Global Warming?

[EE_Bota]

Re: @ robert Brown....???

So do you believe this is typically weather? Just a brief freak oddity perhaps? Does it seems normal where you reside or is there a sort of difference in the frequency that seems other that you may recall?

Simple questions because I see you have many answers to various questions, but I see little input on your ideas. If its just like it was when you grew up,then so be it.

I see a change in frequency and amounts of precipitation, but don't claim to be a scientist. We can call it anything you wish, but I know somethig seems to have changed on mother earth, what it is I do not know, what we call it doesn't matter either.

I'm not sure who you are asking, but I'll comment:
The weather seems mostly like I remember, spring summer and fall, but I doubt winter more.

I have been kayaking in the spring for the last 30 years, so I get a sense of general sameness for the springs, except for the trees dying. I go the same time every year. I can feel the temperatures and see the water. I have some "data" via color photographs.

Fall, my trips to the parkway are snapshots at leaf change time, and I don't recall any noteworthy changes except for, again, the trees dying. Foreign invaders from China are killing the hemlocks that lined all the rivers and beautify the Parkway.

Summers seem about the same. Sometimes I think I see a bit more drought. But even when I was a kid, it was commonly stated that in NC, you can only make a full corn crop one year in five without irrigation. I remember having to irrigate our garden as a kid. I bet we still make a corn crop one year in five. My recollection of silage harvests indicate this was true 30 years ago. My attempts to grow corn crops for my pigs further back than that confirms too. So you see, it's murky. I have zero records to indicate anything, it's all memory and perception, and no notation of the actual temperature then or now. How can I trust that?

Winters seem less like I remember. But then again, I am less like I was then. For example, my feet used to freeze even wearing multiple pairs of socks, etc. But now, I can go out in tennis shoes and never get cold feet. As a kid, I froze in the pre-dawn waiting for the school bus. Then I froze in the pre-dawn in my 20's bringing up the herd for milking. Now I can't really freeze, since, although I still leave for work in the pre-dawn, my car is in an enclosed garage. I am straight to work into my office. I frequently wear a jacket in my office, and my area is poorly heated and we are frequently cold. I sneak out to the boiler room a few times a morning to get warmed up a bit. Still, I THINK I see days that are unlike when I was a child.

Animal Science tells us we have to consider changes of our body that would account for differing perceptions of temperature, such as our Volume/area ratio. A thin person and a child will get far colder than a full grown adult. Metabolic rates change, and hormones matter too.

I have told you honestly what I think I have seen, and how I think about it, and mitigating circumstances. I would be far more comfortable relying on any data the scientists have for this area than my own recollections. Unless the climate changes really quickly, this will always be the case because my body and my mind are most assuredly changing faster than the climate.

 

[Cat_Driver]

Re: @ robert Brown....???

So do you believe this is typically weather? Just a brief freak oddity perhaps? Does it seems normal where you reside or is there a sort of difference in the frequency that seems other that you may recall?

Simple questions because I see you have many answers to various questions, but I see little input on your ideas. If its just like it was when you grew up,then so be it.

I see a change in frequency and amounts of precipitation, but don't claim to be a scientist. We can call it anything you wish, but I know something seems to have changed on mother earth, what it is I do not know, what we call it doesn't matter either.

HELLLOOOOOO " WEATHER by nature is "a freak oddity", and anyone that thinks otherwise is drinking to much Koolaid. With millions of variables, weather will do what weather does. Nothing man can do with cause mother nature to do anything other than what she does. IF THAT WAS SO, man would make it rain in the Desert, and not rain so much elsewhere. That can not be done.

What has changed on Mother earth is all the nuts crying about Gullible warming and portraying every weather effect on Gullible warming. Impossible for absolutely EVERYTHING realting to weather is because of Gullible warming. To much rain - Gullible Warming, not enough rain - Gullible Warming, to much snow - Gullible Warming, not enough snow - Gullible Warming, wind - Gullible Warming, heat - Gullible Warming, cold - Gullible Warming, fog - Gullible Warming, hail - Gullible Warming, sunshine - Gullible Warming, moon rising in the east - Gullible Warming, sun setting in the West - Gullible Warming.

The day I see how any scientist can take THE EXACT SAME DATA from the 70's back 100 years and data from the 90's back 100 years and come up with two completely (GLOBAL COOLING and GLOBAL WARMING ) opposite hypothesis THEN I WILL Kiss Al gore on the lips on public Square.

Al Gore and his ilk NEVER EVER figured people would drudge up the 70's Global cooling scare. If Al Gore and his ignorant Morons would have just stuck to Global Cooling they could have used the 70's data, BUT they opted for Global warming - FAIL


New study shows half of the global warming in the USA is artificial
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/29/press-release-2/

 

[Cat_Driver]

SORRY Gullible warming Koolaid drinkers you've been BUSTED
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...0-new-e-mails-rock-the-global-warming-debate/



Just Use Logic

Do you believe in Man-Made Global warming? Well, you shouldn't!

Why?

You don't need a huge think-tank to see through the propaganda. Here's how to figure out the truth for yourself:

1. Have you looked at your own outside thermometer? Record lows and snow storms abound.

2. Seventh grade physics shows that CO2's molecular weight makes it very heavy. It can't rise high enough to cause the greenhouse effect.

Yes, there is a greenhouse effect, but it's mostly caused by water vapor! H2O is much lighter than CO2.

3. College freshman statistics will show you that the error rate in temperature samples used is greater than the claimed temperature rise.

4. Glaciers in Greenland have recently been shown to be getting thicker, not thinner. Same with antarctic ice, which is never mentioned by warming alarmists.

5. Stories of polar bears declining are lies, according to our government's own figures.

6. CO2 is plant food! When the earth was young, there was very little free oxygen. It was poisonous to the few life forms here (primitive bacteria and plants). It increased to today's levels partly as exhaust from plants and partly from a few comets "visiting."

7. Clearing of forests happens only where governments own the forest. Private ownership of forests results in cyclical growing and cutting. They don't waste the economic value of their own land! Take a look at the huge forests in Georgia and Florida, owned by Weyerhauser & other lumber companies.

8. Sunspot activity is in a cycle in which it reduces warming radiation from the sun. This is actually causing a cooling cycle.

9. What about recent record cold temperatures and snow storms?

10. Why is it that the big scares always mean big profits for companies connected to governments. E.g. GE owns NBC, which is scaring us. But GE makes big dollars from sales of generators, nuclear, windmills, and solar to governments.

11. Those who want US to completely change our lives are immune. How about Al Gore making his millions - driving his SUVs, owning several energy inefficient HOMES, plura. He tells us to stop using gas, while he is private-jetting around to give big money speeches?

12. We're supposed to forget similar false fears. Many of the same companies made big money off the "ozone layer" scam. Remember that one? It has also proven false. But, the media which scared us about it has remained silent. Instead, they come up with a new scary theory.

13. About 7 years ago, the same government-connected scientists and insiders were trying to scare us with the coming ice age. Remember that?

14. Volcanoes and the ocean are by FAR larger sources of CO2 and other "greenhouse" gases. Many, many, many multiples of the amounts we exhaust.

15. NASA was actually caught faking "warming" data. They simply copied September temperatures and submitted the same figures for October. They then claimed October was the hottest it's been in decades.

If "Global Warming" is true, why fudge figures? I am very skeptical when someone - especially a government insider - is trying to scare me and grab my wallet at the same time.

Fear is used to turn off the logical part of your brain. It makes you an easier "mark."

So, beware of the scare! Don't believe "officials" just because of their title.

Just think for yourself! Please!

Global Warming is Fake - How YOU can Tell

 

[Cat_Driver]

How to make Gulliblel warming Koolaid drinkers go crazy YOU PROVIDE FACTS
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/10/121013-antarctica-sea-ice-record-high-science-global-warming/

Daniel Stone
National Geographic News
Published October 13, 2012

Despite frequent headlines about a warming planet, melting sea ice, and rising oceans, climate analysts pointed to a seeming bright spot this week: During Southern Hemisphere winters, sea ice in the Antarctic, the floating chunks of frozen ocean water, is actually increasing.

In fact, in late September, satellite data indicated that Antarctica was surrounded by the greatest area of sea ice ever recorded in the region: 7.51 million square miles (19.44 million square kilometers), the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center announced Thursday. Even so, it's a slow rate of growth—about one percent over last year—not nearly enough to offset melting in the Arctic, which broke records just weeks ago.

National Geographic asked Eric Rignot, a NASA researcher and earth systems professor at UC Irvine, whether the data is good news, and what it means for the rise of global sea levels, which are fueled by melting ice.

This Antarctic record seems counter to what we often hear about sea ice shrinking. How can we explain growing sea ice?

If the world was warming up uniformly, you would expect the sea ice cover to decrease in the Antarctic, but it's not. The reason for that is because the Antarctic is cooler than the rest of the world. It's warming up as well but not as fast as other places.

So you have the warming world and a cold Antarctica, and the difference between the two is increasing. That makes the winds around Antarctica move a little bit faster. There's also a difference that comes from the depletion of ozone in the stratosphere in the Antarctic, which makes the stratosphere colder.

That's the leading explanation for what we're seeing in the Antarctic, but you have to acknowledge that the effect is very small.

How does this news relate to other studies showing that the melting of Antarctic continental ice is contributing to a rise in sea level?

[Growing sea ice] has no effect whatsoever on sea level, because sea ice is already floating on the ocean. It does not displace sea level. It's frozen seawater, so whether it's frozen or liquid, it doesn't change the sea level.

While Arctic sea ice is decreasing, the Antarctic is now slightly increasing. Why is there so much variation between Arctic and Antarctic ice?

Well we have a continent on the South Pole. On the North Pole we have nothing but ocean. In the Arctic you see full-fledged warming of the atmosphere and the ocean, plus increased ice transport [out of the region, which removes cold air and water]. So all of these effects contribute to reduce the sea ice cover in the Arctic.

In the Antarctic, you have to think of it as its own climate system. It's a big continent isolated from the rest of the world. It has ocean all around it. It has wind regimes that blow clockwise around it and isolate it. It acts differently from the Arctic, which is completely connected to the rest of the North Hemisphere.

Considering we regularly hear about the planet's stressed climate system, is this good news?

Really, it's consistent with our understanding of a warming world. Some of the regional details are not something we can easily predict. But the general trends of decay of the sea ice cover and decay of the Greenland ice sheets and ice caps is in line with what we expect.

The Antarctic has not been warming up as fast as the models thought. It's warming up, but slower. So it's all consistent with a warming planet.

DON'T YOU LOVE THE LAST LINE, NO MATTER what evidence they find it's STILL a WARMING PLANET BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

 

[Loren49]

Record-High Antarctic Sea Ice Levels Don't Disprove Global Warming | Ice Cap Melting | LifesLittleMysteries.com
Despite its lack of scientific support, Goddard's post has garnered attention around the Web. In a Forbes.com column about the record high Antarctic sea ice, skeptic James Taylor writes, "Please, nobody tell the mainstream media or they might have to retract some stories and admit they are misrepresenting scientific data."

But if anyone had asked an actual scientist, they would have learned that a good year for sea ice in the Antarctic in no way nullifies the precipitous drop in Arctic sea-ice levels year after year or the mounds of other evidence indicating global warming is really happening.
"Antarctic sea ice hasn't seen these big reductions we've seen in the Arctic. This is not a surprise to us," said climate scientist Mark Serreze, director of the NSIDC. "Some of the skeptics say 'Well, everything is OK because the big changes in the Arctic are essentially balanced by what's happening in the Antarctic.' This is simply not true." [Former Global Warming Skeptic Makes a 'Total Turnaround']

The extent of Arctic sea ice at its summertime low point has dropped 40 percent in the past three decades. The idea that a tiny Antarctic ice expansion makes up for this that heat is merely shifting from the the Southern Hemisphere to the Northern and therefore global warming must not be happening is "just nonsense," Serreze said.

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

Check out graphs on this site:

Slightly Increased 2012 Antarctic Sea Ice Levels No Match for Arctic Declines | The Yale Forum on Climate Change & The Media

Slightly Increased 2012 Antarctic Sea Ice Levels No Match for Arctic Declines

Zeke Hausfather October 18, 2012

-------------------------------------------
More explanation:

Experts Say Man-Made Global Warming Leads to More Antarctic Ice | Video | TheBlaze.com
Here's Why Scientists Are Claiming Global Warming Means More Ice for Antarctica
Posted on October 12, 2012 at 1:22pm by Liz Klimas
---------------------------------------------

Busted????????????
Loren

 

[IslandTractor]

Cat Driver, I'm not sure what you had been drinking when you were posting last night but I imagine it had a higher octane than KoolAid. You are an entertaining guy but have an incredibly distorted view of what science is and cannot seem to even read some of the journalistic (not science) pieces you like to quote. The National Geographic article completely contradicts your own conclusion.

 

[toppop52]

You obviously know nothing of Dr. Frank if you think he's spent the last 25 years reading the weather someone else gathered, that would be your Weather Channel weather girl. Dr. Frank actually is bright....

By NEIL FRANK, HOUSTON CHRONICLE

Jan. 2, 2010
http://www.srh.noaa.gov/images/mfl/history/FrankN.jpg

Dr. Neil Frank. Image: NOAA

Now that Copenhagen is past history, what is the next step in the man-made global warming controversy? Without question, there should be an immediate and thorough investigation of the scientific debauchery revealed by “Climategate.”

If you have not heard, hackers penetrated the computers of the Climate Research Unit, or CRU, of the United Kingdom’s University of East Anglia, exposing thousands of e-mails and other documents. CRU is one of the top climate research centers in the world. Many of the exchanges were between top mainstream climate scientists in Britain and the U.S. who are closely associated with the authoritative (albeit controversial) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Among the more troubling revelations were data adjustments enhancing the perception that man is causing global warming through the release of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other atmospheric greenhouse gases.

Particularly disturbing was the way the core IPCC scientists (the believers) marginalized the skeptics of the theory that man-made global warming is large and potentially catastrophic. The e-mails document that the attack on the skeptics was twofold. First, the believers gained control of the main climate-profession journals. This allowed them to block publication of papers written by the skeptics and prohibit unfriendly peer review of their own papers. Second, the skeptics were demonized through false labeling and false accusations.

Climate alarmists would like you to believe the science has been settled and all respectable atmospheric scientists support their position. The believers also would like you to believe the skeptics are involved only because of the support of Big Oil and that they are few in number with minimal qualifications.

But who are the skeptics? A few examples reveal that they are numerous and well-qualified. Several years ago two scientists at the University of Oregon became so concerned about the overemphasis on man-made global warming that they put a statement on their Web site and asked for people’s endorsement; 32,000 have signed the petition, including more than 9,000 Ph.Ds. More than 700 scientists have endorsed a 231-page Senate minority report that questions man-made global warming. The Heartland Institute has recently sponsored three international meetings for skeptics. More than 800 scientists heard 80 presentations in March. They endorsed an 881-page document, created by 40 authors with outstanding academic credentials, that challenges the most recent publication by the IPCC. The IPCC panel’s report strongly concludes that man is causing global warming through the release of carbon dioxide.

Last year 60 German scientists sent a letter to Chancellor Angela Merkel urging her to “strongly reconsider” her position supporting man-made global warming. Sixty scientists in Canada took similar action. Recently, when the American Physical Society published its support for man-made global warming, 200 of its members objected and demanded that the membership be polled to determine the APS’ true position.

What do the skeptics believe? First, they concur with the believers that the Earth has been warming since the end of a Little Ice Age around 1850. The cause of this warming is the question. Believers think the warming is man-made, while the skeptics believe the warming is natural and contributions from man are minimal and certainly not potentially catastrophic à la Al Gore.

Second, skeptics argue that CO2 is not a pollutant but vital for plant life. Numerous field experiments have confirmed that higher levels of CO2 are positive for agricultural productivity. Furthermore, carbon dioxide is a very minor greenhouse gas. More than 90 percent of the warming from greenhouse gases is caused by water vapor. If you are going to change the temperature of the globe, it must involve water vapor.

Third, and most important, skeptics believe that climate models are grossly overpredicting future warming from rising concentrations of carbon dioxide. We are being told that numerical models that cannot make accurate 5- to 10-day forecasts can be simplified and run forward for 100 years with results so reliable you can impose an economic disaster on the U.S. and the world.

The revelation of Climate*gate occurs at a time when the accuracy of the climate models is being seriously questioned. Over the last decade Earth’s temperature has not warmed, yet every model (there are many) predicted a significant increase in global temperatures for that time period. If the climate models cannot get it right for the past 10 years, why should we trust them for the next century?

Climategate reveals how predetermined political agendas shaped science rather than the other way around. It is high time to question the true agenda of the scientists now on the hot seat and to bring skeptics back into the public debate.

Neil Frank, who holds a Ph.D. from Florida State University in meteorology, was director of the National Hurricane Center (1974–87) and chief meteorologist at KHOU (Channel 11) until his retirement in 2008.

 

[IslandTractor]

Blathering incessantly is not the same as actually being right, you're very good at the former with your repeated science blah blah blah, as you copy and paste. None of us will know in our lifetimes who was right.

I'd rather trust the active climatologists than a has been TV personality. Your "expert" Dr Frank has zero standing in the scientific community as far as I can tell and has done nothing but predict hot and humid weather in Houston for the past twenty plus years. How that makes him an expert you decide to trust on macro climate changes is beyond me. Oh, wait, he is a denier and writes puff piece op ed articles for denier blogs. That explains it. Lightweight.

 

[tcreeley]

Being a birdwatcher, I once looked up past Christmas count records for Maine (early part of the last century) regarding the Cardinal. It was generally absent from Maine counts through to the period of the 1960's. After then it showed only in southern Maine. In increments it has shifted north and is occurring in counts as far north as Dover Foxcroft (45+ lat- level+ with top of NH,VT) with a regularity. This mirrors the warming climate. It is unable to survive the temps/climate that were previously the norm, but those temps/climate are not the norm anymore. There were just a few days last winter where it dropped below 0 in my area. It was not so unusual for the temps to remain below 0 for a month at a time, or a week of -25. The cardinal inhabits the range at which it is able to survive. It also breeds here in the summer now.
The old Maine Christmas Counts did not have the Cardinal recorded because it was too cold for them. It nolonger is for them. Now they are here. - Observable examples of global warming. (There are other species following the same trend-robins + Tufted Titmouse).

 

[toppop52]

He's not a denier per se, if you have first grade or better reading comprehension you'll see that he believes in taking everyone's opinion under study and rejecting out of hand if it disagrees with your views, such as you and the other climate change cultists do.

You obviously know nothing of Dr. Frank if you think he's spent the last 25 years reading the weather someone else gathered, that would be your Weather Channel weather girl. Dr. Frank actually is bright....

By NEIL FRANK, HOUSTON CHRONICLE

Jan. 2, 2010
http://www.srh.noaa.gov/images/mfl/history/FrankN.jpg

Dr. Neil Frank. Image: NOAA

Now that Copenhagen is past history, what is the next step in the man-made global warming controversy? Without question, there should be an immediate and thorough investigation of the scientific debauchery revealed by “Climategate.”

If you have not heard, hackers penetrated the computers of the Climate Research Unit, or CRU, of the United Kingdom’s University of East Anglia, exposing thousands of e-mails and other documents. CRU is one of the top climate research centers in the world. Many of the exchanges were between top mainstream climate scientists in Britain and the U.S. who are closely associated with the authoritative (albeit controversial) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Among the more troubling revelations were data adjustments enhancing the perception that man is causing global warming through the release of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other atmospheric greenhouse gases.

Particularly disturbing was the way the core IPCC scientists (the believers) marginalized the skeptics of the theory that man-made global warming is large and potentially catastrophic. The e-mails document that the attack on the skeptics was twofold. First, the believers gained control of the main climate-profession journals. This allowed them to block publication of papers written by the skeptics and prohibit unfriendly peer review of their own papers. Second, the skeptics were demonized through false labeling and false accusations.

Climate alarmists would like you to believe the science has been settled and all respectable atmospheric scientists support their position. The believers also would like you to believe the skeptics are involved only because of the support of Big Oil and that they are few in number with minimal qualifications.

But who are the skeptics? A few examples reveal that they are numerous and well-qualified. Several years ago two scientists at the University of Oregon became so concerned about the overemphasis on man-made global warming that they put a statement on their Web site and asked for people’s endorsement; 32,000 have signed the petition, including more than 9,000 Ph.Ds. More than 700 scientists have endorsed a 231-page Senate minority report that questions man-made global warming. The Heartland Institute has recently sponsored three international meetings for skeptics. More than 800 scientists heard 80 presentations in March. They endorsed an 881-page document, created by 40 authors with outstanding academic credentials, that challenges the most recent publication by the IPCC. The IPCC panel’s report strongly concludes that man is causing global warming through the release of carbon dioxide.

Last year 60 German scientists sent a letter to Chancellor Angela Merkel urging her to “strongly reconsider” her position supporting man-made global warming. Sixty scientists in Canada took similar action. Recently, when the American Physical Society published its support for man-made global warming, 200 of its members objected and demanded that the membership be polled to determine the APS’ true position.

What do the skeptics believe? First, they concur with the believers that the Earth has been warming since the end of a Little Ice Age around 1850. The cause of this warming is the question. Believers think the warming is man-made, while the skeptics believe the warming is natural and contributions from man are minimal and certainly not potentially catastrophic à la Al Gore.

Second, skeptics argue that CO2 is not a pollutant but vital for plant life. Numerous field experiments have confirmed that higher levels of CO2 are positive for agricultural productivity. Furthermore, carbon dioxide is a very minor greenhouse gas. More than 90 percent of the warming from greenhouse gases is caused by water vapor. If you are going to change the temperature of the globe, it must involve water vapor.

Third, and most important, skeptics believe that climate models are grossly overpredicting future warming from rising concentrations of carbon dioxide. We are being told that numerical models that cannot make accurate 5- to 10-day forecasts can be simplified and run forward for 100 years with results so reliable you can impose an economic disaster on the U.S. and the world.

The revelation of Climate*gate occurs at a time when the accuracy of the climate models is being seriously questioned. Over the last decade Earth’s temperature has not warmed, yet every model (there are many) predicted a significant increase in global temperatures for that time period. If the climate models cannot get it right for the past 10 years, why should we trust them for the next century?

Climategate reveals how predetermined political agendas shaped science rather than the other way around. It is high time to question the true agenda of the scientists now on the hot seat and to bring skeptics back into the public debate.

Neil Frank, who holds a Ph.D. from Florida State University in meteorology, was director of the National Hurricane Center (1974–87) and chief meteorologist at KHOU (Channel 11) until his retirement in 2008.