Spotted at the Weather Network, and sent along by a reader who notes, that ” Al Gore must be visiting Newfoundland. The first of two pictures from Bay Roberts shows no ice in the harbour on 21 January 2008, while the second shows the harbour full on 2 April 2008.”
This is perfectly normal for Bay Waberts as this ice it this year’s production from the arctic moving south.
As I looked at my window last night and could hardly see the waters of False Creek because of the blizzard of Al Gore snowflakes.
Please Al . . bring on some warming, we need it. The 30cm of snow in Nanaimo last night needs to be balanced out with a reciprocal blast of your famous GhG warming.
Please Al, please ?
As Gord said, this is the norm Kate.
But according to the gospel of the Church of Climatology, Al Gore being the Nobel Priest, we are not supposed to be seeing “normal” are we…
Well, here in Edmonton, we didn’t just get a spring snowstorm. This is dollar for donuts a winter snowstorm! -8 for a high, snow, wind equals near blizzard conditions here. I can’t tell if it’s January or April.
I tried my best this winter with unnecessary idling and everything else I could do to pump out more of the CO2. I am sorry but it seems as though I failed miserably in reaching my objective of a warmer climate.
I feel for you folks out west……… I really do…….. Baawwhhaaaa!!!
17 and sunny along the coast today as we worked on our paintball field’s new speedball field.
Oooh!! Highs of 25 yesterday and today in Northern Ontario! Great gardening weather!
…I know we’ll pay!
My son called from Quebec (on a field trip), he’s spending all his money on bottled water(and maple syrup for Mom)it’s so hot there. The only one who likes this cold weather we are getting in Edmonton is my dog.
Summer, last year in Edmonton was 5 weeks, that’s right, 5 weeks. That was July plus 1 week in August.
Gee, it looks beautiful out my window in Edmonton,
like a Christmas-card snowfall. Ahh, Christmas in
April, I should write a song. Or go here:
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/008519.html#c264154
And on a Saturday night too. How cozy.
AW. C’mon Vit. It is nice,I will admit,but I can’t help thinking how the KyotoKultists say that this snowstorm in April is not proof that MMGW is a fake,but that one day in August with a high temp .005 above the record DOES prove that MMGW is the gospel! Think I’ll head out and get some good pics of the Canada geese slipsliding their way across the pond(natural) down the road.
Sounder wasn’t kidding when he said summer was only 5 weeks in Edmonton last year. I recall that the first frost occurred just outside of Edmonton on the 10th of August. A date I can remember easily because it was our 22nd anniversary.
God it’s cold and raw here in St. John’s today. Worst April in the 30 years I have lived here.
We really don’t want Al Gore. We’ve enough to do with that other creep Paul Watson.
Normal high this day in Kelowna .. about 17C
Today’s high .. about 5C
Frost predicted next few nights – go long cherries, apples, appracotes
Six inches of snow on mid Vancouver Island this morning. Power lines pulled down by snow laden trees. Warmer it ain’t. Try the coldest for thisty seven years if you will.
Does Kate have such a terrible grasp on climate change that any day it’s unseasonably cold we’re going to see a “GOTCHA HAHA STUPID SCIENTISTS!” post?
Protip: “Global Warming” refers to average global temperatures, over a long period of time… it doesn’t mean that every single day anywhere in Canada is going to be +30C .
It seems to me that the seasons have shifted by about a month to the ???. Summer until October and winter until end of April early May. Didn’t the earth shift on it’s axis a few years ago by about 20 degrees or so. Would that account for the change??
Wikipedia’s Zealots
“The thought police at the supposedly independent site are fervently enforcing the climate orthodoxy”, Lawrence Solomon (Financial Post)
[Tabletop, it turns out, has another name: Kim Dabelstein Petersen. She (or he?) is an editor at Wikipedia. What does she edit? Reams and reams of global warming pages. I started checking them. In every instance I checked, she defended those warning of catastrophe and deprecated those who believe the science is not settled. I investigated further. Others had tried to correct her interpretations and had the same experience as I — no sooner did they make their corrections than she pounced, preventing Wikipedia readers from reading anyone’s views but her own. When they protested plaintively, she wore them down and snuffed them out.] LS
Ahaww, Houston, we have a problem. Our school kids may be brainwashed if they refer to Wickedpedia.
http://www.nationalpost.com/todays_paper/story.html?id=440268&p=2
we trian in all weather………..
If David Jacuzzi can cite every warm day, Kate can cite every cold day. It’s in the Charter.
get with da program you bunch of maroons. it aint global warming anymore, Al Gore and Dr. Mengele Suzuki call it Climate Change. It can go up , down sideways, rain , dry , puke , it doesnt matter as long as its not the same as the day before or the year before. a few taxes, a few climate change deniers in jail for “right think” and it will be all fixed.
meanwhile Gore sits in his mansion and Dr. Dave Fruitfly sits on Kitsalano beach in his 7 million dollar eco-cottage and make pilgramages to the eco-shack on Quadra island.
Oh, so she’s no better than the evil, environut moonbats.
gotcha ron.
=)
I nominate Samuel for our official SDA troll. He’s so darned smart while we are all so darned dumb and just look at his really cool “protips”.
Keep your head up your ass Samuel, you pathetic liberals have nothing to say that adds to any conversation other than parroting Steffi the Imbecile. Here at 4500 feet in southern Alberta we have 2 feet of snow today, we had 2 feet of snow here in 1960 also on this date, OH my I must do like a liberal light my hair on fire and run screaming into the night that the end is near. No I will pour a scotch and turn up that wonder called my boiler that runs on nat gas and enjoy a movie on my big screen, the joys of working hard and having money, suck it up you stupid liberal morons in mommys apartment waiting for the end.
Protip: Not everyone who believes the scientific consensus on global warming/climate change is a liberal.
As a card carrying conservative and a petroleum geologist by occupation — I’m really getting a kick out of you guys jumping all over me for being a hippie liberal.
=)
“It seems to me that the seasons have shifted by about a month to the ???. Summer until October and winter until end of April early May. Didn’t the earth shift on it’s axis a few years ago by about 20 degrees or so. Would that account for the change??”
Combine a strong La Nina and a prolonged Solar Minimum and this is what you get. A colder and longer winter. Don’t expect this summer to be a hot one either. It should be below average.
Yes, Samuel is crashing and burning rather intensely over at the Taylor thread too. Rather fascinating though, at least from the perspective of an armchair anthropologist, especially considering those of whom are criticizing him who don’t even understand what his problem is.
Oh well, back to the weather, and I’ve got today’s SDA LNR in the can on that subject, if only Kate opens a Reader Tips.
Samuel” “”Global Warming” refers to average global temperatures, over a long period of time… it doesn’t mean that every single day anywhere in Canada is going to be +30C.” This comment is a cop-out. Everyone knows that it is not the day to day or even an odd year re temperatures, but at some point there is a tie between actual temperatures and evidence of global warming. The “warmists” themselves are relying on yearly temperatures to prove their point. Now, I am willing to concede that a lack of temperature increase for 10 years (I think that is now the case) proves nothing over the long term — but then a 1 degree rise over the last century really also proves nothing. I think in the end what we have is a situation of temperatures going up . . . and then down . . .up . . . and down. I guess that’s the horror of “climate change”. At this point I have given up on any reasonable arguments influencing this debate one way or the other. It isn’t even about temperatures anymore — it’s all about emotion.
Vitruvius
You find it fascinating that people with little technical knowledge of an issue criticize someone who has knowledge of that issue, and that someone challenges their ill-conceived notions?
Pretty normal reaction, I’d say.
I fully expect to “crash and burn” trying to explain the some of the finer points of climate change to people like “bartinsky”.
=)
Not at all Samuel. You are intelligent. You, like others of us, have some knowledge in the field. You would be a fine addition to a considered, civil discussion, if you choose to do that. But you don’t. You choose to be a knob, socially speaking of course. You spray around gratuitous invectives like pole-cat in heat, and then demand respect.
It doesn’t work that way, son. The regulars round these parts have been commenting here for years. They know each other. This is a social phenomenon. If anyone tries to just come waltzing in here and be an aszhole, they will be ridiculed.
Round these parts, son, you have to earn the priviledge to be an aszhole, and you’re going about it the wrong way.
well samuel according to your enviroguru du jour, you will indeed crash and burn sooner rather than later. too bad I was just starting to warm up to you.
And to be clear, Sameul, I’m not saying that there aren’t plenty of other knobs around too. You’re new in these parts. I’ve challenged you to be reasonable once, and now twice. The ball is in your court. Will you be reasonable?
The “warmist community” has a history of trying to link isolated weather events and their warming theology. Remember when Hurricane Katrina had to be caused by global warming, if not by George Bush himself? The lack of hurricanes last year in the U.S. kind of blew that notion out of the water, but they will use any weather event to push the agenda. The recent breakup of a small part of Western Antarctica was a case in point.
Oops, I spelt your name wrong in my last comment, Samuel, sorry about that.
Vitruvius
I agree, I’m sure I would fit in better with people on this site if I sugarcoated my words.
Unfortunately, I believe in talking straight with people. Like any other public website, there is a staggering amount of ignorance on display — nowhere more so than the subject of science. There’s not enough time in the day to point all of it out, let alone doing so without hurting people’s “feelings”.
It seems to me that too many people refuse to consider the science, when its so much easier to stick theirhead in the sand and blame those damn liberals!
I guess that it pains me to see people with a political agenda, and no understanding of the science — attacking the science! I recognize that not everyone falls into that category, but it seems that people like yourself (an understanding of the science, questioning the science) are in the vast minority.
samuel, this is the science I believe. Read it and Weep
http://cjunk.blogspot.com/2008/03/state-of-global-warming-today.html
Correct and agreed, Samuel, there is a staggering amount of ignorance on display in the public sphere, and there is not enough time in the day to point all of it out, so why spend all day trying to point it out? Moreover, very few people are seriously stupid, ignorance of a topic you know something about is not a sign of their stupidity, it is an invitation for you to try to help educate them.
But one can’t do that if one starts off by insulting them, sugarcoating doesn’t enter into it. The first thing you said to me, Samuel, in our history here at SDA, was that my analysis was sophomoric. Yet that particular analysis actually bears the coveted “SDA / John Cross” seal of approval (modulo the molar weight of CO2 error, which has now been corrected):
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/008056.html#c243220
If one wants to convice others about things one thinks are important, then one must spend most of one’s time being reasonable, in order to earn the trust of those who will question one’s matters of importance that they think may be unreasonable.
If one runs around being unreasonable all the time, then when something one considers important comes up, people will just think one’s crazy. It’s basically a variant of the Boy Who Cried Wolf problem, a very old problem indeed. And don’t forget the sage words of Oscar Wilde, who said, “If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they’ll kill you”.
in a nutshell..don’t go runnin around like a chicken with it’s head cut off fer cryin out loud we’re just trying to have a conversation here.
The world has been warmer before now and much colder than it is now . .There was ice a mile thick where I’m sitting right now and I dug up a perfectly fossilised palm tree, trunk , nuts , branches and roots in a hill in Redcliff, Alberta .It wasn’t my fault things changed then either.
Vitruvius
I have no idea who this John Cross is, and why he’s considered the authority on the subject of ACC around here, but I maintain that that calculation is sophomoric.
The Calculation
The portion of atmospheric CO2 vapor that is produced by humans is about 3% or 0.03. The portion of green-house gasses that is CO2 is about 1% or 0.01. Thus, the portion of green-house gasses that is human produced CO2 is about 0.03% or 0.0003. The heat trapping effectiveness of CO2 compared to the average of green-house gasses is about 10% or 0.10. Thus, the portion of the green-house gas effect caused by human CO2 is about 0.003% or 0.00003 or 30 millionths. The portion of human-produced CO2 vapor that comes from Canada is about 2% or 0.02. Thus, the portion of green-house gas effects caused by Canadian-produced CO2 is about 0.00006% or 0.0000006 or 0.6 millionths.
Flaw #1
You claim that The portion of atmospheric CO2 vapor that is produced by humans is about 3% or 0.03
while Mr. Cross claims Keep in mind that the total human contribution to atmospheric CO2 is about 30%.
I’d probably estimate this at slightly higher, but I’ll agree with the authority here. That’s 10x. Your figure is wildly incorrect.
Flaw #2 I don’t know where you’re finding the figure that CO2 accounts for 1% of total GHGs. This is incorrect.
I’d also suggest that your figure pertaining of the trapping effectiveness is also on the very low side.
The last figure seems to be about right, so I’ll give you a 1.75 out of 4 on the calculation.
That’s 0.4375 or 43.75%.
cantuc
I agree, it’s a dynamic system and anyone who tells you that we can “stop global warming” or “climate change” is either ignorant or a liar. The question in my mind is whether or not we’re giving good old mother nature a kick in the pants, greatly accelerating the inevitable… if so, is it worth the effort or even a realistic goal to put the brakes on this acceleration? — or should we just keep a close eye on it and prepare for and try to mitigate the effects. (Bye Bye Florida!)
You commented 14 times in this thread ~ tinyurl.com/3utrjk ~ Samuel, in which said thread John Cross, who is a knowledgeable and honourable man, commented 5 times, significantly and reasonably, while you were busy calling someone a whore, and you have no idea who he is? Are you paying any attention at all, son? This is Small Dead Animals you know, not the Samuel show. Furthermore, condescension is a fine art, as I mentioned before; abuse of the rhetorical form can lead to ridicule, although I will admit, such misbehaviour can on occasion be a useful target for droll wit.
Well folks, it looks like it’s been another day. Best wishes, thanks Kate, ‘night all.
don’t go Vitru. I’m scared to be alone with this sameul
Seems like a reasonable fellow. I still have no idea who he is or why he’s considered the authority on ACC around here.
=)
Good night.
*slides over*
Sooooooo kelly, can I buy you a drink?
😉
Relax, Kelly, none of us are with each other, we’re all just virtual phenomena (modulo those commenters who actually know each other, of course). Besides, virtually speaking, I’m sleeping in the pipe bearth on the starboard quarter, let me know if that slimy operator becomes a problem. Otherwise, there’s some great pulp fiction here, for everyone’s enjoyment:
sagaciousiconoclast.blogspot.com/2007/09/dashiell-hammett.html
I’m a reasonable fellow too. gin & tonic thanks
There’s Beefeaters and Tanquery in the port locker, Kelly, I hope one of them will do, and if I’m not mistaken, there’s a bottle of port too (in the port locker, of course), so pace the pipe berth, I’ll join you, and Perry, Paul, and Della, in the fo’c’s’le, if that’s ok. A good bowl of pipe tobacco in the invigorating air of this Christmas in April weather always beats a pipe berth.
(You know, I’ve got this queasy feeling that Kate’s about to smack us upside the head for getting carried way off topic here, so I’m going to sign off and head for the open sea. Sorry if our fun has crossed the line, Kate.)
if yer headin to the strait pf georgia..wave!
Samuel said: “Unfortunately, I believe in talking straight with people. Like any other public website, there is a staggering amount of ignorance on display — nowhere more so than the subject of science.”
As a biologist with 40 years of experience, so do I. If you truly are a petroleum geologist, and have actually learned some science, you’ll understand that the number one problem about the current debate about climate change is: we don’t have the ability to measure global changes in temperature as fine as +/- 1 deg C. The thermodynamic equilibrium of the planet is far to large a variable array for our real time sensory capability. We don’t even have adequate baselines to measure “normal” variability, let alone supranormal. At best, we can catalogue anecdotes, which make for interesting documentaries, but hardly qualifies as a definitive statement for predictive climate analysis.