Maybe spell bad?

Another TeaTard left behind.....

More like libitard

Celtic - You can determine someone's political affiliation based on a whole 4 words? You must be some kind of genius. Mary probably made a typo, so I think she has an excuse. there's no excuse for your useless comment though. And then your opposite, Randy, goes ahead and has to make a comment from the other side. You two are asstards.

Nothing more annoying than you political beat-offs trying to bring your useless dribble into every single story...

How come why when you do say stuff, bad comes out mouth much? We though?

AKRandy with the zinger of the day! Thanks for that one Randy! Original, succinct and clever.
What a crew!

You would know science if it bit you in the asz.

Friends don't let friends be clueless TeaTards....

I'm sorry celtic, what does asz spell? You know, since you are so eager to comment on the spelling of others.

mpa-4893349 It is pretty clear - though we don't know.

^POST OF THE DAY^

/thread

Please learn the difference between weather and climate.

TeaTards hate science.

It scares them....

It's the gullible that believes everything that scientists say. It was scientists that said for years that trans-fats were good for us. And the same scientists that have for so long said that saturated fats were bad for us. But... OMG, they were wrong. There has been an awful lot of "science" that has been wrong. It's you lib-turds that love to jump on any band-wagon that comes along especially if it costs lots of money.

Thanks Fred, we appreciate when the crackers try to deal with science.

Yo Jocko, you realize they are synonyms don't you. Nothing is worse than a would be elitist who thinks they are superior because they parrot the popular theories of the day. And the rest, save your political slant, you aren't even close. I have equal contempt for every "political party" ever fashioned. Mark Twain was correct; politicians are like diapers, both need to be changed often, for the sames reasons. Now sit back and and enjoy the climate, or weather, if you prefer.

Tetrapoda, you seem to have missed my point completely. I am a scientist myself, and I know that you can't take "popularly accepted science" as gospel. Too often what has been accepted as fact has been turned around 180 degrees. Too many people have turned science into their own religion and that is not what science is. What 99% of the people on comment boards like this know about science is what they read on the Internet and in the News and that is not science.

Fred-3252208.........you said:

Quote...... I am a scientist myself......EndQuote

Maybe, a Christian Scientist.

You folks (apparently) don't realize (actual) scientists don't speak as you do (9th grade level).

Ian... it is people like you that like make replies with no meaning that make comment boards like this a waste of time. I am not a Christian Scientist. I don't deny that the globe is warming right now. But I would argue against anyone who said Global Warming is or is not an anomaly because it depends on the time context of the evidence you are looking at. In the short term, it definitely "looks" like an anomaly. When looking at the evidence in the longer term however, it does not look so much like an anomoly. But either side is making a lot of assumptions in their research data, so they ARE just theories which should not be taken as gospel truth. I am also not saying we should not be responsible in how we treat the environment. I am all for reducing pollution, etc... but we have to be responsible in the way we go about it. Just throwing billions of dollars at it doesn't mean it will fix anything, especially if there is a fair chance this is just part of the bigger long term cycle (and yes... maybe we are adding to it). I'm not on either side of the name calling. I am just for being responsible. And definitely against the politicizing of it and lining the pockets of people who are taking advantage of the situation.

Oh.....so Fred-3252208, you are a "compassionate" denier.

Well, Mr. "Scientist", answer these questions:

1. Do atmospheric greenhouse gases absorb and re-radiate (thermal) infra-red radiation such that the Earth's energy balance changes (becomes warmer)?

2. Is carbon dioxide a greenhouse gas?

3. Has the Earth's atmospheric percentage of carbon dioxide been steadily increasing since the beginning of the industrial revolution (e.g since the mass combustion of fossil fuels)?

4. Does the current fossil fuels combustion technology result in the release of carbon dioxide into our atmosphere?

5. Can you describe how a rising percentage of carbon dioxide (and other greenhouse gases) in Earth's atmosphere could (all else remaining static) result in ANYTHING OTHER than an increase in Earth's surface temperature?

You have already conceded that Earth's climate is warming.

Assuming your affirmative answers to questions #1 - #4 and your inability to address #5 together with your concession, how can any prudent person support the continued dumping of waste (carbon dioxide) into our atmosphere with the knowledge that the resulting global climate warming will result in serious (perhaps catastrophic) consequences?

This is not even a matter of serious debate at this point. It is only those, such as yourself, who abandon reason in favor of superstition and/or purely short-term economic considerations that continue trying to make the absurd and grossly irresponsible anti-AGW case.

May shame be upon you.

BTW---For the sake of whatever integrity you still possess, drop this juvenile "scientist" pretense.

I see that I am arguing with someone who gets their science boiled down for them nice and simple by MSNBC. I understand the science behind the greenhouse effect. Unfortunately nothing is ever as simple as that.

You did not get the gist of what I was saying at all. You have become one of those that have decided to take a side and defend their side of the argument at all costs rather than look at it objectively as science. That is politics, not science.

I am a geologist and my context is over a much larger period of time than the 11,000 years that most of these studies look at evidence for. Taken in that context, this isn't an anomaly that the earth is warming... it should be. We are coming out of an ice age that began 3 million years ago. I don't disagree that we could possibly be making it a bit worse (as stated above)... but just how much we are making it worse is at question because it does line up with normal warming of the climate based on a more meaningful chunk of the earths history than just the last 11,000 years. Strange weather patterns and climate change are not new things. I would suspect that anytime the earth has gone from cooling to warming there has been periods of strange weather. Looking at anomalies over 11,000 years means nothing to the earth. Reducing carbon dioxide output would not stop the earth from warming, it started doing that way before the Industrial Revolution. It could (possibly) slow down the rate of warming a bit, but it won't stop it. But the rate of warming really has not yet reached the rate of warming that came after some of the previous ice ages. Again, well before man was around.

I am simply not for jumping any bandwagons of either side. People on bandwagons tend to lose their objectivity. I definitely lean towards thinking that we cannot have any great effect by removing carbon dioxide output based on how I see the overall evidence, but I always remain open.

I guess I was right about these comment boards, it is just full of people who would rather just yell at each other than have mature discussions, so I think I will just read the articles, draw my own conclusions, and skip the comments from now on. I had hoped to find some interesting conversation.

Sure Fred-3252208.......

While you dither with the last remaining bits of proof, the vast majority of the world (esp. the scientific community) is moving forward upon the (huge) preponderance of evidence.

Unfortunately (for you and everyone), our situation is not static. While you are paralyzed by analysis, we continue to dump mega-tons of greenhouse gases into our atmosphere, our climate warming accelerates, and the consequences accrue.

Prudent people realize it is far better to act upon available evidence (and logic), pursue climate friendly technologies, and assume the small risk that we overlook some esoteric feature of Earth's climate cycle. The reckless ones (i.e. you), though, blithely argue that we should simply (and conveniently) continue on our present path until disaster stands starkly before us and the reasons for it are undeniable.

After all, consider what we have to lose should we be wrong. Now, consider the costs to mankind if you are wrong. It's not even close.

BTW-If you actually are a geologist, this could well explain your slant. This is particularly so if you have a relationship with a fossil fuels industry. Please, do confess.

Ian said... "BTW-If you actually are a geologist, this could well explain your slant. This is particularly so if you have a relationship with a fossil fuels industry. Please, do confess."

Your arguments all seem to be bent on hoping I have some ulterior motive or on somehow finding some way to discredit me. I can assure your paranoia that I have no stake in this and I am indeed not related in any way to the oil industry or any other industry that has a stake in global warming either. I have no "slant". When I began this I only said "I am a scientist myself" to lend credence to the fact that I know that science is not always right, which is why I keep an open mind.

Ian also said... "Unfortunately (for you and everyone), our situation is not static."

Nothing about earth has ever been and never will be static, though most people seem to expect it to be.

The fact is, we are coming out of an ice age. Wild fluctuations in global temps are normal, especially coming out of ice ages. We are far, far away from what the peak temperatures will be before temps turn back around (like in the mid 70's as compared to today's average temps in the mid 50's) regardless of the level of our carbon dioxide emissions. We are still going to have to adapt to much, much warmer temps. You can follow the data points over the last 11,000 years all you want but all you are doing is making correlations over a super small window of time. There are things like antibiotic resistant bacteria and increasingly stubborn flu viruses and hostile countries with nuclear weapons that pose more of a current threat and for which our money can be better spent than global warming.

Fred-3252208......you said:

Quote......You can follow the data points over the last 11,000 years all you want but all you are doing is making correlations over a super small window of time. ......EndQuote

There are several data sets (i.e. (Vostok) ice cores) that reveal temperatures, carbon dioxide levels, and dust concentrations for a MUCH longer period than 11k years (~ 400k years). So, if you are so grossly misinformed as to believe the scientific consensus (on AGW) is based upon 11k years of data, it is little wonder you are so misguided.

See: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b8/Vostok_Petit_data.svg

This graph clearly shows that we have reached nearly peak temperature (for an inter-glacial period) and the close relationships between temperature and carbon dioxide concentrations.

It has not gone unnoticed that you failed to address any of the 5 questions posed to you earlier. Please, do so that it can be known if you understand (at least) the basic science involved.

Although conflict of interest (i.e. association with the fossil fuels industry) is a common fallacy among AGW deniers, it is not requisite. Probably, most deniers simply do not understand climate science and/or think they know better than climate scientists. You seem to fall into both of these categories.

"Antibiotic resistant bacteria and increasingly stubborn flu viruses and hostile countries" all may be impacted by our warming climate. Already, we see invasive species (carrying unknown pathogens) moving to and fro our poles as a direct consequence. Several studies have predicted increased hostilities as nations battle over water and other resources becoming increasingly scarce on account of warming climate.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/02/us/warming-is-found-to-disrupt-species.html

http://yaledailynews.com/blog/2012/04/11/global-warming-may-intensify-disease/

http://www.tuftsdaily.com/global-warming-and-future-conflict-1.2701059#.UUoifBek_ks

It seems you are constitutionally unable or unwilling to face facts. Our climate is warming and human activity is playing a significant and unprecedented role in that change. There remains no serious debate about this within the community of climate scientists. Even among the lay science community debate has become muted. But, there remain outliers (i.e. yourself) who, like those deniers of the relationship between tobacco use and human disease (even to their death), can never be convinced.

FYI: For Climate Science Journals see-> http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~prall/climate/journals.html

Here, you will find also-> list of most-cited authors on climate and:

Quote......

This site provides information on over 2400 climate scientists and authors who have signed public statement on climate change. This includes both statements calling for action to cut greenhouse gas emissions as well as ones that argue against such action.

Each name has a link to the person's web page at a university or national research lab, where one was found. I used Google Scholar to look up what each author had published on climate, and how widely cited their work is. This information lets us compare the credibility of those arguing against curbs on greenhouse emissions versus those supporting them.

The upshot of this comparison is that the climate change "skeptic" position has very few authors with any standing as climate scientists.

While there have been several public declarations challenging the basic science or the need for any response like emission reductions, including some with a large number of names, the great proportion of those signers turn out to have little or no qualifications on this topic.

.....EndQuote

Thanks for the opportunity to lay out some facts and references thereto.

Hi Ian, I must say you are getting better at this. Your insult to meaningful dialog ratio is definitely lowering which is good. :-)

You said... "...reveal temperatures, carbon dioxide levels, and dust concentrations for a MUCH longer period than 11k years (~ 400k years)."

But that changes nothing. 400K years is still a very tiny spec in earths history. We're talking billions of years here. 400K years doesn't even go back 3 million years to where the last ice age apexed.

You also said... "It has not gone unnoticed that you failed to address any of the 5 questions..."

OK, #1 thru #4 are YES and #5 is NO. But you are still not following what I am saying. Take a look at the following (no, it's not a FOX article)...

This shows that carbon dioxide levels are at a very low level as far as the earth's history is concerned. We (humans) are only on the very end of the line in the graph on that page.

You also referenced... "www.nytimes.com, www.yaledailynews.com, and www.tuftsdaily.com"

You are proving my point. It's nice to see you can google, but you are getting your science from the news. Take a look at this example ...

According to this, the last time CO2 levels were this high was 5 million years ago. That sounds awful. But think about it. 3 million years ago global temps bottomed out (the last ice age). 5 million years ago was about parallel on the graph but temps were dropping. You mentioned the relationship between CO2 levels and global temps. 5 million years ago, the CO2 levels would be expected to be about what they are today.

You referenced ""

This is a nice list. But it does not change my opinion. I repeat, I do not deny temps and CO2 levels are rising over the last 400K years. I said they have been rising over the past 3 million years!! That has been my point all along.

Look, you have your opinion and that is fine. I simply injected a different view on this comment board along with valid reasons to back it up. I know it won't change your mind but hopefully it at least makes you think rather then just assume everyone with a different opinion is stupid and that the way to get your point across is to insult those you don't agree with.

Sorry, it appears my links did not come through. Here are the missing links...

"earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange2/07_1.shtml"

"newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/last-time-carbon-dioxide-levels-111074.aspx"

Fred-3252208.......you said:

Quote.....But that changes nothing. 400K years is still a very tiny spec in earths history. We're talking billions of years here. 400K years doesn't even go back 3 million years to where the last ice age apexed.......EndQuote

The CURRENT ice age (Pliocene-Quaternary glaciation) BEGAN about 2.58 million years ago. It most certainly did NOT "apex" at that time.

For the record, there have been five (known) major "ice ages":

1. Huronian 2400 to 2100 million years ago

2. Cryogenian 850 to 635 million years ago

3. Andean-Saharan 460 to 530 million years ago

4. Karoo 360 to 260 million years ago

5. Quaternary 2.58 million years ago to present

In only the last 450k years, there have been 5 glacial and 4 interglacial periods. So, your contention that we don't have enough data is simply (factually) false. We have enough data to convince the nearly unanimous majority of climate scientists that a. Earth's climate is warming faster than would be expected (based upon similar past periods) and b. that extraordinary warming is on account of human activities.

Obviously, we don't have the luxury to wait millions of years for the full cycle to satisfy your insistence on a "complete" data set. Still, as your appreciated answers to the 5 questions reveal, we humans are dumping a large volume of greenhouse gases (esp. carbon dioxide) into our atmosphere that would not occur except for human activity and that can ONLY have a positive (accelerating) effect upon global climate (temperature) change.

We don't know with certainty what atmospheric carbon dioxide levels were hundreds of millions of years ago. Furthermore, we can't know what (all) other confounding factors may have affected global temperature during those ancient times. In any case, whether current levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide are "historically low" or not is irrelevant. We DO know that those levels are currently rising and we DO know that can only result in increasingly trapped solar radiation. Whether some other factor will offset the contribution of atmospheric carbon dioxide to global warming cannot and should not be relied upon.

BTW--The "news" articles cited are simply easily accessible versions of information which has appeared in scientific literature (re: disease, conflict v AGW). Avail yourself of that literature if you doubt the "news" articles. Rest assured, they are bona fide and they certainly do NOT make your point. Rather, they are absolutely contrary to YOUR point. In fact, even the articles you cite seem contrary to your point (i.e. cd levels haven't been this high since 15 mya).

As it is too often said, "you are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts". Neither are you entitled to your own logic. The recitation of confabulations about such an important issue is intolerable. This is why many of us (on this side) lose patience with those on yours.

Reiteration:

Quote......Prudent people realize it is far better to act upon available evidence (and logic), pursue climate friendly technologies, and assume the small risk that we overlook some esoteric feature of Earth's climate cycle. The reckless ones (i.e. you), though, blithely argue that we should simply (and conveniently) continue on our present path until disaster stands starkly (and unavoidably) before us and the reasons for it are undeniable.

After all, consider what we have to lose should we be wrong. Now, consider the costs to mankind if you are wrong. It's not even close.......EndQuote

>> It most certainly did NOT "apex" at that time.

Sorry, probably bad terminology. That's what I get for trying to watch basketball and write at the same time. :-) What I meant was, is that is when the global temperatures bottomed out (and began the glacial/interglacial cycles).

And thanks for the textbook list of ice ages.

>> In only the last 450k years, there have been 5 glacial and 4 interglacial periods. So, your contention that we don't have enough data is simply (factually) false.

Not at all, unless you think the earth is going to go on forever in glacial/interglacial cycles forever. That 450K years is just a tiny part of even just the current ice age. This ice age is, as you correctly stated, almost 3 million years old. Each ice age ended with a rise in global temperatures all the way up into the mid 70's. That is going to happen sooner or later. Unless you think we can keep the earth in the mid 50's forever somehow.

Given the charts for the last 450K years, you can see we are at or near the top of a cycle. One of two things are going to happen. Either we are going to continue on out of this ice age (on up to 70 degree averages), or it will turn around and head back into another glacial period. It's inevitable. If it's the former, there's nothing we can do about it. If it's the latter, it's still inevitable, but I am sure we'll be looking for ways to pump more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere to try to stop Siberia like conditions everywhere.

>> even the articles you cite seem contrary to your point (i.e. cd levels haven't been this high since 15 mya).

You obviously did not read what I said. I was using that as an example of the hype. The article warned that CO2 levels are at the highest levels since 5 million years (not 15). But 5 million years years ago, we were in the same vicinity as now as far as global temps, so that is not so surprising. Interestingly I can also find articles that warn that the CO2 levels are at the highest level in 8K years. So which is it?

>> you are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts". Neither are you entitled to your own logic.

Sorry but you don't have a monopoly on facts or logic. Popular or majority opinion does not make anything fact.

Unfortunately we will never know who is right as that will take hundreds of thousands of years to play out. Whatever we do playing around with CO2 levels is going to be no match for the forces of nature. There are so many variables at play when it comes to climate. It is interesting that earthquake frequency and intensity have both increased greatly over the last 100 years. I have a feeling that something more than just CO2 levels is going to come into play before very long. But then I guess I could correlate those earthquake increases with CO2 levels and the Industrial Revolution. Maybe lowering CO2 levels will stop the earthquakes too!!

That was just your wife, dude...

Deny Deny Deny. That's how you sleep at night. Head in the sand, azz in the air. Life is grand. Ignorance is bliss.

Right along with:

"Sarah Palin is smart, Sarah Palin is smart"

1. The great New England hurricane of 1938 roared northwards into Long Island, New York at 60 mph, pushing a storm surge of 15+feet high to the coast...

2. Hurrican Hazel in 1954, Cat 4, with 20' storm surge when it hit the NC/SC border. A few days later it was causing 100+MPH winds in NYC and had winds of 90+MPH in Ontario...

3. Connie/Diane of 1955, only five days apart hitting the NC coast, little wind, storm surge 8+feet but lots of rain caused flooding, Connie - 12+" aqnd Diana - 10 to 20"..

4. Donna of 1960, Hurricane Donna holds the record for retaining major hurricane status (Category 3 or greater in the Atlantic Basin for the longest period of time, nine days, Sept 2 to Sept 11. A storm surge of 13 ft (4.0 m) was reported at Marathon, FL and reached 11 ft (3.4 m) in New York Harbor...

Storm surge depends on:

1. Wind speed and fetch...

2. The shape of the coastline...

The correct conditions will produce mountains of water. Just ask the people north of Cape Lookout..

When were the last major east coast hurricanes after these? Sandy 2012, Irene 2011, Charley 2004, Isabel 2003, Floyd 1999, Hugo 1989 & Agnes 1972. Most of these had storm surges of less than 8+feet...

In other words a few more East Coast hurricans making land fall, but with much less storm surge...

Brady, just friggin' rapture already and leave us smart, non-superstitious folks in peace.

Just don't be surprised that your rapture elevator is heading down, rather than up.

Celtic, you have provided no evidence yet of any intelligence on your part. Being a troll is not being smart. Attacking people does not demonstrate intelligence. If you have something worthwhile to add to the conversation, then do so already. If not, then shut up.

wake up and look around...we're all in hell already! This is just our prespective on reality...the reality is, we're all dead already, and we all are in hell...any other explaination on why the world has so many killers, druggies, whores, natural disasters, pain, suffering...the list goes on? so sit back and stop worrying.......

Dear Mark,

Terrible things happen on this earth, there are killers, druggies, whores, disasters, pain and suffering, just as you mention...It wasn't originally designed this way, God never intended for man to sin. God did not create hell for us, but for the devil and his angels, and I can tell you that hell is much worse than "hell on earth". It is a place where it is so hot, living things could not exist, the torment of hell is the most terrible thing, complete separation from all that is good, because the absense of God (light) is hell, demons torment those that are there, people are burning in literal fire, there flesh is ripped open, yet they do not bleed, because there is an absense of blood (life) in the body, much more terrible than earth. On earth, at least you can die to escape the pain of torment, in hell it is forever, infinite everlasting pain. Evil exists because the devil is evil, and evil lies within the heart of man, just as good lies within the heart of man. God, the designer, has instilled in every mans heart, the ability to find, and accept him, his love forever induring, should the individual seek with an open mind and heart, to find him. If not for evil, we would not have anything to compare good to. The reason God sent Jesus to the cross, to die for our sin, is because man was lost, and needed a redeeming way to get to be saved. Jesus paid the price for you, and me, God himself, sent his only son, to pardon us, to provide a way to him. The facts are out there should one seek to find them. Ask God to reveal himself to you, ask him into your heart, accept Jesus as your savior, and see what happens...

It couldn't happen too soon.

The GOP shallow end of the gene pool must be flushed and cleansed.

Ever see Idiocracy?

Personally I think we're living it.

I can't even be bothered to argue with these anti-science, willfully ignorant dummies or the even the obvious troll plants. It's a waste of energy.

MoreJustice

"Everything the scientists and global warming crowd has been saying for over a decade. Welcome to reality."

REALITY -

1. No Global Temperature Rise, Global Warming Standstill May Last For 20 Years...

The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released Mar 2013. The new data, compiled from more than 3,000 measuring points on land and sea. The regular data collected on global temperature is called Hadcrut 4, as it is jointly issued by the Met Office’s Hadley Centre and Prof Jones’s Climatic Research Unit...

Since 1880, when reliable temperature records began to be kept across most of the globe, the world has warmed by about 0.75 degrees Celsius...

The current data reveals, that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures...

Read more: .dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html#ixzz2Ny7UMuVM

In other words - "Everything the scientists and global warming crowd has been saying for over a decade." HAS been proven to be FALSE...

See what I mean?

Prototypes are in use in W FL. today. It's a tech that is already here. Agree completely.

The WORLD is converting to CNG not HYDROGEN...

There is ZERO infrastructure to support hydrogen use by the general public...

The USA currently has OVER 100+years of NG reserves and the infrastructure to support its distribution...

The USA has OVER 500+years of hydrated methane located in their Continental Shelf...

But your fine Obama is pushing EV that depend on COAL (USA-40+%) generated electricity and China for 'rare earths'... Ha! Ha!

1) You can generate electricity from natural gas as easily as from coal.

2) You can generate hydrogen from electricity.

3) Electrical infrastructure is even more prevalent than CNG.

What the hell are you talking about.

Says someone from NM.

1. No Global Temperature Rise, Global Warming Standstill May Last For 20 Years...

The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released Mar 2013. The new data, compiled from more than 3,000 measuring points on land and sea. The regular data collected on global temperature is called Hadcrut 4, as it is jointly issued by the Met Office's Hadley Centre and Prof Jones's Climatic Research Unit...

Since 1880, when reliable temperature records began to be kept across most of the globe, the world has warmed by about 0.75 degrees Celsius...

The current data reveals, that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures...

2. According to the thousands of ARGOS buoys now spread across the Worlds Oceans. The Sea surface temperature averages are now @ 2003 levels...

3. Data from the Rutgers University Global Snow Lab show that:

A. The Dec 2012 average, snow covered the most area on record, from data dating back to 1966. This was OVER 1+Million Sq kilometer higher than the average anomalies and has been INCREASING in coverage since the lowest recorded in 1980. During Jan 2013, the Northern Hemisphere snow coverage was @ the HIGHEST levels on record...

B. A 19 Feb 2010 report - Snow extent in Northern Hemisphere reaches second highest level. 52,166,840 million sq. km or 20,141,729 square miles...

C. January 2008 - Snow extent in Northern Hemisphere had an area coverage of 49.78 million sq. km...

The winter snow extent in the Northern Hemisphere has been steadily increasing almost every year for more than 33+years...

reference - http:// climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_vis.php?ui_year=2010&ui_month=1&ui_set=1

4. Through the month of Feb 2013, the Arctic gained 766,000 square kilometers of ice (296,000 square miles), which is 38% higher than the 1979 to 2000 average for the month...

The Arctic sea ice has now returned back into the AVERAGE ZONE of 2 deviations...

5. The Antarctic sea ice was quite extensive throughout the austral summer period. Monthly average sea ice extent for February 2013 was 3.83 million square kilometers (1.48 million square miles) and minimum daily sea ice extent for the Antarctic region was 3.68 million square kilometers (1.42 million square miles) on February 20. Sea Ice extent was also well above average for the Ross Sea region relative to the entire 1979 to 2013 satellite record...

See reference - // nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

According to http:// nsidc.org/cryosphere/sotc/snow_extent.html

"We all associate snowstorms with cold weather, but snow's influence on the weather and climate continues long after the storm ends. Because snow is highly reflective, a vast amount of sunlight that hits the snow is reflected back into space instead of warming the planet. Without snow cover, the ground absorbs about four to six times more of the Sun's energy. The presence or absence of snow controls patterns of heating and cooling over Earth's land surface more than any other single land surface feature..."

Nova's Earth From Space is instructive.

In an April 2012 interview, aired on MSNBC, Lovelock stated:

"The problem is we don't know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn’t happened;" he continues.

"The climate is doing its usual tricks. There’s nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now," he said.

"The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time ... it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising - carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that", he added.....^[32]

Actually the global temperature has INCREASED 0.75 degrees C since 1880...

1. In Jun 2012, a NASA climate study announced that the warm middle Miocene era (16 Ma (million years ago), had CO2 levels of 400 to 600 ppm (parts per million).

2. During the glacieraction of Antarctica (38 Ma) the CO2 levels were about 760 ppm, according to NASA.

3. During the Jurassic Period (201.3± 0.6 Ma to 145± 4 Ma), average CO2 concentrations were about 1800 ppm or about 4.7 times higher than today and temperatures were just 3°C higher than now.

4. The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period (543 to 505 Ma) nearly 7000 ppm -- about 18 times higher than today...

The high levels of CO2 had several things in common:

1. Little plant growth on the exposed land. As the plants increased the Earths CO2 levels have DECREASED...

2. The land masses were transitioning from 5% of the Earths surface to the present 28+%...

3. The Calcification of the Oceans have maintained its pH levels and CO2 absorption ability...

IMO - The World is DECREASING in heat content...

Oct. 2, 1998 — An analysis of Antarctic ice core data indicates an abrupt climate warming occurred there about 12,500 years ago, it was 4 degrees Celsius (7 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than today. This data also corresponds with the ice data from the Arctic & Greenland... see ref - .sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/10/981002082033.htm & das.uwyo.edu/geerts/cwx/notes/chap01/iccore.html & en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg