It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


"Global Warming", or should we call it "Global Extremes" instead?

page: 1

log in


posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 02:11 PM

original Toronto Star
February was coldest in 28 years
Mar 05, 2007 12:13 PM
Curtis Rush
Staff Reporter
If you thought February was particularly cold, you were right.
Frigid conditions made the month the coldest February in 28 years, according to Environment Canada’s senior climatologist David Phillips.

Not since 1979 has February dished up such bone-rattling conditions.

The average temperature was -8.4C, which was three degreescolder than normal.

That also made it the fifth coldest February since 1937 when weather records were first kept at what is now Pearson International Airport.


This site below is reporting record lows for NYC

House Hearing on ‘Warming Of Planet’ canceled after ice storm

DENVER (AP) -- Bitterly cold air poured southward across the nation's midsection Wednesday, dropping temperatures to record lows from Montana to Illinois.
The mercury dived to a record 45 below at West Yellowstone, Mont., the frequently cold spot at the west entrance to Yellowstone National Park, the National Weather Service said. The old record for Dec. 7 was 39 below, set in 1927.
The cold even extended south to the Texas Panhandle, where Lubbock shivered at a record low 6 above zero, the weather service said.


IF YOU ADD THIS WITH GLOBAL WARMING should we not change the overallness to GLOBAL EXTREMES


Is the "Global Warming" talk just a sham from people who really don't know anything. There is talk that this is just another part of the history of the Earth one we don't know about because we are infants in the history of our planet.


posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 02:23 PM
This is why the preferred term is "global climate change."

So no matter what happens theyre right!

Its okay though. The hype is collapsing around them.

greenhouse effect
Allegre second guesses

The latter link is great. You can track it back to a collection of similar articles.

Im so sick of hearing "the scientiffic community agrees" as though it is all inclusive and free from dissent.

posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 03:08 PM
Lots of ice in Switzerland.

No Global warming on those glaciers.

I was relaxing getting away from ats and watching tv when this
great travel show comes on about ski resorts going back 300 years
in one family.

Looks like the warming is only at the poles, any theories on this.

posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 03:24 PM
From what scientist say we are suppose to be on a orbit around the sun that should bring more extremes like hotter summers, colder winter. Could this be the culpret that everyone is blaming on CO2?

I don't know, that's why I'm trying to see what everybody else thinks.

posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 09:08 PM
Actually the IPCC has stated that there are fewer low extremes than high extremes.

The solar irradience has been very high of late. This has the effect of reducing cloud cover. A recent change in the polarity of the suns 4 magnetic poles has resulted in an increse of cosmic rays hitting the earth. The 11.05 yr cycle of solar maxima and minima is running towards the minima side. There are however other cycles of 181, 178 and 36 years that are not as well known by the masses. These and other cycles are nested and add and subtract from each other. As the sun goes thru it's orbit, it changes in irradience. Part of this is due to a change in the knowledge of the construction of the sun.

The Sun Is Iron

This explains the variability we see in the sun as compared to IPCC view that the sun is a hydrogen fusion furnace. It also explains several unanswered questions about the sun. For instance, the number of neutrinos emitted by the sun is only about 1/3 what might be expected. That is because only one third of the output of the sun is due to hydrogen fusion which emmits the neutrinos. The remaining solar irradience comes from neutrons from heavier isotopes through spallation and fission.

The ice age in europe is cancelled to by the way. Turns out the paper that predicted it had a significant simple math error in it. The reviewers missed it because the editors of Nature rushed it through the review process so it could be published before the Montreal COP11 climate convention. The editors also removed the ? in the original title to make it look like a reality rather than the possibility as was intended. The author was embarrassed. Two other studies, done correctly, showed no such problem.

posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 09:17 PM
How about this:

Global Norming

I've also heard the large egos, can have an effect on the climate.
Anyone heard of that?

posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 10:45 PM

Originally posted by Royal76

Is the "Global Warming" talk just a sham from people who really don't know anything. There is talk that this is just another part of the history of the Earth one we don't know about because we are infants in the history of our planet.


I think you did a nice job of editing out that uncomfortable reference to a Mild January in the Toronto Star article. Bravo! Well played, sir!

When I went back to Canada in February, all I heard from people was "you should have been here two weeks ago, we`d have gone golfing". No joke. My hometown, which usually gets 3-4 feet of snow per winter had no snow on the ground until the last days of January. Most of the ski hills diddn`t have enough snow to open until the end of the month - they opened 7 weeks late. Blue Mountain in Collingwood actually laid off over 1,000 workers because there wasn`t any snow. Too warm.

As for what I think, I think that many of you - like many other americans - are truly grasping at straws over this. You have been brainwashed by political groups and individuals who are benefiting personally from fossil fuel and other industry lobbyists into thinking that global climate change is a grand conspiracy of climatologists, and that the effect on your personal lifestyle of capitulating to their evil demands will be cataclysmic at worst and communisim at best.

Elements of the American media and the misinformed right wing public in your country have reached a sad point of denial over climate change - among other things - in which you are franticaly searching for loopholes to exploit to somehow make the universe see things your way. It`s the same tired, useless line of logic they`ve been employing in the creation science department for the better part of two decades. At the end of the day, all that is left is useless rhetoric, editorial comment and lies by omission - see your own dishonesty in the Toronto Star piece as a good example of the latter.

Willful Ignorance. Deny Reality.

posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 06:10 PM
Dr. Landscheidt from one of his papers:

IPCC's draft of the Third Assessment Report (TAR 2000) continues to underestimate the Sun's role in climate change. According to the expert review "the temporal evolution indicates that the net natural forcing (solar and volcanic aerosol) has been negative over the past two and possibly even the past four decades." The solar forcing estimate remains the same as in "Climate Change 1995". It is "considerably smaller than the anthropogenic radiative forcings", and its "level of scientific understanding" is "very low", whereas forcing by well-mixed greenhouse gases "continues to enjoy the highest confidence level" as to its scientific understanding. Everything taken together, TAR 2000 considers it "unlikely that natural forcing can explain the warming in the latter half of this century." Figure 24 in my paper "Solar Activity: A Dominant Factor of Climate Dynamics" shows however, that all maxima and minima in the global monthly-mean atmospheric temperature anomalies observed after 1958 can be explained by a solar cycle. A forecast experiment based on this relationship was successful. It correctly predicted the strong negative anomaly in winter 1996/1997 and the outstanding positive anomaly in 1998. How could this be if the Sun's varying activity were as weak as the IPCC pretends?

VOX. you are guilty of an ad hominen attack usually reserved for those who have an unsupportable position. Literally, "attack the man".

What you and others are really doing is showing your perspective of the extreme left, anti capitalist agenda. You are also extremely unaware of the current debate on climate change and the vast array of facts counter to the so called "concensus" which is not how science works. Ignoring one side of an argument does not make it go away. Majority opinions have a long history of being wrong.

Some of us are trying to elucidate others to facts you may not be aware of. If you really don't want to learn anything, why not go to one of the conspiracy threads. It's more comfortable.

For everyone interested, the above is from a paper:

There are several papers that clearly, clearly show that this guy can predict significant events in climate by looking at solar cycles. There are many papers like this but the IPCC refuses to acknowledge the facts because it does not fit their political agenda. Read and be ready to be amazed or dismiss it. I really don't care. If you want to remain unaware it is nobody's loss but yours. Now I will sit back and read the classic intellectual comments that usually follow a responsible post.

Whinning to follow......

posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 10:21 PM

Originally posted by CradleoftheNuclides
Dr. Landscheidt...

aaah, Dr Theodor Landscheidt... everyone`s favourite Astrologer and amateur climatologist. His description, not mine by the way - hate to be accused of another ad hominem attack.

Quick question for anyone who knows, because I cant seem to find it anywhere: what exactly was he a doctor of? Even his obituaries seem to omit that, which I find more than a little odd. Usually, thats right up front. Also, I cant seem to find any reference to anyone else who may have done work at the prestigious Schroeter Institute for Research in Cycles of Solar Activity, either in Germany or up in Cape Breton. Can someone fill me in on their details and accreditations?

I`m just trying to get a bit of background here. See, it all sounds very scientifical and all that, but for some reason whenever I start to scratch the surface on this guy I seem to come up with someting very suspiciously like snake oil. Please point me in the right direction, if you`d be so kind.

See, this goes back to the wishful thinking and loophole searching that you very wrongly attributed to an ad hominem attack. You`ve latched on to an amateur, self-financed scientist - who went so far as to form a one-man "Institute" to add an air of credbility to his astrological research regarding the sun`s effect on economic cycles - and are holding his research up against the vast majority of professional researchers in the field.

Why is that? Why take his word over all others? Why latch on to this theory, which has recieved very little critical recognition, over the mountains of existing global research to the contrary?

Does it come back to the Grand Conspiracy of Left Wing Anti-Capitalist Anti-American Climatologists again? `cause I love that one, always makes me laugh.

posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 05:43 AM
It's called "Global Weather" not too catchy but about as close as it gets. Last month was the areas 3 coldest on record but the records only go back about 150 years. So what does all this mean NOTHING!! Weathermen have the best job going.


posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 05:49 AM
England 2007 temperatures
Statistical details
England Mean Temperature Series (series began in 1914). The provisional mean value for the month is 6.7 °C 3.3 °C above the 1961-1990 average, which is in the exceptionally above average category.
England Rainfall Series (series began in 1914). The provisional total for the month is 93.9mm 116 % of the 1961-1990 average, which is in the close to average category.
England Sunshine Series (series began in 1929). The provisional total for the month is 65.2 hours 113% of the 1961-1990 average, which is in the exceptionally above average category.
Statistical details
England Mean Temperature Series (series began in 1914). The provisional mean value for the month is 5.7 °C 2.3 °C above the 1961-1990 average, which is in the exceptionally above average category.
England Rainfall Series (series began in 1914). The provisional total for the month is 92.8 mm 116 % of the 1961-1990 average, which is in the well above average category.
England Sunshine Series (series began in 1929). The provisional total for the month is 73.7 hours 113% of the 1961-1990 average, which is in the above average category.

posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 06:09 AM

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
This is why the preferred term is "global climate change."

So no matter what happens theyre right!

Its okay though. The hype is collapsing around them

Climate Change is the preferred term because no matter how many times you tell them, most folk are so dumb that they still think 'Global Warming' means every square inch of the planet gets warmer every year .....

Of course, such folk are no doubt ignorant of the fact that during the last ice age some places were warmer than today, thereby making - by their rationale - the term 'Ice Age' wholly misleading and erroneous as well

And if you don't believe in anthropogenic climate change, please explain how tropical rain storms form when the rain forests that spawn them have been burnt to the ground .... Or who increasing the number of high level clouds can not lead to increased warming.

How anthropogenic factors fit in with other natural factors is, of course, another matter
But anthropogenic climate change is not occurring in the same way that pouring a bucket of water into a tin bath does not increase the amount of water in that bath ....

[edit on 8-3-2007 by Essan]

posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 12:14 PM
That's why I said 'Global Extremes'

Personally its been colder in SA for longer than usual. Usually by February we are completely done with the cold weather. Just yesterday I had to use the heater in my house. Granted it was only in the low 40's to high 30's, but in San Antonio we are accustomed to it being in the 70's-80's at this time of the year. Its March and its still cold now and then. That's what got me thinking about the 'Extremes' issue.

Then I saw a couple articles that made me laugh about Global warming conferences who got iced out.

posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 02:03 PM
Well it looks like i was right. At least from the point of view of living in San Antonio, Texas. Just last year we had our hottest, driest summer ever. I mean people burst into flames just for going outsides sometimes. Now this winter, not only did we get snow for the first time in like twenty years. But it followed that up by snowing again, a week later. As far as i know that has never happened. It seemed like the normal or average weather we have become accustomed to over the last 200 years or so that we have been keeping records is over. That global extremes will soon be the norm.

posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 02:07 PM
Well perhaps some of the definitions need to change, but the earth is going through an overall warming trend over the last few decades at least, with each year being the warmest on record. Now that doesn't mean that everyone is going to see increased temps or that we aren't experiencing global extremes. But I still think we should call it global warming since...well...despite the reasons..the earth is warming. thoughts?
edit on 13-2-2011 by amazing because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 02:08 PM
"Global Temperature Change" works for warming being too narrow and one needs "temperature" in the phrase or it could refer to Global (Political) Change or Global (Economic) Change or (...............) fill in the blank.

posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 04:07 PM
I have pointed this out numerous times on here before, but the term "climate change" has been in place from the very start. That's what the the CC in IPCC stands for, aka the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

The reason the media started using the term climate change all of a sudden is because the Bush White House implemented it as a language strategy to downplay the threat of Global Warming, i.e. to cover up/deny the need for action and keep everybody focused on consuming as much energy, oil, waste as possible. Their reasoning was that the term climate change sounds more natural and gradual and thus less imperative.

It is all confessed/explained in this video by Frank Luntz, the man who was directly responsible for the lingo shift (see around 2:40):

Both the terms Global Warming and Climate Change are essentially one and the same though - the first term refers to the more general idea, but completely undeniable FACT, that greenhouse gases trap energy and therefore heat from escaping back into space. The second term refers to the more specific effects of the first. Where that heat goes, either into the atmosphere or the ocean or into melting ice is much more complicated and so its effects on wind and ocean currents, precipitation patterns, etc are much more complicated.

But again, the term climate change has been around since the very start, so anyone who tries to tell you the "warmists" invented it later as an excuse is just totally ignorant, and they have no idea how much they themselves are the brainwashed ones, considering the true origins of the term in the media.

new topics

top topics


log in