NPR Says Snow In The Rockies Is Thinning

Actually, the Rockies have the most snow ever recorded in mid-June.

http://www.npr.org/

Then they go on to claim that this year is somehow different.

December 28, 2007

Aspen flirts with powder record
Only December 1983 tops this month.

ASPEN — This month is shaping up as the second snowiest December in Aspen since someone started keeping records in 1934.

http://www.aspentimes.com/

Dec 26, 2008

Good News! Record Snow, It’s DEEPcember On Slopes Again in Aspen

http://www.estinaspen.com/

May 5, 2010

ASPEN, Colorado — If it felt like the snow never stopped in April it wasn’t just your imagination.

Aspen appears to have set a record with 36.35 inches of snow for April, barely eclipsing the old mark of 36 inches in 1970, according to Charlie Bailey, water treatment supervisor with the Aspen Water Department.

http://www.postindependent.com/

Thursday, March 31st, 2011

Aspen Snowfall Records were beaten this week as the best Powder Skiing in the history of Spring Skiing was enjoyed by the Jet-Set New York crowd who flies West each season for their own special blend of “March Madness”. Meanwhile, back in NYC, unwelcome snow was just causing a big mess for those not so fortunate, back on the grind for the 1st day of April…

http://www.blueandcream.com/


Advertisements

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

75 Responses to NPR Says Snow In The Rockies Is Thinning

  1. R. de Haan says:

    These guy’s give old fashioned climate propaganda a bad name.

    • Jimbo says:

      Snowfalll are now just a thing of the past.

      The Arctic will be gone in 2008. Yes, 2008 – the Arctic is no more. Repent ye sinners! 😉

      • Latitude says:

        Well……………..I guess the Arctic slipped out the back door and no one noticed 😉

      • Ill wind blowing says:

        That’s an old lie Jimbo. First, do you know the difference between the North Pole and the Arctic?

        Mark Serreze said there was a possibility that the North Pole could be open that year (not the Arctic).. It was a trivial prediction no different than my saying that it may rain tomorrow and it doesn’t rain.

        Now compare that to the gross and arrogant prediction(s) made in WUWT that the Arctic ice cap was going to recover to 1979 extent levels in a couple of years and thickness in a few!

        Hubris.

      • Me says:

        Ill wind blowing, That has to be the most lame thing you said here yet. talk about being a loser you make a loser look like a winner.

      • Ill Wind Blowing, here’s a “trivial prediction” for you: the world is getting warmer. Whoops, except it’s not. Until someone who can’t do statistics properly says it is, right?

      • Dave N says:

        Ill Wind is right about the distinction between North Pole and Arctic.

        Serreze was wrong about it melting out that summer, but that comes as no surprise. I hope Ill Wind can see the irony in claiming gross and arrogant predictions were made and mentioning “Death Spiral” Serreze in the same comment.

      • Me says:

        That is just symantics, North Pole and the Arctic, when they, the warmist talk about the Arctic being Ice free you know what they are refering to and that includes the North Pole. Remember that Santa will drown ploy by these immoral people playing on children beliefs last Christmas. Yeah they did that. look it up.

      • Scott says:

        Ill wind blowing says:
        June 14, 2011 at 1:18 am

        That’s an old lie Jimbo. First, do you know the difference between the North Pole and the Arctic?

        You’re right to point out the difference between the two. However, I’m guessing that Jimbo knows the difference between the two. If not, I can easily see how he could get confused reading the linked article considering the following quotes from it:

        …but for the first time in human history, ice is on course to disappear entirely from the North Pole this year.

        So how do we define North Pole? 1 sq m? 1 sq km? 1000 sq km? I wouldn’t at all be surprised to find out that the NP was ice free at those sizes multiple times in “human history”…even in the last century. I assume you can figure out the reasons why…very small relative sizes. And given that we don’t have any sort of data on that going back more than a few decades, that leaves that statement as unfalsifiable. Thus, the reader is left with two options – equivocate NP with Arctic or assume that the unfalsifiable is being stated. Neither is a pretty option. Back to the quotes:

        The disappearance of the Arctic sea ice, making it possible to reach the Pole sailing in a boat through open water…

        Yes, technically that quote doesn’t break any rules, but coming right after the first quote, it’s easy to see how people could mistake NP for the whole Arctic. Now let’s get on to the really serious stuff:

        Seasoned polar scientists believe the chances of a totally ice-free North Pole this summer are greater than 50:50 because the normally thick ice formed over many years at the Pole has been blown away and replaced by huge swathes of thinner ice formed over a single year.

        Now compare this to what you claim:

        Mark Serreze said there was a possibility that the North Pole could be open that year (not the Arctic).. It was a trivial prediction no different than my saying that it may rain tomorrow and it doesn’t rain.

        I don’t know what Dr. Serreze exactly said, but the article made it out to be a >50% chance, and not a “trivial prediction”. Given that the article also quotes him saying:

        “…I’d say it’s even-odds whether the North Pole melts out”

        and

        “There is supposed to be ice at the North Pole, not open water”

        Somehow I think your analogy is poor. If it was so trivial and meaningless, why did it get such wide coverage?

        Now compare that to the gross and arrogant prediction(s) made in WUWT that the Arctic ice cap was going to recover to 1979 extent levels in a couple of years and thickness in a few!

        I certainly don’t agree with the WUWT bold statements, but lets also see how close the >50% prediction turned out:

        Um…not so good.

        Hubris.

        Good job summing up your comment.

        -Scott

      • Mike Davis says:

        I do believe the photos of the submarines surfacing at the ice free North pole in the 50s makes those claims lies. Unless history started in 1979 Ill Wind Blowing is still FOS! The least S/HE/IT could do is come up with something harder to contradict.

      • Me says:

        Ya got that right Mikey D, They fail to see what winds does up there, I know I’ve been there and seen it.

      • Me says:

        And you know what it is the same as everywhere else.
        Amazing isn’t it.

    • Jimbo says:

      Ill Wind,
      Sorry about not making the distinction – lat night. 😉
      However, the REAL BIG LIE is that remains:

      2008
      “………….ice is on course to disappear entirely from the North Pole this year.”

      No see this:
      Ice free Arctic ocean during the Holocene – around the last 11,000 years. This is your positive feedback runaway loop? Where is it. Once could call this another BIG LIE which you have proposed on this very website!!!
      http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2010.08.016

    • Jimbo says:

      Ill Wind,

      Tundra where there used to be forests. ;(
      “Late-quaternary vegetation and climate near the arctic tree line of northwestern North America ”
      http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0033-5894(71)90069-X

  2. JC Smith says:

    It’s that darn liberal mainstream media. Can’t trust ’em. By the way, I was doing some “digging around” for scientific articles that show that it is NOT LIKELY that humans are a significant cause of global warming. I thought you would likely be a good source to steer me in the right direction. I have two requests:

    1) List the 3 – 5 (three to five) most important CLIMATE SCIENTISTS that support the notion that mankind is not likely to be a significant contributor to global warming.

    2) List the 5 most important PEER REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC articles that show that mankind is not likely a significant contributor to global warming.

    This information may be good for others that hit on your site as well. Thank you…..

    • Latitude says:

      I only have three favorites so that parts easy…..Spencer, Gray, and the one I find most interesting Abdusamatov.
      I don’t have 5 favorites for the second one……….But Spencer’s papers on clouds sticks out

    • Latitude says:

      Hey, JC
      Did you know Wikipedia has pages on it?

      “List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming”

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

    • Wayne Ward (truthsword) says:

      Since no peer reviewed scientific article/paper states with 100% certainty that mankind is a significant contributor without some kind of CYA caveat, I think any paper that is peer reviewed will fit your bill.

      • JC Smith says:

        The second question was this:
        2) List the 5 most important PEER REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC articles that show that mankind is not likely a significant contributor to global warming.

        Please note the phrase…..”that show that mankind is not likely”. I wasn’t asking for 100%. So if you can point me to a few PEER REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC articles, that would be great. I’m sure there must be hundreds of them, I just assumed this site (and Steven Goddard) would be able to point me to some of the better PEER REVIEWED articles.

        Thanks again….

      • Me says:

        WOW JC you people haven’t proven it is 100% man made, but you want 100% proof that it isn’t. First you have to prove this warming isn’t natural and yet that hasn’t been done, other wise you and your kind wouldn’t still be here debating after your kind said the debate was over. So what is it the debate is over or are you still here to debate it?

      • PhilJourdan says:

        JC – List the null hypothesis.

      • Latitude says:

        JC Smith says:
        June 14, 2011 at 1:56 am
        The second question was this:
        2) List the 5 most important PEER REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC articles that show that mankind is not likely a significant contributor to global warming.
        =================================================================================
        This site says it lists 900+
        Popular Technology.net
        Wednesday, April 13, 2011
        900+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warming (AGW) Alarm
        http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

      • suyts says:

        Lat, lol, I wonder if JC is going to comment on that. Probably not, because he’s already got called out on the null hypothesis.

      • Latitude says:

        JC keeps saying the most important, but that changes day to day, because they change the message day to day….
        …I liked this one a few months ago, when Greenland was melting.

        Greenland melted 50% faster from 1920-1930, when CO2 could not have done it, than it did from 1995-2005 when it was hysterical……………50% faster

        http://www.joelschwartz.com/pdfs/Chylek.pdf

    • That’s called an appeal to authority, and since you haven’t provided enough evidence to show that you could adequately assess any given paper, why should someone be tasked with doing your research for you? Are you just lazy? Or can you honestly pay me for my time?

    • Me says:

      Well that was too bad wasn’t it but your question was answered.

    • Scott says:

      So JC,

      Are you asking for papers confirming the null hypothesis? How familiar are you with the modern peer review system and how science funding operates? It’s very difficult to publish a paper with “negative” results…i.e. – results show no difference from the null hypothesis. That’s why my friend hasn’t been able to graduate yet…tons of experimentation over 6 years, but no “positive” results to publish and thus still stuck in the Ph.D. program.

      -Scott

    • Mike Davis says:

      JC Smith:
      Papers are not needed to “Prove” the Null hypothesis! Research is needed to “Disprove” it. There is no current or recent research that disproves the null Hypothesis of natural conditions being the primary contributor to variations in long term weather events that define “Climate”. No articles proving the null are needed!
      There is a lot of valid research attempting to find the extent of the Natural factors involed but most of the money is being wasted chasing fairy tales related to CO2.

  3. Ill wind blowing says:

    http://www.doi.gov/news/pressreleases/USGS-Study-Finds-Recent-Snowpack-Declines-in-the-Rocky-Mountains-Unusual-Compared-to-Past-Few-Centuries.cfm
    ——————————————————————————–
    USGS Study Finds Recent Snowpack Declines in the Rocky Mountains Unusual Compared to Past Few Centuries
    WASHINGTON – A USGS study released today suggests that snowpack declines in the Rocky Mountains over the last 30 years are unusual compared to the past few centuries. Prior studies by the USGS and other institutions attribute the decline to unusual springtime warming, more precipitation falling now as rain rather than snow and earlier snowmelt.

    The warming and snowpack decline are projected to worsen through the 21st century, foreshadowing a strain on water supplies. Runoff from winter snowpack – layers of snow that accumulate at high altitude – accounts for 60 to 80 percent of the annual water supply for more than 70 million people living in the western United States.

    “This scientific work is critical to understanding how climate change is affecting western water supplies,” Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar said. “It helps land managers adapt to changing conditions on the ground, assists water managers with planning for the future, and gives all of us a better understanding of the real impacts that carbon pollution is having on our resources and our way of life.”

    USGS scientists, with partners at the Universities of Arizona, Washington, Wyoming, and Western Ontario, led the study that evaluated the recent declines using snowpack reconstructions from 66 tree-ring chronologies, looking back 500 to more than 1,000 years. The network of sites was chosen strategically to characterize the range of natural snowpack variability over the long term, and from north to south in the Rocky Mountains.

    With a few exceptions (the mid-14th and early 15th centuries), the snowpack reconstructions show that the northern Rocky Mountains experience large snowpacks when the southern Rockies experience meager ones, and vice versa. Since the 1980s, however, there were simultaneous declines along the entire length of the Rocky Mountains, and unusually severe declines in the north.

    • P.J. says:

      “snowpack declines in the Rocky Mountains over the last 30 years are unusual compared to the past few centuries”

      Hmmm … let me guess when the tree rings end and when actual measurements of snowpack begin. You put too much faith in tree rings … they can tell you almost anything, thereby giving meaningless conclusions … kind of like this:

      For those of you who watch what you eat… here’s the final word on
      nutrition and health, and it’s a relief to know the truth after all those
      conflicting medical studies

      1. The Japanese e at very little fat and suffer fewer heart attacks than
      the Canadians, British or Americans.

      2. The Mexicans eat a lot of fat and also suffer fewer heart attacks than
      the Canadians, British or Americans.

      3. The Japanese drink very little red wine and suffer fewer heart attacks
      than the Canadians, British or Americans.

      4. The Italians drink excessive amounts of red wine and also suffer fewer
      heart attacks than the Canadians, British or Americans.

      5. The Germa ns drink a lot of beer and eat lots of sausages and fats and
      suffer fewer heart attacks than the Canadians, British or Americans.

      6. Ukrainians drink a lot of vodka, eat a lot of porogies, cabbage rolls,
      and sausage, and suffer fewer heart attacks than the Canadians, British
      or Americans.

      CONCLUSION: Eat and drink what you like. Speaking English is apparently
      what kills you.

    • PhilJourdan says:

      Ill wind blowing says:
      June 14, 2011 at 1:38 am

      Yo Ill, got to ask the question, but do you know what happened a few centuries ago? Ever thought that perhaps a LIA would have more snow than the warm up afterwards? Do you ever think for yourself?

  4. BarryW says:

    Larch tree rings?!

    The Larch

  5. sunsettommy says:

    ill windblowing,

    you sure have a poor memory.

    “I stand by my previous statements that the Arctic summer sea ice cover is in a death spiral. It’s not going to recover,”
    Who said that?

    http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2010/09/22/206771/nsidc-serreze-arctic-sea-ice-volume-record-low-death-spiral/

    LOL

    • Ill wind blowing says:

      @ sunsettommy
      June 14, 2011 at 1:44 am

      LOL what? You said that I have a poor memory but it’s actually your ability to focus and make distinctions between one type of argument and another that you are poor at. You are not even tuned in to the right issue/subject. I was talking about Serreze saying that the North Pole may be navigable in 2008.

      On the other hand you are talking about the Arctic death spiral which is a radically different issue. It doesn’t refer to the navigability of the North Pole but the ice free state of virtually the entire Arctic Ocean.

      Again, does anyone here know the difference between the North Pole and the Arctic?

      As far as the death spiral, is concerned, face it, it’s real. The official prediction is that the Arctic Ocean will be ice free, in the summer, for a few days initially (then weeks and months following years) from 2020-2030.

      Not only do I agree, but the situation seems to be worse than originally thought. I’m personally predicting 2018-2022.

      How short will your memory be then?

      • P.J. says:

        “I’m personally predicting 2018-2022.”

        I’m personally predicting it won’t be … so there.

      • P.J. says:

        P.S.: Warmists like you have no context of history. Everything that is happening now is unprecedented in your minds. Read this and then take an advil … you will be right as rain in the morning:

        Arctic Meltdown?
        Tuesday, December 14th, 2010
        Source: The Washington Post

        The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulafft, at Bergen, Norway. Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes.
        Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm. Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.

        Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.
        Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coastal cities uninhabitable.
        ____________________________________________________

        Oops! Never mind. This report was from November 2, 1922, as reported by the Associated Press and published in the Washington Post – 88 years ago!

      • Me says:

        Yep, just like all it’s other statements and then back tracks. Would you expect anything less?

      • Ill wind blowing says:

        PJ; you quoted from the Washington Post. Could you make your next quote from the Heartland Institute.

        It would help if you had a primary source and, more importantly, careful measurements and not anecdotes.

      • P.J. says:

        “careful measurements and not anecdotes”

        So what careful measurements would you like from the Arctic in 1922? Tree rings? Corals? Or a whole host of other things that don’t grow in the Arctic? Be realistic!

      • P.J. says:

        Do you mean the same Washington Post that printed this nonsense?:

        http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/07/AR2010100705484.html

    • Me says:

      Can you say Cool Whip Cowboy here,

  6. sunsettommy says:

    …led the study that evaluated the recent declines using snowpack reconstructions from 66 tree-ring chronologies, looking back 500 to more than 1,000 years.

    Not a very convincing proxy to hang onto.

  7. Ill wind blowing says:

    Hmmm … let me guess when the tree rings end and when actual measurements of snowpack begin. You put too much faith in tree rings …”

    It’s funny you should say that because one poster here referred to a temperature chart of the last 2000 years based on tree rings. Just ask yourself when the Medieval Warming issue comes up; what is the temperature chart I use based on?

  8. Ill wind blowing says:

    P.J. says:
    June 14, 2011 at 2:57 am

    “I’m personally predicting 2018-2022.”

    “I’m personally predicting it won’t be … so there.”

    Joseph Romm is taking bets on that issue. Care to play? It seems that skeptics don’t like to put their money where their mouth is. :-p

    • P.J. says:

      How much are you willing to bet?

      • Ill wind blowing says:

        $1,000

        And you PJ?

      • P.J. says:

        All of my debt (first digit starts with a 3). If you are right, you can pay it all off.

      • Me says:

        Don’t fall for that, that is just bullshit anyway, even if you were to bet on it. I have seen that before too, so Ill wind blowing sounds like the same person that owes Adam on a bet still? because it certanly sounds like it.

      • Ill wind blowing says:

        Me says:

        “. . . so Ill wind blowing sounds like the same person that owes Adam on a bet still? because it certanly sounds like it.

        No Me, the guy who owes Adam on a bet is not me. 😉

        As for the bet, I’m not usually a betting man but I’m willing to go for this one with some hesitation. The hesitation is not uncertainty about my prediction but whether money will retain its value 10 years from now.

        I would go through Joe Romm for my bet and that’s what I was thinking of when I challenged PJ. I hope money is worth something when it’s time to collect.

      • Me says:

        Yeah so you say CWC, err I mean IWB.

    • Scott says:

      IWB,

      Are you Rob from the comments at WUWT? He really liked the phrasing “money where their mouth is” (which I think should be “mouths are”), and used it multiple times in this thread wrt the sea ice:

      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/19/sea-ice-news-call-for-arctic-sea-ice-forecasts-plus-forecast-poll/#comment-666154

      -Scott

    • Scott says:

      Just as a clarification (and nothing at all to do with any betting), I’m curious – is your ~2020 date for the first year of seasonally free ice in the Arctic that continue unabated or the very first year it happens even if it doesn’t happen again after that for another 10 years? There is a distinct difference between the two IMO. As a person that believes we could see a nearly ice-free Arctic in our lifetimes (though I don’t think that GHG warming is the dominating factor), I’m curious to know what people think.

      -Scott

      • Me says:

        Try CWC as I have heard him called.

      • Ill wind blowing says:

        Good question Scott. I have given it some thought in the past.

        If things are as extreme as CAGWs say it is there could still be a temporary regression if unusual circumstances happen. That is why Joe Romm made the provision that if two Mt. Pinatubo events where to occur in his specified time period the bet would be canceled.

        As for me, I would tweak my prognosis slightly to the following:

        First Ice free summer in the Arctic will occur for a few days initially (then subsequently increasing to weeks and eventually months) between 2018-2022 with the following exceptions and predicted delays:
        1. Two major volcanic explosions equivalent to one or two Mt. Pinatubos. Such an event(s) would delay the parameters to 2025-2029 (assuming two volcanic explosions).
        2. A major La Nina concurrent with the equivalent of one Mt. Pinatubo would delay the date to 2022-2026.
        3. A powerful La Nina concurrent in time with a 2nd volcanic disruption (Both equivalent to Mt. Pinatubo) would further delay the date to 2025-2030.
        4. If the Arctic becomes ice free within the specified time periods, allowance will be made for three years of regrowth (Based on a specified ice area)-undetermined at this time), within the first decade, following the first ice free event (consecutive or separate)..This would be due to any combination of factors (La Ninas; one allowed volcanic disruption within the specified decade; etc.
        5. Exception shall also be made for an area of ice over shallow waters north of Alaska, Canada and Greenland. This is due to the fact that shallow waters, over the continental shelf are colder than the rest of the Arctic therefore lasting longer.

        Also, a complication may arise with other AGWs, not necessarily me, as to the definition of “ice free”. This would be a technicality based on current definitions of the boundaries of the ice cap being defined as 15% concentration. I personally would prefer a specification based on ice area. On the other hand I prefer things to be as simple as possible.

      • suyts says:

        IWB, I think you’re putting too much emphasis on La Nina/El Nino. I don’t consider them major players in ice extent. We can go back through this decade and see the correlations and not so much correlation.
        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:2001/scale:20/plot/nsidc-seaice-n/from:2001

        As you can see, with the El Ninos of 2002, 2007 and 2010 we saw a decrease of the minimum ice extent. But look at the max ice of those years! We saw either an increase or basically no change! Also, if we look at the La Nina years, 2004 and 2008, we don’t see much of any relationship. La Nina 2004, saw almost no change in either min nor max. 2009 ice extent(minimum) did go up some, but the 2008 La Nina was over(or very weak) by then.

        The PDO,(I’m speaking specifically of the oscillation in the NW pacific…(PDO means different things to different people) which I consider a player in the La Nina/Nino events(though it isn’t straight forward) also contributes to ice movement through the Bering strait. But the AO and AMO are the ones to watch, IMHO. What I’d like to see, is wind currents….but that would be investing too much of my time in something I only have a peripheral interest in.

        This is interesting though. There appears to be about a 6month lag from the end of an El Nino to manifest itself in the ice min…………..but that’s silly. I used GISS because Hansen likes to exaggerate the temp spikes, making it easier to discern the El Nino years……

      • Me says:

        Yeah as for you should tweak allot of things. And it will be nice to know you will be eating crow too with the rest of them when that time comes and goes. But then again you will claim you never said that and go by some other name and claim not to know who the other person was and continue on and on and on and on and on…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Pathetic.

  9. Andy WeissDC says:

    Ill Wind on June 8th stated that the Arctic will become ice free except for a “small band” north of Alaska, Canada and Greenland. What do you consider a “small band”? Slightly less than the entire Arctic Ocean?

    Before entering into a wager or any other type of agreement with Ill Wind, it is strongly suggested that you have your attorney study all the fine print with a strong magnifying glass.

    • Ill wind blowing says:

      Andy WeissDC:

      “Ill Wind on June 8th stated that the Arctic will become ice free except for a “small band” north of Alaska, Canada and Greenland. What do you consider a “small band”? Slightly less than the entire Arctic Ocean?”

      Andy, in my response above-subject to revision to simplify the complexities and possible time delays, if used in betting-I stated:

      “5. Exception shall also be made for an area of ice over shallow waters north of Alaska, Canada and Greenland. This is due to the fact that shallow waters, over the continental shelf are colder than the rest of the Arctic therefore lasting longer.”

      In my opinion this band would be mostly over the continental shelf. If used for betting purposes I would clarify, in my final draft, the extent of this band. It would probably be based on ice area which would be a bitch for me to calculate, but would be the most fair way of setting parameters for betting purposes”

      I would keep my simple prediction, for non betting purposes. In fact, as I’ve previously stated, I would prefer to go to Joe Romm for placing bets. It would minimize the headaches.

      • suyts says:

        IWB, you’d probably have better luck if you used someone else. In case you haven’t noticed, there is a large trust issue of the people of this site with Joe Romm.

  10. Ill wind blowing says:

    PJ:

    Concerning the chart; I did not bookmark the posters comments. I tried to search for it but I’ve been caught up bouncing between 2 blogs.

    The important thing to keep in mind, is that temp charts for the Medieval Warm period would be used by skeptics and AGWs. It makes good sense to assume that skeptics have brought up those charts on many occasions.

  11. Mike Davis says:

    Betting with IWB would be like betting with any other Chicken Little because they claim that ALL conditions prove they were right. Ice concentration in the Arctic region is dependent on wind conditions and currents rather than temperature. Cloud concentration has more to do with ice in that area than thermometer readings.

    • P.J. says:

      I won’t bet because (1) I have no $ to be anyway and I refuse to pledge money I don’t have (that is what Western governments do) and (2) like most people on this site, I simply don’t trust Joe Romm.

  12. rw says:

    I don’t know what the present status of the argument is, but it may be worth noting that H.H. Lamb mentions somewhere in his 1995 book that there was growing agreement that mountain glaciers had formed sometime during the present interglacial period. I don’t think I have to spell out the implications for claims of “unprecedented” melting in the Rockies or elsewhere.

    Also, didn’t we go through something like this just recently with the Himalayas? And didn’t that turn out to be a bit of an exaggeration? Remembering these past examples (which never seem to be remembered on the warmist side), it’s hard to avoid the impression that CAGW’ers are simply repeating certain claims at every opportunity in order to maintain the idea of relentless warming.

  13. Latitude says:

    You guys better watch what you’re betting on……..

    BREAKING – major AAS solar announcement: Sun’s Fading Spots Signal Big Drop in Solar Activity
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/14/the-major-aas-solar-announcement-suns-fading-spots-signal-big-drop-in-solar-activity/#more-41648

    • P.J. says:

      Combine that with a lag time as the oceans release stored up heat, and this could be a very chilly century, more so the second half.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s