Merlyn wrote:Yes they dropped the term "global warming" for two reasons.
#1 It is over!
#2 The climate is changing! to freakin' COLD!
Merlyn wrote:Waiting a couple of weeks for the ponds to ice over and out playing hockey is how we spent our winters.
http://www.tsn.ca/world_jrs/story/?id=304773CANADA BATTLES USA WITH WORLD JUNIOR GOLD ON THE LINE
Merlyn wrote:The living pine trees shed pine cones like crazy, all over the place. They make good fire starters.
I believe them more than any scientific graph. Call me a druid, but, that prediction has been spot on so far.
It looks like the overall pattern through January will almost be upside down compared to what you would normally expect. What do I mean? Compared to normal January temperatures, much of northern and western Canada will be well above-normal in terms of temperature, while the heart of the cold air masses settle in across the eastern two-thirds of southern Canada and the United States. You can thank the negative Arctic Oscillation.
Merlyn wrote:So our friends to the north are all saying... who took our weather?
Anytime you want it back just go right ahead.
In a July 18, 2008 widely circulated article entitled "No Smoking Hot Spot," Australian Greenhouse Office scientist David Evans came out of the global-warming skeptics' closet. Although having written the carbon accounting model used to measure Australia's compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, Evans was wrestling with a problem: the greenhouse-gas signature is missing. If CO2 is the cause of global warming, then it must be absorbing solar energy and warming the air, which in turn warms the surface. Both alarmists and skeptics agree that all models predict a "hot spot" at 10 kilometers above the tropics. But there is no such hot spot. Quoting Evans:
We have been measuring the atmosphere for decades using radiosondes — weather balloons with thermometers that radio back the temperature as the balloon ascends through the atmosphere. They show no hot spot. Whatsoever. If there is no hot spot, then an increased greenhouse effect is not the cause of global warming. So we know for sure that carbon emissions are not a significant cause of the global warming. If we had found the greenhouse signature, then I would be an alarmist again.
http://www.desmogblog.com/who-is-rocket ... avid-evansAccording to his own resume, Evans has not published a single peer-reviewed research paper on the subject of climate change. Evans published only a single paper in 1987 in his career and it is unrelated to climate change.
Evans has published an article for the Alabama-based Ludwig von Mises Instutute, a right-wing free-market think tank.
Evans also published a "background briefing" (pdf) document for the Australian chapter of the Lavoisier Group, a global warming "skeptic" organization with close ties to the mining industry.
"I am not a climate modeler"
From 1999 to 2006 Evans worked for the Australian Greenhouse Office designing a carbon accounting system that is used by the Australian Government to calculate its land-use carbon accounts for the Kyoto Protocol. While Evans says (pdf) that "[he] know[s] a heck of a lot about modeling and computers," he states clearly that he is "not a climate modeler."
David Evans lives in Australia and gained media attention after an article he wrote titled, No Smoking Hot Spot was published in The Australian in June, 2008.The article claims that climate change is not caused by C02 emissions because there is no evidence of "a hot spot about 10km up in the atmosphere over the tropics." Evan's claim has been thoroughly debunked by Tim Lambert, a computer scientist at the University of New South Wales.
According to his bio, Evans claims to be a 'Rocket Scientist' and one article claims that he is a 'Top Rocket Scientist.' While Evans background does show that he has a PhD in electrical engineering, there is no evidence that he was ever employed as a rocket scientist.
Evans answered our inquiry about his claim to being a rocket scientist with the following explanation:
In US academic and industry parlance, "rocket scientist" means anyone who has completed a PhD in one of the hard sciences at one of the top US institutions. The term arose for people who *could* do rocket science, not those who literally build rockets.Thus the term "rocket scientist" means someone with a PhD in physics, electrical engineering, or mathematics (or perhaps a couple of other closely related disciplines), from MIT, Stanford, Caltech, and maybe a few other institutions.
I did a PhD in electrical engineering at Stanford in the 1980s. Electrical engineering is your basic high tech degree, because most high technology spawned from electrical information technology. I specialized in signal processing, maths, and statistics.
The definition provided by Evans would appear to be at odds with the conventional use of the term 'rocket scientist' which according to various sources is "One specializing in the science or study of rockets and their design."
what made you decide this was so overwhelming
Well, I've now been through most of the U.K. press websites. Your story (which would be big news) is not to be found easily at the Times, the Telegraph, the Independent, the Guardian, or even the Daily Mail (who would surely be headlining it.)This was a bit of a climate gate news day, as the UK climate czar announced that global warming never happened.
We don't condone e-mail theft by hackers, though these e-mails were covered by Britain's Freedom of Information Act and should have been released. The content of these e-mails raises extremely serious questions that could end the academic careers of many prominent professors. Academics who have purposely hidden data, destroyed information and doctored their results have committed scientific fraud. We can only hope respected academic institutions such as Pennsylvania State University, the University of Arizona and the University of Massachusetts at Amherst conduct proper investigative inquiries.
Small particles in the air (aerosols) may have warming or cooling effects, depending on their characteristics. Sulfate (SO4) aerosol, for example, is light-colored and reflects sunlight back into space. The cooling effect of volcanic aerosols from the Mt. Tambora eruption of 1815 caused North America’s “year without a summer” in 1816. Sulfate aerosol is also produced by fossil fuel burning. Black soot, which is a familiar component of urban smog and smoke from wild fires, has the opposite effect. The dark particles absorb the Sun’s energy in much the same way that dark asphalt roads become warm on sunny days.
Today, water vapor produces two-thirds of the world’s greenhouse effect. All of the other gases – carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, halocarbons, etc. – contribute the other third. The effect of water vapor is so significant that the global average temperature would be below freezing without it.
Warm air can contain more moisture than cold air. This is the basis of the water vapor feedback. As the atmospheric temperature rises and the amount of water vapor increases, the greenhouse effect is enhanced, further increasing temperature.
The water vapor feedback is critical for producing the glacial/interglacial cycles. Uncertainty in the magnitude of the water vapor feedback is an important source of uncertainty in projecting future climate warming.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests