Just to answer Lie#2, you are correct about everything except that the 20 foot number comes from the volume of water held in current ice caps and other forms of ice that is currently over land only, the ice over water does not count as it displaces water currently. I just watched a program on that very subject this weekend. It will take thousands of years for the seas to rise to those levels. Anyway, I am seeing my current property coming closer and closer to being a water front home.:coolsm:

Other than that, very good information and I agree with your stance on those items. I hate to see those polar bear commercials, showing the bear and cub on a piece of ice that is floating away and they have to swim. Makes you wonder if overall folks do not know, that sea ice melts every year and that scene actually is a normal occurance.

Global Climate Change??
 

How's that Global Climate Change working out for the Mid-Atlantic states!:rolleye2:

Since you asked... it's what climate change theory predicts.

"Skeptics of global warming are using the record-setting snows to mock those who warn of dangerous human-driven climate change — this looks more like global cooling, they taunt.

Most climate scientists respond that the ferocious storms are consistent with forecasts that a heating planet will produce more frequent and more intense weather events.

...Jeff Masters, a meteorologist who writes on the Weather Underground blog, said that the recent snows do not, by themselves, demonstrate anything about the long-term trajectory of the planet. Climate is, by definition, a measure of decades and centuries, not months or years.

But Dr. Masters also said that government and academic studies had consistently predicted an increasing frequency of just these kinds of record-setting storms, because warmer air carries more moisture." (from NYTimes article)

Global warming leads to warmer temperatures so more moisture in air, which leads to larger storms.

Somehow people get the idea that global warming is only true if it never gets below 50°...

No, global warming is a complex global phenomenon, caused by human activity, which leads to a variety of "surprising" (to many) results, including more severest storms (including blizzards)

However, no single weather event - rather it be a snowstorm in the mid-Atlantic, or a 80° day in northern Norway for the first time in a lifetime, is in itself proof or disproof of a theory. "Both climate-change contrarians and climate-change scientists agree that no single weather event can be blamed on climate change."

Its the preponderance of events, like arctic ice melting, or the fact that 3 of the world's warmest years have occurred in the last decade, or that the climate of New England is becoming more temperate and the seasons longer, that point to global warming. And its a second bit of evidence (referred to as a trick by a climate researcher and thus leading to accusations of lying when he meant trick to mean "putting two different data sets together") that connects human activity to climate change - for example - rising levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Read more on the debate here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/11/sc...ml?ref=science

They cooked the data, more examples of malfeasance come out every day. "More intense storms", more intense than what? Don't you find it a little suspicious that no matter what the event it points to global warming????? Mild winter = global warming, cold winter = global warming, too little snow = global warming, too much snow = global warming, cool summer = global warming, warm summer = global warming..............

You are so right, ITD. Whatever it is, it is caused by global warming. They can twist it every way.

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/COXANDFORKUM.jpg


I hope I haven't offended the hardcore folks. But I would like to offer an option other than the NY Times for climate change data. I was a student of meteorology and climatology and I believe our global climate patterns are controled by two things, the sun and the ocean. We couldn't change either one if we wanted. One of my professors, Joseph D'Aleo who now currently operates ICECAP, a group of world class scientists and meteorologists (http://icecap.us) is a great resource on this subject. ICECAP sorts out on a daily basis the truth and distortions about this topic. A great resource for anyone interested in climate change facts. The best thing is Joe D'Aleo isn't from New York or Washington, he lives here in NH. So enjoy the weather it's the only weather you got.

Yet Another Record Shattering Snow Event...
 

Winter 2010 at DFW Airport, Dallas TX. At over 8" on the ground, and the winter storm warning in effect with whiteout conditions for another 8 hours, today has been the snowiest calender day in History here!

I had been looking forward to flying up there to do some more snowmobiling. If this keeps up I may have to pick up my sled and ride it back down here! :look: :)

Two sides in warming debate seize on storms to bolster arguments.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35343948...ew_york_times/

I was wondering the other day whether we have a method of tracking the temperature of the sun. Anybody besides Shedwannabe know if this data exists? I don't want the numbers to get "fudged"... :emb:

Sun Spots
 

I had heard a while back that the earth's temperature is based on the amount of sun spots on the sun at a certain time. Can't remember if the more sun spots the cooler the earth and vice versa for the fewr sun spots.

I don't think that the so called scientists that predicted stronger more intense storms were talking about the most snow fall in the mid-atlantic since the late 1800's. More snow there means colder here in NH as the "cold" air is pushing all these "stronger more intense" storms to our south.
Our temperatures in NH have been below normal for most of December and January. I guess this all has to do with global warming. :rolleye2:

Also, I don't consider the NY Times as the most reliable source for anything political. :laugh:

Amazing isn't it? Warmer weather trends mean man-made global warming. Cold weather with ALL TIME record snows in the snow also translate to man-made global warming. The ferocious hurricanes that were supposed to increase the last 3 years, forecasted by non other than the author of An Inconvienant Truth Al Gore, have done just the opposite. The people are not stupid about this crap being rammed down their throats from the liberal left and results are showing up everyway in the the recent elections. I see Mr Kennedy has just called it career in RI so he won't have to suffer the same fate. Time for the rest of the country to gets its head out of the snow drifts. :laugh:

Where have all the winters gone?
Long time passing
Where have all the winters gone?
Long time ago
Where have all the winters gone?
People pretended nothing's changed
When will they ever learn?
When will they ever learn?

Ah, more irrefutable "settled" science.

Ya, And Then Some...
 

Just remember ITD, Ya heard it All here First! :laugh:

Terry
___________________

Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. - Bertrand Russell ( 1872-1970)

<!-- / message --><!-- edit note -->

'Waking up to The News—on Monday?
 

In England, they just woke up to it today.

Al Gore, Michael Moore, and other "Global-Warmers" quoted the eminent Climatologist, Professor Phil Jones. A British newspaper quotes some of Professor Jones' admissions from this weekend:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...organised.html

:eek: The dog DID eat the homework! :laugh:

This important development should resonate in US media as we speak.

:rolleye1:

BUT.. there's the problem. These people tell the naysayers of global warming say that the colder weather and bigger snowstorms can not be considered as evidence for our case. HOWEVER, they use them to make their case telling us colder winters and larger snowstorms are the RESULT of global warming?
Oh please it is such nonsense. Look do I believe that the climate is changing, YES! Do I believe that man is the sole root cause NO! Unfortunately if you look at the big picture and I mean the huge picture over thousands and thousands of years the data supports this trend. Global Warming Scientist will only allow anyone to look at the data through their eyes. "Peer Review" you say ha ha ha, what peer? The Peer receiving millions of dollars in grant money as well?
Do I believe we need to conserve energy and be a bit more green YES YES YES! I want my children to have clean cheap energy. I just don't like the tsk tsk scientists LYING to us in order to guilt us all into driving a Prius (nice brakes by the way). Oh by the way this whole effort has been costing us billions all along the way.
Save it Washington, tell the truth, tell us what we already know.

Global Climate Change??
 

i think the term "Global Climate Change" is a term that was come with because they the scientists got caught cooking the books for "Global Warming". Now they use this loose term of "Global Climate change" to prove their point like the big snow storms in the mi-atlantic. Of course, these would not be occuring if it were not for "Global Climate Change"! :emb:

The best part of it all is that the liberal looneys on "The View" blame Global Climate Change on the earthquake that occured in Haiti and volcanic eruptions around the world. Can't remember which one of them said it, but Howie Carr was playing the quote all day on the radio last week. Yeah, Global Climate change has a lot to do with earthquakes! :emb: Get a brain.

Interesting reaction to Thomas Friedman's article on "Global Weirding" in today's NY Times. He lays out an argument for getting climate scientists together and coming up with a clear joint statement on what is know about climate change (he admits that calling it global warming sets of the denialists whenever a snowstorm happens). His belief, as expressed in the article, is that if people just looked at the undisputed facts (of which there are many) they would realize that deniers are motivated to attack global climate change as unproved in order to protect their economic interests, and that the denial has nothing to do with science.

So people started commenting on the NY Times article. One of the comments (which attracted lots of recommendations) was to the effect that "Friedman - you are crazy to think that people will listen to reason - after all, a majority of Americans think (wrongly) that Saddam Hussien was involved in the 9/11 attacks, and 75% of Republicans believe Obama isn't American." While I don't know if her percentages are right, it certainly is true that many people hold onto patently false beliefs... for reasons I cannot comprehend. as another commenter notes, a large percentage of people don't even believe in evolution (which even the Catholic Church accepts as accurate)

A sample comment: "Sorry Tom, the fact of this matter are that no argument, no evidence, no persuasion will convince the folks tilted against the climate change (Global Warming) issue. They issue ridiculous statements and seemingly logical arguments against this issue and no evidence, no statement by experts will dislodge their stance. Those opposed to taking any action to moderate climate change are similar in mindset to the Creationist claiming fossils were placed on earth by the Devil to confuse mankind. This is a hopeless situation and as long as the United States is ruled by politicians willing to promulgate these arguments, to confuse voters, in support of their corporate bosses, we are lost."

So it seems we go down our separate paths - those who look at science - a process based on evidence, a self-correcting process, and those who look elsewhere - though for the life of me I cannot understand where they look, as it seems part denial of reality, part not wanting to face anything uncomfortable, and part not wanting to give up privilege that makes others pay for our extravagantly wasteful lifestyle.

When I first posted on Winnipesaukee.com I did not believe there were people who would admit to being climate deniers - those who would not accept the scientific evidence but instead refer to anecdotes (like "DC got a lot of snow - that means no global warming") or industry speaking pints that are not based on real evidence. I have learned a lot. I'm still amazed that people admit to rejecting science - its a sad comment on our country when science is denied and financial interests prevail. I have heard some posters say the issue of climate change/global warming is not settled science, and I appreciate skepticism (which is different than the more common extremist views regularly voiced here), but skepticism has to at least address the vast preponderance of evidence supporting global warming theories, and do something other than scream "its cold right here right now" to disprove global warming.

And its funny I am just as sad for you that you swallow every bit of "Science" jammed down your throat and take it as fact. You look down at everyone else who does not share your view. Global Warming is not a fact! No matter how many times you say it to yourself it just does not make it any more true. Part of being a learner, and educated person is to read and react to what you see and hear. You, unfortunately read and accept. There are literally THOUSANDS of contradictions in the Global Warming Science. There are thousands of scientists who dispute it. I am just as scared that there are people like you out there that follow the herd and file in line behind flawed science and no matter what refuse to question the authority on its findings. As I said before I believe in Climate Change. I believe these things to be cyclical over billions of years. I believe Dinosaurs probably emitted as much methane gas to cause climate change billions of years ago. I believe one volcano can have a profound affect on the environment. I believe that pollution is a problem. I just don't subscribe to the alarmist mentality that you so willingly accept, and blindly might I add. It is our right to question the science especially when the motivation lies heavily on the supporters of said theories, contrary to what you think. Billions in grant money is at stake here.
The saddest part is that once the government took a stake in this we all lost. There are lies on both sides of the issue that is for sure.

Shed, You turn your nose down and act all superior and that is fine but you are merely swallowing a political agenda yourself. Do not try and hide behind the Scientists and Peer Reviews. As we have seen they are on shaky ground and we are well within our rights to question them. You are not better than us. I am saddened by your opinion that you think you are.

Here is one of thousands of Scientists:
Dr. John Christy, professor of Atmospheric Science at the University of Alabama at Huntsville said: "I remember as a college student at the first Earth Day being told it was a certainty that by the year 2000, the world would be starving and out of energy. Such doomsday prophecies grabbed headlines, but have proven to be completely false." "Similar pronouncements today about catastrophes due to human-induced climate change," he continued, "sound all too familiar and all too exaggerated to me as someone who actually produces and analyzes climate information."

The media, of course, like the exaggerated claims. Most are based on computer models that purport to predict future climates. But computer models are lousy at predicting climate because water vapor and cloud effects cause changes that computers fail to predict. In the mid-1970s, computer models told us we should prepare for global cooling.

Scientists tell reporters that computer models should "be viewed with great skepticism." Well, why aren't they?

The fundamentalist doom mongers also ignore scientists who say the effects of global warming may be benign. Harvard astrophysicist Sallie Baliunas said added CO2 in the atmosphere may actually benefit the world because more CO2 helps plants grow. Warmer winters would give farmers a longer harvest season, and might end the droughts in the Sahara Desert.

Why don't we hear about this part of the global warming argument? "It's the money!" said Dr. Baliunas. "Twenty-five billion dollars in government funding has been spent since 1990 to research global warming. If scientists and researchers were coming out releasing reports that global warming has little to do with man, and most to do with just how the planet works, there wouldn't be as much money to study it."

Hazelnut, that is a very well written response.

The way Shed's information is presented sounds similar to others who have posted about other subjects (I do not think they are related), but they sure want to tell you how it is, when discussion is reduced to barking back and forth, all the true information is lost.

Keeping an open mind on this subject could do both sides a favor.

jMen,

I have hundreds and hundreds of articles from well respected scientists, and reviews that raise questions on the issue.

My stance is one of open mindedness. I believe things should be greener. I believe in recycling and energy efficient vehicles. I believe we owe it to our children to hand them a cleaner planet than the one we inherited. I also believe we have made and are making great strides in that direction.

What I do not believe in is Global Warming as a scare tactic disguised as science. It is a political agenda end of story no argument. What is sad is people are led to this level of hysteria over global climate change by the agenda of these scientists who are sucking billions and billions of dollars out of the economy.

I read both sides, listen to both sides and make educated choices. Sadly, for Shed, I am not running out to get my Prius next weekend. However, once the hybrid or total electric vehicle becomes commonplace, efficient and affordable I'll be first in line. I lay out my recycling bin every week, I try to do my part. But NOT because I am scared of some cooked up global warming theory.

I was not referring to you, as the sounds similar analogy. I agree with your statement and my feeling are fairly similar.

Shed, I don't understand how you can be so steadfastly sure of your views as settled science when the foundation and core of AGW is crumbling around you. From the admission that the IPCC assertion, that the Himalayan glaciers would be gone by 2035, is wrong. Turns out it was based on a fluff piece by an environmental advocacy group and is patently untrue. To the admission by Phil Jones that the climate may have been warmer in medieval times and that there has been no "statistically significant" warming in the past 15 years. There is no such thing as "settled science". Any one who uses that term is just trying to take your money.

ITD, that's why I believe that the term"Global Climate Change" came about as no matter what happens around the world weather wise it can be contributed to "Global Climate Change" to support their arguement. Vague and loose terminology.:confused:

Who's the Bozo who started this thread..? He should be Water Boarded mercilessly until he fesses up..........:D :D NB

I have often thought the same thing....

especially because he had the nerve to title it "Global Warming" before connections in high places got it changed.

Do you believe in Title Changing? :D

Back when most people believed that the sun revolved around the earth, the conversation from the deniers must have been similar. It doesn't really matter what you believe. The climate is changing. The north pole has less ice than we've seen before, our springs in the lakes region are earlier, our falls later and we are seeing the northern boundary of some insects and plants creep north.

Change cannot be legitimately denied. The extent, impact and our ability to stop the change is where the discussion should be. When we have US senators pointing at a record DC snowstorm and saying there is no change happening, it shows that we are not dealing with reasonable parties who can rationally discuss the topic. The conservative point of view should not be held by buffoons. They must go.

<O:pThe elephant in the room is carbon taxing. Those against it want to deny there is a problem, when instead, they should be asking the tough questions. Will reducing carbon emissions have any effect? How accurate are the predictive models? How can we cleanse the data we have so new models can be built? The answers to those questions are squishy.

<O:pCarbon taxing probably won't work, but that is no reason to walk away from the science. It makes more sense to help Texas and Virginia buy some snowplows. Dealing with the impact of change as it comes, whatever it might be, is the most reasonable approach, especially when we don't really know what will happen in 10 or 50 years. Predicting disaster and investing for the worst case is not reasonable. <O:p