This Global warming is killing us I tell ya

[Robert A Whit]

I have seen it snow up on our hills by December.

Yup, seen is snow by January, on them thar hills.

But February is over half over ...

And now it is snowing again on those hills.

Mind you, this is not where you want to be for snow.

We don't salt roads.

We don't have chains to use on snow and ice covered roads.

At Mt. Hamilton, where sunshine normally is, they are or have by this time closed the only road to the summit.

I am not speaking of some 10,000 ft mighty peak.

I am talking of a bit over 4,000 feet.

It's been long cold enough during this spell of global warming so if we got any wet clouds, it would snow on the hills but rain at my place.

Well the global cooling has been cooperating ..

So where is that wet stuff we are told will happen with global warming?

Is this spell of cold called global warming where you live?

We have rain here folks, but this stuff is bone chilling cold rain. It is coming down from the Arctic. Oh yeah, where the global warming is. heh heh heh

[logroller]

Still waiting for you to get back to me on those climate change policies to which you take issue.

[red states rule]

http://anhonestclimatedebate.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/cartoon.jpg?w=460

[jafar00]

It's surprising how many people are ignorant of the fact that global warming is the cause of these more serious storms. Colder winters in some areas are caused by global warming changing the ocean currents. The Gulf Stream has been keeping Northern climes relatively warm in winter but that is weakening. The evidence of global warming has been burying you in snow!

Likewise, Australia has been feeling the effects with catastrophic floods caused by severe storms whipped up by a warm and turbulent atmosphere. The Australian Bureau of Meteorology had to increase the maximum temperature on it's charts this year because of higher summer maximum temperatures. My home town of Perth has been breaking heat wave records for the past few years.

Don't tell me Global Warming is a myth!

[Drummond]

It's surprising how many people are ignorant of the fact that global warming is the cause of these more serious storms. Colder winters in some areas are caused by global warming changing the ocean currents. The Gulf Stream has been keeping Northern climes relatively warm in winter but that is weakening. The evidence of global warming has been burying you in snow!

Likewise, Australia has been feeling the effects with catastrophic floods caused by severe storms whipped up by a warm and turbulent atmosphere. The Australian Bureau of Meteorology had to increase the maximum temperature on it's charts this year because of higher summer maximum temperatures. My home town of Perth has been breaking heat wave records for the past few years.

Don't tell me Global Warming is a myth!

I like this !! A terrorist supporter who has supposed environmental concerns to defend ??

I really have to ask. Jafar, in your worldview, is terrorism an 'environmentally friendly' act ?

Were the clouds of dust and rubble caused by the collapse of the Twin Towers 'environmentally friendly' ?

Tell me of the 'friendly' environment to be found in the immediate aftermath of a terrorist bombing. Or, perhaps, of the environmentally friendly 'carbon footprint' of the bog-standard plane hijacker, or shoebomber ? Or the environmentally friendly power consumption behind terrorist Jihadist websites ...

You're a fan of Hamas. Tell me of the environmentally 'useful' impact of the thousands of missiles they've launched !!

But still ... let's keep properly on topic, eh ?

http://www.climatechangefacts.info/PositionOfCCF_OnIPCC.htm




CO2 has usually been associated with temperature rise throughout the history of the Earth. It is indeed a greenhouse gas but it operates on a logarithmic function. The Earth's natural processes also contribute, and remove, copious amounts of CO2. Since plants first appeared on the Earth, they have converted nearly all available CO2 to oxygen, fossil fuels, and other longterm removals from the atmosphere. Today less than 4/100 of 1% (379 ppm) of our atmosphere is CO2. This pales in comparison with other periods in Earth's history. Common IPCC scenarios rely on an increasing supply of fossil fuels, yet we know that this is not possible and that production will soon peak (if not already) while prices rise in response, as they are doing already. It is absolutely unrealistic to think CO2 emissions will rise for the duration of this century.
The projected temperature rise is unrealistic, given that the USA and global temperatures have risen by only 1 deg F (.5 C) in 100 years (revised, NOAA, 1 May 2007 (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/)), (or 150 years using the full instrumented data set) during the height of industrial expansion. Even if all this rise is correct, and is attributable to human causes, it is a trivial amount in the natural variation of the Earth, and to suggest the rise would accelerate 5 fold (IPCC best estimate) in this century is incredible. Even after the release of the new data set and procedures by NOAA on May 1, which addressed some of the urban heat island issues and dropped the warming 44% (below IPCC 2007), significant other urban heat island issues still remain. There are also issues of calibration as measurement protocols have changed, issues about the design and placement of the temperature stations, and even the strongly held view by many skeptics that this is a natural rise as the Earth recovers from the Little Ice Age (circa 1500-1900).
Sea level rise may have increased recently, but other studies have consistently shown no increase. Even if there is an increase, it is in the order of 1 mm per year on top of the 1-2 mm per year that has been happening for the last century, this additional amount is 4 inches (10 cm) over the century. This is not trivial if you are in a low-lying region wrestling with land subsidence, but it is barely more than what would be coming anyway.
The other forecasts, such as for hurricanes, rainfall, and snow cover, are not significantly different than under natural variability, and will advance more slowly than the decadal oscillations. In particular, if ocean acidity were a problem for shell formation, it would have shown up already in areas where there are naturally high levels of CO2. It has not.


http://www.independent.org/publications/books/summary.asp?id=42&s=ga


That there is no scientific consensus of a global-warming threat is indicated by surveys of active scientists. A November 1991 Gallup poll of 400 members of the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Union found that only 19 percent of those polled believed that human-induced global warming has occurred.

That same year, Greenpeace International surveyed 400 scientists who had worked on the 1990 report of the influential U.N. Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) or had published related articles. Asked whether current policies might instigate a runaway greenhouse effect, only 13 percent of the 113 respondents said it was “probable” and 32 percent “possible.” But 47 percent said “probably not”—far from a consensus.

In recent years, research on global climate change has led even more scientists to doubt that global warming is upon us or that it would soon bring disaster (Science, May 16, 1997). Yet these doubts are characteristically downplayed in IPCC reports. While the body of the IPCC’s 800-page, 1996 report, The Science of Climate Change, mentioned some doubts (albeit cryptically), the report’s much-publicized, politically approved Summary for Policymakers did not. This gave the false impression that all 2000-plus scientists who contributed to (or had their work cited in) the report alsosupported the view that man-made global warming was occurring or posed a credible threat. The IPCC report even indicated that the scientists who reviewed and commented on earlier drafts endorsed the report—whether their comments on the drafts were positive or negative.

Man-Made Global Warming Not in Evidence

The announced purpose of the Global Climate Treaty is to avoid “dangerous interference with the climate system.” However, this goal is entirely arbitrary because we have no scientific guidance for determining what constitutes a “dangerous interference.” Nor do we have evidence that human activity has had much effect on world climate.

While it is true that global temperatures have risen about 0.5 degree Celsius in the last century, most of this warming occurred before 1940, while most of the human-caused CO2 emissions occurred after 1940. Further, we simply do not know whether climate variability depends on carbon dioxide concentrations.

Scientists are only now beginning to study the role of other potential factors in global climate change, such as the interaction between the atmosphere and oceans, variations in solar radiation, and the cooling effects of volcanic emissions and sulfate aerosols.

By and large, General Circulation Models (GCMs) have not yet considered these factors, which may explain why computer models cannot account for observed temperatures. Many models indicate that global warming has arrived and will intensify unless we reduce greenhouse gas emissions like CO2. However, weather satellite and balloon-borne radiosonde data indicate that global temperatures have fallen slightly since 1980. (But neither the weather satellite data nor the discrepancy between them and the GCMs are mentioned in the IPCC Policymakers’ Summary.)

While surface temperatures show slight increases—notably smaller than those predicted by the models—this appears to be due to the urban heat island (UHI) effect, stemming from population increases near weather stations. After correcting for the UHI effect, the years around 1940 emerge as the warmest years of the century in both the U.S. and Europe.

The gap between the satellite observations and existing theory is large enough to cast serious doubt on all computer-model predictions of future warming. Whatever the cause of the gap, we cannot rely on GCM forecasts of future warming. (GCMs are not even consistent with each other; their temperature forecasts vary by some 300 percent.) Until GCMs become validated by actual climate observations, they should not be used as the basis for policy.

Last, but definitely not least ...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2276888/BBC-climbdown-climate-change-claims-David-Attenboroughs-Africa.html


The BBC has been forced into an embarrassing climbdown over climate change claims made in Sir David Attenborough's groundbreaking Africa series.

In the last episode of the series, entitled 'Future', Sir David discussed the challenges facing the region.

Speaking over footage of Mount Kilimanjaro, Sir David made the assertion that 'some parts of the continent have become 3.5C hotter in the past 20 years'.

However, figures from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that since 1850 global temperatures have risen by 0.76C, causing widespread concern among viewers.

The comment, first broadcast in the final episode of the Africa series last Wednesday, was removed from Sunday night’s repeat of the show.

A BBC spokesman said: 'There is widespread acknowledgement within the scientific community that the climate of Africa has been changing as stated in the programme.

'We accept the evidence for 3.5 degrees increase is disputable and the commentary should have reflected that.

'Therefore that line has been removed from Sunday's repeat and the iPlayer version replaced.'
The BBC buys into 'Global Warming' in a big way .. so for THEM to have to curb their OWN output is really saying something !!!

Jafar, I ask you this - was Mankind responsible for past Ice Ages ? This planet's climate is cyclical .. it passes from warm to cold extremes, and back again. So more minor changes we think we see, can certainly be in line with natural processes that the Earth undergoes, and HAS undergone, for many millions of years.

[Robert A Whit]

Still waiting for you to get back to me on those climate change policies to which you take issue.

Cleaning up my past posts right now. Had not known of this till just now.

I take issue with the very idea that man supposes he is in charge of climate over a planet of over 24,000 miles circumference.

I take issue with the way the Feds deliberately drive the public into transport they don't want.

Just as an illustration, the public loved TV. TV sets had tubes prior to the transistor era. Over time the transistor was invented and used in devices. With no direction by the Feds, the public purchased such devices to the point one may watch TV programs on a small hand held telephone that functions in many other ways.

This we did with no bosses in DC telling us what to do.

Trust the public. We will do what is right and what is best for us.

[Robert A Whit]

It's surprising how many people are ignorant of the fact that global warming is the cause of these more serious storms. Colder winters in some areas are caused by global warming changing the ocean currents. The Gulf Stream has been keeping Northern climes relatively warm in winter but that is weakening. The evidence of global warming has been burying you in snow!

Likewise, Australia has been feeling the effects with catastrophic floods caused by severe storms whipped up by a warm and turbulent atmosphere. The Australian Bureau of Meteorology had to increase the maximum temperature on it's charts this year because of higher summer maximum temperatures. My home town of Perth has been breaking heat wave records for the past few years.

Don't tell me Global Warming is a myth!

A lousy degree C spanning 150 years.

My god. Do you honestly not notice the temperature is a flat line for all intents and purposes?