Interesting comment about last week's eclipse. Possibly explains the worldwide cooling of the 1960s as due to volcanic activity.

"This eclipse was so bright because the stratosphere is exceptionally clear," explains Keen. Volcanoes can clog the stratosphere with ash and other aerosols, making lunar eclipses dark, but it has been a while since a major eruption. "The stratosphere has been clear since about 1995 after aerosols from Pinatubo's 1991 eruption settled out, and it appears to be getting more clear with each eclipse."

Keen tracks the brightness of lunar eclipses because they reveal the opacity of Earth's upper atmosphere. "A clear stratosphere means plenty of undiminished sunlight heating Earth"--something climate change models must take into account. "Lunar eclipses are not only beautiful," he says, "they can teach you a lot."

Shadows are supposed to be dark, but when Earth's shadow fell across the Moon last week the result was "rather bright," says atmospheric scientist Dr. Richard Keen of the University of Colorado. On the scale of astronomical magnitudes, "the eclipsed Moon of Feb. 20, 2008, registered -3, almost a thousand times brighter than the classic dark eclipse of Dec. 30, 1963, which followed the eruption of the Agung volcano in Indonesia."

http://www.spaceweather.com/

Great article. Finally some scientists with a brain and a soul. http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=332289

Snowpack at a 40 year high, ice at the north pole showing no signs of last years melt (article reiterates that wind patterns had everything to do with that) and it has been a brutal winter in china. Now maybe the koolaid drinkers can go find a commune somewhere and leave society alone.

Oh the humanity!!!

I love it, scientists with apparently nothing better to do decide the Earth will become untenable for Humanity in a mere BILLION years. So, obviously the next question is WHAT CAN BE DONE? LOL

The obvious answer is to blame Bush and anyone who is denier, raise taxes, and use those little CFL bulbs.

OOP wait, hold the presses, according to the Goreacle we will all be flooded in 20 years or so, so it won't matter.

Carry on

Seriously, did they really put out a press release for this?

Do we need to start planning for this now? Sure, we don't want to wait 7.6 billion years, but I think we have some time. Or does the precautionary principle require us to act now?

Can we please stop this nonsense, read this article:

Snow cover over North America and much of Siberia, Mongolia and China is greater than at any time since 1966.

The U.S. National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) reported that many American cities and towns suffered record cold temperatures in January and early February. According to the NCDC, the average temperature in January "was -0.3 F cooler than the 1901-2000 (20th century) average."

China is surviving its most brutal winter in a century. Temperatures in the normally balmy south were so low for so long that some middle-sized cities went days and even weeks without electricity because once power lines had toppled it was too cold or too icy to repair them.

There have been so many snow and ice storms in Ontario and Quebec in the past two months that the real estate market has felt the pinch as home buyers have stayed home rather than venturing out looking for new houses.

In just the first two weeks of February, Toronto received 70 cm of snow, smashing the record of 66.6 cm for the entire month set back in the pre-SUV, pre-Kyoto, pre-carbon footprint days of 1950.

And remember the Arctic Sea ice? The ice we were told so hysterically last fall had melted to its "lowest levels on record? Never mind that those records only date back as far as 1972 and that there is anthropological and geological evidence of much greater melts in the past.

The ice is back.

Gilles Langis, a senior forecaster with the Canadian Ice Service in Ottawa, says the Arctic winter has been so severe the ice has not only recovered, it is actually 10 to 20 cm thicker in many places than at this time last year.

OK, so one winter does not a climate make. It would be premature to claim an Ice Age is looming just because we have had one of our most brutal winters in decades.

But if environmentalists and environment reporters can run around shrieking about the manmade destruction of the natural order every time a robin shows up on Georgian Bay two weeks early, then it is at least fair game to use this winter's weather stories to wonder whether the alarmist are being a tad premature.

And it's not just anecdotal evidence that is piling up against the climate-change dogma.

According to Robert Toggweiler of the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory at Princeton University and Joellen Russell, assistant professor of biogeochemical dynamics at the University of Arizona -- two prominent climate modellers -- the computer models that show polar ice-melt cooling the oceans, stopping the circulation of warm equatorial water to northern latitudes and triggering another Ice Age (a la the movie The Day After Tomorrow) are all wrong.

"We missed what was right in front of our eyes," says Prof. Russell. It's not ice melt but rather wind circulation that drives ocean currents northward from the tropics. Climate models until now have not properly accounted for the wind's effects on ocean circulation, so researchers have compensated by over-emphasizing the role of manmade warming on polar ice melt.

But when Profs. Toggweiler and Russell rejigged their model to include the 40-year cycle of winds away from the equator (then back towards it again), the role of ocean currents bringing warm southern waters to the north was obvious in the current Arctic warming.

Last month, Oleg Sorokhtin, a fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, shrugged off manmade climate change as "a drop in the bucket." Showing that solar activity has entered an inactive phase, Prof. Sorokhtin advised people to "stock up on fur coats."

He is not alone. Kenneth Tapping of our own National Research Council, who oversees a giant radio telescope focused on the sun, is convinced we are in for a long period of severely cold weather if sunspot activity does not pick up soon.

The last time the sun was this inactive, Earth suffered the Little Ice Age that lasted about five centuries and ended in 1850. Crops failed through killer frosts and drought. Famine, plague and war were widespread. Harbours froze, so did rivers, and trade ceased.

It's way too early to claim the same is about to happen again, but then it's way too early for the hysteria of the global warmers, too.

lgunter@shaw.ca

Close

Do we need to start planning for this now? Sure, we don't want to wait 7.6 billion years, but I think we have some time. Or does the precautionary principle require us to act now?

NOAA shows NH ice still increasing
http://www.ssd.noaa.gov/PS/SNOW/DATA/nhem-1mo-loop.html
but...
cryosphere today shows still decreasing
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/
Which is correct?

The headline of the press release screams, "The Sun will vaporise the Earth unless we can change our orbit." When I see things like this from supposedly educated people I begin to wonder if the real problem isn't simply a truly dysfunctional educational system. Even non-scientists can discern that in order for this to actually occur, everything else has to remain constant which, of course, it won't. The same thing holds true for AGW. The models prediciting it have presumed certain constants which are not correct. World Climate Report has an interesting article on this here:

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/02/21/global-warming-not-so-fast/

But, alas, there is some glimmer of hope that the AGW-controlled press is starting to lose its grip; a couple of very cold winters will do that, you know. From our friends up north comes a report that is not in keeping with the party line on AGW. And since Canadians are not known for political conservatism, it came as quite a surprise. Here is the link:
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=332289

While interesting, there is so much going on in the world now, this year, in the 10 years, and by the end of the century, that I wonder how 7.6 billion years can be anything but a fascinating side trip. It doesn't appear to me to have anything to do with global warming/climate change as the scientific community understands it. There is plenty of information about weather-related extremes and trends in the present.

Perhaps it is useful to lower the temperature of discussion by discussing something that will not affect us and our descendants by any possible stretch of the imagination! But I cannot help feeling this parallel trivializes the dangers we all face.

Better call Al Gore and pass some mandates that will prevent el Sol from swallowing up the earth. Better do it now before it's too late! Better alter your lifestyle and your driving habits and what you eat, and how many kids you have before it's all over! Better raise taxes and increase the size of the government, because they are the ones who will know how to handle the situation! Oh the humanity!!!!....

The a forth snow storm in the last two weeks is on the way. Oh, yeah, we need to do something about Glo-BULL Warming!!!! Right!!! Sure!!!!

I just spent a couple of hours in the lobby at the dentist's office reading.

First story was from the local paper about the massive snow pack and likely flooding on the Colorado River this spring. Next story was from the March, 2008 Sunset Magazine about how the Colorado River is drying up "due to global warming."

Next I read the February, 2008 Popular Science magazine, in which nearly every article was devoted to global warming. The cover story was about a "carbon free" hydrogen jet which would "eliminate the guilt of travelers." Never mind that the hydrogen was probably inefficiently generated using electricity from a coal fired power station. Another story talked about using "environmentally friendly biofuels" to power jets. Never mind that biofuels are possibly the most environmentally damaging form of fuel.

The disconnect from reality in the global warming community is a great as the Catholic Church suffered during the days of Galileo and Copernicus.

AND IF WE ACT RIGHT NOW!

we know just enough to be dangerous to ourselves

Hopefully, I say hopefully facetiously, that the loss of solar mass will delay this inevitable earth warming. In the meantime, it's time to reduce co2 to avoid a possibly disatrous albedo warming! On another note, I did view the recent lunar eclipse and was disappointed that it was not darker. So it seems the atmosphere is clearer and the sun's greater warmth to my epidermis has been noticed many years now. I look forward to a cooler sun. I have enough maculae as it is.

Ocean temperatures continue their long-term decline.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/sst/ani-weekly/5.gif

I say we start working on this now. What we do is move all politicians, used car salespeople and anyone with any kind of strong opinion to the peaks of Ecuador and Borneo. Then, every day, between 11am and 1pm local time, have them all talk continuously directly at the sun as loudly as they can. Doesn't matter what they say, just their usual BS. The cumulative force of all that hot air being expelled in the direction of the sun should very gradually push Earth's orbit further out so that, a billion years from now, we'll be all set.

Oh, BTW. Most commenters on this blog (on either side) will surely be drafted into this effort.

Heh.

Old joke:

University of Sussex (UK) astronomers now predict that the earth will be swallowed up by the sun in about 7.6 billion years.

--What!?!

I said, astronomers predict the earth will be swallowed up by the sun in about 7.6 billion years.

--Thank God! I thought you said 7.6 million years!

retain this page for posterity
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.365.jpg
(I have) unless its changed quickly.

Calm down!!!Calm down!!! Oiznop is right, Al Gore can handle this, he is a very well educated trained NASA scien.....wait he's an idiot, how would he know anything. Thats right he pretends he does and his uneducated followers, follow. Anyhow if I come back from the dead, it sure would suck for it to be in 7.6 billion years. Then I'll start yelling Global Warming.

I always wonder when I read the many contradictions to Al Gore's tale of woe, does he ever wonder if he just might be wrong? I mean if the tide turns against him as his predictions fail to come true, will he re-treat with his Nobel prize or keeping fighting the good fight. How about all the elected officials that felt pressured to take a "green" position even in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary that man, the arrogant bunch we are, simply doesn't have a clue which end is up. At this point, all theories are just speculations with little hard evidence. I am still waiting for an accurate weekly forecast with no changes. A few days ago we were suppose to get another big snowfall. Instead it went south. I believe Madison, WI is getting hammered once again. They have broken the record for the most snow ever in one year.

Weather Watcher:
Please excuse my eruptive reaction to people like PH. I think that right wing and left wing idea logs do not solve the problems the world faces today. People are so worried about caps on co2 and emissions that they become stagnant and don't want to take modest actions. When AGW is proved, or hopefully disproved, we still have a pollution problem, land abuse, genocide, and in America a new lower class. Below what is now considered to be poor. As a modern poet said it: real tears ,are the rivers that flow,beneath the city streets.
Even if global warming is not effecting us now, what about making money for the sake of each shareholder. Why can't Americans ,conserve, protect their own environment, and waste less energy. Why can't we grow up and stop following the Idealogs who aspire to their greatest good,materialism. What about the human race, with less emphasis on my race, my kind, and what can I buy next. For myself. What maddens me is this callous and old fashioned idea of freedom. Real freedom when you read the federalist papers refers to all of the people. And I don't respect the dirty tricks ,lies and references to this or that group to sound Macho. The machismo complex is not a behavior. It is a Psychological disorder. Slander is also not a good quality. I am sorry that I let my anger get ahead of my intention.
Regards,Kipp

"The disconnect from reality in the global warming community is a great as the Catholic Church suffered during the days of Galileo and Copernicus." - Patrick Henry

Really do yourself a favor and read up on this Galileo thing. The popular view put forth by so many bigots who hate the catholic church is the church is anti-science. That is just plain wrong.

Please go read, your lack of intelligence is appalling.

Mark,

A very important part of that quote is, "during the days of Galileo."

Go read your history book, and you will see that the Catholic Church WAS out of touch with reality.

After this winter, that actually looks refreshing.LOL

Mark,

I think it's pretty fair to characterize the Catholic Church of the middle ages/early Renaissance as anti-science. There's no shame in that, just about every religious heirarchyhas been anti-science at one time or another, because science has, at one time or another, put forth opinions that contradict some piece of that religion's orthodoxy. I am a Protestant, and I freely admit that broad swaths of my co-Protestants are at least, as Orwell would say "objectively" anti-science.

more NH ice data this time reliable
http://www.socc.ca/seaice/seaice_current_e.cfm again goes against current cryosphere today trend especialy latest 22th feb onwards.
BTW Kipp: I think most would agree with your second statement re world overpopulation, pollution, thats not the issue in this meteorological site. I think the main argument the skeptics/critics are having here is the fact that human produced CO2 has not been shown to increase global temps (ever in data records), thats the main argument and most meteorologist seem to agree. Most would agree with your second statement (I do). PH seems to be concerned mainly with the science data like me lol

Mark:
People that haven't studied history always apply today's behavior, on the reality in the past. When Copernicus was alive everyone thought creationism was being threatened, and God was being sublimated,the Catholic Church responded, as the authority of that time. When you judge history, it is important to know what the social and political realities were. You can't learn History by projecting today's values to an older period in man's evolution.
Kipp

If Mark is correct about the Catholic Church (and he never seems to be correct on any other subject discussed here, just abusive), then why did Galileo retract his theories??? His alternative, it seems, was to be burned at the stake. Oh, the release of CO2! Good job Global Warming hadn't been invented then...

Hi Kipp, Mark,

You guys remind me of the way the borg reacted when Picard started introducing disruptive thoughts.

Or perhaps it is all the snow, cold and ice? It wasn't supposed to be a record winter, was it? The AGW gods said it was going to be the "warmest year ever." They said it was going to be the "Super El Nino."

BTW - Nearly all of the data I post is straight off of NOAA, NASA, NSIDC, and other government sites. If you dispute the data I post, then lets talk. Otherwise, your broad brush statements ring quite hollow.

Join the resistance. You will feel much better.

The heat is on in Siberia. Averaging -53F for the month.
http://www.wunderground.com/history/station/24688/2008/2/26/MonthlyHistory.html
-57F in January
http://www.wunderground.com/history/station/24688/2008/1/1/MonthlyHistory.html
-42F in December
http://www.wunderground.com/history/station/24688/2007/12/1/MonthlyHistory.html

Meanwhile, The Guardian continues to publish pictures of that last poor little ice cube remaining in the formerly glorious Arctic.
http://image.guim.co.uk/Guardian/environment/gallery/2007/sep/18//PD9223721-806.jpg

Kipp, I would say that both political parties have been taken over by extremists believing the world only functions well if they are in power. I don't know how old you are, but growing up in the 60s in NJ I knew kids without plumbing in their homes. Some of the farmer kids had only the same clothes to be worn each day. I remember once sitting on the bus and looking at a very old farmhouse that needed paint so bad, but knowing there was not enough money to buy the paint. That family had 8 kids - all by the way exceptionally smart. My point is that the depth of poverty I knew is not seen today unless in very remote rural spots in the US. I was living 50 miles outside NYC. I would like to see each generation take better care of the earth, but from what I see daily each generation is living further away from the earth. I mean there is not that thirst to embrace nature like it was when I was young. Simple things about nature thrilled us. I can see the Chippewa river from my place of work every single day that includes a bike trail and yet hardly any student from the Univ uses that trail let alone stops to take in the majestic sight. The maddening thing about this global warming, and now global change is that much of it is politically motivated. People that have good cause to be skeptical are of course the uncaring, callous party, namely republicans, while the democrats are closest to sainthood because only they care about the tired and poor and of course our very sick earth according to Gore. How in the world can any sound minded person buy into the idea of carbon credits? It just astounds me.

Hey there Kipper:

You feel'n alright there buddy? Need someone to get you a tissue?

You know, you can take this or leave it, but the way I see it is that it's YOU and not PH or anyone else that's the idealog. PH has an opinion about AGW and he is (whatever you may say or think) quite widely read. He has read the papers, articles and data and has formed his own opinion which he expresses freely with others. YOU on the other hand have an ideology. YOU have an agenda. You want to save the world (an admirable goal for sure) but, if as you say may happen, and AGW doesn't pan out, then what is all your jammering about? Exactly? You said that if AGW is shown not to be an issue that "we still have a pollution problem, land abuse, genocide, and in America a new lower class. Below what is now considered to be poor." Well my friend you need to get one of those foreign language packages like the ones used by the United States Department of state and go fight this battle somewhere else, because THIS country is cleaner than I personally have ever seen it. I never saw a wild turkey till the 80s despite living where I had every right to, and now you have to be careful not to run into them in my part of the country. Bald eagles, ferrets, wolves, mountain lions. The air is cleaner than for many many years. Are we done? No. Will things continue to improve? Of course. And what of this "under class" you speak of? People are coming to this country in such numbers that we're having to build a damned 30 foot high fence just to control the border. People are desperate to become part of that underclass you speak of. You want to work to improve an under class? Go to Mexico. Go to China. Go to India. Go to South East Asia. Help them up close and personal, because you can't help them from here. And here's something you have to remember...... it's cleaner in the developed countries. Here, in Europe and Japan. It's that way because it takes money to be clean and efficient. If you want to clean up the third world, you have to help them develop. And sending them a boatload of Priuses and some solar collectors won't cut it.

You know, I read an article today that sort of turned a light on for me. It was about polar bears in Alaska. So here's what I think the deal is: The goal of the environmental movement is to stop the use of fosil fuels in order to stop the rape of mother Earth. One way to do that is to demonize a byproduct of fossil fuel, namely CO2. Demonize it by showing how we're driving the poor cudly (man eating)polar bear to extinction. Never mind that that the actual population has been increasing...... a few well timeed photos released to the press will do fine. At the same time, you politicize the whole thing (make it a left wing, right wing thing out of it) and take the scientists out of the equation. This puts half the population in your pocket right from the start.

(You know, just as an aside here, the IQ scale is set up from 0 to 200 with 100 as the average right smack dab in the middle. Below 75 is moronic and above 125 is genious. There's a bell shaped curve that illustrates the distribution of intellegence in any population. I read once that Dwight Eisenhower was shocked to find out that half of the people in the U.S. were of below average intellegence.) And hey, maybe that's how the left and right wings got their names.

Getting back to the bears...... It now looks like if the bears are put in a protected status then a habitat can be established. Do you see it yet? Once a habitat is established it will be impossible to do any development or pipeline construction in that habitat. This will, in effect, prevent the use of millions of barrels of oil and probably billions of cubic feet of natural gas. This will make the price of economic development higher thus slowing down the advancement of civilization. Slow polution, slow urban sprawl..... you know..... all those bad things. The irony of this is that it wont stop the evil idustrialists you despise so much from getting rich...... OPEN YOUR EYES. They've already co opted your cause. Who's the leading manufacturer of "Green" fuel? BP? Who's processing the oil seeds? Cargill? ADM? Who's cashing in on wind? GE? Siemens? And what of your poor underclass? They're going to be left to freeze in the dark because with the best of intentions, you've made it so they can't afford to by electricity, natural gas or heating oil. And that's too bad, because IF as you suggest AGW can be proven not to be a significant factor in our lives, it may be gonna get colder here for the next couple of decades. That is, if history is any guide.

Okay now. Group hug?

All the best

Aaron

Today's pop quiz.

Why are essentially all of Hansen's temperature plots adjusted to create a greater positive slope? Either by increasing recent temperatures, or by reducing past temperatures.

1. Because temperature collection is a spectacular statistical fluke, where 2^2000 odds have happened to line up causing all raw measurements to be incorrectly biased towards a lower slope.

2. Because there has been a worldwide conspiracy over the last 120 years to make Hansen look bad by manipulating the data in the other direction.

3. Because Hansen is across the board manipulating the data upwards to prove his theory.

4. Because Hansen has been anointed by the gods with the holy task of counteracting the damage done by the evil repressor, George W Bush.

What a wild and wierd thread here. Whats with the commentary about everything but the data? I say that the sun is not what we are taught in school .... I have come to agree with "The Electric Universe" model or theory. The Stars are not nuclear powered hydrogen decaying into helium, rather I agree with the idea the Stars are living things that are like light bulbs of a gasous nature, deriving power from the cosmic radiation and electron streams evident in the universe. Yep, the Sun is a living Light Bulb powered by electrons flowing through space. It may evolve, but not likely burn out.The great Assyrian Ruler of 8 thousands years ago, Ashurbannipal is creditted with this saying: "Knowledge is power, so keep the people stupid." I mention this because we common humans are prohibited access to all kinds of information, freaquently information relative to our health and safety, like the dangers of murcury laiden vaccines....etc etc....The Sun heating up or cooling off has cycles, these cycles are in turn dependant on yet greater cosmic cycles. Space weather and climate is one way to describe it. Why are some posters here SO angry with those of us who aretaking to task the AGW argument/theory/policy agenda driven hype/bad science? Data fixing, poor data colection sites, harsh NH winter and Plenty of Antarctic and Arctic Sea Ice, Cold Ocean Surface Temps, Lack of Atlantic Hurricanes two summers in a row...All this imperically refutes AGW with reality. Thanks to Patrick and Others who post links to so much great info. Knowledge is Power!

Cryosphere today has earned new credibility
"We are experiencing some data problems with the current timeseries data. Please disregard the current timeseries data from mid-February 2008 to present until we rectify the data issues. The spatial maps should be fine".

Aaron,
Very well said!! I think you are right on target. I also believe that more and more people are beginning to see through this AGW scare and are realizing that even if AGW has an effect on the climate it is so slight that it does not justify all of the hype it has gotten, much of which has been accomplished through intimidation and ignoring much of the data. I have a very close relative who is an Astrophysicist at a large university and he flatly states there is not enough evidence to support AGW. However, he will not state publicly his feelings or allow any of his opinions to be used to debate the issue. Brett does a good job of running this site and I commend him for it.

I increasingly wonder whether it makes any sense for academic scientists like Hansen (or Jones) to be reporting temperature statistics. They don't appear to have the faintest interest in the gritty details.

Steve McIntyre

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2793#comments

Here are a couple of literature qoutes

What were Galileo Galilei's conflicts with the Roman Catholic Church? It was not a simple conflict between science and religion, as usually portrayed. Rather it was a conflict between Copernican science and Aristotelian science which had become Church tradition. Galileo expressed his scientific views supporting Copernicus as well as his biblical views in a 1615 letter to the Grand Duchess of Tuscany which became the basis of his first Church trial and censure. A major work published in 1632 resulted in Galileo's conviction on suspicion of heresy and a lifetime house arrest. The Galileo affair provides important lessons and applications to the Church and to science today.

And,

"Oh, the release of CO2! Good job Global Warming hadn't been invented then..."
And it was not invented 30 years ago either. It was invented at dawn of the industrial revolution.

Or better put -"The greenhouse effect was discovered by Joseph Fourier in 1824 and was first investigated quantitatively by Svante Arrhenius in 1896."

Geez, I hope I am not wrong this time!

great picture...looking at the configuration of the brightest sunspots and solar flare between, i see a face with pinocchio's nose peering down on mother earth...perhaps there should be a big AGW stamped on the side of MR SOL's head...i would also add a circumventing NASA launched starship, the USS AL GORE, expelling a co2 vapor trail to complete the cartoon...have a nice day, bros

Aaron,
Hip! Hip! To the point and well done. However, I fear rational thought and facts rarely changes or ameliorates zealot ideology. The enthusiasm for the "CAUSE" usually blinds the followers to the unintended consequences of their actions. For them the journey counts far more than the destination.
Yes, we should all get a group hug, hold hands, sing Kum-Ba-Ya and march lockstep to the new politics of change! Full speed ahead! Hey didn’t the White Star Line’s Captain Edward Smith of Titanic fame say that when caution was called for?

Only Tuesday and the laughs start.

Awesome pic Brett! I think thats part of the reason I still blog here. You post a lot of interesting stuff.

So it looks like Earth will eventually warm and replace Mercury before getting consumed. Which mortal is going to remember Darwin in a billion years?

God, although proud, laughs at our wisdom. Like a parent amused by their children. Thats not to say that He doesnt love us. He just wants us to reciprocate, to love and appreciate Him as well. We are the only creation that can question our existance. Appreciate the energy that is God. This energy will still be here long after the earth is gone.

Yes, I believe in a higher power. So what? Alarmists BELIEVE that they can control the climate. Can you control the Sun? No? Then guess what...you cannot control the climate. Simple enough?

Aaron:
As a Photographer I volunteer in an Urban Ghetto for Head Start and teach young kids to see the world,through a lens. What is it that you can't do for your community.
At least you have that tell tale sarcasm that is so prevalent with this gang have been to India, and have seen the extreme lives that they live. I shoot fashion in Europe and even in Mexico City. Two miles out people live in corrugated boxes. My argument is that we should save energy today whatever the thermostat reads.I don't want the government to use a carbon tax, but if we can't act, maybe they should. Europe is much cleaner than America. I live an hour from NYC and it is depressing to see the litter and than see the wasteful practices of our compulsive walmaters.
On the topic of religion. You are all forgetting your history. First of all Copernicus a Polish boy was a heretic for his time.When he lived,there was no such thing as Science. Religion was the growth step in mans evolution from tribes to governments. That's History.
Now back to Science.
Kipp

Rich:
I like you,believe in God and the trinity as outlined by St.Augustine of Hippo. We are acting within God's universe I think, and theefore have an obligation to other men and our Earth.We may not be able to control the planet,but we can be positive and try to protect it as our extended family. If God did create the Earth, and gave man the awesome ability to know himself, shouldn't we follow what our soul says is right ,and not our wallet. I think the reason god created materiality was to know imperfection,as he can only be existential and Universal by nature. We have a duty higher and more important than ourselves, and if we are indirectly killing ourselves than there is a reason to refute our lesser Gods, and do the best that we can to show our support to our Higher ONE!
Ya! I love New Hampshire, and the White Mountains. I lived there for a couple of years.
KIPP

Hey Kipp:

The sarcasm comes from growing up watching Rickles with Carson on the Tonight Show. You shouldn't take it personally. Lots of folks can't speak that way in their professional lives, but on the net it's easier to let go.

I envy your profession and compliment you on your compassion and concern for others. These are admirable things. Seriously.

I don't think you will find a poster on this board who isn't 100% in favor of conservation. However, someone smarter than me has said that conservation is a virtue, not the basis for an energy policy.

As for Eureope being cleaner, well I think I might argue that. My inlaws live near Frankfurt and on their trips here they always comment that the interstates and high ways are much cleaner than in Germany. As for the grunge near any big city...... well I think that may be universal. But you sort of made my point with your observation about Mexico City.

Not sure what religion has to do with it, but for you to say that Copernicus wasn't a scientist is ....... well....... wrong. It was the reporting of theorizing about his scientific investigations that made him a religious heretic. Is that not so? And at what point in history will you say that science existed? I would say that when Eratosthenes calculated the size of the Earth some 1500 years before Copernicus he was using science. But that's probably just me.

All the best

Aaron

Hi Kipp Albert,

I remember children were dying of malnutrition a few miles from the nation's capital. I remember when blacks couldn't ride buses or use drinking fountains in the south. I remember when tens of millions were starving in China and India, and I remember being prepared as a child for the inevitable nuclear war. I remember when the air in LA was so bad that people were dropping dead, and when parents were afraid their children would catch polio in a swimming pool.

The world has improved a lot since then, and I am always astonished at the amnesic nostalgia of the left. Other than the music, the 1960s and 1970s had a lot of serious problems. Thanks largely to Ronald Reagan's unflinching defense of capitalism and freedom, the world has improved tremendously for hundreds of millions of people.

Kipp:

I commend your desire to protect the planet from ourselves and wanton abuse of materiality.

But what you have expressed is not a concern about human induced global warming but rather one about the environment. Granted that our climate is the environment, but it is a stretch to state that we must stop global warming to protect the environment. They are two very different things with nothing really meeting in the middle.

The reality of this is that you are like nearly all devout AGWers, you are concerned about the environment and environmental issues and you are using GW as your vehicle to express your concern. The problem with that is that it is based upon misinterpreted data and wild theory based upon imagination instead of extrapolation.

Please see this thread starter for direct proof of my statement.

Most importantly, the only reason you are using GW is that the 70's hot button, litter, the 80's hot button, acid rain, and the 90's hot button, toxic materials, have run their course. GW is merely the latest of the hot button issues.

Now in each era, environmentally minded solutions cost this country a bunch of money, no it did not wreck the enconomy, and yes the benefits are many, but in GW, the costs are entirely different because of the scales involved. Additionally, even if the USA shoulders most of the effort and costs (which it undoubtly will)(tell me the last time any other country REALLY did anything for the planet on any level), nothing will come of it because the rest of the world will not abide by any changes.

The truly funny thing is that if you want the world to stop being so wasteful of energy, global warming might be the only thing to accomplish that. Think about it. You live outside of NY, if you commute, is it easier to travel in summer or winter. When do you use more energy? What are your heating bills compared to your cooling bills? Betcha summer, and hotter times, are better for you at reducing energy consumption.

Frankly, I do not know why any logical person would be against warming the planet in some way in order to greatly reduce our need for energy just to survive. Doubt that comment, go live outside in the cold with no artificial warmth and tell me how that compares to trying it in summer. In the winter, you will simply die trying to stay warm. In the summer, you can live just fine without any shelter at all.

Sorry about the length, had time to ponder my thoughts on this as my usual 30 min drive turned into an hour of sheer hell on ice. And Oh, I usually use 1 gallon of gas to get to work, thanks to this dang storm, I used 2 maybe 3 gallons.

Tell me heat isn't a good thing.

I don't think you will find a poster on this board who isn't 100% in favor of conservation.

Do a quick search on "Oiznop"... *lol*

LOL!...

Ya know, BT, I find it fascinating that people of your ilk just don't get it and never will. Conservation should be in the eye of beholder. Not at the behest of (more) government mandates, laws, taxes and the whims of radical lunatics from Greenpeace, PITA, the Sierra Club, and the Daily Kos.

Pittsburgh Weather. Proof that Glo-BULL Warming is COLOSSAL CROCK!!!!!!

Kipp,

Interesting perspective. Its nice to see that you are also a man of faith. However, I have seen a bit of anger coming from some of your posts. I have been somewhat guilty of this as well. I agree that we should try remain positive. After all, Jesus died for us on a cross(+) to remind us to be positive(+) towards each other.

As a conservative, I believe that we owe it to future generations to be as energy efficient as possible, but without restricting freedom and right to prosperity. As a conservative, I dont need the government forcing me to conserve energy. I am already aware. Obviously fossil fuels will not last forever. It is a delicate balance, no doubt. CO2 is not a pollutant, so that perspective does not concern me.

We may agree on a lot of issues. However, humans having a significant effect on the climate is where we go our seperate ways.

Darren:
You would not find your ambiguos jokes amusing if you lived in a country that might loose it's ice melt and the ganghi's dried up. My wifes family in France have noticed a cooling trend and actual snow near Poitier below Toure. Go Change your light bulbs,stop using your chain saw, and learn to use a stelleto. Now that's efficiency.
Kipp

"Go Change your light bulbs,stop using your chain saw, and learn to use a stelleto. Now that's efficiency.
Kipp"

Why do you want Darren to wear high heels?

Kipp:

Are you OK? What jokes did Darren tell? He explained very clearly why he does and doesn't agree with you. And then you admit that your in-laws in France say there is a cooling trend. A lot of posters here have pointed that out.
Maybe you should re-read Darren's post before you slam him.

Kipp:

I really want to understand your comments. Can you please try to restate not being so cryptic?

Oh, and I would not be worried about losing ice melt since liquid rain will likely supplant the lost moisture.

For all you backyard weather lovers, our high temperature here was BELOW the normal low.

Rich:
I do not know that humans have a significant impact on nature,and I have read The whole IPCC stuff for o7, but if you have a site or other ways that I can obtain better info please let me know. I love Science but am just at the beginning of it.
KIPP

Diane.
I don't want to be likened to a AGW type Or a environmentalist under the umbrella of Global warming, and also think that if Global Warming did exist,it might stop that conveyor belt that drops down on Europe: and also have a billion people die of thirst,in the world.I don't wish this on any family.But I must also make it clear that I now have strong doubts about the science of climate change,from my limited knowledge.
KIPP

Darren,

Well said. I am right there with you bud. Man, your backyard sounds cold. I cant even see over the snowbanks to glance at mine.

Kipp,

You are already at the best site my friend. A lot of rational, intelligent and interesting perspectives here. As long as you dont mind the occasional moodiness, or wading through the sarcasm. Usually the gloves are on, occasionally they are off, and sometimes kicking is an option. So much for being positive(+) towards each other huh?

Is your wife from France? Half of my family lives there. Around Niort. Mon francais est pas tres bon. Je suis capable de parler mejor que ecrire.

Get rid of my chain saw? Trees are renewable energy and a great source of heat. Now if the earth was slightly warmer, some of us wouldnt need to use as many trees for heat, right? Warmth is the key to life. Look at the equator. Look inside an actual greenhouse. Lush isnt it? And people are worried about a few "theoretical" degrees of warmth? Come on! I pray we dont head into another ice age. Besides, weve already burned nearly 20 percent of the earths fossil fuel reserves. I just dont get the hysteria?

Unfortunately, this year isnt starting out so good for global warming. I must admit that I have been absolutely miserable. Funny how the cold does that to people. Why do I live in New Hampshire? I mean, I am closer to the equator than the north pole, but should probably move further south.

Come on Sun! Thats your climate driver.

RICH:

What part of New Hampshire are you in?

Very pretty country up that way. And I love the Architecture. So different from here in the Midwest. The wife and I drove up to Maine in December to visit family and we got to go through just a small piece of New Hampshire. Even got to see BT's backyard. Even though I don't see eye to eye with him, and probably 90% of the people of the his state, the area and buildings were really neat. I really want to head back up there this summer so that we can spend more time visiting the small coastal communities. It just seems kinda comfortable in some sort of way.

I had heard that the snow was piling up. We actually have a fair bit here for this time of the year. It's really funny, a month ago, the scuttlebutt was that winter was over and everyone was talking about GW. Now, the big thing is that we're running out of salt, the kids have to go to school in summer to make up days (really stupid if you ask me), and how this winter is costing everyone a boatload in overtime and equipment.

Once again, I really fail to see how warming hurts.

Darren,

I live right outside of Manchester. An hour from Boston, an hour from the shore and an hour from the lakes and White Mountains. Small state, but close to lots of cool things (if you dont mind winter). Next time you head home from Maine, stop off into Portsmouth. Take the exit right after the I-95 bridge crosing into NH. Its a beautiful and historic city. You can drive along the coast (1-A) all the way to Hampton beach, where you can easily get back on I-95. Its a cool winding road, right along the coast. The views of the shore and mansions are incredible!

8 more inches of snow for us tomorrow night. As Oiz would say, bring on the glo-bull warming...lol.

Rich:

We took 84 to 90 to 495 to 95 up to Maine. We went to just outside Freeport.

Actually spent the night in Portsmouth and then went downtown for Breakfast. Really neat to see everything there. We will do the 1a route next time through though. Great idea.

For some weird reason, I really want to some spots in Mass. Not sure why though, I think it's a history thing with me.

Sucks with snow coming in for you. At least it's sunny here right now.

Rich,

I live in CT. Every summer I spend a week(or two)with my family in Seabrook, NH. The ride from there to Portsmouth is beautiful. Last year I biked it. Great ride. Seabrook has a beautiful beach and my kids love it up there. I don't think the water gets out of the low 60's, but we spend a lot of time in it anyway. My wife and I love that area.

Darren,

Maine is great. Never been to Ohio...but a pivotal state for electing Presidents. As far as history. When you are in Mass, the Duck Tours in Boston is very informative and entertaining. All the historic sites...Bunker Hill, Freedom Trail, Old Iron Sides, etc. Good value for your dollars. Plus they launch from the very cool Museum of Science. Another bonus...EZ to get to.

iceman,

My sister lives in Waterford, CT. I love going down there. My wife and I each ride as well.

Rich:

Great ideas on the visits. Will probably do that this year yet. After winter which should end, what Brett? about July? LOL Wait til April Darren!

I mean it WAS the coldest year on record right?Ah, just joshing you. Someone in the office brought that up to me today. I just laughed and asked them how to define the statement. They glazed over.

Maine was neat. Could not get over all of the big pine trees, everywhere! The wife ate nothing by lobster and chowder for 6 days straight. i thought she was gonna grow claws. On the trip over we did stop by ACCUWEATHER. It was really neat to see. Katrina Voss is a munchkin, she looks tall in the VIDS. Got to talk with Henry, and saw Bernie. I shoulda asked for Brett but figured he'd kick my butt for griping all the time. Didn't want the wife to be embarassed by my beat down. Seriously though, if you get the chance it is worth it.

As for Ohio, it's really flat compared to your neck of the woods and the roads are more wide open. The buildings are nothing to look at either. Since I am a structural engineer, old buildings and bridges and stuff like that intrigue me greatly. Oh and I like connecticut too.

Darren,

I have had a few lobsters in my lifetime. One of my stations was in Portsmouth. I was as a boarding officer and boat captain (coxswain) for the USCG. I have seen some rough seas my friend. We would provide Presidential Security up in Kennebunkport, and performed search and rescue all the way down to Seabrook. I have talked to the president (41) up there. Nice man. A true American hero (he got shot down in WWII). I have also heard scuttlebutt from the secret service about the Clintons that I could not post here ;)

OK, enough with the off topic stuff. Brett, I will just say that Terry O'Reilly of the Bruins, climbing over the glass to beat that fan with his own shoe is classic hockey. LMAO! Old time hockey rocked! Especialy the goalies with SMALLER pads. Good luck with the 5 hole, seeing that the goalies XXXL jersey covers part of it as he butterflies.

Darren and Rich, you guys should exchange e-mail addresses if you want to discuss off topic stuff.

I think that the global warming is just a natural phenomenon, as geological data can easily proove. We are now in what is called an integlaciary maximum. It is an exceptionally warm period that marks the interglaciary period. This usually lasts up to 20 thousand years. Ours has already lasted around 18 thousand years. So it's coming to an end. Hopefully by the time it reaches its end which should occur sometime in the next couple of thousand years we should be able to do something about it.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html