AGW in China: Coldest Winter in 30 years, traps 1,000 ships

[boedicca]

Considering that the Earth has gone through significant Ice Age Cycles, the bigger risk is another one.

Global Warming has been good for humankind (i.e., the Medieval Warm Period).

 

[boedicca]

In China they should call it Global CoolerWarmering and Global WarmerCoolering

Wouldn't that be:

Grober CoowerWahmewing?

 

[Katzndogz]

It would be Climate Change which is the term liberals have retreated into.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I never thought the Chinese had a sense of humor, this was great

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It would be Climate Change which is the term liberals have retreated into.

Climate Disruption too...or maybe its Distraction

 

[there4eyeM]

So, nothing should be done about all the shit humans are pouring out because it has not been proved that it will definitely kill everyone tomorrow?

I am not against pollution because it will 'hurt Mother Earth'; earth and the universe don't care. I am not against pollution because of future generations. I am not against pollution because of possible global warming.

Pollution is ugly, unaesthetic, disgusting. It threatens the ones I love and me, here, now. Whatever reason is used to fight and reduce it, I favor. How can anyone be for pollution? It has nothing to do with 'left'. In fact 'conservatives' should want to conserve beauty.

I am amazed here on this forum how so many defend so many indefensible things.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So, nothing should be done about all the shit humans are pouring out because it has not been proved that it will definitely kill everyone tomorrow?

I am not against pollution because it will 'hurt Mother Earth'; earth and the universe don't care. I am not against pollution because of future generations. I am not against pollution because of possible global warming.

Pollution is ugly, unaesthetic, disgusting. It threatens the ones I love and me, here, now. Whatever reason is used to fight and reduce it, I favor. How can anyone be for pollution? It has nothing to do with 'left'. In fact 'conservatives' should want to conserve beauty.

I am amazed here on this forum how so many defend so many indefensible things.

I am amazed posters are so easily distracted by small shiny objects

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The weather changes are caused by Michelson-Morely's ether.

Has to be, nothing else fits the facts

 

[SSDD]

So, nothing should be done about all the shit humans are pouring out because it has not been proved that it will definitely kill everyone tomorrow?

I am not against pollution because it will 'hurt Mother Earth'; earth and the universe don't care. I am not against pollution because of future generations. I am not against pollution because of possible global warming.

Pollution is ugly, unaesthetic, disgusting. It threatens the ones I love and me, here, now. Whatever reason is used to fight and reduce it, I favor. How can anyone be for pollution? It has nothing to do with 'left'. In fact 'conservatives' should want to conserve beauty.

I am amazed here on this forum how so many defend so many indefensible things.

I am all for cleaning up pollution. In fact, I have adopted a mile of road to keep clean and believe that there shoud be draconian fines (break the bank sort of fines) for people who try and skirt laws regarding dumping toxic waste, but CO2 is not, never has been, and never will be a pollutant.

Don't confuse actual pollution for the AGW wacko definition of pollution.

 

[bripat9643]

So, nothing should be done about all the shit humans are pouring out because it has not been proved that it will definitely kill everyone tomorrow?

I am not against pollution because it will 'hurt Mother Earth'; earth and the universe don't care. I am not against pollution because of future generations. I am not against pollution because of possible global warming.

Pollution is ugly, unaesthetic, disgusting. It threatens the ones I love and me, here, now. Whatever reason is used to fight and reduce it, I favor. How can anyone be for pollution? It has nothing to do with 'left'. In fact 'conservatives' should want to conserve beauty.

I am amazed here on this forum how so many defend so many indefensible things.

CO2 isn't a pollutant, numb nuts.

 

[there4eyeM]

So, nothing should be done about all the shit humans are pouring out because it has not been proved that it will definitely kill everyone tomorrow?

I am not against pollution because it will 'hurt Mother Earth'; earth and the universe don't care. I am not against pollution because of future generations. I am not against pollution because of possible global warming.

Pollution is ugly, unaesthetic, disgusting. It threatens the ones I love and me, here, now. Whatever reason is used to fight and reduce it, I favor. How can anyone be for pollution? It has nothing to do with 'left'. In fact 'conservatives' should want to conserve beauty.

I am amazed here on this forum how so many defend so many indefensible things.

I am amazed posters are so easily distracted by small shiny objects

Why would anyone ever care about preserving life on earth if it is only for the likes of these?

 

[there4eyeM]

So, nothing should be done about all the shit humans are pouring out because it has not been proved that it will definitely kill everyone tomorrow?

I am not against pollution because it will 'hurt Mother Earth'; earth and the universe don't care. I am not against pollution because of future generations. I am not against pollution because of possible global warming.

Pollution is ugly, unaesthetic, disgusting. It threatens the ones I love and me, here, now. Whatever reason is used to fight and reduce it, I favor. How can anyone be for pollution? It has nothing to do with 'left'. In fact 'conservatives' should want to conserve beauty.

I am amazed here on this forum how so many defend so many indefensible things.

CO2 isn't a pollutant, numb nuts.

Was CO2 mentioned?

Do pollutants often contain CO2?

Sleep in a room full of CO2 and then tell me it can't be a pollutant.

Try communicating without that irritating recourse to gratuitously insulting adjectives!

 

[RollingThunder]

I see a bunch of ignorant, anti-science denier cult retards jeering at things beyond their comprehension.

The science behind the statements regarding the link between increased Arctic melting and extreme weather patterns is sound and clear to those with the intelligence to understand it.

Evidence linking Arctic amplification to extreme weather in mid-latitudes
Geophysical Research Letters - Volume 39, Issue 6, March 2012
Jennifer A. Francis1,
Stephen J. Vavrus2
Article first published online: 17 MAR 2012
DOI: 10.1029/2012GL051000

Abstract

Arctic amplification (AA) – the observed enhanced warming in high northern latitudes relative to the northern hemisphere – is evident in lower-tropospheric temperatures and in 1000-to-500 hPa thicknesses. Daily fields of 500 hPa heights from the National Centers for Environmental Prediction Reanalysis are analyzed over N. America and the N. Atlantic to assess changes in north-south (Rossby) wave characteristics associated with AA and the relaxation of poleward thickness gradients. Two effects are identified that each contribute to a slower eastward progression of Rossby waves in the upper-level flow: 1) weakened zonal winds, and 2) increased wave amplitude. These effects are particularly evident in autumn and winter consistent with sea-ice loss, but are also apparent in summer, possibly related to earlier snow melt on high-latitude land. Slower progression of upper-level waves would cause associated weather patterns in mid-latitudes to be more persistent, which may lead to an increased probability of extreme weather events that result from prolonged conditions, such as drought, flooding, cold spells, and heat waves.

 

[SSDD]

Was CO2 mentioned?

Do pollutants often contain CO2?

Sleep in a room full of CO2 and then tell me it can't be a pollutant.

Try communicating without that irritating recourse to gratuitously insulting adjectives!

A lot of important environmental discussion never takes place because warmists take every possible issue and turn it into a discussion about CO2. It didn't take long before a particularly deluded envirowacko nut case, via cut and paste, tried to make the argument that the cold in china is due to CO2.

Little advancement will ever be made regarding important environmental issues so long as the AGW hoax continues. It takes all of the air out of the room and leaves nothing for other issues. It is a shame that so much potentially important enviornmental work has been derailed over a hoax. Imagine what could have been done with those hundreds of billions that have been flushed down the CO2 toilet.

 

[SSDD]

Arctic amplification (AA) – the observed enhanced warming in high northern latitudes relative to the northern hemisphere –

Got any actual evidence of this "enhanced" warming" Got any actual evidence of what might be causing it other than the output of fatally flawed climate models. Got any evidence that the present contiditons in the arctic are in any way unprecedented? Got any evidence of anything other than the undeniable evidence that you are a complete dupe?

 

[Katzndogz]

Extreme weather pattern are natural and cyclical. They occur on an average of every 30-50 years.

 

[bripat9643]

CO2 isn't a pollutant, numb nuts.

Was CO2 mentioned?

That's what the anthropogenic global warming abracadabra is all about. The cult members claim CO2 is a pollutant. That's what they're referring to whenever they talk about "pollution." Real pollution is well withing acceptable levels in this country.

Do pollutants often contain CO2?

Sleep in a room full of CO2 and then tell me it can't be a pollutant.

Try communicating without that irritating recourse to gratuitously insulting adjectives!

See, you also think it's a pollutant. Here's a clue for you: the breath you exhale contains CO2. Plants need CO2 to live.

 

[RollingThunder]

Arctic amplification (AA) – the observed enhanced warming in high northern latitudes relative to the northern hemisphere –

Got any actual evidence of this "enhanced" warming"

Yes, absolutely. Too bad you're sooooooo retarded that you are unaware of the fact that the Arctic has melted away to a fraction of its former size and, for the first time in human history, major shipping routes over the north polar region are opening up in the summer months.

Got any actual evidence of what might be causing it other than the output of fatally flawed climate models.

Everything you say is sooooo stupid. Computer climate models, which btw are getting very accurate - ("fatally flawed" is one of the myths of your wacky little cult), don't "cause" anything, you pathetic moron. The Arctic is, in fact, warming faster than the rest of the planet. That's known from direct observation, not "climate models", nitwit.

As to what is causing this increased warming in the Arctic regions, here's a good scientific explanation. Probably way over your head, SSooooDDuuumb, but what can I do about that. You were probably born this way. Unless your parents dropped you on your head a lot or you did a lot of bad drugs. Anyway, who cares, you're a retard now and you probably always will be. Too bad for you.

Arctic/Polar Amplification Effect
OSS Foundation
(excerpts)
The Arctic/Polar Amplification Effect is mainly caused by a combination of a few things. The chief components include the magnitude of change regarding ice extent and snow cover loss allows for a more dramatic change in climate architecture of the polar region. This also relates to the amount of land in the northern hemisphere verses the southern hemisphere. The amount of land in the norther hemisphere allows for greater potential for increases and decrease of snow cover. This fact allows for greater cooling and warming potentials when the overall climate forcing is altered. Less forcing would result in a cooling trend that would allow more snow cover and therefore a polar de-amplification effect in relation to the average temperature of the rest of the globe. More forcing allows for a more rapid decrease in snow and ice cover thus amplifying the temperature in the polar region. The Arctic amplification effect is not hard to understand. It contains several main components to consider to give you a good understanding of the effect. One is that the northern hemisphere (NH) is mostly land, which warms and cools very fast. The southern hemisphere (SH) is mostly water, which warms and cools very slowly. Also, in the Arctic and its surrounding regions, there is typically a lot of snow and ice. In fact, typically, the Arctic ocean is mostly covered with what is called the polar ice cap. The ice and snow of the NH helps reflect sunlight back into space without converting it to long wave infrared, so that solar energy can not be trapped by greenhouse gases. In a warming world, it is expected that the Arctic would heat faster for these reasons.

* Loss of the Arctic Ice cap in Summer melt season.
* The summer cooling effect of the ice cap will be lost.
* The resulting accelerating warming will increase the latitudinal shift of the jet-stream, thus drying out areas of land further to the north resulting in changes to vegetation and land albedo as well as increased fire risk (all of which translate to increased CO2 and increased warming). Dryer regions moving north will severely impact existing crop growth infrastructure.
* The polar ice is on the water, while the Antarctic ice is sitting on land. As the oceans warm, more warm water helps melt the Arctic ice. This can not happen at the south pole since it is sitting on land.
* Colder dense air over the Antarctic prevents some degree of mixing with air mass from other regions, thus helping this region retain cold air mass longer than the in Arctic region which is subject to many factors that can move heat or cold energy in and out of the polar region through the ocean or the atmosphere.​

Got any evidence that the present contiditons(sic) in the arctic are in any way unprecedented?

Sure thing, dweeb.

Arctic ice melting at 'amazing' speed, scientists find
BBC News
By David Shukman - Science Editor, BBC News, in Svalbard
7 September 2012
(excerpts)
Scientists in the Arctic are warning that this summer's record-breaking melt is part of an accelerating trend with profound implications. Norwegian researchers report that the sea ice is becoming significantly thinner and more vulnerable. Last month, the annual thaw of the region's floating ice reached the lowest level since satellite monitoring began, more than 30 years ago. It is thought the scale of the decline may even affect Europe's weather. The Norwegian Polar Institute (NPI) is at the forefront of Arctic research and its international director, Kim Holmen, told the BBC that the speed of the melting was faster than expected. "It is a greater change than we could even imagine 20 years ago, even 10 years ago", Dr Holmen said. ...one of the scientists involved, Dr Edmond Hansen, told me he was "amazed" at the size and speed of this year's melt. "As a scientist, I know that this is unprecedented in at least as much as 1,500 years. It is truly amazing - it is a huge dramatic change in the system", Dr Hansen said. "This is not some short-lived phenomenon - this is an ongoing trend. You lose more and more ice and it is accelerating - you can just look at the graphs, the observations, and you can see what's happening." Key data on the ice comes from satellites but also from measurements made by a range of different techniques - a mix of old and new technology harnessed to help answer the key environmental questions of our age.

Got any evidence of anything other than the undeniable evidence that you are a complete dupe?

You had already given us, with every post you make, lots of undeniable evidence that you are just another clueless, confused, brainwashed and very retarded denier cult wacko but thanks for providing even more evidence with this last braindead post of yours.

 

[skookerasbil]

How does any of your shit matter s0n????

THIS is what matters.................

The fact is, the retarded, clueless, cultist deniers are winning..........you see s0n, if your shit were winning, the pink in the graph above would be broad like the yellow in the above graph. But its not.........because nobody gives a rats ass what the hyper-nutter environmentalists are saying. But do keep knocking yourself out posting up those fancy posts of yours........the clueless retards on here cant wait to see them!!!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So, nothing should be done about all the shit humans are pouring out because it has not been proved that it will definitely kill everyone tomorrow?

I am not against pollution because it will 'hurt Mother Earth'; earth and the universe don't care. I am not against pollution because of future generations. I am not against pollution because of possible global warming.

Pollution is ugly, unaesthetic, disgusting. It threatens the ones I love and me, here, now. Whatever reason is used to fight and reduce it, I favor. How can anyone be for pollution? It has nothing to do with 'left'. In fact 'conservatives' should want to conserve beauty.

I am amazed here on this forum how so many defend so many indefensible things.

I am amazed posters are so easily distracted by small shiny objects

Why would anyone ever care about preserving life on earth if it is only for the likes of these?

Little shoe-wearing monkey is going to save the planet....that's so cute and funny