The Climate is Changing, the Climate is Changing!

Here's the President (notice the green background), bizarrely telling a meteorologist that he wants to make sure his grandchildren get to enjoy a 'beautiful day', as if beautiful days will be wiped out by climate change:



The Climatologist-in-chief also infers that somehow climate change, which has been around since before the Creator created mankind and our unalienable rights, has only just now begun to happen. 

Presumably he means man-made climate change, but he didn't specifically blame mankind for ALL of it, probably preferring to let the moronic 'climate change' buzz phrase play to the many rubes who'll buy the premise that the climate has never changed as it has lately, totally proven by 120 years of observed data and recent extreme weather events which are the worst ever (at least over 120 years), but themselves not individually traceable to climate change, yet all caused by climate change.

Not surprisingly, none of the eight meteorologists asked him how many degrees C he believes we can cool the Earth by putting in more massive eyesores and solar panels across America alone, or how soon that might happen; or what might happen to the Islamist countries or places like Venezuela and Russia when their oil is no longer a hot commodity. Most just nodded their heads and thanked him for the privilege of being a mouthpiece.  Of course that's probably why they were picked.

Meanwhile, this guy wasn't invited to the ceremonies...



But that's probably because...

We don't have time for a meeting of the flat-Earth society," Obama said. "Sticking your head in the sand might make you feel safer, but it's not going to protect you from the coming storm." Earlier in his remarks,

Obama said the "overwhelming judgement of science, of chemistry, of physics, and millions of measurements" put "to rest" questions about pollution affecting the environment. "The planet is warming. Human activity is contributing to it," Obama said.

Notice via bold the Prez very carefully said "contributing to it" not "causing it".   He knows that the precise amount of human contribution is still unsettled science (and a large part of the problem in selling it to the masses), so even the climatologist-in-chief wanted some wiggle room on that--and who can blame him?  Lawyers are good at saying things without really saying them. 

The fact is, scientific knowledge is always advancing.  Theories are always being refined with new knowledge, such whether coffee or eggs are healthy or not.  But such an admission in the climate debate is inconvenient.  We only have 500 days left to act or LAX goes underwater and other horrible things.  We must act, act, act, act now, or else!!!  

In the old days an intrepid journalist might have looked at such a thing and asked, "why all the politics of fear"?  What is the real goal here?   But in our new world that debate is also over. Such a line of questioning is indicative of flat earth thinking and likely racist, and belongs only on disgraced hack outlets like Faux News.  

Moving the Climate Ball Forward

"Moving the ball forward".  It's a football reference.  Obama likes to use it to talk about his grandiose programs, such as making illegal immigrants legal or creating 'climate change hubs'.  Lately the administration has been focusing a lot on climate change, aka, global warming.

So what does CNN do?

Why, focus more on global warming. 

But not just focus on it, advocate for the administration's position.  Two stories today on their headline news webpage provide evidence. Here's one..

STELTER: So when you see a television segment that features a climate skeptic or a climate denier, how do you feel? Do you feel that network or that newspaper or that website, whatever it is, do you feel they're being irresponsible?

KAKU: Well, it's a free country. However, they should present the facts and that is that the overwhelming majority of scientists in the world who have studied the question believe that the temperatures on the planet are rising. And if there are skeptics let them present their computer program so that we can pick it apart. Let us understand this, because science is testable, reproducible and falsifiable.

AGW proponents love to conflate the accepted fact that the climate of the Earth has warmed since the Little Ice Age with the causation of said rise.  If someone disagrees that mankind caused the warming they deny the warming.  They are then called 'deniers'.  Or worse.  Because the debate is over.

The odd thing is Doctor Kaku demands to see models and studies from 'deniers' to disprove the theory, but it's doubtful he could get consensus on the exact contribution of mankind's activities to the temperature rise.  In other words OK, it's warming--what's causing it exactly?  When did it start, what year?  What's the precise contribution of humans?  Why did the Earth warm significantly in the early 20th Century?  Is 120 years of measurement data with thermometers and 35 years of satellite data enough?  Questions not answered.  But the debate is over.

The doctor talks about a 90 percent 'confidence' level that man is causing it, but that's not like saying that mankind has CAUSED 90 percent of the warming.  BIG difference.  But the debate is over.

The doctor demands scientific proof from the other side that his theory is not true when it's his side claiming it's a man-made problem.  The burden of proof is his.  Again, it's easy to prove it's warming, harder to prove how and why.  So they resort to name-calling and smearing when challenged, because the debate is over!

Only one side has Hollywood twits and well-known blowhards like Al Gore, who recently warned of another Dust Bowl if we don't go all socialist, yet he can't tell us what caused the first one back in the 1920s and 30s.  You know, back when the Washington Post was alarmed about the melting North Pole.  Only one side has journalist experts wailing idiotically about the "Polar Vortex" as if it's some kind of global-warming created abominable snowman never before seen.  Even though we saw it with a vengeance back in 1977.

Anyway, the above was on the "Reliable Sources", this morning they had a splash feature with Carol Costello entitled, "Why are we still debating global warming?"  Yeah.  So, after reporting about somebody that has developed a statistical grouping of all the opinions on the issue and narowed down the Tea Party to 15 percent (while basically putting the number of non-convinced Americans at above 50 percent when the groups are added up) Ms Costello goes on to proclaim:

The good news is, those uninformed minority voices are being quieted by nature and by those who have powerful voices. Extreme weather is forcing people to at least think about how global warming affects them directly.

And, perhaps more important, many religious leaders, including evangelicals, are now "green." They concur with the scientific community and take it a step farther. They say we have a moral obligation to save the planet.

What better illustration of how far the media will go to serve their master, ie, they will call the death and destruction from severe weather "good news" because it will show those hayseed Tea Party yahoo denier Republicans just how wrong they really are, once and for all.  Good news, another EF4 twister!  And of course they are taking their cues from the Master (even if the Flat Earth Society objects to be called flat-earthers on climate). 

If the above is not an example of advocacy journalism, nothing is. Maybe the GOP should advocate for that FCC study of newsrooms to come back--maybe they would stumble into discovering the real bias.  Just kidding on that.

Let's end with a final cut from the Reliable Sources piece, which by the way didn't include a real scientist skeptic like "heretic" Judith Curry or Dr. Roy Spencer (who recently objected to being labeled a "Nazi" for his dissenting views--the same Nazis who believed in science over religion and a cult of personality). Doctor Kaku is asked about skeptics:

STELTER: Dr. Kaku, do you think there's some room at the table for skeptics? For example, if I was to write a story about this topic and quote nine scientists who believe it's happening, should I be quoting at least one who is a skeptic? Or is this so settled that there's no room at all for something like that?

KAKU: Well, scientifically speaking, it's a settled question. But the average person out there hears the skeptics and therefore some of their arguments have to be addressed because they're out there anyway. In the scientific community, it's pretty much settled. In the court of public opinion, it is not yet settled. So it's good to present the balance, but you have to say that, with 95 percent of the scientific community behind this theory, it has more weight than another theory.

Well except good science REQUIRES listening to his 5 percent.  No reputable scientist would disagree!

Again, the game here is to conflate the temperature rise with the cause of the rise because it serves the need. Notice how the reporter is getting permission from the AGW scientist to exclude anyone who doesn't agree with the consensus narrative.  CNN didn't bother inviting an actual dissenter to debate whether dissent was valid or not.  Because the debate is over.  Truly amazing stuff.  It should scare people.
  
Obviously they don't want to clear up these misconceptions or they would, so there must be a motive to the madness.  And it's not just with climate.  Take this NY Times piece on Obama's Stimulus program over the weekend. Notice carefully what the "Paper of Record" did here:

This may be the singular tragedy of the Obama administration. Five years later, it is clear to all fair-minded economists that the stimulus did work, and that it did enormous good for the economy and for tens of millions of people. But because it fell short of its goals, and was roundly ridiculed by Republicans...

Behold!  The same strawman tactic used for global warming, ie, "all reputable scientists" becomes "all fair-minded economists", ie, nobody in their right mind would disagree that the Stimulus didn't save America.  That tactic allows them to bypass the shaky facts and go right to the flogging of dissenters.  It's a timeworn tactic narrowed by Alinsky and favored by most all statists and totalitarians with the ultimate goal of crushing dissent.  And dissent is the problem they are trying to solve now. It's the only thing standing in the way of Utopia.

Weather or Not

Drudge is going crazy with the weather stories today, taking a cue from the mainstreamers, who are all talking about "Hercules".   By the way, who started naming winter storms and what's the criteria for getting a name anyway?

It's winter and it's cold outside today in Memphis.  No newsflash.  But the local news is highlighting an even colder "Arctic Blast" heading in over the weekend, which could be trouble.  Presuming this name thing works alphabetically as with hurricanes, what will they name this one?  How about "Imhotep".  Or would that be offensive to the Egyptians?  

Whatever the case it could be a doozy, not so much for snow but temperatures; Memphis is expected to remain in the teens on Monday according to the NWS..

We barely drop down into the teens during a normal winter, much less have a high in the teens.  The south isn't built for such temperatures; pipes and people tend to freeze.  So it's prudent for residents to take it seriously. 

Actually, it's been a cold year here overall-- 2013 was probably below average.   None of which signals an end to global warming, or climate change, or Tea Party induced planetary death, or whatever the official liberal name is now.   But it sure would be funny if Al Gore were coming to town next week for a global warming conference, assuming he wasn't on that expedition ship trapped in the summer Antarctic ice.

Finding Nemo

Blizzardmagedonpocalyse is finally swirling out to sea, leaving a lot of snow and power outages in its wake and unfortunately some loss of life, which the state-issued threats were apparently designed to prevent...

Massachusetts, Connecticut and Rhode Island ahead of the storm ordered motorists to stay off the streets under threat of imprisonment and fines -- up to a year in jail and $500 in Rhode Island.

And the state handling and media reportage is certainly a part of this story.  In retrospect, were the severe threats about driving necessary or would strongly worded cautions not have accomplished the same thing?  One year in jail for venturing out during a storm, really?  Free citizens should not be subjected to such draconian warnings--they should deduce as much through common sense and not be treated like children.  Besides, the roads were going to be near impossible to traverse anyway.

Regardless, the storm was indeed a monster.  But despite the early hype about it being record-breaking in Boston, the President's Day storm of 2003 (and it's 27.5 inches), and the Blizzard of 78 (and it's 27.1 inches) began the day with their top spots still secure in Beantown weather record books..

But Connecticut saw the most accumulation with up to 38 inches in cities like Milford, while the Massachusetts cities of Worcester and Boston received 27 and 21 inches, respectively, with winds howling up to 75 mph.

The winds did howl, or rather gust to hurricane force in some areas, but not inland at places like Worcester, it was mainly along the shoreline communities, not quite fulfilling the exaggerated predictions. The weather sensor at Boston Logan airport reported a wind gust to 76 mph and another to 98 mph overnight but those are not confirmed--the one to 98 was almost surely an equipment malfunction unless one of the Kennedy clan got control and tweaked the reading.  But it was certainly blizzardy, no doubt.   

All in all a big, bad Nor'easter, bigger than most, but not entirely unusual in the northeast during winter....

Since 1969, accounting for measured snowfalls in communities within the Route 128 belt and not just Boston proper, we've had 10 storms that have eclipsed 20 inches.

More than one per decade, in other words. 

Looking back, the storm was well predicted by the weather people and the media did what they do.  Looking forward, it will be interesting to see whether it becomes a political football in the days, weeks and months ahead. 

Yes Tom, Climate Change Exists

Let's be clear Tom--climate change has been underway since, oh, forever.  The question pertaining to Sandy is whether a recent warming trend since the 18th Century is producing "ever more destructive storms" or was Sandy simply a collision between an unseasonably cold airmass and a hurricane?  

When it comes to hurricanes one prominent NOAA researcher says no, there's no evidence global warming is having an effect yet.  Others agree but are holding out hope!   

Now, one thing everyone knows with certainty is that more people are building homes near the ocean and areas susceptible to flooding.  Tom is absolutely correct about over-development but he seemed to be suggesting some kind of top-down governmental fix (wake up call, plan for the future, etc).  An easier way is to let the market take care of it.  You want a house right on the beach or in a flood zone?  You're gonna pay through the nose for insurance.   If people get the idea the government will be there to back them up if they make risky choices they're more likely to make risky choices.   Just look at the whole sub-prime disaster.   

Irene in the Rearview

The storm is moving away, fortunately leaving less carnage than predicted, so now it's time for the eggs to be thrown. The major media shied away from tying Irene to global warming but that didn't stop the Daily Beast from posting a piece by environmentalist Bill McKibben on Thursday night doing just that; some of his broadsides are worth discussing:

As she roars up the Eastern Seaboard, everyone is doing what they should—boarding windows, preparing rescue plans, stocking up on batteries. But a lot of people are also wondering: what’s a “tropical” storm doing heading for the snow belt?

Swing and a miss in the first paragraph. He clearly used 'snow belt' to paint a picture of how rare "tropical" storms should be in this part of the country even though it never snows in New York in August and tropical storms are actually quite frequent in the Atlantic waters offshore.

Category 3 Storms have rarely hit Long Island since the 1800s; one was the great unnamed storm of 1938, which sent 15-foot storm waters surging through what are now multimillion-dollar seaside homes. Normally, says Jeff Masters of Weather Underground, it’s “difficult for a major Category 3 or stronger hurricane crossing north of North Carolina to maintain that intensity, because wind shear rapidly increases and ocean temperatures plunge below the 26°C (79°F) level that can support a hurricane.” The high-altitude wind shear may help knock the storm down a little this year, but the ocean temperatures won’t. They’re bizarrely high—only last year did we ever record hotter water.

And wow, a Cat 3 didn't hit this time, either, despite the ominously warm surface water just offshore. In reality the storm was a category 1 when it reached North Carolina and a strong tropical storm when it made landfall in New York City. His piece was written as if a Cat 3 storm was a certainty, proving the world-changing strength of global warming. Strike two.

Remember—this year has already seen more billion-dollar weather-related disasters than any year in U.S. history. Last year was the warmest ever recorded on planet Earth. Arctic sea ice is near all-time record lows. Record floods from Pakistan to Queensland to the Mississippi basin; record drought from the steppes of Russia to the plains of Texas. Just about the only trauma we haven’t had are hurricanes plowing into the U.S., but that’s just luck—last year was a big storm year, but they all veered out to sea. This year we’re already on letter I—which in a normal year we don’t get to until well into October. Every kind of natural system is amped up, holding more power—about ¾ of a watt extra energy per square meter of the Earth’s surface, thanks to the carbon we’ve poured into the atmosphere. This is what climate change looks like in its early stages.

That's sort of a pop fly single to left. Nobody can deny there has been an almost Biblical level of tornadoes, drought, floods and snow-storms in since October of 2010 but the question is whether they are directly related to higher global temperatures as opposed to say prophesy from The Revelation or the end of the Mayan calendar.

Nobody of science should doubt that world temps are higher now than in the late 1800s, the question is whether this trend was created solely by mankind or if mankind only chipped in a bit on a natural upswing coming off the Little Ice Age. The guilt-ridden enviro-lefties always assume humans are completely to blame then proceed to attack that strawman by suggesting the only correction to the problem is an autocratic world government willing to force enviro-conservatism on the rubes who don't know better. Like Tea Partiers. After all, it's a crisis.

But their gloom and doom predictions on hurricane strength don't always compute. Both the Environmental Defense Fund and Al Gore's websites STILL contain an as-yet proven theory that hurricanes will be stronger on a warmer planet despite that science not yet being 'settled'. McGibben points to the massive amount of rainfall with Irene, which is true, but check out Tropical Storm Jose, currently making it's way harmlessly north past Bermuda as of this writing. On startup it had a neat little circulation but appeared skeleton-like with cloud bands and very little rainfall. Storms like Jose were hard to find in the old days before satellites but now they contribute to the annual storm count, which later translates into a proof of global warming because there are more storms.

McKibben's warming theory about Irene's rainfall can also be challenged by the curious little tropical storm named Don that hit the Texas coast near Brownsville in July then defied prediction by fizzling out within 6 hours of landfall. If higher temperatures allow storms to contain more rainfall (warm air can hold more moisture) then does it also cause them to fall apart quicker when their circulations get disrupted by land masses, the rain being absorbed back into the atmosphere through evaporation? It's far from settled, as yet just another example of how scientists don't completely understand the feedback mechanisms.

At any rate, McKibben eventually gets into the meat of his piece--politics. He tears into the Obama administration for not being liberal enough in citing their tepid environmental report on a pipeline project designed to tap tar sands in Alberta and transport oil south into the US, quoting climate doyen James Hansen:

Those tar sands are the second-biggest pool of carbon on the continent; if we tap into them in a big way, says the federal government’s premier climate scientist James Hansen, it’s “essentially game over for the climate.”

In other words, it's game over if we switch some of our sources of oil from Saudi Arabia to Alberta regardless of whether we use the same amount of energy or not. Rather illuminating because it shows what the enviros really want: world governments stepping in and crushing free-market capitalism due to the emergency. And here we were told that getting off Arabian oil would quell the war machine.

In the end Irene will be a bona fide disaster, already costing billions in lost revenue and likely costing billions to clean up. But it certainly wasn't the historic 100 year storm of our lifetimes as characterized by Obama, Christie and Bloomberg. In retrospect it will be an interesting study in human behavior as politicians felt compelled to run around like headless chickens to make sure they weren't "Katrina-ed" by the press if the worst occurred, while the media ran around like headless chicken-littles trying to create stormageddon to boost excitement and ratings (although not everybody obeyed).

And forecasters, wary of how the media would treat them should they not forecast a worse case and one occurred in a major population area, basically introduced a worse case while knowing (as McKibben pointed out) that climatology doesn't favor one. So everyone has now gone into explain, blame, slash or pretend mode until the next one comes. And it could really be bad!

A NEW MEME 8/29/11

Here's Norah O'Donnell reporting live on president Obama's good response to Irene, including something that's been showing up on several lefty message boards--the notion that Bush did not declare a federal disaster area for Louisiana or Mississippi BEFORE the storm hit as Obama did with the east coast. She made a point to note how Obama's early declaration stood in start contrast.

Just one problem. Bush issued a pre-Katrina state of emergency declaration on Saturday before the storm hit:

The President today declared an emergency exists in the State of Louisiana and ordered Federal aid to supplement state and local response efforts in d in the path of Hurricane Katrina beginning on August 26, 2005, and continuing.

So no, Bush didn't declare a federal disaster area before Katrina but he did declare a state of emergency, which was also declared at state level a day prior. For some reason that distinction wasn't worth noting to CBS.

Snow Again

It's another Yankee winter down here in Goreland...we have more snow...


The roads were even more horrible than normal since temperatures remained in the 20s. It'll be a fun ride tomorrow too, after lows in the teens. But it's always comforting to see the Memphis snow-fighting equipment going by...

Blizzards Now Evidence of Global Warming?

So say the experts.

OK, so what about the winters of 1976-77 and 1977-78? What did they tell us about climate?

The winter of 76-77 was brutally cold in the east, with cars driving on the Ohio River near Cincinnati at one point. It began with a massive lake effect snow assault centered on Buffalo that didn't let up til a massive storm in late January, prompting some 'action' by Grits Carter...



The following winter, 77-78 saw two snow monsters for the record book. The first one came in late January in Ohio and Indiana and set low pressure records, burying 18-wheeler trucks on interstates and requiring activation of the national guard. People died trying to get from the highway to isolated farm houses.


But it spared the east coast. Their luck would last about a week, as another monster formed and moved up the coast, known in weather lore as the official "Blizzard of '78"....

Over 50 inches of snow in parts of Rhode Island. But both were pretty bad, and came very close together.

And yet we're supposed to believe these storms were evidence of global warming, back in the 70s before the temperature began to spike? Now we're being told to expect snow due to warming. Of course, they had an explanation back in the 70s, too.

Americans Flunk Test on Climate Talking Points

The NY Times is exasperated over a recent Yale University study whose conclusion reflects poorly on Joe and Jane Sixpack's knowledge of climate science, or perhaps more accurately, their knowledge of climate science talking points:

But climate skeptics have made some specific inroads. As the report’s authors found, 42 percent of those surveyed “incorrectly believe that since scientists can’t predict the weather more than a few days in advance, they can’t possibly predict the climate of the future.” More than a third (37 percent) think climate models are too unreliable to predict the climate of the future. And one-third believe, incorrectly, that most scientists in the 1970s were predicting an ice age.

They use "incorrectly" as if it might mean something. For instance on their first point, it's an entirely plausible conclusion for the average person to think scientists can't accurately predict the weather more than a few days in advance just by watching the forecast. Extending it out further, well, just look at the accuracy of the past several Atlantic hurricane forecasts.

Yes, weather is not climate (until it's convenient) but it seems logical to question the accuracy of long range climate forecast trends based on the uncertainty of short range weather models. To call it "incorrect" would be to say climate models are 100 percent accurate, a postulation that cannot be proven in the study.

As to the last assertion, some people may have keen memories of the Newsweek article predicting an ice age in the 70s, or they've heard about it in modern press reports. To say there was a consensus about an ice age back then is incorrect; to say there was a consensus on it going either direction back then would be entirely inaccurate. Finally:

But 55 percent believe, incorrectly, that the Earth’s climate is now hotter than it has ever been before, and about two-thirds believe, incorrectly, that the climate has always oscillated gradually between eras of warmth and eras of cold.

Hmm, no shock that people might think the Earth has never been warmer based on an almost weekly diet of media trickery for going on two decades now. The shock is that only 55 percent believe it, most likely understanding that our observations only go back about 120 years. As to oscillations, any kid knows the climate oscillates because, gee, we're no longer in an ice age. They seem to be focusing on "gradual" because if people believe climate moves along on a geologic scale then there's no reason to change the way we live.

But if people can be convinced that the next climate swing will be linear, a never-ending upward swing due to AGW that will result in a ball of hot gas or approximate the surface of Venus--in our kids' lifetimes--then there's certainly reason to buy curly light bulbs, trade in the Hummer, support cap and trade and vote for Democrats in the mid-terms. Then again, believing in such an apocalyptic future sounds a bit silly and superstitious right, sort of like something religious extremists like Christine O'Donnell might believe in--fireballs and brimstone and such. Right?

Cullen's Gloom and Doom

Notorious climatologist Heidi Cullen is at it again:

You better get used to hot, sticky summers like this one, says climatologist Heidi Cullen, who explains terrifying data of why the weather is only getting hotter and how our infrastructure can’t handle it

She goes on to say, "Let’s look at how July 2010 might stack up against the Julys of the future", but hold on a sec--why not look at last year, LAST YEAR!

New York City never saw 90 degrees in June or July. It hit 90 or above 5 times in August. The average temps were 3.7 degrees below normal in June and 3.8 below in July. Yes, July. None of which was accurately forecast months prior.

So, with that here's our weekly music selection...



MORE 8/7/10

Here's a story about a huge calving in Greenland. Notice this paragraph:

Not since 1962 has such a large chunk of ice calved in the Arctic, but researchers have noticed cracks in recent months in the floating tongue of the glacier.

So the same thing happened in 1962, a time period where the world was not experiencing global warming. Hmm...WUWT?

Globe May be Warming, but not Memphis

Hot Air links this commencement speech by Big Al, then cryptically asks if he's right based on big news out of NOAA:

The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature was the warmest on record for January-April at 56.0°F (13.3°C), which is 1.24°F (0.69°C) above the 20th century average.

Yet so far here in 2010 Memphis is a whopping 7.3 degrees below normal for the period January-April based on departures from normal:

• January = -2.8 F
• February = -7.5 F
• March = -0.9 F
• April = +3.9 F
  

May is above normal so far, but not so much it would get us in the red numbers. And Memphis isn't the only part of America way behind the rest of the world. Take a good look at that graphic and you'll find that a bulk of the warming occurred in Saharan Africa and across the prairies of Canada, which was mostly snow covered during that period (except in April).

Still, short term warming is warming, even if it's not climate, so expect the greens to make a big production of all this.

Exposing the Incline and the Decline

Conservatives are rightly heralding the collapse of the man-made global warming consensus--Gore's hard-line approach (flat-earthers) was appalling and downright dangerous. It's fitting the holographic, Nobel-winning, Oscar receiving king of AGW is nowhere to be found right now (he probably retreated to the same place Bill Ayers did during the campaign, his home--where media fear to tread).

But where do we go from here? Does this new information mean the entire thing was a scam? Yes and no. Yes, in respect to the spin and subterfuge placed on the data to reach a political and financial end; no in regards to the fact temperatures have indeed risen since the 1800s. In effect we should be back to square one--analyzing the mysteries using raw science, now put in its rightful place, where Obama wanted it!

But even with some of the politics removed there's still truth. What is it? Right Truth points to comments from Dr. Christy of UAH on the unreliability of the surface record as to making global decisions but his colleague at UAH, Dr. Roy Spencer, just released the latest satellite-based observations from January, which might be shocking to those suffering from all this cold, snowy global warming..

As can be seen, Northern Hemispheric land, on a whole, is not as cold as many of us thought (click on image for larger version). Below-normal areas were restricted to parts of Russia and China, most of Europe, and the southeastern United States. Most of Canada and Greenland were well above normal

Here's his map showing the departures from normal (not actual temps)..


The point--just because it's cold in America and Europe (oddly centered right over Copenhagen) doesn't mean it can't be warm overall. This data is not massaged Mann/Jones, it's from an AGW skeptic. The satellites have been used for years as a check on the surface data. So while it's good the house of cards has finally collapsed, skeptics should not fall prey to the same temptation of ignoring inconvenient data.

At the same time the great benefit of recent proceedings is that the AGW industry will have a harder time spinning Dr. Spencer's data as proof of a coming catastrophe only solvable through world socialism within the next 10 years. And that's a good thing.

Surprise, Surprise

Mother Gaia threw us a curve ball this morning..it's snowing like crazy.



The sign says stop. The TDOT 'Smart map' says stop, too. Decision--delay commute for now..(pending boss approval).



BTW, Albert the Action Figure is getting himself a cup of Joe and has not headed out for an observation yet (he's not a morning person).

Update..
He's on it.. just under 3 inches so far. He'll stand post as long as needed..

Update..

1 PM report just telexed in..



Looks like it has turned to rain (seriously--it has, and streets are now pretty good around the area).