An alert reader sent me this article:
RENO, Nev. (AP) — Nevada is among the states with the most dramatic increase in average temperatures the last 30 years, according to a new study that examines the impact of global warming across the country.
The average temperature in Reno from June through August last year was 75.6 degrees, almost 7 degrees above the 30-year average, the U.S. Public Interest Research Group reported. The gap was the biggest measured nationally.
Las Vegas' average temperature last summer was 3.6 degrees above the 30-year average from 1971-2000, while Elko's was 4 degrees above normal and Ely's was 2.1 degrees hotter, the report said.
"The scientific evidence of global warming is incontrovertible, and Nevada is feeling the heat more intensely than most of the rest of the U.S," said Stephen M. Rowland, Professor of Geology at University of Nevada, Las Vegas.
"Only a tiny bit of this increase in temperature can be attributed to increased urbanization the so-called urban heat-island effect," Rowland continued. "Global warming is here, and we better get serious about confronting it."(emphasis added)
Now, when I first glanced at this I thought I was really in for it - I was thinking that it would be because of the increased urbanization out here that global warming was being contributed to in a large way...glad am I to know that when the built my house one what, ten years ago, was pristine desert wilderness, that it had no (or minor) adverse environmental impact. This is a gigantic relief!
This is also a great hope for the future - because I would really like to have my property values shoot up, and that requires ever more people moving in to Las Vegas (population increase from 258K in 1990 to 553K in 2006)...and now that we know that tearing up the country side and building 100,000 more houses is mostly harmless....well, let 'er rip!
Of course, I am at a loss about how we are to get cracking at the global warming problem - these fine scientists who know more than anyone and who cannot be doubted because they are global warming scientists have just told us that massively increasing our carbon footprint had only minimal impact...so I don't see how massively reducing it will help. Perhaps the science guys can help us out...they're so smart, and all, ya know?
Posted by Mark Noonan at July 27, 2007 02:54 AM
Track
del.icio.us
digg it
IM
Facebook
Comments
I am a regular reader of your blog. And I am very impress with your blog upon Global Warming. Now I am also write a blog upon Global Warming. This blog is collection of news & reviews like the study found that global warming since 1985 has been caused neither by an increase in solar radiation nor by a decrease in the flux of galactic cosmic rays. Some researchers had also suggested that the latter might influence global warming because the rays trigger cloud formation.
Posted by:
Tarun K Juyal at July 27, 2007 06:14 AM
Unless martial law is declared between now and then: after 2008 - BlogsForBushes planted in and around the Las Vegas metropolitan area.
Posted by: congressive at July 27, 2007 06:22 AM
Is there anyway you can send your excess heat down to Peru?
Posted by: Bigfoot at July 27, 2007 09:02 AM
I first heard about the story on Rush Limbaugh yesterday. Here's a quote from his site:
Big story also out of Nevada: "Nevada is among the states with the most dramatic increase in average temperatures in the last 30 years according to a new study that examines the impact of global warming across the country." So what did I do? I went to the National Weather Service, and I got a little bar graph here of the average Las Vegas maximum temperature by decade. And guess what? The 1940s featured the highest average temperature for Las Vegas from the forties through the nineties. The forties and fifties were higher than the eighties and nineties, average temperature in Las Vegas. Keep in mind, folks, it's all BS out there on this global warming business. It's a wild guess. It's a political issue. It's a religion. It's a hoax. Don't believe any of the fearmongering.
Rush also has a bar chart on his site showing the temperatures.
AAR
Posted by: AAR at July 27, 2007 01:59 PM
Of course, I am at a loss about how we are to get cracking at the global warming problem.
Mark, one only need look at the last paragraph to get the answer:
"Nevadans are starting to understand that global warming is affecting us right now, and that our elected officials need to start making some tough choices to protect our quality of life," said Kyle Davis, the Policy Director for the Nevada Conservation League and a member of the Governor's Climate Change Task Force.
Our "elected officials" have done such a superb job of fixing immigration, Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid -- fixing global warming should be a piece of cake.
Also, I don't have time to research it this afternoon, but I'd be willing to bet the temps in Nevada were higher than they are now as recently as the 1930's or 40's.
Posted by: Retired Spook at July 27, 2007 02:04 PM
There is a difference between the urban heat island theory and greenhouse gases causing global warming. The urban heat island theory suggests that what we are experiencing is not actual global warming but different sampling that in the past. An urban heat island is the heat generated by buildings and asphalt exposed to sun raising the surrounding temperature. The idea is that most previous temperature readings were taken without this effect and now we are measuring temperatures in large urban environments which will be warmer than surrounding farmland for instance. When the scientist is saying the warming is not from urban heat island effect he is saying it is from the greenhouse effect. Incidentally I learned both these theories in college in the early 70's so neither are new phenomenon.
Posted by: Aztec at July 27, 2007 03:04 PM
I would have more patience with the Global Warming Belief System if it would acknowledge and address two corollary issues.
One is the repeated warnings from scientists all over the world that we are facing an impending dramatic cooling of the earth, possibly within a decade or two. I'd like to see those warnings weighed against the dire predictions of out of control heat increases and their results.
The other is the unaddressed BENEFITS of a warmer clinate, ranging from less need for fossil fuels for basic heating needs to increased agricultural production. In real life, everything is interrelated, yet the Global Warming theorists have their pet theory standing alone, just a really really bad scary thing with no redeeming qualities.
It seems to me that true science weighs and evaluates all the different aspects of any problem, rather than just cherry-picking the aspects that either advance or contradict a pet theory. I have yet to see any calm rational discussion of the good vs. the bad aspects of a warming climate, much less the disadvantages of a cooling climate.
Posted by: Almiranta at July 28, 2007 09:28 PM
Order Matt and Mark's book on Amazon or Barnes and Noble
I am a regular reader of your blog. And I am very impress with your blog upon Global Warming. Now I am also write a blog upon Global Warming. This blog is collection of news & reviews like the study found that global warming since 1985 has been caused neither by an increase in solar radiation nor by a decrease in the flux of galactic cosmic rays. Some researchers had also suggested that the latter might influence global warming because the rays trigger cloud formation.
Unless martial law is declared between now and then: after 2008 - BlogsForBushes planted in and around the Las Vegas metropolitan area.
Is there anyway you can send your excess heat down to Peru?
I first heard about the story on Rush Limbaugh yesterday. Here's a quote from his site:
Rush also has a bar chart on his site showing the temperatures.
AAR
Of course, I am at a loss about how we are to get cracking at the global warming problem.
Mark, one only need look at the last paragraph to get the answer:
Our "elected officials" have done such a superb job of fixing immigration, Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid -- fixing global warming should be a piece of cake.
Also, I don't have time to research it this afternoon, but I'd be willing to bet the temps in Nevada were higher than they are now as recently as the 1930's or 40's.
There is a difference between the urban heat island theory and greenhouse gases causing global warming. The urban heat island theory suggests that what we are experiencing is not actual global warming but different sampling that in the past. An urban heat island is the heat generated by buildings and asphalt exposed to sun raising the surrounding temperature. The idea is that most previous temperature readings were taken without this effect and now we are measuring temperatures in large urban environments which will be warmer than surrounding farmland for instance. When the scientist is saying the warming is not from urban heat island effect he is saying it is from the greenhouse effect. Incidentally I learned both these theories in college in the early 70's so neither are new phenomenon.
I would have more patience with the Global Warming Belief System if it would acknowledge and address two corollary issues.
One is the repeated warnings from scientists all over the world that we are facing an impending dramatic cooling of the earth, possibly within a decade or two. I'd like to see those warnings weighed against the dire predictions of out of control heat increases and their results.
The other is the unaddressed BENEFITS of a warmer clinate, ranging from less need for fossil fuels for basic heating needs to increased agricultural production. In real life, everything is interrelated, yet the Global Warming theorists have their pet theory standing alone, just a really really bad scary thing with no redeeming qualities.
It seems to me that true science weighs and evaluates all the different aspects of any problem, rather than just cherry-picking the aspects that either advance or contradict a pet theory. I have yet to see any calm rational discussion of the good vs. the bad aspects of a warming climate, much less the disadvantages of a cooling climate.