On Feb 24, 10:07*am, "V-for-Vendicar"
wrote:
wrote

Didn't expect snow *in Greece or Saudi Arabia did you Vendicar?

* It's a pretty regular occurrance, growing less and less in frequency all
the time.

* Have you ever been skiing in Iraq. *I know people who do so.

wrote

What's the probability that this will happen with *exponentially
increasing
worldwide temperatures?

* Your question can only be answered if the extent of the warming is
specified.

(childish crap cut)

YOU are the one alleging the earth is warming up at a rate of 10C
per century.
What is the probability of a 0.75C drop in temperature over the course
of
a year under YOUR assumptions?- A. McIntire

On Feb 24, 4:11 pm, dave wrote:
wrote:
On Feb 23, 3:57 pm, dave wrote:
wrote:

Acutally, the people most apt to use the term "volatility" would be
those trading on stocks, bonds, or commodities.
Volatility is the measure of the state of instability. You think
weather
would be more volatile with global warming, I say that cooling would
have a more volatile effect.- A. McIntire
So McIntire is a stock broker?

So you're not smart enough to understand the definition?- A. McIntire

I've noticed that the realists quote institutions and other collective
bodies, while the denialists are more apt to cite single individuals
e.g. Lindzen and this McIntire dude.

Too bad for you co2agw retards are on the side of group-stink and your
story is only bought by left-wing scumbags.

"Bawana" wrote
Too bad for you co2agw retards are on the side of group-stink and your
story is only bought by left-wing scumbags.

NASA finds evidence of widespread Antarctic melting

Last Updated: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 | 10:04 AM ET

Rising temperatures two years ago led to widespread melting of snow cover in
west Antarctica, according to scientists examining the impact of global
warming on the icy continent.

The melting of snow cover in regions in January 2005 was the most
significant Antarctic melting seen since satellites began observing the
continent three decades ago, NASA said Tuesday.

NASA's QuikScat satellite detected extensive areas of snowmelt, shown in
yellow and red, in west Antarctica in January 2005.
(NASA/JPL) It was also the first major melting detected using NASA's
QuikScat satellite, which can measure both accumulated snowfall and
temperatures in various regions.

The team of scientists found evidence of melting in regions not normally
affected: up to 900 kilometres inland from the open ocean, farther than 85
degrees south (within 500 kilometres of the South Pole) and higher than
2,000 metres above sea level.

QuikScat found maximum air temperatures at the time of melting were
unusually high, reaching more than 5 C in one of the areas. These maximum
temperatures remained above the melting point for approximately a week.

The researchers were led by Son Nghiem of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory
and Konrad Steffen, the director of the Co-operative Institute for Research
in Environmental Sciences at the University of Colorado. They published
their results in a book, Dynamic Planet.

"Antarctica has shown little to no warming in the recent past, with the
exception of the Antarctic Peninsula, but now large regions are showing the
first signs of the impacts of warming as interpreted by this satellite
analysis," said Steffen in a statement.

"Increases in snowmelt, such as this in 2005, definitely could have an
impact on larger-scale melting of Antarctica's ice sheets if they were
severe or sustained over time."

The 2005 melt was extensive enough to create a layer of ice when the water
refroze, but was not long enough for the water to flow to the sea. Steffen
said if enough water from melted snow is created, it could slip through the
cracks of the continent's ice sheets and potentially affect their movement.

The Antarctic ice mass is the Earth's largest freshwater reserve, and
changes in its condition can have an impact on sea levels, ocean salinity
and water currents.

"We need to know what's coming in and going out of the ice sheets," said
Ngheim.

"QuikScat data, combined with data from NASA's IceSat and Gravity Recovery
and Climate Experiment satellites, along with aircraft and ground
measurements, all contribute to more accurate estimates of how the polar ice
sheets are changing."

It's a pretty regular occurrance, growing less and less in frequency all
the time.

Have you ever been skiing in Iraq. I know people who do so.

wrote

What's the probability that this will happen with exponentially
increasing
worldwide temperatures?

Your question can only be answered if the extent of the warming is
specified.

(childish crap cut)


wrote
YOU are the one alleging the earth is warming up at a rate of 10C
per century.

I have made no such statements. The planet is observed to be warming but
how much is in debate - mostly because scientists can't figure out how
stupid people like you are.

If you are very stupid, then the temperature might rise by 10'C over the
next 90 years. But if you are smarter than an ape, or if a few of you are
executed, then it might warm by only 2-4'C over the next 90 years.


wrote
What is the probability of a 0.75C drop in temperature over the course of
a year under YOUR assumptions?- A. McIntire

I believe such drops have been associated with very large volcanic
eruptions, and persist over a couple of years.

wrote
If you weren't a halfwit, wou would have noticed the link ended in
"three..." indicating the full link had been cut. Then, if you
weren't
too lazy and stupid to figure it out for yourself, you could have gone
into 'www.climateaudit.org", gone to the search block at the top of
the
thread, typed in "a tale of three", and found the following full
link.

Sorry Fool. It is not my job to spend my life correcting your constant
stream of errors and stupidity.

I'm amused to see the Competitive Enterprise Institute mentioned though,
given that they were caught paying people to post anti-government and
anti-science propaganda to this news group not so very long ago.

wrote
As I pointed out, extreme weather events, like snow in the Mediterranean,
would be
expected to DECREASE under global warming - A. McIntire

Frequently Asked Question 3.3

Has there been a Change in Extreme Events like Heat Waves, Droughts, Floods
and Hurricanes?



Since 1950, the number of heat waves has increased and widespread increases
have occurred in the numbers of warm nights. The extent of regions affected
by droughts has also increased as precipitation over land has marginally
decreased while evaporation has increased due to warmer conditions.
Generally, numbers of heavy daily precipitation events that lead to flooding
have increased, but not everywhere. Tropical storm and hurricane frequencies
vary considerably from year to year, but evidence suggests substantial
increases in intensity and duration since the 1970s. In the extratropics,
variations in tracks and intensity of storms reflect variations in major
features of the atmospheric circulation, such as the North Atlantic
Oscillation.

In several regions of the world, indications of changes in various types of
extreme climate events have been found. The extremes are commonly considered
to be the values exceeded 1, 5 and 10% of the time (at one extreme) or 90,
95 and 99% of the time (at the other extreme). The warm nights or hot days
(discussed below) are those exceeding the 90th percentile of temperature,
while cold nights or days are those falling below the 10th percentile. Heavy
precipitation is defined as daily amounts greater than the 95th (or for
'very heavy', the 99th) percentile.

In the last 50 years for the land areas sampled, there has been a
significant decrease in the annual occurrence of cold nights and a
significant increase in the annual occurrence of warm nights (Figure 1).
Decreases in the occurrence of cold days and increases in hot days, while
widespread, are generally less marked. The distributions of minimum and
maximum temperatures have not only shifted to higher values, consistent with
overall warming, but the cold extremes have warmed more than the warm
extremes over the last 50 years (Figure 1). More warm extremes imply an
increased frequency of heat waves. Further supporting indications include
the observed trend towards fewer frost days associated with the average
warming in most mid-latitude regions.

A prominent indication of a change in extremes is the observed evidence of
increases in heavy precipitation events over the mid-latitudes in the last
50 years, even in places where mean precipitation amounts are not increasing
(see also FAQ 3.2). For very heavy precipitation events, increasing trends
are reported as well, but results are available for few areas.

Drought is easier to measure because of its long duration. While there are
numerous indices and metrics of drought, many studies use monthly
precipitation totals and temperature averages combined into a measure called
the Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI). The PDSI calculated from the
middle of the 20th century shows a large drying trend over many Northern
Hemisphere land areas since the mid-1950s, with widespread drying over much
of southern Eurasia, northern Africa, Canada and Alaska

FAQ 3.2, Figure 1), and an opposite trend in eastern North and South
America. In the Southern Hemisphere, land surfaces were wet in the 1970s and
relatively dry in the 1960s and 1990s, and there was a drying trend from
1974 to 1998. Longer-duration records for Europe for the whole of the 20th
century indicate few significant trends. Decreases in precipitation over
land since the 1950s are the likely main cause for the drying trends,
although large surface warming during the last two to three decades has also
likely contributed to the drying. One study shows that very dry land areas
across the globe (defined as areas with a PDSI of less than -3.0) have more
than doubled in extent since the 1970s, associated with an initial
precipitation decrease over land related to the El Niño-Southern Oscillation
and with subsequent increases primarily due to surface warming.

Changes in tropical storm and hurricane frequency and intensity are masked
by large natural variability. The El Niño-Southern Oscillation greatly
affects the location and activity of tropical storms around the world.
Globally, estimates of the potential destructiveness of hurricanes show a
substantial upward trend since the mid-1970s, with a trend towards longer
storm duration and greater storm intensity, and the activity is strongly
correlated with tropical sea surface temperature. These relationships have
been reinforced by findings of a large increase in numbers and proportion of
strong hurricanes globally since 1970 even as total numbers of cyclones and
cyclone days decreased slightly in most basins. Specifically, the number of
category 4 and 5 hurricanes increased by about 75% since 1970. The largest
increases were in the North Pacific, Indian and Southwest Pacific Oceans.
However, numbers of hurricanes in the North Atlantic have also been above
normal in 9 of the last 11 years, culminating in the record-breaking 2005
season.

Based on a variety of measures at the surface and in the upper troposphere,
it is likely that there has been a poleward shift as well as an increase in
Northern Hemisphere winter storm track activity over the second half of the
20th century. These changes are part of variations that have occurred
related to the North Atlantic Oscillation. Observations from 1979 to the
mid-1990s reveal a tendency towards a stronger December to February
circumpolar westerly atmospheric circulation throughout the troposphere and
lower stratosphere, together with poleward displacements of jet streams and
increased storm track activity. Observational evidence for changes in
small-scale severe weather phenomena (such as tornadoes, hail and
thunderstorms) is mostly local and too scattered to draw general
conclusions; increases in many areas arise because of increased public
awareness and improved efforts to collect reports of these phenomena.



http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/...Print_FAQs.pdf

wrote
I've traded in stocks. Anyway, this quibbling about words is
tangental to the fact that increased global warming would result in
fewer extreme weather events

The science says otherwise.

http://www.davidsuzuki.org/about_us/...ly09090501.asp
Extreme weather likely to increase

September 9, 2005 - After Hurricane Katrina plowed a swath of destruction
through the Southern U.S., most people were probably wondering how to help
those in need, or feeling saddened by the injuries and loss of life. Some
people, however, were apparently more concerned with getting another message
out: "It has nothing to do with global warming!"

Within days of the hurricane's strike, several Canadian newspapers published
the same opinion article by the same author on how it has become
"fashionable" for governments, environmental groups and those in the media
to blame extreme weather like Katrina on climate change. The author goes to
great pains to insist there is no connection between the two.

Strange. I can't recall a single headline that read: "Hurricane Katrina hits
U.S. - Global warming to blame" or remember a quote by an environmental
group attributing the disaster to global warming. Fact is, newspaper editors
didn't write those headlines and scientists and environmental groups didn't
say those quotes because you can't attribute any individual weather event to
climate change. It just doesn't work that way.

Certainly, some computer models suggest there will be an increase in
hurricanes due to climate change in the future. And many computer models
anticipate an increase in extreme weather in general this century, though
not necessarily hurricanes. But the jury's out on whether such increases are
already occurring.

Some studies conclude they are, such as a paper published last year in
Geophysical Research Letters. It ends, "Thus our results suggest that
predicted increases in Canadian forest fire occurrence due to anthropogenic
climate change are already being observed." A recent paper in the Journal of
Climate, concludes: "In the midlatitudes, there is a widespread increase in
the frequency of very heavy precipitation during the past 50 to 100 yr."

But other studies are inconclusive. Indeed, finding out if extreme weather
events are actually increasing in either severity or in frequency around the
world is difficult because there is a lack of good-quality data from areas
outside major population centers.

So, why would the author send out this red herring addressing a non-issue?
One possibility is that he may have other motives. He has been quoted in the
press saying: "This (global warming) is the biggest scientific hoax being
perpetrated on humanity. There is no global warming due to human
anthropogenic activities."

Ah, so there you have it. Katrina, it seems, was just a convenient excuse to
get the same tired "Global warming isn't happening, and if it is it has
nothing to do with anything people are doing," message out to the masses.
The charitable among us might call that being opportunistic. The cynical
would call it ambulance chasing.

The world's most prestigious scientific bodies - the U.S. National Academy
of Science, the Royal Society of the U.K., the Royal Society of Canada and
others recently signed a declaration warning about the "clear and
increasing" threat of climate change and urging our leaders to act. An
analysis in Science of all 928 peer-reviewed climate studies published
between 1993 and 2003 found that not a single one disagreed with the general
scientific consensus on climate change.

To ignore such evidence and insist on "proof" flies in the face of the way
science actually works. Science does not progress in a direct, linear path.
There are no straight lines from discovery to discovery to enlightenment.
When I tell university students today about some of the ideas we had about
genetics when I was their age, they burst out laughing. A recent analysis of
scientific papers found that 50 per cent of them are probably wrong. But
that's not entirely unexpected. We learn from our failures as much as from
our successes. That's the nature of the scientific process.

To demand absolute proof in science before acting on a threat is to ask the
impossible. It's not just anti-scientific; it's anti-science.

On Feb 24, 3:19*pm, "V-for-Vendicar"
wrote:
It's a pretty regular occurrance, growing less and less in frequency all
the time.

Have you ever been skiing in Iraq. I know people who do so.

wrote

What's the probability that this will happen with exponentially
increasing
worldwide temperatures?

Your question can only be answered if the extent of the warming is
specified.

(childish crap cut)

wrote

* YOU are the one alleging the earth is warming up at a rate of 10C
per century.

* I have made no such statements. *

From your Friday, May 11, 2007 post.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.g...c?dmode=source

"The fact is, 27'C is a much more reasonable estimate of the future
climate
that some estimates show as being 10'C hotter than today. The global
average then rises from 15'C to 25'C."

- You're a habitual liar- A. McIntire

wrote
YOU are the one alleging the earth is warming up at a rate of 10C
per century.

V for Vendicar wrote:
I have made no such statements.

From your Friday, May 11, 2007 post.


quotes from Vendicar Decarian:
"The fact is, 27'C is a much more reasonable estimate of the future
climate that some estimates show as being 10'C hotter than today."

Which is absolutely correct and perfectly in line with my claim that I have
made no such statements that the earth is warming at a rate of 10'C per
century.

Some outlier estimates are 10'C, some are 2'C. And in both cases 27'C for
a surface temperature is better than the temperature assumed by the person
being responded to which was an average surface temperature of 0'C.

Poor Alanmac and his grade school level of reading comprehension.

dave wrote:
wrote:
On Feb 23, 3:57 pm, dave wrote:
wrote:

Acutally, the people most apt to use the term "volatility" would be
those trading on stocks, bonds, or commodities.
Volatility is the measure of the state of instability. You think
weather
would be more volatile with global warming, I say that cooling would
have a more volatile effect.- A. McIntire
So McIntire is a stock broker?

So you're not smart enough to understand the definition?- A. McIntire

I've noticed that the realists quote institutions and other collective
bodies, while the denialists are more apt to cite single individuals
e.g. Lindzen and this McIntire dude.

Socialists work in collectives happily, though individualism is
absolutely legitimate in research and science.