We must consider the effects of what we do as individuals, organizations, business and nations to impact the climate

I am trying to imagine that conversation. "Let's go make an ice age." "Let's go drive our SUVs and make that next cold front stop at the border."

Few people believe can have any impact the weather next week, but many people think they can change the weather next century. It is completely delusional.

People should devote their time and energy to dealing with things in the real world - the here and now. For all we know, a nuclear war or asteroid will hit before the next century. The things we worry about almost never end up being the real problems of tomorrow.

The Dali Lama says that we are put on the earth to be happy. If people would follow his advice and focus on happiness, there would be much less war, greed, hatred and prejudice on this planet.

Trying to change things much bigger than you which you have no understanding or control of, is not a recipe for happiness. CO2 will continue to increase until the last drop of oil is gone. Nothing any of us could or should do to stop it. And no one will ever be able to prove one way or another if the climate would have been "better" at lower or higher CO2 levels.

Here is my take on "global" warming.

You were hoping it wouldn't get any colder. But it did.

The National Weather Service sent out a notice Wednesday reporting some stunningly low temperatures, including an unofficial mark of 70 degrees below zero at Tok at 8 a.m.

The last time an official temperature of 70 below or colder was recorded in Alaska came on Jan. 1, 2000, when a reading of 72 below zero was recorded at Chicken, the tiny community on the Taylor Highway in the Fortymile country east of Fairbanks and toward the Canadian border.

http://newsminer.com/news/2008/feb/07/cold-grips-interior/

I agreed with most of what Evan Myers was advancing, until I reached the following phrases ..

We could spend hundreds of billions of dollars and alter the Earth�s economy to no avail, if climate change is not human inducted. However, all of us either have insurance or would like to have it. We need to insure the planet. Insurance for the Earth. We must consider the effects of what we do as individuals, organizations, business and nations to impact the climate. If humans have had little or no effect we have bought an insurance policy and not needed to use it, if on the other hand humans are changing the climate the insurance will be well worth it. If climate change is as serious as some think nothing should be off the table.

Insuring the planet sounds good but again ....to what extent. If nothing is off the table don't we find ourselves back to the alarmist's position?

Wouldn't it be more prudent to better understand and measure the real human portion of our involvement in warming before embarquing on a process with solutions, with no way to measure their direct results?

Brett, I tried to register in the above forum but the form does not accept our postal codes. Plse let me know ....Thanks

Reply: I will let Jesse Ferrell know on Monday. Sorry for the inconvience.

I wonder how may people in the Mid-West are shoveling 8 inches of Global Warming?

It is cold even in India. Northern parts are getting record amounts of snowfall.

Where is Global Warming?

Good article describing how poor Hansen's data set has become. Particularly during the period where he claims the most warming.

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2703#more-2703

Gosh, Patrick Henry--First you tell me that global warming doesn't exist because it is snowing where you live.

Now you tell me that, even if AGW does exist, I should just make the best of it, because I am just one person, and you offer some sort of totally de-contextualized quote from, of all people, the Dalai Lama to support this specious reasoning.

Which is it?

By the way, wasn't it also the Dalai Lama that said that "we must be the change we wish to see in the world"?

Those poor western Hudson Bay Polar Bears. We keep hearing about how the bears (who's populations have doubled) are headed for extinction due to global warming and a lack of ice. The Guardian publishes pictures every day showing that last pathetic little ice cube left in the Arctic.

The bears are suffering today in Manitoba in blistering temperatures as high as -28C. The ice must be melting like crazy.
http://www.wunderground.com/global/CA_MN.html

Alaskan and Siberian bears suffering similar overheating problems with temperatures in the -70F range.

Polar bear lined up as warming victim
Sunday, February 10, 2008
By Kenneth R. Weiss, Los Angeles Times

The Bush administration is nearing a decision that would acknowledge officially the environmental damage of global warming and name its first potential victim: the polar bear.

The Interior Department might act soon on its year-old proposal to make the polar bear the first species to be listed as threatened with extinction because of melting ice from a warming planet.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08041/856066-113.stm

me thinks NASA giss temp has finally been nailed
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2703#comments
most recent temps have been fabricated!

and this is where you can follow the only accurate temps every day (image graph)
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps
lets hope they don't close this one down

Look, I'm not an extremist "greenie" or anything like that, but logically there is a question or two that nobody seems to be talking about in their rush to buffalo everybody into megabuck grants and preciptous actions.

What is the greatest tool for removing CO2 from the atmosphere? "Photosynthesis". What performs this function? "Plant Life". Now, if we keep clear cutting the old growth forests and burning off the rain forests and paving over every square inch of the planet we can see, WHAT DO WE EXPECT? The CO2 level is going to rise! Do you really want to change things? Start planting trees and grass and other plants, appropriately, and recognize that if we want to breath, we need the plant life in our ecosystem. (Please note the emphasis on the word "appropriately".)

Best Regards,

Ed

dear mr big cheese at Accuweather:

1) i like your global warming blog because of the two way street format but you need to change the name to global climate change...look around dude, there is alot of global cooling going around directly attributed to what is going on with that big ball of fire in the sky

2) you got too many popups and it slows me down navigating your webpage...just kidding man, i know you need the ad money

3) you need to consider the implications of your title COO when commenting over here because it has co2 overtones...that was a joke too, bro!

4) you got some good people working for you, give them a raise...ole brett consistenly works weekends posting my two cents

5) i am impressed you stated your views at the risk of losing subscribers no matter what you said...after covering all the bases in your commentary i disagree with your solution...i think we are on the same page there is no proof of AGW and buying an insurance policy is a copout (no offense intended)...that proposal is not benign in its implementation and is unfounded...my TAKE is that there are dubious folks "on the TAKE" when you analyze the science behind AGW...TAKING the easy road with a just in case attitude is a politically correct middle of the road answer that is an unnecessary burden on hardworking "God Bless" american citizens...just look at the ethonal fiasco when government decides to interfere with that type of mentality....please consider the benefits of fossil fuels vs the alternatives...america has 200 years worth of coal...more u.s. oil and gas can be delivered if we quit telling those dudes where they cannot drill.. we may have safe nuclear capability but are you ready to put those puppies in your backyard?...we wont even let those dudes dispose of it properly in a mountain in nevada...all other fuel alternatives arent important enough to make a difference...penalizing taxpayers with fossil fuel insurance is robbing peter to pay paul for no reason...that money is better spent somewhere else where it can do some good like giving it to your wife to go shopping at places like Needluss Markups and J.C. Pennyless...

6)have a nice day bro, it was cool hearing your opinion...i would like to say you got some good people at Accuweather that think outside the consensus box ...it has allowed them to make some bold predictions against the establishment and to their credit, you consistently seem to get more accurate forecasts then your competitors...at least they are within five degrees a couple days out and admit they could be wrong about that...

And yet another global warming poster child bites the dust. It must be troubling for the Nobel Prize winners to see scientists actually thinking and using their brains.

Lead Author Neil Glasser of Aberystwyth University in the United Kingdom said, Ice shelf collapse is not as simple as we first thought. Because large amounts of meltwater appeared on the ice shelf just before it collapsed, we had always assumed that air temperature increases were to blame." The study identified additional factors leading to the demise of the ice shelf.

http://www.physorg.com/news121700324.html

The posts on this board are ridiculous! It's -28 C in Manitoba because it's the middle of February. It's snowing in the Midwest because it is, gee, February. This does not disprove global warming. The narrow minded,mathematically-challenged on this board are obviously unable to understand statistics or temperature trends. The Arctic ice is melting in summer and the world's temperatures are rising. There is only one way to interpret cold, hard facts. As for that comment about not being able to influence the weather next week, well duh. The Earth's systems have a lot of inertia and our CO2 contributions today will take a while to have an effect but they WILL.

Apologies previous post this is the correct link
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/
On another note being a skeptic I admit that SH ice has returned to normal! LOL.

ewodrich;
What is wrong with thinking Green. Patrick say's,I am on the Titanic so I'll either die or make it to America. Have another martini. Wake up
America. Since the Earth is our home ,shouldn't we help save it,since it has afforded us all of the luxuries that we now possess. We are conspicuos consumers,another words pigs. We are in a Democracy with a president who is fascist.
A conservative today is just a lemur, who salutes his corporation before falling off the cliff. Global Warming, like the hydrogen cars are just a stalling tactic for the rich. Get thinkers to worry about today's highs and lows, so we can keep ruining the world for our obscene greed and profits. I will not sit by and watch the oil guzzlers, the fast food junkies, the walmart plastisized, conditioned masses, give up humanity for the rich and the few. We are conned and persuaded by our Chief Operarating Officers to do something for the enviroment. Wow! How about recycling. Or carry your bag to the grocery, and then reuse it. Why don't we go to the moon again. We can always borrow another trillion from China.
How about scientists dedicating their lives to saving our biology and marine life, help stop deforestation and land abuse, stop fantasising about the little oil in Alaska, and work on technologies for alternate sources of power. The leader of Greenpeace said it best. Become a vegetarian, and be willing to give up your life. We are sacrificing our young men to the alter of Arab states,for what,your car. I have a son in college. I can't imagine loosing him. But if I did, I would be more proud for his service to man than service to George Bush. O.K. Doris, lets talk about the weather. Global Warming is a process. Wait ten years from now and start your debate. It doesn't take a weatherman to know which way the wind blows! Save Our Planet first.
Feed the hungry, cloth the masses, care for everyone,help protect our enviroment. Act like the individual that you are, not the compulsive conformist, the corporations or Christian conservatives would love you to be. This is not a game. Our planet is in peril!
Kipp

Hi David,

It's -28 C in Manitoba because it's the middle of February

So what you are saying is that it is normal for temperatures in Manitoba to be twenty degrees below normal. Thanks so much for the help with the math. I must also have missed that statistics class where they explained that the normal lies more than eight standard deviations from the mean.

Is it also normal for northern hemisphere temperatures to be below normal?
http://www.remss.com/msu/msu_data_monthly.html

Thank you so much fer the help. I were feeling kind of stupid before.

Accurate weather forecasting is difficult and forecasters regularly miss the mark. But, we all understand this and accept their best efforts at predicting the future. They usually explain why they were so wrong after the fact and we accept that too. But, the reality is that they are wrong so often that if they were truly held accountable for their predicitons then most would have very short careers in this field.

All this attention to a media-hyped global warming hypothesis prompts organizations, like Accu-Weather, to provide their advice. Now, their COO has offered his "I don't know why it's happening either but we should play it safe in case it is us" philosophy. Isn't that what the local weather forecast is, a series of educated guesses based on wind direction, fronts, and barometric pressure? Is your local forecast definitive or is it filled with an array of possibilities? Why do they hedge their bets? Because they don't know for sure and we're only talking about tomorrow!

If we follow Evan Myers CYA approach then we will be left with the same disappointment we experience when we prepare for a sunny day and it rains like hell. Insurance against a highly unlikely and catastrophic AGW will carry a premium that we cannot afford and one that is absolutely unnecessary. Besides, we cannot alter the climate so the whole notion amounts to a fool's errand.

But, consider this: if we plan for the worst and nothing happens, will we go after the Evan Myers' of the weather world who advocated high cost insurance or simply breathe a sigh of relief and move on. There is no accountabilty in weather or climate forecasting and, therfore, no risk for "experts" who encourage us down a road we should not take.

Patrick Henry seems to have neglected an important additional paragraph from his cite:

[Co-author] Scambos pointed to studies that have measured warming of deep Southern Ocean currents, which increasingly brush against the Antarctic coastline. "This led to some thinning of the shelf, making it easier to break apart," he noted. "The unusually warm summer of 2002, part of a multi-decade trend of warming clearly tied to climate change, was the final straw," Scambos said.

Instead of another "global warming poster child" biting the dust, I'd say that we have yet another example of a denier publishing a brazen, flagrant misrepresentation of a legitimate research result.

Using the genetic equivalent of an ancient thermometer, a team of scientists has determined that the Earth endured a massive cooling period between 500 million and 3.5 billion years ago.

Earth's environment has continuously been changing since life began, and life has adapted appropriately to survive

http://www.earthtoday.net/news/viewpr.html?pid=24720

David, you win arguments by debating issues without calling people names when you disagree. FYI, it may be Feb here in WI, but our average temps for this month are NOT -45 including wind chill. We have had 3-4 cold snaps like this since Dec with more than the average snowfall. According to my electric bill we are way below the average since Dec. Last Feb was the coldest in 60 years. All in all I do not consider any of this weather variation to be any sort of trend either up or down. What does really grate on my nerves is when the global alarmists tie every single weather variance to global warming which thus makes them correct 100 percent of the time.

I agree with Patrick that predicting near term weather seems extremely difficult for the so-called experts let alone making dire predictions of weather changes in the future. Humans are programmed to embrace doom and gloom and find accepting happiness difficult even when it is presented to them. We should try to be happy for the life we are leading today.

One of my chief concerns is that people seem to be blind to the destructive influence of corruption. It is not enough to merely have an altruistic idea. For example, look at what happened to the Oil-for-Food program in Iraq. The corruption was obscene, and very little aid actually reached the people who needed it.

Another example involves the levees in New Orleans. People recognized a problem existed, money was supplied to solve the problem, yet the money was siphoned off and the problem remained unsolved. Then Katrina hit.

A third example is the "Big Dig" in Boston, a 3 billion project which wound up costing 18 billion, yet is engineered so badly that it is a disaster just waiting to happen. If a repeat of the 1938 hurricane struck New England on a track 75 miles to the east of the 1938 track, the tides could flood the Big Dig, and Boston would become the next New Orleans.

People should be held accountable for the misuse of funds. Katrina ruined lives and cost lives. The people who misused funds should have been tracked down and had the book thrown at them.

In the case of the Oil-for-Food program the Iraq government did fall, but there are plenty of UN officials and European (and maybe even American) officials who are still counting their cash, smugly thinking they "got away with it."

As long as people get away with misusing funds, it will be deemed "business as usual." There are people so cynical and hard-hearted that they don't care that the levees broke and people died, as long as they could take the money and run.

It is naive to assume such people will never appear in the ranks of climate-scientists. If the government throws money at a problem, (and billions are being thrown at climate reserch,) there will be those who are attracted to the money without the slightest interest in altruism.

Brave scientists have stepped forward, (despite the fury of peers who don't want the gravy train derailed,) to warn us this is already occuring. (See Lindzen's statement at http://www.ecoworld.com/home/articles2.cfm?tid=451

Unless and until I can feel certain that the UN and American policians are moral, and are policing and punishing the corrupt, I am very uncomfortable with the idea of giving them even a crumb more power and money than they already have. If anything they should recieve less money, for, rather than achieving altruistic ends, money seems to be filthy lucre which attracts flies.

David commented that "There is only one way to interpret cold, hard facts." This sounds somewhat less than scientific. I would point out that there was a time when the only way to interpret the "cold hard fact" of the observed motion of Mars relative to the Earth was that it regularly moved backwards and made loops in it's orbit around our blue planet. I needn't point out that this lone, indisputable interpretation turned out to be (how shall I say?) wrong.

All the best

Aaron