[mccookgazette.com] Mostly Cloudy ~ 76°F  
High: 77°F ~ Low: 58°F
Monday, Sep. 22, 2014

Climate Change is still Real

Posted Thursday, January 20, 2011, at 4:15 PM

With all the snow over the United States recently the climate change deniers are once again out in full force. They claim that this winter has been unseasonably cold. The problem here is that we are not even into our second month of winter so to actually make that claim is making one without facts.

So they fall back onto the Winter of 2009-2010. They claim that winter was also unseasonably cold based solely on where snow fell and how much of it fell. They are either ignoring the facts or just hoping no one takes notice of their claim.

Last Winter went down as the fifth warmest winter on record. You have to remember that when we talk about Climate Change only discussing what happens in the United States is extremely short-sided.

A report from NOAA stated that the decade we just left behind was the warmest on record, easily beating out the former number one which was the decade before that.

The deniers love to point to all the snow the northeast has gotten or that South has gotten over this portion of Winter (and last year's) as proof that Climate Change does not exist. If those two instances do anything it is prove that Climate Change is in fact occurring. Over the past decade we have seen deadlier tornadoes, hurricanes, snow storms, and flooding. Their frequency may be steady but their intensities are increasing by year.

The only real debate over Climate Change is whether or it is caused (or at the very least helped) by human behavior or not. I tend to agree with the argument that we are in part helping to change the climate in the world.

The whole "Climategate" debacle turned out to be a complete set-up. The steps that SOME climate change deniers are willing to take to discredit those who subscribe to the idea of climate change has become almost comical at this point.

Portions of this blog were taken from a story about last year's Winter: http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/184...

"For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible." - Stuart Chase


Comments
Showing comments in chronological order
[Show most recent comments first]

When people such as yourself claim the warmest on record your data set is at most 100 years.

Your claim of higher intensity storms is also incorrect. In the 1960's we had more intense storms than in the last 10 years. The problem with "records" is that hurricane data is incomplete until the 1960's due to radar. Before radar we only knew of hurricanes if they made landfall or a ship encountered it and reported it.

People trained in Science and Engineering review the Earth's geologic record in terms of Thousands and Millions of years, not since mercury thermometers were invented.

The Earth is constantly changing with heating and cooling so your claim of climate change is a statement of fact.

Continents move and Mountains form and Seas recede but to be arrogant enough to think that man can effect the weather is one of the oldest myth's of mankind. Care to sacrifice a Virgin to make it rain or to stop the Volcano? Pretty silly when you think about it. Certain people would have you to think that during the next ice age all we will need to do is pump CO2 into the Atmosphere and warm everything up.

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Thu, Jan 20, 2011, at 5:55 PM

The Global warming has caused more severe storm people like yourself like to point to Queensland and the snow in England. The last time Queensland had rain like this was way back in 1974. Story's are written about the Thames River being frozen.

Global warming/Climate change people do not look at history.

As a history student I would recommend that you study the history of our planet. You will learn of Earthquakes, Snowstorms, Volcano's, Tsunami's and Floods. You will learn of Seas receding and Glacier advances. You will learn of Rivers changing their course and deserts flooding.

When we drill an oil well in West Texas 8000' deep we see limestone filled fossils.

So climate change is real. But Man is not the cause of it.

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Thu, Jan 20, 2011, at 6:05 PM

Talked to a weather guy buddy of mine just now (Mike as a weather student you can confirm this). He said "you had better remind of the apples to apples of storms". In the 1960's not all storms were recorded or official. We also did not have buoy data or the hurricane hunter planes we have today. Therefore, some storms reached hurricane status but we could not determine wind speed therefore they weren't counted. Radar was also limited to the extent of coastal cities and satallite data was not as effective or shared information as it is today.

Just trying to answer questions as I know people will disagree with me.

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Thu, Jan 20, 2011, at 7:34 PM

Save you time willis! Mike and his kind don't have time to actually look for factual data to back up their claim. I love your replies, keep it up. Liberals hate facts!

-- Posted by remington81 on Thu, Jan 20, 2011, at 7:57 PM

amen wallis. I remember when TRW dumped a bunch of chemicals on the ground near their building in mccook. Some people had the arrogance to think that it could hurt the water that people draw out of the ground. Its hard to believe that people have the aggogance to think they can effect such changes. History has shown us that water gets poisened many ways and its far fetched to believe that humans would cause it. We should be allowed to burn what ever we want and dump anything we feel like dumping. The earth will take care of its self.

Hole in ozone, not us. Smog in LA, not us.

-- Posted by president obama on Thu, Jan 20, 2011, at 8:47 PM

bigdawg,

What does TRW have to do with climate change? If they contaminated the water intentionally then fine them and put them out of business. When the entire science community says that CO2 is a pollutant, then start figuring out what to do with the human race, because what you exhaled while typing your response is now criminal.

can you show me proof this hole in the ozone? If so, do you have proof that it wasn't there before man?

Let's just enslave everybody to a bunch of liberal dictators. I don't see any of them cutting back on the consumption of fossil fuels, but the slaves should. What a bunch of hypocrites.

As far as smog, someone should sue the descendent's of settlers of those towns that didn't check with the weatherman for wind patterns before building a town for survival and therefore producing more people. Darn if they had only knew that we would have the internal combustion engine sometime in the future they could have planned better where they decided to live.

If liberals had their way, the human population would be extinct.

-- Posted by sleeper on Fri, Jan 21, 2011, at 6:00 AM

Bigdawg - Polluted groundwater and human beings changing weather patterns are two different things.

People like Mike and maybe yourself have encouraged the EPA to designate CO2 as a poisonous gas (this debate has become political not science based). Did you realize that you exhale CO2 with every breath you take? Did you realize that photosynthesis requires CO2 to create Oxygen? If we removed all the CO2 human beings would all die from a lack of oxygen.

Long before the fossil fuel age of Man the Earth had major change occur. At one time there was only one land mass known as Pangea. At one time, there were no Rocky Mountains. At one time Oklahoma and West Texas were Sea's. At one time Glaciers, due to global cooling extended into North America. There have been major extinctions on the Earth that Man had nothing to do with.

Can Man wipe out forests? yes. Can Man cause an oil spill? yes. Can Man pollute groundwater? yes.

Can Man control the Sun and therefore control heating patterns of the Earth? no. Can Man control electromagnetic events involving the Earth and therefore prevent "Magnetic North" from switching? no. Can Man control the temperature of the Ocean at 30,000' below the water surface and therefore effect El Nino and La Nina? no.

Your reply to my post was comparing apples to oranges.

Do I agree with you the TRW polluted the groundwater? yes. I lived in McCook when they left town. Who would have thought that operation would have caused that to occur? But, McCook's groundwater has been a hot spot for decades. The Geology in the area is obviously conducive for this to occur witness the Nitrate pollution caused by fertilizer from farming. That is a porosity/permability issue of the topsoil.

With your last sentence I will say man has caused smog in Los Angeles. But as far as the hole in the ozone that has come and gone over time. Therefore, who "caused" the hole in the ozone 200 years ago? Who caused the hole 1000 years ago?

The Pyramids were built 4500 years ago by the Egyptians. They were obviously advanced. Yet the Egyptians felt the Pharaoh's were divine beings and only because of their divinity were they able to make the Nile river flood every year therefore providing the topsoil necessary to farm the Nile Valley. So as far back as 4500 years ago Man believed that he could control the weather.

I still agree with Mike that Climate Change is real. I disagree that Man can influence it. I agree with Bidgawg that Man can pollute water.

Wallis

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Fri, Jan 21, 2011, at 6:09 AM

Remington81 & sleeper

I seem to recall that it was the Senior George Bush that made the original commitment to reduce Greenhouse Gases in 1992, wasn't he a Republican? This led to the Kyoto Protocol which in 1998 was not ratified by our Congress. Human induced Climate Change is endorsed across the whole spectrum of politics. The only political argument in that regard is the method used to address it.

-- Posted by Geezer on Fri, Jan 21, 2011, at 9:35 AM

As near as I can tell, there is no positive correlation between global climate change and human impact on it, but it seems to me there are common sense things that counter your argument Wallis...

Wallis said..."Did you realize that photosynthesis requires CO2 to create Oxygen?"

I couldn't agree more, but the levels of CO2 and the rise of the gas in our atmosphere is what is in question isn't it? So the plants that convert CO2 into sugars and O2 need a habitat. We hear a lot about planetary deforestation and forests are a major player in the conversion of CO2. Deforestation at best leaves degraded photosynthesis capabilities.

But lets be real here... most photosynthesis occurs in the oceans as that is where most of the planets plant life is. How about those "dead zones" we read about. The Gulf of Mexico has one that is probably from agricultural runoff... no plankton there. Pacific trash vortex... getting bigger all the time and very low levels of plankton.

For more about dead zones... http://news.mongabay.com/2008/0814-hance...

But wait, we're not done adding to the CO2 bank yet while we are tampering with our way to make a withdrawal...

Emerging countries such as China and India will consume a whole lot more carbon fuels going forward, while degrading plant habitat.

Here is an interesting tidbit... In 2007, the USA accounted for 27% of the total world output of electricity, but by 2035, though USA consumption is projected to go up, it will only account for 19% of worldwide generation. That's a lot more power being generated than now, and without new technology, most of that power will be generated with coal. More CO2 for the bank.

The USA has around 62 million vehicles according to the USDOT. China on the other hand currently has around 150 million, and they are selling over 15 million new cars a year right now. That is quite an increase in carbon output don't you agree? I didn't mention India, but they are growing about as fast as China.

Wallis, your argument is similar to a line from the movie Titanic... "This ship is unsinkable". What if you are wrong?

-- Posted by Brian Hoag on Fri, Jan 21, 2011, at 10:10 AM

Humans have never been able to effect weather before.

I don't buy into "it's different this time arguments ".

But if I am wrong then we will not be heading into a cooling period.

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Fri, Jan 21, 2011, at 12:59 PM

"But if I am wrong then we will not be heading into a cooling period." - Quite the understatement.

You could be right. There are only 7 billion people and 2 billion vehicles.

I could be way off base by thinking that the emmissions of all those cars, and all the coal being burned to generate all the electricity needed, plus industrial release combined with a reduced planetary capability to handle the additional stress caused by man-caused deforestation and pollution would have any effect on global climate.

I hope I'm wrong.

-- Posted by Brian Hoag on Fri, Jan 21, 2011, at 2:08 PM

For fun, listen to Act 2 about climate change. I know it's NPR, but she does have a point about the composition of modern CO2 coming from fossil fuels compared to the CO2 samples from olden days...

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-ar...

-- Posted by croswind on Fri, Jan 21, 2011, at 2:32 PM

wallismarsh

In March of 2010 a letter was delivered to our Congress relating to the immediate need to address Deep Cuts needed in Greenhouse Gas Emissions. It involved Industry, Government, and Academic -- a broad representation of top Professionals in their respected fields (over 2000). This is happening all over the world -- more and more the evidence is definitively pointing towards Man Made Global Warming.

If you have a minute, take a look at the following document.

http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/g...

-- Posted by Geezer on Fri, Jan 21, 2011, at 2:57 PM

I have read the data. I have commented on the data. People who do not agree with the "Global Warming" crowd do not have their comments listed as the answer has been determined.

The former head of the storm prediction center in Colo Springs was fired because he did not agree.

Before you send me links to data that "prove" your point. Search for the volumes of documents that "disprove" your point and come to your own conclusion.

A thinking man makes his own decisions. Maybe some of you do not have the background to prove or disprove any of this. If that is the case then you have to determine what politician you believe. Remember this has become a political cause not a scientific one.

My Petroleum Engineering degree doesn't mean I am smarter than any of you. What it does mean is that I have been exposed to and considered these ideas for over 25 years. I was first exposed to the global warming debate in the mid 1980's. I was also exposed to Y2K in 1983. Y2K proved to be a nonevent yet business spent millions and I was called many names for laughing at folks that bought canned goods and generators.

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Fri, Jan 21, 2011, at 3:32 PM

http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/Sunspo...

A large segment of people believe the sun controls our climate.

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Fri, Jan 21, 2011, at 3:38 PM

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

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Fri, Jan 21, 2011, at 3:45 PM

http://www.spaceweather.com/

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Fri, Jan 21, 2011, at 3:48 PM

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

This piece is the important one.

Solar Physics "proves" my point.

Wallis

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Fri, Jan 21, 2011, at 3:54 PM

wallismarsh

All the articles I have read on Solar Forcing do not seem to indicate that Solar Forcing is having any significant impact on warming.

Until about 1960, measurements by scientists showed that the brightness and warmth of the sun, as seen from the Earth, was increasing. Over the same period temperature measurements of the air and sea showed that the Earth was gradually warming.

However, between the 1960s and the present day the same solar measurements have shown that the energy from the sun is now decreasing. At the same time temperature measurements of the air and sea have shown that the Earth has continued to become warmer and warmer. This proves that it cannot be the sun; something else must be causing the Earth's temperature to rise.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-ac...

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/arc...

-- Posted by Geezer on Fri, Jan 21, 2011, at 8:38 PM

Did you not even look at the Sunspot data?

I am curious - what is your background? Are you a Math and Science guy?

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Fri, Jan 21, 2011, at 8:53 PM

wallismarsh

I did look at the Sunspot data. Did you look at the analysis I provided you in the second link?

Forty years worth, how about yourself?

-- Posted by Geezer on Fri, Jan 21, 2011, at 9:03 PM

Geezer - Yesterday International Falls set a "record low" of -46. The 5th lowest "recorded" temp in the Lower 48. If Man has caused and is causing the planet to warm how can we set "record" low numbers? If we have damaged the Earth and Global warming is real than we should be setting record highs.

Sunspot data goes back many hundreds of years and explains all temp trends since then. Your data is a snapshot and focus's on the upward trend since the 1970's. Remember in the 1970's the fear was we were heading back into an ice age,

I am "predicting" that we are heading into a cooling period over the next 20 years. We will be able to see who is correct - you or me.

BTW if any of way followed my stock suggestions when the S&P was 1064 I think we go to 1350. There is a small chance we could move to the mid 1400's but not ready to make that call yet. Made the go long oil at $75. Still in this trade for the long term. Should test the highs of 2008. The demand picture is growing by leaps and supply is becoming a disaster. Natural Gas demand is at record highs. Expect to see big draws to inventory as this winter is going to be cold into April. Last year was a record as far as HDD (heating degree days) went and this year is going to be colder. The US has been colder as far as heating needs go the last 2 years.

I put "" around "record" as those numbers only go back a little over a hundred years and that is pretty meaningless in the scope of the Earth.

Wallis

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Sat, Jan 22, 2011, at 6:08 AM

Wallis

Don't know if I will be around in another 20 years - hopefully. Still have a lot of fishing I would like to do with my Grandkids.

Global Warming means on an average the planets total climate is warming.

The ice sheet covering Greenland melted at the fastest rate since records began in 1979, a new study shows. That's important because the ice sheet is becoming a major contributor to projected sea level rises in coming decades.

"This past melt season was exceptional, with melting in some areas stretching up to 50 days longer than average," said study co-author Marco Tedesco, director of the Cryospheric Processes Laboratory at The City College of New York.

"Melting in 2010 started exceptionally early at the end of April and ended quite late in mid- September," he added in a statement released with the study.

"Over the past 30 years, the area subject to melting in Greenland has been increasing" at about 17,000 square kilometers a year, Tedesco stated on his research website.

"This is equivalent to adding a melt-region the size of Washington state every ten years," he added. "Or, in alternative, this means that an area of the size of France melted in 2010 which was not melting in 1979."

In the study published in "Environmental Research Letters," the researchers also said that Greenland's summer temperatures last year were up to 3 degrees Centigrade above the average and that the ice sheet saw reduced snowfall.

Nuuk, the capital of Greenland, had the warmest spring and summer since records began in 1873.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41197838/ns/...

Like you Wallis, I also worked a good portion of my career in the Petroleum Industry -- predominantly in the Arctic Regions of Alaska. My specialty was providing Surveying Services related to all aspects of offshore exploration and development -- from providing Solar Observations to establish Geographic Grid Systems, monitoring ice flows and thickness, ice road locations, exploratory well locations for permitting, extension of land based Geodetic Survey Control Systems to offshore projects, etc.

During this time period I relied heavily on the knowledge of the local Inupiat Natives for their uncanny ability to read sea ice conditions. More than once their knowledge was called upon to lead us safely back to land. To this day they are considered to be some of the most knowledgeable people on the planet when it comes to their environment. This knowledge has been passed down from generation to generation for hundreds if not thousands of years.

In the 70's the elders began noticing small changes in their environment but at that time Global Warming science had not put all the pieces together and it was not even a topic in discussions. Over the years more and more signs became visible reflecting an environment rapidly changing.

The Inupiat language does not even contain words for the animals now being seen in the Arctic -- Robins, Barn Owls, Red Fox, etc. There is a tendency to dismiss these sightings as mere shifts in migration but it is more involved than that. Many of the Arctic animals rely on being able to change their color to match the Arctic landscape -- such as the Ptarmigan, the Arctic Wolf, the Arctic Fox, Snowy Owls, etc. This has allowed them to be successful in living in an Arctic environment. As the Arctic areas continue to warm and expose more land area these animals will suffer from loss of habitat -- they will not be able to adapt their physical attributes fast enough to compensate for the new environment they are being exposed to. This is happening all over the world Wallis.

-- Posted by Geezer on Sat, Jan 22, 2011, at 10:12 AM

Geezer, I really enjoy reading your responses; I dont ALWAYS agree, but you present reasoned, researched, and well thought-out arguments. Please keep up the excellent work.

-- Posted by doodle bug on Sat, Jan 22, 2011, at 12:00 PM

Geezer - you are being so short sighted. Since 1979. Why did a vast majority of the Glaciers in Glacier National Park melt before 1950?

If you are only going to look at the recent past I propose you look at the now. The cold is returning and even Joe Bastardi doesn't have an analog. He said last Thursday maybe the lack of sunspots is causing it to be colder.

Again, our data sets are different. I tend to analyze all of the data and come to my own conclusions.

BTW my Great Uncle flew B-29's to Antartica in the 1940's. The United States even built air bases. Those bases have been covered by snow and ice for the last 55+ years. Explain that.

Wallis

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Sat, Jan 22, 2011, at 1:18 PM

Wallis - I guess we are just going to have to disagree then.

That's what is nice about opinions - everybody has one. Thanks for the discussion.

-- Posted by Geezer on Sat, Jan 22, 2011, at 1:46 PM

Wallis

I did research your issues and have included the following links for your review. I hope you find the source of the links credible.

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/feature...

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/arc...

http://climateprogress.org/2011/01/17/jo...

-- Posted by Geezer on Sat, Jan 22, 2011, at 2:50 PM

wallis, Joe Bastardi is one of the biggest climate change deniers there are.

Once again you are getting stuck simply on hot vs cold. Kind of like one of your earlier comments about people forgetting about the sun in this whole debate, you are completely leaving out the namesake of the phenomenon we are witnessing; climate.

Temperature is a part of it, but it's not the main issue or one of the biggest. It's the climate as a whole that is changing. Climate change both involves heating and cooling but the moisture and the intensity of storms are rapidly increasing.

The only reason I including the article in my original blog is because of the assertions that last winter was cold, when in fact, it was the fifth warmest on record.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Sat, Jan 22, 2011, at 3:28 PM

Mike- From a Heating degree number it was the highest in 12 years. That means that in the winter we consumed more NG to heat homes than in 12 years. That means that it was cold regardless of how you "spin it".

Joe Bastardi is a lot smarter than me and you and he thinks global warming is bunk.

He is a Meteorologist from Penn State. Did you ever hear him speak when you were studying Meteorology? I have met him a few times. He was the over 50 Drug tested Champion bodybuilder a few years ago,

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Sat, Jan 22, 2011, at 5:36 PM

Wallis

I pulled up the Heating Degree Day weekly summary from the NOAA-NCEP-NWS Climate Prediction Center for July 1, 2010 to Jan. 15, 2011. I did not calculate what percentage was above or below normal in the Cumlative Deviation from normal or the Deviation from the previous year but it looks fairly balanced just scanning the various geogrpahic locations across the country. Looks like some areas had more days and some had less.

Do you have a summary of the data by any chance?

Take a look and see what your think.

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/an...

-- Posted by Geezer on Sat, Jan 22, 2011, at 6:38 PM

Is our climate never supposed to change? Are we to remain 70 degrees year round? Has the climate never changed throughout the Earths life? Are climatic variations even disruptive to all the organisms of the Earth? Did the climate only changed after man used petroleum fuels for energy? Has the degree of variations increased for decreased since the use of petroleum fuels began?

Anybody with any wisdom or intelligence knows the answer to these question, which is why so few believe in human induced climate change.

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Sat, Jan 22, 2011, at 10:21 PM

I don't have any idea how to "spin" fact wallis. The records show that world wide last year winter was the fifth warmest. Are you really to the point that you believe that stating fact is now "spinning"?

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Sun, Jan 23, 2011, at 1:05 AM

No one has suggested any of the questions you pose CPB so your post is just odd. Of course I guess when you don't actually have a point to make, simply ridiculing those who believe in climate change is the next best thing.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Sun, Jan 23, 2011, at 1:06 AM

Chunky Peanut Butter

Concerning your statement "Anybody with any wisdom or intelligence knows the answer to these questions, which is why so few believe in human induced climate change".

We only approach wisdom when we can sort through different perspectives and see how the pieces of facts come together. Patterns, rather than a disarray of information, allow greater understanding of the dynamics of the interplay between the facts. Patterns allow us to see the flow of knowledge and/or power within a situation or a system. Often the willingness and ability to look at the facts in a new alignment will provide an insight into the systems at work.

It is within community that we encounter and learn to rely on the presence of others who are also willing to uncover the pieces of wisdom contained within the experiences of people over time and across place. Destruction or weakening of community thwarts these efforts to achieve wisdom and justice. Current events and history hold many examples of the deliberate undermining of community in order to prevent the flow of more complete information.

With this said I respectfully ask that you please review the following link which contains the facts showing how our citizens were manipulated and denied the complete information which would have allowed our country to be more informed on the issues surrounding Global Warming. It did not happen by accident!!

http://democrats.oversight.house.gov/ima...

http://democrats.oversight.house.gov/ind...

-- Posted by Geezer on Sun, Jan 23, 2011, at 10:02 AM

A wave of former believer rage has arrived news editors. So pay attention.

I want anyone who tried to scare my kids with the faded "END OF THE WORLD climate blamer insanity", charged with causing a public riot and also be charged with treason for leading us to the false war of climate change. Climate Changers were the neocons of environMENTALism. We let Bush get away with his false war and WMD's, now let's get the lazy copy and paste news editors, lazy teachers, lying politicians and lab coat consultants.

-- Posted by mememine69 on Sun, Jan 23, 2011, at 10:04 AM

Geezer,

Having read your links, which are nothing more than DNC talking points from 3 years ago, I must say, you stepped in some fine smelling BS. I stand by me statement.

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Sun, Jan 23, 2011, at 1:37 PM

www.americanoilman.com

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Sun, Jan 23, 2011, at 1:41 PM

http://www.firstenercastfinancial.com/en...

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Sun, Jan 23, 2011, at 1:46 PM

Demand data going back 12 years. Production numbers are at all time highs due to Shale gas.

Expect a 280 - 300 BCF withdrawal this week.

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Sun, Jan 23, 2011, at 1:48 PM

Here is a bit of informational data in regard to Global Warming.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/arc...

@Wallis I'm well aware that the earth gets warming energy from the sun. As does the planet Venus. I'm not sure how much you know about venus, but its a very interesting case study. If you want to see the extremes that greenhouse gasses can cause, I'm providing a helpful link.

http://www.universetoday.com/71985/green...

-- Posted by Damu on Sun, Jan 23, 2011, at 3:56 PM

This can't be true about Venus. Not a single Republican lives there.

Wallis

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Sun, Jan 23, 2011, at 4:20 PM

CPB

I guess your right - then Issa is wasting his time also isn't he? He might as well just save us all some money and forget about his investigations.

I think anytime sworn testimony is edited it is a crime no matter which side of the isle your on.

I think my post will stand for itself, just like yours do.

-- Posted by Geezer on Sun, Jan 23, 2011, at 6:42 PM

@CPB You only believe the Earth is 6000 years old. I'm not sure why anyone would be looking for scientific ideas from you.

-- Posted by Damu on Sun, Jan 23, 2011, at 10:09 PM

So, what are the downsides of reducing manmade C02?

-- Posted by npwinder on Mon, Jan 24, 2011, at 5:44 PM

Yet they still believe;

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/12/3...

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Mon, Jan 24, 2011, at 6:56 PM

CPB

I thought you might enjoy taking a look at the following report just released this month. You might recognize some of the names in the report. Page 91 gets a little interesting. In your own words - yet they still believe.

http://www.osc.gov/documents/hatchact/ST...

-- Posted by Geezer on Mon, Jan 24, 2011, at 7:38 PM

Wow Geezer! You must have a lot of time on your hands! Very impressive indeed. We really should get rid of this President Bush before he ruins this country!

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Mon, Jan 24, 2011, at 10:59 PM

CPB

I think it is important to provide readers with factual information on issues of concern. If the information helps to clarify how past events have led to our current situation, then I feel the use of my time has been justified.

-- Posted by Geezer on Tue, Jan 25, 2011, at 5:33 AM

Geezer,

That's an honorable gesture. However, "climategate" pretty much dispelled any hopes that man-made global warming exists. Data gathered today still proves it, to the point that that the "blind acceptors" changed it's name to climate change. In fact, it isn't even climate change that is their focus, it is wealth.

We can sit around and cry about all the imagined mistreatment the Bushies did to the blind accpetors, or we can live out our lives. What do YOU do to reduce YOUR carbon footprint?

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Tue, Jan 25, 2011, at 6:35 AM

CPB

Climategate did not disprove global warming, quite the opposite. What it did prove was the extent that deniers will undertake to mislead the issues surrounding it.

Lessons from the past is what guide us into the future - a factual understanding of those lessons are paramount in choosing the right path forward.

Thursday another report will be issued dealing with the collapse of our financial system. This report will help to clarify the circumstances leading up to the housing collapse. You can either choose to read it in hopes of gaining understanding - or deny it's credibility by saying it happened years ago and we should just live our lifes out. To each his own.

I have operated my vehicle less than 1000 miles in the last two years. I grow my own garden and we grow extra for those less fortunate in the community, including the Senior Center. I have located several old houses destined to be torn down and worked with the owners to allow those less fortunate to buy the houses for absolutely nothing in return for tearing them down. I researched all the State Issues surrounding Asbestos Abatement and provided this information to the new owners. This has allowed several families the opportunity to recycle the lumber for use in construction projects such as greenhouses, storage sheds, etc. I collect broken fishing rods, tricycles, bicycles, toys, etc. throughout the year and refurbish them for Christmas gifts to needy children. During the winter months I help some of the elderly in our coummunity by keeping their walks and drives cleaned off so they can safely get to their cars if they need to go to the doctor or pharmacy if needed.

What do you do in your spare time?

-- Posted by Geezer on Tue, Jan 25, 2011, at 9:04 AM

You are aware, CPB, that the entire "climategate" fiasco is now regarded as a not very elaborate, not well planned out hoax?

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Tue, Jan 25, 2011, at 10:27 AM

Anybody with any wisdom or intelligence knows the answer to these question, which is why so few believe in human induced climate change.

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Sat, Jan 22, 2011, at 10:21 PM

Do you have any numbers to back up your claim CPB or are you just making an assumption?

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Tue, Jan 25, 2011, at 10:34 AM

Geezer, one thing you will find quite a lot of on these threads is that certain posters do not want to talk about the years 2000-2008 at all. They believe it all to be in the past and not worth mentioning (it brings to mind the old saying, (paraphrasing) "Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it") at all.

Now, anytime before 2000 and following )oddly enough) Obama's election they will talk about at length. Not only do they not want to talk about the forgotten decade they will instantly ridicule anyone who brings it with fancy little statements like, I don't know who this Bush guy is but we need to bring him to justice.

FYI I am still on the research mode on the the for profit schools idea you had mentioned a few blogs back. It is taking a lot more time then I had originally thought or planned by I am still working on it.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Tue, Jan 25, 2011, at 10:39 AM

Geezer: These are very honorable things you are doing, one suggestion I could make is instead of scooping there sidewalks to get to there car that causes carbon footprints, why don't you pull them to there doctors appointments on a bob sled.

The Tennessee Center for Policy Research, an independent, nonprofit and nonpartisan research organization committed to achieving a freer, more prosperous Tennessee through free market policy solutions, issued a press release late Monday:

Last night, Al Gore's global-warming documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, collected an Oscar for best documentary feature, but the Tennessee Center for Policy Research has found that Gore deserves a gold statue for hypocrisy.

Gore's mansion, [20-room, eight-bathroom] located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES).

In his documentary, the former Vice President calls on Americans to conserve energy by reducing electricity consumption at home.

The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh--more than 20 times the national average.

Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh--guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of his energy consumption, Gore's average monthly electric bill topped $1,359.

Since the release of An Inconvenient Truth, Gore's energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kWh per month in 2005, to 18,400 kWh per month in 2006.

Gore's extravagant energy use does not stop at his electric bill. Natural gas bills for Gore's mansion and guest house averaged $1,080 per month last year.

"As the spokesman of choice for the global warming movement, Al Gore has to be willing to walk to walk, not just talk the talk, when it comes to home energy use," said Tennessee Center for Policy Research President Drew Johnson.

In total, Gore paid nearly $30,000 in combined electricity and natural gas bills for his Nashville estate in 2006."

OK. We need to do carbon footprints of lots of people--but how do you measure it? House/houses size, cars, private jets--what else should we include. And how do you offset these with hybrid cars, solar heating, wind turbines, etc.?

We need an algorithm folks. Got one out there?

***

-- Posted by Keda46 on Tue, Jan 25, 2011, at 11:28 AM

Keda46

People are working on that issue.

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login....

-- Posted by Geezer on Tue, Jan 25, 2011, at 11:52 AM

Here is another report by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game laying out strategic plans to address the impacts of climate change. Possible changes in regulations are anticipated due to the changing conditions in the Arctic.

It is a short 20 page article and well worth taking a look at (some nice photographs also).

http://www.adfg.state.ak.us/pubs/climate...

-- Posted by Geezer on Tue, Jan 25, 2011, at 12:24 PM

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/01/2...

61% of land-based measuring stations are within a few feet of an artificial heating source

While Arctic ice is decreasing, Antarctic is gaining for a net change of 0.

El Nino and La Nina can cause exactly the types of changes we are seeing, exactly as they have since...well, forever.

Every major prediction of huge catastrophic change (for example, the coming Ice Age in the 70's) has been wrong.

There are multiple other reasons, everything from mountain fauna that should be growing higher on the mountain every year, but isn't, to tree rings that don't show the correct changes. Mother Nature is, after all, probably smarter that mankind.

-- Posted by MrsSmith on Tue, Jan 25, 2011, at 7:10 PM

Thank you Geezer, that second link was fantastic and the pictures were phenomenal, it was a great read.

-- Posted by Keda46 on Tue, Jan 25, 2011, at 7:58 PM

Hello MrsSmith

There has been lots of talk lately about Antarctica and whether or not the continent's giant ice sheet is melting. One new paper 1, which states there's less surface melting recently than in past years, has been cited as "proof" that there's no global warming. Other evidence that the amount of sea ice around Antarctica seems to be increasing slightly 2-4 is being used in the same way. But both of these data points are misleading. Gravity data collected from space using NASA's Grace satellite show that Antarctica has been losing more than a hundred cubic kilometers (24 cubic miles) of ice each year since 2002. The latest data reveal that Antarctica is losing ice at an accelerating rate, too. How is it possible for surface melting to decrease, but for the continent to lose mass anyway? The answer boils down to the fact that ice can flow without melting.

Two-thirds of Antarctica is a high, cold desert. Known as East Antarctica, this section has an average altitude of about 2 kilometer (1.2 miles), higher than the American Colorado Plateau. There is a continent about the size of Australia underneath all this ice; the ice sheet sitting on top averages at a little over 2 kilometer (1.2 miles) thick. If all of this ice melted, it would raise global sea level by about 60 meter (197 feet). But little, if any, surface warming is occurring over East Antarctica. Radar and laser-based satellite data show a little mass loss at the edges of East Antarctica, which is being partly offset by accumulation of snow in the interior, although a very recent result from the NASA/German Aerospace Center's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (Grace) suggests that since 2006 there has been more ice loss from East Antarctica than previously thought 5. Overall, not much is going on in East Antarctica

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/feature...

Anybody following Climate Change issues should put the following link in their favorties. It is a good source of information and explanations.

http://climate.nasa.gov/

About the Ice Age in the 70's

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-...

-- Posted by Geezer on Tue, Jan 25, 2011, at 11:05 PM

Keda you probably need to note that the report that you are referencing about former Vice President gore was released in 2007.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Thu, Jan 27, 2011, at 6:48 AM

When was Gore's movie released Mike?

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Thu, Jan 27, 2011, at 8:28 AM

Following is a link to the just this morning release of the Financial Crisis Report - is also contains the dissenting views. This is a must read for everyone wanting to understand the events that led to our countries current financial condition.

http://c0182732.cdn1.cloudfiles.rackspac...

-- Posted by Geezer on Thu, Jan 27, 2011, at 10:25 AM

Once again, I will ask this question that is ALWAYS avoided by "warmers". The question is simple and yet is consistently avoided because it pins down the "warmers", and they love the wiggle room.

Once again, here goes:

What is the optimal global median average temperature, and are we below or above it?

PS to Geezer - check out your National Geographic archive and find the issue in 1976 that had the best scientists in the world (and all over the world) touting our path was leading to the next great ice age. Why have you shirked their credible findings for the favor of the current lot?

-- Posted by Mickel on Thu, Jan 27, 2011, at 11:06 PM

One more question to the "warmers". Any idea why Iceland was called "Vineland" when it was discovered by Leif Garrett?

Please enlighten us.

-- Posted by Mickel on Thu, Jan 27, 2011, at 11:08 PM

Daily Gas Flows (Part 5- Climate)

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

==========================Monthly Accumulated Injection (Withdrawal) Days============================

Month....94......95......96......97......98.......99......00......01......02......03.......04......05......06.......07.......08.......09.......10.......11

..01.....-679...-450...-578...-571...-360...-496...-513...-562...-391...-603...-628...-491...-246...-449...-488....-600....-554....-512i

..02.....-472...-405...-427...-308...-242...-284...-279...-376...-302...-480...-435...-307...-372...-525...-388....-326....-459

..03.....-160...-111...-307...-125...-197...-219.....-47...-249...-214...-153.....-69...-225...-176.....-77...-176....-143......-71

..04......135.......64......52......35....112.....103......94....101......98.......60....114....140....169......50.....113.......93.....185

..05......254.....263....215....236....282.....277....264....274....218.....250....261....238....259....279.....247.....277.....247

..06......241.....265....260....270....225.....254....255....252....249.....268....263....235....248....244.....206.....228.....183

..07......234.....220....245....236....206.....189....239....224....193.....217....237....181....162....220.....191.....211.....121

..08......258.....214....255....253....223.....223....228....212....206.....214....257....186....170....147.....222.....196.....136

..09......283.....252....277....269....257.....271....238....270....264.....275....272....247....274....249.....270.....277.....244

..10......211.....213....179....135....216.....176....197....174....123.....176....203....186....139....226.....166.....136.....232

..11.......-29...-188...-222...-178.....-34......36...-198.......57..-139......-52.....-41.....-35....-19.....-82......-96.......32......-70

..12.....-297...-494...-354...-407...-321...-354...-654...-276...-419....-380...-406...-478..-255...-391....-425...-475....-505

Sum of all months (Gives annual Injection/Withdrawal days over (under) average):

.............-21...-156...-405...-156....365.....174...-173.....101..-116....-208......29...-123...352...-109....-158.....-95

===================Monthly Average Temperature (Unweighted Average of 274 US Stations)=====================

Month....94......95......96......97......98.......99.....00......01......02......03......04.......05......06......07......08......09......10.....Avg

..01......32.9...38.5...34.9...35.5...41.1...38.3...37.2...35.4...40.4...34.2...34.2....37.9...44.1...38.0...36.6...34.6...34.6...37.0

..02......38.1...39.9...39.7...41.9...43.8...43.7...44.0...40.3...41.0...36.8...38.3....42.0...39.4...35.8...39.9...41.3...36.1...40.1

..03......48.4...49.1...43.4...49.5...46.8...45.9...51.1...44.8...46.0...48.1...50.8....45.8...47.8...51.7...47.0...48.6...48.6...47.8

..04......58.2...55.3...54.9...53.1...56.0...57.4...55.8...58.1...58.5...56.3...57.0....56.7...59.8...55.0...56.7...56.7...59.3...56.7

..05......64.2...64.6...65.5...62.5...67.8...65.0...67.2...66.2...63.4...64.8...67.1....63.3...65.8...67.1...64.3...66.2...66.9...65.4

..06......74.9...72.4...73.2...71.7...73.3...72.7...72.7...72.7...73.9...71.3...72.0....74.2...73.6...74.0...74.6...73.6...75.7...73.3

..07......76.7...77.6...75.8...76.3...77.8...78.0...75.7...76.4...78.1...76.9...75.7....78.1...78.7...76.6...77.3...75.4...78.8...77.0

..08......74.5...78.1...75.1...74.4...76.9...75.9...76.1...76.6...76.3...76.9...73.3....77.2...77.1...78.5...75.4...75.7...78.4...76.3

..09......69.1...68.5...68.0...69.8...72.5...68.7...68.9...68.0...71.3...68.4...70.1....72.1...67.8...71.4...70.0...70.0...71.2...69.8

..10......59.4...60.0...58.4...58.5...60.0...58.6...59.6...58.3...57.5...59.3...60.3....59.9...57.4...62.9...58.4...56.7...60.5...59.2

..11......50.7...45.6...44.8...45.6...50.4...52.0...44.7...52.9...46.4...49.9...49.7....50.2...49.9...48.5...47.7...51.2...48.7...48.8

..12......42.7...37.9...40.7...39.2...42.1...40.9...31.9...42.9...39.4...39.8...39.5....37.1...43.4...40.5...38.8...36.9...36.1...39.4

Year.....57.5...57.3...56.2...56.5...59.0...58.1...57.1...57.7...57.7...56.9...57.3....57.9...58.7...58.3...57.2...57.2...57.9...57.6r

A review of the real data is always enlightening. NG withdraw is inventory that we use implying increased demand over supply due to heating. In the summer we produce more NG than we consume. Therefore, we store NG in the summer to use in the winter so we do not run out.

Wallis

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Fri, Jan 28, 2011, at 5:36 AM

Wallis

Can we have a link to your data please?

-- Posted by Geezer on Fri, Jan 28, 2011, at 9:20 AM

Mickel

Can we have a link to your sources please?

If you look at the link I provided MrsSmith above it should help explain the ice age of the 70's.

-- Posted by Geezer on Fri, Jan 28, 2011, at 9:24 AM

Geezer - National Geographic Magazine, if memory serves me right it was June or July issue. If there is a link to that issue on the internet, I'm not aware of it. I re-read the issue about five years ago when Mr. Gore released his movie.

Care to answer my simple questions?

-- Posted by Mickel on Fri, Jan 28, 2011, at 12:00 PM

Mickel

What does optimal median global temperature have to do with the Global Warming issue? We are seeing an overall increase in our global climate temperature which is having and adverse impact on our environment. Many believe it is human caused.

The jury is still out on who discovered Iceland. Some historians believe it was the Irish first. Are you sure you aren't talking about Greenland?

If you provide the sources for your facts I will address them, but I will not do your homework for you.

-- Posted by Geezer on Fri, Jan 28, 2011, at 3:52 PM

so, if there was a nuclear war the effectg of a "nuclear winter" is nothing but garbage because humans cannot induece climate change?

The earth is warming, the only debate is if humans and the burning of fossile fules is a contributing factor. Can we afford to be wrong on this one? I guess I prefer to play it on the safe side.

-- Posted by president obama on Sat, Jan 29, 2011, at 12:16 AM

Following is a short article from the Fairbanks Daily News discussing how Alaska is starting to address changes in it's infrastructure system due to Climate Change.

http://newsminer.com/view/full_story/111...

-- Posted by Geezer on Sun, Jan 30, 2011, at 12:38 PM

http://www.energytribune.com//articles.c...

-- Posted by Owen McPhillips on Sun, Jan 30, 2011, at 4:12 PM

http://mediamatters.org/research/2011012...

-- Posted by Geezer on Sun, Jan 30, 2011, at 5:29 PM

Geezer - I'm not asking you to do any homework. The source of the National Geographic article is National Geographic. I don't know how to simplify the statement beyond that. You can access a 1976 National Geographic, yes?

Optimal global median temperature average refers to the average temperature of the earth considering all temperate zones and the full apogee and perigee of the earth in a natural cycle. The arrived "figure" is the global median temperature. Since average temperatures would fall within a range, a normal and abnormal cycle would emerge. The optimal global median average would be a narrow range or a specific number that would be a benchmark for change. Now that I've done your homework for you - I'm sure your answer will be quick to follow. Surely you have some sort of view on this considering the wealth of knowledge you espouse and the plethora of links you provide.

Vinland is separate from Greenland. A simple google search can verify this. You're not going lax are you?

Since you love links -- here are some for you.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009...

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppa...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424...

Now here is another question for you -- I already know the answer, I'm trying to get you to think beyond web-links here: What is the largest cooling factor for the planet earth?

-- Posted by Mickel on Mon, Jan 31, 2011, at 4:19 PM

MrsSmith, El Nino or La Nina have nothing to do with the level of ice at either pole. The affect the climate primarily in the equatorial region off of South American up into the North American continent.

Geezer, this is one of Mickel's favorite activities. He makes a claim and then demands that other people prove him wrong, but he will not, ever, provide any facts or links to prove himself right.

For the record, thought, Iceland was discovered (accidentally) by Naddoddr, who promptly named it Snowland. The first purposeful discovery of the island was by Hrafna-Fl--ki who named it Iceland.

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

Vineland, for what's it worth was a name that the Norse gave what is now Newfoundland (off the coast of Canada) that was discovered by Leif Eriksson (not to be confused with Leif Garrett, the former teen idol)

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

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Mon, Jan 31, 2011, at 4:50 PM

Mickel

All I needed to know on the National Geographic article was the Author - I could then look up his peer reviewed papers submitted in that time frame which support his position - a link would have been helpful. Following is a link that took a look at 68 of the studies during that time period (1965-1979) and it indicates that 10% predicted cooling, 28% no stance, and 62% predicted warming.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-...

Optimal Global Medium Temperature Average just amounts to a more defined definition of temperature averaging by establishing an optimal theoretical mathematical mean temperature and the associated variability. I tend to take the data recognized by 97% of our scientific community as being accurate in that regard.

As far as the written history of Iceland I tend to believe a different line of thought than you or Michael.

330 BC: Ultima Thule

330 BC An explorer named Pytheas sailed north from Marseilles (in modern France) to discover how far the world would reach in that direction. He navigated the British Isles and the northern seas and wrote about an island that he called Thule or Ultima Thule in his now lost work, On the Ocean. This island was six days north of Britain and one day from "the end of the world". The island he found is thought to have been Iceland.

874-930 AD: Irish Monks and the Settlement of Iceland

The first geographical document of the northern seas was written by an Irish monk named Dicuil, early in the 9th century. The geography book was called 'De mensura orbis terrae' (Concering the Measurement of the World) and in it he related his interviews with Irish priests, the 'Papas', who claimed to have sailed north to Thule and lived there from February to August each year. The Papas also confirmed Pytheas' story that after a day's journey north of the island they had come to 'frozen sea'. Dicuil was therefore the first man to document Thule as the uninhabitted island that had already been known to Irish monks in the latter part of the 8th century.

The settlement of Iceland by the Vikings started in 874 and was largely over by 930 AD. It was precipitated largely by internal struggles in Norway between the barbarian King Harald the Fairhaired and former rulers. King Harald won a major victory late in the 8th century, after which he drove his enemies to the Scottish Isles, which he then later conquered. Many of these people fled onwards to Iceland - which by then was well-known amongst the Vikings - either directly from Norway or from the Scottish Isles, in order to evade Harald's rule.

http://www.travelnet.is/about_iceland/hi...

-- Posted by Geezer on Mon, Jan 31, 2011, at 6:55 PM

Geezer - how nice that you have a different thought on who exactly settled Iceland and/or Greenland. My question was: Why did early discoverers call it 'Vinland'? Hint: it was covered with grapes. Talk about missing the forest for the sake of the trees. PS - thanks for the history lesson, it truly was not needed for this discussion.

I've examined your link for the Skeptical Science website. As earnest as it appears, you may note that the main source of funding for this site is in fact persons or organizations that espouse similar beliefs. Agenda anyone?

Your dissertation on OGMA was nice, but you still did not answer the question. What is the OGMA and have we reached or surpassed that temperature? If you wish to look at precise scientific models that support man-made global warming, they just do not exist. Why and how can I make this claim? Because the models don't have data preceding the industrial revolution. All 'data' preceding the IR is just a best guess. This is NOT science but speculation. Sorry, but your peer reviewed reports on this subject either must back up this assertion or be categorized as dishonest. Guessing is not fact, but you know that already.

Your protests being noted...you still have not addressed the questions that I've posed, and I'm believing now that not only will you continue to duck the questions, but also that you could certainly care less. In this venue, one could compare you to the legion of 'flat-earthers' of yore. I'll answer my third question for you. The single biggest factor for regulating the earths temperature (which is actually found within our sphere) is water. Two-thirds of our planet is covered with this temperature regulating substance, and it matters not how much wood you burn in your fireplace, or how many SUV's people drive; there is nothing you or anyone can do to regulate the evaporation and condensation of water in the atmosphere. My condolences to you and the "97%" of warmers you follow. But thanks for trying to scare the grandchildren anyway.

-- Posted by Mickel on Tue, Feb 1, 2011, at 1:33 PM

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/9508/Green...

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Wed, Feb 2, 2011, at 5:54 PM

Mickel this was already discussed. Iceland was never called Vinland. Ever. The area you are thinking of is what is now Newfoundland off the coast of Canada. When it was originally discovered it was called Vinland.

You talk about missing the forest for the trees, but apparently you figure if you ignore actual history and continue with your own that makes it true. Iceland has been called that since at least the 300s.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Thu, Feb 3, 2011, at 5:10 PM

You also say that 2/3rds of the world's surface is water, Mickel. That is true, but you completely leave out the substance of that statement.

Of all the water in the world, only 2.5% is fresh water. 70% of that water is frozen at the poles. Less than 1% of the world's fresh water is actually accessible.

How much of that less than 1% that we can actually use is being polluted or used up for irrigation?

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Thu, Feb 3, 2011, at 5:15 PM

Geezer, apparently I forgot that Mickel will also ignore that facts that are shown to him that refute what he says and continue posting as if he is correct. Both of us pointed out that he had the wrong explorer and the wrong name for the island. Yet he continues to insist that it was in fact named Vinland.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Thu, Feb 3, 2011, at 5:17 PM

So was I still wrong about it getting cold?

You wrote this entire blog to refute me.

Wallis

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Fri, Feb 4, 2011, at 1:13 PM

http://www.accuweather.com/blogs/weather...

Wallis

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Fri, Feb 4, 2011, at 1:27 PM

http://americanoilman.homestead.com/GasS...

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Fri, Feb 4, 2011, at 2:10 PM

Wallis

Thanks for the link, it is appreciated.

I also looked at some data on the EIA website. The first link is to the main Natural Gas Page and the second link is to a summary I would like you to take a look at and provide us with some comments concerning the analysis. They predict 4% fewer heating degree-days during the 1st quarter of 2011.

What are your thoughts on this Wallis? Is this a trend or did they just pull this out of thin air?

http://www.eia.gov/oil_gas/natural_gas/i...

U.S. Natural Gas Inventories. On January 6, 2011, working natural gas in storage stood at 3,097 Bcf, slightly below last year's level at this time (U.S. Working Natural Gas in Storage Chart). At the end of the winter heating season (March 31, 2011), EIA expects about 1,774 Bcf of working natural gas will remain in storage, a record high and well above last year's level of 1,662 Bcf. The forecast higher inventory is primarily the result of both the current high natural gas production rates and about 4 percent fewer heating degree-days during the first quarter 2011 compared with the same period last year. EIA expects record high inventories to continue through most of 2011, with falling production to bring inventories back into their historical range next year.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/steo/pub/con...

-- Posted by Geezer on Fri, Feb 4, 2011, at 10:26 PM

EIA is predicting record levels of inventory based on record NG production and fewer HDD"s. The EIA is a government agency that has a "global warming" factor in their models. Therefore, if you want to be on the other side of the trade and catch a big move, you need to figure out if the consensus is right or wrong. That is why I have a meterologist on staff and myself and my brother (Ed Marsh) are weather savvy. We believe that we are entering a cooling phase that should last over the next 20 years. Therefore, we believe that NG prices will be trending up over the next 20 years. I have built a large shale position in Oklahoma as a direct result and we are currently on a 5 year development plan to hold this acreage.

Geezer - I accept the fact that I am normally against the consensus. I posted on one of Mike blogs when the S&P was 1064 the index was going higher. I posted when oil was $75 that a fast move was coming and oil would top $100. At the time I stated my thoughts the economic environment was dreary and I was refuted. Mike in particular took a jab at me when I stated that accountability was important and I had facts to back me up.

So Geezer you and I disagree. I told you that we are entering a cold period. The Energy Information Agency says I am wrong. Let's look at the data and see who is right at the end of the season The United States Government or the Marsh brothers.

Wallis

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Sat, Feb 5, 2011, at 7:06 AM

http://americanoilman.homestead.com/GasS...

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Sat, Feb 5, 2011, at 7:10 AM

http://www.firstenercastfinancial.com/en...

We are now below our 5 year average with the coldest weather of the season still to come. If we have a cold March - not predicted but I think so - we will end the season well below average and consensus.

Remember - the government forecast is for a mild Feb and March. I think that their models are seriously flawed. They fired a lot of people 2 years ago because they didn't buy into the global warming theory. Let's see if they missed this winter.

Wallis

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Sat, Feb 5, 2011, at 7:13 AM

Thanks Wallis for your insight, I hope your predictions are correct.

-- Posted by Geezer on Sat, Feb 5, 2011, at 8:15 AM

Wallis, considering you are solely looking at this from an American perspective and leaving the rest of the world completely out of your analysis, it's hard to refute what you say. There is, however, a reason that it used to be called Global Warming, not America warming.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Sat, Feb 5, 2011, at 11:15 AM

Having said that, you are proclaiming yourself victorious after a little more than a month of winter. We haven't even hit the half way point yet.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Sat, Feb 5, 2011, at 11:18 AM

Mike- of course you are selective. Look at Europe. Coldest in England in over 100 years. I don't call it global warming.

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Sat, Feb 5, 2011, at 1:39 PM

You are also correct about winter. The National Weather Service (which fired a lot of non-global warming people and changed their model to include a global warming factor) is calling for a "warm" feb and "warm" March.

Only us nuts are saying it is going to be cold. Let's let the accountability begin on April 2.

Wallis

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Sat, Feb 5, 2011, at 1:50 PM

Geezer -

www.extex.net

This is our company.

We are going to update the website as we have opened a Tulsa, OK office and hired 3 more professional's.

Wallis

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Sat, Feb 5, 2011, at 2:04 PM

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41440956/ns/...

This is Mexico.

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Sun, Feb 6, 2011, at 7:34 AM

What is very illustrating is that you continue to focus on solely temperatures wallis. Climate change is just that a change in the climate it involves much more than simple temperatures. The climate itself becomes much more intense; stronger hurricanes and tornadoes, heavier rain, huge amounts of snow.

Simply looking at the temperature side and declaring that climate change is not occurring is very short sided. Looking at a few regions on earth and also only looking at their temperatures does not prove your point. Just this past week a level 5 cyclone (that was stronger than Katrina) made land fall on Australia. The first since 1918.

I am also very interested in all these people you claim have been fired from various weather services over the past few years because they didn't believe in climate change. Do you have any proof? I know you said earlier not to ask you for proof to prove yourself. I would, however, like to know about these mass firings you claim to have happened.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Sun, Feb 6, 2011, at 10:04 AM

If the latest Hurricane in Australia was the most intense since 1918 what then caused the Hurricane in 1918? You are implying that man caused this one.

What caused the flooding rains in the Valley of the Kings in 500 AD?

What caused the flooding rains in the Sacramento Valley in California in the 1800's that caused the Capital to temporarily move to San Francisco?

100 year storms and 500 year storms happen. Mankind has always wanted to think that we can control it. We are the cause. We aren't. Why did glaciers advance in the past? Why did glaciers retreat in the past? Why was Oklahoma once a part of the Gulf of Mexico? To think that Human Beings can control the weather is as outdated as the world is flat.

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Sun, Feb 6, 2011, at 11:44 AM

Wallis

Thanks for the link to "extec" - looks like you have been able to put a good group of core Professionals together.

All the data which I have read concerning Natural Gas demand show a gradual decrease in usage based on the total number of the end users, at least in the residential sector. Some of the reduction in demand can be attributed to conservation initiatives and energy efficiency programs - but there still remains a substantial portion which cannot be accounted for through increases in efficiency standards. This is where the heating-degree day weighting gets applied to the prediction models, etc. The trend from previous years is applied to the models to simulate future production demands -- these are predictions based on past trends. If the heating degree-days increase this year as you expect, then that data will be incorporated into the modeling going forward.

Wallis, I know you believe Joe Bastardi and his analysis based on an increase in sun spot activity and the effects of El Ninos and La Ninas -- but it does not agree with the long term secular rise in temperatures.

There is another theory why we are experiencing cooling in certain geographical locations while at the same time experiencing a warming in the overall climate. The following scenario backs up your recent cooling analogy, but it is based on a completely different process being the probable cause. It would probably be worth your time to check into this a little further than I have provided, should the theory be proven to be accurate it might play a role in your future acquisitions and planning efforts. Something to kick around extec for comment anyway.

A warmer Arctic is influencing the air pressure over the North Pole and wind patterns in mid-latitudes via teleconnections. Recent increased sea ice mobility, loss of multi-year sea ice, and extended open water areas at the end of summer lead to enhanced heat storage in newly sea-ice-free ocean areas, which in turn is released to the atmosphere in the following autumn. This added atmospheric heat content modifies local and far-field wind fields and results in a positive feedback processes affecting Arctic sea ice cover. An example of increased connectivity between Arctic climate and mid-latitude severe weather was present in winter 2009-2010 compared to the past. Higher than normal temperatures and geopotential heights over the central Arctic with lower heights to the south in December 2009 and February 2010 contributed to record cold and snowy weather in Europe, eastern Asia, and eastern North America, a Hot Arctic-Cold Continents pattern. Northern Eurasia (north of 50° latitude to the Arctic coast) and North America (south of 55° latitude) were particularly cold (monthly anomalies of −2°C to −10°C). Arctic regions had anomalies of +4°C to +12°C. Such a pattern has happened previously only three times before in the last 160 years. Over the previous 200 years the early 20th and early 21st century periods stand apart with two distinct warming episodes demonstrating the sensitivity of the Arctic climate to external forcing. While the climate of the Arctic is changing from the base state of the 20th century, it is still unclear what new climate pattern will ultimately appear.

http://www.agu.org/cgi-bin/SFgate/SFgate...

-- Posted by Geezer on Sun, Feb 6, 2011, at 12:05 PM

Wallis

Here are a couple links providing some additional information on the Arctic Warming and Polar Vortex mentioned in the above post.

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/future/docs/A...

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/2...

-- Posted by Geezer on Sun, Feb 6, 2011, at 12:45 PM

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

The 18th dynasty was over 3500 years ago. Flooding in the middle of the desert. I guys man caused that intense storm?

Wallis

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Sun, Feb 6, 2011, at 5:07 PM

============================================Monthly.US.Dry-Gas.Demand.Models.(BCF/Day)============================================

.....................................................................Residential.and

..................Net.US.Demand.....................Commercial.Demand.................Generation.Demand..................Industrial.Demand........................Storage.Demand

____ 2008__2009__2010__2011__ 2008__2009__2010__2011__ 2008__2009__2010__2011__ 2008__2009__2010__2011___ 2008__ 2009__2010__2011

01....64.35...69.10...69.45...73.85i...47.76...53.76...50.78...56.05i...18.72...16.96...18.43...15.76i....24.20...21.26...26.19...28.07i....-26.33..-22.89...-25.95..-26.03i

02....64.70...67.66...68.27................44.44...42.73...47.26................16.51...16.96...17.44................24.32...21.21...25.94.................-20.56..-13.23...-22.36..............

03....64.34...66.04...64.55................31.89...32.47...25.51................15.24...16.03...14.36................24.34...20.95...26.43...................-7.12....-3.41.....-1.76..............

04....63.43...66.80...65.15................15.84...22.04...11.49................18.11...16.22...15.83................23.21...19.97...25.46....................6.27......8.56....12.36..............

05....61.88...64.12...67.21..................8.63...12.75...10.12................16.93...17.64...17.72................23.23...18.73...26.06..................13.09....15.01....13.30..............

06....65.28...65.42...67.19..................9.56...12.46.....8.89................21.44...20.32...22.13................22.94...19.66...25.33..................11.34....12.98....10.84..............

07....66.06...63.70...68.34..................7.43.....7.79.....8.74................24.90...24.66...26.92................22.63...20.69...25.64..................11.10....10.56......7.03..............

08....66.17...64.44...69.62..................6.82.....8.33.....9.53................24.97...26.22...28.42................22.92...21.11...25.51..................11.46......8.77......6.15..............

09....60.54...60.49...68.07..................5.56.....4.50.....8.27................21.42...23.65...22.27................23.75...22.92...25.81....................9.81......9.43....11.72..............

10....62.56...61.59...68.20................14.13...14.27...12.24................18.88...19.41...18.08................21.83...22.67...26.32....................7.72......5.25....11.56..............

11....65.50...63.56...68.40................29.59...22.10...28.23................15.60...15.82...15.50................21.85...24.63...26.97...................-1.54......1.01.....-2.30..............

12....65.82...66.01...75.46................42.98...45.40...52.08................17.33...17.64...17.16................21.85...25.41...27.87.................-16.35...-22.44...-21.66..............

================Daily Net US Demand Model (BCF)================

_Week____Sat____Sun___ Mon___Tue___Wed___ Thr____Fri____Total

12/03/10....68.56....68.59....69.19....68.76....71.07....74.18....73.31....493.64

12/10/10....72.52....73.63....76.63....77.98....77.49....79.02....76.57....533.84

12/17/10....74.49....75.57....78.03....79.15....78.93....76.76....75.37....538.30

12/24/10....75.87....76.60....77.32....74.91....73.98....74.78....74.44....527.90

12/31/10....74.50....77.31....78.85....77.31....74.29....69.91....68.48....520.65

01/07/11....67.29....67.56....71.12....71.59....72.16....74.46....74.60....498.79

01/14/11....73.45....74.41....75.04....74.60....75.76....76.19....75.84....525.29

01/21/11....73.73....74.48....74.93....74.21....72.55....73.94....75.38....519.21

01/28/11....76.39....76.84....76.28....73.86....73.26....75.20....74.42....526.25

02/04/11....72.67....73.52....73.75........................................................219.94i

__________________________Year_Ago__________________________

01/29/10....65.56....64.85....65.47....68.52....67.95....69.54....71.94....473.83

02/05/10....71.81....71.55....69.60....66.97....65.97....66.28....67.57....479.75

02/12/10....68.25....68.80....69.28....68.01....70.44....70.06....69.53....484.38

02/19/10....69.86....69.91....69.89....68.95....69.56....68.98....67.19....484.34

02/26/10....66.71....67.47....67.94....65.75....67.68....68.80....68.26....472.61

=======Daily US Residential & Commercial Demand Model (BCF)========

_Week____Sat____Sun___ Mon___Tue___Wed___ Thr____Fri____Total

12/03/10....37.57....37.59....34.61....29.52....36.60....47.26....49.12....272.28

12/10/10....45.80....46.68....50.80....55.59....57.91....62.57....55.24....374.58

12/17/10....48.54....44.40....54.11....61.44....64.09....60.25....59.39....392.23

12/24/10....55.88....55.39....54.25....51.30....48.40....50.12....47.91....363.24

12/31/10....50.82....51.54....56.75....56.80....51.63....46.38....37.57....351.49

01/07/11....33.20....41.52....51.51....49.49....52.10....52.91....55.51....336.24

01/14/11....62.18....63.56....61.44....58.47....61.10....63.45....65.20....435.41

01/21/11....56.42....55.49....55.02....53.35....48.81....53.58....61.87....384.54

01/28/11....66.72....63.06....63.70....53.96....53.34....56.13....56.65....413.56

02/04/11....54.87....54.18....58.69........................................................167.74i

__________________________Year_Ago__________________________

01/29/10....39.04....35.90....34.54....42.63....44.64....47.01....54.82....298.57

02/05/10....58.49....56.61....55.08....49.66....45.86....47.53....47.87....361.10

02/12/10....49.69....52.56....52.91....48.61....52.84....51.06....51.89....359.57

02/19/10....53.27....51.47....50.61....49.26....48.91....47.38....46.75....347.64

02/26/10....43.51....40.12....38.27....38.63....44.06....43.11....43.65....291.35

=============Daily US Generation Demand Model (BCF)=============

_Week____Sat____Sun___ Mon___Tue___Wed___ Thr____Fri____Total

12/03/10....13.09....13.63....16.66....17.63....18.23....18.61....16.11....113.96

12/10/10....15.12....15.99....20.70....21.29....21.60....19.19....16.36....130.26

12/17/10....15.48....18.22....22.39....23.01....21.33....18.98....17.27....136.67

12/24/10....15.83....15.64....17.19....15.44....14.22....13.35....13.29....104.96

12/31/10....12.94....16.88....18.38....17.67....15.52....12.81....13.04....107.25

01/07/11....13.05....13.76....15.48....15.53....15.85....16.32....16.18....106.17

01/14/11....15.35....16.76....20.55....21.84....22.44....21.54....18.37....136.86

01/21/11....13.14....12.88....13.89....14.08....15.21....17.20....16.61....103.01

01/28/11....15.10....15.18....14.78....14.89....15.52....15.83....13.62....104.92

02/04/11....11.54....11.92....14.14....17.80....20.42................................75.83i

__________________________Year_Ago__________________________

01/29/10....12.02....12.68....13.94....15.48....16.83....17.43....18.44....106.81

02/05/10....19.22....19.01....18.24....16.77....17.18....17.10....16.67....124.20

02/12/10....16.38....16.59....17.34....19.96....21.55....21.12....19.64....132.58

02/19/10....17.02....16.85....17.65....19.23....19.25....18.20....16.00....124.21

02/26/10....12.41....12.91....15.42....16.65....17.79....19.00....17.47....111.66

....Estimated sample size: 26%

=============Daily US Industrial Demand Model (BCF)===============

_Week____Sat____Sun___ Mon___Tue___Wed___ Thr____Fri____Total

12/03/10....27.64....27.96....27.55....28.15....28.27....28.57....28.27....196.40

12/10/10....27.27....27.44....27.27....27.33....27.73....27.70....28.26....193.00

12/17/10....27.96....27.78....27.65....27.29....27.33....27.83....27.55....193.39

12/24/10....27.89....27.98....28.01....28.36....28.41....27.69....27.35....195.70

12/31/10....27.53....27.43....27.44....28.10....28.47....29.14....28.79....196.91

01/07/11....27.43....27.36....27.54....27.95....27.81....28.21....28.07....194.38

01/14/11....28.22....27.85....28.17....27.95....28.10....27.59....28.12....196.01

01/21/11....28.08....27.63....28.06....28.62....28.19....28.09....26.98....195.66

01/28/11....27.49....27.59....27.48....27.93....28.17....28.89....29.21....196.76

02/04/11....29.09....29.12....29.26....28.09....27.82..............................143.38i

__________________________Year_Ago__________________________

01/29/10....25.87....25.96....25.97....26.32....27.24....26.60....26.80....184.76

02/05/10....26.74....26.77....26.01....26.28....25.83....25.91....25.95....183.49

02/12/10....25.39....25.23....25.50....25.41....25.92....25.79....25.72....178.96

02/19/10....25.81....25.78....25.87....25.88....25.65....25.81....26.43....181.23

02/26/10....25.72....25.51....26.13....25.88....25.92....26.11....27.06....182.33

....Estimated sample size: 7%

=============Daily US Storage Demand Model (BCF)================

_Week____Sat____Sun___ Mon___Tue___Wed___ Thr____Fri____Total

12/03/10.....-9.74..-10.59.....-9.63.....-6.54..-12.03...-20.27...-20.20....-89.00

12/10/10...-15.66..-16.48...-22.13...-26.23..-29.75...-30.44...-23.30..-164.00

12/17/10...-17.49..-14.83...-26.12...-32.60..-33.82...-30.30...-28.84..-184.00

12/24/10...-23.73..-22.41...-22.13...-20.19..-17.05...-16.38...-14.10..-136.00

12/31/10...-16.80..-18.54...-23.72...-25.27..-21.33...-18.42...-10.93..-135.00

01/07/11.....-6.40..-15.08...-23.41...-21.38..-23.60...-22.98...-25.15..-138.00

01/14/11...-32.30..-33.76...-35.12...-33.67..-35.89...-36.40...-35.86..-243.00

01/21/11...-23.92..-21.52...-22.04...-21.84..-19.67...-24.93...-30.08..-164.00

01/28/11...-32.92..-29.00...-29.67...-22.93..-23.77...-25.65...-25.06..-189.00

02/04/11...-22.83..-21.71...-28.34.........................................................-72.88i

__________________________Year_Ago__________________________

01/29/10...-11.37....-9.69.....-8.97...-15.91..-20.76...-21.50...-28.12..-116.32

02/05/10...-32.65..-30.84...-29.73...-25.75..-22.90...-24.27...-22.91..-189.05

02/12/10...-23.21..-25.58...-26.47...-25.97..-29.87...-27.91...-27.73..-186.74

02/19/10...-26.24..-24.19...-24.24...-25.41..-24.24...-22.42...-21.99..-168.74

02/26/10...-14.94..-11.08...-11.88...-15.41..-20.09...-19.43...-19.91..-112.74

If you will review the data demand is up basically across the board. If you review the data you will retract your statement. As Coal production declines and coal exports increase, more NG will be needed for electricity generation. Nuclear power generation will start to go offline in April due to maint thus increasing the load on NG.

Wallis

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Sun, Feb 6, 2011, at 5:18 PM

http://www.safca.org/floodRisk/index.htm...

Flooding in Sacramento Valley.

Wallis

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Sun, Feb 6, 2011, at 5:22 PM

http://earthsky.org/earth/lucy-jones-on-...

I am quite certain that if we had a storm like this people like Mike will blame the "intense" storm on man caused "Climate Change".

When I lived in California this was a real concern but not dealt with.

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Sun, Feb 6, 2011, at 5:34 PM

OK Mike - I have posted on this blog Hurricane intensity in the 1960's. I have posted evidence of biblical flooding in the Central Valley of California. I have posted evidence of flooding in the Valley of the Kings in the Eqypt desert. Man had nothing to do with it. Yet, if we had a repeat of these storms today, you and your like would blame Man for the increased intensity.

I know you are an education major and like history. Please review history. The Geologic record is full of climate change that Man had nothing to do with.

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Sun, Feb 6, 2011, at 5:42 PM

........................======================================Estimate of Changes to Total Global Frozen Inventories (Square Miles)======================================

........................------------------------------------Northern Hemisphere------------------------------------................-------------------------------------Southern Hemisphere------------------------------------

................................................................................................................Net Effect Of.........................................................................................................................Net Effect

........................-------Total Frozen Inventory------....................................Hemispheric................................------Total Frozen Inventory-------.....................................Hemispheric

.............................Two............One...............................Net.........................Cooling.......30-Day.......................Two...........One................................Net.........................Cooling........30-Day

____________Years Ago_ Year Ago__Present___Change__Baseline_(Warming)__Average________Years Ago_ Year Ago__ Present___Change__Baseline_(Warming)__ Average

01/05/11..........11443079..11178203..11170920........34049........39931.........-5881........16946....................4908761....4640206....4575947.......-23320......-28148..........4828.........-7406

01/06/11..........11483715..11299287..11025665.....-145254........36720.....-181975..........9982....................4888256....4598359....4555290......-20657.......-26597..........5940.........-6080

01/07/11..........11509237..11406179..10941173.......-84491........35325.....-119816..........5115....................4867953....4559307....4525249......-30040.......-25960.........-4079.........-6047

01/08/11..........11529788..11487184..10941417............243........33260.......-33016............665....................4846034....4529938....4489079.......-36170......-25432.......-10738.........-5356

01/09/11..........11606311..11554564..10953558........12141........32778.......-20636.........-1521....................4821679....4500003....4459801......-29277.......-24857.........-4420.........-5216

01/10/11..........11756721..11520723..10950565.........-2993........32001.......-34995........-8133....................4797341....4475746....4432445.......-27355.......-24107.........-3247........-5309

01/11/11..........11809815..11507283..11109869......159303........32533......126770.........-3545....................4775179....4460609....4396701.......-35744......-23429.......-12314.........-5784

01/12/11..........11732881..11490749..11035260.......-74608........34190.....-108799........-8586....................4751774....4441952....4363667.......-33033.......-22734.......-10298........-6539

01/13/11..........11701652..11457908..11206207......170947........36346......134600............986....................4730522....4420651....4341921.......-21746.......-22235............489........-7056

01/14/11..........11798177..11433010..11219320........13112........38920.......-25808..........6364....................4711154....4397422....4331047.......-10874......-21613........10739.........-6424

01/15/11..........11838089..11475275..11300925........81605........42880........38725..........3393....................4676784....4372736....4299634.......-31412.......-20903......-10508.........-6236

01/16/11..........11829140..11535141..11219805.......-81120........44278.....-125399........-4506....................4641272....4353403....4259233.......-40401.......-20349.......-20051........-6431

01/17/11..........11908195..11570870..11099798.....-120007........47304.....-167311........-7664....................4611720....4343658....4237411.......-21822.......-19810.........-2011........-5599

01/18/11..........12007200..11537714..11362238......262440........49297......213142...........-810....................4580938....4337419....4212993.......-24418......-19214.........-5203.........-5746

01/19/11..........12037775..11606149..11534278......172040........48425......123614..........1930....................4557533....4325866....4175866.......-37126.......-18691......-18435.........-6124

01/20/11..........11975468..11765353..11734735......200457........45586......154870..........8100....................4538529....4314128....4151059.......-24806.......-18037........-6768.........-5150

01/21/11..........11866496..11800598..11733824...........-910........42171.......-43082..........4598....................4515591....4300040....4148511........-2547.......-17398........14851.........-4479

01/22/11..........11764280..11812963..11814070........80245........37401........42844..........7763....................4480552....4290916....4126522.......-21989.......-16746........-5242.........-4617

01/23/11..........11710238..11817674..11867288........53217........34154........19063..........6146....................4448671....4279974....4112279.......-14243.......-15967..........1724........-4061

01/24/11..........11660164..11930753..11823258.......-44029........30131.......-74161..........7030....................4426628....4265916....4109357........-2921.......-15255........12333.........-3492

01/25/11..........11626382..11909017..11785003.......-38255........26176.......-64431..........7213....................4404275....4252474....4101919........-7437.......-14677..........7239.........-3378

01/26/11..........11661335..12000373..11811387........26384........25855............528..........1662....................4381625....4239326....4096076.........-5843.......-14354..........8510........-3310

01/27/11..........11691917..12152204..11905614........94227........25486........68740..........4785....................4360253....4228272....4087442.........-8634.......-14331..........5696........-2516

01/28/11..........11701211..12191486..11970773........65159........23575........41584..........7845....................4334220....4212376....4076309.......-11133.......-14841..........3708........-2100

01/29/11..........11792821..12223298..11981028........10254........22202.......-11947........10184....................4314994....4195545....4071510.........-4799......-15152........10353.........-1657

01/30/11..........11886863..12288651..12002490........21462........21801...........-338..........8320....................4303977....4181999....4069446.........-2064......-14925........12861............685

01/31/11..........11965856..12343363..12082221........79730........20145........59584..........4628....................4285361....4176310....4053920.......-15526.......-14466........-1059............242

02/01/11.....................n/a.............n/a.............n/a.............n/a........17728.............n/a.............n/a....................4260441....4164306....4043661......-10259.......-13936..........3677............154

........................=======================================Estimate of Changes to Global Snowpack Inventories (Square Miles)========================================

........................------------------------------------Northern Hemisphere------------------------------------................-------------------------------------Southern Hemisphere-------------------------------------

................................................................................................................Net Effect Of........................................................................................................................Net Effect

........................--------Snowpack Inventory--------....................................Hemispheric................................--------Snowpack Inventory--------....................................Hemispheric

.............................Two............One...............................Net.........................Cooling.......30-Day.......................Two...........One................................Net.........................Cooling........30-Day

____________Years Ago_ Year Ago__Present___Change__Baseline_(Warming)__Average________Years Ago_ Year Ago__ Present___Change__Baseline_(Warming)__ Average

01/04/11............7962025....7754085....7779387........66787........37101........29686........14960.....................382253......383131......381107...........-207.............-83..........-123..............61

01/05/11............8003065....7777524....7788936..........9548........29676.......-20128........15494.....................382599......383511......381001...........-106..........-108................2..............27

01/06/11............8024290....7880618....7638690.....-150245........26582.....-176827..........8198.....................382538......383435......381359............358..........-117............475..............26

01/07/11............8028571....7978905....7553472.......-85218........25510.....-110729..........3783.....................382277......383467......381369..............10..........-140............150..............24

01/08/11............8034978....8041588....7560762..........7290........23696.......-16406............436.....................382143......383740......382021............652...........-112............765..............66

01/09/11............8094502....8096388....7579795........19033........23382.........-4348.........-1197.....................382317......383857......381875..........-146...........-109.............-36..............80

01/10/11............8229759....8045373....7580928..........1132........22910.......-21777.........-6636.....................382576......383763......381772..........-103...........-135..............32............108

01/11/11............8276313....8024501....7721742......140813........23985......116828.........-2395.....................382720......383212......381580...........-192..........-140.............-52..............57

01/12/11............8197441....8008670....7640126.......-81615........25829.....-107445........-7410.....................382690......382796......381549.............-31...........-112..............81..............50

01/13/11............8158503....7964777....7787800......147674........27807......119866..........1916.....................382474......382965......381591..............42...........-110............152..............58

01/14/11............8223452....7930732....7782628.........-5172........30003.......-35175..........6673.....................382188......383130......381710............119..........-114............233..............40

01/15/11............8232476....7963616....7838932........56303........33526........22776..........2556.....................381942......383032......381852............142...........-101............243..............51

01/16/11............8206559....8020192....7757467.......-81464........34849.....-116314........-5759.....................381761......382843......381806.............-45.............-60..............15..............79

01/17/11............8281230....8060052....7643238.....-114229........38044.....-152273........-9041.....................381788......382801......381770.............-35.............-14.............-21............109

01/18/11............8374509....8019807....7896893......253654........40116......213538.........-2303.....................381939......383302......381656...........-114..............26..........-141............105

01/19/11............8394701....8072544....8045503......148609........39418......109191..............59.....................381996......383386......381624.............-32..............56.............-88............104

01/20/11............8339092....8221251....8247648......202144........36833......165310..........6626.....................381976......383300......381879............255..............65............189..............97

01/21/11............8232411....8256984....8241273.........-6374........33668.......-40043..........3617.....................381682......383007......381935..............56..............34..............21..............83

01/22/11............8123305....8275540....8303858........62585........29441........33144..........6603.....................381189......382811......381943................8...............-4..............12..............53

01/23/11............8065394....8283193....8347788........43929........26393........17536..........5022.....................381047......382387......381880.............-62.............-50............-12..............55

01/24/11............8015020....8388499....8282899.......-64888........22446.......-87335..........5273.....................381120......382117......381837............-43.............-66..............23..............71

01/25/11............7988166....8350418....8251669.......-31230........18463.......-49694..........5568.....................381702......381639......381898..............60............-79............140..............88

01/26/11............8025414....8427690....8271010........19341........18003..........1337...............-2.....................382235......381524......381895...............-3..........-105............102............106

01/27/11............8049288....8576395....8337082........66072........17339........48732..........2453.....................382087......381667......381235...........-660...........-104..........-555..............80

01/28/11............8051027....8618696....8393849........56766........15286........41480..........5923.....................381889......381212......381234...............-1.............-84..............83..............59

01/29/11............8128471....8636873....8412916........19066........13885..........5181..........8897.....................381643......381764......381266..............32.............-80............112..............48

01/30/11............8208024....8688041....8425675........12759........13343...........-584..........7351.....................381528......381359......381235.............-31............-63..............32..............36

01/31/11............8276924....8726044....8485306........59630........11962........47668..........3887.....................381333......381107......381177.............-58.............-67................9..............35

........................========================================Estimate of Changes to Global Sea Ice Inventories (Square Miles)=========================================

........................------------------------------------Northern Hemisphere------------------------------------................-------------------------------------Southern Hemisphere------------------------------------

................................................................................................................Net Effect Of.........................................................................................................................Net Effect

........................----------Sea Ice Inventory----------....................................Hemispheric...............................----------Sea Ice Inventory----------.....................................Hemispheric

.............................Two............One...............................Net.........................Cooling.......30-Day.......................Two...........One................................Net.........................Cooling........30-Day

____________Years Ago_ Year Ago__Present___Change__Baseline_(Warming)__Average________Years Ago_ Year Ago__ Present___Change__Baseline_(Warming)__ Average

01/05/11............3013480....2969934....2953626........24475..........9893........14582..........1533...................1778499....1508647....1447253.......-23111.......-28061..........4949........-7452

01/06/11............3030750....2987189....2958607..........4981........10127.........-5145..........1819...................1757992....1466865....1426034.......-21219......-26499..........5280.........-6123

01/07/11............3048446....3001060....2959583............975..........9742.........-8767..........1372...................1737903....1427968....1395957.......-30076......-25843.........-4232.........-6097

01/08/11............3067360....3019225....2952290.........-7292..........9497.......-16790............320...................1716177....1398309....1359320......-36637.......-25339.......-11297.........-5422

01/09/11............3088610....3031496....2947173.........-5116..........9405.......-14521..........-260...................1691733....1368177....1330188.......-29131.......-24759.........-4372........-5306

01/10/11............3100653....3047249....2941629.........-5543..........9266.......-14810........-1415...................1667107....1343956....1303066.......-27122.......-23974.........-3147........-5420

01/11/11............3102231....3053749....2959902........18272..........8899..........9372.........-1075...................1644759....1329691....1267354.......-35711......-23281.......-12429.........-5849

01/12/11............3104374....3054046....2966730..........6828..........8711.........-1883.........-1103...................1621171....1311495....1234195......-33159.......-22608.......-10550.........-6607

01/13/11............3116261....3063123....2989461........22731..........8735........13995...........-913...................1600161....1290005....1212675.......-21520......-22112............591.........-7121

01/14/11............3144976....3074940....3008687........19225..........9086........10139...........-281...................1581440....1266540....1201622.......-11052......-21475........10423.........-6468

01/15/11............3175102....3083576....3034221........25533..........9443........16089............789...................1547354....1242033....1170136.......-31486.......-20761......-10724.........-6287

01/16/11............3193610....3083419....3033048.........-1173..........9500.......-10673..........1217...................1511916....1222860....1129910......-40226.......-20249.......-19976.........-6504

01/17/11............3195537....3084710....3030383.........-2664..........9259.......-11924..........1434...................1482347....1213145....1108237......-21673.......-19771.........-1902.........-5708

01/18/11............3200056....3091321....3037962..........7579..........9057.........-1478..........1535...................1451417....1206281....1083757.......-24480......-19224.........-5255.........-5852

01/19/11............3212898....3105989....3059551........21589..........8770........12819..........1876...................1427920....1194574....1046656.......-37100.......-18733......-18366.........-6231

01/20/11............3207850....3116103....3058462.........-1088..........8427.........-9516..........1469...................1408675....1182960....1021435......-25221.......-18084.........-7137.........-5256

01/21/11............3202901....3115076....3063814..........5351..........8288.........-2937............985...................1386040....1169199....1018831.........-2604......-17414........14810.........-4568

01/22/11............3208269....3108908....3082948........19134..........7966........11168..........1187...................1351765....1160304......996800.......-22031.......-16725........-5305.........-4673

01/23/11............3216101....3106677....3092171..........9222..........7617..........1605..........1184...................1320072....1149689......982857.......-13943.......-15900..........1957........-4115

01/24/11............3215816....3113592....3103686........11515..........7512..........4002..........1509...................1297944....1135981......980035.........-2821.......-15169........12348........-3557

01/25/11............3205647....3131144....3104676............989..........7465.........-6476..........1648...................1274990....1123005......972508.........-7527......-14584..........7057.........-3463

01/26/11............3204635....3145393....3111524..........6848..........7574...........-725..........1670...................1251715....1110063......966664.........-5843......-14246..........8402.........-3403

01/27/11............3212124....3148631....3140440........28915..........7992........20922..........2377...................1230624....1099038......958628.........-8036.......-14243..........6207........-2592

01/28/11............3221542....3145216....3148042..........7601..........8142...........-540..........2107...................1204830....1083540......947459.......-11168......-14773..........3605.........-2162

01/29/11............3233900....3158042....3140307.........-7734..........8121.......-15855..........1481...................1185510....1066047......942687........-4772.......-15073........10301.........-1704

01/30/11............3248846....3172167....3149143..........8835..........8301............533..........1023...................1174467....1052804......940635.........-2052.......-14866........12814............648

01/31/11............3261669....3188993....3167734........18591..........8053........10537............678...................1156116....1047545......925196.......-15439.......-14409........-1029............213

02/01/11.....................n/a.............n/a.............n/a.............n/a..........7795.............n/a.............n/a...................1131477....1035695......914903......-10293.......-13859..........3566..............99

Posted is frozen inventory. It is something that I follow on a daily basis. I discussed the polar vortex in relation to sunspots on one of Mike's blogs over a year ago. He made some snide comment and tried to turn it into political commentary at the time.

Wallis

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Sun, Feb 6, 2011, at 6:15 PM

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

As you can see. There have been many times in the past when there was less Arctic Ice than now. The Northwest passage was utilized over 600 years ago.

Was that ice melt a result of man? I think not. So why are we so sure now it is? It is a natural event that happens every couple of hundred years.

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Sun, Feb 6, 2011, at 6:40 PM

Wallis

The following report goes into great detail explaining the decrease in consumption by residential end users. Although the overall volume has grown each year, the actual consumption rate has decreased for each individual end user. Per year we are seeing a decrease in individual consumption at the same time more users (15 million from 1998-2009) are coming on line - thus increasing total demand.

I don't know if it would be absolutely correct to say that the increasing overall volume demand equates to more end user consumption due to the weather - especially when the trend has been towards less individual consumption. Could it just be more users utilizing a lesser share of the resource?

http://www.eia.gov/pub/oil_gas/natural_g...

-- Posted by Geezer on Sun, Feb 6, 2011, at 8:04 PM

Geezer - NG prices averaged over $10 mcf from 2005-2008. Higher prices cause demand destruction. Prices have been in the $2.75-$4.50 range since 2009. NG consumption is increasing as prices have lowered.

One more time I will try and explain this. I suppose I need to explain it more as it has been forgotten.

There is 1 Law of Economics. Supply and demand. In a free market you will never have shortages as prices will rise to a level where demand will be "destroyed" and those that can buy the product will.

There are 2 corallary's to supply/demand.

1 Artificially low prices lead to shortages (Communist always have shortages due to price controls).

2. Artificially high prices lead to surplus.

NG consumption is rising again as prices have come down.

Wallis

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Mon, Feb 7, 2011, at 6:10 AM

http://www.mfglobalfutures.com/resources...

NG price chart.

Wallis

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Mon, Feb 7, 2011, at 6:12 AM

http://www.mfglobalfutures.com/resources...

A corn chart. Notice the price since 2006.

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Mon, Feb 7, 2011, at 6:25 AM

http://www.mfglobalfutures.com/resources...

This is corn. The other is Wheat. Notice the price since 2006.

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Mon, Feb 7, 2011, at 6:28 AM

http://www.mccookgazette.com/story/11808...

Ed and I bought farm land in McCook in early 2006. We also bought apartments. We believe that the bull market that began in grains in 2006 is going to last for decades. We got bullish and bought farm land.

Geezer - The purpose for me posting this data is to illustrate that I follow a lot of this pretty closely.

My oil company is 95% oil. Now I am leasing liquid rich shale that is going to produce a lot of oil but also a lot of Gas. Why? NG has gotten cheap and is not liked in the industry. Going against the grain if you understand a market and are pretty sure prices are going higher is how business is built.

Wallis

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Mon, Feb 7, 2011, at 6:40 AM

Actually, wallis, I have stated several times that I am still on the fence on whether or not man is a direct cause on climate change. Having never alluded to the idea, as you seem to think I did, that the cyclone in Australia was caused by man it is a strange attack.

You keep wanting everyone to prove that man is causing climate change, but you can prove that man is not? Disastrous weather has occurred in the past. This is an inescapable fact. But that alone does not prove that climate change is not being affected by man.

The mere fact that you are seemingly making fun of anyone who believes that man may have a direct cause to climate change by posting links to past disasters and then making a sly comment about those who do believe this is really indicative of how you think.

You don't even seem to allow for the possibility that man could be causing climate change and anyone who disagrees with you, you have such a great disdain for them that you make fun of them for thinking something different than yourself.

I know you don't like actually proving what you claim to be fact, but a little evidence to support your claim that climate change isn't being affected by man would be helpful. I would say the same to those who believe climate change is being affected by man. I lean towards man caused but I am not certain of it. I am still waiting for your proof that all those people were fired for simply not believing in climate change (or global warming as you have called it several times on this blog).

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Mon, Feb 7, 2011, at 2:13 PM

"I know you are an education major and like history."

For someone who thinks he knows everything about me (and likes to post that information-typically without my consent-from time to time), you missed widely on this one. I am not an education major, I have a education degree. This part I willingly release, I am a history major working on my Master's as of now.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Mon, Feb 7, 2011, at 2:17 PM

Wallis, since you consider yourself an expert in just about everything I was wondering if you could assist me on one thing.

In the last year, earthquakes have been swelling in the northern parts of Arkansas. Now I want to believe that this is just a natural phenomenon that has to do with the New Madrid fault and/or smaller faults that are running throughout the northern part of the state. Then there is the practice of hydraulic fracturing (fracking) was brought into the picture.

The article below is a well written one that shows both sides of the story, but I was just wondering what your opinion of it is.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/06/us/06e...

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Mon, Feb 7, 2011, at 2:28 PM

Hydraulic fracturing has nothing to do with Earthquakes.

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Mon, Feb 7, 2011, at 6:49 PM

Geezer - More data.

http://www.investorvillage.com/smbd.asp?...

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Tue, Feb 8, 2011, at 5:06 AM

So hydraulic fracturing has never caused the ground to shake?

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Tue, Feb 8, 2011, at 6:32 AM

No it hasn't.

Please explain to me how you can overcome the overburden pressure of the earth when you are pumping fluid into a wellbore 2-1/2 miles deep through a 4 inch hole.It is impossible to do.

Mike people used to stimulate wells with Nitro in the old days. The ground did not shake then either.

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Tue, Feb 8, 2011, at 1:14 PM

Nothing is impossible. It may be implausible but never impossible.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Tue, Feb 8, 2011, at 5:14 PM

Divine intervention?

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Tue, Feb 8, 2011, at 6:40 PM

31 below zero in Oklahoma today.

18 below zero in Arkansas.

Hope this didn't kill to many humans, animals or crops.

Cold can be very deadly.

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Thu, Feb 10, 2011, at 8:38 PM

Those temperatures seem to be quite an extreme climate to me, not only that by Sunday temperatures in Oklahoma are expected to be in the 60s and near 70. That is quite extreme.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Fri, Feb 11, 2011, at 5:09 PM

OK Mike you are right and I am wrong.

Since you know everything and are always correct on everything please guide me.

Where are oil prices going over the next 6 months?

What is the Stock Market going to do over the next 6 months?

When is the housing market going to bottom?

When does the fed start raising interest rates?

Where is the price of Gold and Silver going over the next 6 months.

I have given my opinion on all of the above over the last 12 months. You always think that I am wrong and you are correct. Therefore, since I am always wrong in McCook Gazette Blog World please enlighten me. I am planning a 50 well drilling program this year and the thought that you could save me from myself might let me sleep better.

Thanks for you insightful response.

I am curious since Global Warming is real. Why did we have climate change over the last 500 years? just curious as to what caused it since the past has no bearing on the now.

Wallis

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Fri, Feb 11, 2011, at 9:03 PM

By the way, there is a term that has been coined to discuss weather during winter called the January thaw. Ever heard of it. It deals with Arctic outburst's and the effect that happens after High's.

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Fri, Feb 11, 2011, at 9:10 PM

I don't believe I ever said you were wrong and I was right. It's just very clear that we have different opinions of why weather is occurring the way it is.

For someone who thinks I am always right, you sure do spend a lot of time trying to convince me that I am wrong. Odd.

Oh, one more thing. For someone who doesn't call it global warming you sure seem to call climate change, global warming a lot.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Sat, Feb 12, 2011, at 2:31 PM

Michael and Geezer...okay...Vinland is Newfoundland if you say so...the source I looked at http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/prehistory/v... claims that Newfoundland is possible, but then so are parts of Greenland. Evidently Iceland was ruled out...Maybe it was Greenland I was thinking about...nevertheless, the link I posted even talks about the conditions upon discovery. For the record, this is an admission of where I was wrong. That aside, I'm not sure the discoverer of Vinland is germane to the global warming discussion either.

Michael - what does the percentage of fresh water on the planet have to do with global warming? I agree with your lament concerning water pollution - however water is an absolutely necessary resource that must be used. It is also a renewable resource and a very manageable resource. But quite frankly, 1% of the worlds water supply was not what I was talking about when I brought up water evaporation and condensation. I was trying to let Geezer in on some knowledge that elements outside of the realm of human control affect our planets temperature.

I noticed that both you and him ignored this point and continued with your ponitifications. Congratulations on your self-aggrandizements...that and 75 cents will buy you a copy of the McCook Gazette.

-- Posted by Mickel on Fri, Feb 18, 2011, at 4:40 PM

Mike's lies are again exposed. The colder end of March, colder April is coming to pass. NG storage is 120 BCF below last year and NG prices are up 10%.

Mike wrote this entire blog in an attempt to call me out because Meteorology did not agree with his politics.

Once again the facts are the facts and opinions are..........

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Tue, Apr 5, 2011, at 6:19 AM

Yay more false charges from Wallis. Where I'm living the end of March beginning of April has been abnormally warm. Then again you are once again taking a small window of time in the United States to declare that global warming worldwide is not happening.

Then there is also your allegation that I wrote a blog solely based on "calling" you out. Quaint.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Tue, Apr 5, 2011, at 10:07 AM

Abnormally warm.

29 in McCook this am.

The facts always prove you wrong.

Ok Robot give me your programmed response.

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Sat, Apr 16, 2011, at 6:25 AM

You know for a guy that is constantly harping that I am constantly trying to prove you wrong you sure spend a lot of time trying to prove me wrong. It's very interesting.

Thank God, though, it was 29 in McCook that MUST mean that global warming isn't real. Then again, it's supposed to be near 90 here tomorrow, record highs. So going with your quote "The facts always prove you wrong" does that now mean that Global Warming is, in fact, real?

Well, of course, no it doesn't. Global Warming has the name for a reason, because it concerns the climate around the world. Stating the temperature in one or two locations ignores the bigger picture.

You want to talk about robotic responses? Your belief if so strong that global warming isn't real that you will quote a temperature in McCook as your proof.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Mon, Apr 18, 2011, at 6:35 AM

For the month of April, in the microcosm that is the United States, we have seen snow in states such as Nebraska and Minnesota, record cold in Washington, record heat in Oklahoma and Texas (coupled with out of control wildfires) and (with a week still left) a record 272 tornadoes.

Further proof that climate change is in fact occurring. This is not normal weather, this is extreme weather.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Fri, Apr 22, 2011, at 8:33 AM

But climate change and global warming are the same thing right? And it/they are caused by man?

-- Posted by Sir Didymus on Fri, Apr 22, 2011, at 10:30 AM

http://americanoilman.homestead.com/GasS...

Mike please notice the drop in year over year inventory. With record production NG inventory is building to a year over year deficit and next report we will be below the 5 year avarage.

Therefore, Natural Gas prices are rising. Again, you were wrong. I stated my case on why I thought NG prices were going higher and you wrote this blog to disprove.

Those stubborn facts always get in your way.

Oil prices are moving up despite your telling me they weren't.

Silver is also moving up. You actually never called me out on Silver. Nice move from $12.

Wallis

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Mon, Apr 25, 2011, at 7:40 AM

Again Wallis, please let me know when I told you that oil prices weren't going up. I honestly don't remember. You are the so-called expert on oil on this site so when you post what oil is going to do I don't question it. What I do question is when you say that oil is going to rise six months before it happens and then blame only one person solely (Obama) when they do.

I also notice that you changed the subject from the original posting, something you love to do.

Awful lot of extreme weather happening in Oklahoma, Texas, and Arkansas over the last couple of weeks. But you proved that Global Warming/Climate Change wasn't real because one day McCook got down to 29 degrees (naturally you left out the part where the night before McCook had experienced a severe storm that had hail, sleet, and snow all at once which I would certainly call extreme weather which is one of the tenets of Global Warming/Climate Change).

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Tue, Apr 26, 2011, at 9:44 PM

"I would certainly call extreme weather which is one of the tenets of Global Warming/Climate Change."

Interesting almost anything seems to be a tenet of global warming. Temperature rising=global warming, temperature dropping=climate change; drought=global warming, floods=climate change; hurricanes=global warming, blizzards=climate change

Amazing how every climatalogical or weather pattern can fit into the definition that supporters purport is man made global warming.

Still awaiting an apology

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Wed, Apr 27, 2011, at 9:04 AM

Ah, typical SW, leaving out all of the context in order to make a sarcastic point. I'm sorry that you feel the need to do this.

Extreme weather is a tenet of Global Warming/Climate change. I clearly stated that, you even quoted it, yet by the time you made it to your sarcastic remarks you had already dropped the very important "extreme" part of my comments, therefor losing (purposefully perhaps?) all the context.

Temperatures rising do not equal climate change. Extreme hot temperatures around the globe do. Temperatures dropping do not equal climate change. Extremely cold or very out of a season cold worldwide do. Droughts do not equal global warming. Extreme dryness leading to unusual and extreme droughts in different parts of the world do. Flooding does not equal climate change. Extreme amounts of rain over long periods of time that cause rivers and creeks to overflow their banks in different parts of the world, do. Hurricanes do not equal global warming. Extremely intense hurricanes or hurricanes occurring out of season in different parts of the world, do. Blizzards do not equal climate change. Extreme amounts of snow and win happening in different parts of the world do.

See how amazingly different statements can be when you leave the context in?

Of course when you leave the context in it makes your last statement: "Amazing how every climatalogical or weather pattern can fit into the definition that supporters purport is man made global warming."

factually wrong.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Wed, Apr 27, 2011, at 11:43 AM

Michael,

Sorry let me ammend it. I thought when I quoted your statments stating extreme (in your opinion)it was understood that I was talking about the same thing.

Interesting almost anything seems to be a tenet of global warming. Extreme Temperature rising=global warming, extreme temperature dropping=climate change; extreme drought=global warming, extreme floods=climate change; extreme hurricanes=global warming, extreme blizzards=climate change

You just restated my points by adding one word. I'm happy to add that word since it still shows how people try to change the argument. My point still stands, who decides what extreme or not extreme is? So I stand by:

Amazing how every climatalogical or weather pattern can fit into the definition that supporters purport is man made global warming.

What is factually wrong?

Still awaiting an apology

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Wed, Apr 27, 2011, at 11:58 AM

Michael,

"Blizzards do not equal climate change."

Apparently some supporters believe that they do

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/12/28/f...

Still awaiting an apology

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Wed, Apr 27, 2011, at 12:02 PM

See how easy that is when you add the original context into the argument? Yet by the next post with the link you are once again leaving the context out. It is simply amazing how much of an issue with context you have.

"I'm happy to add that word since it still shows how people try to change the argument."

Yes you are correct but in this case it was you taking away a word to frame the argument in a sarcastic way.

"Amazing how every climatalogical or weather pattern can fit into the definition that supporters purport is man made global warming."

Really? You don't know what is factually wrong with this statement? Let's start with the word "every". You are assigning a 100% word to a statement that you can't even prove. That's the first part of the factually wrong statement. The second part of the statement that makes it factually wrong is that you can't back up this claim. It is simply your opinion. Again, since not "EVERY" climatological or weather pattern can fit into your definition of global warming it is factually wrong.

I'm not even talking about man made global warming. That is a value statement that you added. No one has ever argued that every case of extreme climatological or extreme weather pattern is a result of global warming/climate change. So it follows that no one has ever argued that every case of climatological or weather pattern does either.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Wed, Apr 27, 2011, at 12:40 PM

Michael,

"It is simply your opinion"

Exactly, I am stating opinion, how many times do I have to make clear, I express opinion unless I am using some other documentation to support a fact. Again, I'm not sure what sort of education one gets at a school like ATU, but I was taught to support claims. Without support they are nothing but opinion, which I feel everyone is entitled to possessing. You are the one who tries to state your opinion as fact.

"See how easy that is when you add the original context into the argument? Yet by the next post with the link you are once again leaving the context out. It is simply amazing how much of an issue with context you have."

You may be right this time, because I have NO idea what you're talking about here. What context do you think is missing from a link to an interview? I just was using that as an example to show that not all supporters of global warming theory would agree with your assertion that blizzards don't indicate climate change. Do you deny this?

"Again, since not "EVERY" climatological or weather pattern can fit into your definition of global warming it is factually wrong"

What climatological or weather pattern cannot fit into my definition of global warming? I just listed several that can fit into this definition, what do you say can't? You even agreed with me on every point except blizzards, which I have brought in outside evidence to support.If you are going to say I'm wrong, don't you have the burden to disprove me? You just made a blanket statement of your opinion, again that's fine, but why is your opinion factually correct while mine is factually incorrect as you've said?

Still awaiting an apology

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Wed, Apr 27, 2011, at 1:16 PM

And here we go with the loop-de-loop logic of SW. You said what you said but didn't mean to state it, You stated what you stated as fact but it is really just your opinion, though it still doesn't stop you from pushing your opinion as absolute fact and demanding that other people prove your opinion wrong. Your opinion's been proven wrong but that's not what you really meant to begin with you meant to say something else.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Wed, Apr 27, 2011, at 3:46 PM

Michael,

I don't understand you, I'm sorry.

When did I say I said something but didn't mean to say it?

I didn't mean you to infer that my opinion is fact. I thought I clearly addressed that above that what I said is my opinion. What is so difficult for you to understand about?

You said my opinion was factually incorrect, if you are going to make those claims YOU have to back it up. If you say "it is my opinion that you are wrong" you don't have to back it up do you see the difference? In saying that I am in fact wrong, you have made a statement of fact not opinion.

When was my opinion proven wrong? Again you say these things with no support and expect everyone to bow to your wisdom. I asked a very simple and direct question, no doubt that is why you aren't able to answer it.

You are saying a lot of things in this last post but you aren't basing them on anything but your opinion. However, you are stating your opinion as fact (surprisingly).

Please do a little critical thinking before you type, if you are able to. A person can't just claim that something is or isn't without support, if you do it is an opinion and you should phrase it as such.

Please explain your opinion.

Still awaiting an apology

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Wed, Apr 27, 2011, at 4:44 PM

Michael,

You haven't shown why my statement is wrong, you just said it is. But I'm still willing to give you the chance to show a climatological or weather pattern that DOES NOT conform to global warming? Please answer or retract your statement.

Still awaiting an apology

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Wed, Apr 27, 2011, at 4:46 PM

Nice Rally has started in NG. Hope someone is trading this stuff besides me.

Mike I thought you could be good at this stuff but you attacked me for suggesting it.

Oil is up 50%. Silver is up 300%. Stock Market is up 35%. NG is going to rise 100%.

You can continue to call me out but I thought you had talent and instead you stood on your Socialist high horse about greed and the like .

Is anyone who is not poor - greedy in your opinion? As a "GrandFather" I would think that you would want to be a road map to your Grandchildren of how to be successful in America. Not a whiner about how "the man" is out to get you.

Wallis

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Fri, Apr 29, 2011, at 6:27 AM

"Mike I thought you could be good at this stuff but you attacked me for suggesting it."

Again, Wallis, I don't believe I have ever attacked you about your predictions. Please show me where I have or please stop claiming that I have.

"Is anyone who is not poor - greedy in your opinion? As a "GrandFather" I would think that you would want to be a road map to your Grandchildren of how to be successful in America. Not a whiner about how "the man" is out to get you."

I was wondering how long it would take you to stoop to this level. I don't believe I have ever whined about how the man is out to get me, but considering you have a knack for making up what I have said and then criticizing me for I guess I shouldn't be all that surprised that you are making this claim up as well.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Sat, Apr 30, 2011, at 3:47 PM

I feel that I have explained perfectly how your statement was factually wrong, SW but you rejected it out of hand. So I guess we are at a standstill.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Sat, Apr 30, 2011, at 3:49 PM

Michael,

I'm sorry, I did not mean to reject anything out of hand. I was hoping to continue the conversation. As I understand it you said I was wrong because I said "every" and because I couldn't back up my claim. Is this correct? Because I disagree with you doesn't mean I reject it out of hand, I have given you the opportunity to try to convince me as I try to convince you. This is how discussion or debate usually works. When I asked you to give me one example to show I am wrong I thought it should be an easy thing to do if I am wrong. I have tried to respond several times to explain my opinion, while you have just said that you are right and I am wrong.

Please let me know of ONE climatological and weather pattern that cannot be attributed to climate chage/global warming. Thats all you have to do.

Still awaiting an apology

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Sat, Apr 30, 2011, at 4:56 PM

"while you have just said that you are right and I am wrong."

I never said that.

Where you were factually wrong was in your statement of 100% by saying "every". I never said that I was factually right while you were factually wrong. Again that is value that you are adding to this conversation that just plain doesn't exist. You have still yet to back up your "every" claim.

Do rainshowers prove global warming/climate change? No.

Does a seven inch snowfall in the middle of winter prove global warming/climate change? No.

Extreme weather/climatology when it hasn't really been experienced does prove global warming/climate change.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Sat, Apr 30, 2011, at 5:21 PM

Michael,

You have just once again said that you are right and I am wrong, I don't know why you think I am adding value to your statements.

"Where you were factually wrong was in your statement of 100% by saying "every". I never said that I was factually right while you were factually wrong."

In two sentences you just said contradictory things. You say I am factually wrong, is your saying that I am wrong "factually wrong" as well, if not, then you are indeed saying that you are right while I am wrong, just as I said. I don't know why you got so worked up about it, you should be proud of your claims.

I don't know if I can show that every pattern can be attributed to climate change, because that would be an infinite exercise, therefore I just want you to show where one cannot be attributed to climate change, which is a finite position. You have given me some counterexamples for which I thank you.

Before I address your examples, I feel I must first address your "value added" statements, because you often mention them, I'm not surprised you end up doing that which you claim to disagree with. I am not trying to "prove" global warming, this is where you are trying to add on to my statments. I am trying to show that weather and climate can be attributed to climate change, I hope you understand the distinction.

1. Rainshowers:

"heatwaves and extreme rainfall have become more common in many regions" from Australian Government http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/climat...

"”Annual summer rainfall has fallen by around 20 per cent since about 1900.

”Winter rainfall is greater. The four wettest winters in south-west England since records began have all been in the last 10 years. A larger proportion of winter precipitation falls in heavy rain showers than 50 years ago." From the National Trust UK http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/main/w-c...

http://www.desmogblog.com/freak-rain-sto...

So rain can be attributed to global warming according to some. Naturally not every single drop of rain perhaps, but you cannot say that rainshowers can't be attributed to global warming.

2. Heavy snow in winter

I thought I had addressed this when talking about blizzards earlier but if you want more evidence:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...

http://www.motherearthnews.com/Healthy-P...

Again every single flake, I doubt it, but there are many people who will attribute heavy snows to global warming. Michael don't make the mistake of trying to use isolated, local incidents to disprove a "global" phenomena.

"Extreme weather/climatology when it hasn't really been experienced does prove global warming/climate change."

This sentence doesn't make sense to me. Are you saying that when there isn't extreme weather this proves global warming?

Still awaiting an apology

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Sat, Apr 30, 2011, at 6:11 PM

"You have just once again said that you are right and I am wrong, I don't know why you think I am adding value to your statements."

Please for the love of god please show me where I have said that I was right and you were wrong.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Sun, May 1, 2011, at 12:03 PM

Michael,

This really shouldn't be that difficult. I don't know why this is what you are hung up on. Everytime I tell you that you are wrong and what I think is right, I am tellilng you that "I am right and you are wrong" it's no big deal.

Let me reverse this situation and maybe it will be easier for you to comprehend: When you tell me I am wrong, do you think that I am indeed wrong or are you lying because you can't stand to agree with me? If you do indeed think I am wrong, the opposite position, the one you hold, must be right. Still with me? Why would anyone tell anyone else "you are wrong" without them believing that "I am right" Do you follow me at all here?

Also can you please explain or clarify the last sentence of yours I quoted, it really doesn't make sense to me as it is.

Still awaiting an apology

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Sun, May 1, 2011, at 12:59 PM

Low 40's this am in the Mid-West and OK and Texas.

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Mon, May 2, 2011, at 5:43 AM

You're just being a jerk and condescending at this point SW so I will bid you adieu on this particular "debate". Go ahead and claim that you won because I "ran away" from you, it's what you do best.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Mon, May 2, 2011, at 10:27 AM

Mike,

I don't think it would be a "claim". You seem to run away when there is a request for honest debate. To be fair, I don't think this is an ethical lapse on your part. I am thinking that it is a craven way of admitting that you can't keep up.

-- Posted by Sir Didymus on Mon, May 2, 2011, at 11:58 AM

I WIN, I WIN, I WIN!!!!!! I wonder what prize I get, I hope it is.........A MAJOR AWARD

Still awaiting an apology

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Mon, May 2, 2011, at 12:49 PM

http://americanoilman.homestead.com/GasS...

We are now below our 5 year storage average. The cold winter and persistent cold temps have been a push on demand. Expect NG to rise if we can turn in a "normal" summer and generation demand increases due to air conditioning needs.

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Tue, May 3, 2011, at 6:16 AM

http://www.investorvillage.com/smbd.asp?...

Please read and look at monthly temps over the last 17 years.

Mike the last 2 winters are some of the coldest in the last 17 years.

You cannot dispute the facts.

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Wed, May 4, 2011, at 6:30 AM

With all the snow over the United States recently the climate change deniers are once again out in full force. They claim that this winter has been unseasonably cold. The problem here is that we are not even into our second month of winter so to actually make that claim is making one without facts.

So they fall back onto the Winter of 2009-2010. They claim that winter was also unseasonably cold based solely on where snow fell and how much of it fell. They are either ignoring the facts or just hoping no one takes notice of their claim.

Last Winter went down as the fifth warmest winter on record. You have to remember that when we talk about Climate Change only discussing what happens in the United States is extremely short-sided.

MIKE- Funny how the facts dispute your blog. BTW I was predicting that the winter was going to be colder before you "called me out". My prediction was correct.

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Wed, May 4, 2011, at 6:33 AM

Just returned from New Town, North Dakota.

On Tuesday (May 10) there was Ice on the lake.

Wallis

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Thu, May 12, 2011, at 6:03 AM

30's and low 40's in Kansas City and Indy and surrounding area.

Still pretty cold.

Wallis

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Mon, May 16, 2011, at 5:36 AM

http://americanoilman.homestead.com/GasS...

Deficit continues to grow. We are now below our 5 year avarage. One of the biggest Natural Gas draws in recent time during a winter season. Why have we had such a huge draw? Colder than normal winter. Thanks for the blog Mike.

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Tue, May 17, 2011, at 5:53 AM

Global Warming is somewhat of a hobby for me. I spend a couple hours a week on my own projects tracking the impact of changes in solar wind and GCRs on the atmosphere. To define a couple of terms - a global warming skeptic is simply someone who does not believe there is any scientific proof that we will have the type of warming that will cause climate catastrophes anthropological global warming (AGW). A global warming scientists or global warmist is someone advocating that anthropological global warming will be in the range of several degrees C which is enough to cause major changes in sea level and associated climate changes.

The whole debate about global warming is not whether or not CO2 causes warming - everyone knows it does but exactly how much warming. The direct warming from CO2 is the additional amount of heat trapped by it in our atmosphere. There are several gases that trap heat. The one that competes with CO2 is H2O or water. Water vapor traps a similar wavelength of light as does CO2. Therefore, the wavelength that CO2 blocks is already mostly blocked by water. But CO2 does have a direct impact that is roughly calculable. If the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere were to double from here (around 385 ppm), then the direct impact would roughly cause 0.8 to 1.3 degrees C of warming. Given the oceans absorb a lot of CO2, it is unlikely that man even if we burn all the coal that we know about and all the oil and natural gas could double CO2 to 770 ppm even in 100 years.

The global warming community knows the above. But they believe there is another factor. They believe that CO2 will cause a positive feedback effect. In other words, they believe that the warming from CO2 will be multiplied by as much as 3X to 6X (depending on the model).

Currently, it is well to understand that there is no geological evidence of positive feedback. During periods of time when the earth had over 10X as much CO2 in our atmosphere, the earth's temperature remained in the normal range that it had when CO2 in our atmosphere is 3X of what it is now.

Why did the "scientists" think CO2 must have this positive feedback effect? Well in the 1990s, the earth was warming. Global Warming Scientists thought that they had accounted for all the sources of warming that they knew about. So what was causing the warming? Eventually they settled on CO2 but the direct impact of changes in CO2 are calculable and it was not enough. Therefore, the only answer - positive feedback was causing the warming! Various computer models were created and they all showed the modern warming given a large enough positive feedback factor.

In the early 1990s, various scientists were so certain that there was positive feedback that they were able to get various experiments funded to measure the radiative balance using satellites that could directly measure it in space. In other words, as CO2 increased, they would be able to measure the changes in the earth's radiative balance. They developed ocean thermometers to help measure changes in ocean temperatures even at very deep depths. They had various hypothesis about ways of measuring the positive feedback directly by measuring different layers of atmosphere at the poles and elsewhere. All the experiments were set up and most of the data has been received. The problem for the global warming group is that the only feedback anyone has been able to measure seems to be negative feedback! None of the experiments including the measurement of direct changes in the radiative balance show positive feedback. Of course, the global warming scientists are denying this and have said the failure of the experiments to show positive feedback are due to faulty measurements or bad assumptions in the models.

Since the positive feedback hypothesis was formed, historians began chiming in that in the past, we also had lots of temperature changes before man was emitting CO2. In other words, how could there be the idea that the only way to explain warming was positive feedback from CO2 when past warming and cooling periods were not explainable that way?

A lot of effort went into disproving past temperature changes. The global warmists had the further hypothesis that past warming and cooling in the last few thousand years were local climate and had nothing to do with the world climate as a whole. This idea goes against science because past climate proxies are almost unanimous in showing that the temperature not only varies periodically but that the current temperature is not even as warm as it was during the medieval maximum, the Roman Maximum, the Holocene Maximum and etc. In fact, current temperature is close to the average temperature for the last 8,000 years. Current temperatures are not unusual or high in a historical perspective.

To disprove these past climate proxies, there was a group of people who did tree ring research. The tree ring proxies were made to show that in the past, the temperature was fairly constant until recently when the temperature went up like a hockey stick! That tree ring climate proxy became part of Al Gore's movie. It showed that the temperature over the last thousand + years was fairly unchanging until CO2 increased and then temperature increased. The graph looked like a hockey stick. But even from the beginning, skeptics didn't buy the tree ring results mainly because the scientists who did the tree ring studies would not release their methods or data!

This triggered a long battle between skeptics and warmists. The skeptics filed freedom of information requests and went to each science journal that the tree ring data was used in asking them to enforce the scientific policy that if you publish a science article, you also have to make available methods and data. This story is a long convoluted one where at one point data was released that when analyzed using proper statistical methods didn't prove anything - no modern warming. This was followed by the CRU whistle blower releasing several gigs of data and email from the CRU that had been requested for years under Freedom of Information requests.

Those emails and data from the CRU show a few things that are interesting. For example, the tree ring data actually shows a temperature decline in modern times. The scientists at the CRU rather than show that the tree ring data is showing a decline when one is obviously not happening (during the upward "blade" of the hockey stick) substituted temperature data from thermometers. That was referred to in the CRU emails between global warming scientists as Mike's "nature trick". Later it was found that that tree ring data showed another temperature decline that happened during the little ice age. Obviously, those two temperature declines would not show the smooth hockey stick handle followed by the blade going upwards. That is why Mike's nature trick was needed to erase those declines. The nature tricks caused some skeptics to create the very funny(at the time) "Hide the decline" song and video on the internet about this.

Anyway, since the 1990s, there have been discovered various ways to account for the warming that happened without needing CO2 positive feedback. Historical data had continued to bolster the view that earth's climate history is anything BUT a smooth line. The temperature changes in somewhat unpredictable cycles and has done so for the entire Holocene (the geological period we are in now). Global warming scientists have continued to try to prove that there is positive feedback but have continued to fail to do this. The results of their own experiments disprove their positive feedback global warming hypothesis. Yet, strangely, the media reports none of this.

This was written by a friend of mine with a Chemistry PH.D who lives and works in Chicago. He is not in the energy business so this should be seen as "seeking the truth".

Wallis

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Mon, May 30, 2011, at 4:51 PM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110530/sc_n...

Mike- How do you explain climate change in the past? Human beings were not to blame. Funny thing about cycles. The repeat over and over and over again.

Imagine that!

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Tue, May 31, 2011, at 3:23 PM

It occurs to me wallis that you stated shortly after the crisis in Kenya blew up and world oil and gas prices started rising that an index you paid attention to had predicted that the rise was going to happen almost six months before it actually happened.

It leads to some very interesting questions. If this index perfectly predicted the spike at the time it happened that far in advance were the prices going to rise anyways regardless of what happened in Kenya? or can the index predict when a crisis is going to happen?

I tend to believe the first one mostly because it supports my theory that oil and gas prices are not that affected by what's happenening in the world when an index can predict six months out that an increase is going to happen. It was just lucky that the crisis in Kenya happened when it did otherwise there would have been some hard explanations spiked when they did.

I also heard a lot of dire predictions that by summer gas prices would hit $5 a gallon. Here it is summer and gas in under $4 and falling. I'm sure you think that the releasing of oil reserves by the US and Europe is a disaster waiting to happen.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Mon, Jun 27, 2011, at 1:13 AM

What are you talking about in Kenya?

We had a 5 wave runup in Crude and I got bearish in May. We are in a C wave down with a bottom around $87. We see a seasonal increase oil price through early May then sell off.

http://www.seasonalcharts.com/future_ene...

Look for Crude oil prices to resume the rally in July.

I never said anything about $5 gasoline but I will agree with you that the media is almost always wrong. Therefore, if they say prices are going down you should expect them to rise.

Wallis

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Tue, Jun 28, 2011, at 6:27 AM

Also keep in my President Obama has now leaked that he started planning the SPR release on May 2. The reason for the release was the governments attempt to lower the price of Crude oil. Funny how these seasonal events coupled with technical analysis correlate. Maybe, the President was smart enough to actually coordinate this event? If I were President I would.

However, this coordinated effort for the United States government to lower oil prices will fail as "Artificially low prices lead to shortages". That is a law of supply/demand that President Obama himself cannot change.

Wallis

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Tue, Jun 28, 2011, at 6:33 AM

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

Just returned from Alaska and visited the Taku glacier. Funny how the largest glacier in the World is still advancing! You would think that with global warming the largest glacier in the World would be retreating.

Wallis

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Tue, Jun 28, 2011, at 6:35 AM

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

This is the source of the Taku glacier. Note the retreat has been going on since 1700. Long before the 20th Century.

Wallis

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Tue, Jun 28, 2011, at 6:39 AM

I think you mean Libya not Kenya.

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Tue, Jun 28, 2011, at 6:40 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ys4Sb1DAx...

Went here as well. Not my Video.

Wallis

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Tue, Jun 28, 2011, at 7:45 AM

Wallis,

"Funny how the largest glacier in the World is still advancing!"

You should know by now from basking in the wisdom that is Michael Hendricks, that you can't use any specific local information to combat the universally accepted truth that Man is causing global warming that will soon kill us all. After all, Michael didn't try to use local weather to refute me.....oh wait yes he did, I guess that is just another aspect of his hypocrisy. Carry on!

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Tue, Jun 28, 2011, at 9:40 AM

Not everyone agrees...

http://news.yahoo.com/global-warming-con...

-- Posted by Brian Hoag on Fri, Jul 1, 2011, at 8:37 AM

Actually SW, once again, you are putting words in my mouth I just plain haven't said. I said long ago that I was still on the fence as to whether or not man was causing global warming. I said I tended to believe that man could have a role in it but I never said that man was causing global warming. I also don't recall seeing anywhere that there is an accepted truth that man is causing global warming that will soon kill us all. Could you please tell me where that information is?

"After all, Michael didn't try to use local weather to refute me.....oh wait yes he did"

Could you point out where I did this SW, because for the life of me I can't find it anywhere, or are guilty, once again, of making up what I have said just so you can get a jab in at me?

The only posts I have seen where I mentioned local weather were in conversations with wallis and not with you.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Fri, Jul 1, 2011, at 2:35 PM

"For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible." - Stuart Chase

Mike- I am glad that you are addressing your problem by posting this. In any 12 step program admission is high on the list.

Good for you. Now maybe you will let facts dictate your actions and not your devotion to your party and your party's ideas.

Because your posted quote is YOU 100%.

Wallis

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Sun, Jul 3, 2011, at 8:47 AM


Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration. If you already have an account, enter your username and password below. Otherwise, click here to register.

Username:

Password:  (Forgot your password?)

Your comments:
Please be respectful of others and try to stay on topic.


And Now for Something Completely Different
Michael Hendricks
Recent posts
Archives
Blog RSS feed [Feed icon]
Comments RSS feed [Feed icon]
Login
Hot topics
The More Things Change The More They Stay The Same
(6 ~ 8:37 PM, Sep 5)

Goodnight Sweet Prince
(3 ~ 11:45 AM, Aug 15)

Elections Matter
(14 ~ 2:15 AM, Aug 9)

Hodgepodgeiness
(262 ~ 6:55 AM, Jan 8)

It Begins ... Again
(24 ~ 11:41 PM, Oct 27)