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 
keep bringing that up Kahn. I hear you say it over and over again. Those 3 nations will never mess with nuclear material again thanks to W.
Al Gore, scientist? Who knew?
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
7. bongoman | February 26th, 2008 at 3:42 am
Sounds like a perfectly logical belief to me, bongoman. No matter how hard you may search, you’ll never find an individual with more logic than Jeremiah.
—————- —————— —————
Liberalism is the only religion I know of that promises dispair(sic) and self-loathing.
11. Kahn | February 26th, 2008 at 9:05 am
Liberalism is a religion? Wow, Kahn, this sounds like a religion I might want to embrace. Do these liberals have a ‘church’ I could attend?
Hi everybody!
My name is Timmy The Climate Change Bear.
Today we are going to talk about… e v a p o r a t i o n.
When it’s cold outside at your house that doesn’t mean it’s cold at every one’s houses. Some kids might live in a neighborhood a few hundred miles away where it is nice and warm. They can hit the beach while you have to bundle up to stay nice and toasty warm.
Let’s say Jimmy lives in Florida. Jimmy is experiencing what the weather man calls “warmer than average temperatures”. Jimmy is playing outside and hitting the pool. It seems a bit hot but at least there’s a pool.
You might say, “But Timmy, I thought we were going to talk about evaporation?”
Ok, Jimmy’s lives in Florida next to the ocean. There are lakes and rivers around his neighborhood as well.
While Jimmy is enjoying the heat the oceans, rivers, and lakes are experiencing higher than normal evaporation. When it’s hot outside water is soaked up into the sky. It forms clouds and these clouds are blown by winds and will move around to other places.
When there is more heat, there is more evaporation, when there is more evaporation, there is more water in the clouds, when there is more water in the clouds and they go to a cold place, your neighborhood for instance, the result is more snow or ice or freezing rain.
So you see, a warmer climate in Jimmy’s neighborhood in the south, means more snow and ice in your neighborhood in the north.
MORE HEAT = MORE MOISTURE (snow or rain)
Seriously, Mark. I know you think this is hilarious and all but my question to you is:
Do you see a change in the climate?
Do you see the effects of warmer climate in terms of weather patterns and more evaporation via warmer oceans and bodies of water?
Or do you think the climate has a liberal bias?
Or do you think the climate has a liberal bias?
No, SteaM, what we think is that Liberals have a liberal bias when it comes to using scare tactics WRT natural phenomena to achieve political power.
BTW, assuming you were King of the World and had complete control over everything and everyone; what past climate would you try to emulate, what would you do to get there, and what evidence do you have that the policies you would enact would, in fact, achieve the desired results?
Who is trying to achieve political power? Scientists?
It’s always a hoot discussing science with those who firmly believe that ten thousand years ago, a giant bearded ghostlike father figure wadded up a hundred and seventy pounds of mud, then breathed into a couple of holes in it’s face, and voila! Man!
I suppose that’s a bit more enlightened than “turtles, all the way down.”
More comedy gold.
Winnow,
And a trend is a series of incidents – seems like we’ve got a lot of recent cold weather incidents…when do they start to equal a trend?
incidents… trends…
Whatever, get on with Mark.
Mark,
I know you will answer this eventually…
I always wondered where SteaM got his name, and now I know—he just has a passion for vapor.
Which also explains his political leanings.
Global Warming is a belief system, not a science. Like all belief systems, it depends on faith and on trust in its leaders, and dismisses what does meet its narrow parameters.
And it has its evangelical element, as do most other belief systems, accompanied by indignation at those who do not fall in line and accept it, who do not shout ” I BELIEVE!!!” and rush to the altar to be anointed.
Like other belief systems, it has its hypocrites—-one system has a minister who visits prostitutes, another has a minister who writes of getting rid of the internal combustion engine yet flies around in fuel-sucking private planes.
And, like all belief systems, we will have to wait a long long time to see who was right.
In the meantime, we will be stuck with one side which asks for reason, objectivity, and acknowledgment of conflicting theories, and the other, which rails at the unbeliever, hurls insults, and sits, smug in its own self-defined intellectual and moral superiority, at the altar of its chosen god.
Almiranta: another has a minister who writes of getting rid of the internal combustion engine yet flies around in fuel-sucking private planes.
That is the ONLY arguement I’ve ever heard on this site. “But but but… Al Gore flies around in a jet. He can’t talk about global warming!”
I guess he could walk from speaking engagement to speaking engagement. He could sure stand to lose some weight, but does that really make sense?
If someone flies in a jet, why can they not talk about global warming?
If someone is rich (John Edwards), why can’t he talk about the differences between poor and wealthy?
You people have some odd ways of opposing things.
Joe, cuz they don’t have a valid argument when faced with the overwhelming consensus that climate change is caused by humans and science is attempting to understand it more but knows enough to say it’s our fault and it’s getting worse and we are killing off a lot of species of animals in the meantime.
See, Joe, “God’s creation” is important to religious people until they are told that they are helping to destroy it. Then they attack the science rather than try to embrace reality. They create the myth that there is a legitimate debate when there certainly is not.
DOH!
http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Worldwide+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm
Joe,
“You people have some odd ways of opposing things.”
So, if a scientist, who at one time took a grant from Exxon, he can criticize the theory of global warming?
A white Republican can represent blacks?
Rich Republicans (few and far between) can talk about the differences between poor and wealthy?
Funny, it doesn’t work that way in the real world.
That is the ONLY arguement I’ve ever heard on this site
Then you simply haven’t been paying attention, Joe, or else you’re just a hopeless dufus.
SteaM, still waiting to hear who you’d save the world if you were in charge. So far, nothing but crickets. Come on, surely if you believe all this hooey, you have some ideas on how to make it all better. Just tell us what you’re doing in your personal life to help change the climate for the better. Surely you’re doing SOMETHING, even if it’s just exhaling half as often. And if you’re doing that, think how much bigger a difference it would make if you would just quit exhaling altogether. Just a thought.
See? My point exactly.
For example, tiredoflibbullshit, is blowing hot air. He’s all upset that he can’t understand science and therefore it must not be true.
You people have some odd ways of opposing things.
We aren’t opposed to global warming, Joe. It’s global cooling we’re opposed to, and you should be too. Historically a lot more people have died because of cold than have died because of heat.
Sorry, SteaM, that should have been “how” you’d save the world.
Diana, you are a hoot!! I never saw you as a budding comedienne, yet your post #21 is priceless. After one gets past the sneering assigment of your own bias as fact in referring to what you call “malign characteristics of the Bush adminstration” you proceed to lecture us, again applying the Diana-centric viewpoint that George Bush represents “fake-conservatives”, on how those who support the President feel that “EVERYTHING is to be politicized”.
This, coming from a Socialist, is pure comedy. Your passionate defense of all that represents the intrusion of government into every aspect of life in America, while simultaneously lamenting what you claim is “politicalization” of something you and your ilk are demanding be taken over by the government, is beyond bizarre. It has to be an attempt at humor.
Hey, Di, it’s YOUR SIDE demanding that the government get involved in this issue, demanding incentives and mandates and regulations and complex carbon offset plans and the whole enchilada of government intervention in business and private lives. Isn’t it the Left demanding higher mileage standards for vehicles, based at least in part on those fears of GLOBAL WARMING?
Standards to be set by the government, of course—but evidently the part of government that is not political.
This in a post which insists on not only dragging the President into a discussion about climate change but which then tries to impose your own narrow-minded and totally political viewpoint.
Nice try, by the way, on sounding intellectual in your psuedo-erudite reference to “Lysenkoism”. I said you tried, not that you succeeded.
You tried to dodge the issue with the caveat that you were talking about “the American version” of Lysenkoism, but in fact the original, Soviet, version is exactly what the radcial Left is trying to achieve regarding the Global Warming scare tactics.
One reference to Lysenkoism says: “Party-controlled newspapers inevitably applauded Lysenko’s “practical” efforts and questioned the motives of his critics.” And what Lysenko was promoting, of course, was fake science.
This, my dear is exactly the tactic being used by your beloved Left regarding efforts to introduce some reason into the Global Warming claims, and to make it a true debate based on science rather than a hysteria-based semi-political movement.
The Agenda Media routinely applaud the efforts of the man-made catastrophe crowd. while questioning the motives of its critics.
I’m sure you got a lovely red star for your performance when you studied Lysenko, but you just tried to make an impossible comparison. But it was sure fun to toss out that big word, wasn’t it? Bet you got a bonus for that.
Joe, you are so full of it! But a perfect example of what passes for intellectual polticial commentary from the radical Left.
This blog has presented fact after fact, cited study after study, for the years I have been coming here, yet YOU can only cite references to Al and his plane.
OK, I can easily believe that this is the only reference you were capable of understanding, all that time. But please refrain from claiming it was the only argument ever presented.
You’re becoming an embarassement to a movement not easily embarrassed.
My comment was not only accurate, it was in context, of the fact that every belief system has its leaders who fail to meet the standards they demand of their followers.
Some might be interested in what Toggweiler & Russell are really saying. And if you read the article I just cited I daresay you will, like I did, wonder what Lorne Gunter (the author of the National Post article Mark cited, is talking about). T & R’s results don’t support the notion of an impending ice age. In fact, their results suggest exactly the opposite. Specifically, they argue that the circulation of the oceans WON’T break down. And thus they will continue to bring warm air from the tropics toward the poles. Thus, no ice age. And the reason they argue the circulation won’t break down is because of the heretofore unappreciated effect that anthropogenic global warming has on the westerly winds. In other words, they’re not attempting to argue against the notion of AGW, they’re just disputing the mechanism mediating its effects. Specifically, they contend that (a) that AGW has strengthened the winds, and (b) the winds are a primary driver of ocean circulation with the thermohaline system of secondary importance. Current climate models, they argue, mostly have it the other way around.
And yet Gunter somehow interprets that as evidence of an impending ice age. I don’t get it. Rather, it seems to me like he’s trying to pound a very square peg into a round hole.
It is a fact, though, that the sun is in the midst of an “inactive phase”, at least with respect to sunspot activity. As Gunter indicated, there are indeed a few scientists who are predicting that (a) the lull will continue for years, and if so (b) global temperatures will drop precipitously. However, neither of those things are at all certain.
In fact, the smart money is against both. For one thing, the current lull in sunspot activity was predicted years ago. We are in the transition between solar cycles 23 and 24. The best guess estimate is that cycle 24 won’t start for another few months. But that’s not hard and fast — it could be delayed for another several months past that prediction. So it seems a bit premature, and maybe even a little self-serving, to suggest that it won’t ever occur.
Still, there is a chance that it won’t. Certainly extended sunspot minima have happened in the past. The best known and longest lasting example was the Maunder Minimum, which corresponded to the Little Ice Age. Another, and most recent example, was the Dalton Minimum, which occured around the turn of the 19th century and lasted for about 25 years. The Dalton minimum was associated with a drop in global temperatures of no more than 0.25C degrees — and that’s assuming you select the most extreme estimate. Given the current global temperature, a 0.25C drop would hardly constitute an ice age. Rather, it would only bring things back to where they were in the 1990’s. And of course, one would have to assume no additional GHG forcing.
Okay, that’s the science. I’m sure we’re all now up to speed, lol! I suppose it’s also worth mentioning that a recent Pentagon report concluded that climate change over the next 20 years could result in a global catastrophe costing millions of lives in wars and natural disasters. What a pleasant scenario, eh? Then again, I understand that the Pentagon is filled with a bunch of dirty stinkin’ hippies, and you know how those hippies are.
Also worth mentioning is the recent meeting of CERA, arguably the most esteemed think tank on energy matters, and one of the last bastions against the notion of an impending peak oil. However, even they acknowledge that oil supply will not keep up with demand unless (a) there is a significant world-wide recession, or (b) rapid progress is made in finding transportation fuel alternative, or (c) both (a) and (b).
So let’s review: the Gorians warn that perpetuating the status quo could lead to environmental crisis, the dirty stinkin’ hippies at the Pentagon warn that perpetuating the status quo could lead to a national security crisis, and the biggies in the oil industry warn that perpetuating the status quo could lead to and economic crisis.
Gee, what to do, what to do.
OK Tired…
So, if a scientist, who at one time took a grant from Exxon, he can criticize the theory of global warming?
Umm… that would be a conflict of interest. That would not be the same thing as flying in jets and talking about global warming. Bad example.
A white Republican can represent blacks?
If it ever happens, then I have no problem with it.
Rich Republicans (few and far between) can talk about the differences between poor and wealthy?
Again, when it happens, let me know and I will applaud it.
Were those the best opposites you could come up with?
Almiranta…
yeah yeah, so what part of the science are you disputing?
So far you are just blowing hot air.
I’ve never seen someone type so much yet say so little. You could work as a keyboard tester… you’d be really good at it.
“yep, boss, this one’s good quality!”
Almiranta (and Diana), the reference to Lysenkoism reminds me of an email I got last fall from Professor Bob Carter. He and I had a couple email exchanges as a result of a comment of mine at a climate blog where a video presentation of his had been featured. Among other things, I had asked him how he thought this whole GW debate would eventually shake out. Here was his response:
Finally, to your question.
It is apparent that the AGW “shake out” is going to take many years if not decades to occur. Despite the complete lack of alarming evidence, and the low likelihood of either evidence or dangerous warming eventuating, the political world is in the grip of an amazing anti-scientific hysteria on the issue. Hysteria is, of course, not treatable by using rational arguments (i.e. scientific method), and especially not if it is suffered by people who have the power of democratic vote.
The blame for this state of affairs lies with a now tightly integrated (though not initially consciously conspiratorial) group of corrupted people and organizations foremost amongst which are doctrinaire environmentalists and green NGOs, self-interested scientists and science organizations, and ignorant, moralistic journalists and public celebrity figures.
The environmental debate in general, and AGW in particular, have already inflicted profound damage on our post-enlightment society and are attacking the very roots of the scientific method, and future historians are going to look back and marvel at our stupidity which, Lysenkoism apart, is unparalleled in history. Most sinister of all is the fact that around 3 generations of school children (all since around 1990) have now been indoctrinated with an anti-scientific attitude to environmental matters, and the most able and oldest of these persons are already starting to move into senior managerial positions. (emphasis added)
We are therefore going to pay dearly for a long time yet for our abandonment of the enlightment principles of the use of evidence and experiment to understand the world around us, and participation in rational discourse to deal with its problems. Democratic politics that are based instead upon post-modernism and fuzzy warm feelings towards environmental issues are disastrous.
Sorry to go on so, but you did ask!
Kind regards.
Bob Carter
Professor R.M. Carter
Marine Geophysical Laboratory
James Cook University
Townsville, Qld. 4811
AUSTRALIA
Lame doesn’t even begin to describe Diana’s attempt at an analogy.
SteaM, come on, man. For someone who knows as much about this subject and is a smart as you — those are not tough questions. This debate has been going on for nearly 2 decades. Surely someone on your side has come up with workable solutions to reverse this awful warming trend. There must be some peer-reviewed papers on solutions and their measurable effects. Time’s a-wastin’ — we only got 8 years left.
pfft… I disagree with Bob Carter especially when he uses the phrase “fuzzy warm feelings” when talking about science.
Sounds like he’s a got a case if being bitter and really doesn’t back up his statement. He’s the one who has “feelings” rather than science.
Well, since you think I am a genius you could try just trusting me 🙂
What’s your point. All of that stuff is available. I know you are being sarcastic but where are you going with all that?
Not me, I’ll adapt and find a way unless some super-flu or virus gets me first I’m going to try to survive what ever happens.
Hey, in my opinion those who adapt have a better chance of surviving. Unfortunatly not all species of animals have the controlled atmospheres (as in air conditioning, heating, running water) that us humans do. So they may not be as lucky.