Clever Republicans.

[JackLuis]

Repubs make hay when it snows!

Is this just another Republican "Snow-Job!


How much snow did you get in VA?

 

[Edward Teach]

Repubs make hay when it snows!

Is this just another Republican "Snow-Job!


How much snow did you get in VA?

This is what I despise about the Cons and why I'll never again vote for one.

They actually see nothing wrong with these tactics.

 

[sr71plt]

Repubs make hay when it snows!

Is this just another Republican "Snow-Job!


How much snow did you get in VA?

It's not a question of "how much we got." It's "how much are we getting?"

I'm in Tom Perriello's district, and we had 8 inches officially as of three hours ago, and it's not projected to stop snowing for more than 24 more hours--more heavily tonight and through to tomorrow evening than it has already.

 

[JackLuis]

It's not a question of "how much we got." It's "how much are we getting?"

I'm in Tom Perriello's district, and we had 8 inches officially as of three hours ago, and it's not projected to stop snowing for more than 24 more hours--more heavily tonight and through to tomorrow evening than it has already.

Hope you have your Super Bowl goodies, and the generator is fueled. It sounds like it will be Tuesday before you're dug out.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Looks like record-breaking amounts of global warming!

 

[Huckleman2000]

Repubs make hay when it snows!

Is this just another Republican "Snow-Job!
[...]

Fucking morons.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I cant contain my glee.

You clowns are flowing right down the drain with your bogus bull shit and Messiah leading the parade.

 

[trysail]

We sure could use some of the predicted wind to knock some of the snow out of the trees. At the moment, some of them are bent into astounding configurations. I'm looking out the window at a holly that is so loaded down with snow that it's essentially lying parallel to the ground. Over yonder is a dogwood whose branches are so splayed that the thing is about a quarter of its normal height.

...with another 12-14 hours of snowfall to go:

http://www.nohrsc.noaa.gov/snow_model/images/full/Eastern_Coastal/nsm_depth/201002/nsm_depth_2010020605_Eastern_Coastal.jpg

Blizzard Warning
URGENT - WINTER WEATHER MESSAGE
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE BALTIMORE MD/WASHINGTON DC
405 AM EST SAT FEB 6 2010

DCZ001-MDZ007-011-013-014-018-061800-
/O.CON.KLWX.BZ.W.0001.000000T0000Z-100207T0300Z/
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA-HARFORD-SOUTHERN BALTIMORE-PRINCE GEORGES-
ANNE ARUNDEL-CALVERT-
INCLUDING THE CITIES OF...WASHINGTON...BALTIMORE...ANNAPOLIS
405 AM EST SAT FEB 6 2010

...BLIZZARD WARNING REMAINS IN EFFECT UNTIL 10 PM EST THIS
EVENING...

A BLIZZARD WARNING REMAINS IN EFFECT UNTIL 10 PM EST THIS
EVENING.

* PRECIPITATION TYPE...HEAVY SNOW...ACCOMPANIED OCCASIONALLY BY
THUNDER OVERNIGHT.

* ACCUMULATIONS...TOTAL ACCUMULATIONS OF 18 TO 24 INCHES.

* TIMING...SNOW WILL CONTINUE INTO THIS EVENING BEFORE ENDING BY
MIDNIGHT.

* VISIBILITIES...VISIBILITIES AT OR BELOW ONE-QUARTER MILE ARE
EXPECTED TONIGHT IN HEAVY SNOW.

* TEMPERATURES...TEMPERATURES WILL BE IN THE MID TO UPPER 20S
TONIGHT AND SATURDAY.

* WINDS...NORTHEAST WINDS 15 TO 25 MPH WITH FREQUENT GUSTS OF 35
TO 40 MPH OVERNIGHT THROUGH SATURDAY...ESPECIALLY ALONG THE
COAST.

PRECAUTIONARY/PREPAREDNESS ACTIONS...

THIS EXTREMELY DANGEROUS STORM IS EXPECTED TO PRODUCE RECORD
SNOWFALL FOR THE BALTIMORE AND WASHINGTON DC METROPOLITAN AREAS.
TRAVEL CONDITIONS TONIGHT ACROSS THE REGION WILL BE EXTREMELY
HAZARDOUS AND LIFE-THREATENING. HELP YOUR LOCAL AND STATE
GOVERNMENT FIRST RESPONDERS AND TRANSPORTATION AGENCIES BY
STAYING OFF THE ROADS.

A BLIZZARD WARNING MEANS SEVERE WINTER WEATHER CONDITIONS ARE
EXPECTED OR OCCURRING. FALLING AND BLOWING SNOW WITH STRONG WINDS
AND POOR VISIBILITIES ARE LIKELY. THIS WILL LEAD TO WHITEOUT
CONDITIONS.

By: Willis Eschenbach

...Hansen started this whole thing with a scam, opening the windows and turning off the air conditioning when he gave his 1988 Senate testimony so people would be sweating and hot and more likely to believe his fantasies, and now he wants to call for honesty and decency? Spare me. He has cried wolf far too often.

Sorry, but it’s too little, too late. He, not people on my side of the dispute, is the one that has publicly called for committing crimes to support his drastic world view. But when the crimes involve him, suddenly being a criminal is a terrible thing. He sowed the wind, and now that he is reaping the whirlwind he wants to whine and complain about how wrong and unfair it all is. He’s like the guy who killed his parents and now wants our sympathy because he is an orphan.

He asks “How did we devolve to this state” … grab a mirror, Jim, the answer’s not out here. Here’s a clue for you. When your side claims to have all the answers, when your side of the dispute is conniving to prevent the publication of opposing scientific views, when you and your mates besmirch the reputations of those who disagree with you, when your side prevents some scientific papers from being included in the IPCC reports and cheats to get papers you approve of included in the IPCC reports, when people get fired because they won’t sign on to your worldview, when those who agree with you call your scientific opponents vile names and attack our motives, people take it personally.

That’s how we devolved to this state, Jim, because your side tried to dominate and intimidate and denigrate and crush the other side rather than hold a scientific discussion about the issues.

 

[JackLuis]

Communist Propaganda?

While Washington gets buried in snow, Tibet gets hot!

It's a a communist conspiracy!

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Nice lie, but the models of climate change predicted that N. America would get colder winters and whaddya know. We did!

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

The Global Warming Flakes have all the bases covered; if it gets hot, its global warming; if it gets cold, its global warming; storms or no storms, its global warming.

The global warming conspiracy to soak taxpayers is obvious to everyone but the Usual Suspects.

 

[3113]

Yes, Republicans have proven to be very clever at making sure we destroy ourselves. But I kinda wonder if they're that clever, or if Americans are just that stupid. Like that saying about underestimating the gullibility of the American public. Most people in the U.S. want to be fooled, especially into whatever will allow them to be irresponsible. Just look at how Republicans talked Americans into destroying their economy.

Too bad really. It'd be nice to live in a country of intelligent and responsible people who weren't so eager to be fooled.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

We wanna hold on to our money is what we want. Usual Suspects and their disability checks are soon parted.

 

[Huckleman2000]

Sorry. Greedy fucking morons.

 

[3113]

Meanwhile, in the world of science rather than fiction...

WINNIPEG — Sea ice in Canada’s fragile Arctic is melting faster than anyone expected, the lead investigator in Canada’s largest climate-change study yet said Friday — raising the possibility that the Arctic could, in a worst-case scenario, be ice-free in about three years. University of Manitoba Prof. David Barber, the lead investigator of the Circumpolar Flaw Lead System Study, said the rapid decay of thick Arctic Sea ice highlights the rapid pace of climate change in the North and foreshadows what will come in the South.

“We’re seeing it happen more quickly than what our models thought would happen,” Barber said at a student symposium on climate change in Winnipeg. “It’s happening much faster than our most pessimistic models suggested.”

Barber and more than 300 scientists from around the globe spent last winter on the Canadian Coast Guard research ship Amundsen in the Arctic, studying the impact of climate change. It was the first time a research vessel remained mobile in open water during the winter season....Barber said the melting sea ice can be compared to disappearing rain forests. “If you go into the rain forest and you cut down all the trees, the ecosystem in that rain forest will collapse,” he said. “If you go to the Arctic and you remove all the sea ice or if you remove the timing of the sea ice, the system will change.”

That change will include more invasive species moving up from the South and species that live in the Far North having to adapt to a different environment. The occurrence of Arctic cyclones is also on the rise, which contributes to ice breakup. Barber said before the expedition that climate scientists were working under the theory that climate change would happen much more slowly. It was assumed the Arctic would be ice-free in the winter by 2100. “We expect it will happen much faster than that, much earlier than that, somewhere between 2013 and 2030 are our estimates right now...That can be said for southern climates as well.”

The impact means more variability in the Earth’s climate — warm trends are warmer and cold trends are colder.

Full story here. *Sigh*

 

[trysail]

Meanwhile, in the world of science rather than fiction...

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg

 

[trysail]

Meanwhile, in the world of science rather than fiction...

A review of A. W. Montford's The Hockey Stick Illusion:

This is a thriller about codebreaking – not Napoleon's or Hitler's codes, but computer codes that generated a false signal to the world about runaway global warming. Like most codebreaking it was painfully slow but Montford keeps the drama pacy as the years pass, while he explains the intricacies in the plainest possible language. By military codebreaking, the likes of Scovell and Turing helped to change the course of history, and McIntyre and McKitrick should soon do the same, when the statistical fudges that misled the politicians become more widely known.

Nigel Calder
Former editor, New Scientist
co-author, The Chilling Stars

 

[trysail]

Meanwhile, in the world of science rather than fiction...

Amplification of Global Warming by Carbon-Cycle Feedback Significantly Less Than Thought, Study Suggests

ScienceDaily (Jan. 28, 2010) — A new estimate of the feedback between temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration has been derived from a comprehensive comparison of temperature and CO2 records spanning the past millennium.

The result, which is based on more than 200,000 individual comparisons, implies that the amplification of current global warming by carbon-cycle feedback will be significantly less than recent work has suggested.

Climate warming causes many changes in the global carbon cycle, with the net effect generally considered to be an increase in atmospheric CO2 with increasing temperature -- in other words, a positive feedback between temperature and CO2. Uncertainty in the magnitude of this feedback has led to a wide range in projections of current global warming: about 40% of the uncertainty in these projections comes from this source.

Recent attempts to quantify the feedback by examining the co-variation of pre-industrial climate and CO2 records yielded estimates of about 40 parts per million by volume (p.p.m.v.) CO2 per degree Celsius, which would imply significant amplification of current warming trends.

In this week's Nature, David Frank and colleagues extend this empirical approach by comparing nine global-scale temperature reconstructions with CO2 data from three Antarctic ice cores over the period ad 1050-1800. The authors derive a likely range for the feedback strength of 1.7-21.4 p.p.m.v. CO2 per degree Celsius, with a median value of 7.7.

The researchers conclude that the recent estimates of 40 p.p.m.v. CO2 per degree Celsius can be excluded with 95% confidence, suggesting significantly less amplification of current warming.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100127134721.htm
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7280/full/nature08769.html

 

[trysail]

Meanwhile, in the world of science rather than fiction...

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent.png

 

[Huckleman2000]

y'know, that first global sea ice graph doesn't help your argument at all. The trend over the last 8 years is pretty clearly downwards.

 

[3113]

y'know, that first global sea ice graph doesn't help your argument at all. The trend over the last 8 years is pretty clearly downwards.

I don't think we're actually supposed to look at the graphs and draw our own conclusion from them, just drown under the onslaught till we cry "uncle."

 

[Edward Teach]

I don't think we're actually supposed to look at the graphs and draw our own conclusion from them, just drown under the onslaught till we cry "uncle."

Besides, those last graphs are just some more of that fuzzy math...they're being misunderestimated.

 

[JackLuis]

And they distort the freaking thread!

Is this another Republican Distortion?

 

[TE999]

Meanwhile, back at the ranch...http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/the-great-global-warming-collapse/article1458206/

 

[trysail]

I don't think we're actually supposed to look at the graphs and draw our own conclusion from them, just drown under the onslaught till we cry "uncle."

Keeeeerist. You people haven't demonstrated an ability to count to ten; I wouldn't expect you to be able to look at a graph, do any actual thinking or reading.




Maybe you want to explain why the historic record shows that temperature change has historically preceeded changes in levels of atmospheric CO2?

Maybe you want to explain the role of H2O (g) in GCMs?

Maybe you want to discuss CO2 residence times?

Maybe you want to discuss the climate sensitivity of CO2?

Maybe you want to discuss the reliability of the USHCN data?

Maybe you want to explain Keith Briffa's splicing of the Yamal tree ring temperature data on to the historic record?

Maybe you want to discuss McIntyre and McKittrick's demolition of the MBH "hockey stick?"

Maybe you want to discuss atmospheric levels of CO2 in the Cretaceous period?

Maybe you want to discuss Milankovic cycles and natural climate variation?

Maybe you want to discuss the glaring lack of science behind the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming or its proponent's lack of adherence to the tenets of scientific method?

... but I doubt it.

And why is it impossible for man to be contributing to or interfering with the natural change? Why is it either completely natural or completely driven by man?

It's not. The truth is that nobody knows. Unfortunately, the proponents of the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming won't admit that. Backers of the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming have vastly overestimated and overstated their comprehension. In accord with the tenets of the scientific method, the burden of proof of a hypothesis rests with it proposers. Thus far, no such proof of the hypothesis has been forthcoming.

The evangelists of the hypothesis assert that a rise in temperatures ( the instrumental record only exists for two hundred-odd years, the remainder of the historic record has been constructed by various proxy methods including ice cores, pinetree bristlecones and tree rings ) has occurred since the end of the Little Ice Age and that the rise has been caused by an increase in atmospheric levels of CO2. The numerous proxy methods for estimating historic levels of both temperatures and CO2 and the respective reliability have, in themselves, been the subject of a great deal of debate. Further complicating the issue is the fact that there are numerous types of temperature readings: ground level instrument, sea surface, various satellite-based and balloon measurements of the troposphere and stratosphere.

To the extent one accepts the accuracy and length of the historic temperature record and historic levels of CO2, the question of which is cause and which is effect is also subject to debate. While a so-called "greenhouse gas" is involved ( CO2 ), it is a fact that the earth is not a greenhouse. There are a whole host of variables involved and it is a fact that the largest ( by a huge multiple ) greenhouse gas in the earth's atmosphere is H2O (g). The system is dynamic and complex; there are second and third order effects at work that may be incomprehensible ( and, thus, defy accurate modelling ).

Isotopic analysis of atmospheric CO2 apparently enables segregation of the source and suggests that roughly a third of the increase in CO2 over the past two-odd centuries is attributable to human activity while the remaining two thirds is natural in origin.

It is commonly accepted that global temperatures and climate have varied considerably over the course of the earth's six billion year existence. Decomposing, attributing and apportioning that part of climate change that has occurred over the last two hundred-odd years into that which is natural variation and that which is human-caused is no mean feat. It is an immensely complex undertaking fraught with chance for error.