Australia Summer Marked By Snow, Heavy Flooding (VIDEO)

It may be summertime "down under," but instead of sunshine and warm breezes, Australia has been hit with severe weather conditions, including unseasonable flooding and even a snowstorm, the BBC is reporting.

Dozens of residents were evacuated from their homes in the remote town of Carnarvon, some 900 kilometers north of Perth, after a staggering 30 centimeters of rain caused what the Telegraph has called the region's worst flooding in 50 years, damaging crops and cattle stations. Meanwhile, residents in east coast states New South Wales and Victoria experienced a rare "White Christmas"-style start to their holiday week, after a cold spell left up to 10 centimeters of snow covering many of the area's ski resorts, which are usually snow-free this time of year.

"It's white, everything is white," Michelle Lovius, the general manager of the Kosciuszko Chalet Hotel at Charlotte Pass told the AFP. "First thing this morning everything was just very still, very peaceful and every single thing was just blanketed in a thick cover of white."

Watch footage of the floods and snow here:

Comments

[katmandu1]

01:58 PM on 01/04/2011

To conspiracy theorists who claim that this is all a socialist/liberal/Marxist conspiracy to cripple the US economy and bring about one world government, I say be sure where your foil hat when you go out today and watch out for those black helicopters. To those like Congressman Shimkus who assure us that bad things won’t happen because of global warming because a god said they won’t I say check the lead levels in your local water supply.

[SoCalHotOne]

03:01 PM on 01/08/2011

These ideas have been around for quite a while.

http://farmwars.info/?p=4881

[katmandu1]

01:57 PM on 01/04/2011

The best the deniers can toss out seems to boil down to the following:
- Climate gate and the CRU emails – the issue has been studied by five independent investigations which concluded that there was nothing improper in the way the CRU collected or processed data
- The IPCC screwed up by including sloppy research into its reports concerning how long it would take for the Himalayan glaciers to collapse – they admitted this mistake but in fact, their reports have tended to be too cautious
- Those who warn of AGW including the scientists and the politicians are in it for the money – most of these researchers don’t earn much more than a high school science teacher and I really don’t care how rich Al Gore is
- It’s possible to find hundreds of “experts” who are skeptical about AGW – among scientists one will seldom find 100% agreement on any issue concerning a natural phenomenon since they are always critiquing each other’s work; it’s what they do but on this issue there is a consensus since not one credible scientific body supports the arguments of the deniers and skeptics
- Even if global warming is happening it will far too expensive to the economy to deal with it – we can spend billions dealing with it now or leave it for our children who will have to spend trillions dealing with it after this planet will have passed the tipping point

[katmandu1]

01:53 PM on 01/04/2011

In all of the banter put out by the deniers no one is able to dispute the science behind AGW and the argument that it is in fact happening by referring to studies or research done by any national scientific academy or published in any peer reviewed scientific journal. Since many of the deniers may be motivated by a xenophobic repugnance towards science done by foreigners, how about referring to any of the research presented by NASA, NOAA, the American Geophysical Union or the American Association for the Advancement of Science? Even the Pentagon is taking the issue very seriously having commissioned a study on the security implications of global warming in 2004.

[katmandu1]

01:53 PM on 01/04/2011

Arguing about whether the extreme weather patterns this year or even over the past several years are or not proof of anthropogenic global warming can start to degenerate into a cat fight and it probably isn’t very productive. Of course, the whole idea of global warming suggests a steady rise of 1, 2 or 3 degrees that simply means shorter milder winters and longer growing seasons when in fact, it involves more extreme weather patterns with longer and more severe droughts, heavier rainfall and flooding, and more destructive snowstorms. This is best described by Thomas Friedman as “global weirding” but perhaps Gwynne Dyer hedges it even better by suggesting that if the kind of weather extremes we’ve seen in Pakistan and Australia isn’t proof of human induced climate change, this is what it’s going to look like as we move towards and past the tipping sometime in the next 20 years. In the meantime, try telling a Pakistani farmer that the flooding that forced him and millions of his countrymen into refugee camps is normal.

[dragonmaster]

06:30 AM on 01/01/2011

An area the size of Texas is flooded in Australia, from north of Brisbane to Just south of Townsville. Cities like Bundaberg and Rockhampton are cut off. Adding to the woes of the floods, highly poisonous snakes(Brown snakes, Taipans) are entering homes- as well as Salt water crocs in the far north.

Obviously there is too much water vapor in the atmosphere from high levels of C02- making it warmer. On the countries west coast- the town of Carnarvon was also inundated with a years worth of rain in 24 hours.

[StephenBP]

02:40 PM on 12/27/2010

I see that one of our friends from the Petrolleum Supporters for Disinformation has arrived.
Hi So Cal. Nice to see you.

Well, the global average temperature looks to be a real record this year. Higher temps, more evaporation, more precipitation... why am I not surprised? Oh, but I almost forgot.....

So Cal doesn't seem to think that the average global temperature is significant. Or maybe she thinks that it is not accurate. Perhaps she seems to think that scientists are not too bright or too honest I guess.

Better that we take the information of the CEI or Exxon Mobile, or other people who represent the billions of dollars of profit riding in the balance from their multi-trillion dollar industries..... now there is information you can trust. Fair and balanced. Like FOX news. All the news that oil interest see fit to allow you to see.

Cheers

[SoCalHotOne]

06:50 PM on 12/27/2010

Don't tell me you believe the lie that it's the "hottest year on record"? There has been record breaking cold all over the world, and James Hansen continues to adjust the temperature record to push past hot years down and push recent years up.

And just for the record, again, I do not watch TV and I do not work for an oil company. I understand you want to believe in global warming because it aligns with your politics and your hatred of Fox News and oil companies. But as a scientific question, that has nothing to do with whether or not human induced CO2 will cause the earth to get warmer.

[StephenBP]

07:26 PM on 12/27/2010

I corrected some of your typos and added some additional information for you.
Don't tell me you believe the lie that it's not the "hottest year during the period during which scientific temperature records have been recorded"? There has been record breaking cold all over the world, but places like Greenland where recent temperatures have been up to 15 degrees above normal wipe out the contribution from even large areas of the earth that are colder than normal. If you look at a map of temperature anomalies around the globe, you will quickly see that the majority of the globe has above normal temperatures, even when weather stability is deteriorating in Australia, Europe or North America. The continental US is less than 2 % of the earth’s surface, and it doesn’t have much weight in a global average. I don’t know what you think motivates scientists, but, by and large, they know that if they don’t back up their claims with facts and reasoning, they get eviscerated by any up and coming scientist who can spot their mistakes. This isn’t business, this isn’t politics, this isn’t entertainment. In businessmen people do whatever they can get away with to make a buck. Science, however much you want to spin it otherwise, does not work that way. Your results are out there for other scientists to take pot shots at and the opinions of people who cannot speak the language of math and science is scientifically meaningless.
Have a nice day.

[Publicola]

05:28 AM on 12/28/2010

SoCalWarmer: "James Hansen continues to adjust the temperatur­e record to push past hot years down and push recent years up."

Gotta love substance-free recreational slander by science deniers. Or not.

And of course the NOAA and the CRU and the RSS and Drs Roy Spencer and John Christy are in on the Great Global Global Warming Conspiracy too, right? [Deep sarcasm intended.]

[SoCalHotOne]

01:54 PM on 12/27/2010

How many times do the predictions of global warming alarmists have to be completely wrong before they are held accountable?

If a weatherman made a wrong prediction every week he'd be fired. But I guess you can never be wrong if you predict the weather 50 years from now, and if it turns out you're completely wrong you just call it "climate change".

"I predict weather!"

"Right again, sir!"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/16/tahoe-will-lose-much-of-i_n_784499.html

http://www.tahoedailytribune.com/article/20101227/NEWS/101229849/1001/RSS&parentprofile=

[Trepasky]

06:09 PM on 12/27/2010

Actually Meteorologists predict the weather. Climatologists would not even suggest they could. However, there are many Meteorologists who think they can predict global climate and its changes.

I would very much enjoy a link from a Climatologist and not the 'weather' stuff you post.
As in any science, there are many who have a little knowledge and are 'dangerous' in their 'pronouncements' There are also many who shill for business and politicians without a need for facts and credible information.
ALthough the extent of human caused changes to the climate and 'weather' may be debatable, there is certainly no doubt that the climate is changing. Glaciers melting, the acidification of the oceans, coral reef deaths, northward migration of many insects due to longer 'warm seasons', changes in migration, increases in growing seasons (both ends), the increase in CO2, the warming of the Arctic . There are numerous other dramatic and subtle changes that have been observed in the last 100 years, some of which have no significant historical counterpart.

It appears, that you do not need an education, as you clearly seem to know it all,Perhaps rather than continue posting here with fluff, you might try looking up some real information about climate change and we can discuss that. Leave the weather to Meteorologists, Climatologists are not interested in just the weather.

[SoCalHotOne]

06:55 PM on 12/27/2010

We've all been through quite a few topics on this site over the last few months regarding the fraudulent science of global warming. I have not seen you here before, but I'm happy to backtrack and tell you the problems this theory.

As with most believers on this site, there's seems to be no evidence that could convince them otherwise. But if it cannot be falsified, it is not science. So I'll ask you first if there is anything that would change your belief in global warming/climate change.

[Publicola]

05:18 AM on 12/28/2010

SoCalWarmer: " if it cannot be falsified, it is not science"

As has been explained to you repeatedly SoCalWarmer AGW theory can be falsified, and in many ways. And yet to date it has passed all such tests.

Somehow you however still can't seem to grasp that science fact for reasons known only to you, if then.

[Publicola]

05:32 AM on 12/28/2010

SoCalWarmer: "I guess you can never be wrong if you predict the weather 50 years from now, and if it turns out you're completely wrong "

For the past several decades, climate scientists have in fact been correct with respect to their prediction that the globe would warm over the coming decades.

------------------------------------------------------

Q: Why can't science deniers understand the difference between weather and climate?

A: Because they are science deniers, of course.

[StephenBP]

10:23 PM on 12/23/2010

Denialists have accused warmists of following a religion, when in fact what we follow is our scientific training and our real world observations. We talk in terms of probabilities, and the probabilities are looking grim. We weigh the evidence like judge and jury and we do not find credible evidence from the denialist camp, mostly just insults, anecdotes, and smears. In spectroscopy I learned and demonstrated that carbon dioxide absorbs heat. My industrial chemical experience showed me how carbon dioxide could absorb infrared and prevent heat from getting where it was needed.... What is religious about all of that???

Even denialists don’t deny that the human race is putting billions of tons of carbon dioxide gas into the atmosphere every year. Even the skeptical scientist Roy Spencer admits that the stratosphere is cooling, while the troposphere is warming, just like global warming theory predicts…..

I have observed that the growing seasons are lengthening. I have also observed that flooded plants die just as well as drought desiccated plants do. Global climate change, global warming, whatever you call it, it spells agricultural disaster long before we hit any of the scarier stuff from Al Gore’s scary movie….

Humanity needs a wake-up climate disaster soon. Otherwise it will foul its atmosphere beyond the point of recovery, after which the next major news story about humanity will be the discovery of a major human fossil trove by a species of advanced roaches, or maybe, jumping spiders.

I wish everyone insight.

[Dardedar]

10:40 PM on 12/23/2010

So glad you're here.

[SoCalHotOne]

01:55 PM on 12/27/2010

Is making up data really science, Stephen?

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/12/26/giss-upwards-and-upwards/

[Trepasky]

06:26 PM on 12/27/2010

Really is this a reputable site?
Why does he not have a 'real site' instead of a wordpress free site?
Why are there only one sided comments?
Why do you post things like this? Science encourages debate and examination, there is no debate on that site and from what I could tell no climatologists comment. At best it is a self serving propaganda machine, using pseudo science to narrow climate change to weather which is a local and short term.
Oh well, I am beginning to believe you are a shill for big business, maybe energy companies. You are certainly not educated in the sciences and seem to lack credibility in what you say and the places you post.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/
THe article Senator Menendez And His Global Warming Fantasy is a jpg file all the references underlined text are not really links. SO a lot of 'facts' that are not referenced. Personally I like to know where and who "Scientists do not agree that the polar ice is melting" Trying to learn more about About steven goddard was difficult, except for his icon and his byline "Just having fun" which seems to be rather revealing in itself.

[Publicola]

05:38 AM on 12/28/2010

Is non-peer reviewed science denier propaganda really science, SoCalWarmer?

[Hint: no.]

[gallon]

07:43 PM on 12/23/2010

Evidence of sea rise in Madison, WI:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/aclickofmadison/3296827648/sizes/l/in/photostream/

In the holiday spirit, for those of you who miss snow, here are some Wisconsin winter scenes:
http://www.pbase.com/gallon/wisconsin_winter
http://www.pbase.com/gallon/wisconsin_holidays

Cheer and seasonings to all!

[Publicola]

09:09 PM on 12/23/2010

Beautiful photos, Gallon.

[gallon]

09:47 PM on 12/23/2010

Thank you, most or all of those shots are available in large size for screen savers, if you like.

[maxwells]

03:47 PM on 12/23/2010

Latest of so many SoCal screw-ups

SoCal: “There is no global warming.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/SoCalHotOne/scientists-polar-bears-ca_n_797314_71261367.html.

To which Fato Profugus asks:

"Fato Profugus: SoCalHotOne. Can you explain why, if the temperatur­e is not rising, glaciers are disappeari­ng all over the world? We have all seen the pictures, and they seem pretty dramatic...

SoCalHotOne: "Certainly. Glaciers form over hundreds and even thousands of years during cold periods, and melt over hundreds of years during warm periods. 1,000 years ago the earth experience­d the Medieval Warm Period during which we can assume glaciers were melting. That was followed by the Little Ice Age during which they were growing and peaked in about 1850. That brings us to the current period during which they are again melting."

maxwells: SoCal cannot even comprehend the two ends (of) what she just wrote.

a) "There is no global warming."
b) "Glaciers form over hundreds and even thousands of years during cold periods, and melt over hundreds of years during WARM periods."

SoCalHotOne: 'No runaway "man-made global warming". Duh.'

maxwells: "The "DUH" is squarely on you, SoCal. ...you've been claiming .. since your very first HuffPo post, some 1100+ comments ago, that, during the past few decades, there's been no global warming of ANY sort at all, man-made or otherwise. As the following comment trail shows...

http://www­.huffingto­npost.com/­social/SoC­alHotOne?a­ction=comm­ents&displ­ay=all&sor­t=oldest "

[gallon]

07:08 PM on 12/23/2010

Took a look at SoCalHotOne history, thanks for the link. It is clear she was being disingenuous and combative right from the beginning. There is very little intellectual curiosity on display, nor any willingness to dialogue and learn. Nope. SoCalHotOne clearly comes to HP with an attitude of already knowing all about climatology.

This amounts to willful trolling on HP.

[Ponderous]

08:59 PM on 12/23/2010

Intelectual curiosity? As if you Warm-mongers ever are curious about anybody else's opinion. Like a religion, you have accepted as fact what you believe and don't allow for anyone to challenge the orthodoxy of your beliefs. Global warming has severe problems as a theory, but you could never admit that because it would add doubt to your religion. It's sad to see what so-called scientists have become - terrified of questioning the accepted truth, which goes against the core of science. You people are nothing more than the continuation of doctrinaire know-it-alls who eventually get their comeuppance.

It's only a matter of time. the deception is unraveling before our eyes.

[Publicola]

09:08 PM on 12/23/2010

Ponderous: "Global warming has severe problems as a theory"

Really. Name them, and support your assertions with reliable sources.

Ponderous: "Like a religion, you have accepted as fact what you believe... the deception is unraveling before our eyes."

I love science denier irony.

[maxwells]

06:13 PM on 12/24/2010

Richard2's slimy rescue attempt: "SoCal's explanation was too sophisticated for you to comprehend"

ROTFL!

Fact: Richard2's BGF, SoCalledHotOne, got TOTALLY BUSTED BIG TIME.

Fact: even for such a crummy shill, her BLOOPER was one GIGANTIC "TELL".

Fact: SoCal ADMITs that glaciers are melting because it's BEEN WARMING during recent decades.

Fact: Shows clearly she's never believed her lies at all.

For Readers:

Fact: SoCal's been insisting all along, from day 1 that, in recent decades, there's been not just no man-made global warming, but no global warming of ANY KIND WHATSOEVER.

Fact: she continuously refuses to admit even that any specific location on Earth has been warming.

Fact: SoCal's tried to back that whacko claim up HUNDREDS OF TIMES,

with phony data from appinsys.com (where her wingnut rants on the U.N. vs. Jesus on his home page - sheesh!), or her own willful and malicious mis-reading of nasa giss data, etc.

Fact: Readers can view her near-50 pages of comments and find her claiming this incessantly on almost any page.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/SoCalHotOne?action=comments&display=all&sort=newest

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/SoCalHotOne?action=comments&display=all&sort=oldest

This is like she's holding a smoking gun, blood oozing from her foot, while she insists she didn't shoot herself. Further comment on this issue from this shill would be like she's stuck the gun up her nose and pulled the trigger YET AGAIN.

No wonder she requested help from Richard2.

FAIL FAIL FAIL.

[SoCalHotOne]

12:09 AM on 12/27/2010

"Fact: SoCal ADMITs that glaciers are melting because it's BEEN WARMING during recent decades. "

No. It's warmed since the Little Ice Age which ended in about 1850.

"Fact: SoCal's been insisting all along, from day 1 that, in recent decades, there's been not just no man-made global warming, but no global warming of ANY KIND WHATSOEVER­."

No. It warmed from the turn of the century into the 1930s, peaking in 1934-year of the dust bowl. It cooled from the 1940s into the 1970s, peaking with the ice age scare. It has warmed from the 1970s until 1998. But the overall trend for the last 100 years has been essentially flat.

"Fact: she continuous­ly refuses to admit even that any specific location on Earth has been warming."

No again. There is a parking lot at the University of Arizona in Tucson that is hotter today than it was in the 1890s when it was a dirt lot. Now it is asphalt. The weather station that is located there shows clearly that specific location has been warming.

[Publicola]

10:28 AM on 12/27/2010

SoCalWarmer: "the overall trend for the last 100 years has been essentiall­y flat"

You're not telling the truth again, SoCalWarmer - so what else is new.

http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/HadCRUT3_bar.png

[Publicola]

11:37 AM on 12/23/2010

SoCalWarmer: "maybe global warming is completely man-made"

Yawn.

The following are scientific facts:

* The Earth has warmed significan­­­tly over recent decades, to what may be the highest level in 2,000 years if not far longer.

* Greenhouse gases including anthropoge­­­nic CO2 -- which is generated mostly by fossil fuel burning -- warm the Earth. Without greenhouse gases the average temperatur­­­e of the Earth would be below freezing.

* Satellite measuremen­­­ts demonstrat­­­e that increasing atmospheri­­­c CO2 has increased heat energy retention in the atmosphere­.

* Atmospheri­­­c CO2 has increased by almost 40% since the dawn of the fossil fuel era, to the highest level in at least 800,000 years, if not far longer.

* The scientific evidence strongly indicates that said increased atmospheri­­­c CO2 is due to anthropoge­­­nic CO2 emissions, and there is no other viable scientific explanatio­­­n for said atmospheri­­­c CO2 increase.

* There is a strong correlatio­­­n between said atmospheri­­­c CO2 increase and said recent warming.

* Known natural forcing agents of past global warming - including changes in orbital cycles and increases in solar radiative output - cannot explain the bulk of said recent warming. Neither has any scientific theory to explain the bulk of said recent warming other than anthropoge­­­nic global warming survived scientific scrutiny.

Again these are all scientific facts. Which is to say:

The scientific evidence supporting anthropoge­­­nic global warming is overwhelmi­­­ng.

[SoCalHotOne]

11:51 AM on 12/23/2010

"* There is a strong correlatio­­­­n between said atmospheri­­­­c CO2 increase and said recent warming."

There is also a strong correlation between CO2 increase and the price of tea in China.

[Publicola]

12:16 PM on 12/23/2010

A generation ago:

American Medical Association: "There is also a strong correlatio­­­­­n between said cancer increase and said smoking increase."

SoCalWarmer's Momma: "There is also a strong correlatio­n between cancer increase and the price of tea in China."

[Trepasky]

08:22 AM on 12/26/2010

Wonderful use of one the techniques associated with dis-information.
1) Replace a factual statement with a meaningless syllogism.

It is always a wonder to me that while science is questioned, human opinions are considered somehow more accurate.
I suppose for some, living 60 years is sufficient to discount more than 200 years of weather and climate studies.
Also amazing to me is the lack of understanding that seem to be so present in these types of comments.

[gallon]

02:48 PM on 12/23/2010

I would say there is a strikingly strong correlation between all of: CO2 increase, global warming, and desperate denier hysterics.

[ClimateHawk]

08:04 PM on 12/22/2010

There is a myth that we can do whatever we want, and the earth will absorb the impact without any consequences to us. But it is false.

We have changed the balance of the climate by taking carbon out of the ground and putting it into the air. We can expect extreme weather of all types to be more and more frequent.

[Ponderous]

09:01 PM on 12/23/2010

Hmmm...interesting, considering that hurricanes have been at 20 year low in activity.

i love how you just throw things out as facts without being able to back it up.

You are really despicable.

[Publicola]

09:27 PM on 12/23/2010

Ponderous: "int­eresting, considerin­g that hurricanes have been at 20 year low in activity."

Not interesting, considering that is false.

[gallon]

10:11 PM on 12/23/2010

"i love how you just throw things out as facts without being able to back it up."

How ironic.

[gallon]

09:59 PM on 12/23/2010

Good, basic, common sense there Hawk. Well done.

[SoCalHotOne]

04:22 PM on 12/22/2010

On the other hand, maybe global warming is completely man-made...

"First, actual measurements are taken. Second, adjustments are made after the fact by scientists to the data. Would you like to guess how much of the 0.6C temperature rise is from actual measured temperature increases and how much is due to adjustments of various levels of arbitrariness? Here it is, for the period from 1940 to present in the US:
Actual Measured Temperature Increase: 0.1C
Adjustments and Fudge Factors: 0.5C
Total Reported Warming: 0.6C

Yes, that is correct. Nearly all the reported warming in the USHCN data base, which is used for nearly all global warming studies and models, is from human-added fudge factors, guesstimates, and corrections."

http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2007/07/an-interesting-.html

[gallon]

06:34 PM on 12/22/2010

Here is SoCalHotOne again, doesn't understand any science, but has no problem mocking science and scientists. Ignorance combined with arrogance is the rule, as ever.

[SoCalHotOne]

11:55 PM on 12/22/2010

Here's a little info about your hometown weather station you refuse to believe.

"About this Station
Madison is set on a narrow isthmus of land between Lakes Mendota and Monona. Lake Mendota (l5 square miles) lies northwest of Lake Monona (5 square miles) and the lakes are only two-thirds of a mile apart at one point. Drainage at Madison is southeast through two other lakes into the Rock River, which flows south into Illinois, and then west to the Mississippi. The westward flowing Wisconsin River is only 20 miles northwest of Madison. Madison lakes are normally frozen from mid-December to early April."

http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi.dll?wwDI~StnSrch~StnID~20020992

Maybe you can go have a look at it and tell us all why you think it's faulty.

[Publicola]

12:00 PM on 12/23/2010

SoCalWarmer: "Maybe you can go have a look at it and tell us all why you think it's faulty."

On the other hand, maybe you SoCalWarmer can tell us why you think Gallon thinks that information is faulty.

And while you are at it, maybe you can also explain why you trust anonymous science denier sites over actual, peer-reviewed science.

[gallon]

03:20 AM on 12/23/2010

And here, as predictable, SoCalHotOne brings up her obsession with my local weather. I thought it was innocent enough when she asked, several months ago, where I lived. Who could have guessed that she would obsess with several dozen posts on the subject. SoCal brings this up, with her mocking attitude, every time she needs to deflect the conversation.

Stalking? You decide.

My local weather is inconsequential in the big picture. I get my local weather data from the weather channel.

[SoCalHotOne]

03:47 AM on 12/23/2010

"gallon 05:49 PM on 7/24/2010
46 Fans
Madison. Your data must be wrong. The large lake in town, Lake Mendota, is no longer guaranteed to freeze in winter. The situation is such that they can no longer schedule a winter kite festival out on the lake. I recall many years ago that people could drive out on the lake, small planes could land, ice boat races were held, et cetera. This is first hand knowledge SoCal. Therefore your data are wrong."

As mentioned above, the thermometer in question is located on Lake Mendota. Who should I trust for first hand knowledge, you or a thermometer? And what would be more scientific?

And since you mentioned the Weather Channel, here's the founder, John Coleman.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lk8SSqc7ekM

[Publicola]

11:47 AM on 12/23/2010

Yo SoCalWarmer:

You do realize that what gallon said about Lake Mendota is not inconsistent with what the NOAA says - right?

Oh wait - maybe you actually don't...

[Publicola]

10:09 AM on 12/22/2010

vivi fb: "Oh dear, this subject has definitely become a religion, with all its dogmas and belifs based solely on faith!"

Yawn.

The following are scientific facts:

* The Earth has warmed significan­­­tly over recent decades, to what may be the highest level in 2,000 years if not far longer.

* Greenhouse gases including anthropoge­­­nic CO2 -- which is generated mostly by fossil fuel burning -- warm the Earth. Without greenhouse gases the average temperatur­­­e of the Earth would be below freezing.

* Satellite measuremen­­­ts demonstrat­­­e that increasing atmospheri­­­c CO2 has increased heat energy retention in the atmosphere­.

* Atmospheri­­­c CO2 has increased by almost 40% since the dawn of the fossil fuel era, to the highest level in at least 800,000 years, if not far longer.

* The scientific evidence strongly indicates that said increased atmospheri­­­c CO2 is due to anthropoge­­­nic CO2 emissions, and there is no other viable scientific explanatio­­­n for said atmospheri­­­c CO2 increase.

* There is a strong correlatio­­­n between said atmospheri­­­c CO2 increase and said recent warming.

* Known natural forcing agents of past global warming - including changes in orbital cycles and increases in solar radiative output - cannot explain the bulk of said recent warming. Neither has any scientific theory to explain the bulk of said recent warming other than anthropoge­­­nic global warming survived scientific scrutiny.

Again these are all scientific facts. Which is to say:

The scientific evidence supporting anthropoge­­­nic global warming is overwhelmi­­­ng.

[Ponderous]

09:05 PM on 12/23/2010

0nce again, your facts are actually not facts,. The erath warmed much more between 1900 and 1940 than it dd in the 70 years post 1940. Now how abot that? there has also been no statistical warming in the last 15 years, in fact, the data show that the Earth has cooled over the last 3 years.

Solar activity has everything to do with global climate change as it has for billions of years,.

You need your head examined.

And byw the way - global warming theory isn't based on fact - it's a religion that allows for no disagreement. that's not science - that's RELIGION. Wake up - you are living a lie.

[Publicola]

09:41 PM on 12/23/2010

Ponderous: "0nce again, your facts are actually not facts,."

Once again, you don't know what you are talking about.

Ponderous: "The erath warmed much more between 1900 and 1940 than it dd in the 70 years post 1940. Now how abot that?"

Patently false.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png

Ponderous: "there has also been no statistica­l warming in the last 15 years"

Wrong again. There has been statistica­l warming over the last 15 years, and at just below the 95% confidence level.

Ponderous: "in fact, the data show that the Earth has cooled over the last 3 years."

Even if that where true -- and per NASA it isn't true since per NASA 2009 was tied as the second warmest year on record -- 3 years is far too short of a time period to make scientifically-valid inferences from with respect to the underlying global temperature trend.

Ponderous: "Solar activity has everything to do with global climate change as it has for billions of years,."

CO2 and orbital cycles are also important factors with respect to climate change, as they to have been for billions of years.

Also, the linear solar radiation trend has stayed essentially flat over recent decades while the globe has continued to warm.

Ponderous: "global warming theory isn't based on fact"

Yes it is, not matter how insulting, delusional and hysterical science denier rhetoric gets claiming otherwise.

[gallon]

10:20 PM on 12/23/2010

"0nce again, your facts are actually not facts,. The erath warmed much more between 1900 and 1940 than it dd in the 70 years post 1940. Now how abot that? there has also been no statistica­l warming in the last 15 years, in fact, the data show that the Earth has cooled over the last 3 years."

Show some credible science when you tell amazing tales like that. Btw, C minus for grammar and spelling.

"Solar activity has everything to do with global climate change as it has for billions of years,."

You state your opinion, but you offer no science, no references, no credibility.

"You need your head examined."

Hardly a compelling discussion about the science, don't you think Ponderous?

"And byw the way - global warming theory isn't based on fact - it's a religion that allows for no disagreeme­nt. that's not science - that's RELIGION. Wake up - you are living a lie."

If you can't convince people with a reasonable argument, you can always make up stuff, hey Ponderous?

[SoCalHotOne]

05:16 AM on 12/22/2010

What the warmists don't want you to know is that their computer models are worthless without real data, collected by real people.

To collect temperature data for the recent past, somebody took the time to set up a thermometer somewhere and take a reading and write it down.

Tombstone, Arizona is one such place. Real people lived there. And in the 1880s, after they were done with shootouts and lynchings somebody set up a thermometer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdaAR4N4Nds

[Publicola]

10:07 AM on 12/22/2010

SoCalWarmer's momma, a generation ago:

-----------------------------------

What the smokists don't want you to know is that their mathematical models are worthless without real data, collected by real people.

To collect cancer data for the recent past, somebody took the time to set up a cancer surveillance center somewhere and take a reading and write it down.

Tombstone, Arizona is one such place. Real people lived there. And in the 1880s, after they were done with shootouts and lynchings somebody set up a cancer surveillance center.

http://www­.youtube.c­om/watch?v­=FdaAR4N4N­ds

[SoCalHotOne]

10:27 AM on 12/22/2010

Aren't you just a little curious what that thermometer has been saying all these years?

Why such a big difference between Tucson and Tombstone just a few miles apart? They built a city around the thermometer in Tucson, and now it's in the middle of a parking lot.

It's called Urban Heat Island Effect, and Publicola doesn't want you to know about it.

http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GW_Part3_UrbanHeat.htm

[Publicola]

11:11 AM on 12/22/2010

SoCalWarmer: "Aren't you just a little curious what that thermomete­r has been saying all these years?"

In Tombstone specifically? I just checked, and that thermomete­r has been saying that the Tombstone has warmed at roughly the same rate as the global average:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=425722730040&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1

SoCalWarmer: "Why such a big difference between Tucson and Tombstone just a few miles apart?"

How in your mind is about 50 miles "just a few miles"?

Also, how in your mind is there a "big difference" between the above Tombstone graph and this Tucson graph, which also shows warming at roughly the same rate as the global average?

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=425722740020&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1

SoCalWarmer: "It's called Urban Heat Island Effect"

The Urban Heat Island Effect exists, but a comparison of two graphs do not demonstrate it.

SoCalWarmer: "and Publicola doesn't want you to know about it."

Stop lying, SoCalWarmer.

[ Link to a science denier site that has been repeatedly demonstrated to SoCalWarmer to be deceptive snipped. ]

[texfly]

12:27 PM on 12/22/2010

" computer models are worthless without real data, collected by real people."

You're correct about that. And modelers do want all the data they can get so long as it is good data.

You folks would do a great sevice to the science if you'd go out and get a "veracity index" for every site used in NOAA's data set and publish the results, instead of finding a few egregious examples ( that may or probably not be used in the data set to begin with) and beating your drums for weeks about THEM.

[SoCalHotOne]

02:41 PM on 12/22/2010

Gallon doesn't believe his own hometown thermometer.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=425726410003&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1

Maybe he can go find it and take a few pictures and make a report, and then tell us why he has a problem with it?

http://www.surfacestations.org/

[gallon]

06:20 PM on 12/22/2010

Fabrications, all day long, from SoCal.