Like it isn't bloody cold enough already....

Well I'll be flying into El Paso from Michigan Monday. Temps here have been below freezing and planes are rather difficult to predict temperature wise so I'll pass on the "thongs and tongs" until I get there. Probably afterwards as well. Don't want anyone hospitalized due to the trauma of seeing me like that.

 

I have snow below 2000 ft which means it is sitting this morn just on the ridge lines surrounding my berg, winter is not over in the great NW.

 

Soooo...I guess we're back to calling it "global warming" again?

 

Remember, climate is what you expect but weather is what you get.

Goto:


msnbc.com Video Player

and:

Top 10 Surprising Results of Global Warming | LiveScience

 

Global warming, paahh!! This is a pic like we had our weather at Monday the 6th this week.
View attachment 13391

 

you will be all happy to know we are 10-15F cooler than normal for the time of year. global warming huh ? cyclic yes

dang the mountains are gorgeous and the roads still closed due to heavy snows, no cycling up high above 5,000' yet ................ rats

 

I must (apparently) point out that the term "global warming" refers to the globe itself not just out your back door, which is, like it or not mostly oceans. Saying it is cooler in your place, at that moment and so the warming trend is a "hoax" is like looking in your own wallet and determining what the global economy is doing at that moment.

The oceans are warming (observed/recorded), they are rising (observed/recorded), the polar ice caps are changing in both density and area (observed/recorded). Just because it is "cooler" where you are doesn't mean squat. The weather patterns are obviously shifting, it might get be cooler and wetter in places it never was, it might get hotter and dryer in places than before, why is this so hard to understand?

Weather is what you get today, climate is what you should expect over a decade or two. These expectations have quite measurably changed. The northwest portions of America and southwest Canada might very well get both cooler and wetter, while the mid-west and southwest sections of America might get hotter and dryer. Which they have, if those areas continue on those patterns for even more time, and remain there; then a "climate change" has developed.

When recorded temperature variations start to always break old records (up and down), moisture fall is altered to record diferences (up and down) something is "afoot", and it ain't a hoax and won't stop 'cause we wish it would. Mother Nature can't be lobbied by the Koch brothers. Humans have kept "pissing in the nest", and now it is time to pay the piper.

 

and it is till cyclic if we go back to recorded records back in the 20's and 30's worldwide. Mother nature does not exist except by name only .............

 

Part of the problem is as I understand it from the late 1800's up through the 1970's the climate was extremely stable by long term historical standards. Yet this is the time over which we have the best data. Starting sometime in the mid to late 70's from what I can tell we started getting a lot more variation in weather (records of all sorts being set on a more frequent basis for example at least from what I can tell) on top of this we now have a warming trend. I don't think many fail to believe that said trend is real however why and for how long are rather open topics. In the mean time tweaking those who claim to know based on Al Gore's film with random observations can be fun.

 

More fuel on the fire...Global warming theorists used flawed data:
Express.co.uk - Home of the Daily and Sunday Express | Express Yourself :: Global warming is over, says expert
Stats gathered from urbanized weather stations gave higher temp readings due to local human developments... Not to mention generous applications of "hockey stick" graphing.

 

I wonder how the famous (or infamous) Koch Brothers feel about this study they helped fund at Berkeley, I'm sure they expected different results but they didn't count on an honest man.

A team of UC Berkeley physicists and statisticians that set out to challenge the scientific consensus on global warming is finding that its data-crunching effort is producing results nearly identical to those underlying the prevailing view.

The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project was launched by physics professor Richard Muller, a longtime critic of government-led climate studies, to address what he called "the legitimate concerns" of skeptics who believe that global warming is exaggerated. (underline mine)

…But Muller unexpectedly told a congressional hearing last week that the work of the three principal groups that have analyzed the temperature trends underlying climate science is "excellent.... We see a global warming trend that is very similar to that previously reported by the other groups."

…Over the years, Muller has praised Watts' efforts to show that weather station data in official studies are untrustworthy because of the urban heat island effect, which boosts temperature readings in areas that have been encroached on by cities and suburbs.

But leading climatologists said the previous studies accounted for the effect, and the Berkeley analysis is confirming that, Muller acknowledged. "Did such poor station quality exaggerate the estimates of global warming?" he asked in his written testimony. "We've studied this issue, and our preliminary answer is no." ​(bold mine)

Temperature data are gathered from tens of thousands of weather stations around the globe, many of which have incomplete records. Over the last two decades, three independent groups have used different combinations of stations and varying statistical methods and yet arrived at nearly identical conclusions: The planet's surface, on average, has warmed about 0.75 degrees centigrade (1.4 degrees Fahrenheit) since the beginning of the 20th century.


Goto:


Global warming: Critics' review unexpectedly supports scientific consensus on climate change - Los Angeles Times