Paul,
it's just you and I.
I got record snow in early February. In late January, the Caribbean was unusually warm, and we got very humid warm air off the gulf just before the Arctic air hit. I, for one, think it is not all coincidence.
Anyway, we set a record high low this morning and tied a record high for the date this afternoon. While I complain about GW in August, today I liked hiking in short sleeves. Even if I had to use the AC in the car....
--Erik

Thanks for the link Paul.

Im not sure about down by Toronto,but I can definelty notice a difference. When you ask the older generations, all they mention is how dry the summers are, and how warm and short the winter has gotten. Heres a quote from borealforest.org :

"The winter of 1995-96 broke a period of overall decline in winter snowfall amounts. People who recall winters with more snow in the 1950s and 60s are correct....."

After that, the snowfall here has remained relitivley low. In the last 5 years weve had 2 years with average precipitation. Winter 2009 - fall 2010 was the warmest and dryest on record here.

One study i read ( i doubt i can find it), stated by the years 2030, in the lesser predictions, Toronto will have a climate ( im assuming temprature wise) of kentucky.

Im not sure if anyone heard about the praries here. They were in a drought for years, only to be literaly inundated with water spring summer fall and winter. Winnipeg is expecting flood levels at or above the 1997 "flood of the century". Funny concidering most things ive read suggest that central parts of N America are drying up.

just keep in mind that huffington post is a 'warmist' group. You won't find any skeptical views on that site.

A few years ago the so called 'census' said the northeast USA was going to receive less snow and be warmer....now it's a different story.

Why can't the scientists just say 'we don't understand'? Does anyone really think we'll understand the complex climate system in our lifetime?

Paul,
Tim has a point. I don't link to huffpo. Next time, link closer to the original (e.g., this summary story: http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110216/full/470316a.html ). Nobody has accused of Nature of being biased, that I can tell.

As for, "we don't understand", well, I say that everyday! Its like, "does smoking dried leaves of Nicotania cause cancer?" I'd say, well, there are many factors involved....

"Why can't the scientists just say 'we don't understand'? Does anyone really think we'll understand the complex climate system in our lifetime?"

I agree with this. I think something a bit more detrimental is cloud seeding. Weather is such a complex system computers cant even fully agree upon what effects cloud seeding has. If im not mistakin, weather is a great example of the butterfly effect. Cloud seeding in texas could mean drought in africa.

The one thing that ive never understood, is how its usually refered to as "global warming" rather then climate change. Some places are predicted to be colder, and warmer. Drier in some, more rainfall in others. Im sure we can get a general picture of things, but to say we can predict it perfectly doesnt make sence to me.

At my current temperature, I'm pretty ticked winters aren't warmer and summers cooler.

End of February here should be T-shirt weather!
Instead I'm searching for my toque. :boxing:

Barb

Sorry- I relinked from another site. I don't know the 'Huffington Post'.. The only American news I get is either on the CBC or Jon Stewart (yes, I know it's a fake news program, but it's the best news that comes out of the USA!)... Yes, this is by choice, we do have access to these channels on cable (I don't have a TV... I also don't have a car, which I think is blasphemy south of the border), and online!

Anyway- In future I will link through a recognized journal with a solid peer review process. I, personally, can not think of a 'coolest' article in any peer-reviewd journal. Erik, any thoughts?

For most main articles, I usualy try to find a bunch of different copies of it. Usualy they are all the same, but sometimes it seems someone uses their own interpretation, without really any solid proof. Not that using your own interpretation of the evidence in question is wrong, just be prepared to back it up.

Really, ive found it kind of hard to find any news article that isnt biased to some degree. ( im talking someone who truely belives that what they are writing is true, and backs it up, which IMO, is a whole other level then biased like someone liek Glenn Beck.

Havnt they been predicting more rain and intense storms for a decade now ??

Paul,
huffpo is a quirky aggregator site where you get serious stories about the earthquake next to a story about some starlet's baby bump. I check it daily because you never know what will be there.
As for serious science, no I have not seen a single publication that could be called "coolist."
Anyway, time to go outside. Horses are happy that the pasture is greening....
--Erik

Is it not true that past warming events have caused cooling? The only example I can think of off the top of my head was when lake agassiz ( now known to stretch from manitoba to north western quebec, south to lake nipigon, and north to the center of hudson bay) flooded into the Atlantic ocean. Global warming melted what was left of the glacier, forcing billions of tons of water every hour into the ocean. This caused the the seperation of the UK from europe, created the black sea and also changed coast lines around the world. The large flush of fresh water, shut down the gulf stream, effectivly causeing Europe into a mini ice age. ( No link, it isnt an article, its a show called "ancient weather" on history.ca. Theres 5 episodes and explains the role climate change has played on our species. A VERY VERY good show which you can watch directly from that website!)

Some food for thought on this subject. http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

John

Thanks John. Had a look through some of those articles... Seems this fellow Craig Loehle has published more of them than anyone, I'll have a look at his website! I did- can't find one, but did find a lot of discussion on him, but, only in the anti-cc blogosphere. There are several peer-reviewed articles calling his work into question...

This is one of my favorite skeptical arguments presented in a select paper from that list (I ignored, perhaps improperly, the majority of the articles that were published before 2000)...

"The evidence predominantly suggests that
humans are significantly altering the global
environment, and thus climate, in a variety
of diverse ways beyond the effects of human
emissions of greenhouse gases, including
CO2. Unfortunately, the 2007 Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
assessment did not sufficiently acknowledge
the importance of these other human climate
forcings in altering regional and global
climate and their effects on predictability at
the regional scale."

Perhaps this papers place "Supporting skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming" is a little presumptuous! Still, i do thank you for the list. As I've said before this is outside my field. Logic tells me that the intelligent approach is to go with the consensus in the field (I fully acknowledge that the consensus might not be correct, but it seems that the evidence is piling up!).

Food for thought: There are still 40% of Americans (not sure the number in Canada) who do not acknowledge the theory (fact) of evolution... I should think that the numbers of people who accept the work of the majority of climate scientists, since their models are in their infancy comparatively, would be much lower!
The following website might be offensive to some, it is provided only as a support of my point that even scientifically acknowledged facts have their skeptics: http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/evolution_rebuttals.html . Note this list is less complete and persuasive than the one John provided for a different topic.

Paul, ive seen this site, quite a few times actualy. And i agree with your point. ( Ill leave it at that, I talk about that specific point extensivly, but this might not be the place to get into that type of discussion).

As far as Im aware theres no real dissagreement about the fact that the climate is changing to some degree. The reasons as to why and how, is the main argument that pops up is it not?

Paul I guess I`m not one to follow the consensus just because everyone is falling in line. There is considerable dissension on the consensus of C.C. really G.W. Obviously the dissenting scientists not falling in line are not doing it because it`s popular or their careers are going to benefit or somehow profit. Another interesting read.
http://seeker401.wordpress.com/2010/09/19/the-ipcc-is-in-ruins/

John