Snow falls in the United Arab Emirates

Here where I live (Gaia, Portugal) we had snow this January (last time had been some 20 years ago).
I’ve just looked at cryosphere today and there’s some green stuff around Iceland. Is it going to join the main mass of Arctic sea ice?

At this rate, how long until the expression “until Hell freezes over” looses it meaning, I wonder? 😉

In Central Victoria, Australia we are still in the grip of a drought that has now lasted for 8 years. It is the main reason The Age Newspaper (an influential Melbourne Daily) has been able to beat the climate change drum -they equate climate change with drought and politicians and the gullible public believe this If it would only return to average rainfall they would have less traction. This is longest run of below average rainfall since recoeds began in 1873. The yearly average for the past 8 years is 568mm and the longterm average is 752mm. Bring on La Nina so ‘cooler’ heads prevail

I’m chatting with a friend in Dubai and he says the snow is well north of them – it’s not snowing in Dubai.

The AGW ideology, with its chameleon-like ability to change according to the situation is now referred to as: Global Climate Disruption.
This 61-page presentation of John Holdren’s is actually from Nov., 2007, so the idea has been around for a while.
Excerpt:
•” “Global warming” is a misnomer because it implies something
gradual, uniform, & benign, none of which is true;
“global climatic disruption” is a more accurate description.
• The disruption & its impacts are growing more rapidly than
was expected; widespread harm is already occurring.
• In this situation society has only 3 options: mitigation,
adaptation, & suffering. We’re already doing some of each
& will do more of all three; mix still up for grabs.
• Minimizing suffering will require early & large deflections
from the “business as usual” emissions path.
• There’s no panacea; many things must be done. Most
important is putting a price on carbon dioxide emissions.
• The United States must switch from laggard to leader –
and sooner rather than later – if the world is to act in time.”
I guess they realized they needed to come up with a new paradigm, in order to contrast what they are propagandizing as happening today with ordinary climate change, since they realized people were finding out that the climate has indeed changed before.
With “Global Climate Disruption” we have the mother of all ideologies, presented as “science” to the scientifically illiterate, which explains any and all unusual, or even not that uncommon but destructive weather events, and can not be dis-proven.
I was listening to a program this morning on NPR called “Living on Earth”, which referred to the recent huge ice storm in New England, as well as damage to trees from pests such as the hemlock woolly adelgid, as examples of climate disruption.

Hey, this is something for Al Gore’s next movie!:
“Climate scientist says that If global warming continues in it’s present rate, In the future there will be no more snowfalls in UAE”

Nest stop: Polar Bears roam near the Salton Sea.

Many people dismiss these kinds of events as “merely weather.” Of course they are omitting the fact that climate is merely the long-term compilation of weather. Enough “weather” events over an extended period of time become the new climatological record.
Sigh.

janama (04:54:45) :
I’m chatting with a friend in Dubai and he says the snow is well north of them – it’s not snowing in Dubai.
Around 100km to the North East, so not that far really.

I’ve just sent it to Drudge!

I checked out Bruce Cobb’s reference to John Holdren’s “Global Climate Disruption: What Do We Know? What Should We Do?” He is a plasma physicist who apparently has done little physics, but he is both the Teresa and John Heinz Professor of Environmental Policy (and Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences) at Harvard University and President Obama’s newly appointed science adviser. Lubos Motl writes about him 12/19/08.
I could find no science in “Global Climate Disruption”, just a propaganda piece for the hockey stick, et al, and for a socialist agenda: One of the primary goals is reducing the growth of GDP per person and reducing the energy ratio per GDP. These purposes, among others, will take some mighty central planning — and a heavy tax burden.
April E. Coggins noticed Google’s “unfair” search, but the 2004 dateline helps to understand the lack of attention to snow in the UAE. However, there are questions about the willingness of the premier search engine to put forward science findings without prejudice since the company and founders are among the most influential supporters of this administration. Someone a few threads back suggested non-profit organizations to promote accurate science of “climate”. Is surfacestations.org one of those? Are there others that have significant outreach? Are there any that can reach into the schools? The current propaganda appears everywhere.

A threefer at the American Thinker.
————————————————————
The Age of Anti-Carbonism
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/01/the_age_of_anticarbonism.html
Anti-carbonism rests on three foundational assumptions, all essentially in the realm of science: First, warming is the result of man-made CO2. Second, such warming is harmful, even catastrophic. Third, a program of policies and actions can prevent these harms.
So far, despite more than $9 billion in research by the U.S. alone, none of these assumptions have been proven.
Without first establishing the science it would seem to be impossible to formulate a rational policy. But the policy war against carbon (and here we mean hydrocarbon fuels, and concomitant CO2 emissions) is an end in itself for the anti-carbonists.
No doubt anti-carbonism is the zeitgeist of the moment. Global warming has been mentioned prominently in every single Obama cabinet member’s acceptance speech. Congress is acting as if it is smart politics to force a transition to a low-carbon economy without delay. Venture capitalists and corporate heads are capitulating to the threats and being seduced by the blandishments of agencies and committees in Washington.
————————————————————-
Climate: Change You Can’t Believe In
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/01/climate_change_you_cant_believ.html
When in fact, even were consensus a foundation of science, there exists infinitely more that Al Gore, James Hansen, Gavin Schmidt, Joe Romm, Kevin Grandia et al are snake-oil salesmen than of any anthropogenic impact on climate. And recent claims of a vaguely worded on-line survey with a 30% response rate from unnamed “scientists” being touted by the alarmists as proof otherwise change nothing.
Jackson — who testified at her confirmation hearing that “curbing global warming” would be an E.P.A. priority — has yet to disclose whether she’d move to regulate CO2 under the Clean Air Act, an extremely dangerous possibility nonetheless provided in 2007 by the wrongly decided Supreme Court decision of Massachusetts v. EPA. But as a committed GHG hypochondriac and avid supporter of cap-and-trade — serving “as Vice President of the Executive Board of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative,” which has already launched the nation’s first carbon trading system, her trump card — should legislation fail — is a no-brainer. And such radical regulation would empower unelected bureaucrats to impose massive behavior-modifying fines upon a broad range of residential and commercial “polluters.”
As we’ve pointed out in the past, the convergence of CO2 declared a greenhouse “pollutant” and animals listed as endangered by “climate change” creates a virtually unlimited potential for federal control over all manners of commerce and day-to-day existence.
And speaking of furthering government control, Carol M. Browner — Obama’s choice for the new inanely-named position of “global warming czar” — is a dyed-in-the-wool socialist. She’s one of 14 leaders of Socialist International’s Commission for a Sustainable World Society, which, according to the Washington Times, “calls for ‘global governance’ and says rich countries must shrink their economies to address climate change.” For more on the eco-Marxism scam, see Noel Sheppard’s NASA’s Hansen to Obama: Use Global Warming to Redistribute Wealth and my own The Climate Alarmist Manifesto.
Then there’s new energy secretary Steven Chu, another cap-and-trade champion, who declared at his confirmation hearing: “Climate change is a growing and pressing problem. It is now clear that if we continue on our current path, we run the risk of dramatic disruptive changes to our climate in the lifetimes of our children and our grandchildren.”
And let’s not forget Obama’s director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy. The Boston Globe recently reminded us of John Holdren’s own “contempt for researchers who are unconvinced that human activity is responsible for global warming, or that global warming is an onrushing disaster,” calling their ideas which “infest” public discourse “dangerous,” and that “paying any attention to their views is ‘a menace.'” Holdren also “contributed to a published assault on Bjorn Lomborg’s notable 2001 book ‘The Skeptical Environmentalist’- an attack the Economist described as ‘strong on contempt and sneering, but weak on substance.'”
Card-carrying carbochondriacs — the lot: Unwavering advocates of a scheme proven both wholly ineffectual in GHG abatement and clearly antithetical to our essential economic recovery by its international precursors. And Americans are waking up to the fact that the green power they and those driving them desire derives not from infeasible wind, solar or geothermal sources, but rather from economic command and control.
————————————————————-
Scare Watch: ‘Arctic warming is unprecedented’
By The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/01/scare_watch_arctic_warming_is_1.html
The scare: In late January 2009, a U.S. government report on Arctic climate, prepared by an international team of 37 climatologists, concluded that the recent rapid warming of polar temperatures and shrinking of multi-year Arctic sea ice are “highly unusual compared to events from previous thousands of years”. The report’s summary says, “Sustained warming of at least a few degrees” is probably enough “to cause the nearly complete, eventual disappearance of the Greenland ice sheet, which would raise sea level by several metres.”
The truth: This report reveals very little that is new, and is predicated on a number of unproven assumptions, not the least of which is that the “global warming” that began 300 years ago, when the Sun was at its least active for 10,000 years, and continued until the latter part of the 20th century, when the sun was at its most active for 11,400 years, is chiefly anthropogenic. The mere fact of this warming, nearly all of which took place before humankind can possibly have had any significant influence, does not tell us its cause. Likewise, the mere fact that the warming has had effects on the climate does not tell us the cause of the warming. According to Scafetta & West (2008), some 69% of the warming of the past half-century was natural.