• Announcements

    • Zapata

      Abbreviated rules   07/28/2017

      Underdawg did an excellent job of explaining the rules.  Here's the simplified version: Don't insinuate Pedo.  Warning and or timeout for a first offense.  PermaFlick for any subsequent offenses Don't out members.  See above for penalties.  Caveat:  if you have ever used your own real name or personal information here on the forums since, like, ever - it doesn't count and you are fair game. If you see spam posts, report it to the mods.  We do not hang out in every thread 24/7 If you see any of the above, report it to the mods by hitting the Report button in the offending post.   We do not take action for foul language, off-subject content, or abusive behavior unless it escalates to persistent stalking.  There may be times that we might warn someone or flick someone for something particularly egregious.  There is no standard, we will know it when we see it.  If you continually report things that do not fall into rules #1 or 2 above, you may very well get a timeout yourself for annoying the Mods with repeated whining.  Use your best judgement. Warnings, timeouts, suspensions and flicks are arbitrary and capricious.  Deal with it.  Welcome to anarchy.   If you are a newbie, there are unwritten rules to adhere to.  They will be explained to you soon enough.  

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

tuk tuk Joe

Arctic Blast to Set Record Low Temperatures

Recommended Posts

The Global warming fiasco intensifies...

 

 

 

Arctic Blast to Set Record Low Temperatures, Create 'Dangerous Situation'

 

It's January and it's supposed to be cold, but temperatures plunging below zeroand are expected to set records across the country as tens of millions of Americans are trapped in a deep freeze.

While the East Coast is enjoying morning temperatures up to 15 degrees above normal, the Arctic plunge is expected to reach the area by later today. The deep freeze will continue into Tuesday when every state in the lower 48 will endure sub-freezing temperatures.

Minnesota is expecting to see temperatures plunge 25 to 35 degrees below zero today, which has prompted Gov. Mark Dayton to cancel schools statewide. To put that in perspective, Anchorage, Alaska, will reach a high of 34 and a low of 28 degrees today.

But the wind chill in Minneapolis will make it feel like it's 47 below zero. The National Weather Service in Minneapolis classifies their wind chill warning as a "particularly dangerous situation." It hasn't been this cold for almost two decades in many parts of the country.

PHOTOS: Sub-Freezing Temperatures Hit US

Officials in major cities, including Chicago, St. Louis and Milwaukee have also canceled school for today.

Officials in Chicago are urging people to stay home as the thermometer will plunge to 15 below zero with wind chills of 30 to 50 degrees below zero possible.

"Below zero temperatures are expected through Tuesday. These are extremely dangerous conditions and we strongly urge people to heed the warnings and take the necessary precautions to stay safe," Chicago Emergency Management Director Gary Schenkel said Sunday.

It's not just schools that will be closed today in Chicago. Museums, libraries, zoos and even visitation at the Cook County jail are being suspended.

Driving conditions are so bad in Indianapolis, Mayor Greg Ballard upgraded the city's travel emergency level to "red," making it illegal for anyone to drive except for emergencies or seeking shelter.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/polar-vortex-set-record-low-temperatures-create-dangerous/story?id=21430587

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Damn, I had bet that it would be Slappy or TM Sail who would post a thread like this.

 

I wonder how many socks are left in the drawer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Damn, I had bet that it would be Slappy or TM Sail who would post a thread like this.

 

I wonder how many socks are left in the drawer.

Not sure what you are babbling about. I'm pretty well known in the real world and the only socks I have are worn on my feet. Extra thick ones when I go out today. -14 at this time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, I jus got ta do dis......

 

 

 

Warm Arctic, Cold Continents Changes in the Arctic Are Hitting Closer to Home

 

It’s a puzzle: How could warmth in the Arctic produce frigid conditions elsewhere?

NOAA scientists may have a clue.

Extremely cold winds have swept down through the Northern Hemisphere recently, reaching as far south as the state of Florida and causing record low temperatures in January. The unusually cold winter of 2009–2010 – which saw massive snowstorms dubbed “Snowpocalypse” and “Snowmageddon” — and the frigid start to 2011 in the eastern United States and Europe have scientists talking about what might be influencing the weather.

Dr. James Overland, a scientist at NOAA’s Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory (PMEL) in Seattle, has been studying the changing conditions in the Arctic for 30 years. He explains why the deterioration of the Polar Vortex could be leading to some of these extreme winter weather events.

“When the Polar Vortex — a ring of winds circling the Arctic — breaks down, this allows cold air to spill south, affecting the eastern United States and other regions,” says Dr. Overland. “This can result in a warmer-than-average Arctic region and colder temperatures that may include severe winter weather events on the North American and European continents.”

A Polar Vortex link to Winter 2009-2010?
YCMTSU :lol:
The Polar Vortex is a strong wind flowing around a low-pressure system normally present over the Arctic in winter. Average December values from 1968–1996 show the Polar Vortex remaining strong and helping to keep the cold air in the Arctic region. During winter of 2009–2010, this normal pattern broke down, and a weakened Polar Vortex allowed cold Arctic air to move southward.

In December 2009, the Arctic was 9 degrees F warmer than normal, and mid-latitude continents were 9 degrees F cooler (THAT IS A DEFINITIVE STUDY? 1 MONTH?)than normal, with record cold and snow conditions in northern Europe, eastern Asia and eastern North America,” says Dr. Overland. “This is the Warm Arctic-Cold Continents pattern. The winter of 2009–2010 had especially extreme weather in the U.S. as moisture from El Nino hit cold air from the Arctic.”

warmarctic_coldcontinents_300.png

A map of the Warm Arctic-Cold Continents pattern for December 2010 shows warmer than usual air temperature (red) in the Arctic, especially for regions that were sea-ice-free in summer — north of Alaska, Hudson Bay and in the Barents Sea. Cold continents (purple) are seen where Arctic air has penetrated southward.

Download here. (Credit: NOAA)

Why are we seeing these changes now?

According to the 2010 Arctic Report Card,(ONE OF THE PEERS IN "PEER REVIEWED"?) there is reduced sea summer sea ice cover, record snow cover decreases, and record temperatures. Could these changes be linked to the weakened Polar Vortex and extreme winter weather events?

Many factors, including natural climate variability, can produce extreme weather events. But, there also is a potential impact from Arctic regions, where solar heat absorbed by recently ice-free regions of the ocean warms the atmosphere during autumn, impacting the winds. More research is needed to study the causes and extent of the recently observed Warm Arctic-Cold Continent (THIS IS OUR NEW WORRY, CERTAINLY)pattern.

“Some scientists are beginning to suspect that the lack of sea ice allows the oceans to pump heat into the atmosphere in the Arctic in a way that could impact weather patterns such as the North Atlantic Oscillation,” said Mark Serreze, director of the National Snow and Ice Data Center. “The idea is still very much in its infancy, but it’s worth looking into. If it turns out to be right, it could help to explain the frigid winters the eastern United States and Europe have experienced these past two years.”

The North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) is a natural climate pattern that is the dominant mode of winter climate variability for the region, which ranges from central North America to Europe and into Northern Asia. A strongly negative NAO can indicate a breakdown of the Polar Vortex. Last winter, there were two extreme cold continent events — and the breakdown of the Vortex, as measured by the NAO, was the most extreme on record for the past 145 years.

Undoubtedly, changes in the Arctic are being felt near and far. The winters of 2009 and 2010 serve as a jumping off point for more research to determine potential linkages between Arctic changes and continental weather to help predict if the Northern latitudes will witness colder winters in the future as more summer sea ice is lost.

Learn more about NOAA’s “cool” work in the Arctic: Visit www.arctic.noaa.gov.

Posted Feb. 28, 2011 noaameatball.jpg\

 

 

THIS READS LIKE A SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE NEWS CAST SCRIPT. COULD, CAN, MAYBE WTF?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Sorry, I jus got ta do dis......

 

 

 

Warm Arctic, Cold Continents Changes in the Arctic Are Hitting Closer to Home

 

It’s a puzzle: How could warmth in the Arctic produce frigid conditions elsewhere?

 

NOAA scientists may have a clue.

 

Extremely cold winds have swept down through the Northern Hemisphere recently, reaching as far south as the state of Florida and causing record low temperatures in January. The unusually cold winter of 2009–2010 – which saw massive snowstorms dubbed “Snowpocalypse” and “Snowmageddon” — and the frigid start to 2011 in the eastern United States and Europe have scientists talking about what might be influencing the weather.

Dr. James Overland, a scientist at NOAA’s Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory (PMEL) in Seattle, has been studying the changing conditions in the Arctic for 30 years. He explains why the deterioration of the Polar Vortex could be leading to some of these extreme winter weather events.

“When the Polar Vortex — a ring of winds circling the Arctic — breaks down, this allows cold air to spill south, affecting the eastern United States and other regions,” says Dr. Overland. “This can result in a warmer-than-average Arctic region and colder temperatures that may include severe winter weather events on the North American and European continents.”

A Polar Vortex link to Winter 2009-2010?

YCMTSU :lol:

The Polar Vortex is a strong wind flowing around a low-pressure system normally present over the Arctic in winter. Average December values from 1968–1996 show the Polar Vortex remaining strong and helping to keep the cold air in the Arctic region. During winter of 2009–2010, this normal pattern broke down, and a weakened Polar Vortex allowed cold Arctic air to move southward.

In December 2009, the Arctic was 9 degrees F warmer than normal, and mid-latitude continents were 9 degrees F cooler (THAT IS A DEFINITIVE STUDY? 1 MONTH?)than normal, with record cold and snow conditions in northern Europe, eastern Asia and eastern North America,” says Dr. Overland. “This is the Warm Arctic-Cold Continents pattern. The winter of 2009–2010 had especially extreme weather in the U.S. as moisture from El Nino hit cold air from the Arctic.”

warmarctic_coldcontinents_300.png

A map of the Warm Arctic-Cold Continents pattern for December 2010 shows warmer than usual air temperature (red) in the Arctic, especially for regions that were sea-ice-free in summer — north of Alaska, Hudson Bay and in the Barents Sea. Cold continents (purple) are seen where Arctic air has penetrated southward.

Download here. (Credit: NOAA)

Why are we seeing these changes now?

According to the 2010 Arctic Report Card,(ONE OF THE PEERS IN "PEER REVIEWED"?) there is reduced sea summer sea ice cover, record snow cover decreases, and record temperatures. Could these changes be linked to the weakened Polar Vortex and extreme winter weather events?

Many factors, including natural climate variability, can produce extreme weather events. But, there also is a potential impact from Arctic regions, where solar heat absorbed by recently ice-free regions of the ocean warms the atmosphere during autumn, impacting the winds. More research is needed to study the causes and extent of the recently observed Warm Arctic-Cold Continent (THIS IS OUR NEW WORRY, CERTAINLY)pattern.

 

“Some scientists are beginning to suspect that the lack of sea ice allows the oceans to pump heat into the atmosphere in the Arctic in a way that could impact weather patterns such as the North Atlantic Oscillation,” said Mark Serreze, director of the National Snow and Ice Data Center. “The idea is still very much in its infancy, but it’s worth looking into. If it turns out to be right, it could help to explain the frigid winters the eastern United States and Europe have experienced these past two years.”

The North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) is a natural climate pattern that is the dominant mode of winter climate variability for the region, which ranges from central North America to Europe and into Northern Asia. A strongly negative NAO can indicate a breakdown of the Polar Vortex. Last winter, there were two extreme cold continent events — and the breakdown of the Vortex, as measured by the NAO, was the most extreme on record for the past 145 years.

Undoubtedly, changes in the Arctic are being felt near and far. The winters of 2009 and 2010 serve as a jumping off point for more research to determine potential linkages between Arctic changes and continental weather to help predict if the Northern latitudes will witness colder winters in the future as more summer sea ice is lost.

Learn more about NOAA’s “cool” work in the Arctic: Visit www.arctic.noaa.gov.

Posted Feb. 28, 2011 noaameatball.jpg\

 

 

THIS READS LIKE A SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE NEWS CAST SCRIPT. COULD, CAN, MAYBE WTF?

 

I guess you are one of those who are looking for "settled" science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Sorry, I jus got ta do dis......

 

 

 

Warm Arctic, Cold Continents Changes in the Arctic Are Hitting Closer to Home

 

It’s a puzzle: How could warmth in the Arctic produce frigid conditions elsewhere?

 

NOAA scientists may have a clue.

 

Extremely cold winds have swept down through the Northern Hemisphere recently, reaching as far south as the state of Florida and causing record low temperatures in January. The unusually cold winter of 2009–2010 – which saw massive snowstorms dubbed “Snowpocalypse” and “Snowmageddon” — and the frigid start to 2011 in the eastern United States and Europe have scientists talking about what might be influencing the weather.

Dr. James Overland, a scientist at NOAA’s Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory (PMEL) in Seattle, has been studying the changing conditions in the Arctic for 30 years. He explains why the deterioration of the Polar Vortex could be leading to some of these extreme winter weather events.

“When the Polar Vortex — a ring of winds circling the Arctic — breaks down, this allows cold air to spill south, affecting the eastern United States and other regions,” says Dr. Overland. “This can result in a warmer-than-average Arctic region and colder temperatures that may include severe winter weather events on the North American and European continents.”

A Polar Vortex link to Winter 2009-2010?

YCMTSU :lol:

The Polar Vortex is a strong wind flowing around a low-pressure system normally present over the Arctic in winter. Average December values from 1968–1996 show the Polar Vortex remaining strong and helping to keep the cold air in the Arctic region. During winter of 2009–2010, this normal pattern broke down, and a weakened Polar Vortex allowed cold Arctic air to move southward.

In December 2009, the Arctic was 9 degrees F warmer than normal, and mid-latitude continents were 9 degrees F cooler (THAT IS A DEFINITIVE STUDY? 1 MONTH?)than normal, with record cold and snow conditions in northern Europe, eastern Asia and eastern North America,” says Dr. Overland. “This is the Warm Arctic-Cold Continents pattern. The winter of 2009–2010 had especially extreme weather in the U.S. as moisture from El Nino hit cold air from the Arctic.”

warmarctic_coldcontinents_300.png

A map of the Warm Arctic-Cold Continents pattern for December 2010 shows warmer than usual air temperature (red) in the Arctic, especially for regions that were sea-ice-free in summer — north of Alaska, Hudson Bay and in the Barents Sea. Cold continents (purple) are seen where Arctic air has penetrated southward.

Download here. (Credit: NOAA)

Why are we seeing these changes now?

According to the 2010 Arctic Report Card,(ONE OF THE PEERS IN "PEER REVIEWED"?) there is reduced sea summer sea ice cover, record snow cover decreases, and record temperatures. Could these changes be linked to the weakened Polar Vortex and extreme winter weather events?

Many factors, including natural climate variability, can produce extreme weather events. But, there also is a potential impact from Arctic regions, where solar heat absorbed by recently ice-free regions of the ocean warms the atmosphere during autumn, impacting the winds. More research is needed to study the causes and extent of the recently observed Warm Arctic-Cold Continent (THIS IS OUR NEW WORRY, CERTAINLY)pattern.

 

“Some scientists are beginning to suspect that the lack of sea ice allows the oceans to pump heat into the atmosphere in the Arctic in a way that could impact weather patterns such as the North Atlantic Oscillation,” said Mark Serreze, director of the National Snow and Ice Data Center. “The idea is still very much in its infancy, but it’s worth looking into. If it turns out to be right, it could help to explain the frigid winters the eastern United States and Europe have experienced these past two years.”

The North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) is a natural climate pattern that is the dominant mode of winter climate variability for the region, which ranges from central North America to Europe and into Northern Asia. A strongly negative NAO can indicate a breakdown of the Polar Vortex. Last winter, there were two extreme cold continent events — and the breakdown of the Vortex, as measured by the NAO, was the most extreme on record for the past 145 years.

Undoubtedly, changes in the Arctic are being felt near and far. The winters of 2009 and 2010 serve as a jumping off point for more research to determine potential linkages between Arctic changes and continental weather to help predict if the Northern latitudes will witness colder winters in the future as more summer sea ice is lost.

Learn more about NOAA’s “cool” work in the Arctic: Visit www.arctic.noaa.gov.

Posted Feb. 28, 2011 noaameatball.jpg\

 

 

THIS READS LIKE A SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE NEWS CAST SCRIPT. COULD, CAN, MAYBE WTF?

 

I guess you are one of those who are looking for "settled" science.

FIFY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1510930_842365919126196_2065465686_n.jpg

Funny 😄

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meanwhile, Australia records the warmest year on record. Go figure.

 

And yet, as evidenced by the number of icebreakers showing up the pack ice in the Antarctic is growing.

 

See it's getting colder so that proves global warming until next week when the jet stream shifts and temperatures rise proving global waming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

All Bush's fault.

You forgot to include the word "Messiah".

 

You are one of the only people who uses it.

 

All Bush's fault.

You forgot to include the word "Messiah".

 

You are one of the only people who uses it.

The Messiah will wait until July to have another global warming speech. Hard to make your point in an overcoat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Meanwhile, Australia records the warmest year on record. Go figure.

 

 

And yet, as evidenced by the number of icebreakers showing up the pack ice in the Antarctic is growing.

 

See it's getting colder so that proves global warming until next week when the jet stream shifts and temperatures rise proving global waming.

 

 

US ship heads to free two trapped icebreakers in Antarctic

By Russia Today

RT.com

January 6, 2014

American vessel the Polar Star, the US Coast Guard’s only active heavy polar icebreaker, is heading to the Antarctic to rescue over 120 crewmembers aboard Russian and Chinese ships trapped in heavy sea ice.

According to the Australian Maritime Safety Authority’s Rescue Coordination Centre (AMSA), it should take the Polar Star about seven days to reach Commonwealth Bay, depending on weather conditions.

The 122-meter US icebreaker canceled its planned stop in Sydney after it received a request Friday from Australia, Russia and China to help the Russian and Chinese ships, who fear they may be unable to free themselves from the ice.

According to an AMSA spokeswoman, the US ship has greater icebreaking capacity than the Russian and Chinese vessels.

“It can break ice over six meters thick, while those vessels can break 1-meter ice,” she told Australian Associated Press on Sunday.

“The idea is to break them out, but they will make a decision once they arrive on scene on the best way to do this.”

The 22 crewmembers aboard the Akademik Shokalsky and the 101 crew aboard the Xue Long (Snow Dragon), which had earlier rescued the Russian ship’s passengers with the help of a helicopter, are currently said to be in no immediate danger, and have plenty of supplies. According to Chinese state news agency Xinhua, which has reporters on board the Xue Long, the vessel is currently surrounded by ice of up to four meters thick and is 21 kilometers from open sea.

The Russian research ship Akademik Shokalsky, with 74 scientists, tourists and crewmembers on board, got stuck in a blizzard of up to 70-kilometers-per-hour winds hemmed the sea ice in around, and has been trapped in Antarctic ice since Christmas Eve. The ship has been on a privately-funded research expedition to Antarctica to retrace the footsteps of an Australian geologist who explored the Antarctic a century ago; the voyage was to visit Douglas Mawson’s Antarctic huts, which previously couldn’t be accessed because of an iceberg.

“The idea is to break them out, but they will make a decision once they arrive on scene on the best way to do this.”

The 22 crewmembers aboard the Akademik Shokalsky and the 101 crew aboard the Xue Long (Snow Dragon), which had earlier rescued the Russian ship’s passengers with the help of a helicopter, are currently said to be in no immediate danger, and have plenty of supplies. According to Chinese state news agency Xinhua, which has reporters on board the Xue Long, the vessel is currently surrounded by ice of up to four meters thick and is 21 kilometers from open sea.

Three icebreakers – Australian, Chinese and French – have so far been unsuccessfully trying to reach the Russian ship since December 25.

The 166-meter Xue Long, which finally came to its rescue, reported Friday that it had also become stuck nearby. The Xue Long’s movement has been blocked by a drifting kilometer-long iceberg, which constantly changed position and at times came as closely as 1.2 nautical miles (about 2.2 kilometers) to the ship, according to Xinhua reporters aboard.

Despite bad weather conditions late Thursday, the Chinese ship’s helicopter had managed to retrieve from the Akademik Shokalskiy 52 scientists, journalists and tourists and helped ferry stranded passengers to an Australian icebreaker the Aurora Australis.

After the Xue Long reported it was stuck, AMSA told the Aurora to stay in the area with its rescued passengers on board, in case help was needed. Under international conventions, ships’ crews are obliged to take part in such rescues and the owners bear the costs. The captains of both the Shokalsky and Xue Long agreed they don’t need further help from the Australian icebreaker as they would “provide mutual support to each other,” AMSA reported. On Saturday, AMSA allowed the Aurora to continue, because the Chinese and Russian ships were safe.

It’s now hoped that the Polar Star, with a crew of 140 people, could reach Commonwealth Bay and rescue the two trapped vessels by the end of next week.

“Our highest priority is safety of life at sea, which is why we are assisting in breaking a navigational path for both of these vessels,” US Coast Guard Pacific Area commander Vice Adm. Paul Zukunft said in a statement, adding they were ready to render assistance “in one of the most remote and harsh environments on the face of the globe.”

The Polar Star left its homeport of Seattle in early December to take part in one of its key missions, Operation Deep Freeze, to break a channel through the sea ice of McMurdo Sound to resupply and refuel the US Antarctic Program’s McMurdo Station on Ross Island. That mission will now have to be postponed, however.

Coast Guard chief warrant officer Allyson Conroy said the Polar Star’s rescue operation could take up to three days.

“You’re looking at the Antarctic, which is a challenge in itself. You have weather and you have ice,” Conroy told Reuters. “But our crews are very well trained and we expect to be successful in this mission.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ absolute proof that global warming is a hoax. 98% of climate scientists are completely full of shit. Has our education system failed us?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Record heat waves - doesn't prove anything. Record cold snaps? Proves Climate Change is a hoax.

 

Conservative Science. Simple, Straight Forward and Easy To Understand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Record heat waves - doesn't prove anything. Record cold snaps? Proves Climate Change is a hoax.

 

Conservative Science. Simple, Straight Forward and Easy To Understand.

 

Don't confuse them with the facts when their minds are already made up...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree. The President promised that his election would result in the rise of the oceans to pause , and the planet begin to heal.

Maybe he overachieved.

Not surprising, as he is the Messiah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree. The President promised that his election would result in the rise of the oceans to pause , and the planet begin to heal.

Maybe he overachieved.

Not surprising, as he is the Messiah.

Good, he can retire now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Record heat waves - doesn't prove anything. Record cold snaps? Proves Climate Change is a hoax.

 

Conservative Science. Simple, Straight Forward and Easy To Understand.

 

Don't confuse them with the facts when their minds are already made up...

 

There are people on both sides of the argument who fit that description.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Record heat waves - doesn't prove anything. Record cold snaps? Proves Climate Change is a hoax.

 

Conservative Science. Simple, Straight Forward and Easy To Understand.

 

Don't confuse them with the facts when their minds are already made up...

 

There are people on both sides of the argument who fit that description.

 

True.

 

Interested to know your take on the bolded portion, above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Record heat waves - doesn't prove anything. Record cold snaps? Proves Climate Change is a hoax.

 

Conservative Science. Simple, Straight Forward and Easy To Understand.

 

Don't confuse them with the facts when their minds are already made up...

 

There are people on both sides of the argument who fit that description.

 

True.

 

Interested to know your take on the bolded portion, above.

 

I look at the weather as the weather and am not convinced we have that much if anything to do with it. I have always been troubled by the change from "global warming" to "climate change".

 

An interesting change in the past 40 years on what causes these anomalies -

 

In 1974, Time Magazine blamed the cold polar vortex on global cooling.

 

Scientists have found other indications of global cooling. For one thing there has been a noticeable expansion of the great belt of dry, high-altitude polar winds —the so-called circumpolar vortex—that sweep from west to east around the top and bottom of the world.

Another Ice Age? – TIME

Forty years later, Time Magazine blames the cold polar vortex on global warming

But not only does the cold spell not disprove climate change, it may well be that global warming could be making the occasional bout of extreme cold weather in the U.S. even more likely. Right now much of the U.S. is in the grip of a polar vortex, which is pretty much what it sounds like: a whirlwind of extremely cold, extremely dense air that forms near the poles. Usually the fast winds in the vortex—which can top 100 mph (161 k/h)—keep that cold air locked up in the Arctic. But when the winds weaken, the vortex can begin to wobble like a drunk on his fourth martini, and the Arctic air can escape and spill southward, bringing Arctic weather with it. In this case, nearly the entire polar vortex has tumbled southward, leading to record-breaking cold (link)

 

Call me a skeptic.

 

I do enjoy the irony of global warming scientists stuck in the ice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I do enjoy the irony of global warming scientists stuck in the ice.

 

In the southern summer.

Most of the print "ve seen glosses over one and ignores the other.

 

...curiously the Alberta Clipper has become the Arctic Blast ??????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I do enjoy the irony of global warming scientists stuck in the ice.

In the southern summer.

In a ship that uses fossil fuel, with another ship powered by fossil fuel sent to rescue them (which got stuck), then individually rescued by a fossil fuel powered helicopter, ferried to a fossil fuel powered ship for safety, and a return home.

Now a fossil fuel powered US Coast Guard icebreaker is on its way from Sydney, AUS, to rescue their ship.

But, in the words of one passenger, "we got a lot of science done."

 

YCMTSU.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some reading for tuk tuk, if he cares to give it a go.

 

http://www.noaa.gov/features/02_monitoring/warmarctic.html

 

From the article in the link:

The idea is still very much in its infancy, but it’s worth looking into. If it turns out to be right, it could help to explain the frigid winters the eastern United States and Europe have experienced these past two years.”

 

i.e., "we need lots of funding over the next two decades to properly investigate, and I need a promotion with a staff of 40 scientists under me for the remainder of my career...."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You missed the 2nd ship (fossil fueled) that got stuck trying the rescue.

Thank God Dinosaurs for fossil fuels.

 

 

Fixed for you Senor Crackhead! You're welcome... :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

You missed the 2nd ship (fossil fueled) that got stuck trying the rescue.

Thank God Dinosaurs plankton for fossil fuels.

 

 

Fixed for you Senor Crack dickhead! You're welcome... :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Record heat waves - doesn't prove anything. Record cold snaps? Proves Climate Change is a hoax.

 

Conservative Science. Simple, Straight Forward and Easy To Understand.

 

Don't confuse them with the facts when their minds are already made up...

 

There are people on both sides of the argument who fit that description.

 

True.

 

Interested to know your take on the bolded portion, above.

 

I look at the weather as the weather and am not convinced we have that much if anything to do with it. I have always been troubled by the change from "global warming" to "climate change".

 

An interesting change in the past 40 years on what causes these anomalies -

 

In 1974, Time Magazine blamed the cold polar vortex on global cooling.

 

Scientists have found other indications of global cooling. For one thing there has been a noticeable expansion of the great belt of dry, high-altitude polar winds —the so-called circumpolar vortex—that sweep from west to east around the top and bottom of the world.

Another Ice Age? – TIME

Forty years later, Time Magazine blames the cold polar vortex on global warming

But not only does the cold spell not disprove climate change, it may well be that global warming could be making the occasional bout of extreme cold weather in the U.S. even more likely. Right now much of the U.S. is in the grip of a polar vortex, which is pretty much what it sounds like: a whirlwind of extremely cold, extremely dense air that forms near the poles. Usually the fast winds in the vortex—which can top 100 mph (161 k/h)—keep that cold air locked up in the Arctic. But when the winds weaken, the vortex can begin to wobble like a drunk on his fourth martini, and the Arctic air can escape and spill southward, bringing Arctic weather with it. In this case, nearly the entire polar vortex has tumbled southward, leading to record-breaking cold (link)

 

Call me a skeptic.

 

I do enjoy the irony of global warming scientists stuck in the ice.

 

Thanks for the response. But, I was more looking to your response to the hypocrisy d'ranger mentioned.

 

As for the change from "global warming" to "climate change", I understand your point. It has confused many and, in retrospect, the label "global warming" was a poor choice. Pehaps, "global weirding" would be more accurate. The position that a climate shift is to be expected has always been a part of "global warming". But, the label has led many to incorrectly assume it was just going to get warmer.

 

When I talk about it with my students, I use the analogy of GPA (which they readily understand). I present the situation where I calculate the average GPA for the Senior class during the first quarter of this year. I then calculate the average GPA for the same group of students for the 1st quarter during each of the previous 3 years. Let's say I see that the average GPA of that group was steadily increasing. I ask them if that is an indication that every student has seen an increase in their GPA. Of course not. Similar to seeing an increase in a global average and mistakenly assuming it means temp readings are all going up. Hence the introduction of cold snaps (weather), by skeptics, to refute a change in climate.

 

We are seeing an increase in global air and sea surface temperature. Are we the singular cause? Are we a major contributor? Is our impact incidental to a natural process? I don't claim to know any of those answers. But, I cannot fathom that our behavior (polluting) is doing anyting positive for the air, sea, or land.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scientists are all Eggheads. We should make fun of them and the fortunes they make.

 

as Eva Dent.

 

Earth can't be warming because it is cold outside.

This coming from the guy who gave us so much the earth must be warming because it’s hot outside.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Scientists are all Eggheads. We should make fun of them and the fortunes they make.

 

as Eva Dent.

 

Earth can't be warming because it is cold outside.

This coming from the guy who gave us so much the earth must be warming because it’s hot outside.

Care to provide some examples of that? Because I remember pointing out heat records, drought records and so on. The flip side is cold records and floods. Which is all an indication of Climate Change which is in reality global warming which just gives the gleeful something to crow about every time it gets cold.

 

enjoy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Scientists are all Eggheads. We should make fun of them and the fortunes they make.

 

as Eva Dent.

 

Earth can't be warming because it is cold outside.

This coming from the guy who gave us so much the earth must be warming because it’s hot outside.

 

 

Care to provide some examples of that? Because I remember pointing out heat records, drought records and so on. The flip side is cold records and floods. Which is all an indication of Climate Change which is in reality global warming which just gives the gleeful something to crow about every time it gets cold.

 

enjoy.

 

 

Bullshit, you also kept us informed of what you were wearing on a given hot day. Those records you refer to are all indications of weather.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Scientists are all Eggheads. We should make fun of them and the fortunes they make.

 

as Eva Dent.

 

Earth can't be warming because it is cold outside.

This coming from the guy who gave us so much the earth must be warming because it’s hot outside.

 

Care to provide some examples of that? Because I remember pointing out heat records, drought records and so on. The flip side is cold records and floods. Which is all an indication of Climate Change which is in reality global warming which just gives the gleeful something to crow about every time it gets cold.

 

enjoy.

 

Bullshit, you also kept us informed of what you were wearing on a given hot day. Those records you refer to are all indications of weather.

You know the difference between weather and climate? Time. You appear to be a bit hot under the collar, perhaps you can share with the group what I was wearing on any of those days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I do enjoy the irony of global warming scientists stuck in the ice.

 

In the southern summer.

Most of the print "ve seen glosses over one and ignores the other.

 

...curiously the Alberta Clipper has become the Arctic Blast ??????

 

Perhaps Alberta reminds them of a painful piercing that went horrible wrong..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

I do enjoy the irony of global warming scientists stuck in the ice.

 

In the southern summer.

Most of the print "ve seen glosses over one and ignores the other.

 

...curiously the Alberta Clipper has become the Arctic Blast ??????

 

Perhaps Alberta reminds them of a painful piercing that went horrible wrong..

 

Confuses pedestrian popular media descriptions with science. Easily (and apparently, happily) led astray.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

You missed the 2nd ship (fossil fueled) that got stuck trying the rescue.

Thank God Dinosaurs for fossil fuels.

 

Fixed for you Senor Crackhead! You're welcome... :D

Thanks

How am I a crackhead?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Scientists are all Eggheads. We should make fun of them and the fortunes they make.

 

as Eva Dent.

 

Earth can't be warming because it is cold outside.

This coming from the guy who gave us so much the earth must be warming because it’s hot outside.

 

 

Care to provide some examples of that? Because I remember pointing out heat records, drought records and so on. The flip side is cold records and floods. Which is all an indication of Climate Change which is in reality global warming which just gives the gleeful something to crow about every time it gets cold.

 

enjoy.

 

 

Bullshit, you also kept us informed of what you were wearing on a given hot day. Those records you refer to are all indications of weather.

 

 

You know the difference between weather and climate? Time. You appear to be a bit hot under the collar, perhaps you can share with the group what I was wearing on any of those days.

 

 

If time is the difference these records you refer to are not records at all. The climate has been both hotter and colder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

You know the difference between weather and climate? Time. You appear to be a bit hot under the collar, perhaps you can share with the group what I was wearing on any of those days.

 

If time is the difference these records you refer to are not records at all. The climate has been both hotter and colder.

Good to see you can just make statements with nothing to back it up. You are correct that climate has been hotter and colder. A perfect example of posting something true with absolutely no relevance to anything.

 

hint: we are dealing with the rate of change. Now, care to back up your assertions on what I have posted or do you just want to keep changing the subject? I hope you are enjoying this as much as I am.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

You know the difference between weather and climate? Time. You appear to be a bit hot under the collar, perhaps you can share with the group what I was wearing on any of those days.

 

 

If time is the difference these records you refer to are not records at all. The climate has been both hotter and colder.
Good to see you can just make statements with nothing to back it up. You are correct that climate has been hotter and colder. A perfect example of posting something true with absolutely no relevance to anything.

 

hint: we are dealing with the rate of change. Now, care to back up your assertions on what I have posted or do you just want to keep changing the subject? I hope you are enjoying this as much as I am.

It is always funny when AGW faithful state "rate of change". Except for the last 30 years of the twentyith century no one has any idea about previous rate of change. Rate of change 980- 1010 AD? 1130-1160AD? 650-620BC? I thought not!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

You know the difference between weather and climate? Time. You appear to be a bit hot under the collar, perhaps you can share with the group what I was wearing on any of those days.

If time is the difference these records you refer to are not records at all. The climate has been both hotter and colder.

 

 

Good to see you can just make statements with nothing to back it up. You are correct that climate has been hotter and colder. A perfect example of posting something true with absolutely no relevance to anything.

 

hint: we are dealing with the rate of change. Now, care to back up your assertions on what I have posted or do you just want to keep changing the subject? I hope you are enjoying this as much as I am.

 

 

Ok, if it’s the rate of change why are you citing weather related records at all? (One has to wonder what kind of weather related event would not be considered evidence for global warming). So how has AGW theory performed in predicting rate of change?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I do enjoy the irony of global warming scientists stuck in the ice.

In the southern summer.

In a ship that uses fossil fuel, with another ship powered by fossil fuel sent to rescue them (which got stuck), then individually rescued by a fossil fuel powered helicopter, ferried to a fossil fuel powered ship for safety, and a return home.

Now a fossil fuel powered US Coast Guard icebreaker is on its way from Sydney, AUS, to rescue their ship.

But, in the words of one passenger, "we got a lot of science done."

 

YCMTSU.

 

Surely, this must be disappointing news, for some...

 

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/01/08/russian-research-ship-breaks-free-antarctic-ice/

 

And, in other related "climate" news, so far this winter FIS World Cup Skiing events in Finland, Germany, the Czech Republic, and Croatia have been cancelled due to unusually warm weather and lack of snow...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, if it’s the rate of change why are you citing weather related records at all? (One has to wonder what kind of weather related event would not be considered evidence for global warming). So how has AGW theory performed in predicting rate of change?

What is this "AGW theory" you refer to?

 

The models have seemed to do pretty well, within their capabilities, not that you'd ever bother to recognize it.

ar4mods.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the response. But, I was more looking to your response to the hypocrisy d'ranger mentioned.

 

As for the change from "global warming" to "climate change", I understand your point. It has confused many and, in retrospect, the label "global warming" was a poor choice. Pehaps, "global weirding" would be more accurate. The position that a climate shift is to be expected has always been a part of "global warming". But, the label has led many to incorrectly assume it was just going to get warmer.

 

When I talk about it with my students, I use the analogy of GPA (which they readily understand). I present the situation where I calculate the average GPA for the Senior class during the first quarter of this year. I then calculate the average GPA for the same group of students for the 1st quarter during each of the previous 3 years. Let's say I see that the average GPA of that group was steadily increasing. I ask them if that is an indication that every student has seen an increase in their GPA. Of course not. Similar to seeing an increase in a global average and mistakenly assuming it means temp readings are all going up. Hence the introduction of cold snaps (weather), by skeptics, to refute a change in climate.

 

We are seeing an increase in global air and sea surface temperature. Are we the singular cause? Are we a major contributor? Is our impact incidental to a natural process? I don't claim to know any of those answers. But, I cannot fathom that our behavior (polluting) is doing anyting positive for the air, sea, or land.

 

I completely agree with that last statement and am reminded of Mike's approach, which makes the most sense to me. The focus should be on reducing pollution released into the air and water because of the impact it has on the environment without focusing on the unanswered questions you raise about "climate change". We were doing it long before global warming because it was the right thing to do - not because it was going to flood Manhattan.

 

I am very skeptical of unproven science being used as a reason for massive, international wealth redistribution.

 

I am also skeptical of science that relies so heavily on models that predict what will happen at the expense of what is actually happening and which ignores simple, verifiable facts - such as the Thames freezing over on a regular basis as recently as a hundred years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Ok, if it’s the rate of change why are you citing weather related records at all? (One has to wonder what kind of weather related event would not be considered evidence for global warming). So how has AGW theory performed in predicting rate of change?

What is this "AGW theory" you refer to?

 

The models have seemed to do pretty well, within their capabilities, not that you'd ever bother to recognize it.

ar4mods.jpg

 

 

 

Lets cut to the quick - how much money do you think the United States should pay for it's history of polluting the environment? If anthropomorphic carbon is the cause of global warming then we are guilty of committing atrocities against humanity. How much should we pay? Simple number please.

 

This is not complicated. If human activity is damaging the world and we, as Americans, have been the major source of carbon then we are guilty.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2013/nov/20/climate-talks-walk-out-compensation-un-warsaw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Ok, if it’s the rate of change why are you citing weather related records at all? (One has to wonder what kind of weather related event would not be considered evidence for global warming). So how has AGW theory performed in predicting rate of change?

What is this "AGW theory" you refer to?

 

The models have seemed to do pretty well, within their capabilities, not that you'd ever bother to recognize it.

ar4mods.jpg

 

 

 

Lets cut to the quick - how much money do you think the United States should pay for it's history of polluting the environment? If anthropomorphic carbon is the cause of global warming then we are guilty of committing atrocities against humanity. How much should we pay? Simple number please.

 

This is not complicated. If human activity is damaging the world and we, as Americans, have been the major source of carbon then we are guilty.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2013/nov/20/climate-talks-walk-out-compensation-un-warsaw

 

Not really an area that I'm interested in. Sorry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Ok, if it’s the rate of change why are you citing weather related records at all? (One has to wonder what kind of weather related event would not be considered evidence for global warming). So how has AGW theory performed in predicting rate of change?

What is this "AGW theory" you refer to?

 

The models have seemed to do pretty well, within their capabilities, not that you'd ever bother to recognize it.

ar4mods.jpg

 

 

 

Lets cut to the quick - how much money do you think the United States should pay for it's history of polluting the environment? If anthropomorphic carbon is the cause of global warming then we are guilty of committing atrocities against humanity. How much should we pay? Simple number please.

 

This is not complicated. If human activity is damaging the world and we, as Americans, have been the major source of carbon then we are guilty.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2013/nov/20/climate-talks-walk-out-compensation-un-warsaw

 

Not really an area that I'm interested in. Sorry.

 

So this is simply an argument for the sake of argument with no desired action?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Ok, if it’s the rate of change why are you citing weather related records at all? (One has to wonder what kind of weather related event would not be considered evidence for global warming). So how has AGW theory performed in predicting rate of change?

What is this "AGW theory" you refer to?

 

The models have seemed to do pretty well, within their capabilities, not that you'd ever bother to recognize it.

ar4mods.jpg

 

 

 

Lets cut to the quick - how much money do you think the United States should pay for it's history of polluting the environment? If anthropomorphic carbon is the cause of global warming then we are guilty of committing atrocities against humanity. How much should we pay? Simple number please.

 

This is not complicated. If human activity is damaging the world and we, as Americans, have been the major source of carbon then we are guilty.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2013/nov/20/climate-talks-walk-out-compensation-un-warsaw

 

Not really an area that I'm interested in. Sorry.

 

So this is simply an argument for the sake of argument with no desired action?

 

The truth is usually worth pointing out, especially so when it flies in the face of the bullshit some conservatives seem to believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The truth is usually worth pointing out, especially so when it flies in the face of the bullshit some conservatives seem to believe.

 

I agree that the truth is the goal here. I sometimes wonder, however, how much we are being sold a theory vs. the actual truth.

 

As Al Gore and others have show, there is a fortune to be made as an AGW proponent. The politics have overtaken the science, IMO.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pay to whom?

 

Easy, "...the G77 and China bloc of 132 countries came during talks about "loss and damage" – how countries should respond to climate impacts that are difficult or impossible to adapt to, such as typhoon Haiyan."

 

If anthropomorphic carbon is the source of global warming and if global warming is causing hardship, then the major producers of said anthropomorphic carbon are responsible for the hardship and the victims entitled to compensation.

 

To paraphrase, we've already established what kind of woman you are, we're now just determining price.

 

Can't have it both ways. Either we are at fault or we're not. If you believe in compensating victims - whether they're victims from oil spills or pharmaceutics or cigarettes or whatever, then you must believe in compensation in this case.

 

Frankly, I think most people are hypocrites. They'll decry global warming until it makes THEM pay more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The truth is usually worth pointing out, especially so when it flies in the face of the bullshit some conservatives seem to believe.

 

I agree that the truth is the goal here. I sometimes wonder, however, how much we are being sold a theory vs. the actual truth.

 

As Al Gore and others have show, there is a fortune to be made as an AGW proponent. The politics have overtaken the science, IMO.

 

You might want to do a bit of reading before continuing to parrot the Al Gore fortune line. Here is a fairly good rundown on Gore's success from that liberal rag Bloomberg

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-06/gore-is-romney-rich-with-200-million-after-bush-defeat.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The key is to pretend that anyone whatsoever who has even once entertained the possibility that man's actions may have an impact on global climate believes that first world countries should be paying reparations to the third world.

 

It's much easier to argue against that position than anything baring any resemblance to reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The key is to pretend that anyone whatsoever who has even once entertained the possibility that man's actions may have an impact on global climate believes that first world countries should be paying reparations to the third world.

 

It's much easier to argue against that position than anything baring any resemblance to reality.

 

So then the answer to the question of how much the reparations should be is "None, I'm not paying you anything for the damage my activities may have caused'. It's not a difficult position to articulate.

 

I actually wish people would just simply be more honest about the discussion. Most conservatives that I've spoken with DO believe that human activity contribute to global warming. What they're afraid of is how, even that small admission, will be twisted into YET ANOTHER ATTEMPT to restructure of society so that the 'weak and downtrodden' can be given the 'help they deserve' by a massive neverending government program. If liberals would make the above admission, I believe it would actually simplify the conversation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The truth is usually worth pointing out, especially so when it flies in the face of the bullshit some conservatives seem to believe.

 

I agree that the truth is the goal here. I sometimes wonder, however, how much we are being sold a theory vs. the actual truth.

 

As Al Gore and others have show, there is a fortune to be made as an AGW proponent. The politics have overtaken the science, IMO.

 

 

 

There is a FAR greater fortune to be made and preserved in promoting the denial of the obvious. Hell, all you've really got to do is catapult the propaganda that there is a 'debate', and enough suckers will latch onto that to make it self-fulfilling ... even when what is being 'debated' is nonsense vs demonstrable fact. Yeah, yeah, those thousandaire research scientists are in it for the money, but ExxonMobil? Naw, man, BIG capital is only trying to protect the American Dream. Chumps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

The key is to pretend that anyone whatsoever who has even once entertained the possibility that man's actions may have an impact on global climate believes that first world countries should be paying reparations to the third world.

 

It's much easier to argue against that position than anything baring any resemblance to reality.

So then the answer to the question of how much the reparations should be is "None, I'm not paying you anything for the damage my activities may have caused'. It's not a difficult position to articulate.

 

I actually wish people would just simply be more honest about the discussion. Most conservatives that I've spoken with DO believe that human activity contribute to global warming. What they're afraid of is how, even that small admission, will be twisted into YET ANOTHER ATTEMPT to restructure of society so that the 'weak and downtrodden' can be given the 'help they deserve' by a massive neverending government program. If liberals would make the above admission, I believe it would actually simplify the conversation.

 

 

If people would just admit to the things that you imagine they believe things would be so much better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The key is to pretend that anyone whatsoever who has even once entertained the possibility that man's actions may have an impact on global climate believes that first world countries should be paying reparations to the third world.

 

It's much easier to argue against that position than anything baring any resemblance to reality.

 

So then the answer to the question of how much the reparations should be is "None, I'm not paying you anything for the damage my activities may have caused'. It's not a difficult position to articulate.

 

I actually wish people would just simply be more honest about the discussion. Most conservatives that I've spoken with DO believe that human activity contribute to global warming. What they're afraid of is how, even that small admission, will be twisted into YET ANOTHER ATTEMPT to restructure of society so that the 'weak and downtrodden' can be given the 'help they deserve' by a massive neverending government program. If liberals would make the above admission, I believe it would actually simplify the conversation.

 

Of course they do. Dealing with that reality rationally is where they lose their way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Thanks for the response. But, I was more looking to your response to the hypocrisy d'ranger mentioned.

 

As for the change from "global warming" to "climate change", I understand your point. It has confused many and, in retrospect, the label "global warming" was a poor choice. Pehaps, "global weirding" would be more accurate. The position that a climate shift is to be expected has always been a part of "global warming". But, the label has led many to incorrectly assume it was just going to get warmer.

 

When I talk about it with my students, I use the analogy of GPA (which they readily understand). I present the situation where I calculate the average GPA for the Senior class during the first quarter of this year. I then calculate the average GPA for the same group of students for the 1st quarter during each of the previous 3 years. Let's say I see that the average GPA of that group was steadily increasing. I ask them if that is an indication that every student has seen an increase in their GPA. Of course not. Similar to seeing an increase in a global average and mistakenly assuming it means temp readings are all going up. Hence the introduction of cold snaps (weather), by skeptics, to refute a change in climate.

 

We are seeing an increase in global air and sea surface temperature. Are we the singular cause? Are we a major contributor? Is our impact incidental to a natural process? I don't claim to know any of those answers. But, I cannot fathom that our behavior (polluting) is doing anyting positive for the air, sea, or land.

 

I completely agree with that last statement and am reminded of Mike's approach, which makes the most sense to me. The focus should be on reducing pollution released into the air and water because of the impact it has on the environment without focusing on the unanswered questions you raise about "climate change". We were doing it long before global warming because it was the right thing to do - not because it was going to flood Manhattan.

 

I am very skeptical of unproven science being used as a reason for massive, international wealth redistribution.

 

I am also skeptical of science that relies so heavily on models that predict what will happen at the expense of what is actually happening and which ignores simple, verifiable facts - such as the Thames freezing over on a regular basis as recently as a hundred years ago.

 

Care to respond to the hypocrisy d'ranger pointed out?

 

"Record heat waves - doesn't prove anything. Record cold snaps? Proves Climate Change is a hoax."

 

It is spouted by more than a few folks around here and I am interested in your take on it, RD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

The truth is usually worth pointing out, especially so when it flies in the face of the bullshit some conservatives seem to believe.

 

I agree that the truth is the goal here. I sometimes wonder, however, how much we are being sold a theory vs. the actual truth.

 

As Al Gore and others have show, there is a fortune to be made as an AGW proponent. The politics have overtaken the science, IMO.

 

You might want to do a bit of reading before continuing to parrot the Al Gore fortune line. Here is a fairly good rundown on Gore's success from that liberal rag Bloomberg

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-06/gore-is-romney-rich-with-200-million-after-bush-defeat.html

 

Great article.

 

Whatever you think of Gore, one thing is indisputable: leveraging his aura as a technology seer and his political and climate work connections, Gore has remade himself into a wealthy businessman, amassing a fortune that may exceed $200 million.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

The truth is usually worth pointing out, especially so when it flies in the face of the bullshit some conservatives seem to believe.

 

I agree that the truth is the goal here. I sometimes wonder, however, how much we are being sold a theory vs. the actual truth.

 

As Al Gore and others have show, there is a fortune to be made as an AGW proponent. The politics have overtaken the science, IMO.

 

You might want to do a bit of reading before continuing to parrot the Al Gore fortune line. Here is a fairly good rundown on Gore's success from that liberal rag Bloomberg

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-06/gore-is-romney-rich-with-200-million-after-bush-defeat.html

 

Great article.

 

Whatever you think of Gore, one thing is indisputable: leveraging his aura as a technology seer and his political and climate work connections, Gore has remade himself into a wealthy businessman, amassing a fortune that may exceed $200 million.

 

And that, my friends, is what it really is all about. Inflammatory rhetoric to get at the bucks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

The truth is usually worth pointing out, especially so when it flies in the face of the bullshit some conservatives seem to believe.

 

I agree that the truth is the goal here. I sometimes wonder, however, how much we are being sold a theory vs. the actual truth.

 

As Al Gore and others have show, there is a fortune to be made as an AGW proponent. The politics have overtaken the science, IMO.

 

You might want to do a bit of reading before continuing to parrot the Al Gore fortune line. Here is a fairly good rundown on Gore's success from that liberal rag Bloomberg

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-06/gore-is-romney-rich-with-200-million-after-bush-defeat.html

 

Great article.

 

Whatever you think of Gore, one thing is indisputable: leveraging his aura as a technology seer and his political and climate work connections, Gore has remade himself into a wealthy businessman, amassing a fortune that may exceed $200 million.

 

And that, my friends, is what it really is all about. Inflammatory rhetoric to get at the bucks.

And that, my friends is someone else who either didn't read it or doesn't understand it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Thanks for the response. But, I was more looking to your response to the hypocrisy d'ranger mentioned.

 

As for the change from "global warming" to "climate change", I understand your point. It has confused many and, in retrospect, the label "global warming" was a poor choice. Pehaps, "global weirding" would be more accurate. The position that a climate shift is to be expected has always been a part of "global warming". But, the label has led many to incorrectly assume it was just going to get warmer.

 

When I talk about it with my students, I use the analogy of GPA (which they readily understand). I present the situation where I calculate the average GPA for the Senior class during the first quarter of this year. I then calculate the average GPA for the same group of students for the 1st quarter during each of the previous 3 years. Let's say I see that the average GPA of that group was steadily increasing. I ask them if that is an indication that every student has seen an increase in their GPA. Of course not. Similar to seeing an increase in a global average and mistakenly assuming it means temp readings are all going up. Hence the introduction of cold snaps (weather), by skeptics, to refute a change in climate.

 

We are seeing an increase in global air and sea surface temperature. Are we the singular cause? Are we a major contributor? Is our impact incidental to a natural process? I don't claim to know any of those answers. But, I cannot fathom that our behavior (polluting) is doing anyting positive for the air, sea, or land.

 

I completely agree with that last statement and am reminded of Mike's approach, which makes the most sense to me. The focus should be on reducing pollution released into the air and water because of the impact it has on the environment without focusing on the unanswered questions you raise about "climate change". We were doing it long before global warming because it was the right thing to do - not because it was going to flood Manhattan.

 

I am very skeptical of unproven science being used as a reason for massive, international wealth redistribution.

 

I am also skeptical of science that relies so heavily on models that predict what will happen at the expense of what is actually happening and which ignores simple, verifiable facts - such as the Thames freezing over on a regular basis as recently as a hundred years ago.

 

Care to respond to the hypocrisy d'ranger pointed out?

 

"Record heat waves - doesn't prove anything. Record cold snaps? Proves Climate Change is a hoax."

 

It is spouted by more than a few folks around here and I am interested in your take on it, RD.

 

I think I made it clear earlier - there is hypocrisy on both sides of the argument. Personally, I find the hypocricy is a bit more blatant on the alarmist side of the argument, as many of them claim that any and all severe weather is the result of human influence. Was changing the name of the supposed phenomenon from "global warming" to "climate change" an inconvenient truth, or was it simply a convenient way to attribute all climate anomalies to man?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Thanks for the response. But, I was more looking to your response to the hypocrisy d'ranger mentioned.

 

As for the change from "global warming" to "climate change", I understand your point. It has confused many and, in retrospect, the label "global warming" was a poor choice. Pehaps, "global weirding" would be more accurate. The position that a climate shift is to be expected has always been a part of "global warming". But, the label has led many to incorrectly assume it was just going to get warmer.

 

When I talk about it with my students, I use the analogy of GPA (which they readily understand). I present the situation where I calculate the average GPA for the Senior class during the first quarter of this year. I then calculate the average GPA for the same group of students for the 1st quarter during each of the previous 3 years. Let's say I see that the average GPA of that group was steadily increasing. I ask them if that is an indication that every student has seen an increase in their GPA. Of course not. Similar to seeing an increase in a global average and mistakenly assuming it means temp readings are all going up. Hence the introduction of cold snaps (weather), by skeptics, to refute a change in climate.

 

We are seeing an increase in global air and sea surface temperature. Are we the singular cause? Are we a major contributor? Is our impact incidental to a natural process? I don't claim to know any of those answers. But, I cannot fathom that our behavior (polluting) is doing anyting positive for the air, sea, or land.

 

I completely agree with that last statement and am reminded of Mike's approach, which makes the most sense to me. The focus should be on reducing pollution released into the air and water because of the impact it has on the environment without focusing on the unanswered questions you raise about "climate change". We were doing it long before global warming because it was the right thing to do - not because it was going to flood Manhattan.

 

I am very skeptical of unproven science being used as a reason for massive, international wealth redistribution.

 

I am also skeptical of science that relies so heavily on models that predict what will happen at the expense of what is actually happening and which ignores simple, verifiable facts - such as the Thames freezing over on a regular basis as recently as a hundred years ago.

 

I respect your constructive response.

 

What bothers me most the climate change discussion is (literally and figuratively) is the polarization of unscientific hyperbolic disinformation. (We can debate who is most responsible but at this point it is unlikly to propel a meaningful dialogue at this time.)

 

To your point of 'the right thing to do' by my reckoning, if efficiency innovation 'commercializes' conservation, we can (and should) strive towards greater efficiency through 'using less' of something. (I like to keep my money for things other than average energy needs.) So if lighting the kitchen with five 3 Watt LEDs makes the room brighter, emits better looking light, adds way more vibrance to the space, uses 1/4 the electricity, and last 20 times longer than the single 120 W incandesant, I say 'switch the friggin' light bulbs and 'Bully for Conservation'. If the ball stays nicer longer, well that's a good thing.

 

Greater scientific understanding should be driving this debate, not any form of commercial or social agenda. It could be very important. As a community, humans, especially Americans, have used using way too much drama, hyperbole when discussing important, yet difficult topics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks for the response. But, I was more looking to your response to the hypocrisy d'ranger mentioned.

 

As for the change from "global warming" to "climate change", I understand your point. It has confused many and, in retrospect, the label "global warming" was a poor choice. Pehaps, "global weirding" would be more accurate. The position that a climate shift is to be expected has always been a part of "global warming". But, the label has led many to incorrectly assume it was just going to get warmer.

 

When I talk about it with my students, I use the analogy of GPA (which they readily understand). I present the situation where I calculate the average GPA for the Senior class during the first quarter of this year. I then calculate the average GPA for the same group of students for the 1st quarter during each of the previous 3 years. Let's say I see that the average GPA of that group was steadily increasing. I ask them if that is an indication that every student has seen an increase in their GPA. Of course not. Similar to seeing an increase in a global average and mistakenly assuming it means temp readings are all going up. Hence the introduction of cold snaps (weather), by skeptics, to refute a change in climate.

 

We are seeing an increase in global air and sea surface temperature. Are we the singular cause? Are we a major contributor? Is our impact incidental to a natural process? I don't claim to know any of those answers. But, I cannot fathom that our behavior (polluting) is doing anyting positive for the air, sea, or land.

 

I completely agree with that last statement and am reminded of Mike's approach, which makes the most sense to me. The focus should be on reducing pollution released into the air and water because of the impact it has on the environment without focusing on the unanswered questions you raise about "climate change". We were doing it long before global warming because it was the right thing to do - not because it was going to flood Manhattan.

 

I am very skeptical of unproven science being used as a reason for massive, international wealth redistribution.

 

I am also skeptical of science that relies so heavily on models that predict what will happen at the expense of what is actually happening and which ignores simple, verifiable facts - such as the Thames freezing over on a regular basis as recently as a hundred years ago.

Care to respond to the hypocrisy d'ranger pointed out?

 

"Record heat waves - doesn't prove anything. Record cold snaps? Proves Climate Change is a hoax."

 

It is spouted by more than a few folks around here and I am interested in your take on it, RD.

I think I made it clear earlier - there is hypocrisy on both sides of the argument. Personally, I find the hypocricy is a bit more blatant on the alarmist side of the argument, as many of them claim that any and all severe weather is the result of human influence. Was changing the name of the supposed phenomenon from "global warming" to "climate change" an inconvenient truth, or was it simply a convenient way to attribute all climate anomalies to man?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-global-warming.htm

 

No Reason to Change the Term

Those who perpetuate the "they changed the name" myth generally suggest two reasons for the supposed terminology change. Either because (i) the planet supposedly stopped warming, and thus the term 'global warming' is no longer accurate, or (ii) the term 'climate change' is more frightening.

 

The first premise is demonstrably wrong, as the first figure above shows the planet is still warming, and is still accumulating heat. Quite simply, global warming has not stopped.

 

The second premise is also wrong, as demonstrated by perhaps the only individual to actually advocate changing the term from 'global warming' to 'climate change', Republican political strategist Frank Luntz in a controversial memo advising conservative politicians on communicating about the environment:

 

"" Its time for us to start talking about climate change instead of global warming and conservation

instead of preservation.

 

Climate change is less frightening than global warming. As one focus group participant noted,

climate change sounds like youre going from Pittsburgh to Fort Lauderdale. While global warming

has catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less

emotional challenge.""

 

Summary

So to sum up, although the terms are used interchangeably because they are causally related, 'global warming' and 'climate change' refer to different physical phenomena. The term 'climate change' has been used frequently in the scientific literature for many decades, and the usage of both terms has increased over the past 40 years. Moreover, since the planet continues to warm, there is no reason to change the terminology. Perhaps the only individual to advocate the change was Frank Luntz, a Republican political strategist and global warming skeptic, who used focus group results to determine that the term 'climate change' is less frightening to the general public than 'global warming'. There is simply no factual basis whatsoever to the myth "they changed the name from global warming to climate change".

 

 

The Frank Luntz environment play book: http://www.motherjones.com/files/LuntzResearch_environment.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks for the response. But, I was more looking to your response to the hypocrisy d'ranger mentioned.

 

As for the change from "global warming" to "climate change", I understand your point. It has confused many and, in retrospect, the label "global warming" was a poor choice. Pehaps, "global weirding" would be more accurate. The position that a climate shift is to be expected has always been a part of "global warming". But, the label has led many to incorrectly assume it was just going to get warmer.

 

When I talk about it with my students, I use the analogy of GPA (which they readily understand). I present the situation where I calculate the average GPA for the Senior class during the first quarter of this year. I then calculate the average GPA for the same group of students for the 1st quarter during each of the previous 3 years. Let's say I see that the average GPA of that group was steadily increasing. I ask them if that is an indication that every student has seen an increase in their GPA. Of course not. Similar to seeing an increase in a global average and mistakenly assuming it means temp readings are all going up. Hence the introduction of cold snaps (weather), by skeptics, to refute a change in climate.

 

We are seeing an increase in global air and sea surface temperature. Are we the singular cause? Are we a major contributor? Is our impact incidental to a natural process? I don't claim to know any of those answers. But, I cannot fathom that our behavior (polluting) is doing anyting positive for the air, sea, or land.

I completely agree with that last statement and am reminded of Mike's approach, which makes the most sense to me. The focus should be on reducing pollution released into the air and water because of the impact it has on the environment without focusing on the unanswered questions you raise about "climate change". We were doing it long before global warming because it was the right thing to do - not because it was going to flood Manhattan.

 

I am very skeptical of unproven science being used as a reason for massive, international wealth redistribution.

 

I am also skeptical of science that relies so heavily on models that predict what will happen at the expense of what is actually happening and which ignores simple, verifiable facts - such as the Thames freezing over on a regular basis as recently as a hundred years ago.

Care to respond to the hypocrisy d'ranger pointed out?

 

"Record heat waves - doesn't prove anything. Record cold snaps? Proves Climate Change is a hoax."

 

It is spouted by more than a few folks around here and I am interested in your take on it, RD.

I think I made it clear earlier - there is hypocrisy on both sides of the argument. Personally, I find the hypocricy is a bit more blatant on the alarmist side of the argument, as many of them claim that any and all severe weather is the result of human influence. Was changing the name of the supposed phenomenon from "global warming" to "climate change" an inconvenient truth, or was it simply a convenient way to attribute all climate anomalies to man?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-global-warming.htm

 

No Reason to Change the Term

Those who perpetuate the "they changed the name" myth generally suggest two reasons for the supposed terminology change. Either because (i) the planet supposedly stopped warming, and thus the term 'global warming' is no longer accurate, or (ii) the term 'climate change' is more frightening.

 

The first premise is demonstrably wrong, as the first figure above shows the planet is still warming, and is still accumulating heat. Quite simply, global warming has not stopped.

 

The second premise is also wrong, as demonstrated by perhaps the only individual to actually advocate changing the term from 'global warming' to 'climate change', Republican political strategist Frank Luntz in a controversial memo advising conservative politicians on communicating about the environment:

 

"" Its time for us to start talking about climate change instead of global warming and conservation

instead of preservation.

 

Climate change is less frightening than global warming. As one focus group participant noted,

climate change sounds like youre going from Pittsburgh to Fort Lauderdale. While global warming

has catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less

emotional challenge.""

 

Summary

So to sum up, although the terms are used interchangeably because they are causally related, 'global warming' and 'climate change' refer to different physical phenomena. The term 'climate change' has been used frequently in the scientific literature for many decades, and the usage of both terms has increased over the past 40 years. Moreover, since the planet continues to warm, there is no reason to change the terminology. Perhaps the only individual to advocate the change was Frank Luntz, a Republican political strategist and global warming skeptic, who used focus group results to determine that the term 'climate change' is less frightening to the general public than 'global warming'. There is simply no factual basis whatsoever to the myth "they changed the name from global warming to climate change".

 

 

The Frank Luntz environment play book: http://www.motherjones.com/files/LuntzResearch_environment.pdf

 

Climate change is the normal state of affairs. But only seeing the rising half of the frequency chart is silly.

 

As has been shown many times, stop fucking things up and the earth will take care of the cleanup. You just have to give it a chance and not expect an instantneous response.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Thanks for the response. But, I was more looking to your response to the hypocrisy d'ranger mentioned.

 

As for the change from "global warming" to "climate change", I understand your point. It has confused many and, in retrospect, the label "global warming" was a poor choice. Pehaps, "global weirding" would be more accurate. The position that a climate shift is to be expected has always been a part of "global warming". But, the label has led many to incorrectly assume it was just going to get warmer.

 

When I talk about it with my students, I use the analogy of GPA (which they readily understand). I present the situation where I calculate the average GPA for the Senior class during the first quarter of this year. I then calculate the average GPA for the same group of students for the 1st quarter during each of the previous 3 years. Let's say I see that the average GPA of that group was steadily increasing. I ask them if that is an indication that every student has seen an increase in their GPA. Of course not. Similar to seeing an increase in a global average and mistakenly assuming it means temp readings are all going up. Hence the introduction of cold snaps (weather), by skeptics, to refute a change in climate.

 

We are seeing an increase in global air and sea surface temperature. Are we the singular cause? Are we a major contributor? Is our impact incidental to a natural process? I don't claim to know any of those answers. But, I cannot fathom that our behavior (polluting) is doing anyting positive for the air, sea, or land.

 

I completely agree with that last statement and am reminded of Mike's approach, which makes the most sense to me. The focus should be on reducing pollution released into the air and water because of the impact it has on the environment without focusing on the unanswered questions you raise about "climate change". We were doing it long before global warming because it was the right thing to do - not because it was going to flood Manhattan.

 

I am very skeptical of unproven science being used as a reason for massive, international wealth redistribution.

 

I am also skeptical of science that relies so heavily on models that predict what will happen at the expense of what is actually happening and which ignores simple, verifiable facts - such as the Thames freezing over on a regular basis as recently as a hundred years ago.

 

I respect your constructive response.

 

What bothers me most the climate change discussion is (literally and figuratively) is the polarization of unscientific hyperbolic disinformation. (We can debate who is most responsible but at this point it is unlikly to propel a meaningful dialogue at this time.)

 

To your point of 'the right thing to do' by my reckoning, if efficiency innovation 'commercializes' conservation, we can (and should) strive towards greater efficiency through 'using less' of something. (I like to keep my money for things other than average energy needs.) So if lighting the kitchen with five 3 Watt LEDs makes the room brighter, emits better looking light, adds way more vibrance to the space, uses 1/4 the electricity, and last 20 times longer than the single 120 W incandesant, I say 'switch the friggin' light bulbs and 'Bully for Conservation'. If the ball stays nicer longer, well that's a good thing.

 

Greater scientific understanding should be driving this debate, not any form of commercial or social agenda. It could be very important. As a community, humans, especially Americans, have used using way too much drama, hyperbole when discussing important, yet difficult topics.

 

As I've said time and again - Mike's advice about reducing pollutents makes huge sense - clean air and water, That should be the goal.

 

Reparations for questionable science to 3rd world countries is BS, imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We can discuss whether man has any bearing on climate change or whether climate change is not normal til we are blue in the face and no one will agree. On the supposition that man is a factor, what can be done to change the course?. Of the top 7 or 8 CO2 emmiters only 4 are really of the modern world. China, India and Russia account for ~35% of CO2 emmission and none of those are going to cut any time soon. CO2 emmissions are calculated on fossil fuel usage, The large amounts of wood burning in those countries for heat and cooking are uncounted emmissions and would skew the accepted tabulations. The US, Europe and Canada are pretty clean and account for another ~35% CO2 emmissions. The remaining countries account for 30% but many are developing and I see them largely developing on the dirty China model and not the clean US /Europe model. Any efforts at CO2 reduction in the developed nations will likely be offset by developing nations.

Global CO2 emmission are 90% natural and 10% manmade (fossil fuel, fuel burn) What would be a meaningful CO2 emmissions reduction?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We can discuss whether man has any bearing on climate change or whether climate change is not normal til we are blue in the face and no one will agree. On the supposition that man is a factor, what can be done to change the course?. Of the top 7 or 8 CO2 emmiters only 4 are really of the modern world. China, India and Russia account for ~35% of CO2 emmission and none of those are going to cut any time soon. CO2 emmissions are calculated on fossil fuel usage, The large amounts of wood burning in those countries for heat and cooking are uncounted emmissions and would skew the accepted tabulations. The US, Europe and Canada are pretty clean and account for another ~35% CO2 emmissions. The remaining countries account for 30% but many are developing and I see them largely developing on the dirty China model and not the clean US /Europe model. Any efforts at CO2 reduction in the developed nations will likely be offset by developing nations.

Global CO2 emmission are 90% natural and 10% manmade (fossil fuel, fuel burn) What would be a meaningful CO2 emmissions reduction?

So, why bother?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We can discuss whether man has any bearing on climate change or whether climate change is not normal til we are blue in the face and no one will agree. On the supposition that man is a factor, what can be done to change the course?. Of the top 7 or 8 CO2 emmiters only 4 are really of the modern world. China, India and Russia account for ~35% of CO2 emmission and none of those are going to cut any time soon. CO2 emmissions are calculated on fossil fuel usage, The large amounts of wood burning in those countries for heat and cooking are uncounted emmissions and would skew the accepted tabulations. The US, Europe and Canada are pretty clean and account for another ~35% CO2 emmissions. The remaining countries account for 30% but many are developing and I see them largely developing on the dirty China model and not the clean US /Europe model. Any efforts at CO2 reduction in the developed nations will likely be offset by developing nations.

Global CO2 emmission are 90% natural and 10% manmade (fossil fuel, fuel burn) What would be a meaningful CO2 emmissions reduction?

 

 

The US must send many billions to China, India and Russia so they can invest in coal technology.

 

Seriously?

 

 

We can discuss whether man has any bearing on climate change or whether climate change is not normal til we are blue in the face and no one will agree. On the supposition that man is a factor, what can be done to change the course?. Of the top 7 or 8 CO2 emmiters only 4 are really of the modern world. China, India and Russia account for ~35% of CO2 emmission and none of those are going to cut any time soon. CO2 emmissions are calculated on fossil fuel usage, The large amounts of wood burning in those countries for heat and cooking are uncounted emmissions and would skew the accepted tabulations. The US, Europe and Canada are pretty clean and account for another ~35% CO2 emmissions. The remaining countries account for 30% but many are developing and I see them largely developing on the dirty China model and not the clean US /Europe model. Any efforts at CO2 reduction in the developed nations will likely be offset by developing nations.

Global CO2 emmission are 90% natural and 10% manmade (fossil fuel, fuel burn) What would be a meaningful CO2 emmissions reduction?

So, why bother?

 

You get it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites