Cool-down may bring snow to mountains
Tillie Fongand Alan Gathright, Rocky Mountain News
Published August 13, 2008 at 8:55 a.m.
Updated August 14, 2008 at 1:43 a.m.
Snow in August!
A cold front arriving today might drop some winter-like frosting above 10,000 feet along and east of the Continental Divide, including parts of Rocky Mountain National Park, tonight and early Friday.
And it may bring some record low temperatures to the metro area.
There is a 50 percent chance of the mountains getting snow showers through Saturday, before the front moves out of the state.
Down along the urban corridor, the cold front will bring rain, with highs only in the upper 70s today.
Nighttime lows will drop to the upper 40s and 50s, so it might be a good idea to have a sweater or light jacket handy.
Friday is expected to be rainy in the metro area with a high predicted to plummet to 61 degrees.
That would be 26 degrees below the normal high of 87 degrees for mid-August.
"That will be a significant cool-off," said Bob Koopmeiners of the National Weather Service in Boulder.
The previous record minimum high temperature for Aug. 15 was 69 degrees in 1933, according to the National Weather Service.
On Wednesday, a weak tornado touched down briefly in an open field in southeast Colorado, with no injuries or damage reported.
The twister was spotted about 4 p.m., south of Ramah, about 115 miles from Denver, the Weather Service said.
This weekend, the metro area will be cool with possible showers and highs in the upper 60s Saturday and low 70s Sunday.
Nighttime lows will be in the 50s both days.
But don't despair. The sun will shine Monday and Tuesday with highs in the low 80s, although the lows will remain cool in the 50s.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Featured
-
DNC in Denver
Complete coverage of the 2008 Democratic National Convention.
-
The Crevasse
A five-part series that examines one tragic day on Mount Rainier.
-
Deadly denial
Sick nuclear workers applied for government compensation but most haven't seen a dime.
-
Final Salute
The Rocky followed Maj. Steve Beck as he took on the most difficult duty of his career.
-
'Colorado's burning'
Coverage of the state's worst wildfires.
-
Columbine shootings
Coverage of the April 20, 1999, shootings at Littleton's Columbine High School.
-
The Crossing
Colorado's deadliest traffic accident killed 20 children on Dec. 14, 1961.
-
Osveli's journey
Osveli Sales left Guatemala for a better life. Two months later, he came home in a box.
-
Wake for an Indian warrior
Oglala Sioux bestow a tribute to the first tribal fatality in Iraq.
August 13, 2008
9:05 a.m.
Suggest removal
ifyem writes:
Time to wax the board!!
August 13, 2008
9:07 a.m.
Suggest removal
Steph writes:
"Don't Despair?"
Not everyone likes the heat. Can't wait until fall and winter.
August 13, 2008
9:10 a.m.
Suggest removal
DemsAreDumb writes:
Damn that global warming. Looks like the peaks above 10,000 ft are going to get a few inches of global warming.
August 13, 2008
9:29 a.m.
Suggest removal
farsidefan writes:
It looks like maybe the folks down at Focus on the Family may have over done it with their rain prayers huh ?
August 13, 2008
9:38 a.m.
hlucki writes:
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
August 13, 2008
10:16 a.m.
easy writes:
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
August 13, 2008
10:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
DemsAreDumb writes:
bobbydigital, you must be a complete idiot to believe that crap. Read a paper. The arctic ice sheet is larger today than it was 50 years ago. How is it going away? You must be one gullible dumbicrat to fall for such moronic science. The Earth has warmed and cooled many times and to say this one time is our fault because of CO2, an element that is less than 0.04% of the entire atmosphere shows how dumb you are.
August 13, 2008
10:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
darkheath writes:
"Can't we all be ignorant?"
Mission Accomplished
August 13, 2008
10:33 a.m.
Suggest removal
DemsAreDumb writes:
Easy, you are just as dumb as BOBBYdigital. I didnt say the Earth isnt getting warmer, i meant that we arent causing it and the 1 degree Celsius change in temps since 1900 hasnt done anything. The extremes are just accentuated by the crazy loons in the environmental lobby and the idiot dems in congress that pander to their special interests perpetuating the lie. The Earth cooled by SEVERAL degrees in the 1700 and guess what? We survived!!
August 13, 2008
10:33 a.m.
Suggest removal
Boarder22 writes:
bobbydigital and easy....could you two be wound more tightly? I wonder how angry you get at real issues. Relax. And....global warming is a myth....global warming is a myth....global warming is a myth......I bet you're both turning bright red right now.....
August 13, 2008
10:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
easy writes:
Who's wound tightly? Someone with a screen name like "DemsareDumb" perhaps?
The fact that people are ignorant enough to scoff and chuckle about what is a proven scientific fact and then go further to refuse to acknowledge our role in global warming is pure ignorance. I'm not red-in-the-face-pounding-the-desk as I type - far from it.
But when ignorance is spewed around like a 2yr old's drool, be certain that I'll come around to help you clean it up.
August 13, 2008
10:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
ashanab writes:
Ignorance=Turning a weather forcast into a political debate
August 13, 2008
11 a.m.
Suggest removal
sunshinestate writes:
the "dry" heat is nasty-compounded by minimal water resources/water recreation-so this situation makes some long for the cold.Narrow market. It's better in Florida.
August 13, 2008
11 a.m.
Suggest removal
cfk writes:
Could you just hold off on that snow for one week? I will be arriving next week in Denver from SUNNY, HOT, NO SEASON CHANGE, BORING, South Florida, and would like a first hand view of some snow. And no, I'm not going because of the Dem Convention. I will proudly be sporting my RNC pins while visiting family and friends.
August 13, 2008
11:08 a.m.
Suggest removal
denverinfidel writes:
Someone get algore on the phone. GW'ing is going to kill us all - or is it cooling? Nevermind. Don't ask questions, just give him your money; he's got a plane to catch.
Easy writes: "Global warming not only raises the overall temperature of the Earth but also creates irregular weather patterns causing more dramatic and often times violent weather patters. It's not just that we're getting warmer but that the weather patterns are forced to compensate in increasingly unpredictable ways.
Holy sh*t!!! Are you telling me the weather changes??? You mean it doesn't stay at 98.6 all the time?? It must have been these irregular patterns caused by caveman farts that led to the ice age (or did they end the ice age?). Who knew?
You gw'ing loons and your elementary theories explain weather patterns as well and the bible explains dinosaurs. Thanks for clarifying.
August 13, 2008
11:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
sunshinestate writes:
South Florida is indeed less obvious "season change". Much more pronounced in North Florida-with no one season dominating the year/time.(Jacksonville/North Fla rainfall to date is 31 inches-near normal.The arisd nature of Colorado is largely misunderstood by many)
As a native South Floridian, I know full well there are in fact season change in south Fla too--if you are alert.
I live in Florida (North) -I have many customers from Colrado- some 'seasonal" and many that are now full time. I have heard reference to these first snows as "termination" weather....time to pack up and leave.
August 13, 2008
11:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
JluvDC writes:
global warming is a myth, without it the new "carbon credit" industry wouldn't be able to make profits. biggest scam ever....
August 13, 2008
11:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
DBCooper writes:
Damned anthropological Global Warming! Oops! I meant damned anthropological Climate Change.
August 13, 2008
11:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
coloradovet writes:
Most cons take the bible literally and still don't believe we evolved from primates either. How the heck are you going to try to explain global warming to these people? PRAISE THE LORD!!
August 13, 2008
11:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
JluvDC writes:
I think its funny that some people are so invested in the concept of global warming that they refuse to acknowledge any of the recent data that suggests that we are actually at the peak of a warming trend and about to enter a cooling period. But then again, they are probably the same people who just invested their life savings into a "carbon credit" scam! There is not currently (and never really has been) consensus in the scientific community that global warming is happening or if it is that it is man made. The best article I read actually stated that Antarctica would have been melting at a much more rapid pace then it has been if it weren't for the hole in the ozone layer...after all these years of thinking that was a bad thing it actually prolonged the life of that ecosystem. Earth science is not static, don't buy into trends!
August 13, 2008
11:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
kirbysfriend22 writes:
Hey folks,
Climate change aside....it's really not unusual for a places above 10,000 feet to get snow in August, or September, or July....sometimes, in mountains, it snows. It happens in Hawaii too.
August 13, 2008
11:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
I_Slay_The_Dragon writes:
Well...gosh..golly (and other 1950's T.V. forms of great surprise)
WHO could've EVER seen such a drastic change in Weather
coming ?! Oh, Colorado...such stunningly blessed natural
beauty...fit for a (TBA).
August 13, 2008
12:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
Mayor_Quimby writes:
I personally like the website www.carboncreditkillers.com. I bought the deluxe carbon debit package where they kill a living tree and send you a picture of it being done.
August 13, 2008
12:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
Newenergycommie writes:
Global warming or what is now called climate change is the perfect scam. Above average temperatures is proof of global warming. Below average temperatures is proof of global warming. Above average rainfall is proof of global warming. Below average rainfall is proof of global warming. Shrinking ice cap proves global warming as much as a growing ice cap. It reminds me of people that see Jesus image in a piece of toast or a water stain. To a true believer everything provides proof of their belief. A true Christian can’t imagine why everyone else doesn’t believe in Christ. A true Muslim can’t believe that anyone doubts Allah is the true god. A true believe in global warming sees above or below average temperatures, above or below precipitation or above or below average plant or insect growth as proof of their faith.
Global warming has got to be the most intelligent natural disaster ever conceived. It will smite those in warm climates with hotter weather, those in cold climates with colder weather, those in dry climates will have droughts and those in wet climates will have floods. It will cause baldness, ring around the collar and fallen arches. Is anyone really buying this crap?
The following is from the movie Ghostbusters. In the sequel Climate Busters the part of Dr. Peter Venkman will be played by Al Gore.
Dr. Peter Venkman: This city is headed for a disaster of biblical proportions.
Mayor: What do you mean, "biblical"?
Dr Ray Stantz: What he means is Old Testament, Mr. Mayor, real wrath of God type stuff.
Dr. Peter Venkman: Exactly.
Dr Ray Stantz: Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling!
Dr. Egon Spengler: Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes...
Winston Zeddemore: The dead rising from the grave!
Dr. Peter Venkman: Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!
August 13, 2008
12:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
freedomfighter1 writes:
Hopefully it'll be a good year for shreaden the nar-nar. Can't wait, always get anxious at this time of the year and we still have 2-4 months left to wait.
August 13, 2008
12:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
jcn7vc writes:
easy writes:
"The fact that people are ignorant enough to scoff and chuckle about what is a proven scientific fact and then go further to refuse to acknowledge our role in global warming is pure ignorance."
Actually, if you take a look at other countries' scientific studies, rarely any of them agree with US studies. Most of them point to the natural global warming and cooling trends seen over the past 40,000 years and the fact that solar flares have more impact that CO2 emissions.
What will be sad is when the earth's temperature does drop because of natural cycles, the same people that are telling us we are causing it to rise now will tell us that the changes we made caused it to cool. REDICUROUS!!
August 13, 2008
1:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
fiesty writes:
"arctic sheet is bigger than 50 years ago" is not true! NASA footage shows it shrinking by more than 1/3 in little over 20 years, and we've had record ice breaks in the last 5 years.
The FACT is that the earth goes through natural warming and cooling cycles. The FACT is that CO2 is directly linked to temperature. The FACT is that man has significantly affected the current cycle.
August 13, 2008
1:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
coloradovet writes:
Fiesty, the FACT is that you are an alarmist! The FACT is that we don't know if the warming trend is manmade or part of a natural warming trend. The FACT is that Greenland has been green as much as it has been white in history. The FACT is that the 900 pound gorilla in the room is ultimately the sun, which solar irradiance fluctuates. The FACT is that we got more than enough unemployed scientists out there seeking funding and trying to make a name for themselves by hitching a ride on the global warming bandwagon.
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm
August 13, 2008
1:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
Newenergycommie writes:
Fact: CO2 has a smaller effect on climate than does CH4 or water vapor. Fact: manmade CO2 is a small percentage of the total CO2 in the atmosphere. Fact: CO2 is not pollution it is plant food, life on Earth couldn’t exist without it.. Fact: CO2 is released from ocean water when it warms, which explains why temperature leads CO2 increase and doesn't lag it as would be expected. Fact: The proof of global warming is the result of computer moderns that can be made to say anything. Increase the gain on this variable decrease it on that variable and you get the answer that supports your argument. The is no imperial data that will show the Earth will warm by 1 deg C in the next 100 years. Just selecting the facts that support your argument is not convincing.
August 13, 2008
1:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
GILPINMAN writes:
If you want to SEE global climate change take the trip from Boulder to Nederland about 3 miles past the falls on the south side of the hwy is the old CU ski jump. The ski team practiced there for several decades. In the winter now days if there is 6" of snow it is more than usual, alot of the time there is not 1" of snow on the jump. Just an observation.
August 13, 2008
1:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
jcn7vc writes:
I don't have access to Google Video at work, but go there and search "GreatGlobalWarmingSwindle" (all one word) and you will see that our country's views are greatly different than other countries'.
August 13, 2008
1:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
jjez writes:
And even if humans have caused this change in weather patterns, it's pretty much too late to do anything about it. Yes, we can clean up the air in America, but try forcing China or India to do anything about their pollution. Unless of course it's during the Olympics. But once those are over, things will go back to normal in Asia. But maybe, just maybe, the people over there will LIKE breathing cleaner air and will attempt to force their governments to do something about the pollution from their factories and cars. But then again, they'll probably just end up in prison for daring to protest. Regardless of whether climate change is fact or speculation we should all be doing SOMETHING to mitigate the effect we have on our environment. If only for blue skies and clean water. Aren't those worth it?
August 13, 2008
2:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
Marshdale writes:
DemsAreDumb;
You obviously have not read enough science to fill a pea pod. Rather than go into a list of facts that those like you chose to ignore, I'll just say that you are "Ignorant" rather than say you are "dumb", because I don't think that you suffer from some form of cognitive retardation; just blind ignorance.
August 13, 2008
2:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
Newenergycommie writes:
jjez,
You are right; we should mitigate the effects on our environment. CO2 is an odorless, colorless gas that is not poisonous. It is required for plant growth. The atmosphere has something like 380 parts per million of CO2 (That is 0.038%). It doesn't dull the blue skies, degrade the water nor does it have any effect on humans or animal respiration. It does not dirty the air. It has been higher in the past and lower in past. So why all the hubbub? It is pure and simple a control issue. Not controlling the climate, controlling the populous.
August 13, 2008
2:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
fiesty writes:
coloradovet - I am not an "alarmist", but rather correcting blatant lies stated on this blog. There are those posting who want to ignore the facts:
1. The core ice data shows unequivocably that the earth goes through natural warming and cooling cycles, but also that man has dramatically affected the current cycle- CO2 levels are more than *twice* the *highest* ever naturally achieved. See the data at: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/scie...
2. From 1970 - 2003, you can SEE the arctic shrink by more than 1/3 in this NASA timelapsed satellite footage: http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/n...
3. Ice Breaks. In the past 7 years, we have begun to see significant ice shelf breaks, and they are accelerating. Just the other day, the news reported the 7-mile ice break in Canada, and now scientists now believe that the Arctic will have ice-free summers by 2013!!
- In Mar 08, a 38-square-mile iceberg fell from the Wilkins Ice Shelf, a Connecticut-sized plate of floating ice on Antarctica's southwest peninsula. The fall of the iceberg triggers a runaway disintegration of 220 square miles of the shelf's interior.
- In Dec 06, the 41 square mile (11,000 football fields) Ayles Ice Shelf broke away.
- In Aug 02, the largest shelf in the arctic, the Ward Hunt, fractured.
- Also in 02, the Larsen B ice shelf also shattered and drifted out to sea.
- In Nov 01, a large tabular iceberg (42 km x 17 km) broke off the Pine Island Glacier.
- Starting in 2000, the Jakobshavn Isbrae (a major component of the mass balance of the continental ice sheet) nearly DOUBLED its discharge of ice.
4. Temperature. The past 10 years has repeatedly broken records. However, the concern is not just about the temperature variations, but the overall INCREASE IS ACCELERATING.
- Average temperatures in western Antarctica have risen about a degree Fahrenheit each decade for the past half-century, said Ted Scambos, lead scientist at CU's Snow and Ice center.
- Over the past 30 years, the earth has warmed by about 1.08°F. Yet predictions now are that the *average* temperature will increase by almost 6 degrees in the next century.
5. Storm Intensity. Due to the higher surface temperatures, scientists have concluded that it is causing increased intensity of storms in general and hurricanes in particular. The number of category 4 and 5 hurricanes has almost DOUBLED globally over the past three decades.
August 13, 2008
2:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
fiesty writes:
FYI- I can give you the links to the raw scientific data for each point above (since the filter on the blogs limits you to 3).
August 13, 2008
2:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
incorrect1 writes:
"global warming" my hind end. It is nothing but a bunch of typical Liberal BS, and talk about a scam? Paying for "carbon offsets"? Puhleez! How naive can you be? As for the cooler weather, YES! I love it! Hate the 80-90 degree muggy weather.
August 13, 2008
3:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
Shadow writes:
Fopr crying out loud. Snow in August is not new. It is not a result of or lack of global warming. Its happened before and will happen again.
In either 74 or 75 we had snow as late as the fourth of July. This is Colorado. The weather runs in cycles, despite what either side says.
Only thing news worthy on this is a possible change in the weather. Oh my now thats news, uuuhhhhggg!
August 13, 2008
3:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
JustTex writes:
fiesty, it's important we recall that few if any scientist would argue that the earth is not currently within a slightly warming phase. There's no doubt that's true. Our modern methods of accurate global temperature assessment prove that to be true.
However, the earth has warmed and cooled many times in the past, both with and without the presence of human beings. It occurs within a repetitive natural cycle, that's been re-occurring for eons.
Fossil records make it clear that during the warmer periods here on earth, many life forms have been able to flourish, while during the cooler periods here on earth, life forms have been diminished.
The fact is today, the earth has been coming out of a natural cool period known as the "Little Ice Age", and has been slowly & slightly warming, for the better part of the last 150 years.
Combined, those facts seem to confuse some people who would like to believe that your and my gaseous emissions are the primary cause of the earth's current slight warming. That makes the true debate at hand, not so much about the current slight temperature rise occurring here on earth & most other celestial bodies (yes, most of the planets within our solar system are also currently experiencing the same slight warming trend), but our debate should be much more about the true cause of that slight warming that is indeed clearly occurring. With that, we must ask, is there truly an anthropogenic cause for the current slight rises in temperature?
Chemistry & basic physics do tell us that adding additional minor trace gases within our atmosphere does have a slight atmospheric insulating & warming effect. And, there is no doubt that trace gases do play an important role in maintaining the global greenhouse effect, that we all rely on to keep our earth warm enough to maintain habitability. Our atmosphere consists of 78% N2 (Nitrogen), 21% O2 (Oxygen), 1% Ar (Argon) and only 0.038% CO2 (Carbon dioxide).
August 13, 2008
3:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
JustTex writes:
However fiesty, the vast majority of atmospheric CO2 (97%) in naturally occurring. Anthropogenic (human caused) CO2 only adds the remaining 3%. Making the sum total of atmospheric CO2 present 0.038%, of the total atmospheric makeup.
In all honesty, it does make some sense to attribute a small amount of the slight current warming trend to the anthropogenic additions of CO2, and to other reactive trace gases as well. However, Dr. Richard Lindzen and many other well studied climate specialist’ have estimated that anthropogenic CO2 can only account for approximately 2%-3% of the current 0.6 C atmospheric warming that has been observed. Other natural factors play very important roles in maintaining earth’s temperature balance, within our atmospheric system. And all qualified climate experts attribute water vapor (roughly ranging from 1% to 5% of total atmospheric makeup) as playing the most important role in temperature, of all the diverse atmospheric constituents.
Various studies indicate there are several interesting factors currently influencing earth's slight warming trend. One factor that may be causing earth to slightly warm are fluctuations in earth's natural albedo, the amount of solar energy that is naturally reflected back into space, prior to heavily interacting within our atmosphere. And another factor is the amount of solar insolation, the actual amount of solar radiation, being output by the sun.
With all that I’ll add, if anyone can somehow prove or even give substantial evidence that anthropogenic CO2 is indeed the primary culprit causing the earth to currently slightly warm, you'll have much more of my, and the attention of others, who do comprehend earth’s history, & atmospheric physics as well.
August 13, 2008
3:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
jamesdenver writes:
Nice how every mundane weather story becomes a uninformed argument on global warming.
james http://www.futuregringo.com
August 13, 2008
3:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
jjez writes:
CheapEnergy: I don't think it's just CO2 that is a concern. There are other greenhouse gases, methane being one, that I see in the articles & TV shows. I also know that for the first time in more than 200 years, there is a sea route through the ice fields in northern Canada. The touted "Northwest Passage". So something IS going on. But I'm skeptical of whether it's human caused or not. The problem is that most of the bloggers here are either of one opinion or the other & neither side seems willing to see the other point of view. Those who think it isn't caused by humans refuse to accept that maybe they could change little things about how they live and possibly do something to mitigate any contribution we MAY be having. Those who are on the other end seem to refuse to accept that maybe it is cyclical and thus take the stand that we have to stop global warming and do it right now. Of course, those who blog & take opinion polls are usually those who are most passionate about the subject. Unlike me, who seems to be becoming a mediator of some sort here ;-). Though I do have to say that Al Gore with his many mansions who is flying around in his private jet and talking about the issue is kind of coming off as a hypocrite. Which doesn't help the climate change cause with those who think he is one. And no matter what we do, we're not going to change climate back to what we're used to over night. But our children & grandchildren will see any effect we might have if we are the cause (or a big contributor). But we won't.
August 13, 2008
3:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
wow writes:
The global warming argument aside, you know the oft repeated Colorado Native wisdom....Don't like the weather here? Wait five minutes....
August 13, 2008
3:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
temurlan writes:
I was wondering where Sasquatch is and why he's not looking out his window disproving GW.
Mystery solved...
http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-...
August 13, 2008
3:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
mrfxx writes:
1) Yes there are weather cycles which have been verified by scientists; many scientists are saying we humans have exacerbated this current one. What I don't understand about the wackos on either side of the issue is why they can't listen to the folks in the middle - as many of us are - who see an advantage to cleaner air, water and land without being over the edge about it.
2) The idiot who decided to give the cycle the easy - but incorrect - name "global warming" should spend a year in an English class learning to use words accurately. In reality, it should be called "global climate change", in which what the planet has seen as "normal" weather patterns for centuries is changing - including in farmlands, oceans, etc. These changes may involved higher than normal temperatures in one area, lower than normal temperatures in another, and the combination can wreak havoc with farming, fishing and tourism.
3) I'd love to know where "DemsAreDumb" (but he/she is dumber) got the information that "The arctic ice sheet is larger today than it was 50 years ago." - since I watched an interesting piece on the science channel by a man who has been tracking the sheet for over 20 years and has documented how much it has receded in that period.
Meanwhile, in the metro Denver area, August is the only month which has never had measurable snow - but I don't know that there is any month that there has never been a measurable snowstorm in the mountains.
August 13, 2008
3:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
fiesty writes:
JustTex- "the vast majority of atmospheric CO2 (97%) in naturally occurring" is simply not true! Look at the link I've sent you. The current CO2 levels are almost TWICE the HIGHEST ever *NATURALLY* produced by the earth- man, in his actions and by artificial means, has almost doubled the CO2 levels, starting after the industrial revolution. In 2006, it was 382 ppm, when *naturally* the highest it ever reached was around 280 ppm with a natural average of 200 ppm. That's almost a 100% increase, so man is responsible for almost 50% of the CO2 in the air vs the 3% you try to claim. *WE* are the ones responsible for the astronomical levels of CO2 in the atmosphere!
And regarding the correlation between CO2 and temperature, you are dead wrong- the levels of CO2 directly relate to temperature, as in the link I sent you. The higher CO2 levels, the higher temperature. The lower CO2 temperatures, the lower temperature.
Once again, man is not the cause of global warming- global warming and cooling cycles occur periodically. However, man HAS dramatically affected the current warming and cooling cycle.
August 13, 2008
4:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
GILPINMAN writes:
If the RMN was paying attention they would know that last night we got ICE at 9000ft my ponds had ice and everything was covered in frost. I bet that in 10 years all the bickering over... "is", "is not" warming will end one way or another. I just like the fact that we still have 4 seasons and I love them all, each year is just a little diffrent from the last. The trees still change every year. If you are wondering about my carbon footprint? I leave it every year with a chain saw, a big one.
August 13, 2008
4:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
Boarder22 writes:
easy: You are about to explode because we don't ALL agree with your opinion. Everyone else is ignorant because our opinions aren't the same as yours. How ironic are you? I guess you and your digital budy are the only intelligent people around....must be nice to be you....congratulations!
August 13, 2008
4:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
Boarder22 writes:
Oh yeah "easy"....GLOBAL WARMING IS A MYTH...didn't want to leave that out.
August 13, 2008
4:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
Newenergycommie writes:
jjez,
I'm an engineer. The way I was taught to solve problems is a systematic method.
1. Is the planet warming? If yes move to step 2, if no stop.
2. Is it natural? If yes move to step 3, if no stop.
3. Should we try to stop it? If yes move to step 4, if no stop.
4. Can we stop it? If yes move to step 5, if no stop.
5. How, how much and can we afford it? If yes move to step 6, if no stop.
6. Implement the fix
The believers in my opinion have jumped right to the solution. It is "Fire", "Aim" "Ready". It is like starting chemo "just in case" without knowing whether or not you had cancer. The harm caused would outweigh the potential benefit.
Corn based ethanol is another Fire Aim Ready issue. It did more harm than good, but it was popular with Gov Ritter.
If you want a clean environment and more renewable energy, fine I’m all for that. Just don’t try to use such an obvious scare tacit to get it.
If Al Gore truly believed what he was shoveling he would have a much much lowest carbon footprint. He would not have given China and India a pass under Kyoto. Something tells me he just doesn't believe the situation is as dire as he would have us believe.
August 13, 2008
4:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
EastVail writes:
Sasquatch, where are you? Say it: global warming fails the window test, AGAIN.
SAY IT!
August 13, 2008
4:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
EastVail writes:
Global warming is indeed a myth.
Kind of like the theory of gravity. Or the theory of evolution.
August 13, 2008
5:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
ou8one2 writes:
Does anyone remember the 70's? The big deal back then was global cooling! There were a bunch of scientists claiming that the world was cooling off and that we would be entering a second ice age by the year 2000 and half of the earth would be glaciers. I guess the funding ran out for that theory, so they had to come up with another in order to avoid doing any real work while playing in their labs.
August 13, 2008
5:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
FCZ writes:
anthropological Global Warming ?
"In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish."
- Paul Ehrlich, Earth Day 1970
August 13, 2008
6:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
mover2 writes:
JUST TEX - WTF???? to put it simply - yeah it a little unusal!! I am in Texas were hell is just one mile away, would love to be there to enjoy.
August 13, 2008
6:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
jjez writes:
Boarder22, I'm assuming you were talking in response to my email (and I'm not easy). First off, I never used the word ignorant. It seems that you're the one about to explode since you took such an extreme view of what I said. I suggest you take a deep breath, and read my post again. You are exactly what I was talking about. I happen to believe that we should live as simply as possible. I use CFLs, I don't heat my house to 80 in the winter. I don't have central air that runs all day when nobody is home. I live 3 miles from work. I believe in moderation. I'm trying to do what I can to mitigate MY contribution to the possibility of global climate change. I'm tired of the extremists on these blogs trying to convince the other side that they're right and the other is wrong solely by attacking the person by using words like "ignorant", "stupid" and the like. Rather than rationally explaining their position, without attacking.
August 13, 2008
6:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
V_twinMan writes:
Al Gore's hypocritical actions obviously show Global Warming is a myth, he has made $100,000,000 while living in his mansion, flying in his private jet, etc, etc, etc. giving speeches to all saps who will buy into his Carbon Offset Scheme.
August 13, 2008
6:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
jjez writes:
Sorry boarder22: I just looked back over the posts & there was a post from "easy" earlier today. So I apologize for taking umbrage at thinking you were attacking me. Although, I still think you might be the one who's wound a bit too tight right now. I hope you can relax a little and enjoy your evening! I hope I can too!
August 13, 2008
7:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
jjez writes:
FCZ: just like most scientific theories, they evolve (pun not intended) as new data comes in. Which is why "global warming" is a misnomer. "Global climate change" is a much better description. Not to say that I'm changing my stance or beliefs about it. Just explaining why it could be that the scientists have flip-flopped on the issue.
August 13, 2008
7:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
easy writes:
Boarder22 ... what can I say ... you totally owned me with your response. I mean, really. Brilliant retort. Seriously. I'm not joking. You completely sold me on the idea that global warming doesn't exist and it's a "scam". Kinda the same kind of scam or conspiracy that convicted OJ Simpson of murder. Completely unassociated and independent individuals coming to the exact same conclusions using scientific data is completely BS. Thanks for helping me see the light. Really, I wish I could shake your hand for opening my eyes to this far-reaching, global scam.
So, by your logic, b/c this thread is dominated by people who don't believe in global warming it doesn't exist?
I'd be happy to tutor you and anyone else on here in Logic 101. Free of charge. Watch out tho ... it might be a scam.
Take it easy, d-bag. ;-)
August 13, 2008
7:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
fencergal writes:
I'd love to see a fall blizzard that would chase some of these Californicators out of our state and back to the warm weather they came from.
August 13, 2008
8:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
pete10000ft writes:
uh..it's AUGUST..
August 13, 2008
8:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
ColdShot writes:
Global warming...Maybe! Human influenced...No!! Its Liberal BS!!
Go buy carbon credits for me you gullible morons!
August 13, 2008
10:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
R8R_H8R writes:
Dear, My Dearest of Rocky Mtn. News's
PLEASE TAKE AWAY THE ABILITY FOR READERS TO COMMENT.
August 14, 2008
9:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
JustTex writes:
fiesty wrote: "The current CO2 levels are almost TWICE the HIGHEST ever *NATURALLY* produced by the earth- man, in his actions and by artificial means, has almost doubled the CO2 levels, starting after the industrial revolution."
fiesty, I’m afraid your information is simply incorrect. Geologic evidence clearly reflects that during the extreme cold & widespread glaciations of the Karoo Ice Age, within the current eon (the Phanerozoic), atmospheric CO2 was above 4,000 parts per million & declined during the coldest period of the event. See Here:
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/...
fiesty wrote: "In 2006, it was 382 ppm, when *naturally* the highest it ever reached was around 280 ppm with a natural average of 200 ppm.”
False again. within the current eon (the Phanerozoic), atmospheric CO2 has been above 7,000 parts per million.
fiesty wrote: "That's almost a 100% increase, so man is responsible for almost 50% of the CO2 in the air vs the 3% you try to claim. *WE* are the ones responsible for the astronomical levels of CO2 in the atmosphere!”
As you can see in the linked graph, the geologic record shows atmospheric CO2 levels have been many times higher than those of today, within the frozen depths of an extreme global Ice Age.
Aside from all that, you should be made aware, climatology is a very immature branch of science, & these are all very complex issues, surrounded by many unsettled areas of science. As one example, newer studies clearly indicate that atmospheric CO2 follows warming trends & periods, by as much as 800 years.
For a more comprehensive understanding of some of the more basic science regarding these issues, I suggest you spend an hour or so to view & contemplate the information within this video series: http://youtube.com/watch?v=-9Qp5bxrp-...
August 14, 2008
10:07 a.m.
Suggest removal
Dulach writes:
Why all the fighting?
Important part: IT'S GOING TO SNOW!!! REJOICE!!
August 14, 2008
10:11 a.m.
Suggest removal
jackson_foi writes:
All,
“In spite of remarkable progress over the past several decades, our understanding of the complex physical, chemical, and biological Earth system and its interactions with humans remains, on many levels, rudimentary. We’ve identified many research questions where there is more that we don’t know than we do. And there are certainly still more questions we don’t yet even know we should be asking. Even the feedbacks in the Earth system that we recognize as important in a qualitative way are just beginning to be understood in quantitative ways that can be included in weather, climate, and Earth system models. “
I am all for good science, but we have only spent $2 Billion on this and mother nature is so very much more complex.
August 14, 2008
12:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
HopiMedicineMan writes:
Ice has been melting since the last ice age, the Quaternary. I don't get "end of ice age." Liberals have found a way to harness the power of an error, that the melting period ended. However, there's evidence a new cooling period may have begun. I suppose we should blame Bush for that too.
August 14, 2008
4:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
justinco writes:
hell yea for snow, time to wax the skis
My girlfriend wants to go camping this weekend and she has yet to see the weather report, she will be in for a big surprise.
August 14, 2008
6:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
JustTex writes:
jackson_foi wrote: "we have only spent $2 Billion on this and mother nature is so very much more complex."
Jackson, the US federal government alone has already spent about $50 billion on climate research. All 50 US states also spend significant amounts each year. And, almost every government on earth spends some considerable amount on climate research as well.
Climate research, which began in the 1960’s as little more than a curiosity, became a healthy cottage industry in the 1980's. Since then, climate research has been drenched in money & become a refuge for many marginal & unemployed scientist of all stripes.
Today, climate research has become a VERY big international academic endeavor. Although in many cases it is operated very businesslike, & as a profitable venture for universities & various NGO or UN study groups. For all those receiving the billions of dollars in generous government grants, the research targets have been primarily designed to support this very weak, but seemingly emerging branch of science.
See here:
http://downloads.climatescience.gov/o...
And perhaps more importantly, here:
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blo...
August 15, 2008
8:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
fiesty writes:
So, let me get this right. We shouldn't be worried about the arctic shrinking by more than 1/3 in just 10 years? We shouldn't be worried about the accelerating number of breaks from significant ice sheets? We shouldn't be worried about the doubling of ice discharge? We shouldn't be worried about the animals going extinct due to climate change? We shouldn't be worried about the global increase in temperature? We shouldn't be worried about the increase in storm intensity? We shouldn't be concerned with the radical climate swings?
Riiiighhht.....
August 15, 2008
9:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
jackson_foi writes:
Right you are JT, I meant $2B this year. But she is a very complex woman and not in any sense cheap. For fiesty, while he was looking at the Arctic, he was ignoring the Antarctic which is accumulating all that ice all per mom's design.
August 15, 2008
9:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
jackson_foi writes:
The animals that are going extinct at current temperatures are sissies, and should be removed from the gene pool, like the birds which can't learn to avoid windmills. Storms aren't more intense, there are just more people around to see them. Previous generations didn't waste their time on such trivialities, and were smart enough to not build in susceptible locations. But this radical swing from 90 to 50 should be feared, and is probably Bush's fault.
August 15, 2008
12:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
JustTex writes:
Fiesty wrote: “So, let me get this right. We shouldn't be worried about the arctic shrinking by more than 1/3 in just 10 years? We shouldn't be worried about the accelerating number of breaks from significant ice sheets? We shouldn't be worried about the doubling of ice discharge?”
Precisely. At least not unduly.
I should add, notwithstanding the widespread but false alarmism, the “artic” is exactly the same size. Although, it’s true the Artic region is currently experiencing considerable change, that may or may not be of much true significance, over time.
Currently, there are high levels of explosive subsurface volcanic activity, throughout the Artic Alpha Ridge, the Gakkel Ridge & Lomonosov Ridge complex’s.
With that, the Artic is indeed undergoing noteworthy changes, with large energy transfers from deep geologic strata, into the Artic surface landmass, ocean & atmospheric multiplex. This action is disquieting great areas of the (previously thought stable) Artic atmospheric & oceanic thermodynamics.
Enormous volumes of various superheated volcanic gases (including CO2, CH4, & many others) & aerosol materials as well, are being released into the Artic atmospheric complex, with the area having a low mixing potential, somewhat concentrating effects.
Also, of somewhat less significance, the voluminous subsurface pyroclastic ejections may increase Artic landmass over time, possibly even considerably.
Fiesty wrote: “We shouldn't be worried about the animals going extinct due to climate change?”
“Climate change” is a well geologically recorded, stable & ever present series of events, as energy transfers wax & wane, throughout the vector space. “Extinctions” are natural events that may be related, or unrelated phenomenon.
August 15, 2008
12:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
JustTex writes:
Fiesty wrote: “We shouldn't be worried about the global increase in temperature?”
Being “worried” is merely an emotive response to stimuli, within a field of knowledge/experience.
However, not to entirely diminish your concerns, “global increase in temperature”, as proven throughout earth’s geologic time, is, has been, & will continue to be, inevitable.
Fiesty wrote: “We shouldn't be worried about the increase in storm intensity?”
Now, you’ve struck a chord that truly does interest me, as “storm intensity” is a derivative of temperatures, pressures & volumes. With the most “intense” “storms” being a byproduct of extremes within that mix.
With that true, within a warmer more homogeneous atmospheric system, there is much less potential for storm events to form. However, some do hypothesize that although fewer storms would be present, the “intensity” of the few storms that do form may potentially “increase”, however, only marginally.
Fiesty wrote: “We shouldn't be concerned with the radical climate swings?
Riiiighhht..…”
It must be noted, little, & possibly nothing at all within the cosmos, is fixed. With that, there is not any steady state or any true equilibrium.
Conditions change, have always changed & will always continue to change. And without change, the quest for knowledge would be diminished & innovative adaptation would become very slow, if necessary at all. Making existence, at best, likely rather mundane.
August 15, 2008
2:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
fiesty writes:
JustTex- It cannot be denied that man has negatively impacted the earth to a great degree. It also cannot be denied that we are currently experiencing events that are alarming. Your response is so typical of the "head in sand" reaction- let's minimize or downplay them, so we can absolve ourselves of the responsibility of fixing our mess.
I look at this from a risk analysis viewpoint; for example, even though I don't plan on my house burning down, I still have homeowner's insurance. Why? Because the risk of NOT having it is too great. Here we have all the indications that man's activities are harming the environment to our serious detriment. We have two possible outcomes based upon our two viewpoints that need to have their risk analysis. First, mine- let's do something about what we're doing to the environment. If wrong, (we did something but nothing happens), we STILL have benefits such as cleaner air, less reliant on foreign oil economy etc. If right, (did something and something happens), we potentially save the human race. Second, yours- let's do nothing. If right, (did nothing and nothing happens), we've saved some $ but the environment continues to get worse. If wrong, (did nothing and something does happen), most of civilization may perish as well as mass extinctions of animal species. In this case, the price of inaction far outweighs that of action, and the risks are too great to ignore.
August 16, 2008
11:14 a.m.
Suggest removal
jackson_foi writes:
fiesty: how much are you willing to pay?
Using the home insurance logic, lets say that you are currently paying $1200/year.
Would you be willing to pay that for AGW insurance? Probably.
But, there are some Americans who could not, so would you be willing to pay $2400/year to cover yours and theirs? Probably.
As the atmosphere is well mixed, and the Chinese economy can't afford this cost, are you willing to pay $14,400/year to cover yours and the six Chinese that are relying on you? Probably Not.
The IPCC says that each human is entitled to an equal opportunity to pollute, so until everyone can afford to be carbon neutral, the wealthy countries must foot the bill. I trust that our friends in the other wealthy countries are as passionate about this issue, and willing to do as much. If not, climate goes to hell, or not, and we have hamstrung our economy.
August 16, 2008
3:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
JustTex writes:
Fiesty wrote: “It cannot be denied that man has negatively impacted the earth to a great degree.”
Nonsense. “great degree”? Although that answer can be qualified as both yes & no. However, you somehow seem to believe & imply that without man, earth would be a pristine paradise. That’s hardly so.
Nature is & can be a brutal master, if not curtailed from following her conventional thoughtless path. Man has simply applied his ability to reason, to what otherwise would continue to devastate all of those among our species.
It must be noted, within just my lifetime, I’ve seen amazing environmental improvements.
Waterways & basins have been transformed from highly polluted & in some cases even flammable, to once again useful & in many cases near pristine. Air quality has been greatly improved with the mitigation of millions of tons of both toxic & relatively benign particulate matter. Millions of acres of farmland has been returned to a more natural state, as modern agricultural methods have greatly improved crop yields. All industrial processes, of all types, have been revolutionized to capture & reuse as many consumables as possible, many that were once simply considered industrial waste. Our per capita hydrocarbon usage has been lowered exponentially as well.
Modernity & environmental health have both continued to expand, at a rather amazing rate. Yet mankind is healthier & wealthier & life spans of much more comfort have expanded & improved, faster than ever before.
August 16, 2008
4:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
JustTex writes:
Also, overall, these improvements combined, have alleviated much of the human suffering that otherwise, nature always has, & would continue to deal out, indiscriminately, had we not applied ourselves to resolving these issues.
All this & much more than I have listed has occurred in little more than 60 years, once we Americans began to highly apply ourselves towards technologically driven environmental, infrastructure & human quality of life improvements.
So, small “degree”? Yes. However, every species has an impact on the environment. I'll add, every species emits CO2, plants & animal alike. From the largest, to the smallest. CO2 is an essential element for both plants & animals, of all types. Without atmospheric CO2 you & I & every other species could not survive.
Currently, atmospheric CO2 has increased due to Asian land use changes & a lack of strong continental to offshore African wind, that has supplied much of the oceanic FE (iron). This has slowed the spread & growth of phytoplankton, which are among the lowest levels of the global food chain. That is the true reason fish stocks have declined & atmospheric CO2 is currently slightly elevated.
The most reasonable & productive method of mitigating atmospheric CO2 is moderate oceanic fertilization, with small amounts of FE, within the greatest areas of the phytoplankton production zones, the southern oceans.
However, while discussing environmental issues, I will cite one example of mankind’s largest “negative impacts”. That has been the supposed Eco-Friendly forest policy folly, as it is continuing to be speciously applied, despite volumes of contraindicating evidence. I'll explain more in the next post.
August 16, 2008
4:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
JustTex writes:
Almost all old growth softwood Northern forests have been devasted by Bark Beetle infestations, that target older & weaker tree stands. Yet, the so called "Environmental Movement" continues to file lawsuits, stopping harvest of the infected stands & those predicted to soon become infected.
Poorly managed unmitigated & overgrown forests, all become unhealthy, & will eventually die-off by some means, including beetle infestations, thus making way for younger, healthier, uninfected forests.
Having witnessed & flown over the area of the Cerro Grande Fire of 2000, prior to, during & following the fire, I’ve gained quite an interest in, & enormous appreciation for, modern principles of forestry.
With that, I highly recommend reading Dr. Tom Bonnicksen’s "America's Ancient Forests: From the Ice Age to the Age of Discovery”. See here:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0471...
Moving along now. Lumber & other forest products are valuable & fungible. Private practice for profit forest managers take great expense & effort to recognize insect infestations early within a cycle, & harvest the area to avoid spread.
To allow tree stands to age & deteriorate by any means, be it enhanced fuel loads caused by overzealous fire suppression or under grazing increasing fire potential, insect infestations, Weather phenomena or poor soil quality, rather than harvesting the stands utilizing any of the well established silviculture practices, is further evidence of the misguided insanity of the modern so called "Environmental Movement“.
With all that, forest mismanagement & emotion based management practices are to be blamed for today's poor state of American forests.
August 25, 2008
12:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
JustTex writes:
Well, that's rather odd.
It appears that "Fiesty" doesn't wish to discuss these issues any further.
That's a shame. I was just starting to get warmed up...
August 25, 2008
1:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
jackson_foi writes:
Tis, I trust that in his enthusiasm to save us, he isn't still holding his breath.