• Sprott Money
    05/26/2016 - 05:58
    How many “emergency” “secret” meetings do the central planners around the world need to have before the citizens of the respective countries begin to fully understand and take notice that something...

Why Is It So Cold? Should the Big Freeze Alter Our Approach to Climate Change?

George Washington's picture

Your rating: None

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Tue, 12/28/2010 - 15:58 | 834094 penisouraus erecti
penisouraus erecti's picture

Another cold one today......

Tue, 12/28/2010 - 19:09 | 834617 CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

Make mine a Genny Cream Ale.

Tue, 12/28/2010 - 13:51 | 833754 Smokey1
Smokey1's picture

MMGW eats shit.

Tue, 12/28/2010 - 11:20 | 833338 I am more equal...
I am more equal than others's picture

Climate change science is the incestous cousin of flat world science. 

Tue, 12/28/2010 - 11:00 | 833230 rapier
rapier's picture

We can't have a new ice age since we are in an ice age.  Ice ages play out over geological time frames and there have been 5 over the last 2billion years.  They are defined by  large areas of persistent ice over the poles and the likely cause is the location of the contenents.  With ones now over the south pole and the north pole mostly landlocked.

The idea is that this location of the contenents prevents mixing of the warm and cold oceans so the poles get icebound. That in turn reduces solar heating of the polar areas because of reflection.

Within ice ages there are periods when the glaciers advance and retreat, both into the temperate zones and in alpine regions. We are currently in a period of glacial retreat. The last glacial expansion peaked about 20K years ago and we are in what is called an inter glacial period.

An interruption of the Gulf Stream would have a profound cooling effect on the British Iles, Scandinavia and northern Europe with less heat being transported there.  Still that heat would not disappear. There can be absolutely no doubt that high CO2 concentrations will decrease earths heat radiation and warm the global system. It is simple physics.  Strip away everything called climate science and the basic physics is unassailable. Fiddle if you will with orbital physics effecting total solar energy reaching the earth but  know those differences are not as powerful as the atmospheric makeup.

Winter is never going away with the contenents in their current location and it could get worse in some places. The total heat in the globes atmosphere and most importantly the oceans is rising inexorably. The weather is going to be a bitch.


Tue, 12/28/2010 - 11:58 | 833476 MrBoompi
MrBoompi's picture

We've seen an increase in CO2 concentrations and a corresponding increase in Earth mean temperature.  Either you believe these anomalies are related to each other or not.

     The temperature in England or the East coast of the US in winter is hardly an indication of whether CO2 is causing the earth to heat up. 

     When the polar ice cap starts to grow in size, I might consider a "new ice age" theory.  Until then, go with the scientific data.

Tue, 12/28/2010 - 18:44 | 834565 nmewn
nmewn's picture

"Until then, go with the scientific data."

As explained on another thread, the "data" cannot be trusted...this is Part 42 in the series...I believe it's over a hundred parts now.

Many of the data collection sites are improperly placed...next to asphalt parking lots, on tar roof's, next to air conditioning exhaust fans etc.

The link shows an example.


Tue, 12/28/2010 - 18:57 | 834589 CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

Such placement would provide relevant information for regular folks who go about their business in the city and want to know the temperature of their everyday surroundings. Comparing data from such a station to measurements taken a hundred and thirty years ago in a rural location is obviously a fool's errand.

Wed, 12/29/2010 - 06:59 | 835301 nmewn
nmewn's picture

"Comparing data from such a station to measurements taken a hundred and thirty years ago in a rural location is obviously a fool's errand."

Exactly right my friend.

I believe this was just a case of not knowing any better when they were placed instead of knowingly placing the stations in warmer locales...just incompetence, instead of some grand conspiracy.

However, destroying data, altering data (East Anglia) is conspiracy to defraud.

Another often overlooked data collection screw up is when the Soviet Union imploded the manned stations in Siberia were shut down for lack of funding...taking some of the coldest stations on the globe off-line would make it appear we (on average) were warming all by itself...this too was non-conspiratorial...but it never was adjusted for due to incompetence.

On the other hand..."someone" appropriates millions within the "stimulus debacle" to make new climate modeling programs because the old climate modeling program did not produce the desired result...now this is conspiracy to defraud again in my opinion.

So, in the end it's a combination of things in my view...incompetence triggering a question...then the question becoming career or in the case of well meaning greens, a quest...followed by a desire to maintain job subsidy & taxation at current levels (extend & pretend on this issue as well...LOL).

Tue, 12/28/2010 - 10:39 | 833207 Republi-Ken
Republi-Ken's picture

First George Washington is NOT a PHD Climatologist and listening to a non expert when it comes to technical science is a FOOL'S ERRAND. Like asking your mailman to explain derivatives and worthless subprime mortagages rated AAA.


Second, If we do nothing as GW asks at end, because its not black and white (to him and skeptics) then we only risk the future of mankind surviving and the world financial system surviving, in 100 years. OR If we do all that is possible and reduce CO2, then in 100 years, if the threat was not real, we end up with clean air and clean water and a healthier planet. At affordable costs. Which do we want to choose as worst case end game??? Huh? Duh!


Third, There is 100 Years of Heat NOW built into the global warming climate change PIPELINE...yes it takes 100 years for the CO2 heat buildup today to complete its cycle. Meaning whatever happens up to 2110 is going to happen and we can only FIX things starting after 2110, with reduction actions taken TODAY in 2010.  Got that?

If sea levels rise in 100 years to make all coastal real estate property worth ZERO, and mortgages worth ZERO, and property damage insurance claims against ZERO being paid off....how will the world's banking and insurance system and governments survive that super gonzo hit? Think worthless subprime took a toll? How about MIA BEACH et al worth ZERO?


Hey, George Washington. Stay out of technical and complicated science.

Economics and Finance are easier to blog than Climate Science.

Tue, 12/28/2010 - 11:15 | 833264 Rodent Freikorps
Rodent Freikorps's picture

Why hasn't it gotten any warmer since 1998?

According to the new data published by NASA, 1998 is no longer the hottest year ever. 1934 is.



Tue, 12/28/2010 - 10:37 | 833195 Bruce Krasting
Bruce Krasting's picture

The author mentions the El Nino/La Nina, but does not give this powerful force enough credit. The following is a long term chart of the ENSO cycle. Note that we are today in an EXTREME condition of La Nina. This level has not been seen for 60 years. But it has been observed at near these levels on numerous occasions. It is not "abnormal". However when we get these extremes we will get extreme weather. This is a short term phenomenom. The cycle will reverse in the next six months. Don't confuse long term weather with short term results.


Ah crap... I can't load up the chart I refer to. you can find it at the NOAA web site:



Tue, 12/28/2010 - 10:19 | 833147 zeusman
zeusman's picture

Hey G-R-U-N-T

What is your problem with the concept of peak oil?  

Tue, 12/28/2010 - 17:15 | 834318 G-R-U-N-T
G-R-U-N-T's picture


Part of the reason is my Pappy raised me not to believe but about 15% of the crap that's spewed out in the world. He turned me into a skeptic and for that I am grateful.

I do not have a problem with the concept of "Peak Oil". I just don't believe we are currently at that point, despite what published research may say on the subject. Research as you know can be manipulated to pursue certain agenda ridden political goals such as the ACO2GW fraud. Red flags come up for me anytime a group or groups try to induce fear in people especially the masses.

I happen to believe that there are forces driving the idea of "Peak Oil" and these forces may be good and they also may be evil. For me the jury is still out on this one.



Tue, 12/28/2010 - 12:06 | 833105 Rodent Freikorps
Rodent Freikorps's picture

Hide the decline!

Watermelons, bitches.

Green on the outside, commie red on the inside.



 Just in my lifetime, I've been warned of the coming ice age, the population bomb, the ozone hole, Y2K, global warming, now climate change.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

Tue, 12/28/2010 - 09:10 | 833019 Lets Hang Parliament
Lets Hang Parliament's picture

One of the best sources of information on climate change must be the Browning Newsletter. The December edition is posted hear and is a very sane and sensible read.



Tue, 12/28/2010 - 09:11 | 833018 whether underground
whether underground's picture

So...man can now control the jet streams, the sun and make it super hot and yet freezing simultaneously but not one place in Houston can make a decent everything bagel?

Tue, 12/28/2010 - 08:56 | 833008 THE DORK OF CORK
THE DORK OF CORK's picture

The Martian atmosphere and climate is a much more simple environment then earths atmosphere with no oceans to create huge complexity.

The martian atmosphere at datum(average altitude) -  The atmosphere at this height is something near the triple point of water and therefore possibly in some sort of equiliberium.

The Viking , Pathfinder and Phoenix landers had accurate pressure sensors that when corrected for altitude seemed to indicate a slight increase in pressure over 3 decades - however instrument errors could be giving a incorrect reading - more observations from the new rover scheduled for landing in  2012 should fill out this data set.

For a brief summary of this fascinating series of observations this PDF document is a must. 



 Google  :        MARS detecting secular climate change 





Tue, 12/28/2010 - 08:28 | 833007 Mercury
Mercury's picture

Milankovitch Cycles bitchezzz !!


Tue, 12/28/2010 - 08:12 | 833000 skippy
skippy's picture

Climate is about distribution of energy, and mankind has in less than a few hundred years radically altered the previous / historical relationships. We effect massive change to all planetary systems, we make what was not before (zero historical reference). Hot, cold, dry, wet, toxic, stressed etc, we change it all and whilst we increase our activity's exponentially there will be cause and effect. The big question is...will we like it...can we survive it.


Skippy...the world can not even handle our own excrement...LOL...yet some would pick the corn from the peanuts.   

Tue, 12/28/2010 - 08:10 | 832999 THE DORK OF CORK
THE DORK OF CORK's picture

Carbon trading is obviously a banking scam ( trading units of carbon currency when our fiat currency cannot even work, with no physical activity on the ground other then wealth transfer has all the hallmarks of their parasitical brains) , as for reducing carbon by not fighting wars then that surplus carbon will be used in consumption.

A simple yet effective idea is to propose that half of all coal plants that reach the end of their lives will be replaced by nuclear - this could be agreed by all advanced goverments and could easily be policed.

Even if not a believer in man made global warming it would reduce soot production , reduce radiation emission and preserve some coal for the time when we will not have much oil remaining.

Tue, 12/28/2010 - 08:05 | 832998 No....we cant
No....we cant's picture

Dr. David Viner and the rest of the maniacs on the GW train remind me of my high school buddy who told everyone he banged the hot E-cup blond cheerleader. When she got pregnant, he felt guilty and offered to marry her.


She told him that he wasn't the father, and not to worry about it. He insisted on doing a DNA test to prove he was the dad.

The test comes back negative.....and he STILL says he screwed her!

Tue, 12/28/2010 - 08:05 | 832997 imapopulistnow
imapopulistnow's picture

For every 10,000 molecules in the atmosphere, there are less than 4 molecules of CO2.  So, how does such a miniscule amount of gas create runaway global warming?  Only by using flawed models and questionable "positive forcing" assumptions.


Someone earlier said it best.  Global warming is a religion for those who feel they must control all aspects of human existance.  We do not have any reliability on if the globe is warming, what is really causing climate change, if there is any or where the effects on balance are positive or negative because the control-oriented types have used "climate change" as a means to justify an end - control.  The data and the research has been corrupted for political purposes.

Tue, 12/28/2010 - 07:13 | 832986 prophet
prophet's picture

Mankind is a Carbon Bubble. 

Tue, 12/28/2010 - 06:56 | 832982 yabs
yabs's picture



this may answer your question


Co2 is bullshit

C02 increasesd with rising temps

its an effect not a  cause

Tue, 12/28/2010 - 03:24 | 832941 Sun Tsu
Sun Tsu's picture

GW - good illustrations.  Beware of academic scientists that take millions in grants, who then refuse to share the real data used, and when ordered who cannot find the data. Their conclusions can never be verified, and that is not the scientific method.

It is a Ponzi Finance method for a stream of grants by politicians to academic scientists with preordained convictions. Enough money is wasted already.

Tue, 12/28/2010 - 02:59 | 832929 ThePhysicist
ThePhysicist's picture

Even AGW zealots agree that doubling the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere isn't sufficient to significantly increase the Earth's temperature (no more than 1-2 °C), it requires a positive feedback mechanism in the climate models to generate the outlandish temperatures increases (5-7 °C) so loved by Al Gore. The positive feedback mechanisms, whereby increased CO2 somehow results in more H2O in the atmosphere are completely unproven, and in fact what little research that exists seems to prove just the opposite (resulting in a negative feedback, and cooling). The AGW religion is built upon a false god, the god of positive feedback in their climate models.

Tue, 12/28/2010 - 02:33 | 832918 Diamond Jim
Diamond Jim's picture

Atmospheric / climate science is in its infancy...it is not a true science as yet. There is little data to support much, most work done is done by computer modelling and simulations. Give 'em 50 years and maybe they can say something of importance. They have a hard enough time predicting the weather a week in advance.

Should we curb our CO2 and methane emissions, of course. Should incentives rather than punishment by Fed regulators be the policy of choice, surely. Should we be spending $$$ on nuclear power, cleaner burning of coal, solar panels etc, yes. Our problem...no leadership on a real energy policy and infrastructure. We will be too late when the crunch hits.......

Tue, 12/28/2010 - 02:23 | 832908 Aristarchan
Aristarchan's picture

Seems like a lot of drama, but yeah, I fucking hate winter too.

Tue, 12/28/2010 - 02:19 | 832905 AssFire
AssFire's picture

The Oildrum was the better source on the BP leak...GW struggles to go with the credible sources often..I think this site mihgt be helpful:



Tue, 12/28/2010 - 03:33 | 832947 Sun Tsu
Sun Tsu's picture


USA math-science education scores are so low, the Dalton-minimum data is over the head of those who junked you.

Tue, 12/28/2010 - 01:32 | 832882 dark pools of soros
dark pools of soros's picture

the gay army will protect us from the lava/ice monsters

Tue, 12/28/2010 - 02:21 | 832906 Aristarchan
Aristarchan's picture

Well, thank God somebody will be around to put the arm on that crowd.

Tue, 12/28/2010 - 01:16 | 832860 Stuck on Zero
Stuck on Zero's picture

Maybe, possibly, could cause, related too, unforseen effects,  could happen, established a link, it might be therefore plausible, only tentative, sometimes capable of reaching, experts are still unsure why this is but suspect it may be related, etc. etc. etc.

There must be one thing definite about all this!


Tue, 12/28/2010 - 01:29 | 832878 penisouraus erecti
penisouraus erecti's picture

Yes. It is definite that this issue could rake in millions for governmental agencies, scientists, and politicians, so it is a forgone conclusion that the climate change is man made and MUST THEREFORE BE CONTROLLED, And besides, how the devil do you get a research grant to look in to any other possible reasons for the change, so therefore it will be the reason.

Tue, 12/28/2010 - 01:02 | 832838 palmereldritch
palmereldritch's picture

Actually, the plan was to tax us and then kill us but hell... the first part was just for fun anyways

Tue, 12/28/2010 - 01:49 | 832893 Armchair Bear
Armchair Bear's picture

The first part is for greed, the second is more the fun part for them I think.

Tue, 12/28/2010 - 00:59 | 832836 penisouraus erecti
penisouraus erecti's picture

This seems more plausible than most of the BS on climate change


Tue, 12/28/2010 - 14:29 | 833838 flattrader
flattrader's picture

Thanks for the link.  Very informative.

Have you seen "Little Ice Age, Big Chill"?  It was a History Channel presentation.

The role of volcanoes in climate changes gets some serious treatment.

Tue, 12/28/2010 - 16:01 | 834101 penisouraus erecti
penisouraus erecti's picture

Yes, it was excellent I thought. A little more balanced approach than the climate change mafia folks. Glad you liked it.

I think the effects of volcanic activity and sun variances get 'misunderestimated' in the models these researchers use, but perhaps the model is developed to support a specific outcome?


Tue, 12/28/2010 - 00:11 | 832779 Printfaster
Printfaster's picture

Climate change is nothing but a skirt for naked fascism.

CO2 is a much lesser greenhouse gas than water vapor, quoting"about 50% of the greenhouse effect is due to water vapour, 25% due to clouds, 20% to CO2, with other gases accounting for the remainder."


Controlling CO2 is really about the financiers trying to steal from the Arabs and third world countries through guilt taxing, the same notions used to justify tobacco and liquor taxes.

Any storm, is justification enough to invoke climate change, whether man caused or natural, whether controllable or not.  Just ask Al Gore who invoked Katrina as being caused by global warming.  Give the man a Nobel prize.


Tue, 12/28/2010 - 01:02 | 832839 penisouraus erecti
penisouraus erecti's picture

Algore, isn't he the dude that invented the Internet too?

Tue, 12/28/2010 - 02:25 | 832911 Aristarchan
Aristarchan's picture

Yep....our boy Al is one hell of an intellectual stud.

Mon, 12/27/2010 - 23:58 | 832767 brown_hornet
brown_hornet's picture

"Both global warming activists and skeptics should demand international treaties which reduce soot"


We should fine the Icelanders for putting up with Eyjafjallajokull.  More soot than man has made for a century.

Tue, 12/28/2010 - 02:51 | 832925 palmereldritch
palmereldritch's picture

When all that soot is dumped on Britain's incipient post-Gulf Stream-shutdown ice sheet and it is then turned black and begins to absorb heat and melt, they can send London a carbon bill that will dwarf all the ponzi debts the City tried to foist onto Iceland.

It's the Circle of Li(f)e.

Mon, 12/27/2010 - 23:49 | 832754 Bicycle Repairman
Bicycle Repairman's picture

This whole issue is BS and a time waster.  These guys cannot even predict the direction of global temperature, and they claim to know the earth is getting hotter, human activity is causing it, and they know how to stop it.  This is all ridiculous.  And don't bother quoting any bought and paid for academic whores.


There are very important ecological issues.  This phony issue has detracted form the real issues.  Global warming is all about taxes, crowd control and profits for the already too rich.


Mon, 12/27/2010 - 23:47 | 832749 imapopulistnow
imapopulistnow's picture

"Did the oil spill make it worse?"

How seriously freeken moronically stupid can anyone be to even ask a dumb ass question like this?

Bejeez, help us all if this is the level of intellect that we have to complete in a global economy.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!