Slashdot Mirror

Nuclear energy is a requirement of renewables because renewables are high risk with regard to extreme events,

The Fukushima Nuclear power plant was overwhelmed by an extreme natural event due to criminal negligence of the TEPCO board. We have seen that Nuclear power cannot be operated in very hot environments in France's heatwaves, floods for example and in the US. Pleanty of examples with a quick web search.

Nuclear energy is a requirement of renewables because renewables are high risk with regard to extreme events,

The Fukushima Nuclear power plant was overwhelmed by an extreme natural event due to criminal negligence of the TEPCO board. We have seen that Nuclear power cannot be operated in very hot environments in France's heatwaves, floods for example and in the US. Pleanty of examples with a quick web search.

I've seen some pretty impressive shameless exaggeration and exploitation of weather events for ratings over the years, mind you. But the Weather Channel has really stepped it up a notch here in a graphics department. Kudos to them!

Fear mongering? How so? Mandatory evacuation orders are not a joke. Even a three foot storm surge is not a joke.

Ten feet of water, 150 plus people in New Bern that did not head the MANDATORY evacuation warning. That is a foot higher than the example they showed in the animation.

https://weather.com/storms/hur...
http://www.newbernnc.gov/news_...

Maybe if people see what a storm surge could actually do with animations like this, less people would ignore the evacuation orders.
Mayor of New Bern interview - 10.5 foot storm surge.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/583...

Actually, idiot... California has all but ceased controlled burn operations.

They have wrapped them up in so many 'air quality' regulations, 'water resource limitation' requirements and 'environmental impact evaluation' red tape that they are almost impossible.

The person calling someone an idiot is a shameless outright liar with a political agenda, big surprise. (No, California doesn't have a shortage of firefighting water like you read on twitter either.)

I see the controlled burn notices and the plumes of smoke every spring, and they've been increasing in frequency in recent years as the fire danger has grown. Here's a source from 9 months ago noting that California's controlled burns have doubled in the past 3 years and is now 31 square miles of controlled burns a year: https://weather.com/en-CA/cana...

This is a known problem in the States too. NYC, in particular, sends over half of its "recyclables" to landfill anyway. But, not to worry, they still fine people for failing to sort their trash — whether it helps environment or not, whatever increases the government's power over the subjects is a good thing, is not it?

That's cherry picking the region, since NOAA says Antarctica is gaining ice mass overall. You're looking at a tiny area of the continent, and worrying about it. Furthermore, Western Antarctica is also the site of a lot of geothermal activity which could very well be why it is losing ice. But the continent, as a whole, is gaining.

It is, disproportionally in the Arctic. So there is less sea ice there and the difference between the Arctic air and the more southerly air is less pronounced than usual. A larger differential in air temperatures drives stronger Polar Vortex winds. The Polar Vortex is a circular wind pattern that is strong enough to trap the cold air, keeping it in the Arctic where it belongs. When the Polar Vortex weakens, that cold is able to leak out and freeze the middle latitudes.

The key to note though is that the overall global average temperatures are rising, due to the extreme warming at the poles. Occasional colder than normal weather in more temperate areas are nowhere near enough to put a damper on the rising global average.

Other Polar Vortex related cold spells occurred in January 2014 and February 2015.

Links:
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/what-is-this-polar-vortex-that-is-freezing-the-u-s/

https://science.howstuffworks.com/nature/climate-weather/atmospheric/polar-vortex1.htm

http://science.time.com/2014/01/06/climate-change-driving-cold-weather/

https://www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/polar-vortex-explainer/63115

https://weather.com/science/weather-explainers/news/polar-vortex-april-2016-cold-outbreak-east

https://phys.org/news/2014-01-weakened-polar-vortex-blamed-american.html

On the offchance that you're for real and not just a troll, I'll type this slowly to give you a chance to understand:

7 billion people have positioned themselves on the globe, to take advantage of the resources - particularly food, water, building materials and land - where they are now.

If climate change causes those resources to move, a substantial number of those people are going to need to move, too.

What do you think is going to happen when 10 million Bangladeshis up sticks and try to migrate inland from where they are? The world might be able to absorb that many refugees, but it would certainly lead to a crisis - a similar influx from Syria has already shown that in Europe (even though only a fraction of that number ever set foot in Europe). Now consider that *at the same time*, the world will also be trying to resettle 50 million Chinese, 23 million Vietnamese, 12 million Japanese, 12 million Indians, 10 million Indonesians, 8 million Thais - and that's just in Asia. There'll be another 12-plus million in Europe, millions in North America... every continent will face the same crisis, at - approximately, give or take a decade or so - the same time. (Source.)

You are clearly ignorant about the facts of Sandy. These articles would be a start toward a better understanding.

You seem to be asserting that an irregular temperature spike is happening right now, against the shorter-term factors I linked to earlier and the fact that we should be entering an ice age. Those spikes aren't happening at regular intervals, the interval between them has almost tripled over the last million years, as the article I linked to points out. You're expecting the next one to arrive at the same interval as the last one did, when you should instead expect it to arrive later. This would mean we should be in a cooling period which brings us back in line with the best scientific evidence.

You better think a little more and do some research. Sections of the world are not isolated. They affect each other.

https://weather.com/news/news/...

Read page 2 - Atlantic Hurricane Season Impact?

The conclusion there is that historically we see a drop in number of hurricanes in the atlantic during an el nino. Yes, that's counter to what some posters above suggested, but I'm just pointing out the error in your suggestion that what goes on in one ocean doesn't affect the other oceans.

'ER', excuse me but no record cold snaps

Ahh, typical revisionist liberal ignores history. And that was just last year alone...

Don't you get tired of lying and lying to try and protect your death cult? I can only imagine imagine the horror it wreaks on your psychology after a while. You must be fifty shades of fucked up by now, which I guess we can all see from your response...

*shakes head*

I'll let you have the last response, I don't think at this point you can even see reality any more, not even with "cold" hard proof in front of you... just sad to see a life wasted like that.

Can someone link to a Breitbart article that's actually fake news?

Here you go: http://www.breitbart.com/londo...

The weather channel was displeased: https://weather.com/news/news/...

This isn't about pollution. It's about the level of CO2 in the atmosphere - which is the primary acceleration factor for global warming.

The key point is this: human beings are dumping additional CO2 into the atmosphere above and beyond that produced naturally by the environment. This has to have an impact, and reduction of human contributions also has to lower or slow the rate of impact.

You can't escape the laws of physics. We have been accelerating the factor of greenhouse warming since the dawn of the industrial era, and therefore decreasing the time we have available to deal with the effects that are already impacting us. We can argue all day about the primary cause of the warming - increased output of the sun, etc...but you can't argue that what we are doing has no effect.

Some examples of related impacts that are accelerating and affecting human populations today:

The number of severe weather events has increased significantly and steadily year over year since the 1950s.

Sea level rise is real, and related subsidence of coastal areas is also real (e.g. Miami Florida, and Norfolk Virginia sea level impacts). Indications are this increase in speed of sea level rise is related to the thinning and breakup of the floating ice in Antarctica that serves to slow the march of land based glaciers into the Southern Ocean. Glaciers there are recorded as dropping 4 meters per year. And, Larsen B is getting ready to break off and form the largest iceberg in recorded history sometime very soon (June/July). A similar speedup of glacial movement and subsidence is also being measured in Greenland as well as other ice sheets around the world.

Water sheds are being impacted all over the world due to loss of glaciers, both in terms of availability of water in the event of drought, and in terms of record levels of melt water flooding - most recently seen in the Oroville California dam overflow and resultant damage to the aging infrastructure, and flooding this year in Peru.

Crops are already being impacted by heat and drought conditions, and some Northern areas are starting to consider using seeds normally reserved for more Southerly climates, while those in the South are looking into modifications to make their plants more hardy in drought stressed conditions.

Permafrost is not only melting more frequently and in larger areas across the world, but is also causing ground subsidence - with massive evidence of this in Siberia.

By doing nothing - we accept that the major human population centers will be faced with existential problems sooner rather than later.

The Farady cage effect is real. The difficulty I'd be concerned is relatively low impedance paths through electrically sensitive equipment, especially equipment that may be grounded. The steel and aluminum components of a car body, for example, are quite conductive. But many modern cars have extensive plastic or fiberglass components in the body itself: cars are not as

There's a fairly good analysis of the effects and the risks at https://weather.com/storms/tor.... The guideliines mentioned there include "park safely" and "keep your hands away from metal parts of your car".

Do they need to disclose this? It is a private company. Sure the information is really important sometimes, but it's still a private service.

National Weather Service - their website weather.gov

The Weather Channel - their website weather.com

Please learn the difference and which one the article is about.

We have glacier overlooks that were built in the latter half of the 20th Century, where the glaciers are no longer visible, having retreated over the horizon. The glacier nearest my house lost 20 cubic miles of ice in ten years. I have a difficult time imagining 20 cubic miles of ice, but it seems that both of us are left without an alternative. Across the state we've lost 75 billion tons of ice per year for the last thirty years. Winter temperature anomalies regularly exceed 10 degrees C, pretty much every year now. An average 10 degree C temperature change during the winter is a very different climatic zone, especially in Southcentral Alaska (Prince William Sound) where the temperatures would typically stay close to freezing for most of the winter. Some exceptional weather patterns in recent years (including this one) have seen temperature anomalies reaching 20 degrees C. Glaciers that survived the last Ice Age and the Holocene Optimum are gone. Fairbanks has doubled its frost-free days per year since 1900. The ice loss is primarily in the tidewater and lower alpine glaciers, in other words, the most visible and accessible glaciers. And do I really need to mention the ice caps? Alaska is, very obviously, melting like gangbusters. The temperature anomaly is mind-blowing. Also, generally speaking I believe the effects on the various forests in the state has not been good, with aggravated issues of spruce beetles and wildfires. And since it seems to be only a matter of time, we are also going to see widespread melting of permafrost, which is going to be Very Bad in many, many ways. Will that do to start?

Ahh, so a nebulous expenditure that is hard to quantify, hard to categorize, and impossible to rationalize. We're not "taxing them enough" is your answer? Should we also include the costs of wind power in terms of its affect on the local climate and temperature? Or the change to the climate that comes from solar farms?

It's a bit of a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't. You can show people changes of glaciers in Alaska, which are certainly spectacular, but people don't identify with Alaska -- no one cares. We go straight from "It's not happening near me, so it's not happening" to "It's not happening anywhere that I care about."

The process is inherently political because the IPCC's agenda is not scientific, it is political and globalist

That's all well and good, but the establishing science for AGW was done (necessarily) before the IPCC was founded, and whether they are or not political is really irrelevant to the correctness of the science. The person who is secure in their belief that their views represent objective reality does not need to ascribe political motivations to contrary evidence.

You did not give any links to the UAH data. I linked the wikipedia page, which said that the controversy had been resolved, and asked if you had any more recent studies-- or any sort of rational reason for believing -- that this was not true. To which you have yet to make a reply.

Of you could request the data sets from the source projects. If you are competent you will have no problem doing this

Of course I am not competent to be able to analyze the raw data. I have zero idea about how that instrumentation operates. Which is why I rely on expert opinion. But if you don't have a paper to show, I'm willing to grasp at straws. If you are clever enough to do such things, walk me through it, or maybe you have a blog post that describes how someone else was able to analyze it.

Then we will have established one out the dozens of claims that you have presented. You know, I'm happy to provide citations for things that I am sure about. The worst case is that I learn something new. I'd be happy to go through the entire basis for your belief, point by point, observation by observation. I'd be happy because I don't have to worry about whether or not my position is correct. Of all the things to be wrong about, I would be delighted to wrong about AGW. It's very clear that at this point we would need new physics for that, since the H2O-CO2 feedback is easily demonstrable in the lab, and no one has yet found a sufficiently strong negative feedback, but I certainly have many personal reasons for wishing otherwise. The observations of the radiative behavior of CO2 in the upper atmosphere and in the lab are inarguable. Either there is something wrong with our understanding of CO2, something wrong with our understanding of how radiation and heat behave in various atmospheres, or wrong about the composition of the atmosphere, or there exists some strong negative feedback that we're unaware of. You're not arguing any of that, you're arguing about some models and short-term temperature predictions. Why? Because your reasoning does not take into account any of the actual evidence for the theory. Plus, if you do have a physics background, you'll know that all of that stuff has some pretty solid evidence behind it. And the Arctic is very much melting like butter on a hot pan, so I'm not sure what your explanation is for that. Nothing to worry about? Oh hey, look at that. I guess now my hometown is on the wikipedia page for glacial ice loss.

Now, you were saying something about divergent predictions? Oh, right, you were going to provide some sort of evidence for your claims. I'm all ears.

You do know there decades of scientific fact about actual rising seas, right?
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/

Or that 2 quadrillion pounds of ice melted off Greenland alone in 4 years, right? A quadrillion is a thousand trillion.
https://weather.com/news/clima...

Like to the point that municipalities have to deal with that actuality coming soon:
http://www.miamidade.gov/plann...

Or, you're yet another Troll. I'll go with that.

Yep there's ocean drive (hint it's named ocean drive because it's next to the ocean) flooding. Damn it looks like Atlantis.

So, you're saying that the live webcams set up by the Miami Beach Department of Tourism doesn't show any flooding? Well, I must have gotten some bad information about the flooding in Miami Beach then. I guess the photos on weather.com and the Miami Herald were just photoshopped.

https://weather.com/science/en...

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09...

http://www.miamiherald.com/art...

A lot of the raw data to monitor climate change is space-based data. We now know where the energy goes into weather and seas, and we can see forest and agricultural usage only from space. This will give us the tools we need to enforce climate change.
Beautiful photos and videos from the cameras on the Space Station, and human damage seen from there will have a massive impact on people's passion to see this earth fixed and cared for.
go and spend a while looking at https://www.nasa.gov/topics/ea...
https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/1238...
http://www.nasa.gov/feature/go...
https://weather.com/tv/shows/t...
Space Science is going to help us understand how El Nino and El Nina work - and that is critical for the lives of millions of Americans.
Yes, porkbarreling by Senators for useless space projects needs to stop. That is why NASA is supporting SpaceX, etc and focusing themselves on deep space missions like Pluto and Juno.
Anyone living on the Moon or Mars will be living underground. Humanity will move to the stars - we will solve these problems.
Look at the Space Budget, and the War Budget and see where money is really being wasted. Fix the health bureaucracy in America if you want to see money not being wasted.

...is xhtml.weather.com. A long time ago I had a 30MB data plan and this was one of a few websites that continued to work after running out of data and getting paywalled, although most of the graphical assets were stored on a different domain and thus didn't load post-data bucket depletion. m.us.yahoo.com also used to work, but that was plugged in 2014.

TCP port 53 used to also be wide open, but from what I gathered on various forums, that was patched during the last major VoLTE outage. Two other users commented elsewhere on this story that this port (and it's UDP counterpart) as apparently still open on Verizon Wireless. However, I'm unable to confirm this paragraph.

So please tell us what happened to the 2 quadrillion pounds of ice that melted from JUST Greenland in JUST 3 years.

https://weather.com/news/clima...

Thank you sincerely, you self-righteous, petty dipshit.

In point of fact, I have a great deal of respect for Musk, Tesla Motors and the designs they have created. I mean, hell, they are badass vehicles. I double that respect for the reason that Musk has made many (all?) of his patents freely available for the open market in hopes that his designs can be used by both established manufacturers and entrepreneurs. And then his passion for space exploration puts the icing on the cake.

But we weren't talking specifically about Musk, were we.

No, we were talking about one fucking moron who made a blanket statement that "electricity is renewable". To a degree, yes, it is, provided the SOURCE of the electricity is. It's not when the source is a coal plant, and it cracks me up to no end when coworkers sit there and pat themselves on the back for how responsible they are for driving their fully electric (non-Musk) shitbox and I know it is being fueled every day by the coal plant that powers our region.

Electricity is renewable when it's solar, wind or hydro. But even then there's an environmental cost. Something has to store that power. And batteries are notoriously nasty contraptions. They are getting better. They are getting more and more recyclable. They are getting safer. But no intellectually honest person would ever claim they are "free". To do so shows bias, ignorance and stupidity.

And why is it that zealots of the church of environmentalism (do not mistake that for actual environmentalists) can tell me every damn second of every day that a naturally occuring gas in the atmosphere that plants must have and thrive on when the concentration rises is causing the planet's weather to dramatically change, but somehow absorbing the energy from the sun before it hit's the planet's surface, taking the energy from the planet's running water, and taking the energy from the wind that moves our weather around won't also have a marked impact on the planet's weather patterns as they are put into greater and greater use? Are there any studies deeply investigating that?

https://weather.com/science/en...

Oops.
I guess they are.
And I guess it does.

Read as; Not Free. There is an environmental cost in manufacturing, and directly in application.

I know its convenient to throw "Renewable" around like a fucking hand grenade and hope that people will just scatter rather than actually engage you. But eventually people like you are going to have to stop the Gregorian Earth chant long enough to actually discuss your bullshit.
,,,

97% of all climate scientists receive politically motivated funding and drink the same cool-aid. That said, in my spot on the planet we receive the gift of temperature inversion every winter. This traps the air blown in from China in my valley and everyone gets upper respiratory problems. I don't have a problem with people releasing as much CO2 as they want (plants love it! Green houses are good for plants), but particulates ... well please keep it down India, China, LA, factory down the highway.

I think you're better off arguing about Arctic ice extent, how e.g. Fairbanks, AK has had a 50% increase in frost-free days over the last century, the rapid loss of glacial ice all over the globe (but again, especially in the Arctic). Villages thousands of years old are having to relocate, and the observed warming is double the global rate.

The glaciers melting is particularly visible, since the loss has been greatest in the tidewater and lower alpine glaciers, i.e. the most accessible ones. There was a guy going around to places where pictures had been taken in the early/mid 20th century and taking the exact same photo of the landscape. It's like an entirely different place. Winter temperature averages have risen 6 degrees F, and this winter was 10 degrees warmer.

tl;dr If you want visible evidence of climate change, look to the North.

Really? Got any citations to back that claim up? The NOAA doesn't agree with your assessment.... https://weather.com/news/clima... I would also like to point out that the 1998 El Nino peaked in summer, so comparing the two isn't very relevant.

Hey, I'd check your point history but since you are a little bitch that post as an anonymous coward I can't.

  Thanks again for proving your level of stupidity. It's real simple. When TIDES are HIGH, if MORE WATER is ADDED to the system, IT'S GOING TO FLOOD till the TIDE rescinds. When you have an island nation that all rose out of the ocean, things like that happen. I posted a link to a Nat Geo article say pretty much what I said. So you know more about it then the National Geographic reporter that studied it with scientists? I think I'll stick to those that are actually respected in the field and not a label-er who feels the need to resort to casting his homophobic fears on to others because his debate isn't really there.

Hey! Here is a link that says exactly what I said, go fucking figure? So where is all your links at? I guess they are "anonymous"!

If by "pretty much" you mean "exactly the opposite, sure. Otherwise, rage much? Your "link" talks about coastal flooding due to storm surge from a hurricane. As in the hurricane's winds are driving waves up onto the coast:
"The coastal flooding is occurring despite Hurricane Joaquin tracking well away from the East Coast.

Where these winds are blowing onshore, they're piling ocean water into the coastline, resulting in coastal flooding. Those same winds are also whipping up high surf on top of the high water, causing waves to break on sections of beach not typically affected by waves or tides during quiet weather."

COASTAL FLOODING has little to do with your '160" ' of rain red herring above, so you disproved your own non-point. But that's probably just because science is used by godless heathens as a tool of the great serpent to waylay the true believers - good Christians like you who can do no evil, admit no mistake and watch no major news other than Fox. Good Christian Republicans, none of whom voted for Bush Jr. to hear them tell it in 2011. Rage on nutter ned, rage on...

Back on topic, the Marshall islands are being flooded due to rising sea levels. No recorded amount of rain can cause an inundation of a tiny sandbar strip of land like that - it's simply too narrow with no bottlenecks to the ocean to backup and flood. I've been on sand bars and islands like that - there's simply no place that's more than a couple hundred yards from the sea, much less the miles it would take (absent a dam wall) to trap a high volume of water.

In short, you are wrong and you are dumb. Let's see if you are obstinate and refuse to admit you are wrong, perhaps with a dash of moving the goalposts to redefine what you said into something less demonstrably wrong - that's a classic Trump voter tactic for the advanced class once "Nuh UNH!" is mastered.

If, like Fonzie, you can't admit you are ruh ruh ruh wrong, just don't reply - that's concession enough.

Hey, I'd check your point history but since you are a little bitch that post as an anonymous coward I can't.


Thanks again for proving your level of stupidity. It's real simple. When TIDES are HIGH, if MORE WATER is ADDED to the system, IT'S GOING TO FLOOD till the TIDE rescinds. When you have an island nation that all rose out of the ocean, things like that happen. I posted a link to a Nat Geo article say pretty much what I said. So you know more about it then the National Geographic reporter that studied it with scientists? I think I'll stick to those that are actually respected in the field and not a label-er who feels the need to resort to casting his homophobic fears on to others because his debate isn't really there.


Hey! Here is a link that says exactly what I said, go fucking figure? So where is all your links at? I guess they are "anonymous"!

Fine, then how about NOAA, NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and Japan's Meteorological Agency agreeing Jan-Mar 2015 to be the hottest Jan-Mar on record, globally of course. Abnormal high temperatures in Europe, Asia, Western Canada, Alaska, and the Western US, while abnormal cold temperatures hit central and eastern US and Canada.

Here are your sources, ignorant.

It's because the Arctic is warming faster than the rest of the globe. This makes the jet stream wavier, and that causes localized cold weather:

http://www.weather.com/science...

The reason for the extra Arctic warming has several reasons. One being that the air is dry, which means that increasing CO2 blocks a larger portion of IR. Secondly, the reduced sea ice area exposes more dark water to the sun.

According to that map, the UK was 1-2 degrees warmer than normal, and much of northern Europe was 2-4 degrees warmer than normal. Yet, news reports state the UK's summer was one of the coldest in decades, 5-6 degrees C colder than normal, the end of 2014 was also exceptionally cold, and while Feb 2014 was slightly above average, during the 2004 to 2014 period, it was only 0.4 degrees higher than the 1860's average for the period from 2005 to 2014, which at 5.2 degrees is also the exact same as the February average for 2014 only.
How does a slight, less than one degree warming over 150 years for one month counteract the 5-6 degree colder summer and "bitterly cold" end of the year?

I stand by my assertion that something is seriously wrong with how we measure average global temperatures.

If it's been identified one time, it's likely been happening on a larger scale but as yet undetected. It's becoming very easy to be either paranoid or self censoring. I don't have anything to hide, but being sliced/diced/dissected/analyzed by the big data cloud does get a little bit old. It's easy to see the results of this overreaching data collection, just research a medical condition (especially one that has a name brand pharmaceutical treatment), research a popular consumer appliance, research a new vehicle, etc... then pay attention to the advertisements that appear on websites over the next couple days... do you notice anything... like ads for what you researched?

I occasionally poison my search results by just doing random searches. I pick a person/place/thing that I have no real interest in, and watch the ad world turn. It must really throw off the "kevin by the beach" bucket when I search for Vespa parts, the latest gay romance novel, women named ISIS, and the 10 day weather for geopolitical sites of interest. http://www.weather.com/weather...

It's is a scientific paper about a change to ocean circulation 2.7 million years ago. It doesn't affect your tax dollars.

I was going to say, scientific papers are a dime a dozen, but, unfortunately, they are a lot more expensive.

Since "climate scientists" produce nothing tangibly useful, no private interest would hire them — they are all in government's employ. We, the taxpayers, fund it, but we don't get to decide, whether we want the practice to continue.

And these folk realize — even if just instinctively — that for them to remain employed, they need bigger government. Consequently, any and all measures proposed to fight the climate will lead to the further expansion of government.

As for how these "scientists" actually help, here is one funny tidbit for you... Ten years ago it was in-vogue to predict nor just the sea-water rising by an inch, but also increased hurricane activity. Why, this very site featured a "scientific article" about the matter with "insightful" posts like yours under it. It was all very scientific and convincing — but real life demonstrated the exact opposite to the prediction.

In real science, a theory gets discarded, when its predictions fail to materialize. If only "climate science" were real...

Troll, edumicate thyself:
Global Warming 'Pause' Isn't What Climate Change Skeptics Say It Is

http://www.weather.com/news/sc...

google global warming hiatus ipcc

http://www.motherjones.com/env...

http://washington.cbslocal.com...
http://www.weather.com/news/sc...
http://articles.latimes.com/20...
http://www.theguardian.com/env...
http://www.climatecentral.org/...

This was the coldest winter this country has ever seen. Fact.

Not a fact.

The winter of 2013 - 2014 was one of the ten coldest winters in history in the Midwest U.S.

It was the warmest winter on record in California, and set records for high temperatures in Alaska.

Overall, it was the 34th coolest winter in the contiguous U.S. since records began in 1895. The contiguous United States comprises 1.5% of the surface area of the Earth. One season, in 1.5% of the Earth's surface: this is weather, not climate

http://www.wunderground.com/bl...
http://www.weather.com/news/wi...

Then I hope you don't work for Square Enix or Level-5 or Sony Pictures Animation or for that matter The Weather Channel.

On the other hand, you can install an extension for Firefox or Chrome that will protect you from the "cloud".

Star tourist attraction of their new Imperialist theme park with fiscal cliff roller coasters and WMD hunts for the children. It will also be the set of a grand Farsi remake of Steven Seagal's Under Siege, which will be premiered at the Deserted Outdoor Theater in Sinai Desert.

If you're a denier, and stupid enough to believe that the temperature outside your door is the proof of AGW, go to this forbidden link:

http://www.weather.com/news/al...

Warning, you may suffer a cognitive dissonance attack and utterly reject the truth again.

you fucking shut your city down when the forecast calls for 2 inches

"We don't want to be accused of crying wolf," said Gov. Nathan Deal, who pointed out that the storm had been forecast to just brush the south side of the city.

That was part of the problem. The forecast didn't call for 2 inches, it predicted that the ice/snow would miss Atlanta, though not by much.

Not true. *Early* forecasts suggested that, but subsequent updates by the National Weather Service *did* call for several inches of snow, and *did* include metro Atlanta in the impacted area, well in advance of the actual storm (by early Monday morning). There was plenty of time to prepare, had officials been paying more attention to the forecasts and less to the political impact of "crying wolf".

From The Weather Channel (emphasis mine):

Sunday 3:12 p.m.

        First winter storm watch issued for Tuesday morning through Wednesday afternoon.
        Includes south metro Atlanta counties Fayette, Coweta, Clayton, Henry, Rockdale into central Georgia.
        Impacts: Snow accumulations of two or more inches. Sleet accumulations of a half inch or more.

Monday 4:54 a.m.

        Winter storm watch now includes much of north and south metro Atlanta for Tuesday morning through Wednesday afternoon.
        Impacts: Snow accumulations of 1/2 to 2 inches. Snow-covered roads could make travel difficult.

Monday 3:22 p.m.

        Winter storm watch upgraded to a winter storm warning for south metro Atlanta into central Georgia. Winter storm watch remains posted for north metro Atlanta for Tuesday morning through Wednesday afternoon.
        Impacts: Snow accumulations of 1 to 2 inches with locally higher amounts. Sleet accumulations around a half inch. Snow and ice covered roads will make travel difficult or impossible.

Monday 9:36 p.m.

        Winter storm watch changed to a winter weather advisory for north metro Atlanta for Tuesday morning through Wednesday morning.
        National weather service notes: Please understand that even a slight shift in the moisture could result in significant differences in snow amounts and may require an upgrade to warning.

Tuesday 3:38 a.m.

        All metro Atlanta under a winter storm warning starting 9 a.m. Tuesday
        Impacts: 1 to 2 inches of snow. Snow expected to begin mid-morning and last into Tuesday night. Snow-covered roads will make for hazardous driving conditions through Wednesday morning.

Since I think we know that few scientists are billionaires, and yet scientific fraud is documented to exist, you just might be distorting the picture. (I like the bit about, "might as well add creationism while we are into denialism." It really added to your argument. You should have suggested a more sophisticated cocktail for sipping on a "billion dollar yacht" though.) Thank goodness that everyone associated with climate science is clean, eh?

False positives: fraud and misconduct are threatening scientific research

The psychologist, who admitted "massaging" the data in some of his papers, resigned from his position in June after being investigated by his university, which had been tipped off by Uri Simonsohn from the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia. Simonsohn carried out an independent analysis of the data and was suspicious of how perfect many of Smeesters' results seemed when, statistically speaking, there should have been more variation in his measurements.

The case, which led to two scientific papers being retracted, came on the heels of an even bigger fraud, uncovered last year, perpetrated by the Dutch psychologist Diederik Stapel. He was found to have fabricated data for years and published it in at least 30 peer-reviewed papers, including a report in the journal Science about how untidy environments may encourage discrimination.

The cases have sent shockwaves through a discipline that was already facing serious questions about plagiarism.

Spring (and Scientific Fraud) Is Busting Out All Over

Verbeke and Tijdink cast a wide net, with support they received from the Pascal Decroos Fund for Investigative Journalism. They contacted researchers from the medical science faculties of every university in Flanders, sending out more than 2,500 questionnaires and receiving 315 fully completed anonymous responses in return.

The answers startled. Four of the researchers who responded, or 1.3 percent, acknowledged that they had fabricated data at least once during the past three years, misdeeds that may still be unpunished. What’s more, 23, or 7.3 percent, of those who sent back questionnaires had engaged in the quaint term “massaging”—in which data or results were removed to make their work true up with original hypotheses. The roughly 8 percent of fraudulent practices found at the universities in Flanders compared with an average of 2 percent of smelly stuff going on that turned up in a 2009 meta-analysis in PLoS ONE of studies from around the world. .....

Respondents said the publish or die imperative was one of the main reasons for the infractions. The survey found that two thirds of the professors polled ran into excessive pressure to get their work into journals and nearly 70 percent of all of those surveyed had added the name of one author who had not participated in a study.

Study: Scientific research fraud on the rise

“We're going to see more extreme heat events in the future and people will learn through their experience.”

Hurricanes are down.
Tornadoes are down.

No, here in the states, it's the federal government which has been subsidizing bad behavior. See: National Flood Insurance Program.

A decent discussion was had just yesterday: Nixed Flood Insurance Subsidy Drowns Coastal Home Values Yea, yea it's NPR. If you can't handle that, check out The Weather Channel's version: Skyrocketing Flood Insurance Rates Bring Financial Chaos, Heartache to Coastal Homeowners Across U.S.

Ingrid weakened to a tropical storm as it made landfall near La Pesca, Mexico on the morning of Sept. 16, 2013. "

it's great and all that they posted a pretty picture but they forgot to add a key or a legend of some kind. a color gradient scale with some kind of metric is the least they could do, even the weather channel knows that!

i'm sure the people who made this are the same damn kids that keep walking on my! </rant>

I probably shouldn't bother because I think your mind is made up but I'll mention a few.

First, the reduction in Arctic summer sea ice is affecting northern temperate zone weather and is probably a factor in the weird weather we've experienced over the past several years.

Ocean acidification is starting to affect crustaceans in the oceans such as oyster farms on the Oregon coast having trouble with larvae mortality. A just published paper in Nature finds that acidification will reduce the release of dimethylsulphide (DMS) by phytoplankton. DMS is an aerosol that helps in forming clouds and generally has a cooling effect so less of it will be a positive feedback of global warming.

There have been drought conditions most years in the American Southwest since 2000, so much so that both Lake Powell and Lake Mead on the Colorado River are around 100 feet below full pool now. They are cutting releases from Lake Powell for the first time in response. This is a predicted effect of global warming.

Those are just a few of many examples that could be listed.