Geez, it's only Dec. 9th and already we're the 10th wettest December at MSY with 8.04" Average/Normal for the whole month is 5.07" with the wettest being 10.77" in 1967. More rain is expected Friday nite into Saturday and again Monday into Tuesday so we could become the wettest before 1/2 the month is over. The big weather story on Thursday will be the cool down, from 72 on Wednesday to 50-55 at best on Thursday. Friday looks dreary, in the 50s, possibly stormy Sat. AM but warmer, 60s, and even warmer Sun-Mon. 70s.
Lest you still not believe...check out ICECAP.US for a story about a CIA story from the 1970s warning of Global Cooling. Very interesting reading.
9 comments:
check out ICECAP.US for a story about a CIA story from the 1970s warning of Global Cooling. Very interesting reading.
Yawn. It's mainly interesting to note that the CIA document (PDF file) that informs most of Morabito's drivel contains the following disclaimer on the title page:
"...the views and conclusions contained herein are those of the author and should not be interpreted as necessarily representing the official position, either expressed or implied, of the Central Intelligence Agency."
Funny how he never mentions that. The AMS study cited (and then casually dismissed by Morabito, who apparently never reads anything that disagrees with him) is much more interesting reading. Link (PDF file)
Bob do you have any idea when the rain will come on Friday? I was "hoping" at about 3 pm Friday, lol, no, I'm not weird I just wanna take some photos with the rain in the city...Thanks!
Pompo,
There will be about a 30% Chance of Rain Friday Afternoon. Could be higher though if one of the perturbations passes aloft sooner than expected.
RCS,
You guys are just in denial and scrambling to do damage control. In the last thread, Mr. GEICO (Caveman) STATED that he NEVER said the warming was due to man-made sources. Which is it? Isn't this ENTIRE agenda that is being pushed in Copenhagen BASED on AGW? Now, Caveman is doing a recoil. I don't think you folks know whether to ____ or wind your watch. He says if 2009 is colder then we are in trouble. Man, I'm really confused.
And you RCS, (YAWN), can't explain why the "scientists" were noting global cooling in the 70s. Funny how that notion just faded away or was suppressed. The political agenda was alive and well even back then.
And now, we have the same thing, except the agenda (redistribution of wealth) and the junk science (admitted monkey business with climate data) has been exposed and proven. What do YOU expect us to believe now? I'll tell you what. With lots of us having NO confidence in climate data, I think we need to examine the validity of CO2 measurement, existence and effects thereof. All we know now is what those "climate scientists" have been feeding us. Personally, I believe that's crap also.
And don't come with this "token climate scientists" disagree with AGW, when a "mere" 30,000 have signed a petition denouncing this. Not to mention another 650 who have statements in a U S Senate Minority Report of AGW dissenters. All of these dissenters include meteorologists, scientists and climate specialists from ALL OVER THE PLANET who have no fossil fuel promotional agendas. I think there's only a handful of so-called "scientists" in the IPCC. And we just found out they are corrupt.
We know that climate is cyclical, the key now for us "deniers" as you call us, is to prove that greenhouse gases (CO2) do not cause any warming or cooling. That will be forthcoming since this in the forefront now. There will be accelerated effort to prove this now.
Come on, doesn't just a little common sense tell you that "man" cannot control the climate?
Unfortunately Craig, Common sense isn't all that common in this world.
admitted monkey business with climate data
Cite? If you're referring to the stolen CRU emails these contain no evidence of malicious tampering, in spite of what many bloggers have claimed.
All of these dissenters include meteorologists, scientists and climate specialists
Actually, only about one-tenth of one percent of the signatories to the Oregon Institute's petition claim to have any expertise in Climatology. The ratio gets up to one-half of one percent if you include Atmospheric Science, but I think it's safe to say that the vast majority of the signers are registering opinions with no more qualification than, say, the average blog commenter.
the key now for us "deniers" as you call us, is to prove that greenhouse gases (CO2) do not cause any warming or cooling. That will be forthcoming since this in the forefront now. There will be accelerated effort to prove this now.
I'm sure the scientific community is on the edge of their seats waiting for this proof. From what I've seen the "deniers" couldn't research their way out of a wet paper bag.
RCS,
There's great error in what you say. I will simply quote the website. Of the 31,000 signers of that petition 9,029 have PHDs, 7,157 MS, 2,586 MD and DVM and 12,714 BS or equivalent academic degress. Most of the MD and DVM signers also have underlying degrees in basic science.
All of the listed signers have formal educations in fields of specialization that suitably qualify them to evaluate the research data related to the petition statement. Many of the signers currently work in climatological, meteorological, atmospheric, environmental, geophysical, astronomical and biological fields directly involved in the climate change controversy. There's a further breakdown on the website but that's immaterial. I think it shows that your "one half of one percent in climatology" is balderdash.
So, would you put Bob in the category of those not qualified to opine on this? I would say Bob is more experienced and qualified than ALL of those on the IPCC board.
Regardless, your figures are wrong and therefore there are MORE than enough "denier" scientists and/ or practicing meteorologists to do research. Your last statement is an insult to the meteorological community.
I don't claim to be a scientist or an expert on climatology, I just read a lot, observe and listen to determine what makes sense.
By the way, just a question. What qualifies you on this subject?
Hey Bob, Do we have any REAL cold coming down the pipe any time soon??
Couldn't it be said that the more CO2 we have the greener our planet would be.
Afterall isn't CO2 needed for plantgrowth and without it, we wouldn't have trees, plants etc....and then we wouldn't have all the biproducts it gives us...like wood for homes and paper products to name a couple.
Post a Comment