This is the third snow dump in my part of the deep south this year (Mississippi). It looks beautiful, but worries me a bit too. I wonder if the water lines are laid deep enough ... big dip in the temperatures. Probably I should just enjoy it, but somthing about it just worries me.

Well, I could not get anyone at city hall today. This town can't even find most of their pipes. They dug up a whole intersection awhile back and still couldn't find the pipe. Anyway, my sister had a waterline replaced and it was only 18" to 2' deep. I don't know if that was to code or not since most just do what they want here.

The roofs on my buildings can stand a lot of snow weight. They are built well and with a good slope. I had been able to get up into the attic myself (followed a building the inspector every step before buying the house) ... can't do it now since the walker became necessary this year but I have seen everything and it is solidly built.

Another thing is, they don't have snow removal equipment in this county. They just are not prepared for weather like this. The drivers aren't prepared either.

I am afraid there will be worse weather to come. It seems the gulf current loop has stoped due to the oil spill. That is NOT good for anyone.

Yes, I believe that "Global Warming" is very misleading. Consindering Earth's average temperature has always been so much higher (the billions of years before the onset of the Ice Ages, which we are still in), it makes more sense to call it "Climate Change" or "Quit Frakking With Mother Nature or She Will Give Us A Beatdown".

People are not going to believe in Global Warming because not because of the science, but because of political motivation, just like they are not going to believe in evolution because of religious motivation. There's no arguing with them, you can talk about until you are blue in the face and you will not change their mind. In the end all you can do is prepare for yourself and the people you love as best you can and when the sky falls say 'I told you so.'

That's interesting Zen, because I spoke a few months ago with a climatologist from NOAA (Nat'l Oceanographic & Atmospheric Administration - U.S.), and he told me that the science is far from settled and that there's a reason that every major predictive model in the past decade has been substantially wrong. I don't know the details, I'm just repeating what he told me. Of course, we were primarily discussing human-driven climate change, not climate change in general, so he may have meant his statement to be confined to that arena. I'll have to see if I still have his number.

Definitely seems as though the two experts have a difference of opinion and both have some form of data to back it up. I would love to see clarification of their ideas and see if they would actually disagree or if it is something more similar to a communication breakdown of some kind.

I can honestly say that I haven't met any individual in the past couple of years who A) adamantly denies that the earth is warming and B) seems informed and credible to me. That may be my personal bias speaking, I don't know. The problem for me is that so many field experts (by which I mean climatologists, atmospheric chemists and the like) - both in the public and private sectors - have published experimental results and papers to the effect that, in their professional opinions, human industrialization in the past two centuries has been totally incapable of having the impact on our environment that is claimed by the politicians and others who stand to profit from the Green movement. These findings and papers are available to the public but are hard to find because (IMO) they do not fit with the popular, profitable rhetoric of 'we must change now, and I have just the product to help you change!'

Another thing to consider in relation to this issue is carbon sinks. UHF, you talk about Kyoto and sequestration. I don't know what's been happening in this area in Canada, but may I assume that the plan involves afforestation and that this is the area deemed insufficient? *EDIT: I just read the Sun article you linked, and with my almost total ignorance of the technology involved, it just seems silly to pump CO2 into wells and not expect any sort of consequence.* As I understand it (and I apologize for losing my source, so take it as you will), the formation of white sand (calcium carbonate I think) is a natural carbon sink process, and multiple observers have said that white sand beaches around the world have visibly expanded in recent decades (despite rising sea level). Another natural carbon sink (and I'm told that it's considerably more efficient than afforestation) is the growing of mangrove, which is already present and thriving in many tropical and subtropical areas. The point is, the data I've seen suggests - doesn't prove, but suggests - that the earth is taking our carbon emissions in stride. After all, the sum total of anthropogenic CO2 emissions aren't even a drop in the bucket in comparison to atmospheric CO2 generated annually by human & animal respiration and volcanic emissions.

This is neither authoritative nor completely unbiased, but it certainly is an interesting read:
http://www.nolanchart.com/article805.html
A quote from near the end:
"The point of my article is to show you that the theory of anthropogenic global warming needs to be exposed to criticism to ensure its health. If the theory has merits, then it has to be proved under the rigors of the scientific method, not through political campaigns. It is important for any subject, but especially one on a global scale with so much at stake, to be rationally discussed without the panic, hysteria, and sensationalist rubbish. People who try to suppress this debate are highly irresponsible and their motives should seriously be called into question. A lot of the responsibility for how this is handled rests on you and me. If someone tells you that the world is going to end in 100 years time because of the gases that come out your mouth and backside, you should have the intellectual fortitude to critically question that claim, and not treat like heretics those who do."

And here's a presentation by a guy who supports anthropogenic warming, after carefully examining a bunch of non-anthro factors. He believes that we're slightly accelerating warming, but that warming is happening naturally and the acceleration is slight at best. I think he presents an interesting case.
http://www.slideshare.net/hecrod/non-an ... ate-change

Just some thoughts.

First, I'd have to ask who paid him to write that;
"It seems to have become somewhat of a game to see who can add in the most creative feedback mechanisms to produce the scariest warming scenarios from their models..."

This 'write up' isn't science at all. Its propaganda. If you see actual science, it references actual facts or other materials. There are no citations in that.

I am familiar with the graph and the paper that 'refuted' it. (I read it at the time.) The conclusions from the scientists who wrote the 'refutation' was that it wouldn't make any significant difference if you corrected for the 'mistakes'. Among the mistakes, was... grabbed data from different centuries, and the length of the end data, and how it would affect the smoothing graph.

In fact reading this was what prompted me to go hunting for the graphs from the burning oil wells. It was pretty clear to me then that they had it right.

I see this kind of write up all the time from marketing and advertisements. Or my favorite... http://www.junkscience.com/ (That site actually makes me feel physically ill to read, with such great nonsense as, "green houses don't work that way, therefore there is no greenhouse effect".)

Lastly, he does talk about these theories being proved under the rigors of the scientific method. Umm... It has. The UN had some 3500, or 4500 scientists sign on and say, yes, this is true. If each scientist has a PHD and some 15 experience each, how many years of experience does that represent?

By contrast here's a great article on Steorn, the perpetual motion guys; (Note that the wikipedia article has more science to it than the article you linked in.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steorn

And, contrary to some opinions, there are papers where a scientist disproves, or cannot find evidence of, his own theories - a favorite being the Michelson–Morley experiment.
Higgledy Piggeldy
Morley and Michelson,
Did their experiment,
Came away miffed.
Need a more accurate
Interferometer,
Back to the drawing board,
Can't get the drift!
(Hey, how many physics poems do you know?)

When I was a Young and Semi-Gullible Grump the best book on the Bermuda Triangle ended up disproving its existence - the opposite of the goal that the author started with. (He went to primary sources and discovered... a whole lot of not-surprise. Little things like the flight leader of the Five Avengers arguing with ground control, which was telling him that he was going the wrong way, that the rescue plane had a nickname of 'The Flying Bomb' because of fuel leak issues endemic to the model, that the Witchcraft did not disappear on a clear night, but during a gale, missing ships were sometimes moved thousands of miles to place their disappearance in the Triangle, etc... If you really want a lot of disappearing ships then look at the Great Lakes.)

A good scientist does report his failures. If one side is providing numbers and the other is quoting anecdotes... money is on the guy with the charts.

Some evidence of warming is not being addressed by those who do not believe in warming, but either discarded or ignored.
1. The sun is not getting warmer, in fact we are in a century long minimum right now (Maunder minimum - fewer sunspots).

2. Glaciers and floes are calving at a greatly increased rate. The ice sheets are moving faster as the temperature in the Arctic and Antarctic rises.

3. Temperature increase and decrease has been measured since the 19th century. (Believe it or not, on a per capita basis, pollution is down from the 19th century - bituminous coal is dirty, dirty stuff, but there are a lot more heads now.)

4. Temperatures in the Trans Atlantic Current have been measured since Benjamin Franklin. They are indeed rising, at a time when the sun is cooling.

5. While nature can beat us hands down in regards to greenhouse gas production, we are adding to her generosity, which is not getting any more frugal.

A good read on both sides is Skeptical Inquirer, a good read in any event, actually.

The Auld Grump