This post is addressed to the individual posting as the Clutchfans.net poster "MojoMan" Why would a harsher winter raise doubts about GW, and lend credence to GW Denialists such as yourself, when GW theory predicts harsher winters -and in fact, harsher winters specific to the UK region due to melting glaciers in Greenland - as a direct consequence of global warming? Thanks in advance for your on-point response.
i was about to ask the same thing. i would think that the fact that we have such drastic swings from record heat to record lows in one year would only serve to bolster the argument of AGW's (mojomans term).
The substance of these weather events speaks for themselves. We are not seeing the kind of milder winters that one might expect if Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is as powerful and as inevitable as the AGW alarmists have been trying to lead us to believe. This is just another example of reality rudely intruding into the left's self-created little fantasy world, yet again.
Houston sweated through record highs in June, including 104 degrees on both June 24 and June 26. That's the highest temperature ever recorded in June, Roeseler said.
and the fact that all the articles you posted are at the very top of drudgereport at this very moment also speaks for itself. actually, as has already been pointed out, these AGW's (mojomans term) would argue that these drastic swings b/t record heat and lows proves their theory. you copy and paste stuff from drudgereport.
Yeah, this is one of the biggest laughers of all. According to the revised doctrines of the AGW alarmists, warmer weather is evidence of AGW, and of course colder weather is also evidence of AGW. What is the latest with hurricanes by the way? Are we to expect increased hurricane activity, both in terms of the quantity and the intensity of these storms? Or not? Because we sure have not had anything of the kind in recent years. I presume that AGW theory has evolved to explain how either of these trends are indicative of AGW also.
This post is addressed to the individual posting as the Clutchfans.net poster "MojoMan" Why would a harsher winter raise doubts about GW, and lend credence to GW Denialists such as yourself, when GW theory predicts harsher winters -and in fact, harsher winters specific to the UK region due to melting glaciers in Greenland* - as a direct consequence of global warming? *See Ellison, C. R. W., Chapman, M. R. and Hall,I. R., (2006), Surface and deep ocean interactions during the cold climate event 8,200 years ago, Science, 312, 1929 – 1932. doi:10.1126/science.1127213 Thanks in advance for your on-point response.
You continue to focus on global warming (GW), rather than on anthropogenic (man-made) global warming (AGW). It is only AGW that is at issue here. There is no controversy about GW, as far as I am aware. This point has been addressed repeatedly here on this board by myself, and by other posters who largely share my views on this topic. But since you apparently have missed those posts, I will re-post those comments again. As previously posted in an earlier thread: It is important to differentiate between "global warming" and "antropogenic global warming" (or AGW for short). Anthropogenic global warming is the man-made part. That is really the only part that is disputed, and rightfully so. As far as "global warming" goes, the Earth has been warming and the Arctic ice sheets have been melting since the last ice age. Here is a depiction of what the Earth may have looked like around 12,000 years ago: Clearly, the Earth was colder then, and it is warmer now. The observation that the Arctic ice cap is melting is an observation that goes back around 12,000 years. Nearly all of the melting that has occurred, occurred prior to the industrial age (which goes back less than 200 years). All of the melting that occurred prior to the beginning of the industrial age is obviously not a result of "anthropogenic global warming". And now, over the last 10+ years, the Earth has actually cooled a bit. We are not at all time highs even within our lifetimes. Here is an article from the BBC on the topic: What happened to global warming? If the effect of CO2 that has been and is being pumped into the atmosphere is as compelling and dangerous as the AGW alarmists suggest, then how is it possible that the Earth has actually cooled over the last decade? If you take the predictive climate models used by Al Gore and his associates at the United Nations seriously, then we are in a state of crisis, the situation is dire, the need for corrective action is urgent and their is no time for delay. But truth be told, none of these predictive climate models used by Al Gore and the UN predicted the cooling period that we are now entering. But here it is anyway. What are we to make of that? What these people have been preaching to us is not reliable science. It is agenda-driven propaganda. Once again, the Earth has certainly warmed. But the so-called science surrounding the claims of the AGW alarmists is weak and not sufficiently substantiated to warrant betting our economic futures on. There needs to be a lot more work done on this.
This post is addressed to the individual posting as the Clutchfans.net poster "MojoMan" You posited a hypothesis (cold weather in UK = GW is not happening) in furtherance of the Denialist agenda that is directly refuted by peer-reviewed scientific evidence. In fact, your hypothesis failed so spectacularly, that it ended up not just invalidating itself, but actually reinforcing the scientific consensus behind GW theory. Not only in a general sense with respect to GW's effects, but with respect to the specific localized phenomenon that you attempted to emphasize, only to have it blow up in your face. Free advice, friend: Sometimes you gotta' know when to fold 'em. This is one of those times.
Why do you continue to post about a theory you clearly don't even have a basic understanding of? This is no different than you ranting and railing about the cost of the public option without having a basic functional understanding of what the public option was and whether it cost any money.
I agree. To claim that a cold week or so is a sign that global warming, anthropogenic or otherwise, isn't happening is like saying that a one day 10 point change in the Dow is an indication of a bull or a bear market. At the sametime anyone who has remotely studied the theory would understand that Global Warming would lead to localized colder weather. I mean even the crappy movie The Day After Tomorrow dealt with that. Even a layman should understand that the climate isn't a uniform steady system, if it was the affects of Global Warming would be much worse, but a complex interacting system. Things like the Atlantic Gulf Stream are driven by an interaction of air and water temperature, salinity and a variety of other factors. One of the predictions of Global Warming is that the Gulf Stream could be altered as salinity decreases due to greater melting of ice caps leading to much colder weather in Western Europe as the Gulf Stream brings less warm water to that region.
The UK's national "Met Office" (short for Meteorological), a loyal promoter of AGW alarmism propaganda, consistently gets its predictions wrong, and its wrong predictions are consistently wrong in the same direction - in support of AGW theory. Just a few moths ago, the Met office predicted a mild winter for the UK. They are wrong again, just like they were last summer and the previous winter as well. Here is a great article at the London Telegraph: [RQUOTER]The Met Office Gives Us the Warmist Weather The UK's official weather forecasters are determined that winters should be mild, in the face of the frozen facts Shortly after midnight on Friday morning, as 200,000 merrymakers were departing from the Thames after enjoying a spectacular fireworks show in sub-zero temperatures, flakes of snow began to fall on Whitehall. In light of the Met Office's prediction that this would be a "mild" winter, with temperatures above average, it seemed an apt way to start the New Year. But hasn't the time come for us to stop treating the serial inaccuracy of Met Office forecasts as just a joke and see it for what it is – a national scandal? The reason the Met Office so persistently gets its seasonal forecasts wrong is that it has been hi-jacked from the role for which we pay it nearly £200 million a year, to become one of the world's major propaganda engines for the belief in man-made global warming. Over the past three years, it has become a laughing stock for forecasts which are invariably wrong in the same direction. The year 2007, it predicted, would be "the warmest ever" – just before global tempratures plunged by more than the entire net warming of the 20th century, Three years running it predicted warmer than average winters – as large parts of the northern hemisphere endured record cold and snowfalls. Last year's "barbecue summer" was the third time running that predictions of a summer drier and warmer than average prefaced weeks of rain and cold. Last week the Met Office was again predicting that 2010 will be the "warmest year" on record, while Europe and the US look to be facing further weeks of intense cold. What is not generally realised is that the UK Met Office has been, since 1990, at the very centre of the campaign to convince the world that it faces catastrophe through global warming. (Its website now proclaims it to be "the Met Office for Weather and Climate Change".) Its then-director, Dr John Houghton, was the single most influential figure in setting up the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as the chief driver of climate alarmism. Its Hadley Centre for Climate Change, along with the East Anglia Climatic Research Unit (CRU), was put in charge of the most prestigious of the four official global temperature records. In line with IPCC theory, its computers were programmed to predict that, as CO2 levels rose, temperatures would inevitably follow. From 1990 to 2007, the Department of the Environment gave the Met Office no less than £146 million for its "climate predictions programme". But in the past three years, with the Met Office chaired by Robert Napier, a former global warming activist and previously head of WWF UK, its pretensions have been exposed as never before. The "Climategate" leak of documents from the CRU, along with further revelations from Russian scientists, have shown the CRU/Met Office alliance systematically manipulating temperature data, past and present, to show the world growing warmer than the evidence justified. And those same computers used to predict temperatures 100 years ahead for the IPCC have also been used to produce those weather forecasts that prove so consistently wrong. Scientific method has gone out of the window, to support a theory that looks more questionable than ever. The whole set-up – Met Office, Hadley Centre, the CRU, the IPCC – looks hopelessly compromised. It is a state of affairs so bizarre that it cries out for political intervention. Yet our politicians, from Gordon Brown and David Cameron down, are so in thrall to this new religion that they cannot see evidence staring them in the face – that the show has gone off the rails. How many more winters and summers will it take before sanity finally breaks in to put an end to this scandal? [/RQUOTER]
It does make one wonder if a certain poster's father sewed seeds of doubt about the relative merits/harms of cigarette smoking back in the day. Every industry has its lackeys.
I live in Oregon and I've seen approximately 5 minutes of flakes so far this year... and they didn't come close to sticking. We have some snow in the higher elevation mountains as expected, but the snowpack is about 60% of what it should be and the ski areas were late in opening this year. Additionally, i should note that there have been exactly two days where I felt compelled to wear something more than a light jacket. Meanwhile, Alaska is having a much warmer than normal winter, the SW is cooler and wetter than average, the snowpack in the Northern Rockies is significantly less than normal, warmer and drier weather is expected across the Great Basin, the Colorado Rockies are looking average, California will be near normal on temps but with more precip, and the Midwest/Great Lakes are drier than normal. (What that means to me is that we're in an El Nino pattern that typically means we'll have a light fire season in the SW but a tough one in the Northern Rockies/Northwest... draw a rough line from Sacto to SLC to Denver... everything below that should be OK and except for western Washington, everything above that should be a worry next summer.)
Actually, here is a definition of meteorology: the science dealing with the atmosphere and its phenomena, including weather and climate. But that really does not matter since the article above notes the following:
Map showing NOAA's winter outlook... Spoiler http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/images/winteroutlook_temp.jpg
And here are two more definitions: Climatology (from Greek κλίμα, klima, "region, zone"; and -λογία, -logia) is the study of climate, scientifically defined as weather conditions averaged over a period of time,[1] and is a branch of the atmospheric sciences. Metereology is the interdisciplinary scientific study of the atmosphere that focuses on weather processes and forecasting (in contrast with climatology). Although there is plenty of overlap a "metereologist" is your weatherman telling you whether it might rain next week, a "climatologist" is the guy drilling into ice cores to determine what the atmospheric composition was like thousands of years ago compared to now. That may be so but from the description it sounds like they are primarily metereologists and their predictions primarily have to do with short term phenomena. Also lets not forget the winter is far from over.
This thread is suck. The only thing good to come out of it is the occasional Houston weather forecast someone posts that I can actually use.
You asked for it, you got it: [RQUOTER]Hard Freeze Expected Later This Week Friday's forecast low at McMurdo Station in Antarctica, near where Robert Scott launched his fatal expedition to the South Pole in 1911, is 21 degrees. It will probably be colder in Houston. Forecasters say Houston should see its coldest weather in more than a decade later this week, with area low temperatures likely to dip into the upper teens in inland areas, and upper 20s along the coast. The last time the city's temperature fell below 20 degrees was Jan. 8, 1996, when the low was 19 degrees. The deep chill should begin Thursday morning with the arrival of a very strong Arctic front. Once temperatures fall below freezing Thursday, say forecasters with the National Weather Service, they may not rise above freezing until Saturday for areas near and north of a line from Brenham to The Woodlands. A slight chance of sleet or snow is predicted for late Wednesday or early Thursday morning, but forecasters expect the area to be largely dry by the time freezing temperatures reach the metro Houston area. Much of the area should see hard freezes of 25 degrees or below on Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights. The threat, then, is the cold weather. Harris County's Public Health and Environmental Services department warned that most pets should, at the very least, be brought into garages out of the cold. Additionally plants should be protected. And temperatures for much of the area will reach the “temperature alert threshold” — about 20 degrees — for freezing pipes, according to the Institute for Business and Home Safety. The chilly weather follows a December that was 3.5 degrees below normal and just missed being one of the city's 10 coldest Decembers ever. ....[/RQUOTER]
