According to Christopher Monckton it is taking place. A bit. But the UN's studies may be a pile of horse manure and the "hockey stick" graph is a fraud.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/20.../nosplit/nwarm05.xml

So where is that Medieval period, a mere 400 years?

Y'all can bring this up at the next cocktail party with liberal friends, hehe.

Don't make me get 'midievil' on your assertation... ~

I'm a 'weatherman' yes. I've acquired much data for climate purposes (and for operations).
*
The Military relies upon 'climo' for 'forecasting purposes' in data sparce areas...as well as other weather observational information.
*
The 'two'... weather and climate are related like Arkansas cousins but still often behave quite differently.

I like Mark Twain's quote:

quote:

“Climate is what we expect, weather is what we get.”

And...those ahh hum 'middle ages' referred to
commonly as that period of human recorded history in between the classical civilization of Antiquity,
and Modern Times.

quote:

The Middle Ages of Western Europe are commonly dated from the 5th century division of the Roman Empire (into the Western Roman Empire and the Eastern Roman Empire) and the barbarian invasions until the 16th century schism of Christianity during the Protestant Reformation and the dispersal of Europeans worldwide in the start of the European overseas exploration.

(That's Charles the Blad from the (Sacramentary of Metz) of about 870.

SOOoooo 400 or 600 years there things warmed (and cooled) the [i]Telegraph's artical
drones on:

quote:

Scores of scientific papers show that the medieval warm period was real, global and up to 3C warmer than now. Then, there were no glaciers in the tropical Andes: today they're there. There were Viking farms in Greenland: now they're under permafrost. There was little ice at the North Pole: a Chinese naval squadron sailed right round the Arctic in 1421 and found none.

Things change don't they? Maybe not?

I'm of the opinion that our Sun Rules. I usta
argue the solar constant with my Professors.
(I stated it wasn't constant)

http://www.solarserver.de/lexikon/solarkonstante-e.html

after making many Solar Radiation measurments
and seeing the variability...and more impressive are the observed Solar eruptions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_flare



If one of these Coronal Mass Ejections were to
be directed to bullseye ole mother earth...
it would fry your won-ton (so to speak)

Now That's Global Warming

Of course CO2 exists as a trace element in our atmosphere...and may lead to reduced insolation
(such as the volcanic eruption of Krakatoa 1833)
and we've heard of the so called 'Nuclear Winter' expected after a major 'exchange'.
Of course lots of other gasses and stuff (fallout) will differ locally and will effect
the morning's weather forecast...
*
Out here in the 'Oil Patch' we're talking about injecting CO2 back into old deep gas wells...
maybe get the Brit's prize money? Sir Richard
(The Branson) won't ground his fleet...but will wait the 60 years or so before us propeller heads get the Canadian's quantum computer 'warmed up'... ahh hum... maybe that box will tell the tail and win the Sterling.
*
The wheels on the Bus go round and round

Like Willy and Waylon said it:

quote:

(Phases and stages circles and cycles and scenes that we've all seen before. Let me tell you some more)

People are saying that time will take care of people like me
That I'm livin' too fast and they say I can't last too much longer
But little they see that their thoughts of me is my saviour
And little they know that the beat oughta go just a little faster
So pick up the tempo just a little and take it on home
The singer ain't singin' and the drummer's been draggin' too long
Time will take care of itself so just leave time alone
And pick up the tempo just a little and take it on home

Well I'm wild and I'm mean and I'm creatin' a scene I'm goin' crazy
Well I'm good and I'm bad and I'm happy and I'm sad and I'm lazy
I'm quiet and I'm loud and I'm gatherin' a crowd and I like gravy
About half off the wall but I learned it all in the Navy
So pick up the tempo...

(Phases and stages circles and cycles and scenes that we've all seen before. Let me tell you some more)

Good post PT. Liked the article.

thx, patoloco.

It's just another "inconvenient truth."

All fun aside...the artical by Kerry Emanuel
is a tad bit 'winded' but cuts to the point
like an ice pick.

quote:

Kerry Emanuel is a professor of meteorology at MIT and the author of Divine Wind: The History and Science of Hurricanes. In 2006 Time magazine recognized him as one of the world’s 100 most influential people.

http://bostonreview.net/BR32.1/emanuel.html

Here's a snippet:

quote:

Phaeton’s Reins

Two strands of environmental philosophy run through the course of human history. The first holds that the natural state of the universe is one of infinite stability, with an unchanging earth anchoring the predictable revolutions of the sun, moon, and stars. Every scientific revolution that challenged this notion, from Copernicus’ heliocentricity to Hubble’s expanding universe, from Wegener’s continental drift to Heisenberg’s uncertainty and Lorenz’s macroscopic chaos, met with fierce resistance from religious, political, and even scientific hegemonies.

The second strand also sees the natural state of the universe as a stable one but holds that it has become destabilized through human actions. The great floods are usually portrayed in religious traditions as attempts by a god or gods to cleanse the earth of human corruption. Deviations from cosmic predictability, such as meteors and comets, were more often viewed as omens than as natural phenomena. In Greek mythology, the scorching heat of Africa and the burnt skin of its inhabitants were attributed to Phaeton, an offspring of the sun god Helios, who, having lost a wager to his son, was obliged to allow him to drive the sun chariot across the sky. In this primal environmental catastrophe, Phaeton lost control and fried the earth, killing himself in the process.

These two fundamental ideas have permeated many cultures through much of history. They strongly influence views of climate change to the present day.

This guy's better at math than a vietnamese college kid...and more apt to 'make it all add up' (so to speak)

and he 'sums it up' with a veto on 'Political Meteorology' (or in this case... 'Political Paleoclimotology')

quote:

The politics of global climate change

Especially in the United States, the political debate about global climate change became polarized along the conservative–liberal axis some decades ago. Although we take this for granted now, it is not entirely obvious why the chips fell the way they did. One can easily imagine conservatives embracing the notion of climate change in support of actions they might like to see anyway. Conservatives have usually been strong supporters of nuclear power, and few can be happy about our current dependence on foreign oil. The United States is renowned for its technological innovation and should be at an advantage in making money from any global sea change in energy-producing technology: consider the prospect of selling new means of powering vehicles and electrical generation to China’s rapidly expanding economy. But none of this has happened.

Paradoxes abound on the political left as well. A meaningful reduction in greenhouse-gas emissions will require a shift in the means of producing energy, as well as conservation measures. But such alternatives as nuclear and wind power are viewed with deep ambivalence by the left. Senator Kennedy, by most measures our most liberal senator, is strongly opposed to a project to develop wind energy near his home in Hyannis, and environmentalists have only just begun to rethink their visceral opposition to nuclear power. Had it not been for green opposition, the United States today might derive most of its electricity from nuclear power, as does France; thus the environmentalists must accept a large measure of responsibility for today’s most critical environmental problem.

There are other obstacles to taking a sensible approach to the climate problem. We have preciously few representatives in Congress with a background or interest in science, and some of them display an active contempt for the subject. As long as we continue to elect scientific illiterates like James Inhofe, who believes global warming to be a hoax, we will lack the ability to engage in intelligent debate. Scientists are most effective when they provide sound, impartial advice, but their reputation for impartiality is severely compromised by the shocking lack of political diversity among American academics, who suffer from the kind of group-think that develops in cloistered cultures. Until this profound and well documented intellectual homogeneity changes, scientists will be suspected of constituting a leftist think tank.

On the bright side, the governments of many countries, including the United States, continue to fund active programs of climate research, and many of the critical uncertainties about climate change are slowly being whittled down. The extremists are being exposed and relegated to the sidelines, and when the media stop amplifying their views, their political counterparts will have nothing left to stand on. When this happens, we can get down to the serious business of tackling the most complex and perhaps the most consequential problem ever confronted by mankind.

Like it or not, we have been handed Phaeton’s reins, and we will have to learn how to control climate if we are to avoid his fate.

I see a lot of the debate here as a stick to beat the USA over it's highly developed economic head with and the UN supression of the Medieval period global warming as evidence of that.
Can you blame someone who thinks it all a hoax when you read the Telegraph article?

quote:

Senator Kennedy, by most measures our most liberal senator, is strongly opposed to a project to develop wind energy near his home in Hyannis,

The hypocrisy on the Left is incredible. Out here in Seattle, the strongest proponent for tearing down and not replacing the Alaskan Way viaduct, a vital arterial that carries about 133,000 vehicles a day, is Peter Steinbrueck. Because he thinks people use their cars too much and we need to get them out of them and into buses and onto rail.

Guess which Seattle councilman uses his car the most? No prizes awarded.

I'm sorry but the "hypocracy of the left" is an a thing of your imagination, most data I've found puts solar flares and sunspot activity a low currently completely shooting down the theory of the sun being the cause of this. Also the medieval "evidence" is controversial at best, and not nearly as widely used as a theory as is global warming, may I also point out the even the US scientists sent to the recent convention in the UN agreed with the "90% chance of global warming having a human cuase" idea. Hey, maybe you naysayers will get lucky and the other 10% chance will prevail. Also I am not hippocritical, My family uses one car and it is an EPA certified low emission vehicle with gas milage in the mid twenties.

Here's the Carbon Cycle for dummies.

http://epa.gov/climatechange/kids/carbon_cycle_version2.html

You guys should have really payed attention in your science classes.

lol, just lol

And thirty years ago the concern was global cooling. I liked this article--

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Story?id=3061015&page=1

quote:

The heavy breathing over global warming is enough to terrify anyone.

Last week the Washington Post interviewed a 9-year-old who said the Earth is "just starting to fade away." In 20 years there will be "no oxygen" he said, and he'll be dead. The Post went on to say that "for many children and young adults, global warming is…defining their generation." How sad.
Thirty-six years of consumer reporting have taught me to be skeptical of environmental scares. Much of what the media scares us about turns out to be myths.

I'd also recommend reading "State of Fear" by Michael Crichton. Even though it's fiction, most of the data (pro and con) is based on scientific studies.

All Right! CUT 'EM DOWN!

Junk Science: Can’t See the Warming for the Trees

Sunday, April 15, 2007

By Steven Milloy

If you need further evidence that hysteria is outpacing science in the global warming debate, consider the study published this week about Northern Hemisphere forests actually causing significant global warming.

Researchers from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory reported in the "Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences" (April 17) that while tropical forests exert a cooling influence on global climate, forests in northern regions exert a warming influence — and it’s not just a trivial climatic effect.

Based on the researchers’ computer modeling, forests above 20 degrees latitude in the Northern Hemisphere — that is, north of the line of latitude running through Southern Mexico, Saharan Africa, central India and the southernmost Chinese island of Hainan — will warm surface temperatures in those regions by an estimated 10 degrees Fahrenheit by the year 2100.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,265607,00.html

You're taking a story from FOX NEWS, on GLOBAL WARMING seriously? Ok that's just kinda funny, no, VERY funny.

Sarcasm, twit.

You may be interested to know that global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking numbers of Pirates since the 1800s. For your interest, I have included a graph of the approximate number of pirates versus the average global temperature over the last 200 years. As you can see, there is a statistically significant inverse relationship between pirates and global temperature.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...tml?nav=most_emailed

So, if I wear an eye patch, my garden will grow better?

Not only that, but according to Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, you'd be raised in stature/status quite a bit--

quote:

According to the Pastafarian belief system, pirates are "absolute divine beings" and the original Pastafarians.[2] Their image as "thieves and outcasts" is misinformation spread by Christian theologians in the Middle Ages. Pastafarianism says that they were in fact "peace-loving explorers and spreaders of good will" who distributed candy to small children.

1. Ah tis good to see someone preaching the good word of the FSM, All hail our noodly savior, pataloco, may you be touched by his noodly appendage.
2. Also acutlly in pastafarinism being short is in fact a sign that you are blessed. According to the theory of intelligent falling, it is not gravity, but the flying speghetti monster that holds us down. Therefore those of short stature are blessed with extra attention from our good noodley lord.

Getting colder up north Rocketeer?

Is 'global cooling' the real threat?

Two notably frank global-warming contrarians spoke out this week. One is R. Timothy Patterson, a Canadian geologist. The other is Vaclav Klaus, president of the Czech Republic and an economist. People who suspect that the global-warming emperor has no clothes will want to hear both.

Mr. Patterson, a professor of geology at Carleton University, has spent several years studying 5,000 years' worth of sedimentary fossil evidence in deep Canadian fjords, which he analyzed in light of solar patterns. He found that changes in the fossil record correlate highly with changes in climate which in turn correlate with solar change. Over thousands of years, one finds dark layers of dirt which accumulate during cold periods, interspersed with fossilized fish scales and phytoplankton which build up during nutrient- and life-rich warm periods. The record "correlates closely to the well-known 11-year 'Schwabe' sunspot cycle, during which the output of the sun varies by about 0.1 percent." He also found that longer-term solar variations also correlate with changes in the fossil record, some of which are more dramatic than the 11-year cycle and have a correspondingly greater impact on the climate and the fossil record. In one case, Mr. Patterson and colleagues found a drastic shift from warm, sunny and dry conditions to several decades of cold and rain over a mere 62 years. Some of the solar-driven changes are much more dramatic than the present modest change.

His conclusion: "It is global cooling, not warming, that is the major climate threat to the world, especially Canada."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20070624/EDITORIAL/106240002


I'm gonna agree with John Stossel:
Thirty-six years of consumer reporting have taught me to be skeptical of environmental scares. Much of what the media scares us about turns out to be myths.

How about that flu epidemic, huh? Every year thousands will drop dead in the streets, there's NO VACCINE WHAT DO WE DO?

Or, no, wait-- THE WORST HURRICANE SEASON EVER. Love to hear that one EVERY frickin year. Then New Orleans gets hit and it's "told ya so". Morons. A stopped watch is right twice a day too.