March 2013 was 43rd coolest March on record

www.ncdc.noaa.gov...

Temps are wak in this day and age. Are we allowed to have global cooling as well as global warming at the same time? lol

If you're referring to all of the crazy snow, global warming would actually make it snow more because not only would there be more sea water to be absorbed but it being warmer the air can hold more moisture which means that whenever the storms come in from the heated ocean, they will pound the area with snow.

reply to post by canucks555


Yes, I think the word "Global Warming" has had an adverse effect in informing the public of what Global Warming (or climate change) really does to local temps over specific time. Over a long-term period the average temp of the planet will increase by say 2 or 4 degrees (say over decades). However, that doesn't mean that it will immediately start increasing average temps in every geographical location, at the same rate, at the same time, no matter the season, and in spite of other weather phenomena. The dynamics of the Earth's climate are just too variable for that kind of linear consistency over time. However, what it does mean is that over a long period of time, the natural pattern of climate across the globe with change radically (and in many areas, yes, even subtly). What does this mean? This means that we might see record highs and record lows in odd periods of time. And, more importantly, the frequency of these changes will be more pronounced. This does not mean that summer will turn into super-summer and winter will turn into regular summer, because again---climate change isn't linear, like that. (at least not in the near-term, anyway) It will be more gradual and erratic than that. And then, after a period of time (say near the end of the century), we'll notice the average temp has increased overall in a more stable and consistent manner across seasons and other weather factors.

We need to look at the global picture, not one small corner of the planet.

Britain had one it's coldest March's ever. Japan, NZ and Australia were exceptionally warm.

metofficenews.wordpress.com...

www.japantimes.co.jp...

tvnz.co.nz...

indymedia.org.au...

But maybe there is small pattern emerging of more extremes? Not sure yet. Certainly no evidence that's I've seen of global cooling though!

stevengoddard.wordpress.com...

Ice melt is worst in 1,000 years

THE melting of ice on the Antarctic Peninsula during the summer months is now at its highest level for 1,000 years, according to research. Scientists have for the first time been able to demonstrate that increasing temperatures since the 1960s have caused 10 times more ice to melt than in medieval times

Antarctic sea ice area has been increasing and above normal for more than 500 consecutive days, so the experts chime in with a claim of record melt.

The Weddell Sea (adjacent to the Antarctic Peninsula) had double the normal amount of sea ice this summer. That is because it was exceptionally cold.

iceagenow.info...

As far as the Sierra Club and comparable multi-million dollar environmental organizations are concerned, when they say that want to “prevent future impacts of climate change” they are either delusional, thinking that anything can be done to prevent hurricanes, blizzards, and other aspects of the weather or they are talking about imposing a carbon tax on the emissions of carbon dioxide and other so-called greenhouse gases. Congress has already rejected that.

Larry Bell, a columnist for Forbes magazine, recently urged the U.S. to cease funding the IPCC along with the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. “While the amount we give to the UNFCC and IPCC may seem like a tiny pittance in the realm of government spending largess, it’s important to realize that (the) true costs of that folly amount to countless billions in disastrous policy and regulatory impact.” Together they have received a total average of $10.25 million annually, set to increase in the FY 13 budget request to $13 million. They are a total waste of money, representing the greatest hoax of the modern era and the redistribution of our wealth.

theextinctionprotocol.wordpress.com...

April 8, 2013 – BALTIC SEA – “Since record keeping began in the sixties, we’ve never encountered anything like this before,” ice breaker Ulf Gulldne told the local newspaper Örnsköldsviks Allehanda. On March 29th, 176,000 square kilometers of the Baltic Sea was covered in ice, a record for the time of year. On a map, it means about half of the central and northern parts are frozen over. Far north, the ice is both thick and difficult to break through. The date on which the ice reaches its maximum spread usually falls much earlier in the year. The previously latest date record was March 25th, 2008. That year, only 49,000 square kilometers of the Baltic was covered in ice, which was the smallest maximum spread of ice in the previous 100 years. “I’ve never seen this much ice this late in the season,” said Karl Herlin, captain of the icebreaker Atle, currently working off the coast of Luleå in northern Sweden.

So who are you going to believe? There are arguments on both sides of the climate change/warming debate. As it stands now I doubt we have the means or the ways to do much about the suns output if is truly the cause..

If the Scientist who say we are going back into another ice age are correct then there will be a large segment of the 7 billion wishing it would get warmer and the glaciers would recede...People are so entrenched on both sides of the argument regardless of the trends and facts .
www.c3headlines.com...

There no longer is any serious debate of the non-existence of dangerous, accelerating global warming from human CO2 emissions - literally, from all current climate empirical evidence, it does not exist

•In contrast, the IPCC's gold-standard global dataset (above chart) confirms temperatures have stalled since 1998 - actually, they have slightly cooled at a -0.08 degrees/century trend.

reply to post by 727Sky



The problem is, starting with 1998 and extrapolating that there is no warming, because there has been a decrease in temp,is a bit incomplete. Consider the fact that if you followed the trends from 1900's up until 1998, you'll notice the unprecedented increase in average temp. And you'll note that the 1900's is around the point we started using carbon-based fuels in mass to power national economies.

Not saying those researchers aren't correct in their suggestion---its just that you could easily argue that from 1998 until some future year, "x", the temp will dip or average out until the warming trend continues again. Not to say that will happen, of course, but when you look at the overall trend from 1900's up until 1998, it wouldn't be out of left field to assume its just an unexpected, but ultimately slight, deviation from the overall model. Models aren't meant to be perfect recreations of reality.



Link: data.giss.nasa.gov...

Really, that is one of the reasons I actually agree with Climate Changers. The overall theory just makes sense. Even if you consider previous periods of climate change (pre-1900s). The question that matters isn't "Did Earth experience periods of rapid warming before humanity came on the scene?" (Which is an obvious, yes). The question is: "Can humanity survive any (and this particular) round rapid climate change?" That is the argument that really matters, and I can't say we can. So even if Climate Change isn't man-made, it would still be an overall threat and current economic activities would only contribute to the concerns. It still seems reasonable to me to take precautions concerning the climate and operate on this planet in way that changes the environment the least--as the current one is pretty comfortable for humanity, I must say.