tbone8

Did you bother reading what Dr Glassman wrote or just looked for people who discredit him? His model makes perfect sense and explains why temperatures are not going through the roof during our industrial age. Thankfully, nature is not fragile, she is pretty darn stout. She is self regulating. Like I said, if you really sit down and think this through, it makes perfect sense and explains everything. All you hear from the doom and gloom activists is how hurricanes will wipe us off the planet due to global warming. How many of those have we had the past few years. We can barely get a 3 day forecast correct and you want to rely on some global warming computer model? And finally, you did not offend me but you did tick me off. I appreciate your apology and I apologize to you for my temper. I have a four year degree in science and four years post grad studies, I have spent plenty of time in a classroom. Your passion is noble and I give you an atta boy for it. But don't let your passion blind you to other sides of the coin. I used to be on the global warming team. I asked questions and looked into what the other side was saying and figured out I had been dooped. I don't like waste or pollution any less then anyone else, but in order to be an industrialized society, its a necessary evil.

It is you that does not understand atmospheric science. Maybe you should spend more time in the classroom instead of popping off about how smart you think you are. Throughout the past 420 millennia, comprising four interglacial periods, the Vostok record of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is imprinted with, and fully characterized by, the physics of the solubility of CO2 in water, along with the lag in the deep ocean circulation. Notwithstanding that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, atmospheric carbon dioxide has neither caused nor amplified global temperature increases. Increased carbon dioxide has been an effect of global warming, not a cause. Technically, carbon dioxide is a lagging proxy for ocean temperatures. When global temperature, and along with it, ocean temperature rises, the physics of solubility causes atmospheric CO2 to increase. If increases in carbon dioxide, or any other greenhouse gas, could have in turn raised global temperatures, the positive feedback would have been catastrophic. While the conditions for such a catastrophe were present in the Vostok record from natural causes, the runaway event did not occur. Carbon dioxide does not accumulate in the atmosphere. THE ACQUITTAL OF CARBON DIOXIDE by Jeffrey A. Glassman, PhD

http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/10/_res/CO2-01.jpg I don't understand why you guys think 150 years with of data means anything. It is a grain of sand in a huge sand dune. Lets look at the big picture, a graph from the past 400,000 years from ice core data. Hmmm, what can we see? Believe it or not, temps rose, then then fell, then they rose and on and on. Its called nature folks. Way before us evil pollution spewing humans infested the air we breath. Can anyone explain this? It really isn't rocket science, its common sense.

As others have said, hopefully when you mature you will see how this is nothing more than nonsense. As I said, all the rage in the 70's was global cooling, but you chose to ignore that. If it had the funding that global warming has today, we would probably still be talking about it. You choose to ignore that in the past, CO2 and temps were much higher and still the earth carrys on. There are people a lot smarter than you and I that don't buy into this nonsense, how do you explain that? Conspiracy? Not a shred of evidence backing man made global warming, just studies and warped statistics for which there are studies saying the exact opposite. Conspiracy? Well no, you have this fictitious 97% out on thin air number. Home come 97% on this board don't agree? I know, I know, another conspiracy...

Amigo, there is not one shred of evidence that global warming (which isn't even happening) is caused by humans, not a shred. Its all theory. I have not conceded a single thing, only for arguments sake. If you wish to read about manipulated data, click on one of the many links I have provided. Its called climategate.

Wow, you cannot be serious with that video??? Rising mountain ranges? "If it was warmer before humans we're unsure how it affected the Earth." C'mon man, your argument is falling apart in your own words. Think about what you just said. It's pure nonsense. All I can say and wish is that you step back, look at this as an analytical scientist. Don't be one of the sheep...

Did you even see the post from NASA admitting there is a 38% confidence in the data? 12,000 years is still a drop in the bucket, peanuts compared to the last 500 million years. Lets say for the sake of discussion, you are right, us evil humans are the cause of this insidious temperature rise, mind you, of under 1°C. Again, in the past, temps have been much, much warmer. Do you understand what this means??? It means it doesn't effing matter, the earth will not implode. In fact, we as a people prosper when the daggum temps are warmer. Climate changes, does it make you feel better if we can blame the human race as opposed to mother nature??? It's gonna get warmer and its gonna get colder, these are the facts and there is nothing you, or I or anyone else can do about it. Thats just the way it is amigo...

The Nasa climate scientists who claimed 2014 set a new record for global warmth last night admitted they were only 38 per cent sure this was true. In a press release on Friday, Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) claimed its analysis of world temperatures showed ‘2014 was the warmest year on record’. The claim made headlines around the world, but yesterday it emerged that GISS’s analysis – based on readings from more than 3,000 measuring stations worldwide – is subject to a margin of error. Nasa admits this means it is far from certain that 2014 set a record at all. Yet the Nasa press release failed to mention this, as well as the fact that the alleged ‘record’ amounted to an increase over 2010, the previous ‘warmest year’, of just two-hundredths of a degree – or 0.02C. The margin of error is said by scientists to be approximately 0.1C – several times as much. As a result, GISS’s director Gavin Schmidt has now admitted Nasa thinks the likelihood that 2014 was the warmest year since 1880 is just 38 per cent. However, when asked by this newspaper whether he regretted that the news release did not mention this, he did not respond. Another analysis, from the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project, drawn from ten times as many measuring stations as GISS, concluded that if 2014 was a record year, it was by an even tinier amount. Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2915061/Nasa-climate-scientists-said-2014-warmest-year-record-38-sure-right.html#ixzz3PD18U4QX Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Scott, seriously, what difference does it make? There have been much, much warmer years in the past 500 million years. You need to look at the bigger picture. The past 150 years of data is nothing, statistically insignificant. Break out of the tunnel vision on this...

A little narrative on a slow weather Sunday. Global warming or what ever you wish to call it probably the biggest pet peeve I have. I used to drink the koolaide back years ago when I was in College. But back then, it was the pending ice age we were all going to create because of pollution. When the so called professionals changed their minds and decided we were gonna cause global warming instead, I began to ask questions. Our atmosphere, weather and climate is a very complex system and we do not understand it to any degree of certainty. Our planet has a long, long history. Over 4 billion years, that's a pretty long time and a lot has happened. We have a natural cycle of warming and cooling, that is a fact. We have had vastly higher levels of CO2 in our atmosphere and believe it or not, the fragile earth did not implode. There is no such thing as static in science, it always changes. Was 2014 the warmest on record since 1880? Who cares? In the past say 500 million years its been a whole lot hotter. Folks, even if we tried, we cannot significantly affect the weather. Its nothing more than a political and more importantly, financial agenda. Its not a win-win for to be pro global warming. WE loose by higher energy costs and people like Al Gore rake in the money, YOUR money. Should we all be good stewards of the environment? Of course, nobody likes pollution, but as an industrial society, it is a necessary evil. If you want to drive a Prius and put solar panels on your house, on your own nickle, have at it. Just remember who is profiting from your decision...

I started a dedicated thread to the global warming topic. I think we can all keep it civil and have a good discussion.

I thought I would start a separate thread about this topic since some have requested the discussion be moved out of the weather discussion. I would agree with you, if you were right. That 97% number is pure fallacy. Did you watch the video by John Coleman? Have you read about all the manipulated statistics and email leaks on global warming? A carbon TAX? Are you kidding me??? Follow the money. If Al Gore is so right, how come he won't debate the issue or take any questions? Here is a list of links about climategate, happy reading! When Results Go Bad … U-CRU Telegraph’s Booker on the “climategate” scandal “Climategate” surpasses “Global Warming” on Google Mann to be investigated by Penn State University review Understanding Climategate: Who’s Who – a video The Curry letter: a word about “deniers”… How “The Trick” was pulled off The Australian ETS vote: a political litmus test for cap and trade An open letter from Dr. Judith Curry on climate science Zorita calls for barring Phil Jones, Michael Mann, and Stefan Rahmstorf from further IPCC participation Climategate protester pwn3d CBC on live TV UEA Climate Scientist: “possible that…I.P.C.C. has run its course” IPCC reviewer: “don’t cover up the divergence” McIntyre: The deleted data from the “Hide the Decline” trick Climategate: Stuart Varney “lives with Ed” Climategate: Pielke Senior on the NCDC CCSP report – “strong arm tactics” Warwick Hughes shows how Jones selections put bias in Australian Temperatures Climategate: CATO’s Pat Michaels and Center for American Progress Dan Weiss on Fox News Quote of the week #23 – calls for resignation in Climategate Uh, oh – raw data in New Zealand tells a different story than the “official” one. Climategate: “Men behaving badly” – a short summary for laymen Statement on CRU hacking from the American Meteorological Society Climategate: hide the decline – codified Must see video – Climategate spoof from Minnesotans for Global Warming The people -vs- the CRU: Freedom of information, my okole… Government petition started in UK regarding CRU Climategate CEI Files Notice of Intent to Sue NASA GISS The appearance of hypocrisy at the NYT – Note to Andy Nov 24 Statement from UEA on the CRU files Nov 23 Statement from UEA on the CRU files Monbiot issues an unprecedented apology – calls for Jones resignation The CRUtape Letters™, an Alternative Explanation. CRU Emails “may” be open to interpretation, but commented code by the programmer tells the real story Video: Dr. Tim Ball on the CRU emails Pielke Senior: Comment On The Post “Enemies Caught In Action!” On The Blackboard Bishop Hill’s compendium of CRU email issues Spencer on elitism in the IPCC climate machine CRU Emails – search engine now online Release of CRU files forges a new hockey stick reconstruction Mike’s Nature Trick and the post that started it all… Breaking News Story: CRU has apparently been hacked – hundreds of files released

This is a very good video from John Coleman. He covers the global warming hoax from beginning to end. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRQS5RhrwLA

Good post. Fossil fuels are relatively cheap, dirtier than ideal but cheap. I am sure in the not to near future, they will become obsolete. However, until that time, we should use them, IMO...

Articles http://www.principia-scientific.org/media/system/images/emailButton.pnghttp://www.principia-scientific.org/media/system/images/printButton.pngMar26 New Discovery: NASA Study Proves Carbon Dioxide Cools AtmosphereA recent NASA report throws the space agency into conflict with its climatologists after new NASA measurements prove that carbon dioxide acts as a coolant in Earth's atmosphere. NASA's Langley Research Center has collated data proving that “greenhouse gases” actually block up to 95 percent of harmful solar rays from reaching our planet, thus reducing the heating impact of the sun. The data was collected by Sounding of the Atmosphere using Broadband Emission Radiometry, (or SABER). SABER monitors infrared emissions from Earth’s upper atmosphere, in particular from carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitric oxide (NO), two substances thought to be playing a key role in the energy balance of air above our planet’s surface. NASA's Langley Research Center instruments show that the thermosphere not only received a whopping 26 billion kilowatt hours of energy from the sun during a recent burst of solar activity, but that in the upper atmospheric carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide molecules sent as much as 95% of that radiation straight back out into space. The shock revelation starkly contradicts the core proposition of the so-called greenhouse gas theory which claims that more CO2 means more warming for our planet. However, this compelling new NASA data disproves that notion and is a huge embarrassment for NASA's chief climatologist, Dr James Hansen and his team over at NASA's GISS. Already, the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been in full retreat after having to concede a 17-year stall in global warming despite levels of atmopheric CO2 rising almost 40 percent in recent decades. The new SABER data now forms part of a real world double whammy against climatologists' computer models that have always been programmed to show CO2 as a warming gas. The SABER evidence also makes a mockery of the statement on the NASA GISS website (by Hansen underling Gavin Schmidt) claiming, "the greenhouse effect keeps the planet much warmer than it would be otherwise." [1] As NASA's SABER team at Langley admits: "This is a new frontier in the sun-Earth connection," says associate principal investigator Martin Mlynczak, "and the data we’re collecting are unprecedented." Over at Principia Scientific International (PSI) greenhouse gas effect (GHE) critic, Alan Siddons is hailing the findings. Siddons and his colleagues have been winning support from hundreds of independent scientists for their GHE studies carried out over the last seven years. PSI has proved that the numbers fed into computer models by Hansen and others were based on a faulty interpretation of the laws of thermodynamics. PSI also recently uncovered long overlooked evidence from the American Meteorological Society (AMS) that shows it was widely known the GHE was discredited prior to 1951. [2] Pointedly, a much-trumpeted new book released this month by Rupert Darwall claims to help expose the back story of how the junk GHE theory was conveniently resuscitated in the 1980's by James Hansen and others to serve an environmental policy agenda at that time. [3] As the SABER research report states: A recent flurry of eruptions on the sun did more than spark pretty auroras around the poles. NASA-funded researchers say the solar storms of March 8th through 10th dumped enough energy in Earth’s upper atmosphere to power every residence in New York City for two years. “This was the biggest dose of heat we’ve received from a solar storm since 2005,” says Martin Mlynczak of NASA Langley Research Center. “It was a big event, and shows how solar activity can directly affect our planet.” As PSI's own space scientists have confirmed, as solar energy penetrates deeper into our atmosphere, even more of its energy will end up being sent straight back out to space, thus preventing it heating up the surface of our earth. The NASA Langley Research Center report agrees with PSI by admitting: “Carbon dioxide and nitric oxide are natural thermostats,” explains James Russell of Hampton University, SABER’s principal investigator. “When the upper atmosphere (or ‘thermosphere’) heats up, these molecules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space.” To those independent scientists and engineers at Principia Scientific International this is not news. The “natural thermostat” effect of CO2 has long been known by applied scientists and engineers how have exploited it's remarkable properties in the manufacturer of refrigerators and air conditioning systems. The fledgling independent science body has repeatedly shown in it's openly peer reviewed papers that atmospheric carbon dioxide does not cause global warming nor climate change. Some diehard climate alarmists will still say that in the lower atmosphere the action of carbon dioxide is reversed, but there is no actual proof of this at all. PSI suggests it is time for the SABER team to have a word with James Hansen. Watch the full NASA video on Youtube.

97% eh? Unprecedented since the industrial age? Do you realize that timeframe is 0.0000000333333333% of the earths age? How were ocean temps the other 99.9999999% of the time? Yes I am aware of the advantage it is to have an atmosphere. Lets say, for arguments sake, CO2 is the devil as you feel it is. How come we don't go into extinction when we have a major volcanic eruption? Shirley all that CO2 and other poisons has to amount to something? Below is a partial list of the so called media getting a hold of something and blowing it out of proportion (kinda like it is today with global warming?). Must be nice to be able to pick and choose what is being blown out of proportion! And finally, NASA did a study that shows CO2 cools the atmosphere. So much for 97%. http://www.principia-scientific.org/new-discovery-nasa-study-proves-carbon-dioxide-cools-atmosphere.html 1970 - Colder Winters Held Dawn of New Ice Age - Scientists See Ice Age In the Future (The Washington Post, January 11, 1970) 1970 - Is Mankind Manufacturing a New Ice Age for Itself? (L.A. Times, January 15, 1970) 1970 - New Ice Age May Descend On Man (Sumter Daily Item, January 26, 1970) 1970 - Pollution Prospect A Chilling One (The Argus-Press, January 26, 1970) 1970 - Pollution's 2-way 'Freeze' On Society (Middlesboro Daily News, January 28, 1970) 1970 - Cold Facts About Pollution (The Southeast Missourian, January 29, 1970) 1970 - Pollution Could Cause Ice Age, Agency Reports (St. Petersburg Times, March 4, 1970) 1970 - Scientist predicts a new ice age by 21st century (The Boston Globe, April 16, 1970) 1970 - Pollution Called Ice Age Threat (St. Petersburg Times, June 26, 1970) 1970 - Dirt Will Bring New Ice Age (The Sydney Morning Herald, October 19, 1970) 1971 - Ice Age Refugee Dies Underground (Montreal Gazette, Febuary 17, 1971) 1971 - Pollution Might Lead To Another Ice Age (The Schenectady Gazette, March 22, 1971) 1971 - Pollution May Bring Ice Age - Scientist Rites Risk (The Windsor Star, March 23, 1971) 1971 - U.S. Scientist Sees New Ice Age Coming (The Washington Post, July 9, 1971) 1971 - Ice Age Around the Corner (Chicago Tribune, July 10, 1971) 1971 - New Ice Age Coming - It's Already Getting Colder (L.A. Times, October 24, 1971) 1971 - Another Ice Age? Pollution Blocking Sunlight (The Day, November 1, 1971) 1971 - Air Pollution Could Bring An Ice Age (Harlan Daily Enterprise, November 4, 1971) 1972 - Air pollution may cause ice age (Free-Lance Star, February 3, 1972) 1972 - Scientist Says New ice Age Coming (The Ledger, February 13, 1972) 1972 - Ice Age Cometh For Dicey Times (The Sun, May 29, 1972) 1972 - Ice Age Coming (Deseret News, September 8, 1972) 1972 - There's a new Ice Age coming! (The Windsor Star, September 9, 1972) 1972 - Scientist predicts new ice age (Free-Lance Star, September 11, 1972) 1972 - British Expert on Climate Change Says New Ice Age Creeping Over Northern Hemisphere (Lewiston Evening Journal, September 11, 1972) 1972 - Climate Seen Cooling For Return Of Ice Age (The Portsmouth Times, ‎September 11, 1972‎) 1972 - New Ice Age Slipping Over North (The Press-Courier, September 11, 1972) 1972 - Ice Age Begins A New Assault In North (The Age, September 12, 1972) 1972 - Weather To Get Colder (Montreal Gazette, ‎September 12, 1972‎) 1972 - British climate expert predicts new Ice Age (The Christian Science Monitor, September 23, 1972) 1972 - Scientist Sees Chilling Signs of New Ice Age (L.A. Times, September 24, 1972) 1972 - Science: Another Ice Age? (Time Magazine, November 13, 1972) 1972 - Geologist at Case Traces Long Winters - Sees Ice Age in 20 Years (Youngstown Vindicator, December 13, 1972) 1972 - Ice Age On Its Way, Scientist Says (Toledo Blade, December 13, 1972) 1972 - Ice Age Predicted In About 200 Years (The Portsmouth Times, December 14, 1972) 1973 - The Ice Age Cometh (The Saturday Review, March 24, 1973) 1973 - 'Man-made Ice Age' Worries Scientists (The Free Lance-Star, June 22, 1973) 1973 - Fear Of Man-made Ice Age (The Spartanburg Herald, June 28, 1973) 1973 - Possibility Of Ice Age Worries The Scientists (The Argus-Press, November 12, 1973) 1973 - Weather-watchers think another ice age may be on the way (The Christian Science Monitor, December 11, 1973) 1974 - Ominous Changes in the World's Weather (PDF) (Fortune Magazine, February 1974) 1974 - Atmospheric Dirt: Ice Age Coming?‎ (Pittsburgh Press, February 28, 1974) 1974 - New evidence indicates ice age here (Eugene Register-Guard, May 29, 1974) 1974 - Another Ice Age? (Time Magazine, June 24, 1974) 1974 - 2 Scientists Think 'Little' Ice Age Near (Hartford Courant, August 11, 1974) 1974 - Ice Age, worse food crisis seen (Chicago Tribune, October 30, 1974) 1974 - Imminent Arrival of the Ice (Radio Times, November 14, 1974) 1974 - Believes Pollution Could Bring On Ice Age (Ludington Daily News, December 4, 1974) 1974 - Pollution Could Spur Ice Age, Nasa Says (Beaver Country Times, ‎December 4, 1974‎) 1974 - Air Pollution May Trigger Ice Age, Scientists Feel (The Telegraph, ‎December 5, 1974‎) 1974 - More Air Pollution Could Trigger Ice Age Disaster (Daily Sentinel, ‎December 5, 1974‎) 1974 - Scientists Fear Smog Could Cause Ice Age (Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, December 5, 1974) 1975 - Climate Changes Called Ominous (The New York Times, January 19, 1975) 1975 - Climate Change: Chilling Possibilities (Science News, March 1, 1975) 1975 - B-r-r-r-r: New Ice Age on way soon? (Chicago Tribune, March 2, 1975) 1975 - Cooling Trends Arouse Fear That New Ice Age Coming (Eugene Register-Guard, ‎March 2, 1975‎) 1975 - Is Another Ice Age Due? Arctic Ice Expands In Last Decade (Youngstown Vindicator, ‎March 2, 1975‎) 1975 - Is Earth Headed For Another Ice Age? (Reading Eagle, March 2, 1975) 1975 - New Ice Age Dawning? Significant Shift In Climate Seen (Times Daily, ‎March 2, 1975‎) 1975 - There's Troublesome Weather Ahead (Tri City Herald, ‎March 2, 1975‎) 1975 - Is Earth Doomed To Live Through Another Ice Age? (The Robesonian, ‎March 3, 1975‎) 1975 - The Ice Age cometh: the system that controls our climate (Chicago Tribune, April 13, 1975) 1975 - The Cooling World (Newsweek, April 28, 1975) 1975 - Cooling trend may signal coming of another Ice Age (The Sun, May 16, 1975) 1975 - Scientists Ask Why World Climate Is Changing; Major Cooling May Be Ahead (PDF) (The New York Times, May 21, 1975) 1975 - Summer of A New Ice Age (The Age, June 5, 1975) 1975 - In the Grip of a New Ice Age? (International Wildlife, July-August, 1975) 1975 - Oil Spill Could Cause New Ice Age (Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, December 11, 1975) 1976 - The Cooling: Has the Next Ice Age Already Begun? [book] (Lowell Ponte, 1976) 1976 - Ice Age Predicted (Reading Eagle, January 22, 1976) 1976 - Ice Age Predicted In Century (Bangor Daily News, January 22, 1976) 1976 - It's Going To Get Chilly About 125 Years From Now (Sarasota Herald-Tribune, January 23, 1976) 1976 - Worrisome CIA Report; Even U.S. Farms May be Hit by Cooling Trend (U.S. News & World Report, May 31, 1976) 1977 - Blizzard - What Happens if it Doesn't Stop? [book] (George Stone, 1977) 1977 - The Weather Conspiracy: The Coming of the New Ice Age [book] (The Impact Team, 1977) 1977 - The Ice Age Cometh... (New York Magazine, January 31, 1977) 1977 - The Big Freeze (Time Magazine, January 31, 1977) 1977 - Has The Ice Age Cometh Again? (Calgary Herald, February 1, 1977) 1977 - Space Mirrors Proposed To Prevent Crop Freezes (Bangor Daily News, February 7, 1977) 1977 - We Will Freeze in the Dark (Capital Cities Communications Documentary, Host: Nancy Dickerson, April 12, 1977) 1978 - Ice! [book] (Arnold Federbush, 1978) 1978 - The New Ice Age [book] (Henry Gilfond, 1978) 1978 - Winter May Be Colder Than In Last Ice Age (Deseret News, January 2, 1978) 1978 - Current Winters Seen Colder Than In Ice Age‎ (The Telegraph, January 3, 1978) 1978 - Winter Temperatures Colder Than Last Ice Age (Eugene Register-Guard, Eugene Register-Guard, January 3, 1978) 1978 - Little Ice Age: Severe winters and cool summers ahead (Calgary Herald, January 10, 1978) 1978 - Winters Will Get Colder, 'we're Entering Little Ice Age' (Daily Record, January 10, 1978) 1978 - Geologist Says Winters Getting Colder (Middlesboro Daily News, January 16, 1978) 1978 - It's Going To Get Colder (Boca Raton News, ‎January 17, 1978‎) 1978 - Another Ice Age? (Kentucky New Era, February 12, 1978) 1978 - Another Ice Age? (Reading Eagle, ‎February 13, 1978‎) 1978 - Believe new ice age is coming (The Bryan Times, March 31, 1978) 1978 - The Coming Ice Age (In Search Of TV Show, Season 2, Episode 23, Host: Leonard Nimoy, May 1978) 1978 - An Ice Age Is Coming Weather Expert Fears (Milwaukee Sentinel, November 17, 1978) 1979 - A Choice of Catastrophes - The Disasters That Threaten Our World [book] (Isaac Asimov, 1979) 1979 - The Sixth Winter [book] (John R. Gribbin, 1979) 1979 - The New Ice Age Cometh (The Age, January 16, 1979) 1979 - Ice Age Building Up (Daily Record, June 5, 1979) 1979 - Large Glacial Buildup Could Mean Ice Age (Daily Chronicle, June 5, 1979) 1979 - Ice Age On Its Way (Lewiston Morning Tribune, June 7, 1979) 1979 - Get Ready to Freeze (Daily Chronicle, October 12, 1979) 1979 - New ice age almost upon us? (The Christian Science Monitor, November 14, 1979)

Ding ding ding! We have a winner!

Why not reduce greenhouse emissions by 100%? If this stuff is so ghastly bad, shouldn't it all be banned? You see, once you start thinking this stuff through to a logical conclusion, its not so difficult to grasp. As I said before, one good old eruption from a volcano pollutes the atmosphere more than all human emissions ever produced and, mind you, in a lot shorter time frame. And yet, the fragile Earth still somehow manages to eggzist, like a super version of the energizer bunny. How many big volcanic eruptions you figgur there has been the past 4.5 billion years? Yah, I don't know either but it is a bunch. Its not a win-win either. Wind, solar and what not for instance, it ain't cheap. Ever hear of Solyndra? I am sure in time, technology will get to the point where wind and solar will be efficient and cost effective. Do you have any idear of the carbon footprint Al Gore produces in a year? And finally we come down to the science. Some say CO2 rise causes temperature rise, some point to levels of water vapour and yes my friends, even our smiley face sun. Its hardly conclusive but it really doesn't matter because we don't have an impact on it anyways. Temps are gonna rise and they are gonna fall. There will be another ice age, just as there has been in the past and there is not a daggum thing we can do about it. Climate change is a oxymoron, of course it changes silly... With no significant weather to talk about, why not a polite conversation about global warming, global cooling, I mean climate change. Which reminds me, I was around in the 1970's when all the hoot from the so called experts was global cooling and the man made ice age that was gonna wipe us out. Anyone else remember those days?

I never said I deny the climate is changing, in fact, I completely agree. Its been a changing for 4.5 billion years, there is no such thing as an unchanging climate. CO2 levels mean nothing, its the sun that controls our climate. CO2 is not a pollutant, us human beings exhale CO2 about 12 times per minute. Funny thing is nature has a fabulous method recycling CO2. You guessed it, trees, plants, shrubbery and even weeds. They love CO2 and the best part is, we get oxygen in return. Tiz a wonderful system. We as a people cannot effect the climate, its such an absurd notion it just floors me everytime I think about it. Does this mean we can just pollute at will, of course not. The cleaner we can be all the better, but within reason. All you have to do is follow the money behind all this global warming nonsense, it ain't hard to figure out...

That's the ironic part. 7 Billion people cannot effect the climate. The earth is 4.5 BILLION years old and has been through far worse than we can throw at it, aside from nuclear holocaust. Climate has been fluctuating for billions of years, no such thing as normal. One major volcanic eruption spews more gas and what not in the atmosphere than all the human emissions combined. Tiz all a farce...

That article is nothing short of complete nonsense.

Chicago’s average December snowfall is 8.3 inches (or one-fifth of the full-season average of 37.4 inches), but averages don’t tell the real story. Chicago’s least-snowy Decembers were in 1889 and 1912, both of which brought only a trace of snow (snowflakes in the air, but no measurable accumulation). Snowiest December: 1951 with 33.3 inches.

Notable Severe Winter Storms in 1977-1978 The 2-9 December period was a series of three snow storms in close sequence, each preceded by glaze in certain parts of the state and later accompanied by high winds. Record cold persisted throughout the eight days. These storms were particularly bad in central Illinois where certain locales had a 3-storm total of over 14 inches (35.6cm) of snow. Figure 1 is a series of newspaper headlines from central Illinois where the storms closed schools, stranded thousands of travelers, closed many businesses, and stopped inter-city transportation for four days. This period was ended by above-normal temperatures in mid-December. The second major severely damaging storm and follow-on period was 24-29 January. This storm was uniquely bad in the eastern half of Illinois. It began as an ice storm followed by a major blizzard. Paralysis resulted, as shown in figure 2. Towns were isolated, 15 people died largely by freezing or suffocating in stranded autos, 317 were injured in a storm-induced wreck of two commuter trains in Chicago, and more than 500 automobile accidents occurred. Three days of high winds in the 30 to 60 mph range kept snow blowing and drifting so that plows could not even attempt to clear the roads. Temperatures remained below normal for weeks after the storm, but transportation systems were reopened by early February.

.LONG TERM...(FRIDAY THROUGH WEDNESDAY) ISSUED AT 358 AM EST THU DEC 18 2014 MOST IMPORTANT INFORMATION FIRST SO THIS LONG TERM WILL BEGIN WITH DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE WINTER STORM NEXT WEEK. HYPE ALREADY WELL UNDERWAY BUT A LOT OF UNCERTAINTY REMAINS WITH RESPECT TO THE VERY IMPORTANT AND CRITICAL DETAILS OF WHEN AND WHERE THIS STORM WILL CREATE IMPACTS. CAUTIOUS BUT INFORMATIVE APPROACH WARRANTED GIVEN THE DAY 6 TO 7 TIME FRAME AND A VERY ENERGETIC PACIFIC JET STREAM WHICH IS POORLY SAMPLED. THUS NUMEROUS CRITICAL CHANGES AND DEVIATIONS IN MODEL SOLUTIONS EXPECTED WITH EACH ITERATION OVER THE NEXT SEVERAL DAYS. THE BROAD SYNOPTIC AGREEMENT AMONG MODELS DOES GIVE HIGHER THAN NORMAL CONFIDENCE THAT A SUBSTANTIAL STORM SYSTEM WILL IMPACT SOME PART OF THE EASTERN CONUS REGION BY CHRISTMAS. HOWEVER...ALREADY SEEING MODEL ADJUSTMENTS IN POTENTIAL TIMING AND TRACK OF SYSTEM AS WELL AS HOW FAST COLDER AIR WILL SWEEP IN. CONFIDENCE REMAINS BELOW NORMAL ON IMPORTANT DETAILS SUCH AS TRACK...PCPN TYPE AND AMOUNTS. LATEST 00Z MODELS TRENDING SYSTEM WESTWARD AS THEY TEND TO DO WITH DYNAMICALLY STRONG AND NEGATIVELY TILTED SYSTEMS. CURRENT MODEL RUNS DO BRING COLD AIR IN ON CHRISTMAS EVE SO KEPT PCPN TYPE ALL SNOW IN THIS PERIOD FOR NOW. MODELS STILL SHOWING A VERY STRONG LOW DEVELOPING WITH TIGHT GRADIENT AS BLOCKY PATTERN STALLS SYSTEM OVER GREAT LAKES REGION. ANY SNOW THAT DOES FALL BY CHRISTMAS WILL CERTAINLY CREATE TRAVEL ISSUES AND HAVE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS DUE TO BLOWING AND DRIFTING. THIS REMAINS WORTHY OF MENTION IN HWO BUT RESTRAINT SHOULD BE EXERCISED FOR NOW IN THE FORECASTS OF TRACK AND SNOW AMOUNTS GIVEN LITTLE SKILL AT THIS TIME RANGE.

Got up to check the weather and almost an inch of snow has fallen...