It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
original Toronto Star
February was coldest in 28 years
Mar 05, 2007 12:13 PM
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.
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.
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.
WHAT DO YOU THINK?
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?
Originally posted by CradleoftheNuclides
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