Winter of 2009-2010 Could Be Worst in 25 Years

By Jon Auciello

Nearly the entire eastern half of the United States is enduring bitterly cold temperatures not experienced since 1985. Even Florida, which has been hovering around freezing levels overnight recently, is also feeling the almost-nationwide chill.

"It'll be like the great winters of the '60s and '70s," said AccuWeather.com Chief Meteorologist and Expert Long Range Forecaster Joe Bastardi.

The last time a large swath of severely low temperatures struck the nation was in January 1985. That historic arctic outbreak had below-zero temperatures Fahrenheit stretching from Chicago eastward to New York City, and all the way south to Macon, Ga.

While Bastardi says the upcoming days will bring cold not seen since 1985 or 1982, he believes this winter is shaping up much that of like 1977-78. That winter, nearly all of the United States east of the Rockies had a cold October followed by a warm November, with the cold returning in December.

What is most interesting in this case is what followed, where the months from January through March can all be classified as very cold, relative to normal.

"If it stays this cold for this long, will the groundhog even want to come out on Feb. 2?" wonders Senior Vice President and Chief Meteorologist Elliot Abrams.

This winter has already been rough for many areas of the country, with several blizzards dumping high accumulations of snow upon the Plains, mid-Atlantic and New England.

The cold air currently streaming across the Upper Midwest into the East and South will only compound the winter problems of the nation, especially since these depths have not been experienced across such a wide area simultaneously in decades.

Over the past 20-plus years, when below-normal cold periods have arrived in the winter they tend to have been limited to one region, according to Bastardi.

Temperatures have not been this low since the winter of 2002-03, which is known as the benchmark for frigid conditions in the last decade. However, that year the cold was not as widespread as what is happening now.

With the entire eastern half of the country in the throes of this arctic snap, this is shaping up to be the coldest winter in many people's memories.

Day Fourteen and Counting

December 04, 2009 08:45 ET

Bozell Defends Networks’ Silence on ClimateGate: “Maybe They Just Don’t Know”

Alexandria, VA – For the fourteenth straight day, the three broadcast networks have failed to report on the great and growing ClimateGate scandal on their weekday morning or evening news programs. How to explain this?

Perhaps it is that ABC, NBC and CBS have not yet heard of the story, despite two weeks of non-stop reporting on and discussion of ClimateGate in a whole host of media outlets.

Perhaps the broadcast networks only trust their fellow liberal press outlets, like the New York Times. Perhaps they don’t realize the Times exhibited journalistic diligence on ClimateGate, with a front page story the day the story broke.

In the event that ABC News, NBC News and CBS News missed the news, the Media Research Center (MRC) is today rushing each of them a copy of the Times story, in the hopes that armed with this new information, they will finally report a story that has been roiling nearly everywhere else for a fortnight.

So as not to offend the networks’ pro-global warming sensibilities, MRC President Brent Bozell is looking to have the stories delivered by bicycle messenger.

Bozell:

“Ignorance is no excuse under the law, but maybe we should stop criticizing and start showing compassion for NBC, ABC and CBS and their neglect of the huge ClimateGate story. We are more than happy to help rectify their knowledge deficit – via a network-friendly source and in an as environmentally-friendly a way as possible.

“We think that once the networks read the story of ClimateGate in their vaunted New York Times, they’ll feel compelled to report it themselves.

“We very much look forward to seeing the fruits of their labor.”

Inhofe Says He Will Call for Investigation on "Climategate" on Washington Times Americas Morning Show

Transcript From Inhofe Radio Interview Monday, November 23, 2009

Senator Inhofe: This is a huge issue and of course we have the Gitmo issue and we have the, of course, cap-and-trade is now taking a new turn. Jed, if I could…

Jed Babbin: Yeah.

Senator Inhofe: Would you let me make one sentence?

Jed Babbin: Please.

Senator Inhofe: This is out of a speech that I made, Melanie, back on the floor of the Senate, and it was repeated, John Gizzi picked it up and put it in Human Events. This was 4 years ago, in talking about the science, cooking the science. I said I would discuss the “systematic and documented abuse of the scientific process by which an international body that claims it provides the most complete and objective science assessment in the world on the subject of climate change, the United Nations IPCC.” Now that was four years ago; so we knew they were cooking the science back then, and you’ve been talking about the, you know, what’s happened recently with the bloggers coming up with what they did, what they…

Jed Babbin: Let me interrupt you there Senator, because I think that’s a really important point. Ladies and gentlemen, if you haven’t followed that story, what Senator Inhofe’s talking about, in Britain, a blogger got into some of the official government records about climate change and how the measurements were being taken to show…

Melanie Morgan: And the politics behind it.

Jed Babbin: And the – well but they were basically saying, “Oh yea, hey, let’s make it look like Jim so-and-so did that, and let’s help him cook the books, and let’s change the data…”

Melanie Morgan: And “let’s beat up those who don’t agree with us.”

Jed Babbin: Yea, but it’s all a huge fraud! I mean, Senator, am I exaggerating?

Senator Inhofe: No you’re not. If you remember, mine was the hoax statement, and that was, what, five years ago I guess.

Jed Babbin: Well, we ought to give you a big pat on the back for being …

Melanie Morgan: Yea, you deserve an an ‘atta boy, and now you are finally being vindicated.

Senator Inhofe: Well, on this thing, it is pretty serious. And since, you know, Barabara Boxer is the Chairman and I’m the Ranking Member on Environment and Public Works, if nothing happens in the next seven days when we go back into session a week from today that would change this situation, I will call for an investigation. ‘Cause this thing is serious, you think about the literally millions of dollars that have been thrown away on some of this stuff that they came out with.

Melanie Morgan: So what will you be calling for an investigation of?

Senator Inhofe: On the IPCC and on the United Nations on the way that they cooked the science to make this thing look as if the science was settled, when all the time of course we knew it was not.

Jed Babbin: Should somebody stop further spending on this until we get this investigation, Senator?

Senator Inhofe: Well, I don’t know how you do that, though, ‘cause we’re not the ones that are calling the shots. The interesting part of this is it’s happening right before Copenhagen. And, so, the timing couldn’t be better. Whoever is on the ball in Great Britain, their time was good.

Melanie Morgan: Well, Senator, thank you very much for coming back and handling a little bit, a tiny little bit of heat from the kitchen.

Senator Inhofe: Okay.

Jed Babbin: Thanks very much Senator.

Senator Inhofe: Thanks, you bet.

Jed Babbin: Senator Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma on the Environment Committee over there, and one of the real fighters.

Melanie Morgan: He certainly is…

Chicago Sees Coldest July In 66 Years

Average Temperature Only 68.9 Degrees

Have you left your air conditioner in the closet this summer, and worn long pants more often than shorts? If so, you may not be surprised to find out that Chicago is seeing its coldest July in more than 65 years.

The National Weather Service says 2009 has seen the coldest July since the official recording station was moved away from the lakefront in 1942. The average temperature this month in Chicago has been a mere 68.9 degrees.

Even in the years before 1942, when the National Weather Service recorded temperatures at the cooler lakefront, there are only three years that had colder Julys through the 26th

There have also been far fewer days than usual with high temperatures less than 80 degrees this year. In 2009, there were 13 days where the temperature did not exceed 80 degrees. Only three Julys in the past 67 years have had more days in Chicago with highs less than 80 – there were 18 such days in 1992, and 14 in 1996 and 2000.

We have also failed to reach 90 degrees at any time this month.

But the good news is that homeowners this summer have been seeing a big break on their electric bills. Air conditioning usage, according to ComEd earlier this month, is way down from last year and has saved residents an average of $50 since June, compared with last year.

In addition to the mild weather, Com Ed's cost of power was also down 9 percent as of July 17, a savings passed on to you. Your natural gas price has been down even more, 27 percent. Peoples Gas and North Shore Gas estimate a typical home customer will pay $500 less this year than last year.

Kerry panel looks at climate change and national security

By Bryan Bender, Globe Staff

WASHINGTON -- Massive crop devastation, melting glaciers, water shortages, millions of displaced people -- all of these will drag the US military into conflict if global climate change goes unchecked, a Senate panel was warned today.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, convened by Senator John F. Kerry of Massachusetts, focused on what so far has received only modest attention in the climate change debate: the effect it is bound to have on national defense.

"Addressing the consequences of changes in the Earth's climate is not simply about saving polar bears or preserving the beauty of mountain glaciers," retired Navy Vice Adm. Lee F. Gunn, president of the American Security Project, told the panel. "Climate change is a threat to our national security."

Gunn and other military specialists said that climate change could have broad effects on how the US military operates. It will likely expand the number of humanitarian missions the Pentagon will have to undertake, they said, and even change how it deploys its fighting forces.

For example, they warned that rising sea levels could swamp critical US military bases in the Indian Ocean and even the headquarters of the Atlantic Fleet in Norfolk, Va., which could be under water after just a one-meter rise in the ocean level.

From Africa to the Middle East and South Asia, dramatic changes in the weather will stress already unstable nations, creating what Gunn called "climate conflicts."

"International conflicts over resources, due to migrants, and/or as a means of distraction are not only likely," he added, "but likely to exacerbate the underlying climate change problem."

Kerry, since he took the helm of the committee earlier this year, has made addressing climate change a top priority. Several specialists said today that elevating the security aspect will help garner the kind of support necessary to make the difficult changes in energy and other global policies to stabilize the climate.

Sharon E. Burke, vice president for natural security at the Center for a New American Security, testified that the hearing was "an important demonstration of the fact that global climate change is now taken seriously as a strategic challenge."

Kerry, for his part, pledged to keep the shining the light on the issue.

"If we fail to connect the dots -- if we fail to take action -- the simple, indisputable reality is that we will find ourselves living not only in a ravaged environment, but also in a much more dangerous world," he said.

There was first in the 1970's the globaloney cooling scam (see e.g. Newsweek April 28 1975 on the internet); the government-paid scientists (90% of them are rejects of private enterprise) recommended to fight the new ice age by sending our war planes to cover the polar ice with soot in order to increase solar heat and prevent crushing of New York skyscrapers by the new glaciers; 2) When that did not work we had the globaloney warming hoax in the 1990's, proclaimed by mainly the same government-paid scientists (Dr. Hansen of the NOAA, for example); to prevent the massive heating, fires, flooding of coastal cities, disappearance of Florida, California, and Caribbean islands, massive hurricanes, global famine, and other catastrophic events we should nationalize oil and gas and coal and electricity companies; 3) after 11 years of considerable cooling we are now faced with the climate change flimflam where whatever happens with our climate we should nationalize oil and gas and coal and electricity companies; and why not our banks, car companies while we are at it. To prevent this catastrophe the best vehicle presumably is international agreements enforced by the United Nations world government. As for the influence of carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas: on a normal day the atmoshere contains 10,000 ppm (parts per million) of water vapor and about 300 ppm of carbon dioxide. The government-paid scientists say that an increase of 100 ppm of CO2 over the next 50 years will result in a catastrophic warming. The thermal absorptivity of water vapor is 4 times larger than that of carbon dioxide; it follows that the CO2 increase will increase the overall thermal absorptivity of the mixture by about 1/4 of one percent. The production of methane from livestock and the swamps (or as the enviro-nazis call those "wetlands") vastly surpasses the influence of CO2. There is the Global Warming Petition Project (see Internet) where 31,478 US independent scientists declared that there is no anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming; of these 9,029 are scientists with PhD degrees. Our enviro-nazis tried to sabotage this effort by submiiting phony names with phoney degrees - and then claimed the whole effort by the Petition scientists was a fraud. It took us 3 years and a lot of private money to verify the credentials of all the signatories and clean up the Petition of those saboteurs. See also Manhattan Declaration with more such signatories, plus a large number of scientific groups from other countries who state the same. I am one of these signatories, MS and PhD degrees from UCLA, with majors in thermodynamics and heat & mass transfer. I think to fight this communist attempt to secure a permanent hold on power should not be fought on the narrow grounds of more taxes - that is the losing proposition; where about 50% of the population is on some kind of welfare we will always be outvoted. The battle should be fought and won on the firm scientific basis. SCAM - HOAX - FLIMFLAM!!! M Posted by Marc Jeric July 23, 09 03:11 PM

Al Gore invokes spirit of Churchill in battle against climate change

Gore likens fight against 'climate change' to battle with Nazis...

Al Gore invokes spirit of Churchill in battle against climate change

The former US vice-president accused politicians around the world of exploiting ignorance about the dangers of global warming. He said lack of awareness among voters allowed governments to avoid taking difficult decisions.

Speaking in Oxford at the Smith School World Forum on Enterprise and the Environment , sponsored by The Times, Mr Gore said: “Winston Churchill aroused this nation in heroic fashion to save civilisation in World War II.” He added: “We have everything we need except political will but political will is a renewable resource.” Mr Gore admitted that it was difficult to persuade the public that the threat from climate change was as urgent as the threat during World War 2.

The level of awareness and concern among populations has not crossed the threshhold where political leaders feel that they must change.

“The only way politicians will act is if awareness raises to a level to make them feel that it’s a necessity.” Mr Gore, who brought the issues around climate change to a mass audience with the 2006 documentary An Inconvenient Truth, said the great hope for the future lay in the high level of environmental awareness among young people.

He said sceptics who refused to believe dramatic cuts in carbon emissions could be delivered should consider the example of the young scientists in the NASA team which put a man on the moon on 1969.

The average age of scientists in the space centre control room was 26, which means they were 18 when they heard President Kennedy say he wanted to put a man on the moon in 10 years. Neil Armstrong did it eight years and two months later.” He said future generations would put one of two questions to today’s adults.

It will either be ’what were you thinking, didn’t you see the North Pole melting before your eyes, didn’t you hear what the scientists were saying?’ “Or they will ask ’how is it you were able to find the moral courage to solve the crisis which so many said couldn’t be solved?’.” Sir David King, the Government’s former chief scientist and now director of the Smith School, also berated politicians for failing to follow up their statements on climate change with a clear programme of action.

I do think it’s relatively easy for a prime minister to make a speech on climate change which sounds committed and very much more difficult for that prime minister to persuade the Treasury to put the finance behind that commitment to make it a reality.

There is a long distance in government between saying what you think needs to be said and then doing in terms of making budgets available.” Sir David expressed disappointment that no senior British politician had taken up his invitation to address a conference attended by the world’s top climate scientists, senior business leaders and the presidents of the Maldives and Rwanda

“I tried to pull in a lot of IOUs. But where was the Lord Mandelson [the Business Secretary], where was Ed Miliband [the Energy and Climate Change Secretary]? Where was David Cameron? Where was William Hague?”

Perhaps he should practice what he preaches and stop flying around in a private jet? Richard, London, UK

New climate strategy: track the world's wealthiest

World's richest emit about half of Earth's carbon

New method would follow individual greenhouse emissions

By Deborah Zabarenko, Environment Correspondent

ASHINGTON, July 6 (Reuters) - To fairly divide the climate change fight between rich and poor, a new study suggests basing targets for emission cuts on the number of wealthy people, who are also the biggest greenhouse gas emitters, in a country.

Since about half the planet's climate-warming emissions come from less than a billion of its people, it makes sense to follow these rich folks when setting national targets to cut carbon dioxide emissions, the authors wrote on Monday in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

As it stands now, under the carbon-capping Kyoto Protocol, rich countries shoulder most of the burden for cutting the emissions that spur global warming, while developing countries -- including fast-growing economies China and India -- are not required to curb greenhouse pollution.

Rich countries, notably the United States, have said this gives developing countries an unfair economic advantage; China, India and other developing countries argue that developed countries have historically spewed more climate-warming gases, and developing countries need time to catch up.

The study suggests setting a uniform international cap on how much carbon dioxide each person could emit in order to limit global emissions; since rich people emit more, they are the ones likely to reach or exceed this cap, whether they live in a rich country or a poor one.

For example, if world leaders agree to keep carbon emissions in 2030 at the same level they are now, no one person's emissions could exceed 11 tons of carbon each year. That means there would be about a billion "high emitters" in 2030 out of a projected world population of 8.1 billion.

EACH PERSON'S EMISSIONS

By counting the emissions of all the individuals likely to exceed this level, world leaders could provide target emissions cuts for each country. Currently, the world average for individual annual carbon emissions is about 5 tons; each European produces 10 tons and each American produces 20 tons.

With international climate talks set to start this week in Italy among the countries that pollute the most, the authors hope policymakers will look at the strong link between how rich people are and how much carbon dioxide they emit.

You're distributing the task of doing something about emissions reduction based on the proportion of the population in the country that's actually doing the most damage," said Shoibal Chakravarty of the Princeton Environment Institute, one of the study's authors.

ich people's lives tend to give off more greenhouse gases because they drive more fossil-fueled vehicles, travel frequently by air and live in big houses that take more fuel to heat and cool.

By focusing on rich people everywhere, rather than rich countries and poor ones, the system of setting carbon-cutting targets based on the number of wealthy individuals in various countries would ease developing countries into any new climate change framework, Chakravarty said by telephone.

"As countries develop -- India, China, Brazil and others -- over time, they'll have more and more of these (wealthy) individuals and they'll have a higher share of carbon reductions to do in the future," he said.

These obligations, based on the increasing number of rich people in various countries, would kick in as each developing country hit a certain overall level of carbon emissions. This level would be set fairly high, so that economic development would not be hampered in the poorest countries, no matter how many rich people live there.

Is this a limousine-and-yacht tax on the rich? Not necessarily, Chakravarty said, but he did not rule it out: "We are not by any means proposing that. If some country finds a way of doing that, it's great."

This week's climate talks in Italy are a prelude to an international forum in December in Copenhagen aimed at crafting an agreement to follow the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012. At the same time, the U.S. Congress is working on legislation to curb U.S. carbon emissions. (Editing by Cynthia Osterman)

Legislators Framing Climate Bills Hold Energy Stock

As Congress moves ahead with climate-change legislation touching almost every corner of the energy industry, a number of lawmakers shaping the debate have investments in companies that would be affected by the results.

Rep. Edward J. Markey (D., Mass.), one of the lead authors of a House bill that would favor alternative-energy sources, had investments of between $51,000 and $115,000 in the Firsthand Technology Value Fund at the end of last year. Three of the top 10 holdings in the Ohio fund are solar-energy manufacturers.

Texas Rep. Joe Barton, the ranking Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, was paid between $2,500 and $5,000 by Carrizo Oil and Gas Inc. for oil exploration on his property in 2008. In April 2008, Mr. Barton also sold shares in Reliant Energy Inc., a Houston power-plant operator, and bought stock in EOG Resources Inc., which calls itself one of the largest independent oil and gas companies in the U.S. Mr. Barton is a strong advocate for the oil industry, and has opposed the limits on emissions of so-called greenhouse gases that Mr. Markey has advocated.

Jeff Duncan, a spokesman for Mr. Markey, said the congressman has a diverse portfolio of mutual funds and doesn't exercise any individual discretion over fund investments. A spokesman for Mr. Barton declined to comment

According to congressional financial-disclosure forms released last week, more than a quarter of the 48 members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee spearheading climate-change legislation had investments in energy, oil and natural-gas companies at the end of 2008, the most recent information disclosed.

It is legal for lawmakers to own shares in companies affected by their legislation. House and Senate ethics laws allow members of Congress to hold a financial interest in a company unless a law they pass would benefit only themselves

Top members of the Senate's Energy and Natural Resources Committee, which is handling the legislation in that chamber, also held stakes. Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D., N.M.) had at least $22,000 invested in energy companies. As of Dec. 31, Mr. Bingaman, under his wife's name, held between $15,000 and $50,000 in Energy Future Holdings Corp., a Dallas energy holding fund with former Secretary of State James A. Baker III on its board. In 2008, the senator bought and sold between $2,000 and $30,000 in coal holding company Arch Coal Inc. and in Tulsa, Okla., energy company Helmrich & Payne Inc.

Mr. Bingaman's office declined to comment

The lawmakers' financial-disclosure forms don't provide precise values of their stakes, only ranges for the value of the investments.

Some House and Senate leaders also held stakes in the energy sector. In 2008, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif), in her husband's name, owned between $15,000 and $50,000 in Clean Energy Fuels Corp., a Seal Beach, Calif., natural-gas company. Ms. Pelosi sold her stake in Quest Energy Partners Ltd., an Oklahoma City natural-gas properties holding company, on Dec. 31.

Republican House Whip Eric Cantor (R., Va.) sold between $1,001 and $15,000 in Ecology & Environment Inc., a sustainability company, in February 2008, and the same amount of Energy Conversion Devices Inc., a solar-energy parts maker, in May 2008.

In August 2008, Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) sold part of his $15,000 to $50,000 investment in the Dow Jones U.S. Energy Index Fund, which holds shares in Exxon Mobil Corp., Chevron Corp., ConocoPhillips and Occidental Petroleum Corp.

A spokesman for Ms. Pelosi didn't return several calls seeking comment.

A spokesman for Mr. Cantor declined to comment. Mr. Reid's spokesman, Jim Manley, referred to a letter attached to Mr. Reid's disclosure forms from the Wells Fargo Wealth Management Group saying that the investment adviser managed the senator's investments "without input" from Mr. Reid.

Democrats are promoting policies boosting reliance on natural gas to help curb oil imports. Energy committee members Rep. Anthony Weiner (D., N.Y.), Rep. Fred Upton (R., Mich.) and Sen. Richard Burr (R., N.C.) all had shares in Chesapeake Energy Inc., an Oklahoma City company that says it is the largest independent producer of natural gas and the most active driller of new wells in the nation. Mr. Weiner also holds shares in Teco Energy Inc., a Tampa, Fla., energy utility holding company.

A spokesman for Mr. Weiner said the investment presents no conflicts for his boss. "Anthony is a middle-class person with a few thousand dollars in these stocks, and it is clear from his strong environmental record that it doesn't affect his votes," spokesman John Collins said.

Spokesmen for Messrs. Burr and Upton declined to comment.

California Democratic Rep. Lois Capps, an Energy panel member, owns between $1,000 and $15,000 in Wilder Hill Clean Energy Fund, which holds shares in the solar-energy company Yingli Green Energy Holding Co. and Cosan Ltd., a large alcohol and ethanol producer.

Ms. Capps, a four-term House member, has been an opponent of new oil and gas drilling off U.S. coasts and a supporter of new solar-energy initiatives. Rather than seeing the purchases as a conflict of interest, Ms. Capps made a choice to rearrange her portfolio to "reflect her personal values and belief," said spokeswoman Emily Kryder.

So far, June's chill is one for the records

By Steve Kahnon June 12, 2009 10:53 PM

The cloudy, chilly and rainy open to June here has been the talk of the town. So far this June is running more than 12 degrees cooler than last year, and the clouds, rain and chilly lake winds have been persistent. The average temperature at O'Hare International Airport through Friday has been only 59.5 degrees: nearly 7 degrees below normal and the coldest since records there began 50 years ago.

More bad weather is on the way Saturday with a cold rain expected to linger through the bulk of the morning. Rainfall could be heavy -- especially north of the city, which would be a reversal of Thursday's deluge that targeted the southern suburbs.

Scientists meet to dispute global warming theory

Pete Chagnon - OneNewsNow - 3/8/2009 4:00:00 AM

NEW YORK CITY - The A-list of manmade climate-change skeptics is meeting in New York City for the 2009 International Conference on Climate Change.

The Conference is definitely international in scope. Opening the conference is Vaclav Klaus, president of the Czech Republic and the European Union. When it comes to manmade global warming, Klaus calls that a myth. He is also an outspoken critic of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and says the panel is one-sided and has a political agenda.

Featured at the conference will be more than70 scientists who do not subscribe to the notion that so-called global warming is driven by manmade emissions of carbon dioxide, one of those being Harrison "Jack" Schmitt -- one of the last astronauts to walk on the moon.

The Conference is being hosted by The Heartland Institute. Dan Miller is the director of public relations at Heartland.

"What we are trying to accomplish with this conference is to present to the politicians and to the public that the debate is not over about global warming or climate change; that there is plenty of room for disagreement; and that sound science shows that the earth is not warming," says Miller.

"For much of the latter part of the 20th century there's been a mild warming as we come out of an ice age -- but the planet today is much cooler than it was a thousand years ago."

Besides the 70+ scientists at this conference, more than 650 scientists worldwide have expressed skepticism over manmade climate change.

CNN Meteorologist: Manmade Global Warming Theory 'Arrogant'

Network's second meteorologist to challenge notion man can alter climate.

By Jeff Poor Business & Media Institute 12/18/2008 9:07:18 PM

Unprecedented snow in Las Vegas has some scratching their heads – how can there be global warming with this unusual winter weather?

CNN Meteorologist Chad Myers had never bought into the notion that man can alter the climate and the Vegas snowstorm didn’t impact his opinion. Myers, an American Meteorological Society certified meteorologist, explained on CNN’s Dec. 18 “Lou Dobbs Tonight” that the whole idea is arrogant and mankind was in danger of dying from other natural events more so than global warming.

“You know, to think that we could affect weather all that much is pretty arrogant,” Myers said. “Mother Nature is so big, the world is so big, the oceans are so big – I think we’re going to die from a lack of fresh water or we’re going to die from ocean acidification before we die from global warming, for sure.”

Myers is the second CNN meteorologist to challenge the global warming conventions common in the media. He also said trying to determine patterns occurring in the climate would be difficult based on such a short span.

“But this is like, you know you said – in your career – my career has been 22 years long,” Myers said. “That’s a good career in TV, but talking about climate – it’s like having a car for three days and saying, ‘This is a great car.’ Well, yeah – it was for three days, but maybe in days five, six and seven it won’t be so good. And that’s what we’re doing here.”

“We have 100 years worth of data, not millions of years that the world’s been around,” Myers continued.

Dr. Jay Lehr, an expert on environmental policy, told “Lou Dobbs Tonight” viewers you can detect subtle patterns over recorded history, but that dates back to the 13th Century.

“If we go back really, in recorded human history, in the 13th Century, we were probably 7 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than we are now and it was a very prosperous time for mankind,” Lehr said. “If go back to the Revolutionary War 300 years ago, it was very, very cold. We’ve been warming out of that cold spell from the Revolutionary War period and now we’re back into a cooling cycle.”

Lehr suggested the earth is presently entering a cooling cycle – a result of nature, not man.

“The last 10 years have been quite cool,” Lehr continued. “And right now, I think we’re going into cooling rather than warming and that should be a much greater concern for humankind. But, all we can do is adapt. It is the sun that does it, not man

Lehr is a senior fellow and science director of The Heartland Institute, an organization that will be holding the 2009 International Conference on Climate Change in New York March 8-10.

Another CNN meteorologist attacked the concept that man is somehow responsible for changes in climate last year. Rob Marciano charged Al Gore’s 2006 movie, “An Inconvenient Truth,” had some inaccuracies.

“There are definitely some inaccuracies,” Marciano said during the Oct. 4, 2007 broadcast of CNN’s “American Morning.” “The biggest thing I have a problem with is this implication that Katrina was caused by global warming.”

Marciano also said that, “global warming does not conclusively cause stronger hurricanes like we’ve seen,” pointing out that “by the end of this century we might get about a 5 percent increase.”

His comments drew a strong response and he recanted the next day saying “the globe is getting warmer and humans are the likely the main cause of it.”

Weekend cold set new record lows Pendleton breaks 118-year-old record

The East Oregonian

Cold temperatures set several new record lows this weekend, including a low of 22 Saturday in downtown Pendleton that broke a 118 year-old record of 24.

Record lows started falling Thursday with a new low of 20 for Meacham, four degrees cooler than the previous record from 2006, according to information from the Web site for the National Weather Service Forecast Office in Pendleton.

Heppner and Long Creek then set new low temperatures Friday. Heppner hit 29, the coldest that date has seen since 1960 when it was 30; and Long Creek was 21, besting the 1987 record by four degrees

Saturday set multiple new lows, including the record 22 in downtown Pendleton. John Day dropped to 21, breaking the 1990 record of 23; Meacham's 15 broke the previous low of 20 from 2002; and Mitchell set a record with 21, five degrees cooler than the 2002 record.

Additionally, the top of Airport Hill in Pendleton set a new low of 25; the previous record was 33. And the agricultural experimental station north of Pendleton recorded a low of 18, five degrees cooler than the previous record from 1990.

The cold continued to set records Sunday. Meacham, for the third time in four days, set a record with a low of 15, one degree cooler than the 2002 record. Long Creek and Mitchell again set new records as well Long Creek's low of 21 broke with 1969 record of 25, and Mitchell's 21 broke the 1949 record of 24.

Alaska glaciers grew this year, thanks to colder weather

By Craig Medred | Anchorage Daily News

Two hundred years of glacial shrinkage in Alaska, and then came the winter and summer of 2007-2008.

Unusually large amounts of winter snow were followed by unusually chill temperatures in June, July and August.

"In mid-June, I was surprised to see snow still at sea level in Prince William Sound," said U.S. Geological Survey glaciologist Bruce Molnia. "On the Juneau Icefield, there was still 20 feet of new snow on the surface of the Taku Glacier in late July. At Bering Glacier, a landslide I am studying, located at about 1,500 feet elevation, did not become snow free until early August

"In general, the weather this summer was the worst I have seen in at least 20 years."

Never before in the history of a research project dating back to 1946 had the Juneau Icefield witnessed the kind of snow buildup that came this year. It was similar on a lot of other glaciers too.

It's been a long time on most glaciers where they've actually had positive mass balance," Molnia said.

That's the way a scientist says the glaciers got thicker in the middle

Charlotte temperature hits 123-year low

This morning was downright cool in the Charlotte region -- cool enough to break a record that had stood for more than a century.

This morning was downright cool in the Charlotte region -- cool enough to break a record that had stood for more than a century.

It'll warm up quickly today, though. Temperatures today are expected to peak at 90 degrees, according to the National Weather Service. But it'll still feel pleasant because of humidity levels between 20 and 25 percent, said NWS meteorologist Doug Outlaw

Conditions will be cool again overnight, with the low descending to 59, one degree warmer than the record for July 3, set in 1932. And the Fourth of July is expected to be warm and dry, with a high of 92 and "a very, very minimal chance" of rain, Outlaw said.

Forecasters don't expect any rain until Saturday afternoon, when they call for a 40 percent chance of showers and thunderstorms.

Hot future shock: Heat wave temperatures to soar

WASHINGTON (AP) - During the European heat wave of 2003 that killed tens of thousands, the temperature in parts of France hit 104 degrees. Nearly 15,000 people died in that country alone. During the Chicago heat wave of 1995, the mercury spiked at 106 and about 600 people died.

In a few decades, people will look back at those heat waves "and we will laugh," said Andreas Sterl, author of a new study. "We will find (those temperatures) lovely and cool."

Sterl's computer model shows that by the end of the century, high temperatures for once-in-a-generation heat waves will rise twice as fast as everyday average temperatures. Chicago, for example, would reach 115 degrees in such an event by 2100. Paris heat waves could near 109 with Lyon coming closer to 114.

Sterl, who is with the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, projects temperatures for rare heat waves around the world in a study soon to be published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.

His numbers are blistering because of the drying-out effect of a warming world. Most global warming research focuses on average daily temperatures instead of these extremes, which cause greater damage.

His study projects a peak of 117 for Los Angeles and 110 for Atlanta by 2100; that's 5 degrees higher than the current records for those cities. Kansas City faces the prospect of a 116-degree heat wave, with its current all-time high at 109, according to the National Climactic Data Center.

A few cities, such as Phoenix, which once hit 122 degrees and is projected to have heat waves of 120, have already reached these extreme temperatures once or twice. But they would be hitting those numbers a little more often as the world heats up over time. For New York, it would only be a slight jump from the all-time record of 104 at John F. Kennedy Airport to the projected 106.

It could be worse. Delhi, India is expected to hit 120 degrees; Belem, Brazil, 121, and Baghdad, 122.

Those figures make sense, Ken Kunkel, a top Midwestern climate scientist and interim director of the Illinois Water Survey.

These are temperatures that are dangerous, said University of Wisconsin environmental health professor Dr. Jonathan Patz.

"Extreme temperature puts a huge demand on the body, especially anyone with heart problems," Patz said. "The elderly are the most vulnerable because they don't sense temperature as well."

And it's not just at the end of the century. By 2050, heat waves will be 3 to 5 degrees hotter than now "and probably be longer-lasting," Sterl said.

By mid-century, southern France's extreme heat waves should be around 111 degrees and then near 118 by the end of the century, Sterl's climate models predict. In the 1990s, that region's extreme heat wave peaked at 104 degrees; in the 1950s, the worst heat wave peaked around 91 degrees, according to Sterl.

I am so glad to know that Sterl's computers can predict the future.

Hey Sterl if you use it to pick stock you won't need that big fat grant.

Computer modeling is 100% complete BS.

Garbage in garbage out.

KC

GLOBAL WARMING BILL Boortz

Rep. Edward Markey, a Democrat from Massachusetts, is the chairman of the House global warming panel. Next week he is going to introduce a bill that would cut emissions by 85% from 2005 levels. This exceeds any reduction in bills currently before the Senate. Markey's bill would cut emissions by 85% by 2050. He says that his bill would generate $8 trillion by auctioning off emissions allowances to polluters.

So .. what do we have here? An attempt to help our environment or a scheme to seize more wealth from American taxpayers? Yeah .. like that's a hard one to figure out.

Under Markey's scheme the government would collect money from businesses that pay for their emissions allowances. Then the government turns around and spends the money on new technologies like carbon capture and storage, retraining workers in "green-collar jobs" and helping people reduce their energy costs. "Helping people reduce costs" ... is that supposed to indicate more entitlement programs for the poor, poor pitiful poor who, we are told, just can't afford the costs of energy?

So how is this bill any different than the Lieberman-Warner legislation to be debated next week? Well for one, Markey's bill would not give those evil polluting businesses free emission allowances. Instead, his idea is to immediately have the government put a price on emissions in an auction. Markey wants to do this in order to force industries to work more quickly in investing in energy-efficient technologies. Oh and if the auction prices for allowances rose too high, Markey wants to use the government to review the market and recommend any necessary legislative fixes

Keep in mind that Edward Markey is the chairman of the House global warming panel. The chairman of our global warming panel has this to say about your businesses, "The business community that has been polluting has to accept the responsibility that this is a price that has been paid for by the society as a whole."

Global warming is a hoax. These people can explain the warming on Mars or the climate change on Jupiter. I can only think of one greater hoax perpetrated on the American people, and that would be the idea that this country is supposed to be a Democracy.

If we don't rebel against this idiotic global warming hoax soon we may watch the destruction of our free market economy by the anti-capitalist environmental movement.

Senators Warn Bill Could Spike Gas $1.50 to $5 a Gallon Inhofe, Sessions blast massive costs of global warming legislation.

Worried about gas prices hitting $4 a gallon and beyond? Imagine if they were $6, $7 or even $8 a gallon. Those levels are a certain possibility should Congress pass cap-and-trade legislation, which could face a vote in early June.

Oil is trading at record levels, in excess of $120 a barrel. Leading Republican Sens. James Inhofe (Okla.) and Jeff Sessions (Ala.) both told the Business & Media Institute (BMI) energy prices would drastically increase if the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act (S. 2191) is signed into law.

“The studies show it would be directly affected, would be a $1.50 a gallon, in addition to what it is today,” Inhofe, the ranking Republican on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, said to (BMI).

Inhofe spoke at a press conference at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. on May 15 to introduce the “We Get It!” campaign – a program founded by evangelical Christians that question the merits of global warming alarmism. According to Inhofe, the bill will make it to the floor of the Senate on June 2

“So now I think we need to concentrate on what it will cost the American people,” he said during the press conference. “To try to put it in a perspective people understand, if we had ratified, according to the Wharton School of Economics, the Kyoto Treaty, back five years ago, it would have cost about – between $300 and $330 billion – that was the range they had. This bill that’s up today is $471 billion – far more than that. And the question is, what do you get for it?”

Sessions, a member of the Senate’s Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, went a step further. He cited sources that suggest the increase could be as much as $5 a gallon.

“[L]et me tell you what’s heading down the tracks,” Sessions said to BMI on May 14. “In a few weeks, we expect that the cap-and-trade legislation that’s been voted out of Sen. Barbara Boxer’s (D-Calif.) Environment and Public Works Committee will be on the floor and according to the Environmental Protection Agency it will increase gas prices by $1.50. The National Association of Manufacturers says it will increase it as much as $5 per gallon.”

Sessions proposed that money should be spent on energy investment versus a regulatory bureaucracy to enforce the provisions of the Lieberman-Warner bill.

“So instead of actually coming forward with any idea about what to do about rising prices, we’ll soon be voting on a bill that has already passed committee, has some Republican support, that would surge the price of energy, create a bureaucracy – and I just don’t think is the right thing to do,” Sessions said. “I’d rather spend our money in investing in the new the technologies, helping get nuclear power online, improving batteries, researching cellulosic ethanol. Let’s spend our money on that without creating cap-and-trade bureaucracies that have not worked in Europe.”

According to the Energy Information Administration, the average price of a gallon of gas in Europe ranges from $8 to $9 a gallon.

Gas prices have been one of the most reported news stories of the past several years. Reporters have repeatedly warned of prices approaching the levels Inhofe and Sessions warned about. However, journalists have consistently complained about oil company profits, not taxes, making gas prices higher.

On NBC’s May 15 “Today,” host Matt Lauer interviewed ExxonMobil (NYSE:XOM) CEO Rex Tillerson. Lauer quizzed Tillerson on oil companies’ profit margins and higher gas prices, but Lauer didn’t ask Tillerson about the potential impact Lieberman-Warner would have on the price of gasoline.

“Well, the problem we have right now, and fortunately we have several months before the election, to make sure the American people know that this is a supply problem that is causing the gas prices to go up,” Inhofe said to BMI. “You know the Democrats, right down party lines – they do not want to drill in ANWR, they do not want to drill offshore. They don’t want the tar sands. They don’t want more energy. And they don’t want refinery capacity.”

The Senate defeated a measure to drill in ANWR on May 13. The vote, an amendment to another bill, was killed by a vote of 42-56, largely along party lines. Only one Democrat voted for the amendment, Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), and five Republicans voting against it.

Inhofe blamed Democratic policies going as far back as the Clinton administration.

“The Democrats are the reason we have high prices at the pumps, and we’re not going to be able to alleviate that until we start producing again in America,” Inhofe added. “And I knew this was happening way back, well 10 years ago, when President Clinton vetoed the bill that would have allowed us to drill in ANWR. I said on the Senate floor that day 10 years ago that in 10 years we would regret this. It’s now 10 years later.”

The Mystery of Global Warming's Missing Heat

NPR

by Richard Harris

March 19, 2008 · Some 3,000 scientific robots that are plying the ocean have sent home a puzzling message. These diving instruments suggest that the oceans have not warmed up at all over the past four or five years. That could mean global warming has taken a breather. Or it could mean scientists aren't quite understanding what their robots are telling them.

This is puzzling in part because here on the surface of the Earth, the years since 2003 have been some of the hottest on record. But Josh Willis at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory says the oceans are what really matter when it comes to global warming.

In fact, 80 percent to 90 percent of global warming involves heating up ocean waters. They hold much more heat than the atmosphere can. So Willis has been studying the ocean with a fleet of robotic instruments called the Argo system. The buoys can dive 3,000 feet down and measure ocean temperature. Since the system was fully deployed in 2003, it has recorded no warming of the global oceans.

"There has been a very slight cooling, but not anything really significant," Willis says. So the buildup of heat on Earth may be on a brief hiatus. "Global warming doesn't mean every year will be warmer than the last. And it may be that we are in a period of less rapid warming."

They just can't bring themselvs to say we are in a cooling period. So instead they say "less rapid warming"?

Give me a break !

KC