Google Earth: how much has global warming raised temperatures near you?

[FiftyTwo]

My best example; "there is more CO2 in the air." So? Isn't that what helps plants grow? Or is that science wrong as well?

So what if it does? How is that germane to this discussion?

And is that really your best example? The presumption that if a certain amount of something is beneficial, more must be even better? Really?

We're supposed to drink about 4 liters of water every day to stay properly hydrated. So according to your theory, more must be better right? Guess what happens if you drink 8 liters of water daily - you can die. It's called hyponatremia. Anyone who takes vitamins knows this. Not enough causes a deficiency. The right amount keeps you healthy. Too much can kill you.[/size]

Plenty of scientific studies show plants would like 100-300% more CO2.

Here's one, http://www.growweedeasy.com/co2-marijuana-yields

http://www.hydrofarm.com/resources/articles/co2_enrichment.php

Edited February 18, 2014 by FiftyTwo

[attrayant]

Global climate warming change made Al gore one of the richest men in the World

Got anything that's not an argument ad hominem?

[attrayant]

Plenty of scientific studies show plants would like 100% more CO2.

I guess you were going to link me to a few of those studies but you hit the 'post' button too soon?

[edit since I see you've added a cite, although it's far from scientific]

Interesting bullet item in your "scientific study":

Benefits of Adding Extra CO2

• Maintaining 1200-1500 PPM of CO2 in the grow area allows growers to keep temperatures much higher than normal

It's not surprising that some plants do better in super-tropical climates. In the late cretaceous period when flora was plentiful, CO2 was around 1000 ppm. And guess what: it was a heck of a lot hotter back then! I'm not sure how this helps the "CO2 is beneficial" tangent that seems to have cropped up. I'm still waiting to hear what this sidebar has to do with the topic at hand.

Edited February 18, 2014 by attrayant

[FiftyTwo]

Plenty of scientific studies show plants would like 100% more CO2.

I guess you were going to link me to a few of those studies but you hit the 'post' button too soon?

Yep, and a chart.

4x co2 = 3x growth (assuming enough light and nutrient)

Edited February 18, 2014 by FiftyTwo

[boomerangutang]

Plants are growing bushier, according to my non-scientific observations. I've been in rural northern Thailand for 16 years. Every month I and hired workers are busy clearing weeds and vines off various properties. The work was tough at the early stages, but it's even tougher now, in terms of phenomenal growth of weeds and vines. Weeds that grew 1.5 meters in 2 months now grow twice as tall, and bushier. I've got a berry bush that normally grows to about 2 x 2 x 2 meters (from prior experiences/observations). Without watering or doing anything to the soil, one solitary bush (I forgot about) is growing as big as a mature willow tree, and it's only 4 years old. Plants are growing at least twice as heartily as 12 years ago. I admit it's non-scientific, because I haven't take any precise measurements with instruments, but I tend to believe added amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere is a factor. It would be interesting to see other data on that topic.

Edited February 18, 2014 by boomerangutang

[FiftyTwo]

Hey, be nice to the oil industry or you can sit in the dark, take cold showers and start to walk to work.

Without the oil industry most people would be dead.

Imagine trying to survive winter in N. America or N. Europe without oil and the electricity that comes from it.

So how did the human race evolve, prosper, spread to many parts of the globe, develop agriculture, writing, art, the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, etc etc before the oil industry came along?

They did, just at a MUCH slower pace.

I did say most people, not many these days could survive the harsh life and living conditions that they led before oil.

And for those that could survive, life would be short and brutal.

[attrayant]

[J]ust one volcano eruption spews more toxic gases and ozone damaging pollutants into the atmosphere than we as humans could discharge for millions of years just 1 volcano eruption far exceeds any amount of industrial air pollutants we could ever produce in thousands if millions of years time

Wrong. From the US EPA:

[N]umerous experiments have shown that CFCs and other widely-used chemicals produce roughly 84% of the chlorine in the stratosphere, while natural sources contribute only 16%.

If you're just going to keep spouting random assertions without backing them up, I'm going to start ignoring you. As much fun as you seem to be having throwing feces, cleaning it up isn't my idea of a relaxing Tuesday evening. That's why you don't see many climate change supporters posting here: fact-checking and responsible posting takes effort. Not only do we have to cite our statements and check our work, but we have to do your homework too, because you won't provide any cites to back up your assertions.

Volcanic eruptions have been happening since the Earth was new, this much is true. And the ozone layer was just fine. Then humans and their CFCs came along and what happened? Holes in the ozone layer. Fast-forward to the Montreal Protocol of 1987, where all UN member countries have signed on pledging to cut CFCs because they break down into elemental chlorine, which destroys atmospheric ozone. So all of you who claim that humans are powerless to damage our fragile ecosystem, you must have already forgotten about the ozone crisis. I'm looking at you, Charlton Heston.

More from the EPA:

Because of measures taken under the Montreal Protocol, emissions of ozone-depleting substances are already falling. Levels of total inorganic chlorine in the stratosphere peaked in 1997 and 1998. The good news is that the natural ozone production process will heal the ozone layer in about 50 years.

So not only can we break it, we can fix it too. Do we really need to learn this lesson all over again?

this essentially cancels out each and every scientific calculation which supports global warming.

Care to show your math on this? I didn't think so.

Edited February 18, 2014 by attrayant

[sdanielmcev]

My best example; "there is more CO2 in the air." So? Isn't that what helps plants grow? Or is that science wrong as well?

So what if it does? How is that germane to this discussion?

And is that really your best example? The presumption that if a certain amount of something is beneficial, more must be even better? Really?

We're supposed to drink about 4 liters of water every day to stay properly hydrated. So according to your theory, more must be better right? Guess what happens if you drink 8 liters of water daily - you can die. It's called hyponatremia. Anyone who takes vitamins knows this. Not enough causes a deficiency. The right amount keeps you healthy. Too much can kill you.

"Germane to the discussion"? It IS the discussion. Did you read what I wrote, or read what you wanted to hear. Please pay attention. Do not dissemble.

I was pointing out a mistake. Which seems to happen too often in this discussion.

As for the "too much CO2" statement, I'm showing how difficult it is for either side to be taken seriously.

[sdanielmcev]

[J]ust one volcano eruption spews more toxic gases and ozone damaging pollutants into the atmosphere than we as humans could discharge for millions of years just 1 volcano eruption far exceeds any amount of industrial air pollutants we could ever produce in thousands if millions of years time

Wrong. From the US EPA:

[N]umerous experiments have shown that CFCs and other widely-used chemicals produce roughly 84% of the chlorine in the stratosphere, while natural sources contribute only 16%.

If you're just going to keep spouting random assertions without backing them up, I'm going to start ignoring you. As much fun as you seem to be having throwing feces, cleaning it up isn't my idea of a relaxing Tuesday evening. That's why you don't see many climate change supporters posting here: fact-checking and responsible posting takes effort. Not only do we have to cite our statements and check our work, but we have to do your homework too, because you won't provide any cites to back up your assertions.

Volcanic eruptions have been happening since the Earth was new, this much is true. And the ozone layer was just fine. Then humans and their CFCs came along and what happened? Holes in the ozone layer. Fast-forward to the Montreal Protocol of 1987, where all UN member countries have signed on pledging to cut CFCs because they break down into elemental chlorine, which destroys atmospheric ozone. So all of you who claim that humans are powerless to damage our fragile ecosystem, you must have already forgotten about the ozone crisis. I'm looking at you,

.

More from the EPA:

Because of measures taken under the Montreal Protocol, emissions of ozone-depleting substances are already falling. Levels of total inorganic chlorine in the stratosphere peaked in 1997 and 1998. The good news is that the natural ozone production process will heal the ozone layer in about 50 years.

So not only can we break it, we can fix it too. Do we really need to learn this lesson all over again?

this essentially cancels out each and every scientific calculation which supports global warming.

Care to show your math on this? I didn't think so.

To be fair, we probably (notice I said probably,) couldn't measure ozone depletion before. We can only theorize, not factualize.

Edited February 18, 2014 by sdanielmcev

[F430murci]

Global climate warming change made Al gore one of the richest men in the World

Actually, Gore's wealth came from 101,000 Apple stock options at $ 7.50 a share (realizing something like a 6,000 percent increase in value when exercised) and the $ 100 million he made from the sale of Current TV.

In 2008, he made some well timed investments into various hedge funds and private partnerships through Capricorn Investment Group and that guy that owned eBay, Skoll. I have not seen the figures, but I have heard that his hedge fund and partnerships netted him about $ 80 million.

Gore was also a partner at Kleiner Doer which was an early investor in Amazon.com, Intuit and Google.

His so called Green related income . . .

He actually made very little off the Generation Investment Management fund that incorporated sustainability into its investment approach. There was something like $ 200 million in profits split between 26 partners so this comprised about 10 % of his wealth. GIM has actually done pretty bad performance wise since 2010. He gets about $ 175,000 for speaking engagements which probably does not even pay his yearly capital gains taxes.

[boomerangutang]

To be fair, we probably (notice I said probably,) couldn't measure ozone depletion before. We can only theorize, not factualize.

There have been several series of ozone measurements over the past 3 decades, mostly over Antarctica, where its depletion was most significant. When I was just out of high school, about 1971, I read a description of ozone depletion written by Isaac Isamov. This was at very early stages of awareness of CFC problems - many years before there was any mention in newspapers. Sensing an important issue, but not being a scientist myself, I nevertheless fired off about 25 letters to climate scientists (this was well more than a decade before e-mail existed). I don't know if my letters inspired any scientist to investigate, but it gives an idea of the types of topics which motivate me to action.

[canman]

There is a day-old report on NPR (America's National Public Radio) which reports something that will drive deniers nuts (nuttier than they already are? ....that's a stretch). It purports that warming arctic is causing jet stream to flow eratically, further north and south, therefore explaining why US states like Georgia and Alabama are experiencing unprecedented cold weather.

SOURCE

What's that I heard someone say; 'The arctic is not warming' ? Tell that to the polar bears who are running short of ice, and have to swim more often.

Polar bears again!!

The polar bear populations are increasing, there are talks of culls near population centres. This is just another silly Al Gore propoganda piece. Stop CO2 Save the polar bears!

From the Canadian Geographic:

Despite all this hedging, the numbers still tell a powerful story. It’s just not always clear what that story is. In Davis Strait, between Greenland and Baffin Island, the polar bear population has grown from 900 animals in the late 1970s to around 2,100 today. In Foxe Basin — a portion of northern Hudson Bay — a population that was estimated to be 2,300 in the early 2000s now stands at 2,570. And in specific areas of western Hudson Bay, the most-studied, most-photographed group of bears on Earth seems to have been on a slow but steady increase since in the 1970s.

“Polar bears are one of the biggest conservation success stories in the world,” says Drikus Gissing, wildlife director for the Government of Nunavut. “There are more bears here now than there were in the recent past.”

[FiftyTwo]

To be fair, we probably (notice I said probably,) couldn't measure ozone depletion before. We can only theorize, not factualize.

There have been several series of ozone measurements over the past 3 decades, mostly over Antarctica, where its depletion was most significant. When I was just out of high school, about 1971, I read a description of ozone depletion written by Isaac Isamov. This was at very early stages of awareness of CFC problems - many years before there was any mention in newspapers. Sensing an important issue, but not being a scientist myself, I nevertheless fired off about 25 letters to climate scientists (this was well more than a decade before e-mail existed). I don't know if my letters inspired any scientist to investigate, but it gives an idea of the types of topics which motivate me to action.

Did they have climate scientists in 1971?

[boomerangutang]

To be fair, we probably (notice I said probably,) couldn't measure ozone depletion before. We can only theorize, not factualize.

There have been several series of ozone measurements over the past 3 decades, mostly over Antarctica, where its depletion was most significant. When I was just out of high school, about 1971, I read a description of ozone depletion written by Isaac Isamov. This was at very early stages of awareness of CFC problems - many years before there was any mention in newspapers. Sensing an important issue, but not being a scientist myself, I nevertheless fired off about 25 letters to climate scientists (this was well more than a decade before e-mail existed). I don't know if my letters inspired any scientist to investigate, but it gives an idea of the types of topics which motivate me to action.

Did they have climate scientists in 1971?

I don't know when the phrase 'climate scientist' first got used, but scientists have been studying climate since at least the Middle Ages, or possibly since the first dugout canoe got built.

[boomerangutang]

There is a day-old report on NPR (America's National Public Radio) which reports something that will drive deniers nuts (nuttier than they already are? ....that's a stretch). It purports that warming arctic is causing jet stream to flow eratically, further north and south, therefore explaining why US states like Georgia and Alabama are experiencing unprecedented cold weather.

SOURCE

What's that I heard someone say; 'The arctic is not warming' ? Tell that to the polar bears who are running short of ice, and have to swim more often.

Polar bears again!!

The polar bear populations are increasing, there are talks of culls near population centres. This is just another silly Al Gore propoganda piece. Stop CO2 Save the polar bears!

From the Canadian Geographic:

Despite all this hedging, the numbers still tell a powerful story. It’s just not always clear what that story is. In Davis Strait, between Greenland and Baffin Island, the polar bear population has grown from 900 animals in the late 1970s to around 2,100 today. In Foxe Basin — a portion of northern Hudson Bay — a population that was estimated to be 2,300 in the early 2000s now stands at 2,570. And in specific areas of western Hudson Bay, the most-studied, most-photographed group of bears on Earth seems to have been on a slow but steady increase since in the 1970s.

“Polar bears are one of the biggest conservation success stories in the world,” says Drikus Gissing, wildlife director for the Government of Nunavut. “There are more bears here now than there were in the recent past.”

"In May 2008, the U.S listed the polar bear as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act, citing sea ice losses in the Arctic from global warming as the single biggest threat to polar bears. Polar bears depend on sea ice for hunting, breeding, and in some cases, denning. In 2012, summer sea ice losses in the Arctic were larger than the size of the United States."

"Results from long-term studies show:

• Canada's Western Hudson Bay population: 22% decline since the early 1980s, directly related to earlier ice break-up on Hudson Bay.

• Southern Beaufort Sea population along the northern coast of Alaska and western Canada: decline in cub survival rates and in the weight and skull size of adult males; similar observations made in Western Hudson Bay prior to its population drop.

• Baffin Bay population, shared by Greenland and Canada: at risk from both significant sea ice loss and substantial over-harvesting.

Scientists predict that unless we take action to stop climate change, we will lose two-thirds of all polar bears by the middle of the century and all of them by the end of the century."

source

[chuckd]

To be fair, we probably (notice I said probably,) couldn't measure ozone depletion before. We can only theorize, not factualize.

There have been several series of ozone measurements over the past 3 decades, mostly over Antarctica, where its depletion was most significant. When I was just out of high school, about 1971, I read a description of ozone depletion written by Isaac Isamov. This was at very early stages of awareness of CFC problems - many years before there was any mention in newspapers. Sensing an important issue, but not being a scientist myself, I nevertheless fired off about 25 letters to climate scientists (this was well more than a decade before e-mail existed). I don't know if my letters inspired any scientist to investigate, but it gives an idea of the types of topics which motivate me to action.

Did they have climate scientists in 1971?

They actually did have climate scientists in 1971 and they were considerably more accurate than the current crop.

They were known as "The Farmer's Almanac".

[attrayant]

“Polar bears are one of the biggest conservation success stories in the world,” says Drikus Gissing, wildlife director for the Government of Nunavut. “There are more bears here now than there were in the recent past.”

Not sure what point you're trying to make here. The post you're replying to essentially says that, due to a loss of habitat, polar bears are being forced out into the seas and oceans [where many end up drowning from exhaustion]. Your reply seems to boil down to "but there are a lot of polar bears!"

So, because there are a lot of polar bears, it's okay for them to start drowning while trying to stay afloat at sea?

Edited February 20, 2014 by attrayant

[teatree]

There is a day-old report on NPR (America's National Public Radio) which reports something that will drive deniers nuts (nuttier than they already are? ....that's a stretch). It purports that warming arctic is causing jet stream to flow eratically, further north and south, therefore explaining why US states like Georgia and Alabama are experiencing unprecedented cold weather.

SOURCE

What's that I heard someone say; 'The arctic is not warming' ? Tell that to the polar bears who are running short of ice, and have to swim more often.

Polar bears again!!

The polar bear populations are increasing, there are talks of culls near population centres. This is just another silly Al Gore propoganda piece. Stop CO2 Save the polar bears!

From the Canadian Geographic:

Despite all this hedging, the numbers still tell a powerful story. It’s just not always clear what that story is. In Davis Strait, between Greenland and Baffin Island, the polar bear population has grown from 900 animals in the late 1970s to around 2,100 today. In Foxe Basin — a portion of northern Hudson Bay — a population that was estimated to be 2,300 in the early 2000s now stands at 2,570. And in specific areas of western Hudson Bay, the most-studied, most-photographed group of bears on Earth seems to have been on a slow but steady increase since in the 1970s.

“Polar bears are one of the biggest conservation success stories in the world,” says Drikus Gissing, wildlife director for the Government of Nunavut. “There are more bears here now than there were in the recent past.”

"In May 2008, the U.S listed the polar bear as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act, citing sea ice losses in the Arctic from global warming as the single biggest threat to polar bears. Polar bears depend on sea ice for hunting, breeding, and in some cases, denning. In 2012, summer sea ice losses in the Arctic were larger than the size of the United States."

"Results from long-term studies show:

• Canada's Western Hudson Bay population: 22% decline since the early 1980s, directly related to earlier ice break-up on Hudson Bay.

• Southern Beaufort Sea population along the northern coast of Alaska and western Canada: decline in cub survival rates and in the weight and skull size of adult males; similar observations made in Western Hudson Bay prior to its population drop.

• Baffin Bay population, shared by Greenland and Canada: at risk from both significant sea ice loss and substantial over-harvesting.

Scientists predict that unless we take action to stop climate change, we will lose two-thirds of all polar bears by the middle of the century and all of them by the end of the century."

source

The US also lists CO2 as a pollutant.

Let that sink in.

Co2 is one of the building blocks of life along with water, sun light and oxygen, and it is a pollutant? We really are living in an Orwellian nightmare.

What's next? Is water a pollutant because sometimes it floods?

Its like a scene out of the film 'Idiocracy'.

[canman]

“Polar bears are one of the biggest conservation success stories in the world,” says Drikus Gissing, wildlife director for the Government of Nunavut. “There are more bears here now than there were in the recent past.”

Not sure what point you're trying to make here. The post you're replying to essentially says that, due to a loss of habitat, polar bears are being forced out into the seas and oceans [where many end up drowning from exhaustion]. Your reply seems to boil down to "but there are a lot of polar bears!"

So, because there are a lot of polar bears, it's okay for them to start drowning while trying to stay afloat at sea?

Not saying that at all. I was simply pointing to the fact that Al Gore and his acolytes have been once again shown to be incorrect. They predicted massive declines in polar bear populations which did not happen.

I would be interested to see any evidence that polar bears are indeed drowning at any greater rate than in the past.

Edited February 21, 2014 by canman

[ExpatOilWorker]

There is a day-old report on NPR (America's National Public Radio) which reports something that will drive deniers nuts (nuttier than they already are? ....that's a stretch). It purports that warming arctic is causing jet stream to flow eratically, further north and south, therefore explaining why US states like Georgia and Alabama are experiencing unprecedented cold weather.

SOURCE

What's that I heard someone say; 'The arctic is not warming' ? Tell that to the polar bears who are running short of ice, and have to swim more often.

Polar bears again!!

The polar bear populations are increasing, there are talks of culls near population centres. This is just another silly Al Gore propoganda piece. Stop CO2 Save the polar bears!

From the Canadian Geographic:

Despite all this hedging, the numbers still tell a powerful story. Its just not always clear what that story is. In Davis Strait, between Greenland and Baffin Island, the polar bear population has grown from 900 animals in the late 1970s to around 2,100 today. In Foxe Basin a portion of northern Hudson Bay a population that was estimated to be 2,300 in the early 2000s now stands at 2,570. And in specific areas of western Hudson Bay, the most-studied, most-photographed group of bears on Earth seems to have been on a slow but steady increase since in the 1970s.

Polar bears are one of the biggest conservation success stories in the world, says Drikus Gissing, wildlife director for the Government of Nunavut. There are more bears here now than there were in the recent past.

"In May 2008, the U.S listed the polar bear as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act, citing sea ice losses in the Arctic from global warming as the single biggest threat to polar bears. Polar bears depend on sea ice for hunting, breeding, and in some cases, denning. In 2012, summer sea ice losses in the Arctic were larger than the size of the United States."

"Results from long-term studies show:[/size]

• Canada's Western Hudson Bay population: 22% decline since the early 1980s, directly related to earlier ice break-up on Hudson Bay.

• Southern Beaufort Sea population along the northern coast of Alaska and western Canada: decline in cub survival rates and in the weight and skull size of adult males; similar observations made in Western Hudson Bay prior to its population drop.

• Baffin Bay population, shared by Greenland and Canada: at risk from both significant sea ice loss and substantial over-harvesting.

Scientists predict that unless we take action to stop climate change, we will lose two-thirds of all polar bears by the middle of the century and all of them by the end of the century.[/size]"

source

The US also lists CO2 as a pollutant.

Let that sink in.

Co2 is one of the building blocks of life along with water, sun light and oxygen, and it is a pollutant? We really are living in an Orwellian nightmare.

What's next? Is water a pollutant because sometimes it floods?

Its like a scene out of the film 'Idiocracy'.

Go away I am busy batin'......which is a CO2 neutral activity.

[RickBradford]

Information sources provided by the American Meteorological Society confirm what we knew: the real-world data says temperatures are almost flat; the cosy climate models (red) continue to predict a runaway catastrophe.

Speaking about climate change in Indonesia last week, US Secretary of State John Kerry said bluntly: "We should not allow a tiny minority of shoddy scientists" and "extreme ideologues to compete with scientific facts."

Well said, John.

[boomerangutang]

The chart above is a bit small, so not easy to read the parameters. It says 'mid-tropospheric temperature' There are a lot of other locales to measure temperature (sea surface, lower sea, land surface, lower troposphere, etc), but perhaps deniers have been able to find the one locale where temps are only going up a little bit, as compared to other places where they're going up comparatively more. If a person wants to look at global climate data with eyes clenched shut, that's their prerogative - but they won't see much.

[boomerangutang]

The US also lists CO2 as a pollutant. Let that sink in.

Co2 is one of the building blocks of life along with water, sun light and oxygen, and it is a pollutant? We really are living in an Orwellian nightmare. What's next? Is water a pollutant because sometimes it floods? Its like a scene out of the film 'Idiocracy'. Go away I am busy batin'......which is a CO2 neutral activity.

Different compounds have varying effect, depending on the context and their concentration. Water can be many things: constructive, destructive, life-giving, or life-suffocating, etc., depending on the context. Probably similar with CO2. There's a song by an English group with the chorus: "Too much of anything ain't good for nobody."

[RickBradford]

... perhaps deniers have been able to find the one locale where temps are only going up a little bit, as compared to other places where they're going up comparatively more.

Er, no.

The reason the mid-troposphere is so important is that the alarmists themselves chose it as the place where the warming would show up most strongly -- it would be the fingerprint of man-made global warming, the smoking gun.

It didn't. It wasn't They were wrong then. And still are now.

[chuckd]

There have been several series of ozone measurements over the past 3 decades, mostly over Antarctica, where its depletion was most significant. When I was just out of high school, about 1971, I read a description of ozone depletion written by Isaac Isamov. This was at very early stages of awareness of CFC problems - many years before there was any mention in newspapers. Sensing an important issue, but not being a scientist myself, I nevertheless fired off about 25 letters to climate scientists (this was well more than a decade before e-mail existed). I don't know if my letters inspired any scientist to investigate, but it gives an idea of the types of topics which motivate me to action.

Did they have climate scientists in 1971?

They actually did have climate scientists in 1971 and they were considerably more accurate than the current crop.

They were known as "The Farmer's Almanac".

This little item just published on the web.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Report: Farmers’ Almanac more accurate than government climate scientists

12:17 PM 02/20/2014

Michael Bastasch

This exceptionally cold and snowy winter has shown that government climate scientists were dead wrong when it came to predicting just how cold this winter would be, while the 197-year old Farmers’ Almanac predicted this winter would be “bitterly cold”.

Bloomberg Businessweek reports that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Climate Prediction Center (CPC) predicted temperatures would be “above normal from November through January across much of the lower 48 states.”

<snip>

Who could have predicted such a harsh winter? The Farmers Almanac did, according to a CBS News report from August 2013. The nearly 200-year old publication hit newsstands last summer and predicted that “a winter storm will hit the Northeast around the time the Super Bowl is played at MetLife Stadium in the Meadowlands in New Jersey,” and also predicted “a colder-than-normal winter for two-thirds of the country and heavy snowfall in the Midwest, Great Lakes and New England.”

<snip>

The Farmers’ Almanac makes predictions based on planetary positions, sunspots and lunar cycles — a prediction system that has remained largely unchanged since its first publication in 1818. While modern scientists don’t put much stock in the almanac’s way of doing things, the book says it’s accurate about 80 percent of the time.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/20/report-farmers-almanac-more-accurate-than-govt-climate-scientists/#ixzz2tvsYT7iW

Just curious...Does the Farmers' Almanac get any government grants to study global warming?

[RickBradford]

The Farmers’ Almanac makes predictions based on planetary positions, sunspots and lunar cycles

A UK weather company called Weather Action uses the same parameters, and is so successful that bookmaker William Hill banned them from making bets.

Weather Action is routinely dissed by the official bureaucratic body, the UK Met Office, which recently predicted

Met Office 3-month [uK] outlook Dec 2013-Feb 2014

This forecast is based on information from observations, several numerical models and expert judgement.

For the December-January-February period as a whole there is a slight signal for below-average precipitation. The probability that December-January-February will fall into the driest of our five categories is 25% and the probability it will fall into the wettest category is 15%.

Reality: one of the very wettest winters on record.

After this catastrophic fail, the head of the Met Office has the brazen gall to come out and say that the wet winter shows there is "a link to climate change".

As John Kerry said, shoddy scientists and extreme ideologues.

[attrayant]

The US also lists CO2 as a pollutant. Let that sink in.

Co2 is one of the building blocks of life along with water, sun light and oxygen, and it is a pollutant? We really are living in an Orwellian nightmare.

It's not just the US, every country on the planet with at least a 6th grade science education knows that CO2 is a pollutant. There's no need to let it "sink in" if you understand what the word 'pollutant' means. According to our friends at Merriam Webster, a pollutant is:

a substance that makes land, water, air, etc., dirty and not safe or suitable to use.

What's next? Is water a pollutant because sometimes it floods?

Please check the above definition of pollutant again, and you should be able to answer your own question.

Edited February 21, 2014 by attrayant

[Donnie Brasco]

Would everyone just take a moment to click on this, please.

FACT: CO2 comprises less than .0397 % of the Earth's atmosphere.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth

FIRSTLY

Of course, there's climate change.

Climate has ALWAYS "changed"

Sometimes it's hotter than other times.

There have been whole AGES of radically different weather.

SECONDLY

There is no evidence supporting man-made global warming.

THIRDLY

We are about as important to the planet as fleas are to an elephant.

We are NOT the crown of creation.

"Sometimes, 'fuggedabowdit' just means fuggedabowdit."

Edited February 21, 2014 by Donnie Brasco

[Donnie Brasco]

Google Earth: how much has global warming raised temperatures near you?

The University of East Anglia has released an interactive Google Earth layer with local temperature data

Dana Nuccitelli Tuesday 4 February 2014 13.00 GMT

theguardian.com

If you've ever wondered how much global warming has raised local temperatures in your area or elsewhere on the globe, the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit (UEA CRU) has just released a new interactive Google Earth layer that will let you answer this question with ease. UEA CRU is one of the scientific organizations that compile temperature data from around the world. Their temperature dataset over land is called CRUTEM4, and is one of the most widely used records of the climate system.

The new Google Earth format allows users to scroll around the world, zoom in on 6,000 weather stations, and view monthly, seasonal and annual temperature data more easily than ever before. Users can drill down to see some 20,000 graphs – some of which show temperature records dating back to 1850.

Read more: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/feb/04/global-warming-google-earth-uea

-- The Guardian 2014-02-04

Thanks for the info. Please stop using the term "global warming". "climate change" is the term most suitable. As soon as there is unseasonaly cold weather the nae sayers say "so much for global warming"

Sent from my KFTT using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

There has always been "climate change".

The problem for these East Anglia climate frauds is that they consistently FAIL to show that this ageless fluctuation in climatic conditions is man-made.

I am proud to say that I actually once had warmist, Georges Monbiot frothing (literally) frothing at the mouth at a seminar a few years back.

Now THAT was a spectacle to behold.

"Sometimes, 'fuggedabowdit' just means fuggedabowdit."

[Donnie Brasco]

The global warming doom mongers remind me of the Aids adverts on UK tv in the 1980's suggesting mankind would soon be wiped out across the planet.

It proved to be a damp squib.

The difference between the two are enormous, but you can rest assured that there was a huge amount of money, research and resources, not to mention some major life-style changes that helped to SLOW the AIDS epidemic. It is far from over.

Stay on the topic of global warming.

Junk science.

"Sometimes, 'fuggedabowdit' just means fuggedabowdit."