"Oh, the Weather Outside is Frightful"

[I Am Right]

WINTER MAY BE COLDEST IN 1000 YEARS

Britain's winter is the coldest since 1683 and close to being the chilliest in nearly 1,000 years Britain's winter is the coldest since 1683 and close to being the chilliest in nearly 1,000 years
30th December 2010 By Steve Hughes

BRITAIN’S winter is the coldest since 1683 and close to being the chilliest in nearly 1,000 years.
Latest figures reveal that the average temperature since December 1 has been a perishing -1C.
That makes it the second coldest since records began in 1659.
The chilliest on record was 1683/84, when the average was -1.17C and the River Thames froze over for two months.
But with January and February to come, experts believe we could suffer the most freezing cold winter in the last 1,000 years.
The Met Office’s Charlie Powell said: “It’s rare to have cold this prolonged, with temperatures falling incredibly low.
“Temperatures will be down again by Sunday, with nights below freezing and daytimes below average at 3C to 5C. Our outlook forecast to January 26 shows temperatures 2C or 3C below average, frost and ice likely and the highest chance of snow or sleet over the northern half of the UK.”
Although official weather records only go back to 1659, weather experts said the centuries from 1100 to 1500, dubbed the “Medieval warm period”, would not have produced winters as cold as today.
So 2011 could end up being the coldest winter of the last millennium.
Brian Gaze, of The Weather Outlook, said: “It’s very unusual to have a sub-zero month.”



"Observations are Science"

[Jello Biafra]

heh al gore was wrong....again

[Okla-homey]

People.

Keep up.

It's not "global warming" anymore. It's "climate change." And any and all remarkable weather happenings, like the coldest winter in a million years, is still the fault of filthy carbon fuel and even filthier users of same.

Therefore, our only chance to save the planet from man-caused weather horrors, is to give up gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, natural gas and coal. And chicks should also stop shaving their armpits.

This is the new enviro-gospel. Get with the flippin' program people.

[Jello Biafra]

People.

Keep up.

It's not "global warming" anymore. It's "climate change." And any and all remarkable weather happenings, like the coldest winter in a million years, is still the fault of filthy carbon fuel and even filthier users of same.

Therefore, our only chance to save the planet from man-caused weather horrors, is to give up gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, natural gas and coal. And chicks should also stop shaving their armpits.

This is the new enviro-gospel. Get with the flippin' program people.

sorry. ill try to read more. since im out the loop, is he still considering that fluffer job he was offered?

[Leroy Lizard]

People.

Keep up.

It's not "global warming" anymore. It's "climate change." And any and all remarkable weather happenings, like the coldest winter in a million years, is still the fault of filthy carbon fuel and even filthier users of same.

Therefore, our only chance to save the planet from man-caused weather horrors, is to give up gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, natural gas and coal. And chicks should also stop shaving their armpits.

I would rather endure the cold winters.

[StoopTroup]

So.....Al was on track of figuring out WTF is going on an there is a possibility that we might have it completely figured out before he dies?

[SpankyNek]

Therefore, our only chance to save the planet from man-caused weather horrors, is to give up gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, natural gas and coal. And chicks should also stop shaving their armpits.



Since the items (save armpit hair) are non-renewable, it might be a good idea to wean our use...don't you think?

Everyone spouts about passing debt on to future generations, yet no one is concerned that we may use up enough petroleum it would not only hamper their fuel situation, but also reduce future discoveries in plastics, etc.

Would you let these coal plants, like the ones killing all of the pecan trees in the TX hill country, pump their exhaust into you living room? Why let them put it in the community then?

[XingTheRubicon]

in related news, it's 71 degrees here in Edmond.

[StoopTroup]

Since the items (save armpit hair) are non-renewable, it might be a good idea to wean our use...don't you think?

Everyone spouts about passing debt on to future generations, yet no one is concerned that we may use up enough petroleum it would not only hamper their fuel situation, but also reduce future discoveries in plastics, etc.

Would you let these coal plants, like the ones killing all of the pecan trees in the TX hill country, pump their exhaust into you living room? Why let them put it in the community then?

I think what the biggest problem is going to be is what are the people who have amassed huge fortunes going to do once their Country is completely drained of oil. We might have folks here who thought it was stupid to have reserves or buy oil from these folks but being the last Country with options and a decent infrastructure is important.

Why conserve if in your lifetime you'd like to see some of those folks in such a predicament? Our Country didn't move forward in the industrial revolution worrying about conservation.

[2121Sooner]

NFM

[pphilfran]

One cold year in a region means nothing...

[pphilfran]

And a hundred years of warming data means nothing...

[2121Sooner]

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_SvzMdvzt5yI/TJZCAStbnYI/AAAAAAAAAYY/PIHyWA57acI/s1600/algore-asaurus.jpg

[MR2-Sooner86]

-mxDPhVc9iM&feature

Environmentalist...their father should have pulled out.

[usaosooner]

last mini ice age was 10,000 years ago.. we are about due

[MR2-Sooner86]

last mini ice age was 10,000 years ago.. we are about do...

Going through your collection of 1970's magazines and newspapers?

[bigfatjerk]

We can't determine weather on such a short span. We need to wait and get hundreds if not thousands of years of data to really tell. In other words come back to this thread in about 5k years and then we'll know the data.

[ouwasp]

We can't determine weather on such a short span. We need to wait and get hundreds if not thousands of years of data to really tell. In other words come back to this thread in about 5k years and then we'll know the data.

sounds like a plan to me...

[Fraggle145]

People.

Keep up.

It's not "global warming" anymore. It's "climate change." And any and all remarkable weather happenings, like the coldest winter in a million years, is still the fault of filthy carbon fuel and even filthier users of same.

Therefore, our only chance to save the planet from man-caused weather horrors, is to give up gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, natural gas and coal. And chicks should also stop shaving their armpits.

This is the new enviro-gospel. Get with the flippin' program people.

Homey I've shown before that it's always been called climate change in the scientific literature.

Regardless, the increasing incidence of large extreme weather events are predicted as a consequence of the changing climate. Oklahoma has had some of it's overall wettest years on record. Tell the people living on islands of micronesia that are having to move as the islands are becoming below sea level that the globe isn't getting warmer on average and that ice isn't melting.

People said the same thing about using phosphorus in laundry detergents in the 70s. They didn't want to hear that phosphorus was causing eutrophication and algal blooms. It took almost 20 years to convince people of what scientists had known for the previous 30 years.

This is a similar situation with regards to CO2 and climate change and the thing that I hate most is that people just toss away what an entire field of climate scientists that have spent their lives studying the climate because they don't want to hear it. It's the same as going to someones work and telling them everything that they know is wrong without knowing jack **** about it.

[Flagstaffsooner]

Methinks Homey spends way too much time at FOXNews crap.

[OULenexaman]

me thinks Homey is right on...and why is this thread so wide spread?

[EnragedOUfan]

Global warming or not, I'm not tracking on how Republicans or anyone can argue with the data that Carbon Dioxide levels are increased, because I thought that's been proven........Plants put off Carbon Dioxide. More sun rays slipping through the atmosphere levels means more Carbon Dioxide being created by plants and that crap hanging around below the atmosphere. Luckily, we cracked down on CFC's. Sure, in Germany right now we're having one of the coldest, snowiest winters in 50 years, but like someone else said Oklahoma is still in the 70's in December. And Greenland has been having warmer temperatures than Germany this year. And most of us probably don't reside in Los Angeles, because if you want a great example of CO2 emissions and smog, move to LA. Or, lay down behind a running vehicle and take a nice whiff of the exhaust......

[Okla-homey]

Homey I've shown before that it's always been called climate change in the scientific literature.

Regardless, the increasing incidence of large extreme weather events are predicted as a consequence of the changing climate. Oklahoma has had some of it's overall wettest years on record. Tell the people living on islands of micronesia that are having to move as the islands are becoming below sea level that the globe isn't getting warmer on average and that ice isn't melting.

People said the same thing about using phosphorus in laundry detergents in the 70s. They didn't want to hear that phosphorus was causing eutrophication and algal blooms. It took almost 20 years to convince people of what scientists had known for the previous 30 years.

This is a similar situation with regards to CO2 and climate change and the thing that I hate most is that people just toss away what an entire field of climate scientists that have spent their lives studying the climate because they don't want to hear it. It's the same as going to someones work and telling them everything that they know is wrong without knowing jack **** about it.

I don't doubt climate change. It has indisputably been a fact throughout the Earth's history. I just believe the jury is still out as to whether (pun unintended) it is anthropogenic. There are other possibilities as to causation that include plate tectonics, solar output, orbital variations, volcanism and ocean variability, none of which are controlled or influenced by human activity. Moreover, I believe the aforementioned causatory factors are more likely to influence climate change than anything humans do or don't do.

[SpankyNek]

I don't doubt climate change. It has indisputably been a fact throughout the Earth's history. I just believe the jury is still out as to whether (pun unintended) it is anthropogenic. There are other possibilities as to causation that include plate tectonics, solar output, orbital variations, volcanism and ocean variability, none of which are controlled or influenced by human activity. Moreover, I believe the aforementioned causatory factors are more likely to influence climate change than anything humans do or don't do.

Then the question becomes whether or not we should use a sort of "Pascal's Wager" in this area.

What are the negatives associated with, just in case you are wrong, cutting down our CO2 and striving to break free from carbon based fuels?

On one side, it's save some money.
On the other side, it save lives.

Sounds like a pretty easy decision (Morally, there is no decision to be made).

[Okla-homey]

Then the question becomes whether or not we should use a sort of "Pascal's Wager" in this area.

What are the negatives associated with, just in case you are wrong, cutting down our CO2 and striving to break free from carbon based fuels?

On one side, it's save some money.
On the other side, it save lives.

Sounds like a pretty easy decision (Morally, there is no decision to be made).

Not so fast my friend. If we really wanted to wean off of carbon fuels, we could be almost there by now had we transitioned entirely to nuclear power for electrical production starting the in the 1960's when the technology became available.

But we didn't, mainly because of the coal lobby and greenies who are unjustifiably afraid of it nuke power production. Anti-nuke folks grt a lot more traction here than in France, which BTW, will be totally nuke for electricity by 2018.

So we keep burning dead dinosaurs with no sign of stopping. And how, exactly, does cutting out carbon fuels save money? After all, we have a practically endless supply of cheap coal right here.

[bigfatjerk]

that Carbon Dioxide levels are increased, because I thought that's been proven.

CO2 levels are at about .04% roughly. About there are periods hundreds of million years ago the levels of CO2 were about 4 or more times higher than they are today. How the hell did we cause that? The amount of CO2 in the air now isn't unprecedented. It's fairly common really. A little higher than it's been the last couple hundred years maybe but not a lot higher if you look at real long term history. I'm talking millions of years which is really what we need to look at. We've basically been hovering around .035-.04% CO2 in the air the last hundred million years or so.

[SpankyNek]

Not so fast my friend. If we really wanted to wean off of carbon fuels, we could be almost there by now had we transitioned entirely to nuclear power for electrical production starting the in the 1960's when the technology became available.

But we didn't, mainly because of the coal lobby and greenies who are unjustifiably afraid of it nuke power production. Anti-nuke folks grt a lot more traction here than in France, which BTW, will be totally nuke for electricity by 2018.

So we keep burning dead dinosaurs with no sign of stopping. And how, exactly, does cutting out carbon fuels save money? After all, we have a practically endless supply of cheap coal right here.

I would be all for nuclear power, and would have been in the 60s (If alive).

I was right in line with what you are saying with the cost side, maybe I came across differently....we are saving money at the environment's expense.

[yermom]

Global warming or not, I'm not tracking on how Republicans or anyone can argue with the data that Carbon Dioxide levels are increased, because I thought that's been proven........Plants put off Carbon Dioxide. More sun rays slipping through the atmosphere levels means more Carbon Dioxide being created by plants and that crap hanging around below the atmosphere. Luckily, we cracked down on CFC's. Sure, in Germany right now we're having one of the coldest, snowiest winters in 50 years, but like someone else said Oklahoma is still in the 70's in December. And Greenland has been having warmer temperatures than Germany this year. And most of us probably don't reside in Los Angeles, because if you want a great example of CO2 emissions and smog, move to LA. Or, lay down behind a running vehicle and take a nice whiff of the exhaust......

(plants take in Carbon Dioxide and release Oxygen)

[Fraggle145]

I don't doubt climate change. It has indisputably been a fact throughout the Earth's history. I just believe the jury is still out as to whether (pun unintended) it is anthropogenic. There are other possibilities as to causation that include plate tectonics, solar output, orbital variations, volcanism and ocean variability, none of which are controlled or influenced by human activity. Moreover, I believe the aforementioned causatory factors are more likely to influence climate change than anything humans do or don't do.

I understand your point of view, and you make a good point, and I dont think that you are one of the people that I am talking about just throwing out what the scientists are saying. But I think they are incorporating all of the known data to the capabilities that are currently available and it is pointing to CO2 as the cause. I mean I look at it this way - What is different than other times in history that the climate has been this warm? CO2 is the only real difference that we have been able to detect with everything that we currently know. It is higher than at any other time in Earth's history that we can reasonably estimate from ice cores, tree rings etc...

The other point I want to make is to counter the argument that humans cant cause large effects on the environment or the climate in general. Humans caused the dust bowl, which had far reaching climate effects. They also had effects on the hole in the Ozone layer that was much larger in size during the 80s and 90s. I'm just saying we can affect the climate and that these guys studying it everyday for 20 years know more about it than we do. Sure can they be guilty of being humans and/or having ulterior motives? you bet. I guess I am just willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.

[Half a Hundred]

But we didn't, mainly because of the coal lobby and greenies who are unjustifiably afraid of it nuke power production. Anti-nuke folks grt a lot more traction here than in France, which BTW, will be totally nuke for electricity by 2018.

The decline of nuclear power had just as much to do with the collapse in oil/gas prices in the 1980s as it did anti-nuke groups. After the TMI scare passed, America in general developed an aversion to heavy up-front capital expenditure. Add the usual coal-belt lobby to the mix with subsidies, and super-cheap natural gas, it's no wonder that power companies didn't want to take the hit to quarterly profits that an investment in an expensive nuclear plant would create.

France didn't have this issue, since its power company is nationalized, for the most part. It makes more sense, therefore, for them to make heavy up-front capital investments, to have lower operating costs down the line.

[Okla-homey]

There's something else that probably had more to do with the decline in nuke power generated electricity and construction of new plants in the US. Namely, DOE regulations and the fact anti-nukies, assorted greenies and the NIMBY's fought every new facilitity license application by every means available to them, which drove development costs even higher than they would have been otherwise.