Get your imaginary 'pause' off me, you damn delusional deniers

[gnarlylove]

I appreciate your reply. You didn't beat around the bush: you came right out and said CO2 is insufficient. It's an intelligent question. However, the fact remains 97% of peer reviewed papers published on the subject confirm that 3 degrees C can and is bringing about change serious change as well as 450ppm for all coral life and that which depends on it. It's verifiable that all coral species are in decline. I admit that it sounds like an argumentum ad populum but I'm talking peer reviewed experts. Typically we don't look down on experts and tell them they are wrong (not in all fields though, like politics. our current leaders are by no means leaders).

Without having read widely the scientific jargon, I can say that humans may have survived ice ages but it was no easy task. Ray Anderson said "all species are in decline." He may not intend that each individual species is (lady bugs or stink bugs are in a boom) but what he is saying is that the essential link of biodiversity, that there is a razor fine edge and when you initiate decline by poaching (elephant, tiger, rhino) and ignorance (buffalo, mammoth, dodo) you create an imbalance. Take for instance the elephant's dung is essential for the forest floor for manure, to spread seeds, and to provide nutrition for other animals. This one act of shitting has sustained certain aspects of the ecosystem. As they have declined, so has their habitat and it's due to that fine link of life being bent and confused.

So sure we can burn ever great amounts of fossil fuels to maintain our lives during hotter and hotter decades or we can just admit this issue can actually become chaotic, regardless of whether human beings survive--that's not the point. The point is we can keep warming the planet and displace millions or just act with a heart for nature that has birthed us and sustained our war against her.

 

[flacaltenn]

Give ya a clue -- UV direct radiation HAS INCREASED greatly over the past couple decades.. But that's a clue waaaaay beyond your paygrade and your playmates at SkS....

I know, way above anyone's paygrade: how did you even get this sort of impossible to acquire info.

"Reductions in stratospheric ozone levels will lead to higher levels of UVB reaching the Earth's surface. The sun's output of UVB does not change; rather, less ozone means less protection, and hence more UVB reaches the Earth. Studies have shown that in the Antarctic, the amount of UVB measured at the surface can double during the annual ozone hole. Another study confirmed the relationship between reduced ozone and increased UVB levels in Canada during the past several years."

Scientists have demonstrated a direct reduction in phytoplankton production due to ozone depletion-related increases in UVB. One study has indicated a 6-12% reduction in the marginal ice zone.

Solar UVB radiation has been found to cause damage to early developmental stages of fish, shrimp, crab, amphibians and other animals. The most severe effects are decreased reproductive capacity and impaired larval development. Even at current levels, solar UVB radiation is a limiting factor, and small increases in UVB exposure could result in significant reduction in the size of the population of animals that eat these smaller creatures."

From Health and Environmental Effects of Ozone Layer Depletion | Science | Ozone Layer Protection | US EPA

Even the EPA notes how this is damaging the environment and the EPA does not do there job at all! They are constantly attacked by big business and so choose to fall in line instead of report violations and fines (of course not all the time but often). Example: they still don't think fracking contaminates water supplies so you know this report is legit and has passed the rigors of big business' approval. So the fact is extra UV is causing depletions in not just far off marine life but life that we eat and use to sustain us. So as we continue to watch UV increase we will also see harm in the oceans causing us to pay higher prices for the tasty morsels some of us crave.

Oh that's right, any person who disagrees with you falls under your paygrade so let me assure you oh wise master of truth, you are deceiving yourself if you believe your own words

You're obvious concern is with how superior you are to us so go ahead and indulge. Go ahead and suck my teats. They will provide you with the feeling of superiority you seek. That's it precious baby, suck it hard and feel better. You are better than me in every way. I'm glad because that's the real goal of discussion and debate. Forget reaching mutually agreeable conclusions and compromises--that's for thinking idiots--and who has time to think and research when you can intuit?

You are a god who acts and says things based on your infallible instincts. I mean to question you is like questioning god AND the pope. Somebody is deluded. Hint: it's you (and if you can't admit you deceive yourself, than you are way too high in the sky to care about what I'm trying to discuss with you. As for me I know I have deceived myself many times and realizing it helps me to get rid of shitty ideas. No one is perfect but I know you cannot admit you are deceiving yourself because you don't even know how not to deceive yourself. I'm not saying this discredits your views, I'm merely bringing your attention to it for otherwise its a logical fallacy which you cannot seem to understand.

Either way take your pick: call me stupid or stop revealing your poverty of debate and words by discussing an idea without calling attention the person's stupidity or paygrade. Stick to the idea! I bet you cannot.

I've got a long history with Princess BigFont.. Goes back a long way.. The poster has no ability to think and 90% of what's not directly quoted are the same epithets and nasty words that she learned from her sailor daddy..

Don't worry about how I assess the Princess's abilities and attitudes..

As for the UV observation -- it's OK that you skipped immediately to Ozone and that relationship --- but THAT'S not the change in UV that I was referring to..

I was referring to the ultimate source of UV which is the sun.. And we are JUST NOW discovering how the different parts of suns' radiation VARY considerably and surprisingly over time.. We've only had satellites capable of real-time solar measurements for about 20 years. Really getting a FIRST GLIMPSE at the RAW power that runs the earth's climate. Can't measure these shifts in spectral output and total power from the ground.

It's not just ozone that determines how much UV-A and UV-B are available to heat the oceans and they are MUCH BETTER at ocean heating than the CO2 LongWave from the GreenHouse..

 

[Dot Com]

Chill, baby, chill!

Lake Michigan has turned into a sea of ice balls in Glen Arbor - YouTube

an event does not make a trend. Glad to help.

 

[flacaltenn]

Actually, gnarly, your original post (#88) was right on. The denier cultists just have a very low tolerance for that kind of accurate diagnosis of their mental deficiencies. The moronic attacks are to be expected.

I would caution you though against using a lot of sarcasm in your responses to them. Most of them really are too stupid to 'get it'.

Uh uh no Princess. We love good sarcasm.. Problem is you're too stupid to USE IT and instead rely on those nasty words you heard your daddy say...

 

[Kosh]

I bet that the AGW crowd are the same ones that believe that neutrinos have no mass, just like if I took all their brains and molded them together, there would be no mass to it.

 

[flacaltenn]

I appreciate your reply. You didn't beat around the bush: you came right out and said CO2 is insufficient. It's an intelligent question. However, the fact remains 97% of peer reviewed papers published on the subject confirm that 3 degrees C can and is bringing about change serious change as well as 450ppm for all coral life and that which depends on it. It's verifiable that all coral species are in decline. I admit that it sounds like an argumentum ad populum but I'm talking peer reviewed experts. Typically we don't look down on experts and tell them they are wrong (not in all fields though, like politics. our current leaders are by no means leaders).

Well well well --- suddenly there's an engine under the hood..

Don't care much for 97% consensus play.. Because as a scientist/engineer I don't give much credence to polls and especially not the crappy polls from which that number came. What I do know is that you can find polls of "climate scientists" that say that 40% of them consider Climate Science to be immature. And that very few of them are impressed with the Paleo studies (like the hockey stick) that got so much press.

CO2 IS insufficient to cause a runaway thermal destruction of the Earth. Every atmos physic book will tell you that a doubling of CO2 will give you about 1degC (at best) of surface warming. Our current doubling from pre-industrial days all the way to 500 ppm (which we have not even reach) is showing a not so surprising (to me) agreement with that figure and is stubborning REJECTING all the attempts of AGW to confirm their "Magic Multiplier" shit..

Coral species may be in decline --- but CO2 is NOT CURRENTLY the culprit.. It COULD be a factor in 40 or 100 years. But if you look at the natural coral reef pH variation, you can get anywhere from 7.5 to 8.1 in a SINGLE DAY !!! So the natural pH of these ecosystems varies much more wildly than the mean change that we've seen. And any detailed studies on vital marine life are in their infantcy.. I've read quite a few of them and it's difficult to measure calcification and metabolism on CAPTIVE species. I do know that NOAA ATTEMPTED to kill baby oysters with MASSIVE doses of CO2 and failed miserably. It was a comical highpoint of the AGW circus science for me and amused me greatly..

Without having read widely the scientific jargon, I can say that humans may have survived ice ages but it was no easy task. Ray Anderson said "all species are in decline." He may not intend that each individual species is (lady bugs or stink bugs are in a boom) but what he is saying is that the essential link of biodiversity, that there is a razor fine edge and when you initiate decline by poaching (elephant, tiger, rhino) and ignorance (buffalo, mammoth, dodo) you create an imbalance. Take for instance the elephant's dung is essential for the forest floor for manure, to spread seeds, and to provide nutrition for other animals. This one act of shitting has sustained certain aspects of the ecosystem. As they have declined, so has their habitat and it's due to that fine link of life being bent and confused.

So sure we can burn ever great amounts of fossil fuels to maintain our lives during hotter and hotter decades or we can just admit this issue can actually become chaotic, regardless of whether human beings survive--that's not the point. The point is we can keep warming the planet and displace millions or just act with a heart for nature that has birthed us and sustained our war against her.

I would LOVE to have REAL enviro issues to deal with -- rather than made-up crisis.. And occasionally we get to have some of those discussion in this forum. But AGW has sucked the life out of enviro concerns in a very disproportionate way.. There are conflicts here where you'll see us troglodyte skeptics DEFENDING enviro issues very consistently -- when our POLITICALLY motivated leftist warmer buds are massively hypocritical on issues.

Such as raptor kills from wind farms or roasting migratory birds in flight with "Solar Death ray Towers" in the desert. Or having them defend putting a virtual GAUNTLET of sea-life cuisinarts on the sea floor and calling it "green energy".. It's not a pretty sight to see how weak their enviro convictions really are..

Once you observe how fickle these "buds" of yours are on REAL enviro issues -- you might be less cocky about stereotyping..

 

[gnarlylove]

Clearly you think concepts like radiative forcing and water vapor feedback are vapid or as you eloquently state, "magic multiplier shit." Also I don't even know what AGW means but context clues tell me you have written them off as inept.

I have no need to convince you that my science is better than yours. So allow me to offer a new approach:

I bike every day and sometimes twice. I have been to all the cities and biked thru each. You notice the smell coming from one car and you gag. This is no way to live, in a box oblivious to your actions having consequences. Then you piece together how much traffic is in each major city and lonely rural road and you think DAMN that's approaching 300 million given unregistered and registered cars. That's only America. That's only oil. What about the coal we don't see? I do actually being near WV and coal bits cover the sand as the barges litter coal in the once pristine now reputed for disgust, The Ohio River. You realize the ideas behind maintain business as usual is a lifestyle: a way of treating yourself and earth.

Do you agree nature has supplied us with everything? Do we owe it perhaps to nature itself to put aside our politics and examine what our actions do? They cause us to neglect our well being and pursue money. We are consumers first, people second or last, I'm not sure anymore. Can't you see the lifestyle of business as usual is a misappropriation of our potential to care for one another replaced by money and the love therein.

When you ask yourself how do I view earth do you treat it as a take take take relationship or do you think you owe your life to nature? Nature is not so distant concept, we are in it this very moment. Material and immaterial comes from nature. This is not a wishy washy take on boo who why don't we care, it's an honest inquiry into how you think about nature. If you believe nature is merely a concept I can see how you think of this as conceptual but the non political/ideology matters too: your actual take on how you feel about nature.

 

[flacaltenn]

Clearly you think concepts like radiative forcing and water vapor feedback are vapid or as you eloquently state, "magic multiplier shit." Also I don't even know what AGW means but context clues tell me you have written them off as inept.

I have no need to convince you that my science is better than yours. So allow me to offer a new approach:

I bike every day and sometimes twice. I have been to all the cities and biked thru each. You notice the smell coming from one car and you gag. This is no way to live, in a box oblivious to your actions having consequences. Then you piece together how much traffic is in each major city and lonely rural road and you think DAMN that's approaching 300 million given unregistered and registered cars. That's only America. That's only oil. What about the coal we don't see? I do actually being near WV and coal bits cover the sand as the barges litter coal in the once pristine now reputed for disgust, The Ohio River. You realize the ideas behind maintain business as usual is a lifestyle: a way of treating yourself and earth.

Do you agree nature has supplied us with everything? Do we owe it perhaps to nature itself to put aside our politics and examine what our actions do? They cause us to neglect our well being and pursue money. We are consumers first, people second or last, I'm not sure anymore. Can't you see the lifestyle of business as usual is a misappropriation of our potential to care for one another replaced by money and the love therein.

When you ask yourself how do I view earth do you treat it as a take take take relationship or do you think you owe your life to nature? Nature is not so distant concept, we are in it this very moment. Material and immaterial comes from nature. This is not a wishy washy take on boo who why don't we care, it's an honest inquiry into how you think about nature. If you believe nature is merely a concept I can see how you think of this as conceptual but the non political/ideology matters too: your actual take on how you feel about nature.

I don't romanticize nature in the way that you seem to do -- but I'm here (mostly on this board) BECAUSE I am a deep environmentalist at heart. Moved to Tenn from Silicon Valley to get closer to it. And away from California where folks THINK they are environmentalists, but are too stupid about it to be useful..

Huge supporter of enviro causes --- but from angles I doubt you'd even recognize. Such as efforts to save African big game by privatization and local industries built around ECONOMIC reasons to value that wildlife. Part of my will includes folks like the Nature Conservancy that BUY critical habitat and work WITH landowners --- rather than taking adverserial positions and spending their time in court or selling stuffed animals and grocery bags with their names on them..

But here's the diff.. Nature is dirty and wild and tough.. And there is no "fairness" to life in the wilds of nature. So -- I realize that there is a "clean enough" to things. That I can rely on science and medicine to agree upon maximum exposures to things that in larger doses can be harmful.. That there is no such things as "clean water" or "clean air" outside of an Intel Class IV semiconductor fab line. I don't see man as a constant plague to nature.. But I will interfere with severe abuse of our charter to preserve the environment.. My leftist buds would just as soon limit human population as do conservation and enviro issues the harder way.

One things for certain.. CO2 is NOT a pollutant.. And pollution has no part of the AGW (Anthropomorphic Global Warming --- to specify MAN-MADE)** discussion.. Those are different enviro issues. And it's severely insulting to science to claim they are one and the same..

If CO2 is a pollutant by its GW properties -- then so is Water Vapor. Which is THE DOMINANT GHGas and is the OTHER product of combusting fossil fuels.. The political apparatchik just couldn't ever pull that one off could they?

** The AGW is used to discriminate between GW and man-caused GW.. Because most of us "skeptics" are fine with some degree or another of plain vanilla GW... GW has been a part of man's short stay on the planet since we hunted mastodons..

 

[Kosh]

One things for certain.. CO2 is NOT a pollutant.. And pollution has no part of the AGW (Anthropomorphic Global Warming --- to specify MAN-MADE)** discussion.. Those are different enviro issues. And it's severely insulting to science to claim they are one and the same..

Bingo! Although the AGW cultists combine all these things. Even when I hear a "scientist" mix the terms "Global Warming" and "AGW". Those are also two separate issues.

 

[ScienceRocks]

One things for certain.. CO2 is NOT a pollutant.. And pollution has no part of the AGW (Anthropomorphic Global Warming --- to specify MAN-MADE)** discussion.. Those are different enviro issues. And it's severely insulting to science to claim they are one and the same..

Bingo! Although the AGW cultists combine all these things. Even when I hear a "scientist" mix the terms "Global Warming" and "AGW". Those are also two separate issues.

Doubt the animals 250 million years ago would agree with you

 

[Kosh]

One things for certain.. CO2 is NOT a pollutant.. And pollution has no part of the AGW (Anthropomorphic Global Warming --- to specify MAN-MADE)** discussion.. Those are different enviro issues. And it's severely insulting to science to claim they are one and the same..

Bingo! Although the AGW cultists combine all these things. Even when I hear a "scientist" mix the terms "Global Warming" and "AGW". Those are also two separate issues.

Doubt the animals 250 million years ago would agree with you

And the AGW cultists continue to post their propaganda.

 

[gnarlylove]

Well Mr. Tennesse I hear what you're saying about conservation. I think your concern African wildlife shows you understand the micro-cosm of how life depends on life. I would then think it's a natural inductive reasoning to say all of life is important for the survival of us and the rest of the trillions of organisms. Though you disagree our carbon footprint has nothing to do with the natural CO2 being harmful you get that it sounds preposterous, right? Like a trick. How can you affirm CO2 is harmful and then say the same exact molecule, CO2 is not harmful (of course when it comes to man). Sounds like a convenient pass to say keep industry rolling. But I know you won't agree with me somehow so let me say it differently.

You can deny man made CO2 from cars and coal have no environmental impact (or at least an insignificant impact) but you cannot deny that these same processes of extraction and littering of final goods made from the combination of crude and chemicals and plastics and metal, ore, etc etc is being dumped, stored away to deal with another day. And although we may develop technologies to mine these piles of trash (what about highway litter, road runoff and detergents which ruin waterways that end up in the ocean) what about the endless sea of plastics strewn in the ocean? Great Pacific garbage patch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia to learn what I'm talking about.

There is 10-100 times the amount of plastic for ever 1 plankton. It's not a concentration so much as a soup of plastics. There is no ball per se, just a soup mixture and it's proven that these plastics draw up 80-90% of the surrounding surfactants and other pollutants that we have invented, produced, consumed, and disposed of. This is horrible for marine life as it damages the food chain all the way up, including humans who eat the fist that were eating plastic. After consuming smaller and smaller fish down to plankton a plastic build up accumulates in these higher up fish--don't forget these plastics are not simply plastics but have been collecting toxins in nearby water and holds onto it so the fish is also consuming these extra pollutants). Some have several grams, even 25+ grams of plastic that is indigestible. In a human that is roughly 2 kilograms of plastic. Now we are eating those fish and just piling on to the literally billions of health issues from our approach to nature (nutritionless food, plastics like BPA and the general process of extraction and disposal) instead of attempting to work with nature. Not only does this include overhauling how we acquire our goods but how we get the materials and energy too. This includes solar, wind, some nuclear, hydro, geothermal and potentially not yet discovered/invented sources.

Surely you cannot deny that business as usual demands growth and that growing our waste output is not smart on any level. It can only lead to problems throughout the food chain. Can you admit this is destructive and is clearly the essence in our normal processes of extraction, use, and disposal?

 

[flacaltenn]

Well Mr. Tennesse I hear what you're saying about conservation. I think your concern African wildlife shows you understand the micro-cosm of how life depends on life. I would then think it's a natural inductive reasoning to say all of life is important for the survival of us and the rest of the trillions of organisms. Though you disagree our carbon footprint has nothing to do with the natural CO2 being harmful you get that it sounds preposterous, right? Like a trick. How can you affirm CO2 is harmful and then say the same exact molecule, CO2 is not harmful (of course when it comes to man). Sounds like a convenient pass to say keep industry rolling. But I know you won't agree with me somehow so let me say it differently.

You can deny man made CO2 from cars and coal have no environmental impact (or at least an insignificant impact) but you cannot deny that these same processes of extraction and littering of final goods made from the combination of crude and chemicals and plastics and metal, ore, etc etc is being dumped, stored away to deal with another day. And although we may develop technologies to mine these piles of trash (what about highway litter, road runoff and detergents which ruin waterways that end up in the ocean) what about the endless sea of plastics strewn in the ocean? Great Pacific garbage patch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia to learn what I'm talking about.

There is 10-100 times the amount of plastic for ever 1 plankton. It's not a concentration so much as a soup of plastics. There is no ball per se, just a soup mixture and it's proven that these plastics draw up 80-90% of the surrounding surfactants and other pollutants that we have invented, produced, consumed, and disposed of. This is horrible for marine life as it damages the food chain all the way up, including humans who eat the fist that were eating plastic. After consuming smaller and smaller fish down to plankton a plastic build up accumulates in these higher up fish--don't forget these plastics are not simply plastics but have been collecting toxins in nearby water and holds onto it so the fish is also consuming these extra pollutants). Some have several grams, even 25+ grams of plastic that is indigestible. In a human that is roughly 2 kilograms of plastic. Now we are eating those fish and just piling on to the literally billions of health issues from our approach to nature (nutritionless food, plastics like BPA and the general process of extraction and disposal) instead of attempting to work with nature. Not only does this include overhauling how we acquire our goods but how we get the materials and energy too. This includes solar, wind, some nuclear, hydro, geothermal and potentially not yet discovered/invented sources.

Surely you cannot deny that business as usual demands growth and that growing our waste output is not smart on any level. It can only lead to problems throughout the food chain. Can you admit this is destructive and is clearly the essence in our normal processes of extraction, use, and disposal?

The very term "carbon footprint" was invented SOLELY to measure CO2 contributions.. It does not measure our use of elemental carbon. So we are not getting anywhere here..

Lemme repeat -- CO2 is NOT a pollutant. Something that exists in your lungs at concentrations 10 times the "natural atmos." is NOT a pollutant.

We cannot even DEAL with real pollution from our energy sources and materials streams when the entire DIALOGUE of environmental issues has been HIJACKED by this fixation with CO2.. I'm aware of the toll that coal generation of electricity has on the environment. But I'm truely pissed that most Eco-Frauds don't understand that oil has virtually NOTHING TO DO with generating electricity.

It's a huge mash-up of EMOTION.. And EMOTION isn't an effective tool for designing our way around these problems. Like it or not -- the Enviro movement NEEDS folks who value facts, reason and science to create better stewardship.. And like or not --- MOST enviro issues are ECONOMIC issues and the old DICTATE and PUNISH methods of the left are not the most effective way to add security to our environment. Better pitch a bigger tent. Because a LOT of eco-nut misconceptions need to die.. And maybe you dont realize it.. But you need help to make anything better..

 

[PredFan]

There is a common line used by the AGW fanatics, it basically states that there can be cold days when the planet is warming because global warming causes a disruption in climate patterns.

There is a major problem with this; That is that They never specify how warming causes cold and expect everyone to accept "disrupts climate patterns" without question. If we are to believe that CO2 causes temperatures to rise then why does the CO2 fail to take the edge off the cold in the winter? This is one of the many things that the faithful cannot explain.

 

[flacaltenn]

There is a common line used by the AGW fanatics, it basically states that there can be cold days when the planet is warming because global warming causes a disruption in climate patterns.

There is a major problem with this; That is that They never specify how warming causes cold and expect everyone to accept "disrupts climate patterns" without question. If we are to believe that CO2 causes temperatures to rise then why does the CO2 fail to take the edge off the cold in the winter? This is one of the many things that the faithful cannot explain.

Actually they TRY.. And the theory is that melting ice at the Poles disrupts the pressure balance that CONTAINS all that cold air at the poles.. There are natural cyclical leakages of cold Arctic air --- but the theory is that Polar warming is causing these "well - behaved" sags (arctic oscillations) to escape and wreak frozen havoc.

And SOMEHOW --- the Jet Stream at 30,000 feet is also distorted by Polar warming..

Hey --- don't point that finger at me... I'm just telling you what THEIR story is...

Here's my prediction.. The Geniuses have recently discovered that the Earth's climate stores heat energy. The NEXT GREAT IDEA they will (lately) discover is that excess COLD is stored at the poles as a natural reservoir that the Earth's HVAC system uses to balance out pesky increases in heat forcings. And that the feedbacks for all this heating and air conditioning are NOT POSITIVE RUNAWAY effects, but NEGATIVE STABILIZING effects of the Planet.

Probably by 2016 when they are still making excuses for their 20th century failures..

 

[gnarlylove]

I don't think much of my post revealed emotion. I thought it called attention to the very real waste output and the results of such waste in the oceans particularly. But Oh well.

 

[flacaltenn]

I don't think much of my post revealed emotion. I thought it called attention to the very real waste output and the results of such waste in the oceans particularly. But Oh well.

Wasn't referring to YOUR post.. I was referring to the vast army of eco-nauts who know very little of the science, technology or economics of environmentalism.. And bring their limited political toolsets to try and FORCE solutions..

You're doing fine.. Although we're a long way from discussing the original topic. Kinda tired of 1500 pages of Global Warming on USMB.. Don't you think an Enviro Forum ought to have OTHER issues to discuss???

 

[gnarlylove]

yeah i agree. as for me ima take a solid break from it

 

[ScienceRocks]

I know there's a pause but scientist are looking for the reasons behind it from the pdo to aerosols to explain it. Likely that the positive forcing isn't as strong as most scientist expected.

 

[PredFan]

There is a common line used by the AGW fanatics, it basically states that there can be cold days when the planet is warming because global warming causes a disruption in climate patterns.

There is a major problem with this; That is that They never specify how warming causes cold and expect everyone to accept "disrupts climate patterns" without question. If we are to believe that CO2 causes temperatures to rise then why does the CO2 fail to take the edge off the cold in the winter? This is one of the many things that the faithful cannot explain.

Actually they TRY.. And the theory is that melting ice at the Poles disrupts the pressure balance that CONTAINS all that cold air at the poles.. There are natural cyclical leakages of cold Arctic air --- but the theory is that Polar warming is causing these "well - behaved" sags (arctic oscillations) to escape and wreak frozen havoc.

And SOMEHOW --- the Jet Stream at 30,000 feet is also distorted by Polar warming..

Hey --- don't point that finger at me... I'm just telling you what THEIR story is...

Here's my prediction.. The Geniuses have recently discovered that the Earth's climate stores heat energy. The NEXT GREAT IDEA they will (lately) discover is that excess COLD is stored at the poles as a natural reservoir that the Earth's HVAC system uses to balance out pesky increases in heat forcings. And that the feedbacks for all this heating and air conditioning are NOT POSITIVE RUNAWAY effects, but NEGATIVE STABILIZING effects of the Planet.

Probably by 2016 when they are still making excuses for their 20th century failures..

You see folks? Here's a guy who can examine things in his own words. Why is that important? Well it means he understands the subject and what his point is. Those people who respond to questions by posting cut and paste from someone else's work, do so be ause they don't understand the answer, and that is why their data often doesn't point to what they think it does.