FACT that there is global warming or cooling.

    ONLY that in X time frame the average temperature high and low was X.

    So all I have done is shine the light of truth on the MYTH of global warming.

    Thanks to you JMR you have also shown the HOAX global warming myth is.

    Or will you backtrack on your words because it does not support the dogma of al gore?

  22. JRM_CommonSense

    @truth hurts:

    I will try to answer you IN YOUR OWN STYLE so that YOU ARE CAPABLE OF UNDERSTANDING what I am saying.

    While you are correct that “there is absolutely no way to determine a temperature that the earth is ‘supposed to be’ (YOUR QUOTE) then you CANNOT SAY WITH SCIENTIFIC FACT that there is global warming or cooling.”

    You forgot to mention that because ““there is absolutely no way to determine a temperature that the earth is ‘supposed to be’, you CANNOT SAY WITH SCIENTIFIC FACT that there is NOT global warming or cooling.

    Unfortunately, that failure of yours to point out the other side of the truth, means that you have failed to “shine the light of truth on the MYTH of global warming”. And you have failed to prove that there is NOT global warming or cooling. So, you HAVE FAILED TO PROVE ANYTHING.

    You have not proved that global warming is a MYTH, HOAX, or FACT. You have done nothing but DEMAND THAT PEOPLE ANSWER AN UNANSWERABLE question, pretending that it would prove that something is a HOAX or a MYTH. If the question you posed as being the way to prove the HOAX cannot be answered, then it cannot possible prove or disprove any kind of theory at all.

    Have a nice day!

  23. shawnnews

    I’ve said this a few times — I’m not a scientist. I’ve received my inofrmation about science from science classes. I wasn’t great at them. As a result I have to rely on science articles from sources I know are used by other scientists or are not known to have partisan leanings. As a result, I have never seen any movie with Al Gore as a spokesman or read any of his books. He is not a part of my “belief system.”
    Since I don’t make a claim of knowledge I rely on others trusted in their fields who study the information — just like I would any other topic. I go to NASA, National Geographic, Discover, NOAA.
    The problem with people denying global warming is that they don’t use sources from with the sciences. They rely on their own observations — my backyard was cool there must not be global warming. They rely on their political opinions — since Al Gore believes it, they will be against it. They rely on their “free market” sources like Investors Business Daily or Forbes. They rely on their politcal party sites and mags like Cato, Heritage, Heartland or even some speaker they heard at the Tea Party. Maybe they can make a few Bible verses say what they want to about global warming.
    But you wouldn’t listen to these people for any other subject outside of their field of expertise — politics, investments, religion — so there is absolutely no reason to listen to them on science issues.
    Yes, I put hyperlinks on most of my posts to back up what I say with a mainstream source. If you want to ignore the opinions of NASA, National Geographic, NOAA and the people who actually study climate, you do so not out of reasonability but out of partisanship or because when you took science classes the subject wasn’t around.
    “Since 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement, no scientific body of national or international standing rejects the findings of human-induced effects on climate change.” from
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
    So if no science organization of any standing disputes the notion of man-made climate change, I am not in a position to claim they are all wrong. I would need a science source of recognitiion rather than a political one.

  24. truth hurts

    RM my calling global warming a myth was a bit extreame and I apologize for it as well as retract it.

    However saying since I cannot prove (to your level as a pro global warming person) that somehow gives proof to your viewpoint is silly at best.

    Lets all review that the theory of global warming is in its two parts.

    Part one
    The earth is warming at an unnatural accelerated rate and to a level that is doing cataclysmic harm to the environment worldwide.

    Part two
    Humans are solely or majority of the reason for this and unless we take drastic steps by X year (a time that keeps moving around) we reach a tipping point of no return.

    JMR by your very quote (which you retold in both your posts) ….

    QUOTE
    There is lots of historical data available to define average high and low temperatures in every place and climate that exists on the earth, but there is absolutely no way to determine a temperature that the earth is “supposed to be”.

    This one well written fact NEGATES the first half of point one of the global warming theory.
    Without that there is NO WAY TO PROVE that we are going to or past a temperature “tipping point”. So by simple logic it is reasonable to say that we are not to a climate (hot or cold) that is unnatural to the enviroment/earth.

    The second half “level that is doing cataclysmic harm to the environment worldwide” is also not scientific easy to prove.

    Lets take the last big ice age (the one caused by the comet/metor). The dinosars were wiped out along with a majority of the bigger animal life. Now even after that environmental disaster life not only came back, but thrived, just different than before.

    So taking that proven series of events why should it be any different now? Say the ice caps melt, sea rise, and weather changes. Life will just adapt to the new situation as it has done over MILLIONS OF YEARS. The polar bears (using a global warming issue) will be replaced just as the t-rex was and so on.

    The second point of global warming has not been PROVEN in any way.

    The only PROOF given to this idea is by saying there are more humans living today so due to the climate models XX will happen/happening.

    These models have been shown to be innacurate (and that is putting it mildly). The same people who make and use the models are the same ones that predict gulf hurricanes.

    Well for the last 4 years they have been DEAD WRONG in both overall numbers and specific numbers by severity.

    A reasonable person says if this one LOCALIZED KNOWN EVENT cant be modeled accurately then how do you claim that the world wide predictions are accurate? You can’t and be logical.

    Now I could load up this posts with verifiable scientific facts contradicting global warming such as (but not limited to) from NOAA that earth temperatures have fallen one degree over the last 10 years. Or that hurricanes from 1950-70 were greater in numbers and strength than from 1970-2000 (during the warning from global warming scientists).

    Or those infamous hacked emails that showed the doctoring of statistics and concerted effort to silence critics of global warming.

    Or lastly that the global warming supporters discredit any scientist/study that was paid for by anyone else but their groups claiming bias. Logic dictates that if those are unrealiable due to who paid for them, then pro global warming groups who pay for scientists/studies are also unreliable right?

    So not to fill a post with back and forth studies it is reasonable to conclude with this.

    Due to conflicting and convincing evidence global warming is just a theory and nothing more

    So your comment that I cannot prove global warming does not exist and that proves your point case closed nothing but a desperate (and predictable) comment from a global warming supporter that cannot tolerate any provable counterpoint to your view.

    Oh just for accuracy the Al gore film that won him a nobel prize was taken to court in Britian. It was ruled a scientific FICTION due to OVER 6 scientific innaccuracies/untruths.

  25. JRM_CommonSense

    YAWN! You still have not proved or disproved one darn thing about climate change by your arguements. I assume you will continue to flat your jaws abotu it because when you are shown that you haven’t proven anything, the truth hurts. Keep chirping!

    And BTW, you are not even close to what I believe about climate change. Just because I challenge your faulty logic does not mean that I support climate change as a theory or as a proven fact. It just means that I challenge your faulty logic.

  26. truth hurts

    JRM QUOTE
    “And BTW, you are not even close to what I believe about climate change. Just because I challenge your faulty logic does not mean that I support climate change as a theory or as a proven fact. It just means that I challenge your faulty logic.”

    Really JRM you more than tell by your posts you are a GLOBAL WARMING supporter.

    1. You used the last desperate talking point used by global warming supporters when all else fails (that includes name calling and cherry picking facts) in that NOW you CHANGE YOUR STORY to CLIMATE CHANGE.

    This name change (for those who dont know the whole story) came about a few years ago when it was noted on talk radio that over the last 10 years the earths average temp had fallen almost one degree. When the global warming crowd tried the usual “well stop using rush/fox news” and the study was found to come from NOAA (a US GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY) then the name change happened.

    At least thats the timeline as it appears. There may be another reason for the change but I cannot find (at this time) a logical reason why.

    2. ReQuote for accuracy

    “I challenge your faulty logic does not mean that I support climate change as a theory or as a proven fact”

    I went over all your posts and found this interesting fact. The only “challenge” you did was to those who presented VERIFIABLE AND SCIENTIFIC FACTS that condradicted global warming theory. In my case 2+ posts/rants.

    The rest was praising and reenforcing links THAT ARE FAVORING global warming theory.

    Hardly the factual much less in spirit of your statement now is it.

    3. Again using your own QUOTE

    “YAWN! You still have not proved or disproved one darn thing about climate change by your arguements. I assume you will continue to flat your jaws abotu it because when you are shown that you haven’t proven anything, the truth hurts. Keep chirping!”

    Last I checked YOU are NOT THE JUDGE, JURY OR KING that makes the final decision on global warming for the rest of us.

    Thus your OPINION (as well as mine for that matter) IS JUST THAT AN OPINION. Get over yourself.

    I was trying to have an ADULT debate on global warming. When I went overboard on calling it a myth I (as an adult) apologized. You on the other hand by the quote above continue to use the typical global warming talking points of name calling over factual debate.

    4. You still continue to ignore viable scientific facts from credible sources (such as NOAA and NASA) and clear evidence (as in the computer modeling of hurricanes) of failures of basic studies used by global warming supporters, and PROVEN questionable behavior by scientists (the hacked memos) that at the VERY LEAST show that the THEORY of global warming is not the “case closed” that supporters keep saying.

    As I have stated before I consider (at best) that global warming is unproven theory but leaning due to the scientific evidence continue to be a “opponent” to the “case closed” mentality of global warming supporters. Thus being the other side of the debate.

    So JMR why are you so afraid to debate GLOBAL WARMING (the origional reason for teds post) as an adult?

    Or even to admit you support global warming?

  27. JRM_CommonSense

    Look who snuck back here a week after the last post to post the same old lame argument to make it look like he had the last word. Yawn!

  28. truth hurts

    Well since you could only resort to name calling and kindergarden childish mocking I will gladly let you have the last word.

    Because all you do is enforce the later part of the old mark twain saying

    Better to be thought of as a fool than to open ones mouth (or post) and remove all doubt.

    So post away. I enjoy a good laugh

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

CAPTCHA Image

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>