Another La Nina is so unlikely as to raise questions in itself, I think. The 2010 El Nino was cut short and yet 2010 was as warm as 1998; any year-long El Nino is going to be a new leader, uncontended.
Technically speaking, was it really a Niño those months back in 2010?
...
My apple and pear trees have been so messed-about by this year's weather I doubt I'll get a crop at all
. This is getting presonal.
I'd plant some oranges.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=north-carolina-sea-level-rises-desipte-senators
what? did the NC Senate really bann agencies from reporting Sea level rise increases? wtf? really????
It looks like the Bible Belt is striking back.
BTW, when I was a child, I read about the coasts of the Carolinas and Virginia being sinking by geological reasons.
Talking of totally debunking the greenhouse effect ... has anyone know of any good rebuttals to this? ...
Venus: No Greenhouse Effect "There is no greenhouse effect on Venus with 96.5% carbon dioxide, and none on the Earth with just a trace of carbon dioxide" HARRY DALE HUFFMAN Independent research physical scientist
http://theendofthemystery.blogspot.co.uk/2010/11/venus-no-greenhouse-effect.html
I'm still laughing from reading that "scientific" article, with its "sleigh of figures", like the sleigh of hands, but a prestidigitational use of figures to hide that the subject under analysis is changing constantly.
That analysis looked like "a rat is more intelligent than Joe Denialitto" because they tested the intelligence of a 3 pound rat and later they took the lowest 3 pounds of Joe Denialitto -to be at a rat level- and the result was that Joe's halluces were pretty dumb (all-thumbs?) when compared with the rat's brain hemispheres.
The whole thing made me remember one mini-chapter of John Allen Paulos' Beyond Numeracy, dealing with coincidences and a person in a flight being amazed by knowing that the passenger next seat has the same dentist that his own cousin. The same way he explained how it does not matter how low is the probability of some specific coincidence to happen when there's a high probability of some coincidence to happen, the author of that intellectual travesty exploited some contrast he managed to find in order to state and denounce that he is
"a competent physicist rather than an incompetent climate scientist (which 97% of them demonstrably are)"(SIC).
In this case, it looks like the chap started to cross-reference and correlate the earth's atmosphere with sun magnetic indexes, Andromeda -the galaxy or the tv series-, runes, decadal oscillation in Oprah's and Rosseane weights, and a long etcetera, and finally found that a thoroughly comparison of the Earth's atmosphere with the outer insignificantly thin crust of Venus' would "debunk" the greenhouse effect. And it gives amazing coincidences, like some chap and his nephew dreaming with duckies last night so they are buying some coupon with a 22 ending.
The problem with those thistle-arguments is that the more you discuss and debunk it, the more you promote it among the innumerate and uneducated masses. No matter the author find a coincidence and didn't bother in comparing the composition of the outermost layer of Venus' atmosphere or the simplest fact that that layer can be cool because heat is trapped by the 99% percent of the atmosphere which is bellow and contains almost all the CO2 available.
I'm afraid that poor and anti-scientific article might stir some 40 or 50 post of sterile discussions here with the usual patrons.
