Unfortunately the argument of the pro (man caused) global warming crowd has reached the point that spells of cold weather are to be blamed on global warming as well. In fact I've seen arguments which state that if weather patterns are 'too normal' that that is also an indicator of global warming. So, in the end, if the weather at hand is too hot, too cold, or just right, they are all traceable to global warming. I don't think it's a coincidence if one is reminded of fairy tales....

Toolkien's right: I don't hear the term "global warning" as much as "climate change" nowadays. Bleah.

And I don't want to hear any complaints about the "cold" in London. Here in the Catskills of New York we had our first day above 20 degrees Fahrenheit in about two weeks -- and points north have been much colder.

Plus, we had about six inches of snow last night. So there.

No less an authority on the matter than Al Gore weighed in with a fiery speech about the certainties of global warming and BushCo's role in it.

He was unfazed by the fact that he delivered it in New York City, under some of the coldest temperatures ever recorded in the city in some time.

It was -25 F today. Global warming's a bitch, isn't it?

Not that I am a big fan of rabid environmentalism, but pointing to a localized low temperature as evidence against global warming is precisely as flawed as pointing to a localized high temperature as evidence for global warming.

The concept is that highs will be higher, lows will be lower, there will be extremes of precipitation at both ends of the spectrum, etc.

A better indicator of global warming might be the number of weather-related records being set during a given timespan.

Again, for the record, I myself am highly skeptical of global warming claims ... but not because it was especially cold last Thursday in Podunk.

It's cold in London so there's no global warming?
I can't believe you're (half-)implying that argument. I said that as a joke yesterday. And this is a rational blog?

Just for information, the "fairy tale" argument that you're talking about is quite simple: the melting ice caps introduce a lot of cold water in the Atlantic, which could disturb the Gulf Stream; the latter being the one that is keeping us "warm".

Just for information, the "fairy tale" argument that you're talking about is quite simple: the melting ice caps introduce a lot of cold water in the Atlantic, which could disturb the Gulf Stream; the latter being the one that is keeping us "warm".

I think the "fairy tale" argument toolkien was referring to was the one that goes: "Goldilocks thought the first weather front was much too cold ... and the second weather front was much too warm. But the third weather front was just right! Therefore: Global warming."

As Mare Nostrum goes to salt is as Britannia goes to ice. Or so they are saying.

Just for information, the "fairy tale" argument that you're talking about is quite simple: the melting ice caps introduce a lot of cold water in the Atlantic, which could disturb the Gulf Stream; the latter being the one that is keeping us "warm".

Could being the operative word. I've read direct source arguments from the 'experts' and if you were to shake out the conditional language (could, maybe, might) you don't really have much on your hands. But then the zinger always comes in - "What if we're right" even though we don't have solid evidence other than models programmed by the arguers/tweaker-of-variables whose end point is an epistle laden with conditional language. There is much too much superstition inherent in "What if we are right?" and justifies the hijacking of State by just about every other religion too.

And certainly local weather over a short period is a weak argument for or against. But precisely the same arguments are used by advocates of global warming policy. Either they are just as offending logically or they know full well that one swelteringly hot day is not proof but it works well in manipulating the masses. Which is worse I don't know - fallacious arguments or Machiavellian manipulation of useful idiots.

What always gets me laughing is this whole future prediction concept. Most of our weather forecasters are lucky to be accurate 3 days out. So someone with relatively little experience is going to tell me what the weather will be in 20 years? I dont think so.

The best evidence we have of global warming and cooling is from history. Oddly enough, we can track such changes, some of them quite extreme, through periods of history where mankind was not emmitting greenhouse gasses or any other significant pollutants. Warping of the Earth's orbit due to gravitational changes of other moving bodies in the Universe, volcaninc eruptions, catastrophic events, and maybe even some unknown factors (imagine that) have all done far more to sway the environment of life on earth than mankind.

Most of the global warming activists I have seen tend to be anti-technology. Very, very few submit solutions other than reduction of current technology rather than submitting superior solutions to the needs and desires of mankind. The fact is, the Earth will make changes beyond our control, we cant put an emmisions valve on a volcano. It is foolishness to try to keep life from changing. The key is to be able to make the changes necessary to continue growing as an individual and as a society when things do change. We are not static beings, we are dynamic.

So lemme get this straight - global warming will cause the ice caps to melt which will cause the Gulf Stream to shift which will cause localized cooling (in England and environs).

Three questions:

Doesn't this mean the Brits should be all in favor of more and faster global warming, to offset the shift in the Gulf Stream?

If the Gulf Stream shifts, where will it shift to? Will Greenland get green again? Newfoundland warm up? Does England have some sort of entitlement to the Gulf Stream? In the big global picture, is it a bad thing if England cools off and somewhere else warms up? Or is any change, by definition bad?

Is there anything we can do, other than abandoning the combustion of any and all fuels, that will affect the coming shift in the Gulf Stream?

It's worse than that. The statistical models being used to predict "global warming" are unable even to predict the present, using historical data. In some cases, the confidence level is worse than 50% (ie. you'd have better luck tossing a coin).

I'm somewhat curious to understand the ice-cap melting thing -- would not the sea level rise if this were the case?

Or, if the sea levels were not rising, then that could be explained by increased evaporation levels (ie. through a hotter atmosphere).

But that would mean increased precipitation -- and while snow is falling more densely over the Northern Hemisphere, there are crippling droughts in the Southern.

I suggest we go back to reading chicken entrails for weather prediction. It seems to make as much sense as any other method.

And I agree with limberwulf -- global warming alarmists all seem to share the Luddite philosophy.

Another characteristic they share is the propensity to distort data (the Sierra Club once changed the numbers in their literature to fit their theory of increasing global temperatures).

Al Gore consulted with his chief phrenologist before making the global warming speech. I can recommend a friend that has a 'Crown Royal' bag of chicken bones that may be as accurate as Al's knogen-reader. Gotta love junk science...

Utterly shameless plug; some recent environmental developments here : http://www.chicagoboyz.net/archives/001760.html.

Melting icecaps ... England getting colder .... hang on.

So if it gets warm, and the icecap melts, then England get's cold due to a shifting Gulf Stream? Hmm. Then wouldn't the sea level remain the same because England would be under a glacier? And how exactly could the artic get warm while England gets cold? Aside from the Gulf Stream stuff, isn't England appreciably lower in latitude than the North Pole?

And weren't these same scientists hawking the idea of a mini-iceage to Congress in 1985? Using the same exact data? And wasn't this data, including the infamous "hockey stick", shown to be largely fabricated?

ed

How cold could England get? Very. It is at much the same latitude as Labrador. It got pretty cold between the 14th century and the 19th.

But no one knows why climate has changed in the past, why--or even how--it is changing now, or what it will do in the future. We can be fairly sure human action wasn't a major factor before the last couple of hundred years. We can't be sure it is now.

We do know now that climate changes much more, and much more suddenly, than was thought when the human-sponsored carbon-emission global warming theory was first discussed. On the whole it seems sensible to find out first what's going on before offering prescriptions that may turn out to be as relevant and helpful as bleeding for a fever.

Trouble is, it has become an article of faith for environmentalists and bureaucrats that greenhouse warming is the principal driver of current changes, and (which doesn't necessarily follow) that it can be controlled by reducing (or, implausibly, slowing the growth of) certain human activities. Just because econuts and officials believe something doesn't make it untrue. But it does get in the way of worthwhile investigation.

Does anybody remember the early 70's, when the environmentalists were talking about a "new ice age" because of mankind's pollution? Maybe we'll get lucky and the two will cancel each other out.

I firmly believe that most weather forecasters couldn't stick their heads out a window and tell you whether it's raining RIGHT NOW, let alone predicting tomorrow.