patrick.net

I assume this means another winter relatively free of snow?

I doubt it, that just doesn't happen around here 2 winters in a row.

"In fact, it has acted to reduce it, but the effect is so small that the hottest year on record, 2010, was near the end of the deepest solar minimum since satellite measurements began in the 1970s."

Incorrect, 2010 was peaking up to the solar maximum. We are in the solar maximum now.

There is more to the micro climate for any given region than just El Nino, La Nina, solar maximum, etc, etc.

The globe is heating up without question. One large volcanic eruption will change our heat problem by two or three degrees instantly.

Truthplease says

"In fact, it has acted to reduce it, but the effect is so small that the hottest year on record, 2010, was near the end of the deepest solar minimum since satellite measurements began in the 1970s."

Incorrect, 2010 was peaking up to the solar maximum. We are in the solar maximum now.

There is more to the micro climate for any given region than just El Nino, La Nina, solar maximum, etc, etc.

The globe is heating up without question. One large volcanic eruption will change our heat problem by two or three degrees instantly.

And what happens when the dust settles? Pray for another bigger eruption? We can't depend on volcanoes to drop temperatures for the long term.

I'm still waiting for the uptick in Hurricanes that were supposed to level the East coast this year. The national ministry of weather hype sponsored by Home Depot, and Publix, upped the predictions of major named storms this year.
Well guess what yesterday was hurricane season hump day.
The biggest storm we has all season gave much needed water resources to parched Mississippi river region.

If it's a mild summer next year, you will just shrug and call it proof of "Climate Change".

CaptainShuddup says

I'm still waiting for the uptick in Hurricanes that were supposed to level the East coast this year. The national ministry of weather hype sponsored by Home Depot, and Publix, upped the predictions of major named storms this year.

Well guess what yesterday was hurricane season hump day.

The biggest storm we has all season gave much needed water resources to parched Mississippi river region.

If it's a mild summer next year, you will just shrug and call it proof of "Climate Change".

Satisfied now or was Sandy not enough for ya?

Not really saying yay or nay... but for those of you who live in the Bay Area, to me it seems outright crazy that we're now in the first week of November and its been in the 70's and 80's. I've lived here for 12 years and like clockwork it gets down into the 50's by the end of Oct.

So in a few decades, Alaska will be prime beachfront property??

lostand confused says

So in a few decades, Alaska will be prime beachfront property??

That is probably further out, more like 60-100 years before it is "prime".

CaptainShuddup says

I'm still waiting for the uptick in Hurricanes that were supposed to level the East coast this year.

Was it worth the wait?

September 8, 1667 — A 'severe storm' is reported in Manhattan and is reported to be a continuation of a powerful hurricane which affected the Mid-Atlantic.

October 29, 1693 — The Great Storm of 1693 causes severe damage on Long Island, and is reported to create the Fire Island Cut as a result of the coast-changing storm surge and waves.[2][3]

August 19, 1788 — A hurricane strikes New York City or Long Island and is reported to have left the west side of the Battery "laid in ruins" after severe flooding occurs.

September 3, 1821 — The 1821 Norfolk and Long Island hurricane results in severe damage on Long Island and is accompanied by storm surge of 13 feet (4 m). High wind causes a ship to crash on Long Island killing 17 people

September 21, 1938 — The New England Hurricane of 1938 (Also Called "The Long Island Express") makes landfall on Suffolk County (Long Island) as a category 3 hurricane on the Saffir-Simpson hurricane scale. Wind gusts of 125 mph (200 km/h) and storm surge of 18 feet (5 m) washes across part of the island. In New York 60 deaths and hundreds of injuries were attributed to the storm. In addition, 2,600 boats and 8,900 houses are destroyed. Throughout New England the hurricane killed over 682 people, damaged or destroyed over 57,000 homes, and caused property losses estimated at $4.7 billion (2005 US dollars)

September 16, 1999 — Hurricane Floyd produces rainfall up to 13 inches (325 mm) and wind gusts of up to 60 mph (95 km/h) affect Southeastern New York. Severe flooding results from the storm, killing two people and causing an early estimate of $14.6 million (1997 USD, $18 million 2007 USD), although it is reported that damage could total to far more than that. One of the deaths occurred when a person was swept into a flooded river

Buster says

You Think 2012 Is Hot? Wait Until 2013.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

CaptainShuddup says

If it's a mild summer next year, you will just shrug and call it proof of "Climate Change".

I live in south Florida, so I have skin in the game. I am legitimately concerned with buying property that will be underwater in 30 years. No insurance company is going to bail me out for my financial loses if that happens. Nor is the federal government. And the Republican climate change deniers sure as fuck aren't either.

Until I get a written guarantee backed with sufficient funds that anyone along the coast who loses their land and property to rising sea levels -- regardless of the cause (climate change or act of god bullshit) -- will be compensated at least twice the value of the property before the rising sea levels. Until that happens, all climate change deniers are full of shit as far as I'm concerned.

I've got a stake in the truth whatever the hell it is. I cannot financially afford to advocate a lie, and that speaks volumes more than any denier soundbite.

CaptainShuddup says

September 8, 1667

CaptainShuddup says

October 29, 1693

CaptainShuddup says

August 19, 1788

CaptainShuddup says

September 3, 1821

rooemoore says

September 21, 1938

CaptainShuddup says

September 16, 1999

Well, I guess you should know, having lived through all these storms.

CaptainShuddup says

September 8, 1667 — A 'severe storm'...flooded river

Shuddup, I am not quite sure what you are trying to say here, but I suspect that it is something along the lines of, "bad storms in the past, bad storms now = no change in climate."

Yes, severe storms have happened in the past. This is not contrary to climate change science. The issue with climate change is that the severity and number of storms increases as we continue to terraform the planet.

Here is some actual data on storms:

Note: this data does not include 2012 and Sandy.

leo707 says

Here is some actual data on storms:

Here is another historical storm comparison:

Yes, but because there is more housing and more inflation, of course, costs would go up over time. Wasn't most of Katrina's damage due to the breaking of the levy anyway, than the actual hurricane?

wait the top 5% of the wealthiest own most of the waterfront properties? Wait so you are telling me that the rich own the properties on the water, which tend to be the more expensive properties? Damn the rich for using their money... they should buy the cheap properties in the desert! More reasons to hate the rich?

MsBennet says

Wasn't most of Katrina's damage due to the breaking of the levy anyway, than the actual hurricane?

Well, being that the hurricane is what broke the levy...

MsBennet says

more inflation, of course, costs would go up over time.

The damage chart uses a price deflator for construction costs normalized to 2010.

MsBennet says

Yes, but because there is more housing...costs would go up over time.

Meccos says

...the rich own the properties on the water, which tend to be the more expensive properties?

As you can see from my other post (post #16), hurricanes are increasing in number and severity. Yes, as we--rich or otherwise--build up the coasts we can expect to see the costs of hurricane landfalls to continue to increase. Especially if we, as a nation, choose to continue to ignore the effect of climate change has on weather patterns. Given that there are many among us that want to pass laws that ignore science I don't expect any change in the way we treat development on the coasts.

Science--you know the stuff that tells us how to build cell phones and that climate change is caused by man--has learned a lot about hurricanes over the years. Unlike any other discipline that makes the claim, science can actually predict the future. Today we are told when, where, and how strong a hurricane will be at a given location with startling accuracy.

While homes are left to be battered and broken, the ample warning given to the increasing number of people living on the coasts has saved countless lives. Could you imagine what this last week would have been like if Sandy has snuck up and surprised us?

We listen to science when we are told danger is a week away, but hem-and-haw and challenge assumptions when we are told the danger is 30 years away.

Buster says

You Think 2012 Is Hot? Wait Until 2013.

I bet it wont even come close to the heat waves we had back in the mid 1970s.

edvard2 says

Not really saying yay or nay... but for those of you who live in the Bay Area, to me it seems outright crazy that we're now in the first week of November and its been in the 70's and 80's. I've lived here for 12 years and like clockwork it gets down into the 50's by the end of Oct.

12 yrs.... your just a youngster around these parts...

Positive proof of global warming:

http://www.yachtforums.coms/general-yachting-discussion/7519-global-warming-rising-sea-level-3.html#post47773

thomaswong.1986 says

Buster says

You Think 2012 Is Hot? Wait Until 2013.

I bet it wont even come close to the heat waves we had back in the mid 1970s.

You know there are these people called climatologists who actually measure this stuff?

CaptainShuddup says

I'm still waiting for the uptick in Hurricanes that were supposed to level the East coast this year.

When the storm of the century happens weeks later, instead of being contrite or just living up to his username and shutting up, he instead pulls more crap out of his ass. Yes, lets revisit the last 300 years of weather history to "disprove" global warming is happening.

There was a time when many people were wary of the evidence that cigarettes caused cancer. Their proof? "My uncle smoked 2 packs a day until he died in his sleep at 85". Today, wing-nuts who deny that climate change is real say the same kind of shit. They refute science with antidote.

rooemoore says

You know there are these people called climatologists who actually measure this stuff?

well they can call them self anything they like...

Good luck with convincing the Indians they should kill of Cows so the global warning stops.

Cows with Gas: India's Global-Warming Problem
By Madhur Singh / New Delhi Saturday, Apr. 11, 2009

Indolent cows languidly chewing their cud while befuddled motorists honk and maneuver their vehicles around them is an image as stereotypically Indian as saffron-clad holy men and the Taj Mahal. Now, however, India's ubiquitous cows — of which there are 283 million, more than anywhere else in the world — are assuming a more menacing role as they become part of the climate-change debate.

By burping, belching and excreting copious amounts of methane — a greenhouse gas that traps 20 times more heat than carbon dioxide — India's livestock of roughly 485 million (including sheep and goats) contributes more to global warming than the vehicles the animals obstruct. With new research suggesting that methane emission by Indian livestock is higher than previously estimated, scientists are furiously working at designing diets to help bovines and other ruminants eat better, stay more energetic and secrete smaller amounts of the offensive gas.

Last month, scientists at the Space Applications Centre in Ahmedabad in western India published a pan-India livestock methane-emission inventory, the first ever, which put the figure at 11.75 million metric tons per year — higher than the 9 million metric tons estimated in 1994. This amount is likely to increase as higher incomes and consumption rates put pressure on the country's dairy industry to become even more productive.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1890646,00.html#ixzz2BxTuP5IK

Peter P says

Positive proof of global warming:

http://www.yachtforums.coms/general-yachting-discussion/7519-global-warming-rising-sea-level-3.html#post47773

Intriguing, yet another piece of the puzzle emerges.

thomaswong.1986 says

I bet it wont even come close to the heat waves we had back in the mid 1970s.

*eh* Perhaps, 2013 could be an off year, but if so the crushing trend of heat and drought will soon continue.

leo707 says

*eh* Perhaps, 2013 could be an off year, but if so the crushing trend of heat and drought will soon continue.

yes, there is so called global warming, as we had before and ice ages and warming.. and another ice age.. get over it.. your going to die !