New Ice Age begins

[mdn2000]

Thats right, everywhere I go everyone is astonished at the freezing cold that has gripped Europe. I have the privilege of working with people from Slovenia, Argentina, Romania, and
Spain (I am in Spain). Everyone is talking about the sudden, abrupt change to winter so early in the season. The news is full of reports from England about the danger of the cold, I have yet to see the news this morning but last night the worry was they would not be able to move food on the frozen roads. Even the Russian TV station is speaking of extreme cold.

This is the beginning of a new Ice Age.

Dont look for the news reports in the USA, compared to the rest of the world there is a news blackout. So many events are not reported at all in the USA.

BBC News - European countries battle weather chaos

3 December 2010 Last updated at 05:19 GMT
European countries battle weather chaos

Snow brings further travel misery
In pictures: Snow blankets Europe
People across northern Europe are still facing heavy snow and freezing temperatures, with more cold weather forecast for the weekend.

Up to 28 people are thought to have been killed by the cold or in weather-related accidents.

Thousands of people have been left stranded after roads and rail networks were disrupted and airports closed.

In the Balkans, heavy flooding has forced more than 1,000 people to evacuate their homes.

Temperatures in Poland have fallen to as low as -33C (-27F) in the past few days.

Global warming will do that

How

 

[zzzz]

The recent warming has resulted in less hurricanes, not more.

More CO2 in the air increases food production.

More energy for air conditioning, not hardly, as you know we can solve this problem with technology.

A 2 degree increase in temperature is not going to turn the USA into a desert, you state more hurricanes, okay your right, that will drive more moisture into the interior of the USA, this is not speculation, its fact, check the farm reports for years with greater hurricane activity, more moisture is pushed into the farmland, rain actually decreases the temperature.

So if you believe global warming results in more hurricanes, this contradicts the america heartland turns into desert idea.

Did I say more hurricanes??? I was saying an increase in the intensity and frequency of Cat 5's. Combined with a higher sea level and the further north these severe hurricanes will go the entire eastern seaboard will suffer devastation.

Technology is not the answer to everything. And you have to have places to grow crops. The land has to be fertile and the there has to be a steady supply of water and temperatures, not big fluctuations.

Changes in the jet stream guide hurricanes and most hurricanes are turned eastward after landfall. True we occasionally get the remnants of a hurricane here in Indiana once or twice a year but not nearly enough to grow crops. If that is the only rain we get … well, Chicago and great lakes would disappear.

What I am saying is that increased global warming is not good for the United States in the long run. There are too many variables to determine what will actually happen but there will be some very big ramifications.

So your conclusion about Global warming has two basic ideas that we can count on:

1. That you know exactly what will happen and that it will be very, very bad.
2. That there are too many variables for us to know exactly what will happen.

Does holding both of these ideas simultaneously present any problems for you?

In the first place, no one knows exactly what will happen. The weatherman can not even tell you with 100% accuracy what will tomorrow so I cannot pretend to know exactly what will happen in 10 or 20 years. But the indications are that storms will become more violent and rain patterns will change in response to a global warm up. It is already happening! The hurricane season every year is for a few months, but they cycle they operate on is a decade plus or minus a few years. Meteorlogical cycles are how measure trends, not in years.

 

[mdn2000]

Did I say more hurricanes??? I was saying an increase in the intensity and frequency of Cat 5's. Combined with a higher sea level and the further north these severe hurricanes will go the entire eastern seaboard will suffer devastation.

Technology is not the answer to everything. And you have to have places to grow crops. The land has to be fertile and the there has to be a steady supply of water and temperatures, not big fluctuations.

Changes in the jet stream guide hurricanes and most hurricanes are turned eastward after landfall. True we occasionally get the remnants of a hurricane here in Indiana once or twice a year but not nearly enough to grow crops. If that is the only rain we get … well, Chicago and great lakes would disappear.

What I am saying is that increased global warming is not good for the United States in the long run. There are too many variables to determine what will actually happen but there will be some very big ramifications.

So your conclusion about Global warming has two basic ideas that we can count on:

1. That you know exactly what will happen and that it will be very, very bad.
2. That there are too many variables for us to know exactly what will happen.

Does holding both of these ideas simultaneously present any problems for you?

In the first place, no one knows exactly what will happen. The weatherman can not even tell you with 100% accuracy what will tomorrow so I cannot pretend to know exactly what will happen in 10 or 20 years. But the indications are that storms will become more violent and rain patterns will change in response to a global warm up. It is already happening! The hurricane season every year is for a few months, but they cycle they operate on is a decade plus or minus a few years. Meteorlogical cycles are how measure trends, not in years.

What indications?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Thats right, everywhere I go everyone is astonished at the freezing cold that has gripped Europe. I have the privilege of working with people from Slovenia, Argentina, Romania, and
Spain (I am in Spain). Everyone is talking about the sudden, abrupt change to winter so early in the season. The news is full of reports from England about the danger of the cold, I have yet to see the news this morning but last night the worry was they would not be able to move food on the frozen roads. Even the Russian TV station is speaking of extreme cold.

This is the beginning of a new Ice Age.

Dont look for the news reports in the USA, compared to the rest of the world there is a news blackout. So many events are not reported at all in the USA.

BBC News - European countries battle weather chaos

Global warming will do that

How

Simple.

It's warmer, therefore manmade Global Warming

It's cooler, therefore manmade Global Warming.

This new learning amazes me, Brother Maynard

 

[mdn2000]

Global warming will do that

How

Simple.

It's warmer, therefore manmade Global Warming

It's cooler, therefore manmade Global Warming.

This new learning amazes me, Brother Maynard

Now I understand, when it rains, it rains, but if it rains hard man caused it to rain hard.

 

[zzzz]

So your conclusion about Global warming has two basic ideas that we can count on:

1. That you know exactly what will happen and that it will be very, very bad.
2. That there are too many variables for us to know exactly what will happen.

Does holding both of these ideas simultaneously present any problems for you?

In the first place, no one knows exactly what will happen. The weatherman can not even tell you with 100% accuracy what will tomorrow so I cannot pretend to know exactly what will happen in 10 or 20 years. But the indications are that storms will become more violent and rain patterns will change in response to a global warm up. It is already happening! The hurricane season every year is for a few months, but they cycle they operate on is a decade plus or minus a few years. Meteorlogical cycles are how measure trends, not in years.

What indications?

Monster Hurricanes: Study Questions Linkage Between Severe Hurricanes And Global Warming
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2007/2007_DelGenio_etal_2.pdf

 

[westwall]

Snow in Europe sure as fuck doesn't=ice age. Decades of colder temperatures and growing glaciers do...Guess what, We don't have colder temperatures year after year or growing glaciers over much of earth. End of discussion...I been hearing about this coming ice age stuff for decades and yet it never comes and we will NOT have warning when it really does, but it will come with little or no warning. Period.

A bad winter for one part of the world like Europe doesn't mean that other parts aren't having well below normal snow. I think we're a few hundred years before the next cool period.

This is the second severe winter in a row. Last wintr 1.7 million animals were killed in Mongolia by the extreme cold. I won't be saying this is the beginning of a new ice age any time soon, but the trend is certainly towards the colder end of the spectrum and the meterologists that I do trust have been saying that we are headed for a repeat of the Maunder Minimum. Look for 20 years or so of cooling. Maybe more.

 

[westwall]

28 dead from cold over the whole of Europe in this cold snap. 11,000 dead just in Russia from the heat wave there last summer. Not exactly equal events.

11,000 dead from respiratory ailments, not heat, there olfraud.

 

[westwall]

Did I say more hurricanes??? I was saying an increase in the intensity and frequency of Cat 5's. Combined with a higher sea level and the further north these severe hurricanes will go the entire eastern seaboard will suffer devastation.

Technology is not the answer to everything. And you have to have places to grow crops. The land has to be fertile and the there has to be a steady supply of water and temperatures, not big fluctuations.

Changes in the jet stream guide hurricanes and most hurricanes are turned eastward after landfall. True we occasionally get the remnants of a hurricane here in Indiana once or twice a year but not nearly enough to grow crops. If that is the only rain we get … well, Chicago and great lakes would disappear.

What I am saying is that increased global warming is not good for the United States in the long run. There are too many variables to determine what will actually happen but there will be some very big ramifications.

So your conclusion about Global warming has two basic ideas that we can count on:

1. That you know exactly what will happen and that it will be very, very bad.
2. That there are too many variables for us to know exactly what will happen.

Does holding both of these ideas simultaneously present any problems for you?

In the first place, no one knows exactly what will happen. The weatherman can not even tell you with 100% accuracy what will tomorrow so I cannot pretend to know exactly what will happen in 10 or 20 years. But the indications are that storms will become more violent and rain patterns will change in response to a global warm up. It is already happening! The hurricane season every year is for a few months, but they cycle they operate on is a decade plus or minus a few years. Meteorlogical cycles are how measure trends, not in years.

This is not true. Extreme weather is generated by the interaction of warm and cold air. If you have a uniformly warm or a uniformly cool atmosphere you have much more benign storms. Rain patterns are another mystery. We honestly have no idea what will occur. We do know that the last time there was major warming plant life blossomed as did everything else for that matter. The Europeans loved it. Also the effects are found in the Sierra Nevada Mountains where tree growth was very rapid.

This implies that water was plentiful. Thus it looks like rain was not an issue.

 

[mdn2000]

ZZZZ, your link made my point, I have quoted from your source, which is an article, not the study, but if it makes my point and you gave the link than I am vindicated.

Monster Hurricanes: Study Questions Linkage Between Severe Hurricanes And Global Warming

"The projected impacts of global warming on Atlantic hurricanes are minor compared with the major changes that we have observed over the past couple of years," Michaels said.
He points instead to naturally varying components of the tropical environment as being the primary reason for the recent enhanced activity.

"Some aspects of the tropical environment have evolved much differently than they were expected to under the assumption that only increasing greenhouse gases were involved. This leads me to believe that natural oscillations have also been responsible for what we have seen," Michaels said

"In the future we may expect to see more major hurricanes," Michaels said, "but we don't expect the ones that do form to be any stronger than the ones that we have seen in the past."

 

[mdn2000]

I found the source for the article, pretty easy, took too much time though, just to show I am right. The source is a press release of a research study based on others research. Not even close to bridging the gap between a wild guess and fact.

http://www.seas.harvard.edu/climate/pdf/2006/michaels2006.pdf

[3] Neither of the recent studies [Emanuel, 2005; Webster
et al., 2005] directly linked local changes in SST to changes
in hurricane intensity. Rather, they rely on trends in basinwide
averaged monthly or seasonal SST that are not
necessarily representative of the local marine environment
experienced by individual tropical cyclones. A closer look
at the direct relationship between more local SST and
tropical cyclone intensity reveals a complicated picture
[e.g., Evans, 1993].

[4] The Evans [1993] study is limited by rather coarse
(2

2
) monthly SST data.

To validate the statistical robustness of our identified
threshold, we progressively remove storms from our analysis
in lower portion of the SST range and recalculate the
regression.

Above 27.75
C, the relationship between maximum
intensity and maximum SST encountered becomes
statistically insignificant.

A study of studies, thats all, trying to find a link and failing, here are the sources the author used.

Baik, J.-J., and J.-S. Paek (1998), A climatology of sea surface temperature
and the maximum intensity of western North Pacific tropical cyclones,
J. Meteorol. Soc. Jpn., 76, 129–137.
Bell, G. D., and M. Chelliah (2006), Leading tropical modes associated
with interannual and multidecadal fluctuations in North Altantic hurricane
activity, J. Clim., 19, 590– 612.
Bender, M. A., I. Ginis, and Y. Kurihara (1993), Numerical simulations of
tropical cyclone-ocean interaction with a high resolution coupled climate
model, J. Geophys. Res., 98, 23,245–23,263.
Emanuel, K. (2005), Increasing destructiveness of tropical cyclones over
the past 30 years, Nature, 436, 686– 688.
Evans, J. E. (1993), Sensitivity of tropical cyclone intensity to sea surface
temperature, J. Clim., 6, 1133– 1140.
Goldenberg, S. B., C. W. Landsea, A. M. Mestas-Nun˜ez, and W. M. Gray
(2001), The recent increase in Atlantic hurricane activity: Causes and
implications, Science, 293, 474– 479.
Gray, W. M., J. D. Sheaffer, and C. W. Landsea (1997), Climate trends
associated with multidecadal variability of Atlantic hurricane activity, in
Hurricanes: Climate and Socioeconomic Impacts, edited by H. F. Diaz
and R. S. Pulwarty, pp. 15– 53, Springer, New York.
Henderson-Sellers, A., et al. (1998), Tropical cyclones and global climate
change: A post-IPCC assessment, Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 79, 19–38.
Jarvinen, B. R., C. J. Neumann, and M. A. D. Davis (1984), A tropical
cyclone data tape for the North Atlantic Basin, 1886–1983: Contents,
limitations, and uses, NOAA Tech. Memo., NWS NHC 22. (Available at
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/tracks1851to2004_atl.txt.)
Knight, J. R., R. J. Allen, C. K. Folland, M. Vellinga, and M. E. Mann
(2005), A signature of persistent natural thermohaline circulation in observed
climate, Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L20708, doi:10.1029/
2005GL024233.
Knutson, T. R., and R. E. Tuleya (2004), Impact of CO2– induced warming
on simulated hurricane intensity and precipitation: sensitivity to the
choice of climate model and convective parameterization, J. Clim., 17,
3477– 3495.
Knutson, T. R., and R. E. Tuleya (2005), Reply to comments on ‘‘Impacts
of CO2–induced warming on simulated hurricane intensity and precipitation:
sensitivity to the choice of climate model and convective scheme’’,
J. Clim., 18, 5183– 5187.
Landsea, C. W., R. A. Pielke Jr., A. M. Mestas-Nun˜ez, and J. A. Knaff
(1999), Atlantic basin hurricanes: Indices of climatic changes, Clim.
Change, 42, 89– 129.
Merrill, R. T. (1987), An experiment in the statistical prediction of tropical
cyclone intensity change, in 17th Conference on Hurricanes and Tropical
Meteorology, pp. 302– 307, Am. Meteorol. Soc., Boston, Mass.
Merrill, R. T. (1988), Environmental influences on hurricane intensification,
J. Atmos. Sci., 45, 1678– 1687.
Michaels, P. J., P. C. Knappenberger, and C. W. Landsea (2005), Comments
on ‘‘Impacts of CO2 –induced warming on simulated hurricane intensity
and precipitation: Sensitivity to the choice of climate model and convective
scheme’’, J. Clim., 18, 5179– 5182.
Reynolds, R. W., N. A. Rayner, T. M. Smith, D. C. Stokes, and W. Wang
(2002), An improved in situ and satellite SST analysis for climate,
J. Clim., 15, 1609– 1625. (Available at IRI/LDEO Climate Data Library
SOURCES/.IGOSS/.nmc/.Reyn_SmithOIv2/.weekly/.)
Webster, P. J., G. J. Holland, J. A. Curry, and H.-R. Chang (2005), Changes
in tropical cyclone number, duration, and intensity in a warming environment,
Science, 309, 1844– 1846.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Anybody hear about the Heartland’s Fourth International Conference on Climate Change....last May....? Given our media blackouting it's not surprising if you didn't...experts debunk the global warming hoax and conclude a cooling trend....summary by Marc Sheppard/American Thinker...

Heartland Conference Establishes Post-Climategate Consensus
...
Mine is the task of summarizing – to the best of my ability -- the current state of climate reality, as espoused before me one month ago by no less than the greatest minds analyzing the subject today. And yours is the opportunity to quickly absorb the collective wisdom of over 75 experts speaking at 5 plenary and 20 breakout sessions, and countless marvelous conversations, all spread over 3 days. And to discover or affirm the myriad inconvenient truths behind the “global warming” hype.

Let’s begin with arguably the most significant but unquestionably the most conference-ubiquitous.

Currents and Current Cooling

For years now, alarmists have arrogantly ignored the cooling we’ve experienced worldwide since 1999, continuing their demands that we sacrifice everything – jobs, money, comfort, progress and ultimately, freedom -- to halt fictitious “runaway global warming.” Such unfounded hysteria seems all the more inane after hearing the unvarnished truth from the experts at ICCC-4, beginning with their predictions that the global cooling will likely continue for the next few decades.

Geologist Don Easterbrook was one of many attending scientists attributing natural climate variations to solar irradiance and deep ocean currents. His ICCC-4 announced paper, The Looming Threat of Global Cooling, noted the undeniable link between the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) shifting to its warm mode in 1915 and 1977 and global warming resulting both times. Conversely, in 1945 and 1999 the PDO moved to its cool mode and the globe cooled right along, despite a rapid increase in atmospheric CO2 during the period. What’s more, climate changes in the geologic record show a regular pattern of alternate warming and cooling with a 25-30 year period for the past 500 years. Easterbrook thereby concludes that we should “expect global cooling for the next 2-3 decades that will be far more damaging than global warming would have been.”

continued....
American Thinker: Heartland Conference Establishes Post-Climategate Consensus

 

[mdn2000]

I for one know there is no climate change, just the ebb and tide of normal weather.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1334672/Jaw-dropping-image-enormous-supercell-cloud-Glasgow-Montana.html

 

[westwall]

I found the source for the article, pretty easy, took too much time though, just to show I am right. The source is a press release of a research study based on others research. Not even close to bridging the gap between a wild guess and fact.

http://www.seas.harvard.edu/climate/pdf/2006/michaels2006.pdf

[3] Neither of the recent studies [Emanuel, 2005; Webster
et al., 2005] directly linked local changes in SST to changes
in hurricane intensity. Rather, they rely on trends in basinwide
averaged monthly or seasonal SST that are not
necessarily representative of the local marine environment
experienced by individual tropical cyclones. A closer look
at the direct relationship between more local SST and
tropical cyclone intensity reveals a complicated picture
[e.g., Evans, 1993].

[4] The Evans [1993] study is limited by rather coarse
(2

2
) monthly SST data.

Above 27.75
C, the relationship between maximum
intensity and maximum SST encountered becomes
statistically insignificant.

A study of studies, thats all, trying to find a link and failing, here are the sources the author used.

Baik, J.-J., and J.-S. Paek (1998), A climatology of sea surface temperature
and the maximum intensity of western North Pacific tropical cyclones,
J. Meteorol. Soc. Jpn., 76, 129–137.
Bell, G. D., and M. Chelliah (2006), Leading tropical modes associated
with interannual and multidecadal fluctuations in North Altantic hurricane
activity, J. Clim., 19, 590– 612.
Bender, M. A., I. Ginis, and Y. Kurihara (1993), Numerical simulations of
tropical cyclone-ocean interaction with a high resolution coupled climate
model, J. Geophys. Res., 98, 23,245–23,263.
Emanuel, K. (2005), Increasing destructiveness of tropical cyclones over
the past 30 years, Nature, 436, 686– 688.
Evans, J. E. (1993), Sensitivity of tropical cyclone intensity to sea surface
temperature, J. Clim., 6, 1133– 1140.
Goldenberg, S. B., C. W. Landsea, A. M. Mestas-Nun˜ez, and W. M. Gray
(2001), The recent increase in Atlantic hurricane activity: Causes and
implications, Science, 293, 474– 479.
Gray, W. M., J. D. Sheaffer, and C. W. Landsea (1997), Climate trends
associated with multidecadal variability of Atlantic hurricane activity, in
Hurricanes: Climate and Socioeconomic Impacts, edited by H. F. Diaz
and R. S. Pulwarty, pp. 15– 53, Springer, New York.
Henderson-Sellers, A., et al. (1998), Tropical cyclones and global climate
change: A post-IPCC assessment, Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 79, 19–38.
Jarvinen, B. R., C. J. Neumann, and M. A. D. Davis (1984), A tropical
cyclone data tape for the North Atlantic Basin, 1886–1983: Contents,
limitations, and uses, NOAA Tech. Memo., NWS NHC 22. (Available at
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/tracks1851to2004_atl.txt.)
Knight, J. R., R. J. Allen, C. K. Folland, M. Vellinga, and M. E. Mann
(2005), A signature of persistent natural thermohaline circulation in observed
climate, Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L20708, doi:10.1029/
2005GL024233.
Knutson, T. R., and R. E. Tuleya (2004), Impact of CO2– induced warming
on simulated hurricane intensity and precipitation: sensitivity to the
choice of climate model and convective parameterization, J. Clim., 17,
3477– 3495.
Knutson, T. R., and R. E. Tuleya (2005), Reply to comments on ‘‘Impacts
of CO2–induced warming on simulated hurricane intensity and precipitation:
sensitivity to the choice of climate model and convective scheme’’,
J. Clim., 18, 5183– 5187.
Landsea, C. W., R. A. Pielke Jr., A. M. Mestas-Nun˜ez, and J. A. Knaff
(1999), Atlantic basin hurricanes: Indices of climatic changes, Clim.
Change, 42, 89– 129.
Merrill, R. T. (1987), An experiment in the statistical prediction of tropical
cyclone intensity change, in 17th Conference on Hurricanes and Tropical
Meteorology, pp. 302– 307, Am. Meteorol. Soc., Boston, Mass.
Merrill, R. T. (1988), Environmental influences on hurricane intensification,
J. Atmos. Sci., 45, 1678– 1687.
Michaels, P. J., P. C. Knappenberger, and C. W. Landsea (2005), Comments
on ‘‘Impacts of CO2 –induced warming on simulated hurricane intensity
and precipitation: Sensitivity to the choice of climate model and convective
scheme’’, J. Clim., 18, 5179– 5182.
Reynolds, R. W., N. A. Rayner, T. M. Smith, D. C. Stokes, and W. Wang
(2002), An improved in situ and satellite SST analysis for climate,
J. Clim., 15, 1609– 1625. (Available at IRI/LDEO Climate Data Library
SOURCES/.IGOSS/.nmc/.Reyn_SmithOIv2/.weekly/.)
Webster, P. J., G. J. Holland, J. A. Curry, and H.-R. Chang (2005), Changes
in tropical cyclone number, duration, and intensity in a warming environment,
Science, 309, 1844– 1846.

The fact that it was a Literature Review is not a big deal. Those are done frequently to make sure the particular theory is repeatable by anyone (hence when Keith Briffa made the statement that he couldn't reproduce his own work and that did not elicit widespread shock from the climatologists I was no longer in doubt as to their incompetence/dishonesty) in essence you are checking as many different sources as possible to make sure you are doing it right.

Meta Analysis is another research tool that follows along in the same vein just more focused. Meta Analysis has some good points and some very bad points. The good is it in effect combines all the research on a single topic into one huge study with multiple participants. The bad is in condensing a large set of disparate studies the construct definitions can become muddled and the results difficult to interpret in a meaningful way.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

How

Simple.

It's warmer, therefore manmade Global Warming

It's cooler, therefore manmade Global Warming.

This new learning amazes me, Brother Maynard

Now I understand, when it rains, it rains, but if it rains hard man caused it to rain hard.

I have peer reviewed this post and found it 100% accurate

 

[editec]

You know its odd, but we can probably expect wild swings in weather behaviors whether the globe is getting warmer OR colder.

But we'll know that you are right Mdn2000, IF we see a persistent decline in overall global temperatures over time.

Right now, most of the experts seem to think the global is warming up.

As I am not an expert in this field, I sort of leave it to them to tell me what's happening.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You know its odd, but we can probably expect wild swings in weather behaviors whether the globe is getting warmer OR colder.

But we'll know that you are right Mdn2000, IF we see a persistent decline in overall global temperatures over time.

Right now, most of the experts seem to think the global is warming up.

As I am not an expert in this field, I sort of leave it to them to tell me what's happening.

Even after they're found cooking that data? No, thanks

 

[Big Fitz]

and notice that the only time it's nature being normal is if nothing changes. Which it never has or will.

 

[westwall]

You know its odd, but we can probably expect wild swings in weather behaviors whether the globe is getting warmer OR colder.

But we'll know that you are right Mdn2000, IF we see a persistent decline in overall global temperatures over time.

Right now, most of the experts seem to think the global is warming up.

As I am not an expert in this field, I sort of leave it to them to tell me what's happening.

editec, the only way the temperatures are going up is if they cherry pick their data such as last summer when they chose to use a single weather report from a airport to get their "record" temperature reading of 105 degrees. Or the continuing rewrite of historical data sets that GISS and HADCRU have been caught doing. Much less the New Zealand group that has been caught red handed and now the New Zealand government no longer uses their own official data sets as they are fraudulent.

On the other hand...we have now seen two very hard winters in a row. Last years was devestating both in the northern and southern hemispheres, and this years has certainly started off with a bang as evidenced by the Europe wide problems with early snow.

Read the foreign newspapers to get a better idea of just how bad the winter is over there right now. It will be eye opening.

 

[zzzz]

The atmosphere is a very complicated thing and the experts do not agree on global warming and the ramifications. Study after study results in differing conclusions thereby making any opinion justifiable. The proof of the pudding is in the eating! We just have to wait and see which camp is right.