I was studying the life of St Francis of Assisi recently, in order to gain some possible insight into the agenda of Pope Francis. I'm certain he did not choose the name randomly. Of course the connection to St Francis Xavier, cofounder of the Jesuit order is obvious; however, St Francis of Assisi is the patron saint of animals, ecology, and merchants. His biography records his remarkable love for the natural world, animals, etc. Prior to taking a vow of poverty, he was also a most accomplished and successful textile merchant.

Pope Francis is a vociferous proponent of climate change prevention and he has been instrumental in the opening of nations such as Cuba to new trade and the elimination of decades old economic sanctions. Is it a coincidence that the President of Iran met with Pope Francis at the Vatican on January 26, 2016 to discuss: "the importance of inter-religious dialogue and the responsibility of religious communities in promoting reconciliation, tolerance and peace." CNN.

This meeting just happens to occur while the economic sanctions against Iran are being lifted???

Francis is using global warming to popularize his Sunday law with the general population while simultaneously insinuating himself into the business/trade affairs of the world's leaders.

Patron saint of ecology and merchants, indeed!

"and all the world wondered after the Beast"...

Interesting parallel there!

Cooling, warming, cooling....

http://www.iceagenow.com/Sunspots_and_global_cooling.htm

Only makes sense if it's a jesuit means for forced worship.

http://iceagenow.info/
Snow in Russia on June 13
Brazil – Coldest in 22 years
More snow for California – Almost mid June!
The international crossing Cristo Redentor has been closed since June 1 due to heavy snowfall.
More than 2 meters of snow in Argentina
...

When global warming didn't play out, we were fed the line that there will be more extreme temperatures. But is that true?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._state_temperature_extremes

You can click on the headings to sort the list. While there are some recent record highs and lows, there are many more older record highs and lows.

An expedition to the North Pole intended to measure the effects of global warming ground to a halt this month when the scientist’s ship got blocked by the ice packs near Murmansk, Russia, reports reveal.

Global warming can never hope to be understood properly by assessing the temperature or trends in temperature or precipitation in a single locality or region. That is because the effects of warming do not affect all regions equally. In fact, it should be understood by the true scientist that warming will NOT affect all areas in the same way.

Let's look at that last example posted by kland first: heavy ice near the North Pole. Why would global warming predict that?

Consider the following:

1) The warmer the planet, the warmer the oceans, and the more evaporation they experience.

2) The warmest regions of the earth being those nearest the equator, the greatest evaporations take place there, which also factors into the potential for tropical storm generation in that same region.

3) The moisture-laden clouds that form in the tropical regions are blown great distances, forming the bulk of precipitation received in northern latitudes.

4) Rainwater is, of course, fresh water.

5) With much higher levels of evaporation in the equatorial regions, particularly the areas just north and south of the equator, and greater precipitations in northern latitudes, electrolytes and salts will concentrate more quickly in the tropics, effectually increasing the discrepancy in sea salinity between the poles and the tropics.

6) The reductions in salinity in the polar regions cause greater amounts of ice to develop, even without a reduction in overall temperatures, because higher salinity reduces the temperature required to form ice.

To understand how much effect salinity has upon the ocean in terms of other aspects, namely ocean currents generated by the salinity differences, the following article is a good primer on the subject.

http://ocean.stanford.edu/courses/bomc/chem/lecture_03.pdf

Now, let's consider the earlier examples of increased snow precipitation.

Snow, like rain or other forms of precipitation, comes from water which must first have evaporated. Higher temperatures increase the evaporation of water, making heavier snowfalls possible. Furthermore, higher temperatures increase the capacity of the atmosphere to absorb evaporation from the ocean, i.e. the saturation point, and thus make possible the heavier precipitations from weather systems, including both rain and snow. The fact that "snow is cold" does little to mitigate the more significant fact that snow would not exist if it did not first evaporate, and evaporation happens best in a warm environment.

Consider this: heavier snows come at temperatures nearer the freezing point. When the weather is extremely cold, snow is rare. Thus, even an unusually heavy snow is itself, temperature-wise, an indication of warming.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

How about looking at the link rather than considering speculations?

The Polar Ocean Challenge set out on a two-month campaign hoping to prove that the ice at the North Pole was melting.

Nothing about saying what global warming predicts, but what the Polar Ocean Challenge predicted and failed to find. You can also find that by clicking the link to their site within the first link.

By doing this we will be demonstrating that the Arctic sea ice coverage shrinks back so far now in the summer months that sea that was permanently locked up now can allow passage through.

Which they did not find to be true on their trip.

(Green, Did you not understand the point?)


Green provides an example of one global warmist speculating why another global warmist' predictions failed. Which really demonstrates that none of them have thought nor cannot think through all the variables required to make a prediction.

kland,

You are absolutely correct that many people do not think things through. You are mistaken, however, about me in that regard. I am one who does think things through. In fact, I don't know anyone who approaches the science of global warming in a more holistic manner than I do, including many who might claim to support the concept of warming.

I am not here to defend anyone, myself included. I would much prefer to call attention to the facts. You chose to ignore the facts in what I posted, and called attention to me. I don't appreciate your use of the ad hominem. If you wish to refute what I was saying, be consistent and address the scientific facts I posted.

Thank you.

Green Cochoa.

Green, you're the one who's not addressing what I posted.
What do you think the author's purpose of the link was?
Try addressing that.