This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
JFK Shuts Down After Plane Skids Off "Ice Skating Rink" Runway: Entire Nation Blanketed In Subzero Deep Freeze
Update: JFK has now reopened.
It's cold out there. Cold enough that JFK's runways are so frozen, airplanes literally are skidding off runways, which is what happened seconds ago to a Delta airplane landing at JFK.The result: JFK is now closed until further notice.
BREAKING>> #JFK is closed after @Delta CRJ landed on 22L and skid into safety area on taxiway J. Runways are "an ice skating rink".
— NYCAviation (@NYCAviation) January 5, 2014
From NBC:
Officials announced that John F. Kennedy International Airport was closed Sunday morning because of inclement weather. The announcement came shortly after a plane that had landed at the airport skidded while exiting a runway.
A freezing rain advisory is in effect for much of the tri-state area.
The FAA said Delta Connection 4100, which originated in Toronto and was being flown by Endeavor Air, landed on runway 22 at the airport at 8 a.m. and slid into a snow bank as it was moving toward a taxiway. The plane was towed to the gate with passengers on board.
No injuries were reported, and the FAA is investigating.
It's not just the airports:
ALERT- Many NYC Highways Are Sheets Of Ice; USE CAUTION -Dozens of accidents reported on Staten Island Expwy.
- http://t.co/EwD1HPJtdf— Breaking911 (@Breaking911) January 5, 2014
But that's just New York: elsewhere America is gripped in a cold spell which may beat all records, as 140 million Americans are expected to see subzero temperatures in the coming days, including the deep south.
As CNN reports, "The deep freeze gripping much of the country is about to send temperatures plummeting to unbelievable lows. Parts of the Midwest and Great Plains will plunge as low as 30 degrees below zero on Sunday. That's where the Green Bay Packers will host the San Francisco 49ers in what could be the coldest football game in NFL history. By Wednesday, nearly half the nation -- 140 million people -- will shudder in temperatures of zero or lower, forecasters said. Even the Deep South will endure single-digit or sub-zero temperatures."
What to expect around the country:
As if the 30-below-zero temperatures weren't frigid enough, the wind chill in much of Midwest and Great Plains could drop to minus 50, the National Weather Service said. And that's on top of the moderate to heavy snow possible over the Great Lakes and Ohio Valley on Sunday.
"Brutal conditions will continue pushing southeastward to the Ohio Valley and Mid-South by Monday, and to the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic by Tuesday," the weather agency said. "Afternoon highs on Monday for parts of the Midwest states and the Ohio Valley will fail to reach zero degrees."
But nobody will have it worse than some 70,000 Green Bay Packers fans who may see frigid conditions as bad as -40 with the wind chill:
More than 70,000 hardcore Packers fans hoping to see their team get
closer to the Super Bowl will have their loyalty tested Sunday as they
endure temperatures as low as 15-below-zero in Green Bay, Wisconsin.
With the wind, the air could feel as cold as minus-30 to minus-40
degrees to the sold-out crowd.
The Packers will give free hand warmers, hot chocolate and coffee to the fans braving the cold on Sunday, spokesman Aaron Popkey said.
In Embarrass, Minnesota, residents wondered whether they might see their record-cold temperature of 64 below zero, set in 1996, snap like an icicle.
"I've got a thermometer from the weather service that goes to 100 below," resident Roland Fowlei told CNN affiliate KQDS. "If it gets that cold, I don't want to be here."
Even the Deep South won't be spared:
The arctic blast threatens to sweep subzero lows as far south as Alabama and plunge much of the Deep South into the single digits.
To put things in perspective, the weather in Atlanta on Monday will be colder than in Anchorage, Alaska, CNN meteorologist Pedram Javaheri said.
Freezing rain is also possible along the Appalachians all the way up to New England over the next couple of days, the National Weather Service said.
The low temperatures and wind chill are a dangerous recipe for rapid frostbite or hypothermia.
"Exposed flesh can freeze in as little as five minutes with wind chills colder than 50 below," the National Weather Service's Twin Cities office in Minnesota said. Forecasters there warned of "the coldest air in two decades.
Over the past week, at least 13 people have died from weather-related conditions.
Eleven people died in road accidents -- including one man crushed as he was moving street salt with a forklift.
One man in Wisconsin died of hypothermia. And an elderly woman with Alzheimer's disease in New York state wandered away from her home and was found dead in the snow in a wooded area about 100 yards away.
Finally, those who can avoid to travel should do so:
The already dreadful stream of stranded passengers and canceled flights will only get worse.
FlightAware.com, which tracks cancellations due to both weather and mechanical problems, said more than 1,500 flights have been canceled for Sunday. That's after 4,500 flights were called off on Friday and Saturday.
In Chicago, a plane headed to Las Vegas slid off the taxiway at O'Hare International Airport on Saturday night. None of the passengers on Spirit Flight 245 were injured, an airlines spokeswoman said.
But with the Windy City inundated by snow, O'Hare will have more troubles Sunday. About 1,000 inbound or outbound flights have already been canceled, according to FlightAware.com.
And some photos from the frozen country:
Basketball fans brave the cold and snow as they cross to the United Center in Chicago on Saturday, January 4.
People go sledding in Prospect Park in Brooklyn, New York, on Saturday, January 4.
Snow is piled high in front of a Home Depot in Boston on January 4 after a two-day winter storm.
Michael Stanton walks between houses covered with ice in the shore town of Scituate, Massachusetts, on Friday, January 3.
Frost covers the windows at the Morning Glory natural food store where a customer wearing a mask braves 0-degree Fahrenheit temperatures to shop in Brunswick, Maine, on January 3.
Surfers make their way through snow on New York's Rockaway Beach on January 3.
A man walks down a snowy road along the shore in Scituate, Massachusetts, on January 3.
People play in Prospect Park in Brooklyn, New York, on January 3.
»
- 30833 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
IN Media country it is much warmner than it was the other morning .
It's so cold here in Alberta that I saw a rooster huddling with a capon
I'm am just sick and tired of ZHers deriding anthropogenic global warming........... um .......climate change. First of all, the climate really does change. Remember how you had to turn the AC up to 11 last August and look at it now. And without CC, how are we going to complete the deindustrialization of the USSA, impose a global tax to be collected by the IMF, move the population into 150 square foot high rise Habitrail apartments in human habitat zones, and replace all our incandescent light bulbs with mercury filled CF which emit noxious em pulses. I mean, get with the program dudes. Didn't Al Gore win a prestigious Nobel Peace Prize for his innovative invention of Global Warming, and we all know just how meaningful those Nobel's are. (BTW, the arctic ice sheet in the arctic ocean has been expanding at a very rapid rate over the last three years. Real scientists who aren't being paid off by the NWO are correlating severe weather with lack of solar activity. The sun has been at an all time low in activity recently despite the fact that it should be at its peak of the 11 year cycle). So dudes, just plug those tubes back in and take two blue pills - everything is cool - I mean warm.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/solact.html
The illustrations at left show the raw data for temperature and solar activity at the top, then that data with a 11 year running average to filter out the normal solar activity period. The middle graph suggests a correlation between solar activity and temperature, even though the peaks are offset. But when the last few years of data are included, the curves diverge and severely weaken the case for the driving of temperature by this measure of solar activity.
As the sunspot numbers continue to stay low, it's possible the Earth's climate is being affected again.
But thanks to global warming, we're unlikely to see another ice age. "Things have not started to cooling, they just have not risen as quickly," Biesecker said.
Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-11-calm-solar-prompts-impact-earth.html#jCp
http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-a...
the solar forcing combined with the anthropogenic CO2 forcing and other minor forcings (such as decreased volcanic activity) can account for the 0.4°C warming in the early 20th century, with the solar forcing accounting for about 40% of the total warming. Over the past century, this increase in TSI is responsible for about 15-20% of global warming (Meehl 2004). But since TSI hasn't increased in at least the past 32 years (and more like 60 years, based on reconstructions), the Sun is not directly responsible for the warming over that period.
btw, it's not new that solar physicists were predicting low solar activity at the peak more than 2 years ago:
http://www.thegwpf.org/scientists-predict-weakest-sunspot-cycle-in-200-y...
and in 2003, solar activity was at an 8000-year high:
http://www.space.com/484-sunspot-activity-8-000-year-high.html
and the report, if you're interested to read:
http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/nature02995.pdf
So, "solar activity was at an 8000-year high", but it's man causing global warming?
Here comes Snowden!
LOL, -30 F isnt that bad, we always got a few days like that in Toronto (usually around -20 something, the windchill is the bigger variable there). Never see the global warming people in these times. Oh yeah, they're stuck in the ice in that boat down south.
I'm going to throw the climate dense a bone here:
OK Zerohedgies, you know how the Fed and the media keep declaring that everything is great economically, and they point to the stock market highs as an indicator of this? You know how this is bullshit?
This is EXACTLY what climate change deniers are doing when they point to cold weather as evidence against climate change! Winter still exists. Cold air still exists. It's the patterns and trends that are shifting as the overall globe warms. The jet stream is altered from a relatively modest wave into a wave pattern of tighter frequency, pushing cold air into deeper "valleys" of the wave and warm air into higher "troughs" of the wave.
In the northern hemisphere there are record breaking warm days in Alaska, Canada, and Siberia RIGHT NOW! In the southern hemisphere there are record breaking warm days in Australia, and Antarctic land ice is melting rapidly (which temporarily increases sea ice, where those ships are stuck.) The trends all point to warming, even if where it is winter, there are extremes in cold set by a fucked up jet stream.
It's a lie to point to the Dow at record highs and say "The economy is great!" It's a lie to point to cold weather in north American winter and say "Global Warming isn't real!" It's a lie of ommission because it negates the majority of the data in both examples.
so what I want to know is, when the hell is this global warming supposed to take effect? I mean what is it waiting for?
I live in upstate NY so I was obviously hoping for Al to be right, yet here I am after being assured for years now that man made global warming was real, scientific fact and that significant, noticeable climate change was imminent...
still freezing my ass off in January and paying $400 utility bills. now maybe I'm wrong about this, or have somehow been mislead in my understanding of the term but wouldn't the words global warming when used as a phrase suggest that temps where going to rise, as in increase, around the globe as a whole? (which I assume the word globe to be in reference to the planet Earth)
now I realize that not that long ago the EU came to the startling conclusion that water does not hydrate (i.e it is indeed, not really wet) so maybe the term "warming" has taken on a similar new meaning or context, maybe "warming" really doesn't mean to increase in temperature anymore in this brave newspeak world, maybe it now means something entirely different...
that must be the case because it is, in fact of overall global temperature, getting cooler, not warmer and as those global warming scientists recently discovered on their trip to the Antarctic, the ice is not thinning or disappearing quite as quickly as they surmised it was. I guess this became painfully apparent after not only did they find ice where they did not expect there to be any, they got stuck in it. but not only did they get stuck, the ice is so thick that the icebreaker sent to bail there sorry asses out got stuck as well.
as I sit here and look out my window today global warming is naught more than a joke, and the only climatological phrase that comes to mind on this fine Sunday is ice age.
"so what I want to know is, when the hell is this global warming supposed to take effect?"
"They" can't tell ya what the weather is going to do next week, let alone the next 50 years. Must be why when the conversation goes flat, and a subject with no parameters or absolutes needs to come up, the weather fills the bill every time?
'Windy nuff fer ya, Cliff?" Yup, Josh, it was so windy last night it left the fence posts and blew away the holes.'
Although I do not keep up with the topic day/by/day, I beleive one of the most recent memes is that we are experiencing a "pause" - possibly extending out several decades, don'tchaknow.
Hang on to your long johns.
It's a lie of ommission because it negates the majority of the data in both examples.
Er, what data are you referring to in the weather case? There has not been the increase in average temperature in the last five years. Sea levels are NOT rising. Arctic ice, at both poles, is increasing, and your purported explanation is so ludicrous (it's warmer on land, so the land ice is melting - e.g. going to 0C - and mixing with the sea water (higher than 0C) - and that's making the water freeze e.g. go to below 0C? Do the laws of thermodynamics not apply in your world?), it's amusing.e
When ONE - just one, mind you - prediction of the climate alarmists comes true, I might put some stock in the theory. Till then, go pee up a frozen rope.
Drakman,
Your claims are contrary to the reported studies I cited.
I am skeptical as to your unreferenced "scientific" claims.
please do reference any links which provide evidence:
(a) polar ice increasing
(b) sea levels NOT rising
(c) average global temperature NOT increasing
Polar Ice Increasing:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/02/03/arctic-sea-ice-increases-at-record-rate/
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/arctic_ice_increasing_rapidly/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/And-global-COOLING-Return-Arctic-ice-cap-grows-29-year.html
Sea Levels Not Rising:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/blog_watch/sea_level_is_not_rising.html
http://www.skepticalscience.com/sea-level-not-rising-intermediate.htm
http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/sealevel.htm
Global Temperature Falling:
http://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Global-Temperatures-Have-Been-Falling-Since-1999.html
http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2009/09/01/falling-temperatures-confound-alarmists
http://notrickszone.com/2013/04/05/russian-scientist-warns-global-temperatures-to-fall-1-5c-by-2050-and-global-cooling-refuges/
Darteaus,
Do you actually read the articles you cite?
"Certainly the 30 year arctic trend in ice area is downward" -quoted from the 2009 you cited.
the 2008 article you cited mistakenly conflates a one-year expansion of ice cover over the previous year's record low with ice volume and with long-term trends, and based on that error then incorrectly predicts that Arctic ice will continue to expand in the following years (which it has not and set a new record low in 2012).
The 2014 article cited repeats the error of confusing a 29% rebound of ice cover over a previous years record low with ice volume recovery and long-term trends.
More important than the year-to-year variations in Arctic sea ice extent or area is the comparison of sea ice volume, which has been hitting a new low in each successive year because of warming at the poles.
Here is the volumetric sea ice anomaly chart http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/research/projects/arctic-sea-ice...
----------------------------------------------
Many Pacific islanders will be happy to learn the sea level is not rising, despite their observations
--------------------------
And no global warming according to the oil industry?
Easterling is a shill for the oil industry's Heartland Institute. His claim of what IS happening is based on his climate model of what he believes SHOULD BE happening. He does not actually have global data to support his argument about global trends.
------------------------------
How can we explain either the denial of environmental and climate science or its perverted adoption by carbon tax con artists. Whether it is pollution of land or pollution of water. Whether it is the food we eat or the air we breathe, whether the cause is chemical or nuclear. Doing anything serious to prevent global environmental destruction runs up against the corporate capitalist world order.
http://www.naomiklein.org/articles/2011/11/capitalism-vs-climate
"His claim of what IS happening is based on his climate model of what he believes SHOULD BE happening. He does not actually have global data to support his argument about global trends."
Yes, something a climate hysteric should be familiar with. Remember the debunked "hockey stick"? How about the amazing metamorphosis from "Global Warming" to [ta-da!] "Climate Change"?
How about the destroyed primary data by the East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit? Why does anyone destroy primary data? When it contradicts their findings!
But, no, go on believing the latest enviroScare. They come along every 20 years or so and are used by the elites to convince the gullible to hand over their money and freedom.
Don't be a drone.
[Silent Spring, Population Bomb, GloBull Warming, ?]
==========
GloBull Warning about high winter temperatures in the US: http://cnsnews.com/mrctv-blog/craig-bannister/executive-order-excessively-high-temperatures-already-harming-public#sthash.LCjkBU8h.dpuf BWA-HAHAHA - HYSTERICS ARE WRONG AGAIN!
For great "insight", Al Gore quotes: http://www.infowars.com/on-the-coldest-day-in-america-in-20-years-here-are-al-gores-stupidest-global-warming-quotes/
In 2000, Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event". BWA-HAHAHA - HYSTERICS ARE WRONG AGAIN!
.
Obama is a Trader!
TDOS, +1
the junkers don't understand the climate science.
'climate science"
Yeah. Right up there with economics, sociology and psychiatry.
Astrology. Opps, sorry; astrology is a real science compared to the climate-hysterics.
Proven and effective treatment for hysteria:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_hysteria
Trader, While I cannot speak for any other "denier/skeptic" on this thread, my response to this whole Global Warming/Climate Change may resonate with a great many others who are staunch advocates of the Science of StickYourHeadOutTheWindowology. This discipline is bereft of supercomputers, mind-numbing, algorithmic calculations that forsee centuries ahead, "models" of all matters "weather/climate" related ... but it does have the benefit of some first-hand observation along with - hopefully - some experience as well as common sense.
Fuck cap and trade for the moment. Fuck all manner of economic and social disruption this agenda explicitly calls for. You guys are claiming none other than ELE/TEOTWAWKI stuff, and - I gotta tell ya, kid - you all had BEST be backing up your shit with iron-clad, provable info to validate those kind of claims.
Instead, we get "Warming" is now climate change. We get "weather is not climate" (seldom mentioned during heat waves, I've noticed). Ice is growing/shrinking due to CC. That shit about the ocean "eating" the planet's "excess" heat sounds uncomfortably similar to the "dog eating my homework" crap to many. And the latest ... this so-called "pause" in the warming trend may extend how the fuck long??? Several decades??? WTF?
My personal stance of sympathy, then agnosticism to this idea changed when I pored over the released Climategate data a few years back. If you haven't read the chronologically-compiled presentation put together by some Phd. by the name of Kinsella, if I recall correctly, you may want to familiarize yourself with it along with all the other links that you seem to have spent time studying.
At the very least, son, you may get a glimpse of why certainly I, and I suspect a great many other "deniers" hold so much of this Hockey Schtick industry in utter contempt.
you can't make this shit up:
A study funded by the Koch brothers debunks Climategate, but the cable news media doesn't cover it.climategate was milked for its propaganda value by certain entrenched interests and eaten up by the agw skeptic/denier camp:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked-intermedia...
A number of independent investigations from different countries, universities and government bodies have investigated the stolen emails and found no evidence of wrong doing. Focusing on a few suggestive emails, taken out of context, merely serves to distract from the wealth of empirical evidence for man-made global warming.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked-advanced.h...
Though some of the CRU emails can sound damning when quoted out of context, several inquiries have cleared the scientists. The Independent Climate Change Email Review put the emails into context by investigating the main allegations. It found the scientists' rigour and honesty are not in doubt, and their behaviour did not prejudice the IPCC's conclusions, though they did fail to display the proper degree of openness. The CRU emails do not negate the mountain of evidence for AGW.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/CRU-tampered-temperature-data.htm
The Independent Climate Change Email Review went back to primary data sources and were able to replicate CRU's results. This means not only was CRU not hiding anything, but it had nothing to hide. Though CRU neglected to provide an exact list of temperature stations, it could not have hid or tampered with data.
The Case Against Global-Warming SkepticismThere were good reasons for doubt, until now.
if we're going to see a 4 C rise in temp over the next 100 years, then i'm worried less about an ELE for homo sapiens - instead, you should understand the implications of mass-migratory movements of people from the coastal regions further inland and to higher elevations. this could be a smooth process or it could be chaotic.
"The sky is falling!!"
Go back to Jonestown and finish drinking the hysteric Kool-Aid with all the others.
You know, since your name is Phaedrus, I'll cut you some motorcycle slack. I will agree that scientific method is only as good as what we know or imagine now. There is always, as the author so plainly said, another untested theory to hypothesize about. However, the lot of climate-change deniers sound exactly like so many other deniers before them. Tectonic Theory was hotly debated for years, all thanks to William Morris Davis' out-of-proportion influence on geology and geography for most of the 20th century. Nearly everything he taught, which was held as gospel by scientists everywhere, has been proven false.
There is one thing about point/line math, though, which might as well be called provable: through any single point in the universe, an infinite number of lines can pass. It may just be that anecdotal evidence is insufficient to 'prove' a point, and if you stick your head out the window in a hurricane, it might just get cut off by flying roof tin. If a preponderance of lines of evidence support a single conclusion, though, it is well to consider that your own idea might be wrong.
I find it amazing that Zeroheads will defend the right of industry to pollute until we are all sick or dead on one hand, and then berate them on the other for stealing human dignity and freedom on the other. Most of the scientists I have met or worked with do not care about politics. Many do not care about anything but science, which helps explain why so many of them are actively involved in creating things that threaten our survival. The one thing that they generally insist on, however, which you might want to learn abot before you blat off about "stupid scientists," is that they get their equations solved correctly. It might be the best or worst equation they have available at the time, but it will work flawlessly with the given set of inputs - the purpose of peer review. Very few stupid people are scientists. A great many people who know nothing besides what they see on TV or in their front yard are, however, quite stupid. Uninformed. Ignorant. Tools of the media and politicians. Fodder for cannons. Just like the idiots who ran out on the seabed in Thailand on Boxing Day a few years back, when it went dry. Had they been educated, they would have recognized the receding sea as a sure sign of impending tidal waves, and a few of them may have survived. But they weren't, and they didn't.
"science"? Science relies on published experiments, peer reviewed and repeated. When some percentage of "scientists" believe in man-caused climate change-that's an opinion poll.
It is the warming advocates that said our children will not see snow. Every time a tropical storm hits it is the fault of global warming. When it is an extreme winter that is just weather.... yet an extreme summer is global warming.
Record breaking warm days... since when.. the last 300 years of records?? that is barely a drop in an ocean of time. Disgusting to use that argument really.
If there is global warming... and I pray there is... the life on this planet will generally be way better off for it. Life thrives in warm environments and less so in cold ones. There is just more energy to go around.
What is the end goal of you climate change pushers. Do you want it to cool instead to a full blown ice age? Do you want it to stay the same forever? The hubris involved with the mindset that everything should stay exactly as it is boggles me.
At this point.. i'd bet anything the 'climate' will get warmer or colder and not stay the same. This natural variance is merely being used as a scare tactic to fleece people, most of which don't do the reality check and realize nothing stays the same forever.
At this moment in time (it will naturally change and pass) I hope you freeze to death while wishing it were warmer.
Blah, blah, blah. Fake data, fraud studies, destroyed primary data, phony investigations into the fraud, etc. Just the latest eco-disaster leveraged to take money and freedom for the guy who works for more than minimum wage.
Fuckin' whiners back east. It'll warm up in a few days. Not so much here in Montana :)
Mean there's one of you left up there? Thought they were all down here in the desert?
Somebody has to feed the pygmy ponies.
you are goy
cattle get it
you are a food source
you are rothschild meat
play things
the way kids play with ants.
you must die
but before you do you must be stripped of everything.
time has been cern hacked
the connections with saturn are opening
your weather experience is metal alloy controlled distraction.
lord edwyne and his rothschild extended family are saying we run the show.
stay inside hide in your beds under cover.
do not expect bono,george clooney or matt demon to rescue you.
they are low level satanic tools.
you are not borg but saturn food source.
just chill relax and pay your hospital and death tax
They're drilling so deep for natural gas they're getting as much steam as they are natural gas. "Just start piping the steam around the State." that's why i laugh at the people who are against "fracking." in effect it will heat your entire state with no need for the natural gas you get in addition to doing it. oh and "won't gasoline consumption drop when the Deep Freeze sets in?" It certainly shuts in a massive amount of production which by definition lowers demand and slows the growth in the economy. This is why the USA has always been prone to massive boom and bust cycles. The energy spikes come in the summer not the winter. Or they used to at least.
Yea, but president Goebbels says we need carbon taxes for global warming. WTF.
http://vegasxau.blogspot.com
It's 40 Celsius down here in Buenos Aires! Heat wave.
At -45 that's when Canadians come out to play
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Ga5D6uwPWU
Deep freeze in winter, tonadoes in spring,scorching heat in summer ,hurricanes flood in autumn..This country of sinners,gluttony,sloth,polluters & perpetuators of endless war has its all and more to come!
yep, haven't hit bottom yet. You don't hit bottom until you admit you have a problem
"Entire Nation Blanketed In Subzero Deep Freeze" -
defined as "Where I live is Blanketed In Subzero Deep Freeze".
No hyperbole here.
Be tough. Do you sit down when you pee?
hate to make these back of the napkin analogies, but suppose you turned off your refrigerator and opened the door and left it open. 1) the rest of your kitchen would get cooler 2) at some point the two would equalize
Actually, no, the room would not get cooler, as a refrigerator is in essence just a heat pump, and can only remove heat from within it by pumping that heat into the room via the coils on the back --- while in the process adding to the overall heat of the room due via the pumping mechanism. This is why a refrigerator, even (or especially) in a sealed room, can never be an air conditioner.
"[C]ools" actually works in a convoluted sort of way - like a "rounded off pup tent".
When people talk about man made climate change causing melting ice, increase of sea levels, heating of the oceans, they somehow leave out natural occurances that easily explain the variations of ice, rain, change in seasonal norms. take the disappearance of the antarctic ice sheet that used to be at the southern tip of the south pole.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/AntarcticVolcanoes2.jpg
There are 9 volcanoes in southern antarctica with 7 more just to the north. volcanoes like earthquakes experience a condition called Surface Latent Heat Flux. This is the increase of land temperatures near the fault line and land surrounding volcanoes. With the increase of activity causes melting below the surface of the ice that heats up creating tunnels of heated water that cuts through the ice making it very fragile underneath while appearing one solid land mass. The documentary Planet Earth shows this very phenomenon.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2509225/Active-volcano-An...
The Pacific Plate collided with the North American Plate creating the rockies. there would be no ice or snow or West Coat weather as we know it if it were not for these two plates colliding. Nothing human being can do about it. It just happens. the resultant changes of weather is from the earth going through the changes and cylces that NATURALLY occur.
http://education.nationalgeographic.com/education/encyclopedia/ocean-con...
The planet is a constantly shifting and changing organism that has its own balance no matter what humans think they can do to it. The natural weathering process and the entire carbon cycle demonstrates the miniscule amounts of CO2 that humans contribute.
http://www.columbia.edu/~vjd1/carbon.htm
The planet has had approximately 10 ice ages. When did humans cause the other nine? Face it global warming fanatics. Man made global warming is a scam to seperate you from your money and destroy industries to crush economies to complete and control of all aspects of life by a few from a far away place that want you to go away and die because there's too many people on the planet for them to live without all the plebes.
Most of the people who spew this hoax admit openly that they would like to get rid of most of the population. Well I say you first muthaphucka!
http://vhemt.org/
+1000, This Hockey Schtick is gettin' mighty (c)old,
Sucks to be in the US. We're having record high temperatures in parts of Canada.
Edit: I was writing too fast and listening to football so i forgot a certain part of a certain statistic but still the point is valid.
We have had approximately 10 ice ages in the last 100,000 years. When did humans cause the other 9 warming periods?
BTW the most idiotic response i've heard to this is that humans are making it worse. The response i mostly feel is to smack the stupid out of them. We need to beat this back.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-w...
If there's one thing that all sides of the climate debate can agree on, it's that climate has changed naturally in the past. Long before industrial times, the planet underwent many warming and cooling periods. This has led some to conclude that if global temperatures changed naturally in the past, long before SUVs and plasma TVs, nature must be the cause of current global warming. This conclusion is the opposite of what the peer-reviewed science has found.
Our climate is governed by the following principle: when you add more heat to our climate, global temperatures rise. Conversely, when the climate loses heat, temperatures fall. Say the planet is in positive energy imbalance. More energy is coming in than radiating back out to space. This is known as radiative forcing, the change in net energy flow at the top of the atmosphere. When the Earth experiences positive radiative forcing, our climateaccumulates heat and global temperature rises (not monotonically, of course, internal variability will add noise to the signal).
How much does temperature change for a given radiative forcing? This is determined by the planet's climate sensitivity. The more sensitive our climate, the greater the change in temperature. The most common way of describing climate sensitivity is the change in global temperature if atmospheric CO2 is doubled. What does this mean? The amount of energy absorbed by CO2 can be calculated using line-by-line radiative transfer codes. These results have been experimentally confirmed by satellite and surface measurements. The radiative forcing from a doubling of CO2 is 3.7 Watts per square metre (W/m2) (IPCC AR4 Section 2.3.1).
So when we talk about climate sensitivity to doubled CO2, we're talking about the change in global temperatures from a radiative forcing of 3.7 Wm-2. This forcing doesn't necessarily have to come from CO2. It can come from any factor that causes an energy imbalance.
How much does it warm if CO2 is doubled? If we lived in a climate with no feedbacks, global temperatures would rise 1.2°C (Lorius 1990). However, our climate has feedbacks, both positive and negative. The strongest positive feedback is water vapour. As temperature rises, so too does the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere. However, water vapour is a greenhouse gas which causes more warming which leads to more water vapour and so on. There are also negative feedbacks - more water vapour causes more clouds which can have both a cooling and warming effect.
What is the net feedback? Climate sensitivity can be calculated from empirical observations. One needs to find a period where we have temperature records and measurements of the various forcings that drove the climate change. Once you have the change in temperature and radiative forcing, climate sensitivity can be calculated.
speaking of beating that reminds me of a joke.
how does a woman stop from being raped?
she beats him off!
self defense dontcha know.
Yeah. Peer reviewed by the same people who propagate this garbage. No dissent from the view that its man made global warming. why do you think that fools on the weather channel want to take away the credentials of those meteorologists who disagree with them. No conversation, no cordiality. Just pure fascist, authoritarian stalinist response of silencing those heretics.
Just like LGBT or GLAAD. If you don't agree with the homosexual agenda they try to shut you down, silence you. And how dare anyone stand up for traditional marriage when its definition say it is between a man and a woman.
Science is not consensus. If you read these scientists studies they wrtie that they believe, or theorize, or suggest, or speculate these conclusions. they never say PROVE. But when they are on tv or in the news they unequivocally proclaim that this is proof positive and that anyone who believes otherwise are the equivolent of holocaust deniers.
Edit:The fact that you listen to people who response to all of this is a global tax to go to the UN shows your idiocy. Epic Fool.
sorry. listening to football and celebrating colorado style ;-)))))
Well, genius, lets see...the atmosphere is a closed system. Even old-fashioned heterosexual traditional-marriage weatherman-scientist TV ideologues agree that if you keep dumping shit into a closed system, you're going to change it. Let me make it simple for ya - pour yourself an almost-full glass of water. Drink a little and taste it. Then add some salt, charcoal or whatever makes yer horse jump. Taste it again. See? Voila! You are a fuckin' scientist! And you'll have to admit, believe, posit, suggest or otherwise advise your peers that it ain't the glass of water you started with. And you know what else? YOU are the guy who changed the water! AMAZING!!
Now, about the two hurricanes that struck England in the past two weeks, I don't want to suggest that they might be aberrant climatic behaviour or anything, but the sheer size of storm systems in the past twelve years dwarfs most anything that came before. I'm almost certain, though, that the continued dumping of billions of tons of pollutants into the atmosphere every year probably has some impact...
Im not talking about changing a glass of water. Im talking about those that say we are changing the weather and climate on this planet because we are using fossil fuels provided by the earth. Im not saying that shitting where you eat is a good idea. informing the public on the hazards of dumping toxic chemicals into rivers, lakes and oceans is the way to go. finding ways to limit the pollution that all species on this planet emits is a smart thing to do and im all for it.
What i reject is people who claim that storms are more powerful than ever before even though you were not alive 100+ years ago to make such a statement. To suggest that normal human activity as we have known it for as long as we have known it is the cause of this is being ignorant of the past. Volcanoes the world over have spewed out more pollution that anything man has created or used.
Volcanic vents on the bottom of the ocean floor dump more toxic chemicals into the oceans water and have been doing so for longer then humans have been alive. More so than fukishima, which was caused by an earthquake that created the tsunami that destroyed the fukishima reactors. Along with the seismic activity that takes place on the ocean floor, be it vents or earthquakes, emits massive amounts of heat, energy, chemicals and radiation.
the volcano that exploded not too long ago near iceland has a long history of activity and has a lot to do with the warming that takes place in that region. shifting of ocean currents via the conveyour belt as well as el nino/ la nina have their own impacts on the heating and cooling as well as the salinity levels.
And lets not forget where that warming comes from.....the sun. the sun is not static and changes just like everything in the universe. our weather is dictated by the sun because the heat drives the other effects that give us summer and winter and fall and spring. tornados are created because extreme cold air meets warm air and thus the violent reaction that happens everywhere. the heat is provided by the sun.
we can dirty the water and clean the water. we cant create the weather by the use of natural resources. forest fires pollute as much as anything else yet i do not hear any scientist claiming these as contributing factors.
Weather records exist in some detail for the US since 1865, and part of my job once upon a time was to analyze that data and determine the geographical dimensions of low pressure systems. Using what was available from 1865 until 1997, we were able to say with a 99.7% certainty that the diameter of the largest 10% of low pressure systems crossing the mid-Atlantic region increased a little bit each decade until about 1965. After that, the rate of growth began to accelerate rapidly. Since Hurricane Mitch, we have seen higher tops, greater diameters and windspeeds in the top 25% of storms than any measured since the NWS began. This is, admittedly, a short timespan from a geologic or geomorphic point of view. It is quite clear, however, that the amount of carbon dioxide in the earth atmosphere has been increasing on a logarithmic scale since shortly after the industrial age began. For that, we have data that is millions of years old, taken from isotopes buried in layers of ice in glaciers and the icecaps. What is not in doubt is that the current levels of carbon and its compounds in the atmosphere exceeds anything ever measured using isotopes.
The thing is, when you add it up, we actually do produce more pollution now than so-called "natural" sources (many of those forest fires you mention are human derived). That oil you mention was never in the atmosphere until we burned it. For every gallon of diesel or gasoline we burn, we are adding about 8lbs of pollutant gases and carbon to the air we breathe. How many hundreds of millions of gallons of gas are burned globally every week? Every time Assad blows up another building, someone vents a methane dump, turns on the furnace, starts the car, opens the fridge or turns on the lights, more oil/coal/gas is being burned somewhere to make that happen. It didn't matter so much when the human population was ten million. It matters a lot more when the population is closer to ten billion.
The thing about a closed system is this: quantum events happen. The electron doesn't gradually make its way from the K valence to the L valence-it jumps those angstroms all at once. You don't precipitate the gold from an acid solution of aqua regia gradually - the reaction doesn't happen until the level of sodium metabisufite is enough to trigger the reaction. The fossil record is jammed full of species that failed to adapt to a changing environment - and if the percentage of free oxygen in our atmosphere goes too far from the well-established norm that nobody argues about, then we, my friend, are done. Full stop. If the several hundred billion tons we dump each year into our atmosphere is or isn't what pushed it over the edge, there will be nobody left to argue the point.
Do I produce more co2 when I'm yawning? The world needs to drastically increase co2 output for many reasons. The world needs to drastically decrease birth rates. The world needs to drastically Decrease pollution. Not a single agw initiative exists to address any of those issues.I wonder why.
no.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/breathing-co2-carbon-dioxide-intermediat...
By breathing out, we are simply returning to the air the same CO2 that was there to begin with.
There are two ways to look at the effect of human breathing and CO2:
1) what we exhale, and how we acquired that CO2 - fixed from the atmosphere by plants, so not a net contribution to atmospheric CO2
2) don't try to estimate the fluxes in and out, and just look at the change in storage. On that basis, I'm fairly sure (99-44/100ths % pure) that the 7 billion people we have now store more carbon (i.e., weigh more in total) than the 4 billion in the 1970s, so humans represent a net sink of carbon, not a source.
Once climate change is bad enough that we see large decreases in the human population, we'll become yet another source of positive feedback as the stored carbon is released back to the atmosphere.
If you want to shut the agw wankers up, just ask them to use the word pollution in a sentence. Ain't gonna happen. They can only say carbon emissions.
stop with your pollution of the agw debate. the science is not on your side.
you might want to check the data before shouting off nonsense:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming-intermediat...
Volcanoes emit around 0.3 billion tonnes of CO2 per year. This is about 1% of humanCO2 emissions which is around 29 billion tonnes per year.
http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/archive/2007/07_02_15.html
Gas studies at volcanoes worldwide have helped volcanologists tally up a global volcanic CO2 budget in the same way that nations around the globe have cooperated to determine how much CO2 is released by human activity through the burning of fossil fuels. Our studies show that globally, volcanoes on land and under the sea release a total of about 200 million tonnes of CO2 annually.
This seems like a huge amount of CO2, but a visit to the U.S. Department of Energy's Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) website (http://cdiac.ornl.gov/) helps anyone armed with a handheld calculator and a high school chemistry text put the volcanic CO2 tally into perspective. Because while 200 million tonnes of CO2 is large, the global fossil fuel CO2 emissions for 2003 tipped the scales at 26.8 billion tonnes. Thus, not only does volcanic CO2 not dwarf that of human activity, it actually comprises less than 1 percent of that value.
A short time ago (geologically speaking) the question "Which produces more CO2, volcanic or human activity?" would have been answered differently. Volcanoes would have tipped the scale. Now, human presence, activity, and the resultant production of CO2, through the burning of fossil fuels, have all climbed at an ever-increasing rate. On the other hand, looking back through the comparatively short duration of human history, volcanic activity has, with a few notable disturbances, remained relatively steady.
Volcanoes are still awesome, even though they don't produce CO2 at a rate that swamps the human signature, contributing to global warming. In fact, spectacular eruptions like that of Mount Pinatubo are demonstrated to contribute to global cooling through the injection of solar energy reflecting ash and other small particles.
additional sources:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/pdf/2011EO240001.pdf
http://news.discovery.com/earth/weather-extreme-events/volcanoes-co2-peo...
oh yea, the sun:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-a...
It's often considered "common sense" that global warming is caused by the Sun. After all, the Sun is the source of almost all of the energy on Earth. The Sun has both direct and indirect influences over the Earth's temperature, and we can evaluate whether these effects could be responsible for a significant amount of the recent global warming. As shown in the Intermediate level rebuttal of this argument, dozens of studies have concluded that the Sun simply cannot account for the recent global warming, but here we'll go through the calculations for ourselves.
How does "global poisoning" sound? Everyone happy now?
By the way...69 F in Bay Area and 72 F in the greenhouse. But that weather tax IS a bitch.
95% of the planet has a poisoned mind. Some are here to provide the antidote.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/07/27/new-nasa-data-blow-ga...
Spencer is a piece of work:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer
and his findings have been debunked:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/spencers-misdiagnosis-of-surface-temper...
oh, and the author of that forbes article:
be glad you're not in green bay. Maybe the crowd could all fire up there cars, turn on heaters, rev-up their engines and create some greenhouse gases and warm that place up a bit. All they have to do is buy some carbon credits from Al Gore; aka Biggus Dickheaddus.
DELTA
Dont
Expect
Lesss
Than
Abysmal
when a climate scientist had 1000's of emails that discuss inserting certain equations to achieve their desired results then you have to discard any of their data because it has become compromised. they specifically say "hide the decline". they also admit that they became dissappointed when their results didn't match their models.
you would think they would be happy to see declining temperature. maybe their efforts are paying off. but no. they choose to lie to contiue the fraud of man made global warming/ climate change on using fossil fuels. Why might you ask? to tax it.
Just like tobacco. if its sooooo deadly shouldn't they ban it? no way jose, because think of all the revenue the government can get from the taxes. recent tobacco taxes were suggested so as to fund poor childrens healthcare. no that we have Ofuckmecare will they remove the tax? not a chance. the gov will just reallocate the funds to some other "higher purpose".
And yours is the typical response by any brainwashed climate change fool who blurts out the Koch Bros. when i never mentioned them. its an automatic response from all of you skeptics because of your brainwashing. critical thinking involves common sense and that is in short supply these days. same as it ever was
climategate was milked for its propaganda value by certain entrenched interests and eaten up by the agw skeptic/denier camp:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked-intermedia...
A number of independent investigations from different countries, universities and government bodies have investigated the stolen emails and found no evidence of wrong doing. Focusing on a few suggestive emails, taken out of context, merely serves to distract from the wealth of empirical evidence for man-made global warming.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked-advanced.h...
Though some of the CRU emails can sound damning when quoted out of context, several inquiries have cleared the scientists. The Independent Climate Change Email Review put the emails into context by investigating the main allegations. It found the scientists' rigour and honesty are not in doubt, and their behaviour did not prejudice the IPCC's conclusions, though they did fail to display the proper degree of openness. The CRU emails do not negate the mountain of evidence for AGW.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/CRU-tampered-temperature-data.htm
The Independent Climate Change Email Review went back to primary data sources and were able to replicate CRU's results. This means not only was CRU not hiding anything, but it had nothing to hide. Though CRU neglected to provide an exact list of temperature stations, it could not have hid or tampered with data.
The Case Against Global-Warming Skepticism
There were good reasons for doubt, until now.
The only one milking the propaganda around here is YOU.
You are a one man milking machine.
if crooked politicians investigates a crooked politician, what do you think the conclusion is going to be? exactly.
and who do you thinks funds these crooked scientists? you do with your tax dollars given to them by government.
Geez, hombre-you come yet? I can't tell who you are arguing with, so I figure its just blogsturbation...
Just a note for all them Yankee pictures you got up theah...heah in the Kayrolynas its sixty, byetchez! We ain't suffin' in snow, ya know? (Good luck all ya stuck in the ice-hope you stay warm and it all melts soon!)
Wisdom fo' stackers-keep some bourbon close by for when it gets cold!
A little "Global Warming" and propaganda will fix that right up!
Where is Al Gore when you need help? We could of used his global warming hot air to melt all airport runways.
Seems global temperature change is sort of cyclical. 12000 years or so ago we were in an ice age and been warming ever since more or less. When I was a kid winters like we are having now were pretty commonplace, then for about 20 years much milder, and now back to normal. Granted that's a short period of time, but there has been so mauch alarmism over climate change it's kind of funny.
Solar Cycle 24
http://rt.com/news/sun-upside-down-flip-990/
how long does it take to chill your beer? 10 mins?
I'm so glad I live in Houston Texas this time of year.
I used to wait for the school bus in high school in Green Bay in the 80s when it would be 20 below zero wind chill. I love Wisconsin! Seriously, I do. There are no better people than Wisconsiners.
Sorry, but Alaskans are better.
Entire nation? Went out hiking in shorts and sandals today in Northern California. We have the opposite problem, its supposed to be cold and wet this time of year, instead its warm and dry. Trees are turning brown from drought.
here comes another global ICE-AGE..and its right on schedule.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/heading-into-new-little-ice-age-interme...
The warming effect from more CO2 greatly outstrips the influence from changes in the Earth's orbit or solar activity, even if solar levels were to drop to Maunder Minimum levels.
if you want to learn some more:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/arctic-antarctic-sea-ice-intermediate.h...
Arctic sea ice loss is three times greater than Antarctic sea ice gain, and the amount of solar energy absorbed by the Earth is increasing as a result.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/melting-ice-global-warming-intermediate...
Ice mass loss is occuring at an accelerated rate in Greenland, Antarctica and globally from inland glaciers. Arctic sea ice is also falling at an accelerated rate. The exception to this ice loss is Antarctic sea ice which has been growing despite the warming Southern Ocean. This is due to local factors unique to the area.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/past-Arctic-sea-ice-extent.htm
While there have been times in the distant past when Arctic sea ice extent was lower than today's, the current sea ice extent is the lowest in the past several thousand years.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/Has-Arctic-sea-ice-recovered-intermedia...
Arctic sea ice has been steadily thinning, even in the last few years while the surface ice (eg - sea ice extent) increased slightly. Consequently, the total amount of Arcticsea ice in 2008 and 2009 are the lowest on record.
You really do LOVE to spam the global warming propaganda, don't you?
Al Gore gonna give you a medal for all this crapola you keep posting?
You need a reality pellet. A BIG reality pellet.
kudos to you if you are living around arable land, located sufficiently away from the coastal areas, and are looking at ways to decrease your carbon footprint.
I live in Alaska. It's been warmer here today than most of the rest of the USA. WE had 36F.
SUCK IT BEECHES! WE had -25 for a month already. These midwest/east coast whiners get below 20F and they pee themsevles and set the house on fire to stay warm.
Global Warming is a joke