659 replies to this topic

[eternaltraveler]

Well,

I guess not, because Wind and Solar are the fastest growing in the energy sector, they receive the most private funding, and the least subsidies, that includes less than coal, so no.

When they are the least subsidized, get the most private funding and grew 600% last year, while the others get enormously more subsidies and remain stagnant, then they are the most economically feasible.. so... no.

On the surface these facts you cite intuitively make sense (I'm not going to look up to see whether they are correct or not, I'll just assume they are). However, if we think about them more deeply the conclusions you draw really don't follow. Wind/solar may be less subsidized than coal on a dollar basis, however we need only look at the total cost per kilowatt hour to understand that coal is markedly cheaper (using "cheapness" as the sole determinant here). With the cost of coal being £0.022–0.026/kWh, and wind costing on average £0.054/kWh (the figures I found were from a british study so are expressed in pounds).

Now, don't misunderstand. There are absolutely locations where wind is cheaper. My house is one example. But most people don't live in or near a class 6-7 wind area.

Also I won't dispute your 600% increase in wind production. However as I'm sure you understand when you have a few and you increase that few just a little you have a large percentage increase, whereas the total power generation remains relatively small (a few gigawatts is a few thousandths of world energy production)

Edited by elrond, 18 June 2008 - 07:16 PM.

[mike250]

Energy Guzzled by Al Gore’s Home in Past Year Could Power 232 U.S. Homes for a Month
Gore’s personal electricity consumption up 10%, despite “energy-efficient” home renovations

NASHVILLE - In the year since Al Gore took steps to make his home more energy-efficient, the former Vice President’s home energy use surged more than 10%, according to the Tennessee Center for Policy Research.

“A man’s commitment to his beliefs is best measured by what he does behind the closed doors of his own home,” said Drew Johnson, President of the Tennessee Center for Policy Research. “Al Gore is a hypocrite and a fraud when it comes to his commitment to the environment, judging by his home energy consumption.”

In the past year, Gore’s home burned through 213,210 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity, enough to power 232 average American households for a month.

In February 2007, An Inconvenient Truth, a film based on a climate change speech developed by Gore, won an Academy Award for best documentary feature. The next day, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research uncovered that Gore’s Nashville home guzzled 20 times more electricity than the average American household.

After the Tennessee Center for Policy Research exposed Gore’s massive home energy use, the former Vice President scurried to make his home more energy-efficient. Despite adding solar panels, installing a geothermal system, replacing existing light bulbs with more efficient models, and overhauling the home’s windows and ductwork, Gore now consumes more electricity than before the “green” overhaul.

Since taking steps to make his home more environmentally-friendly last June, Gore devours an average of 17,768 kWh per month –1,638 kWh more energy per month than before the renovations – at a cost of $16,533. By comparison, the average American household consumes 11,040 kWh in an entire year, according to the Energy Information Administration.

In the wake of becoming the most well-known global warming alarmist, Gore won an Oscar, a Grammy and the Nobel Peace Prize. In addition, Gore saw his personal wealth increase by an estimated $100 million thanks largely to speaking fees and investments related to global warming hysteria.

“Actions speak louder than words, and Gore’s actions prove that he views climate change not as a serious problem, but as a money-making opportunity,” Johnson said. “Gore is exploiting the public’s concern about the environment to line his pockets and enhance his profile.”

The Tennessee Center for Policy Research, a Nashville-based free market think tank and watchdog organization, obtained information about Gore’s home energy use through a public records request to the Nashville Electric Service.


The Tennessee Center for Policy Research is an independent, nonprofit and nonpartisan research organization committed to achieving a freer, more prosperous Tennessee through the ideas of liberty. Visit TCPR online at: www.tennesseepolicy.org.

Edited by mike250, 18 June 2008 - 07:22 PM.

[biknut]

Here's another nail in the coffin of man made global warming.

Myth of Consensus Explodes: APS Opens Global Warming Debate
Michael Asher (Blog) - July 16, 2008 9:35 PM

"Considerable presence" of skeptics

The American Physical Society, an organization representing nearly 50,000 physicists, has reversed its stance on climate change and is now proclaiming that many of its members disbelieve in human-induced global warming. The APS is also sponsoring public debate on the validity of global warming science. The leadership of the society had previously called the evidence for global warming "incontrovertible."

In a posting to the APS forum, editor Jeffrey Marque explains,"There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution."

The APS is opening its debate with the publication of a paper by Lord Monckton of Brenchley, which concludes that climate sensitivity -- the rate of temperature change a given amount of greenhouse gas will cause -- has been grossly overstated by IPCC modeling. A low sensitivity implies additional atmospheric CO2 will have little effect on global climate.

Larry Gould, Professor of Physics at the University of Hartford and Chairman of the New England Section of the APS, called Monckton's paper an "expose of the IPCC that details numerous exaggerations and "extensive errors"

In an email to DailyTech, Monckton says, "I was dismayed to discover that the IPCC's 2001 and 2007 reports did not devote chapters to the central 'climate sensitivity' question, and did not explain in proper, systematic detail the methods by which they evaluated it. When I began to investigate, it seemed that the IPCC was deliberately concealing and obscuring its method."

According to Monckton, there is substantial support for his results, "in the peer-reviewed literature, most articles on climate sensitivity conclude, as I have done, that climate sensitivity must be harmlessly low."

Monckton, who was the science advisor to Britain's Thatcher administration, says natural variability is the cause of most of the Earth's recent warming. "In the past 70 years the Sun was more active than at almost any other time in the past 11,400 years ... Mars, Jupiter, Neptune’s largest moon, and Pluto warmed at the same time as Earth."

http://www.dailytech...rticle12403.htm

[niner]

Here's another nail in the coffin of man made global warming.

Myth of Consensus Explodes: APS Opens Global Warming Debate
Michael Asher (Blog) - July 16, 2008 9:35 PM

"Considerable presence" of skeptics

The American Physical Society, an organization representing nearly 50,000 physicists, has reversed its stance on climate change and is now proclaiming that many of its members disbelieve in human-induced global warming. The APS is also sponsoring public debate on the validity of global warming science. The leadership of the society had previously called the evidence for global warming "incontrovertible."
[...]
Monckton, who was the science advisor to Britain's Thatcher administration, says natural variability is the cause of most of the Earth's recent warming. "In the past 70 years the Sun was more active than at almost any other time in the past 11,400 years ... Mars, Jupiter, Neptune’s largest moon, and Pluto warmed at the same time as Earth."

I'd be more impressed if they were climate scientists. What do physicists know about climate? And then there's Monckton, from the Thatcher Administration, for godsake. Why are all denialists ideologically on the Right? They share that feature with Creationists. What's up with that?

[biknut]

I'd be more impressed if they were climate scientists. What do physicists know about climate?

Physicists might, or might not know about the climate, but they're very good at finding mathematical deception.

Edited by biknut, 18 July 2008 - 04:29 AM.

[platypus]

Climate documentary 'broke rules'
http://news.bbc.co.u...ure/7517101.stm

[biknut]

Chicago seems to be cooler than normal.

Decade has had fewest 90-degree days since 1930

By Tom Skilling
August 13, 2008

August is the wettest and often the muggiest month of the year. Yet, summer heat continues in short supply, continuing a trend that has dominated much of the 21st Century's opening decade. There have been only 162 days 90 degrees or warmer at Midway Airport over the period from 2000 to 2008. That's by far the fewest 90-degree temperatures in the opening nine years of any decade on record here since 1930.

This summer's highest reading to date has been just 91 degrees. That's unusual. Since 1928, only one year—2000—has failed to record a higher warm-season temperature by Aug. 13.

http://www.chicagotr...,0,918946.story

[platypus]

Chicago seems to be cooler than normal.

Decade has had fewest 90-degree days since 1930

In one location? What's the relevance, except making a point that climate is changing in Chicago too?

[biknut]

If it not one thing it's another. One thing we know for sure, there's been no warming for the last 4 years

Four scientists: Global Warming Out, Global Cooling In

Alan Lammey, Texas Energy Analyst, Houston

Four scientists, four scenarios, four more or less similar conclusions without actually saying it outright — the global warming trend is done, and a cooling trend is about to kick in. The implication: Future energy price response is likely to be significant.

Late last month, some leading climatologists and meteorologists met in New York at the Energy Business Watch Climate and Hurricane Forum. The theme of the forum strongly suggested that a period of global cooling is about emerge, though possible concerns for a political backlash kept it from being spelled out.

However, the message was loud and clear, a cyclical global warming trend may be coming to an end for a variety of reasons, and a new cooling cycle could impact the energy markets in a big way.

Words like “highly possible,” “likely” or “reasonably convincing” about what may soon occur were used frequently. Then there were other words like “mass pattern shift” and “wholesale change in anomalies” and “changes in global circulation.”

Noted presenters, such as William Gray, Harry van Loon, Rol Madden and Dave Melita, signaled in the strongest terms that huge climate changes are afoot. Each weather guru, from a different angle, suggested that global warming is part of a cycle that is nearing an end. All agreed the earth is in a warm cycle right now, and has been for a while, but that is about to change significantly.

However, amid all of the highly suggestive rhetoric, none of the weather and climate pundits said outright that a global cooling trend is about to replace the global warming trend in a shift that could begin as early as next year.

Van Loon spoke about his theories of solar storms and how, combined with, or because of these storms, the Earth has been on a relative roller coaster of climate cycles. For the past 250 years, he said, global climate highs and lows have followed the broad pattern of low and high solar activity. And shorter 11-year sunspot cycles are even more easily correlated to global temperatures.

It was cooler from 1883 to 1928 when there was low solar activity, he said, and it has been warmer since 1947 with increased solar activity.

“We are on our way out of the latest (warming) cycle, and are headed for a new cycle of low (solar) activity,” van Loon said. “There is a change coming. We may see 180-degree changes in anomalies during high and low sunspot periods. There were three global climate changes in the last century, there is a change coming now.”

Meanwhile, Madden noted that while temperature forecasts longer than one to two weeks out has improved, “what has really gotten much better is climate forecasting … predicting the change in the mean,” he said.

And the drivers impacting climate suggest a shift to cooler sea surface temperatures, he said.

Perhaps the best known speaker was Colorado State University’s Gray, founder of the school’s famed hurricane research team. Gray spoke about multi-decade periods of warming and cooling and how global climate flux has been the norm for as long as there have been records.

Gray has taken quite a bit of political heat for insistence that global warming is not a man-made condition. Man-made carbon dioxide (CO2) is negligible, he said, compared to the amount of CO2 Mother Nature makes and disposes of each day or century.

“We’ve reached the top of the heat cycle,” he said. “The next 10 years will be hardly any warmer than the last 10 years.”

Finally, climate scientist Melita spoke of a new phase in the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.

“I’m looking at a new, cold-negative phase, though it won’t effect this summer, fall or winter ‘08,” he said.

Conference host, analyst and forecaster Andy Weissman closed the conference by addressing how natural gas prices and policy debates would be impacted by a possible climate shift that could leave the market short gas.

This would be especially problematic if gas use for power generation were substantially increased at the expense of better alternatives.

“If we’re about to shift into another natural climate cycle, we can’t do it without coal-fired generation. So the policy debate has to change,” he said. “Coal has to be back on the table if we’re ever going to meet our energy needs.”

As for natural gas: “Next year, may see a bit of price softening,” Weissman said. “After that, fogetaboutit!”.

http://wattsupwithth...bal-cooling-in/

Edited by biknut, 19 August 2008 - 10:35 PM.

[Mind]

In one location? What's the relevance, except making a point that climate is changing in Chicago too?

I think the point is that AGW has been presented in the mainstream media as a one-way ticket to a warmer earth - no cooling - just up up and away for a far as the eye can see or the GCMs can predict. And the media was bolstered in this presentation by AGW theorists/advocates such as James Hansen. The climate always changes, as you stated, and it always goes up and down, at different times and at different places around the world. It is not straight up forever as has been portrayed for the last 20 years.

[biknut]

It's not just Chicago

The last 4 years Global temperature deviation from the average since 1850

2005 0.482 c Well we were probably just overdue for a down year.
2006 0.422 c Just a coincidence
2007 0.405 c Just lucky
2008 0.278 c La Ninia for sure
2009 Whatever the excuse it can't be the sun.

In the last 10 years there's only been 4 up years, but for the most part it's been pretty flat and slightly down. By no stretcth has the temperature gone up.

http://www.cru.uea.a.../hadcrut3gl.txt

[biknut]

Those Russian scientists and others aren't seeming so crazy not.

Sun Makes History: First Spotless Month in a Century

Michael Asher (Blog) - September 1, 2008 8:11 AM

Drop in solar activity has potential effect for climate on earth.


The sun has reached a milestone not seen for nearly 100 years: an entire month has passed without a single visible sunspot being noted.

The event is significant as many climatologists now believe solar magnetic activity – which determines the number of sunspots -- is an influencing factor for climate on earth.

According to data from the NOAA's National Geophysical Data Center, the last time such an event occurred was June of 1913. Sunspot data has been collected since 1749.

When the sun is active, it's not uncommon to see sunspot numbers of 100 or more in a single month. Every 11 years, activity slows, and numbers briefly drop to near-zero. Normally sunspots return very quickly, as a new cycle begins.

But this year -- which corresponds to the start of Solar Cycle 24 -- has been extraordinarily long and quiet, with the first seven months averaging a sunspot number of only 3. August followed with none at all. The astonishing rapid drop of the past year has defied predictions, and caught nearly all astronomers by surprise.

In 2005, a pair of astronomers from the National Solar Observatory (NSO) in Tucson attempted to publish a paper in the journal Science. The pair looked at minute spectroscopic and magnetic changes in the sun. By extrapolating forward, they reached the startling result that, within 10 years, sunspots would vanish entirely. At the time, the sun was very active. Most of their peers laughed at what they considered an unsubstantiated conclusion.
The journal ultimately rejected the paper as being too controversial.

The paper's lead author, William Livingston, tells DailyTech that, while the refusal may have been justified at the time, recent data fits his theory well. He says he will be "secretly pleased" if his predictions come to pass.

But will the rest of us? In the past 1000 years, three previous such events -- the Dalton, Maunder, and Spörer Minimums, have all led to rapid cooling. On was large enough to be called a "mini ice age". For a society dependent on agriculture, cold is more damaging than heat. The growing season shortens, yields drop, and the occurrence of crop-destroying frosts increases.

Meteorologist Anthony Watts, who runs a climate data auditing site, tells DailyTech the sunspot numbers are another indication the "sun's dynamo" is idling. According to Watts, the effect of sunspots on TSI (total solar irradiance) is negligible, but the reduction in the solar magnetosphere affects cloud formation here on Earth, which in turn modulates climate.

This theory was originally proposed by physicist Henrik Svensmark, who has published a number of scientific papers on the subject. Last year Svensmark's "SKY" experiment claimed to have proven that galactic cosmic rays -- which the sun's magnetic field partially shields the Earth from -- increase the formation of molecular clusters that promote cloud growth. Svensmark, who recently published a book on the theory, says the relationship is a larger factor in climate change than greenhouse gases.

Solar physicist Ilya Usoskin of the University of Oulu, Finland, tells DailyTech the correlation between cosmic rays and terrestrial cloud cover is more complex than "more rays equals more clouds". Usoskin, who notes the sun has been more active since 1940 than at any point in the past 11 centuries, says the effects are most important at certain latitudes and altitudes which control climate. He says the relationship needs more study before we can understand it fully.

Other researchers have proposed solar effects on other terrestrial processes besides cloud formation. The sunspot cycle has strong effects on irradiance in certain wavelengths such as the far ultraviolet, which affects ozone production. Natural production of isotopes such as C-14 is also tied to solar activity. The overall effects on climate are still poorly understood.

What is incontrovertible, though, is that ice ages have occurred before. And no scientist, even the most skeptical, is prepared to say it won't happen again.


http://www.dailytech...rticle12823.htm

[biknut]

Old Farmers Almanac: Global cooling may be underway

By David Tirrell-Wysocki, Associated Press Writer

DUBLIN, N.H. — The Old Farmer's Almanac is going further out on a limb than usual this year, not only forecasting a cooler winter, but looking ahead decades to suggest we are in for global cooling, not warming.

Based on the same time-honored, complex calculations it uses to predict weather, the Almanac hits the newsstands on Tuesday saying a study of solar activity and corresponding records on ocean temperatures and climate point to a cooler, not warmer, climate, for perhaps the next half century.

"We at the Almanac are among those who believe that sunspot cycles and their effects on oceans correlate with climate changes," writes meteorologist and climatologist Joseph D'Aleo. "Studying these and other factor suggests that cold, not warm, climate may be our future."

It remains to be seen, said Editor-in-Chief Jud Hale, whether the human impact on global temperatures will cancel out or override any cooling trend.

"We say that if human beings were not contributing to global warming, it would become real cold in the next 50 years," Hale said.

http://www.usatoday....s-almanac_N.htm

[jnnywllms]

A good example of sustaining something is what we're doing right now in Project Global Cooling. The idea was thought of, lots of discussion occurred.Year Global Cooling network cities worldwide, planning student-organized and -promoted global Earth Day concerts live earth movement local bands.We are facing medium term Global cooling not warming..Cooling. Offset longer-term warming trend. Global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade. I have interpreted these comments in the Nature.

----------------------------------------

jnnywllms

(edited by Matthias: spam link removed)

Edited by Matthias, 25 September 2008 - 02:16 PM.

[biknut]

.We are facing medium term Global cooling not warming..Cooling. Offset longer-term warming trend. Global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade. I have interpreted these comments in the Nature.

----------------------------------------

jnnywllms

(edited by Matthias: spam link removed. Jnnywllms will not answer your question: It is a spambot and got banned)

Hi jnnywllms, welcome to the forum. What country are you from?

Edited by Matthias, 25 September 2008 - 02:25 PM.

[biknut]

Not exactly sure how this relates to Global Cooling, but I think it does.

Solar wind weakest since beginning of space age

Sep 24 03:32 PM US/Eastern

The intensity of the sun's million-mile-per-hour solar wind has dropped to its lowest levels since accurate records began half a century ago, scientists say.
Measurements of the cosmic blasts of radiation, ejected from the sun's upper atmosphere, were made with the Ulysses spacecraft, a joint mission between NASA and the European Space Agency (ESA).

The solar wind "inflates a protective bubble, or heliosphere, around the solar system," which protects the inner planets against the radiation from other stars, said Dave McComas, Ulysses' solar wind principal investigator and senior executive director at the Southwest Research Institute in San Antonio, Texas.

"With the solar wind at an all-time low, there is an excellent chance the heliosphere will diminish in size and strength," said Ed Smith, NASA's Ulysses project scientist at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California.

"If that occurs, more galactic cosmic rays will make it into the inner part of our solar system," added Smith.

Scientists say the weakening of solar wind appears to be due to changes in the sun's magnetic field, but the causes of these changes are unknown.

The weakened solar activity can be beneficial because it slows satellites around the Earth, allowing them to remain in orbit longer.

The sun normally experiences 11-year-cycles between periods of great activity and lesser activity.

But, Smith said, the Ulysses mission's recent results, published in Geophysical Research Letters, show that "we are in a period of minimal activity that has stretched on longer than anyone anticipated."

The Ulysses mission was the first project to survey the space environment over the sun's poles. The data the spacecraft has collected has profoundly changed the way scientists view our nearest star and its effects on the Earth.

The spacecraft has traveled more than 539 million kilometers in more than 18 years, almost four times its expected lifetime.

http://www.breitbart...;show_article=1

[RighteousReason]

(The Register) Snow fell as the House of Commons debated global warming yesterday - the first October fall in the metropolis since 1922 ...

from MichaelSavage.com

[niner]

(The Register) Snow fell as the House of Commons debated global warming yesterday - the first October fall in the metropolis since 1922 ...

from MichaelSavage.com

It's sad that Michael Savage, and presumably you as well, don't seem to know the difference between weather and climate. One of the consequences of global warming is in increase in the variability of weather.

[sthira]

Thank you, Niner. You beat me to it.

[RighteousReason]

From Neal Boortz’s daily show notes entitled ‘Nealz Nuze’



Friday - February 2, 2007

WHY AM I SKEPTICAL ABOUT MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING?

A 21-page report from something called the "Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change" has been released today...in Paris, no less...and as expected, it's predictions are dire. According to the report: "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global mean sea level." Yeah right...we've heard all this before.

But the biggest bombshell here is this one: no matter what we do, global warming will not be reversed. It will go on for centuries, according to this report. The sea levels will continue to rise as polar ice caps melt. So I guess if Al Gore wins his Nobel Peace Prize, we'll still experience global warming. So much for riding to work everyday in your hybrid car...it's not doing a thing. The situation is futile, according to this report.

But really, it makes sense that the global warming crowd would come to this conclusion. After all, global warming is a religion. The anti-capitalist enviro-nazis don't ever want the problem to be solved. After all, if global warming were to be solved tomorrow, what would they blame the United States for? They'd have to find some other reason.

Sorry .. I'm still a skeptic. In no particular order here are just a few of the reasons why I'm not buying this man-made global warming scare:

The United Nations is anti-American and anti-Capitalist. In short .. I don't trust them. Not a bit. The UN would eagerly engage in any enterprise that would weaken capitalist economies around the world.

Because after the fall of the Soviet Union and worldwide Communism many in the anti-capitalist movement moved to the environmental movement to continue pursuing their anti-free enterprise goals. Many of the loudest proponents of man-made global warming today are confirmed anti-capitalists.

Because the sun is warmer .. and all of these scientists don't seem to be willing to credit a warmer sun with any of the blame for global warming.

The polar ice caps on Mars are melting. How did our CO2 emissions get all the way to Mars?

It was warmer in the 1930s across the globe than it is right now.

It wasn't all that long ago that these very same scientists were warning us about "global cooling" and another approaching ice age?

How much has the earth warmed up in the last 100 years? One degree. Now that's frightening.

Because that famous "hockey stick" graph that purports to show a sudden warming of the earth in the last few decades is a fraud. It ignored previous warming periods ... left them off the graph altogether.

The infamous Kyoto accords exempt some of the world's biggest CO2 polluters, including China and India.

The Kyoto accords can easily be seen as nothing less than an attempt to hamstring the world's dominant capitalist economies.

Because many of these scientists who are sounding the global warming scare depend on grant money for their livelihood, and they know the grant money dries up when they stop preaching the global warming sermon.

Because global warming "activists" and scientists seek to punish those who have different viewpoints. If you are sure of your science you have no need to shout down or seek to punish those who disagree.

What happened to the Medieval Warm Period? In 1996 the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued a chart showing climatic change over a period of 1000 years. This graph showed a Medieval warming period in which global temperatures were higher than they are today. In 2001 the IPCC issued another 1000 year graph in which the Medieval warming period was missing. Why?

Why has one scientist promoting the cause of man-made global warming been quoted as saying "we have to get rid of the medieval warming period?"

Why is the ice cap on the Antarctic getting thicker if the earth is getting warmer?

In the United State, the one country with the most accurate temperature measuring and reporting records, temperatures have risen by 0.3 degrees centigrade over the past 100 years. The UN estimate is twice that.

There are about 160,000 glaciers around the world. Most have never been visited or measured by man. The great majority of these glaciers are growing, not melting.

Side-looking radar interferometry shows that the ise mass in the West Antarctic is growing at a rate of over 26 gigatons a year. This reverses a melting trend that had persisted for the previous 6,000 years.

Rising sea levels? The sea levels have been rising since the last ice age ended. That was 12,000 years ago. Estimates are that in that time the sea level has risen by over 300 feet. The rise in our sea levels has been going on long before man started creating anything but natural CO2 emissions.

Like Antarctica, the interior of Greenland is gaining ice mass.

Over the past 3,000 years there have been five different extended periods when the earth was measurably warmer than it is today.

During the last 20 years -- a period of the highest carbon dioxide levels -- global temperatures have actually decreased. That's right ... decreased.

Why did a reporter from National Public Radio refuse to interview David Deming, an associate professor at the University of Oklahoma studying global warming, after his testimony to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee unless Deming would state that global warming was being caused by man?

Why are global warming proponents insisting that the matter is settled and that no further scientific research is needed? Why are they afraid of additional information?

On July 24, 1974 Time Magazine published an article entitled "Another Ice Age?" Here's the first paragraph:

"As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval. However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age."

Edited by Savage, 07 November 2008 - 03:41 AM.

[RighteousReason]

Objective scientific analysis of global warming
"It is a scam. Global warming is imaginary."

Edited by Savage, 07 November 2008 - 03:36 AM.

[RighteousReason]

(The Register) Snow fell as the House of Commons debated global warming yesterday - the first October fall in the metropolis since 1922 ...

from MichaelSavage.com

It's sad that Michael Savage, and presumably you as well, don't seem to know the difference between weather and climate.

That's an amazingly precise conclusion to draw based on someone merely linking to a news story.

A little defensive there, buddy?

Edited by Savage, 07 November 2008 - 03:47 AM.

[sthira]

What are you attempting to defend? The oil industry?

[Richard Leis]

(The Register) Snow fell as the House of Commons debated global warming yesterday - the first October fall in the metropolis since 1922 ...

from MichaelSavage.com

That is certainly ironic, hahaha.

[biknut]

I was going to put this in my Global Cooling thread, but hell so many records all over the world are being broken this year I decided to forget about it.

Cooling in London is weather. Cooling all over the world at the same time is Climate Niner..

Global warming is a religion to alarmists, and I'm their number one heretic.

[forever freedom]

I also believe that there's too much panic around man-made global warming. Nothing is proven yet; far from proven, actually. We shouldn't damage the economy by dropping a big part of our current energy production methods to focus on expensive and innefective ways to get clean energy, at least for now and the near future, while we still don't have much technology to get it in an effective way, like more sophisticated solar panels that will come with further advances in nanotech.

[Mind]

It's sad that Michael Savage, and presumably you as well, don't seem to know the difference between weather and climate. One of the consequences of global warming is in increase in the variability of weather.

If the snow is part of a longer term trend (a few years, or a decade or weather getting cooler or snow increasing) then it would be a significant event.

But if you want to go down that road......

Nearly every SINGLE weather event from the French heat wave to California wildfires to Katrina and even a non weather event like the Sumatran Tsunami have been blamed on AGW (anthropognic global warming). This has come from non-scientists like Al Gore (many many many many times) and even from the scientific community. Every chance they get, they blame it on AGW. Yet for some reason no one ever tells them "you don't know the difference between weather and climate" (or plate tectonics....lol).

[JLL]

Yeah, it's really clever how both local cooling and warming are actually manifestations of global warming. In fact, any change in temperature anywhere on the planet is due to global warming.

I think the climate change people are really doing themselves a disservice still calling it "global warming", which is so 2003 - a much better term is "climate change", which includes cooling and warming in the very term. So when it gets cooler, it's because we fucked up the planet, and when it gets warmer, it's - you guessed it - because we fucked up the planet. Should anyone point out that the climate has always been changing, the correct reply is that "sure, but not in this way". What exactly "this way" means is irrelevant.

Well, I'm out to play hockey with Mann & the boys.

[RighteousReason]

Alaska glaciers grew this year, thanks to colder weather
By Craig Medred | Anchorage Daily News

Two hundred years of glacial shrinkage in Alaska, and then came the winter and summer of 2007-2008.

Unusually large amounts of winter snow were followed by unusually chill temperatures in June, July and August.

"In mid-June, I was surprised to see snow still at sea level in Prince William Sound," said U.S. Geological Survey glaciologist Bruce Molnia. "On the Juneau Icefield, there was still 20 feet of new snow on the surface of the Taku Glacier in late July. At Bering Glacier, a landslide I am studying, located at about 1,500 feet elevation, did not become snow free until early August.

"In general, the weather this summer was the worst I have seen in at least 20 years."

Never before in the history of a research project dating back to 1946 had the Juneau Icefield witnessed the kind of snow buildup that came this year. It was similar on a lot of other glaciers too.

"It's been a long time on most glaciers where they've actually had positive mass balance," Molnia said.

That's the way a scientist says the glaciers got thicker in the middle. Read the complete story at adn.com


-- from Boortz this morning

Edited by Savage, 07 November 2008 - 06:19 PM.

[Connor MacLeod]

It's sad that Michael Savage, and presumably you as well, don't seem to know the difference between weather and climate. One of the consequences of global warming is in increase in the variability of weather.

If the snow is part of a longer term trend (a few years, or a decade or weather getting cooler or snow increasing) then it would be a significant event.

But if you want to go down that road......

Nearly every SINGLE weather event from the French heat wave to California wildfires to Katrina and even a non weather event like the Sumatran Tsunami have been blamed on AGW (anthropognic global warming). This has come from non-scientists like Al Gore (many many many many times) and even from the scientific community. Every chance they get, they blame it on AGW. Yet for some reason no one ever tells them "you don't know the difference between weather and climate" (or plate tectonics....lol).

Excellent point Mind.