Login    Forum    Search    FAQ

Board index » Racing Forum » Ken0069's Blog




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 417 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 28  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: More Warming News!
 Post Posted: Mon May 30, 2011 7:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 4:12 pm
Posts: 1215
Location: Adelaide Australia
How does this fit into Al's scheme
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/milankovitch.html

Quote:
The tilt of the earth relative to its plane of travel about the sun is what causes seasons. The hemisphere "pointing toward" the sun is in summer, while the opposite hemisphere is in winter. The earth makes one full orbit around the sun each year. The northern hemisphere is in summer in the left image, while 6 months later, the southern hemisphere has summer, as in the center image. If the earth's axis were "straight up and down" relative to the orbital plane, as in the right-hand image, there would be no seasons, since any given point at the top of the atmosphere would receive the same amount of sun each day of the year.

Changes in the "tilt" of the earth can change the severity of the seasons - more "tilt" means more severe seasons - warmer summers and colder winters; less "tilt" means less severe seasons - cooler summers and milder winters. The earth wobbles in space so that its tilt changes between about 22 and 25 degrees on a cycle of about 41,000 years. It is the cool summers which are thought to allow snow and ice to last from year to year in high latitudes, eventually building up into massive ice sheets. There are positive feedbacks in the climate system as well, because an earth covered with more snow reflects more of the sun's energy into space, causing additional cooling. In addition, it appears that the amount of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere falls as ice sheets grow, also adding to the cooling of the climate.

The earth's orbit around the sun is not quite circular, which means that the earth is slightly closer to the sun at some times of the year than others. The closest approach of the earth to the sun is called perihelion, and it now occurs in January, making northern hemisphere winters slightly milder. This change in timing of perihelion is known as the precession of the equinoxes, and occurs on a period of 22,000 years. 11,000 years ago, perihelion occurred in July, making the seasons more severe than today. The "roundness", or eccentricity, of the earth's orbit varies on cycles of 100,000 and 400,000 years, and this affects how important the timing of perihelion is to the strength of the seasons. The combination of the 41,000 year tilt cycle and the 22,000 year precession cycles, plus the smaller eccentricity signal, affect the relative severity of summer and winter, and are thought to control the growth and retreat of ice sheets. Cool summers in the northern hemisphere, where most of the earth's land mass is located, appear to allow snow and ice to persist to the next winter, allowing the development of large ice sheets over hundreds to thousands of years. Conversely, warmer summers shrink ice sheets by melting more ice than the amount accumulating during the winter.
What is The Milankovitch Theory? The Milankovitch or astronomical theory of climate change is an explanation for changes in the seasons which result from changes in the earth's orbit around the sun. The theory is named for Serbian astronomer Milutin Milankovitch, who calculated the slow changes in the earth's orbit by careful measurements of the position of the stars, and through equations using the gravitational pull of other planets and stars. He determined that the earth "wobbles" in its orbit. The earth's "tilt" is what causes seasons, and changes in the tilt of the earth change the strength of the seasons. The seasons can also be accentuated or modified by the eccentricity (degree of roundness) of the orbital path around the sun, and the precession effect, the position of the solstices in the annual orbit.

What does The Milankovitch Theory say about future climate change?
Orbital changes occur over thousands of years, and the climate system may also take thousands of years to respond to orbital forcing. Theory suggests that the primary driver of ice ages is the total summer radiation received in northern latitude zones where major ice sheets have formed in the past, near 65 degrees north. Past ice ages correlate well to 65N summer insolation (Imbrie 1982). Astronomical calculations show that 65N summer insolation should increase gradually over the next 25,000 years, and that no 65N summer insolation declines sufficient to cause an ice age are expected in the next 50,000 - 100,000 years ( Hollan 2000, Berger 2002).

References:
Milankovitch, M. 1920. Theorie Mathematique des Phenomenes Thermiques produits par la Radiation Solaire. Gauthier-Villars Paris.

Milankovitch, M. 1930. Mathematische Klimalehre und Astronomische Theorie der Klimaschwankungen, Handbuch der Klimalogie Band 1 Teil A Borntrager Berlin.

Milankovitch, M. 1941 Kanon der Erdbestrahlungen und seine Anwendung auf das Eiszeitenproblem Belgrade.
(New English Translation, 1998, Canon of Insolation and the Ice Age Problem. With introduction and biographical essay by Nikola Pantic. 636 pp. $79.00 Hardbound. Alven Global. ISBN 86-17-06619-9.)

Recent Calculations of Earth Orbital Parameters and Insolation by A. Berger are archived at the WDC Paleo.

For more detailed explanations of orbital variations with graphic representations, please see WDC Paleo's educational slide set "The Ice Ages".

See also the "Past Cycles: Ice Age Speculations" section of "The Discovery of Global Warming" from the American Institute of Physics for a history of the development of the astronomical theory of climate change.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: More Warming News!
 Post Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2011 9:14 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 6:38 am
Posts: 11804
Location: Coming At Ya!
Well, here's yet another example of "cooking the books" but this time it isn't East Anglia. Now it's The University of Colorado’s Sea Level Research Group! Same type deal though as they're adding to measurements in order to make it look worse than it really is then using some half assed excuse to justify it.

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/06/ ... evel-data/

Quote:
Is climate change raising sea levels, as Al Gore has argued -- or are climate scientists doctoring the data?

The University of Colorado’s Sea Level Research Group decided in May to add 0.3 millimeters -- or about the thickness of a fingernail -- every year to its actual measurements of sea levels, sparking criticism from experts who called it an attempt to exaggerate the effects of global warming.

"Gatekeepers of our sea level data are manufacturing a fictitious sea level rise that is not occurring," said James M. Taylor, a lawyer who focuses on environmental issues for the Heartland Institute.

Steve Nerem, the director of the widely relied-upon research center, told FoxNews.com that his group added the 0.3 millimeters per year to the actual sea level measurements because land masses, still rebounding from the ice age, are rising and increasing the amount of water that oceans can hold.

"We have to account for the fact that the ocean basins are actually getting slightly bigger... water volume is expanding," he said, a phenomenon they call glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA).

Taylor calls it tomfoolery.

"There really is no reason to do this other than to advance a political agenda," he said.

Climate scientist John Christy, a professor at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, said that the amount of water in the ocean and sea level were two different things.

"To me… sea level rise is what's measured against the actual coast," he told FoxNews.com. "That's what tells us the impact of rising oceans."

Taylor agreed.

"Many global warming alarmists say that vast stretches of coastline are going to be swallowed up by the sea. Well, that means we should be talking about sea level, not about global water volume."

In e-mails with FoxNews.com, Nerem indicated that he considered "sea level rise" to be the same thing as the amount of water in the ocean.

"If we correct our data to remove [the effect of rising land], it actually does cause the rate of sea level (a.k.a. ocean water volume change) rise to be bigger," Nerem wrote. The adjustment is trivial, and not worth public attention, he added.

"For the layperson, this correction is a non-issue and certainly not newsworthy… [The] effect is tiny -- only 1 inch over 100 years, whereas we expect sea level to rise 2-4 feet."

But Taylor said that the correction seemed bigger when compared with actual sea level increases.

"We’ve seen only 7 inches of sea level rise in the past century and it hasn’t sped up this century. Compared to that, this would add nearly 20 percent to the sea level rise. That's not insignificant," he told FoxNews.com.

Nerem said that the research center is considering compromising on the adjustment.

"We are considering putting both data sets on our website -- a GIA-corrected dataset, as well as one without the GIA correction," he said.

Christy said that would be a welcome change.

"I would encourage CU to put the sea level rate [with] no adjustment at the top of the website," he said.

Taylor’s takeaway: Be wary of sea level rise estimates.

"When Al Gore talks about Manhattan flooding this century, and 20 feet of sea level rise, that’s simply not going to happen. If it were going to happen, he wouldn’t have bought his multi-million dollar mansion along the coast in California."


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post Posted: Thu Jul 21, 2011 9:16 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 6:38 am
Posts: 11804
Location: Coming At Ya!
I guess this article puts that in perspective, ie, they "say" that they are neutral but actions speak louder than words.

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/260 ... e-sceptics

Quote:
THE BBC was criticised by climate change sceptics yesterday after it emerged that their views will get less coverage because they differ from mainline scientific opinion.

In a report by its governing body, the BBC Trust, the corporation was urged to focus less on opponents of the “majority consensus” in its programmes.

It said coverage should not be tailored to represent a “false balance” of opinion if one side came from a minority group.

The report was partly based on an independent review of coverage by Steve Jones, Professor of Genetics at University College, London.

Although he found no evidence of bias in BBC output, he suggested where there is a “scientific consensus” it should not hunt out opponents purely to balance the story.

He highlighted climate change as an example along with the controversy over the Measles, Mumps and Rubella vaccine potentially leading to autism.

On climate change, Professor Jones said there had been a “drizzle of criticism of BBC coverage” arising from “a handful of journalists who have taken it upon themselves to keep disbelief alive”.

he report says: “In its early days, two decades ago, there was a genuine scientific debate about the reality of climate change. Now, there is general agreement that warming is a fact even if there remain uncertainties about how fast, and how much, the temperature might rise.”

But critics accused Professor Jones of using the report as a cover to “push the BBC’s green agenda”.

Among them are former Tory Chancellor Lord Lawson, who was accused by the Government’s chief scientific adviser, Sir John Beddington, of making “incorrect” claims in An Appeal To Reason, the peer’s book on climate change.

Lord Lawson, chairman of the sceptical Global Warming Policy Foundation, said the fact that carbon dioxide levels were rising leading to global warming was not under dispute. However, he added, its extent and effect could not be explained by majority scientific opinion alone.

He said: “The BBC is already extremely one-sided on this issue. They have a settled view which is politically correct.

“The idea that because scientific opinion falls largely on one side you can’t have a debate is outrageous. Because there’s a strong majority in basic science doesn’t mean the issue is off the table, yet the BBC says it should be.”

The foundation’s director, Dr Benny Peiser, said the report would lead to biased coverage of climate change and stifle any real debate.

He said: “This is nothing the BBC has not been doing for the past 10 years, however. They are completely biased on the issue of climate change and this is nothing more than an effort to push their green agenda.”

Dr David Whitehouse, the foundation’s editor and a former BBC science correspondent, said the corporation had “lost the plot” when it came to science journalism.

He said the corporation was “grouping sceptics with deniers” which would result in a lack of valid scientific input to its reports.

He said: “A sceptic is not a denier, all good scientists should be sceptics. The BBC has got itself into a complete muddle.

“In seeking to get the science right it has missed the journalism which is about asking awkward questions and shaking the tree.”

But the BBC Trust defended the report. A spokesman said: “The report is not suggesting that climate change sceptics will not have a place on the BBC in future.

“The point Professor Jones makes is that the scientific consensus is that it is caused by human activity. Therefore the BBC’s coverage needs to give less weight to those who oppose this view, and reflect the fact that the debate has moved on to how to deal with climate change.”


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: More Warming News!
 Post Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2011 6:44 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 6:38 am
Posts: 11804
Location: Coming At Ya!
Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Resigns Over Global Warming

Published September 14, 2011 | FoxNews.com

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/09/ ... latestnews

Quote:
The global warming theory left him out in the cold.

Dr. Ivar Giaever, a former professor with Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and the 1973 winner of the Nobel Prize in physics, abruptly announced his resignation Tuesday, Sept. 13, from the premier physics society in disgust over its officially stated policy that "global warming is occurring."

The official position of the American Physical Society (APS) supports the theory that man's actions have inexorably led to the warming of the planet, through increased emissions of carbon dioxide.

Giaever does not agree -- and put it bluntly and succinctly in the subject line of his email, reprinted at Climate Depot, a website devoted to debunking the theory of man-made climate change.

"I resign from APS," Giaever wrote.

Giaever was cooled to the statement on warming theory by a line claiming that "the evidence is incontrovertible."

"In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?" he wrote in an email to Kate Kirby, executive officer of the physics society.

"The claim … is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this 'warming' period," his email message said.

A spokesman for the APS confirmed to FoxNews.com that the Nobel Laureate had declined to pay his annual dues in the society and had resigned. He also noted that the society had no plans to revise its statement.

The use of the word "incontrovertible" had already caused debate within the group, so much so that an addendum was added to the statement discussing its use in April, 2010.

"The word 'incontrovertible' ... is rarely used in science because by its very nature, science questions prevailing ideas. The observational data indicate a global surface warming of 0.74 °C (+/- 0.18 °C) since the late 19th century."

Giaever earned his Nobel for his experimental discoveries regarding tunneling phenomena in superconductors. He has since become a vocal dissenter from the alleged “consensus” regarding man-made climate fears, Climate Depot reported, noting that he was one of more than 100 co-signers of a 2009 letter to President Obama critical of his position on climate change.

Public perception of climate change has steadily fallen since late 2009. A Rasmussen Reports public opinion poll from August noted that 57 percent of adults believe there is significant disagreement within the scientific community on global warming, up five points from late 2009.

The same study showed that 69 percent of those polled believe it’s at least somewhat likely that some scientists have falsified research data in order to support their own theories and beliefs. Just 6 percent felt confident enough to report that such falsification was "not at all likely."


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: More Warming News!
 Post Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2011 8:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 4:12 pm
Posts: 1215
Location: Adelaide Australia
Nothing in science is incontrovertible. If Einstein didn't question the previous 300 years of opinion or wasn't allowed to question it, where would we be? Modern media especially the Internet, has the ability to expose far more people to information and it should be used for that context to allow interested parties to participate. You never know who will be the next person to figure something out. It doesn't always come from the conventional system of universities etc. People do things in garages all the time. It only takes one voice to start a chain reaction.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: More Warming News!
 Post Posted: Sun Sep 18, 2011 8:49 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 6:38 am
Posts: 11804
Location: Coming At Ya!
This is one of the first ones that came out after the East Anglia University Email dump. Never seen this before (I don't think) so I thought it would be worth posting.

http://thedailystar.com/columns/x546381 ... -is-a-hoax

Quote:
December 8, 2009
On The Right Side: Global warming is a hoax

Finally, the truth is beginning to be uncovered regarding man-made global warming "research." Sixty-one megabytes of confidential files from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit were released onto the Internet that exposed the lack of integrity and professionalism and the petty vindictiveness of the climate "scientists" who have been promoting the warming hoax for many years.

The scary part is that the information from this "research institution" has been relied on heavily for climate model-building and has been cited extensively in governmental and United Nations reports, which in turn have been used to establish harmful government policy.

Included in this material were more than 1,000 e-mails and 72 documents that are very damaging to the global-warming cabal. Here are quotes from a few them:

"I can't see either of these papers (anti-global warming research findings) being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow, even if we have to redefine what peer-review literature is!"

"Can you delete any e-mails you may have had with Keith re AR4?"

"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty we can't."

"I'm getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CPU temperature station data. Don't any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act!"

Here's the best one: "I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e. from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."

I have to quote one of the most disgusting ones. It actually gloats over the death of John Daly, who was one of the original climate-change doubters and founder of the "Still Waiting For Greenhouse" website. The creator of the e-mail commented: "In an odd way this is cheering news." It really doesn't get worse than that.

The need to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions has been a solution in search of a problem for many, many years. Remember, this is the same crowd that said this was supposed to be the answer to global cooling in the 1970s and '80s. Can anyone tell me why these pretenders should be given any credibility this time?

This should give everyone some insight to the predictive accuracy of the "science" being done by these "specialists." They are simply opportunists who, to receive money from the grant-funding gravy train, will say anything their sponsors want them to say.

Even the global-warming alarmists are taken aback by these recent revelations. George Monbiot of the Guardian concedes that these releases "could scarcely be more damaging," and then went on to say, "I am dismayed and deeply shaken by them."

But there are some who willingly ignore these revelations. Thomas Crowly, professor of geosciences at the University of Edinburgh, said, "These leaked files reflect badly on the people who are so desperate to discredit global warming." I wonder how much grant money he has taken to remain blind to debate.

I think most commonsense people should give more weight to what a more prestigious mind, Robert Lindzen, a professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, had to say in an article he wrote for the Wall Street Journal on Nov. 30. He claims, and backs it up, that the science of climate change is far from settled and the over-confident "predictions of catastrophe are unwarranted."

What has been uncovered is unfathomable. As Aynsley Kellow, professor and expert reviewer for a United Nations global warming report puts it, "There is evidence of a willingness to manipulate raw data to suit predetermined results, a resistance to any notion of transparency, an active resistance to freedom of information requests (critical original data input that were willfully destroyed after such requests were made) or quite reasonable requests from scientists to have a look at the data so that it can be verified."

"Fraud and collusion" is a better way to describe these actions.

I want to see what will happen next. Hopefully, this scandal effectively kills the absurd "cap and trade" bill coming before the Senate. Also, I hope this show in Copenhagen proves to be the farce it really is.

The question is whether or not the mainstream media has the integrity to report this news. So far that doesn't seem to be the case.

If all these research efforts do turn out to be bogus, will honest men of science speak out against the lowliest of "scientists" who have cheated to produce a predetermined result?

And lastly, why don't all you climate "experts" work on a model that will accurately predict next week's weather? You can't even do this successfully yet.



Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: More Warming News!
 Post Posted: Tue Sep 20, 2011 7:41 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 6:38 am
Posts: 11804
Location: Coming At Ya!
World Atlas ice loss claim exaggerated: scientists

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/ ... UG20110919

Quote:
(Reuters) - The Times Atlas of the World exaggerated the rate of Greenland's ice loss in its thirteenth edition last week, scientists said on Monday.

The atlas, published by HarperCollins, showed that Greenland lost 15 percent of its ice cover over the past 12 years, based on information from the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Colorado in the United States.

The Greenland ice sheet is the second biggest in the world and significant shrinking could lead to a global rise in sea levels.

"While global warming has played a role in this reduction, it is also as a result of the much more accurate data and in-depth research that is now available," HarperCollins said on its website on Monday.

However, a number of scientists disputed the claim.

"We believe that the figure of a 15 percent decrease in permanent ice cover since the publication of the previous atlas 12 years (ago) is both incorrect and misleading," said Poul Christoffersen, glaciologist at the Scott Polar Research Institute (SPRI) at the University of Cambridge.

"We concluded that a sizable portion of the area mapped as ice-free in the Atlas is clearly still ice-covered."

Other scientists agreed.

"These new maps are ridiculously off base, way exaggerated relative to the reality of rapid change in Greenland," said Jeffrey S. Kargel, senior research scientist at the University of Arizona.

The Times Atlas suggested the Greenland ice sheet has lost 300,000 square kilometers in the past 12 years, at a rate of 1.5 percent per year.

However, measurements suggest this rate is at least 10 times faster than in reality, added J. Graham Cogley, Professor of Geography at Trent University, Ontario, Canada.

"It could easily be 20 times too fast and might well be 50 times too fast," he added.

Last year, a U.N. committee of climate scientists came under fire for bungling a forecast of when Himalayan glaciers would thaw.

The panel's 2007 report, the main guide for governments in fighting climate change, included an incorrect projection that all Himalayan glaciers could vanish by 2035, hundreds of years earlier than scientists' projections.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: More Warming News!
 Post Posted: Sun Oct 30, 2011 3:30 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 6:38 am
Posts: 11804
Location: Coming At Ya!
Update: Amarillo receives record breaking snow for Oct. 27

http://amarillo.com/news/local-news/201 ... ow-oct-27#

By BRITTANY NUNN

Quote:
Amarillloans woke to about 2.5 inches of snow on the ground at about 7 a.m. this morning, which is more snow than usual for the month of October.

Meteorologists at the National Weather Service said they are still seeing light snow, but it is likely to die down by 3 p.m.

Meteorologist Sarah Johnson said a cold front swept through the region Tuesday, cooling down the atmosphere. The front end of a low-pressure system then brought precipitation, which started out as rain and turned to snow in some areas, she said.

According to the weather service’s preliminary snow totals, some parts of Amarillo have received almost five inches of snow. Johnson said Amarillo has received the most snow in the region.

Wildorado, Panhandle and Vega also have preliminary snow totals above two inches, she said.

Johnson said it is uncommon but not unheard of for Amarillo to receive snow in October. The average amount of snow received in October sits at at about .3 inches.

She said today's amount breaks the record for amount of snow received on Oct. 27., which was previously set at 2.4 in 1911.

Temperatures are still hovering around freezing, and the National Weather Service is predicting a high of about 40 degrees in Amarillo.

Johnson said there is only a slight chance of precipitation this afternoon and only in the far southern Texas panhandle.

Tonight the temperatures will once again be dipping below freezing, so any water on the road can be expected to re-freeze, she said.

"For the most part, it looks like Amarillo has been the big winner so far," Johnson said.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: More Warming News!
 Post Posted: Sun Oct 30, 2011 3:34 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 6:38 am
Posts: 11804
Location: Coming At Ya!
New York City Shatters October Snow Record

http://www.accuweather.com/blogs/news/s ... e-nort.asp

By Kristina Pydynowski, Senior Meteorologis

Quote:
An early season snowstorm created a winter wonderland across the Northeast. New York City shattered an October snow record with highest snow totals elsewhere across the Northeast topping 2 feet.

An unprecedented (for October) 2.9 inches of snow was measured in New York City's Central Park on Saturday.

Since snowfall records began in 1869, Central Park has never received an inch of snow on any given October day.

The last time that Central Park recorded measurable snow was on Oct. 21, 1952 when 0.5 of an inch fell. Prior to that, 0.8 of an inch fell on Oct. 30, 1925.

La Guardia and JFK International airports both set October snow records as well with 1.7 and 1.5 inches, respectively.

Other October Snow Records Smashed

Hartford, Conn., was buried by 12.3 inches of snow, shattering the record for the most snow ever received on an October day. The previous record was 1.7 inches set on Oct. 10, 1979.

An all-time snowfall record for any day in October was set in Worcester, Mass., with 11.4 inches of snow. The old record was 7.5 inches set on Oct. 10, 1979.

Newark, N.J., set a daily snow record with 5.2 inches of snow on Saturday. This will also go down in the record book as the greatest snow on any given day during the month of October. Previously, Newark had not received an inch of snow in October.

Daily Snowfall Records Set

Concord, N.H., was blanketed by 13.6 inches of snow, breaking the old daily record of 0.2 of an inch set back in 1952.

Albany, N.Y., set a daily snow record with 3.8 inches of snow. The previous record was 0.4 of an inch set back in 2000.

Another daily snow record was set in Pittsburgh, Pa., on Saturday when 1.6 inches fell. The previous record was 0.6 of an inch from 2008.

Philadelphia got 0.3 of an inch of snow, breaking the old record of a trace for the date set way back in 1902. Likewise, Wilmington, Del., had 0.3 of an inch, surpassing the trace the city got in 2002.

The nation's capital got a dusting of snow that set a new record. The 0.6 of an inch that fell on Saturday was unprecedented. Previously, Washington, D.C., had never received snow on Oct. 29.

Below is a collection of other snow totals across the Northeast, as of 3:00 p.m. EDT Sunday.

Connecticut

--Bristol: 17.0 inches

--East Farmington Heights: 13.0 inches

--Manchester: 9.0 inches

New Hampshire

--Hillsboro: 21.5 inches

--Peterborough: 24.0 inches

--Jaffrey: 31.4 inches

Maine

--Bridgton: 17.5 inches

--Gray: 12.9 inches

--Otisfield: 14.0 inches

Massachusetts

--Plainfield: 30.8 inches

--Ashfield: 25.5 inches

--Worthington: 24.0 inches

--Goshen: 25.0 inches

New York

--Harriman: 16.0 inches

--Armonk: 12.5 inches

--Yankee Lake: 16.5 inches

--White Plains: 7.5 inches

--Yonkers: 7.0 inches

Pennsylvania

--Laurel Summit: 12.2 inches

--Freeland: 13.0 inches

--Mount Cobb: 12.7 inches

--Hazeleton: 16.0 inches

New Jersey

--West Milford: 19.0 inches

--North Caldwell: 12.0 inches

--Ringwood: 10.5 inches


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: More Warming News!
 Post Posted: Sun Oct 30, 2011 3:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 9:24 pm
Posts: 5071
Location: Elizabethtown, KY
This guy on the weather channel tried to pull that STUFF saying if noone else was going to say it he was this is in direct relation to climate change/ global warming. Looking at this line from what you posted Ken

Quote:
The last time that Central Park recorded measurable snow was on Oct. 21, 1952 when 0.5 of an inch fell. Prior to that, 0.8 of an inch fell on Oct. 30, 1925.


They must of had global warming and climate change back then also. ;-)

_________________
Steve

6.7772 @ 101.51 1/8th 10.747 @ 122.24 1/4

Image


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: More Warming News!
 Post Posted: Sun Oct 30, 2011 4:25 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 6:38 am
Posts: 11804
Location: Coming At Ya!
And how about those Occupy Wall Street idiots pissing and moaning begging for blankets, boots and other foul weather gear so they can sit there and look like the dumb asses they really are? Priceless! Hey crap for brains, go get a damn job and you can buy the stuff you need to support your miserable dumb ass! Geez! AND THIS IS WHAT "HIGHER LEARNING" TURNS OUT TODAY?


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: More Warming News!
 Post Posted: Sun Oct 30, 2011 5:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 9:24 pm
Posts: 5071
Location: Elizabethtown, KY
\:D/ \:D/ \:D/ \:D/

_________________
Steve

6.7772 @ 101.51 1/8th 10.747 @ 122.24 1/4

Image


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: More Warming News!
 Post Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2011 7:42 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 6:38 am
Posts: 11804
Location: Coming At Ya!
Time for Another Climate Science Scandal

Guy Benson
Political Editor, Townhall.com
10/31/2011

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/ ... ce_scandal

I particularly liked this paragraph:

Quote:
The clear message: In case any of you yahoos still harbor any doubts about the undeniable truth of catastrophic, anthropogenic global warming -- especially after that whole "hide the decline" Climategate debacle -- it's (once again) time to fall in line. The science is (once again) settled. But wait...

...Today The Mail can reveal that a leading member of Prof Muller’s team has accused him of trying to mislead the public by hiding the fact that BEST’s research shows global warming has stopped. Prof Judith Curry, who chairs the Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at America’s prestigious Georgia Institute of Technology, said that Prof Muller’s claim that he has proven global warming sceptics wrong was also a ‘huge mistake,’ with no scientific basis. Prof Curry is a distinguished climate researcher with more than 30 years experience and the second named co-author of the BEST project’s four research papers. Her comments, in an exclusive interview with The Mail on Sunday, seem certain to ignite a furious academic row. She said this affair had to be compared to the notorious ‘Climategate’ scandal two years ago.

Like the scientists exposed then by leaked emails from East Anglia University’s Climatic Research Unit, her colleagues from the BEST project seem to be trying to ‘hide the decline’ in rates of global warming. In fact, Prof Curry said, the project’s research data show there has been no increase in world temperatures since the end of the Nineties – a fact confirmed by a new analysis that The Mail on Sunday has obtained. ‘There is no scientific basis for saying that warming hasn’t stopped,’ she said. ‘To say that there is detracts from the credibility of the data, which is very unfortunate.’


And here's that article from the UK Daily Mail Online website!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... stake.html

Scientist who claimed 'end of scepticism' on climate change under fire from colleague over 'huge mistake'
Professor claims project director has oversold the results of a study in favour of global warming
Expert says average world temperatures have 'paused' since the late 1990s


By TAMARA COHEN

Quote:
One of the authors of a scientific study billed as the ‘end of scepticism’ about climate change yesterday threatened to quit after she said the project leader underplayed the fact there has been no global warming for 13 years.
Professor Judith Curry was one of ten experts attempting to compile definitive temperature data going back more than 200 years.
But she claimed it had been ‘tarnished’ by the project’s director ‘overselling’ the results in favour of global warming.
Funded by a number of donors, including sceptics of climate change, the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project concluded global temperatures had risen by around 1c since the 1950s, in line with official estimates from Nasa and the Met Office.
The project’s director, Professor Richard Muller, told the media it showed ‘you should not be a sceptic, at least not any longer’.
He also told the BBC’s Today programme the temperature rise was ongoing, saying: ‘We see no evidence of it [global warming] having slowed down.’

But Professor Curry, of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, in the U.S., said Professor Muller’s comments were a ‘huge mistake’ and that she planned to discuss her future on the project with him.
She said their data actually showed average world temperatures had ‘paused’ since the late 1990s and a graph published on the project’s website depicting temperatures from 1850 to 2006 appeared to ‘hide the decline’.

She said: ‘There is no scientific basis for saying global warming hasn’t stopped. Of course this isn’t the end of scepticism. To say that is the biggest mistake he has made. When I saw he was saying that I thought, “Oh my God”.’
The researchers analysed 1.6billion records from nearly 40,000 weather stations in a bid to counter criticisms that scientists use inaccurate or selective records.
Professor Muller said: ‘I was saying you can no longer be sceptical about the fact global temperatures have risen over the past 50 years. There are other aspects of climate change which are still uncertain as I have made clear.’


DON'T YOU JUST LOVE IT WHEN THESE "WARMERS" GET CAUGHT WITH THEIR PANTS DOWN!! NICE TRY BUT IT'S NOT GOING TO WORK.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2011 11:20 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 6:38 am
Posts: 11804
Location: Coming At Ya!
GLOBAL WARMING IS OVER, SAYS EXPERT

By Julie Carpenter

http://www.express.co.uk/features/view/ ... ming-over-

Quote:
IT'S one of the hottest feuds in science - climate chance zealots insist that we're still destroying the planet but now another scientist has warned the cast-iron evidence just isn't there.

FOR a minute there it seemed the global warming debate had finally been resolved.

While for years scientists and sceptics have raged against each other on the crucial topic, new research hailed “the most definitive study into temperature data gathered by weather stations over the past half-century” seemed to come to an authoritative conclusion.

Global warming IS real it said, strengthening the need for us all to reduce carbon emissions and boost efforts to try to save the planet.

And this research was headed by a physicist who had previously been a sceptic of global warming and an outspoken critic of the science underpinning it, lending the results even greater credibility.

Prof Richard Muller had spent two years trying to discover if the mainstream scientists were wrong but concluded they were right. Temperatures are rising and his results, he concluded, “proved you should not be a sceptic, at least not any longer”. Case closed.

But is it? Not according to Prof Judith Curry, a member of Prof Muller’s team, who claims the same findings have shown that global warming has stopped – plunging the rest of us into a quandary of what and who to believe.

When Prof Curry heard that Prof Muller was saying that the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) findings would put an end to climate change scepticism for good she was horrified. “This isn’t the end of scepticism,” she exclaimed.

“To say that is the biggest mistake he has made. When I saw he was saying that I just thought, ‘Oh my God.’”

Prof Muller, of Berkeley University in California, and Prof Curry, who chairs the Department Of Earth And Atmospheric Sciences at America’s Georgia Institute of Technology, were part of the BEST project that carried
out analysis of more than 1.6 billion temperature recordings collected from more than 39,000 weather stations around the world.

Prof Muller appeared on Radio 4’s Today Programme last Friday where he described how BEST’s findings showed that since the Fifties global temperatures had risen by about 1 degree Celsius, a figure which is in line with estimates from Nasa and the Met Office.

When asked whether the rate had stopped over the last 10 years he said they had not. “We see no evidence of it having slowed down,” he replied and a graph issued by the BEST project suggests a continuing and steep increase.

But this last point is one which Prof Curry has furiously rebuttted. In a serious clash of scientific experts Prof Curry has accused Prof Muller of trying to “hide the decline in rates of global warming”.

She says that BEST’s research actually shows that there has been no increase in world temperatures for 13 years.

She has called Prof Muller’s comments “a huge mistake” and has said that she now plans to discuss her future on the project with him. “There is no scientific basis for saying that global warming hasn’t stopped,” she says.

“To say that there is detracts from the credibility of the data, which is very unfortunate.” New research also seems to back up Prof Curry rather than Prof Muller.

A report published by the Global Warming Foundation, which is based on BEST’s findings, includes a graph of world average temperatures over the past 10 years and it is absolutely flat, suggesting that temperatures have remained constant.

This issue is crucial because the levels of carbon dioxide in the air have continued to rise rapidly over the last decade and if temperatures have remained constant during that period it would suggest there is no direct link between carbon gas emissions and global warming.

Previously carbon dioxide emissions – from the burning of fossil fuels and from deforestation – have been considered one of the biggest causes of climate change, the most damaging effects of which are thought to be the melting of the polar ice caps and the rise in sea levels as well as an increase in extreme weather events such as floods and droughts.

“Whatever it is that is going on here it doesn’t look like it’s being dominated by carbon dioxide,” says Prof Curry.

Prof Muller has made it clear that the BEST study was not conducted in order to gauge the causes of global warming, saying the study “made no assessment on how much of this is due to humans and how much is natural”.

He and his scientists – who also included this year’s physics Nobel winner Saul Perlmutter – set out purely to determine once and for all whether climate change had occurred.

The group had been suspicious of previous results which confirmed a rise in global temperatures , believing that their work may have been skewed by the “urban heat island effect” where increasing urbanisation around weather stations was causing the temperature increases recorded over the past 50 years.

But their exhaustive research discovered that the urban heat effect could not explain the global temperature increase of about one degree Celsius since 1950.

IT IS well to point out that Prof Curry is not disputing the one degree Celsius increase. She is disputing Prof Muller’s suggestion that temperatures haven’t levelled off in the last decade.

Indeed she says this global warming standstill since the end of the Nineties – which has been completely unexpected – has wide-reaching consequences for the causes of climate change and has already led many climate scientists to start looking at alternative factors that may have contributed to global warming,

other than carbon gas emissions. In particular she has mentioned the influence of clouds, natural temperature cycles and solar radiation.

What she also seems furious about is the way that Prof Muller went about publishing BEST’s results without consulting her and before a proper peer review could be carried out. “It is not how I would have played it,” she has said. “I was informed only when I got a group email. I think they have made errors and I distance myself from what they did. It would have been smart to consult me.”

This is, you can be sure, not the last we will hear on the debate.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2011 11:23 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 6:38 am
Posts: 11804
Location: Coming At Ya!
THE VOICE OF THE CLIMATE CHANGE CRITICS

By Joanna Della-Ragione

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/281 ... ge-critics

Quote:
THE term "climate change" is, according to Lord Lawson, "a propagandist's term, it trips off the tongue nicely". The former chancellor is by no means alone in dismissing what he calls "the global warming nonsense".

Children's TV presenter Johnny Ball says he has been "mocked, vilified, besmirched" for his views that the emphasis on the damage caused by carbon dioxide has been "massively over-stated".

Environmentalist David Bellamy is among others who have been publicly lynched as climate change deniers.

Bellamy has said: "I'm sceptical about man-made climate change. There's absolutely no proof that carbon dioxide will kill us all. It's not a poison, it's the most important gas in the world. Carbon dioxide is an airborne fertiliser. How can farmers grow increasing amounts of food without a rise in CO2?"

But he admits his views have had a hugely adverse effect on his career.

"I used to be very popular but most of the green people won't even speak to me any more. When I was sacked from the Wildlife Trusts because of my views they didn't tell me, I read about it in the paper."

Last June, Lord Monckton, the outspoken deputy leader of UKIP claimed the Australian government's chief climate change adviser Professor Ross Garnaut held fascist views.

At a Los Angeles conference he quoted Prof Garnaut as saying: "The outsider to climate science has no rational choise but to accept that, on the balance of probabilities, the mainstream science is right in pointing to high risks from unmitigated climate change."

"That's a fascist point of view," said Lord Monckton, a vehement climate change sceptic. "That you merely accept authority without question. Heil Hitler, on we go."

He later said: "I have written to Ross Garnaut to withdraw unreservedly and to apologise humbly."

But Garnaut himself admitted that the nature of the discourse surrounding climate change has become "less civilised, noisier and more ignorant."

It's one of the hottest feuds in science - climate change zealots insist we're destroying the planet but now another scientist warns the evidence simply isn't there


Top 
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 417 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 28  Next

Board index » Racing Forum » Ken0069's Blog


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

 
 

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to: