Lake Superior 20 degrees warmer than normal

[Chris]

DULUTH, Minn. (AP) — Normally frigid Lake Superior has warmed up faster than usual this summer due to a winter with little ice and a record-warm spring, according to researchers.

Surface temperatures are about 20 degrees higher than normal for this time of year and could be on their way to record highs, researchers at the University of Minnesota Duluth's Large Lakes Observatory said.

Lake Superior warms up earlier than usual, with July temps about 20 degrees above normal - latimes.com

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So?

 

[skookerasbil]

DULUTH, Minn. (AP) — Normally frigid Lake Superior has warmed up faster than usual this summer due to a winter with little ice and a record-warm spring, according to researchers.

Surface temperatures are about 20 degrees higher than normal for this time of year and could be on their way to record highs, researchers at the University of Minnesota Duluth's Large Lakes Observatory said.

Lake Superior warms up earlier than usual, with July temps about 20 degrees above normal - latimes.com

Whooop-di-dooo s0n..........they are skiing in Northern California this weekend........latest they've every kept the mountain open, and it snowed in New Hampshire last week.

So whats the point???

 

[westwall]

Just more typical pompous doom and gloom from the cultists.

 

[elvis]

DULUTH, Minn. (AP) — Normally frigid Lake Superior has warmed up faster than usual this summer due to a winter with little ice and a record-warm spring, according to researchers.

Surface temperatures are about 20 degrees higher than normal for this time of year and could be on their way to record highs, researchers at the University of Minnesota Duluth's Large Lakes Observatory said.

Lake Superior warms up earlier than usual, with July temps about 20 degrees above normal - latimes.com

why don't you go drown yourself in it?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

DULUTH, Minn. (AP) — Normally frigid Lake Superior has warmed up faster than usual this summer due to a winter with little ice and a record-warm spring, according to researchers.

Surface temperatures are about 20 degrees higher than normal for this time of year and could be on their way to record highs, researchers at the University of Minnesota Duluth's Large Lakes Observatory said.

Lake Superior warms up earlier than usual, with July temps about 20 degrees above normal - latimes.com

What a misleading article, and then some idiot claims that global warming is responsible for the thermal layers being more active. that is about as intelligent as claiming that global warming is the cause of heavier snowfall.

Do you have any idea how much energy it would take to directly heat Lake Superior 20 degrees? Lake Superior is larger than the rest of the Great Lakes combined, and in order for the weather there to be directly, and solely, responsible for a 20 degree temperature difference the air temps would have to be above 100 for weeks. Constantly above 100.

This is why thinking people react with skepticism to AGW, you people will snatch at anything as proof of your theory, and totally disregard science and common sense. There is no way enough energy was poured into that water to effect a 20 degree temperature spike, we would have noticed. This is a simple weather pattern that resulted in some unusual temperatures, a bit like the one that resulted in the unusual snow fall in the Rocky Mountains this spring.

 

[konradv]

that is about as intelligent as claiming that global warming is the cause of heavier snowfall.

Denying that GW could lead to more snowfall in some places, shows a total lack of understanding of the topic. How much intelligence does it take to realize that warmer temps would lead to more moisture in the atmosphere, anyway?!?!

 

[Gatekeeper]

And those swimmers told us that they DIDN'T pee in the water!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

that is about as intelligent as claiming that global warming is the cause of heavier snowfall.

Denying that GW could lead to more snowfall in some places, shows a total lack of understanding of the topic. How much intelligence does it take to realize that warmer temps would lead to more moisture in the atmosphere, anyway?!?!

Global warming means it gets warmer everywhere, all the time. That means less snowfall overall and more rain overall. Confusing weather and climate shows a complete lack of understanding of the entire concepts involved. Maybe you should spend a little time studying the models that the AGW crowd puts out before you start accusing me of not understanding the topic.

 

[Old Rocks]

that is about as intelligent as claiming that global warming is the cause of heavier snowfall.

Denying that GW could lead to more snowfall in some places, shows a total lack of understanding of the topic. How much intelligence does it take to realize that warmer temps would lead to more moisture in the atmosphere, anyway?!?!

Global warming means it gets warmer everywhere, all the time. That means less snowfall overall and more rain overall. Confusing weather and climate shows a complete lack of understanding of the entire concepts involved. Maybe you should spend a little time studying the models that the AGW crowd puts out before you start accusing me of not understanding the topic.

And you recieved your Phd in Climatology at which university?

No, none of what you claim is true. Perhaps you should review a little history concerning weather and climate patterns. For it is obvious from your posts that you have never done so.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

How to get a degree in Global Warming Science.

1. Find a place where it's warm, say, "See that?! Global Warming!"

2. Find a place where it's cool, say, "See that?! Global Warming!"

3. Pass Go. Collect $200 from East Angelia IPCC Insane Clown Posse

 

[CrusaderFrank]

IPCC Insane Posse of Clown Climatologists

 

[Quantum Windbag]

that is about as intelligent as claiming that global warming is the cause of heavier snowfall.

Denying that GW could lead to more snowfall in some places, shows a total lack of understanding of the topic. How much intelligence does it take to realize that warmer temps would lead to more moisture in the atmosphere, anyway?!?!

Global warming means it gets warmer everywhere, all the time. That means less snowfall overall and more rain overall. Confusing weather and climate shows a complete lack of understanding of the entire concepts involved. Maybe you should spend a little time studying the models that the AGW crowd puts out before you start accusing me of not understanding the topic.

And you recieved your Phd in Climatology at which university?

No, none of what you claim is true. Perhaps you should review a little history concerning weather and climate patterns. For it is obvious from your posts that you have never done so.

Because I understand the difference between climate and weather I am ignorant?

Let me explain this to you in simple words, as you obviously have a problem with the concepts involved. Most scientist believe that year to year variations in weather cannot be linked to climate change as easily as you want us to believe. Yet you want to sit back and point to everything that happens as proof of global warming, all it proves is that weather happens.

 

[Chris]

Global warming means it gets warmer everywhere, all the time. That means less snowfall overall and more rain overall. Confusing weather and climate shows a complete lack of understanding of the entire concepts involved. Maybe you should spend a little time studying the models that the AGW crowd puts out before you start accusing me of not understanding the topic.

And you recieved your Phd in Climatology at which university?

No, none of what you claim is true. Perhaps you should review a little history concerning weather and climate patterns. For it is obvious from your posts that you have never done so.

Because I understand the difference between climate and weather I am ignorant?

Let me explain this to you in simple words, as you obviously have a problem with the concepts involved. Most scientist believe that year to year variations in weather cannot be linked to climate change as easily as you want us to believe. Yet you want to sit back and point to everything that happens as proof of global warming, all it proves is that weather happens.

Yes, evidence is not something the deniers will accept.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

And you recieved your Phd in Climatology at which university?

No, none of what you claim is true. Perhaps you should review a little history concerning weather and climate patterns. For it is obvious from your posts that you have never done so.

Because I understand the difference between climate and weather I am ignorant?

Let me explain this to you in simple words, as you obviously have a problem with the concepts involved. Most scientist believe that year to year variations in weather cannot be linked to climate change as easily as you want us to believe. Yet you want to sit back and point to everything that happens as proof of global warming, all it proves is that weather happens.

Yes, evidence is not something the deniers will accept.

Stories are not evidence, they are just stories. Evidence is long term trends, not taking everything that happens and blindly accepting that it is proof of global warming. Like i said, all weather proves is that weather exists. Where are all those super hurricanes we are supposed to be experiencing?

Is the world getting warmer?

Yes.

Does that mean that every single event that happens anywhere in the world is a direct result of global warming?

No.

Do we really know what is causing global warming?

No.

Is there strong evidence that global warming will actually benefit more countries than it hurts?

Yes.

Call me a denier all you want, but unless you can answer every question I just posed exactly the same way I just did you are the one that has a problem with facts. You are just as stupid as Palin when she insists that we need to work to stem the tide of global warming even though we do not know exactly what causes it, how much of an effect we have on it, or even if we can reduce it.

If the global AGW alarmists are right in their numbers we will be forced to kill off a significant portion of the world's population, and stifle all economic development in third world countries, while simultaneously forcing the developed countries to go back to 19th century technology. Unless you are up for mass genocide
That
Will
Not
Happen.

Since that will not happen, I suggest a more reasonable apporach. We devote some research to adapting to the climate instead of wasting time and effort we do not have to reach a goal we cannot approach.

By all means, keep spouting your dogma instead of looking for a real solution, and keep calling the people who can see the truth deniers. I am sure it makes you feel better, but it does nothing to address the real problem, if it is a problem. I think the evidence points to the fact that most people will be better off in a warmer climate.

The Sahara will probably be fertile again. The Northwest Passage will open up, greatly reducing shipping costs, and benefiting Canada's economy.

Sure, some areas that are now above sea level will be below sea level, but that doesn't seem to have had a massive impact in Holland. What exactly is the problem here anyway?

 

[westwall]

that is about as intelligent as claiming that global warming is the cause of heavier snowfall.

Denying that GW could lead to more snowfall in some places, shows a total lack of understanding of the topic. How much intelligence does it take to realize that warmer temps would lead to more moisture in the atmosphere, anyway?!?!

Global warming means it gets warmer everywhere, all the time. That means less snowfall overall and more rain overall. Confusing weather and climate shows a complete lack of understanding of the entire concepts involved. Maybe you should spend a little time studying the models that the AGW crowd puts out before you start accusing me of not understanding the topic.

And you recieved your Phd in Climatology at which university?

No, none of what you claim is true. Perhaps you should review a little history concerning weather and climate patterns. For it is obvious from your posts that you have never done so.

And you obtained ANY degree in ANY physical science at what University?

The argument doesn't matter a hill of beans dood. There are many amateur scientists who would give any PhD a run for their money. Look at almost any field and you'll find an amateur who made a significant discovery.

 

[Old Rocks]

Because I understand the difference between climate and weather I am ignorant?

Let me explain this to you in simple words, as you obviously have a problem with the concepts involved. Most scientist believe that year to year variations in weather cannot be linked to climate change as easily as you want us to believe. Yet you want to sit back and point to everything that happens as proof of global warming, all it proves is that weather happens.

Yes, evidence is not something the deniers will accept.

Stories are not evidence, they are just stories. Evidence is long term trends, not taking everything that happens and blindly accepting that it is proof of global warming. Like i said, all weather proves is that weather exists. Where are all those super hurricanes we are supposed to be experiencing?

Is the world getting warmer?

Yes.

Does that mean that every single event that happens anywhere in the world is a direct result of global warming?

No.

Do we really know what is causing global warming?

No.

Is there strong evidence that global warming will actually benefit more countries than it hurts?

Yes.

Call me a denier all you want, but unless you can answer every question I just posed exactly the same way I just did you are the one that has a problem with facts. You are just as stupid as Palin when she insists that we need to work to stem the tide of global warming even though we do not know exactly what causes it, how much of an effect we have on it, or even if we can reduce it.

If the global AGW alarmists are right in their numbers we will be forced to kill off a significant portion of the world's population, and stifle all economic development in third world countries, while simultaneously forcing the developed countries to go back to 19th century technology. Unless you are up for mass genocide
That
Will
Not
Happen.

Since that will not happen, I suggest a more reasonable apporach. We devote some research to adapting to the climate instead of wasting time and effort we do not have to reach a goal we cannot approach.

By all means, keep spouting your dogma instead of looking for a real solution, and keep calling the people who can see the truth deniers. I am sure it makes you feel better, but it does nothing to address the real problem, if it is a problem. I think the evidence points to the fact that most people will be better off in a warmer climate.

The Sahara will probably be fertile again. The Northwest Passage will open up, greatly reducing shipping costs, and benefiting Canada's economy.

Sure, some areas that are now above sea level will be below sea level, but that doesn't seem to have had a massive impact in Holland. What exactly is the problem here anyway?[/QUOTE]

Your massive ignorance.

http://www.nap.edu/html/climatechange-brief/abruptclimatechange-brief.pdf

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Yes, evidence is not something the deniers will accept.

Stories are not evidence, they are just stories. Evidence is long term trends, not taking everything that happens and blindly accepting that it is proof of global warming. Like i said, all weather proves is that weather exists. Where are all those super hurricanes we are supposed to be experiencing?

Is the world getting warmer?

Yes.

Does that mean that every single event that happens anywhere in the world is a direct result of global warming?

No.

Do we really know what is causing global warming?

No.

Is there strong evidence that global warming will actually benefit more countries than it hurts?

Yes.

Call me a denier all you want, but unless you can answer every question I just posed exactly the same way I just did you are the one that has a problem with facts. You are just as stupid as Palin when she insists that we need to work to stem the tide of global warming even though we do not know exactly what causes it, how much of an effect we have on it, or even if we can reduce it.

If the global AGW alarmists are right in their numbers we will be forced to kill off a significant portion of the world's population, and stifle all economic development in third world countries, while simultaneously forcing the developed countries to go back to 19th century technology. Unless you are up for mass genocide
That
Will
Not
Happen.

Since that will not happen, I suggest a more reasonable apporach. We devote some research to adapting to the climate instead of wasting time and effort we do not have to reach a goal we cannot approach.

By all means, keep spouting your dogma instead of looking for a real solution, and keep calling the people who can see the truth deniers. I am sure it makes you feel better, but it does nothing to address the real problem, if it is a problem. I think the evidence points to the fact that most people will be better off in a warmer climate.

The Sahara will probably be fertile again. The Northwest Passage will open up, greatly reducing shipping costs, and benefiting Canada's economy.

Sure, some areas that are now above sea level will be below sea level, but that doesn't seem to have had a massive impact in Holland. What exactly is the problem here anyway?[/QUOTE]

Your massive ignorance.

http://www.nap.edu/html/climatechange-brief/abruptclimatechange-brief.pdf

I hate to break this to you, but we are talking about two different things. Global warming is a slow and gradual process, abrupt climate change is something that happens quickly. That is the problem with trying to reason with alarmists, everything supports their theory, even if it directly contradicts it.

 

[westwall]

Yes, evidence is not something the deniers will accept.

Stories are not evidence, they are just stories. Evidence is long term trends, not taking everything that happens and blindly accepting that it is proof of global warming. Like i said, all weather proves is that weather exists. Where are all those super hurricanes we are supposed to be experiencing?

Is the world getting warmer?

Yes.

Does that mean that every single event that happens anywhere in the world is a direct result of global warming?

No.

Do we really know what is causing global warming?

No.

Is there strong evidence that global warming will actually benefit more countries than it hurts?

Yes.

Call me a denier all you want, but unless you can answer every question I just posed exactly the same way I just did you are the one that has a problem with facts. You are just as stupid as Palin when she insists that we need to work to stem the tide of global warming even though we do not know exactly what causes it, how much of an effect we have on it, or even if we can reduce it.

If the global AGW alarmists are right in their numbers we will be forced to kill off a significant portion of the world's population, and stifle all economic development in third world countries, while simultaneously forcing the developed countries to go back to 19th century technology. Unless you are up for mass genocide
That
Will
Not
Happen.

Since that will not happen, I suggest a more reasonable apporach. We devote some research to adapting to the climate instead of wasting time and effort we do not have to reach a goal we cannot approach.

By all means, keep spouting your dogma instead of looking for a real solution, and keep calling the people who can see the truth deniers. I am sure it makes you feel better, but it does nothing to address the real problem, if it is a problem. I think the evidence points to the fact that most people will be better off in a warmer climate.

The Sahara will probably be fertile again. The Northwest Passage will open up, greatly reducing shipping costs, and benefiting Canada's economy.

Sure, some areas that are now above sea level will be below sea level, but that doesn't seem to have had a massive impact in Holland. What exactly is the problem here anyway?[/QUOTE]

Your massive ignorance.

http://www.nap.edu/html/climatechange-brief/abruptclimatechange-brief.pdf

I hate to break it to you old fraud but the only people demonstrating massive ignorance are you cultisits...as Chris likes to ask..which activist group do you work for?

 

[konradv]

that is about as intelligent as claiming that global warming is the cause of heavier snowfall.

Denying that GW could lead to more snowfall in some places, shows a total lack of understanding of the topic. How much intelligence does it take to realize that warmer temps would lead to more moisture in the atmosphere, anyway?!?!

Global warming means it gets warmer everywhere, all the time. That means less snowfall overall and more rain overall. Confusing weather and climate shows a complete lack of understanding of the entire concepts involved. Maybe you should spend a little time studying the models that the AGW crowd puts out before you start accusing me of not understanding the topic.

No it doesn't. Besides, just because it's warmer, doesn't mean it won't snow. Warm your average winter temp from say 20 to 25 F and it WILL snow and there WILL be more because warmer air carries more moisture. If there's anyone that's trying to confuse things, it's you. What's so hard to understand about gases absorbing energy. More gases, more trapped energy. How can we expect anything but warming, if the trend continues? We know that man puts out more CO2 in days than all the volcanoes on earth do in a year, so where are those excess gases coming from?