January to June 2012 warmest first half of any year on record

Originally Posted by MuyLocoNC

Give it up, the Eco-Loon MMGW dream is dead. How many times have we heard these dolts caution against us against "disbelieving" MMGW because of a cold spell? Now, everyone is supposed to swallow it because of a heat wave that happens to be the highest in a paltry 117 years?

What was the highest average temp for this area of the earth 1, 5, 10, 20 thousand or even million years ago? You know, before our big, bad automobiles and factories were around? If you can't prove this is the hottest the planet has EVER been, stow it. Go find some other hyped up impending disaster you can decry, you political hack.

"The oceans will boil and it's the evil REPUBLICAN'S fault." This ad has been approved by Barak Obama.

Tool.

so small . . . . . ..

Originally Posted by Johnny Retro

The 2010-2011 winter here was terrible. We had one snowfall that was up to my chest (6'1) Not to mention it was fucking cold. Where was global warming then?

underlined the important part

Perhaps you should be asking why your surprised about having such a cold winter

Originally Posted by ginjawarrior

underlined the important part

Perhaps you should be asking why your surprised about having such a cold winter

The argument is climate does not equal weather but I digress , this whole argument is stupid as hell from both sides.. see my thread "current temp is 75F"

Originally Posted by MuyLocoNC

Wow, it almost sounds similar to what the IIPC did, except that they didn't even bother to tell their climatoligists they were going on theirs. They just stuck them on there.

"frightwing" ? Wow, are you and UB gonna share a milkshake now? I picture the spaghetti scene from Lady and the Tramp.

Himalayan glaciers: how the IPCC erred and what the science says

Link to this page
The skeptic argument...


IPCC were wrong about Himalayan glaciers

"In 1999 New Scientist reported a comment by the leading Indian glaciologist Syed Hasnain, who said in an email interview with this author that all the glaciers in the central and eastern Himalayas could disappear by 2035. Hasnain, of Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi, who was then chairman of the International Commission on Snow and Ice's working group on Himalayan glaciology, has never repeated the prediction in a peer-reviewed journal. He now says the comment was "speculative".
Despite the 10-year-old New Scientist report being the only source, the claim found its way into the IPCC fourth assessment report published in 2007. Moreover the claim was extrapolated to include all glaciers in the Himalayas." (Fred Pearce)

What the science says...

Select a level...	Basic		Intermediate
Glaciers are in rapid retreat worldwide, despite 1 error in 1 paragraph in a 3000 page IPCC report.

The IPCC made an error about the Himalayan glaciers. Section 10.6.2 of the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) states, “the likelihood of [the Himalayan Glaciers] disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate.” This statement did not come from peer-reviewed literature, nor did it meet the IPCC standards of evidence.
The error has raised some criticisms - both legitimate and illegitimate - about the the IPCC, the AR4, and climate science in general:
Did the IPCC respond to this error quickly and diligently? The answer here is unfortunately no. According to a review by the InterAcademy Council on the IPCC processes and procedures, the IPCC took more than a month to respond to the Himalayan Glacier error, and even then did not explicitly acknowledge the error or issue a retraction. To make matters worse, it has been documented that the IPCC had responded more quickly to other supposed errors in the report (Leake, 2010; Reuters, 2010). Though the IPCC has been recognized for its scientific contributions, there is certainly room for improvement in terms of communications.
Is the AR4 terribly flawed? It is important to note that this is one error in a roughly 3000 page technical document, an error percentage similar to the Encyclopedia Britannica. The 2035 claim was not included in the Technical Summary, the Summary for Policymakers, or the Synthesis Report.
Does this error show the IPCC has an ‘alarmist’ bias – a tendency to exaggerate the negative impacts of climate change? In fact, there are far more documented instances of the AR4 being too conservative, rather than too alarmist, on emissions scenarios, sea level rise, and Arctic sea-ice melt.
Does this in anyway undermine climate science in general? To claim this error undermines the basic conclusions of climate change is absurd. The error is part of Working Group II: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, not Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis. Anthropogenic climate change is still supported by multiple lines of independent empirical evidence, and nearly every national and international scientific body.
So what does the peer-reviewed science say about the Himalayan Glaciers?
Many of the Himalayan Glaciers are retreating at an accelerating rate (Ren 2006) and roughly 500 million people depend on the melt water from these glaciers (Kehrwald 200.
The IPCC made an unfortunate error in a very long technical document. Moreover, the response to this error was far from exemplary. Highlighting this error to undermine climate science, however, is a classic example of cherry picking – a dangerous game to play with 500 million livelihoods at stake.
Last updated on 17 September 2010 by Nicholas Berini.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/IPCC...prediction.htm

Originally Posted by deprave

The argument is climate does not equal weather but I digress , this whole argument is stupid as hell from both sides.. see my thread "current temp is 75F"

I had already had that argument I just wanted to point out the strange situation we're in when people are genuinely surprised when we have cold winters

Originally Posted by Red1966

The first chart shows a pattern of lower lows AND lower highs. This is a strong indicator of global COOLING.

Global cooling - Is global warming still happening?

Link to this page
The skeptic argument...


It's cooling
"In fact global warming has stopped and a cooling is beginning. No climate model has predicted a cooling of the Earth – quite the contrary. And this means that the projections of future climate are unreliable." (source: Henrik Svensmark)

What the science says...

Select a level...	Basic		Intermediate
All the indicators show that global warming is still happening.

When looking for evidence of global warming, there are many different indicators that we should look for. Whilst it's natural to start with air temperatures, a more thorough examination should be as inclusive as possible; snow cover, ice melt, air temperatures over land and sea, even the sea temperatures themselves. A 2010 study included 10 key indicators, and as shown below, every one of them is moving in the direction expected of a warming globe.


The question of global warming stopping is often raised in the light of a recent weather event - a big snowfall or drought breaking rain. Global warming is entirely compatible with these events; after all they are just weather. For climate change, it is the long term trends that are important; measured over decades or more, and those long term trends show that the globe is still, unfortunately, warming.
Last updated on 18 August 2010 by AdamK.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling.htm

Originally Posted by Red1966

It's clear you have already made up your mind so there's little point discussing it further than quoting the prewritten counter arguements

Nice to see you neglecting to quote the prior sentence

Originally Posted by Red1966

Government usually hinders these projects, not advances them.

In some ways I agree over here local government and NIMBY's are trying to block a new plant supported by main government

Its still high initial investment and long term recovery of investment that requires a bit of help tho