Three Decades Of Global Cooling
Last Post
Posted 06:21 PM ET
As a Colorado Rockies playoff game is snowed out,
scientists report that Arctic sea ice is thickening and
Antarctic snow melt is the lowest in three decades.
Whatever happened to global warming?
Al Gore wasn't there to throw out the first snowball,
er, baseball, so he might not have noticed that
Saturday's playoff game between the Colorado
Rockies and the Philadelphia Phillies was snowed
out — in early October. The field should have been
snow-free just as the North Pole was to be ice-free
this year.
It seems that ice at both poles hasn't been paying
attention to the computer models. The National
Snow and Ice Data Center released its summary
of summer sea-ice conditions in the Arctic last
week and reported a substantial expansion of
"second-year ice" — ice thick enough to have
persisted through two summers of seasonal
melting.
According to the NSIDC, second-year ice this
summer made up 32% of the total ice cover on the
Arctic Ocean, compared with 21% in 2007 and 9% in
2008. Clearly, Arctic sea ice is not following the
consensus touted by Gore and the warm-mongers.
This news coincides with a finding published in the
journal Geophysical Research Letters last month by
Marco Tedesco, a research scientist at the Joint
Center for Earth Systems Technology. He reported
that ice melt on Antarctica was the lowest in three
decades during the ice-melt season.
Each year, millions of square miles of sea ice melt
and refreeze. The amount varies from season to
season. Despite pictures taken in summer of
floating polar bears, data reported by the University
of Illinois' Arctic Climate Research Center at the
beginning of this year showed global sea ice levels
the same as they were in 1979, when satellite
observations began.
At the 2008 International Conference on Climate
Change, hosted by the Heartland Institute, the
keynote speaker, Dr. Patrick Michaels of the Cato
Institute and the University of Virginia, debunked
claims of "unprecedented" melting of Arctic ice. He
showed how Arctic temperatures were warmer
during the 1930s and that most of Antarctica is
indeed cooling.
At the other end of the earth, we are told the
Larsen B ice shelf on the western side of Antarctica
is collapsing. That part is warming and has been for
decades. But it comprises just 2% of the continent.
The rest of the continent is cooling.
A report prepared by the Scientific Committee on
Antarctic Research for last April's meeting of the
Antarctic Treaty nations in Washington notes that
the South Pole has in fact shown "significant
cooling in recent decades."
Australian Antarctic Division glaciology program
head Ian Allison says sea ice losses in west
Antarctica over the past 30 years have been
more than offset by increases in the Ross Sea
region, just one sector of East Antarctica. "Sea
ice conditions have remained stable in Antarctica
generally," Allison says.
So what gives? Earth's climate is influenced by
many things, the least of which is the internal
combustion engine. We and reputable scientists
have noted the earth has cooled during the last
decade, a period in which the sun has grown
very quiet with little or no sunspot activity.
According to research conducted by Professor
Don Easterbrook from Western Washington
University, the oceans and global temperatures
are closely related. They have, he says, a
natural cycle of warming and cooling that
affects the planet.
The most important ocean cycle is the Pacific
Decadal Oscillation (PDO). Easterbrook notes
that in the 1980s and '90s it was in a warming
cycle, as was the earth. The global cooling from
1940 to 1975, which had some experts warning
of an ice age, coincided with a Pacific cooling
cycle.
Professor Easterbrook says: "The PDO cool
mode has replaced the warm mode in the
Pacific Ocean, virtually assuring us of three
decades of global cooling." Such solar and
ocean cycles explain why the earth can cool
and polar ice thicken even as carbon dioxide
levels can continue to increase.
Will any of this be brought up at the climate
conference in Copenhagen this December?
Not unless hell freezes over. Then again ...
– –
Either way short term or long term the data
doesn't support man made global warming?
short term
http://junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/RSSglobe.html
long term
http://junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Moberg2005.html
bon/o
"Last Post" <last...@primus.ca> wrote in message
news:e9e0039b-9116-4c63...@o41g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
======================================
ROTFLMAO
Excellent post
I liked this bit ...
"Will any of this be brought up at the climate
conference in Copenhagen this December?
Not unless hell freezes over. Then again ..."
Regards
Bonz0
"I care about the environment (I grew up in a
solar house) and think there are a dozen good
reasons why we should burn less fossil fuels,
but.global warming is not one of them."
Nir Shaviv, Israeli physicist 2009
Jeffrey Turner
weather and climate to you.
Meanwhile, all the climate scientists who aren't being paid by the oil
companies say man-made global warming is indisputable.
--Jeff
--
The comfort of the wealthy has always
depended upon an abundant supply of
the poor. --Voltaire
bon/o
"Jeffrey Turner" <jtu...@localnet.com> wrote in
message
news:a82dnVDMjY45kEnX...@posted.localnet...
> Hey, Last Brain Cell, didn't anyone ever explain
> the difference between
> weather and climate to you.
>
> Meanwhile, all the climate scientists who aren't
> being paid by the oil
> companies say man-made global warming is
> indisputable.
WRONG!
The true climate scientists have been silenced
....
...as opposed to those "scientists" who have
abandoned science to take up fire and brimstone
preaching ...
Silencing Sceptical Scientists
September 12 2009
QUOTE: Almost the only scientists at liberty to
speak their minds are retirees
QUOTE: �The difficulty for the sceptics is that
credible argument against accepted wisdom
requires, as did the development of the accepted
wisdom itself, large-scale resources which can
only be supplied by the research institutions.
Without those resources, the sceptic is only an
amateur who can quite easily be confined to outer
darkness."
Garth Paltridge was a chief research scientist
with the CSIRO's division of atmospheric research
before becoming the director of the Institute of
Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies and chief
executive of the Antarctic Co-operative Research
Centre.
His latest sceptical contribution to the debate on
the dangers of carbon dioxide is a book,
endearingly titled The Climate Caper.
Paltridge gives a crisp summary of the physics and
economics of climate change, but I want to focus
here on his account of the new green religion.
"Perhaps the most interesting question in all this
business is how it can be that the scientific
community has become so over-the-top in support of
its own propaganda about the seriousness and
certainty of upcoming drastic climate change.
Scientists after all are supposed to be unbiased
in their assessment of a problem and are expected
to tell it as it is. Over the centuries they have
built up the capital of their reputation on just
that supposition. And for the last couple of
decades they have put that capital very publicly
on the line in support of a cause which, to say
the least, is overhung by an enormous amount of
doubt. So how is it that the rest of the
scientific community, uncomfortable as it is with
both the science of global warming and the way its
politics is being played, continues to let the
reputation of science in general be put at
considerable risk because of the way the dangers
of climate change are being vastly oversold?"
Part of the answer lies in the way institutions
find ways to silence their employees.
Paltridge himself was involved in setting up the
Antarctic research centre in the early 90s with
the CSIRO. As he recalls: "I made the error at the
time of mentioning in a media interview --
reported extensively in The Australian on a slow
Easter Sunday -- that there were still lots of
doubts about the disaster potential of global
warming. Suffice it to say that within a couple of
days it was made clear to me from the highest
levels of CSIRO that, should I make such public
comments again, then it would pull out of the
process of forming the new centre."
The CSIRO, it turned out, was in the process of
trying to extract many millions of dollars for
further climate research at the time.
Almost the only scientists at liberty to speak
their minds are retirees, such as William
Kininmonth and Paltridge himself.
He gives an example, Brian Tucker, a former chief
of CSIRO's Atmospheric Research Division. Tucker
was "a specialist in numerical climate modelling
and therefore knew better than most where the
bodies are buried in the climate change game.
He kept remarkably quiet about his worries on the
matter.
Then he retired, and for four or five years
thereafter was the bane of the global warming
establishment because of his very public stance
against many of its sacred cows." Eventually he
was marginalised by being described as "one of the
usual suspects, who was now out of date and in any
event was probably on the payroll of industry".
Another eye-opener is the story of how a committee
of the Australian Academy of Science was dissuaded
from its plans to respond to the Garnaut Report.
Paltridge says: "While the committee was aware of
all the 'ifs' and 'buts' of 100-year prediction of
rainfall, it was aware too of the delicacy of
saying so in an Academy response.
But if indeed there is something of the order of a
50-50 chance that the forecasts supplied to
Garnaut were nonsense, then it seems reasonable
that the fact should be made known in plain
English ...
" Academy members met Garnaut and "rumour has it
that sometime during the meeting Professor Garnaut
became very sympathetic to the need for vast new
resources to address the need for basic research
... In the end it seems that the idea of a
response to the Garnaut Report was dropped
altogether."
Eventually the academy came out with a statement
of priorities for climate research, which
contained a brief reference to the fact that the
rainfall projections Garnaut relied on were
problematical, but most of the public were none
the wiser.
Paltridge says that behind the climate change
debate there are two basic truths seldom
articulated.
"The first is that the scientists pushing the
seriousness of global warming are perfectly well
aware of the great uncertainty attached to their
cause. The difficulty for them is to ensure that
the lip service paid to uncertainty is enough to
convince governments of the need to continue
research funding, but is not enough to cast real
doubt on the case for action. The paths of public
comment and official advice on the matter have to
be trodden very carefully. �
�The second basic truth is that there is a belief
among scientific 'global warmers' that they are an
under-funded minority among a sea of wicked
sceptics who are extensively funded by industry
and close to Satan. The difficulty for them is to
maintain a belief in their own minority status
while insisting in public that the sceptics, at
least among the ranks of the scientifically
literate, are very few."
The Royal Society did its own reputation a
disservice by sending a letter to Exxon-Mobil oil
corporation declaring an anathema on dissident
climate research.
It said: "To be still producing information that
misleads people about climate change is unhelpful.
The next IPCC report should give the people the
final push they need to take action and we can't
have people trying to undermine it."
Paltridge says: "The staggering thing is that the
society, which in other circumstances would be the
first to defend the cause of free inquiry ...
seemed not to be able to hear what it was saying."
He takes a gloomy view of the likelihood that the
political class will soon come to its senses.
"One suspects that a fair amount of the shrillness
of the climate message derives from a fear that
something will happen to prick the scientific
balloon so carefully inflated and overstretched
over the last few decades.
But the IPCC doesn't really need to worry.
�The difficulty for the sceptics is that credible
argument against accepted wisdom requires, as did
the development of the accepted wisdom itself,
large-scale resources which can only be supplied
by the research institutions. Without those
resources, the sceptic is only an amateur who can
quite easily be confined to outer darkness."
In the last chapter, Paltridge lists some hidden
agendas.
"There are those who, like president Jacques
Chirac of France, look with favour on the
possibility of an international de-carbonisation
regime because it would be the first step towards
global government. �
�There are those who, like the socialists before
them, see international action as a means to force
a redistribution of wealth both within and between
individual nations. �
�There are those who, like the powerbrokers of the
European Union, look upon such action as a basis
for legitimacy. �
�There are those who, like bureaucrats the world
over, regard the whole business mainly as a path
to the sort of power which, until now, has been
wielded only by the major religions. �
�More generally, there are those who, like the
politically correct everywhere, are driven by a
need for public expression of their own virtue."
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26056202-5013596,00.html
Ouroboros Rex
> Three Decades Of Global Cooling
..does not exist.
T. Keating
<last...@primus.ca> wrote:
>Three Decades Of Global Cooling
>Posted 06:21 PM ET
Snip... Complete and total bullshit from a science neophyte,
illiterate (Leonard78sp, lastpost).
http://geology.com/news/images/global-warming-graph.jpg
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://geology.com/news/images/global-warming-graph.jpg&imgrefurl=http://geology.com/news/2006/01/global-warming-graph-and-map.html&h=294&w=460&sz=93&tbnid=IEoTpuA93NoOCM:&tbnh=82&tbnw=128&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dglobal%2Bwarming%2Btrend&usg=__IGvZwOP9yDFInempBw0d7nOrxuQ=&ei=G4vUSrKXH9HU8Qa3gq3-DA&sa=X&oi=image_result&resnum=4&ct=image&ved=0CBsQ9QEwAw
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/globalwarming/ar4-fig-3-6.gif
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
Do those look like cooling trends... Answer.. NO......
Right now.... the worlds oceans are really heating up..
http://www.physorg.com/news169993833.html
August 20th, 2009
"In hot water: World sets ocean temperature record (Update)"
http://www.waterinfo.org/node/3719
"September 17, 2009--Worlds oceans warmest on record this summer
(Denver Post)"
The warm water build up in Gulf of Mexico has taken several months to
reach the north pole. That extra energy is now slowing down the
reformation of sea ice.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.365.jpg
leona...@gmail.com
> On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 18:35:08 -0700 (PDT), Last Post
>
> >Three Decades Of Global Cooling
> >Posted 06:21 PM ET
>
> Snip... Complete and total bullshit from a science neophyte,
> illiterate (Leonard78sp, lastpost).
>
learn to address the topic instead of wasting
time and space trying to insult intelligent
adults? He seems to think that by snipping
texts he dislikes, they will go away. It only
takes a few seconds to bring them all back.
He makes Ouroboros Rex, and Lloyd Parker
AKA "erschroedinger", seem intelligent.
—— ——
There are three types of people that you
can_not_talk_into_behaving_well. The
stupid, the religious fanatic, and the evil.
1- The stupid aren't smart enough to follow the
logic of what you say. You have to tell them
what is right in very simple terms. If they do
not agree, you will never be able to change
their mind.
2- The religious fanatic: If what you say goes
against their religious belief, they will cling to
that belief even if it means their death.
3- There is no way to reform evil- not in a
million years. There is no way to convince
the anthropogenic global warming alarmists,
the terrorists, serial killers, paedophiles, and
predators to change their evil ways, They
knew what they were doing was wrong, but
knowledge didn't stop them. It only made
them more careful in how they went about
performing their evil deeds.
erschro...@gmail.com
> "Jeffrey Turner" <jtur...@localnet.com> wrote in
> messagenews:a82dnVDMjY45kEnX...@posted.localnet...
>
> > Hey, Last Brain Cell, didn't anyone ever explain
> > the difference between
> > weather and climate to you.
>
> > Meanwhile, all the climate scientists who aren't
> > being paid by the oil
> > companies say man-made global warming is
> > indisputable.
>
> WRONG!
>
> The true climate scientists have been silenced
> ....
Yeah, we scientists are so powerful, we've ginned up this giant
conspiracy, and only a few right-wing loons see through it!
Of course, that's a plausible scenario only in the alternate reality
in which Bonzo, Tunderbar, Green Turtle, James, et al live, not the
reality the rest of us inhabit.
leona...@gmail.com
•• ROTFLMAO
– –
Either way short term or long term the data
doesn't support man made global warming?
short term
http://junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/RSSglobe.html
long term
T. Keating
>On Oct 13, 10:33�am, T. Keating <tkuse...@ktcnslt.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 18:35:08 -0700 (PDT), Last Post
>>
>> <last_p...@primus.ca> wrote:
>> >Three Decades Of Global Cooling
>> >Posted 06:21 PM ET
>>
>> Snip... �Complete and total bullshit from a science neophyte,
>> illiterate (Leonard78sp, lastpost). � �
>>
>�� When is the idiot child (Keating) going to
> learn to address the topic instead of wasting
> time and space trying to insult intelligent
> adults? He seems to think that by snipping
> texts he dislikes, they will go away.
snip...
I see no reason to repeat unsupported, unscientifically reviewed
arguments, claims from denialists and their various fossil fuel funded
cover organizations.
So.. I include a "snip..." to indicate that I've deleted irrelevant
text, if reader chooses they can go back and read the text in parent
post.
Meanwhile.. Fossil fuel nutcases like lenny(leonard, lastpost) offers
NO SUCH COURTESY.. no snip.. no indication of any non-quoted text.
Here is a repost of the Text lenny snipped (edited out) without any
notation to a future reader.
---- reposted text which clearly indicates warming trend over the
last three decades.. ----
http://geology.com/news/images/global-warming-graph.jpg
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://geology.com/news/images/global-warming-graph.jpg&imgrefurl=http://geology.com/news/2006/01/global-warming-graph-and-map.html&h=294&w=460&sz=93&tbnid=IEoTpuA93NoOCM:&tbnh=82&tbnw=128&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dglobal%2Bwarming%2Btrend&usg=__IGvZwOP9yDFInempBw0d7nOrxuQ=&ei=G4vUSrKXH9HU8Qa3gq3-DA&sa=X&oi=image_result&resnum=4&ct=image&ved=0CBsQ9QEwAw
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/globalwarming/ar4-fig-3-6.gif
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
Do those look like cooling trends... Answer.. NO......
Right now.... the worlds oceans are really heating up..
http://www.physorg.com/news169993833.html
August 20th, 2009
"In hot water: World sets ocean temperature record (Update)"
http://www.waterinfo.org/node/3719
"September 17, 2009--Worlds oceans warmest on record this summer
(Denver Post)"
The warm water build up in Gulf of Mexico has taken several months to
reach the north pole. That extra energy is now slowing down the
reformation of sea ice.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.365.jpg
--- end of reposted text ----
Another nail in denialist claims of cooling..
Does this graph (Global Sea Ice Area 1979 to present) look like a
cooling trend???
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
Answer: a big fat ...NO...
Note: Sea ice area is only a 2D measurement, the real bad news is in
the 3D measurements(Ice mass).
John M.
> On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 08:22:49 -0700 (PDT), "leonard7...@gmail.com"
>
> http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/globalwarming/ar4-fig-3-6.gifhttp://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
>
> Do those look like cooling trends... Answer.. NO......
>
> Right now.... the worlds oceans are really heating up..
>
> http://www.physorg.com/news169993833.html
> August 20th, 2009
> "In hot water: World sets ocean temperature record (Update)"
>
> http://www.waterinfo.org/node/3719
> "September 17, 2009--Worlds oceans warmest on record this summer
> (Denver Post)"
>
> The warm water build up in Gulf of Mexico has taken several months to
> reach the north pole. That extra energy is now slowing down the
> reformation of sea ice.
>
> http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.365.jpg
>
> --- end of reposted text ----
>
> Another nail in denialist claims of cooling..
>
> Does this graph (Global Sea Ice Area 1979 to present) look like a
> cooling trend???
>
>
> Answer: a big fat ...NO...
>
> Note: Sea ice area is only a 2D measurement, the real bad news is in
> the 3D measurements(Ice mass).
Just as telling is :
http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/ice-area-and-extent-in-arctic
which hints that the current (October) rate of freezing is slower than
the corresponding date in preceding years.
Werner
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Jeffrey Turner" <jtur...@localnet.com> wrote in
> > messagenews:a82dnVDMjY45kEnX...@posted.localnet...
>
> > > Hey, Last Brain Cell, didn't anyone ever explain
> > > the difference between
> > > weather and climate to you.
>
> > > Meanwhile, all the climate scientists who aren't
> > > being paid by the oil
> > > companies say man-made global warming is
> > > indisputable.
>
> > WRONG!
>
> > The true climate scientists have been silenced
> > ....
>
> Yeah, we scientists are so powerful, we've ginned up this giant
> conspiracy, and only a few right-wing loons see through it!
>
Isn't it time left wing loons recognize that the search for revenue
affects everyone? Psychiatric hospitals sprang up because
psychiatrists wanted them and the treasuries supported them - until
reality led to 'deinstitutionalization'. Welfare programs sprang up
because social workers wanted them and the treasury supported them -
until reality led to TANF. The same with Special Education - until
reality led to 'inclusion'.
> Of course, that's a plausible scenario only in the alternate reality
> in which Bonzo, Tunderbar, Green Turtle, James, et al live, not the
> reality the rest of us inhabit.
speaking of alternate reality:
There was the Club Of Rome prediction of the early '70s that by this
time we would all be breathing sulfuric acid. Then we don't want to
forget the Global Cooling scare.
There was the Love Canal catastrophe which led to the creations of
still another federal agency.
http://capitaldistrict-lp.org/Environment.shtml
http://capitaldistrict-lp.org/CleanEnvironmentMoney.shtml
http://capitaldistrict-lp.org/PorkNotFish.shtml
Some day enough people will understand that governing is largely about
money - getting it from some and giving it to others.
http://www.capitaldistrict-lp.org/what.shtml
http://www.globalclimatescam.com/
Leonard
On 10/13/09 7:20 PM, in article
2744b843-ad15-4bc6...@j39g2000yqh.googlegroups.com, "John M."
<john_howa...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> On 13 Oct, 17:04, T. Keating <tkuse...@ktcnslt.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 08:22:49 -0700 (PDT), "leonard7...@gmail.com"
>>
>>
>>
>> <leonard7...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Oct 13, 10:33�am, T. Keating <tkuse...@ktcnslt.com> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 18:35:08 -0700 (PDT), Last Post
>>
>>>> <last_p...@primus.ca> wrote:
>>>>> Three Decades Of Global Cooling
>>>>> Posted 06:21 PM ET
>>
>>>> Snip... �Complete and total bullshit from a science neophyte,
>>>> illiterate (Leonard78sp, lastpost). � �
>>
>>> �� When is the idiot child (Keating) going to
>>> � �learn to address the topic instead of wasting
>>> � �time and space trying to insult intelligent
>>> � �adults? He seems to think that by snipping
>>> � �texts he dislikes, they will go away.
>>
>> snip...
�� There he did it again!! <GG>
> >I see no reason to repeat unsupported, unscientifically reviewed
>> arguments, claims from denialists and their various fossil fuel funded
>> cover organizations.
�� But none of the IPCC articles were peer reviewed
Nature, science et al have not been properly peer
reviewing. Vide: Mann & Briffa got away without
displaying their data until they published in the
UK Royal Society which has a statuatory
requirement for publishing data. McIntyre got a
court order and the foeces hit the portable cooling
device.
Can you provide some others that have been
properly reviewed? I doubt it.
>> So.. I include a "snip..." to indicate that I've deleted irrelevant
>> text, if reader chooses they can go back and read the text in parent
>> post.
�� That is very nice of you, but the usenet protocols
require all material not referenced be snipped.
They stopped enforcing it when bandwidths
expanded.
�� What you call irrelevant is anything that does
not fit with your silly mindview.
>> Meanwhile.. Fossil fuel nutcases like lenny(leonard, lastpost) offers
>> NO SUCH COURTESY.. �no snip.. no indication of any non-quoted text.
>>
>> Here is a repost of the Text lenny snipped (edited out) without any
>> notation to a future reader.
>>
�� Gee wizz bob, How can you live without me
reprinting your stupidities?
My sig below is especially for you.
�����
Leonard
On 10/13/09 1:18 AM, in article
a82dnVDMjY45kEnX...@posted.localnet, "Jeffrey Turner"
<jtu...@localnet.com> wrote:
> Hey, Last Brain Cell, didn't anyone ever explain the difference between
> weather and climate to you.
The more the fool you, Jeffy
Leonard
On 10/13/09 10:33 AM, in article 4q29d5tpbrft3erj7...@4ax.com,
"T. Keating" <tkus...@ktcnslt.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 18:35:08 -0700 (PDT), Last Post
> <last...@primus.ca> wrote:
>
>
> Do those look like cooling trends... Answer.. NO......
> Right now.... the worlds oceans are really heating up..
�� I have posted all of this information numerous
times over the past several years but you prefer
to remain ignorant
>
> http://www.physorg.com/news169993833.html
> August 20th, 2009
> "In hot water: World sets ocean temperature record (Update)"
�� So what does it mean to you??
> http://www.waterinfo.org/node/3719
> "September 17, 2009--Worlds oceans warmest on record this summer
�� Again what does that mean to you?
>
>
> The warm water build up in Gulf of Mexico has taken several months to
> reach the north pole. That extra energy is now slowing down the
> reformation of sea ice.
�� the Gulf stream never reaches the North Pole
(either one) since both are on land; and when
the Gulfsteam meets the Atlantic Current off
Newfoundland they become the Atlantic drift
which provides moderating climates for UK
and Western Europe
When that warm air coming north from the tropics
meets the frigid air coming south from the pole, it
creates violence. And the hotter the air from the south
and the colder the air from the north, the more violent
the collision will be. Tornadoes, violent storms, and
blizzards are some of the results.
This process feeds on itself. As the amount of
atmospheric moisture increases more precipitation is
sent poleward, resulting in more snowfall to build
heavier and heavier polar ice packs which fail to
decrease in summertime because the cloud cover
created by the moisture-laden air transported from the
tropics prevents any thawing.
As the ice packs grow deeper and heavier, more
magma is squeezed out and sent toward the equators,
creating more volcanic activity, which spews more
and more volcanic ash into the upper atmosphere,
along with enormous quantities of greenhouse gasses.
This results in greater and greater amounts of
moisture-laden clouds being sent poleward. And so on.
As the glaciation process continues, winters will get
longer and longer; that's colder air reaches farther and
farther toward the equator. Summers will get shorter
and shorter, and growing seasons will slowly vanish.
Areas previously blessed with temperate climates are
transformed into subarctic regions, and the subtropics
turn colder and colder.
Leonard
>>> "Jeffrey Turner" <jtur...@localnet.com> wrote in
>>> messagenews:a82dnVDMjY45kEnX...@posted.localnet...
>>
>>>> Hey, Last Brain Cell, didn't anyone ever explain
>>>> the difference between
>>>> weather and climate to you.
�� Yes Jeffy:- Weather is the product of Climate.
I think that is beyond you.
BDR529
bon/o wrote:
> "Last Post" <last...@primus.ca> wrote in message
> news:e9e0039b-9116-4c63...@o41g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> Three Decades Of Global Cooling
> Posted 06:21 PM ET
> As a Colorado Rockies playoff game is snowed out,
> scientists report that Arctic sea ice is
> thickening and
> Antarctic snow melt is the lowest in three
> decades.
> Whatever happened to global warming?
>
> Al Gore wasn't there to throw out the first
> snowball,
> er, baseball, so he might not have noticed that
> Saturday's playoff game between the Colorado
> Rockies and the Philadelphia Phillies was snowed
> out � in early October. The field should have been
> snow-free just as the North Pole was to be
> ice-free
> this year.
>
> It seems that ice at both poles hasn't been paying
> attention to the computer models. The National
> Snow and Ice Data Center released its summary
> of summer sea-ice conditions in the Arctic last
> week and reported a substantial expansion of
> "second-year ice" � ice thick enough to have
> � �
Leonard
On 10/24/09 3:34 AM, in article 4ae2adea$0$83244$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl,
"BDR529" <jake> wrote:
> A lie, there is no three decades of cooling.
** Jackass Jake, the idiot top poster, hastens to
flame an 100+ line article which he failed to
disprove. Of course, while we think that more
than a few lines are beyond his ken, I suspect
he did not read beyond the authors.
> bon/o wrote:
>> "Last Post" <last...@primus.ca> wrote in message
>> news:e9e0039b-9116-4c63...@o41g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>> Three Decades Of Global Cooling
>> Posted 06:21 PM ET
>> As a Colorado Rockies playoff game is snowed out,
>> scientists report that Arctic sea ice is
>> thickening and
>> Antarctic snow melt is the lowest in three
>> decades.
>> Whatever happened to global warming?
>>
>> Al Gore wasn't there to throw out the first
>> snowball,
>> er, baseball, so he might not have noticed that
>> Saturday's playoff game between the Colorado
>> Rockies and the Philadelphia Phillies was snowed
>> out � in early October. The field should have been
>> snow-free just as the North Pole was to be
>> ice-free
>> this year.
>>
>> It seems that ice at both poles hasn't been paying
>> attention to the computer models. The National
>> Snow and Ice Data Center released its summary
>> of summer sea-ice conditions in the Arctic last
>> week and reported a substantial expansion of
>> "second-year ice" � ice thick enough to have
> ROTFLMAO
> Excellent post
> I liked this bit ...
>
> "Will any of this be brought up at the climate
> conference in Copenhagen this December?
> Not unless hell freezes over. Then again ..."
� �
BDR529
>
>
> On 10/24/09 3:34 AM, in article 4ae2adea$0$83244$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl,
> "BDR529" <jake> wrote:
>
>> A lie, there is no three decades of cooling.
>
> ** Jackass Jake, the idiot top poster, hastens to
> flame an 100+ line article which he failed to
> disprove. Of course, while we think that more
> than a few lines are beyond his ken, I suspect
> he did not read beyond the authors.
Lying lennies flying circus is still in town?
Q
>
>> bon/o wrote:
>>> "Last Post" <last...@primus.ca> wrote in message
>>> news:e9e0039b-9116-4c63...@o41g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>
>>> Three Decades Of Global Cooling
>>> Posted 06:21 PM ET
>
>>> As a Colorado Rockies playoff game is snowed out,
>>> scientists report that Arctic sea ice is
>>> thickening and
>>> Antarctic snow melt is the lowest in three
>>> decades.
>>> Whatever happened to global warming?
>>>
>>> Al Gore wasn't there to throw out the first
>>> snowball,
>>> er, baseball, so he might not have noticed that
>>> Saturday's playoff game between the Colorado
>>> Rockies and the Philadelphia Phillies was snowed
>>> out � in early October. The field should have been
>>> snow-free just as the North Pole was to be
>>> ice-free
>>> this year.
>>>
>>> It seems that ice at both poles hasn't been paying
>>> attention to the computer models. The National
>>> Snow and Ice Data Center released its summary
>>> of summer sea-ice conditions in the Arctic last
>>> week and reported a substantial expansion of
>>> "second-year ice" � ice thick enough to have
> � �