Coldest Winter in 100 Years

[Big Fitz]

And, since most governments, ours included, is far more at the beck and call of the oligarchs,

Awesome! Ole', we have a point we agree with! Just picturing Baldrick shouting "Death to the Aristos!"

Cycles of weather happen, this we agree.

Where we sane people and Ole' Crocks part company is believing that man is powerful enough to do this... which he is patently not.

Blue green algea, far smaller than we completely changed the composition of the atmosphere of the Earth. All man has done is to change the per centage of GHGs so far. And, yes, that does change the climate.

Please don't insert statements into my quotes making it look like I said them. Thank you.

Nothing is going to be done that will alleviate the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere until there are major amounts of people dying in the wealthy nations.

And even then... Nothing CAN be done because mankind cannot change climate. Climate is a planetary scale event that are often symptomatic responses from SOLAR SYSTEM level events. We can barely get into space, how are we going to change that?

Every change we will attempt will be far worse than just adapting to the changing world.

 

[skookerasbil]

Hmmm...... Let's see. Winter officially began on December 21, 2009. It is not yet January 21, 2010. With only about a sixth of the winter gone, you are declaring it the coldest in 100 years?

Yes, a major heat wave could strike next week and moderate all those record cold temperatures. But I just had a conversation with a friend in South Dakota where it was minus 20 something degrees when they got up this morning with blizzard conditions and something like minus 50 windchill. Even for up there, I believe that is unprecedented, and forecasters are seeing no immediate serious relief in sight.

It's not unprecedented for January. It just sucks. Every January, as sure as shit flies out of a greenie's mouth, you get a cold snap, and some REALLY horribly cold weather. I remember the winters of 1993 through 1996. January in Wisconsin had a MINIMUM of one week where the high did not break 0 degrees. In 1996, we had a January where we spent about 20 days at -10 or colder for a high! The air felt so cold it felt like water. THAT was a crappy January.

But you know what? In spite of all this, nobody, and I mean NOBODY said it was because mankind was screwing up the climate. We blamed things like La Nina, Mount Pinatubo and just really crappy luck to draw the short straw from nature that year.

Cycles of weather happen, this we agree.

Where we sane people and Ole' Crocks part company is believing that man is powerful enough to do this... which he is patently not.

I wonder if Crocks and Co. has any solution to this 'threat' to all life that doesn't involve massive global government control? I doubt it, but it would be very interesting to hear what non-governmental, non-coersive methods he has to deal with this issue.

Big with the emphatic post humiliating the climate k00ks!!!! Bravo sir...........how astute!!!!

Indeed..........if you take a real close look at these religious fanatic global warming mental cases, very often you find people who go out of their way to embrace hysteria because they have little meaningful sh!t going on in their lives!!! They fall all over themselves to embrace hysteria.............the more hysterical, the more they embrace it. The same people are frequently moved to this "cause" or that "cause"............and its quite simply because there is a gigantic void of anything meaningful in their world................



Hey Big.........you know when I'll take "man-made" global warming seriously? When they come up with a way to control tornado's or a way to redirect hurricanes..............and not a moment sooner. "Climate change" and "weather phenomenon" is only brought as "science" to the hopelessly duped!!

I could go out and make a "science" about throwing darts and there would be plenty enough k00ks out there to accept it without a second thought, just like there are milllions and millions of p[eople out there that would buy a bag of dog doo for $1,000 a pop if it was packaged just right!!!!!

 

[Sinatra]

Pew: Global Warming Dead Last Among Public Priorities

Pew: Global Warming Dead Last Among Public Priorities : Framing Science

 

[edthecynic]

Yes, a major heat wave could strike next week and moderate all those record cold temperatures. But I just had a conversation with a friend in South Dakota where it was minus 20 something degrees when they got up this morning with blizzard conditions and something like minus 50 windchill. Even for up there, I believe that is unprecedented, and forecasters are seeing no immediate serious relief in sight.

It's not unprecedented for January. It just sucks. Every January, as sure as shit flies out of a greenie's mouth, you get a cold snap, and some REALLY horribly cold weather. I remember the winters of 1993 through 1996. January in Wisconsin had a MINIMUM of one week where the high did not break 0 degrees. In 1996, we had a January where we spent about 20 days at -10 or colder for a high! The air felt so cold it felt like water. THAT was a crappy January.

But you know what? In spite of all this, nobody, and I mean NOBODY said it was because mankind was screwing up the climate. We blamed things like La Nina, Mount Pinatubo and just really crappy luck to draw the short straw from nature that year.

Cycles of weather happen, this we agree.

Where we sane people and Ole' Crocks part company is believing that man is powerful enough to do this... which he is patently not.

I wonder if Crocks and Co. has any solution to this 'threat' to all life that doesn't involve massive global government control? I doubt it, but it would be very interesting to hear what non-governmental, non-coersive methods he has to deal with this issue.

Big with the emphatic post humiliating the climate k00ks!!!! Bravo sir...........how astute!!!!

Indeed..........if you take a real close look at these religious fanatic global warming mental cases, very often you find people who go out of their way to embrace hysteria because they have little meaningful sh!t going on in their lives!!! They fall all over themselves to embrace hysteria.............the more hysterical, the more they embrace it. The same people are frequently moved to this "cause" or that "cause"............and its quite simply because there is a gigantic void of anything meaningful in their world................



Hey Big.........you know when I'll take "man-made" global warming seriously? When they come up with a way to control tornado's or a way to redirect hurricanes..............and not a moment sooner. "Climate change" and "weather phenomenon" is only brought as "science" to the hopelessly duped!!

I could go out and make a "science" about throwing darts and there would be plenty enough k00ks out there to accept it without a second thought, just like there are milllions and millions of p[eople out there that would buy a bag of dog doo for $1,000 a pop if it was packaged just right!!!!!

Obviously, you've bought a lot of shit.

"Why, this is nothing but a bag of SHIT!"
"But it's really GREAT shit, Mrs. Presky."
- Firesign Theater

 

[Sinatra]

FREEZING WEATHER brought further disruption across vast swathes of northern Europe as the death toll from the unusually severe cold snap, mainly among homeless men, continued to climb.

As forecasters warned of dangerous conditions continuing today, commuters and air travellers bore the brunt of the cold, snow and ice, while demand soared for home-heating energy.

The bad weather is expected to last for another two weeks, draining European gas supplies. Britain’s national grid warned that record gas demand might exceed supply for the second time this week after a drop in supplies from Norway, as dozens of big industrial users switched to other fuels to ensure heating for households.

The deaths from the cold include 122 people in Poland, 22 in Britain, nine homeless men in Germany, and 22 people who were killed by avalanches in the Swiss Alps.

Yesterday thousands of schools closed and thousands of homes were left without electricity in Britain, while 17 rail service providers said they were hit by delays or cancellations.

A Eurostar passenger train travelling between Brussels and London was stuck in the Channel Tunnel. The train, which was carrying 236 passengers, had to be dragged from the tunnel by a rescue locomotive, leading to a suspension of services.


Cold snap death toll rises across Europe - The Irish Times - Fri, Jan 08, 2010

 

[OregonStream]

If this is accurate, and it seems to be as authoritative as most of the other stuff being posted as 'evidence', then our fearless leaders should be urging us to pump a whole bunch more CO2 into the atmosphere than we are.

If the geocraft piece were accurate, and assuming things would pan out that way with a different continental configuration. Of course, there's still the rate and process of moving a world of holocene ecology and 6 billion people to a new regime. I for one am not convinced that eons of carbon uptake, and the climate moderation that helped set the stage for what we see today, was a mistake in Earth's history, and something we should reverse in a geologic minute. If that were widely considered beneficial (considering both climate and ocean pH), there'd be nothing stopping fossil fuel interests from using their lobbying power to encourage such geo-engineering, using their good-for-you product.

A couple things they don't tell you in the geocraft piece, though, is that there's a large range of uncertainty about CO2 levels that far back, and that the Scotese temperatures are considered unreliable/of little resemblance to the latest compiled paleoclimate data.

 

[Sinatra]

If this is accurate, and it seems to be as authoritative as most of the other stuff being posted as 'evidence', then our fearless leaders should be urging us to pump a whole bunch more CO2 into the atmosphere than we are.

If the geocraft piece were accurate, and assuming things would pan out that way with a different continental configuration. Of course, there's still the rate and process of moving a world of holocene ecology and 6 billion people to a new regime. I for one am not convinced that eons of carbon uptake, and the climate moderation that helped set the stage for what we see today, was a mistake in Earth's history, and something we should reverse in a geologic minute. If that were widely considered beneficial (considering both climate and ocean pH), there'd be nothing stopping fossil fuel interests from using their lobbying power to encourage such geo-engineering, using their good-for-you product.

A couple things they don't tell you in the geocraft piece, though, is that there's a large range of uncertainty about CO2 levels that far back, and that the Scotese temperatures are considered unreliable/of little resemblance to the latest compiled paleoclimate data.

All of which points to the fallacy of the man-made global warming mantra.

"We" simply do not know what earth's "optimal" temperature is, nor what its optimal CO2 level is, nor to what extent CO2 actually plays in the overall climate.

The entire premise for CO2 controlls is based upon greed, ignorance, and arrogance -- not a healthy combination in any sense...

 

[OregonStream]

All of which points to the fallacy of the man-made global warming mantra.

"We" simply do not know what earth's "optimal" temperature is, nor what its optimal CO2 level is, nor to what extent CO2 actually plays in the overall climate.

The entire premise for CO2 controlls is based upon greed, ignorance, and arrogance -- not a healthy combination in any sense...

Personally, I think that applies more to the misleading arguments against any CO2 control, bankrolled by fossil fuel interests. There's plenty of reviewed and assessed research on climate sensitivity to CO2. Nobody claims uncertainty doesn't remain (uncertainty that can cut both ways) - that's why it's often expressed as a range, but one that's been narrowed down over the decades. And we've already been over the "optimal" temperature straw man.

 

[Foxfyre]

All of which points to the fallacy of the man-made global warming mantra.

"We" simply do not know what earth's "optimal" temperature is, nor what its optimal CO2 level is, nor to what extent CO2 actually plays in the overall climate.

The entire premise for CO2 controlls is based upon greed, ignorance, and arrogance -- not a healthy combination in any sense...

Personally, I think that applies more to the misleading arguments against any CO2 control, bankrolled by fossil fuel interests. There's plenty of reviewed and assessed research on climate sensitivity to CO2. Nobody claims uncertainty doesn't remain (uncertainty that can cut both ways) - that's why it's often expressed as a range, but one that's been narrowed down over the decades. And we've already been over the "optimal" temperature straw man.

A good idea is a good idea no matter where it originates. And a bad idea is a bad idea no matter what its motive.

Based on the testimony of a high level production person, a family member in the oil business:

The fossil fuel industry, most specifically the oil companies, have profited enormously from some of the energy policy that was supposed to slow global warming, and that profit came at a cost to those of us not in the industry. The oil companies are universally in agreement that such initiatives accomplished nothing, have most likely consumed more energy than they will ever save, and generally were all a fools' errand, but hey if the government was going to pay the oil companies to do them based on recommendation of pinhead bureaucrats, they weren't going to turn down the money.

Cap and trade, however, is another matter. Anybody with any sense at all knows that this had nothing whatsoever to do with reducing carbon emissions or combating global warming in any other way, but what it will do is cost each and every oil company hundreds of millions of dollars each and every year, and much of that will also be passed on to the rest of us, even as we are denied freedoms, choices, opportunities, and options.

Doesn't common sense dictate to anybody that we should back off and assess every factor of this whole scheme, follow the money, assess the motives, and know the consequences before we buy into it?

 

[saveliberty]

All of which points to the fallacy of the man-made global warming mantra.

"We" simply do not know what earth's "optimal" temperature is, nor what its optimal CO2 level is, nor to what extent CO2 actually plays in the overall climate.

The entire premise for CO2 controlls is based upon greed, ignorance, and arrogance -- not a healthy combination in any sense...

Personally, I think that applies more to the misleading arguments against any CO2 control, bankrolled by fossil fuel interests. There's plenty of reviewed and assessed research on climate sensitivity to CO2. Nobody claims uncertainty doesn't remain (uncertainty that can cut both ways) - that's why it's often expressed as a range, but one that's been narrowed down over the decades. And we've already been over the "optimal" temperature straw man.

I think we are approaching an optimal temperature. With more than what we have had in melting ice caps, this moisture is now available as preciptation. With the slight cooling of 2009 and possibly 2010, combined with more rain, we could see some great growing conditions this year. The global warmers love to focus on the sea level rise, but a good portion of that moisture can be much needed rain too.

 

[OregonStream]

I think we are approaching an optimal temperature. With more than what we have had in melting ice caps, this moisture is now available as preciptation. With the slight cooling of 2009 and possibly 2010, combined with more rain, we could see some great growing conditions this year. The global warmers love to focus on the sea level rise, but a good portion of that moisture can be much needed rain too.

Maybe you can explain that mechanism. Other than the fact that we'd have no control over where or when this extra rain would occur, most disintegrating ice and meltwater are going into the oceans. How does that increase precipitation over what would already occur in some regions due to higher temperature-driven moisture availability? Temperature is what determines how much water vapor is held in the atmosphere at any given time, regardless of how much liquid water is on the surface.

And if we are approaching what you think is optimal temperature, now would be a good time so start easing off, considering the oceans and ice sheets induce a multi-decadal lag between a forcing and the full atmospheric response. Climate change doesn't stop on a dime any more than a train does.

 

[saveliberty]

I think we are approaching an optimal temperature. With more than what we have had in melting ice caps, this moisture is now available as preciptation. With the slight cooling of 2009 and possibly 2010, combined with more rain, we could see some great growing conditions this year. The global warmers love to focus on the sea level rise, but a good portion of that moisture can be much needed rain too.

Maybe you can explain that mechanism. Other than the fact that we'd have no control over where or when this extra rain would occur, most disintegrating ice and meltwater are going into the oceans. How does that increase precipitation over what would already occur in some regions due to higher temperature-driven moisture availability? Temperature is what determines how much water vapor is held in the atmosphere at any given time, regardless of how much liquid water is on the surface.

Does the water cycle just end when it enters the oceans? Which holds more moisture, cold air or warm? Think about it a little, you can figure this out.

 

[OregonStream]

I think we are approaching an optimal temperature. With more than what we have had in melting ice caps, this moisture is now available as preciptation. With the slight cooling of 2009 and possibly 2010, combined with more rain, we could see some great growing conditions this year. The global warmers love to focus on the sea level rise, but a good portion of that moisture can be much needed rain too.

Maybe you can explain that mechanism. Other than the fact that we'd have no control over where or when this extra rain would occur, most disintegrating ice and meltwater are going into the oceans. How does that increase precipitation over what would already occur in some regions due to higher temperature-driven moisture availability? Temperature is what determines how much water vapor is held in the atmosphere at any given time, regardless of how much liquid water is on the surface.

Does the water cycle just end when it enters the oceans? Which holds more moisture, cold air or warm? Think about it a little, you can figure this out.

Um, yeah - I think I said that, didn't I? But unless I misunderstood, you seemed to suggest that melting ice is good because it adds extra water for precipitation. Point is, that extra water means squat when atmospheric temperature is the ultimate determinant. Even if the ice somehow stayed intact, there's already plenty of water in the oceans for a warmer atmosphere to take up. Of course, how much of it will actually condense at those higher temps and fall as gentle, convenient rain will depend on regional factors.

 

[Old Rocks]

If this is accurate, and it seems to be as authoritative as most of the other stuff being posted as 'evidence', then our fearless leaders should be urging us to pump a whole bunch more CO2 into the atmosphere than we are.

If the geocraft piece were accurate, and assuming things would pan out that way with a different continental configuration. Of course, there's still the rate and process of moving a world of holocene ecology and 6 billion people to a new regime. I for one am not convinced that eons of carbon uptake, and the climate moderation that helped set the stage for what we see today, was a mistake in Earth's history, and something we should reverse in a geologic minute. If that were widely considered beneficial (considering both climate and ocean pH), there'd be nothing stopping fossil fuel interests from using their lobbying power to encourage such geo-engineering, using their good-for-you product.

A couple things they don't tell you in the geocraft piece, though, is that there's a large range of uncertainty about CO2 levels that far back, and that the Scotese temperatures are considered unreliable/of little resemblance to the latest compiled paleoclimate data.

All of which points to the fallacy of the man-made global warming mantra.

"We" simply do not know what earth's "optimal" temperature is, nor what its optimal CO2 level is, nor to what extent CO2 actually plays in the overall climate.

The entire premise for CO2 controlls is based upon greed, ignorance, and arrogance -- not a healthy combination in any sense...

But we do know that sudden climate change has proved disastrous for all of nature in the past.

And we know what is the optimum climate for our agriculture.

We know damned well what part CO2 plays in the climate. It was laid out in detail in the last AGU conferance.

A23A

 

[Old Rocks]

All of which points to the fallacy of the man-made global warming mantra.

"We" simply do not know what earth's "optimal" temperature is, nor what its optimal CO2 level is, nor to what extent CO2 actually plays in the overall climate.

The entire premise for CO2 controlls is based upon greed, ignorance, and arrogance -- not a healthy combination in any sense...

Personally, I think that applies more to the misleading arguments against any CO2 control, bankrolled by fossil fuel interests. There's plenty of reviewed and assessed research on climate sensitivity to CO2. Nobody claims uncertainty doesn't remain (uncertainty that can cut both ways) - that's why it's often expressed as a range, but one that's been narrowed down over the decades. And we've already been over the "optimal" temperature straw man.

I think we are approaching an optimal temperature. With more than what we have had in melting ice caps, this moisture is now available as preciptation. With the slight cooling of 2009 and possibly 2010, combined with more rain, we could see some great growing conditions this year. The global warmers love to focus on the sea level rise, but a good portion of that moisture can be much needed rain too.

Do you have any idea of what melting polar caps imply? Nothing in nature happens in a vacuum. Consequences have consequences.

C24A

 

[Big Fitz]

I love it. All these different MASSIVE factors all playing a part in the climate, yet mankind which cannot really even change one without a concentrated effort is thought to be able to disrupt them all.

What hubris.

 

[OregonStream]

I love it. All these different MASSIVE factors all playing a part in the climate, yet mankind which cannot really even change one without a concentrated effort is thought to be able to disrupt them all.

What hubris.

So what "massive factors" are changing Earth's energy balance? Man may not be making a concentrated effort, but billions of people, heavily dependent on fossil fuels, are having a cumulative effect. What's hubris to me is the assumption that pumping out gigatons of fossil CO2 annually over decades will have little effect on a climate and biosphere that's apparently carbon-sensitive, in both positive and potentially negative ways.

 

[mal]

Supposed to be "Average" Finally tommorow in D-Town... That's about 48.

Global Warming FINALLY Fucking Returning?...



peace...

 

[Liability]

I love it. All these different MASSIVE factors all playing a part in the climate, yet mankind which cannot really even change one without a concentrated effort is thought to be able to disrupt them all.

What hubris.

So what "massive factors" are changing Earth's energy balance? Man may not be making a concentrated effort, but billions of people, heavily dependent on fossil fuels, are having a cumulative effect. What's hubris to me is the assumption that pumping out gigatons of fossil CO2 annually over decades will have little effect on a climate and biosphere that's apparently carbon-sensitive, in both positive and potentially negative ways.

We don't create carbon. We relocate it.

Might there be some possible effect of those "gigatons" of "fossil" CO2 (as opposed ot some other CO2 we are putting out there??) ?? Nobody really knows. Lots of the AGW Faithers "believe" it firmly, "for so it is written." But the likelihood that the virtually TRACE amounts we release into the atmosphere has the kind of effect the Faithers claim is minimal.

Putting out "gigatons" of CO2 into the atmosphere sure sounds dramatic. But what PERCENTAGE of the atmosphere does it amount to? For all the years since the start of mankind's industrial revolution, taking into account the fact that the Earth reclaims a lot of the CO2 OUT OF the atmosphere, what would you tell us about how much we have "put into" the atmosphere as a percentage of ALL the gasses that constitute our atmosphere?

 

[Sinatra]

All of which points to the fallacy of the man-made global warming mantra.

"We" simply do not know what earth's "optimal" temperature is, nor what its optimal CO2 level is, nor to what extent CO2 actually plays in the overall climate.

The entire premise for CO2 controlls is based upon greed, ignorance, and arrogance -- not a healthy combination in any sense...

Personally, I think that applies more to the misleading arguments against any CO2 control, bankrolled by fossil fuel interests. There's plenty of reviewed and assessed research on climate sensitivity to CO2. Nobody claims uncertainty doesn't remain (uncertainty that can cut both ways) - that's why it's often expressed as a range, but one that's been narrowed down over the decades. And we've already been over the "optimal" temperature straw man.

Yes - you pointed out a time period as "optimal" that was considerably warmer than it is today.

So, not only would you like to see it warmer, but you also gave an example of how the earth's temps have cycled from warmer to colder long before man-made CO2 was an issue.

Once again, your own arguement shows the fallacy of widespread CO2 "CAPS".

We should be utilizing our own nation's resources far more fully. Increase domestic drilling, increase cleaner coal production, increase natural gas production and expanding its use in vehicles, increase nuclear production - all of which is technology that works NOW, and can provide many many high paying and longer-term jobs.

Continue to look into alternative energy as well, but don't cap the nation's economic capability for a theory that you yourself has proven as highly speculative and utterly bereft of historical certainty.

Well done!