Global Colding
Lorne Gunter at the National Post writes about the current brutally cold winter much of the northern hemisphere is experiencing. He points to many experts who do not subscribe to the "consensus" of anthropogenic global warming as well as reeling off some amazing facts about the harsh weather. Some of this will not be new information for regular readers here, but quite a lot is.
Snow cover over North America and much of Siberia, Mongolia and China is greater than at any time since 1966.
The U.S. National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) reported that many American cities and towns suffered record cold temperatures in January and early February. According to the NCDC, the average temperature in January "was -0.3 F cooler than the 1901-2000 (20th century) average."
China is surviving its most brutal winter in a century. Temperatures in the normally balmy south were so low for so long that some middle-sized cities went days and even weeks without electricity because once power lines had toppled it was too cold or too icy to repair them.
There have been so many snow and ice storms in Ontario and Quebec in the past two months that the real estate market has felt the pinch as home buyers have stayed home rather than venturing out looking for new houses.
In just the first two weeks of February, Toronto received 70 cm of snow, smashing the record of 66.6 cm for the entire month set back in the pre-SUV, pre-Kyoto, pre-carbon footprint days of 1950.
And remember the Arctic Sea ice? The ice we were told so hysterically last fall had melted to its "lowest levels on record? Never mind that those records only date back as far as 1972 and that there is anthropological and geological evidence of much greater melts in the past.
The ice is back.
Gilles Langis, a senior forecaster with the Canadian Ice Service in Ottawa, says the Arctic winter has been so severe the ice has not only recovered, it is actually 10 to 20 cm thicker in many places than at this time last year.
It is instructive to look at the Cryosphere Today's website and compare the extent of yesterday's arctic ice to the extent last year. Especially notable is the increase in ice on the west coast of Greenland and the area near Alaska. I'd suggest reading the whole article, which has some new information about major errors of omission in the climate models. It seems they forgot to take into account the impact on wind on the circulation of ocean currents. When those effects are taken into account, the models give completely different results.
John Fund notes that the true believers are redoubling their efforts to stifle dissenters.
John McCain, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton all promise bold action on climate change . All have endorsed a form of cap-and-trade system that would severely limit future carbon emissions. The Democratic Congress is champing at the bit to act. So too is the Climate Action Partnership, a coalition of companies led by General Electric and Duke Energy.
You'd think this would be a rich time for debate on the issue of climate change. But it's precisely as sweeping change on climate policy is becoming likely that many people have decided the time for debate is over. One writer puts climate change skeptics "in a similar moral category to Holocaust denial," another envisions "war crimes trials" for the deniers. And during the tour for his film "An Inconvenient Truth," Al Gore himself belittled "global warming deniers" as unworthy of any attention.
Take the reaction to Danish statistician Bjorn Lomborg's latest book, "Cool It," which calls for a reasoned debate on global warming. Mr. Lomborg himself leans left, and he opens his book by declaring his belief that "humanity has caused a substantial rise in atmospheric carbon-dioxide levels over the past centuries, thereby contributing to global warming." But he has infuriated environmentalists by saying it is necessary to debate "whether hysterical and head-long spending on extravagant CO2-cutting programs at an unprecedented price is the only possible response." To do so, he says, it will be necessary to cool the doomsday rhetoric, allowing a measured discussion about the best ways forward. "Being smart about our future is the reason we have done so well in the past. We should not abandon our smarts now."
Mr. Lomborg's solution is to avoid discredited cap-and-trade programs, in which developing nations limit economic growth while they fruitlessly try to convince booming economies such as India and China to do the same. His alternative: "Let's focus on research and development. Let's focus on noncarbon-emitting technologies like solar, wind, carbon capture, energy efficiency and also, let's realize the solution may come from nuclear fission and fusion." He laments that the climate change issue has been demagogued by ideological groups on both sides, "and the ones who are making panicky or catastrophic claims simply have better press." At the end of the day, he ruefully acknowledges that potential progress and the sorts of solutions he advocates "are just boring things."
Now you know why they are trying to silence critics.
UPDATE: Rich Horton notes a very carefully worded story about advancing glaciers in Antarctica. Rapidly advancing. Melting glaciers recede - these are moving briskly in the opposite direction.
Environment | Gaius Monday, 25 February , 2008
By Gary Gulrud, Monday, 25 February , 2008 @ 1:44 pm
All of us who might be termed ‘contraians’, ‘denialists’ or ‘nihilist Gaia-rapists’ find even Lomborg and his ilk of eco-friendly skeptics an irrelevance. They will be beaten down and eviscerated by the AGW mob eventually and in the meantime offer no practicable middle-ground.
Of his list of priorities for development only efficiency can be agreed upon by all and he avoids completely the Gaia-raping profit grab that is and will be ‘biofuel alternatives’
By Rich Horton, Monday, 25 February , 2008 @ 3:00 pm
And did the see the BBC story on "surging" glaciers (I blogged about it over at my place). There is considerably hemming and hawing over the fact than many Antarctic glaciers seem to be growing…although they are careful not to use the word "growing" or explain how "surging" is different than "growing."
All these damn facts keep getting in the way of their nice little morality tale.
By NortonPete, Monday, 25 February , 2008 @ 4:08 pm
Somewhere in the back of my fuzzy mind is a recent article about Antarctic glaciers and their interaction with a volcano. It is believed that the volcano is warming the bottom of the glacier and allowing it to move more rapidly, but this is happening in just one area of the Antarctic.
I have struggled to explain to people that glaciers move toward the sea because of increasing inland pressure due to increased snow.
When A Woolly Mammoth is shot on Al Gore’s front lawn, perhaps a debate might be reconsidered.
By Steve Burri, Monday, 25 February , 2008 @ 4:31 pm
This is why the purveyors of this pap tried to change the vernacular from ‘global warming’ to ‘climate change’. In this way, even the harshness of this winter can be ascribed to Western man-made global demise.
By NortonPete, Monday, 25 February , 2008 @ 4:58 pm
Gaius,
Consider weather forecasting as a sideline.
Days ago who predicted a storm that would basically come laterally across the country and hit the east coast, you linked to a map of the jet stream, which has stayed consistently low from Arctic air masses.
I think you beat accuweather on this one, as it is just now showing this storm’s major impact. I will be keeping the Crabitad in my thoughts as I dig out from this one.
Perhaps you should market "Crabitad Global Cooling Shells" as a civil defense habitad.
By Gaius, Monday, 25 February , 2008 @ 5:22 pm
Just watch the language when you’re thinking of BCB! I have this mental picture:
"%$@@! BCB! " *Shovelful of snow thrown*, "%$@@! BCB!" *Another shovelful*….
We report, you dig out.
By Rich Horton, Monday, 25 February , 2008 @ 5:26 pm
"Somewhere in the back of my fuzzy mind is a recent article about Antarctic glaciers and their interaction with a volcano. "
Yeah, it gets mentioned in the article. My question is if the glacier isn’t growing larger and is instead just sort of sliding around for various reason, then say so! As written the story simply refuses to say which it is (getting larger, or sliding around). It still would be an open to question (to me at least) as to how the heat of a latent volcano could make a glacier grow larger.
By NortonPete, Monday, 25 February , 2008 @ 5:31 pm
No, I never get angry when shoveling snow. Getting angry and not breathing properly is why so many people have heart attacks shoveling snow.
I enjoy the time, I put out a load of birdseed, listen to the birds and take my time. A snowstorm is a bit of a "timeout", and should be enjoyed.
I’ll probably go yelling at a telemarketer on nice sunny day.
By NortonPete, Monday, 25 February , 2008 @ 5:36 pm
Rich,
Good point.
They should be able to easily determine that by measuring the altitude/height of the glacier and any changes in that data. Something a satellite could do. They need to look for the answer not cherry pick data, but pay me $150K and send me on an all expenses trip to Antarctica and I tell you whatever you pay me to say.
By Rich Horton, Monday, 25 February , 2008 @ 5:41 pm
I don’t think there is any reason to go all the way to Antarctica. I’d think Sydney would be close enough…maybe a bar near a beach…I mean "research institute" located near oceanic bodies.
By Gaius, Monday, 25 February , 2008 @ 5:47 pm
I’m up for a trip to Sydney. For research purposes, of course. All the Crabitat needs is a benefactor. With really deep pockets.
After all, it’s for the penguins.
By Sir Oolius, Monday, 25 February , 2008 @ 5:54 pm
keeping it clean, I see…
By terrence, Monday, 25 February , 2008 @ 6:59 pm
The Antarctica has been getting thicker for a few years now, a lot thicker; the thickest recorded. This new thickness is what pushes the edges of it out to sea.
BTW, in the article called "The Cooling World" that Newsweek magazine ran in April 28, 1975, the phrase “climate change’ was used. You can get a pdf of it http://www.winningreen.com/site/epage/52303_621.htm
By Mwalimu Daudi, Monday, 25 February , 2008 @ 7:47 pm
After all, it’s for the penguins.
What about the polar bears? Is it discrimination to fail to mention polar bears? Shouldn’t you also take a trip to Sweden or Norway so that no one accuses you of being a "speciesist"?
By Gaius, Monday, 25 February , 2008 @ 7:52 pm
I welcome the blank check, Mwalimu! I assure you the money will be spent in a completely non-speciest manner!
(Small denomination bills with non-sequential serial numbers also cheerfully accepted.)
By NortonPete, Monday, 25 February , 2008 @ 7:57 pm
Ok, I got it , you are going to take a check and go to Sydney and study polar bears, yeah, thats the ticket, polar bears at the Sydney zoo. Make it into a movie and it might get you a Nobel prize.
By Rich Horton, Monday, 25 February , 2008 @ 9:00 pm
I am prefectly willing to drink beer…again, sorry, I mean carry out a scientific investigation of the "local waters" in Tromso, providing the trip takes place in July when…..um….OH I know…the Global Warming will be at its warmiest.
I couldn’t make it to Bali, so this will be the next best thing I’m sure.
By Gaius, Monday, 25 February , 2008 @ 9:07 pm
After all, it is all about the science.
By David M, Tuesday, 26 February , 2008 @ 1:40 pm
The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the - <a href="http://thunderrun.blogspot.com/2008/02/web-reconnaissance-for-02262008.html"> Web Reconnaissance for 02/26/2008 </a> A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often.