Snow worldwide

[kenl01]

Other articles:

(I removed the Thailand article about snow. It may have been incorrect, so I'm not so certain. Sorry about that)

Record snowfall in South Korea - 19 Dec 05 – Snow in the southern and southwestern areas of South Korea claimed at least one life, stranded thousands of motorists and damaged
hundreds of greenhouses, local media reported.
Several thousand South Korean troops have been deployed to clear highways and remove snow from the roofs of structures to prevent their collapse. Damage has been estimated at about US$150 million.

http://english.people.com.cn/200512/23/ ... 30286.html

Record snowfall and cold in Japan - 19 Dec 05 – Some 30 Japanese cities were buried beneath record-breaking snows this weekend, paralysing roads, railways and airports. Villages in more mountainous regions were cut off as over 2 meters (7 ft) of snow fell during the weekend.
Nagoya reported 23 cm (9 inches) of snow, the heaviest snowfall in nearly 60 years. It is also the first time since 1945 that so much snow has fallen in the city during the month of December. In the city of Fukui, 62 cm (2 ft) of snow covered much of its downtown area.
Despite forecasts of a mild winter, the Japanese media are now describing December as the coldest in recorded history.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/world/news ... news.shtml
See also http://www.terradaily.com/2005/05121904 ... uthwl.html

Abnormal cold kills 36 in India - 18 Dec 05 - The death toll from the relentless cold front sweeping across north India has climbed to 36.

The mercury has dipped to abnormally low temperatures in many states like Jammu and Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh, Punjab, Haryana and Rajasthan. Srinagar, state capital of Jammu and Kashmir
state, recorded a low of minus 5,2E°C. Cities in Punjab's state also recorded their coldest temperatures in several years.

"It has never been this cold in December," said Sushma Sahay, a housewife in New Delhi.
http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?ar ... onal_news/

Snow worldwide - 27 Dec 05 –
United States: A major winter storm has hammered the state of Maine
since Christmas Day with up to 38 inches of snow in some areas. More
snow is forecast. Another storm brought 24 inches (61cm) of snow to
the Tahoe ski resort in the Sierra Nevadas.

Canada: A fierce storm swept across northeast Canada cutting power
to thousands of homes in Quebec. The storm is forecast to dump 60cm
(23 inches) of snow in parts of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia .

Russia : A series of avalanches following heavy snow on the Caucasus
Mountains have closed many Transcaucasus routes as well as killing two
people.

United Kingdom: Heavy snow has moved into southern and eastern counties
of England. In southeast England towards Kent and Sussex, up to12cm (5 inches)
of snow has been reported. As much as 10-15cm more snow is expected in
Lincolnshire Wolds, Fens and the Downs .
http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/world/news ... news.shtml

Japan's Heaviest Snow in 122 Years - 22 Dec 05
Snow fell along the coast of the Sea of Japan from Hokkaido to Tottori Prefecture, western Japan. Hiroshima City in western Japan had the most snow this month since the data was first recorded in 1883.

Japan Airlines and All Nippon Airways canceled a combined 322 domestic flights because of the heavy snow, and Nagoya's Central Japan International Airport Co. remained closed.

Northern Japan, in areas mainly along the Sea of Japan, is expected to receive snow for most of the week to Dec. 29.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... uQ&refer=j apan




Hope these idiots who keep screaming about all this BS on GW would take a look at some of these. And there's lots more, including increasing snowfall in the last 100 years in Minnesota.

Snowier winters in Minnesota - 14 Dec 05 - Despite what your grandparents might say about old-time winters, average snowfall records show modern Minnesota winters are actually snowier than those of yore.
Seasonal snowfall on average has increased from less than 40 inches in the 1890s to more than 55 inches in the Twin Cities. Increases have been even more pronounced in west-central Minnesota , according to Mark Seeley, University of Minnesota extension climatologist and meteorologist. http://www.in-forum.com/ap/index.cfm?pa ... =D8EFT8H00

[x-y-no]

Global warming is guess what ... "GLOBAL".

Regional or local extremes one way or the other say absolutely nothing about what's happening on a global scale.

Your rant is nothing but that - a rant. If you want to discuss the evidence in a civil fashion, I'll be happy to oblige.

[Aslkahuna]

I think the evidence is actually fairly clear that some degree of Global Warming is occurring-the reason is why. My opinion is that it's a combination of factors including but not solely due to anthropogenic causes. What both sides of the argument seem to forget is that the atmospheric energy increase caused by the warming will result in harsher extremes on BOTH sides of the ledger.

Steve

[terstorm1012]

Agreed Steve...I've always thought that too.

[kenl01]

This article sums it up VERY well............................so much for all the media BS about GW:


Visit to Greenland May Chill Hot Air Hoax

AFP’s science and health correspondent Jack Phillips recently took a trip to Greenland, the world’s northernmost landmass, to see for himself whether stories about global warming that have been promoted in the mainstream are true or false. His report follows.



SCORESBYSUND, GREENLAND—Mainstream newspaper, Internet and TV reports claim global warming is causing extensive melting of glaciers, icebergs and permafrost, which might lead to drastic increases in sea level and threaten inundation of coastal cities. But there is no evidence that the sea level is actually rising, only forecasts by computer models that have been based on thousands of assumptions.
Exactly ! In fact, sea levels are falling in the Indian Ocean and the Pacific since 1985, according to a recent report in the Spectator.

Photographs of the shore of Greenland show the sea ice surrounding it has been melting. But upon my visit, this reporter was shown evidence that the icecap, where most of the ice is located, is growing significantly.

In Antarctica, temperatures on the icecap are decreasing. Satellite radar surveys of Antarctica and Greenland have shown that the icecaps are getting larger. Reports from the Mohn Sverdrup Center for Global Ocean studies in Norway state that, in the past 11 years, Greenland’s icecap has
increased over 21 inches.

A recent paper published in Science claims that ice is being deposited at the net rate of 26.8 billion tons a year in Antarctica.

Greenland, a Danish possession, is the largest island in the world, with an area of 1 million square miles. About 5 percent of the world’s ice sits in a cap that covers its entire interior. Only 200,000 square miles on the coast is not under the cap.

In some places the cap is almost 10,000 feet thick. Greenland’s northern extremity is the closest land to the North Pole. Water from the Arctic Ocean flows southward along the East Coast carrying icebergs from Greenland, which help cool the North Atlantic Ocean.

On my recent visit to Scoresbysund, about halfway up the eastern coast of Greenland, I had an opportunity to observe glaciers and icebergs first hand in the world’s largest complex of fjords.

A few hours in this region provided a glimpse of life above the Arctic Circle. This municipality, first settled in 1925, contains about 500 people, whose principal occupations are hunting and fishing. It is about the size of Great Britain and is relatively close to the largest national park in the world, encompassing about a third of the icecap.

This reporter saw firsthand how some glaciers near the mouth of Scoresbysund and the open ocean had melted away, leaving beds of stones at the water’s edge.

However, as the ship I was on, the Professor Molchanov, a former Russian Arctic research vessel, sailed deeper into the sound, away from the sea and toward the central icecap, I saw many glaciers that were not melting, and lots of icebergs produced by glaciers, which are clearly growing.

One glacier I saw was said to be six miles wide. One of the largest, I was told, is a 60-mile-wide glacier located some distance away on Greenland.

Inspecting a group of icebergs in a rubber Zodiac boat at close range is awe-inspiring. I saw several bergs that were at least 30 to 50 stories tall. Someone in the group I was traveling with estimated a height of more than 80 yards for one.

As we got close to one of these mammoths I could see its foundation deep under the water. Most of the ice, about 66 percent of the berg, remains submerged as it floats on the surface. These icebergs are part of the Earth’s conveyor system, which is responsible for the movement of air and
ocean currents that influence weather conditions. As the icebergs from the polar regions melt, the cold water they generate travels toward the equator.

In the equatorial regions, heat from the sun is more intense than elsewhere and it produces both currents of warm water and clouds of water vapor, which travel toward the poles. Some of the water vapor is deposited as snow on the ice caps and subsequently turns into ice. The heat released by the conversion of water vapor into liquid water, snow and ice in the polar regions is mostly radiated into outer space. This process creates very low temperatures in the icecaps. For example, –94 degrees Fahrenheit has been found in Greenland.

Despite what has been reported in the mainstream press, many scientists do not subscribe to the theory of global warming and believe that, overall, objective science is showing that the Earth is cooling, not warming. Thank You !



The Physics of Glaciers, now in its second edition, by retired Canadian scientist Dr. W.S.B. Patterson, discloses that the maximum temperatures of the Holocene, the epoch in which we live, occurred about 5,000 years ago and that the Earth has been cooling since then.

Of course, superimposed on this long-term trend are shorter-term fluctuations in temperature. For example, in A.D. 1000 it was warmer than it is now and Northern Europe had a “Golden Age” when Vikings farmed Greenland.

However, Nordic settlements quickly disappeared when the Earth cooled from about A.D. 1300 to 1700, in what has been known as “the Little Ice Age,” an historical fact. Man’s actions did not cause this. It was Mother Nature’s work.

Subsequently, the Earth has been warming for the past 300 years. Consequently, it is reasonable to expect some ice to melt after that many years of warming.

However, the fact that temperatures now are lower overall than they were in A.D. 1000 indicates that the long-term trend is still in force. There is no evidence that a mere 300 years of warming has reversed the 4,600-year cooling trend. It is a fact that carbon dioxide increased during the last 100 years as a result of the industrial revolution and increasing population. But what caused temperatures to rise during the first 200 years? Many scientists argue that it was Mother Nature at work again.

The available data do not support the contention that the minuscule increase in carbon dioxide concentration—from 0.03 percent to 0.04 percent of the atmosphere—has significantly affected Earth’s temperatures.

On the other hand it is easy to find a close connection between cyclical changes in the radiation supplied by the sun and conditions on the Earth. In fact, Serbian scientist Milutin Milankovic, while incarcerated in a jail cell, provided mathematical support for the theory that variations in the orbits of the Earth, sun and moon were responsible for recurrent ice ages without the aid of a computer.

Nature is highly cyclical: night follows day, winter follows summer, global cooling follows global warming, and glaciations follow interglacial periods. All of these cycles can be explained in terms of movements of the Earth-moon system around the sun.

Dr. Willard Libbey carbon dated material connected with the end of the last glaciation and found that it was 11,000 years old. Other scientists have found that, during the past 20 million years, these periods have never lasted longer than 13,500 years. Therefore it is reasonable to believe that we are coming to the end of our present interglacial period and that sometime, within the next 1,700 years, it is likely the Earth will get much colder and less hospitable.

Don’t think that there are not doomsday scenarios associated with increased cooling. As heat from the sun diminishes during the end of interglacials, the increasing mass of the growing icecaps stresses the Earth’s crust. According to one theory, this increases volcanic activity.

About 80 percent of Earth’s volcanoes are underwater. When they erupt ocean temperatures will likely increase. Then air temperatures will increase and temperate zone glaciers will melt. Sea ice and ice on coastal areas will melt.

Evaporation will increase in the tropics, and more water vapor will travel to the poles, where it will deposit as snow. When this volcanic action diminishes, as the crust adjusts, the Earth will cool faster, and the probability of glaciation will likely increase.

Perhaps people should be grateful for the present warmth, disregard the politically modified science promoted by the global warmers, and pray that the warmth continues. Conditions in the Arctic leave a great deal to be desired, in my experience.

(Issue #52, December 26, 2005)

http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/v ... nland.html



Better bundle up folks ! It's getting colder.............

[x-y-no]

SCORESBYSUND, GREENLAND—Mainstream newspaper, Internet and TV reports claim global warming is causing extensive melting of glaciers, icebergs and permafrost, which might lead to drastic increases in sea level and threaten inundation of coastal cities. But there is no evidence that the sea level is actually rising, only forecasts by computer models that have been based on thousands of assumptions.
Exactly ! In fact, sea levels are falling in the Indian Ocean and the Pacific since 1985, according to a recent report in the Spectator.

The Spectator is a peer-reviewed journal now? If you supply a link, I'll read the article, but this assertion is simply false. Te facts are that from 3000 years ago to the start of the 19th century sea level was almost constant, rising at 0.1 to 0.2 mm/yr; since 1900 the level has risen at 1 to 3 mm/yr; since 1992 satellite altimetry from TOPEX/Poseidon indicates a rate of about 3 mm/yr. (see IPCC TAR)

Photographs of the shore of Greenland show the sea ice surrounding it has been melting. But upon my visit, this reporter was shown evidence that the icecap, where most of the ice is located, is growing significantly.

Strangely, the author doesn't tell us what this alleged evidence is. Certainly some parts of the Greenland Ice cap are thickening, as others are thinning. Determining the overall rate is a difficult proposition, because sattelite altimetry has a hard time determinig the thickness of the snow layer.

There is some interesting new research on accelerating Greenland glaciers, but I won't comment because I haven't had the chance to read the papers yet.

In Antarctica, temperatures on the icecap are decreasing. Satellite radar surveys of Antarctica and Greenland have shown that the icecaps are getting larger. Reports from the Mohn Sverdrup Center for Global Ocean studies in Norway state that, in the past 11 years, Greenland’s icecap has
increased over 21 inches.

A recent paper published in Science claims that ice is being deposited at the net rate of 26.8 billion tons a year in Antarctica.

I note a disturbing trend of failure to make attributions in this article. It's very difficult to sort out what misconceptions there are in someone's interpretation when they won't tell you precisely what research they are referring to.

I'll once again make the general point that global warming does not imply that there cannot be localized cooling trends (such as the slight cooling trend observed at a few Antarctic stations over the last couple of decades) and also that global warming is not inconsistent with increased precipitation leading to localized thickening of ice deposits.

...

I won't address the author's anecdote about his personal naked-eye observations of the Greenland coast, as that clearly is of no scientific meaning. The scientific fact is that glaciers are rapidly retreating worldwide on average.

Despite what has been reported in the mainstream press, many scientists do not subscribe to the theory of global warming and believe that, overall, objective science is showing that the Earth is cooling, not warming. Thank You !

"Many scientists" is maddeningly vague. How many is "many"? What field of expertise do these "many scientists" have?

The fact is that the great preponderance of scientist with real expertise in climate science agree that anthropogenic global warming is real. You will find nobody who really knows what they are talking about claiming that "objective science is showing that the Earth is cooling, not warming." It's simply not true.

The Physics of Glaciers, now in its second edition, by retired Canadian scientist Dr. W.S.B. Patterson, discloses that the maximum temperatures of the Holocene, the epoch in which we live, occurred about 5,000 years ago and that the Earth has been cooling since then.

Of course, superimposed on this long-term trend are shorter-term fluctuations in temperature. For example, in A.D. 1000 it was warmer than it is now and Northern Europe had a “Golden Age” when Vikings farmed Greenland.

Yes, the Holocene Climate Optimum was comparably warm to the present day, possibly slightly warmer (less than half a degree at most). Exact measure is difficult due to the complete dependence on proxy data.

But this is a reasonably well understood consequence of orbital dynamics (Milankovitch cycles). And while there certainly are fluctuations in global temperature, the current rate of increase is apparently unprecedented in the record, and all attempts to find some alternative forcing to increased GHGs has failed (nor has anyone offered a reasonable hypothesis for why the well understood physics of GHGs would not apply in the case of anthorogenic contribution).

However, Nordic settlements quickly disappeared when the Earth cooled from about A.D. 1300 to 1700, in what has been known as “the Little Ice Age,” an historical fact. Man’s actions did not cause this. It was Mother Nature’s work.

Subsequently, the Earth has been warming for the past 300 years. Consequently, it is reasonable to expect some ice to melt after that many years of warming.

The fact that natural climate forcings exist does not in anyway detract from the fact that anthropogenic forcing also exists.

However, the fact that temperatures now are lower overall than they were in A.D. 1000 indicates that the long-term trend is still in force. There is no evidence that a mere 300 years of warming has reversed the 4,600-year cooling trend. It is a fact that carbon dioxide increased during the last 100 years as a result of the industrial revolution and increasing population. But what caused temperatures to rise during the first 200 years? Many scientists argue that it was Mother Nature at work again.

Once again, the fact that natural climate forcings exist does not in anyway detract from the fact that anthropogenic forcing also exists. I should mention that there has been some research suggesting that agricultural activity has been contributing some amount of global warming for several thousand years, but I put this in the realm of the very uncertain at this point (and it really is not in any way a neccesary factor in terms of the reality of AGW).

The available data do not support the contention that the minuscule increase in carbon dioxide concentration—from 0.03 percent to 0.04 percent of the atmosphere—has significantly affected Earth’s temperatures.

That's simply false. The physics of radiadive absorption is very well understood, and while there are some uncertainties remaining in terms of the magnitude of water vapor feedback and cloud albedo effects, the modelling done today performs very well in both hindcasting and the last decade or so of forecast verification.

On the other hand it is easy to find a close connection between cyclical changes in the radiation supplied by the sun and conditions on the Earth. In fact, Serbian scientist Milutin Milankovic, while incarcerated in a jail cell, provided mathematical support for the theory that variations in the orbits of the Earth, sun and moon were responsible for recurrent ice ages without the aid of a computer.

Nobody disputes the role of orbital dynamics in ice ages, so I fail to see the relevance of this.

Dr. Willard Libbey carbon dated material connected with the end of the last glaciation and found that it was 11,000 years old. Other scientists have found that, during the past 20 million years, these periods have never lasted longer than 13,500 years. Therefore it is reasonable to believe that we are coming to the end of our present interglacial period and that sometime, within the next 1,700 years, it is likely the Earth will get much colder and less hospitable.

This is false. As just one recent example, the interglatial period ending 400,000 years ago (four cyles back) was approximately 30,000 years long.


I'm sorry, but this article is just an opinion piece based on a combination of basic facts which are in no way incosistant with AGW, some simply false assertions, and some baseless speculation.

[sponger]

The facts are that current modeling is lousy at hindcasting anything. If it was a tropical model, we would consider it inferior to the Bamm. Somewhere down around Xtrap I believe!

[x-y-no]

The facts are that current modeling is lousy at hindcasting anything. If it was a tropical model, we would consider it inferior to the Bamm. Somewhere down around Xtrap I believe!

The link to IPCC TAR doesn't seem to be working. I think I recall that they adressed the issue of GCM hincast skill. When the link is back up, I'll look for that.

[JBG]

I think the evidence is actually fairly clear that some degree of Global Warming is occurring-the reason is why. My opinion is that it's a combination of factors including but not solely due to anthropogenic causes. What both sides of the argument seem to forget is that the atmospheric energy increase caused by the warming will result in harsher extremes on BOTH sides of the ledger.

Steve

I guess the logic is "it's so hot, it's cold".

[JBG]

SCORESBYSUND, GREENLAND—Mainstream newspaper, Internet and TV reports claim global warming is causing extensive melting of glaciers, icebergs and permafrost, which might lead to drastic increases in sea level and threaten inundation of coastal cities. But there is no evidence that the sea level is actually rising, only forecasts by computer models that have been based on thousands of assumptions.
Exactly ! In fact, sea levels are falling in the Indian Ocean and the Pacific since 1985, according to a recent report in the Spectator.

The Spectator is a peer-reviewed journal now? If you supply a link, I'll read the article, but this assertion is simply false. Te facts are that from 3000 years ago to the start of the 19th century sea level was almost constant, rising at 0.1 to 0.2 mm/yr; since 1900 the level has risen at 1 to 3 mm/yr; since 1992 satellite altimetry from TOPEX/Poseidon indicates a rate of about 3 mm/yr. (see IPCC TAR)

*snip*

I won't address the author's anecdote about his personal naked-eye observations of the Greenland coast, as that clearly is of no scientific meaning. The scientific fact is that glaciers are rapidly retreating worldwide on average.

The reporter was reporting what he actually saw. The use of one's eyeballs does not require peer review. Frankly, peer reviewing results in a herd mentality operating against dissenters from orthodoxy unlike the approbrium that was visited on Galileo. All hail the Flat Earth Society.

]
In Antarctica, temperatures on the icecap are decreasing. Satellite radar surveys of Antarctica and Greenland have shown that the icecaps are getting larger. Reports from the Mohn Sverdrup Center for Global Ocean studies in Norway state that, in the past 11 years, Greenland’s icecap has
increased over 21 inches.

A recent paper published in Science claims that ice is being deposited at the net rate of 26.8 billion tons a year in Antarctica.

I note a disturbing trend of failure to make attributions in this article. It's very difficult to sort out what misconceptions there are in someone's interpretation when they won't tell you precisely what research they are referring to.

I've heard similar reports.

I'll once again make the general point that global warming does not imply that there cannot be localized cooling trends (such as the slight cooling trend observed at a few Antarctic stations over the last couple of decades) and also that global warming is not inconsistent with increased precipitation leading to localized thickening of ice deposits.

The same people who are now playing "chicken little" regarding global warming were doi the same in the late 1970's after the Northeast US suffered through three brutal winters, 1976-7, 1977-8 and 1978-9. The current alarums started being sounded after the summer of 1988, a La Nina summer featuring brutal heat pretty much from coast-to-coast.

The "global warming" movement picked up strength and financing with the aid of a corrupt Canadian financier, Maurice Strong, who is now up to his neck in th eoil-for-food scandal as well as the Kyoto fraud.

However, Nordic settlements quickly disappeared when the Earth cooled from about A.D. 1300 to 1700, in what has been known as “the Little Ice Age,” an historical fact. Man’s actions did not cause this. It was Mother Nature’s work.

Subsequently, the Earth has been warming for the past 300 years. Consequently, it is reasonable to expect some ice to melt after that many years of warming.

The fact that natural climate forcings exist does not in anyway detract from the fact that anthropogenic forcing also exists.

And you proof for anthropogenic forcing?

[P.K.]

The same people who are now playing "chicken little" regarding global warming were doi the same in the late 1970's after the Northeast US suffered through three brutal winters, 1976-7, 1977-8 and 1978-9. The current alarums started being sounded after the summer of 1988, a La Nina summer featuring brutal heat pretty much from coast-to-coast.

The "global warming" movement picked up strength and financing with the aid of a corrupt Canadian financier, Maurice Strong, who is now up to his neck in th eoil-for-food scandal as well as the Kyoto fraud.

Depends where you look at. For England looking at the data I found:

1976/1977 was the 21st coldest winter last century - 1976 was actually the warmest summer in the period 1659 to 2005. The droughts that year were the worst since 1252/1253. Morris & Marsh (1985) J. Meteorology, UK.103 324-332
1977/1978 was the 38th coldest winter last century
1978/1979 was the 5th coldest winter last century

The summer of 1988 is well down the list (The bottom 25% of the 1659-2005 list) so I don't see how these alarms are somehow purely linked to the weather over there?

I really don't believe this corrupt financing you talk about for the "global warming movement"

[JBG]

The same people who are now playing "chicken little" regarding global warming were doi the same in the late 1970's after the Northeast US suffered through three brutal winters, 1976-7, 1977-8 and 1978-9. The current alarums started being sounded after the summer of 1988, a La Nina summer featuring brutal heat pretty much from coast-to-coast.

The "global warming" movement picked up strength and financing with the aid of a corrupt Canadian financier, Maurice Strong, who is now up to his neck in th eoil-for-food scandal as well as the Kyoto fraud.

Depends where you look at. For England looking at the data I found:

1976/1977 was the 21st coldest winter last century - 1976 was actually the warmest summer in the period 1659 to 2005. The droughts that year were the worst since 1252/1253. Morris & Marsh (1985) J. Meteorology, UK.103 324-332
1977/1978 was the 38th coldest winter last century
1978/1979 was the 5th coldest winter last century

The summer of 1988 is well down the list (The bottom 25% of the 1659-2005 list) so I don't see how these alarms are somehow purely linked to the weather over there?

I was tracking US and Canadian weather, since the "hotbed" of this dubious science was with Maurice Strong as financier, and a zoologist or geneticist named David Suzuki who became a culturally based expert on climate. In our neck of the woods, the summer of 1976 started out hot, with the "Easter Sunday" heat wave that took temperatures to 96 Farenheight in April. June was also rather hot. After that the summer sort of fizzled. 1977 was in fact rather hot. The winters drew people's attention, as 1976-7 created crippling "lake-effect" stomrs in upstate New York, along with bone-warping cold throught the northeast. January and February 1978 featured two massive East Coast blizzards. 1978-9 featured snow that crippled the political future of Chicago's mayor Bilandic, and plenty of cold and snow elsewhere.

I really don't believe this corrupt financing you talk about for the "global warming movement"

Here's a link to post about Maurice Strong, outlining his various frauds, including Kyoto.

[Aslkahuna]

The whole point being missed is this-the Physics involved in the Greenhouse Effect are very well known as is the effectiveness of certain gaseous components of the atmosphere at trapping IR (heat) in the lower troposphere. In terms of concentration the most prevalent GHGs are H2O vapor, CO2 and CH4. In terms of effectiveness at trapping IR they are CH4, CO2 and H2O. Now CH4 comes from volcanoes, decay of vegetable and animal material (as well as flatulence) and releases from Methane Hydrate deposits in the deep ocean and from human activity. Since volcanic activity has been stable over the past 200 years or so and that there have been no hydrate releases observed, any increase in atmosphere methane has to be caused by decay and human activities. Based upon core samples going back 650000 years, the current level of CO2 is some 80 ppm higher than the highest levels noted in the purely natural cycles of variability with most of this increase being of recent origin and which can be tied to the great increase in the use of carbon based fuels (a point which has been discussed many time on this board).
This is some 35.7% about the natural variability observed in the past. Now although the amount of increase seems small, it's important to note that the atmosphere responds to the effects of this increase in a non linear chaotic fashion to that response to the CO2 being 35.7% higher than ever observed in the past 650000 years does not mean that this increase is responsible for only 35% of the observed warming. Clearly there are natural variations to account for-the current overall high levels of Solar activity (long term) since the 1940's is estimated to account for up to 30% of the observed warming. Of the remaining 70%, at face value
human activity accounts for more than 50% of it and quite likely more.

The atmosphere is a heat engine. You add heat to a heat engine and it runs faster and stronger-simple Physics. In the realm of not so simple Physics (as any Met Student knows) is the fact that the atmospheric heat engine runs in a non linear chaotic fashion making it difficult to anticipate what will happen. But one thing is certain, as you add energy in form of heat, you increase the instability of the systems and can get some extremly fast zonal patterns as well as some extremely amplified ones which will feature regions of intense cold adjacent to very warm ones. One thing to remember, trying to apply logic to weather is probably more difficult than having Man understand everything about Woman.

Steve

[JBG]

The atmosphere is a heat engine. You add heat to a heat engine and it runs faster and stronger-simple Physics. In the realm of not so simple Physics (as any Met Student knows) is the fact that the atmospheric heat engine runs in a non linear chaotic fashion making it difficult to anticipate what will happen. But one thing is certain, as you add energy in form of heat, you increase the instability of the systems and can get some extremly fast zonal patterns as well as some extremely amplified ones which will feature regions of intense cold adjacent to very warm ones. One thing to remember, trying to apply logic to weather is probably more difficult than having Man understand everything about Woman.

Steve

Is there proof that the human component is large enough to make a difference?

[Aslkahuna]

Well, the added amount above that of documented natural variability is some 35.7%. That said, there is no definitive proof that it's a factor anymore than there is no definitive proof that it is NOT. The way I see it, is why take the risk? if we do something and later find that it wasn't necessary but end up with a cleaner and healthier atmosphere is much to be preferred over doing nothing at all and being bashed over the head with a baseball bat by Mother Nature should it turn out that we are making a difference. Our civilization is extremely dependent upon a stable climate and if that gets upset we are in serious trouble. That said, Kyoto is NO answer at all-all this talk about exemptions and credits sounds like some sort of shell game and for this reason the US was right to reject it though the actual reasons given were as bogus as the agreement is.

Steve

[x-y-no]

The reporter was reporting what he actually saw. The use of one's eyeballs does not require peer review. Frankly, peer reviewing results in a herd mentality operating against dissenters from orthodoxy unlike the approbrium that was visited on Galileo. All hail the Flat Earth Society.

Sure, personal observations don't need peer review, but they also don't tell us anything meaningful about regional, let alone global trends.

As for the value of peer-review - it's far and away the best mechanism we've ever come up with for separating the wheat from the chaff in terms of valid research. Scientists are human, so sure there's a herd mentality at times. But there's also the human drive to competition. Most scientists I've known would love nothing better than to prove everybody else wrong.

I'm confused by your reference to the Flat Earth Society, though. They are the kind of maverics you are championing - so are you saying the Earth really is flat? Peer-reviewed research suggests otherwise.

I've heard similar reports.

So then maybe you can direct us to the science, and then we'll have something concrete to discuss.

The same people who are now playing "chicken little" regarding global warming were doi the same in the late 1970's after the Northeast US suffered through three brutal winters, 1976-7, 1977-8 and 1978-9. The current alarums started being sounded after the summer of 1988, a La Nina summer featuring brutal heat pretty much from coast-to-coast.

The "global warming" movement picked up strength and financing with the aid of a corrupt Canadian financier, Maurice Strong, who is now up to his neck in th eoil-for-food scandal as well as the Kyoto fraud.

This is pure nonsense. I saw a lot of the development of the AGW hypothesis first hand. The people I knew who were involved in most of the basic research typically got their funding from NSF or Navy. Each and every one I have known personally has in my experience been cautios and scrupulously honest. No doubt there are exceptions, but that's the whole point of peer-review - to weed out the dishonest and the incompetent.

And you proof for anthropogenic forcing?

I suggest you read the IPCC TAR document for the comprehensive case for AGW (that is if you're really interested in the science and not just the politics).

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm

[JBG]

Well, the added amount above that of documented natural variability is some 35.7%. That said, there is no definitive proof that it's a factor anymore than there is no definitive proof that it is NOT. The way I see it, is why take the risk? if we do something and later find that it wasn't necessary but end up with a cleaner and healthier atmosphere is much to be preferred over doing nothing at all and being bashed over the head with a baseball bat by Mother Nature should it turn out that we are making a difference.

Is it worth spending billions on what might be a wild-goose chase? These billions spent on what is likely to be a worthless project will wind up reducing the living standards of many people, not all of them wealthy. In fact, it's a good bet that the wealthy and influential people will find ways of "dodging the bullet". Meanwhile, the poor and middle class will be burdened by the carbon taxes and higher prices brought on by misguided, naive schemes.

Our civilization is extremely dependent upon a stable climate and if that gets upset we are in serious trouble.

Our planet has never experienced a "stable" climate. We may enjoy relative stability for times that are long in relation to a human lifetime, but less than a blink of an eye geologically. For example, the mid-Mississippi valley was hit by a horrendous earthquake during the late 1700's. This area was not then and is not now considered earthquake-prone.

Similarly, the New York metropolitan area was buried under glacial ice on several occasions during Ice Ages. At one time, subtropical warmth extended to Saskatchewan and Alberta. Mankind may indeed be hubristic in assuming that it can assure a stable climate. It is true, of course, that most climate changes are slow enough to foster the orderly relocation of large population centers (as appears to have happened to the Mayas in Mexico when the climate became unfavorable to the large-scale agriculture needed to sustain urban life).

That said, Kyoto is NO answer at all-all this talk about exemptions and credits sounds like some sort of shell game and for this reason the US was right to reject it though the actual reasons given were as bogus as the agreement is.

Steve[/quote]

Clearly, the authors of the Kyoto fraud knew that the treaty would "have no legs" if actual reduction of industrial or transportation activity were required. The treaty is a "feel-good" device designed to assure the people that the politicians have the "climate problem" under control, when they most assuredly don't and can't.

[JBG]

This is pure nonsense. I saw a lot of the development of the AGW hypothesis first hand. The people I knew who were involved in most of the basic research typically got their funding from NSF or Navy. Each and every one I have known personally has in my experience been cautios and scrupulously honest. No doubt there are exceptions, but that's the whole point of peer-review - to weed out the dishonest and the incompetent.

Put "Maurice Strong" as an exact phrase into Google with Kyoto. You'll be shocked at the lack of quality of people you're working with.

[terstorm1012]

Actually JBG--the MidMississippi valley IS considered Earthquake prone (the exact date for the quakes were the winter of 1811-1812).

Outside of the West coast, it is the US's most hazardous area. So much so that the states in that region have special legislation and building codes in effect.

the Mid-Mississipi valley also rattles on a fairly regular basis, and will likely experience another large series of quakes in the next two to eight centuries based on the paleoseismological record.

Not on topic but I couldn't let that glaring error go uncorrected

[P.K.]

This is pure nonsense. I saw a lot of the development of the AGW hypothesis first hand. The people I knew who were involved in most of the basic research typically got their funding from NSF or Navy. Each and every one I have known personally has in my experience been cautios and scrupulously honest. No doubt there are exceptions, but that's the whole point of peer-review - to weed out the dishonest and the incompetent.

Put "Maurice Strong" as an exact phrase into Google with Kyoto. You'll be shocked at the lack of quality of people you're working with.

Surely this person couldn't be influencing research over here though by the Met Office?? http://www.metoffice.com/research/hadleycentre/