Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past
By Charles Onians

Monday, 20 March 2000

Britain's winter ends tomorrow with further indications of a striking environmental change: snow is starting to disappear from our lives.

Sledges, snowmen, snowballs and the excitement of waking to find that the stuff has settled outside are all a rapidly diminishing part of Britain's culture, as warmer winters - which scientists are attributing to global climate change - produce not only fewer white Christmases, but fewer white Januaries and Februaries.

The first two months of 2000 were virtually free of significant snowfall in much of lowland Britain, and December brought only moderate snowfall in the South-east. It is the continuation of a trend that has been increasingly visible in the past 15 years: in the south of England, for instance, from 1970 to 1995 snow and sleet fell for an average of 3.7 days, while from 1988 to 1995 the average was 0.7 days. London's last substantial snowfall was in February 1991.

Global warming, the heating of the atmosphere by increased amounts of industrial gases, is now accepted as a reality by the international community. Average temperatures in Britain were nearly 0.6°C higher in the Nineties than in 1960-90, and it is estimated that they will increase by 0.2C every decade over the coming century. Eight of the 10 hottest years on record occurred in the Nineties.

However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event".

"Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said.


.................................................. .................................................. ............OOPS!!!


Coldest December since records began as temperatures plummet to minus 10C bringing travel chaos across Britain

By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 11:38 AM on 18th December 2010

Millions begin the big Christmas and New Year getaway early as the AA urged motorists to beware of the ‘worst driving conditions imaginable’

Quarter of train services disrupted, travel warning in Kent

Experts warn of a backlog of up to 4 million of parcels which could remain undelivered this Christmas

The NHS issues an urgent appeal for blood donors as concerns grow over shortages

Councils reveal plans to share grit amid fears the cold snap could last until January 14

Odds shortened even further on a ‘White Christmas’ in some parts of the country next Saturday

Swathes of Britain skidded to a halt today as the big freeze returned - grounding flights, closing rail links and leaving traffic at a standstill.

And tonight the nation was braced for another 10in of snow and yet more sub-zero temperatures - with no let-up in the bitterly cold weather for at least a month, forecasters have warned.

The Arctic conditions are set to last through the Christmas and New Year bank holidays and beyond and as temperatures plummeted to -10c (14f) the Met Office said this December was ‘almost certain’ to become the coldest since records began in 1910.

:rotf2::rotf2::rotf2::rotf2:

2010 hottest climate year on record, NASA says

Post Carbon - 2010 hottest climate year on record, NASA says (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/post-carbon/2010/12/2010_hottest_climate_year_on_r.html)

Must be the lamestream media again...yawn.

-spence

obviously :rotf2:

I like this part "Many scientists use the (newly invented) climate year, which runs from December of the preceding year to November of the current year, to evaluate long-term climate trends."

December is going to screw up your data so you just change the calender year? had to get that report out for the big conference in chilly Cancun...

these people are frauds, amazing they still have any credability with all they've done, actually, the story is like a week old and barely mentioned so maybe noone is listening to the AGW/Climate Changers whackjobs anymore ...show me a single example where they erred...and there are plenty of examples... and the error was not in favor of their claims and agenda..that's all you need to know....they'll have to either revise the numbers or admit that they "made a mistake", accidentally flipped a graph upside down and didn't notice the numbers were upside down or transposed numbers accidentally ("the hottest October on record", that wasn't) just like when Obama touts and cheers "good economic numbers" every Friday and the numbers all get revised, and never to his benefit... a week later, when noone is paying attention...I thought NASA was working on Muslim Self-Esteem?


"Hansen like the IPCC has been caught fudging data several times.
Hansen is an activist/scientist. James Hansen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen)

He use to be scientist/activist but because things are not going the way he feels they should go he has become more vocal. In re to his latest analysis Hansen highlighted the 10C anomaly in the Hudson’s bay area due to the absence of sea ice, and gave a possible explanation of why Europe turned out to be so cold. This was relevant and interesting.”

How would he know what the SST anomalies are in the Hudson Bay or in Baffin Bay? They aren’t represented by GISS data. GISS deletes SST anomaly data in areas where there’s seasonal sea ice and extends land surface data (with its greater variability and higher trends) out over the oceans and those bays.

Please also understand that NASA is not the only one who keeps track of temperature.

GISS Temperatures are Out Of Line With The Rest Of The World

GISS shows temperatures rising sharply since July. We have been having a record cold La Niña since then, and everyone else shows temperatures plummeting.

GISS also showed a huge spike in March which nobody else saw. Does this have anything to do with Hansen’s constant claims of 2010 as the hottest year ever? He shows peak La Niña temperatures almost as warm as peak El Niño temperatures. That is simply ridiculous." Steven Goddard

this must be a joke... right???

in some parts of the earth it's summer right now....sort of...

Bitter summer freeze bites eastern states as summer gives way to snow and cold | News.com.au (http://www.news.com.au/national/bitter-summer-freeze-bites-eastern-states-as-summer-gives-way-to-snow-and-cold/story-e6frfkvr-1225974173962)

It's pretty amusing that you attack an author for his lack of quotes while you feel free to insert your opinion between them.

But, I'm tending to agree. It's snowing outside when if the alarmists were right it should be 89 and humid.

-spence

even a broken clock is right twice a day.

what is going to happen is that we will have hotter summers and colder winters with violent storms mixed in... its already happening.

It's pretty amusing that you attack an author for his lack of quotes while you feel free to insert your opinion between them.

But, I'm tending to agree. It's snowing outside when if the alarmists were right it should be 89 and humid.

-spence

hardly as sinister as changing the entire context of certain quotes and revising history and I was good enough to include the entire sentence rather than little parts to create a narrative, didn't attack him, just asked why?....nice try.......pretty amusing that you continue to cite the work of proven frauds while dismissing and ignoring obvious facts that don't fit into your dogma....:uhuh:

they should just use June1-Sept1 for their "climate year" ...that would work well :rotf2:

.

what is going to happen is that we will have hotter summers and colder winters with violent storms mixed in... its already happening.

is this the new "scientific concensus" and "settled science"?


:rtfm: AUSTRALIA "SUMMER"
Bitter summer freeze bites eastern states as summer gives way to snow and cold | News.com.au (http://www.news.com.au/national/bitter-summer-freeze-bites-eastern-states-as-summer-gives-way-to-snow-and-cold/story-e6frfkvr-1225974173962)

it really doesn't matter in a way

look how the Saudi's have harnessed the sun and created
a place to ski ...... in their mega dome

we can always build a winter DOME complete with
Snow and some reindeer too... :grins:

scott, you got to get off of the 'warming' thing.. . the climate is changing..

scott, you got to get off of the 'warming' thing.. . the climate is changing..

I agree!

just ask a manatee....

Cold temps further endanger Florida's manatees

CNN

Workers at Tampa's Lowry Park Zoo treat 3-year-old Baby Coral for cold stress.The unusually cold weather that struck Florida in January did more than damage crops and citrus trees.

It has also caused an unprecedented number of deaths among Florida's beloved residents, the endangered West Indies manatees.

Twisting and flopping in the shallow water, Baby Coral probably doesn't realize just how lucky she is. When this 3-year-old female manatee was brought into Tampa's Lowry Park Zoo last month, she was 300 pounds underweight, unable to eat.

Her skin was covered with small white, blister-like lesions known as "Florida frostbite," the result of exposure to cold temperatures.

Lowry Park Zoo is one of the three facilities in the state that provide medical treatment and a place for manatees to recover from cold stress, as well as other injuries.

"It's an exceptionally bad year for the manatee," said Dr. David Murphy, the zoo's veterinarian.

So far this year, a record 280 or more manatees have died from cold stress-related illnesses. That's estimated to be 5 percent of the total population in Florida. Add that to last year's record mortality rate of 429 deaths from boat strikes and other causes, and that number may be as high as 10 percent.

Marine biologist Andy Garrett says he's never seen anything like this before. The full impact of the cold weather on the manatee population is still unclear, according to Garrett, who works for Florida's Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission.

He says that when water temperatures dip below 68 degrees Fahrenheit, these subtropical animals simply can't cope with the cold. Last month, Florida's water temperatures dropped as low as the 40s. While manatees are round and plump like seals and other marine mammals, their fat is not designed to insulate them from the cold, Garrett said.

Obama is TILTING the EARTH

It is very difficult to understand climate science if you aren't a climate scientist. Climate scientists overwhelmingly say the Earth is warming. Weatherman (meteorologists) are less convinced, but they aren't climatologists. It is in the 90% range for climatologists who believe the Earth is warming and 80% who say humans are causing or accelerating it. People who listen to conservative talk radio are even less convinced, but how much expertise do they have on which to base their conclusions?

It is very difficult to understand climate science if you aren't a climate scientist. Climate scientists overwhelmingly say the Earth is warming. Weatherman (meteorologists) are less convinced, but they aren't climatologists. It is in the 90% range for climatologists who believe the Earth is warming and 80% who say humans are causing or accelerating it. People who listen to conservative talk radio are even less convinced, but how much expertise do they have on which to base their conclusions?

love how you back up your assertions...you do realize that the "deniers" have not been shown to flip graphs, cherry pick data and fudge statistics...oh, and vastly overexaggerate claims.....but the "climate scients" have :uhuh:

Michael Mann fabricator of the data of Climate Change and the infamous “Hockey Stick” has broken his silence in the Washington Post. Mann is currently under suspension from Penn State University where both his science and methods are under investigation; Mann was heavily involved with Phil Jones and his Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia where the Climategate emails, were leaked from, not hacked.

American Physicist angered at how climatologists…skewed data to…fit a pre-determined agenda
Dr. Charles R. Anderson Another well-qualified voice is added to the growing dissent in debunking the discredited greenhouse gas theory: Government is "not worthy of our trust."

Dr. Charles R. Anderson makes his announcement on his website (June 28, 2010) in joining a growing band of professional scientists, international academics and climate experts prepared to put their reputations on the line and denounce the orthodox views held by an influential clique of discredited government climatologists.


May 19, 2010
Richard Lindzen - Eminent climate scientist publishes study showing how British and American scientific institutions politicized the great global warming scare.

World-renowned climate scientist, Richard Lindzen, a lead author of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has mounted a robust debunk of a joint letter written by Martin Rees, President of the Royal Society and Ralph J. Cicerone, President of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. The letter is shown to be a politically-motivated and unsubstantiated public appeal written most likely with the intention to help save the now discredited theory of man-made global warming (AGW).

Lindzen’s 39-page detailed rebuttal scientifically refutes the Anglo-American appeal published in London’s Financial Times (April 9, 2010). The prestigious British press editorial was one of a line of prominent media reversals for the warmist lobby, following on from others such as that published in New Scientist.

Falloff in Public Concern Irks Science Institutions
The joint Rees Cicerone letter is one of several attempts by the scientific establishment to restore some credibility in government-funded climate science after the debacle of the Climategate scandal of November 2009. Subsequently, the leaked emails from Britain’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) were analyzed by an independent investigation set up by the CRU. The inquiry found that scientists did cherry-pick data to ramp up fears of a climate change apocalypse. A climate scientist at the CRU had received government funding in excess of £13 million according to a report in Britain's Daily Telegraph (December 5, 2009)

Among other points, Lindzen addresses the Rees and Cicerone claim that “neither recent controversies, nor the recent cold weather, negate the consensus among scientists: something unprecedented is now happening.”

The so-called scientific ‘consensus’ referred to has been exposed as a fabrication and boiled down to the opinions of only 75 climatologists from over 19,000 of such accredited international experts.

Harold Lewis, emeritus professor of physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara, recently resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) after 67 years. In his resignation letter, he wrote about "… the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the Climategate documents, which lay it bare.

where are all of the lying, discredited "deniers"?...hopefully not trying to enjoy some summer beach time on Australia's Southeastern Coast...or Florida for that matter...:rotf2:

The scientists were not "discredited". 5 reviews (including one by Britian's Roayal Society and the House of Commons) did not dispute the science. Penn State also exonerated Michael Mann of any scientific wrongdoing.

The reviews did find that the emails were "mean spirited, others were dismissive of contrarian views, and others revealed a reluctance to share data".

The reviews also complained mildly about one poorly explained temp. chart discussed in the emails, but found no reason to dispute the scientists "rigor and honesty".

British panel clears ‘Climate-gate’ scientists of bias
A British report released Wednesday on the “Climate-gate” scandal criticizes a key group of scientists for lack of transparency and other problems with how they presented their data, but it concludes that their underlying scientific work is sound—and one of the top scientists is getting his job back.
In November, climate change experts at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit found themselves under intense scrutiny when over 1,000 internal e-mails were obtained and uploaded to the Web by hackers. Some climate change skeptics accused the scientists of manipulating data to suppress evidence.
But the experts’ overall “rigor and honesty as scientists are not in doubt,” the new report on the scandal found. The report was requested and paid for by the university, and the panel that conducted the investigation was led by Muir Russell, a retired civil servant and educator.
Last year, Phil Jones, a leading climatologist at the university, temporarily stepped down when he was caught in the center of the firestorm, but he was immediately reinstated based on the conclusions of the report.

The scientists were not "discredited". 5 reviews (including one by Britian's Roayal Society and the House of Commons) did not dispute the science. Penn State also exonerated Michael Mann of any scientific wrongdoing.

The reviews did find that the emails were "mean spirited, others were dismissive of contrarian views, and others revealed a reluctance to share data".

The reviews also complained mildly about one poorly explained temp. chart discussed in the emails, but found no reason to dispute the scientists "rigor and honesty".

British panel clears ‘Climate-gate’ scientists of bias
A British report released Wednesday on the “Climate-gate” scandal criticizes a key group of scientists for lack of transparency and other problems with how they presented their data, but it concludes that their underlying scientific work is sound—and one of the top scientists is getting his job back.
In November, climate change experts at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit found themselves under intense scrutiny when over 1,000 internal e-mails were obtained and uploaded to the Web by hackers. Some climate change skeptics accused the scientists of manipulating data to suppress evidence.
But the experts’ overall “rigor and honesty as scientists are not in doubt,” the new report on the scandal found. The report was requested and paid for by the university, and the panel that conducted the investigation was led by Muir Russell, a retired civil servant and educator.
Last year, Phil Jones, a leading climatologist at the university, temporarily stepped down when he was caught in the center of the firestorm, but he was immediately reinstated based on the conclusions of the report.

just like Charlie Rangel......it's getting warmer....:uhuh:

But the final say will be in the hands of a skeptical inspector general at the National Science Foundation, the primary funder of the research into global warming. According to published documents. The IG must determine whether Penn State's investigation was adequate.

The Office of Inspector General confirmed that it will review the misconduct charges. According to a spokeswoman "OIG is provided with an institution's investigation report, we review it for fairness, accuracy and completeness" -- issues the investigation has already been faulted for.

Penn State's investigation came under severe attack by critics who argued that the university failed to interview any hostile witnesses, failed to examine the methodology that was at the heart of the controversy and was more concerned that the millions of dollars in grant money it gets by having Mann on the faculty could be jeopardized by adverse findings.

"It was set up to be a total whitewash, and the panel made no effort to investigate," said Steven Milloy, publisher of Junk Science, a Web site that casts doubt on global-warming research. "They didn't even interview the recipients of the e-mails. It is ridiculous,".

A British review board also looked into the leaked e-mails, studying allegations that East Anglia researchers had tampered with data or perverted the peer review process. That panel found the British scientists innocent on March 31 -- although the panel's review included just a single day of testimony, and also drew ire from warming skeptics.

"The University of East Anglia's enquiry into the conduct of its own staff at its Climatic Research Unit has highlighted criticisms of the department and staff conduct – but clears the path for the individuals concerned to carry on. The panel avoided examining the scientific work of the CRU team – as have the two other reviews of the leaked archive by Lord Oxburgh, and the Commons select committee on science. If the academics had used bats' wings or tea leaves to create temperature reconstructions, that wasn't a matter for any of the panels to judge. And this is undoubtedly a shortcoming.



bet they got a standing ovation too!

Napolitano Says DHS to Begin Battling Climate Change as Homeland Security Issue
Friday, December 17, 2010
By J. Brady Howell

(CNSNews.com) - At an all-day White House conference on "environmental justice," Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano announced that her department is creating a new task force to battle the effects of climate change on domestic security operations.

Speaking at the first White House Forum on Environmental Justice on Thursday, Napolitano discussed the initial findings of the department’s recently created "Climate Change and Adaptation Task Force."

This plan also noted: “Many USCG [Coast Guard] and Customs and Border Protection facilities, by their mission, are located in the coastal zone which will be adversely impacted by sea level rise. Costs will increase for protecting existing facilities from the impacts of sea level rise and some facilities might have to be abandoned in the longer term.”

The all day White House Forum on Environmental Justice also included talks by White House Council on Environmental Quality Chair Nancy Sutley, EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson, Attorney General Eric Holder, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar, Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis, and Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius.


This is getting a little bit crazy now....ya think????

more Obama Green Jobs....these Obama jobs are really...really expensive!

December 22, 2010
Taxpayer-subsidized solar cell maker shuts down
Thomas Lifson
So much for green jobs being the wave of the future, as promised by President Obama. Taxpayer-subsidized solar cell maker Spectra-Watt has announced it is shuttering its plant. The Poughkeepsie Journal reports:

In a stunning reversal, the frequently lauded and taxpayer-funded SpectraWatt Inc. has told the state it will close its solar cell plant starting in March and lay off 117 workers.

The announcement was startling because in the past two months, the company, which had been promised about $8 million in tax dollars, planned to train more workers and changed its work shifts to enable a 24-hour operation.

The company blames the unusually cold winter in Europe: Al Gore...where are thou??

this also.......


Solyndra to Close Factory, Layoff Dozens
By Ucilia Wang Nov. 3, 2010,

This year just hasn’t panned out for Solyndra. The company is going to close its first factory, is delaying expanding its gleaming new factory and is laying off dozens of employees.

The New York Times posted the news on Tuesday night. Solyndra received a federal loan of $535 million last year to build its second factory, which it had aimed to have 500 megawatts of annual production capacity. The Obama administration held up Solyndra as an example of a home-grown cutting-edge technology developer that would deliver lots of green jobs through its factory expansion plan and more than $2 billion in announced sales deals. should have been an omen

Instead, Solyndra CEO Brian Harrison — who joined the company only recently, replacing the founding CEO — told the Times that the company plans to let go about 40 employees and will not renew contracts for 150 temporary workers. (The company said Wednesday morning the number is actually 135.) The Fremont, Calif., company will shutter its first factory to save at least $60 million in capital spending. Instead of boosting its overall production capacity to 610 megawatts by 2013, it’s now looking at up to 300 megawatts by then: less than half the original plan.

can we get half of our money back?

Call Barry, if he's not too busy in Hawaii, maybe he can "save" these jobs!!!! or maybe retrain these people in the field of "environmental justice"(watermelon marxism)

wouldn't it be ironic if a mini ice age caused by Global Warming destroyed the Green Agenda?

Sudden market slump cited SpectraWatt closure plan | poughkeepsiejournal.com | Poughkeepsie Journal (http://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/article/20101223/BUSINESS/12230330/Sudden-market-slump-cited-SpectraWatt-closure-plan)

WICCOPEE — In an exclusive interview with the Poughkeepsie Journal, a SpectraWatt Inc. official said a sudden change in economic conditions was to blame for the notice given Tuesday that the company will lay off 117 workers and may shut down its solar cell plant beginning in March.

What exactly would temperature have to do with photovoltaic cells?

you tell me...:rtfm:


In a news release, the company said it hopes to reverse the situation that led to the decision, but SpectraWatt officials did not respond to requests for details.
Created with nearly $100 million in private and public investments and announced in April 2009, SpectraWatt ramped up quickly, creating jobs in the midst of high unemployment. It began production by March this year and became one of the brightest new lights in the Hudson Valley economy. Now it has blinked, and may well go out.
"You could have knocked me over," said John MacEnroe, president of the Dutchess County Economic Development Corp., which less than seven weeks ago hailed the company with a Business Excellence Award.

Charles North, president of the Dutchess County Regional Chamber of Commerce, said, "I'm certainly disappointed, and, actually, I'm shocked."

SpectraWatt was offered about $8 million in government subsidies to help get it started, along with at least $91.4 million in private investor support from Intel Capital and others. It could not be determined Tuesday how much of the public subsidy has been given so far to SpectraWatt and what liabilities, if any, were attached to the money. State officials and elected representatives could not be reached for comment Tuesday night.

The company said, "This action is undertaken in response to deteriorating market conditions resulting from a harsher-than-usual European winter causing a large drop-off in demand for solar cells."The company continues to pursue alternatives aimed at improving its current situation and hopes to reverse this action," the company said.
http://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/article/20101222/BUSINESS/12220339/Solar-cell-maker-SpectraWatt-plans-shutdown

THEN
Monday, 20 March 2000

Britain's winter ends tomorrow with further indications of a striking environmental change: snow is starting to disappear from our lives.

However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event".
"Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said.


NOW

30th December 2010
WINTER MAY BE COLDEST IN 1000 YEARS

Britain's winter is the coldest since 1683 and close to being the chilliest in nearly 1,000 years.

Latest figures reveal that the average temperature since December 1 has been a perishing -1C.

That makes it the second coldest since records began in 1659.

The chilliest on record was 1683/84, when the average was -1.17C and the River Thames froze over for two months.

But with January and February to come, experts believe we could suffer the most freezing cold winter in the last 1,000 years.

The Met Office’s Charlie Powell said: “It’s rare to have cold this prolonged, with temperatures falling incredibly low.

“Temperatures will be down again by Sunday, with nights below freezing and daytimes below average at 3C to 5C. Our outlook forecast to January 26 shows temperatures 2C or 3C below average, frost and ice likely and the highest chance of snow or sleet over the northern half of the UK.”

Although official weather records only go back to 1659, weather experts said the centuries from 1100 to 1500, dubbed the “Medieval warm period”, would not have produced winters as cold as today.

So 2011 could end up being the coldest winter of the last millennium.


Brian Gaze, of The Weather Outlook, said: “It’s very unusual to have a sub-zero month.”


I need an Adderall....:rotf2:

Your global warming is all over my yard. Please remove it asap

Your global warming is all over my yard. Please remove it asap

that's weather on your yard...not climate ....DENIER!!!

Your global warming is all over my yard. Please remove it asap

Lets follow that logic.
it's 48deg at my house right now, 8-9 deg above average.
guess you must believe in it now, at least until it snows again...

Lets follow that logic.
it's 48deg at my house right now, 8-9 deg above average.
guess you must believe in it now, at least until it snows again...

you just pulled an Al Gore...that is so funny!

One thin September soon

A floating continent disappears

In midnight sun


Vapors rise as

Fever settles on an acid sea

Neptune's bones dissolve


Snow glides from the mountain

Ice fathers floods for a season

A hard rain comes quickly


Then dirt is parched

Kindling is placed in the forest

For the lightning's celebration


Unknown creatures

Take their leave, unmourned

Horsemen ready their stirrups


Passion seeks heroes and friends

The bell of the city

On the hill is rung


The shepherd cries

The hour of choosing has arrived

Here are your tools

you just pulled an Al Gore...that is so funny!
No, actually that would be pulling a "Rush Limbaugh."

-spence

The Ozone layer is healing itself according to the 2010 UN Scientific Assessment
of Ozone Depletion.
"The Earth's upper ozone layer has stopped thinning and could be
restored by mid-century."

There are as many scientists that don't believe in Global Warming is man made as do.

I'm sure man made pollution may have something to do with it, but
to depend on a Green Job Program to save the world and our economy
is nothing but Pie in the Sky.

The Ozone layer is healing itself according to the 2010 UN Scientific Assessment
of Ozone Depletion. "The Earth's upper ozone layer has stopped thinning and could be restored by mid-century."

great, but that is not a result of CO2, thats the result of banning CFC's

There are as many scientists that don't believe in Global Warming is man made as do. Is this your own poll of scientists?

My point was, it's 50deg today, 01/2011. if I used the 'deniers' logic, then global warming is here. I don't use this as an argument, just making a point on the 'it snowed in December, climate change isn't real' argument

it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that we have deforested
a large percentage of the planet for wood or expansion of cities

that we have covered it in black asphalt and stone or metal buildings

or covered it with millions of houses with tar covered black roofs

the black death or dust bowl days is the largest example of man made climate change where we altered the prairie by decimating the buffalo herds to terminate the Native American food supply and starve them out...

can we shift it back...of course
....by starting thousands of tree farms and re planting the trees we took away in areas where no trees now grow by the millions and millions

it's being done NOW but on to small and to slow a scale. :doh:

great, but that is not a result of CO2, thats the result of banning CFC's



Isn't the chemical that replaced CFC's one of the leading causes of
" Global Warming" ?

Isn't the chemical that replaced CFC's one of the leading causes of
" Global Warming" ?

Never heard that. I believe HFC's are about ten times weaker than CFC's in regards to global warming, and 50 times weaker in regards to ozone depletion.

Hey wasn't the ozone hole a big scam as well???
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Worester's high of 58 today tied the all time record set in 1892.z

No other records than Salty's ranting about Barry's vacation costs were tied or broken today.

great, but that is not a result of CO2, thats the result of banning CFC's

Is this your own poll of scientists?

My point was, it's 50deg today, 01/2011. if I used the 'deniers' logic, then global warming is here. I don't use this as an argument, just making a point on the 'it snowed in December, climate change isn't real' argument

No Poll, just random reading over a period of time on the controversy.

I agree one day, month, year, or even a decade don't prove it either way.
I am saying to think that a massive Green Jobs Program to save the world
and produce a new economy is pie in the sky thinking.

No matter what we do China and the emerging third world countries who are
doing most of the manufacturing polution are not going to adhere to
strict standards or go to the expense.

2010 was the warmest year on record for BOS with a daily avg temp of 53.8 beating the 53.6 set in 1949 and 1953.

NWS has been recording temps in BOS since 1872

Never heard that. I believe HFC's are about ten times weaker than CFC's in regards to global warming, and 50 times weaker in regards to ozone depletion.

Hey wasn't the ozone hole a big scam as well???
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


From Wikipedia...
The interim replacements for CFCs are hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), which deplete stratospheric ozone, but to a much lesser extent than CFCs.[10] Ultimately, hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) will replace HCFCs with essentially no ozone destruction (although all three groups of halocarbons are powerful greenhouse gases).

I don't know if it was a scam but do you know it was not?

I don't know what you mean by a 'scam'?
Ozone was a real issue, and globally it was a significant achievement to reduce the depletion of Ozone in the atmosphere by eliminating CFC's

Note; I don't have time to dig out a text and look it up, but from memory, with the caveat that I'm not an atmospheric chemist:

HFC's are a greenhouse gas. Not as effective at trapping solar radiation as CFC's, so besides the ozone benefit of banning cfc's there is a reduction in greenhouse gas, albeit a slight one. We are essentially swapping one GHG with another, with the added benefit of not destroying the Ozone layer.

the amount of HFC's in the atmosphere vs CO2 is orders of magnitude smaller, although ideally, a non-greenhouse gas would be used as a propellant or coolant. the net benefit of HFC's over CFC's to the ozone layer is significant, even if there was no significant reduction in greenhouse gas. Think of it as the lesser of two evils.

Ok now that was friggin funny :love:

There is no such thing as global warming. It's all been dreamed up.

It's really Obama's fault.

Worester's high of 58 today tied the all time record set in 1892.z

No other records than Salty's ranting about Barry's vacation costs were tied or broken today.

Our climate is changing. There is no doubt. While we can argue forever about the warming part, our climate is capable of rapid ups and downs. 60 degrees one day and 20 degrees the next. Flash flooding is more common as storms are more intense. Anyone who gets caught up in the debate about the term " warming" is a fool.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I don't know if it was a scam but do you know it was not?

Was a joke. People said the same thing about the ozone hole years ago, environmentalists just trying to wreck the economy, but you don't hear that today.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Was a joke. People said the same thing about the ozone hole years ago, environmentalists just trying to wreck the economy, but you don't hear that today.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Todays crisis is tomorrows old news.

Todays crisis is tomorrows old news.
Then why not lobby to roll back to CFC's? They're a lot easier to make.

-spence

Our climate is changing. There is no doubt. While we can argue forever about the warming part, our climate is capable of rapid ups and downs. 60 degrees one day and 20 degrees the next. Flash flooding is more common as storms are more intense. Anyone who gets caught up in the debate about the term " warming" is a fool.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yup, since day one it has beeen in flux, ice age etc.

Our climate is changing. There is no doubt. While we can argue forever about the warming part, our climate is capable of rapid ups and downs. 60 degrees one day and 20 degrees the next. Flash flooding is more common as storms are more intense. Anyone who gets caught up in the debate about the term " warming" is a fool.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It's great if you love weather.

Then why not lobby to roll back to CFC's? They're a lot easier to make.

-spence

I don't really care either way. I'm more concerned about my water bottles. :biglaugh:

Who in here was it that said the there are many scientists that don't believe climate change is man-made?

Report: 97 percent of scientists say man-made climate change is real - Science Fair: Science and Space News - USATODAY.com (http://content.usatoday.com/communities/sciencefair/post/2010/06/scientists-overwhelmingly-believe-in-man-made-climate-change/1)

Well, I guess 41 out of 1,372 could be considered "many".

Who in here was it that said the there are many scientists that don't believe climate change is man-made?

Report: 97 percent of scientists say man-made climate change is real - Science Fair: Science and Space News - USATODAY.com (http://content.usatoday.com/communities/sciencefair/post/2010/06/scientists-overwhelmingly-believe-in-man-made-climate-change/1)

Well, I guess 41 out of 1,372 could be considered "many".

So now you believe in polls???

They're all in the scam to ruin the American dream.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Coldest Jan. in 20 years predicted. Just sayin.

Coldest Jan. in 20 years predicted. Just sayin.

Sounds like the climate is changing. Thanks for validating this important issue.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sounds like the climate is changing. Thanks for validating this important issue.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Records change...the climate changes... wow...a revalation!

Who in here was it that said the there are many scientists that don't believe climate change is man-made?

.

friggan ice core samples show that....

"global climate disruption" ...scary stuff :rotf2: Can we get a percentage of these "scientist" to at least agree on a name for this apocalyptic occurence

Coldest Jan. in 20 years predicted. Just sayin.
There's a difference between predicted or measured.

You seem to still be stuck thinking climate change means global warming. :rotf2:

friggan ice core samples show that....

Show what? That we've had interglacial and glacial cycles for the last 2.54 Million years (OK, not all of that is from Ice), and that the last nine have been ~100,000 years apart or so (The last 8 or so captured by ice cores)?

Yup.

Do they also show that the rate of warming in the last couple of centuries is higher than any in the ice cores? And that it has been correlated with a host of other proxies back 10's of thousands of years? Yup.

Read two-mile time machine (Alley) Raven and the Longest Thaw (Archer), I think you'd enjoy it (sincere response, can be tough to convey I'm not being a wiseass). or anyone else for that matter. Also check out the skeptical environmentalist for a view of the other side.....

RRH, as I've posted before being a 747 taking off gives off the same pollution
as 10,000 cars starting their engines. That's a lot of pollution in itself.
Then with the sun certainly feeling hotter on the skin, common sense tells me something is happening, and maybe man may have something to do with it.

But what % of the change do the scientists think should be attributed to man vs natural changes?

Interesting read. I just put the first paragraph, rest is at the link below.

FWIW, it's about to snow. uh-oh, no more global warming.

Cold winter in a world of warming?

From: RealClimate: Cold winter in a world of warming? (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/12/cold-winter-in-a-world-of-warming/#more-5596)

Last June, during the International Polar Year conference, James Overland suggested that there are more cold and snowy winters to come. He argued that the exceptionally cold snowy 2009-2010 winter in Europe had a connection with the loss of sea-ice in the Arctic. The cold winters were associated with a persistent ‘blocking event’, bringing in cold air over Europe from the north and the east.

There's a difference between predicted or measured.

You seem to still be stuck thinking climate change means global warming. :rotf2:


We all see how accurate scientist predictions are JD.:rotf2:

too bleepin' funny, nothing goes well for the climate scammers does it? why didn't I think of capturing the excess Global Warming CO2 and pumping it underground????

The Canadian Press – ONLINE EDITION
Carbon injected underground now leaking, Saskatchewan farmer’s study says

By: Bob Weber, The Canadian Press

A Saskatchewan farm couple whose land lies over the world’s largest carbon capture and storage project says greenhouse gases that were supposed to have been injected permanently underground are leaking out, killing animals and sending groundwater foaming to the surface like shaken-up soda pop.

Cameron and Jane Kerr, who own nine quarter-sections of land above the Weyburn oilfield in eastern Saskatchewan, released a consultant’s report Tuesday that claims to link high concentrations of carbon dioxide in their soil to the 8,000 tonnes of the gas injected underground every day by energy giant Cenovus in its attempt to enhance oil recovery and fight climate change.

“We knew, obviously, there was something wrong,” said Jane Kerr.
Cameron Kerr, 64, said he has farmed in the area all his life and never had any problems until 2003, when he agreed to dig a gravel quarry.

That gravel was for a road to a plant owned by EnCana — now Cenovus — which had begun three years earlier to inject massive amounts of carbon dioxide underground to force more oil out of the aging field.

Cenovus has injected more than 13 million tonnes of the gas underground. The project has become a global hotspot for research into carbon capture and storage, a technology that many consider one of the best hopes for keeping greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere.

By 2005, Cameron Kerr had begun noticing problems in a pair of ponds which had formed at the bottom of the quarry. They developed algae blooms, clots of foam and several colours of scum — red, yellow and silver-blue. Sometimes, the ponds bubbled. Small animals — cats, rabbits, goats — were regularly found dead a few metres away.

Then there were the explosions.

“At night we could hear this sort of bang like a cannon going off,” said Jane Kerr, 58. “We’d go out and check the gravel pit and, in the walls, it (had) blown a hole in the side and there would be all this foaming coming out of this hole.”

:rotf2::rotf2:GOOD GRIEF!!!:rotf2::rotf2:

From the Australian:

THE term “climate change” could be replaced by “climate challenges” if a federal commissioned marketing study is taken onboard.

they can settle the science but they can't settle on a name :rotf2::rotf2:



OOPS...

January 11, 2011

The BBC serves Freedom of Information request (FOIA) on UK Government over weather forecast failures secrecy in worst winter for 100 years.

In an almighty battle to salvage credibility three British government institutions are embroiled in a new global warming scandal with the BBC mounting a legal challenge to force ministers to admit the truth. Sceptics ask: Is the UK government’s climate propaganda machine finally falling apart?

Last week the weather service caused a sensation by making the startling claim that it was gagged by government ministers from issuing a cold winter forecast. Instead, a milder than average prediction was made that has been resoundingly ridiculed in one of the worst winters in a century.

With the BBC appearing to take the side of the Met Office by seeking to force the government to give honest answers, untold harm will likely befall Prime Minister Cameron’s global warming policies on energy, taxation and the environment.

HERE'S YOUR FRIGGIN GLOBAL WARMING

-4 in Uxbridge this morning.

My diesel made noises I never hear in the morning.

global waRMING :smash:

muther#^&#^&#^&#^&ing invented hocus #^&#^&#^&#^&in pocus mamby pamby bull#^&#^&#^&#^&.

Your bull#^&#^&#^&#^& theories don't fill my propane tanks or oil tank. They need to change the stupid laws about not being able to run a pellet stove in a commercial building.

Yup.
Never been cold in Uxbridge in January before. :smash:

Scott.
Keep it up and it will be Plastic Lures only for me from know on :love::love:

plastic


:yak5:

What's next you going to tell me your a closet bluefish lover too?

:hee:

What's next you going to tell me your a closet bluefish lover too?

:hee:

Only in the smoker or hanging off a 12/0 for shark bait.

What a coincidence Paraco just dropped 157.2 gallons of global warming

That's enough for 2 more weeks. ugh.

Send pics lol

What a coincidence Paraco just dropped 157.2 gallons of global warming

That's enough for 2 more weeks. ugh.

Send pics lol

Scott, it's going to be colder next weekend.

ok I can bug Bryan more then :hee:

ok I can bug Bryan more then :hee:

Superstrike rules :smash:

GO CHINESE
:yawn:

NWS - Uxbridge MA

Friday Night: Mostly cloudy, with a low around 2.

Saturday: Mostly sunny, with a high near 19.

ya gotta stop cuttin n pastin off the ch5 website :rotf2:

NWS - Uxbridge MA

Friday Night: Mostly cloudy, with a low around 2.

Saturday: Mostly sunny, with a high near 19.

I don't do that media weather thing. thats the National Weather Service, BOX office in Taunton

yea I forgot you read the bifurcated trajectories of Jupiter over uranus and it's affects on clouds in the jetstream

yeah everythings changed now that we found out the earth wobbles

-9 this morning in the truck at 4:15


Global Warming :rotf2:

GLOBAL WARMING....

then slowly winter disappears...

AGREED Nebe , i once saw a weather report
for Montana, i believe it was....

-20 degrees in the morning
and by late afternoon it was 80 degrees

so thats a 100 degree change in a single day.

-9 this morning in the truck at 4:15


Global Warming :rotf2:

consider yourself lucky..............

RECORD EVENT REPORT
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE DULUTH MN
518 PM CST FRI JAN 21 2011

...RECORD LOW TEMPERATURE SET AT INTERNATIONAL FALLS MN...

A RECORD LOW TEMPERATURE OF -46 DEGREES WAS SET AT INTERNATIONAL
FALLS MN TODAY. THIS BREAKS THE OLD RECORD OF -41 SET IN 1954.

i read once......
that even rubber tires fracture at very low temperatures

- 68 with a wind chill....sumthin like that

these must be the "shovel ready" jobs that Obama promised...why isn't he out taking credit for the snow??:rotf2:

he's too busy doing a SNOW JOB

somethin's keeping him skinny

these must be the "shovel ready" jobs that Obama promised...why isn't he out taking credit for the snow??:rotf2:


LOL, too funnie. :D

consider yourself lucky..............

RECORD EVENT REPORT
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE DULUTH MN
518 PM CST FRI JAN 21 2011

...RECORD LOW TEMPERATURE SET AT INTERNATIONAL FALLS MN...

A RECORD LOW TEMPERATURE OF -46 DEGREES WAS SET AT INTERNATIONAL
FALLS MN TODAY. THIS BREAKS THE OLD RECORD OF -41 SET IN 1954.

and yet the Artic is "balmy"

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/25/science/earth/25cold.html?_r=1&hp

and yet the Artic is "balmy"

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/25/science/earth/25cold.html?_r=1&hp

makes sense I guess:

Paleoclimate Implications for Human-Made Climate Change
James E. Hansen and Makiko Sato
NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University Earth Institute, New York

page 11
" For example, Earth is now closest to the sun in January, which favors warm winters and cool summers in the Northern Hemisphere....."


or maybe all of the hot global warming air is rising to the top of the world...pushing the arctic air blast that we are experiencing southward

I hope the polar bears don't drown.....:happy:

I have included an excerpt below from a survey of scientists on global warming. 2 points I would like to highlight: 1. 97% of climatologists believe global warming is occurring and humans play a role. 2. The majority of scientists who dispute it are in the petroleum industry or meteorologists.

82% of all scientists questioned believe not only in global warming, but that humans are contributing to it.

Looking at the wealth of data, how could I as an informed person so adamantly disagree with the 97% of climate experts? There is no logic to it, unless I have political reasons to oppose it.

The constant use of weather as an example that global warming isn't occurring are completely in-valid. The noreaster is especially strange since more frequent, stronger storms is something that is indicated by global warming.

Think what you want, but please don't make it as if your side of the argument has the data on its' side unless you want to show all of the data.

****The study released today was conducted by academics from the University of Illinois, who used an online questionnaire of nine questions. The scientists approached were listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments.

Two questions were key: Have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures?

About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second.

The strongest consensus on the causes of global warming came from climatologists who are active in climate research, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role.

I have included an excerpt below from a survey of scientists on global warming. 2 points I would like to highlight: 1. 97% of climatologists believe global warming is occurring and humans play a role. 2. The majority of scientists who dispute it are in the petroleum industry or meteorologists.

82% of all scientists questioned believe not only in global warming, but that humans are contributing to it.

Looking at the wealth of data, how could I as an informed person so adamantly disagree with the 97% of climate experts? There is no logic to it, unless I have political reasons to oppose it.

The constant use of weather as an example that global warming isn't occurring are completely in-valid. The noreaster is especially strange since more frequent, stronger storms is something that is indicated by global warming.

Think what you want, but please don't make it as if your side of the argument has the data on its' side unless you want to show all of the data.

****The study released today was conducted by academics from the University of Illinois, who used an online questionnaire of nine questions. The scientists approached were listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments.

Two questions were key: Have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures?

About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second.

The strongest consensus on the causes of global warming came from climatologists who are active in climate research, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role.
Those scientists were obviously idiots and not utilizing the in-depth scientific research and methods that the climatologists who participate in this forum use.

Their method? Looking out the window. :smash::smash:

It's like the nitwits who catch a lot of fish one day and then say, "see, I caught as many fish as I wanted to. That proves we have an abundance of fish around."

Isn't the weather outside my window considered the climate?:rotf2:

http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
In our survey,
the most specialized and knowledgeable
respondents (with regard to climate
change) are those who listed climate science
as their area of expertise and who
also have published more than 50% of
their recent peer-reviewed
papers on the
subject of climate change (79 individuals
in total).

The 97% "Consensus" is only 79 Self-Selected Climatologists

While 97% of "climate scientists think that global warming is 'significantly' due to human activity," a shocking 72% of news coverage does not reflect this "consensus" and similarly 74% of the public are not convinced.

Close examination of the source of the claimed 97% consensus reveals that it comes from a non-peer reviewed article describing an online poll in which a total of only 79 climate scientists chose to participate. Of the 79 self-selected climate scientists, 75 agreed with the notion of AGW. Thus, we find climate scientists once again using dubious statistical techniques to deceive the public that there is a 97% scientific consensus on man-made global warming.

Let's not lose sight of what the Doran poll asked:

1. When compared with pre-1800s levels do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?

2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

Of course, the answer to #1 is "risen", if you consider "pre-1800" to be around 1800 or a couple of hundred years of so before, because we were in the little age age, and there's little doubt we have warmed form that time.

The answer to number #2 depends largely on the definition of significant, but I'd guess that even Richard Lindzen would consider the co2 contribution significant, based on his forcing calculation.

And of course, warmers seem to treat a risen/yes reply to this poll as affirmation of catastrophic AGW projections, which may not be intended.[/QUOTE]

you'd think it would be much easier to convince everyone of something that is so obvious...and settled :uhuh: :rotf2:...it appears that the biggest climate challenge for the climate changers is defending the settled science of global warming...maybe we need another movie :rotf2:

I have included an excerpt below from a survey of scientists on global warming. 2 points I would like to highlight: 1. 97% of climatologists believe global warming is occurring and humans play a role. 2. The majority of scientists who dispute it are in the petroleum industry or meteorologists.

82% of all scientists questioned believe not only in global warming, but that humans are contributing to it.

Looking at the wealth of data, how could I as an informed person so adamantly disagree with the 97% of climate experts? There is no logic to it, unless I have political reasons to oppose it.

The constant use of weather as an example that global warming isn't occurring are completely in-valid. The noreaster is especially strange since more frequent, stronger storms is something that is indicated by global warming.

Think what you want, but please don't make it as if your side of the argument has the data on its' side unless you want to show all of the data.

****The study released today was conducted by academics from the University of Illinois, who used an online questionnaire of nine questions. The scientists approached were listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments.

Two questions were key: Have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures?

About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second.

The strongest consensus on the causes of global warming came from climatologists who are active in climate research, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role.

Answer to number 1...Your talking over 200 years. The climate changes..No?

Answer to number 2... Brilliant. The number of humans has gone up. Um...could be a factor.

Do you think the the earth might have warmed a fraction without humans?Pretty sure it has in the past.


Edit: Sorry Scott, Didn't read your post until after. Guess a couple window watchers like ourselfs think alike.

I wonder what Oog and Grog thought of the Ice Age?
I bet they blamed it on all the methane gas the dinosaurs created after eating all the vegitation.

Now we study cow burps....where does it all end?????

International consensus falls along the same lines. It is a very small percent of scientists who study climate who are doubters. There are many anti-environmental movement, anti-government, pro-oil people who disagree.

The arguments that I just read said, well yeah it increased since the 1800's because of the mini ice age, well yeah there are more people now sow the temp probably increased. The next posts will be it hasn't increased and if it did it isn't because of people, it's sun spots. So what is it? Ask the real experts, they say the climate is changing, the records show it is changing, ice cores show it is changing, we burn tons of fossil fuels as of the last 200 years. Where is the consensus from real climate scientists that it isn't happening? You can't find one, so I should just take what Glen Beck or Hannity says to be the truth as the truth. Faggettit... I'll go with the science on this one.

where does it all end?????

2012

International consensus falls along the same lines. It is a very small percent of scientists who study climate who are doubters. There are many anti-environmental movement, anti-government, pro-oil people who disagree.

I'll go with the science on this one.

you forgot LAWYERS...they are on board too ...probably like 97% of them

Trial lawyers and their academic abettors are salivating over the potential lfor "hundreds of billions of dollars" in legal claims for compensatory losses due to climate change -- according to a report by Richard Inham of the AFP.

'"There's a large number of entrepreneurial lawyers and NGOs who are hunting around for a way to gain leverage on the climate problem," said David Victor, director of the Laboratory on International Law and Regulation at the University of California at San Diego.'

Thus as the industial world struggles to recover from the worst recession in generations, private enterprise will have to fend off thousands of spurious claims lodged by activist liberal lawyers in frivilous lawsuits over droughts, floods, and other weather-events normally classified legally as "Acts of God".

"In this area, the floodgates have opened," said Michael Gerrard, director of the recently-opened Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia Law School in New York... .

"There are billions of potential plaintiffs and millions of potential defendants," said Gerrard. "The biggest problem, though, is causation."

huh....that's and interesting thing to say when the science is settled...

Got nothing, huh?

The arguments that I just read said, well yeah it increased since the 1800's because of the mini ice age, well yeah there are more people now sow the temp probably increased. The next posts will be it hasn't increased and if it did it isn't because of people, it's sun spots. So what is it? Ask the real experts, they say the climate is (always)changing, the records show it is (always)changing, ice cores show it is (always)changing, we burn tons of fossil fuels as of the last 200 years. Where is the consensus from real climate scientists that it isn't happening(changing?)? You can't find one, so I should just take what Glen Beck or Hannity says to be the truth as the truth. Faggettit... I'll go with the science on this one.

Let’s see just how the magnitude and rates of change of modern global warming/cooling compare to warming/cooling events over the past 25,000 years. We can compare the warming and cooling in the past century to approximate 100 year periods in the past 25,000 years. The scale of the curve doesn’t allow enough accuracy to pick out exactly 100 year episodes directly from the curve, but that can be done from the annual dust layers in ice core data. Thus, not all of the periods noted here are exactly 100 years. Some are slightly more, some are slightly less, but they are close enough to allow comparison of magnitude and rates with the past century.

Temperature changes recorded in the GISP2 ice core from the Greenland Ice Sheet (Figure 1) (Cuffy and Clow, 1997) show that the global warming experienced during the past century pales into insignificance when compared to the magnitude of profound climate reversals over the past 25,000 years. In addition, small temperature changes of up to a degree or so, similar to those observed in the 20th century record, occur persistently throughout the ancient climate record.

Figure 1. Greenland temperatures over the past 25,000 years recorded in the GISP 2 ice core. Strong, abrupt warming is shown by nearly vertical rise of temperatures, strong cooling by nearly vertical drop of temperatures (Modified from Cuffy and Clow, 1997).

Figure 2 shows comparisons of the largest magnitudes of warming/cooling events per century over the past 25,000 years. At least three warming events were 20 to 24 times the magnitude of warming over the past century and four were 6 to 9 times the magnitude of warming over the past century. The magnitude of the only modern warming which might possibly have been caused by CO2. (1978-1998) is insignificant compared to the earlier periods of warming.

Figure 2. Magnitudes of the largest warming/cooling events over the past 25,000 years. Temperatures on the vertical axis are rise or fall of temperatures in about a century. Each column represents the rise or fall of temperature shown on Figure 1. Event number 1 is about 24,000years ago and event number 15 is about 11,000 years old. The sudden warming about 15,000 years ago caused massive melting of these ice sheets at an unprecedented rate. The abrupt cooling that occurred from 12,700 to 11,500 years ago is known as the Younger Dryas cold period, which was responsible for readvance of the ice sheets and alpine glaciers. The end of the Younger Dryas cold period warmed by 9°F ( 5°C) over 30-40 years and as much as 14°F (8°C) over 40 years.

and yet the Artic is "balmy"

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/25/science/earth/25cold.html?_r=1&hp

arctic temps Daily Mean Temperatures in the Arctic 1958 - 2011


Daily mean temperatures for the Arctic area north of the 80th northern parallel
COI | Centre for Ocean and Ice | Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut (http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php)


January 6, 2010

It’s cold here and in northern Eurasia, but it’s been positively toasty around the Arctic circle — thanks to an extreme negative phase of the Arctic Oscillation, as the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) explained in their online report yesterday.

January 23, 2010

According to the Danish Meteorological Institute, Arctic temperatures are currently below 238K (-35.15 degrees Celsius or -31.27 degrees Fahrenheit)

That is more than five degrees below normal (the green line) and the lowest reading since 2004. The slope of decline has also recently been quite sharp, dropping from 252K on January 1, a drop of 14 degrees in 22 days.

:wall::wall::wall::wall:Temperature changes recorded in the GISP2 ice core from the Greenland Ice Sheet (Figure 1) (Cuffy and Clow, 1997) show that the global warming experienced during the past century pales into insignificance when compared to the magnitude of profound climate reversals over the past 25,000 years. In addition, small temperature changes of up to a degree or so, similar to those observed in the 20th century record, occur persistently throughout the ancient climate record.

Figure 1. Greenland temperatures over the past 25,000 years recorded in the GISP 2 ice core. Strong, abrupt warming is shown by nearly vertical rise of temperatures, strong cooling by nearly vertical drop of temperatures (Modified from Cuffy and Clow, 1997).

Figure 2 shows comparisons of the largest magnitudes of warming/cooling events per century over the past 25,000 years. At least three warming events were 20 to 24 times the magnitude of warming over the past century and four were 6 to 9 times the magnitude of warming over the past century. The magnitude of the only modern warming which might possibly have been caused by CO2. (1978-1998) is insignificant compared to the earlier periods of warming.


Figure 2. Magnitudes of the largest warming/cooling events over the past 25,000 years. Temperatures on the vertical axis are rise or fall of temperatures in about a century. Each column represents the rise or fall of temperature shown on Figure 1. Event number 1 is about 24,000years ago and event number 15 is about 11,000 years old. The sudden warming about 15,000 years ago caused massive melting of these ice sheets at an unprecedented rate. The abrupt cooling that occurred from 12,700 to 11,500 years ago is known as the Younger Dryas cold period, which was responsible for readvance of the ice sheets and alpine glaciers. The end of the Younger Dryas cold period warmed by 9°F ( 5°C) over 30-40 years and as much as 14°F (8°C) over 40 years.

Where is this cut and pasted from? Easterbrook's guest editorial on the Free Republic?

Let me make a comparision here. I can go find a PhD geologist (Say Dr. Marcus Ross, Liberty University) who is a fervent believer in young earth creationism. Doesn't refute evolution.

Same thing here, you find Easterbrook, with a LONG record of being a skeptic (and contributor to Glenn Beck' Show), with, in this case 15 year old data.

I was at his infamous presentation at the 2006 GSA Meeting. There is a good reason the stuff he posts in the Free Republic is not peer reviewed; it would not stand. The events he has mentioned have distinct causes independent of atmosphereic CO2. Things that, if they occured today would have the same result (Like large, sudden releases of freshwater to the ocean after draining a huge glacial lake).

but then again it's snowing in January. No climate change here :wall:

[QUOTE=RIROCKHOUND;830852:

Where is this cut and pasted from? Free Republic?

Glenn Beck' Show.

Free Republic

:[/QUOTE]

not familiar with free republic....so this apparently is how the global warming/climate change/climate disruption/climate challenges "scientists" and their lackey's attack anyone that disagrees with their perpetually changing and historically inaccurate dogma :uhuh:

you should have thrown in a couple Limbaughs...a FOXNEWS...maybe a Cheney Haliburton and a Big OIL or two

The data you gave ignored several data locations in Artic and has been concretely refuted. When the other data stations are included, the temperature has significantly increased over that time. Please supply more info for us whackjob lackeys to address please. Also, I am not making this up... it has readily been addressed.

The data you gave ignored several data locations in Artic and has been concretely refuted. When the other data stations are included, the temperature has significantly increased over that time. Please supply more info for us whackjob lackeys to address please. Also, I am not making this up... it has readily been addressed.

I'd try but that post was unintelligible...maybe proving my point

you were better off with ...."International consensus, doubters, anti-environmental movement, anti-government, pro-oil people, the real experts, climate is changing, is changing, is changing, tons of fossil fuels, consensus, real climate scientist, Glen Beck or Hannity,... I'll go with the science on this one."

just keep repeating that...you'll fit right in

not a rocket ( I mean climate ) scientist eh Scott?

not a rocket ( I mean climate ) scientist eh Scott?

eh?...........I just re-read all of your posts in this thread and beyond claiming that 97% of 79 global warming scientist agree with you(seems like a low number)...or maybe it's the other way around....and 82% of the same 79 believe that man may be contributing factor in warming....you haven't provided a single bit of evidence to back up anything that you've asserted or charged....you did lable yourself an "informed person", which I guess is good enough for you....but you've done little more than vomit the typical, predictable and very tired montra, "the climate is changing" is not really a revelation, well, apparently it is for you....but I'm the "not a rocket scientist", right?

you did succeed in perfectly displaying the steps of liberal argument, culminating in your last post...nice job.....thanks

Zimmy, Scott will soon tell you to shut up.

Zimmy, Scott will soon tell you to shut up.

can't imagine why I'd do that...I like the back and forth..especially now that many of us are participating in the "era of civility" and particularly if the quality is something more substantive than ...

"doubters, anti-environmental movement, anti-government, pro-oil people, the real experts, climate is changing, is changing, is changing, tons of fossil fuels, consensus, real climate scientist, Glen Beck or Hannity"

and

"it's snowing in January. No climate change here"

these condescending gems from self-described "informed" individuals
..............................

shut up?....no

put up?.....absolutely :uhuh:

if we could just get rid of Rush, Beck, Hannity, Fox and Palin...what a wonderful...green.... world it would be :)

not a rocket ( I mean climate ) scientist eh Scott?

I know the difference between the Arctic and Antarctic(and I'm not even a rocket scientist) but I can see where you might get them confused given the proximity.....

the Arctic data that I posted that you claim is "concretely refuted. Also, I am not making this up... it has readily been addressed" ...is current data as of yesterday, if you click the link I'm sure that it is now updated for today...it was in response to Paul's post calling the arctic balmy..I added 1970 and 1958 as a comparison...you can view the temp charts for every year 1958 through present...click 1974...scorching and we were told back then that another ice age was imminent

maybe you were actually talking about the antarctic?

Included some data below that contradicts what you posted. Believe what you want or are told on the radio. I am not a climate expert, but I have significant time spent in dealing with climate and meteorology in academic settings and reading peer reviewed journal articles. I wouldn't claim to be an expert, but I do know what the literature says and what the overwhelming international science consensus is. There is not one national or international scientific organization that dismisses that the climate is presently warming. There are a very few percentage of scientists who disagree. That is a fact.

Here is the most recent info, provided by The WMO global temperature analysis is thus principally based on three complementary datasets. One is the combined dataset maintained by both the Hadley Centre of the UK Met Office and the Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, United Kingdom. Another dataset is maintained by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) under the United States Department of Commerce, and the third one is from the Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS) operated by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

“The 2010 data confirm the Earth’s significant long-term warming trend,” according to World Meteorological Organization chief Michel Jarraud. “The ten warmest years on record have all occurred since 1998.”

Warming was most extreme this past year in two regions. The first covers most of Canada and Greenland, with mean temperatures for the year increasing by upwards of 3°C (5.4°F). The second region extends from northern Africa to the western portion of China, which saw increases between 1 and 3°C (1.8 and 5.4°F).

“The 2010 data confirm the Earth’s significant long-term warming trend,” according to World Meteorological Organization chief Michel Jarraud. “The ten warmest years on record have all occurred since 1998.”


it also confirms that there has been no statistically significant warming occuring since 1995...Phil Jones of CRU admitted that in a BBC interview....seems like a plateau to me rather than constant warming reflected by ever increasing carbon emissions.....we should be trending ever warmer...shoud we not? 2010 was slightly cooler than previous record years....is that not a trend?

why do you assume I get my info from the radio?

........................................

The WMO, the $80 million U.N. front-line agency in the climate change struggle, and the source for much of the world’s information in the global atmosphere and water supply, has serious management problems of its own, despite its rapidly expanding global ambitions.

The international agency has been sharply criticized by a U.N. inspection unit in a confidential report for, among other things, haphazard budget practices, deeply flawed organizational procedures, and no effective oversight by the 188 nations that formally make up its membership and dole out its funds.

• Click here to see the Joint Inspection Unit report.

The inspection was carried out by a member of the United Nations Joint Inspection Unit (JIU), a small, independent branch of the U.N. that reports to the General Assembly and is mandated to improve the organization’s efficiency and coordination through its inspection process.

The investigations took place in late 2006 and extended through at least May 2007, and subsequently were presented to the WMO’s ruling bodies and its secretary general, Michel Jarraud, in December 2007. It was forwarded to the U.N. General Assembly only in November 2008.
The confidential document was a follow-up to an earlier examination in 2004, which also led to suggestions for greater internal controls of the WMO. (That inspection followed the discovery in 2003 of a multi-million-dollar embezzlement of WMO funds by an employee who subsequently disappeared.)

According to the more recent report, the WMO still has a lot of changing to do — starting with the agency’s far-flung regional offices, which the WMO touts as key units in the climate change struggle, especially in helping the world’s poorest people. But in the report, the regional offices are described as being of “questionable” value, and the organization’s plans to bolster its scientific programs in poor countries are said to be based on “ad hoc demands” rather than carefully examined needs.

Moreover, the report says, “there is no systematic, regular reporting by the offices in the regions to headquarters regarding their activities, achievements, performance or lessons learned.” The JIU inspector declared it “imperative” that the WMO get better reporting from its local offices.

Similar quality-control problems apparently infect the WMO’s Geneva head office, where, the report dryly notes, “a results-oriented culture is lacking among staff.” Among other things, the report notes that WMO “suffers from the lack of a set of internal procedures, guidelines and instructions regarding work processes, departmental responsibilities and workflow” — administrative lapses that were “particularly the case in the budget preparation process.”

• Click here to see the Joint Inspection Unit report.

In a survey done by the JIU inspector, more than 58 percent of the WMO’s staff found the level of coordination and cooperation in their organization “inadequate.” (And elsewhere, the report notes, “it is a cause for concern that 30% of staff had seen conduct in recent months that they thought violated the WMO Code of Ethics.”)

While the WMO has unveiled a 2008-2011 strategic plan that envisages new levels of international coordination in “monitoring, assessing and forecasting weather, air quality, climate, oceanic conditions, the global water cycle, and hydro-meteorological hazards,” the inspection report declares that the U.N.’s own forecast on how to get to that level of achievement is disturbingly hazy. (Among other things, the WMO has declared its intention to “modernize” the meteorological infrastructure in at least 40 countries its four-year plan, “with a particular focus on developing countries.”)

As the document puts it, there is not “a sufficiently clear or measurable link” between the goals of the WMO plan and the way that the organization’s top bureaucrats propose to achieve them.

Ok Scott, I am pretty much done with this thread for now. I don't really think it is worth my time to discuss this further with someone who is going to post graphs from Don Easterbrooks papers, when he has been conclusively shown to have altered the data. He was completely wrong with his predictions for the last decade, as well. You also bring Phil Jones quotes in... I followed that mess when it happened and he has clearly stated warming has occurred, but it is statistically difficult to establich significance over a short period of time. If you have ever taken statistics Scott, you will know that that is a mathematical issue because of the limited data set. 15 data points does not allow for significance. You are certainly free to think what you like.

Ok Scott, I am pretty much done with this thread for now. I don't really think it is worth my time to discuss this further with someone who is going to post graphs from Don Easterbrooks papers, when he has been conclusively shown to have altered the data. He was completely wrong with his predictions for the last decade, as well. You also bring Phil Jones quotes in... I followed that mess when it happened and he has clearly stated warming has occurred, but it is statistically difficult to establich significance over a short period of time. If you have ever taken statistics Scott, you will know that that is a mathematical issue because of the limited data set. 15 data points does not allow for significance. You are certainly free to think what you like.

you are wonderful at making vague unsubstantiated claims.....the only claim that you have attempted to back up with evidence to date is the 97% of 79 poll(which was kind of a joke).....tough to have a meaningful conversation with someone that simple states things as true with no evidence and then insults....very nice......for an informed person
Don Easterbrook - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Easterbrook)
I don't need to defend Dr. Easterbrook but the most that I could find regarding your claim was a couple of bloggers suggesting that he was creative with graphs and data, I posted his a graphs as a response to your "it's changing" montra simply to point out that it's always changing....Dr. Easterbrook refutes the claims and as far as I know he is still in his position and while I don't think it's been definitively determined that he did so there have been plenty of instances of definitive screwing with data on the Hysterical Global Warming side of the ledger and that doesn't seem to concern you in the least?
...................................

MPS SLAM ‘SECRETIVE’ CLIMATEGATE PROBES


Labour MP Graham Stringer said Lord Oxburgh appeared to have a “conflict of interest”
Tuesday January 25,2011
By John Ingham
TWO inquiries into claims that scientists manipulated data about global warming were yesterday condemned by MPs as ineffective and too secretive.

The row, which became known as Climategate, erupted in 2009 over allegations that researchers had deliberately strengthened evidence suggesting human activity was to blame for rising temperatures.

MPs on the Science and Technology Committee have now concluded that both probes into the scandal had failed to “fully investigate” claims that scientists had deleted embarrassing emails.



.................................................

Claims made in a 2007 report by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that the glaciers would be gone by 2035.


Although the head of the panel Dr Rajendra Pachauri later admitted the claim was an error gleaned from unchecked research, he maintained that global warming was melting the glaciers at "a rapid rate", threatening floods throughout north India.

The new study by scientists at the Universities of California and Potsdam has found that half of the glaciers in the Karakoram range, in the northwestern Himlaya, are in fact advancing and that global warming is not the deciding factor in whether a glacier survives or melts.

Himalayan glaciers spell trouble for climate scientists 27 Jan 2011

Dr Bodo Bookhagen, Dirk Scherler and Manfred Strecker studied 286 glaciers between the Hindu Kush on the Afghan-Pakistan border to Bhutan, taking in six areas.

Their report, published in the journal Nature Geoscience, found the key factor affecting their advance or retreat is the amount of debris – rocks and mud – strewn on their surface, not the general nature of climate change.

..............

you quote Jarraud WMO and ignore the report
the Met Office....what was their forcast for this winter????
NASA....I think Hansen is attacking Obama most recently and has actually been proven to fabricate/transpose numbers
CRU...East Anglia??????

just sayin', you ignore a whole lot of issues out of hand with these others but end the entire conversation due to Dr. Easterbrooks????...think about it????

Warming was most extreme this past year in two regions. The first covers most of Canada and Greenland, with mean temperatures for the year increasing by upwards of 3°C (5.4°F). The second region extends from northern Africa to the western portion of China, which saw increases between 1 and 3°C (1.8 and 5.4°F).

Geophysical Research Letters, 33, L11707, 13 June 2006, doi:10.1029/2006GL026510.
Greenland warming of 1920–1930 and 1995–2005 (http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2006GL026510.shtml)

Petr Chylek
Los Alamos National Laboratory, Space and Remote Sensing Sciences, Los Alamos, New Mexico, USA

M. K. Dubey
Los Alamos National Laboratory, Earth and Environmental Sciences, Los Alamos, New Mexico, USA

G. Lesins
Department of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

Received 10 April 2006; accepted 9 May 2006; published 13 June 2006.


extracts from this paper: (from CCNet, Benny Peiser)

Abstract:
We provide an analysis of Greenland temperature records to compare the current (1995-2005) warming period with the previous (1920-1930) Greenland warming. We find that the current Greenland warming is not unprecedented in recent Greenland history. Temperature increases in the two warming periods are of a similar magnitude, however, the rate of warming in 1920-1930 was about 50% higher than that in 1995 - 2005.


[...]

5. Discussion and Conclusion

[14] We have analyzed temperature time series from available Greenland locations and we have found that:

[15] i) The years 1995 to 2005 have been characterized by generally increasing temperatures at the Greenland coastal stations. The year 2003 was extremely warm on the southeastern coast of Greenland. The average annual temperature and the average summer temperature for 2003 at Ammassalik was a record high since 1895. The years 2004 and 2005 were closer to normal being well below temperatures reached in 1930s and 1940s (Figure 2).

Although the annual average temperatures and the average summer temperatures at Godthab Nuuk, representing the southwestern coast, were also increasing during the 1995-2005 period, they stayed generally below the values typical for the 1920-1940 period.

[16] ii) The 1955 to 2005 averages of the summer temperatures and the temperatures of the warmest month at both Godthaab Nuuk and Ammassalik are significantly lower than the corresponding averages for the previous 50 years (1905-1955). The summers at both the southwestern and the southeastern coast of Greenland were significantly colder within the 1955-2005 period compared to the 1905-1955 years.

[17] iii) Although the last decade of 1995-2005 was relatively warm, almost all decades within 1915 to 1965 were even warmer at both the southwestern (Godthab Nuuk) and the southeastern (Ammassalik) coasts of Greenland.

[18] iv) The Greenland warming of the 1995-2005 period is similar to the warming of 1920-1930, although the rate of temperature increase was by about 50% higher during the 1920-1930 warming period.

does not sound unprecedented :confused:

[QUOTE=zimmy;831495]Ok Scott, I am pretty much done with this thread for now. I don't really think it is worth my time to discuss this further QUOTE]

I'm in the same boat. I vowed not to get back into this debate here, but I clicked on the page w/o being logged in, which meant I could see Scott's post. If I am logged in, they are hidden.


FYI; here is another recent article discussing, in this instance warming ocean temperatures in the Arctic over the last 2000 years. But it is only the, argulably, most significant scientific journal in the world. It is of course crap and a big conspiracy among scientists.
Enhanced Modern Heat Transfer to the Arctic by Warm Atlantic Water | Science/AAAS (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/331/6016/450.short)

[QUOTE=zimmy;831495]
FYI; here is another recent article discussing, in this instance warming ocean temperatures in the Arctic over the last 2000 years. But it is only the, argulably, most significant scientific journal in the world. It is of course crap and a big conspiracy among scientists.
Enhanced Modern Heat Transfer to the Arctic by Warm Atlantic Water | Science/AAAS
I'm in the same boat.



I read that yesterday.....has it been peer reviewed yet?



I know you can't resist Bryan...here's something funny for a Friday....


Heroic London carbon trading scheme fails

Greens snatch up homemade raffia crafts from table and flounce off

By Andrew Orlowski •
Posted in Environment, 27th January 2011 14:49 GMT

"I have measured out my life with coffee spoons" - TS Eliot

It is with dismay that we bring you sad news from one of Britain's most self-righteous boroughs. In Islington, the location for the Private Eye comic strip "It's Grim Up North London", the area's 'Carbon Rationing Action Group' has decided to call it a day. Group members will no longer measure everything they do and exchange the vital information.

"After four years, three complete accounting years, the Islington and Hackney CRAG [Carbon Rationing Action Group] is no longer settling (ie, buying and selling carbon every six months, anymore)," writes John Ackers, a "CRAG-er". That old enemy of sustainability – couldntgivea#^&#^&#^&#^&ability – has dealt the movement a setback.

"Four of us wanted to keep going, but two dropped out and two weren’t very good at doing the data-gathering," Ackers explains.

CRAGS are a "growing network of carbon conscious citizens", according to the movement's website. The Islington Craggers – all eight of them – had adopted a personal carbon trading. This combines two ideas: rationing, and a virtual currency that allows participants to exchange credits.


But there were musical differences, too...

"At least one person in our group, our lowest emitter, thinks that we shouldn’t trade between ourselves at all."

And there was also perhaps the faintest glimmer of a realisation that the exercise was, on balance, an epic waste of time.

"As a group, we achieved some reduction in carbon emissions but it was less than 10 per cent per year," notes Ackers, before noting that "the other big lesson for me is that 5p per kg of CO2 has virtually no impact on the lifestyle of a typical middle-class, middle-income Londoner."

Personal carbon rationing was again in the news this week in a report commissioned by a group of MPs.


best line...."our lowest emitter":rotf2:

Al Gore can come shovel my global warming anytime now

Al's Journal : An Answer for Bill (http://blog.algore.com/2011/02/an_answer_for_bill.html)