Global Warming

Global Warming Hearing Canceled

Too much snow. Ha!

Written on Tuesday, February 13th, 2007 by lorien1973 :: 1 Comment so far

Didn’t I say that God had a sense of humor? According to the Drudge Report (link may become outdated):

The Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality hearing scheduled for Wednesday, February 14, 2007, at 10:00 a.m. in room 2123 Rayburn House Office Building has been postponed due to inclement weather. The hearing is entitled “Climate Change: Are Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Human Activities Contributing to a Warming of the Planet?”

The hearing will be rescheduled to a date and time to be announced later.

DC WEATHER REPORT:

Wednesday: Freezing rain in the morning…then a chance of snow in the afternoon. Ice accumulation of less than one quarter of an inch. Highs in the mid 30s. Northwest winds around 20 mph. Chance of precipitation 80 percent.

Wednesday Night: Partly cloudy. Lows around 18. Northwest winds around 20 mph.

What other comment is necessary, other than (in my best Nelson voice) Ha Ha!

Global Warming and Glaciers

How many scientists does it take?

Written on Tuesday, February 13th, 2007 by lorien1973 :: Be the first to Comment

New data suggests that glaciers are not melting at an increased rate; but that the rate is more steady that environmentalists would have us believe. Go figure.

The study, led by Ian Howat, a researcher with the University of Colorado’s National Snow and Ice Data Center and the University of Washington's Applied Physics Laboratory, shows the glaciers shrank dramatically and dumped twice as much ice into the sea during a period of less than a year between 2004 and 2005.

But then, fewer than two years later, they returned to near their previous rates of discharge.

Howat says such variability during such a short time underlines the problem in assuming glacial melting and sea level rise will necessarily occur at a steady upward trajectory.

“Our main point is that the behavior of these glaciers can change a lot from year to year, so we can’t assume to know the future behavior from short records of recent changes,” he said. “Future warming may lead to rapid pulses of retreat and increased discharge rather than a long, steady drawdown.”

Isn’t this what I’ve been saying post after post? You cannot predict the future with a few current variables. The planet is billions of years old. We have accurate data for about 100 years (or less). How can we possibly know the future when we barely understand the present. We don’t trust weather forecasts 2 weeks ahead, why do we trust computer based predictions 100 years ahead of time?

Based on all the expert opinions out there, you’d think we had thousands of people studying the glaciers, wouldn’t you? Or at least that scientists have examined many of the glaciers, at least. Not so.

Raina told the Hindustan Times that out of 9,575 glaciers in India, till date, research has been conducted only on about 50. Nearly 200 years data has shown that nothing abnormal has occurred in any of these glaciers.

More…

Maintaining that the glaciers are undergoing natural changes, witnessed periodically, he said recent studies in the Gangotri and Zanskar areas (Drung- Drung, Kagriz glaciers) have not shown any evidence of major retreat.

“Claims of global warming causing glacial melt in the Himalayas are based on wrong assumptions,” Raina, a trained mountaineer and skiing expert said. He rued that not much is being done by the Government to create a bank of trained geologists for an in-depth study of glaciers.

Who needs geologists, when you have politicians and activists?

The Worst Kind of ‘Customers’

When is enough, enough?

Written on Friday, February 9th, 2007 by lorien1973 :: Be the first to Comment

Everyday, it seems like, we get the most irritating set of calls. You can almost set your watch to it. They are a drain on time, resources and especially our patience.

Here are some of my favorites that happened just this week:

Customer calls and says they want to find out their order status. Customer gives an order number that is not ours, so they ordered from someplace else. We explain this; and customer says - I know, I ordered from this other .com company. We ask - why don’t you call them for your order status? Customer says its because they won’t answer the phone, so she is calling here instead. We reply - how are we supposed to help you with another company’s order? Customer realizes how stupid this call was, apologizes and hangs up.

No. I did not make that up. It really happened. We’ve even had people who ordered from Amazon.com call us for their order status.

People seem to forget that many stores carry the same products. You cannot only buy Tide at Walmart. But, if you buy Tide at Walmart, you cannot expect to go to Target and get a refund if you do not like it. It’s not that difficult.

It’s when a customer is lying that irritates me, personally, the most. I took a call this week from an angry customer who ordered a product and wanted to know the status. I could not locate the customer in our system, so I ask where did they order it from. From you (of course! Geesh!). Okay…so I ask did they order it from a television commercial. They say yes. So I explain that we do not advertise on TV and that its a different company. They said they searched for the company and came up with us. Well, we do sell the product (we are retailers afterall), but do not advertise on TV. I wish there was a way to make that explanation shorter!

But, when banks give customers bad information it is appalling. We had a bank tell a customer to call us about a missing order. Why did the bank have the customer call us? Because the company did not have a phone number on file; the phone operator did an internet search and figured we were the people to call. How are we supposed to respond to a customer who says “the bank said you were the people to call” - of course they believe their bank rather than this poor schlub on the phone. The only thing I could tell that customer was to call the bank back, confirm the information, and that I’d probably never hear about the issue a second time. And I didn’t or haven’t.

Customer calls and gives us an order number, that is not ours. Again, we explain that she ordered it from someplace else and should contact them. Customer is confused and thought she ordered it from us. Nope - call the people you purchased it from. Customer is now mad at us, because she can’t remember where she ordered from and demands we find out where her order is. And she says “I’m never ordering online again!” I’ll breathe a sigh of relief.

Customer orders something from television (we don’t advertise on television) and demands their order status. It’s been 6 weeks, they say! Well, call the people you ordered from. Their phone number doesn’t work. Did they bill you? Yes. Check your statement, their phone number is there, most likely. Customer hangs up. You’re welcome.

 Add to this, the multitude of “SEO companies”, pay-per-click engines and general nuisance calls and you get a full slate of complete wastes of time calling in. It’s enough to drive a person to madness.

And we wonder why bigger companies like Amazon, Ebay, etal don’t make their phone number easy to find. Sometimes questions just answer themselves.

New Fad Diet: Socialist Utopianism

Starving does a body good!

Written on Thursday, February 8th, 2007 by lorien1973 :: Be the first to Comment

Have a few pounds you need to shed? Those love handles not looking too lovely anymore? Try this hot new Hollywood diet, endorsed by everyone from Cindy Sheehan:

O’Donnell asked: “Why go stand by side by Hugo Chavez in Venezuela? Why do that? Would you rather live under him than George Bush?

Sheehan: “Yes. Hugo Chavez is not a dictator like you introduced him. He’s been democratically elected eight times. He is not anti-American, he has helped the poor people of America.

Danny Glover, Harry Belafonte, and others agree as well. This is fantastic diet plan.

Mr Finlayson said his delegation ignored such voices because the goal was to express solidarity, not investigate. But the group did encounter some Chavez critics: walking through a wealthy district of Caracas, it was pelted with eggs.

So what is this new fabulous diet that has Hollywood abuzz? Socialist utopianism, commonly known as starvation!

Meat cuts vanished from Venezuelan supermarkets this week, leaving only unsavory bits like chicken feet, while costly artificial sweeteners have increasingly replaced sugar, and many staples sell far above government-fixed prices.

President Hugo Chavez’s administration blames the food supply problems on unscrupulous speculators, but industry officials say government price controls that strangle profits are responsible.

No meat, no sugar? The no-carb diet people will love this. It’s a brand new tourist enticement. Venezuela - come and starve.

Gonzalo Asuaje, president of the meat processors association Afrigo, said that costs and demand have surged but in four years the government has barely raised the price of beef, which now stands at $1.82 per pound. Simply getting beef to retailers now costs $2.41 per pound without including any markup, he said.

“They want to sell it at the same price the cattle breeder gets for his cow,” he said. “It’s impossible.”

You don’t need to eat when you live in a socialist utopia. That’s the lesson people never seem to learn. Perfection has its price; and that price is starvation.

When Good Vendors Go Bad

Bad Bad Vendor

Written on Tuesday, February 6th, 2007 by lorien1973 :: Be the first to Comment

Everyone who owns a business that sells product (as opposed to a service) is beholden to their vendors, especially when their product sells. So imagine our dismay when one of our highest volume vendors announces that one of my somewhat decent selling products goes from a cost of $50 to a cost of $125. So, we’d have to up the retail price appropriately, with no change in the product.

At first, you could say - sounds reasonable. Manufacturing costs went up, so the price went up. Well, that’s not what happened. Here is what happened. Originally the product was only meant to be given away (understand me here, the product was only intended to free) if you ordered $500 worth of the related items - that don’t sell nearly as well. Well, the bigger item became so popular, that other customers of theirs (as well as ourselves) started ordering it and it alone. So, a salesman (not sure who and not very relevant) pulled a price out of thin air and starting selling the item for $50. The price stayed the same for well over a year, too, but now the price is $125 instead.

But, the good side of this is, is that if you have a good salesperson - like we do, then you can work out something. While we are being charged the $125 for each piece, she is going to send us a third one for free, which makes the hit a little less noticeable or at least lets us increment it on the website.

But, bad bad vendor, for not controlling your salespeople well enough to establish prices on every product, even if you they are not intended to be sold individually. They have to know someone is going to ask for that piece alone.

Environmentalism Meets Comedy

You’d think this was a joke, but it’s probably not.

Written on Monday, February 5th, 2007 by lorien1973 :: Be the first to Comment

The funniest environmentalism article you’ll find today, or any day, for that matter.

 shareholders who have terraces don’t actually own their outdoor square footage, so reclaiming them should not be a problem.

Note to rent-board. Can I get a rent reduction, since I no longer own a terrace that I paid extra for?

My feeling is, solar-heat the rainwater and deal with it later. Mr. Ramirez says that his brother has a company that can install the collection piping.

Yes. Problems are always best dealt with later. By someone else. Or with nepotism. Either way, really.

(Magda was on hold for hours, though she has extra time now that I’ve stopped her doing the towels every day)

Good thing the maid (I assume) has time to do the legwork for you on this. Really shows how much you care.

Bob says we shouldn’t do this until well after the Final Four.

Priorities straight. Check.

The bottom compost section inside the timber casing creates a stable warm temperature that worms love. Happy worms make delicious herbs. I have these in Quogue and they’re gorgeous. And many of you have tasted my pesto!

They make good pot, too. I’m sure!

I don’t know. Maybe a plaque. It just seems like such a waste to have drivers waiting outside the building all the time, even in hybrids.

That’s nice. If you idle, you catch the bird flu. Sweet!

But wait, the best part!

Imagine us growing our food in our own waste

Imagine. Just imagine. Poo coated tomatoes are delicious on a hot summer day!

powering our elevators with our StairMasters

There was this cool things that was invented years ago that already does this. It’s called STAIRS!

Insert your own jokes as well. The whole article is quite ludicrious. I’m sure it’ll never come to fruition as the costs for all of this would be staggering.

UPDATE: Global warming causes Hawaii to get record cold temperatures.

Link to story.

Joann Matsuo admits it was so cold this morning she stayed in bed until noon. “It’s actually warmer in here than out there. I am freezing. I heard tomorrow is going to be the coldest day of the winter. And I have a heating blanket I bought so hopefully that will be sufficient.”

Global warming sucks. Doesn’t it?

Update: Another climatologist comes out against global warming.

The theory of Global Warming assumes that CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise. It was then theorized that since humans were producing more CO2 than before, the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted before testing had started, and effectively became a law.

…

By the 1990’s temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I’ll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.

Hopefully sanity is starting to creep into the debate. But, sadly, I fear it’s not.

Global Warming and God’s Sense of Humor

He must have one.

Written on Sunday, February 4th, 2007 by lorien1973 :: 30 Comments so far

Global warming is a topic that interests me, not only on a scientific level, but also because it’s ripe for some cheap comedy.

In 2004, Al Gore made a historic speech about global warming on what turned out to be one of the coldest days in the history of New York City.

Gore will make the warming case on a day forecasters are predicting the coldest temps in Boston since 1957, with wind chills in parts of New England plunging to 100 degrees below zero! Even though forecasters predict Thursday night will bring the coldest temperature reading in New York City in more than 10 years [1 degree above zero], sources tell the DRUDGE REPORT that Gore is determined to deliver the speech — hoping to make the case how “Global warming” is actually the cause of the record cold snap!

This week, an international panel of scientists released their global warming report and now Chicago is having record temperatures over the weekend as well. It seems, as if on cue, God has a little giggle to make a point that this is a natural phenomenon. Here are the current chill maps for the country. Note, specifically, the Great Lakes Region.

The weather channel says this:

Brutally cold temperatures will find it difficult to rise above zero north of I-88… and only making it to 5 or 6 degrees above well south of there. Strong west winds today will produce bitter wind chills of 20 to 30 below zero. These biting cold temperatures and blustery winds will continue to keep wind chills near this range through Tuesday morning.

The record low temperatures ever recorded in Chicago are:

The record low temperature was set on January 20, 1985 when the thermometer read 27 degrees below zero. The coldest winter was the winter of 1976-1977 when the temperature remained below freezing for 43 consecutive days.

While we’ll have to wait and see if today’s lows break the record, it is interesting that it is happening the weekend after the global warming report was released. And I know that one cold day or one cold winter or one warm summer doesn’t prove or disprove global warming - that’s not the point. I’m simply noting the sense of humor behind God’s cruel design.

But; there was a very interesting series on global warming in Canada’s National Post the other day. It’s a 10 part series, but I think - even for people who believe in global warming - its a very interesting read. If it does not, at least, raise any questions in y our mind, then you should consider why you believe in warming at all.

Here are some brief highlights from the series:

In fact, according to the IPCC’s own findings, man’s role is so uncertain that there is a strong possibility that we have been cooling, not warming, the Earth. Unfortunately, our tools are too crude to reveal what man’s effect has been in the past, let alone predict how much warming or cooling we might cause in the future.

In another study, directly relevant to today’s climate controversy, Dr. Shaviv reconstructed the temperature on Earth over the past 550 million years to find that cosmic ray flux variations explain more than two-thirds of Earth’s temperature variance, making it the most dominant climate driver over geological time scales. The study also found that an upper limit can be placed on the relative role of CO2 as a climate driver, meaning that a large fraction of the global warming witnessed over the past century could not be due to CO2 — instead it is attributable to the increased solar activity.

….

Typically, sunspots flare up and settle down in cycles of about 11 years. In the last 50 years, we haven’t been living in typical times: “If you look back into the sun’s past, you find that we live in a period of abnormally high solar activity,” Dr. Weiss states.

This has been my essential view on global warming. We are in an increased period of solar activity. Seems like every year we get a warning about a solar flare that could disrupt satellite communications (link). It’s unimaginable that these cannot also affect our atmosphere and cause a warming affect.

“Our committee believes that the assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade in a millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year in a millennium cannot be supported,” Wegman stated, adding that “The paucity of data in the more remote past makes the hottest-in-a-millennium claims essentially unverifiable.” When Wegman corrected Mann’s statistical mistakes, the hockey stick disappeared.

This was another problem. We have heard stories that this was the warmest century in 1000 years. Two points here.

1. If this is true, it means it was warmner 1001 years ago, right? So the earth has cooled and probably has warmed in the past. So there is a history of it happening.
2. If we only have reliable records for less than 100 years, how can anyone say its been the warmest in 1000 years. Taking shots in the dark at best. Not credible.

As Wegman summed it up to the energy and commerce committee in later testimony: “I am baffled by the claim that the incorrect method doesn’t matter because the answer is correct anyway. Method Wrong + Answer Correct = Bad Science.” With bad science, only true believers can assert that they nevertheless obtained the right answer.

We know so little about this planet. We know more about the moon than we do about the Earth’s oceans, and they cover ove 70% of the planet. Shocking, isn’t it? Just because we know a few things about the current planet, does not mean we can draw computer models and show the past. In fact, studies show that climate models are seriously flawed.

What’s more, the new IPCC report actually lowers the potential danger from what it did in 2001.

The report cites six models with core projections of sea level rises ranging from 18 to 59 cm this century. That is a narrower and lower band than the nine to 88 cm gain forecast in 2001.

But the report also says if the Greenland ice sheet melts proportionally to the temperature rises, then sea levels would rise by up to 79 cm, not 59 cm, this century.

In 2001, the effect was 88 cm. In 2006, it’s 59 centimeters. Let’s put that in English terms that I can understand. 88 cm is about 34 inches. 59 cm is about 24 inches. Hardly the dire situation of New York buried under hundreds of feet of water as you’ve seen on TV. Note the clip from the link above. Sponge Bob Science….seconds before the global warming bit? Do we have a non-believer in Groening?

All-in-all, I think the science on global warming is quite faulty, ignores historical data, ignores the warming on Mars and relies on faulty models. I think that many people support global warming because they want to do “something” or save the “children” or some such platitude. But, making yourself feel good is not good policy. We need to let better science prevail, especially in a matter, where the target is your freedom, your rights, and your way of life.

Update: Iceland’s ice pack is increasing.

Thick pack ice, the like of which has not been seen for decades, stretched into the western fjords as temperatures plummeted and a bitter wind blew in from -Greenland.

The ice has proved a headache for fishermen, who have been unable to put to sea, but it is what comes with pack ice that has caused most concern: polar bears.

Does that mean we’ll see less pictures of this:

And more of this:

Probably not. Environmentalists want you to think that the Polar Bears are dying. Much to the chagrin of baby seals everywhere; they are not.

As the figure shows, population patterns do not show a temperature-linked decline:

• Only two of the distinct population groups, accounting for about 16.4 percent of the total population, are decreasing.
• Ten populations, approximately 45.4 percent of the total number, are stable.
• Another two populations — about 13.6 percent of the total number of polar bears — are increasing.

The status of the remaining six populations (whether they are stable, increasing or decreasing in size) is unknown.

Oil Company Profits - What’s the Big Deal?

Profit only matters to a few people - shareholders and business owners.

Written on Sunday, February 4th, 2007 by lorien1973 :: Be the first to Comment

Big Oil closed out the week with a bang, announcing profits of $72 billion dollars. To most people; that is a huge number, and indeed it is. But how many people who looked at the number realizes what it means?

The revenue of the three biggest oil companies were $772 billion, so the profit is really about 9% of revenue. In 2005 (last year numbers were available as of posting) Walmart had revenue of $312 billion and $17 billion in profits. Combined, the Fortune 500 companies had $9.1 trillion in revenue with $610 billion in profits, which is 6.7% of revenue on average. As you can see, the profit margin is not out of line for a big company especially considering that they all have shareholders to answer to.

The record earnings, of course, make for good fodder for politicians eager to play the class warfare card. Consider Hillary Clinton’s comments to the DNC after the profits were announced:

As a business owner, it frightens me anytime a politician is eager to take something from a company just because they can or they want to. Whether or not it really happens is irrelevant; the company puts forth the effort, the risk and earns the reward. It’s easy to take something from someone, it’s harder to go and earn it yourself.

Next Entries »