Discussion on:

That cold snap was global warming in action

It's funny how closely examining the facts and not just the headlines leads to the truth!

...Michael Mann's formula didn't predict this?

What I find amazing is that the people who say that global warming isn't happening don't realise that those who DO believe it want the nay sayers to be RIGHT! The people who believe know that to do nothing will mean that either nothing happens or our planet is irevocably damaged. But to do something about it produces only one possibility, a cleaner planet REGARDLESS of whether it stops global warming or not.

But...hasn't global weather cycled drastically for centuries?

http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/solar/lassen1.html

You can read it yourselves, but I'll keep it simple and use the summary.

"70-90 years oscillations in global mean temperature are correlated with corresponding oscillations in solar activity. Whereas the solar influence is obvious in the data from the last four centuries, signatures of human activity are not yet distinguishable in the observations."

In simple terms. Mankinds activity and its influence on global temperatures cannot be measured compared to the effects of the solar cycle.

I do not know why scientists say global warming is mans fault when they have admitted to tampering with data. I don't know why they feel the need to admit to a systematic suppression of peer review that refutes their falsified data.

But they have admitted they lied. They have admitted they tampered with the data to support their global warming arguments and they have admitted to surpressing disenting views.

Was it mans fault global temperatures rose from AD 800 to 1300 causing Greenland to have no glaciers on it and have a 10 month growing season?

Was it CO2 from mans huge factories that melted the Artic sea ice north of Canada in AD 800 feeding legends of the Northwest Passage?

Was it mans CO2 emissions from cars and planes that caused warming across Europe, Asia and the Americas in AD 800 that caused crops to fail and people to die by the millions?

And why did the warming suddenly end around 1300 and plunge the world into the Little Ice Age?

Was it because man started filtering the CO2 from his factories, cars and planes?

The global warming conspiracy scientists and supporters have no answer to those questions.

They don't want answers to what happened in AD 800 because the answers might explain what is happening now.

Until they can tell me why global temperatures went up in AD 800 before mans industrial age pumped CO2 into the air I will put my fate in the hands of Mother Nature on the global warming issue.

I prefer to focus on controlling real manmade pollutions like the toxic heavy metal emissions from China and India that have grown over the past 30 years.

A cold snap proves nothing about global warming anymore than does a
heat wave. That's weather. Of course the climate, long term, is warming
as earth exits a very ling Ice Age, but the benefits are not
necessarily outweighed by the detriments.

Climate models around which so much hysteria is generated just don't
measure up to the climate's complexity.

Long before the industrial age the Earth was warmer than it is now, and it will cool off again. Going back hundreds of years it is obvious that there is a correlation between sunspots and warming trends.

The Vikings didn't call Greenland 'green' because they wanted the world to think they were a bunch of idiots. They called it that because, upon its discovery, there was considerable vegetation growing there at the time (it can't now, its too cold!)

Global warming is the biggest scam in a long line of scams designed to scare people into surrendering their rights to a bunch of elitist freedom-ophobes who don't trust the rest of us to make the right decisions on our own.

I nominate Dana's blog as the dumbest of 2010 (so far)

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/11/a-call-to-rein-in-climate-hype-cold-or-hot/

- maurizio ( http://omniclimate.wordpress.com )

Bit of a chip on the old shoulder here - Dana, that isn't just England in the NASA satellite photo, it's the United Kingdom. Which includes England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, though the latter is mostly obscured by clouds. Apart from that I agree with the third post - GWoods1974 - whatever happened to the cautionary principle?

> I do not know why scientists say global warming is mans fault when
they have admitted to tampering with data.

One small group of scientists admitted selecting data. Rather like
you're selecting the facts to back up what you want to believe. Just
because one group of people who claim the world is spherical fiddled
the numbers doesn't mean the Earth's flat.

> Mankinds activity and its influence on global temperatures cannot
be measured compared to the effects of the solar cycle.

Nobody knows exactly what proportion mankind has contributed to
climate change but I hope it's a lot, as will you when you look at
the options:
1. If it's all down to mankind, we need to counteract our own
activities so far.
2. If a large proportion of climate change is due to factors outside
our control, we have to counteract our own activities AND the ones
of nature.

The second one is harder and it's what you're implying.

By the way, that's a picture of Great Britain, not just England.

There's more potholes in the roads this winter. Global warming.

My son's snake shed twice in 3 months, normally it sheds once every two months. Global warming.

Fewer cardinals at the feeder this winter. Global warming.

My buddy is having a hard time getting a database linked to an apache document root. Global warming.

There were quite a few people in wheel chairs at the grocery store today. Global warming.

They don't make masking tape the way they used to. Global warming.

Global warming is about to cause Wiemar Republic/Zimbabwean style hyper-inflation and legalize marijuana in Washington State.

Scary stuff.

Dana, Your in bed with the global warming scientists and a dork. Har Har Har.

I mean, how many times do we have to go through this before its treated as normal and is planned for?

Our shoddy infrastructure here in the UK clearly cant cope with a slightly-worse-than-normal winter snap and hasnt every time but nothing is done.

Salt is useless at the temperatures we are getting, and here in the south 3 inches blocks entire tracts of main roads. How much would it cost to buy a few snow-ploughs, or maybe rope in some people... Two of my near neighbours are ground-workers and they did nothing but moan that they couldnt work because of the snow.

Did either of them grab a shovel and clear the pavement before it froze and made it treacherous? No, they watched me do it while they were enjoying a cuppa in the warm. Thats why nothings being done, the government thinks its too expensive and the populace think its the governments job to sort out the country's woes.

So who do they think the government will tell to do the work when or if they decide to act? Of course, the lazy complainers and shovel-leaners, who will naturally do the bare minimum, and grudgingly because they have been told to.

Natural or manmade climate change, either way our future is grim; get off your arses people and stop waiting for our leaders to tell you what common sense is - they have no clue themselves!

Peace

steve_jonesuk@...

Like so many other global warming supporters, you avoid the question...

Why did the earth warm to such scorching temperatures after AD 800 that the polar ice caps did not exist and Greenland was actually green for 10 months of the year?

We know mans factories, cars and planes did not do it? So what warmed the earth in AD 800?

The facts are the earth has been through several warming and cooling cycles over the last 50,000 years.

Scientists know that at more than a few times in the history of the world the earth was globally a tropical place.

And mans factories, cars and planes trains did not cause the warming 50,000 years ago. So what did?

..................... Dead air.

No answer as usual.

Are you going to tells us that the south pole will be devoid of ice in 5-7 years like Al did? Keep in mind that the man who did the study that Al was referring to was quick to say, "I didn't say that."

Look, I won't bury my head in the sand. We need to do our part to keep our planet clean but we don't know enough our planet's normal cycles or weather predictions in general to be acting like some fish flopping around because it was taken out of the water.

How about a more common sense approach to finding cleaner forms of fuel, improving energy efficiency in homes/businesses, and take Al's private jet away from him.

I am still wondering what kind of SUVs the mastadons drove to end the ice age. I like a cleaner environment, but I think we need to temper this hysteria with real science that includes astro-physicists who actually include the solar activity into their calculations as opposed to most of the people who believe in man-made global warming.

Who cares what anybody "wants to be true" - that's not science. Oh, neither is anthropomorphic climate change (read: man-caused global warming) if it has to be based on carefully cooked data and and grand campaign to hide historical facts that counter this "science".

Go ahead - err with Galen.

I don't need to reference the data cooking, right? We all know about that. You may not know that a key "climate scientist" has spent some time editing over 5,000 Wikipedia articles to (a) remove or trivialize all references to the Medieval Warming that preceded the "Little Ice Age" and (b) block over 2000 users who tried to prevent or correct his distortions.

Now why would Science need actual known facts to be removed? A theory should serve the facts, but it's become all too clear that with AGW the opposite is the case.

And here's the info on THAT:

http://www.financialpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=62e1c98e-01ed-4c55-bf3d-5078af9cb409

Like another poster stated...global warming is a normal phenomenom driven by solar activity and other things unrelated to mans activities.

fdaf

Dana Blankenhorn, are you a climate scientist? Have you done independent research which indicates that now global warming is causing global cooling which by coincidence just happens to be occurring during the winter months? If you are not a scientist nor have engaged in independent research in this field, then do you consider yourself a journalist? If so, as a journalist do you not have a PROFESSIONAL responsibility to present the various points of view of those scientist which do research in this area you are so found of writing about? Are you not interested in their point of view, what they have to say, how they arrived at their results? After all if you have not studied or researched both sides of the argument how do you which side is correct? I ask this question because I have yet to see a topic here at ?Smartpanet? which presets information by those scientist whose independent research does indicate an opposing view. Why is that? isn't that our job, responsibility to be neutral and present both sides? Is it that you are not a professional journalism or is it that you have your own agenda, perhaps you are a propagandist, liar or just chose to be ignorant? I am not climatologist however I do have a BSc degree and do look at all points of view before forming my opinion. I believe that is the intelligent manner of approach when endeavouring to understand something and thus before forming a particular point of view. That same intelligent approach allows people to change their opinion on a subject once they realize information contradicts their current point of view.

It seems to me you are as closed minded as those within the administration of the Catholic church during the seicento (?600) when Galileo proved to them the earth revolved around the sun and not other way around. It was not that Galileo did not sufficiently prove his point of view such that the ?Church? did not believe him, it was that this proof meant that if the earth was no longer the center of our universe then neither was the ?Church? the center of all things on this earth and beyond. Galileo had to be suppressed because his proof did not suit their temporal position on this earth. In fact it would end up shifting power form the ?Church? which desired to form peoples opinion to the free approach of independent bodies of thought. Unfortunately, and ironically this is occurring once again however by those who actually believe they are more enlightened form such a dogmatic and politicised institution as the Catholic church.

Enough people have presented information to the contrary to what you have written such that you should have by now responded by presenting those other articles points of view. That fact you have chosen not to when such a move could actually increase traffic to your blogs indicates you are a unprofessional journalist whose articles are suspect in their full disclosure, truth and relevance. If I am wrong then please respond with those links and if so I apologize in advance. Remember even though Galileo was kept under house arrest for the rest of his natural life he is considered today the "father of modern observational astronomy, the father of modern physics, the father of science and the Father of Modern Science" Stephen Hawkin. Galileo stood by his principles and this is how he will be remembered for eternity. How do you wish to be remembered Dana?

I think it would be more accurate to describe this phenomenon as "Global Climate Shifting".

Not a single link to a reputable science journal or article among
the deniers' propaganda here.

If Global Warming stood on legitimate ground why would the scientists at East Anglia need to manipulate the data to support their warming theory?

Why would they feel the need to suppress dissenting opinions?

Why would a supposedly reputable scientist spend time altering Wikipedia entries to cover-up the Medieval Warming Trend?

This is the real world. One volcano, Mt. Pinatubo, caused global cooling for 3 years with the sulfur dioxide it dumped in the atmosphere in one day. ONE DAY?..

Faced with that kind of power from Mother Nature, you have a long way to go to convince me that mankind has that much of an impact on global warming or cooling.

Can we poison the earth with radioactivity, heavy metals or a million other things? Yes.

Those and many other real pollutants should be controlled. But CO2 as a pollutant is a stretch.

I ask again.

What melted the Arctic ice pack in AD 800?

What made Greenland such a beautiful ice-free place that the Vikings called it Greenland?

What caused the global warming that triggered droughts and famines that killed millions from Europe to the Americas and Asia after AD 800?

Will you even admit the Medieval Warming Trend from AD 800 to 1300 happened?

??????????????????????????.

Again, no response from the global warming crowd.

what a big ego man has to think it can make a difference in the weather. The simple fact is it's getting warmer on other planets too. Unless you want a one world goverment don't buy into this. The earth gets cold then warm and so on nothing to do with us. If you follow the money you can see why their trying to fool us into this.

mikirby..

Do something novel. Try doing some research on your own.

Any link I throw up here you are going to rip apart so that is a waste of time.

Try doing a Google search and read about the theories out there on what may have caused the Medieval Warming age.

Do a search on solar activity and read about its impact on global temperatures.

It is a bit old school, but try going to a library and read the theories on what may have triggered the Little Ice Age.

Try reading about the scientists who think a large asteroid impact on a North American glacier may have caused global warming and triggered the end of the last major ice age?

Read about the global impact of volcanic eruptions and the years of global temperature changes that followed major eruptions like Mt Saint Helens, Mt Pinatubo, Krakatoa or Yellowstone.

Stop being a mushroom. Use your mind.

> Like so many other global warming supporters, you avoid the
question...

No I don't, I think it's obvious from what we know (such as the
examples cited in your post) that previous variations in Earth's
temperature were not due to man. That isn't under dispute, it's not
a question I'm dodging. In fact, it's not a question at all - I
assumed you were being rhetorical.
I was addressing, instead, the point I assumed you were driving at
(apologies if I was mistaken) - that, if man isn't responsible for
global warming (which I'm sure he partly is, by the way, although we
can't be sure how large a part) - we don't need to change our
behaviour to counteract global warming.
So, would you care to answer my point - that if man is not
responsible for global warming, we face a *bigger* challenge to
reverse it? Saying that global warming is occuring due to natural
means (as well as man-made) does not back-up any argument against
climate intervention; in fact, it makes the problem more acute.

I'll make a second (related) point while I'm on; some global warming
sceptics talk about pre-man climate change as if that means, since
it's natural, we don't have to worry about it - the logic being
something like "it's happened before, and we're here and fine now,
so how bad can it be?". Thing is, when it happened before, we didn't
have huge civilisations built a few metres above sea level. I'm no
bleeding heart, worried about the polar bear or whatever, I'm a
capitalist worried about the world economy. If London, New York and
so on are deluged (or we have to build huge defences), the quality
of life and freedom to spend our time and money as we'd like will be
far more compromised than the sort of proposed legislation which
encourages you to get out of your SUV and nail a solar panel to your
roof.

So, based on the words you used in your article, this is a political issue and not a scientific one.

Anecdotal evidence, unsupported dogma, but no science

Take your head out of the ground and read carefully what the other posters have written.

In fact, it is the global warming scaremongers who have no real science to back up their "science".

Not a single link to a reputable science journal or article among the deniers' propaganda here.

Why would any links to articles be necessary when the global warming "science" has already been discredited so thoroughly in the last 20 years and especially in the last couple of months.

The only people in "denial" are very clearly the people who still insist that their "global warming" science is "real science".

What part of "global warming science is a fraud" don't you understand?

As it stands, instead of the planet warming, it has actually cooled in the last 11 years, and with the current deep cold snap, it is well into a 12th year; in fact it will be virtually impossible for temperatures during the rest of the year to overcome the fact that this will be the 12th year in a row for global cooling.

It's time for you and Dana and Al Gore to get on the band-wagon and start the next scare about "the coming ice age". Some scientists are in fact predicting a mini ice age of around 30 years.

So, stop your "denial" of the facts. It's time to let that baby of yours and Dana's to remain in the grave. Global warming science was and is a fraud. Let it go and move onto another agenda. That's all it was from the beginning; a means towards an agenda.

I guess you expect us to believe that we the people are the cause of
this climate change, right? I'm guessing the earthquake in Haiti is
somehow related to what we have done as well(sounds like another
business venture for Al Gore). Hopefully the gullible who bought into
this nonsense are starting to sober up. Regardless, if people want to
waste their time and money crying Chicken Little, suit yourself. I've
got more important things to worry about that I can actually control.

And how do we know that this is not also a precursor the an Ice age? The two my coincide, but of course we, our scientists especially, like to think they're infallible.....

I can spell, just not type....

It's amazing how we nonscientists, though well-read, have so
many answers at our fingertips, answers that often disagree
with scientists who have spent decades studying global
weather. Humans, regardless of how much (or little) knowledge
they possess, feel the need to arrive at conclusions on complex
issues, have it done with and filed away, end of issue. It might
just do us well to keep an open mind so that it might continue
to absorb information that might just inch us a bit closer to the
truth.

But then I wish pigs could fly.

Consider this. Has anyone in the global warming crowd ever stated what data would change their minds on it? If it is a scientific theory based on facts then if the new data changes the result it should change the result. If all climate changes are attributed to feeding the global warming mania then it isn't a theory it's based on faith not facts.

were all going to freeze and or drown. Same hype, same
excuses for the same flawed so - called science. To many
people have cashed in with global warming to stop now.
Trillions are to be made and no truth will be allowed to stop
this hype.

If you really want to keep this religion going, fine, build a
church. Stay out of federal/world controls, mandates and
education. - Hug a tree, don't ask me to pay for it.

Like the posts below. I agree that global warming/cooling is cyclical, man made activities have little to do with it. I live near Lake Michigan, once a glacier, it melted long before we started burning fossil fuels.

Did it ever occur to anyone that maybe the industry that makes more money per year than most countries might have paid some scientists to "get caught" manipulating data just so all the nay-sayers would have a field day screaming "we were right!" at the top of their lungs? Or is it inconcievable that the same people that start wars just to sell guns would do something like that? And besides, like the previous poster said, what real difference does it make where the fault lies? Doing nothing will not fix the problem. Or do the nay-sayers all think since they can't wrap their arms around the earth that it must be too big to affect positively or negatively? I wonder how close the ratio in size between a virus and a human is to the ratio in size between a human and the earth? Oh but that's not a fair comparison unless you're going to assume there's 6 billion viruses in the human. Wake up people.

Global warming is over. Now comes the predicted ice age that is caused by diluting the oceans with fresh water from polar melt. Hope you idiots who deny climate change like real cold weather.

Mere months ago, we were to be doomed by rising temps that would make
life unbearable. So many experts told us so. Now you're arguing that
instead we're heading for the next ice age? (A fate much worse than
warming)

There's so sure what's happening, and yet they can never tell us what's
going to happen next. That's hardly science.

Actually, the country is The United Kingdom or, "Great Britain" would be equally acceptable, "England" excludes Scotland and Wales and, depending on how you interpret "United Kingdom", the six counties of Northern Ireland.

If you examine the Union Flag (also known as the Union Jack)you will see that it is a composite of three flags - the crosses of the patron saints of Scotland, Wales and Ireland.

It is very definitely not the "English" flag. Also, there is no such thing as an English Prime Minister, English Army or English Parliament, etc.

To conclude, this mistake would be the equivalent of talking about the Californian President, the Pennsylvanian Army or the Wisconsin House of Representatives.

As a US tourist once cheerfully told me in London ?I?ve already visited England and tomorrow I?m going north to visit the United Kingdom?

@Hates Idiots
Answer: The Sun.
You seem to think that, since scientists are blaming CO2 for "Climate Change", CO2 is the only thing which could cause temperature changes (or are you being disingenuous?).

@adornoe
Not in my part of the World (South Australia). We just had the hottest year on record (yearly average temperature). We are told here, that the hottest 8 or 9 years on record, have occurred in the last decade.

I would like to see data on average wind speeds.
If air is getting hotter in the Temperate zones, it should flow towards the Polar regions faster. This would also mean that cold air from the Poles would move towards the Equator faster. We should see an increase, in average wind speeds, if this is occurring.

Strangely enough when I first read about "Global Warming", in the 1980s, I predicted that it would be a precursor to a new "Ice Age".

The question is, what should we do to control the weather?
Should we modify our behaviour (Anthropomorphic warming)?
Should we build a giant space mirror/shade to control the amount of Solar radiation we receive (Solar warming)?
Should we do nothing at all and just accept that, if the climate becomes unbearable, we'll die out like the dinosaurs?

lehnerus2000

Not in my part of the World (South Australia). We just had the hottest year on record (yearly average temperature). We are told here, that the hottest 8 or 9 years on record, have occurred in the last decade.

Nobody denies that "climate change" happens. In fact, I'm one of the biggest believers of climate change. It's been happening since the planet was "born" and will continue to happen until it dies.

Regional temperatures is not what has been discussed when ti comes to "global warming". Notice that the key word is "global". What the global warmists have been arguing for the last 25 years is about "global" warming. They've talked about the last decade being the warmest in history. But the facts say that the last 11 years have actually cooled and we're well on the way towards 12 year of cooling.

The argument is about which group is correct: the "global warming" proponents or the "deniers"? When the data is manipulated and cherry-picked to arrive at desire results, then you know for sure that the science is not just faulty but downright fraudulent. Faulty or fraudulent science is not science at all; at that point it becomes "science fiction".

The first thing we need is some facts. Is the the Earth warming or cooling? Then we need to know why it is and only then can we take any action about it. If it is warming and it is caused by man we can decide when. what and how to change it. If it is caused by other causes, then we must adapt to those changes. We must take it out of the area of religion and place it back in science. Crying the sky is falling with no real evidence to back it is counter-productive and clouds the real problems. The same holds true if there is global cooling. It seems there are 2300 scientists claiming global warming and about 33,000 that say no. There is no consenses at this time, but the cooling faction has the larger numbers. Where I live the temperatures have been falling for the past ten years.

That iced island is Great Britain, not England.

> When the data is manipulated and cherry-picked to arrive at desire
results... the science is not just faulty but downright fraudulent.

Again, one fraudulent action doesn't make the whole concept spurious.
There's tons of data which hasn't been manipulated and which suggests
global warming, why do you focus on the one example which backs up what
you wish to believe? I guess it's just human nature.
People want to believe man has no responsibility for any environmental
catastrophe so they can continue living without the constraints we'd
have to endure to avoid such a thing. But just because one group of
scientists covered-up some figures which suggested gravity doesn't
exist, doesn't mean it's safe to go jump off a cliff.

Kilimanjaro is colder than decades ago, when one started to measure the temperature there. The lack of precipitation is because man has cut down forests along the mountain slopes.

Kilimanjaro is colder than decades ago, when one started to measure the temperature there. The lack of precipitation is because man has cut down forests along the mountain slopes.

If global warming wont "take off like a rocket", this is "your final warning". LOL. Skip this pro-large government global warming alarmism which you so obviously lie about, and support reason and freedom which is threatened by the progressive neo-marxist environment of today.

Can Dana Blankenhorn support us with a peer reviewed study on the ice fat theory and that the Earth is behavior is similar to human bodies? As an AGW denier I can support all my standpoints on peer reviewed climate science.

If they do, then they are not scientists, but something else. A true
scientist presents data the way he finds it, regardless if it supports
his own private views or not. Like Richard Feynman did (RIP). Lets call
these other people something else. Like sciencebluffs or something. Mr
so-and-so is a sciencebluff, working for the globalwarmingparty or the
iceagesects.

steve_jonesuk@...

You are still missing the point.

By denying the Medieval Warming Trend from AD 800 to 1300 ever happened these so called scientists are missing the opportunity to identify a potential cause, or the multiple contributing factors, of natural global warming.

By denying natural global warming occurs they refuse the opportunity to study the evidence from prior natural global warming events. They lose the opportunity to compare it against 20th century warming data and they walk away from the chance to look for more evidence on both cases to try and determine why such natural warming events happen.

If the global warming of the 20th century was natural and it does precede another Little Ice Age, as the Medieval Warming Trend did, than knowing the natural causes of both may allow us to mitigate the damage, but I doubt we could stop the warming or the cooling if Mother Nature is behind it.

When a volcano can change global weather for 3 years in a single day of erupting it looks to me like mankinds chances of doing anything measurable to stop natural global warming or natural global cooling are slim to none.

To paraphrase Dennis Quaid in The Day After Tomorrow: The best we can do is get out of the way and focus on saving as many as we can.