Big setback for the Global warming folks

[rainstorm]

Hehehe, if TD4 beocmes a tropical storm then'll we'll just be above average again!

unless it becomes a cane, we will fall further behind in that important category

[Dustin]

Well its a no brainer that global warming was not the cause of increased hurricanes.

[Jim Hughes]

Hmm. There was another case of scientific research being deliberately distorted (search down for Curt H Davis) to make a claim against global warming. (that one reported an increase in East Antarctic ice - true, but predicted by GW, and less than the loss in West Antarctica - all noted by the author in the paper.) I know you're acting in good faith, Caneman, but somewhere along the line where you got that reference is a unreliable, at best, source.

Nobody can positively claim anything quite yet and if anyone has read my PET Cycle discussion, (x-y-no said he would) they would know this.

It deals with the cyclical nature of the Polar Eurasia Pattern, it's effect upon stratospheric temperatures, ozone levels, and the size of the ozone hole in the 90's, and how "Space Weather" seems to have effected all of this during the past 40-50 years.

I make a strong case and nobody can deny the possible relationship here. It may take another ten years before we know for sure but things might get interesting.

What we have been led to believe may not be true . Or at least some part of it and some questions need to be answered. Most seem to be shying away from talking about this. Even some people at TWC. I am use to this though.

[timNms]

Question for those who are embracing the "global warming" theory. Just out of curiousity, shouldn't we be seeing more record breaking temps? I've been keeping track this year and last year of the "record breaking high temps" and record breaking high "low" temps in my area. Surprisingly, at least to me, most have not been record breaking at all, but just ties of the old record temps. Also, some of the records that were broken were temps that were recorded in the 60's and 70's. Now, to my uneducated self, that appears more like a cycle than something that is changing and won't ever get better.

Hope that made sense...was trying to talk to my son and type at the same time.

[Stormavoider]

I think there a 4 rank and file camps on this.
1. GW is B.S.
2 GW is real and part of a natural cycle.
3. GW is real and caused by humans.
4. GW is real and caused by Americans and Americans must be stopped.

[temujin]

I belong to Camp 5:

I'm not a climatologist and don't know. However, I do realize that both sides have some deep pockets, and therefore distrust both sides.

[MGC]

The fat lady has not sung yet on this season. Who knows what Mother Nature hold for us tomorrow or next week. If the season stays dead than this might be a revelant post in say November. I have yet to give up on the 2006 hurricane season.....MGC

[kenl01]

All I know is, I no longer pay attention to these GW people anymore !
No matter where it comes from or who it is, I totally ignore those people.
Nothing they say or do surprises me anymore.......they have lost complete credibility with me.

What's next on their agenda ? Are humans causing less hurricanes to form now because we are causing an El-Nino because of our SUV's ?? Will that be their next excuse I wonder ?? Hmmmm........

I just know they will make something up again. Be ready !

[curtadams]

Question for those who are embracing the "global warming" theory. Just out of curiousity, shouldn't we be seeing more record breaking temps? I've been keeping track this year and last year of the "record breaking high temps" and record breaking high "low" temps in my area. Surprisingly, at least to me, most have not been record breaking at all, but just ties of the old record temps. Also, some of the records that were broken were temps that were recorded in the 60's and 70's. Now, to my uneducated self, that appears more like a cycle than something that is changing and won't ever get better.

Hope that made sense...was trying to talk to my son and type at the same time.

No, we don't expect record highs every year. So far global warming has been about 1 degree centrigrade, which is enough to bias records towards highs (which they have been) but 0.01 per year, or even the forecast increase of up to 0.1 per year isn't going to set a record *every* year by a long shot.

Also, warming varies by area. You may not have seen many records but here in Southern California we had a GRUESOME June and July, with daily records being set every other day for a stretch and the all-time high for the LA basin - 119 in Woodland Hills. Our A/C bill was almost twice our previous record. I would *happily* trade our records for yours.

[Regit]

This is amazing. I've never seen a group of weather nuts so opposed to global warming. Usually in any group of weather enthusiasts who have a basic understanding of the science, there aren't this many people opposed to the idea.

But I am curious how many people here who are opposed have actually read scholarly articles on the subject.

Sometimes I feel like I'm in the twilight zone.

[timNms]

Question for those who are embracing the "global warming" theory. Just out of curiousity, shouldn't we be seeing more record breaking temps? I've been keeping track this year and last year of the "record breaking high temps" and record breaking high "low" temps in my area. Surprisingly, at least to me, most have not been record breaking at all, but just ties of the old record temps. Also, some of the records that were broken were temps that were recorded in the 60's and 70's. Now, to my uneducated self, that appears more like a cycle than something that is changing and won't ever get better.

Hope that made sense...was trying to talk to my son and type at the same time.

No, we don't expect record highs every year. So far global warming has been about 1 degree centrigrade, which is enough to bias records towards highs (which they have been) but 0.01 per year, or even the forecast increase of up to 0.1 per year isn't going to set a record *every* year by a long shot.

Also, warming varies by area. You may not have seen many records but here in Southern California we had a GRUESOME June and July, with daily records being set every other day for a stretch and the all-time high for the LA basin - 119 in Woodland Hills. Our A/C bill was almost twice our previous record. I would *happily* trade our records for yours.

Do you guys have the humidity that goes along with those highs? Here, we've been dealing with highs in the upper 90's to low 100's but with the humidity factored in, it feels more like 110+. ..simply miserable. I begin to melt when I step outside lol. My kids at school have only been outside one day for recess since school started on the 8th because it is TOO hot outside.

What are your "normal" highs for that area? Ours are pretty much at normal for this time of year. I think a lot of the problem with many of us is that unlike the days when I was growing up, we now have this wonderful thing called "Air conditioning". I know it has spoiled me. When I was growing up, we had a window AC unit at home that my parents only used if we had company at our house. Otherwise, we just sat in the shade to stay cool and slept at night with a windowfan bringing in the moisture from the outside. As kids growing up, we never stayed inside during the daytime. We were always outside playing in the woods or riding our bikes. But kids now-a-days have been spoiled by airconditioning and never venture far from the comforts of their rooms.

Not trying to start a debate here, just posting some of my observations.

[timNms]

This is amazing. I've never seen a group of weather nuts so opposed to global warming. Usually in any group of weather enthusiasts who have a basic understanding of the science, there aren't this many people opposed to the idea.

But I am curious how many people here who are opposed have actually read scholarly articles on the subject.

Sometimes I feel like I'm in the twilight zone.

I've read a few scholarly articles on global warming and have read a few who dispute global warming. Personally, I still think it's part of a cycle...but as I said before, I'm no expert in the field.

[Stormavoider]

Unfortunately this science is tainted by politics. I think the activist have shifted their focus to CO2 emissions because that is the only "pollutant" we haven't cleaned up.

[Regit]

Unfortunately this science is tainted by politics. I think the activist have shifted their focus to CO2 emissions because that is the only "pollutant" we haven't cleaned up.

OR...

It could be because there is a direct relation between CO2 and the planet heating and there always has been.

Also, the discussion has been tainted by politics. The science hasn't been tainted much at all, except maybe in the form of withholding necessary funding.

Next time you read information on global warming, read something that comes from a major university. Look at some stuff from researchers in other countries. Don't look at stuff from the White House and Al Gore and think that it's science.

[bocadad]

All I know is, I no longer pay attention to these GW people anymore !
No matter where it comes from or who it is, I totally ignore those people.
Nothing they say or do surprises me anymore.......they have lost complete credibility with me.

What's next on their agenda ? Are humans causing less hurricanes to form now because we are causing an El-Nino because of our SUV's ?? Will that be their next excuse I wonder ?? Hmmmm........

I just know they will make something up again. Be ready !

That sounds like an intelligent plan.

Wouldn't that be like ignoring anything a Republican has to say because of Pat Robertson? Or Tom Delay? Scientists are normally very non ideological by nature. You talk of an agenda like old time cold warriers spoke about the communist conspiracy. What agenda are you referring to and if it is a conspiracy why have I been left out? And who are they, anyway, or this an Abbot and Costello routine?

[Stormavoider]

Unfortunately this science is tainted by politics. I think the activist have shifted their focus to CO2 emissions because that is the only "pollutant" we haven't cleaned up.

OR...

It could be because there is a direct relation between CO2 and the planet heating and there always has been.

Also, the discussion has been tainted by politics. The science hasn't been tainted much at all, except maybe in the form of withholding necessary funding.

Next time you read information on global warming, read something that comes from a major university. Look at some stuff from researchers in other countries. Don't look at stuff from the White House and Al Gore and think that it's science.

The major Universities are the "Mecca" for GW activist. Should I will take Ward Churchhill's science as fact on this subject on your recommendation.

[curtadams]

No, we don't expect record highs every year. So far global warming has been about 1 degree centrigrade, which is enough to bias records towards highs (which they have been) but 0.01 per year, or even the forecast increase of up to 0.1 per year isn't going to set a record *every* year by a long shot.

Also, warming varies by area. You may not have seen many records but here in Southern California we had a GRUESOME June and July, with daily records being set every other day for a stretch and the all-time high for the LA basin - 119 in Woodland Hills. Our A/C bill was almost twice our previous record. I would *happily* trade our records for yours.

Do you guys have the humidity that goes along with those highs? Here, we've been dealing with highs in the upper 90's to low 100's but with the humidity factored in, it feels more like 110+. ..simply miserable. I begin to melt when I step outside lol. My kids at school have only been outside one day for recess since school started on the 8th because it is TOO hot outside.

What are your "normal" highs for that area? Ours are pretty much at normal for this time of year. I think a lot of the problem with many of us is that unlike the days when I was growing up, we now have this wonderful thing called "Air conditioning". I know it has spoiled me. When I was growing up, we had a window AC unit at home that my parents only used if we had company at our house. Otherwise, we just sat in the shade to stay cool and slept at night with a windowfan bringing in the moisture from the outside. As kids growing up, we never stayed inside during the daytime. We were always outside playing in the woods or riding our bikes. But kids now-a-days have been spoiled by airconditioning and never venture far from the comforts of their rooms.

Humidities aren't all that high here so that temp wasn't a killer - we "only" had a few dozen deaths. Normal temps there would be in the low 90s, though, so 119 is quite off the charts. Global warming is not - yet - to the point where it makes a big difference in one individual's life. In your life the temp increase is probably about 1 degree F or so. But in comparison to historical records, or on a global scale, it's quite striking.

[temujin]

The major Universities are the "Mecca" for GW activist. Should I will take Ward Churchhill's science as fact on this subject on your recommendation.

That cuts both ways, man. The fact is researchers know who's payin' the bills, and more than that the people with cash can shop around to find someone inclined toward their view. But like I said, it cuts both ways, left and right.

[caneman]

All I know is, I no longer pay attention to these GW people anymore !
No matter where it comes from or who it is, I totally ignore those people.
Nothing they say or do surprises me anymore.......they have lost complete credibility with me.

What's next on their agenda ? Are humans causing less hurricanes to form now because we are causing an El-Nino because of our SUV's ?? Will that be their next excuse I wonder ?? Hmmmm........

I just know they will make something up again. Be ready !

That sounds like an intelligent plan.

Wouldn't that be like ignoring anything a Republican has to say because of Pat Robertson? Or Tom Delay? Scientists are normally very non ideological by nature. You talk of an agenda like old time cold warriers spoke about the communist conspiracy. What agenda are you referring to and if it is a conspiracy why have I been left out? And who are they, anyway, or this an Abbot and Costello routine?

Wouldn't that be like ignoring anything a Republican has to say because of Pat Robertson? Or Tom Delay

Perhaps the conspiracy part is when Politics are drawn in. ALways seems to go that way with the GW's.

Wouldn't that be like ignoring anything a Republican has to say because of Pat Robertson? Or Tom Delay? Scientists are normally very non ideological by nature.
Wonder what party you support with a statement like this

Scientists are normally very non ideological by nature.

Really that is news to me. Evolution ring a bell

You talk of an agenda like old time cold warriers spoke about the communist conspiracy.

Wow - You don't believe there was communism or that they wanted to talk over the world yet you want me to buy The GW bit from Scientist who were learned in one of our many fine mostly Liberal based colleges with mostly Liberal teaching professors.

You're gonna have to do better than this.

[Jim Hughes]

This is amazing. I've never seen a group of weather nuts so opposed to global warming. Usually in any group of weather enthusiasts who have a basic understanding of the science, there aren't this many people opposed to the idea.

But I am curious how many people here who are opposed have actually read scholarly articles on the subject.

Sometimes I feel like I'm in the twilight zone.

I do not doubt for one minute that we are effecting things. What I always hate is how everybody from the GW side always points toward us causing all of the warmth during the past 50 plus years. Or how we have caused the ozone hole.

And they say it can have nothing to do with solar activity or space weather and then an amateur like myself, who has no financial backing, or proper schooling , looks into something and he finds a possible link between space weather and a few things.

Tell me how the record breaking ozone holes that occurred throughout the early to mid 90's, at the north pole, basically turned consistently around within 13 years, if GW was the main contributor to this ? The 05-06 winter ozone hole shrank in record time and it beat out the quick timing of the 03-04 winter?

There is a stratospheric pattern at the north pole in relation to the solar cycle and geomagnetic storming/forbush decreases. This effects the ozone levels and the ozone hole. It shows up in the positive and negative indice anomalies of the Polar Eurasia Pattern. These values reflect the strength of the circumpolar vortex which is related to all of this.

I have named this the PET Cycle. A negative PET Cycle occurs when a preferred negative state of the Polar Eurasia Pattern is present. The negative anomaly tends to be inverted with the polar stratosphere and it means that the stratosphere will be warmer at the North Pole. This warmer temperature pattern means more ozone. Hence a smaller ozone hole.

We have been in the negative PET Cycle since June 1998 and the overall trend in the polar stratosphere has been warmer since this time frame.

We had been in a positive PET Cycle between May 1988- May 1998. This means that the preferred state of the Polar Eurasia Pattern is positive. This reflects a stronger circumpolar vortex. This means that stratosphere tends to be cooler during this cycle. So we will see less ozone and a larger ozone hole will be present. This occurred as we all know.

The exact opposite occurred during the previous PET Cycle between March 78- May 88. The ozone levels were higher and the ozone hole smaller. Polar Eurasia Pattern data go back further than stratosphere/ozone records and it supports this overall relationship all the way back during the past five sunspot cycles.

The presence of the negative PET Cycle, between 3/78-5/88 also helped the stratosphere handle the EL Chichon eruption better. That eruption put plenty of SO2 into the stratosphere and this can destroy ozone levels but it did not.

Mount Pinatubo erupted during a positive PET Cycle and the stratosphere could not handle this because it was supposed to be colder and the ozone hole grew because of the extremely colder stratosphere and all of the SO2. And some of the strongest space weather events ever.

So the large ozone hole was NOT do to GW alone.

(This colder stratosphere seems to have possibly triggered the positive AMO also. )

So I am sorry but I tend to be less receptive when I hear someone talking about this expert or that expert. Your only as good as what you look at. And if you choose to deny the space weather connection you are lost. I find it very hard to believe that there are not other relationships out there also. The possible feed backs are endless with this one alone if you understand how the ocean and atmospheric teleconnections can feed off of this.