I wish we actually could do something man made to hasten global warming. People are dying from the cold out there!

"honest"?

http://www.cascadepolicy.org/pdf/env/09-36%20website%20PDF.pdf

To quote Loaded Orygun:

Victoria Taft is just Lars Larson with a dye job, heels, and exponentially worse ratings.

"do you people have a google alert so you can come & spread lies? Cascade Policy Institute? please."

A very typical (yet juvenile) tactic....do not worry about information or facts simply try to discredit the messenger with a factless insult.

Great work! :)

"Arctic ice was getting closer to complete summer melt-off."

"Two of the icebreakers are more than 30 years old and in need of replacement, but Congress has not appropriated the roughly $1 billion per ship that it would cost to buy new icebreakers."

If your predictions are correct about the complete loss of sea ice (I am certainly not agreeing with you on this point however), then why exactly would we need to spend billions on ships that won't need to break ice anyhow?

"Those who pay even just a small amount of attention to the ramifications of climate change know that Arctic ice was getting closer to complete SUMMER melt-off ..."

It still freezes again in the winter.

Weather-related death toll rises to 22 as Britain braces for coldest night yet http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/weather/article6979830.ece

The cold weather packing hospitals http://www.cbs12.com/news/weather-4723489-cold-hospitals.html

Always gotta give props when the U.S.C.G. is mentioned. Small and often overlooked, it remains one of our most vital federal agencies/armed forces. I served for four years and knew a few crew members on the Polar Sea & Polar Star, both icebreakers based in Seattle as well as some folks who had busted ice in the Great Lakes. Not only are they responsible for keeping shipping lanes open, they're also tasked with maritime law enforcement, search & rescue and military operations when needed.

IMHO, the extent of global warming directly attributable to human activity remains somewhat debatable but should have zero affect on funding the needs of the Coast Guard and their mission. Seems to me the so-called "deniers" shouldn't have a problem with doubling their budget to deal with the impending next ice age. Conversely, warming enthusiasts should want the same so that their biggest fears can be adequately dealt with. Based on my experience, our Coast Guard generally does more with less and could use a bit more dough to perform it's mission. Sure, they waste money like any arm of the great bureaucracy, but to a lesser degree than the war machine with far less of the massive military complex waste. Even though I see no tie-in with climate change predictions and the needs of the Coast Guard, you won't hear me complain about throwing a few more bones their way. Semper Paratus!

Life in extreme cold around the world http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8445831.stm

AccuWeather: Worldwide Cold Not Seen Since 70s Ice Age Scare http://www.stopglobalcoolingnow.com/?p=499

So what if the melting of polar ice caps is exposing layers that haven't seen air or sunlight in thousands of years?

Thousands of years? Are you aware of what a minuscule amount of time that is in geologic terms? It’s less than the wink of an eye.

We humans have a hubris that is truly staggering. We imagine that everything unusual or unpleasant in nature is our fault and conversely something we can repair.

ta, I am not convinced of the human component in climate change predictions, however if the CG needs mission critical equipment they should get it. Two icebreakers each 30 years old sounds like at least one should be getting replaced ASAP.

We humans have a hubris that is truly staggering. We imagine that everything unusual or unpleasant in nature is our fault and conversely* something we can repair.

We humans have an ignorance that is truly staggering. We imagine that nothing unusual or unpleasant in nature could be our fault and subsequently, we refuse to make any effort at repairs.

(*Incorrect usage)

T.A., you don't need to fight the ignorance and deception in the comments with pure argument. The arguments are over, all you need to do is point to the empirical data. Over 700,000 deaths over the past 5 years can be attributed to global warming.

World Health Organization, 2009 Key facts

* Climate change affects the fundamental requirements for health – clean air, safe drinking water, sufficient food and secure shelter.
* The global warming that has occurred since the 1970s was causing over 140 000 excess deaths annually by the year 2004.
* Many of the major killers such as diarrhoeal diseases, malnutrition, malaria and dengue are highly climate-sensitive and are expected to worsen as the climate changes.
* Areas with weak health infrastructure – mostly in developing countries – will be the least able to cope without assistance to prepare and respond.

As Scott noted Arctic ice will still form during winter. What is fast disappearing though is the multi-year ice that was 20' or more thick and a barrier to shipping and other activities in the summer and fall. This past September two German ships were able to travel from South Korea through the Northeast Passage, making a delivery at Novvy Port/Yamburg, Russia and continuing on to the Netherlands. A Canadian Arctic researcher, David Barber, took an ice breaker into the Northwest Passage and the Southern Beaufort Sea, often cruising at 24 kts through rotten ice. They easily broke through floes 20'-25' thick. Neither of those feats would have been possible a few years ago.

Correction. Dr. Barber's expedition cruised at 13 kts.

a very interesting article I hope the reader can take lessons in it

The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consul Ifft, at Bergen, Norway. Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, he declared, all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met with as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm. Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared. Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts, which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.

That's from Page 2 headline in the Nov. 2, 1922 edition of The Washington Post: "Arctic Ocean Getting Warm; Seals Vanish and Icebergs Melt."

And

All of Britain Covered by Snow http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/08/all-of-england-covered-by-snow/

To see the corruption of science which has you all completely and willingly duped go here

http://climateaudit.org/

Cascade Policy Institute is entirely truth driven. Entirely.

The fact that the public employee unions have smeared them for years in an attempt to cover up their own motivations, activities and power mongering control of goverment policy making is at the core of Oregon's problems.

"i did not insult anyone other than the CPI, which (imo) prepares and presents propaganda. point in case: the study that shows M66/67 will cost 75,000 jobs? based on a study of Japan - in the mid 90s. a direct correlation to Oregon's current circumstances, of course."

Your point is off the mark. The study you refer to only used the Japanese experience as an example of the damage misdirected government fiscal and tax policy can do to an economy.

The actual job loss estimates, and estimates of the loss of tax filers relied on two separate methods: First, analyzing a database spanning 31 years for the 48 continental states. Second, using recent IRS Statistics on Income data, to examine the pattern of migration of tax filers between Oregon and the other 49 states.

Again, no estimates were derived from the Japanese example. Readers can verify this by reading the study at http://tiny.cc/QLPo0

The climate change deniers just don't get it and won't as long as we experience winter. Why must I got to sources such as the BBC to get the real story? Just this morning, they carried a story about the methane that is bubbling up from previously frozen clathrates under the Arctic. Levels are as much as 1000 times normal. Interesting to tie the Coast Guard into this, as they are the ones saying that the Columbia "can be made safe" for the transport of LNG tankers. Just what we need, more fossil fuel to foul our air.

Jane Lubchenco/NOAA's National Climatic Data Center just released information indicating that the annual temperature for the contiguous United States has trended downward at a rate of 1.03 degrees F per decade from 1998 to 2009.

NCDC / Climate At A Glance / Climate Monitoring / Search / Help

Climate At A Glance

Annual Temperature Contiguous United States

Annual 1998 - 2009 Average = 54.16 degF Annual 1998 - 2009 Trend = -1.03 degF / Decade

Now what's the progressive take on this? Is this weather or climate?

Oh what else is there?

Big haul of 15.6 million pounds of Dungeness Crabs harvested in the first month of the 8 month Oregon crabbing season. Large, healthy and in big numbers. Last season was 13 million for the entire season.

How can this be with Ocean Dead Zones being caused by global warming?

How about Coho and Chinook Salmon runs surpassing all runs since the Bonneville Dam was built in 1939.

Our illegally intercepting non US flagged ships in international waters, because we think they might have contraband, and the tension that causes between us and those countries, far outweighs any good done vis a vis climate change. Ultimately we have to get international- binding international- agreements, and that requires we learn to do something other than bully other nations around. And the ratio is nowhere near equal.

I'm sorry, but this just sounds like trying to rationalize how the military really does perform a service, as we escalate into one of the biggest mistakes in the country's history.

"It's a way we had over here of living with ourselves. We cut 'em in half with a machine gun and give 'em a Band-Aid. It was a lie. And the more I saw them, the more I hated lies." - Willard in America, er Apocalypse Now.

Richard,

Way to cherry pick your starting date, 1998, the hottest year on record globally according to Britains Hadley Center (NASA/GISS has 2005 as the hottest year). What does the contiguous United States (1.6% of the surface area of the earth) have to do with global temperatures? Hint, not much but a little. South east Australia has had 3 record breaking heat waves in the past two years. Does that factor into your thinking?

riverat, from cherry pick central Mann and compnay,

I didn't Cherry pick anything, 2009 just ended, it was for th previous ten years and you are deliberately missing the entire point of course.

The last ten years according to NOAA show a significant decline in temperature for the contiguous US.

That last 10 years is what it is.
Dance around all you want and that fact remains.

It's interesting.

In context with the greater collection of real versus manipulated temperature records around the globe it's another cold hard fact you don;t want to consider.

I am more than certain you have been shown the manipulation of temerature records in New Zealand, England, Alaska and Russia as well as the altered reporting station results. Among countless other pieces of the AGW scandal. Your fanatasism immediatley disposed of them from your consideration or memory. That way you can continue as if they never existed and treat every skeptic's posting as if it's a stand alone and meaningless note.

I see you had nothing to say about the 1922 story above.

I suggest you go check out how your Team is unraveling.

www.climateaudit.org

NOAA's National Climatic Data Center just provided the information below on December temperatures in the Northwest Region (Washington, Oregon and Idaho) that should influence the discussions of decreasing snowpack and climate change in the Northwest.

NCDC / Climate At A Glance / Climate Monitoring / Search / Help

Climate At A Glance

December Temperature Northwest Region December 2002 - 2009 Average = 30.32 degF December 2002 - 2009 Trend = -10.71 degF / Decade

The arguments re climate change remind me of the arguments of the tobacco-disease-deniers a few years ago.

When will you liberals realize that spouting your figures and charts will do nothing to dissuade the enemy?

The fact that the great majority of climate scientists are on our side should be enough, but, in the event that more argument is needed, try the Precautionary Principle:

"When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically. In this context the proponent of an activity, rather than the public, should bear the burden of proof. The process of applying the precautionary principle must be open, informed and democratic and must include potentially affected parties. It must also involve an examination of the full range of alternatives, including no action." (Wingspread Statement on the Precautionary Principle, Jan. 1998)

Tomcat,

That really was ignorant and completely absent any understanding of the AGW issue and the competing science involve. You obvioulsy have not done your homework.

Intead you parrot the tobacco/bromide obfuscation as if it supposed to be informative. Why not throw in "weather is not climate" too?

Too many of you are simply incapble of assessing the issue for what it is and isn't.

You can't even detect what is germane and substantive and what is complete BS.

Richard,

1998 - 2009 is 12 years, not 10. If you want a decade you should start with 2000.

Again, the contiguous US is less than 1.6% of the surface area of the globe and the Northwest Region is considerably less. That information is just a small part of the total global picture.

I went to the NCDC web site and played around with that Climate at a Glance graphing tool for 30 minutes or so. Kind of fun. Your "(contiguous US) Annual 1998 - 2009 Trend = -1.03 degF / Decade" statement is accurate as is "(Northwest region) December 2002 - 2009 Trend = -10.71 degF / Decade" but I tried your parameters (12 year contiguous US annual mean and 8 year Northwest Region monthly mean) with different starting points and even different period lengths and both of those numbers are the largest negative trends I could find. You can't even get a negative trend for the contiguous US annual mean unless you start with 1997 or later. That's what I call cherry picking. Choosing an arbitrary period length (12/8 years) and starting with the best period to maximize the negative trend, implying that less than 2% of the earths surface can tell you everything you need to know about the other 98%. Cherry picking!

If you have any scientifically rigorous evidence that the filtering and adjustments that are used by climate researchers to normalize the data is inappropriate lets hear it. Stolen emails and conspiracy theories don't cut it.

The 1922 story was interesting but it's only one report from Norwegian researchers around Spitsbergen. Do you have an corroborating evidence from the rest of the Arctic? They were able to sail to 81º 29' North in August of 1922. A quick check of the NSICD sea ice index shows open water north of Spitsbergen near 80º North on Jan. 7, 2010.

There was a mostly natural warming trend from the mid 1800s to the mid 1900s due largely to a warming sun and a lack of major volcanic activity (big volcanic eruptions have a cooling effect for a few years due to aerosol injection into the stratosphere). CO2 levels were only 300 ppm in 1900 (vs. 280 preindustrial) and didn't hit 320 until 1962. Since 1962 they've risen to 390 ppm at the end of 2009, 70 ppm in 47 years. Anthropogenic global warming didn't really start to kick in until the 1970s.

I know some others on BO don't like it when I feed the trolls so I'll try to resist responding to you again but it's fun researching them and leads me to interesting information sometimes.

The Coast Guard Cutters have been re-dispatched to the East Coast. Tonight on national news showed a Coast Guard Cutter breaking up the ice there, maybe the New York Harbor or the Hudson River, not paying that close of attention. The freezing temperatures there just don’t track with global warming. It’s more like global cooling. Man made global warming comes from scientists under contract with the government who are paid to find the (as somebody else said) "cherry picked data” to support a pre-conceived predetermined conclusion. Those who disagree don’t work for the government anymore.

riverat,, What a bunch of muck.

The last 9 10 or 12 years are what they are. And IPCC principals have already voiced concern about it NOT aligning with their projections.

They and you are the cherry pickers. Shown over and over again. But you also lie.

You know there is of course scientifically rigorous evidence that climate reearchers have inappropriately adjusted tmeprature record and other data.

Your stunt of demanding it be brought here is pathetic.

As if this is the place to spend time bringing it to. What a joke.

You lie about CRU-leak. There's every chance it was a whistleblower not "stolen" It's not just emails either. But he emails cover back 10 years to right before the leak. There is also data and programer notes in the Cru-Leak which have revealed much as well.

You know where to see it all, yet you play games as if it needs to be shown here or it doesn't exist.

That's dishonest hackery.

The 1922 story was interesting but it's not the only one.

I know you already have seen the 1911 one as well.

As you also know the phony claims of first time open arctic waters have been many. It's BS pal.

There's plenty of evidence of prior open water eras.

Again is it supposed to be delivered here of all places?

Go google it yourself.

A quick check of the NSICD sea ice index shows sea ice on the rebound. But so what?

Your AGW delusion has it all gone in summer next year.

Yeah there was a mostly natural warming trend from the mid 1800s to the mid 1900s. Just like the natural cooling from 1945 to 1975 and the natural warming since.

The evidence behind AGW is as sloppy and corrupted as Oregon's own ocean dead zone links to AGW.

CO2 is a trace GHG as you know so the pittance of variation from 300 ppm to 385ppm and the supposed reduction of a few ppm with policies is ludicrous.

You don;t have anything to add at all. Just like realclimate and climateprogress its obfuscation and cover up full time now.

You have no evidecne at all that Anthropogenic global warming ever "started to kick in".

Climte Models are NOT evidence? Period.

Yo have nothing but what the IPCC does until the 1970s.

You're not feeding this troll anything.

So don't bother. Go do some real study without going to the same scoundrels caught in CRU-Leak.

Richard, (sorry folks, can't help myself)

I never said all the ice will be gone next summer but if it's so thin it's not a serious impediment to ship travel it's as good as gone. The summer minimum still hasn't rebounded to where it was in 2006 and before, after the unusually low year of 2007, but it's back to about where the extrapolated curve of decline would have been in 2009. We'll see if it continues to "rebound".

The cooling from "1945-1975" was mostly because of industrial release of aerosols, primarily SO2, which we started cleaning up around 1970.

Climate models are not evidence. They are tools to help us understand the interaction of the various components of the climate system. They are tested against previous known climate for validation. They make projections of possible future climate given various input scenarios. Since they can't know what the future holds, particularly for natural variability like the timing and strength of ENSO/El Nino cycles, major volcanic eruptions, etc. they can't really predict what will happen but they can help us improve our understanding of climate.

You are going to be so disappointed and I imagine enraged when no serious violations of scientific ethics are found in the CRU emails. Quote mining and taking things out of context won't change that. As Shakespeare wrote "It is a tale / Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury / Signifying nothing."

riverat,

Listen to yourself.

The ice is what it is and it isn't going away. And ANY fluctuation in either direction has no established link to and does not represent evidence of AGW.

This is the point to all of the observations warmers like to attribute to AGW. You can't pretend a sweeping set of obervations and baseless conclusions have not been made by warmers. It's been laughable. Yet out the other sides of thei mouths they lecture skeptics on the difference between weather and climate.

To warmers it wonj't matter if the ice continues to rebound or remains constant they'll just change their lies.

The cooling from "1945-1975" is conveniently "presumed" to be mostly because of industrial release of aerosols.

Just as all other variations are presumed as to to fit the AGW theory.

You want to presume it's CO2 emissions warming the planet over the past 35 years. I don't.

Just like I don't buy many other shameless presumptions such as Oregon ocean dead zones linked to AGW.

Yeah "Climate models are not evidence."

And are lousy tools which have failed to help "us" understand the interaction of the various components of the climate system.

The tests against previous known climate for validation have been manipulated and do not work for projections.

The IPCC models have not provided a single benefit for any real world use. They have served only to promote the AGW movement.

So the observations are not evidence of AGW. The climate models are not evidence of AGW.

And yet the science of AGW is settled or conclusive?

I've got an input scenario for you. GIGO.

Garbage In Garbage Out.

You can't even address any of the major flaws in the AGW movement.

On the CRU-Leak there has already been acknowledment by many AGW team rank and file. You're so lost in the CRU-leak scoundrel's rhetoric that's all you keep track of.

Quoting is quoting. If you want to ignore quotes becasue they were labeled as mined you're an idiot. The context needs no adjustments. If you were up to speed you would know this. But I suspect you are simply dishonest and deliberatley avoid keeping up.

riverat, what are you trying to save? The environment will recover, eventually. Humans will go. Take a good long look at Richard. See the beauty of it? Can you argue that the world is a better place for our being in it? That it wouldn't be a hell of a lot better off if humans were gone?

I can only dream of that. No master criminal could pull it off. But Richard, and Terry Parker and Jim K arlock and all their minions will accomplish it for us. I decided in 2000, that if there were no binding, international agreement by the end of the decade (Copenhagen) that I would switch sides. Faithfully, I now am using my statistical expertise to help the deniers. I've stopped recycling, and bought a car. 18 MPG, SUV. Monsterous mutha. No deductible on the insurance, with the personal liability beefed up. Making regular paid donations to the sperm bank. Started a .in website that associates being vegetarian in the sub-continent with being an old school loser. Working the barrios and getting about 50 hispanics a week to return to the Catholic Church. Proudly teaching teens in CCD the Church's doctrine of not using birth control and letting your drunk husband rut you without protection at his whim is divine law, and they will burn in hell if they go against it.

"Progressives" will never do shit on this. If Richard's ilk are the only ones acting, then I will use their action to achieve the best result; human extinction. Take a big step back, allow your consciousness to float and think just of those two words, "human extinction". The beauty, the sweet nectar...the bliss!