Global Cooling...

[Old Rocks]

Good for you, I'm glad your a dog lover, Kevin. I took my dogs down by the Spokane River when it was snowing this morning. I think it warmed up to 40 degrees today. Normal this time of year is 48 degrees.

Normal may be 48 degrees for Spokane, but it is not unusual for it to snow in Spokane in March. Not unusual for it to snow in March in Chicago, either. Definately unusual for it to be 80+ in March in Chicago.

 

[Meister]

Good for you, I'm glad your a dog lover, Kevin. I took my dogs down by the Spokane River when it was snowing this morning. I think it warmed up to 40 degrees today. Normal this time of year is 48 degrees.

Normal may be 48 degrees for Spokane, but it is not unusual for it to snow in Spokane in March. Not unusual for it to snow in March in Chicago, either. Definately unusual for it to be 80+ in March in Chicago.

roxie....you are down to this type of posting? Don't you feel the least bit embarrassed?

 

[Old Rocks]

Oh my, here we go again.

All the Scientiifc Societies in the world, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities are in on a giant conspiracy to mislead poor little Walleyes, Miester, and Ropes. All the scientific journals have people that are preventing real articles from getting published. And the disciplines of geology, biology, and physics are irrelevant when discussing AGW.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

AGW Observer

 

[Old Rocks]

Good for you, I'm glad your a dog lover, Kevin. I took my dogs down by the Spokane River when it was snowing this morning. I think it warmed up to 40 degrees today. Normal this time of year is 48 degrees.

Normal may be 48 degrees for Spokane, but it is not unusual for it to snow in Spokane in March. Not unusual for it to snow in March in Chicago, either. Definately unusual for it to be 80+ in March in Chicago.

roxie....you are down to this type of posting? Don't you feel the least bit embarrassed?

Why? I posted a reply to your nonsense.


Record Events for Wed Mar 7, 2012 through Tue Mar 13, 2012



Total Records:

2399



Rainfall:

662



Snowfall:

77



High Temperatures:

821



Low Temperatures:

115



Lowest Max Temperatures:

154



Highest Min Temperatures:

570

 

[Meister]

enjoy yourself, roxie.

 

[Old Rocks]

Surely I will. Showing the willfull ignorance of the wingnuts is just so much fun. Almost as much fun as observing the consequences we are now seeing from the changing climate caused by the warming.

max_boykoff

matthew_ nisbet

Gwendolyn Blue

A23A



C24A

H22A

Of course these are working scientists, among the best in the world, so what the hell would they know compared to the willfully ignoramouses here?

 

[paulitician]

Yup, and Global Warming causes obesity too. Just ask Al Gore. Man, what a lard ass he's become. Yikes!

 

[Old Rocks]

When a person that is ignoring reality for the sake of his political ideology addresses AGW, the very first thing he does is insult Al Gore.

Just in case you do not realize it, Al Gore merely put what the scientists have been telling us into layman's terms. The fact that you cannot even comprehend that is indictutive of the level of your intellect.

 

[westwall]

When a person that is ignoring reality for the sake of his political ideology addresses AGW, the very first thing he does is insult Al Gore.

Just in case you do not realize it, Al Gore merely put what the scientists have been telling us into layman's terms. The fact that you cannot even comprehend that is indictutive of the level of your intellect.

Hitting the bottle again olfraud? Reality has ignored you. No claim made by any of your high priests has come to pass. Well, except for when they predict both sides of an issue. They get those right

 

[Old Rocks]

Repeating a silly lie again and again does not make it true, Walleyes.

 

[IanC]

KevinWestern- I am somewhat astounded that you say you are familiar with the climategate emails(and presumably some of the back stories) and yet you still give the hockey team and IPCC a full pass.

Mann's hockeystick graph was the poster child of the CAGW movement. here in Canada everyone even got a copy mailed to them from the govt! 'hide the decline' refers to chopping off the last 30 years of data from Briffa's treering series solely because it did not agree with the temperature record. if that is not manipulating data perhaps you could explain what is.

Jones's 'delete all emails' attempt to thwart FOI has worked so far. the surely embarrassing crosstalk emails pertaining to the IPCC AR4 report, and the fantastic lengths gone to in order to suppress McIntyre's criticisms and bolster Mann's faulty papers, are still under lock and key. the two british investigations into Jones and the UEA did not even ask Jones if he wrote the email or whether the offending emails were in fact deleted. (Eugene Wahl testified under oath that he did delete his copies of the emails, in a scantly publicized NOAA investigation). Mann was asked by Penn if he deleted his but it was never checked.

the first batch of climategate emails were essentially hand waved away by many like you who assumed they were just taken out of context. the second set released added substantial context and brought to light the fact that many involved scientists were concerned with what they were being asked to agree with. there are still thousands more emails sitting on the internet behind a password.

the theory behind global warming sort of sounds reasonable but every time you look at any single part up close it is either wonky or vastly overstated. Judith Curry was a believer until she started asking colleagues whether their particular field of expertise and study was conforming to CAGW expectations and was met with, "my stuff doesnt fit too well but please dont tell anyone I said that". she has taken a lot of flak for being a traitor but they cant really do anything to her because she doesnt say anything that cant be backed up by data. unlike many of the hockey team who run things at the IPCC in their catagory.

I could go on and on but its all been said before. you say we think it is a conspiracy. it isnt in the usual sense except for Mann and his cronies. but calling out Mann for his mistakes would tip over the apple cart and many climate scientists would just rather let the mistakes wither on the vine. if they made him fix the upsidedown Tiljander cores it wouldnt just be his papers, it would be all the other ones downhill that used his numbers. and the scandal involved for not speaking out earlier. scientists dont want to rock the boat, they want it to go away and be left in peace to do their work.

Ian, I admit that I don't know everything about climategate, and you're obviously an intelligent person who can discuss the topic rationally, which is good and healthy.

This is my question:

Right now I hear your defense - you claim that the IPCC's credibility is poor, that there are scientists like Mann who are not credible either, and that a few reputable scientists who have started to question the credibility of the mainstream consensus (like Judith Curry). Great, I don't doubt that you think that for a good reason, but now you need to provide some evidence supporting your claim. Not evidence supporting that IPCC is not credible, but evidence supporting the claim that the science consensus is actually starting to turn in large numbers and that the majority of credible research really does not support man-made global warming anymore in such strong numbers (ie an equal work contrasting the 97/100 claim of IPCC).

I think you would need to start by citing the work of an alternate major credible science body/institution - perhaps something along the lines of an alternate intergovernmental panel (or something like that, something that's not organized by a specific or right/left leaning think tank) - who has come together, reviewed without bias the bulk of credible climate research, and concluded that the consensus is not quite as strong as what IPCC said, you know what I mean?

Where is that equivalent, Ian?

I listed some other institutions like NASA, The American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science that side with me, again, where are yours?

The difference here so far is that my argument cites the conclusions of a number of major scientific institutions, your argument simply questions the credibility of those institutions. Which argument do you think is stronger (do you see where I'm getting at)?

Now you can say that you don't believe that the science consensus is correct, and that's fine, and just to clarify - is that what your stance is?

I dont believe the emphysis of climate science consensus is correct. there is a vast gulf between what you accuse me of and what I actually say.

the information available during the 90's was considerably different than today. the possibility of climate disaster was coincidentally much stronger then than now. decisions were made to fasttrack climate research to explore the possibilities and strong statements were made that were weak on actual science. many science societies came down strong on the one side because it was prudent. and easy. since then the data supports a much softer stance but it is much harder to back away from previous statements once they are made. some societies have rachetted down their statements, leaving lawyeresque opinions that could be taken to mean many things with pausible deniability available in the future if needed.

you demand me to produce my army of scientists and their armoury of scientific papers so that we can meet on some imaginary field of war where the size of the opposing forces will determine the outcome. but its not that kind of war, it is ongoing guerilla skermishes where we use your own papers and data against you! our side has basically no funding. for instance Heartland has a few tens of millions in its operating budget and less than five million was spent on climate change information. 5 million is chump change so why is it considered an evil puppetmaster controlling things in the background? I think your side's conspiracy theories are more farfetched than ours. and our side has direct quotes from your superstar climate scientists whereas you guys have resorted to fraud to smear our side. what is your opinion on Gleick? is it OK to be dishonest in the name of the 'Noble Cause'?

does it ever make you wonder why there are so few public debates on CAGW/CC? and why the warmers seem to lose them all? it is because the global warming hypothesis just doesnt seem to be as certain or as important when the framing of the questions is not strickly controlled. and the thinking public is catching on to that.


oh, and by the way, do you know the backstory about the 97% consensus? it is typical of the CAGW distortion of data collection.

 

[KevinWestern]

KevinWestern- I am somewhat astounded that you say you are familiar with the climategate emails(and presumably some of the back stories) and yet you still give the hockey team and IPCC a full pass.

Mann's hockeystick graph was the poster child of the CAGW movement. here in Canada everyone even got a copy mailed to them from the govt! 'hide the decline' refers to chopping off the last 30 years of data from Briffa's treering series solely because it did not agree with the temperature record. if that is not manipulating data perhaps you could explain what is.

Jones's 'delete all emails' attempt to thwart FOI has worked so far. the surely embarrassing crosstalk emails pertaining to the IPCC AR4 report, and the fantastic lengths gone to in order to suppress McIntyre's criticisms and bolster Mann's faulty papers, are still under lock and key. the two british investigations into Jones and the UEA did not even ask Jones if he wrote the email or whether the offending emails were in fact deleted. (Eugene Wahl testified under oath that he did delete his copies of the emails, in a scantly publicized NOAA investigation). Mann was asked by Penn if he deleted his but it was never checked.

the first batch of climategate emails were essentially hand waved away by many like you who assumed they were just taken out of context. the second set released added substantial context and brought to light the fact that many involved scientists were concerned with what they were being asked to agree with. there are still thousands more emails sitting on the internet behind a password.

the theory behind global warming sort of sounds reasonable but every time you look at any single part up close it is either wonky or vastly overstated. Judith Curry was a believer until she started asking colleagues whether their particular field of expertise and study was conforming to CAGW expectations and was met with, "my stuff doesnt fit too well but please dont tell anyone I said that". she has taken a lot of flak for being a traitor but they cant really do anything to her because she doesnt say anything that cant be backed up by data. unlike many of the hockey team who run things at the IPCC in their catagory.

I could go on and on but its all been said before. you say we think it is a conspiracy. it isnt in the usual sense except for Mann and his cronies. but calling out Mann for his mistakes would tip over the apple cart and many climate scientists would just rather let the mistakes wither on the vine. if they made him fix the upsidedown Tiljander cores it wouldnt just be his papers, it would be all the other ones downhill that used his numbers. and the scandal involved for not speaking out earlier. scientists dont want to rock the boat, they want it to go away and be left in peace to do their work.

Ian, I admit that I don't know everything about climategate, and you're obviously an intelligent person who can discuss the topic rationally, which is good and healthy.

This is my question:

Right now I hear your defense - you claim that the IPCC's credibility is poor, that there are scientists like Mann who are not credible either, and that a few reputable scientists who have started to question the credibility of the mainstream consensus (like Judith Curry). Great, I don't doubt that you think that for a good reason, but now you need to provide some evidence supporting your claim. Not evidence supporting that IPCC is not credible, but evidence supporting the claim that the science consensus is actually starting to turn in large numbers and that the majority of credible research really does not support man-made global warming anymore in such strong numbers (ie an equal work contrasting the 97/100 claim of IPCC).

I think you would need to start by citing the work of an alternate major credible science body/institution - perhaps something along the lines of an alternate intergovernmental panel (or something like that, something that's not organized by a specific or right/left leaning think tank) - who has come together, reviewed without bias the bulk of credible climate research, and concluded that the consensus is not quite as strong as what IPCC said, you know what I mean?

Where is that equivalent, Ian?

I listed some other institutions like NASA, The American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science that side with me, again, where are yours?

The difference here so far is that my argument cites the conclusions of a number of major scientific institutions, your argument simply questions the credibility of those institutions. Which argument do you think is stronger (do you see where I'm getting at)?

Now you can say that you don't believe that the science consensus is correct, and that's fine, and just to clarify - is that what your stance is?

I dont believe the emphysis of climate science consensus is correct. there is a vast gulf between what you accuse me of and what I actually say.

the information available during the 90's was considerably different than today. the possibility of climate disaster was coincidentally much stronger then than now. decisions were made to fasttrack climate research to explore the possibilities and strong statements were made that were weak on actual science. many science societies came down strong on the one side because it was prudent. and easy. since then the data supports a much softer stance but it is much harder to back away from previous statements once they are made. some societies have rachetted down their statements, leaving lawyeresque opinions that could be taken to mean many things with pausible deniability available in the future if needed.

you demand me to produce my army of scientists and their armoury of scientific papers so that we can meet on some imaginary field of war where the size of the opposing forces will determine the outcome. but its not that kind of war, it is ongoing guerilla skermishes where we use your own papers and data against you! our side has basically no funding. for instance Heartland has a few tens of millions in its operating budget and less than five million was spent on climate change information. 5 million is chump change so why is it considered an evil puppetmaster controlling things in the background? I think your side's conspiracy theories are more farfetched than ours. and our side has direct quotes from your superstar climate scientists whereas you guys have resorted to fraud to smear our side. what is your opinion on Gleick? is it OK to be dishonest in the name of the 'Noble Cause'?

does it ever make you wonder why there are so few public debates on CAGW/CC? and why the warmers seem to lose them all? it is because the global warming hypothesis just doesnt seem to be as certain or as important when the framing of the questions is not strickly controlled. and the thinking public is catching on to that.


oh, and by the way, do you know the backstory about the 97% consensus? it is typical of the CAGW distortion of data collection.

Interesting things, @Ian/@Wall, and I will look into them (frankly a bit burnt out on the subject currently) but will look into them. Thanks for the back and forth.

Ian, I understand that the "97%" consensus is not the end all, say all, but as I mentioned before, the consensus on the subject I believe at least falls in the heavy favor of the GACW camp vs that of the denier group.

But like you said, this could possibly be for reasons such as:

1.) Science pointed more heavily to support CAGW in the 1990's, so all of science went in that direction, supporting it, now it's hard to retract. So institutions just sort of say relatively the same thing, despite new data.
2.) The science on the side of CAGW is much more heavily funded, therefore remains the "consensus view" (ie 20 guys get funding who believe in CAGW, 1 guy gets funding who doesn't believe).

So this would mean that a large number of top level research institutes - like the United States National Academy of Sciences - is pushing along this overly extreme CAGW idea, even when their is new and strong evidence stating otherwise, just to save face? To keep their funding?

And from what I can dig up, most of the major national academies of the developed/semi-developed (I suppose for some of these) support the data of the "alarmists" vs the "deniers", including the French Academy of Science, Australian Academy of Sciences, Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts, Brazilian Academy of Sciences, Royal Society of Canada, Caribbean Academy of Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina, Indian National Science Academy, Indonesian Academy of Sciences, Royal Irish Academy, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy), Academy of Sciences Malaysia, Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, and Royal Society (UK).

I'm not a climate expert by any means and never will claim to be. I'm not a scientist either. I'm actually a Supply Chain Analyst and a Stratocaster Enthusiast.

But, I just find it difficult to form an opinion on a subject that I do not study myself that would be in direct contrast with the view of those Academies I list above. Or maybe I'm wrong, perhaps those Academies are changing their tunes, or perhaps I'm mistaken on their viewpoint to begin with.

But can you at least understand where I'm coming from, and why it's so difficult for me to not believe what all of those major science institutions have stated?

 

[Ropey]

Ian, I admit that I don't know everything about climategate, and you're obviously an intelligent person who can discuss the topic rationally, which is good and healthy.

This is my question:

Right now I hear your defense - you claim that the IPCC's credibility is poor, that there are scientists like Mann who are not credible either, and that a few reputable scientists who have started to question the credibility of the mainstream consensus (like Judith Curry). Great, I don't doubt that you think that for a good reason, but now you need to provide some evidence supporting your claim. Not evidence supporting that IPCC is not credible, but evidence supporting the claim that the science consensus is actually starting to turn in large numbers and that the majority of credible research really does not support man-made global warming anymore in such strong numbers (ie an equal work contrasting the 97/100 claim of IPCC).

I think you would need to start by citing the work of an alternate major credible science body/institution - perhaps something along the lines of an alternate intergovernmental panel (or something like that, something that's not organized by a specific or right/left leaning think tank) - who has come together, reviewed without bias the bulk of credible climate research, and concluded that the consensus is not quite as strong as what IPCC said, you know what I mean?

Where is that equivalent, Ian?

I listed some other institutions like NASA, The American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science that side with me, again, where are yours?

The difference here so far is that my argument cites the conclusions of a number of major scientific institutions, your argument simply questions the credibility of those institutions. Which argument do you think is stronger (do you see where I'm getting at)?

Now you can say that you don't believe that the science consensus is correct, and that's fine, and just to clarify - is that what your stance is?

I dont believe the emphysis of climate science consensus is correct. there is a vast gulf between what you accuse me of and what I actually say.

the information available during the 90's was considerably different than today. the possibility of climate disaster was coincidentally much stronger then than now. decisions were made to fasttrack climate research to explore the possibilities and strong statements were made that were weak on actual science. many science societies came down strong on the one side because it was prudent. and easy. since then the data supports a much softer stance but it is much harder to back away from previous statements once they are made. some societies have rachetted down their statements, leaving lawyeresque opinions that could be taken to mean many things with pausible deniability available in the future if needed.

you demand me to produce my army of scientists and their armoury of scientific papers so that we can meet on some imaginary field of war where the size of the opposing forces will determine the outcome. but its not that kind of war, it is ongoing guerilla skermishes where we use your own papers and data against you! our side has basically no funding. for instance Heartland has a few tens of millions in its operating budget and less than five million was spent on climate change information. 5 million is chump change so why is it considered an evil puppetmaster controlling things in the background? I think your side's conspiracy theories are more farfetched than ours. and our side has direct quotes from your superstar climate scientists whereas you guys have resorted to fraud to smear our side. what is your opinion on Gleick? is it OK to be dishonest in the name of the 'Noble Cause'?

does it ever make you wonder why there are so few public debates on CAGW/CC? and why the warmers seem to lose them all? it is because the global warming hypothesis just doesnt seem to be as certain or as important when the framing of the questions is not strickly controlled. and the thinking public is catching on to that.


oh, and by the way, do you know the backstory about the 97% consensus? it is typical of the CAGW distortion of data collection.

Interesting things, @Ian/@Wall, and I will look into them (frankly a bit burnt out on the subject currently) but will look into them. Thanks for the back and forth.

Ian, I understand that the "97%" consensus is not the end all, say all, but as I mentioned before, the consensus on the subject I believe at least falls in the heavy favor of the GACW camp vs that of the denier group.

But like you said, this could possibly be for reasons such as:

1.) Science pointed more heavily to support CAGW in the 1990's, so all of science went in that direction, supporting it, now it's hard to retract. So institutions just sort of say relatively the same thing, despite new data.
2.) The science on the side of CAGW is much more heavily funded, therefore remains the "consensus view" (ie 20 guys get funding who believe in CAGW, 1 guy gets funding who doesn't believe).

So this would mean that a large number of top level research institutes - like the United States National Academy of Sciences - is pushing along this overly extreme CAGW idea, even when their is new and strong evidence stating otherwise, just to save face? To keep their funding?

And from what I can dig up, most of the major national academies of the developed/semi-developed (I suppose for some of these) support the data of the "alarmists" vs the "deniers", including the French Academy of Science, Australian Academy of Sciences, Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts, Brazilian Academy of Sciences, Royal Society of Canada, Caribbean Academy of Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina, Indian National Science Academy, Indonesian Academy of Sciences, Royal Irish Academy, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy), Academy of Sciences Malaysia, Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, and Royal Society (UK).

I'm not a climate expert by any means and never will claim to be. I'm not a scientist either. I'm actually a Supply Chain Analyst and a Stratocaster Enthusiast.

But, I just find it difficult to form an opinion on a subject that I do not study myself that would be in direct contrast with the view of those Academies I list above. Or maybe I'm wrong, perhaps those Academies are changing their tunes, or perhaps I'm mistaken on their viewpoint to begin with.

But can you at least understand where I'm coming from, and why it's so difficult for me to not believe what all of those major science institutions have stated?

I'm not a climate expert by any means and never will claim to be. I'm not a scientist either. I'm actually a Supply Chain Analyst and a Stratocaster Enthusiast.

maybe I'm wrong

 

[KevinWestern]

I'm not a climate expert by any means and never will claim to be. I'm not a scientist either. I'm actually a Supply Chain Analyst and a Stratocaster Enthusiast.

maybe I'm wrong

Manipulating my quotes? WTF.

 

[Ropey]

I'm not a climate expert by any means and never will claim to be. I'm not a scientist either. I'm actually a Supply Chain Analyst and a Stratocaster Enthusiast.

maybe I'm wrong

Manipulating my quotes? WTF.

No, that's the part of your post right above. I quoted what I agreed with. You are not a scientist as you said and you said that either your view is correct or 'maybe you're wrong'.

I think you are wrong and agreed with that possibility you put forwards as well.

 

[KevinWestern]

Manipulating my quotes? WTF.

No, that's the part of your post right above. I quoted what I agreed with. You are not a scientist as you said and you said that either your view is correct or 'maybe you're wrong'.

I think you are wrong and agreed with that possibility you put forwards as well.

Rope - it was out of context. When I said that specific "maybe I'm wrong" I was referring to the fact that maybe I was mistaken in my view thinking that those National Academies issued statements supporting CAGW.

What I didn't say was "I believe in man made global warming, but maybe I'm wrong", which you made it sound like. Quote manipulation.

Anyways, I don't really care (at all), just thought it was kind of dirty.

 

[Ropey]

Manipulating my quotes? WTF.

No, that's the part of your post right above. I quoted what I agreed with. You are not a scientist as you said and you said that either your view is correct or 'maybe you're wrong'.

I think you are wrong and agreed with that possibility you put forwards as well.

Rope - it was out of context. When I said that specific "maybe I'm wrong" I was referring to the fact that maybe I was mistaken in my view thinking that those National Academies issued statements supporting CAGW.

What I didn't say was "I believe in man made global warming, but maybe I'm wrong", which you made it sound like. Quote manipulation.

Anyways, I don't really care (at all), just thought it was kind of dirty.

That's what I am agreeing with. I think you are wrong in that view.

Anyway, I will just use a highlight to introduce what I think about your specifics since you seem to want a full quote.

I'll edit my post above for you.

 

[KevinWestern]

That's what I am agreeing with. I think you are wrong in that view.

Anyway, I will just use a highlight to introduce what I think about your specifics since you seem to want a full quote.

I'll edit my post above for you.

PERFECT.

Just wanted to point it out. Making sure we're all clear.

 

[Ropey]

That's what I am agreeing with. I think you are wrong in that view.

Anyway, I will just use a highlight to introduce what I think about your specifics since you seem to want a full quote.

I'll edit my post above for you.

PERFECT.

Just wanted to point it out. Making sure we're all clear.

Yes, you're clear that you have proofs that you think are important and I'm clear that I've seen far too much fudging of the numbers to be too concerned over something that seems to be cycling backwards.

But hey, like you I could be wrong as well. There's lies, damned lies, and statistics. Statistics get away the most imo.

 

[Old Rocks]

Ropey, observed melting of the glaciers and ice caps are not statistics. Increased troposphere temperatures are not statistics. Nor are the increased temperatures in the oceans, as well as the increased acidity in the oceans.

The scientific basis for AGW goes back to 1859, when Tyndall published his findings on the absorption of infrared radiation by GHGs. The first quantification of the effects of that absorption was done by Arrhenious in 1896, and yes, he did include the effects of water vapor, as every researcher has since.

You can scream fudged numbers, statistic manipulation all you want. That does not change the actual real time observations of the effects of the warming, from increasing numbers and severity of storms, to increased temperatures.

Many of the scientists spent the last couple of decades speaking of the prevention of major consequences of AGW. Today most are speaking of preparing for the consequences, for we are already seeing them happen. The people who keep the best records of this are those that lose money on the consequences, the insurerance companies worldwide. The two biggest insureres of insurance companies, Swiss Re and Munich Re, both state that we are seeing an increase in the number of extreme weather disasters, and an increase in the severity of those disasters.

I have personally observed the reduction of the glaciers in the Cascades, Rockies, and the Sierras. You can go the the USGS site, and get information on all the glaciers in the world, and the fact that the vast majority are in rapid retreat. The Grace Satellite measurements have shown us that the melt in Greenland and Antarctica is now in the giga-tons yearly, and on an accelerating increase. These are real time observations, not models or statistics.