Latest on Global Warming.

[polarisrider1]

WASHINGTON — A prominent physicist and skeptic of global warming spent two years trying to find out if mainstream climate scientists were wrong. In the end, he determined they were right: Temperatures really are rising rapidly.

The study of the world's surface temperatures by Richard Muller was partially bankrolled by a foundation connected to global warming deniers. He pursued long-held skeptic theories in analyzing the data. He was spurred to action because of "Climategate," a British scandal involving hacked emails of scientists.

Yet he found that the land is 1.6 degrees warmer than in the 1950s. Those numbers from Muller, who works at the University of California, Berkeley and Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, match those by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA.

He said he went even further back, studying readings from Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson. His ultimate finding of a warming world, to be presented at a conference Monday, is no different from what mainstream climate scientists have been saying for decades.

What's different, and why everyone from opinion columnists to "The Daily Show" is paying attention is who is behind the study.

One-quarter of the $600,000 to do the research came from the Charles Koch Foundation, whose founder is a major funder of skeptic groups and the tea party. The Koch brothers, Charles and David, run a large privately held company involved in oil and other industries, producing sizable greenhouse gas emissions.

Muller's research team carefully examined two chief criticisms by skeptics. One is that weather stations are unreliable; the other is that cities, which create heat islands, were skewing the temperature analysis.

"The skeptics raised valid points and everybody should have been a skeptic two years ago," Muller said in a telephone interview. "And now we have confidence that the temperature rise that had previously been reported had been done without bias."

Muller said that he came into the study "with a proper skepticism," something scientists "should always have. I was somewhat bothered by the fact that there was not enough skepticism" before.


There is no reason now to be a skeptic about steadily increasing temperatures, Muller wrote recently in The Wall Street Journal's editorial pages, a place friendly to skeptics. Muller did not address in his research the cause of global warming. The overwhelming majority of climate scientists say it's man-made from the burning of fossil fuels such as coal and oil. Nor did his study look at ocean warming, future warming and how much of a threat to mankind climate change might be.

Still, Muller said it makes sense to reduce the carbon dioxide created by fossil fuels.

"Greenhouse gases could have a disastrous impact on the world," he said. Still, he contends that threat is not as proven as the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says it is.

On Monday, Muller was taking his results – four separate papers that are not yet published or peer-reviewed, but will be, he says – to a conference in Santa Fe, N.M., expected to include many prominent skeptics as well as mainstream scientists.

"Of course he'll be welcome," said Petr Chylek of Los Alamos National Lab, a noted skeptic and the conference organizer. "The purpose of our conference is to bring people with different views on climate together, so they can talk and clarify things."

Shawn Lawrence Otto, author of the book "Fool Me Twice" that criticizes science skeptics, said Muller should expect to be harshly treated by global warming deniers. "Now he's considered a traitor. For the skeptic community, this isn't about data or fact. It's about team sports. He's been traded to the Indians. He's playing for the wrong team now."

And that started on Sunday, when a British newspaper said one of Muller's co-authors, Georgia Tech climate scientist Judith Curry, accused Muller of another Climategate-like scandal and trying to "hide the decline" of recent global temperatures.

The Associated Press contacted Curry on Sunday afternoon and she said in an email that Muller and colleagues "are not hiding any data or otherwise engaging in any scientifically questionable practice."

The Muller "results unambiguously show an increase in surface temperature since 1960," Curry wrote Sunday. She said she disagreed with Muller's public relations efforts and some public comments from Muller about there no longer being a need for skepticism.

Muller's study found that skeptics' concerns about poor weather station quality didn't skew the results of his analysis because temperature increases rose similarly in reliable and unreliable weather stations. He also found that while there is an urban heat island effect making cities warmer, rural areas, which are more abundant, are warming, too.

Among many climate scientists, the reaction was somewhat of a yawn.

"After lots of work he found exactly what was already known and accepted in the climate community," said Jerry North, a Texas A&M University atmospheric sciences professor who headed a National Academy of Sciences climate science review in 2006. "I am hoping their study will have a positive impact. But some folks will never change."

Chris Field, a Carnegie Institution scientist who is chief author of an upcoming intergovernmental climate change report, said Muller's study "may help the world's citizens focus less on whether climate change is real and more on smart options for addressing it."

Some of the most noted scientific skeptics are no longer saying the world isn't warming. Instead, they question how much of it is man-made, view it as less a threat and argue it's too expensive to do something about, Otto said.

Skeptical MIT scientist Richard Lindzen said it is a fact and nothing new that global average temperatures have been rising since 1950, as Muller shows. "It's hard to see how any serious scientist (skeptical, denier or believer – frequently depending on the exact question) will view it otherwise," he wrote in an email.

In a brief email statement, the Koch Foundation noted that Muller's team didn't examine ocean temperature or the cause of warming and said it will continue to fund such research. "The project is ongoing and entering peer review, and we're proud to support this strong, transparent research," said foundation spokeswoman Tonya Mullins.

___

[Firecatguy]

Al Gore bank account just went up another Billion......scientist yeap.....maybe they are are the same one on HCS doing oil test....

[ezra]

[QUOTE=polarisrider1;242623]WASHINGTON — A prominent physicist and skeptic of global warmingby Richard Muller was partially bankrolled by a foundation connected to global warming deniers.Muller, who works at the University of California, Berkeley and Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, match those by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA.

hmm so Berkeley hired a guy who was a sceptic of global warming ? something about that makes me doubtful of this guys intent from the word go.Berkeley!!!.
If it is true I would rather have global warming to the tune of 1.6 deg than a mini ice age any day. hard to grow food in the cold

[polarisrider1]

They did put a lot of words into it and said very little.

[harvest1121]

How did the ice age end I guess its been getting warmer for how many of millions of years?

[skiroule]

I guess I've been guilty of being in the denial camp but it's pretty hard to ignore the facts. Even I have to admit that the typical winter we had when I was a kid (I no longer am) and the typical winter of today do not seem to be the same, particularly when it comes to length of season. Years ago we never even thought about the snow being gone until mid-April. Now it's iffy by the second week in March.

The thing that strikes me now is how extreme the winter warm spells can be and quickly a warmup can wipe out several weeks of slow buildup to good riding conditions. Here in the southern part of the state where the trails often cross cultivated land, I've seen excellent riding conditions blown away in 2 -3 days of warm weather and rain. Very frustrating.

[anonomoose]

Global warming, climate change, weather patterns, cold winters, warm winters, drought, floods....often used and mixed interchangably.

Warming is the "mean" temperature as measured in one place and averaged over time compounded by many places of measurement all over the globe. Not hard to do, and has been done for probably 80 years with various degrees of accuracy (equipment to measure has improved).

As to the cause of this, and whether man is having an impact on his own environment, is something much harder to measure and prove either way.

The effect of this "warming" is self-evident, and not that hard even for a layman to assess.

Will it bring on more drought, high heat, evaporation of the lakes and streams and shrinkage of the ice cap....or another ice age....it is not something clearly understood, or agreed upon.

Common sense says that as we use energy to produce heat, we contribute to some degree. Whether it is enough to offset the balance is not something anyone can say with any certainty.

Question; if we ARE contributing....and we COULD be tipping the balance....is it worth the effort to do something to minimize man's impact...or should we just wait and see what happens and figure it out...later? And if we ARE having an impact, how much should we do, and how much money should we spend to try and curb man's footprint? Should we wait until it costs far more to fix, and takes a bigger bite out of the budget or should we take pre-emptive actions for the sake of safety, efficiency, or the health of the planet?</SPAN>

Collectively we have to decide, don’t we? I mean it isn’t like we have any other place to go….

btw, I did NOT invent the internet!</SPAN></SPAN>

[Administrator]

Pretty nicely put anonomoose.

I think the only point I would pick an argument about is: "The effect of this "warming" is self-evident". I cannot think of a single thing happening in the weather in the past 10-20 years that I could clearly point to any kind of warming going on in our climate. There have been lots of connections tried to be made like robust hurricane seasons, droughts, floods, lake/river levels, etc...but in every case I can think of any of the episodic events blamed on climate change have not stood. All droughts are still ending, all floods are still receding, active tropical seasons are followed by less than average seasons...

I think it goes without argument that if the climate changes enough, so will things like hurricane seasons, average rainfall for different areas, etc, I just see no evidence of that yet.

skiroule- I am not picking on you by any means because I hear this statement from lots of folks who love snow. I do not know what era you grew up in and where, but I can say that the actual data does not support the idea that winters were any more cold or snowy years ago. I can say that the 70's were a pretty cold and snowy decade as a whole for the Midwest, but those were exceptional years and not the norm. Personally, I can say that I can only remember 4 years in the 30 of growing up in the Chicago area where we had what would have been considered a harsh winter and 2 of them were in the late 70's. More of my memories are of the years with little or no real snow to play in. In fact if northern IL and southern WI had had winters like the past 3-4 when I was growing up down there, I might have never wanted to take a trip to where the snow was guaranteed to be deep (up here) and thus might have never moved and thus started this site!

As for the article, all I got out of it was that a guy once PAID to argue against GW is now being PAID to argue for it. Hence my advice to everyone to take anything that is said by someone paid to speak about it with a lot of caution.

-John

[dcsnomo]

I do not know what era you grew up in and where, but I can say that the actual data does not support the idea that winters were any more cold or snowy years ago. I can say that the 70's were a pretty cold and snowy decade as a whole for the Midwest, but those were exceptional years and not the norm. Personally, I can say that I can only remember 4 years in the 30 of growing up in the Chicago area where we had what would have been considered a harsh winter and 2 of them were in the late 70's. More of my memories are of the years with little or no real snow to play in. In fact if northern IL and southern WI had had winters like the past 3-4 when I was growing up down there, I might have never wanted to take a trip to where the snow was guaranteed to be deep (up here) and thus might have never moved and thus started this site!


-John

When I was a kid walking to school in the 60's and 70's it was 50 below zero, we measured snow in feet, not inches, and the walk to school was uphill both ways! :)

[Administrator]

When I was a kid walking to school in the 60's and 70's it was 50 below zero, we measured snow in feet, not inches, and the walk to school was uphill both ways! :)

Good one and I know you were just kidding (smiley face), but just a little clarification on my thoughts. I did not mean to say that folks think that because they want to talk about how hard they had it. I think it is all done innocently and is just the way our minds work. We have a tendency to remember the good and forget the bad. So snow lovers remember the big snow seasons and forget the bad ones.

-John

[polarisrider1]

Good one and I know you were just kidding (smiley face), but just a little clarification on my thoughts. I did not mean to say that folks think that because they want to talk about how hard they had it. I think it is all done innocently and is just the way our minds work. We have a tendency to remember the good and forget the bad. So snow lovers remember the big snow seasons and forget the bad ones.

-John Could it be that back in the day when we were kids that the snow felt much deeper since we were much shorter? And that Grandma's knitted mittens and stocking cap were really not as warm as we told her they were?

[snoluver1]

skiroule- I am not picking on you by any means because I hear this statement from lots of folks who love snow. I do not know what era you grew up in and where, but I can say that the actual data does not support the idea that winters were any more cold or snowy years ago. I can say that the 70's were a pretty cold and snowy decade as a whole for the Midwest, but those were exceptional years and not the norm. Personally, I can say that I can only remember 4 years in the 30 of growing up in the Chicago area where we had what would have been considered a harsh winter and 2 of them were in the late 70's. More of my memories are of the years with little or no real snow to play in. In fact if northern IL and southern WI had had winters like the past 3-4 when I was growing up down there, I might have never wanted to take a trip to where the snow was guaranteed to be deep (up here) and thus might have never moved and thus started this site!

-John

John, one question for you. Is it possible that the data you have studied is partially skewed due to higher than "normal" swings and inconsistencies in temperature, which allow the overall averages to remain close from year to year? The reason I ask this is because the winters from my childhood memories seem to have been much more consistent in temperature, regardless of snow levels. I used to get a new pair of hockey skates for Christmas every year, and we always had solid ice for our annual neighborhood game on Christmas day. We also had fairly consistent ice throughout most of the winter. Now it seems that we fluctuate to high extremes much more often, with cold snaps being REALLY cold and thaws being REALLY hot. Maybe it is just "selective memory" but it sure does seem that way!

[Administrator]

snowlover1

The data that I use is about 50 years worth and in the world of statistics the more years worth of data, the more accurate average you have, not the opposite.

I honestly think you would be surprised to see the actual numbers in some of the years you talk about.

Interestingly enough, I had a conversation with an editor for a major snowmobile magazine about this very thing and one of the examples I gave was that growing up in the Chicagoland area, there were winters that were not even cold or snowy enough for a long enough period of time to have the outdoor ice. In fact, my memories were of more years without the frozen, man-made ponds than with.

I guess at times we are all guilty of putting too much faith into our "memories" and is why when I start to talk about historical weather events, I only use the data and not my recollections of how things were.

-John

[anonomoose]

Snowlover....it is important to note that the weather does have a cyclic pattern to it, and a few back to back cold wet winters can impact our memories since we have had...at least at that point in our lives, few other years to compare them to...year over year. While this summer was a hot one, back in early 1980's we had one summer that for about a month we had 100 degree temps repeatedly which really made life miserable for those who did NOT have central air which at that point was just moving into the "everyone has it now era..." We did have a window unit but it went into the bedroom so that you could sleep leaving the rest of the house less than comfortable.

I used to let my grass go "dormant" saving on the juice from Edison, mid-summer and always had it green up nicely before winter. Not that year though....it killed it dead to the roots....and it was grass seed city more than offsetting the electric bill by quite a margin....

And you and me, John will have to agree to disagree on the "self-evident" thing. Artic ice sheets disappearing and glaciers receding swiftly exposing the "ice-man" are things that really says that we really are experiencing something that is unique...man made or not.</SPAN></SPAN>

[snoluver1]

Well my take is probably all screwed up anyway, because I'm comparing my childhood in north central Massachusetts to my adulthood observations in IL. Obviously two different climates. God I wish I was "home" right now. Could have had the first ride in already!!

[maddog24]

We have only been keeping track of weather records for about a 100-125 years. This is a very small glimpse of history in the grand scheme of things.

[skiroule]

skiroule- I am not picking on you by any means because I hear this statement from lots of folks who love snow. I do not know what era you grew up in and where
-John

I'm getting up there but I'm certainly not going to admit to pre-dating modern weather record keeping. Luckily my lawyers made me add: "do not "seem" to be the same".

My recollection was based on growing up in far northern MN and may have been skewed by the fact that the lifestyle required us to do more day to day things out in the winter elements (that maybe weren't that much fun). Still, being a true Scandinavian I'll stick to my perception, even in the face of overwhelming evidence, and say that the season just seems to get more inconsistent earlier.

[Administrator]

And you and me, John will have to agree to disagree on the "self-evident" thing. Artic ice sheets disappearing and glaciers receding swiftly exposing the "ice-man" are things that really says that we really are experiencing something that is unique...man made or not.

Actually, no need. I agree that these are unique events happening- at least in our lifetime, man made or not. I guess I just am not convinced that they are happening because of climate change. The big problem I have is that somewhere along the line, someone or a few someones decided that 30 years would make a good amount of time to define an areas climate. Not sure why, I even posed this question to my colleges when I worked at the Climate Analysis Center in Washington DC and no one could answer. Maybe because we humans like to put everything in "our" time frame to make it easier for us to comprehend and 30 years seemed like a reasonably long time in human years, so why not climate.

I believe what we are seeing is that the 30 year time span might not correctly define an areas true climate. That perhaps 500 or even 5000 years might be more accurate. I mean the glacier melting and exposing "ice-man", how did "ice-man" get there in the first place? Must have been a warm enough climate for someone without snowmobile gear to be able to live in. Greenland was warm enough to support crops and settlements at one time in human history and now it's not (at least no yet anyway!). Mesa Verde in SW CO was wet enough for natives to grow corn a long time ago and now it's not, but those changes happened a long time ago. Lots of changes happened long before man was burning fossil fuels.

I am all for being responsible for our planet and am confident that the day will come when we no longer burn fossil fuels for energy.

So perhaps my definition of climate might be different from others and so my definition of climate change is different, but I can say this with 100% confidence: We live on a very dynamic planet, it is always changing.

I also think that we know far, far, far less about how the planet works than we think we do. After all, there is no real theory as to why we have ice ages and then the spells of little to no glaciation like we are in now. If it was just a colder climate, why where the glaciers found mainly on North America and not in Eurasia or even in most of the southern hemisphere? Seems to me that if the whole earth cooled, then these areas would have seen glaciation like North America did, but they didn't.

All stuff to chew on I guess. Nice discussion though!

-John

[Skylar]

Could it be that back in the day when we were kids that the snow felt much deeper since we were much shorter? And that Grandma's knitted mittens and stocking cap were really not as warm as we told her they were?

Shorter than when?

[ezra]

hmm mid April I don't remember many if any mid April snows in the MN metro I am trying to think way back I can remember riding my new ACT 110 I got for my B day in 4/11/1979 in shorts and t shirt.my whole childhood I wanted to have a ski b day party and never could always closed. I think everything was bigger and longer than it really was

[ezra]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^sorry above was response to this ^^^^^^^^^
I guess I've been guilty of being in the denial camp but it's pretty hard to ignore the facts. Even I have to admit that the typical winter we had when I was a kid (I no longer am) and the typical winter of today do not seem to be the same, particularly when it comes to length of season. Years ago we never even thought about the snow being gone until mid-April. Now it's iffy by the second week in March. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

The thing that strikes me now is how extreme the winter warm spells can be and quickly a warmup can wipe out several weeks of slow buildup to good riding conditions. Here in the southern part of the state where the trails often cross cultivated land, I've seen excellent riding conditions blown away in 2 -3 days of warm weather and rain. Very frustrating.
I can also remember a few yrs with less than 2 rides all season as a kid no snow some times in the 70s and 80s and 90s and 2000s just the way it is

[Hoosier]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^sorry above was response to this ^^^^^^^^^
I can also remember a few yrs with less than 2 rides all season as a kid no snow some times in the 70s and 80s and 90s and 2000s just the way it is

I grew up in Northern Indiana where the lake effect hits. I seem to remember better snows back then also, but we have a picture from the Christmas my Dad bought an 83 or so Bravo. It is of my 3 brothers and I all sitting on the Bravo - in T-shirts as it was almost 60 degrees that day. Of course one day is a very small sample size, but so is 30 years of climate history.

I sure hope global warming is just a way to get Al Gore ridiculously rich so he can live in huge mansions and fly all over the place warning us, but how will we ever know? And if it is real, how will we know if man is causing it? And if man is causing it, how do we know if we can really reverse it? And if we can, should we? Are the cons of global warming worse than the pros? And what is the cost to fix it? And is that the best way to spend our limited resources? The estimates some of these scientists throw out there could easily wipe out several diseases and solve global hunger. Someone has to do a cost/benefit analysis on all of this. Perhaps a longer growing season isn't all bad. I am just tired of hearing the science is "settled" and that action is necessary, when we have no answers to all of the above. The USA sure as heck can't afford a global carbon tax or whatever else is the answer right now.

I'm not convinced the green movement isn't just another way to implement global governance now that the USSR and socialism failed. But that might just be the conspiracy theory. I sure hope global warming is a fraud, but my main reason for being concerned about it is the fact I love the snow.

[skiroule]

hmm mid April I don't remember many if any mid April snows in the MN metro I am trying to think way back I can remember riding my new ACT 110 I got for my B day in 4/11/1979 in shorts and t shirt.my whole childhood I wanted to have a ski b day party and never could always closed. I think everything was bigger and longer than it really was

Sorry Ezra, I wasn't very clear on this. The mid-April comment was referring to my early days on the Canadian border, ay.

[motor_slut]

Global Warming as stated by Al Gore is not proven yet. Probably never will be. Global warming as a natural cycle of the Earth's climate warming and cooling over tens of thousands of years is more likely.

[misty_pines]

My thought is that his article doesn't touch on any controversy about global warming, climate change or whatever it's called now and the fact that some climate scientist claim is caused or greatly accelerated by human activity. Just temp observations and that the earth has warmed up a very slight bit. As John and others so very well indicated, the earth has always had a changing climate. That is how it works. Great discussion though and gets us thinking.

[skiroule]

A bit of weather nostalgia. This is a old black and white photo taken on our farm in northern MN in mid-March, 1966. The quality is pretty poor but it was almost 50 years ago. My brothers' 59 Merc in the foreground doesn't look too bad but the combine in the background is half buried. Definitely rideable snow.

Both of us being teenagers, it was always important for us to get into town so we did a lot of shoveling back then. If we wanted to go, we shoveled.

[bearrassler]

I like the old picture Skiroule, but growing up a couple of hours west of where you lived, we had our worst blizzard of recorded history in early March of 1966. The snow was all but gone by the 1st of March and then the blizzard hit, so the snow was great until late March that year. In 1996 we could ride until early May and when MN fishing opened in mid May they were still ice fishing on Lake of the Woods, we have years with low snow, great snow, and average snow, and it has been that way since I can remember. I think that almost everyone thinks that we had more snow when we were young but a 2 foot high snowbank looks like more when you are 4 feet tall than when you are 6 feet tall, and if you watch the vintage sledneck video on another thread you can see that the sleds we rode in the 60's and 70's only needed about 8" to be over the bumper deep. The climate is always changing but whenever we have a weather event in the US it seems that the media tries to make a connection to climate change and I don't buy that.

[skiroule]

Your memory is better than mine BR. I remember the storm but I don't remember our conditions prior to the storm.

I guess if I think back on it, the claim was often made that the low snow years in the mid 70s (among other things) wiped out most of the snowmobile manufacturers.

I suppose that in addition to being short, the longer than average winters could have made it appear that there was more snow than was really the case.

Slowly but surely, you guys are debunking my position. Well, I've been wrong before.

[xcr440]

All this global warming comes down to 2 points.

Either you disagree/don't care, and you just forget about it.

OR

You agree, and think we should do something about it. This is the tough one, what exactly are you going to do about it? At what temperature should we set Mother Nature's thermostat at? And then, at what cost?

Personally, I'm with the first option, don't care.

[lenny]

All this global warming comes down to 2 points.

Either you disagree/don't care, and you just forget about it.

OR

You agree, and think we should do something about it. This is the tough one, what exactly are you going to do about it? At what temperature should we set Mother Nature's thermostat at? And then, at what cost?

Personally, I'm with the first option, don't care.

I think it is a bit more than just that but agree for the most part. Since we do have concrete evidence of a wide variation of climate dynamics over the eons and of recent years, it lends credibility, concerning a warming trend (and a great amount at that) to what we are observing. It is a huge jump to claim man's interference in this. It is irresponsible to take the liberty, waste time, resources and tax payer money to develop a plan of action. Actually we have seen some poor behavior some time back on the news about GW guys messing with the numbers or something of that matter. I mention this to show how driven some are. I mean come on,,,, There is no doubt an agenda and that is clearly shown by the action these guys took being devious and promoting their agenda with falsification. After all, who took the initiative to bring this GW to light? GW opposition does not disagree we are observing a warming trend but to conclude this observation as a picture as they have painted it is not science at all, especially since we have proof of this occurrence before we burned fossil fuel. I can only speculate as to what their objective actually is but I can tell you if left unchecked, we will suffer by all the money, resources, time, regulations that will come into place.

The best course of action would be to continue to observe, test and be certain we are being responsible in a reasonable manner. We cannot allow fear to cloud the issue. It sounds all real nice and politically correct to do as DCSNOMO says but it's still unreasonable to act as he stated without any evidence to support the claim. Allow science to determine the facts and than act accordingly, in the mean time live responsible and continue to refine our abilities to keep the environment clean.

[arcticgeorge]

Well said Lenny..........I would like to add that John Coleman the founder of The Weather Channel said fluctuation of the Earths temperatures has occurred naturally in the past, so one degree or so warmer??? woo... Tom Skilling said that the Pendulum can swing the other way and the cold snowy years of the late 70,s early 80's could return.

[mride460]

How did the ice age end I guess its been getting warmer for how many of millions of years?

The last ice age was actually a result of the last time the earth went through a warming cycle.. Didn't you see the movie?? lol

[grub]

Climate change has been going on since there was climate. It warms up - it cools down - it does what it does. Anyone that thinks there is no such thing as climate change is a fool. Has man contributed to the current cycle? There is really no way of telling. We could be in a natural warming cycle. It could make absolutely no difference how much of whatever we are pumping into the atmosphere. Nobody can prove otherwise. There are not records that go back far enough to make any rational judgements. If man were wiped off the face of the earth tomorrow the earth would 'heal' itself from whatever damage man did to it very rapidly. Things might look a little different and some species would be extinct. So what? New forms and variations of life would evolve. It is all 'change' which man really has very little to do with. These Whack-jobs would have you think that if they ( the Whack-jobs) had been around when there were Dinosaurs we would still have Dinosaurs. Elephants do not claim to have an effect on the climate. Nor do Wasps or Tadpoles or Condors. Only man in all his arrogance claims the power to alter climate. Oh, and a little $ to grease the whole process never hurts.

[mride460]

Bring on da snow!!!!!

[Jonger1150]

This thread is a tad old, but I wanted to add something.

I'm 32 years old and the first 20+ years of my life we almost never built snowpack in southern Michigan. We would get a garden variety storm of 6-10 inches. It would last about 1-2 weeks and melt away. Once 2000 hit I started noticing the increasing amount of snow-on-snow events as I called them. We now keep snow on the ground long enough for successive snows. This is a pretty bad example of that type of winter, but this is a wide scale anomaly regardless.

[alindstrom3]

i believe weather almost always averages itself out everyone has already forgot that last year was a record setting year for snow in wi at least where i am from. and this year Europe and Alaska have set records for cold and snow! i know we only have records from a hunderd years ago or so but how can you say we had so much snow back then when we set records you can deny fact!

[frnash]

From Global Warming.org (http://www.globalwarming.org/), January 27, 2012: Coming Out of the Climate Change Closet (http://www.globalwarming.org/2012/01/27/coming-out-of-the-climate-change-closet-2/), by Matt Patterson, quoted here in part:


So much for consensus.

For years, climate change cultists have attempted to shut down public discourse over global warming by assuring us that “the debate is over,” that scientists are in lockstep agreement that Man is steam-frying his own planet.

That was always bunk, of course. For one, if the scientific debate was really over, no one would have to say it. There just wouldn’t be any debate. No one these days goes around saying “the debate is over” about heliocentrism. That’s because no one questions the fact that the Earth revolves around the Sun – there is literally no debate.

[frnash]

Another article by Matt Patterson,
this from the Washington Examiner (http://washingtonexaminer.com/), January 25,2012 (?): A really inconvenient truth is Earth not melting after all (http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/2012/01/really-inconvenient-truth-earth-not-melting-after-all/162534), quoted here in part:


A really inconvenient truth is Earth not melting after all

Earth is not warming. According to Big Green enviros, only Luddites
and lunatics would believe such a ludicrous statement.

Well, now government scientists must be added to the long list of the so addled. Here it is, straight from the (high tech) horse's mouth, a new report from NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies titled "Global Temperature in 2011, Trends, and Prospects:"

"Global temperature in 2011 was lower than in 1998."

[frnash]

From Mail online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/) (the Daily Mail, London), January 12,2012:
Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again) (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming--Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html#ixzz1kuvQt4tY), quoted here in part:


Met Office releases new figures which show no warming in 15 years

The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.

The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century.


* * *



Meanwhile, leading climate scientists yesterday told The Mail on Sunday that, after emitting unusually high levels of energy throughout the 20th Century, the sun is now heading towards a ‘grand minimum’ in its output, threatening cold summers, bitter winters and a shortening of the season available for growing food.

[frnash]

To steal a phrase from Bill Clinton … "It's the sun, stupid!"

From the National Geograpic News (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/), February 28, 2007 (!): Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html), quoted here, in part:


Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a natural — and not a human-induced — cause, according to one scientist's controversial theory.

Mars, too, appears to be enjoying more mild and balmy temperatures.

In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row.

Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun.

"The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars," he said.


* * *



"Man-made greenhouse warming has made a small contribution to the warming seen on Earth in recent years, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance," Abdussamatov said.

[mezz]

Nash, Thank you for the interesting info. You were up late, feeling a bit sleepless? Interesting reads though, Thanks again...-Mezz

[frnash]

Nash, Thank you for the interesting info. You were up late, feeling a bit sleepless? Interesting reads though, Thanks again...-MezzYep, on an "all nighter", just like the old software engineering days! Old habits die hard, eh? :)

[renegade]

I just can't believe that carbon dioxide is a cause for warming of any temperatures anywhere. It only comprises .038% of the atmosphere! Of that, only 3% can be attributed to mankind. Laying out the atmosphere gases on a football field, the first 78 yards is nitrogen, oxygen is the next 21 yards. Thats 99 yards, the final yard, except for 2 1/2 inches is argon. Of the final 2 1/2 inches 1.37 inches is carbon dioxide. Of that 1.37 inches, man contributes about the width of a dime standing on edge! So a dime standing on edge on a 100 yard football field is our contribution to the so called greenhouse effect. Sorry, not buying this one! Is the weather changing? Yes. Is it changing enough for us to notice in our lifetime, doubt it. I do know the world has been changing since the beginning of time, and will continue to change to the end. When you consider all the forces that drive our climate, the sun, the moon, the axis of the earth and the wobble of the axis, and others we may not know of, or at least know their effects on the weather. Carbon dioxide is not one of them. It is just a rouse to scare the public so the politicians can tax it! Period! A good book with tons of info is Climategate by Brian Sussman. It comes with footnotes so you can check his info, something Al Gore does not provide!

[Administrator]

Yep, on an "all nighter", just like the old software engineering days! Old habits die hard, eh? :)

You're a day (or night) early with this. Tonight is the "all nighter" for the snow statue building at Tech.

-John

[attack_06]

Nash, Thank you for the interesting info. You were up late, feeling a bit sleepless? Interesting reads though, Thanks again...-Mezzit was only 11 o'clock at night in phoenix lol.

[tnehlsen]

Bay between L'anse and Baraga has NO ice for the first time in like 70 years according to a local we were talking to in L'anse the other day. He said they are usually driving out the ice fishing spots in February. Waves crashing on shore by a park with some geese running around on Feb 6th. Just a freak winter, thats all.

[Chicago Boy]

Ok ,I see all sides and still not 100% sure yet but we can all learn from this # 1 cleaning up the earth can't be a bad thing
#2 there are lots of jobs in going what they call (green)#3its time for us to look in to getting power from wind
Ps I'm not a tree huger and I ride a 2 stroke 800

[reiley99]

I was talking to a friend of mine one time and he gave me his views on global warming.He says million years ago the world was all jungle then 50k years ago we had an ice age.Then he said he thinks the world is still thawing out from the ice age.I don't know if I agree with it but in some strange way it kinda makes since.

[Hoosier]

http://www.weather.com/outlook/weather-news/news/articles/photos-europe-snow-cold_2012-02-08?page=1

Above are some interesting pictures related to the record cold parts of Europe have experienced this year. I don't want to make light of this, as many have lost their lives as a result, but it is interesting how one part of the globe can have such a mild winter and another such as severe winter.

Seems like it's all the sun and the jet stream, at least to someone like me who doesn't know what I'm talking about.

[Jonger1150]

Most of the Midwest is +6 degrees above normal... thats not the warmest on record.

[mezz]

it was only 11 o'clock at night in phoenix lol.

Yes, but Nash is....., well lets say, it should have been bed time, LOL!:o-Mezz

Sorry Nash, I couln't resist..:D

[frnash]

it was only 11 o'clock at night in phoenix lol.'Twas actually 10:38PM - 1:38AM. :)
Yes, but Nash is....., well lets say, it should have been bed time, LOL!:o-Mezz

Sorry Nash, I couln't resist..:DFunny, I may be an old fossil [fossil noun (2) impolite: an insulting word for someone who is old and has old-fashioned ideas (http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/american/fossil#fossil_6)! :eek:], but I've always been a night owl. Still am!

[qber]

The tread is really intersting and there are some great comments for various sides but it's too bad that you don't go very far into it before the raw politics enters the picture and begins to displace science and facts. You pretty much know what someones opinion is ahead of time by knowing their political party affilliation. It would be nice to see a day when a discussion of this topic isn't so laced with politics.

[qber]

The tread is really intersting and there are some great comments for various sides but it's too bad that you don't go very far into it before the raw politics enters the picture and begins to displace science and facts. You pretty much know what someones opinion is ahead of time by knowing their political party affilliation. It would be nice to see a day when a discussion of this topic isn't so laced with politics.

[St. Charles SnowGoer]

Posted at 11:36 AM ET, 03/13/2012
Widespread record warmth to continue next 7-10 days; Midwest severe weather possible next week
By Greg Postel

Large parts of the United States are right now experiencing one of the most spectacular March warm spells in modern times. On Sunday, 188 record highs (compared to 2 record lows) were tied or broken in the U.S. and 117 (compared to 2 record lows) on Monday. Similar numbers will likely come in today as well. And record warmth is likely to keep coming for the next 7-10 days.

So far, the record warmth has been centered around the Northern Plains, western Great Lakes States and Northeast (Boston, Hartford, Worcester, Albany, Syracuse, and New York City set records Monday), where temperatures have soared into the 60s and 70s over ground often covered by snow this time of year.

Areas farther southeast … all the way to the mid-Atlantic coast … are just now getting in on similar action as well, though 70s in D.C. this time of year aren’t as stunning as they are in, say, Minneapolis!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/post/widespread-record-warmth-to-continue-next-7-10-days-midwest-severe-weather-possible-next-week/2012/03/13/gIQAsWFf9R_blog.html

[frosty]

Okay, thats it, you all just need to go rent 2012 at your local redbox!!!!!! The movie explains it all!!! Debates over......:D