A record-setting blizzard killed 75,000 cows and you might not have even heard about

[Abraham3]

Given that the last little ice age triggered massive crop failures, famine, and terrible hardship upon large populations of the world, such a phenomenon is not what any of us should be wishing on the world. Except where there is extreme desert, however, some of the planet's most lush vegetation and most diverse animal life exists in areas that boast the Earth's warmest climates.

The conclusion should be that if we must choose between unusual warmth and unusual cold, warm is better. Longer growing seasons are definitely a plus in feeding an exploding global population. The more warm it naturally is, the less fossil fuel is necessary to keep us all warm.

It is a fact that the true hockey stick is the population growth. In 1700 there were not a billion people on Earth and now there are more than 7 billion people on Earth. So it is reasonable to believe human activity has had some effect on our environment and climate.

What the scientists really have not shown, however, is that the very small amount of human induced warming has been detrimental to us or will be. At least some scientists theorize that human acivity may in fact be a plus by offsetting some of the cyclical return to a colder, less hospitable climate.

Ice In The Greenhouse: Earth May Be Cooling, Not Warming

Then fingers crossed!

 

[Foxfyre]

Given that the last little ice age triggered massive crop failures, famine, and terrible hardship upon large populations of the world, such a phenomenon is not what any of us should be wishing on the world. Except where there is extreme desert, however, some of the planet's most lush vegetation and most diverse animal life exists in areas that boast the Earth's warmest climates.

The conclusion should be that if we must choose between unusual warmth and unusual cold, warm is better. Longer growing seasons are definitely a plus in feeding an exploding global population. The more warm it naturally is, the less fossil fuel is necessary to keep us all warm.

It is a fact that the true hockey stick is the population growth. In 1700 there were not a billion people on Earth and now there are more than 7 billion people on Earth. So it is reasonable to believe human activity has had some effect on our environment and climate.

What the scientists really have not shown, however, is that the very small amount of human induced warming has been detrimental to us or will be. At least some scientists theorize that human acivity may in fact be a plus by offsetting some of the cyclical return to a colder, less hospitable climate.

Ice In The Greenhouse: Earth May Be Cooling, Not Warming

Then fingers crossed!

Science is more than crossing fingers. Science is looking at the data honestly and presenting it as it is rather than what the politicians who wish to control us want it to be. Science is objective and takes the hard, cold, honest objective look at climate change rather than the fanatical and/or ideological approach that refuses to consider anything other than the orthodox AGW religion.

And honest media would have presented that terrible unseasonable blizzard in the Dakotas as the amazing event and true tragedy that it was instead of ignoring it lest it add fuel to a stalled global warming theory.

 

[mamooth]

But we still aren't as warm as it was in the MWP.

No matter how many times that stinking bullshit is debunked, the cultists will still spout it. Not a shred of evidence to back it up, mountains of data to the contary, but they still spout the crap.

That's how you know they're cultists. Facts literally don't mean anything to them. Their 'tard political cult has issued orders, so they gleefully lie, and then they curse anyone not as stupid and dishonest as themselves.

So denialists, enjoy your life as ridiculed kook fringe cultists. And it's only going to get worse for you. And we don't feel very sorry for you, since, through your actions, you've richly earned all the ridicule you get.

 

[mamooth]

rather than what the politicians who wish to control us want it to be.

And most recognize that's how you and your political cult operate. For example, you have zero evidence for any of your oncoming-ice-age fables, all the actual evidence contradicts it, but you still put it forth as a fact solely because it supports your cult's politics.

We are honest and objective. You're a pack of overly-emotional cranks, motivated solely by political hysteria, willingly repeating all the conspiracy theories because you know you'll get kicked out of your political cult if you don't bleat in unison with the rest of your herd.

And that would be why you're justifiably ridiculed by nearly everyone on the planet.

Go on, paint yourself as a victim of the vast mysterious global socialist agenda. Which would be yet another reason why almost everyone instantly recognizes you as a political cultist. Once someone begins babbling about phantom socialists and the liberal media, they may as well just put on the red nose, face paint and big shoes, since they are now forever beclowned. Yeah, yeah, they laughed at Galileo, but they also laughed at Bozo.

 

[Abraham3]

"Beclowned". Excellent word. Did you just make it up or have you seen that in print?

I think we should all do our best to stop insulting each other. Watchoo tink?

 

[Foxfyre]

More scientific opinion that the very small amount of global warming that can be linked conclusively to human activity is probably far more beneficial than harmful:

History demonstrates that warmer is healthier. Since the end of the last Ice Age, the earth has enjoyed two periods that were warmer than the twentieth century. Archaeological evidence shows that people lived longer, enjoyed better nutrition, and multiplied more rapidly than during epochs of cold.

That Ice Age ended about 12,000 to 10,000 years ago when the glaciers covering much of North America, Scandinavia and northern Asia began to retreat to approximately their current positions. In North America the glacial covering lasted longer than in Eurasia because of topographical features that delayed the warming. Throughout history warming and cooling in different regions of the world have not correlated exactly because of the influence of such factors as oceans, mountains, and prevailing winds.

As the earth warmed with the waning of the Ice Age, the sea level rose as much as 300 feet; hunters in Europe roamed through modern Norway; agriculture developed in the Middle East, the Far East and the Americas. By 7,000 years ago and lasting for about four millenniums, the earth was more clement than today, perhaps by 4deg. Fahrenheit, about the average of the various predictions for global warming from a doubling of CO2. Although the climate cooled a bit after 3000 B.C., it stayed relatively warmer than the modern world until sometime after 1000 B.C., when chilly temperatures became more common. During the four thousand warmest years, Europe enjoyed mild winters and warm summers with a storm belt far to the north. Rainfall may have been 10 to 15 percent greater than now. Not only was the country less subject to severe storms, but the skies were less cloudy and the days, sunnier.

From around 800 A.D. to 1200 or 1300, the globe warmed again considerably and civilization prospered. This warm era displays, although less distinctly, many of the same characteristics as the earlier period of clement weather. Virtually all of northern Europe, the British Isles, Scandinavia, Greenland, and Iceland were considerably warmer than at present. The Mediterranean, the Near East, and North Africa, including the Sahara, received more rainfall than they do today. During this period of the High Middle Ages, most of North America also enjoyed better weather. In the early centuries of the epoch, China experienced higher temperatures and a more clement climate. From Western Europe to China, East Asia, India, and the Americas, mankind flourished as never before. . . .

. . . .In summary, the evidence supports overwhelmingly the proposition that, during warm periods, humans have prospered. They multiplied more rapidly; they lived longer; and they were healthier. If the IPCC is right and the globe does warm, history suggests that human health is likely to improve.

Global Warming

 

[BDBoop]

rather than what the politicians who wish to control us want it to be.

And most recognize that's how you and your political cult operate. For example, you have zero evidence for any of your oncoming-ice-age fables, all the actual evidence contradicts it, but you still put it forth as a fact solely because it supports your cult's politics.

We are honest and objective. You're a pack of overly-emotional cranks, motivated solely by political hysteria, willingly repeating all the conspiracy theories because you know you'll get kicked out of your political cult if you don't bleat in unison with the rest of your herd.

And that would be why you're justifiably ridiculed by nearly everyone on the planet.

Go on, paint yourself as a victim of the vast mysterious global socialist agenda. Which would be yet another reason why almost everyone instantly recognizes you as a political cultist. Once someone begins babbling about phantom socialists and the liberal media, they may as well just put on the red nose, face paint and big shoes, since they are now forever beclowned. Yeah, yeah, they laughed at Galileo, but they also laughed at Bozo.

Okay, you could have aimed that at more than a few people on the board and been straight on target.

But Foxfyre is not one of them. She is very intelligent and well-read/educated. If you have the knowledge to take her on, then by all means - do so. You resorting to what you just did indicates you don't. Or maybe you did, but then why let fly with the ad hom?

I like you lots. You bring a lot to the board. But your aim was a bit off, this time.

 

[daveman]

...and then they curse anyone not as stupid and dishonest as themselves.

Wait for it...

So denialists, enjoy your life as ridiculed kook fringe cultists.

I guess it's just different...somehow...it just is, dammit!! when you do it, huh?

 

[Foxfyre]

rather than what the politicians who wish to control us want it to be.

And most recognize that's how you and your political cult operate. For example, you have zero evidence for any of your oncoming-ice-age fables, all the actual evidence contradicts it, but you still put it forth as a fact solely because it supports your cult's politics.

We are honest and objective. You're a pack of overly-emotional cranks, motivated solely by political hysteria, willingly repeating all the conspiracy theories because you know you'll get kicked out of your political cult if you don't bleat in unison with the rest of your herd.

And that would be why you're justifiably ridiculed by nearly everyone on the planet.

Go on, paint yourself as a victim of the vast mysterious global socialist agenda. Which would be yet another reason why almost everyone instantly recognizes you as a political cultist. Once someone begins babbling about phantom socialists and the liberal media, they may as well just put on the red nose, face paint and big shoes, since they are now forever beclowned. Yeah, yeah, they laughed at Galileo, but they also laughed at Bozo.

Okay, you could have aimed that at more than a few people on the board and been straight on target.

But Foxfyre is not one of them. She is very intelligent and well-read/educated. If you have the knowledge to take her on, then by all means - do so. You resorting to what you just did indicates you don't. Or maybe you did, but then why let fly with the ad hom?

I like you lots. You bring a lot to the board. But your aim was a bit off, this time.

Thanks Boop. (And Dave).

I have been following this topic for a very long time now--since the 1970's actually--and I deplore how it has morphed into an 'us vs them' and/or partisan debate.

Those who are adament that there is zero evidence of global warming simply are wrong because the evidence does not support that. Those who are adament that adding more than six billion people to the Earth have had no influence on the Earth are simply wrong because the evidence simply does not support that.

But those who insist the miniscule, compared to probable natural phenomenon, increase in global temperatures due to human activity is a huge problem requiring immediate and sometimes draconian remedy are also wrong, because the evidence simply does not suppport that.

My quarrel is with those who make this personal and start hurling the personal insults at any who don't accept the AGW religion as gospel. And those who deny that there is no sociopolitical motivation for keeping AGW as a crisis alive I believe could be doing us all serious harm.

I am simply not willing to give up my liberties, choices, options, and opportunities at the altar of an AGW religion that seems to be for the purpose of controlling people than it seems to be designed to deal with any issues of climate.

 

[earlycuyler]

A RECORD-SETTING BLIZZARD KILLED 75,000 COWS AND YOU MIGHT NOT HAVE EVEN HEARD ABOUT IT

Ranchers are still digging out thousands of their cattle that became buried in a record-setting snowstorm in South Dakota late last week and over the weekend.

One would think the death of 75,000 cows by upwards of five feet of snow might get some national attention, but as one blogger observed, it has taken some time for the news of the precipitation massacre to reach outside of local media.

--

Early estimates suggest western South Dakota lost at least 5 percent of its cattle, said Silvia Christen, executive director of the South Dakota Stockgrowers Association. Some individual ranchers reported losses of 20 percent to 50 percent of their livestock, Christen said. The storm killed calves that were due to be sold soon as well as cows that would produce next year’s calves in an area where livestock production is a big part of the economy, she said.

“This is, from an economic standpoint, something we’re going to feel for a couple of years,” Christen said.​

Dang. That's gonna hurt a lot of folks.

I saw that on the news awhile back. I saw this one time when I was a kid. It happened in Illinois. killed most of the cows on a dairy farm. No place near the damage in SD though. You know that hurt those guys. Hope they come out of it ok.

 

[Abraham3]

So you saw it on the news. I always find it interesting when people start threads complaining about some conspiracy to withhold news for one reason or another but they start the thread with a news story about the supposedly suppressed event. And as the thread progresses, people talk about what they saw on the news about the event. I really have a strong suspicion that very little attempt was made to locate stories about this storm on the news at the time. I saw a news story on it. And how much complaint have we heard from the people who suffered the storm that their story has not been reported? None that I've seen.

 

[daveman]

So you saw it on the news. I always find it interesting when people start threads complaining about some conspiracy to withhold news for one reason or another but they start the thread with a news story about the supposedly suppressed event. And as the thread progresses, people talk about what they saw on the news about the event. I really have a strong suspicion that very little attempt was made to locate stories about this storm on the news at the time. I saw a news story on it. And how much complaint have we heard from the people who suffered the storm that their story has not been reported? None that I've seen.

They have better things to do than complain on the internet or the news. They're trying to save their ranches.

 

[westwall]

The suffering and deaths inflicted by the Little Ice Age would be exceedingly lessened by technological developments since the late 1700s: artificial heating and dramatically improved insulation and protective clothing.

Also, The Earth has NOT "been slowly warming". The rate of temperature increase we have undergone in the last 150 years has not occurred in hundreds, if not thousands, of millenia. That is the biggest part of the problem: this change is coming on too quickly for humans to adapt and compensate - particularly due to a laggard response brought on by the urging of folks such as yourself.

Yeah, it would be if you clowns weren't making energy so expensive that old people can't afford it. And no, your hysteria aside, we are SLOWLY warming... well, we were. Now it appears we are poised for a long descent into cold again. And that will truly suck.

The warming rate of the last 150 years is 20 times either the warming rate going into the MWP or the cooling rate going into the LIA. If you have something different to contend, I suggest you come up with some evidence. I think everyone here has seen at least one of the many variants on the hockey stick diagram. If the rates were similar, it wouldn't be much of a hockey stick, would it. More of a shillelagh.

1st let's see yours!

 

[Abraham3]

Those who are adament that there is zero evidence of global warming simply are wrong because the evidence does not support that. Those who are adament that adding more than six billion people to the Earth have had no influence on the Earth are simply wrong because the evidence simply does not support that.

But those who insist the miniscule, compared to probable natural phenomenon, increase in global temperatures due to human activity is a huge problem requiring immediate and sometimes draconian remedy are also wrong, because the evidence simply does not suppport that.

My quarrel is with those who make this personal and start hurling the personal insults at any who don't accept the AGW religion as gospel. And those who deny that there is no sociopolitical motivation for keeping AGW as a crisis alive I believe could be doing us all serious harm.

I am simply not willing to give up my liberties, choices, options, and opportunities at the altar of an AGW religion that seems to be for the purpose of controlling people than it seems to be designed to deal with any issues of climate.

You seem to have some conflicting positions.

The position of the IPCC has consistently been that human GHG emissions are the primary cause of global warming. You seem to accept that, but reject the contention that such warming presents a significant threat. Is that an accurate description of your position?

If so, I have to ask on what you base the idea that the potential harm is insignificant. The cost of rising sea level can easily run into the tens of billions of dollars worldwide for every centimeter of increase. The loss of ice-based fresh water is significant and will impact both drinking water supplies and irrigation for crops. Loss of both will most hurt people in third world countries with marginal economies, many of which have their population crowded on coastlines where they will suffer the maximum impact from rising sea levels. Look at the historical death tolls from typhoons and tsunamis in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and the rest of southeast Asia. How can you say that raising the level of the ocean will have no significant effect on those people?

So, again: on what do you base the idea that the potential harm from global warming is insignificant?

 

[Abraham3]

Yeah, it would be if you clowns weren't making energy so expensive that old people can't afford it. And no, your hysteria aside, we are SLOWLY warming... well, we were. Now it appears we are poised for a long descent into cold again. And that will truly suck.

The warming rate of the last 150 years is 20 times either the warming rate going into the MWP or the cooling rate going into the LIA. If you have something different to contend, I suggest you come up with some evidence. I think everyone here has seen at least one of the many variants on the hockey stick diagram. If the rates were similar, it wouldn't be much of a hockey stick, would it. More of a shillelagh.

1st let's see yours!

You've seen it before and you know that you have. Thus the only conclusions I can make at your response is that you have nothing to offer.

 

[mamooth]

I have been following this topic for a very long time now--since the 1970's actually--and I deplore how it has morphed into an 'us vs them' and/or partisan debate.

Since you were the one who turned it into such a thing, you look quite hypocritical for complaining about it. If you didn't want partisan science, your political cult shouldn't have politicized the science. If you want to fix it, simply tell your political cult to stop politicizing the science. We here on the non-political side can't force you to be non-political.

But those who insist the miniscule, compared to probable natural phenomenon,

Those who insist human activities are miniscule are either making stuff up or totally ignorant of the facts. See Fox, those who know the facts know you're just full of shit from top to bottom with your grand pronouncements. You can't snow us, or make us lay off you with your I'm-so-sweet-and-innocent-and-neutral crap.

My quarrel is with those who make this personal and start hurling the personal insults at any who don't accept the AGW religion as gospel.

So your quarrel is with the voices in your head, in other words. A big ol' strawman.

Now, my quarrel is with dishonest partisan shills trying to pull off an "I'm so independent" charade. I'm independent. You're a GOP shill. If you're going to be a GOP shill, at least be honest about it.

I am simply not willing to give up my liberties, choices, options, and opportunities

In order to pull off the independent act, you have to occasionally _not_ parrot every bit of kook right propaganda. That's the part you fail at, and what gives you away.

 

[mamooth]

More scientific opinion that the very small amount of global warming that can be linked conclusively to human activity is probably far more beneficial than harmful:

You mean more total logic failure.

Tell us, what happened to the native civilizations in the southwest USA?

How's North Africa and Arabia doing today? You know, those blasted deserts that used to be the breadbasket of Rome.

Warming has winners and losers. The losers, being dead, don't get to tell their side.

But hey, 100 million dead here and there, no big deal, right? Bangladesh under water? Screw 'em. Buncha wogs, so who cares. The only thing that serious people will consider is what happens to the areas where the white people are. The rest of the world can go to hell.

Oh wait, I have an idea. Fox can use her impending weather wealth to adopt a Benghali family. After all, they gotta go somewhere.

 

[mamooth]

By the way, I wasn't aware that The Weather Channel had become part of the vast global socialist conspiracy. Good of the denialists to let us know.

It would probably be a much shorter list if the denialists could simply tell us who is _not_ part of the great global socialist conspiracy. Any of them want to give a list?

 

[flacaltenn]

The suffering and deaths inflicted by the Little Ice Age would be exceedingly lessened by technological developments since the late 1700s: artificial heating and dramatically improved insulation and protective clothing.

Also, The Earth has NOT "been slowly warming". The rate of temperature increase we have undergone in the last 150 years has not occurred in hundreds, if not thousands, of millenia. That is the biggest part of the problem: this change is coming on too quickly for humans to adapt and compensate - particularly due to a laggard response brought on by the urging of folks such as yourself.

Yeah, it would be if you clowns weren't making energy so expensive that old people can't afford it. And no, your hysteria aside, we are SLOWLY warming... well, we were. Now it appears we are poised for a long descent into cold again. And that will truly suck.

The warming rate of the last 150 years is 20 times either the warming rate going into the MWP or the cooling rate going into the LIA. If you have something different to contend, I suggest you come up with some evidence. I think everyone here has seen at least one of the many variants on the hockey stick diagram. If the rates were similar, it wouldn't be much of a hockey stick, would it. More of a shillelagh.

We've done this one before.. Want to throw out the crappy numbers behind that "20 times" assertion and do it again? If I remember, you ran away and didn't source it, but It IMPLIED a MWP warming of 0.2degC.

Besides, I have a really hard time figuring out how you get a comparison to our 40yr observed rise with proxy samples that have 20 or 50 yr time resolution.. That's kinda a stretch ain't it?

 

[westwall]

The warming rate of the last 150 years is 20 times either the warming rate going into the MWP or the cooling rate going into the LIA. If you have something different to contend, I suggest you come up with some evidence. I think everyone here has seen at least one of the many variants on the hockey stick diagram. If the rates were similar, it wouldn't be much of a hockey stick, would it. More of a shillelagh.

1st let's see yours!

You've seen it before and you know that you have. Thus the only conclusions I can make at your response is that you have nothing to offer.

This graph has already been proven false. Try again.



Also for the existence of the Medieval Warm Period says the global retreat of glaciers for the period between about 900 to 1300 [ 2 ]. An interesting detail is that since 1850 many of the retreating glaciers plant remains from the Middle Ages to share, which is a clear evidence that the extent of the glacier at that time was lower than today [ 3 ].

And historical traditions bear witness to exceptional heat at this time. The 1180s brought the warmest decade ever known winter. In January 1186/87, the trees flourished in Strasbourg. And earlier you come across prolonged heat periods, about 1021-1040. The summer of 1130 was so dry that you could wade through the Rhine. In 1135, the Danube led so little water that they could cross on foot. This fact has been exploited to create this year the foundation stone for the bridge of Regensburg [ 4 ].

Clear evidence of the warm phase of the High Middle Ages is also found in the cultivation of the crop borders. The tree line in the Alps rose to 2000 meters, which is above today's values ​​[5]. Wine up to 200 meters above the present limits was in Germany on the Rhine and Moselle possible, in Pomerania, East Prussia, in England and in southern Scotland and southern Norway, including far north as the case is [now 6 ]. On the basis of pollen finds it can be proven that wheat was grown during the Middle Ages right up to Trondheim in Norway and up to almost 70 Were cultured Latitude barley varieties [ 4 ]. In many parts of the UK the farmland altitudes that were reached later never again reached.

Also from Asia historical sources report that the limit for citrus cultivation has never located as far north as the 13th Century. Accordingly, it must be there at the time have been about 1 ° C warmer than today [ 7 ].

http://translate.google.com/transla...g-oder-beispiellose-datenmanipulation/001195/

http://translate.google.com/transla...g-oder-beispiellose-datenmanipulation/001195/

http://translate.google.com/transla...g-oder-beispiellose-datenmanipulation/001195/

http://translate.google.com/transla...g-oder-beispiellose-datenmanipulation/001195/

http://translate.google.com/transla...g-oder-beispiellose-datenmanipulation/001195/