On 5 Apr, 19:01, (Rand Simberg) wrote:
On Sat, 5 Apr 2008 13:53:23 -0400, in a place far, far away, "Terrell
Miller" made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:







"Roger Coppock" wrote in message
...
On Apr 5, 9:06 am, (Rand Simberg) wrote:
On Sun, 6 Apr 2008 11:17:39 -0400, in a place far, far away,
"jonathan" made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Modern 'Science' marches ahead~

ORLANDO --

"We're in a busy period of hurricane activity that will inflict
unimaginable damage, but global warming is not the cause
leading researchers told the nation's foremost forecasters
and other experts Friday."

"Insurance experts warned Friday that the nation soon will
absorb a hurricane that causes more than $100 billion in
damage, and Landsea has estimated that a Category 5
hurricane could produce at least $140 billion in damage
to South Florida.
(* but global warming is not the cause)

snip remaining scientific cluelessness

If it is your fantasy, despite the clear statements of people who
study such things, that global warming is the cause, then how do you
explain the fact that this is happening in a period during which the
planet has been *cooling* for the past decade?

It has? *You simply can not say that with
statistical confidence. *Below, are several
graphs of global mean surface and near surface
temperatures. *Look at them, and you will find
several short intervals in the past that your
rules would also define as cooling periods, yet
the long term trend is clearly warming.

Michael Crichton tried that stunt in his "State of fear" novel. He took a
small slice of a long-term graph, and that slice showed temperatures falling
at the same time CO2 was rising, exactly the opposite of the predictions for
carbon emissions causing global warming.

I had nothing to say about long-term global warming. *I was simply
pointing out that Jonathan's thesis that it is causing more intense
hurricanes *now* is lunacy.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I am not so sure, the oceans are a complex entity. There is surface
water and deep water. The oceans apparently cool when cold deep water
reaches the surface. This is the origin of El Nino type effects. Thus
we can have a long term trend of ocean warming with drops in surface
temperature.

What the effect on hurricanes is not at all clear. In a hurricane deep
water (intermediate level) is forced to the surface by high winds. The
effect of temperatures 100-200m down on the development of hurricanes
is unknown. In any event the drop in SST is only a temporary blip. In
e few years time temperatures will be up again.

It is self evident that hurricane formation is related to vapor
pressure.


- Ian Parker

"Ian Parker" wrote in message
...
On 5 Apr, 19:01, (Rand Simberg) wrote:
On Sat, 5 Apr 2008 13:53:23 -0400, in a place far, far away, "Terrell
Miller" made the phosphor on my monitor glow

I had nothing to say about long-term global warming. I was simply
pointing out that Jonathan's thesis that it is causing more intense
hurricanes *now* is lunacy.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I am not so sure, the oceans are a complex entity. There is surface
water and deep water. The oceans apparently cool when cold deep water
reaches the surface. This is the origin of El Nino type effects. Thus
we can have a long term trend of ocean warming with drops in surface
temperature.

What the effect on hurricanes is not at all clear. In a hurricane deep
water (intermediate level) is forced to the surface by high winds. The
effect of temperatures 100-200m down on the development of hurricanes
is unknown. In any event the drop in SST is only a temporary blip. In
e few years time temperatures will be up again.

It is self evident that hurricane formation is related to vapor
pressure.



Why do we make these things more complicated than they need to be?

The underlying concept of global warming is that the weather will become
more chaotic as the planet warms. Which of course means greater volatility
and...less predictability. Small thinkers like Rand want ....proof...when the
expected effect is for the established patterns to become LESS predictable.

Rands and his like want to be shown proof of unpredictability.

OK! Proof of global warming is found in forecasters having
less and less idea what the hell is going to happen next, except
they know it'll be stronger or weaker than normal. Or maybe
not.

In other words....they'll know...next to nothing.


From the horses mouth......

"We're in a busy period of hurricane activity that will inflict
unimaginable damage"

"They call the phenomenon ''rapid intensification,''

"....plans to deemphasize its controversial full-season forecasts"

"Those long-range forecasts, issued before the season begins
on June 1....have been well off the mark in recent years."

etc etc.

If it quacks like a duck, it becomes beholden on those
that claim it's not a duck, to come up with their proof.

People keep pointing to 04 and 05, but last year was the
ideal example. The first half of the season saw storms intensify
with breathtaking speed. And at the drop of a dime
the second half turned into Lake Placid.

The proof is in seeing more 'headscratching' over the weather.

Hell, we practically don't need to 'speed up' the videos
to show ice caps melting anymore.
Real time footage is almost good enough~

Proof....pfffft!







- Ian Parker

jonathan wrote:
"Ian Parker" wrote in message
...
On 5 Apr, 19:01, (Rand Simberg) wrote:
On Sat, 5 Apr 2008 13:53:23 -0400, in a place far, far away, "Terrell
Miller" made the phosphor on my monitor glow

I had nothing to say about long-term global warming. I was simply
pointing out that Jonathan's thesis that it is causing more intense
hurricanes *now* is lunacy.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I am not so sure, the oceans are a complex entity. There is surface
water and deep water. The oceans apparently cool when cold deep water
reaches the surface. This is the origin of El Nino type effects. Thus
we can have a long term trend of ocean warming with drops in surface
temperature.

What the effect on hurricanes is not at all clear. In a hurricane deep
water (intermediate level) is forced to the surface by high winds. The
effect of temperatures 100-200m down on the development of hurricanes
is unknown. In any event the drop in SST is only a temporary blip. In
e few years time temperatures will be up again.

It is self evident that hurricane formation is related to vapor
pressure.



Why do we make these things more complicated than they need to be?

The underlying concept of global warming is that the weather will become
more chaotic as the planet warms. Which of course means greater volatility
and...less predictability. Small thinkers like Rand want ....proof...when the
expected effect is for the established patterns to become LESS predictable.

Rands and his like want to be shown proof of unpredictability.

OK! Proof of global warming is found in forecasters having
less and less idea what the hell is going to happen next, except
they know it'll be stronger or weaker than normal. Or maybe
not.

In other words....they'll know...next to nothing.


I see..... OK fine.... if you can't predict the weather, that proves
that you predicted the weather?

On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 20:56:23 -0400, in a place far, far away,
"jonathan" made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:


"Ian Parker" wrote in message
...
On 5 Apr, 19:01, (Rand Simberg) wrote:
On Sat, 5 Apr 2008 13:53:23 -0400, in a place far, far away, "Terrell
Miller" made the phosphor on my monitor glow

I had nothing to say about long-term global warming. I was simply
pointing out that Jonathan's thesis that it is causing more intense
hurricanes *now* is lunacy.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I am not so sure, the oceans are a complex entity. There is surface
water and deep water. The oceans apparently cool when cold deep water
reaches the surface. This is the origin of El Nino type effects. Thus
we can have a long term trend of ocean warming with drops in surface
temperature.

What the effect on hurricanes is not at all clear. In a hurricane deep
water (intermediate level) is forced to the surface by high winds. The
effect of temperatures 100-200m down on the development of hurricanes
is unknown. In any event the drop in SST is only a temporary blip. In
e few years time temperatures will be up again.

It is self evident that hurricane formation is related to vapor
pressure.



Why do we make these things more complicated than they need to be?

The underlying concept of global warming is that the weather will become
more chaotic as the planet warms. Which of course means greater volatility
and...less predictability. Small thinkers like Rand want ....proof...when the
expected effect is for the established patterns to become LESS predictable.

Rands and his like want to be shown proof of unpredictability.

Stop making up idiotic nonsense about what I "want."

"Poetic Justice" wrote in message
.. .

I see..... OK fine.... if you can't predict the weather, that proves that you
predicted the weather?


Oh ..sheez...which is easier to predict.....a period of ave/normal behavior or
a period of extreme/abnormal behavior???

On 11 Apr, 01:56, "jonathan" wrote:
"Ian Parker" wrote in message

...
On 5 Apr, 19:01, (Rand Simberg) wrote:





On Sat, 5 Apr 2008 13:53:23 -0400, in a place far, far away, "Terrell
Miller" made the phosphor on my monitor glow
I had nothing to say about long-term global warming. I was simply
pointing out that Jonathan's thesis that it is causing more intense
hurricanes *now* is lunacy.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
I am not so sure, the oceans are a complex entity. There is surface
water and deep water. The oceans apparently cool when cold deep water
reaches the surface. This is the origin of El Nino type effects. Thus
we can have a long term trend of ocean warming with drops in surface
temperature.
What the effect on hurricanes is not at all clear. In a hurricane deep
water (intermediate level) is forced to the surface by high winds. The
effect of temperatures 100-200m down on the development of hurricanes
is unknown. In any event the drop in SST is only a temporary blip. In
e few years time temperatures will be up again.
It is self evident that hurricane formation is related to vapor
pressure.

Why do we make these things more complicated than they need to be?

The underlying concept of global warming is that the weather will become
more chaotic as the planet warms. Which of course means greater volatility
and...less predictability. Small thinkers like Rand want ....proof...when the
expected effect is for the established patterns to become LESS predictable..

Rands and his like want to be shown *proof of unpredictability.

OK! *Proof of global warming is found in forecasters having
less and less idea what the hell is going to happen next, except
they know it'll be stronger or weaker than normal. Or maybe
not.

In other words....they'll know...next to nothing.

From the horses mouth......

"We're in a busy period of hurricane activity that will inflict
unimaginable damage"

"They call the phenomenon ''rapid intensification,''

"....plans to deemphasize its controversial full-season forecasts"

"Those long-range forecasts, issued before the season begins
on June 1....have been *well off the mark in recent years."

etc etc.

If it quacks like a duck, it becomes beholden on those
that claim it's not a duck, to come up with their proof.

People keep pointing to 04 and 05, but last year was the
ideal example. The first *half of the season saw storms intensify
with breathtaking speed. And at the drop of a dime
the second half turned into Lake Placid.

The proof is in seeing more 'headscratching' over the weather.

Hell, we practically don't need to 'speed up' the videos
to show ice caps melting anymore.
Real time footage is almost good enough~

Proof....pfffft!

* - Ian Parker- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Certainly the state of a glacier is a good indicator. One hot day will
not melt a glacier, even a warmer year won't. Melting occurs from
weather that is statistically warmer.

You may be right, increased evaporation (from the tropics) will mean
more storms. There is however one contrary fact. Global warming is
ocuring more at high latitudes than in the tropics. Hence the
difference in temperature between the tropics and high latitudes is
less. This could under certan circumstances lead to calmer weather.

Climate and weather is complicated. It would be difficult to simlify
it without being misleading.


- Ian Parker

On Apr 11, 11:14*am, Ian Parker wrote:
On 11 Apr, 01:56, "jonathan" wrote:





"Ian Parker" wrote in message

...
On 5 Apr, 19:01, (Rand Simberg) wrote:

On Sat, 5 Apr 2008 13:53:23 -0400, in a place far, far away, "Terrell
Miller" made the phosphor on my monitor glow
I had nothing to say about long-term global warming. I was simply
pointing out that Jonathan's thesis that it is causing more intense
hurricanes *now* is lunacy.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
I am not so sure, the oceans are a complex entity. There is surface
water and deep water. The oceans apparently cool when cold deep water
reaches the surface. This is the origin of El Nino type effects. Thus
we can have a long term trend of ocean warming with drops in surface
temperature.
What the effect on hurricanes is not at all clear. In a hurricane deep
water (intermediate level) is forced to the surface by high winds. The
effect of temperatures 100-200m down on the development of hurricanes
is unknown. In any event the drop in SST is only a temporary blip. In
e few years time temperatures will be up again.
It is self evident that hurricane formation is related to vapor
pressure.

Why do we make these things more complicated than they need to be?

The underlying concept of global warming is that the weather will become
more chaotic as the planet warms. Which of course means greater volatility
and...less predictability. Small thinkers like Rand want ....proof...when the
expected effect is for the established patterns to become LESS predictable.

Rands and his like want to be shown *proof of unpredictability.

OK! *Proof of global warming is found in forecasters having
less and less idea what the hell is going to happen next, except
they know it'll be stronger or weaker than normal. Or maybe
not.

In other words....they'll know...next to nothing.

From the horses mouth......

"We're in a busy period of hurricane activity that will inflict
unimaginable damage"

"They call the phenomenon ''rapid intensification,''

"....plans to deemphasize its controversial full-season forecasts"

"Those long-range forecasts, issued before the season begins
on June 1....have been *well off the mark in recent years."

etc etc.

If it quacks like a duck, it becomes beholden on those
that claim it's not a duck, to come up with their proof.

People keep pointing to 04 and 05, but last year was the
ideal example. The first *half of the season saw storms intensify
with breathtaking speed. And at the drop of a dime
the second half turned into Lake Placid.

The proof is in seeing more 'headscratching' over the weather.

Hell, we practically don't need to 'speed up' the videos
to show ice caps melting anymore.
Real time footage is almost good enough~

Proof....pfffft!

* - Ian Parker- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Certainly the state of a glacier is a good indicator. One hot day will
not melt a glacier, even a warmer year won't. Melting occurs from
weather that is statistically warmer.

Or a glacier melts because it's inputs, snowfall, is reduced, of
course.


You may be right, increased evaporation (from the tropics) will mean
more storms. There is however one contrary fact. Global warming is
ocuring more at high latitudes than in the tropics.

In high latitudes in the Northern hemisphere, yes. Not in Antarctica.

Climate and weather is complicated. It would be difficult to simlify
it without being misleading.



* - Ian Parker- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You are, of course, correct about the complexity of the system, but a
couple of those statements are themselves a little misleading!

Paul

On 11 Apr, 11:43, Dawlish wrote:
On Apr 11, 11:14*am, Ian Parker wrote:





On 11 Apr, 01:56, "jonathan" wrote:

"Ian Parker" wrote in message

...
On 5 Apr, 19:01, (Rand Simberg) wrote:

On Sat, 5 Apr 2008 13:53:23 -0400, in a place far, far away, "Terrell
Miller" made the phosphor on my monitor glow
I had nothing to say about long-term global warming. I was simply
pointing out that Jonathan's thesis that it is causing more intense
hurricanes *now* is lunacy.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
I am not so sure, the oceans are a complex entity. There is surface
water and deep water. The oceans apparently cool when cold deep water
reaches the surface. This is the origin of El Nino type effects. Thus
we can have a long term trend of ocean warming with drops in surface
temperature.
What the effect on hurricanes is not at all clear. In a hurricane deep
water (intermediate level) is forced to the surface by high winds. The
effect of temperatures 100-200m down on the development of hurricanes
is unknown. In any event the drop in SST is only a temporary blip. In
e few years time temperatures will be up again.
It is self evident that hurricane formation is related to vapor
pressure.

Why do we make these things more complicated than they need to be?

The underlying concept of global warming is that the weather will become
more chaotic as the planet warms. Which of course means greater volatility
and...less predictability. Small thinkers like Rand want ....proof...when the
expected effect is for the established patterns to become LESS predictable.

Rands and his like want to be shown *proof of unpredictability.

OK! *Proof of global warming is found in forecasters having
less and less idea what the hell is going to happen next, except
they know it'll be stronger or weaker than normal. Or maybe
not.

In other words....they'll know...next to nothing.

From the horses mouth......

"We're in a busy period of hurricane activity that will inflict
unimaginable damage"

"They call the phenomenon ''rapid intensification,''

"....plans to deemphasize its controversial full-season forecasts"

"Those long-range forecasts, issued before the season begins
on June 1....have been *well off the mark in recent years."

etc etc.

If it quacks like a duck, it becomes beholden on those
that claim it's not a duck, to come up with their proof.

People keep pointing to 04 and 05, but last year was the
ideal example. The first *half of the season saw storms intensify
with breathtaking speed. And at the drop of a dime
the second half turned into Lake Placid.

The proof is in seeing more 'headscratching' over the weather.

Hell, we practically don't need to 'speed up' the videos
to show ice caps melting anymore.
Real time footage is almost good enough~

Proof....pfffft!

* - Ian Parker- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Certainly the state of a glacier is a good indicator. One hot day will
not melt a glacier, even a warmer year won't. Melting occurs from
weather that is statistically warmer.

Or a glacier melts because it's inputs, snowfall, is reduced, of
course.

You may be right, increased evaporation (from the tropics) will mean
more storms. There is however one contrary fact. Global warming is
ocuring more at high latitudes than in the tropics.

In high latitudes in the Northern hemisphere, yes. Not in Antarctica.

You are right to point to precipitation in terms of Glacier state. In
very dry environments glaciers can sublimate, that is evaporate
without first melting.

My information on Antarctica tells me that it is warming up, but that
precipitation is increasing. Parts of Antarctica are in fact cold
deserts where there is cold combined with bare rock. The glaciers are
flowing faster but are also growing faster. Antarctica is is fact well
below freezing (average temperature - below freezing in Summer in many
cases). Antarctica will have to warm a lot before it melts. At the
moment precipitation is the main driver of glaciation.

The northern arctic is indeed warming fast.


Climate and weather is complicated. It would be difficult to simlify
it without being misleading.

You are, of course, correct about the complexity of the system, but a
couple of those statements are themselves a little misleading!

Maybe.

- Ian Parker

On Apr 11, 1:07*pm, Ian Parker wrote:
On 11 Apr, 11:43, Dawlish wrote:



On Apr 11, 11:14*am, Ian Parker wrote:

On 11 Apr, 01:56, "jonathan" wrote:

"Ian Parker" wrote in message

....
On 5 Apr, 19:01, (Rand Simberg) wrote:

On Sat, 5 Apr 2008 13:53:23 -0400, in a place far, far away, "Terrell
Miller" made the phosphor on my monitor glow
I had nothing to say about long-term global warming. I was simply
pointing out that Jonathan's thesis that it is causing more intense
hurricanes *now* is lunacy.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
I am not so sure, the oceans are a complex entity. There is surface
water and deep water. The oceans apparently cool when cold deep water
reaches the surface. This is the origin of El Nino type effects. Thus
we can have a long term trend of ocean warming with drops in surface
temperature.
What the effect on hurricanes is not at all clear. In a hurricane deep
water (intermediate level) is forced to the surface by high winds. The
effect of temperatures 100-200m down on the development of hurricanes
is unknown. In any event the drop in SST is only a temporary blip. In
e few years time temperatures will be up again.
It is self evident that hurricane formation is related to vapor
pressure.

Why do we make these things more complicated than they need to be?

The underlying concept of global warming is that the weather will become
more chaotic as the planet warms. Which of course means greater volatility
and...less predictability. Small thinkers like Rand want ....proof....when the
expected effect is for the established patterns to become LESS predictable.

Rands and his like want to be shown *proof of unpredictability.

OK! *Proof of global warming is found in forecasters having
less and less idea what the hell is going to happen next, except
they know it'll be stronger or weaker than normal. Or maybe
not.

In other words....they'll know...next to nothing.

From the horses mouth......

"We're in a busy period of hurricane activity that will inflict
unimaginable damage"

"They call the phenomenon ''rapid intensification,''

"....plans to deemphasize its controversial full-season forecasts"

"Those long-range forecasts, issued before the season begins
on June 1....have been *well off the mark in recent years."

etc etc.

If it quacks like a duck, it becomes beholden on those
that claim it's not a duck, to come up with their proof.

People keep pointing to 04 and 05, but last year was the
ideal example. The first *half of the season saw storms intensify
with breathtaking speed. And at the drop of a dime
the second half turned into Lake Placid.

The proof is in seeing more 'headscratching' over the weather.

Hell, we practically don't need to 'speed up' the videos
to show ice caps melting anymore.
Real time footage is almost good enough~

Proof....pfffft!

* - Ian Parker- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Certainly the state of a glacier is a good indicator. One hot day will
not melt a glacier, even a warmer year won't. Melting occurs from
weather that is statistically warmer.

Or a glacier melts because it's inputs, snowfall, is reduced, of
course.

You may be right, increased evaporation (from the tropics) will mean
more storms. There is however one contrary fact. Global warming is
ocuring more at high latitudes than in the tropics.

In high latitudes in the Northern hemisphere, yes. Not in Antarctica.

You are right to point to precipitation in terms of Glacier state. In
very dry environments glaciers can sublimate, that is evaporate
without first melting.

My information on Antarctica tells me that it is warming up, but that
precipitation is increasing. Parts of Antarctica are in fact cold
deserts where there is cold combined with bare rock. The glaciers are
flowing faster but are also growing faster. Antarctica is is fact well
below freezing (average temperature - below freezing in Summer in many
cases). Antarctica will have to warm a lot before it melts. At the
moment precipitation is the main driver of glaciation.

The northern arctic is indeed warming fast.

Climate and weather is complicated. It would be difficult to simlify
it without being misleading.

You are, of course, correct about the complexity of the system, but a
couple of those statements are themselves a little misleading!

Maybe.

* - Ian Parker- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Not easy, Antarctica! So little data, so many interpretations of the
said slim data.

World Climate report would have it that there is no evidence of
melting, at least:

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/in...arctic-update/

Real Climate reflects the difficulties of interpretation on the
existing data and points, truly, to the fact that regional change is
not the same as Global change. I don't think I made that distinction
clear in my reply to you either, Ian. They also say that Antarctic
cooling doesn't in any way contradict global warming - some info on
Antarctic glaciers there, of which I'm sure you are aware Ian.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=18

Iceagenow, tells, us, well, that the next ice age is coming......
("Sooner than we all think"!! And that, of course, Antarctica is not
warming (neither is Arctic ice disappearing!). Never has, never did.
Just blips in a cooling trend. "We're all going to die, not in fire,
but in Ice and any day now, it will start!" They also tell us that
glaciers are growing "all around the world, including the United
States" (well that's quite true, but perhaps 90% of them aren't!)

I side with the GW Antarctica people and regional differnces in the
global warming trend. I trust the majority of scientists view that the
world is warming and will continue to warm - but the trend will not be
linear, either over time, or over the Earth's surface.

As for glaciers, most are melting as the temperatures rise, but a
minority are responding to changes in their environment, such as
increased snowfall. Some in Antarctica, may be extending due to either
increased regional cold and increased snowfall, or a combination of
both, but that is unlikely to last much longer.

On Apr 11, 9:05*am, Dawlish wrote:
On Apr 11, 1:07*pm, Ian Parker wrote:





On 11 Apr, 11:43, Dawlish wrote:

On Apr 11, 11:14*am, Ian Parker wrote:

On 11 Apr, 01:56, "jonathan" wrote:

"Ian Parker" wrote in message

...
On 5 Apr, 19:01, (Rand Simberg) wrote:

On Sat, 5 Apr 2008 13:53:23 -0400, in a place far, far away, "Terrell
Miller" made the phosphor on my monitor glow
I had nothing to say about long-term global warming. I was simply
pointing out that Jonathan's thesis that it is causing more intense
hurricanes *now* is lunacy.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
I am not so sure, the oceans are a complex entity. There is surface
water and deep water. The oceans apparently cool when cold deep water
reaches the surface. This is the origin of El Nino type effects. Thus
we can have a long term trend of ocean warming with drops in surface
temperature.
What the effect on hurricanes is not at all clear. In a hurricane deep
water (intermediate level) is forced to the surface by high winds.. The
effect of temperatures 100-200m down on the development of hurricanes
is unknown. In any event the drop in SST is only a temporary blip.. In
e few years time temperatures will be up again.
It is self evident that hurricane formation is related to vapor
pressure.

Why do we make these things more complicated than they need to be?

The underlying concept of global warming is that the weather will become
more chaotic as the planet warms. Which of course means greater volatility
and...less predictability. Small thinkers like Rand want ....proof....when the
expected effect is for the established patterns to become LESS predictable.

Rands and his like want to be shown *proof of unpredictability.

OK! *Proof of global warming is found in forecasters having
less and less idea what the hell is going to happen next, except
they know it'll be stronger or weaker than normal. Or maybe
not.

In other words....they'll know...next to nothing.

From the horses mouth......

"We're in a busy period of hurricane activity that will inflict
unimaginable damage"

"They call the phenomenon ''rapid intensification,''

"....plans to deemphasize its controversial full-season forecasts"

"Those long-range forecasts, issued before the season begins
on June 1....have been *well off the mark in recent years."

etc etc.

If it quacks like a duck, it becomes beholden on those
that claim it's not a duck, to come up with their proof.

People keep pointing to 04 and 05, but last year was the
ideal example. The first *half of the season saw storms intensify
with breathtaking speed. And at the drop of a dime
the second half turned into Lake Placid.

The proof is in seeing more 'headscratching' over the weather.

Hell, we practically don't need to 'speed up' the videos
to show ice caps melting anymore.
Real time footage is almost good enough~

Proof....pfffft!

* - Ian Parker- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Certainly the state of a glacier is a good indicator. One hot day will
not melt a glacier, even a warmer year won't. Melting occurs from
weather that is statistically warmer.

Or a glacier melts because it's inputs, snowfall, is reduced, of
course.

You may be right, increased evaporation (from the tropics) will mean
more storms. There is however one contrary fact. Global warming is
ocuring more at high latitudes than in the tropics.

In high latitudes in the Northern hemisphere, yes. Not in Antarctica.

You are right to point to precipitation in terms of Glacier state. In
very dry environments glaciers can sublimate, that is evaporate
without first melting.

My information on Antarctica tells me that it is warming up, but that
precipitation is increasing. Parts of Antarctica are in fact cold
deserts where there is cold combined with bare rock. The glaciers are
flowing faster but are also growing faster. Antarctica is is fact well
below freezing (average temperature - below freezing in Summer in many
cases). Antarctica will have to warm a lot before it melts. At the
moment precipitation is the main driver of glaciation.

The northern arctic is indeed warming fast.

Climate and weather is complicated. It would be difficult to simlify
it without being misleading.

You are, of course, correct about the complexity of the system, but a
couple of those statements are themselves a little misleading!

Maybe.

* - Ian Parker- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Not easy, Antarctica! So little data, so many interpretations of the
said slim data.

World Climate report would have it that there is no evidence of
melting, at least:

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/in...global-warming...

Real Climate reflects the difficulties of interpretation on the
existing data and points, truly, to the fact that regional change is
not the same as Global change. I don't think I made that distinction
clear in my reply to you either, Ian. They also say that Antarctic
cooling doesn't in any way contradict global warming - some info on
Antarctic glaciers there, of which I'm sure you are aware Ian.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=18

Iceagenow, tells, us, well, that the next ice age is coming......
("Sooner than we all think"!! And that, of course, Antarctica is not
warming (neither is Arctic ice disappearing!). *Never has, never did.
Just blips in a cooling trend. "We're all going to die, not in fire,
but in Ice and any day now, it will start!" They also tell us that
glaciers are growing "all around the world, including the United
States" (well that's quite true, but perhaps 90% of them aren't!)

I side with the GW Antarctica people and regional differnces in the
global warming trend. I trust the majority of scientists view that the
world is warming and will continue to warm - but the trend will not be
linear, either over time, or over the Earth's surface.

As for glaciers, most are melting as the temperatures rise, but a
minority are responding to changes in their environment, such as
increased snowfall. Some in Antarctica, may be extending due to either
increased regional cold and increased snowfall, or a combination of
both, but that is unlikely to last much longer.-

Let me see, read and believe a blog or the National Snow and Ice Data
Center (NSIDC). Your blog vs. the NSIDC? Hummmm...

Read this: http://nsidc.org/news/press/20080325_Wilkins.html

Do you work for an oil company?