arctic ice increases 60%

I said it is going to be a cold winter months ago.

 

keep reading...

 

Another load of alarmist crap has just arrived.

 

I predict the coming summer will be hot. You heard it here, first.

 

You are assuming an equally born cost. That's not valid. Nor is it valid to assume that it directly translates into an increase in poverty. But if it does,

300 million vs 1 billion - that's the choice. Because if you don't do anything billion people lose the land they live on and off of from coastal immersion.

 

Trolling trolling rolling... keep those posters trolling... Raw HIDE!!

 

It will be hot, but less so than in previous years.

 

I'm sure the good people of California fervently hope you are correct. Speaking of California, I wonder where Troy is?

California governor declares drought emergency | USA TODAY

Severe Drought Grows Worse in California | NEW YORK TIMES

 

The fires in California were set by cold humans trying not to be cold or out of pure malice..

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/16/us-usa-fire-california-idUSBREA0F1EX20140116

http://guardianlv.com/2014/01/california-fires-leads-to-suspect-arrest/

Global warming had nothing to do with it.

 

Unchecked global warming 'will double extreme El Niño weather events' | THE GUARDIAN

 

Cutting emissions will do nothing because emissions did nothing, at least as far as raising the temperature of the atmosphere is concerned. Pollution is another matter.

 

I reckon it's that big yellow thing up there in the sky.

What puzzles me is that the, ahem, experts, can't get the weather prediction right for next week, but they insist on prophesying temperatures and sealevel changes decades in advance, and on controlling my life to prevent it. Some even openly state I'm a cancer on the planet and want me to die. Such speech is tantamount to a declaration of war, as if they haven't given excuse enough to be shot/hung/tarred & feathered/committed to the funnyfarm/laughed off the stage (strike out that which does not apply on an individual basis).

Please, guys, set your sights at telling me how many scarves and jumpers I should wear next Wednesday, and get it right more than 50% of the time, and maybe then I'll give you some serious attention about other things. Ok, I know this reasonable request will earn me a spray, and is about as useful and amusing as poking a rabid skunk in a cage. Poke poke pokey! (I've got three NBC suits on and a HEPA filter).

 

Long-Term Climate Warming Trend Sustained in 2013 | NASA

 

So in other words you don't understand the mathematics of chaotic but statistically convergent systems.

Actually in fact the forecasting models are remarkably good in many places. The GFS/NAM models for Puget Sound for example, are typically accurate to about 1.5x Nyhquist sampling rate. IE for the model that uses 1km stations with 1hr intervals, Nyhquist projects a lower bound of 2 hour intervals and 2km accuracy.

My experience shows it to be roughly 3hr intervals and 3km accuracy.

Now your TV or radio weatherman has a 150km+ radius area to describe in 5 sentences of forecast. So of course there will be inaccuracies.

But you projecting that sort of abstraction onto the modeling is .. well

Innumeracy.

http://www.amazon.com/Innumeracy-Ma...TF8&qid=1390375402&sr=1-1&keywords=innumeracy

 

http://www.lightinthestorm.com/archives/70