A VC« Welcome Back Gotham Gal | Main | Snap Preview »
Late May In January
It's 70 degrees in NYC today.
Everyone is out and about in the village. It feels like a late May spring day.
In the picture, the crowd is packed around the fountain in Washington Square Park where entertainers are doing their thing. That's a typical scene in the spring, summer, and fall in the park.
The christmas tree under the Arch is not.
I expect a few more people are making a committment to buy a hybrid the next time they buy a car.
Long TM.
January 6, 2007 NYC , Photo of the Day , stocks | Comments (20)
Comments
Only hit 69 here in Princeton, NJ. I Spent some time this morning bring the kids up to speed on global warming, and explaining what will happen if Greenland melts.
Posted by: Greg Harris | Jan 6, 2007 3:38:51 PM
My understanding was that the current weather phenomenon in the Eastern US was because of El Nino rather than global warming.
Posted by: Raj | Jan 6, 2007 3:58:26 PM
The desire to see cause and effect in chaos is one of the strongest core components of the human psyche, and arguably explains why organized religion evolved and retains such a strong grip on human society despite (because of?) the lack of any empirical evidence regarding the presence of a deity.
Frighteningly, this aspect of our chemistry or DNA or whatever now powers the urge to see every bad storm or period of odd-ball weather as somehow attributable to a new God -- global warming.
As you know from my previous writings, I believe global warming is occuring. But to turn it into a religion (or a "moral crusade" as Father Gore calls it) can only have painful and counterproductive results.
For example, if all we all do is go out and buy a new car, even a hybrid, we can be assured that environmental change will be far worse than if we keep our heads and take coordinated rational collective action.
Check it out for yourself: food supply livestock around the globe accounts for vastly more greenhouse gas emissions (methane, principally from bovine digestion) than from internal combustion engines in vehicles. Even more damaging is the continuing changover of the world's surface from wilderness (of any kind, pristine, picturesque or ugly and useless) into farmland. If we think global warming is really such a mortal threat to humankind (not to Nature, which couldn't care less) then we should focus on the subjects scientists do seem to agree on -- that, instead of going to toyota.com, people should figure out how to slow population growth in the third world (its already essentially stopped in the developed world -- the USA is growing only because of immigration and Europe and Russia are shrinking fast) or if thats too cruel, then how to feed 10 billion souls without livestock and modern agriculture.
Posted by: steve | Jan 6, 2007 4:24:49 PM
HMMMMM - about 20 points ago - Wallstrip did a show about Toyota. Yesterday it was colder in Phoenix than New York.
Posted by: howard lindzon | Jan 6, 2007 4:32:58 PM
good simple clear reading on how reflexive politics maybe dont really address environmental change:
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article2062484.ece
http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000385/index.html
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/08/07/ING95E1VQ71.DTL
Posted by: steve | Jan 6, 2007 5:08:57 PM
Whatever the cause, it's strange walking around the village in a t-shirt in January.
Posted by: Erik Schwartz | Jan 6, 2007 5:25:24 PM
The proof in in the pudding, and the pudding is in the cake, and the smart folk are headed for high ground.
Posted by: jackson | Jan 6, 2007 6:12:10 PM
I was in Washington Sq. Park today, and it did really feel like spring/fall. This is partially caused by el nino, which itself is becoming more common with global warming, but this winter is really, really strange. Large portions of the country for the first time in recorded history (they started keeping weather records in 1875) had "brown Christmas's') or a Christmas without any snow on the ground. The Upper Peninsula of Michigan normally is under 2 feet of snow by now, but so far has barely seen an inch.
It's alarming, and I'm not a big doomsday guy, but to deny this is unusual is really crazy.
I wrote about it here:
http://danputt.com/2007/01/03/more-on-unusual-warmth/
Posted by: Dan | Jan 6, 2007 7:56:48 PM
Agreed it's really abnormal. We hit the low 70's here in DC today, people were walking around in t-shirts and shorts in early January. I'm not usually an alarmist, but it's a bit offsetting, to put it mildly.
Posted by: Kyle Cooney | Jan 7, 2007 1:52:46 AM
What I want to know is, why has average global temperature dropped significantly over the last 7 years? Every year the temperature is lower than the previous one.....
And yet, people are talking about "Global warming"? The *fact* of the matter is, the planet is getting colder and if this trend continues, we'll soon be in an ice age.
(But of course, this trend won't continue, nor will it reverse because 7 years is not really a trend.)
Basically, Global Warming is like "Jesus"-- anyone who expreses a faith in it is to be regarded with suspicion.
Anyone who talks about making major decisions-- like car purchases-- based on it, is not to be trusted with money.
Or any significant responsibility.
Seriously, if you have so little sense that you make decisions based on faith (like global warming or religion) you are by definition not trustworthy.
Posted by: Clueny | Jan 7, 2007 1:57:46 AM
I love how people make take the occourance of a SINGLE DAY and say, "Yup, it's Global Warmimg." I wish more people would do that since it makes it easier for the rest of us to identify the mental morons out there.
I've never met someone who beleives in Global Warming that 1) knew anything about SCIENCE or SCIENTIFIC METHOD and 2) could correctly identify the NUMBER ONE thing that effects the temperature (ie. energy) on this planet.
The one side effect of the rants ON Global Warming (for me) is all the free entertainment I get to watch.
The sad side effect is that all the "beleivers" are being manipulated by those (ie. politicians) who are planning to cash in on the lies. They blindly go forth as foot soldiers in a battle that they have no idea on it's real goal. (sigh)
ps - if you google many of the Global Warming "scientists", etc. you'll see that they were the folks clamoring about the coming ice age back in the 70's. Yeah, their trustworthy. LOL
Posted by: David | Jan 7, 2007 8:59:43 AM
To David,
The other night I couldn’t sleep, so I put on the TV and flipped around. Nothing on that I wanted to see until I hit on the N.A.S.A. Channel. It was a documentary about “Global Warming”. It showed in detail how three NASA Satellites, using very sophisticated equipment have documented an increase in the temperature of the oceans around the world (explaining the increased frequency of El Nino, which now occurs every 3 or 4 years, instead of every 10 or 11 as it has throughout recorded history).
Point number two: When the scientists you speak of were “clamoring” about the coming ice age, the equipment available to them to both gather, analyze, and create models from data were extremely primitive compared to the tools at their avail today.
Finally, you are right about one thing, energy is the culprit. Energy in the form of heat that can not radiate away from the earth because of a change in the atmosphere that it must pass through in order to escape out into space. It’s called “Infrared” radiation, and the delicate balance between how much of it is “trapped” by the atmosphere, and how much is allowed to escape plays a vital role in maintaining our global climates.
Your inference that anyone who believes in global warming knows nothing about science is simply not true, and if you would like more “hard data” from sources like N.A.S.A., please feel free to email me. I will provide you with a “greenhouse” full.
Posted by: Stephen L. McKay | Jan 7, 2007 10:13:03 AM
Stephen,
Sorry to say that you failed my little (#2) question.
Your reference to the "delicate balance" is another classic keyword that denotes a lack of understanding about the environment that surrounds you.
I know many of the folks at NASA that are involved with space based earth observatories and I'm sure you would be surprised to know that most of them are NOT believers in Global Warming. They note that from their perspective that Global Warming has been used as a vehicle to increase project funding when there was little to no connection between the two.
Question - You cite "recorded history", just what time frame are you referring to in terms of environmental data?
Posted by: David | Jan 7, 2007 10:36:06 AM
David
I think data has been kept since 1875, and even if El Nino was not understood at the time, it's effects were recorded, consistantly, every ten or eleven years, but I don't want to have a discussion on Fred's Blog. Email me and I will be happy to respond in more detail.
Posted by: Stephen L. McKay | Jan 7, 2007 10:59:07 AM
Charlie Rose - Al Gore
"An hour with former Vice President Al Gore. He discusses his new film, 'An Inconvenient Truth' and the science and politics surrounding global warming."
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3412657607654281729&q=Al+Gore
Little Ice Age
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_ice_age
We have the same strange weather in Bulgaria, Europe.
Posted by: Dimitar Vesselinov | Jan 7, 2007 1:34:58 PM
NASA is not an authority on global warming, or anyhting else for that matter-- its a political organizations whose overriding goal is to maintain or increase funding while not actually producing anything useful. So of course, its not surprisng they'd jump on cockameme theories like this.
You (or they, can't tell if you're just regurgitating or thinking) ignore that the heat coming to the planet is coming from a source that is variable, and the changes in climate here are more consistent with changes in its output (eg: Waning over the last 7 years) than with changes in the total cummulative "greenhouse" gas emissions (increased over the last 7 years.)
I wonder if you can legall use global warming as a litmus test in interviews. "Do you believe in Global Warming?" "uh...yeah"
"NEXT!"
Posted by: Clueny | Jan 8, 2007 8:04:55 AM
Same here in Munich, Germany. This time last year there was a metre or more of snow. Beginning of January and it is warm enough some days to walk around in a T-Shirt and sweater. Hello? What is really interesting is the emerging debate that further demonises Islam by saying that even if global warming is not related to carbon emission, it doesn't matter - because we need to cure our addiction to fossil fuels just because the money we pay for gas funds terrorism at worse, or at least supports extremist Islamic regimes. And I was dumb enough to think that the CIA funded some extremism! LOL.
Still, all the idealogy on both sides of the debate aside, what harm would it do to use less gas? Unless you are actually profiting directly from the sale of oil (which most people do not) I am not sure why people would not want to conserve a resource that is not unlimited and look for alternatives. How debateable is that point?
Posted by: Brett Wayn | Jan 8, 2007 2:31:30 PM
"but I don't want to have a discussion on Fred's Blog."
Then why have comments at all on blogs?
Here's where I sit.
I don't subscribe to the hype about Global Warming.
That said, I think we need to seriously look at alternative energy sources that ARE better for the environment. Of course, the consumer will choose what THEY want - that's how the economy works. No matter how hard you try to 1) limit the available choices (which doesn't work) and 2) try to change the buying practices of the consumer.
Since you failed my earlier question, lets move on to a better one.
Name for me an "environmentally friendly" power source that the environmentalist wackos actually like?
Back to the discussion - as I stated before, the global warming issues that have everyone all up in arms can be directly linked to political actions and you need to "follow the money" back to those who will benefit from such legistlation and international rules/tarrifs, etc.
Posted by: David | Jan 8, 2007 3:09:15 PM
There is nothing wrong with consuming less gas and/or generating less of green house gases. No need to be angry on toyoto.com's success because of blind believers.
Wacko environmentalists do provide an important counter weight against the wacko capitalists who push anything for money. If you are in the middle just enjoy the push and pulls.
If "global warming" is the magic thing that forces people to at least think about consuming less, that is good enough thing to do even if the whole concept is farce, who cares?
Posted by: Sanjath | Jan 8, 2007 3:56:14 PM
Fred, come on, if we all tore down 20 unit 12,000 ft multi family dwellings to convert them into monster ostentatious single family homes, like you did on 11 West 10th in NYC and sold it, probably to a hedge fund ceo, for over $30 million, then I'm sure we would be better off in terms of rainforests and global warming.
Blog all you want on being aVC, just don't act like you are an efficient, "think small, buy a prius" closet environmentalist.
Posted by: anon | Jan 8, 2007 10:18:06 PM
Main RSS Feed of All Posts
VC and Technology Posts Only
