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.
Roberston is an idiot. It's hard to say what's up with global warming. Ya humans make a lot of co2 but so do volcanos and all that jazz. We`ll just have to wait and see but until then it may be a good idea to plant a CRAP LOAD of plants, trees and so on.
I had a bad case of global warming this morning. Those black eyed peas I ate last night were ferocious
Check out these links from reliable sources from 2003 that say the sun is putting out more energy has been previously measured."Historical records of solar activity indicate that solar radiation has been increasing since the late 19th century." It's amazing how little tidbits like this never gets mentioned in the global warming debate. http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun_output_030320.html http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/0313irradiance.html Sounds to me like the warming in the 1930s and the current warming issues could be related to a cyclical issue. No one has ever explained why we went through a similar problem in the 1930s. That created the "dust bowl days" where thousands of farms throughout the midwestern US were wiped out. Let's hope it's a cyclical problem and not a long-term trend. Believe it or not, I first read about the solar radiation issue in the New York Times.
If you actually read about the article the world is getting warmer and man is part of the cause, just ask the president
I get mixed messages on this issue. I hear a lot of scientist say this and that....some not even in the field relevent to the issue...so to me it's a bit odd to come up with any steady conclusion.
The leading government scientist who works at NASA and has been studying the earth for more than 30 years has zero doubt global warming exists and we have only 10 years before the problem becomes irriversable. However he claims the white house constantly censors and edits all of his press releases to the public to create doubt of global warming and it's effects. This was on 60 minutes about a week ago. If the most knowledgable and leading scientists all agree - what is there left to question? EDIT: He's James Hansen and here's some of the stories: Rewriting the Science NASA Scientist: Bush Stifles Global Warming Evidence NASA GISS
Are you a scientists, Yo-yo? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_global_warming_consensus Note: The 'consensus' was edited by the UN,...deleting the doubt that was part of the assessement. I have no solid position on this...
No. Are You? That's quite a lengthy list of scientists.. especially when compared to a list of those who disagree with them. I'm sure you could find a list of "scientists" who say the earth is only 6,000 years old and that everything in the bible happened, and I'll laugh at that list too
No, but you proved my point....you're not qualified to give a definite answer...neither am I.....but then again I wasn't asserting anything. I remember quoting an organization of meterologist (roughly 7k) whom came up with that conclusion as well....I wish I remembered where I posted it or the link. Then I remember reviewing the number of qualified scientist there were really out there....not many. There's a huge difference between a meterologist and biologists....not all scientist have rightful claim to 'superior' knowledge.
All one has to do is look at the Ice caps that are melting to see there is a problem and if you dont believe then your in denial of fact and just for you: From World View of Global Warming
I also didn't see Saddam murder anyone, does that mean I'm not qualified to call him a murderrer? It's a fact - we cause large Co2 emmissions, and it's a fact that co2 emmissions partially cause global warming. What's left to doubt?
Obvious there's different standards to assessments. Virtually no one will tell you Saddam didn't do that, muchless you can garner evidence (personal, if you had the time) to give you more than enough reasonable evidence of such. Given that you probably aren't specialized in the climate sciences, you could only take someones word for that (despite counter words), and it would require that much more from you....the average person can do the first, but not the latter. History And a question of how much water vapor is involved.....is it as below? 'It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account-- about 5.53%, if not. This point is so crucial to the debate over global warming that how water vapor is or isn't factored into an analysis of Earth's greenhouse gases makes the difference between describing a significant human contribution to the greenhouse effect, or a negligible one. Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect (4). Interestingly, many "facts and figures' regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold. Water vapor is 99.999% of natural origin. Other atmospheric greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and miscellaneous other gases (CFC's, etc.), are also mostly of natural origin (except for the latter, which is mostly anthropogenic). Human activites contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small-- perhaps undetectable-- effect on global climate.'