Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds up, leaving litt...

Fair Game wrote:

<quoted text>
That's right!
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Solar_vs...

"The Sun spends around 3/4 of the time at moderate magnetic
activity levels (averaged over 10 years). The remainder of the
time is spent in the state of a grand minimum (about 17%) or
a grand maximum (9% or 22% for the SN-L or SN-S series,
respectively). The solar activity during modern times corresponds
to the grand maximum state."
http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/aa7704-07...

Also see from the above reference, page 303

"Fig. 3. Sunspot activity SN-L throughout the Holocene (see text)
smoothed with a 1-2-2-2-1 filter. Blue and red areas denote grand minima and maxima, respectively. The entire series is spread over two panels for better visibility."

Then why do I get hot when I stand out in the sun?

Fair Game wrote:

<quoted text>
That's right!
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Solar_vs...

Yes, we are all quite skeptical of "Skepticalscience.com ".

Anti-Communist minds prefer the truth:

"warm?

Global warming: Been there, done that. Forward-looking folks are adjusting their fretting machinery now to something called Cycle 25. Button up your overcoats. Ice is on the way.

Global warming, which was mostly a scam invented by researchers looking for government grants, is over. The great warming phenomenon, which was supposed to have sent polar bears to vacation in Miami Beach by now, ended in 1997.

http://blog.governmentgrantsfor.org/what-happ...

flack wrote:

Then why do I get hot when I stand out in the sun?

Stand out in the sun while standing nude on a 15,000 foot mountain in Antarctica in a 40mph wind.

Fair Game wrote:

<quoted text>
It would help if you actually read the history of climate science rather than making up your own version.

It would help even more if you lost the gratuitous snarkiness. It's unbecoming of you.

Fair Game wrote:

<quoted text>
Theorists posited the warming in the 19th century.

Cite, please.

Fair Game wrote:

<quoted text>
It would help if you actually read the history of climate science rather than making up your own version.
Theorists posited the warming in the 19th century.
In the 1950s, observational evidence proved that adding CO2 would cause warming.

Thank you for your comment. The Draft Committee has considered it, and has revised the Society's Communique to recognize the longevity of the proposition that atmospheric CO2 moderates global temperatures. The Draft Committee would welcome any cites from authoritative sources that would enable a more specific statement of the origins of AGW theory to be made in the communique.

Thank you for helping improve the Society's understanding of this important issue.

Earthling-1 wrote:

<quoted text>A couple of edits:
-
...-
un-tested replaced with untested.
climatologically replaced with climatological.

Thank you for your comments. The Draft Committee has considered and accepted them for incorporation in the next Revision of the Communique.

Thank you for helping improve the Society's understanding of this important issue.

Fair Game wrote:

<quoted text>
Error number 2.
Historical temperature data only goes back to the 17th century, or the mid 19th century globally.
Proxy studies show temperatures as relatively stable for the last 10,000 years, with some natural variation up an down.
They do not show a warming trend over the past few thousand years.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons...

Thank you for your comments. The Draft Committee has considered and accepted them for incorporation in the next Revision of the Communique.

Thank you for helping improve the Society's understanding of this important issue.

Teddy R wrote:

The Draft Committee would welcome any cites from authoritative sources that would enable a more specific statement of the origins of AGW theory to be made in the communique.

The Draft Committee should really get off its arse and do some basic reading on the subject instead of talking out of it on a subject it seems to be unfamiliar with.

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm

Fair Game wrote:

<quoted text>
The Draft Committee should really get off its arse and do some basic reading on the subject instead of talking out of it on a subject it seems to be unfamiliar with.
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm

http://www.algonet.se/~anki-p/pyramidologyhis...
http://www.algonet.se/~anki-p/pyramidpower.ht...
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warmin...

Happening this Winter:

Thousands cut off as Europe cold snap continues
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/02/11...

Europe's cold snap claims more victims, travel hit
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/05/us-...

Ice grips Europe's waterways as deadly cold lingers
http://articles.cnn.com/2012-02-10/world/worl...

Cold Weather Kills In Europe
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/30/cold...
-----
Winter of 2009–2010 in Europe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_of_2009%E...

Fair Game wrote:

<quoted text>
Error 3.
The models are not tuned to fit historical climate data.
The models represent known physical processes in the atmosphere and on the Earth.
The models are tested against historical climate data, and do a good job of predicting past climate.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/...

Thank you for your comments. The Draft Committee has considered and accepted them in art for incorporation in the next Revision of the Communique.

The language of the Communique has been revised to more accurately describe the normal processes of numerical model calibration and verification against independent developmental and "test" observational datasets, respectively.

Thank you for helping improve the Society's understanding of this important issue.

Red Hot Lies: How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud, and Deception to Keep You Misinformed [Hardcover]
Christopher C. Horner (Author)
http://www.amazon.ca/Red-Hot-Lies-Alarmists-M...

Heaven and Earth: Global Warming, the Missing Science [Paperback]
Ian Plimer (Author)
http://www.amazon.ca/Heaven-Earth-Warming-Mis...

The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World's Top Climate Scientists [Hardcover]
Roy W Spencer (Author)
http://www.amazon.ca/Great-Global-Warming-Blu...

Hockey Stick Illusion, The: Climategate and the Corruption of Science [Paperback]
A.W MONTFORD (Author)
http://www.amazon.ca/Hockey-Stick-Illusion-Cl...

Climategate: A Veteran Meteorologist Exposes the Global Warming Scam [Hardcover]
Brian Sussman (Author)
http://www.amazon.ca/Climategate-Veteran-Mete...

The Climate Caper: Facts and Fallacies of Global Warming [Paperback]
Garth W. Paltridge (Author)
http://www.amazon.ca/Climate-Caper-Fallacies-...

Climate of Corruption: Politics and Power Behind the Global Warming Hoax [Hardcover]
Larry Bell (Author)
http://www.amazon.ca/Climate-Corruption-Polit...

Fair Game wrote:

<quoted text>
The Draft Committee should really get off its arse and do some basic reading on the subject instead of talking out of it on a subject it seems to be unfamiliar with.
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm

Thank you for your comments. The reference provided in your comment permits the Draft Committee to date the origin of AGW theory (specific to burning of fossil fuels) to 1896, and this will be reflected in the next Revision of the Communique on this subject.

As for your commentary regarding the Draft Committee's posterior anatomy, please be advised that the Committee has no arse. Nor is the Committee a research organization. The Draft Committee is purely an epistemological resource, serving to capture and maintain in the form of a Communique on the subject of AGW theory the Society's current understanding of what is firm knowledge, and what remains a subject or scientific and/or political debate.

The Communique is ultimately the product of the Society's Membership, through contributions like yours.

Thank you for helping improve the Society's understanding of this important issue.

The Society of Concerned Citizen-Scientists has issued the following communiqué(Revision 2) on the subject:
1. Historical temperature data, when composited from disparate sources back to the 17th century, or the mid 19th century globally, displays a warming trend. Proxy studies show global temperatures as being relatively stable for the last 10,000 years, within a range of natural variation. Periods of global warming and cooling can be identified within this timespan.
2. Theorists have since 1896 posited that burning of fossil fuels might increase levels of atmospheric CO2, which in turn could cause climatic warming due to CO2’s known thermodynamic properties.
3. Recent (i.e., Industrial Age) historical climatological data displays warming at an increased rate over the latter half of the 20th century, which correlates with increased rates of anthropomorphic releases of CO2 to the atmosphere over this same time period.
4. This correlation, together with the availability of satellite data verifying the energy-absorptive behavior of atmospheric CO2, water vapor, and other greenhouse gases has led many to conclude that these trends are causally related.
5. Certain investigators have published long-term climate projections based upon the output from numerical models that incorporate a limited set of known natural processes (modeled as forcing functions), including the presumed effects of varying levels of atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and other greenhouse gases.
6. These numerical models have been calibrated and validated against historical climate datasets, so the models more or less agree with observed data. However, there is no reason to believe that the same model parameters would yield accurate and correct results for a supposed future world with different chemistry, for example in a world with increased CO2 in the atmosphere.
7. While the projections of certain climate models dating from circa 1988 display some agreement with the 20 years of available observed data, significant uncertainties with respect to model accuracy remain, and are the object of on-going scientific investigation. The accuracy of the available climate models and their projections of future climate remain unverified by actual climatological data over time periods approaching the periods over which model projections are being made.
8. Nevertheless, these model projections are being much publicized and used as the basis of public policy arguments calling for enforced restrictions in a variety of forms on carbon releases to the environment, on the basis of the presumed threat being too potentially catastrophic to risk deferring action to acquire further improved understanding.
9. These policy proposals are generally untested from the standpoint of relative risk and cost-effectiveness vs. other present-day societal issues that present more immediate and certain threats to human life and well-being, and the diversion of scarce societal resources towards these presumed AGW threats.
10. A compelling case for State-enforced changes in free economic life to address speculative AGW threats therefore remains unconvincing.
Comments and/or statements of concurrence are invited.

Teddy R wrote:

Cite, please.

I can help with that.
-
In 1896, Arrhenius provided the first quantitative analysis of how changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide could alter surface temperatures and ultimately lead to climatic change on a scale comparable with the ice ages. In 1899, Chamberlain similarly linked glacial periods to changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide and posited that water vapor might provide crucial positive feedback to changes in carbon dioxide. In the first decade of the twentieth century, Arrhenius further noted that industrial combustion of coal and other fossil fuels could introduce enough carbon dioxide into the atmosphere to change the temperature of the planet over the course of a few centuries. However, he predicted that warming would be delayed because the oceans would absorb most of the carbon dioxide. Arrhenius further posited various societal benefits from this planetary warming.
-
Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/global-warming#i...
-
I suggest you pay particular atention to the last sentence.

Get the government out of energy markets, keep them out. No more strategic reserves, we'll export to our enemies if they have hard cash.

The government screws everything up, green energy is just the latest. Wait for more money laundering TARP bailout survivors to get restless.

Energy policy based on renewables will win hearts but won't protect their owners from frostbite and death due to exposure

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/...

snip:
"Russia's main gas-company, Gazprom, was unable to meet demand last weekend as blizzards swept across Europe, and over three hundred people died. Did anyone even think of deploying our wind turbines to make good the energy shortfall from Russia?
Of course not. We all know that windmills are a self-indulgent and sanctimonious luxury whose purpose is to make us feel good.
Had Europe genuinely depended on green energy on Friday, by Sunday thousands would be dead from frostbite and exposure, and the EU would have suffered an economic body blow to match that of Japan's tsunami a year ago. No electricity means no water, no trams, no trains, no airports, no traffic lights, no phone systems, no sewerage, no factories, no service stations, no office lifts, no central heating and even no hospitals, once their generators run out of fuel."
**********

It's very easy to romanticize and hypothesize about green energy when one is sitting in their comfortable oil/electric/gas heated abode. The extreme suffering & death because of the lack of energy from green energy policies & production doesn't effect them on a personal level whatsoever.

I wonder if they believe in their 'green cause' so much that they themselves are willing to immensely suffer & die for lack of available energy.

Would they be a willing martyr for their religious crusade for green energy that they say they believe in so much?

A resounding, overwhelming........ NO.

As long as it's someone else that is going without, suffering & dying and not them, their green religious zealotry begins & ends with their pontifications, attempting to make others live they way they would never agree to live.

We don't want protectionism or conservation, we want a choice of inexpensive energy and fuel. Get out!

So what do we think of all the snow and weather in Europe?