Coldest winter in 1,000 years on its way

reply to post by buni11687


I havent read all the posts so sorry if this has been mentioned but I believe we are seeing a weather war using HAARP. It offsets the jet stream path.

Originally posted by cushycrux

Originally posted by Dr X
I believe in global warming it is a fact.
What many people don't realise is that the sun is at the minimum of its sunspot cycle at the moment meaning its energy output is lower than normal. That fact coupled with the weakening gulf stream is giving Europe very cold winters.
The right wing press here in the UK are arguing the cold winters prove that gloal warming is not real.
This is not true, when the solar cycle picks up again and gets hotter over the next 13 years or so the effects will bolster global warming and we will see very hot temperatures in parts of the world.

Time to unlock alternative energies and reduce our carbon emmissions to zero.

Thanks for the first intelligent post in this thread! HELLO PEOPLE! Global Warming meant always slower Gulfstream -> Ice Age in Europe. Get it please! It's scientific logic - explained in every detail. But you Idiots believe more in FOX News then everything else. In Europe only silly and loony people are talking about "the global warming hoax". Did you really all believe in that oil-industry-fake-propaganda-video?

Selber schuld!

*SNIP*

While there may be propaganda, the emails don't lie and the fact that all of the outlying measuring stations have been dismantled...speaks for itself.

There is no global warming, nor can there be. Hell even the very premise of it is ludricous if you look at the science and the argument behind it's cause,.

I won't get into the details of it because I don't want to derail the thread...

Jaden



Please read: Courtesy Is Mandatory.

Originally posted by wonderworld
reply to post by buni11687

 

I havent read all the posts so sorry if this has been mentioned but I believe we are seeing a weather war using HAARP. It offsets the jet stream path.

That would be a reasonable conclusion I think when looking at all of the evidence.

The part that interested me is that the US will be relatively safe and mostly Europe, Asia and Russia will be affected...This is really interesting at a time when the economic might of the US is being bridled in and the use of the dollar as a backing for other currencies is starting to lose favor. What better to restore the economic super power of the US than to make all other nations depend on exports of food stuffs from the US????

Jaden

reply to post by PuterMan


Telling someone to "educate themselves" on global warming, and then posting a link to wattsupwiththat is like informing someone they need to learn all about fire safety, and then pointing them to a blog about arson.

wattsupwiththat.com is the most notorious example out there of the idiotic blogosphere that base all their worthless information on widely discredited sources, ad-hominem attacks, red herrings, and the more traditional technique of just plain ole making stuff up.

Anthony Watts himself is a washed up TV weather man who apparently doesn't even have a Bachelor's degree, yet feels he's some sort of pre-eminent science maverick when it comes to climate change.

He's been thoroughly debunked, numerous times, he tried to (and failed to) cover it up, his own guest bloggers make such stupid posts that he ends up having to ban them, and he regularly publishes propaganda from such trustworthy sources as the British Nazi Party. And yet you think taking this hack's word on something he has absolutely no expertise in qualifies as an "education"??

The logarithmic nature of CO2 warming is a perfect example of the blatant spin circus that is WUWT, aka Watts Up With That, aka We Use Wishful Thinking:

First of all, do you think the logarithmic effect is some big secret "the IPCC doesn't want you to know" or something? You can find it on wikipedia for cryin out loud:

ΔF = 5.35 x ln(C/Co) W/m^2

So anyone can debunk this ridiculous nonsense posted on WUWT just by pulling out a calculator.

Watch:

ΔF = 5.35 x ln 2 = 3.7 W/m^2 (for a CO2 doubling)

To get the temperature increase from that, it's just a matter of multiplying by an appropriate climate sensitivity. This sensitivity is the thing that's under any sort of debate amongst climate scientists, not "the logarithmic effect of CO2". In that WUWT post, Willis Eschenbach simply made up his own logarithmic formula on something that has over 100 years of well established science behind it. Of course it isn't the first time Eschenbach has tried to slip this kind of crap under the radar, but hey - who's counting? (hint: not Anthony Watts)

So then yeah - it's just a matter of multiplying by climate sensitivity. If you use the IPCC value of 0.8 - which by the way is hardly all that "alarmist" considering other scientists argue it is in fact much higher - you get a warming of 3C.

So the point is writing CO2 off as insignificant because it's warming effect is logarithmic only counts until you know, you actually do the math.


If that's too hard...then we have more Watts inspired garbage like this:

when you take into account the fact that the recording stations in the colder areas of the world have been excluded and thus the average temperature is actually being promulgated as higher than it is.

Even if this were true (which it's not), I could still debunk it with nothing more than a little bit of logic: Measuring global warming has nothing to do with absolute temperatures. It has everything to do with relative temperatures over time. So even if these stations had some sort of initial "warm bias" in them (which they don't), it would have ALWAYS been there, not steadily increasing over time - so that does nothing to explain why each one has been showing a distinct warming TREND.

And speaking of which:

I don't think you will find that it has cooled, but we are at or past a peak.

Riiiiiight, that's why 2010 is on pace to be the hottest year on record, last month was the hottest September ever, and current temperature graphs, even those that come from skeptic scientists like Roy Spencer, look like this:




So tired of watching people condescendingly tell others to educate themselves when they clearly have no clue themselves.

Pay attention. Global warming is not an accepted theory because the temperatures are any hotter than they have been previously in recorded history. It has been much warmer and cooler. However, when looking at ice cores to determine the temp at a certain time, they also look at the CO2 content in the atmosphere. CO2 levels coincide with temperatures level. So, there is a correlation between CO2 and temperature. Present CO2 levels are much higher than in previously recorded in history. Therefore, the temperature is expected to increase to maintain the correlation that we have seen in the past.

I'm a meteorologist, though that certainly doesn't me an authority on the subject...well, I guess it does...but just one of many.

Originally posted by sureshot321
Pay attention. Global warming is not an accepted theory because the temperatures are any hotter than they have been previously in recorded history. It has been much warmer and cooler. However, when looking at ice cores to determine the temp at a certain time, they also look at the CO2 content in the atmosphere. CO2 levels coincide with temperatures level. So, there is a correlation between CO2 and temperature. Present CO2 levels are much higher than in previously recorded in history. Therefore, the temperature is expected to increase to maintain the correlation that we have seen in the past.

I'm a meteorologist, though that certainly doesn't me an authority on the subject...well, I guess it does...but just one of many.

Wait, thats not exactly correct. In the previous warming period before our ice age it was much warmer than it is now and Vostok Ice cores show much less CO2 in the atmosphere than now. CO2 lags temperature rises by about 800 yrs.

www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com...
www.iceagenow.com...

Check out this current "NOAA" radar map of the U.S. tonight at 8:35pm MST 10-7-10

Very strange pattern.....





radar.weather.gov...

Originally posted by mc_squared
reply to post by PuterMan

 

Telling someone to "educate themselves" on global warming, and then posting a link to wattsupwiththat is like informing someone they need to learn all about fire safety, and then pointing them to a blog about arson.

wattsupwiththat.com is the most notorious example out there of the idiotic blogosphere that base all their worthless information on widely discredited sources, ad-hominem attacks, red herrings, and the more traditional technique of just plain ole making stuff up.

No.

Originally posted by OmiOra
So we are in global warming but all temperatures are colder than normal? How Bizarre. The truth is there is no global warming occuring, it is actually global cooling, when the poles heat their coolness actually spreads south, they aren't completely melting the coolness is spreading. It's like if you put ice in hot water...the ice heats and the rest of the water cools. We're actually due for another ice age...I believe with the poles "melting" and the glaciers breaking off they are cooling the rest of the earth off.

What a great example of how the stripping of public education in America has produced a generation of people ignorant of basic science..

Wow. I'm not sure which is worse-your complete ignorance on the difference between temperature and climate, or the fact that so many people seem to be on the same page as you.

'climate change' doesnt mean the weather will get warmer everywhere. It means the climate is changing.

Sheesh.

For those interested in discussing Abrupt Climate Change I have started a Yahoo Group same name can also get there from this link:

tech.groups.yahoo.com...

I would like to converse with others who have knowledge of the ongoing climatic shift. Anyone can go to look at Ocean Current Data on the DEOS site to see that the Gulf Stream is in a state of failure off the North Carolina coast. Some say that the largest environmental disaster in history in the Gulf has contributed to this by all the oil spreading out over the ocean floor and eventually leaking into the Atlantic. Now, the problem is that without the Gulf Stream, Europe will likely start becoming more like Siberia within a couple years. The Gulf Stream (for the ignorant) is part of a system called the Great Ocean Conveyor, that transfers heat around the planet. The amount of heat would be the equal of thousands of nukes going on ... and any changes will have worldwide effects.

The largest oscillation lately has been the El Nino / La Nina thing, caused by a tiny shift in ocean temps. A shut down in the gulf steam is of much more significance. Already there has been a large shift in the main jet stream to the south; the storm track that normally goes into the Aleutians is going instead over California. The stream has stayed way to the south all the way to Europe, in fact instead of going over them it is going over North Africa. The end result seem to be that arctic air has overspread wide areas of both Europe and the North American continents. Are we getting ready to enter a new Mini Ice Age? Or could we be returning to a period of Interglaciation? On the level of say...The Lesser (or Younger) Dryas of about 14k years ago. That period caused most of the world to dry to the point of being arid or semi arid (steppe) with little forest remaining.

The result to us would be what? As climate shifts perhaps as much as 5 degrees in the avg each year the growing seasons in the Northern Hemisphere become shorter. And as more of the fresh water is tied up into snow and ice, the world will become dryer each year. On the other side, in Asia the monsoons fail and both sides will end up in famine. The four horsemen will be loosed in a battle over dwindling resources, meanwhile infrastructures breakdown and huge numbers of refugees begin to move to try to escape their fates. In short order 2/3 of humanity perish; how many of the rest? You tell me. Come and check out the group...

Coldest winter, Everywhere!

Watching the local news here, in Austin (KXAN) - reporting:
- Yesterday was the coldest day in Recorded history for Oklahoma: -31'F in Nowata - old record was -27'F and that stood for 106 years.
- Austin can go YEARS without seeing temperatures fall into the teens in the dowtown area - has already happened 3 times in just February (including this morning)
- Record breaking low for this day in Austin: 19'F - old record was 21'F and that was in 1929.

No worries, tho - I'll be on the golf course in shorts in 3 days - Really.

Bring it on .. we are used to harsh winter in Canada
the only thing .. the electricity bill will be very expensive if its true lol

Originally posted by OmiOra
So we are in global warming but all temperatures are colder than normal? How Bizarre. The truth is there is no global warming occuring, it is actually global cooling, when the poles heat their coolness actually spreads south, they aren't completely melting the coolness is spreading. It's like if you put ice in hot water...the ice heats and the rest of the water cools. We're actually due for another ice age...I believe with the poles "melting" and the glaciers breaking off they are cooling the rest of the earth off.

No, we are in global Climate change. Hotter summers, colder winters, drier deserts, warmer/cooler ocean currents, more storms, higher severity of storms, etc...

Originally posted by mc_squared
reply to post by PuterMan

 

Telling someone to "educate themselves" on global warming, and then posting a link to wattsupwiththat is like informing someone they need to learn all about fire safety, and then pointing them to a blog about arson.

wattsupwiththat.com is the most notorious example out there of the idiotic blogosphere that base all their worthless information on widely discredited sources, ad-hominem attacks, red herrings, and the more traditional technique of just plain ole making stuff up.

Anthony Watts himself is a washed up TV weather man who apparently doesn't even have a Bachelor's degree, yet feels he's some sort of pre-eminent science maverick when it comes to climate change.

He's been thoroughly debunked, numerous times, he tried to (and failed to) cover it up, his own guest bloggers make such stupid posts that he ends up having to ban them, and he regularly publishes propaganda from such trustworthy sources as the British Nazi Party. And yet you think taking this hack's word on something he has absolutely no expertise in qualifies as an "education"??

The logarithmic nature of CO2 warming is a perfect example of the blatant spin circus that is WUWT, aka Watts Up With That, aka We Use Wishful Thinking:

First of all, do you think the logarithmic effect is some big secret "the IPCC doesn't want you to know" or something? You can find it on wikipedia for cryin out loud:

ΔF = 5.35 x ln(C/Co) W/m^2

So anyone can debunk this ridiculous nonsense posted on WUWT just by pulling out a calculator.

Watch:

ΔF = 5.35 x ln 2 = 3.7 W/m^2 (for a CO2 doubling)

To get the temperature increase from that, it's just a matter of multiplying by an appropriate climate sensitivity. This sensitivity is the thing that's under any sort of debate amongst climate scientists, not "the logarithmic effect of CO2". In that WUWT post, Willis Eschenbach simply made up his own logarithmic formula on something that has over 100 years of well established science behind it. Of course it isn't the first time Eschenbach has tried to slip this kind of crap under the radar, but hey - who's counting? (hint: not Anthony Watts)

So then yeah - it's just a matter of multiplying by climate sensitivity. If you use the IPCC value of 0.8 - which by the way is hardly all that "alarmist" considering other scientists argue it is in fact much higher - you get a warming of 3C.

So the point is writing CO2 off as insignificant because it's warming effect is logarithmic only counts until you know, you actually do the math.


If that's too hard...then we have more Watts inspired garbage like this:

when you take into account the fact that the recording stations in the colder areas of the world have been excluded and thus the average temperature is actually being promulgated as higher than it is.

Even if this were true (which it's not), I could still debunk it with nothing more than a little bit of logic: Measuring global warming has nothing to do with absolute temperatures. It has everything to do with relative temperatures over time. So even if these stations had some sort of initial "warm bias" in them (which they don't), it would have ALWAYS been there, not steadily increasing over time - so that does nothing to explain why each one has been showing a distinct warming TREND.

And speaking of which:

I don't think you will find that it has cooled, but we are at or past a peak.

Riiiiiight, that's why 2010 is on pace to be the hottest year on record, last month was the hottest September ever, and current temperature graphs, even those that come from skeptic scientists like Roy Spencer, look like this:




So tired of watching people condescendingly tell others to educate themselves when they clearly have no clue themselves.

Wow. Research and debate of that magnitude, deserves a bump. [Star'd]