Forget global warming: Welcome to the new Ice Age — It’s always something.
Snow cover over North America and much of Siberia, Mongolia and China is greater than at any time since 1966.
The U.S. National Climatic Data Center NCDC reported that many American cities and towns suffered record cold temperatures in January and early February. According to the NCDC, the average temperature in January “was -0.3 F cooler than the 1901-2000 20th century average.”
China is surviving its most brutal winter in a century. Temperatures in the normally balmy south were so low for so long that some middle-sized cities went days and even weeks without electricity because once power lines had toppled it was too cold or too icy to repair them.
There have been so many snow and ice storms in Ontario and Quebec in the past two months that the real estate market has felt the pinch as home buyers have stayed home rather than venturing out looking for new houses.
In just the first two weeks of February, Toronto received 70 cm of snow, smashing the record of 66.6 cm for the entire month set back in the pre-SUV, pre-Kyoto, pre-carbon footprint days of 1950.
And remember the Arctic Sea ice? The ice we were told so hysterically last fall had melted to its “lowest levels on record? Never mind that those records only date back as far as 1972 and that there is anthropological and geological evidence of much greater melts in the past.
The ice is back.
Hmmmm, then how do you explain this post?
-0.3 cooler than average? Huh! Average being the operative word.
It’s FUD. The Global warming/cooling theories are being explored by the media to sell paper (in this case, hits.)that’s all.
IMHO there’s a great method to determine the way climate is changing. And that is to analyze ecosystems. Coral is dying and scientists say it’s the minute changes in water temperature. Also coral reef islands are getting submerse, meaning Oceans are rising.
Nowadays I’m leaning towards Global Warming. But that can also be proven wrong.
Just hope that the powers that be are getting great advising…hmmm. Well, that can be wishful thinking…Maybe, just maybe, we (general public, that is) could be getting more savvy on the subject…just in case.
Climate change is what it should really be called. And your %100 correct about coral dying as an example of a better method of determining this change,
It’s so easy to interpret climate data the way one wants….
Can’ people understand that global warming does NOT necessarily mean higher temperatures in winter ? For instance, Western Europe’s (UK, France, ..) climate is much warmer than that in NE America (for the same latitudes), thanks to the Gulf Stream. The gulf stream is a very complex process, which involves the huge icebergs in the north of the Atlantic Ocean. Global warming means these icebergs could disappear, which might stop the Gulf Stream, with French or English climate becoming the same than in Canada.
Ok, this is just an hypothesis. That’s just to say that processes are complex.
And that it’s easy for a government which doesn’t want to admit pollution must be reduced, to pay scientist to dismiss proofs of global warmings.
I explained this Awhile back..
ICE MELTS, and WHERE do you think its going??
It hits the ocean, then is salinated, Then there is MORE water, mean MORE SURFACE to Turn into moisture, and then to clouds…ANd MORE clouds make more rain and snow…
Until the TEMP can reach 10 degrees ABOVE normal, this will keep happening, At which point the SNOW will more then likely, JUST be rain, and the Lite rains will turn into MUGGY/STEAMY weather..
Warmer it GETS, means more water in the air…Until it hits a Crucial point.
Clouds go up, and BLOCK the sun..Lowers the temp..And Off we go.
I’m sure in good order scientists will tell willing dunce reporters in the media that this is all expected result of global warming.
Global warming generally means warmer winters and nights, and double warming at higher latitudes.
Also, last year temperatures dropped about .65 degrees Celcius, nearly wiping out the warming for the previous century. Hmm, maybe those global cooling guys back in the 70s were right?
Global warming plus global cooling gives pleasant weather.
See you on the beach.
Every time it get’s a little cold the low brows say see, no global warming. For the microperspectives around here listen. Our climate is a very large and complex system, global warming doesn’t mean everyone gets hotter at the same time. It means – INSTABILITY – hots get hotter cold gets colder, windy gets windier, wet gets wetter, etc… This instability will worsen till the oceans currents are interrupted then the system for heat distribution breaks down completely and we begin a new ice age.
I know most of us are here for laughs but this is some deadly serious shi-.
This had better not screw up my first Tee off time for the year.
In the 70’s people batted this crap around.
It won’t matter in the end result.
If we survived the MWP, we will survive this.
Cursor_
What does this tell me. Scientists really have no clue about the climate. The Earth will do what it wants.
Wow. Really glad polluting the planet causes nothing after all !
As #12 says, things just happen! This is very encouraging.
Hey everyone!! Don’t forget to take note of the fact that the article referenced at the top is an op ed piece. It’s not exactly peer-reviewed. In fact, it’s about the same level of credibility as a blog post!!
Don’t confuse local and/or short-lived weather patterns for climate. They’re not the same thing. At most, we can consider the current amount of snow as a good sign that perhaps, if we’re very lucky, it’s not yet too late to take strong action against global warming.
We still need to do everything we can if we’re going to avoid an anoxic ocean and toxic levels of hydrogen sulfide gas filling the atmosphere.
Read Under a Green Sky for details about the causes of 4 of the 5 non-human caused mass extinctions in this planet’s history.
How do we explain the linked article at Marinelog.com, that data is ancient 2004 history and it’s based on data way before that. I mean, my Weather God, temperature is ancient days and minutes later and anyone who believes what they see presented by ACTORS in movies is an idiot. Study the science without the drama, it shows now we have a global cooling trend. Geez, you can figure this out by watching the weather channel. Historical records have already shown these changes in weather patterns over the years. El Nino is one of many examples. Duh. It’s what has been happening for billions of seconds and light years.
The environmentalist are hurting their own cause when they talk about humanity’s contribution to climate change.
Numerous studies, including the sources to the article above, show that our effect on the environment is “a drop in the bucket”. Environmentalist are too quick to point the finger to human causes and thereby create unnecessary controversy.
This controversy then halts real progress toward environmental issues because people get it in their minds that they have to resolve the controversy before proceeding onto solutions, which resolution isn’t going to happen in our lifetimes.
The real way to forward environmental causes is to focus on the political and economic benefits to conservation.
Since oil hit $70/barrel, other more environmentally friendly solutions become economically viable and preferential. (Not ethanol, btw). Not to mention the very real political and social benefits.
Please, environmentalist, leave this controversial human created climate change morass and simply tout the costs savings instead!
Huge Snow-Cover
Record Cold
The Arctic Ice Is Back
Computer Models Were Wrong
As Sunspot Activity Decreases – Cold Increases
Extinction of Dinosaurs linked to Climate Change (prior to mankind
And a great quote from the article:
“If environmentalists and environment reporters can run around shrieking about the man-made destruction of the natural order every time a robin shows up on Georgian Bay two weeks early, then it is at least fair game to use this winter’s weather stories to wonder whether these alarmist are being a tad premature.”
I’m with #17 on this. It was warmer in the Middle Ages than it has been in the last decade. How much pollution did we put out then?
The man-made argument has little real evidence, since most reports ignore various facts given over the longer timespans.
That being said, I’m all for saving the environment. I shouldn’t use the word saving. Shall we say preserving? No, it’ll do ok on it’s own.
Let’s just say I like clean air and water around me, and I assume everyone else does likewise. I like security and relying on OPEC for the majority of our energy sources isn’t near secure enough for my tastes. Renewable sources, or long term sources make more sense, as a matter of efficacy. That is why I filled my house with CF bulbs (for the most part). I don’t care if they save trees, or cut oil production. I like the fact that they last a long time, so there’s less replacement. Less replacement means less waste (in a matter of landfill space).
Everything is discrete. There is a limit to space we can fill up with garbage, there is a limit to the oil in the ground. Eventually, everything will run out or fill up. It all leads to entropy in the end. The question is, can we stave off the entropy with efficiency?
Nobel Prize Winner Chicken Little Gore:
THE SKY IS STILL FALLING!
THE SKY IS STILL FALLING!!!
BUY MY COMPANY’S CARBON CREDIT UNITS BEFORE ITS TOO LATE…FOR ME TO BE A GAZILLIONAIRE!!!
#17 – If you really believe that humanity’s impact on the Earth is a drop in the bucket, I suggest you recall some of the man-made natural disasters that have stuck this world:
– The Dust Bowl
– The Texas-sized garbage pile in the North Pacific
– Hole in the ozone layer (if you don’t think this is bad, travel to Australia)
– The extinction of the passenger pigeon, once thought utterly impossible due to the sheer volume of these pigeons
– the Australian soil-salinity crisis
– the Exxon-Valdez oil spill
– the disappearance of the Amazon rainforest
All of these disasters were caused by man and significantly affected the environment in lasting ways. Now I’m no environmentalist or liberal, but it seems a silly assertion to suggest that man can only impact the environment in the same way that a drop impacts a bucket, especially considering that you likely are not a climate scientist. We are very capable of destroying the natural Earth in lasting ways.
Global warming or not, it just makes sense to treat our Earth right. She won’t give forever, so we have to find ways of making resources last as long as possible. Even Mike Huckabee agrees with me there.
“Please, environmentalist, leave this controversial human created climate change morass and simply tout the costs savings instead!”
~Ah_Yea
With natural gas, gasoline and fuel oil costs skyrocketing…and EVERYTHING that we depend on to live being served in one way or, the other by these resources, we’d better get our collective asses in gear, energy-efficiency/cost-efficient wise, before its too @#%$ expensive to live!
Or, is that the actual radical EnviroNut’s solution to the energy crisis? Everybody else DIE ‘cept Mother-Earth-Friendly them.
The climate has been made increasingly unstable by our actions. Sure, maybe we’ll catapult into an ice age as a result of the earth trying to self-correct but it’s still more likely we’ll see years of global temperature rise on average. Despite what the article says, average global temps have gone up, not down, period. Can’t refute that. (You can but you’d be wrong – and likely a neocon idiot.)
The cause though is still the same and that’s what needs to be fixed. This story may be a red herring designed to pull us off topic, like so many neocon misdirections. Whether the temps take us to greenhouse or ice age makes no difference; the cause is the same – our overuse of fossil fuels, deforestation and the use the deforested areas are put to afterwards (cattle farms and such). We’ve altered the ecosystem too much and we’re gonna pay now.
Oh yeah – How many “peers” are getting support from environmental groups, thus making them just as biased and untrustworthy as so-call “big-oil shills”? It’s been obvious for decades that the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, etc. don’t have ordinary mankind’s best interests at heart.
#17 – Ah_Yea,
What controversy? Do you have some peer reviewed papers disputing global warming? Don’t make shit up. There’s about the same amount of controversy about whether global warming is happening as there is about whether cigarettes are bad for your health. Yeah, you can probably find some doctors willing to dispute the cause and effect of cigarettes and cancer.
#18 – jbenson2,
What article are you quoting? There’s no article? It’s an op ed piece. It’s not even real journalism, let alone a peer reviewed study.
#19 – Calin,
It was warmer in the Middle Ages than it has been in the last decade.
Yes. That was a minor fluctuation. The forecasts are currently for a period warmer than any in the last 55 million years. We did not survive that warm period. Only when it ended did life begin to truly recover from from the K/T extinction. And, if you read Under a Green Sky, you’ll understand that the K/T impact did not cause nearly the damage of the global warming at the P/T boundary 250 million years ago. If we don’t change our actions, we may be headed for that. And, we won’t survive it.
BTW, Note to all, without greenhouse gases, the Earth would be an average of -19 degrees Celsius. With greenhouse gases, we average +15 degrees Celsius. So, explain to me how doubling our greenhouse gases will have no effect or be a mere “drop in the bucket”?
(Yes, I’ve asked this question before. No one ever answers it though.)
Anyone brave enough to give it a try? Or, would you rather just stick your heads back in the sand and say “LALALALALALALALALALA There’s no global warming LALALALALALALALA I can’t hear you.”
#24,25 – MrBloedumpSpladderschittHead,
You have got to be fucking kidding me. Do you really believe that all of the environmental groups put together have anywhere near the money to back research as the deep deep ever deepening pockets of ExxonMobil??!!?
#26 and as we all know, humans produce all the greenhouse gases so it must be us causing it. I think that is what was meant by the drop in the bucket.
If we are not meant to survive then we won’t just like the over approx. 95% of species that have gone extinct without human intervention. But I’m sure someone will figure out a way to blame all their deaths on humans as well.
Now, back to my sand………
#24,25 – MrBloedumpSpladderschittHead,
You may also consider the fact that peer reviewed science built your computer, your car, your television, your dvd, and nearly all of the technology you see around you. If you believe the process doesn’t work at least reasonably well, I’d suggest that you crawl into a cave somewhere and live off the land … with Clovis point spears or equivalent technology.
All I can do is laugh at this point. All the Global Warming Deniers are going to continue to run their mouths and say blatantly false things that have no foundation in fact. They will continue to refer to opinion columns with many factual errors as the basis for their belief. They will ignore the fact that Global Warming is a concept they know nothing about and continuously make assumptions based on that lack of knowledge and a pundit position. That is evidenced by some of the off the wall comments posted. They started out by denying that it was happening at all. Then they said it was but wasn’t man made. Now some have fallen back to the complete denial. They don’t really know what they believe because they rely on their talking points memo’s to tell them.
I think we should take account of those who deny that it is taking place. Then in the future when the hammer falls, they and their families should be denied any of the food and water resources for survival. They should be left to the world that they create while the remaining resources should be passed to those who made an effort to stop it. Not that it will help much but I think the suffering should be on the shoulders of the deniers.
#28 – Steve-O,
and as we all know, humans produce all the greenhouse gases so it must be us causing it. I think that is what was meant by the drop in the bucket.
Increasing CO2 from 280 ppm to 450 ppm can only be considered a drop in the bucket by someone who can’t do math.
If we are not meant to survive then we won’t just like the over approx. 95% of species that have gone extinct without human intervention. But I’m sure someone will figure out a way to blame all their deaths on humans as well.
Meant to survive??!!? Meant by whom? Some higher power for whom there is no evidence. There’s nothing meant to be one way or the other. Humans were not meant to be. Natural selection through cumulative selective force produced us. We’ve been here a very short time and are already showing strong signs of our inability to survive.
Unfortunately, due to the magnitude of our cultural evolution overpowering our biological evolution, we’re taking many fit species with us.
Yes, there have been 5 catastrophic events in this planet’s history causing huge mass extinctions. If you’re OK with the fact that we are the catastrophe that is causing the sixth, then I guess you have no moral issue with this.
I have a huge moral issue with it, especially since we see it coming at us like a freight train and are standing like a deer caught in its headlights.
Here’s a good example of the type of data gathering that fuels “consensus”: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2386
I am a mountain backpacker and therefor probably better in tune with the environment that many here. Even assuming it’s happening, I do not see any problems with “Global Warming” other than the manmade ones such as economic collapse and loss of freedom.
When you have the Gov’t dictating how you travel, where you live, what kind of light bulbs you use, controlling your thermostat, etc. you have a situation where the cure is worse than the disease, especially when you’re most likely not even ill.
As far as technology goes, the tech is based on science,however the actual inventions were created mostly either for military purposes or for profit.