Quick! Hide The Decline!

Loading

Philly Draped in Snow

December 2010:

Weather forecasters in Britain are speculating this December will be the coldest since 1910. Several inches of snow have blanketed Britain all the while stranding travelers and delighting children.  Their cousins on the other side of the pond have been dealing with a spectrum of weather related issues from roof caving snow storms to torrential flooding.

Flashback to March 2000:

Headlines like this were commonplace – Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past.  Global warming ideology was just getting warmed up and the global warming ‘scientists’ at CRU were parsing out bits of nonsense to news reporters such as:

According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.

The author of this article, Charles Onians, went so far as to state (without sourcing supporting data) that average temperatures in Britain will increase by 0.2C every decade over the next century. Ahem…it has been a decade since the article came out. Has there been a 0.2C increase in temperature as predicted? As we all should know weather does not actually equal climate, yet data does suggest we may be entering a Dalton Minimum – otherwise known as a cooling phase.

Further reading on this subject:

Don’t Look! Just hide the decline!

Tory Aardvark

PS: The above photo was taken in Philadelphia earlier this year. I would have liked to post a relevant London photo, however, I don’t favor visiting London during winter – as delightful as this city can be, it’s too cold for comfort during the winter months.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
15 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Read that a wind generator company is moving its headquarters out of Berzerkley, Commieformia. Its gone bust and looking for a city that will have them. Ethanol is a bust. Geothermal will go if somebody has deep pockets. California once produced more oil than all of Canada. The Won and Joe Bite Me are complete busts. Sardines have precedence over the middle valley that produces some of the best exported produce that America can provide to a hungry world. Solar energy is a bust economically, if you have a 15 year payback. They recycled Jerry Brown and the back door to Mexico has a welcome sign on it. Their biggest export is talented people and top 500 companies. Isn’t socialism grand! A real setup for a bailout. Hoax and chains.

My talented buddy from Orange County came to Calgary and I hired him today. To the oil patch we go.

I recently had a conversation with two liberals in Las Vegas concerning AGW. Both truly believed that CO2 is the cause and gave many examples such as gases from cattle and air conditioners. I subtly corrected them that the gases were methane and fluorocarbons, not CO2.

Neither had heard of the Koyoto protocol. They didn’t understand how cap and trade would work. When I showed them data that revealed CO2 levels rise only about 100 years after global warming occurs the exclaimed, “see CO2 does cause global warming!”

When I asked them what scientific sources they obtained their information, they quoted Big Al, and his NASA buddy as well as news papers. No scientific journals or papers were included.

Both of these liberals had master’s degrees and one was completing her doctorate. Somewhere our educational process fails to teach students how they think. Maybe the Global Warming Religion gurus have brain washed them! I was speechless.

It must be very strange living in an ivory-tower world where no matter what happens, it’s confirmation of your theory.

Global Warming Junk Scientists Insist Record Cold Weather Is Proof of Actual Heating

Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past

By Charles Onians

Monday, 20 March 2000

Britain’s winter ends tomorrow with further indications of a striking environmental change: snow is starting to disappear from our lives.

Sledges, snowmen, snowballs and the excitement of waking to find that the stuff has settled outside are all a rapidly diminishing part of Britain’s culture, as warmer winters – which scientists are attributing to global climate change – produce not only fewer white Christmases, but fewer white Januaries and Februaries.

The first two months of 2000 were virtually free of significant snowfall in much of lowland Britain, and December brought only moderate snowfall in the South-east. It is the continuation of a trend that has been increasingly visible in the past 15 years: in the south of England, for instance, from 1970 to 1995 snow and sleet fell for an average of 3.7 days, while from 1988 to 1995 the average was 0.7 days. London’s last substantial snowfall was in February 1991.

Global warming, the heating of the atmosphere by increased amounts of industrial gases, is now accepted as a reality by the international community. Average temperatures in Britain were nearly 0.6°C higher in the Nineties than in 1960-90, and it is estimated that they will increase by 0.2C every decade over the coming century. Eight of the 10 hottest years on record occurred in the Nineties.

However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.

“Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html

There was a piece on Fox News 3 YEARS ago about ”the Triple Crown of Global Cooling,” by Joe Bastardi.

Solar activity was down, so cooling.
Volcanic activity in the Arctic was up, so cooling.
The Ocean cycles did a natural reversal, so cooling.

None of these are what you could call, AGW (human-caused global warming).

Joe did sound a warning that we might see drought conditions in our South: Texas, OK, Ark, Missouri, Mississippi.

So, if that happens, it is NOT AGW.
He predicted it based on the Triple Crown.

Careful satellite measurements of Earth’s radiation balance have shown that we’re accumulating energy. Since the Earth sits in a vacuum, this energy has to end up as heat, somewhere, because there is no convection mechanism to carry any heat away from the planet. Since the interior of the planet is hotter than the crust, and the laws of thermodynamics are that heat flows in the direction of cooler material, we know the heat isn’t accumulating in the center of the planet. It therefore has to accumulate in the biosphere. Black-body radiation physics tell us that eventually the energy flow will be brought back into balance as the Earth heats up enough so that the outflowing radiation balances the inflow. So, strictly as a matter of basic physics, without needing to appeal to any dodgy temperature measurements, proxy estimation techniques, or computer models, we know the biosphere is heating up.

The ballyhoo about air-temperature measurements, adjusted temperature proxies, etc., completely misses the point. The energy has to be going somewhere. Again as a matter of basic physics, the thermal capacity of water is orders of magnitude greater than that of air. The earth is 70% covered by water. So, we can expect over time that more of the energy will accumulate in the oceans. Measurements by the US Navy appear to confirm this. Much of the sea level rise we’ve seen to date is actually the result of thermal expansion, rather than melting ice, though ice is the real long-term threat.

The link between the radiation flow imbalance and changes in the levels of CO2 and other gasses is also a matter of basic physics. What is uselessly disputed is the effect of this on surface air temperatures – who cares? True but misleading statements are made about human contributions to CO2, such as that we represent a few percent of annual emissions. True, but neglects the natural re-absorption – we represent most/all of the net change each year. Misleading statements are also made about the effect of small changes being small. It’s true that the effect on radiation flow is small, and getting smaller. The amount of CO2 present naturally in the atmosphere made the difference between our relatively nice climate and an ice-ball Earth. Doubling the CO2 level from that point only cuts the radiation flow by half as much. A simple way to think about this is to imaging putting a plate of smoked glass over a window, cutting 20% of the light. Another plate of the same thickness can only cut 20% of the remaining 80%, or 16% more light. You can’t cut it below zero, or, in climate-speak, you can only close the radiation band so far. That sounds like good news, and it is – however, what’s missed out is that whatever the flow imbalance is, it continues, day after day, and so the effect on net energy balance is cumulative. The bad news is that a certain amount of warming is already “baked in” by previous emissions.

Even if you don’t care one whit about polar bears, sea life, ecosystems, or global winners and losers as a result of further warming, the prospect of rising sea levels should be alarming simply on economic grounds. I don’t see our environment as a left-versus-right issue, and so, as a fairly conservative person and engineer, I’m baffled by the degree of wilful blindness I see from people who normally think for themselves. Instead of listening to the echo chamber, do some research. You’re tragically wrong on this issue.

Doug #6

I am not sure who you think is wrong since you were not specific. I find your post confusing and missing quite a few issues. Concerning research, here is Dr. Roy Spencer’s Global Warming 101 Class

Global Warming Theory in a Nutshell

GW 101

Every scientific theory involves assumptions. Global warming theory starts with the assumption that the Earth naturally maintains a constant average temperature, which is the result of a balance between (1) the amount of sunlight the Earth absorbs, and (2) the amount of emitted infrared (“IR”) radiation that the Earth continuously emits to outer space. In other words, energy in equals energy out. Averaged over the whole planet for 1 year, those energy flows in and out of the climate system are estimated to be around 235 or 240 watts per square meter.

Greenhouse components in the atmosphere (mostly water vapor, clouds, carbon dioxide, and methane) exert strong controls over how fast the Earth loses IR energy to outer space. Mankind’s burning of fossil fuels creates more atmospheric carbon dioxide. As we add more CO2, more infrared energy is trapped, strengthing the Earth’s greenhouse effect. This causes a warming tendency in the lower atmosphere and at the surface. As of 2008, it is believed that we have enhanced the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect by about 1%.

Global warming theory says that the lower atmosphere must then respond to this energy imbalance (less IR radiation being lost than solar energy being absorbed) by causing an increase in temperature (which causes an increase in the IR escaping to space) until the emitted IR radiation once again equals the amount of absorbed sunlight. That is, the Earth must increase its temperature until global energy balance is once again restored. This is the basic explanation of global warming theory. (The same energy balance concept applies to a pot of water on a stove set on “low”. The water warms until the rate of energy loss through evaporation, convective air currents, and infrared radiation equals the rate of energy gain from the stove, at which point the water remains at a constant temperature. If you turn the heat up a tiny bit more, the temperature of the water will rise again until the extra amount of energy lost by the pot once again equals the energy gained from the stove, at which point a new, warmer equilibrium temperature is reached.)

Now, you might be surprised to learn that the amount of warming directly caused by the extra CO2 is, by itself, relatively weak. It has been calculated theoretically that, if there are no other changes in the climate system, a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration would cause less than 1 deg C of surface warming (about 1 deg. F). This is NOT a controversial statement…it is well understood by climate scientists. (As of 2008, we were about 40% to 45% of the way toward a doubling of atmospheric CO2.)

BUT…everything this else in the climate system probably WON’T stay the same! For instance, clouds, water vapor, and precipitation systems can all be expected to respond to the warming tendency in some way, which could either amplify or reduce the manmade warming. These other changes are called “feedbacks,” and the sum of all the feedbacks in the climate system determines what is called ‘climate sensitivity’. Negative feedbacks (low climate sensitivity) would mean that manmade global warming might not even be measurable, lost in the noise of natural climate variability. But if feedbacks are sufficiently positive (high climate sensitivity), then manmade global warming could be catastrophic.

Obviously, knowing the strength of feedbacks in the climate system is critical; this is the subject of most of my research. Here you can read about my latest work on the subject, in which I show that feedbacks previously estimated from satellite observations of natural climate variability have potentially large errors. A confusion between forcing and feedback (loosely speaking, cause and effect) when observing cloud behavior has led to the illusion of a sensitive climate system, when in fact our best satellite observations (when carefully and properly interpreted) suggest an IN-sensitive climate system.

Finally, if the climate system is insensitive, this means that the extra carbon dioxide we pump into the atmosphere is not enough to cause the observed warming over the last 100 years — some natural mechanism must be involved. Here you can read about my favorite candidate: the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.

Copyright 2010 Roy Spencer, Ph. D. – All Rights Reserved

If you check out his web site, you will learn quite a lot.

The frequently lauded and taxpayer-funded SpectraWatt Inc. has told the state it will close its solar cell plant starting in March and lay off 117 workers.

http://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/article/20101222/BUSINESS/12220339/Solar-cell-maker-SpectraWatt-plans-shutdown

The announcement was startling because in the past two months, the company, which had been promised about $8 million in tax dollars, planned to train more workers and changed its work shifts to enable a 24-hour operation.

Created in April 2009, SpectraWatt ramped up quickly, creating jobs in the midst of high unemployment.

SpectraWatt was offered about $8 million in government subsidies to help get it started.

It could not be determined Tuesday how much of the public subsidy has been given so far to SpectraWatt and what liabilities, if any, were attached to the money.

State officials and elected representatives could not be reached for comment Tuesday night.

SpectraWatt is one of the few large manufacturing employers to have been established in Dutchess County in recent years and a rare example of a solar cell manufacturer based in the U.S.

The company created 110 jobs from zero over 18 months through October, making photovoltaic cells in a plant established at IBM’s Hudson Valley Research Park.

Gee, let me guess….without huge government subsidies solar cells manufacture cannot turn a profit.
Remember, if there is DEMAND there will be SUPPLY.
Obama gets this backward at our expense.

Another feel-good investment to appease the Greenies.
He tries to force SUPPLY on us whether we want the junk or not!

Since some readersss at FA think most of us are ignorant of how Global warming works, I have included another of Dr Roy Spenser’s posts:

Global Warming

Global Warming

“Global warming” refers to the global-average temperature increase that has been observed over the last one hundred years or more. But to many politicians and the public, the term carries the implication that mankind is responsible for that warming. This website describes evidence from my group’s government-funded research that suggests global warming is mostly natural, and that the climate system is quite insensitive to humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions and aerosol pollution.

Believe it or not, very little research has ever been funded to search for natural mechanisms of warming…it has simply been assumed that global warming is manmade. This assumption is rather easy for scientists since we do not have enough accurate global data for a long enough period of time to see whether there are natural warming mechanisms at work.

The United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claims that the only way they can get their computerized climate models to produce the observed warming is with anthropogenic (human-caused) pollution. But they’re not going to find something if they don’t search for it. More than one scientist has asked me, “What else COULD it be?” Well, the answer to that takes a little digging… and as I show, one doesn’t have to dig very far.

But first let’s examine the basics of why so many scientists think global warming is manmade. Earth’s atmosphere contains natural greenhouse gases (mostly water vapor, carbon dioxide, and methane) which act to keep the lower layers of the atmosphere warmer than they otherwise would be without those gases. Greenhouse gases trap infrared radiation — the radiant heat energy that the Earth naturally emits to outer space in response to solar heating. Mankind’s burning of fossil fuels (mostly coal, petroleum, and natural gas) releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and this is believed to be enhancing the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect. As of 2008, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was about 40% to 45% higher than it was before the start of the industrial revolution in the 1800’s.

It is interesting to note that, even though carbon dioxide is necessary for life on Earth to exist, there is precious little of it in Earth’s atmosphere. As of 2008, only 39 out of every 100,000 molecules of air were CO2, and it will take mankind’s CO2 emissions 5 more years to increase that number by 1, to 40.

The “Holy Grail”: Climate Sensitivity Figuring out how much past warming is due to mankind, and how much more we can expect in the future, depends upon something called “climate sensitivity”. This is the temperature response of the Earth to a given amount of ‘radiative forcing’, of which there are two kinds: a change in either the amount of sunlight absorbed by the Earth, or in the infrared energy the Earth emits to outer space.

The ‘consensus’ of opinion is that the Earth’s climate sensitivity is quite high, and so warming of about 0.25 deg. C to 0.5 deg. C (about 0.5 deg. F to 0.9 deg. F) every 10 years can be expected for as long as mankind continues to use fossil fuels as our primary source of energy. NASA’s James Hansen claims that climate sensitivity is very high, and that we have already put too much extra CO2 in the atmosphere. Presumably this is why he and Al Gore are campaigning for a moratorium on the construction of any more coal-fired power plants in the U.S.

You would think that we’d know the Earth’s ‘climate sensitivity’ by now, but it has been surprisingly difficult to determine. How atmospheric processes like clouds and precipitation systems respond to warming is critical, as they are either amplifying the warming, or reducing it. This website currently concentrates on the response of clouds to warming, an issue which I am now convinced the scientific community has totally misinterpreted when they have measured natural, year-to-year fluctuations in the climate system. As a result of that confusion, they have the mistaken belief that climate sensitivity is high, when in fact the satellite evidence suggests climate sensitivity is low.

The case for natural climate change I also present an analysis of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation which shows that most climate change might well be the result of….the climate system itself! Because small, chaotic fluctuations in atmospheric and oceanic circulation systems can cause small changes in global average cloudiness, this is all that is necessary to cause climate change. You don’t need the sun, or any other ‘external’ influence (although these are also possible…but for now I’ll let others work on that). It is simply what the climate system does. This is actually quite easy for meteorologists to believe, since we understand how complex weather processes are. Your local TV meteorologist is probably a closet ’skeptic’ regarding mankind’s influence on climate.

Climate change — it happens, with or without our help.

SKYE, NICETO HAVE YOU BACK, SOMEONE NOTICE IT LAST COUPLE O WEEKS ALSO,
GOOD POST THANK YOU,
BYE

Randy, am I right to think that what they call global warming, is not that but it’s the globe of earth which has tilted just enogh to get the weather in a diffrent place, like some have our snow storms and rain as they never seen before,
that would also tell me, that SANTA might be mixt up and land in a diffrent shedule,
and delay the distribution of goodies, SO IF SOME NOTICE THAT TONIGHT, I WISH THEY COME HERE AT FA TO LET US KNOW, SO WE DONT WAIT FOR HIM AT THE USUAL TIME.
BYE

Bees,
Just finished delivering all my packages. I am shaving off my beard until next year. Merry Christmas!

Randy , you must be tired, to have made the global trip around,
wont you feel cold without your beard,
a merry CHRISTMAS TO YOU, AND YOUR LOVED ONE

Snow fell in Hawaii. That makes 48 states with snow. I guess that global warming is saving us from that coming ice age they predicted in the 1980’s.