Arctic Cyclone in US and Canada

[burzerker]

HAHA love the watermelons claiming that this is due to global warming. What's even better is the term first gained fame in the 70's to explain global cooling.

[Yanoda]

I would like my share of global warming now please.

Wait until Summer, for some record highs.

HAHA love the watermelons claiming that this is due to global warming. What's even better is the term first gained fame in the 70's to explain global cooling.

I prefer watching those that make claims and assumptions on a subject they do not even understand or grasp a small part of the said subject, to then inform them how it really works and hope they learn something from it.
Wait, are you saying that Global Warming was used to explain Global Cooling? That doesn't make sense... you sure you didn't mix something up or omitted something?
http://www.weather.com/news/science/env ... l-20140107
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/st ... f-ice-cap/

In the 1970s, there were still vastly more studies/publications that were predicting, implying or providing supporting evidence for future global warming compared to global cooling (44 publications for warming to 7 publications for cooling, that's over 6:1 ratio). Though it seems the media was only focused on the cooling aspect instead at the time...
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10. ... BAMS2370.1

Sometimes less is more...

Quite true, it all depends on perspective.

Hey I ain't complaining, just a bit weird to have 3 boobies even for MD's standards...

I've seen weirder things, and this isn't even half bad. No?

[11_Panama_]

I can't help it but.. I'm seeing her 30-40 years later with those things ruined by gravity. Masterpieces. I like your type of porn Yanny!

[burzerker]

What I was saying is that there was the same type of "polar vortex" explanation used in the 70's, I believe it was even used in Time mag to show how we were all going to die from man made Global Cooling, and now they are saying this same type of polar vortex is due to Global Warming. The one thing the fear-mongers are good at recycling is the same pathetic stories trying to show that humans are the root of all evil. I wonder how long it will be before they finally admit that their computer models were wrong. According to NASA "scientists" were were supposed to have an ice free north pole by last year, James Hansen predicted in 1986 that we would have warmed 5 degrees, after Katrina we were told hurricanes would increase, they have declined, after tornado in joplin tornadoes would increase, they have declined, forest fires would increase, they have declined, and during all of this the temperature has not increased in 17 years and we are officially outside of even the lowest of the computer models put out by the IPCC.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/04/2 ... ather-etc/
http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/12/18/ ... -analysis/
More and more studies are showing the obvious that the sun is the largest contributor to any changes to Earth's climate
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/ ... -2013.html

[Brazosgrad]

the polar vortex term has been around for a lot longer than the 70's. And there is no "Global Cooling" going on. It's just a one year happenstance that doesn't change multiple years of warming. thank you. sometimes it feels good to play the other side of the fence.

[11_Panama_]

Al Roker got into this subject this morning. He showed his college textbook on screen, and it showed the term "Polar Vortex". The textbook was from 1958.

[Yanoda]

What I was saying is that there was the same type of "polar vortex" explanation used in the 70's, I believe it was even used in Time mag to show how we were all going to die from man made Global Cooling, and now they are saying this same type of polar vortex is due to Global Warming.

What Time Magazine says means nothing. As I showed before, there were more publications made saying global warming is occurring versus global cooling. The media exaggerated and misinterpreted what the scientific journals/publications were discussing. Here is the explanation how the article came to be (with the original author of the article) http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... came-to-be

According to NASA "scientists" were were supposed to have an ice free north pole by last year

False, it was only one scientist that made that claim. Furthermore, they are referring to Ice Free Summer, there is a big difference. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... -melt.html

James Hansen predicted in 1986 that we would have warmed 5 degrees, after Katrina we were told hurricanes would increase, they have declined, after tornado in joplin tornadoes would increase, they have declined, forest fires would increase, they have declined, and during all of this the temperature has not increased in 17 years and we are officially outside of even the lowest of the computer models put out by the IPCC.

Never heard of Hansen, and just because one scientist makes a claim (quite a bold claim too) doesn't mean everyone else in the field has the same view.
As far as I know, they did not specifically refer to the frequency of the events but the severity of the events. Which means stronger Hurricanes (as your link indicated) but not necessarily more (do remember that Cyclones and Typhons are also related). Forest fires have generally been increasing in occurrence (mostly in the Boreal Forests). http://www.publish.csiro.au/?paper=WF09002
17 years in climate is nothing, we analyse trends in 30 year time frames to get a better view of the long term. It seems there still was an increase in temperature the past 30 years. Furthermore, current studies indicate the the world's oceans are one of the largest carbon sinks and temperature buffer (water has a high heat capacity) and evidence shows that the oceans absorbed considerable amount of thermal (heat) energy. Furthermore, within these years (17) there were considerable frequent La Niña events that are related to reducing global temperatures (not by much). Climate model tests were performed that ran with and without the effects of La Niña, the results indicated a continued rise in temperatures without La Niña but a stalled temperature increase with La Niña up to a certain time (they expect it to start rising again in the near future).
1880 - 2013 temperatures: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/g ... 201212.png
La Niña and ocean heat content: http://www.climate.gov/news-features/cl ... ast-decade

More and more studies are showing the obvious that the sun is the largest contributor to any changes to Earth's climate
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/ ... -2013.html

I went through a few of the papers listed there and it seems a few were misinterpreted. Examples:
Turner et al. 2014 - Late Holocene ecohydrological and carbon dynamics of a UK raised bog: impact of human activity and climate change: "Periods of high bog surface wetness correspond to the Wolf, Sporer and Maunder sunspot activity minima, suggesting solar forcing was a significant driver of climate change over the last c. 1000 years. Following the intensification of agriculture and industry over the last two centuries, the combined climatic and anthropogenic forcing effects become increasingly difficult to separate due to increases in atmospheric deposition of anthropogenically derived pollutants, fertilising compounds, and additions of wind-blown soil dust." So solar forcing was relevant in the past 1000 years, but not so much today due to anthropogenic causes.
Misios and Schmidt 2014 - The role of the oceans in shaping the tropospheric response to the 11 year solar cycle: "...These findings suggest that changes at the ocean surface could contribute considerably to the poleward shift of the subtropical tropospheric jets, although a top-down influence on the oceans and hence indirectly on the jets cannot be excluded." The study they conducted was the effect of oceans on the subtropical tropospheric jets, not the 11 year solar cycle (they made models where the sun activity was constant).
Steinhilber and Beer 2013 - Prediction of solar activity for the next 500 years: Nothing about how the predicted sun activity will affect the Global Climate.
Gil-Alana et al. 2013 - Global temperatures and sunspot numbers. Are they related?: "However, the fact that both series display poles in the spectrum at different frequencies implies that we fail to reject the null hypothesis of no relationship between the two variables in the long run. Moreover, assuming that the sunspots are exogenous, the results show no statistical significance of this variable on the global temperatures, which is one of the main contributions of the present work." They specifically say that there is no significance on the global temperatures.

Looks like the site did not properly read through the Publications... (I would read through more, but am limited with time.) So far, 4 out of 10 papers (going from top to bottom) being claimed to prove solar activity is the cause, either do not even compare solar activity with Climate Temperature or show opposing views of the site.

Climate Change is a large topic and there are still uncertainties. Though there are an increasing amount of studies indicating that Human action has an effect on the climate and ecosystems. That gasses such as CO2 and Methane do have an effect of increasing temperatures. The use of models are still not to be 100% trusted since there are still several uncertainties, though these are tools used to see how the future can play out and the need to plan ahead on how to address the scenarios. No scientist claimed that these models are absolute truth, just that they indicate a potential trend based on current knowledge.

Cheers

[Duel of Fates]

I am still so cold.

[Bryant]

There's way to much politics and money involved on both sides to really trust anything. The NOAA is using data from weather sites where ~90% don't meet requirements (to fix these problems they chose to make old data colder to fit their agenda and not reality). The IPCC went from 95% confidence in man-made global warming to 99% without any new research or warming. Antarctica also reached a new record maximum again this year, from the record max last year. Original IPCC models used exponential temperature growth which is way off base (it's actually more like a logarithmic effect at worst). I'm not saying it's impossible for man-made global warming; however, the shear global politics, money, and scientific pressure to conform is overwhelming.

We're really not going to be able to tell anything until over the next 10 years, as the sun ends it maximum activity and larger data accumulation that don't use NOAAs primary data base.

[Duel of Fates]

Hey, wasn't that ship full of scientists, trying to prove that there was less ice due to global warming, the one that got stuck in really thick ice, that they were trying to prove was disappearing?

And i am now turning to alcohol for my "global warming". Cheers!!!!