Broncos Face Threat From Global Warming Today



About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

20 Responses to Broncos Face Threat From Global Warming Today

  1. shempus says:

    danged vortex of global climate disruption change weirding…

  2. shazaam says:

    I hate shoveling global warming in the winter. Let alone having to shovel the stuff in the fall.

  3. Ben Vorlich says:

    For several years in the 1980’s I visited the USA for a week of business meetings (probably about 6 times in total). These were about the time of the World Series Baseball, or just after. Mid/Late-October? On a couple of occasions on the return trip my flights were delayed by snow. Once in Minneapolis and once at O’Hare. So not much has changed in 30 years as far as I can see.

    As I recall the New York Mets and Minnesota Twins were winners on two of the visits, but not necessarily the years it snowed.

  4. Morph says:

    Who are the Broncos and why should I care ?

  5. SMS says:

    I don’t believe that the Broncos and Patriots will be playing in snow today. Why? I’ve been told by trusted officials that snow is a thing of the past. So trusted are these officials that we should turn our entire lives over to them and do exactly as we are told.

  6. stewart pid says:

    Cue more warmist evah BS news release so the sheeple don’t believe their lying eyes that it is cold and snowy.

  7. Don says:

    So that is where the heat has been hiding! Foxboro, MA. Who knew.

  8. I saw my first sign of global warming today……snow on the top of the Catskills, visible from the Thruway near Kingston, NY. November 2 snow.

  9. wayne says:

    This is so strange! It is starting to snow in the fall just like in years past, like back in the ’70’s.
    The world wonders, and should not fear, , just remove all of the man-made adjustments and see that we are on the slide back down.

  10. MrX says:

    I’m in Eastern Canada 47th latitude. Usually only snows mid to late November (going back to the 70’s). We’ve got several inches of snow already. Global warming is worse than we thought. It manifests itself in this white powdery stuff that’s really heavy to shovel.

  11. James the Elder says:

    Two-four inches of AGW fell in and around Columbia, SC last night.

  12. MrX says:

    @Steve: I have a serious question. I’ve looked into temperature data a few times. But recently, I’ve looked into CO2 contributions from humans. It seems to be at 4% an it has a half life of 4 years. Read up that the current increases in CO2 indicate a half life of 30-60 years. Doesn’t this by itself imply that humans cannot be responsible for CO2, both in percentage and in half life required of the increased CO2?

    So we’re at 4%. Warming has been 0.8C max since the 70’s. 4% of .8C is 0.032C. Is it fair to say that humans have an upper limit of 0.032C that they’re responsible for? And no way has it been 4% during that entire time. If we shut down all CO2 emissions, in 4 years, it’ll be reduced by half that .016C. In 8 years, it’ll be ~.024C. No one can detect these changes.

    Is all the fuss really over 0.03C?

    Also, this 4% is based on cummulative CO2 production. It doesn’t take the half life into account and I don’t understand their math. It’s about 400GT since 1900. But there’s 750BT in the atmosphere. That’s 0.05%, not 5%. Let’s forget that CO2 effect is logarithmic because that throws too many wrenches into it. Let’s go with the half life of 4 years. We emit about 12GT per year now.
    And 10 GT about 4 years ago. I’m just gonna round this out. (12*4 + 0.5 * 10*4 + 0.24 * 10*4 + ..125 * 4*8). That’s about 100GT upper limit of man-made CO2 that can remain in the atmosphere.

    This is 0.013% of CO2. If we shut down all CO2 production, isn’t that going to have an upper limit of 0.01C? And that’s forgetting about the logarithmic effect of CO2? Even if I misread that as CO2 when it was carbon, it’s 3.6 times larger. At a whopping 0.05% of CO2. I’ve also read some dubious attempts at trying to use the increase in atmospheric CO2 and then determining what percentage that humans have over that, but that dismisses half life of man made CO2.

    I must be missing something. Seems like the fuss is over 0.01C to 0.05C. Can you shed some light on this?

    • Truthseeker says:

      You are not missing anything. It is not about the climate, it is about control. The big lie is to create the big scare that is required for the big chains to be used to “save everyone”.

      • MrX says:

        Just thought about this. But any substance that has a half-life, assuming we add the same amount every year, doesn’t this just add exactly the amount we’re losing through half-life of previous year’s output resulting in a nil effect?

        • tom0mason says:

          You may also want to see that talks about a paper by Lindzen and Choi*, released through the Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences. I haven’t read the full paper, but based on the abstract and conclusions, what they’re reporting is that, basically, the climate models used by the IPCC — and thereby used by Gore in ‘An Inconvenient Truth’, and by the EPA in pushing the CO2 regulation — overstate the effect on global average surface temperature of increased CO2 in the atmosphere. This paper is a re-evaluation of their 2009 results in response to criticisms.

          The paper appears to have two important points: first, based on observational data (as opposed to modeling), the amount of GAST increase based on the observed increase in CO2 is between 0.5C and 1.3C, where the models show between 1.5C and 5C; second, that the temperature feedback is negative, or in other words, increasing CO2 concentration has decreasing effect on GAST, where the IPCC models show positive feedback.

          *Lindzen and Choi paper is at –

          Click to access 236-Lindzen-Choi-2011.pdf

          from Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences at

    • tom0mason says:

      That is why all the climate models over do CO2 effect by x3 to x6 to make it seem worse than it might be. Also keep in mind that the last report I saw said the out-gassing from the oceans, and the CO2 from the rainforests of S. America and Africa were this planets main source of CO2 – maybe the UN can turn them off.
      Also see

      The direct warming due to doubling CO2 levels in the atmosphere can be calculated to cause a warming of about one degree Celsius. The IPCC computer models predict a much larger warming, three degrees Celsius or even more, because they assume changes in water vapor or clouds that supposedly amplify the direct warming from CO2. Many lines of observational evidence suggest that this “positive feedback” also has been greatly exaggerated…

      It is easy to be confused about climate, because we are constantly being warned about the horrible things that will happen or are already happening as a result of mankind’s use of fossil fuels.

      But these ominous predictions are based on computer models. It is important to distinguish between what the climate is actually doing and what computer models predict. The observed response of the climate to more CO2 is not in good agreement with model predictions.
      We need high-quality climate science because of the importance of climate to mankind. But we should also remember the description of how science works by the late, great physicist, Richard Feynman:

      “In general we look for a new law by the following process. First we guess it. Then we compute the consequences of the guess to see what would be implied if this law that we guessed is right. Then we compare the result of the computation to nature, with experiment or experience; compare it directly with observation, to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment it is wrong.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s