General Climate Discussion

[Holden McGroin]

Every earthly phenomenon can be traced to global warming

NFL Meteorologists Warn Steaming Black-Guy Heads Occurring Later Every Year
 
NEW YORK Onion Sports December 06, 2007
 
—Steaming black-guy heads, the traditional sign of approaching winter for generations of football fans, have been occurring later in the season with every passing year, a fact that may be evidence of a climatic change with long-term effects on football itself, top scientists in the meteorological department of the National Football League said in a study released Monday.
(Image removed from quote.)
"The phenomenon of weather-related African-American supracranial vaporous emission, or 'Steaming Black-Guy Heads,' as it is colloquially known, occurs when cold dry winter  air comes into contact with hot, humid, shaven heads of football players, causing their personal water vapor to condense and rise on a column of heated air," the statement read in part. "It is then observed by network cameramen, who overwhelmingly choose to film African-American players due to the dramatic contrasts that result—especially when the player in question is backlit—and beamed to millions of households during time-outs, replay reviews, and other stoppages of play. The viewers then realize that winter has come to America."

"However, film review reveals that steaming black-guy heads, which during the 1970s were commonplace in mid-September, have in recent years not been sighted until the weeks after Thanksgiving," the statement continued. "Although further study is definitely called for, we conclude that the pronounced trend for steaming black-guy heads to occur progressively later every year—coupled with the phenomenon of giant triangles of ass-sweat persisting well into November—is a possible indication of a slowly warming climate across the entire NFL."

League commissioner Roger Goodell was not available for comment, saying that, although early-season instances of steaming black-guy heads were obviously preferable, the NFL had no official stance on climate change, global warming, or other meteorological phenomena that did not directly affect the scheduling or outcome of games.

Reaction among coaches and players has been mixed.

"When I came into the league with Tampa Bay, steaming black-guy heads were everywhere in October," said longtime NFL veteran and current Carolina Panthers quarterback Vinny Testaverde. "The Bucs were in the NFC Central back then, and we played in Chicago and Green Bay a lot, and to me, they always meant Halloween was coming. But these days, the rookies think of them as the first sign of Christmas. You can't tell me that's not global warming."

"Early on in my career, I saw them a lot, even in September," said Packers quarterback Brett Favre, who still has fond memories of the steaming heads of such Packer greats as Sterling Sharpe, LeRoy Butler, and Reggie White. "But this year we only started getting them just this week, and it's December already. Listen, I don't know anything about climate change, but I'd hate to see my daughters grow up in a world where steaming black-guy heads are just something you see on ESPN Classic."

NFL climatologist Lee Orfordson, one of the authors of the report, advised caution among those worried about the dwindling instances of steaming black-guy heads around the league.

"Remember that there are more domed stadiums now, that Northern-tier teams are being scheduled for more away games in Southern-tier cities during the winter months, and above all, that steaming black-guy heads are a single, if dramatic, phenomenon," Orfordson said. "There are plenty of numbers still to crunch here before we can say the steaming black-guy head has gone the way of the dodo."

Still, for generations of fans for whom steaming black-guy heads were an important symbol of seasonal change, the announcement has inspired a definite feeling of foreboding.

"I was the very first of the steaming black-guy heads," said former Raider defensive end Otis "The Grandfather Of All Steaming Black-Guy Heads" Sistrunk, whose own vigorously steaming head was noted by ABC color man Alex Karras in the early autumn of 1974 and began a winter-onset sideline-camera tradition that continues to this day. "And I'm very, very proud of that. I just hope I don't live to see the last."

Funniest thing is that it's not far from the reality of news reporting.

[SD67]

Funniest or saddest?
Every time I make the mistake of watching the news or reading a newspaper I am saddened and disgusted at most of what I see and hear.
The blatant political spins, the glaring grammatical errors, and poor speech habits of most reporters and presenters is pitiful.
These are people whose stock in trade is the written and spoken word. They should be beacons for the rest of us. Seems the main point is getting more readers/viewers and that for most means shock journalism and political spins.

[Angus]

Originally posted by SD67
The whole world is getting drier fast.
It probably goes a long way towards this global warming phenomenon.
Less water means less snow.
Even a dry atmosphere around the polar caps will eventually lead to a reduction of the ice caps simply because there is not enough water in the air to make enough snow. Less snow = higher ambient temperature.
Who'd have guessed mankind has drunk itself to extinction
Cheers.

Actually, the middle of the Greenland glacier cap is rising, like the cap in Antarctica.
However, Greenland is being measured out very accurately through GPS (Danish project I think). The results are absolute, Greenland is loosing ice by a multiple quantity compared with the raising cap.

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by SD67
The whole world is getting drier fast.
It probably goes a long way towards this global warming phenomenon.
Less water means less snow.
Even a dry atmosphere around the polar caps will eventually lead to a reduction of the ice caps simply because there is not enough water in the air to make enough snow. Less snow = higher ambient temperature.
Who'd have guessed mankind has drunk itself to extinction
Cheers.

70% of the earth's surface is an evaporation pond.

Warmer atmosphere means the atmosphere can hold more water.  Warmer atmosphere means more evaporation.
More water in the atmosphere means more precipitation.
Warmer atmosphere means more precip as water and not snow.

Local precip patterns could and will change, but the global precip should rise to balance increased evaporation.

[Angus]

The air is warm in the Sahara, but there is not much rain there.....
Nor is the air anywere near full humidity.
All depends on climate systems.
Total of warmer air may mean that the "dry belt" may expand, while rainfall will increase where there is already much.

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by Angus
The air is warm in the Sahara, but there is not much rain there.....
Nor is the air anywere near full humidity.
All depends on climate systems.
Total of warmer air may mean that the "dry belt" may expand, while rainfall will increase where there is already much.

The Sahara is a local phenomenon. Local conditions are hot and dry.  

Globally, 70% of the earth's surface will be putting more water into the atmosphere, which should mean more global average rainfall.

[lazs2]

so moray.. what bad things have happened so far?  you talk about what might happen if we gain 5 degrees...  Do you think that man made C02 is causing this warming trend and that we can stop it by some draconian and economy killing 30% reduction in man made c02.. not co2.. man made co2?

I say that it is natural for the very most part and that long before it reaches the 5 degrees warmer... it will get a lot cooler.   I say that even if we do get a little warmer first.. the hand wringers will be "surprised to find" that species are hardier than they had guessed.

lazs

[Jackal1]

NFL Meteorologists

They would probably have just as good or better chance of predicting long term
climate as a whole than the pay for sayers who are yanking chains now.

[lazs2]

If the entire north american and asian continents are not getting warmer that is a "local" thing too.    

just watch... the real truth is that in five years it will be cooler..

lazs

[Angus]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
The Sahara is a local phenomenon. Local conditions are hot and dry.  

Globally, 70% of the earth's surface will be putting more water into the atmosphere, which should mean more global average rainfall.

And Patagonia? The east-Asian steppes? Slabs of the USA? Quite a big local "phenomenon" if you add them up.

Deserts go somewhat by "belts". Yes, - indeed the Equador is more arid than the deserts both north and south of it, - it is so.
70% of earths surface will be putting more water into the air because the air will carry more. Apart from that, there is not much of an exception from the main theme.
What you should notice is that you will get more windforce (hot) when humid air crosses mountains (ever hear of the dry alp winds?) as well as where it is arid, it will rain more. The deserts might actually get even hotter and dryer.....

Increased  extremes.

[Angus]

Oh, globally, maybe more average rainfall...

[MORAY37]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
70% of the earth's surface is an evaporation pond.

Warmer atmosphere means the atmosphere can hold more water.  Warmer atmosphere means more evaporation.
More water in the atmosphere means more precipitation.
Warmer atmosphere means more precip as water and not snow.

Local precip patterns could and will change, but the global precip should rise to balance increased evaporation.

Everything you just said is of your own conjecture.  
What part of the atmosphere warmer?  (stratospheric warming generally makes things drier.)

Snow isn't water?  Last time I checked it was.  We haven't yet had methane snow.


The paper I quoted was generated in order for agencies within the government to plan for future events and is as "middle of the road" as they get.  This report was ALSO the one generated by an administration that still says there is no such animal as anthropogenic global climate change. You really need to talk with your biologist girlfriend about what makes a credible source.  If anything I just quoted a paper that conflicts with the general scientific consensus.

[MORAY37]

Originally posted by lazs2
so moray.. what bad things have happened so far?  you talk about what might happen if we gain 5 degrees...  Do you think that man made C02 is causing this warming trend and that we can stop it by some draconian and economy killing 30% reduction in man made c02.. not co2.. man made co2?

I say that it is natural for the very most part and that long before it reaches the 5 degrees warmer... it will get a lot cooler.   I say that even if we do get a little warmer first.. the hand wringers will be "surprised to find" that species are hardier than they had guessed.

lazs

What bad things have happened.

Mean global air temp has risen. (documented, source debateable)
Mean global sea surface temperature has risen. (documented)
Mean pH in the sea has dropped.  (documented, scientifically proven to CO2 )
The ranges of most animals have been moving away from temperature extremes.  (documented extensively)
Mean polar ice cover decreasing exponentially  ( documented extensively)
Weather patterns changing regionally ( documented, good and bad, depending on localle)

Yes, I believe CO2 is contributing to the change...the solar forcing you speak of has been refuted over and over again.

[Sabre]

Watch the linked series of four videos (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI); the whole series is about 30 minutes long.  If it doesn't make you at least pause to consider whether man-made, CO2-induced GW is really plausible, then I'll concede defeat and stop trying to convince you any more.

Likewise, I will be happy in return to watch any scientific video that supports the theory of man-made, CO2-induced GW you wish to provide a link to (except "An Inconvienent Truth", as I've already seen the relevant parts, and don't consider it particularly scientific).

[lazs2]

moray.. not really an answer..or.. to be fair, perhaps I was not clear.

Do you think that man made co2 is the major cause of the warming trend we are in?   do you think that reducing mans contribution by as much as 30%.. an almost unobtainable goal... would have any effect at all on global climate?

The solar model has only been "refuted" in that so far.. we know little about it.. we do know that always in the past.. it leads climate change... less activity.. the global temp drops.. more.. it rises.. it did that... the activity increased and the temp did too.    

Now.. for a few years.. the activity seems to be down (best we can tell) and temp has leveled off but not gone down sooooo.. the hand wringers say "see..it isn't acting exactly like it did in the past so it can't be true"

By that reasoning.. co2 has nothing to do with anything... it has NEVER led climate change but... now the priests tell us "but everything is different now.. it now leads climate change....everything that happened in the past does not apply"

I would bet we know less about the sun and it's interaction with the planet than we do about co2.

lazs