The dratted snow is entirely messing up this global warm….errr, I mean…climate change thingy:
Snow cover over North America and much of Siberia, Mongolia and China is greater than at any time since 1966.
The U.S. National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) reported that many American cities and towns suffered record cold temperatures in January and early February. According to the NCDC, the average temperature in January “was -0.3 F cooler than the 1901-2000 (20th century) average.”
China is surviving its most brutal winter in a century. Temperatures in the normally balmy south were so low for so long that some middle-sized cities went days and even weeks without electricity because once power lines had toppled it was too cold or too icy to repair them.
There have been so many snow and ice storms in Ontario and Quebec in the past two months that the real estate market has felt the pinch as home buyers have stayed home rather than venturing out looking for new houses.
In just the first two weeks of February, Toronto received 70 cm of snow, smashing the record of 66.6 cm for the entire month set back in the pre-SUV, pre-Kyoto, pre-carbon footprint days of 1950.
Looking out from my neighborhood, I’ve noticed that Mt. Charleston has a much thicker snow cover than usual (yes, we’re in sight of snow here in the Las Vegas valley) – started snowing up there earlier, and has snowed up there far more often than I’ve seen over my 13 years in Las Vegas. Heck, even the hills behind my house have received several dustings of snow this winter.
I wonder what it all means? Oh, I know – it doesn’t matter; more snow = climate change. Less snow = climate change. Higher temperatures = climate change. Lower tempuratures = climate change. The perfect theory of everything – climate change.
Blogs For Victory 
Why is Big Mac hanging upside down?
We could get up to 10″ tomorrow night, the most we’ve had in a while, and it’s ‘posed to get blisterin’ cold, with a pounding wind!!
For further updates and detail I refer to Accuweather.com
–Jeremiah–
Drink too much water… kills ya. Drink too little water… kills ya. Too much drought… kills ya. Too much rain… kills ya. Too hot… kills ya. Too cold… kills ya.
But who cares if SUVs and coal powerplants disrupt life-sustaining weather patterns. The Rapture is coming, so all we’re doing is leaving those left-behind sinners hell on earth.
Serves them right.
The Rapture is coming, so all we’re doing is leaving those left-behind sinners hell on earth.–Congressive.
Hogwash!
Shortly after Jesus returns, there’ll be no more earth. Then is when we can say, instead of “global warming,” it will be “global inferno.”
2 Peter 3:10 – But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up.
–Jeremiah–
Where’s that list of liberal tendencies I posted the other day?
Derogatory. Fake Science. Dismissive. Insulting. Attacking religion. It’s hard to pack that much liberalism into two sentences – but congressive managed to do it. Impressive.
Yeah, I saw this earlier. Here’s the title of the article:
“Forget global warming: Welcome to the new Ice Age”
Bwahaha!
🙂
Kahn, get a grip.
You’re suggesting that a rational adult should ignore the scientific consensus re global warming BUT respect a belief in the Rapture, or Jeremiah’s rather literal view that a man will come down from the sky and the earth will burn up?
Jeremiah, you rock!
🙂
Hey Congressive and Bongoman, become Christians today, right now, so you both will know that whatever happens you both will know that you will spend eternity in Heaven with Almighty God! 🙂
Steps to Peace With God
Also, there aren’t any SUV’s or coal powerplants on Mars or Saturn yet the planets of our solar system have experienced global warming similar to what Earth has experienced. Coincidence? Hardly. It’s the Sun and solar radiation fluctuations. Science!
It’s pretty painful to watch you continuously post weather (not climate) statistics to make your little anti-science innuendoes.
You can’t argue science by throwing out pop-culture “doncha know” type statements like this. Sure, some people say “it’s hot, must be the global warming,” but you seem to think that’s some kind of scientific theory to refute.
Like the way to refute the people who say “it’s hot, must be the global warming,” is to incessantly point out every freaking time you see a report of cold weather or snow, “see, it’s not the global warming.” Sounds to me like a playground taunt, and it’s frankly pathetic.
Climate is about trends. Get it through your skull. You know this, you can comprehend it. It is the trends that are interesting, and perhaps you should focus your “scientific refutations” on something meaningful. You know, the things scientists are studying, not the what the guy at the barbershop said.
I wonder if the scientists who point out that “man-made global warming” are “anti-science”? No, they just get attacked for not following along with the new PC of “consensus.” Instead of knee-jerking the howls of “anti-science” how about just reading the linked article instead? For example:
According to Robert Toggweiler of the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory at Princeton University and Joellen Russell, assistant professor of biogeochemical dynamics at the University of Arizona — two prominent climate modellers — the computer models that show polar ice-melt cooling the oceans, stopping the circulation of warm equatorial water to northern latitudes and triggering another Ice Age (a la the movie The Day After Tomorrow) are all wrong.
“We missed what was right in front of our eyes,” says Prof. Russell. It’s not ice melt but rather wind circulation that drives ocean currents northward from the tropics. Climate models until now have not properly accounted for the wind’s effects on ocean circulation, so researchers have compensated by over-emphasizing the role of manmade warming on polar ice melt.
But when Profs. Toggweiler and Russell rejigged their model to include the 40-year cycle of winds away from the equator (then back towards it again), the role of ocean currents bringing warm southern waters to the north was obvious in the current Arctic warming.
And there you go, these climate modelers discovered something that was being overlooked. But they will be attacked as “Big Oil Shills” because they were seen filling up their vehicles at an Exxon station.
Kahn, to a mind oriented toward the will of the collective, science IS and SHOULD be a matter of “consensus”. If enough people vote on global warming, then it becomes fact, if you subscribe to that way of thinking.
Or non-thinking.
At the same time the global warming hysteria was building up to a fever pitch, a group of Japanese scientists evidently reached a consensus of their own, because they issued a warning that within a decade or two we would be facing a new mini-Ice Age, due to decreasing solar activity.
Sun=heat
Less sun=less heat
There was actually a consensus that this made sense.
“El Nino”, the warm Pacific current that has such an effect on weather patterns, was discovered and named (for its appearance close to Christmas, thereby the name “The Son”) a couple of centuries ago. Not a lot of carbon emissions in South America back then, eh?
The global warming belief system would have a little more credibility if it were simply treated as the hypothesis it is. But we have people weeping uncontrollably about the drowning polar bears, and New York being under water, etc. We have true believers becoming enraged at those who have not been converted. We have wild exaggerations and outright lies, ranging from real climate changes to how many scientists buy into the global warming theory.
BTW, did anyone read about a story Rush Limbaugh told Monday about a Virgin Atlantic plane flying on vegetable oil? According to Rush, the global warming people were not excited about the possibility of powering engines with something other than petroleum products, they were upset because according to them what we SHOULD be doing is just not flying at all.
I said in a letter to some people off-blog, about alternative energy sources to power engines, that these sources would not make this faction happy, because their real goal is to impose some philosophical ideal upon us, and that they not be happy to have gas at $1.50 a gallon or to have abundant sources of fuel to power cars and trucks and planes—they really want fewer cars and trucks and planes.
It’s not objective science, it is just a secular religion………
bongoman, there is NOT the consensus you speak of. That is an ignorant statement. I’ve read plenty of articles and papers dismissing Global Warming. But once the left made up its mind, it stopped listening.
Liberalism is the only religion I know of that promises dispair and self-loathing. Must be great.
The global warming belief system would have a little more credibility if it were simply treated as the hypothesis it is.
It would also have some more credibility if its believers would recognize the concept of “evidence to the contrary”. If Al Gore, etc., would say, “Gee, this winter is cold, maybe we might just be a tad bit wrong” or “Let’s be careful about this before asking our government to sign any treaties”, then they would have more credibility. They might also help their credibility by refraining from claiming that global warming is the cause, both when we have an unusually mild winter and when we have an unusually severe one.
Climate is about trends.
This is true, but such caution seems to come from the believers only when colder-than-normal weather (i.e., evidence contrary to their beliefs) happens. When we had the two hurricane-filled years of 2004 and 2005, at least some believers were telling us that our CO2 emissions (which were Bush’s fault, of course) caused all those hurricanes, but when 2006 and 2007 were duds, few if any of the Goreans said, “There’s fewer hurricanes even though we haven’t decreased CO2, so maybe something else caused them.” Going back a while, global temperatures declined somewhat from 1940 to 1970, even though CO2 emissions increased. I’d say that 30 years counts as trend.
If anything is “anti-science”, it’s the Gorean’s willingness to seize upon any warmer/stormier-than-usual weather as evidence that they’re right, while dismissing colder/calmer-than-usual weather as mere “fluctuations”.
Shortly after Jesus returns, there’ll be no more earth. Then is when we can say, instead of “global warming,” it will be “global inferno.”
In Revelation 16:8, there’s the Angel who pours his bowl of God’s wrath upon the Sun, which then scorces men with fire. This is before the return of Jesus. The Lake of Fire occurs later.
The SUN GOD causes hurricanes to be stronger. The SUN GOD causes hurricanes to be weaker. The SUN GOD causes more hurricanes. The SUN GOD causes less hurricanes. The SUN GOD causes more tornadoes. The SUN GOD causes less tornadoes. The SUN GOD causes stronger tornadoes. The SUN GOD causes weaker tornadoes. The SUN GOD causes everything.
The GREAT MUMBO JUMBO causes hurricanes to be stronger. The GREAT MUMBO JUMBO causes hurricanes to be weaker. The GREAT MUMBO JUMBO causes more hurricanes. The GREAT MUMBO JUMBO causes less hurricanes. The GREAT MUMBO JUMBO causes more tornadoes. The GREAT MUMBO JUMBO causes less tornadoes. The GREAT MUMBO JUMBO causes stronger tornadoes. The GREAT MUMBO JUMBO causes weaker tornadoes. The GREAT MUMBO JUMBO causes everything.
The GLOBAL WARMING causes hurricanes to be stronger. The GLOBAL WARMING causes hurricanes to be weaker. The GLOBAL WARMING causes more hurricanes. The GLOBAL WARMING causes less hurricanes. The GLOBAL WARMING causes more tornadoes. The GLOBAL WARMING causes less tornadoes. The GLOBAL WARMING causes stronger tornadoes. The GLOBAL WARMING causes weaker tornadoes. The GLOBAL WARMING causes everything.
But if the GLOBAL WARMING priest believed that, why do they kill windmill power? Why not build nuclear plants? Why fly in private jets, own 30,000 square foot houses, own fleets of SUV’s, and huge yachts? Why don’t they move as much of the worlds production as they can to the most productive and efficient nation on the planet – the United States of America?
Plenty of snow fell this winter, but in a day or two it all melts off, except some in shady spots. The only piles of snow you see are the banks from the plows and I live in a cold place
Morris, which religion are you going to blame?
“It has been said that a liberal is someone that won’t take his own side in an argument. The fact is, liberals find so many of their own ideas so unconvincing that they spend most of the time bickering.“
Well, this is certainly not good news for the Warmers. Actually, it’s not good news for anyone.
Oops, I didn’t realize it was exactly the same article as the one in Mark’s post. I actually found it linked at another site.
Heh, I guess great minds think alike. Carry on.
Check out the 3 photos of Mt. Kilimanjaro in the update at the bottom of this post.
Winnowhead, do you notice a “trend” since 2000? I guess Algore can’t use the 2000 picture in his slide show anymore. On second thought, he’s dishonest enough that he probably will anyway.
The evidence contained in this post and its resultant comments demonstrates what is one of the most defining and malign characteristics of the current Administration. For Republicans who are devoted to the George W. Bush version of fake-conservatism, everything is to be politicized, be it the DoD, the Justice Department or NASA. It is the American version of Lysenkoism starring people like Michael Brown and George Deutsch .
Logically, former Vice-President Al Gore could have been positioning himself over the last year for a successful run at being the Democratic nominee for President. Instead, he earned a Nobel Prize for working to highlight the dangers of global warming. However, for those steeped in the Karl Rove school of Republicanism, the idea that the consensus of scientific opinion is that global warming is going to severely impact our collective future is just a political issue. The fact that even the American Association of Petroleum Geologists has, as of June 2007, reluctantly acknowledged the problem in noting that “the AAPG membership is divided on the degree of influence that anthropogenic CO2 has on recent and potential global temperature increases” but that they support several steps, including:
is just politics. Thus, observations about transient local weather effects are imagined as being relevant to the long-term changes to the atmospheric system of the entire planet when, in fact, those swings in local weather events might be more analogous to the erratic oscillations seen as a gyroscope or top slows down just before falling over.
Hey… I am not sold by any means at this time on this whole Global Warming thing. I guess I am just not sold that it is as dire as some lead on. In my opinion, it is something to watch and consider at this point. However…… if you read or at least try to understand what Global Warming could cause, well then Spook…. you spoke right into it.
Global Warming could cause more extreme weather. Not necessarily HOTTER weather, but more extreme. Less glaciers and more water causes more snow and rain. More lake effect snow could be a result because those lakes should be more frozen and not more water. More hurricanes could be a cause as the waters in the gulf are warmer.
So if you people want to blast Global Warming, at least blast it with real information. Not just… hey it is 20 degrees today or hey it is snowing in March.
Retired Spook,
If you follow the links and read the International Herald Tribune story that the photo was cribbed from you find this:
Again, the issue is not about local weather but about climate. Atmospheric scientists pay attention to the distinction. Others don’t.
Joe, and yet if you read what an atomic bomb would do to one of our cities it would be pretty bad. Yet no=one gives credit to Bush for stopping development of them in three hostile nations.
The seriousness of the charge, does not make it true.