Interesting piece on Lintzen/climate change

[SnowbirdDevotee]

what i find fascinating is how much these european glaciers grew in the 1700's. wiping away towns that were there for hundreds of years. why did that happen? decreased CO2? of course alarmists have no need for history, they rely on complex mathematical models of slivers of tree rings etc for their history. climate change is nothing new whatsoever. and for millenniums there have been voodoo priest conning the masses and taking their money promising to fix things. let's sacrifice a few more virgin mountaintop by covering them with junk to satisfy our guilt. that's show we are serious about this problem.

a glacier calving and pushing forward like that video is not a sign of a glacier receding or global warming - it's a glacier pushing forward in dumping into the sea, because it has built up for eons. of course there are silly theories that it is melt water underneath and it's now riding a sliding board downward. but i think that glacier was in Greenland?, where they barely see above 32F temp.'s in the summer.

[rfarren]

a glacier calving and pushing forward like that video is not a sign of a glacier receding or global warming - it's a glacier pushing forward in dumping into the sea, because it has built up for eons. of course there are silly theories that it is melt water underneath and it's now riding a sliding board downward. but i think that glacier was in Greenland?, where they barely see above 32F temp.'s in the summer.

Based on your response I have to assume that you didn't watch the video to the end. Perhaps you don't agree with the implied assumptions made at the end of the video and chose not to watch it. Heck, I get it... the climate has been in a state of flux since gravity formed the earth, so naturally it makes sense to be skeptical. However, it's the speed of the change that most climate scientists focus on. Furthermore, I've been listening to Joe Bastardi talk about global cooling, but that hasn't happened either. At best the climate seems to have leveled to some degree, but most of the graphs I have seen that support that theory use 1998 as a starting date. Oddly, if you use 1999 as the starting date the climate has shown a slight warming to 2014.

In the end common sense should rule, and I really think it's very logical to assume that human activity can collectively affect the climate. I doubt the most dire aspects of reports such as the IPCC report are fully accurate due the whole feedback loop thingamabob not being fully understood, but to say that humans can't alter the climate is just dumb. Organisms have affected the climate before: just think of the lowly green algae (they introduced oxygen and fundamentally altered the climate).

[SnowbirdDevotee]

>However, it's the speed of the change that most climate scientists focus on.
the speed of change is at most 1F since 1940, the climate scientists focus on saying whatever will horrify you.
The IPCC blames humans for the warming since 1950, the rate of warming from 1880-1940 was actually a little higher speed than the warming from 1977-1998.
Climate scientists are fraudulent hucksters! They focus on 1 in 10-20,000 parts of the atmosphere that have changed while essentially ignoring the oceans. They say, we just don't know what else would have caused, totally ignoring the preponderance of El Nino's from 1977-1998.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/
And now since we have been in a neutral or slightly negative La Nino phase for 16 years, there is no warming. I know they are hoping and hanging on for El Nino, and if it happens we will all PAY PAY PAY!
>Furthermore, I've been listening to Joe Bastardi talk about global cooling, but that hasn't happened either.
He says the PDO has flipped and global cooling is on it's way, and that will accelerate when the AO flips. He uses the NCEP data sets which I don't know how to pull up nor am I really familiar with how they differ from the other sets. On his twitter it shows a downward trend over a couple of years but that is really statistically meaningless.
>Oddly, if you use 1999 as the starting date the climate has shown a slight warming to 2014.
That's not odd whatsoever. Most people have no idea that it is the oceans which completely control the global temperature and "climate" in the short run. You are correct, use 1999 as starting point and there is warming to now. The oceans went from a huge 1998 El Nino to a huge 1999 La Nina and plummetted 1C or about 1.5F in the space of two years. That's more than the .6C warming since 1940 that is supposedly so horrifying. These oscillations can be typically .4C in the space of a year.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcru ... 1997/trend
note: these WFT graphs seem to be accepted by the skeptics, these same plots show up on the alarmist website Skeptical Science. But climate scientists NEVER show these graphs, they like creating global maps with red/orange colors all over them the show that the past decade was warmer than previous decades. When is absolutely true.

Of course, the first question an inquiring mind would ask is would is what is going on now any different than before?
Here's a good article that actually educates.
http://juneauempire.com/outdoors/2013-0 ... joUBMasiSo
Here's another one hot off the press.
http://notrickszone.com/2014/02/25/coas ... years-ago/

Skeptics know about this stuff and that's why they become skeptical.
You like snow. Read The Little Ice Age by Fagan.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Little-Ice-Ag ... le+ice+age
Also his historical archeology books on The MediEvil warming are interesting accounts. Of course, historical fact is ignored by climate scientists with the wave of a hand and production of phony graphs.
It's simply a 100% liberal conspiracy to steal money that is raping the public of billions upon billions of dollars. With absolutely NO RETURN, except a cadre of brain-washed zombies to follow them. Oh, let's not forget the legion of millionaires that are being created by this. Oh, i hope they enjoy all their world travel and living the good life - every bit of it thanks to fossil fuels. Which by the way are my favorite product. I really do love using them.

[SnowbirdDevotee]

This is a perfect example of the sheer nonsense our minds our pummeled with each days.
I happened to catch this 2007 60 minutes segment on Antarctica.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-age-of-warming/
Sure the glaciers are melting. Horrifying!!!!
ok, glaciers are melting, at elevation, yet somehow the sea ice, at sea level, is at record levels. And the entire continent barely sees 32F except for a handful of days each year.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere ... .south.jpg
None of this passes the test of "common sense". sure a change in 1/10-20,000 of the atmosphere has more influence than factors i've mentioned above. sure, Santa sneaks down my chimney each year, that's why i set out the milk and cookies.
luckily we have smart well-paid caring scientists to guide our future. and of course, caring politicians selflessly fighting those fossil fuel interest who are keeping us away from the promised nirvana happy-land.
and these idiots make front page news every single day.

another perfect example. in the 2000's we were pummeled by experts on TV, discovery channel etc, crying about the precipitous rise in Alaska temp. True. A very sudden shift occurred in 1977 when the PDO shifted, the effects of I believe wasn't even "discovered" until the late 90's. that affected salmon runs and of course that was all blamed on global weirding too. and as the PDO has shifted the other way AK temp.'s have precipitously decreased. DUH! Let's teach our kids nonsense instead of Real Science.
http://akclimate.org/ClimTrends/Change/TempChange.html

[BigSpencer]

Wasn't it his grandfather that brought a hockey stick, his father's birthday present, onboard the Titanic during his return from a vacation in Europe...y/n?

As if toxic chemicals (mercury, arsenic..etc) and CO2, blowing into the NE from the Ohio Valley, aren't doing any damage. The whole debate, when carried on little segments on the news media, is just a shouting match from "The sky is falling" to "If nothing happens tomorrow....then are we supposed to believe any of it?". ...and people say mistakes of the past can't happen again today..

[SnowbirdDevotee]

>and people say mistakes of the past can't happen again today.
oh mistakes are happening again, we are seeming the same mass delusion and thieving that has gone on since man was on this earth.
we've even seen in a number of times in the past 15 years - the tech bubble, the iraq war and the mortgage crisis. now we have the renewable energy/global warming/sustainable "delusion".
don't miss out! "everybody knows". i suggest you look into it.

[SnowbirdDevotee]

Check out this video though, it's pretty horrifying.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/krulwich/2014/01/31/268356264/a-hunk-of-planet-dissolves-before-our-eyes

[/quote]

Horrifying???? The size of that glacier piece is like a pebble in the ocean.
yet, it is completely ignored that in Antartica it is the summer, and has record summer minimum, which according to this poster the excess is 1/10 of the ENTIRE SIZE OF GREENLAND.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/01/s ... nt-1580076
And you are "horrified" about a pebble breaking off and falling into the ocean because somehow you think 1 part of the atmosphere in 20,000 in controlling the climate of the earth. Tell me, who is filling your head with this complete nonsense?

Adults are scarying our children telling them the "icecaps are melting", yet the global sea ice average for the entire past year as been simply average.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere ... htrend.jpg

[Tony Crocker]

Interesting analysis by Jim Steenburgh on Utah's February, which was abnormally warm.
http://wasatchweatherweenies.blogspot.c ... uture.html
I put my 2 cents in on the comments below.

[berkshireskier]

Thanks for posting the link. Interesting analysis. I have to say I have been surprised when Admin and others have posted photos of traffic on the road going down from Alta and Snowbird and there appeared to be little or no snow by the side of the road. I didn't realize it has been that warm in February in SLC. In accordance with your comment to this article, I think it is always somewhat risky to extrapolate the "weather" for one month in a particular location with overall long-term climate change. In the Northeast US, we have had a colder than average and snowier than average Winter. In central New England, we still have about 18 inches of snow on the ground and it was minus 1 (F) at my house this morning. I also see a news report this morning that snow cover in North America is at the third highest level since records began in 1966 and ice cover on the great lakes is the second highest in weather record history. I realize we have had discussions on this board ad nauseam about global warming and climate change, but I'm still not 100% convinced that the alleged long-term warming trend globally is caused directly and 100% by man made emissions into the atmosphere. There's no doubt that there has been a dramatic and sustained increase in the amount of CO2 and methane and other so-called greenhouse gases emitted into the atmosphere over the last 100 years but temperatures globally have fluctuated up and down over that same time period, with an apparent gradual increase overall. Does this indicate a direct correlation? I'm no statistician or climate scientist but I think you have to be somewhat skeptical about the direct connection.

[Admin]

I think it is always somewhat risky to extrapolate the "weather" for one month in a particular location with overall long-term climate change.

Actually, although Jim appears to be a believer he took great pains to precisely not do that. He was merely pointing out that if climate models are to be believed, the pattern that we experienced here in February could be indicative of what a "normal" February could look like by the end of the century.

[EMSC]

It's been an interesting season defined even more heavily by the storm track than most years given the unique location of the track for most of this winter.

As relatively close as SLC is to Denver at 375 miles as the crow flies, Denver ended Feb at 4.3F BELOW normal (compared to the 7.9F above normal in SLC). That is quite a variation that you won't see in 95%+ of winters.

[Admin]

It's been an interesting season defined even more heavily by the storm track than most years given the unique location of the track for most of this winter.

As relatively close as SLC is to Denver at 375 miles as the crow flies, Denver ended Feb at 4.3F BELOW normal (compared to the 7.9F above normal in SLC). That is quite a variation that you won't see in 95%+ of winters.

And that's directly attributable to the arcing southwest to northeast, then northwest to southeast storm track that we saw for much of the month. We were on the warm side of that arc -- you were on the cold side.

[Tony Crocker]

My point, in response to chicken littles like Porter Fox and his Future of Snow book, is that a lot of western ski areas, including nearly all in Colorado, are at such high elevation that even the more dire forecasts of temperature rise will not result in much rain vs. snow in those areas. The fact the that 7.9F above average temperatures in Utah were a non-issue as far as snow in the Cottonwoods are concerned is a demonstration of that point.

If I were running Squaw Valley, I'd be a bit more concerned. Long term the base of Squaw has averaged 61% of the snowfall at 8,200 feet. This year it's averaged 32% with a lot of rain.

[rfarren]

The cottonwoods would be okay, but places like PCMR & Snowbasin would expect a lot of rain.

[EMSC]

Speaking of rain at pcmr, the NCAA championship SL race was postponed today due to overnight rain and temps too warm...