It ain't an April Fool joke, 15 inches of snow in Vt.

[whitehall]

There have been winter storm warnings throughout the north west and central states as far south as Arizona and New Mexico since spring started and the 1st day of April features heavy snow throughout Vermont. Actually it isn't unusual but it illustrates how ludicrous the hysterical claims of the global warming crowd have turned out to be.

 

[CeeCee]

I believe you, I know some people in Maine and they've been having lots of snow lately.

I know it can happen even in April but this years seems especially bad.

 

[DarkFury]

According to Al Gore...."Global warming causes global cooling".
Yup, he said it!

 

[OldLady]

I believe you, I know some people in Maine and they've been having lots of snow lately.

I know it can happen even in April but this years seems especially bad.

It has been a cold March, but the winter was unusually warm overall. A friend in southern Maine texted a picture yesterday of crocus up in her yard. Spring moves north like a palpable thing this time of year. If I drove four hours south in a few weeks, forsythia and all that would be blooming. We'll get it a few weeks later.
Don't believe that because it snowed on April 1 that is a sign of anything. It is totally normal in Vermont and northern New England and upstate New York in April. I remember one snow storm twenty years ago in New York in May. Eight inches of snow on the blooming lilacs. These climate change deniers think it has to be tropically warm EVERY DAY to prove global warming. Which shows how little they know about any of it.

 

[CeeCee]

Global warming is one issue that I'm not convinced of on either side. Maybe convinced isn't the right word...I'm just not sure where I stand on this.

 

[OldLady]

Global warming is one issue that I'm not convinced of on either side. Maybe convinced isn't the right word...I'm just not sure where I stand on this.

It has gotten a little warmer, averaged world wide. And the rapidity of the warming is much faster than it has been in the past. Those things we know from thermometers and ice core samples. We can't deny the substantial shrinking of the glaciers and the subsequent rise in sea level, either. But whether it can be stopped or whether CO2 has anything to do with it is the question. These deniers, on the other hand, apparently are deeply suspicious of thermometers.

 

[CeeCee]

Thanks for the info OldLady, I just haven't really researched this subject too much and I know as a conservative what my views should be, lol but I don't follow the left or right agenda to a T.

If it's true, I will admit it...I'm not there yet though.

 

[OldLady]

Thanks for the info OldLady, I just haven't really researched this subject too much and I know as a conservative what my views should be, lol but I don't follow the left or right agenda to a T.

If it's true, I will admit it...I'm not there yet though.

It's not one of those things I spend a lot of time thinking about either.

 

[Hossfly]

I believe you, I know some people in Maine and they've been having lots of snow lately.

I know it can happen even in April but this years seems especially bad.

It has been a cold March, but the winter was unusually warm overall. A friend in southern Maine texted a picture yesterday of crocus up in her yard. Spring moves north like a palpable thing this time of year. If I drove four hours south in a few weeks, forsythia and all that would be blooming. We'll get it a few weeks later.
Don't believe that because it snowed on April 1 that is a sign of anything. It is totally normal in Vermont and northern New England and upstate New York in April. I remember one snow storm twenty years ago in New York in May. Eight inches of snow on the blooming lilacs. These climate change deniers think it has to be tropically warm EVERY DAY to prove global warming. Which shows how little they know about any of it.

​

 

[Hossfly]

Thanks for the info OldLady, I just haven't really researched this subject too much and I know as a conservative what my views should be, lol but I don't follow the left or right agenda to a T.

If it's true, I will admit it...I'm not there yet though.

It's not one of those things I spend a lot of time thinking about either.

​

 

[SYTFE]

Hoss is on a roll.

 

[RodISHI]

There have been winter storm warnings throughout the north west and central states as far south as Arizona and New Mexico since spring started and the 1st day of April features heavy snow throughout Vermont. Actually it isn't unusual but it illustrates how ludicrous the hysterical claims of the global warming crowd have turned out to be.

A family member said it was snowing in Southern Idaho yesterday.

 

[Hossfly]

Hoss is on a roll.

​

 

[flacaltenn]

Global warming is one issue that I'm not convinced of on either side. Maybe convinced isn't the right word...I'm just not sure where I stand on this.

It has gotten a little warmer, averaged world wide. And the rapidity of the warming is much faster than it has been in the past. Those things we know from thermometers and ice core samples. We can't deny the substantial shrinking of the glaciers and the subsequent rise in sea level, either. But whether it can be stopped or whether CO2 has anything to do with it is the question. These deniers, on the other hand, apparently are deeply suspicious of thermometers.

No --- not suspicious of thermometers in the 20th century anyways. But I AM suspicious about the hysterical claims that it's "warming faster than the last xxx Thousand years". Because -- there were no thermometers. And you don't find ice cores GLOBALLY, and tree rings are NOT great thermometers, and the little mud bug shells also used in proxies for those "ancient" temperature studies can't be accurately dated because the little buggers dig and burrow in what is 100s of years of vertical mud in those "core samples". So the bottom line is -- the 0.8degC warming in your lifetime is probably NOT truely exceptional looked at on a climate scale of thousands of years. And all those "proxy studies" lack the time resolution and distributed spatial sampling of the globe to FIND a 1degC change over a 100 years. In fact, they can not find much in the way of variance over spans of 300 to 500 years. So no real conclusions can be made about "natural climate variabilty" from them. Although -- it's now a form of urban legend that they "proved it". .

The rate of warming is NOT increasing as predicted, and most of the 1980s predictions have already failed. CO2 plays a ROLE in this probably, but is NOT the dominant apocalyptic trigger to destroy the planet that it's been made out to be.

 

[whitehall]

I believe you, I know some people in Maine and they've been having lots of snow lately.

I know it can happen even in April but this years seems especially bad.

It has been a cold March, but the winter was unusually warm overall. A friend in southern Maine texted a picture yesterday of crocus up in her yard. Spring moves north like a palpable thing this time of year. If I drove four hours south in a few weeks, forsythia and all that would be blooming. We'll get it a few weeks later.
Don't believe that because it snowed on April 1 that is a sign of anything. It is totally normal in Vermont and northern New England and upstate New York in April. I remember one snow storm twenty years ago in New York in May. Eight inches of snow on the blooming lilacs. These climate change deniers think it has to be tropically warm EVERY DAY to prove global warming. Which shows how little they know about any of it.

It's my point. I remember skiing in NY on Easter years ago. Snow and daffodils in spring are something to enjoy rather than a political sucker punch created by an angry politician who wanted to make a buck selling carbon credits.

 

[Old Rocks]

Thanks for the info OldLady, I just haven't really researched this subject too much and I know as a conservative what my views should be, lol but I don't follow the left or right agenda to a T.

If it's true, I will admit it...I'm not there yet though.

If you really mean that, here is a place to start serious research. It is a site of the American Institute of Physics, the largest scientific society in the world.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

 

[Old Rocks]

Thanks for the info OldLady, I just haven't really researched this subject too much and I know as a conservative what my views should be, lol but I don't follow the left or right agenda to a T.

If it's true, I will admit it...I'm not there yet though.

It's not one of those things I spend a lot of time thinking about either.

As I am working on a degree in geology, at 73, it is something I think about a lot. And having banged around in the mountains, Cascades, North Cascades, Blues, Wallowas, Rockies, Sierra Nevadas, and even the Canadian Rockies, I have seen, since the 1960's, the snow fields and glaciers in those mountains steadily decline. And, decade by decade, the snows get later and melt earlier. Agriculture in many places depend in the late summer on the snow melt for water. And that is disappearing.

 

[Old Rocks]

Global warming is one issue that I'm not convinced of on either side. Maybe convinced isn't the right word...I'm just not sure where I stand on this.

It has gotten a little warmer, averaged world wide. And the rapidity of the warming is much faster than it has been in the past. Those things we know from thermometers and ice core samples. We can't deny the substantial shrinking of the glaciers and the subsequent rise in sea level, either. But whether it can be stopped or whether CO2 has anything to do with it is the question. These deniers, on the other hand, apparently are deeply suspicious of thermometers.

No --- not suspicious of thermometers in the 20th century anyways. But I AM suspicious about the hysterical claims that it's "warming faster than the last xxx Thousand years". Because -- there were no thermometers. And you don't find ice cores GLOBALLY, and tree rings are NOT great thermometers, and the little mud bug shells also used in proxies for those "ancient" temperature studies can't be accurately dated because the little buggers dig and burrow in what is 100s of years of vertical mud in those "core samples". So the bottom line is -- the 0.8degC warming in your lifetime is probably NOT truely exceptional looked at on a climate scale of thousands of years. And all those "proxy studies" lack the time resolution and distributed spatial sampling of the globe to FIND a 1degC change over a 100 years. In fact, they can not find much in the way of variance over spans of 300 to 500 years. So no real conclusions can be made about "natural climate variabilty" from them. Although -- it's now a form of urban legend that they "proved it". .

The rate of warming is NOT increasing as predicted, and most of the 1980s predictions have already failed. CO2 plays a ROLE in this probably, but is NOT the dominant apocalyptic trigger to destroy the planet that it's been made out to be.

How many lies can you pack in a couple of paragraphs? We do know the rates of warming in the past, and we know that right now we are exceeding all but the most extreme of them. And there were significant extinctions in those periods.

You did not forget the evidence that isotopes give us, you purposely omitted mentioning the vast evidence we have from those. In fact, we know from the evidence that the changes at the beginning and end of the Younger Dryas occurred in ten to 100 years. So yes, we can measure to a century resolution.

Thus far, other than those worried about the Arctic Ocean clathrates, I have not see 'apocalyptic' warnings from the scientists. There primary warning is that the climate change that we are driving with the addition of GHGs from burning fossil fuels will result in major food shortages in a world of 7+ billion humans.

We have had three record warm years in a row. And 2017 looks like it will rank in the top ten. The cryosphere is acting in a very odd way at both poles, far more rapid than predictions. And we now know that the West Antarctic Ice Shelf is disintegrating, and even though that is decades, we hope, in the future, that still represents a rise in sea level that will put the major ports under water. I would say that it is warming faster than expected, or that the effects of minor temperature rise are far more serious than we thought. The latter is the worst case scenerio.

 

[flacaltenn]

How many lies can you pack in a couple of paragraphs? We do know the rates of warming in the past, and we know that right now we are exceeding all but the most extreme of them. And there were significant extinctions in those periods.

Absolutely not. Marcott admits his methodology for past 10000 yrs or so is INCAPABLE of accurately resolving temperature dynamics that occur in LESS THAN 500 years. And the same applies to similar studies done on "hockey sticks" by Mann and others.

And even at 300 years, the variance is seriously degraded. Those proxy studies can NOT be used to compare
"rates of rise" on temperature to our modern GLOBAL and satellite capabilities today. Been over this 11 times with you before and you either don't understand the limitations of those proxy studies or you just NEED to call me a liar.

You did not forget the evidence that isotopes give us, you purposely omitted mentioning the vast evidence we have from those. In fact, we know from the evidence that the changes at the beginning and end of the Younger Dryas occurred in ten to 100 years. So yes, we can measure to a century resolution.

That information on Y-Dryas was INFERRED from paleo evidence -- not from a temperature proxy. And a GLOBAL study using so many different "poor thermometers" is gonna be bounded by the LESS accurate proxy types. So in the case of isotope studies from mud bug shells, for example, once they are melded with ice cores and tree rings any SIGNIFICANCE of the resulting GLOBAL study is reduced. If you look at isotope studies INDIVIDUALLY, for ONE type of proxy and ONE place on the Globe, you WILL get higher resolutions. And those higher LOCAL studies as I've shown you 11 times WILL have MAYBE a hundred year resolution, but not with FULL PEAK values.

The pollen isotope studies I showed you for SHORTER periods of time in the past at SINGLE geo locations actually PROVE my point. That the natural HISTORICAL climate variance FAR exceeds that shown by the hockey stick studies. So either way --- you lose...

We have had three record warm years in a row. And 2017 looks like it will rank in the top ten. The cryosphere is acting in a very odd way at both poles, far more rapid than predictions. And we now know that the West Antarctic Ice Shelf is disintegrating, and

Antarctic Ice Shelf is NOT "disintegrating". It is less stable than ASSUMED. BUT, there are other LIKELY causes for that. Not the least of which is active VULCANISM just below critical areas of that West Shelf.

I'm not interested in debating YEAR TO YEAR numbers. That's not climate. That's weather. And not going thru all these issues again -- since you've failed in the past to ABSORB any of the discussion or even entertain an interest in ANY SALIENT info that does not fit your "apocalyptic faith" that the planet will literally DESTROY itself over a 2degC "trigger temperature".


.

 

[Old Rocks]

There you go again. No the planet will not destroy itself over a 2 C rise in temperature. But there will be major effects, and most of them will be negative. And, if you are in a third world nation, as starve as a result of that, I imagine that you would regard it as apocalyptic.