on a lowell mass street 1/12/11
taken off hampshire street lowell mass our streets are buried in snow we have 24-36" of snow we had unsafe intersecting roads every where un safe driving also large buildings with flat roofs are unsafe many colapsed buildings
a brilliant mid-Winter's day..blue skies and sunshine on the clear ice of the brooks creating wonderful images..
Can you tell how many cars are under all that? We had a whopping 2 plus FEET of snow today and the snow drifts were upwards of 3 and 4 feet. Gotta love winter.
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 — Blog Index
LOL, no wonder you are out of sorts. Volcano's? Are you referring to your temper for it sure was not what the paper was about.
Same thing, different day, same folks telling you how to think and to obey their commands. Just Borg-tastic on here once again. This blog used to be fun before the ideologues came along pounding their hammers.
Note, pay attention to the commodities market. Food prices are getting ready to spike and we will most certainly see food riots as we did a few years ago :( Cotton at a 147 year high? WTH
Good luck, outta this place >>>>>>>>
Excuse me?
You wrote...'the whole manufactured "Climategate" thing has been proven to be nothing more than a desperate witch-hunt by the contrarian community'
Those are your words, not mine.
Stop with the REDIRECTION.
Reading that one article proves to me that they, AAAS, are fully engulfed in the AGW fraud.
It seems almost hilarious how you can switch between two different presentations of what Climategate is supposedly about, almost within the same conversation.
Water vapor accounts for the largest percentage of the greenhouse effect, between 36% and 66% for clear sky conditions and between 66% and 85% when including clouds. Water vapor concentrations fluctuate regionally, but human activity does not significantly affect water vapor concentrations except at local scales, such as near irrigated fields. According to the Environmental Health Center of the National Safety Council, water vapor constitutes as much as 2% of the atmosphere.
The Clausius-Clapeyron relation establishes that air can hold more water vapor per unit volume when it warms. This and other basic principles indicate that warming associated with increased concentrations of the other greenhouse gases also will increase the concentration of water vapor. Because water vapor is a greenhouse gas this results in further warming, a "positive feedback" that amplifies the original warming. This positive feedback does not result in runaway global warming because it is offset by other processes[clarification needed] that induce negative feedbacks, which stabilizes average global temperatures
This graph image should be recreated using vector graphics as an SVG file.
And Warmer SSTs lead to greater evaporation, leading to greater quantities of water in the atmosphere.
New and old residents of Brisbane find aid and support in evacuation shelters. CNN's Phil Black reports.
That is not true the host of this blog has a Ph.D. degree in air pollution meteorology.
Unfortunately now we are emitting way to much GHGs.
The different measures are sometimes used by different countries in asserting various policy/ethical positions to do with climate change (Banuri et al., 1996, p. 94).
This use of different measures leads to a lack of comparability, which is problematic when monitoring progress towards targets. There are arguments for the adoption of a common measurement tool, or at least the development of communication between different tools.
Emissions may be measured over long time periods. This measurement type is called historical or cumulative emissions. Cumulative emissions give some indication of who is responsible for the build-up in the atmospheric concentration of GHGs (IEA, 2007, p. 199).
Emissions may also be measured across shorter time periods. Emissions changes may, for example, be measured against a base year of 1990. 1990 was used in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) as the base year for emissions, and is also used in the Kyoto Protocol (some gases are also measured from the year 1995) (Grubb, 2003, pp. 146, 149).A country's emissions may also be reported as a proportion of global emissions for a particular year.
Another measurement is of per capita emissions. This divides a country's total annual emissions by its mid-year population (World Bank, 2010, p. 370). Per capita emissions may be based on historical or annual emissions (Banuri et al., 1996, pp. 10.
I tolerate Spam.....I stock up every year with Spam living in Palm Beach county...I understand there is even a Spam museum somewhere in Minnesota...One of my bucket lists.......NOT
Or in the words of the world's smartest man living today...Professor Irwin Corey
"Marriage is like a bank account, You put it in, you take it out,...You lose interest"
Please excuse my ignorance.
YOU All Have done so many times in the past.
(Thank You)
Could not the same conclusion from above be.....
Earths natural warming cycle increased the co2?
Would that not explain the temp and co2 discrepancy's?
In the past at least.
Interesting post
You are perfectly right - you seem to be a rarity on this blog, a reasonable person.
We are in a natural warming period which started at the end of the last glaciation period and we are still far below typical interglacial temperatures. What we are doing which our CO2 emissions is accelerate the process.
I was talking about the past.
Could it be that the natural warming cycle the Earth was in at that time caused the increase in co2?
If not?
What caused the increase in co2?
Michael
What is the light blue line in your graph?
Since the image comes from globalwarmingart.com I don't think he knows.
So: ignorance is bliss? ;-)
Seriously, I hope that those concerned about finding a job are on Monster.com tweaking their resumes. And those worried about the Superbowl can visit NFL.com or ESPN.com for in depth analyses of teams and players. After all, I wouldn't visit any of those sites for climate information. Who would?
It is interesting isn't it? How when you take many proxies that don't really seem to correlate with each other--even though they're all temperature proxies--and average them all together, you get a nice middle-of-the-road line with very limited variation. Is it an accurate temperature estimate? I have to admit, I'm a bit skeptical.
...Try da fish
Viewing: 451 - 501
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 — Blog Index