WunderBlog Archive » Category 6™

Category 6 has moved! See the latest from Dr. Jeff Masters and Bob Henson here.

2010: tied with 2005 for warmest year in history

By: Dr. Jeff Masters, 5:23 PM GMT on January 16, 2011

The year 2010 was tied with 2005 as Earth's warmest year in history, according to separate calculations performed by NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Temperatures during 2010 were 1.12°F (0.62°C) above the 20th century average. Reliable global temperature records go back to 1880. NOAA reported that the Northern Hemisphere had its warmest year on record in 2010, the Southern Hemisphere its 6th warmest, land areas their 2nd warmest, and the oceans their 3rd warmest. Global satellite-measured temperatures of the lowest 8 km of the atmosphere during 2010 were virtually tied with 1998 for warmest on record, according to the University of Alabama Huntsville (UAH). The 1998 temperatures were 0.01°C warmer than 2010, but the difference is so small that the two years should be considered tied for first place. These measurements are very sensitive to the effect of major El Niño events that warm the waters and atmosphere over the Eastern Pacific. Thus the 1998 El Niño--the strongest such event ever recorded--set a global lower atmospheric temperature record that had been impossible to match until 2010.


Figure 1. Departure of temperature from average for 2010. Image credit: NOAA's National Climatic Data Center.

Earth's warmest temperatures in 2010, relative to average, occurred in western Greenland and eastern Canada, where record-duration sea ice loss contributed to temperatures that were 9°F (5°C) above average for the year (Figure 1.) The coolest temperatures, relative to average, were in central Siberia, 5.4°F (3°C) below average. In addition to being the warmest year on record globally, it was also the wettest (Figure 4.)


Figure 2. The latest rankings by NOAA of the hottest years globally since 1880. Earth's ten hottest years have all come since 1998, and the decade of the 2000s was by far the warmest decade in the historical record. Image credit: NOAA's National Climatic Data Center.


Figure 3. Global departure of temperature from average for 1880-2010, as computed by NASA.


Figure 4. Global departure of precipitation from average for 1900 - 2010. The year 2010 set a new record for wettest year in Earth's history. The difference in precipitation from average in 2010 was about 13% higher than that of the previous record wettest year, 1956. Image credit: NOAA's National Climatic Data Center.

A record warm year during a deep solar minimum: an unusual occurrence
The 2010 record warmth was unusual in that it occurred during a period when energy from the sun was at its lowest levels since satellite measurements began in the 1970s. The 11-year sunspot cycle causes a 0.1% variation in the amount of energy reaching the Earth. White et al. (1997) found that sea surface temperatures varied by about 0.04 - 0.07°C on time scales of 11 - 22 years due to this change in solar energy, with temperatures lagging the sunspot cycle by 1.5 - 3 years (because the ocean is slow to heat up and cool down in response.) So, although solar activity began to pick up somewhat in 2010, the 1.5 - 3 year lag in ocean temperature response meant that the record low solar activity of 2008 - 2009 was what affected global temperatures in 2010. Given that the departure of Earth's temperature from average during 2010 was 0.62°C, this difference would have been perhaps 10% greater had we been 2 - 3 years past the peak of the 11-year sunspot cycle. The previous global temperature record, set in 2005, occurred 3 - 5 years after the twin-peaked previous solar cycle. It is very difficult to get a record warm year during a deep solar minimum, making the 2010 record one likely to be broken later this decade as the sun begins to exert a greater warming influence on the planet.


Figure 5. During 2008 - 2009, the energy from the sun arriving at the top of Earth's atmosphere (Total Solar Irradiance, or TSI) as measured by satellites fell to its lowest value since satellite measurements began in 1978. Image credit: Physikalisch-Meteorologisches Observatorium Davos World Radiation Center.

References
Skepticalscience.com has an in-depth discussion of Solar activity & climate: is the sun causing global warming?

Wunderground climate change blogger Dr. Ricky Rood has a comprehensive 5-part series on how the sun affects climate.

Gray, L.J., J. Beer, M. Geller, J.D. Haigh, M. Lockwood, 2010, "Solar Influences on Climate", Accepted in Rev. Geophys, 2010.

White, W.B., J. Lean, D.R. Cayan and M.D. Dettinger (1997), Response of global upper ocean temperature to changing solar irradiance, J. Geophys. Res., 102, 3255-3266.

Thunderstorms hurl antimatter into space
NASA announced this week that mature thunderstorms can produce antimatter when exceptionally powerful lightning bolts occur. The antimattter beams were detected by the Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope. The amount of antimatter produced is tiny, though, and probably not enough to help power a starship.

"Cap'n, we're running low on antimatter to power the warp engines. Can you fly in low over those thunderstorms to replenish our reserves? We'll use the transporters to gather the antimatter and funnel it into the antimatter containment vessel."

"OK, Scotty!"

I'll have a new post on Tuesday.

Jeff Masters

Climate Change Climate Summaries

The views of the author are his/her own and do not necessarily represent the position of The Weather Company or its parent, IBM.

Reader Comments

Quoting Jedkins01:


You can say what you want to say, I'm just letting you or anyone else know, I won't be arguing about it.


More of Neo's grand illusion, or is that illusion of grandeur, maybe even legend in his own mind.

Nevertheless...

He arrogantly presumes you are not smart enough to see that, once again, he is trying to impose his tired technique called Redirection.

I guess thats what being a shill for the Lords of AGW is all about.


Wow!!........Nea, I see you are the brunt again today. Sometimes deserved, sometimes not.
calusakat,

If you intend by posting here to spread anger and resentment, you might succeed.  But, if your goal is to convince others to see things as you see them, I respectfully suggest a different strategy (i.e. - drop the ad hominem attacks and present a well-reasoned argument that appeals to the sensibilities of the person(s) with whom you disagree).


Dave



Quoting calusakat:


More of Neo's grand illusion, or is that illusion of grandeur, maybe even legend in his own mind.

Nevertheless...

He arrogantly presumes you are not smart enough to see that, once again, he is trying to impose his tired technique called Redirection.

I guess thats what being a shill for the Lords of AGW is all about.



Quoting Eagle101:


Actually, based on this Link, it would appear that violent crimes rates have made significant drops since 1990. I am not going to do someone else%u2019s internet research, but I will also say in the sites I previewed, a quick survey says the United States is nowhere near the top of any lists with regard to "one of the highest crime rates in the world..."

Anyone who believes that should spend a few weeks south of the border, to include several Central and South American countries%u2026not to mention%u2026select countries from the rest of the world.

I take great comfort in the fact that my state allows concealed carry (I have chosen to take advantage of this privilege, after, of course, receiving my license), and has no retreat laws. Crime will always be with us. It is up to each individual to decide just how to best protect themselves and their families. We also have home security to include cameras, ect. I am sure there are those on this forum who would label me paranoid, ect., but I would remind everyone that Law Enforcement has no duty to protect us, the citizens. This question has been addressed quite thoroughly by both state and federal courts.

Everyone in central and south Florida take care today, as it appears that a rather active weather day is at hand.

Finally, thanks to Dr. King for his vision. We still have a long way to go, but his work has certainly made a difference.

Very Respectfully,

Jon

You'll note that I didn't specify just violent crimes(there are different reasons for the drop, one of which may shock you; just google "crime rate freakonomics"), nor did I say they hadn't dropped. I just said the U.S. is at or near the top of global crime lists. Here, I will do someone else's internet research:

--From 2000-2004, the U.S. was ranked #78 in the murder rate, meaning it's more likely you'll be murdered here than in such places as Nigeria, Iran, or Yemen.

-- The U.S. is ranked #6 in assaults per capita; one is more likely to be assaulted here than in Mexico, Colombia, or Zambia.

--The U.S. is ranked a runaway #1 for one particular type of violent crime, and #9 per capita; a person is more likely to be a victim of this crime in the U.S. than in Zimbabwe Romania, El Salvador, or Belarus.

--In general the U.S. is ranked #8 in total crimes per capita. That means an American is more likely to be the victim of a crime than someone in Russia, Venezuela, or Jamaica.

The point of all this being: if, as the gun lobby says, more guns equals less crime, we should be at or near last place in all crime categories. But we're not. There are by most estimates 270 million non-military firearms in this country, far more than there are in any of the numerous other nations with fewer crimes. People are free to read into that what they will, but to me it seems pretty obvious that having more guns doesn't necessarily make a nation more safe.

And, yes, enormous thanks to Dr. King for his courage and vision. It's amazing what great changes "radical" liberalism can bring about. If only there was more of it...
Quoting Neapolitan:

--The U.S. is ranked a runaway #1 for one particular type of violent crime; a person is more likely to be a victim of this crime in the U.S. than in Zimbabwe, El Salvador, or Belarus.


That is only true if you look at the total stats; South Africa is second in the total number but has about 1/6 of the population, thus they actually lead by a good margin (as if you look at the per capita list, the U.S. is then #9 - not that that is good).
Quoting MichaelSTL:


That is only true if you look at the total stats; South Africa is second in the total number but has about 1/6 of the population, thus they actually lead by a good margin (as if you look at the per capita list, the U.S. is then #9 - not that that is good).

My basic assertion still stands: more guns ≠ more safety.
Quoting yesterway:
Greetings all,

Would someone be kind enough to inform me what weather map(s) are best for watching "short waves" moving in from the Gulf? The Jax office AFD's often make reference to short waves as shown in the excerpt below;

WILL CONTINUE TO MONITOR INSTABILITY
THIS AFTN FOR THE POTENTIAL FOR A FEW ROBUST STORMS AS NEXT SHORTWAVE APPROACHES FROM THE W.

I would truly appreciate some instruction here as I find this totally amazing. Seems these short waves are always associated with wonderful precipitation! Thank you kindly.


Surface map is good, then kinda match that up to a satalite map. SOme features show up better on water vapor, some IR, etc. SO the surface maps point out what everything is. Here's how to read them. Shortwaves are also known as a trough or trof.

My basic assertion still stands: more guns ≠ more safety.

Can of worms, Can of worms, Can of worms
506. MrMixon 2:03 PM EST on January 17, 2011

calusakat,

If you intend by posting here to spread anger and resentment, you might succeed. But, if your goal is to convince others to see things as you see them, I respectfully suggest a different strategy (i.e. - drop the ad hominem attacks and present a well-reasoned argument that appeals to the sensibilities of the person(s) with whom you disagree).

Dave


******************

Sad that you feel the way you do.

I have had my words twisted and repurposed by techniques used by Neo, too many times to count.

Redirection is his favorite tool that he uses to distract people away from a discussion that he finds himself losing ground on.

Redirection is based upon the assunption that the reader is unable to discern the manipulation.

Your suggesting that my purpose is to foment anger and resentment tells me, either you are not a regular reader here or that you are also attempting to redirect my words.

I will choose to believe that you are not a regular here. On several occasions, in my comments, I have expressed to fellow bloggers that his techniques are a waste of time. I then proceeded to explain why redirection and his other techniques are a sham.

And we haven't even begun to discuss his open ridicule of those who disagree with him.

Hope this helps you to better understand that my comments are for fellow bloggers to decide if redirection is really the right way to participate.

At the very least, I am giving him a taste of his own medicine.



Quoting PalmBeachWeather:

My basic assertion still stands: more guns ≠ more safety.

Can of worms, Can of worms, Can of worms




LOL (yes, I know that saying means)
Quoting PalmBeachWeather:

My basic assertion still stands: more guns ≠ more safety.

Can of worms, Can of worms, Can of worms


The decision is easy for me.

If that terrible day should arrive when a group of thugs attempt a home invasion, with me and my family present, I am prepared to make sure it is the last home invasion they ever attempt.


Quoting PalmBeachWeather:

My basic assertion still stands: more guns ≠ more safety.

Can of worms, Can of worms, Can of worms

I suppose. Well, nobody ever accused me of monomania (except for one of my most devoted "fans" here), so that's all out of me on that subject. For now. ;-)

The rain's been falling fast here in Naples for about an hour. No thunder yet, but that's okay; I'm just happy to have precipitation. The best part is, it's still 67. Not quite summer temps, but nicer than it could be. (In fact, the ten-day forecast shows only highs in the mid-to upper 70s and lows in the 50s. Aaahhhh...)
Very light rain here in Palm Beach county...Just enough to weaken my Long Island Iced tea that I forgot that I left by the pool...But Hey,, I can fix that
Definition of paranoid..."exhibiting undue suspicion...Sorry calusakat..I hope you weren't thinking I was addressing you
"On Gun Control and Violence" by Ron Paul:
The terrible violence in Arizona last weekend prompted much national discussion on many issues. All Americans are united in their sympathies for the victims and their families. All wonder what could motivate such a horrible act. However, some have attempted to use this tragedy to discredit philosophical adversaries or score political points. This sort of opportunism is simply despicable.

We are fortunate to live in a society where violence is universally denounced. Not one public official or commentator has attempted to justify this reprehensible act, yet the newspapers, internet, and airwaves are full of people trying to claim it was somehow motivated by someone else's political rhetoric. Most disturbing are the calls to use government power to censor certain forms of speech, and even outlaw certain types of criticism of public officials. This was the completely apolitical act of a violent and disturbed man. How sad that the attempted murder of the Congresswoman who had just read the First Amendment on the House floor would be used in efforts to chill free speech! Perhaps some would feel safer if the Alien and Sedition Acts were reinstated.

Also troubling are the renewed calls for stricter gun control laws, and for government to 'do something' to somehow prevent similar incidents in the future. This always seems to be the knee jerk reaction to any crime committed with a gun. Nonsensical proposals to outlaw guns around federal officials and install bulletproof barriers in the congressional gallery only reinforce the growing perception that politicians view their own lives as far more important than the lives of ordinary citizens. Politicians and a complicit media have conditioned many citizens to view government as our protector, leading to more demands for government action whenever tragedies occur. But this impulse is at odds with the best American traditions of self-reliance and individualism, and it also leads to bad laws and the loss of liberty.

Remember - liberty only has meaning if we still believe in it when terrible things happen and more government security is demanded. Government cannot make us safe by mandating security any more than it can make us prosperous by decreeing an end to poverty.

We need to reaffirm the core American value of individual responsibility. Consider the young man who had the courage to tackle the shooter and prevent further carnage because he himself had a concealed weapon. Without that gun, he could have been yet another sitting duck. When peaceful citizens are armed, they at least have a chance against armed criminals.

Advocates of gun control would urge us to leave our safety to law enforcement, but eyewitness reports indicate it took police as much as 20 minutes to arrive on the scene that day! Since police cannot be everywhere all of the time, a large part of our personal safety depends on our ability to defend ourselves.

Our constitutional right to bear arms does not create a society without risks of violent crime, and neither would the strictest gun control laws. Guns and violence are a fact of life. The question is whether it is preferable to be defenseless while waiting for the police, or to have the option to arm yourself. We certainly know criminals prefer the former.
I pretty much feel the RKBA is based in the trust and respect for the competent individual that out country was founded on. Most of the arguments today, on both sides are based in presumed guilt and mistrust.

I dont think anything productive can be gained from arguing from that perspective. Rights should be extended and expanded even when regulation is needed to protect against abuse.

Something new expanding individual civil liberties should be made available because of and by the process. Whether that be expansion of ownership to more interesting devices to new safeguards on police use of medical/psychiatric records or whatever.
Quoting PalmBeachWeather:
Definition of paranoid..."exhibiting undue suspicion...Sorry calusakat..I hope you weren't thinking I was addressing you


Nah. I just consider the source.

If you don't want to 'Be prepared' that is your problem.

Me, I like the saying my grandfather-in-law used to tell me.

Look out for number one because then others don't have to look out for you too.


Quoting calusakat:


Nah. I just consider the source.

If you don't want to 'Be prepared' that is your problem.

Me, I like the saying my grandfather-in-law used to tell me.

Look out for number one because then others don't have to look out for you too.



calusakat...With your statement "I just consider the source" it implies to me you know me, or know of me, or know of my posts from the past...Please give me a few references of how you can say that...Ony 3 will suffice, I'm not pushy
Your argument is completely invalid due to your only source of proof being a number set that holds almost no validity in a world wide sense. Your list includes reported crime rates from various countries, these are REPORTED crime rates. How likely do you think ms. US suburbs is going to report getting raped? How likely is it that ms. Mexican villager is going to report being raped? I'm not saying having fire arms decreases crime rate, as there is no evidence of that, but I'm also not saying having fire arms increases crime rates, because there is also no evidence of that.

If you want to compare our crime rates to another country, you have to use per capita and the country has to be of very similar socioeconomic structure. Otherwise the data is useless.

Quoting Neapolitan:

You'll note that I didn't specify just violent crimes(there are different reasons for the drop, one of which may shock you; just google "crime rate freakonomics"), nor did I say they hadn't dropped. I just said the U.S. is at or near the top of global crime lists. Here, I will do someone else's internet research:

--From 2000-2004, the U.S. was ranked #78 in the murder rate, meaning it's more likely you'll be murdered here than in such places as Nigeria, Iran, or Yemen.

-- The U.S. is ranked #6 in assaults per capita; one is more likely to be assaulted here than in Mexico, Colombia, or Zambia.

--The U.S. is ranked a runaway #1 for one particular type of violent crime, and #9 per capita; a person is more likely to be a victim of this crime in the U.S. than in Zimbabwe Romania, El Salvador, or Belarus.

--In general the U.S. is ranked #8 in total crimes per capita. That means an American is more likely to be the victim of a crime than someone in Russia, Venezuela, or Jamaica.

The point of all this being: if, as the gun lobby says, more guns equals less crime, we should be at or near last place in all crime categories. But we're not. There are by most estimates 270 million non-military firearms in this country, far more than there are in any of the numerous other nations with fewer crimes. People are free to read into that what they will, but to me it seems pretty obvious that having more guns doesn't necessarily make a nation more safe.

And, yes, enormous thanks to Dr. King for his courage and vision. It's amazing what great changes "radical" liberalism can bring about. If only there was more of it...
DammitJim...Another can of worms, or should I say night crawlers
One in five people in United States is mentally ill,and 20%of population is liberal!
Quoting help4u:
One in five people in United States is mentally ill,and 20%of population is liberal!

So help4u...You are saying either you, myself,Ossqss,Neapolitan,or calusakat is mentaly ill...Let me think about that..I am taking the online test as we speak.
An interesting read:

Monckton Myth #2: Temperature records, trends and El Nino

Each temperature dataset has their own individual caveats so it is difficult to assess which is the most reliable, but a purely unscientific way to look at this issue is to put all the datasets on the same baseline and to average them to create the All Method Temperature Index (AMTI). I have put all the Table 1 datasets on the 1990-2000 baseline (so we could include all) and have averaged them to create Figure 1 below.





It is also obvious that there is something wrong with HADCRUT (you know, the dataset targeted by ClimateGate - funny that they choose it, makes you think they claimed it was flawed because it wasn't showing any warming, not the other way!)



See more on that here:

The deniers were half right: The Met Office Hadley Centre had flawed data — but it led them to UNDERestimate the rate of recent global warming
I passed, It isn't me...Thank goodness.It's one of you other 4 people...
Quoting pipelines:
Your argument is completely invalid due to your only source of proof being a number set that holds almost no validity in a world wide sense. Your list includes reported crime rates from various countries, these are REPORTED crime rates. How likely do you think ms. US suburbs is going to report getting raped? How likely is it that ms. Mexican villager is going to report being raped? I'm not saying having fire arms decreases crime rate, as there is no evidence of that, but I'm also not saying having fire arms increases crime rates, because there is also no evidence of that.

If you want to compare our crime rates to another country, you have to use per capita and the country has to be of very similar socioeconomic structure. Otherwise the data is useless.


Those statistics are from the CIA. Dispute them if you wish, but you should do so on a scientific basis, not an emotional level. The fact is, there are 270 million (or more) non-military, non-police firearms in the U.S. That's 90 guns for every 100 citizens. (Second place belongs to Yemen, with 61 guns per 100 people. Yes, Yemen: that hotbed of terrorist activity.)

Fact #1: If guns prevented crime, America would be the safest nation on the planet.

Fact #2: America is not the safest nation on the planet. Not by any measure.

My assertion, then: more guns ≠ more safety.

On purely logical and statistical grounds--that is, without talking about the Second Amendment or individual freedoms or whatever--I challenge anyone to disprove that.

I'm out until much later this evening. Try not to miss me... ;-)
Quoting PalmBeachWeather:

calusakat...With your statement "I just consider the source" it implies to me you know me, or know of me, or know of my posts from the past...Please give me a few references of how you can say that...Ony 3 will suffice, I'm not pushy


Okay twist my arm.

Huey, Dewey and Louie.

Just don't let them know I dimed them out.

I sorta promised them I wouldn't.

If you hadn't twisted my arm...


Quoting pipelines:
Your argument is completely invalid due to your only source of proof being a number set that holds almost no validity in a world wide sense. Your list includes reported crime rates from various countries, these are REPORTED crime rates. How likely do you think ms. US suburbs is going to report getting raped? How likely is it that ms. Mexican villager is going to report being raped? I'm not saying having fire arms decreases crime rate, as there is no evidence of that, but I'm also not saying having fire arms increases crime rates, because there is also no evidence of that.

If you want to compare our crime rates to another country, you have to use per capita and the country has to be of very similar socioeconomic structure. Otherwise the data is useless.



Guns serve one purpose and that one purpose is to kill.
Dammit Jim........Nea, Please don't take any hidden arms. Not acceptable in Collier county
Quoting calusakat:


Okay twist my arm.

Huey, Dewey and Louie.

Just don't let them know I dimed them out.

I sorta promised them I wouldn't.

If you hadn't twisted my arm...



I know that is Donalds nephews, but are you kinda compairing me to them? or the 3 Stooges?

Hey Moe, Hey Moe..Yuck,yuck,yuck
Quoting Neapolitan:

You'll note that I didn't specify just violent crimes(there are different reasons for the drop, one of which may shock you; just google "crime rate freakonomics"), nor did I say they hadn't dropped. I just said the U.S. is at or near the top of global crime lists. Here, I will do someone else's internet research:

--From 2000-2004, the U.S. was ranked #78 in the murder rate, meaning it's more likely you'll be murdered here than in such places as Nigeria, Iran, or Yemen.

-- The U.S. is ranked #6 in assaults per capita; one is more likely to be assaulted here than in Mexico, Colombia, or Zambia.

--The U.S. is ranked a runaway #1 for one particular type of violent crime, and #9 per capita; a person is more likely to be a victim of this crime in the U.S. than in Zimbabwe Romania, El Salvador, or Belarus.

--In general the U.S. is ranked #8 in total crimes per capita. That means an American is more likely to be the victim of a crime than someone in Russia, Venezuela, or Jamaica.

The point of all this being: if, as the gun lobby says, more guns equals less crime, we should be at or near last place in all crime categories. But we're not. There are by most estimates 270 million non-military firearms in this country, far more than there are in any of the numerous other nations with fewer crimes. People are free to read into that what they will, but to me it seems pretty obvious that having more guns doesn't necessarily make a nation more safe.

And, yes, enormous thanks to Dr. King for his courage and vision. It's amazing what great changes "radical" liberalism can bring about. If only there was more of it...


Greetings,

While I am certainly not going to knock you for your beliefs with regard to guns, everyone certainly has a right to their own opinion. I could care less what any lobby says. But, I am very thankful that my state allows me to protect my family and myself, based on my previous statements. Your use of statistics from Potius and Nation Master are quite interesting, as well as your conclusions based on those statistics. I will stick with the rather hopeful statistics from the FBI. If one has a preconceived notion, it would be quite hard to encourage deep thought, regardless. To imply that Americans would be safer in places such as Russia and Nigeria is simply astounding. I, for one, would prefer to stay in the greatest nation on the planet, and take my chances here. Freedom is an awesome thing my friend. Think about it. Crime and all.

I will, however, have to take issue with your statement/implication regarding Dr. King. You stated: “It's amazing what great changes "radical" liberalism can bring about. If only there was more of it...” You, Sir, have clearly not made an effort to understand Dr. King. He would most likely be considered a Social Conservative in today’s environment. To make any other assertion, is well, is just plain wrong. Many have attempted to speculate about his beliefs, and imply affiliation with their own cause. He did not want the sad welfare state we currently have, but instead wanted to see people become responsible for their own lives. He believed in changes within the law, not outside of them. To even imply that Dr. King believed in “radical liberalism” is truly to misunderstand what he stood for, and believed in. In my humble opinion, radical liberalism is not, and will not, do this country any favors. Just look around you my friend. Really.

Free speech and thoughtful debate are truly good. However, when one plays fast and loose with facts and figures, challenges are expected to follow. Flawed logic and resorting to name calling and defamation serves no useful purpose, except to expose oneself as perhaps not the critical thinker one appears to be. A “radical” thought for sure, but none the less true. I am not implying that you have engaged in name calling or defamation with me personally, but there does seem to be a tread, and it is not helpful, nor thoughtful. Take care, and have a great day.

Very Respectfully,

Jon
Quoting ILwthrfan:


Guns serve one purpose and that one purpose is to kill.


Is that all you use them for?

No wonder you said what you did.

Guns are fun.

They make loud noises and flash just like fireworks.

They are fun to take to the firing range for target practice.

In some places you can even take them for target practice in the woods.

I like doing both.

Guns are fun.



It is also likely that the recent Arctic warming is still being underestimated since while GISS extrapolates temperatures over the Arctic, they don't extrapolate the zonal trend, which is increasing right up to their cutoff - which is very likely not the case, as I drew in on the second graph:





As an example, the largest anomalies (in excess of +20°C) here are over the Arctic itself:

Quoting PalmBeachWeather:

I know that is Donalds nephews, but are you kinda compairing me to them? or the 3 Stooges?

Hey Moe, Hey Moe..Yuck,yuck,yuck


Comparing?

Not at all.

You asked for sources.

You twisted my arm and I dimed them out.

Its all your fault. :-(

Are you trying to make me feel guilty or something?

Quoting ILwthrfan:


Guns serve one purpose and that one purpose is to kill.


People do a pretty good job killing each other without guns; they are only convenient to use - if somebody wants to kill somebody else, they use whatever is handy (plus, guns have some disadvantages, such as noise; of course, you don't need close contact).

Also of interest, and in the same thread:

55 Percent of Gun Deaths in America are Suicide

Of course, if somebody is suicidal, they will find some way to do it, gun or not
Quoting calusakat:


Is that all you use them for?

No wonder you said what you did.

Guns are fun.

They make loud noises and flash just like fireworks.

They are fun to take to the firing range for target practice.

In some places you can even take them for target practice in the woods.

Guns are fun.





Agreed...to say the 'only purpose of a gun is to kill' is analogous to saying 'the only reason to get married is so I have someone to wash my underwear'....
540. xcool
Link


17 January: The Next Winter Storm

ImpactWeather,.
Quoting presslord:


Agreed...to say the 'only purpose of a gun is to kill' is analogous to saying 'the only reason to get married is so I have someone to wash my underwear'....


So that is what it's for!!!!!!
thing that make you go hmmmm are they for real?


From a CPC statement the other day:

…EXTENDED W-COAST OUTLOOK…
MODELS HINTING ON THE POSSIBILITY OF A PATTERN BREAK IN ABOUT THE
7-10 DAY PERIOD… POSSIBLY EVEN LATER. MODELS HAVE BEEN VERY OPTIMISTIC
ABOUT THUS, THOUGH.
WE HAVE BEEN MONITORING TROPICAL MOISTURE LEVELS ACROSS THE PAC THE
PASSED COUPLE OF WEEKS AND HAVE NOTED A SUBSTANTIAL RISE IN PWAT
VALUES AND TROPICAL CONVECTION.
DUE TO SEVERAL HIGH PRESSURE RIDGES OVER THE WEST COAST… AND OTHER
PARTS OF THE PACIFIC, THIS MOISTURE HAS BEEN HELD BACK FROM MOVING WESTWARD.
IF THESE HIGHS WERE TO MOVE… AND A LOW PRESSURE WERE TO EJECT FROM THE WPAC
STRAIGHT FORWARD TO THE EAST PAC… WE COULD HAVE A SERIES OF VERY SUBSTANTIAL STORM
SYSTEMS TO DEAL WITH, POSSIBLY A ONCE IN A CENTURY STORM
..out in San Diego during Summer 1980 the Drill Instructors made us wash our underwear and our Rifles.

No Starch on the Weapon though.
Quoting calusakat:
506. MrMixon 2:03 PM EST on January 17, 2011


Your suggesting that my purpose is to foment anger and resentment tells me, either you are not a regular reader here or that you are also attempting to redirect my words.

I will choose to believe that you are not a regular here.


I have no need or desire to redirect your words -  I think your post (#502) speaks for itself.  I don't mean to single you out - I'm a semi-regular reader of this blog and I've seen many, many folks resort to name-calling and insults rather than making a substantive point.  

Look, if your goal is to change minds, you might consider a different approach.  That's all I'm saying.  I think you know exactly what I mean.


Happy MLK day,
Dave


PS -  I should at least contribute something weather-related lest I wear out my welcome here.  It rained in Boulder, Colorado last night.  Rain... at 40-degrees North and 5,300' above sea level... in January.  It's virtually unheard-of to have rain in our neck of the woods this time of year.  I live up in Nederland (8,300') and it was coming down as snow there, but temps were above freezing at sunrise and it was melting nearly as fast as it fell.  La Nina is a strange little girl, that's for sure...
Thanx for the Local Elevated Snow/Rain report.

Always Like to see real weather in play.

La Nina a Phunny gurl fer sure.
clay pigeons do not 'die' when you shoot them...and as for underwear Pat...well...at your age...you probably oughta go easy on the starch...
Quoting Tazmanian:
thing that make you go hmmmm are they for real?


From a CPC statement the other day:

…EXTENDED W-COAST OUTLOOK…
MODELS HINTING ON THE POSSIBILITY OF A PATTERN BREAK IN ABOUT THE
7-10 DAY PERIOD… POSSIBLY EVEN LATER. MODELS HAVE BEEN VERY OPTIMISTIC
ABOUT THUS, THOUGH.
WE HAVE BEEN MONITORING TROPICAL MOISTURE LEVELS ACROSS THE PAC THE
PASSED COUPLE OF WEEKS AND HAVE NOTED A SUBSTANTIAL RISE IN PWAT
VALUES AND TROPICAL CONVECTION.
DUE TO SEVERAL HIGH PRESSURE RIDGES OVER THE WEST COAST… AND OTHER
PARTS OF THE PACIFIC, THIS MOISTURE HAS BEEN HELD BACK FROM MOVING WESTWARD.
IF THESE HIGHS WERE TO MOVE… AND A LOW PRESSURE WERE TO EJECT FROM THE WPAC
STRAIGHT FORWARD TO THE EAST PAC… WE COULD HAVE A SERIES OF VERY SUBSTANTIAL STORM
SYSTEMS TO DEAL WITH, POSSIBLY A ONCE IN A CENTURY STORM


Uh-oh...

Scientists warn California could be struck by winter ‘superstorm’

The scientists built a model that showed a storm could last for more than 40 days and dump 10 feet of water on the state. The storm would be goaded on by an "atmospheric river" that would move water "at the same rate as 50 Mississippis discharging water into the Gulf of Mexico," according to the AP. Winds could reach 125 miles per hour, and landslides could compound the damage, the report notes.

Such a superstorm is hypothetical but not improbable, climate researchers warn. "We think this event happens once every 100 or 200 years or so, which puts it in the same category as our big San Andreas earthquakes," Geological Survey scientist Lucy Jones said in a press release.




Here is what the last one did:

THE GREAT CALIFORNIA FLOOD OF 1862

In 1860 California had been a state for 10 years. The state hired an excellent team of men from Yale, including Josiah Whitney and William Brewer, for a long term in-depth investigation of the state’s resources. They were just two years into their studies when the great flood of 1862 bankrupt the state, and soon thereafter terminated their lofty project. A fourth of the state’s economy was destroyed.

This flood transformed the Sacramento Valley into an inland sea, covering the tops of telegraph poles with steamboats passing over the farmlands to deliver goods and rescue survivors. The Santa Ana River formed two large lakes – one in the Inland Empire and another in the flood plain of Orange County. Probably the only definite high water mark in Southern California is at the Aqua Mansa, just south of the present city of Colton. Hydrologic studies at Aqua Mansa, document a discharge in 1862, three times the magnitude of anything since. In Northern California, a high-water measurement on the American River in 1862, suggesting a very high flow, appears to be ignored.


No, not saying that it will happen soon.
Afternoon Wunderfolks,
Any chance the northeast will get another blizzard out of this?
Link
Quoting MichaelSTL:


Uh-oh...

Scientists warn California could be struck by winter ‘superstorm’

The scientists built a model that showed a storm could last for more than 40 days and dump 10 feet of water on the state. The storm would be goaded on by an "atmospheric river" that would move water "at the same rate as 50 Mississippis discharging water into the Gulf of Mexico," according to the AP. Winds could reach 125 miles per hour, and landslides could compound the damage, the report notes.

Such a superstorm is hypothetical but not improbable, climate researchers warn. "We think this event happens once every 100 or 200 years or so, which puts it in the same category as our big San Andreas earthquakes," Geological Survey scientist Lucy Jones said in a press release.




Here is what the last one did:

THE GREAT CALIFORNIA FLOOD OF 1862

In 1860 California had been a state for 10 years. The state hired an excellent team of men from Yale, including Josiah Whitney and William Brewer, for a long term in-depth investigation of the state’s resources. They were just two years into their studies when the great flood of 1862 bankrupt the state, and soon thereafter terminated their lofty project. A fourth of the state’s economy was destroyed.

This flood transformed the Sacramento Valley into an inland sea, covering the tops of telegraph poles with steamboats passing over the farmlands to deliver goods and rescue survivors. The Santa Ana River formed two large lakes – one in the Inland Empire and another in the flood plain of Orange County. Probably the only definite high water mark in Southern California is at the Aqua Mansa, just south of the present city of Colton. Hydrologic studies at Aqua Mansa, document a discharge in 1862, three times the magnitude of anything since. In Northern California, a high-water measurement on the American River in 1862, suggesting a very high flow, appears to be ignored.


No, not saying that it will happen soon.



ok
Quoting Patrap:
Sacramento Levee Risk,a Disaster in waiting

Posted by: Patrap, 9:10 AM CDT on July 31, 2010


Ironically, in the 1862 flooding, the levee actually worsened the flooding in Sacramento, since while it can keep water out, you have to pump out any rainwater that falls inside of the levee (a similar situation exists in New Orleans with areas below sea level):

Great Flood of 1862

The city of Sacramento suffered the worst damage due to its levee, which lay in a wide and flat valley at the junction of the American and Sacramento Rivers. When the floodwaters entered from the higher ground on the East, the levee acted as a dam to keep the water in the city rather than let it flow out. Soon the water level was 10 feet higher inside than the level of the Sacramento River on the outside. Dozens of wood houses, some two stories high, were simply lifted up and carried off by the flood, as was "all the firewood, most of the fences and sheds, all the poultry, cats, rats and many of the cows and horses". A chain gang was sent to break open the levee, which, when it finally broke, allowed the waters to rush out of the city center and lowered the level of the flooding by five to six feet. Eventually the waters fell to a level on a par with the lowest part of the city.
Quoting Chicklit:
Afternoon Wunderfolks,
Any chance the northeast will get another blizzard out of this?
Link


If this is the storm that will hit tomorrow it will be mostly rain. The interior will get snow, but the winds will not be string enough for a blizzaard.
Thanks, breald. We finally had our first decent rain in what seems like about six months in Central Florida today.
Quoting Chicklit:
Afternoon Wunderfolks,
Any chance the northeast will get another blizzard out of this?
Link


Greetings,

It would appear that more winter weather is on the way…See Winter Weather Advisory posted below for most of the northeast:


Statement as of 3:14 PM EST on January 17, 2011
... Winter Weather Advisory remains in effect from 8 PM this evening to 9 am EST Tuesday...

* Precipitation type: snow... sleet and freezing rain.

* Accumulations: 1 to 3 inches of snow... followed by a period of sleet and freezing rain. Between one-tenth and two-tenths of an inch of glaze is possible.

* Timing: snow begins 800 PM and 1100 PM... changes to sleet and freezing rain after midnight... then changes to plain rain after 900 am Tuesday.

* Temperatures: below freezing when the snow begins but rising to 32 or a bit higher by 900 am Tuesday.

* Impacts: all untreated surfaces will be hazardous later tonight and conditions may not improve until shortly after sunrise Tuesday. Be prepared for some travel delays overnight and Tuesday morning.

Precautionary/preparedness actions... A Winter Weather Advisory means that periods of snow... sleet... or freezing rain will cause travel difficulties. Be prepared for slippery roads and limited visibilities... and use caution while driving.

v/r

Jon
Quoting Chicklit:
Thanks, breald. We finally had our first decent rain in what seems like about six months in Central Florida today.


I heard you guys had some stormy weather earlier.
Quoting MichaelSTL:


People do a pretty good job killing each other without guns; they are only convenient to use - if somebody wants to kill somebody else, they use whatever is handy (plus, guns have some disadvantages, such as noise; of course, you don't need close contact).

Also of interest, and in the same thread:

55 Percent of Gun Deaths in America are Suicide

Of course, if somebody is suicidal, they will find some way to do it, gun or not


I agree.

‎"After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn't do it. I sure as hell wouldn't want to live in a society where the only people allowed to own guns are the police and the military" - William S. Burroughs
Quoting calusakat:


Is that all you use them for?

No wonder you said what you did.

Guns are fun.

They make loud noises and flash just like fireworks.

They are fun to take to the firing range for target practice.

In some places you can even take them for target practice in the woods.

I like doing both.

Guns are fun.


And they can be used to kill black civil rights leaders.

Yeah, guns are fun. Sorry, but I can't think of a less appropriate day for singing the praises of guns.

Today we Celebrate Martin L. King Jr's Birthday, which is Jan 15th,and celebrated as a U.S. Federal Holiday.,the following Monday.


Tucson, King and Kennedy
Quoting MichaelSTL:
It is also likely that the recent Arctic warming is still being underestimated since while GISS extrapolates temperatures over the Arctic, they don't extrapolate the zonal trend, which is increasing right up to their cutoff - which is very likely not the case, as I drew in on the second graph:





As an example, the largest anomalies (in excess of 20%uFFFDC) here are over the Arctic itself:



Yet this warming isn't being caused by what AGW theorists insisted would be the root of arctic ice melt and temperature rise. Namely, lower atmospheric pressures in the arctic and a more positive AO. Instead, the last two years have seen some of the lowest values of the AO ever recorded since 1950, and massive gains in air mass over the north pole. Somebody's model projections aren't turning out as planned for the last 20 years or so.
Quoting HaloReachFan:


I agree.

‎"After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn't do it. I sure as hell wouldn't want to live in a society where the only people allowed to own guns are the police and the military" - William S. Burroughs


Well, I am not sure why an average citizen would need a machine gun that can shoot 30 rounds in a few seconds.

565. DEKRE
Quoting Levi32:


...the last two years have seen some of the lowest values of the AO ever recorded since 1950, and massive gains in air mass over the north pole....


And the cause is?
Quoting DEKRE:


And the cause is?


There are theories, but the polar annular modes are not yet fully understood, and the force that causes atmospheric mass to shift between the poles and the lower latitudes has yet to be discovered. It is likely that stratospheric processes have something to do with it, but it is still being studied. All we know is that it does appear to be cyclic, and has specific consequences on the world's climate. For example, the big snowstorms on the northern hemisphere continents can be directly tied to increased air pressure over the arctic.
Quoting breald:


Well, I am not sure why an average citizen would need a machine gun that can shoot 30 rounds in a few seconds.



You don't hear them trying to take pillows away after somebody gets smothered by one. Just saying... Hopefully that doesn't happen but the analogy works.
569. DEKRE
Quoting Levi32:


For example, all the big snowstorms on the big continents can be directly tied to increased air pressure over the arctic.


Interestingly enough, here in Quebec we usually have about 2 m of snow by mid January and a meter on the ground. This winter, as last, we can admire our lawn.
oooopppss...forgot who I was for a moment there ; )
Quoting HaloReachFan:


You don't hear them trying to take pillows away after somebody gets smothered in one. Just saying... Hopefully that doesn't happen but the analogy works.


How is that a good analogy? We had a machine gun ban in this country until 2004 when the Bush admin let it expire. Did you feel like your rights were being hindered because you could not by a machine gun prior to 2004?
Quoting breald:


How is that a good analogy? We had a machine gun ban in this country until 2004 when the Bush admin let it expire. Did you feel like your rights were being hindered because you could not by a machine gun prior to 2004?


This really isn't the blog and I don't want to hinder the debate going on in here right now. So if you do want to continue this then I can talk to you about this in my blog if you'd like or we can just drop it your choice see you over there ;)
561

Correct, poorly timed. Disrespectful. I should have known better than to comment.
Quoting presslord:
oooopppss...forgot who I was for a moment there ; )
thats alright i forget who iam everytime iam here
Hmmmmm. All this talk about guns, constitutional rights, and technical specifications of machine guns vs semi-automatics. I'm aware of all the debate and moral issues of this subject. I simply don't care.
Nope. I offered it. Wunderground is not just for your opinions, HaloReachFan, or the ones you ask for. You're free to set up a site where those rules apply, of course.
Quoting DEKRE:


Interestingly enough, here in Quebec we usually have about 2 m of snow by mid January and a meter on the ground. This winter, as last, we can admire our lawn.


Eastern Canada and Greenland are the areas that tend to warm up significantly when the AO is negative.
hey halo how ya doing
do you like it here
No you haven't :)
Thank you for withdrawing that comment HaloReachFan.
583. flsky
The ISS and the Solar Eclipse
Link



A story of a dog’s dedication to its family, following their deaths last week in Brazil. Translated from Fohla.com:

The former street-dog Caramelo helped rescue the bodies of its owners, whose were killed during last week’s rains, then did not want to leave the makeshift grave of his owner.

It lived with its owner, Cristina Cesário Maria Santana, and three other people in a house of the Caleme quarter, one of the most devastated in Teresópolis. The house was destroyed and the family died. The dog escaped, but dug for them until finding them.

When the rescue teams arrived, Caramelo guided them to the bodies. Caramelo was rescued, but did not want to leave the grave of its owner and now he is very depressed and needy.
Quoting MrMixon:
I have no need or desire to redirect your words -  I think your post (#502) speaks for itself.  I don't mean to single you out - I'm a semi-regular reader of this blog and I've seen many, many folks resort to name-calling and insults rather than making a substantive point.  

Look, if your goal is to change minds, you might consider a different approach.  That's all I'm saying.  I think you know exactly what I mean.


************************


Consider it done.

Thank you for taking the time to express your concerns.


Quoting LoveStormsatNight:
Thank you for withdrawing that comment HaloReachFan.


;)
Quoting breald:


Well, I am not sure why an average citizen would need a machine gun that can shoot 30 rounds in a few seconds.



Have you ever priced the cost of a single round? Over a dollar per round.

Thirty rounds...five seconds...thirty dollars...now thats a real deal...NOT.

My idea of fun is pinwheeling a quarter at fifty yards.

Last time I tried to shoot at a living animal, I missed every time. At less than fifty feet to boot.


588. DEKRE
Quoting Levi32:


Eastern Canada and Greenland are the areas that tend to warm up significantly when the AO is negative.


However, it certainly didn't happen in the last 40 years
Snowfall has gone down continuously. Average 1950-1980 349 cm/a 1860-1990 336cm/a 1970-2000 316cm/a 1980-2010 301 cm/a

These are 30 year averages
Last year we had 249 cm
Seems too quite in here, sooo this was interesting, and seems to hit on the posturing we have been viewing lately :)

Dr. Richard Lindzen (MIT): A Case Against Precipitous Climate Action
Saturday, 15 January 2011 10:37 Richard S Lindzen


Quoting DEKRE:


However, it certainly didn't happen in the last 40 years
Snowfall has gone down continuously. Average 1950-1980 349 cm/a 1860-1990 336cm/a 1970-2000 316cm/a 1980-2010 301 cm/a

These are 30 year averages
Last year we had 249 cm


That is likely because the ocean cycles, PDO and AMO, have not both been aligned in their warm phases during the last 40 years at any time before 1995. The last time they were aligned that way was way back in the 1920s and 1930s. When they are both in their warm phase they surround Canada with much warmer than normal water, which floods the continent with warmer air than if only one of those cycles was in its warm phase. The AMO has the strongest effect by far on eastern Canada and Greenland. A negative AO will result in much warmer conditions when it occurs in tandem with a positive AMO.

Also, the AO has steadily fallen since its peak in the early 1990s, so it's no surprise that snowfall in eastern Canada has also fallen in that time, as a negative AO naturally reduces snowfall in that area.

591. DEKRE
Quoting Levi32:

That is likely because the ocean cycles, PDO and AMO,...


I can't help wondering what other cycles have not been recognized.
Quoting DEKRE:


I can't help wondering what other cycles have not been recognized.


Indeed, there are likely many forces at work that have yet to be discovered.
Quoting Levi32:


Indeed, there are likely many forces at work that have yet to be discovered.

Indeed. That is so profound.
Dats cold.

Harrowing horse images as flooded Queensland reels - videos
Quoting bappit:

Indeed. That is so profound.


Thanks. I thought so.
Quoting Levi32:


Thanks. I thought so.

I thought so.
Sadly we fail to completely consider the Wildlife and other suffering induced by the Warming.
Levi~ Why wasn't the Arctic shipping routes opening in the summers of the 1920s and 1930s like now? Weren't most glaciers melting begin way before these aligned pos?

Quoting Patrap:
Sadly we fail to completely consider the Wildlife and other suffering induced by the Warming.


A float tied to the underside of a halter to help with the exhaustion of keeping it's head up.. I'm part in horses & disaster handling & never heard that one.
Quoting Skyepony:
Levi~ Why wasn't the Arctic shipping routes opening in the summers of the 1920s and 1930s like now? Weren't most glaciers melting begin way before these aligned pos?



It sounds like they were just as shocked about changes in the arctic in the 1920s as we are today.





United States Weather Bureau, Monthly Weather Review, November, 1922
605. JRRP
Quoting Levi32:


It sounds like they were just as shocked about changes in the arctic in the 1920s as we are today.





United States Weather Bureau, Monthly Weather Review, November, 1922

good one!
Except of coarse Arctic glaciers and permafrost - as well as species, long term climate indicators, were in drastically better shape than today.
Quoting Patrap:
Sadly we fail to completely consider the Wildlife and other suffering induced by the Warming.
the wailing is yet to commence


this is how our world ends not with a bang but a wimper


Data courtesy of the Miami International Airport (MIA):

Temperature:

Mean Temperature: 68 F
Max Temperature: 73 F
Min Temperature: 64 F

Degree Days:

Heating Degree Days: 0
Month to date heating degree days: 20
Since 1 July heating degree days: 169
Cooling Degree Days: 4
Month to date cooling degree days: 69
Year to date cooling degree days: 69
Growing Degree Days: 18 (Base 50)

Moisture:

Dew Point: 64 F
Average Humidity: 87
Maximum Humidity: 100
Minimum Humidity: 70

Precipitation:

Precipitation: 0.99 in
Month to date precipitation: 0.76
Year to date precipitation: 0.76

Snow:

Snow: 0.00 in
Month to date snowfall: 0.0
Since 1 July snowfall: 0.0
Snow Depth: 0.00 in

Sea Level Pressure:

Sea Level Pressure: 29.94 in

Wind:

Wind Speed: 7 mph
Max Wind Speed: 15 mph
Max Gust Speed: 21 mph
Visibility: 7.9 miles
Events: Rain

Quoting Levi32:


It sounds like they were just as shocked about changes in the arctic in the 1920s as we are today.





United States Weather Bureau, Monthly Weather Review, November, 1922

Just think about how much more shocked they'd have been had ice been as low then as it is now...
Quoting Neapolitan:

Just think about how much more shocked they'd have been had ice been as low then as it is now...


From that report it doesn't sound that much different from today. The described conditions are quite similar.

Of course, the early 20th century was likely to be at least a bit cooler than today due to the significant increase in total solar irradience between 1900 and 1950.
Quoting Cochise111:


Because I've spent a lot of time in the legal arena, I'll weigh in on this conversation. For one, you can't compare America's crime rate to that of other countries without some caveats. America is not a homogeneous country in terms of demographics. Second, five percent of the American populace -- just one demographic group -- (which will remain unnamed in order to preserve the peace) commits almost 70% of all violent crime in this country. Fifty percent of this group is involved in the US penal system, whether it is because they are in jail, on probation, or on parole. If we permanently locked up this five percent of our population, our violent crime stats would drop immediately by 70%. Imagine that. Also, if we factored out the crime committed by this group -- both violent and nonviolent -- America would have some of the lowest crime rates in the world. I once wrote a paper on this exact subject. All of the data was available in the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports (UCR). The statistics are somewhat skewed these days because of political correctness. I'm not sure if they are still separating Caucasian crime into white, non-Hispanic and white, which tends to increase the number of Caucasian crimes because of all of the Mexican and Central American gangs. Because of our willingness to import black slaves and allow our borders to become sieves, America now has some of the most violent citizens of the world. Most of them, however, are not of European origin. No matter what liberals say, guns are the great equalizer. They allow people to protect themselves against a stronger foe. Guns are used almost three million times a year in self defense, most of the time without even being fired. If you want the data on that, I can give it to you.

I'm going to ignore this ignorant, racist, and utterly bigoted piece of moronic white supremacist garbage, and its author as well. I hope everyone else does the same.
Quoting Neapolitan:

Just think about how much more shocked they'd have been had ice been as low then as it is now...





Philips' Handy Volume Atlas 1930 Arctic map
Quoting Levi32:


Indeed, there are likely many forces at work that have yet to be discovered.


The unknown unknowns?

I wouldn't use the term "forces". That could be considered misleading. The fundamental science of weather and climate are well understood and have been for decades.

That's the easy part.

The hard part are all the interactions and feedback mechanisms as you increase resolution.

A simple energy balance model will tell you that the Earth is going to warm up with additional GHG in the atmosphere. Basic thermodynamics. An 8th grader can do it (and they have). But it won't tell you how that's going to affect any given area of the planet. Nor will it take into account any feedback mechanisms such as decreasing albedo due to snow/ice melt.

If you want any meaningful information or more accurate information than just "it'll get warmer" with wide error bars on the projection, you've got get a lot more complicated, and that's where a good chunk of research has been and continues to be done. You can find papers on anything from stratospheric moisture content impacts on tropospheric temperatures to how sunrise and sunsets affect chemical transport and composition in the upper troposphere. It's actually pretty amazing how many disciplines are wrapped up into the climate science moniker.

~X~
Quoting Neapolitan:

I hope you don't mind that I'm going to ignore this ignorant, racist, and utterly bigoted piece of moronic white supremacist garbage, and its author as well.


But you did not!

And now for something completely different :)

Big dip ?

http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
Quoting Levi32:


It sounds like they were just as shocked about changes in the arctic in the 1920s as we are today.





United States Weather Bureau, Monthly Weather Review, November, 1922


Very interesting. Where is the rest of the data series covering at least several decades and covering a wide representative area of the Arctic? If not it's nothing more than a meteorological notation for one summer for one part of the Arctic. Interesting but of little value comparing it to the knowledge we have today about the summer melting of the Arctic sea ice.
"In fact, so little ice has never before been noted. The expedition all but established a record, sailing as far north as 81 29' in ice-free water. This is the farthest north ever reached with modern oceanographic apparatus."

Here's the arctic sea ice extent during the "grand minimum" in September, 2007. 81 degrees north latitude is outlined in pink (approximate). Hmm. They were sailing from Europe, and reached farther north in 1922 in areas still covered in ice even during the summer of 2007. Go figure.

Quoting Xyrus2000:


It's actually pretty amazing how many disciplines are wrapped up into the climate science moniker.

~X~


And just as amazing how many people think that scientists are missing something so big that it is impossible not to miss (or rather, do know but are covering it up for some ulterior motive)!

I mean, why haven't any of these people making wild claims of magical natural cycles come forward to reveal their secret?! Just imagine what would be in it for them!
Quoting Xyrus2000:


The unknown unknowns?

I wouldn't use the term "forces". That could be considered misleading. The fundamental science of weather and climate are well understood and have been for decades.

That's the easy part.

The hard part are all the interactions and feedback mechanisms as you increase resolution.

A simple energy balance model will tell you that the Earth is going to warm up with additional GHG in the atmosphere. Basic thermodynamics. An 8th grader can do it (and they have). But it won't tell you how that's going to affect any given area of the planet. Nor will it take into account any feedback mechanisms such as decreasing albedo due to snow/ice melt.

If you want any meaningful information or more accurate information than just "it'll get warmer" with wide error bars on the projection, you've got get a lot more complicated, and that's where a good chunk of research has been and continues to be done. You can find papers on anything from stratospheric moisture content impacts on tropospheric temperatures to how sunrise and sunsets affect chemical transport and composition in the upper troposphere. It's actually pretty amazing how many disciplines are wrapped up into the climate science moniker.

~X~


Are you sure you are willing to make that statement? What about the fact that we still don't fully understand clouds, much less having the ability to correctly model them? What about the fact that we don't yet fully understand some of the most significant modulators of global climate such as the polar annular modes, and stratospheric/mesospheric processes that are still under study and have limited observation?
Quoting Levi32:
"In fact, so little ice has never before been noted. The expedition all but established a record, sailing as far north as 81� 29' in ice-free water. This is the farthest north ever reached with modern oceanographic apparatus."

Here's the arctic sea ice extent during the "grand minimum" in September, 2007. 81 degrees north latitude is outlined in pink (approximate). Hmm. They were sailing from Europe, and reached farther north in areas still covered in ice even during the summer of 2007. Go figure.


The vast majority of Arctic ice that's disappeared is in the Arctic ocean between Canada and Siberia. The Gulf Stream has always done a decent job of holding ice at bay in the area north of Scandinavia. In fact, if one were to attempt a North Pole trip with the shortest over-ice component, north of Norway would be the way to go because of the Gulf Stream.

Its incredibly bad judgmental to compare a single anecdotal observation (sea ice) as POSSIBLY indicating 5 year or less trend in the past with what is in many cases over a 50 year trend and diverse proxy supported combined minimum now.


Quoting Ossqss:


But you did not!

And now for something completely different :)

Big dip ?

http://sealevel.colorado.edu/

Yes, I did--but not before bringing it up one final time because A) my name was attached to it, B) I wanted to completely disavow any possible association with it, and C) I didn't want the author to deny making such an entry.

Thanks for posting that "something completely different". I take it you see that graph (reproduced below) which clearly show the overall trend of increasing sea levels. It's always heartening when folks pay attention to science.

So much for the predicted massive global cooling from La Nina (again):



And of course surface temperatures show less variation from ENSO.


Also, somebody else has taken up Bastardi's bet:

I accept Joe Bastardi’s wager on global warming — and I also challenge him to one on Arctic sea ice

Boy, he is going to become bankrupt at this rate!

I also made my own bet regarding January temperatures, compared to 2008 (although of course no deniers took it up).
Quoting Ossqss:


But you did not!

I already had: Flag,Ignore, poof be-gone. Now how do I get rid of the quote without loosing the quoter?
Quoting Neapolitan:

The vast majority of Arctic ice that's disappeared is in the Arctic ocean between Canada and Siberia. The Gulf Stream has always done a decent job of holding ice at bay in the area north of Scandinavia. In fact, if one were to attempt a North Pole trip with the shortest over-ice component, north of Norway would be the way to go because of the Gulf Stream.


True, but then how come the GISS data set says the average land/ocean temperature in that region of the North Atlantic was near "normal" in the early 1920s, and has supposedly risen to about 1.5C above that level today, but yet ships in 1922 were sailing beyond the latitude that the average summer sea ice extent reaches in the average 21st century summer.



Koninklijk Nederlands Meteorological Institute Climate Explorer
Levi~ Interesting article. Checked at some temps around here the following winter. Feb the AO could have been negative. I keep seeing the Hudson/Baffin Bay late freeze & neg AO in the same years. The warm water & lack of sea ice may be causing the miss placed high.
I haven't been following Bastardi's bets, has he accepted any yet?
Quoting MichaelSTL:
So much for the predicted massive global cooling from La Nina (again):



And of course surface temperatures show less variation from ENSO.


Also, somebody else has taken up Bastardi's bet:

I accept Joe Bastardi%u2019s wager on global warming %u2014 and I also challenge him to one on Arctic sea ice

Boy, he is going to become bankrupt at this rate!

I also made my own bet regarding January temperatures, compared to 2008 (although of course no deniers took it up).


You are making some strong statements based off of about 5 days of data. How about we wait until the monthly averages come in. The GISS data set recorded the largest month-to-month drop (November to December 2010) that can be found in at least the last 30 years of Meteorological station data, and the 2nd largest drop in at least 30 years in the Land-Ocean Temperature Index.
628. DEKRE
Quoting Levi32:


It sounds like they were just as shocked about changes in the arctic in the 1920s as we are today.





United States Weather Bureau, Monthly Weather Review, November, 1922


Wow
Quoting Neapolitan:

Yes, I did--but not before bringing it up one final time because A) my name was attached to it, B) I wanted to completely disavow any possible association with it, and C) I didn't want the author to deny making such an entry.

Thanks for posting that "something completely different". I take it you see that graph (reproduced below) which clearly show the overall trend of increasing sea levels. It's always heartening when folks pay attention to science.



Yep, considering we will probably see the largest change in 2010 since they started keeping records. Yes, I do indeed pay attention :)
Quoting Neapolitan:

Yes, I did--but not before bringing it up one final time because A) my name was attached to it, and B) I wanted to completely disavow any possible association with it.

Thanks for posting that "something completely different". I take it you see that graph (reproduced below) which clearly show the overall trend of increasing sea levels. It's always heartening when folks pay attention to science.



It is worth noting that the graph you posted doesn't remove the seasonal cycle or corrects for the "inverse barometer" effect (sea level pressure variation can change sea levels):



Also, when looking at this, there is an evident step in sea level around 2007, coinciding with the change in the PDO from warm to cool (I believe that is what it shows; a 10 year running mean of temperatures shows a brief dip at that time too, but followed by continued warming, consistent with what RealClimate scientists said about it, not the magical cycle worshipers):

Quoting MichaelSTL:


It is worth noting that the graph you posted doesn't remove the seasonal cycle or corrects for the "inverse barometer" effect (sea level pressure variation can change sea levels):



Also, when looking at this, there is an evident step in sea level around 2007, coinciding with the change in the PDO from warm to cool (I believe that is what it shows; a 10 year running mean of temperatures shows a brief dip at that time too, but followed by continued warming, consistent with what RealClimate scientists said about it, not the magical cycle worshipers):



Though something I heard today is interesting, that the IPCC projections of possibly over a meter of sea-level rise by 2100 require an average increase in sea level of almost 11mm every year until then, and the last 20 years have only seen an average rate of 2.7mm/year. Not once has the target rate of increase been achieved yet.
632. DEKRE
Quoting Levi32:


Are you sure you are willing to make that statement? What about the fact that we still don't fully understand clouds, much less having the ability to correctly model them? What about the fact that we don't yet fully understand some of the most significant modulators of global climate such as the polar annular modes, and stratospheric/mesospheric processes that are still under study and have limited observation?


We do know all the basic laws governing these processes - we just can't solve the equations - far too complex. This is why we have to go to numerical models, with all their problems.

In an analogy - we know perfectly, to every detail, how a neuron functions - this doesn't mean at all that we know how the brain works!
Quoting Levi32:


Are you sure you are willing to make that statement? What about the fact that we still don't fully understand clouds, much less having the ability to correctly model them? What about the fact that we don't yet fully understand some of the most significant modulators of global climate such as the polar annular modes, and stratospheric/mesospheric processes that are still under study and have limited observation?


Clouds are simple. Clouds in the atmosphere are not.

And so it is with any process in the atmosphere, or ocean, or any complex system. The basic mechanics are easily understood (with enough science and math background). It's when you throw them all together when things get murky. When you have systems interacting with systems, what once may have been a simple linear equations now can only be solved numerically through a Navier-Stokes algorithm. A simple example is gravity. You don't get much simpler than F=-mg. However, now take a handful of bodies orbiting each other and try to predict their paths. At that point you need numerical methods and a computer.

As for your other processes you stated, there has been and continues to be a lot research in these areas. A quick Google search turned up quite a few hits. But not fully understanding something is a lot different than having no understanding. I'm not an expert in those fields so for more info you may want consult the research yourself and see what you think of it.

Regardless, increasing global temperatures are caused by a net increase of energy being retained by the Earth. Satellite measurements have shown this to be occurring in the troposphere (both by direct measurements as well as a cooling stratosphere). Weather patterns are too short lived to be causing the long term increases we're seeing. However, I do agree with you that it is the rare (becoming common?) arctic weather pattern we have seen the past couple of years that have lead to a more rapid decrease in arctic ice.

On a completely unrelated note, someone just lost control on the road behind my house from the ice we're getting and ran into a speed limit sign. :P

~X~
Statistical modeling has advanced beyond any common sense approach or truest statement. Go look.

"We" isn't the blogging community. You are talking about a very technical approach and excruciatingly complex arguments.

Start with regression series.

A blonde was watching the news. The reporter said that 9 Brazillian men had died in the flooding. The blonde asked, "HOW MANY IS A BRAZILLIAN?!" L
Quoting Levi32:


Though something I heard today is interesting, that the IPCC projections of possibly over a meter of sea-level rise by 2100 require an average increase in sea level of almost 11mm every year until then, and the last 20 years have only seen an average rate of 2.7mm/year. Not once has the target rate of increase been achieved yet.


Well what you heard was wrong. The 2007 IPCC meeting projections for sea level rise:

Figure 10.33. Projections and uncertainties (5 to 95% ranges) of global average sea level rise and its components in 2090 to 2099 (relative to 1980 to 1999) for the six SRES marker scenarios. The projected sea level rise assumes that the part of the present-day ice sheet mass imbalance that is due to recent ice flow acceleration will persist unchanged. It does not include the contribution shown from scaled-up ice sheet discharge, which is an alternative possibility. It is also possible that the present imbalance might be transient, in which case the projected sea level rise is reduced by 0.02 m. It must be emphasized that we cannot assess the likelihood of any of these three alternatives, which are presented as illustrative. The state of understanding prevents a best estimate from being made.

I don't see a 1m projection there. Hearsay is all well and good, but sometimes it's good to check @ the source ;)
Quoting Neapolitan:

Fact #1: If guns prevented crime, America would be the safest nation on the planet.



**********************

Actual Truth: Criminals commit crimes and they often use guns to commit those crimes.

Outlaw guns and the citizens would be defenseless against the criminals who would simply purchase guns illegally and be embolden to attack what they see as defenseless targets.

Have you ever considered the time it takes the police to respond to a 911 call? They don't appear instantly using a Star Trek transporter.

Have you ever considered that criminals are cowards and the only reason they do what they do is because they are relatively sure that their victims will be unarmed or simply too chicken to defend themselves.

Remember, the victims are told that the best thing to do is simply lie down and let the criminals have their way. Let the police handle it, they are told.

Actual Truth: If more citizens had guns in their homes then the creeple people aka criminals would have doubts about whether the target was armed and could defend themselves, and being the cowards they are, they would not be so quick to do the deed.

**************************

Fact #2: America is not the safest nation on the planet. Not by any measure.


***********************

Is that a fact.

So, you would have no problem going into the neighborhoods of Cuidad Juarez or most any city in Mexico. Guess you haven't been reading about all the slaughter of even women and children, or all the beheadings.

You must live in one special bubble not to know how really safe we are here in America. I cannot imagine the dread you must feel believing such silly things.

**********************

My assertion, then: more guns %u2260 more safety.

On purely logical and statistical grounds--that is, without talking about the Second Amendment or individual freedoms or whatever--I challenge anyone to disprove that.



**********************

Totally illogical, for all of the reasons I mentioned above in this post.

Statistical?...Ah yes, numbers, those things that can be twisted to serve any purpose desired.

Grab a map of America.

Now grab a red crayola.

Color in the high crime areas with that red crayola. When you have finished that quick little chore, take that map and put it on the wall.

Notice how much more of the map is untouched by that red crayola. Those red areas are really more like dots than large areas.

The rest of that map is where most of us live and prosper. No where near the we are all going to die situation you seem to suggest.

Heck, crime is so non-existent in my area that UPS and FedEx drop off packages at the front door without even needing a signature. The one thing they do is put those packages in baggies when it looks like rain

Want to change things. Go work in those red colored areas and help make them smaller.



Quoting presslord:
A blonde was watching the news. The reporter said that 9 Brazillian men had died in the flooding. The blonde asked, "HOW MANY IS A BRAZILLIAN?!" L


wut lol
Quoting Xyrus2000:


Clouds are simple. Clouds in the atmosphere are not.

And so it is with any process in the atmosphere, or ocean, or any complex system. The basic mechanics are easily understood (with enough science and math background). It's when you throw them all together when things get murky. When you have systems interacting with systems, what once may have been a simple linear equations now can only be solved numerically through a Navier-Stokes algorithm. A simple example is gravity. You don't get much simpler than F=-mg. However, now take a handful of bodies orbiting each other and try to predict their paths. At that point you need numerical methods and a computer.

As for your other processes you stated, there has been and continues to be a lot research in these areas. A quick Google search turned up quite a few hits. But not fully understanding something is a lot different than having no understanding. I'm not an expert in those fields so for more info you may want consult the research yourself and see what you think of it.

Regardless, increasing global temperatures are caused by a net increase of energy being retained by the Earth. Satellite measurements have shown this to be occurring in the troposphere (both by direct measurements as well as a cooling stratosphere). Weather patterns are too short lived to be causing the long term increases we're seeing. However, I do agree with you that it is the rare (becoming common?) arctic weather pattern we have seen the past couple of years that have lead to a more rapid decrease in arctic ice.

On a completely unrelated note, someone just lost control on the road behind my house from the ice we're getting and ran into a speed limit sign. :P

~X~


And not fully understanding something is a lot different than fully understanding something. This is something that the scientists supporting the "unequivocal" AGW seem to have missed. Using words like "unequivocal," "certain," and applying opposing theorists with the label "deniers" implies that they essentially know all there is to know concerning the climate, and that their theory is infallible. That is horribly misguided and an appallingly warped use of the scientific method. If their theory is so certain, they should be spending their time looking for evidence that could prove them wrong. That's how you test a theory.
In all likelihood, we are UNDERestimating the feedbacks and consequent warming:

Science stunner: On our current emissions path, CO2 levels in 2100 will hit levels last seen when the Earth was 29°F (16°C) hotter
Paleoclimate data suggests CO2 "may have at least twice the effect on global temperatures than currently projected by computer models"

The disinformers claim that projections of dangerous future warming from greenhouse gas emissions are based on computer models. In fact, ClimateProgress readers know that the paleoclimate data is considerably more worrisome than the models (see Hansen: ‘Long-term’ climate sensitivity of 6°C for doubled CO2). That’s mainly because the vast majority of the models largely ignore key amplifying carbon-cycle feedbacks, such as the methane emissions from melting tundra (see Are Scientists Underestimating Climate Change).




A study based on actual observations, not a model - which shows at least twice as much climate sensitivity as models do. Not really surprising given the response of the climate to Milankovitch cycles, for example, or events like the PETM.
640.

IPCC said they went with conservative estimates - all academic institutions generally also take that approach.

I would not be surprised.

Once you get past the ridiculous amateur arguments and the blogger conspiracy theory It is reasonable to assume they are on the low end.
Quoting FFtrombi:


Well what you heard was wrong. The 2007 IPCC meeting projections for sea level rise:


Figure 10.33. Projections and uncertainties (5 to 95% ranges) of global average sea level rise and its components in 2090 to 2099 (relative to 1980 to 1999) for the six SRES marker scenarios. The projected sea level rise assumes that the part of the present-day ice sheet mass imbalance that is due to recent ice flow acceleration will persist unchanged. It does not include the contribution shown from scaled-up ice sheet discharge, which is an alternative possibility. It is also possible that the present imbalance might be transient, in which case the projected sea level rise is reduced by 0.02 m. It must be emphasized that we cannot assess the likelihood of any of these three alternatives, which are presented as illustrative. The state of understanding prevents a best estimate from being made.

I don't see a 1m projection there. Hearsay is all well and good, but sometimes it's good to check @ the source ;)


I did use the modifier "possibly," as I have read on many of the frequently-cited AGW-promoting websites, used by just about every AGW-supporting blogger here that is fond of posting pages from them.


Figure 3: Projection of sea-level rise from 1990 to 2100, based on IPCC temperature projections for three different emission scenarios. The sea-level range projected in the IPCC AR4 for these scenarios are shown for comparison in the bars on the bottom right. Also shown in red is observed sea-level (Vermeer 2009).

Skepticalscience
Observed sea levels are actually tracking at the upper range of the IPCC projections. When accelerating ice loss from Greenland and Antarctica are factored into sea level projections, the estimated sea level rise by 2100 is between 75cm to 2 metres.

The IPCC is a clearinghouse for scientific research. It really doesn't instigate study.

Why is that not clear by now.

clearinghouse


: an establishment maintained by banks for settling mutual claims and accounts
2
: a central agency for the collection, classification, and distribution especially of information; broadly : an informal channel for distributing information or assistance
I lived for a number of years in the mountains just north of Ventura, California, a nice little surfing town 80 miles northwest of L.A. Ventura is ground zero, as it were, for dealing in a practical way with some of the effects of warming-induced sea level rise. "Sea levels have risen about 8 inches in the last century and are expected to swell at an increasing rate as climate change warms the ocean, experts say. In California, the sea is projected to rise as much as 55 inches by the end of the century and gobble up 41 square miles of coastal land, according to a 2009 state-commissioned report by the Pacific Institute."

On that California note, there's this: Temperature hits 90 degrees in Chatsworth and high 80s in other parts of Southern California. After that oddly cool 2010 summer, it's perhaps even more odd to have summer temps in dead winter.

To quote John Lennon, "Strange days indeed. Most peculiar, Mama."
Quoting Levi32:


I did use the modifier "possibly,"


The graph you point to wasn't an IPCC graph, that kinda stuff can be hard to notice.

Anyway I know Levi32 isn't a denialist, based on his commentary here he is more of a gaiaist :) A good thing for the *denialists (for want of a better word) would be to actually read the IPCC report from 2007 (AR4) in full, as well as the AR5 when it comes out. You don't have to agree with the findings, but it makes pointing holes in it easier if you actually read what you don't agree with.
Quoting Levi32:


Though something I heard today is interesting, that the IPCC projections of possibly over a meter of sea-level rise by 2100 require an average increase in sea level of almost 11mm every year until then, and the last 20 years have only seen an average rate of 2.7mm/year. Not once has the target rate of increase been achieved yet.


Yes, but that's only one possibility. That being said, ocean level rise is not a linear response. Potentially anywhere from 15-30% of that rise would be caused by thermal expansion alone, which wouldn't be apparent until later in the century.
647. DEKRE
Sea level rise is one aspect, but land sinking has quite a similar effect.
For example, since at the end of the last ice age a tremendous load has been removed from the scandinavian shield, this shield is still rising. In consequence, the other end namely northern Germany is sinking. Continents are in a hydrostatic equilibrium or are trying to establish one. One end goes up, another goes down.
Quoting FFtrombi:


The graph you point to wasn't an IPCC graph, that kinda stuff can be hard to notice.

Anyway I know Levi32 isn't a denialist, based on his commentary here he is more of a gaiaist :) A good thing for the *denialists (for want of a better word) would be to actually read the IPCC report from 2007 (AR4) in full, as well as the AR5 when it comes out. You don't have to agree with the findings, but it makes pointing holes in it easier if you actually read what you don't agree with.


Yeah, I have read the excerpts on sea-level rise, as well as the recent findings since then on the possibility of over 1 meter rise in sea level by 2100. If you have a problem with graphs posted on skepticalscience.com, then perhaps folks here should be wary of relying on posting pages from that site and others like it, and then proclaiming them to be fact.
Quoting CanadianClimateHawk:


Very interesting. Where is the rest of the data series covering at least several decades and covering a wide representative area of the Arctic? If not it's nothing more than a meteorological notation for one summer for one part of the Arctic. Interesting but of little value comparing it to the knowledge we have today about the summer melting of the Arctic sea ice.

Another case of confusing regional (local?) changes with global changes.
So half a meter based on extremely conservative 2007 projections used in the IPCC report and 1-2 meters based in current research. Is that correct STL? That sounds more in line with my recent reading.

Ill be dead so I don't follow the sea level stuff as closely as the storm and biological indicators of change.
Quoting bappit:

Another case of confusing regional (local?) changes with global changes.


Perhaps if you had read the following posts you would have seen the significance of that report.
Quoting FFtrombi:


The graph you point to wasn't an IPCC graph, that kinda stuff can be hard to notice.

Anyway I know Levi32 isn't a denialist, based on his commentary here he is more of a gaiaist :) A good thing for the *denialists (for want of a better word) would be to actually read the IPCC report from 2007 (AR4) in full, as well as the AR5 when it comes out. You don't have to agree with the findings, but it makes pointing holes in it easier if you actually read what you don't agree with.

Sadly mistaken. Levi is as denialist as they come.
Quoting Levi32:


Yeah, I have read the excerpts on sea-level rise, as well as the recent findings since then on the possibility of over 1 meter rise in sea level by 2100. If you have a problem with graphs posted on skepticalscience.com, then perhaps folks here should be wary of relying on posting pages from that site and others like it, and then proclaiming them to be fact.


I don't have a problem with posting graphs from skeptical science, I don't have a problem with unsourced copypaste from wattsupwiththat either.

I have a problem with misrepresenting official IPCC projections. Can you see the difference?
Its not like its classified information. You would think those questioning the scientific consensus would have at least read the report by now.
Hi everyone....

Levi, I have a concern.... don't know if anyone has asked this to you or if any of the blog members knows why??....

Why the winter season isn't documented the same way the Hurricane season does? Why aren't blizards named and categorized, pressures and all variables recorded and even ACE's calculated. That way we will have reference by name, attached to weather data needed for future analysis and comparisons, not only of winter systems but of winter seasons.
Black dots indicate yearly average, red line is running summation from 1979.

This is why I dont trust the skeptics here. You don't know what the IPCC is and haven't read its reports much less can bring up the actual study you have a problem with.

So I am forever referencing your posts because you cant cite correctly or cite from a denial site.

That bothers the heck out of me. I AGREE THAT CLIMATE SCIENTISTS KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING.

Why am I having to do the work here.

I am downloading chapter 5 of the fourth assessment now.
THEY QUOTE ARTICLES.

OK this is infuriating. No more - if you are so incompetent as to not even read the assessment or literature you are far to ignorant to be making generalized commentary on the science.

Period.

READ IT THEN REFERENCE THE PORTION AND REASONING YOU ARE QUESTIONING.
Has anyone read about the possible Super Winter Storm that California is due. If this comes true,40 days with 10 feet of water. 1/4 of California would be underwater. the article said it would 4 to 5 times worse than a earthquake and cost 400 to 500 billion dollars in damages. The last storm like this happened in 1861.
Quoting sunlinepr:
Hi everyone....

Levi, I have a concern.... don't know if anyone has asked this to you or to any of the blog members....

Why the winter season isn't documented the same way the Hurricane season does? Why aren't blizards named and categorized, pressures and all variables recorded and even ACE's calculated. That way we will have reference by name, attached to weather data needed for future analysis and comparisons, not only of winter systems but of winter seasons.


Interesting question. It would have to take into account many variables, but it could be done. I think Europe unofficially names its severe winter storms, but no official classification system has been developed. It would aid in comparison between storms and the data would be easily achievable and searchable, which is a problem with individual extratropical cyclones.
Quoting JFLORIDA:
Its not like its classified information. You would think those questioning the scientific consensus would have at least read the report by now.


This is your consensus?

75 climate scientists think humans contribute to global warming


Honestly, whenever I read a site, either denial, or proGW and they type an article, I try and find out whether thats what impression an entire reading of the source gives (if and when they bother).

Quite often in the blogosphere, excitement about a polarized issue can get in the way of resourced knowledge, and thats a shame because there are some talented writers around.

One example is the *850 articles refuting AGW someone pointed to earlier. Reading a random sample of those articles, all the ones I read actually weren't pro or anti AGW, they were just about a precise issue, sometimes not relating to bigger climate issues. In fact some of them would be classified as quite pro AGW if you read past the first sentence of the abstract.

*disclaimer* Just so everyones clear on my biased background, I'm a closet environmentalist who thinks the carbon based economy is hurting the planet, a) by causing climate change, ie warming causing feedbacks like desertification / more extreme weather events and b) by pollution by the carbon industry (mining, oil, air pollution etc). I don't think life on this planet will end because of CO2 emissions, and I don't think some of the wilder projections will turn out correct, however, I would rather my government act now and save the billions it would take to act later.*
Quoting alfabob:
Black dots indicate yearly average, red line is running summation from 1979.



Energy transfered from what to what?
Quoting JFLORIDA:
Dont give me one of your stupid links now. You dont even know what the hell you are talking about. A monkey armed with a crayon is more of a intellectual threat.

And dont try to cover up the incompetence. any more.





Quoting Levi32:


It would aid in comparison between storms and the data would be easily achievable and searchable, which is a problem with individual extratropical cyclones.


Is there any proven scientific correlation between a Hurricane Season / Winter Season and so on? If there is, then that data could be used to further predict the next season.... That would be a good proposal for the NHC (Maybe should be called the National Climatic or Weather Center or the US Weather Agency or whatever....)
Quoting JFLORIDA:
663 I would like those with the obvious arrogance to question the climate consensus and current atmospheric science to at least know a little about it.

THAT SHOULD NOT BE TOO MUCH TO ASK.

OSS is spamming the board with garbage again after we have been through this before time and time again. Just to cover the fact they have no idea what any of this is about.

I am tired of coming here and not getting honest straightforward answers. That is not jsut annoying its unethical. It totally wasts my time.

I am here to learn new things and if I can help others. Not to be harassed and misled.


It seems you're the one doing that right now.
Quoting Neapolitan:
I lived for a number of years in the mountains just north of Ventura, California, a nice little surfing town 80 miles northwest of L.A. Ventura is ground zero, as it were, for dealing in a practical way with some of the effects of warming-induced sea level rise. "Sea levels have risen about 8 inches in the last century and are expected to swell at an increasing rate as climate change warms the ocean, experts say. In California, the sea is projected to rise as much as 55 inches by the end of the century and gobble up 41 square miles of coastal land, according to a 2009 state-commissioned report by the Pacific Institute."

On that California note, there's this: Temperature hits 90 degrees in Chatsworth and high 80s in other parts of Southern California. After that oddly cool 2010 summer, it's perhaps even more odd to have summer temps in dead winter.

To quote John Lennon, "Strange days indeed. Most peculiar, Mama."

there is also the possible effect
of the bulging of the seas in the deeper abysses caused by the spin of the earth
and there true depth increases won't be known
till a storm is capable of moving the bulges
and cause higher than normal surges during storms.
Quoting Levi32:


And not fully understanding something is a lot different than fully understanding something. This is something that the scientists supporting the "unequivocal" AGW seem to have missed. Using words like "unequivocal," "certain," and applying opposing theorists with the label "deniers" implies that they essentially know all there is to know concerning the climate, and that their theory is infallible. That is horribly misguided and an appallingly warped use of the scientific method. If their theory is so certain, they should be spending their time looking for evidence that could prove them wrong. That's how you test a theory.


You seem to have a very misguided view of the climate science community. Have you been to an AGU conference?

There are skeptics. Well reasoned skeptics. However, they don't deny that the planet is warming. They also don't deny that we aren't at least contributing to it in some way.

What they are skeptical of is our contribution, and regardless of contribution what the possible impacts are. These scientists (and they are, they contribute research, papers, data) are doing good science and helping to make sure that we get things right.

The "deniers" are more people like McIntyre and Watts. They encourage bad or misinformation. They refuse to admit when they are wrong. They encourage the bizarre idea that all climate scientists are in a conspiracy for money, world domination, and the creation of a neo-fascist socialist utopia. And when they do find an error in a data set (bound to happen given the huge amounts of data gathered) they hold it forth like it is the end all, be all truth that shows global warming to be a big farce. They play to the armchair deniers fed on a steady anti-science diet of Fox n00z and Glenn Blech, neither of which wouldn't know what scientific research was if $DIETY itself came down and pointed it out to them.

I enjoy discussing the science with intelligent skeptics such as yourself. I would actually love to see more research papers and models produce by skeptical scientists. But unfortunately a large portion of "skeptics" aren't skeptics. Skeptics educate themselves on a subject, build up well reasoned arguments, and then discuss their point of view.

But deniers don't do that. They just deny. They'll find, use, and perpetuate any myth, incorrect fact, or outright lie that backs their position. They don't discuss. They don't want to discuss. And to ensure that they will talk at you while the have their hands over their ears.

Now to be fair, there are also environut whackjobs on the AGW side who make ridiculous claims like the world will end (it won't), be destroyed (it won't), kill all life on the planet (not by AGW), or kill off the human race (more of chance of nuclear war doing that). These guys aren't any better (from a science perspective). But these loons also aren't as numerous nor as loud. As an added bonus, they pollute less.

At any rate, skeptics are good. I'd like more of them. Deniers are bad. Mindless supporters are bad, though slightly better due to their efforts to not pollute.
Quoting Levi32:


Energy transfered from what to what?


Into the internal system of the water molecules from the outside environment (Latent Heat, ice -> water transition). Without this heat sink, all of the water in the world would have increased by 0.0072C over the 31 year time period. Although equal distribution would most likely not occur, I have no idea what it would be equivalent to if just the upper layers were heated. Data is from PIOMAS
Quoting bappit:

Sadly mistaken. Levi is as denialist as they come.


I wouldn't say that. He's more skeptical than the average skeptic, but he isn't a mad-dog denier. He does have his reasons, and they are more substantive than "It's a consipiracy!" or "Just because.".


Quoting Levi32:


Energy transfered from what to what?


heat of fusion, ie the extra energy needed to be given to ice to melt into water. The graph is showing the amount of extra energy "used up" whenever the refreeze is less than the melt. It takes approx 333kJ/kg to melt ice into water and the same amount to freeze water into ice.
Quoting Levi32:


It seems you're the one doing that right now.


Because you post incompetent innuendo night after night after night.

NO. Thats not close to acceptable. Now you are trying some ad hominem argument to cover.

Thats not even valid. Do you understand that? You cant even criticize my ratings validly.

You do better and stop wasting my time.

671. Xyrus2000 6:25 PM AKST on January 17, 2011

If you were to actually take a look at some of the articles written at Anthony Watts' website, taking them in without automatic bias, I think you'd find that they are quite educated and filled with interesting points. However, nobody on the AGW side will acknowledge anything written on that website because of other silly reasons. Simply read some of the articles and point to where they "encourage bad or misinformation."

I dislike the people you describe who simply say "no" without reason except to be contrary, but many of the people given that label are given it wrongly.
Quoting FFtrombi:
One example is the *850 articles refuting AGW someone pointed to earlier. Reading a random sample of those articles, all the ones I read actually weren't pro or anti AGW, they were just about a precise issue, sometimes not relating to bigger climate issues. In fact some of them would be classified as quite pro AGW if you read past the first sentence of the abstract.


The same is true about the claims that hundreds or thousands of scientists say that (human-caused) global warming is a hoax; many of the people claimed to be scientists either aren't or if they are, aren't in a relevant field (e.g. dentists). Some scientists have even been put on such lists against their wills (and not removed when requested), thus are totally misrepresented (a few can't because they are well, dead). See this example on the Oregon Petition.
Oss respect is earned.

Misleading people is the most disrespectful thing I can imagine. You can whine over lame civility arguments and perhaps get some weak minded approval but I respect the truth. And thats about it.
Quoting JFLORIDA:


Because you post incompetent innuendo night after night after night.

NO. Thats not close to acceptable. Now you are trying some ad hominem argument to cover.

Thats not even valid. Do you understand that? You cant even criticize my ratings validly.

You do better and stop wasting my time.



The word "harassment" certainly has come to mind reading your last several posts.

During my school break I have been showing you data and the sources, official ones, for that data, arguing based on conclusions from the same data that AGW theorists use. There is nothing invalid about the data I have posted for the last couple weeks. As you are so fond of telling other people, "go show me a post where I posted invalid data."
No you ridiculed a report and professionals YOU NEVER BOTHERED TO READ and had no idea what they or it said.

Just by some political nimcompoop blogger garbage too.

Save your excuses for those that can't make reasoned arguments.

"oh you're being mean to me" is unbelievable from you now.
Quoting JFLORIDA:
No you ridiculed a report and professionals YOU NEVER BOTHERED TO READ and had no idea what they or it said.

Save your excuses for those that can't make reasoned arguments.

"oh you're being mean to me" is unbelievable from you now.


You misunderstood my whole post about the IPCC projections for sea level. I had already read their report on the subject, but was showing a graph from a very popular AGW website, and mentioning recent research about sea-level rises possibly exceeding 1 meter by 2100.

As for ridicule....what are you doing right now?
Quoting JFLORIDA:
Oss respect is earned.

Misleading people is the most disrespectful thing I can imagine. You can whine over lame civility arguments and perhaps get some weak minded approval but I respect the truth. And thats about it.


Show me where I have posted anything that is false, incorrect, or a non-truth. You can't find it! Climate science should not be an emotion. It should be clear and free, period. We are not there by any means. I keep an opened mind, but consider that of which you seem to overlook as relevant and pertinent info into the equation. I am sorry for your loss. It obviously hurts as exemplified by your anger and unwillingness to consider the basic principles of the scientific method.

It is what it is,,, and that is,,, unsettled science ......
Please excuse the chuckle/ poke :O)
La Nina....
Tends to be warmer and dryer.
Warm dry wishes from Florida !
is it me
or is it
hot in here
No thats not valid. Post the specific study you have a problem with and YOUR reasoning. You should have no problem doing that if it is something you have genuinely researched.

Even if you have a valid concern attempting to disparage a field is ridiculous.

Besides if you are considering a career in this field you should use accepted procedure. You will thank me later if you are successful.

When history looks back on people like Watts and his followers I can guarantee you it is not going to be kind. Dont get drawn into that disaster.
Quoting KEEPEROFTHEGATE:
is it me
or is it
hot in here


That's an inconvenient truth.

*ducks*
Quoting JFLORIDA:
No thats not valid. Post the specific study you have a problem with and YOUR reasoning. You should have no problem doing that if it is something you have genuinely researched.

Even if you have a valid concern attempting to disparage a field is ridiculous.

Besides if you are considering a career in this field you should use accepted procedure. You will thank me later if you are successful.

When history looks back on people like Watts and his followers I can guarantee you it is not going to be kind. Dont get drawn into that disaster.


I have before, and you never accepted it.

As for the sea-level, I was not picking on a specific study or getting into the details. I was simply mentioning the recent opinions of climatologists since the release of the last IPCC report that sea levels could rise even more than expected. You yourself said you had read as much.
Quoting Ossqss:


Show me where I have posted anything that is false, incorrect, or a non-truth. You can't find it! Climate science should not be an emotion. It should be clear and free, period. We are not there by any means. I keep an opened mind, but consider that of which you seem to overlook as relevant and pertinent info into the equation. I am sorry for your loss. It obviously hurts as exemplified by your anger and unwillingness to consider the basic principles of the scientific method.

It is what it is,,, and that is,,, unsettled science ......


You have yet to even approach the science. Not even close. You dont even know what you disagree with. Im angry incompetant people waste my time.

Im angry after I read several posts based in innuendo and generalities with no reference or grounding in the current science.

If you are going to post weather or videos fine. great. But don't post misinformation and/or generalities on technical matters. Especially ones you have obviously not read.
Quoting Levi32:


I have before, and you never accepted it.

As for the sea-level, I was not picking on a specific study or getting into the details. I was simply mentioning the recent opinions of climatologists since the release of the last IPCC report that sea levels could rise even more than expected. You yourself said you had read as much.


reference the specific article like the IPCC does in its assessment. The IPCC is not really a research organization. You are posting a generality with no specific reference or criticism. It is invalid until it is based and grounded in accepted study.

Thats how it works. We build on foundations. Not just out in the middle of the air.
692. JRRP
Nils-Axel M%uFFFDrner
Link

He is a critic of the IPCC and the notion that the global sea level is rising. He's also been the Chairman of INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution. He also led the Maldives Sea Level Project.
Quoting JFLORIDA:
No thats not valid. Post the specific study you have a problem with and YOUR reasoning. You should have no problem doing that if it is something you have genuinely researched.

Even if you have a valid concern attempting to disparage a field is ridiculous.

Besides if you are considering a career in this field you should use accepted procedure. You will thank me later if you are successful.

When history looks back on people like Watts and his followers I can guarantee you it is not going to be kind. Dont get drawn into that disaster.


No, I don't think so, and was very tempted to post the Angry Birds "Peace Treaty" vid, LOL :) Out>>>>>>>

Quoting KEEPEROFTHEGATE:
is it me
or is it
hot in here



LOL. Hey Keeper.
Quoting JFLORIDA:


reference the specific article like the IPCC does in its assessment. The IPCC is not really a research organization. You are posting a generality with no specific reference or criticism. It is invalid until it is based and grounded in accepted study.

Thats how it works. We build on foundations. Not just out in the middle of the air.


No. Every time you have asked me to source data (most of the time I had already done it in the original post), I have done it, and every time you still had a problem. I see no point in trying to convince you of something you have already read for yourself, and said as much in post #650.

650. JFLORIDA 5:46 PM AKST on January 17, 2011
So half a meter based on extremely conservative 2007 projections used in the IPCC report and 1-2 meters based in current research. Is that correct STL? That sounds more in line with my recent reading.
hey PSL
Upon considering the comments in that "Lawrence Solomon: 75 climate scientists think humans contribute to global warming" Article, someone posted this link called

Welcome to the Environmentalism is Fascism website.
Link

Interesting for those who like to observe and analyze both sides....


George Noory is on the radio RIGHT NOW explaining everything...
Quoting JFLORIDA:


reference the specific article like the IPCC does in its assessment. The IPCC is not really a research organization. You are posting a generality with no specific reference or criticism. It is invalid until it is based and grounded in accepted study.

Thats how it works. We build on foundations. Not just out in the middle of the air.


Whos we? you are a climate scientist?
Quoting presslord:
George Noory is on the radio RIGHT NOW explaining everything...


Evening, Press. How it be?
Quoting PSLFLCaneVet:


Evening, Press. How it be?


Howdy, pal...Who's in charge here?!
Quoting presslord:


Howdy, pal...Who's in charge here?!



LMBO. The inmates?
Quoting Levi32:


No. Every time you have asked me to source data (most of the time I had already done it in the original post), I have done it, and every time you still had a problem. I see no point in trying to convince you of something you have already read for yourself, and said as much in post #650.

650. JFLORIDA 5:46 PM AKST on January 17, 2011
So half a meter based on extremely conservative 2007 projections used in the IPCC report and 1-2 meters based in current research. Is that correct STL? That sounds more in line with my recent reading.


Im actually still reading that. Its so technically dense.

That doesn't matter levi. It still your argument still isnt specific enough for a valid argument in science.

I know they cringe around here with some of the things I say - but as professionals they got to be freakingout when kids get mixed up in the denial circles at this site. At least they should be.

Thats non science - its anti science even. Its a dead end, a backwards jaunt for anyone intending a serious career in science - other than a technical position. Look at the people posting here. Look at their qualifications and degrees.

Conspiracy and politics are notorious for people that have made up their minds.

Science can only be approached with a reasonable open mind. It not a methodology for proving what you believe now.

College is difficult - the hardest thing I ever did. I almost didn't make it. Even in art they are rigorous in their methodology. You wont survive holding to your previous opinion. I know the sciences are even more rigorous because they have more narrow conditions for validity. Much more narrow than ones I employ even now.
704.

Lol. I must chuckle a bit at your refusal to admit that I have given sources for my data all of these past two weeks, and gave it when asked for by anyone. You cannot question the validity of those sources for they were the same ones used by you and others. You won't even admit that you have already read the material that you are asking me to dig up for you now, holding onto it as the last "mistake" I have made in scientific analysis. And yet, if I ask you to cite any post at all during the last couple weeks that I have made where I didn't properly source my data, you refuse to do that as well, because you wouldn't be able to find one.

This back and forth isn't going anywhere. I'll say goodnight now for my flight leaves early tomorrow.




Stay civil, folks. Enjoy the evening.
Levi forgive me for not keeping a archived reference of your commentary but it doesn't work that way. You build on established knowledge. Your validity depends on the research you cite.

Even in art we never claimed originality. That may sound strange but nothing comes form nothing. Its very rigorous.

Its not about opinion or who is right on that level. Its not a blog. When you are wrong or extraordinary in your beliefs people remember.

In the scientific world people like Singer and Watts are jokes. Not because of ridicule or conspiracy but because of reputation and their mistakes.

Im not saying you shouldn't voice your concerns and ideas. Im just saying get used to doing it right and very very concisely.
Researchers aim to resurrect mammoth in five years
Link



TOKYO (AFP) – Japanese researchers will launch a project this year to resurrect the long-extinct mammoth by using cloning technology to bring the ancient pachyderm back to life in around five years time.

The researchers will try to revive the species by obtaining tissue this summer from the carcass of a mammoth preserved in a Russian research laboratory, the Yomiuri Shimbun reported.

"Preparations to realise this goal have been made," Akira Iritani, leader of the team and a professor emeritus of Kyoto University, told the mass-circulation daily.

Under the plan, the nuclei of mammoth cells will be inserted into an elephant's egg cell from which the nuclei have been removed, to create an embryo containing mammoth genes, the report said.
Quoting PSLFLCaneVet:




Stay civil, folks. Enjoy the evening.


Civil... the feds are not returning our money until after February 15.

I worked on taxes tonight since in theory I get a big refund from the solar panels....

Obama and company says we are broke and can't pay out until February 15 at the earliest according to tax software.

Um....

Not paying debts immediately is a sign the US should be downgraded to junk status.... since it

WASTES ENERGY
Quoting sunlinepr:
Researchers aim to resurrect mammoth in five years
Link



TOKYO (AFP) – Japanese researchers will launch a project this year to resurrect the long-extinct mammoth by using cloning technology to bring the ancient pachyderm back to life in around five years time.

The researchers will try to revive the species by obtaining tissue this summer from the carcass of a mammoth preserved in a Russian research laboratory, the Yomiuri Shimbun reported.

"Preparations to realise this goal have been made," Akira Iritani, leader of the team and a professor emeritus of Kyoto University, told the mass-circulation daily.

Under the plan, the nuclei of mammoth cells will be inserted into an elephant's egg cell from which the nuclei have been removed, to create an embryo containing mammoth genes, the report said.


While strictly against human cloningsince it can only lead to slavery...

Why not?
sure lets bring back a t-rex next
Quoting EnergyMoron:


While strictly against human cloningsince it can only lead to slavery...

Why not?


Mankind keeps experimenting.... that flask is going to blow in his face
why not make a whole battlion of em of lets say 1500 2000 in a herd ulimate weapon and all you do is release it to feed off the enemy
Quoting KEEPEROFTHEGATE:
sure lets bring back a t-rex next


If they find a preserved cell in the Arctic, you can be sure that they will try it....

That mammoth cell was preserved in the Russian permafrost...
Quoting KEEPEROFTHEGATE:
why not make a whole battlion of em of lets say 1500 2000 in a herd ulimate weapon and all you do is release it to feed off the enemy


LOL

Hannible already tried that
Quoting ILwthrfan:


Guns serve one purpose and that one purpose is to kill.


go hug a dang tree.

Personally, I like to defend my family and friends against the wicked.
Dr. Hansen loses it

Interesting article.

I have kind of the opposite take on the elections. Mind you I can appreciate anybody who doesn't see the opportunity...

There is opportunity. Reagan signed the Montreal protocol...

I am definitely not impressed that my tax return cannot be filed right now.
Quoting KEEPEROFTHEGATE:
why not make a whole battlion of em of lets say 1500 2000 in a herd ulimate weapon and all you do is release it to feed off the enemy


The enemy sends ultrasonic/infrared commands to em and they attack the Boss.....
I think creating a mammoth would be very cool.
Quoting EnergyMoron:
Dr. Hansen loses it

Interesting article.

I have kind of the opposite take on the elections. Mind you I can appreciate anybody who doesn't see the opportunity...

There is opportunity. Reagan signed the Montreal protocol...

I am definitely not impressed that my tax return cannot be filed right now.
its only a month away
Quoting LoveStormsatNight:
From the Environmental Protection Agency:


Who cares about the EPA? Dr. Hansen has gotten mad.

The future does belong to the Chinese. Why? Are they environmentally friendly? Heck no... how many coal fired electric plants come on per week?

Are they moving towards a renewable based economy in 115 or so years?

Yes...

Infinitely faster than the US, where I cannot even get my tax refund until after February
Quoting KEEPEROFTHEGATE:
sure lets bring back a t-rex next


lol
Quoting Tazmanian:


lol


If you try that i will report you and i mean it really i mean it

cloning t rex bad... mammoths just smell.
Quoting Neapolitan:

I'm going to ignore this ignorant, racist, and utterly bigoted piece of moronic white supremacist garbage, and its author as well. I hope everyone else does the same.
Quoting Levi32:


Are you sure you are willing to make that statement? What about the fact that we still don't fully understand clouds, much less having the ability to correctly model them? What about the fact that we don't yet fully understand some of the most significant modulators of global climate such as the polar annular modes, and stratospheric/mesospheric processes that are still under study and have limited observation?


I'm glad I can consider you, someone that I uphold for being very smart, but yet not arrogant and full of yourself, because you don't portray human understanding for science like we are God.

That's a rare feat these days!
I guess we'll find out how mammoths smell. Probably not worse than an elephant.
Quoting Jedkins01:


go hug a dang tree.

Personally, I like to defend my family and friends against the wicked.


Nebraska ethics... go plant a tree.

This week was the Eastern Redbud... while waiting for weather dependent things, hopefully 2 Mexican plums go in the ground next week.

Learn from Nebraskans (how conservative are they?).

Trees are very good things.
Latest human cloning claims leave sour taste

* 13:35 22 April 2009 by Andy Coghlan

It's clone-mania again, for the second time in just a few weeks. This time, it's fertility expert Panayiotis Zavos, founder of the private Zavos Organization in Lexington, Kentucky, claiming that he made 14 human cloned embryos and transferred 11 of them into the wombs of women.

None of the embryos survived this time (allegedly), but "the cloned child is coming", Zavos told The Independent newspaper in the UK. "There is absolutely no way that it will not happen."

The New Scientst Link
Arbor Day started in Nebraska, didn't it?
Quoting LoveStormsatNight:
I guess we'll find out how mammoths smell. Probably not worse than an elephant.


We discussed this at dinner. My Chinese ethnic children have been to the zoo quite a bit and the topic of elephant did come up.
Quoting LoveStormsatNight:
Arbor Day started in Nebraska, didn't it?


Yup.

And they are the most conservative voting of folks.

Conservation is conservative.... from a Nebraskan
It may actually be possible to clone a dinosaur, to be specific, a T-rex (well, it is a bit more complicated than just finding cells and DNA):

Scientists Find Soft Tissue in T. rex Fossil

Dinosaur fossils are rare finds. But the 70-million-year-old bones of a Tyrannosauraus rex recovered from Montana are proving to be even more exceptional than the usual dino remains. Researchers report today in the journal Science that they have recovered soft tissue, including blood vessels, from the ancient creature.
Quoting FFtrombi:
Honestly, whenever I read a site, either denial, or proGW and they type an article, I try and find out whether thats what impression an entire reading of the source gives (if and when they bother).

Quite often in the blogosphere, excitement about a polarized issue can get in the way of resourced knowledge, and thats a shame because there are some talented writers around.

One example is the *850 articles refuting AGW someone pointed to earlier. Reading a random sample of those articles, all the ones I read actually weren't pro or anti AGW, they were just about a precise issue, sometimes not relating to bigger climate issues. In fact some of them would be classified as quite pro AGW if you read past the first sentence of the abstract.

*disclaimer* Just so everyones clear on my biased background, I'm a closet environmentalist who thinks the carbon based economy is hurting the planet, a) by causing climate change, ie warming causing feedbacks like desertification / more extreme weather events and b) by pollution by the carbon industry (mining, oil, air pollution etc). I don't think life on this planet will end because of CO2 emissions, and I don't think some of the wilder projections will turn out correct, however, I would rather my government act now and save the billions it would take to act later.*


Hey, I guess I have more in common with environmentalists than I thought! lol
Quoting MichaelSTL:
It may actually be possible to clone a dinosaur, to be specific, a T-rex (well, it is a bit more complicated than just finding cells and DNA):

Scientists Find Soft Tissue in T. rex Fossil

Researchers report today in the journal Science that they have recovered soft tissue, including blood vessels, from the ancient creature.


Well, you can be sure they will find the way to clone one, maybe with a Comodo dragon... Like Keeper said, that will be an excellent ultimate weapon to release to an enemy... and any Defense department from any of the Big Global Bosses will most likely experiment with it....


Gnite All
Just checking in to see if any of you Florida folks in the dry areas received that much needed rain ?
Quoting EnergyMoron:


Nebraska ethics... go plant a tree.

This week was the Eastern Redbud... while waiting for weather dependent things, hopefully 2 Mexican plums go in the ground next week.

Learn from Nebraskans (how conservative are they?).

Trees are very good things.



lol don't worry, I'm not against trees, I love the woods. I am an outdoorsman/hunter and I do the best I can to support laws that protect the wilderness and preserve it. I do whatever I can to resist the greedy big business machine that loves to destroy nature in Florida just so filthy rich executives can make a few more million to add to their multimillion dollar empires. Its downright disgusting.

So for the record, I used tree hugging as a figure of speech, because I am certainly not against trees, I am a county boy, and I call the trees my home. I personally don't like the artificial urbanization that most of us modern people dwell in.


Heck if I lived in Nebraska, that's all I would do is plant trees, because they sure lack them! lol
Wide open planes are boring, the planet would be a lot more boring without trees.

I'm not actually a Conservative either by the way, I am a moderate, or a Neutral, because I believe liberalism is needed for changing law that is poor or needs improvement, as well as preserving nature. And I also believe Conservatism is needed to protect laws in this country that are good and have made the nation great.
howdy everyone,

does anyone know if i can be charger for using the "tether" app on my sprint blackberry?

thanks!
Kansas songs

Better than the folks who posted videos... I can listen to videos and type this.

Nebraskans plant trees.... Kansas... bloody Kansas. Ask Grothar... he knows about the history of the Kansas/Nebraska act

The latest lyric was heaven waits... for you! (as opposed to "me").

"But I flew too high" (Icarus... folks from Kansas, and even Nebraska, can make allusions).

"And if i claim to be a wise man, it surely means that i don't know"

How nebraskan... i am a moron :)

Quoting EYEStoSEA:
Just checking in to see if any of you Florida folks in the dry areas received that much needed rain ?


I had 3.67 inches of rain at my place in Central Florida, I got my much needed and very well appreciated rains today!

Quoting EYEStoSEA:
Just checking in to see if any of you Florida folks in the dry areas received that much needed rain ?


0.79"
Quoting Jedkins01:


I had 3.67 inches of rain at my place in Central Florida, I got my much needed and very well appreciated rains today!



Now that is good news....3.67 is a lot of rain.
Another night of endless debate and name calling over the AGW thing and not one rational solution. We need to stop pumping all forms of pollution into the atmosphere now, irregardless of whether AGW is fact or not. That theory needs more time. The obvious answer to me is full commitment to fission while we work out the bugs (and they are formidable) to fusion. And of course continue to develop wind and solar power, even though they will always be minor players. If AGW is really as bad as the Kooks say it is,then this will keep us from frying.
Quoting Skyepony:


0.79"


Not 3.67, but sure beats nothing :)
Quoting EnergyMoron:


Obama and company says we are broke and can't pay out until February 15 at the earliest according to tax software.

Um....

Not paying debts immediately is a sign the US should be downgraded to junk status.... since it

WASTES ENERGY


It's not a funding issue. It's because just a couple of weeks ago, congress changed tax code that affects 2010 returns with itemized deductions. Now the IRS has to change all the forms, instructions, training, etc.
A group of more than 100 scientists and experts say in a new report that California faces the risk of a massive "superstorm" that could flood a quarter of the state's homes and cause $300 billion to $400 billion in damage. Researchers point out that the potential scale of destruction in this storm scenario is four or five times the amount of damage that could be wrought by a major earthquake. It sounds like the plot of an apocalyptic action movie, but scientists with the U.S. Geological Survey warned federal and state emergency officials that California's geological history shows such "superstorms" have happened in the past, and should be added to the long list of natural disasters to worry about in the Golden State. The threat of a cataclysmic California storm has been dormant for the past 150 years. Geological Survey director Marcia K. McNutt told the New York Times that a 300-mile stretch of the Central Valley was inundated from 1861-62. The floods were so bad that the state capital had to be moved to San Francisco, and Governor Leland Stanford had to take a rowboat to his own inauguration, the report notes. Even larger storms happened in past centuries, over the dates 212, 440, 603, 1029, 1418, and 1605, according to geological evidence. The risk is gathering momentum now, scientists say, due to rising temperatures in the atmosphere, which has generally made weather patterns more volatile. The scientists built a model that showed a storm could last for more than 40 days and dump 10 feet of water on the state. The storm would be goaded on by an "atmospheric river" that would move water "at the same rate as 50 Mississippis discharging water into the Gulf of Mexico," according to the AP. Winds could reach 125 miles per hour, and landslides could compound the damage, the report notes. Such a superstorm is hypothetical but not improbable, climate researchers warn. "We think this event happens once every 100 or 200 years or so, which puts it in the same category as our big San Andreas earthquakes," Geological Survey scientist Lucy Jones said in a press release. Federal and state emergency management officials convened a conference about emergency preparations for possible superstorms last week. You can read the whole report here.
Quoting KrippleCreekFerry:
Another night of endless debate and name calling over the AGW thing and not one rational solution. We need to stop pumping all forms of pollution into the atmosphere now, irregardless of whether AGW is fact or not. That theory needs more time. The obvious answer to me is full commitment to fission while we work out the bugs (and they are formidable) to fusion. And of course continue to develop wind and solar power, even though they will always be minor players. If AGW is really as bad as the Kooks say it is,then this will keep us from frying.


Actually it doesn't - there are ignorant people that speak with confidence and those that stupid believe them. Basically. To be perfectly honest.

Its rather solid.

I would ask you for specifics on any discrepancy but I know there are not any. Sadly not many have a grasp of the current science or have even bothered to read it for that matter.

People are very gullible and easy to mislead. They take what they want to hear and what is easy to understand - hook, line and sinker.

Climate change is complicated. You cant understand it in a day, a week or a few years. People cant deal with such a level of complexity that requires commitment and time to understand. Like many similar things. So it has to be a conspiracy because it doesn't work with the aesthetics of our world.

They want simple and fast self promotion.

Anyway, I agree though. Nuclear is safe enough now and cost effective enough to be implemented widely.
I wonder what the pressure would be in a super California storm like that. Accounts from the time say that people could sail in the San Joaquin Valley and the water was so broad that in the middle they could not see mountains from either side.
748. xcool
National Hurricane Center now on Facebook,

http://www.facebook.com/US.NOAA.NationalHurricaneCenter.gov?v=wall
Quoting JFLORIDA:


Actually it doesn't - there are ignorant people that speak with confidence and those that stupid believe them. Basically. To be perfectly honest.

Its rather solid.

I would ask you for specifics on any discrepancy but I know there are not any. Sadly not many have a grasp of the current science or have even bothered to read it for that matter.

People are very gullible and easy to mislead. They take what they want to hear and what is easy to understand - hook, line and sinker.

Climate change is complicated. You cant understand it in a day, a week or a few years. People cant deal with such a level of complexity that requires commitment and time to understand. Like many similar things. So it has to be a conspiracy because it doesn't work with the aesthetics of our world.

They want simple and fast self promotion.

Anyway, I agree though. Nuclear is safe enough now and cost effective enough to be implemented widely.
Nuclear power was being adopted here so enthusiastically and then completely abandoned for what, 30 years. The power companies were ready and willing to phase out coal and gas plants for nuclear but after the 3 mile ( which was contained, the system worked) and the Chernobyl disaster they were hounded to completely drop nuclear power development. We could be well on the way to implementing this proven, cheap, nonpolluting technology, instead of being in the mess we are in today.I predict nuclear will be back big time soon.Some of the same AGW proponents are strongly antinuke. The solution to their GW thing sits tested and ready to be adopted and big oil and coal keep fooling them. Go figure. They want us to return to 1800, then they'll be happy.
Regarding a few posts that ridiculed the idea that there will be/won't be any melt of the arctic ice, everyone can no put their money where their blog is at. Intrade is taking bets (uh, options) on arctic ice extent next summer.

I highly suggest that anyone who belittles the other side extremely should take up this wager or "be damned for a faintheart, sheltering behind your money and the [blog]."

[NB: as soon as I have time to figure out what my position is on this financially, I will partake.]
751. IKE
***peaks in....see's GW posts by the same posters ...checks out***
Quoting WaterWitch11:
A group of more than 100 scientists and experts say in a new report that California faces the risk of a massive "superstorm" that could flood a quarter of the state's homes and cause $300 billion to $400 billion in damage. Researchers point out that the potential scale of destruction in this storm scenario is four or five times the amount of damage that could be wrought by a major earthquake. It sounds like the plot of an apocalyptic action movie, but scientists with the U.S. Geological Survey warned federal and state emergency officials that California's geological history shows such "superstorms" have happened in the past, and should be added to the long list of natural disasters to worry about in the Golden State. The threat of a cataclysmic California storm has been dormant for the past 150 years. Geological Survey director Marcia K. McNutt told the New York Times that a 300-mile stretch of the Central Valley was inundated from 1861-62. The floods were so bad that the state capital had to be moved to San Francisco, and Governor Leland Stanford had to take a rowboat to his own inauguration, the report notes. Even larger storms happened in past centuries, over the dates 212, 440, 603, 1029, 1418, and 1605, according to geological evidence. The risk is gathering momentum now, scientists say, due to rising temperatures in the atmosphere, which has generally made weather patterns more volatile. The scientists built a model that showed a storm could last for more than 40 days and dump 10 feet of water on the state. The storm would be goaded on by an "atmospheric river" that would move water "at the same rate as 50 Mississippis discharging water into the Gulf of Mexico," according to the AP. Winds could reach 125 miles per hour, and landslides could compound the damage, the report notes. Such a superstorm is hypothetical but not improbable, climate researchers warn. "We think this event happens once every 100 or 200 years or so, which puts it in the same category as our big San Andreas earthquakes," Geological Survey scientist Lucy Jones said in a press release. Federal and state emergency management officials convened a conference about emergency preparations for possible superstorms last week. You can read the whole report here.



These storms happen every 250 years or so on average. So it doesn't take a genious or a math wiz to see it's been 150 years since the last one so the odds are improving that it will happen again...AGW or not.
Quoting IKE:
***peaks in....see's GW posts by the same posters ...checks out***


You'll notice I'm avoiding these same old arguments as well. Too counter-productive and aggravating. I wanna Florida snowstorm, till then.....Horsefeathers!
Here at the south end of Lake Michigan, last summer and so far this winter there has been no unique weather or temperatures. Thunderstorms have increased a little after being nearly absent for a couple of years. Copy and paste the link below for something interesting.

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2011/arch11/110117rainmaker.htm
Quoting EnergyMoron:
Kansas songs

Better than the folks who posted videos... I can listen to videos and type this.

Nebraskans plant trees.... Kansas... bloody Kansas. Ask Grothar... he knows about the history of the Kansas/Nebraska act

The latest lyric was heaven waits... for you! (as opposed to "me").

"But I flew too high" (Icarus... folks from Kansas, and even Nebraska, can make allusions).

"And if i claim to be a wise man, it surely means that i don't know"

How nebraskan... i am a moron :)


Where was Kansas on the meter they had in Rock and Roll High School?
Joe Bastardi said earlier this month that this January would be the coldest since 1985, that most of the country from coast to coast would spend the entire middle third of the month plunged into a deep-freeze. Many anti-GW sites picked up on this, trumpeting breathless headlines such as "What Global Warming?! U.S. to see Coldest Month in a Quarter-Century!"

Yet here we are on the 18th, with temps average to above average in most places (in the past 48 hours, there have been 118 record highs or high minimums and just four record lows), and unseasonably warm weather forecast for much of the country over at least the next week. Except for lobes of typically cold weather in the upper Midwest and extreme Northeast--it is January, after all--highs are expected to remain at or above normal pretty much everywhere.

I'm not at all saying this January thaw is "evidence" of overall warming. I'm not even suggesting it's unusual. What I'm doing is highlighting--again--the silliness and dishonesty of those who latch onto every snowstorm or cold snap as "proof" that the planet isn't warming--then refuse to acknowledge how wrong they were. (And, rabid denier though he is, I have to give JB props for making such a forecast. He's great at meteorology--it's climatology where he doesn't have much credibility.)

Ah, well. Here in Naples, the ten-day forecast says we'll be in the 70s all the way through the period. Sounds good to me... ;-)
one storm after another for the north east... looks like broken record.
Joe Bastardi should stick to weight lifting.
Or perhaps professional wrestling would be a good match for him.
Morn'n everyone. Coffee?
Quoting IKE:
***peaks in....see's GW posts by the same posters ...checks out***


I don't mind Nea's stuff because he's much more open to debate and polished, but JFLORIDA, buddy, tone it down a bit, man... It's ok for people to disagree with your view. That's what sparks healthy debate. You seem to take it as a personal attack when someone doesn't agree with you, and then mud-slinging follows typically to the tune of how said person is ignorant or ignoring science...

If you want to sway someone's opinion, you're going about it the wrong way... At first, I listened to your posts, but your attitude on this blog, specifically, has completely turned me off to not only your posts, but even the whole AGW theory.

I work as a data analyst... It's VERY easy to take sets of data, publish charts and graphs, and then qualify the data in a manner to sway someone's opinion. Often, it's my job to take the same set of data and make it look like it says two completely opposite things. This concept alone, combined with all of the big money companies that stand to win or lose based on the outcome of these theories is enough for me to not buy in 100%.

I'm with the wait and see, but paying attention crowd.

Cheers

It absolutely amazes me how well positive reinforcement works. It would appear there are bloggers who actually believe they are as smart as their parents and peers tell them they are.

I am glad the one lesson I learned well at an early age; no matter how smart one believes he is, there is always someone smarter.

What actually frightens me about the arrogance, is that one day, one of these people (or the like) may be operating on you or defending you in a court. Arrogance and bias have never been as useful as fairness and open-mindedness. The former can be dangerous.
Quoting KrippleCreekFerry:
Nuclear power was being adopted here so enthusiastically and then completely abandoned for what, 30 years. The power companies were ready and willing to phase out coal and gas plants for nuclear but after the 3 mile ( which was contained, the system worked) and the Chernobyl disaster they were hounded to completely drop nuclear power development. We could be well on the way to implementing this proven, cheap, nonpolluting technology, instead of being in the mess we are in today.I predict nuclear will be back big time soon.Some of the same AGW proponents are strongly antinuke. The solution to their GW thing sits tested and ready to be adopted and big oil and coal keep fooling them. Go figure. They want us to return to 1800, then they'll be happy.
Not the whole story. Cost of nuk plants vrs coal fired had a lot to do with this. Then you have "deregulation" and lack of internalization of costs of pollution. Power companies are driven by the bottom line and were perfectly happy to stick with coal as long as it payed.
Quoting FSUCOOPman:


I don't mind Nea's stuff because he's much more open to debate and polished, but JFLORIDA, buddy, tone it down a bit, man... It's ok for people to disagree with your view. That's what sparks healthy debate. You seem to take it as a personal attack when someone doesn't agree with you, and then mud-slinging follows typically to the tune of how said person is ignorant or ignoring science...

If you want to sway someone's opinion, you're going about it the wrong way... At first, I listened to your posts, but your attitude on this blog, specifically, has completely turned me off to not only your posts, but even the whole AGW theory.

I work as a data analyst... It's VERY easy to take sets of data, publish charts and graphs, and then qualify the data in a manner to sway someone's opinion. Often, it's my job to take the same set of data and make it look like it says two completely opposite things. This concept alone, combined with all of the big money companies that stand to win or lose based on the outcome of these theories is enough for me to not buy in 100%.

I'm with the wait and see, but paying attention crowd.

Cheers



I'm fascinated. Can you give more details about your job and what you do - without getting personal or getting you into trouble. I'm just really curious what kind of job does what you described.
Quoting Neapolitan:
--the silliness and dishonesty of those who latch onto every snowstorm or cold snap as "proof" that the planet isn't warming--


Kinda like when you proclaim every serious weather event as proof of AGW.

Sure sounds like you are using the same argument for both sides.

Try something else for a change.

Might I suggest you try something that is, apparently, very foreign to you...the TRUTH?

Try it, you might like it.


Good Morning,

3 relevant notes to Dr. Masters Blog.
1. The spectral output from the sun is not uniform and changes out of phase with the 11 year total maximum output. That is to say, the absorbed spectra that heat the water or lower atmosphere the most are not at the peak during the total solar maximum output.
2. Is the south pacific really at their "Z" storm already, or is that just the English spelling?
3. Did he say "wessils?"
767. Jax82
Quoting FSUCOOPman:


I don't mind Nea's stuff because he's much more open to debate and polished, but JFLORIDA, buddy, tone it down a bit, man... It's ok for people to disagree with your view. That's what sparks healthy debate. You seem to take it as a personal attack when someone doesn't agree with you, and then mud-slinging follows typically to the tune of how said person is ignorant or ignoring science...

If you want to sway someone's opinion, you're going about it the wrong way... At first, I listened to your posts, but your attitude on this blog, specifically, has completely turned me off to not only your posts, but even the whole AGW theory.

I work as a data analyst... It's VERY easy to take sets of data, publish charts and graphs, and then qualify the data in a manner to sway someone's opinion. Often, it's my job to take the same set of data and make it look like it says two completely opposite things. This concept alone, combined with all of the big money companies that stand to win or lose based on the outcome of these theories is enough for me to not buy in 100%.

I'm with the wait and see, but paying attention crowd.

Cheers



I'm a data analyst as well and a cartographer. I know first hand you can make a map lie even if the data is correct. Simply changing the range of numbers in a classification or adding more or less classes can dramatically change the way a map looks. And considering most look at a chart or map and believe it without even looking at the underlying data, its easy to fool a lot of people.
The Truth as stated scientifically today..Via NOAA.

Global Climate Change Indicators
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Climatic Data Center



Many lines of scientific evidence show the Earth's climate is changing. This page presents the latest information from several independent measures of observed climate change that illustrate an overwhelmingly compelling story of a planet that is undergoing global warming. It is worth noting that increasing global temperature is only one element of observed global climate change. Precipitation patterns are also changing; storms and other extremes are changing as well.
How do we know the Earth's climate is warming?

Thousands of land and ocean temperature measurements are recorded each day around the globe. This includes measurements from climate reference stations, weather stations, ships, buoys and autonomous gliders in the oceans. These surface measurements are also supplemented with satellite measurements. These measurements are processed, examined for random and systematic errors, and then finally combined to produce a time series of global average temperature change. A number of agencies around the world have produced datasets of global-scale changes in surface temperature using different techniques to process the data and remove measurement errors that could lead to false interpretations of temperature trends. The warming trend that is apparent in all of the independent methods of calculating global temperature change is also confirmed by other independent observations, such as the melting of mountain glaciers on every continent, reductions in the extent of snow cover, earlier blooming of plants in spring, a shorter ice season on lakes and rivers, ocean heat content, reduced arctic sea ice, and rising sea levels.
769. JRRP
Link
But if this extreme weather was exceeded by similar conditions in 1974 how can it be claimed that global temperatures have increased dramatically and that the world's climate has reacted accordingly? Then they claim that climate is average weather. If this is so then how do they explain that the weather extremes have not increased during the past 40 years but global climate has worsened?
Quoting calusakat:


Kinda like when you proclaim every serious weather event as proof of AGW.

Sure sounds like you are using the same argument for both sides.

Try something else for a change.

Might I suggest you try something that is, apparently, very foreign to you...the TRUTH?

Try it, you might like it.



My apologies, but I don't recall having done that--that is, as you say, "proclaim every serious weather event as proof of AGW". Can you please point back to the comment or blog post where I did that? If you can possibly do that, let me know so I can publicly apologize for making such an unfounded, unscientific statement. If, on the other hand, you're not able to, I'll be expecting both a retraction and an apology from you.

Deal?
771. DEKRE
New Blog
Quoting Jax82:


I'm a data analyst as well and a cartographer. I know first hand you can make a map lie even if the data is correct. Simply changing the range of numbers in a classification or adding more or less classes can dramatically change the way a map looks. And considering most look at a chart or map and believe it without even looking at the underlying data, its easy to fool a lot of people.
I agree. I can tell you that the pharmaceutical companies do the same thing, altering data, all the time to get near worthless drugs approved. Several worthless and outright dangerous drugs for Alzheimer's and depression and other ailments are being marketed on TV right now. All because of altered data. The same thing could easily be responsible for SOME of the AGW data. Don't be so gullible. I am not discounting AGW. I just know that some of it's proponents are highly motivated to have it their way at ANY COST. Beware of them. Some have infiltrated this blog.
Quoting PensacolaDoug:


You'll notice I'm avoiding these same old arguments as well. Too counter-productive and aggravating. I wanna Florida snowstorm, till then.....Horsefeathers!
That's why I'm going to limit my post until at least we have a pre tropical or subtropical system that forms.Or until may 20th when most bloggers count down till hurricane season.Theirs suspose to be a snowstorm in my area,but I don't think I'll be talking about in here.The world has been brainwashed.
Quoting LoveStormsatNight:
Ossqss it's not me who posted a list of "850 papers skeptical of global warming"--a list of papers primarily NOT by climatologists or meteorologists. You can't fault me for examining your list, and finding it misleading.

Nothing is misleading, you just falsely believe that all scientists who research the climate have either a climatology or meteorology degree. Many prominent alarmists have the same credentials of scientists who appear on the list,

Chris Field, Ph.D. Biology (IPCC Co-chair of Working Group 2)
Gavin Schmidt, Ph.D. Applied Mathematics (NASA GISS, RealClimate)
James Hansen, Ph.D. Physics (NASA GISS)
James Lovelock, Ph.D. Medicine
Joe Romm, Ph.D. Physics (Climate Progress)
John Holden, Ph.D. Theoretical Plasma Physics
Joshua B. Halpern, Ph.D. Physics (Rabett Run)
Lonnie Thompson, Ph.D. Geological Science
Michael Mann, Ph.D. Geology (RealClimate)
Michael Oppenheimer, Ph.D. Chemical Physics
Naomi Oreskes, Ph.D. History of Science
Rajendra Pachauri, Ph.D. Industrial Engineering, Indian Railways Institute of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering (IPCC Chairman, 2007-Present)
Richard Alley, Ph.D. Geology
Robert Watson, Ph.D. Chemistry (IPCC Chairman, 1997-2002)
Stefan Rahmstorf, Ph.D. Oceanography
Steven Schneider, Ph.D. Mechanical Engineering and Plasma Physics
Susan Solomon, Ph.D. Chemistry
Tom Chalko, Ph.D. Laser Holography

Shall we ignore all the papers written by any of the above?
Quoting FFtrombi:


One example is the *850 articles refuting AGW someone pointed to earlier. Reading a random sample of those articles, all the ones I read actually weren't pro or anti AGW, they were just about a precise issue, sometimes not relating to bigger climate issues. In fact some of them would be classified as quite pro AGW if you read past the first sentence of the abstract.

That is because the list is anti-AGW Alarm which is stated explicitly in the title,

"850 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming (AGW) Alarm"

Thus various papers "support skepticism of the negative environmental or socio-economic effects of AGW."