[cogitator]

The blog server must have been overheating. Management must have told her to say something. It'll be interesting to see if someone takes her up on her offer.

[Leftism is Mentally Deranged]

There are several cycles that affect climate on the earth. Some of them are:
1. daily. earth spins.
2. yearly. earth goes around the sun
the tilt of the earth changes, producing the seasons.
the earth is at varing distances from the sun as it goes around the sun
3. the various cycles of the sun

there are many factors on earth that affect the amount of heat that the earth retains from the sun, or dissipates the heat into space
Some of them are:
1. surface reflectivity
2. cloud cover
3. CO2 in the air
4. Dust and particles in the air

there are many other factors that affect the earth's temperature and climate. All factors have to be considered.

I doubt that all factors are being considered.

How about more facts? How about a non-political discussion of the facts in the matter?

[TC Rider]

Heidi,

Let me know when your seasonal hurricane forecasts are more than 10% accurate. For that matter, let me know when your 2 week forecasts are more than 75% accurate.

[Old Professer]

"Our goal at The Weather Channel has always been to keep people out of harm's way. Whether it's a landfalling hurricane or global warming."

It's not their job to keep people out of harm's way, they are a commercial program on an information medium competing for advertiser's dollars which are supplied by consumers, you and me.

Her implication that they can somehow protect us from global warming, which by definition affects the only place to go, leaves us with no exit if evacuation is the only escape.

She doesn't seem to understand that her goal is beyond her grasp.

Another example of someone who is educated beyond her understanding and infected with the fatal crusader's disease.

[Condor51]

That said, I would like to extend invitations to any of my colleagues in climatology or meteorology to join this discussion..

Ahhhhh, but what about: Geologists, Cosmologists, Physicists and/or Astro Physicists, Astronomers, etc, etc, etc.

You know Heidi, scientists that actually KNOW about how the Universe and our Solar System works, including that big ORANGE hot thing in the sky called the SUN. Not to mention how our orbit around it, the Earth's TILT and 'wobble', and how those pesky SOLAR Flares effect us and ... shock ... our weather.

BTW, This is what it looks like in case you forgot. Notice that 'thingy' arcing Heidi? It ain't a Hurricane or Cumulus Cloud. /s

ps: that other thingy in the sky you see at night Heidi is the MOON and that effects our tides - among other earthly things like our rotation duration time (day). Really Heidi, I'm not kidding.

pps: What's the weather gonna be like next week? Oh.. you don't know, uh-huh, I see.

[Mr. Silverback]

"There is convincing evidence that since the industrial revolution, human activities, resulting in increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases and other trace constituents in the atmosphere, have become a major agent of climate change."

Sure, just like there's convincing evidence of the Bermuda Triangle. The same sorts of high-CO2 + warmer temps events happened before the rise of human civilizations, if you ask anyone who studies the prehistorical climate. What were those spikes caused by, cavemen in SUVs? What caused the most recent warming trend that produced bumper crops in Europe? What caused the Little Ice Age that followed? Was it cow flatulence? Knights on dirt bikes?

[HuntsvilleTxVeteran]

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. - H. L. Mencken

[managusta]

I replied to her:-
"Assessing the Impact of Urban Sprawl on Soil Resources in the United States Using Nighttime "City Lights" Satellite Images and Digital Soils Maps" USGS and NASA

Abstract." Nighttime satellite images of the Earth showing city lights were merged with census data and a digital soils map in an effort to estimate the extent of developed land in the United States and the impact of development on soil resources.

The urban areas defined by "city lights" had mean population densities of 1,033 persons/km2 and 427 housing units/km2 (4.13 persons and 1.7 households/acre). Urban areas accounted for 2.7% of the surface area in the United States, an area approximately equal to the state of Minnesota or one-half the size of California."

Mankind has urbanized less than 3% of the total US You believe that not only have we changed the climate in the other 97% but also in the arctic,antarctic,Africa and the oceans.My what busy bees we have been to achieve all this with ac units, hair spray cans and car exhausts in one climatic period of 30 yrs!

Further reading at:-

http://biology.usgs.gov/luhna/chap3.html

[alloysteel]

WHY is global warming a bad thing?

We have been given an enormous blessing, in that the planet is growing warmer, at least on the short term. We shall now have to spend LESS for the purpose of heating our homes to sustain comfortable temperatures, as the warmer (and more humid) air outside will tend to hold heat overnight, until once more the benefit of sunshine shall make the stones and earth warm up again.

Travel shall be simpler from London to Tokyo, as shipping shall be able to traverse the fabled Northwest Passage sought for so long by explorers in the past. Bananas in Labrador, and rubber trees in Arkansas would tend to reduce the number of those items that now are imported to those regions. The potential for drowning coastlines is somewhat overdrawn, as every bit of glacial ice on mountaintops and in polar regions could melt, and overall, ocean levels will rise only about a foot. The ocean surface on this planet is HUGE, some 70% of the total surface of the planet, and it would take much more ice overlying land to cause a rise of anything like the ~20 feet some of the more 'zealous' pseudo-scientists are claiming. When the height of the last Ice Age had advanced to its greatest extent, glaciation covered virtually all of Europe, most of Asia, and much of North America to a line that covered practically all of the northern tier of states in what is now the US. From the south, since it is mostly open ocean, the south polar ice cap probably spread north to New Zealand and the Falkland Islands, with some glaciation of what is now South Africa, and a good deal of South America. A relatively warm belt, between the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn, had weather about like that of, say, Georgia, on a year-round basis, with some hot humid days when the sun was directly overhead, and in alternate seasons, probably snow that melted within a day or two. Coastlines, where they appeared and were not covered with permanent ice, were much further out than they are today.

Mention was made in the newspapers, that Miami had snow on this date - just 30 years ago. No talk of global warming then.

These people have had a firecracker go off beneath their own butts, and thought the world was blowing up.

So the world gets warmer. Embrace the change. Because for darned sure, nobody, with the technology we have today or perhaps for at least another century or so, is going to be able to alter the probable course of that change. No matter how much money we may spend.

And if your seaside property is going to get drowned, then move further inland. The ocean will then come to you.

When it is good and ready to.

[CSM]

"And I'm a skeptic."

Um, no you're not! In fact, you would prefer to silence skeptics with fascist techniques.

[RockinRight]

Sounds like backpedaling.

Notice she didn't address her comment that "global warming skeptics" be banned from AMS certification.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

...glaciers are melting, ...

Actually most glaciers are growing. About 45% of the measured glaciers are shrinking.

[Tzimisce]

>I am a scientist. And I'm a skeptic.<

You're a skeptic? And you bite in to global warming?

>AND after more than a century of research -- based on healthy skepticism -- scientists have learned something very important about our planet. It's warming up -- glaciers are melting, sea level is rising and the weather is changing. The primary explanation for this warming is the carbon dioxide released from -- among other things -- the burning of fossil fuels.<

What are your sources on this?

>Here at The Weather Channel, we have accepted that responsibility, and see it as our job to give YOU the facts on global warming.<

Excellent. What are your sources on this?

>Our position on global warming is supported by the scientific community ... including the American Meteorological Society. Their official statement says:

"There is convincing evidence that since the industrial revolution, human activities, resulting in increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases and other trace constituents in the atmosphere, have become a major agent of climate change."<

Oh right, the consensus argument. You know, we don't need consensus on the idea that 1 plus 1 equals 2 - we can just prove it. So why do we need consensus on global warming when you just said we could prove it?

>I've read all your comments saying I want to silence meteorologists who are skeptical of the science of global warming. That is not true. The point of my post was never to stifle discussion. It was to raise it to a level that doesn't confuse science and politics. Freedom of scientific expression is essential.<

...you're advocating punishing people who don't hold to the myth of global warming. You want their creditials taken away and you want them not to get jobs in weather reporting. I'd call that silencing them - especially when you just got done saying that part of your job as a weather girl is informing people about global warming...

>Many of you have accused me and The Weather Channel of taking a political position on global warming. That is not our intention.<

But that's what you're doing.

>Our goal at The Weather Channel has always been to keep people out of harm's way. Whether it's a landfalling hurricane or global warming.<

And the harm caused from scaring people with myths?

>Consistent with this goal, on this site and on The Climate Code we aim to help our viewers better understand why scientists are so concerned about climate change -- and then to decide for themselves what they want to do about it.<

You just advocated silencing people who disagree. How is the general public to decide for themselves when they only hear one line?

>The bottom line is ... this issue isn't going away.<

Yeah - until you provide some hard evidence, you've got a serious problem.

>That said, I would like to extend invitations to any of my colleagues in climatology or meteorology to join this discussion by posting a blog on this site or even coming on The Climate Code.<

Why? So open minded, accepting, tolerant people like yourself can call them names and belittle them publically?

[Lancey Howard]

*Billions of dollars of grant money is flowing into the pockets of those on the man-made global warming bandwagon. No man-made global warming, the money dries up.

[westmichman]

ping for later

[Robert A Cook PE]

I've read all your comments saying I want to silence meteorologists who are skeptical of the science of global warming. That is not true. The point of my post was never to stifle discussion. It was to raise it to a level that doesn't confuse science and politics. Freedom of scientific expression is essential.

Many of you have accused me and The Weather Channel of taking a political position on global warming. That is not our intention.



But it WAS her specific and deliberate intention to DECERTIFY ANY AMS member who DIDNT play the party line.

But, of course, not any intention to stifle discussion while de-certifying them.

[b4its2late]

If I can, I'll send her this link, well the actual link to the article on The American Thinker. I don't think she'll have an appreciation for FR:

Why Global Warming is Probably a Crock

[LC HOGHEAD]

One might be more inclined to give credence to global warming if it wasn’t for the Kyoto accords. Seems that the U.S. was the only country to be singled out for sanctions and regulations, heavier polluters like China and India got off scott free. Kyoto wasn’t about solving global warming at all, it was about “leveling the playing field” economically for participating nations, and punishing the bad ol’ U S of A, even though roughly 25% of our oil consumption goes to producing and shipping the food for those who bite the hand that keeps their asses alive for another day….global politics as usual.

As for this weather ditz calling for a Krystallnacht against people with a contrary opinion, does she do her forecasts with a fake hitler moustache? typical of the tolerant left

[Publius6961]

I am a scientist. And I'm a skeptic.

Dear Heidi:

I am Mother Theresa.
In the words of a truly famous man, you are entitled to your opinions, but not to your own facts.

Where are the facts backing up your self-serving (false) statement?

Here is a real scientist:

Lindzen, Richard S.
Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences
Professor Lindzen is a dynamical meteorologist with interests in the broad topics of climate, planetary waves, monsoon meteorology, planetary atmospheres, and hydrodynamic instability. His research involves studies of the role of the tropics in mid-latitude weather and global heat transport, the moisture budget and its role in global change, the origins of ice ages, seasonal effects in atmospheric transport, stratospheric waves, and the observational determination of climate sensitivity.
He has made major contributions to the development of the current theory for the Hadley Circulation, which dominates the atmospheric transport of heat and momentum from the tropics to higher latitudes, and has advanced the understanding of the role of small scale gravity waves in producing the reversal of global temperature gradients at the mesopause. He pioneered the study of how ozone photochemistry, radiative transfer and dynamics interact with each other. He is currently studying the ways in which unstable eddies determine the pole to equator temperature difference, and the nonlinear equilibration of baroclinic instability and the contribution of such instabilities to global heat transport.
He has also been developing a new approach to air-sea interaction in the tropics, and is actively involved in parameterizing the role of cumulus convection in heating and drying the atmosphere. He has developed models for the Earth's climate with specific concern for the stability of the ice caps, the sensitivity to increases in CO2, the origin of the 100,000 year cycle in glaciation, and the maintenance of regional variations in climate. In cooperation with colleagues and students, he is developing a sophisticated, but computationally simple, climate model to test whether the proper treatment of cumulus convection will significantly reduce climate sensitivity to the increase of greenhouse gases.

Prof. Lindzen is a recipient of the AMS's Meisinger, and Charney Awards, and AGU's Macelwane Medal. He is a corresponding member of the NAS Committee on Human Rights, a member of the NRC Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, and a Fellow of the AAAS1.
He is a consultant to the Global Modeling and Simulation Group at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, and a Distinguished Visiting Scientist at California Institute of Technology's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. (Ph.D., '64, S.M., '61, A.B., '60, Harvard University)

Dr. Lindzen wrote the dissenting opinion of the original summary of the initial anthropogenic climate report which distorted and, by ommision, misrepresented the very concept of "global warming"

Until you can produce similar bona fides, stop wasting out time!

[OESY]

Will Al Gore Melt?, by FLEMMING ROSE and BJORN LOMBORG


...One can only speculate. But if we are to follow Mr. Gore's suggestions of radically changing our way of life, the costs are not trivial. If we slowly change our greenhouse gas emissions over the coming century, the U.N. actually estimates that we will live in a warmer but immensely richer world. However, the U.N. Climate Panel suggests that if we follow Al Gore's path down toward an environmentally obsessed society, it will have big consequences for the world, not least its poor. In the year 2100, Mr. Gore will have left the average person 30% poorer, and thus less able to handle many of the problems we will face, climate change or no climate change.

Clearly we need to ask hard questions. Is Mr. Gore's world a worthwhile sacrifice? But it seems that critical questions are out of the question. It would have been great to ask him why he only talks about a sea-level rise of 20 feet. In his movie he shows scary sequences of 20-feet flooding Florida, San Francisco, New York, Holland, Calcutta, Beijing and Shanghai. But were realistic levels not dramatic enough? The U.N. climate panel expects only a foot of sea-level rise over this century. Moreover, sea levels actually climbed that much over the past 150 years. Does Mr. Gore find it balanced to exaggerate the best scientific knowledge available by a factor of 20?

Mr. Gore says that global warming will increase malaria and highlights Nairobi as his key case. According to him, Nairobi was founded right where it was too cold for malaria to occur. However, with global warming advancing, he tells us that malaria is now appearing in the city. Yet this is quite contrary to the World Health Organization's finding. Today Nairobi is considered free of malaria, but in the 1920s and '30s, when temperatures were lower than today, malaria epidemics occurred regularly. Mr. Gore's is a convenient story, but isn't it against the facts?

He considers Antarctica the canary in the mine, but again doesn't tell the full story. He presents pictures from the 2% of Antarctica that is dramatically warming and ignores the 98% that has largely cooled over the past 35 years. The U.N. panel estimates that Antarctica will actually increase its snow mass this century. Similarly, Mr. Gore points to shrinking sea ice in the Northern Hemisphere, but don't mention that sea ice in the Southern Hemisphere is increasing. Shouldn't we hear those facts? Mr. Gore talks about how the higher temperatures of global warming kill people. He specifically mentions how the European heat wave of 2003 killed 35,000. But he entirely leaves out how global warming also means less cold and saves lives. Moreover, the avoided cold deaths far outweigh the number of heat deaths. For the U.K. it is estimated that 2,000 more will die from global warming. But at the same time 20,000 fewer will die of cold. Why does Mr. Gore tell only one side of the story?

Al Gore is on a mission. If he has his way, we could end up choosing a future, based on dubious claims, that could cost us, according to a U.N. estimate, $553 trillion over this century. Getting answers to hard questions is not an unreasonable expectation before we take his project seriously. It is crucial that we make the right decisions posed by the challenge of global warming. These are best achieved through open debate, and we invite him to take the time to answer our questions: We are ready to interview you any time, Mr. Gore -- and anywhere.

.

[7thson]

A scientist? Does she have Doctor or Professor before her name? She's a frigging weather guesser!