Republicans are launching an investigation into the cozy relationship between the Environmental Protection Agency and an environmental lobbying group that has allegedly played a major role in crafting recent global warming rules and stymieing an Alaska mining project.

Louisiana Sen. David Vitter and California Rep. Darrell Issa sent a letter to the EPA and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) asking for records regarding the environmental group’s role in drafting a rule limiting carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants, and blocking a permit for the Pebble Mine in Alaska.

“It appears that NRDC’s unprecedented access to high-level EPA officials allowed it to influence EPA policy decisions and achieve its own private agenda,” Republicans wrote to the EPA and NRDC. “Such collusive activities provide the NRDC, and their financial backers, with an inappropriate opportunity to wield the broad powers of the executive branch.”

“The fact that an ideological and partisan group drafted a rule that places a tremendous cost on everyday Americans through increased electricity prices is harmful and outrageous,” the letter continued. “Accordingly, these practices must cease immediately.”

The Republican investigation comes after a New York Times report detailed the role NRDC lobbyists played in crafting a carbon dioxide regulatory proposal that would become the blueprint for the EPA’s own proposal to reduce power-plant emissions.

In July, The New York Times reported that NRDC lobbyists David Doniger, David Hawkins and Daniel Lashof “worked with a team of experts to write a 110-page proposal, widely viewed as innovative and audacious, that was aimed at slashing planet-warming carbon pollution from the nation’s coal-fired power plants.”

“By late 2012, Mr. Doniger, Mr. Hawkins and Mr. Lashof had finished their proposal and began to travel across the country to present it to state regulators, electric utilities, executives and anyone else they expected to have a hand in shaping the rules,” the Times reported. “In Washington, Mr. Doniger briefed Mr.Goffman
- watsonnostaw[the EPA’s top clean air lawyer] and Mr. Obama’s senior climate adviser at the time, Heather Zichal.”

The EPA has repeatedly denied that NRDC played an outsized role in crafting the agency’s carbon dioxide emissions limits, which aim to cut existing power plant emissions 30 percent by 2030.

But email records show that NRDC President Francis Beineke had access to former EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson’s personal email account. An email sent from Beinecke on Feb. 5, 2009 said NRDC “plays a leadership role in

POST YOUR FAVORITE HOCKEYBUZZ ADS HERE



http://tinyurl.com/kd2gw8v

POST YOUR FAVORITE HOCKEYBUZZ ADS HERE



http://tinyurl.com/kd2gw8v
- watsonnostaw

lol

he's gonna be so mad.

lol

he's gonna be so mad.
- kicksave856

Every place, country, city, region has its own climate. Climate plays one of the important roles in people’s life. Climate is defined as the average weather, which means variety of weather conditions as rain, snow, hail, sun, and wind over period of time about 30 years that can be measured in any particular place.( IPCC Third Assessment Report - Climate Change 2001; editor:A.P.Baede) Climate change is a variation of average weather. There are 2 causes of climate change. The first is human activity which includes deforestation, burning fossil fuels, agriculture, transportation and infrastructure. The second is natural causes which include volcanic eruptions and variations in solar outputs. These causes have negative effect on the natural environment which leads to increasing of temperature, increasing in sea level, changing of precipitations, extremely weather, killing species of animals, birds, fish and plants. This essay will show that the causes of climate change have different effects on the environment. Atmospheric carbon dioxide variations, volcanic eruptions and solar outputs, have negative impacts on animals, plants, and environment. Every place, country, city, region has its own climate. Climate plays one of the important roles in people’s life. Climate is defined as the average weather, which means variety of weather conditions as rain, snow, hail, sun, and wind over period of time about 30 years that can be measured in any particular place.( IPCC Third Assessment Report - Climate Change 2001; editor:A.P.Baede) Climate change is a variation of average weather. There are 2 causes of climate change. The first is human activity which includes deforestation, burning fossil fuels, agriculture, transportation and infrastructure. The second is natural causes which include volcanic eruptions and variations in solar outputs. These causes have negative effect on the natural environment which leads to increasing of temperature, increasing in sea level, changing of precipitations, extremely weather, killing species of animals, birds, fish and plants. This essay will show that the causes of climate change have different effects on the environment. Atmospheric carbon dioxide variations, volcanic eruptions and solar outputs, have negative impacts on animals, plants, and environment.
Climate is always changeable. One winter can be early, another late; one summer wet, another dry (Carter 2000,34). For the last century climate has dramatically changed. Consequences of climate change may manifest itself as rapid and through the long period of time. Climate change could lead to number of catastrophic disasters as droughts, earthquakes, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes and volcanic eruptions. For example earthquakes in New Zealand, China, Chilie, and Haiti, floods in Australia, Pakistan and India, volcanic eruption in Iceland, tornado in Dakota in the USA, Montana supercell thunderstorm and recent disasters in Japan. By climatologists’ evidence there are two causes with several factors that have a response for the Earth’s climate. They are: human activity which includes deforestation, burning fossil fuels, agriculture, transportation and infrastructure, and natural causes which include volcanic eruptions and variations in solar output. (Pidwirny. 2006).
Human activity affects on greenhouse gases, which has negative consequences on many things. Currently the concentration of greenhouse gases increases. Carbon dioxide(CO2 ), nitrous oxide(N2O), sulfur dioxide(SO2) and methane(CH4) are the main greenhouse gases (Berrou et al. 2010, 217). Agriculture and energy activities make the concentration of methane to rise. Land use changes, agriculture and industrial process influence on nitrous oxide concentration. Agriculture, deforestation and burning of fossil fuels for energy affect on the concentration of carbon dioxide. Coal burning, power stations and burning of biomass emit sulfur dioxide (Carter 2000, 34). All of these greenhouse gases have dramatically increased because of the industrial revolution which took the last 200 years (Carter 2000, 34).
Comparing with other gases carbon dioxide is more responsible for the greenhouse effect (Pidwirny. 2006). Carbon dioxide is emitted from such processes like deforestation, the burning of coal, oil, gas, and through the carbon cycle. One more important greenhouse gas is methane. Animals used in agriculture such as horses, sheep, pigs, dairy cows, camels and goats emit methane into the air. The process of coal mining and oil drilling also release methane. Greenhouse gases regulate the Earth’s climate. If the concentration of greenhouse gases increases, the temperature will increase; and if greenhouse concentration decreases, the temperature will also decrease. Currently the average global temperature all over the world is 15˚ Celsius, and it could be – 18˚ Celsius without greenhouse gases (Pidwirny. 2006). Earth could have been a frozen planet without greenhouse gases which makes the Earth habitable. In outline, climate change coincides with exchange of momentum, chemicals, and energy between the atmosphere, the ocean and land surfaces. The UK Government estimates that 65% of carbon emission comes from the burning of fuels, 21% from transport, 7% from agriculture, and 4% from industrial processes. The period from 1700s to 2005 carbon dioxide has increased from 280 parts per million to 280 parts per million. Computer indicators show that the weather temperature will increase by 1,5 – 4,5 Celsius, if carbon dioxide is increased to 600 parts per million by the year 2050 (Pidwirny. 2006).




Figure 1 Source: Neftel, A., H. Friedli, et al. 1994

The graph shows that the concentration of carbon dioxide steadily increased approximately from 1745 to 1960s and dramatically increased from 1960 to 2005. The new IPCC report claims: “There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities” (Tremberth, Houghton, Meira Filho. 1995).
The next cause which has substantial affect on climate change are natural causes. It includes volcanic eruptions and solar outputs. “Volcanic eruption is the ejection of the molten rock, or lava with ash, hot water, rock fragments, gases, and cliff soil through an opening in the Earth’s surface”.( IPCC Third Assessment Report - Climate Change 2001; editor:A.P.Baede) Volcanic eruption is one of the hazardous disasters which has negative impacts on environment. There are a few inconsiderable factors that could affect on cause of volcanic eruption, but in general it is a natural process. For example, there were 3 largest volcanic eruptions that occurred in period of 1950 – 2000 years: Mount Agung in Bali, Indonesia, El Chichon in Chiapas, Mexico and Mount Pinatubo in the Luzon, Philippines. Millions of tons of sulfur dioxide were released into the air by these eruptions (McCormick and Veiga 1992). Volcanic eruptions can affect both warming and cooling of weather. An increase of temperature caused due to the volcanic eruptions fact that volcanoes release more carbon dioxide than human activity. Volcanic eruptions in the Earth’s atmosphere release a large amount of various gases, including greenhouse gases: СО2 , CO, SO2, H2S, CS2, OCS, NO. The concentration of СО2 varies from 1 to 10% from all mass of volcanic gases, and 0.1 – 0.7% is CO (Gerlach N.M, 1980). Volcanic eruptions release carbon dioxide on land and underwater. It was estimated that the annual emission of carbon dioxide of underwater volcanoes is between 66 - 97 million tons, and on land 282 million tons (Morner, 2002). Scientists’ evidence indicates that volcanic eruptions release ash into the atmosphere which leads to thickness of aerosol leading to cooling of weather.

Table 1 shows the major volcanic eruptions over the last 250 years. It can be seen that most of the volcanic eruptions were in Indonesia. Each of these volcanoes has significant affect on the environment. As well as warming, volcanic eruptions can also cause cooling of weather. For example Mount Pinatubo which was the largest eruption in the 20th century erupted in 1991. It emitted 20 million tons of sulfur dioxide which caused a cold period. Scientists ensure that Tambora eruption in Indonesia that covers the period from 1810 – 1819 which was the coldest period during the last 500 years responsible for extreme weather during that period. (Cole‐Dai, et al 2009) Scientists ‘evidence indicates, that the role of volcanic activity in the Earth's global climate change significantly higher than assumed. The main cause of global temperature changes is an increase in the number and power of volcanic eruptions during periods of maximum cycles of volcanic activity. This leads to an increase in revenues in greenhouse gases of volcanic origin. So from 1850 to the present index of volcanic activity has increased by 80-85%. Consequently, it is logical to assume that the amount of volcanic gases emitted during volcanic eruptions, also increased during this period by 80-85%. Scientists estimate that the global increase in average temperature on Earth on a background of minor variations will be observed until 2050. During this period, the average annual temperature will rise due to volcanic activity, about 0,7-0,80 C . Recognizing the significant role of volcanic activity in the global warming Earth will allow more objective approach to assessing the real effects of global climate change. Periods of increased volcanic activity followed by periods of decline.

The next natural cause is solar outputs. Solar outputs is the variation in the amount of radiation released by the Sun.( IPCC Third Assessment Report - Climate Change 2001; editor:A.P.Baede) The sun is the main source of heat of the climate system. It is one of the important and main sources for humanity. When solar energy varies, climate of the earth varies at the same time. The Sun has its 11-year solar cycle. It means that radiation of the Sun varies over a certain period of time. There are many factors which have the influence on solar energy such as variations in earth orbit, in albedo and in energy output. In 1978 scientists have made measurement in total solar irradiance(TSI), which showed difference in conjunction. There was variation, reaching approximately 0.1%.
Figure 2: Annual global temperature change (thin light red) with 11 year moving average of temperature (thick dark red). Temperature from NASA GISS. Annual Total Solar Irradiance (thin light blue) with 11 year moving average of TSI (thick dark blue). TSI from 1880 to 1978 from Solanki. TSI from 1979 to 2009 from PMOD.
Second graph shows the ratio of total solar irradiance and temperature changes on years. It can be seen that the total solar irradiance increased from period of 1880 to 1960 and from 1960 to2010 it was fluctuated. Average temperature slowly increased from 1880 to 2010. Owing to some evidence coming from stars as the Sun, it can be seen that total solar irradiance has higher variation. Climate and total solar irradiance variation have a strong connection. If research is correct, there are three main solar variables, including total solar irradiance, solar ultraviolet radiation and solar wind. (Pekarek, Alfred 2000)



All causes of climate change have its consequences. Firstly, one of the striking manifestations of global warming has been an increase in sea level. Increasing of temperature can cause melting of the polar ice caps, raising of the sea level, and flooding of the coastal areas of the world. Over the past 100 years sea level has risen by 10-20 cm (Pekarek, Alfred, 2000). Such rapid growing (1-2 mm per year) have been observed during the last 3000 years (Pekarek, Alfred, 2000). The main reasons for this phenomenon have become the increasing of sea surface temperatures, melting of sea and coastal glaciers. Scientists estimate that sea level continues to rise. Forecasts for 2100 predict the average of sea level could rise by 88 cm, which is associated with an increased thermal extension of water and a large influx of fresh water caused by melting glaciers and ice cover. Melting of ice caps could also lead to variations in ocean circulation. However, it is worth noting that the pace, scope and direction of change in sea level will vary by regions of the world and depending on the characteristics of the coastal strip, the changes ocean currents, differences in tidal systems and the density of sea water, as well as vertical movement of the land. Most vulnerable to flooding and destruction are coastal zones and small islands. This applies to both developed and developing countries. Scientific evidence indicates that over the past 100 years, 70% of sandy shorelines have retreated deeper. (Tremberth, Houghton, Meira Filho. 1995). The onset of salty sea water affects the quality and reduces the supply of fresh water. Growth in sea level would increase the number and intensity of extreme events, such as high tides, stormy surges and seismic sea waves (tsunami)( Pekarek, Alfred, 2000).
Precipitation and agriculture
Secondly, it caused on variation and frequency of precipitations and natural disasters. The temperature of the Earth increased to a 0.93°C since 1900. Comparing with summer days, temperature in winter days increased more, and it seems that precipitation could mostly come in heavy downpours (Pidwirny. 2006). The period from 1900 to 2000 shows that the annual precipitation of northern part of the Earth became 10-40 percent wetter while southern part became 20 percent dryer.(Pidwirny. 2006) The number of cold days has significantly decreased and the number of hot days increased with temperature more than 25°C. All of these changes lead to increasing of number of natural disasters. There are some evidence that the frequency of winter storms will increase.(Carter 2000) Since 1966 the snow cover in northern part of the Earth has decreased by about 10 %.
Animals
The next effect of climate change is extinction of animals and plants. Millions of species – animals, birds, fish and plants have already disappeared from planet. Climate change could be dangerous almost for all animals and plants, because they depend on climate of particular place. Due to melting of ice caps, polar bears become homeless, and they should go to another place. Mostly from climate change suffer ocean and sea habitats. Over the last century the average global sea surface temperature increased by 0.6±0.1°C (McNeil et al 2004). In the last few decades quarter of the world’s coral reefs died from warm waters.(McNeil et al 2004) One more cause of disturbance on tropical reefs is storm events.(Solomon et al., 2007) It has direct impact not only on corals, but also on sessile macrofauna.(Puotinen, 2007)

The last effect of climate changes is catastrophic events. Several decades ago, having heard some events about natural disaster and their effects, people could possibly be shocked. But currently analytics estimated that people perceive it normally. It was estimated that number of catastrophic events increased in period from 1975 to 2001.(……….) One of the main disaster which has significant impact on environment is flooding.

Between 1975 and 2001, 238 flood events were recorded in Europe. Over this period, the annual
number of flood events clearly increased.
Fatal casualties caused per flood event decreased significantly, likely due to improved warning
and rescue measures.
In Europe, 64% of all catastrophic events since 1980 are directly attributable to weather and climate extremes: floods, storms, and droughts/heatwaves.
The average number of annual disastrous weather and climate-related events in Europe doubled
over the 1990s, as compared with the previous decade, while non-climatic events (e.g.,
earthquakes) remained stable.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it seems that causes of climate change have effects on nature which covers almost everything. Climatologists’ estimate that there are two causes with several factors that have a response for the Earth’s climate. They are: human activity and natural causes which include volcanic eruptions, variations in solar output.
Climate is always changeable. One winter can be early, another late; one summer wet, another dry (Carter 2000,34). For the last century climate has dramatically changed. Consequences of climate change may manifest itself as rapid and through the long period of time. Climate change could lead to number of catastrophic disasters as droughts, earthquakes, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes and volcanic eruptions. For example earthquakes in New Zealand, China, Chilie, and Haiti, floods in Australia, Pakistan and India, volcanic eruption in Iceland, tornado in Dakota in the USA, Montana supercell thunderstorm and recent disasters in Japan. By climatologists’ evidence there are two causes with several factors that have a response for the Earth’s climate. They are: human activity which includes deforestation, burning fossil fuels, agriculture, transportation and infrastructure, and natural causes which include volcanic eruptions and variations in solar output. (Pidwirny. 2006).
Human activity affects on greenhouse gases, which has negative consequences on many things. Currently the concentration of greenhouse gases increases. Carbon dioxide(CO2 ), nitrous oxide(N2O), sulfur dioxide(SO2) and methane(CH4) are the main greenhouse gases (Berrou et al. 2010, 217). Agriculture and energy activities make the concentration of methane to rise. Land use changes, agriculture and industrial process influence on nitrous oxide concentration. Agriculture, deforestation and burning of fossil fuels for energy affect on the concentration of carbon dioxide. Coal burning, power stations and burning of biomass emit sulfur dioxide (Carter 2000, 34). All of these greenhouse gases have dramatically increased because of the industrial revolution which took the last 200 years (Carter 2000, 34).
Comparing with other gases carbon dioxide is more responsible for the greenhouse effect (Pidwirny. 2006). Carbon dioxide is emitted from such processes like deforestation, the burning of coal, oil, gas, and through the carbon cycle. One more important greenhouse gas is methane. Animals used in agriculture such as horses, sheep, pigs, dairy cows, camels and goats emit methane into the air. The process of coal mining and oil drilling also release methane. Greenhouse gases regulate the Earth’s climate. If the concentration of greenhouse gases increases, the temperature will increase; and if greenhouse concentration decreases, the temperature will also decrease. Currently the average global temperature all over the world is 15˚ Celsius, and it could be – 18˚ Celsius without greenhouse gases (Pidwirny. 2006). Earth could have been a frozen planet without greenhouse gases which makes the Earth habitable. In outline, climate change coincides with exchange of momentum, chemicals, and energy between the atmosphere, the ocean and land surfaces. The UK Government estimates that 65% of carbon emission comes from the burning of fuels, 21% from transport, 7% from agriculture, and 4% from industrial processes. The period from 1700s to 2005 carbon dioxide has increased from 280 parts per million to 280 parts per million. Computer indicators show that the weather temperature will increase by 1,5 – 4,5 Celsius, if carbon dioxide is increased to 600 parts per million by the year 2050 (Pidwirny. 2006).




Figure 1 Source: Neftel, A., H. Friedli, et al. 1994

The graph shows that the concentration of carbon dioxide steadily increased approximately from 1745 to 1960s and dramatically increased from 1960 to 2005. The new IPCC report claims: “There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities” (Tremberth, Houghton, Meira Filho. 1995).
The next cause which has substantial affect on climate change are natural causes. It includes volcanic eruptions and solar outputs. “Volcanic eruption is the ejection of the molten rock, or lava with ash, hot water, rock fragments, gases, and cliff soil through an opening in the Earth’s surface”.( IPCC Third Assessment Report - Climate Change 2001; editor:A.P.Baede) Volcanic eruption is one of the hazardous disasters which has negative impacts on environment. There are a few inconsiderable factors that could affect on cause of volcanic eruption, but in general it is a natural process. For example, there were 3 largest volcanic eruptions that occurred in period of 1950 – 2000 years: Mount Agung in Bali, Indonesia, El Chichon in Chiapas, Mexico and Mount Pinatubo in the Luzon, Philippines. Millions of tons of sulfur dioxide were released into the air by these eruptions (McCormick and Veiga 1992). Volcanic eruptions can affect both warming and cooling of weather. An increase of temperature caused due to the volcanic eruptions fact that volcanoes release more carbon dioxide than human activity. Volcanic eruptions in the Earth’s atmosphere release a large amount of various gases, including greenhouse gases: СО2 , CO, SO2, H2S, CS2, OCS, NO. The concentration of СО2 varies from 1 to 10% from all mass of volcanic gases, and 0.1 – 0.7% is CO (Gerlach N.M, 1980). Volcanic eruptions release carbon dioxide on land and underwater. It was estimated that the annual emission of carbon dioxide of underwater volcanoes is between 66 - 97 million tons, and on land 282 million tons (Morner, 2002). Scientists’ evidence indicates that volcanic eruptions release ash into the atmosphere which leads to thickness of aerosol leading to cooling of weather.

Table 1 shows the major volcanic eruptions over the last 250 years. It can be seen that most of the volcanic eruptions were in Indonesia. Each of these volcanoes has significant affect on the environment. As well as warming, volcanic eruptions can also cause cooling of weather. For example Mount Pinatubo which was the largest eruption in the 20th century erupted in 1991. It emitted 20 million tons of sulfur dioxide which caused a cold period. Scientists ensure that Tambora eruption in Indonesia that covers the period from 1810 – 1819 which was the coldest period during the last 500 years responsible for extreme weather during that period. (Cole‐Dai, et al 2009) Scientists ‘evidence indicates, that the role of volcanic activity in the Earth's global climate change significantly higher than assumed. The main cause of global temperature changes is an increase in the number and power of volcanic eruptions during periods of maximum cycles of volcanic activity. This leads to an increase in revenues in greenhouse gases of volcanic origin. So from 1850 to the present index of volcanic activity has increased by 80-85%. Consequently, it is logical to assume that the amount of volcanic gases emitted during volcanic eruptions, also increased during this period by 80-85%. Scientists estimate that the global increase in average temperature on Earth on a background of minor variations will be observed until 2050. During this period, the average annual temperature will rise due to volcanic activity, about 0,7-0,80 C . Recognizing the significant role of volcanic activity in the global warming Earth will allow more objective approach to assessing the real effects of global climate change. Periods of increased volcanic activity followed by periods of decline.

The next natural cause is solar outputs. Solar outputs is the variation in the amount of radiation released by the Sun.( IPCC Third Assessment Report - Climate Change 2001; editor:A.P.Baede) The sun is the main source of heat of the climate system. It is one of the important and main sources for humanity. When solar energy varies, climate of the earth varies at the same time. The Sun has its 11-year solar cycle. It means that radiation of the Sun varies over a certain period of time. There are many factors which have the influence on solar energy such as variations in earth orbit, in albedo and in energy output. In 1978 scientists have made measurement in total solar irradiance(TSI), which showed difference in conjunction. There was variation, reaching approximately 0.1%.
Figure 2: Annual global temperature change (thin light red) with 11 year moving average of temperature (thick dark red). Temperature from NASA GISS. Annual Total Solar Irradiance (thin light blue) with 11 year moving average of TSI (thick dark blue). TSI from 1880 to 1978 from Solanki. TSI from 1979 to 2009 from PMOD.
Second graph shows the ratio of total solar irradiance and temperature changes on years. It can be seen that the total solar irradiance increased from period of 1880 to 1960 and from 1960 to2010 it was fluctuated. Average temperature slowly increased from 1880 to 2010. Owing to some evidence coming from stars as the Sun, it can be seen that total solar irradiance has higher variation. Climate and total solar irradiance variation have a strong connection. If research is correct, there are three main solar variables, including total solar irradiance, solar ultraviolet radiation and solar wind. (Pekarek, Alfred 2000)



All causes of climate change have its consequences. Firstly, one of the striking manifestations of global warming has been an increase in sea level. Increasing of temperature can cause melting of the polar ice caps, raising of the sea level, and flooding of the coastal areas of the world. Over the past 100 years sea level has risen by 10-20 cm (Pekarek, Alfred, 2000). Such rapid growing (1-2 mm per year) have been observed during the last 3000 years (Pekarek, Alfred, 2000). The main reasons for this phenomenon have become the increasing of sea surface temperatures, melting of sea and coastal glaciers. Scientists estimate that sea level continues to rise. Forecasts for 2100 predict the average of sea level could rise by 88 cm, which is associated with an increased thermal extension of water and a large influx of fresh water caused by melting glaciers and ice cover. Melting of ice caps could also lead to variations in ocean circulation. However, it is worth noting that the pace, scope and direction of change in sea level will vary by regions of the world and depending on the characteristics of the coastal strip, the changes ocean currents, differences in tidal systems and the density of sea water, as well as vertical movement of the land. Most vulnerable to flooding and destruction are coastal zones and small islands. This applies to both developed and developing countries. Scientific evidence indicates that over the past 100 years, 70% of sandy shorelines have retreated deeper. (Tremberth, Houghton, Meira Filho. 1995). The onset of salty sea water affects the quality and reduces the supply of fresh water. Growth in sea level would increase the number and intensity of extreme events, such as high tides, stormy surges and seismic sea waves (tsunami)( Pekarek, Alfred, 2000).
Precipitation and agriculture
Secondly, it caused on variation and frequency of precipitations and natural disasters. The temperature of the Earth increased to a 0.93°C since 1900. Comparing with summer days, temperature in winter days increased more, and it seems that precipitation could mostly come in heavy downpours (Pidwirny. 2006). The period from 1900 to 2000 shows that the annual precipitation of northern part of the Earth became 10-40 percent wetter while southern part became 20 percent dryer.(Pidwirny. 2006) The number of cold days has significantly decreased and the number of hot days increased with temperature more than 25°C. All of these changes lead to increasing of number of natural disasters. There are some evidence that the frequency of winter storms will increase.(Carter 2000) Since 1966 the snow cover in northern part of the Earth has decreased by about 10 %.
Animals
The next effect of climate change is extinction of animals and plants. Millions of species – animals, birds, fish and plants have already disappeared from planet. Climate change could be dangerous almost for all animals and plants, because they depend on climate of particular place. Due to melting of ice caps, polar bears become homeless, and they should go to another place. Mostly from climate change suffer ocean and sea habitats. Over the last century the average global sea surface temperature increased by 0.6±0.1°C (McNeil et al 2004). In the last few decades quarter of the world’s coral reefs died from warm waters.(McNeil et al 2004) One more cause of disturbance on tropical reefs is storm events.(Solomon et al., 2007) It has direct impact not only on corals, but also on sessile macrofauna.(Puotinen, 2007)

The last effect of climate changes is catastrophic events. Several decades ago, having heard some events about natural disaster and their effects, people could possibly be shocked. But currently analytics estimated that people perceive it normally. It was estimated that number of catastrophic events increased in period from 1975 to 2001.(……….) One of the main disaster which has significant impact on environment is flooding.

Between 1975 and 2001, 238 flood events were recorded in Europe. Over this period, the annual
number of flood events clearly increased.
Fatal casualties caused per flood event decreased significantly, likely due to improved warning
and rescue measures.
In Europe, 64% of all catastrophic events since 1980 are directly attributable to weather and climate extremes: floods, storms, and droughts/heatwaves.
The average number of annual disastrous weather and climate-related events in Europe doubled
over the 1990s, as compared with the previous decade, while non-climatic events (e.g.,
earthquakes) remained stable.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it seems that causes of climate change have effects on nature which covers almost everything. Climatologists’ estimate that there are two causes with several factors that have a response for the Earth’s climate. They are: human activity and natural causes which include volcanic eruptions, variations in solar output.
Every place, country, city, region has its own climate. Climate plays one of the important roles in people’s life. Climate is defined as the average weather, which means variety of weather conditions as rain, snow, hail, sun, and wind over period of time about 30 years that can be measured in any particular place.( IPCC Third Assessment Report - Climate Change 2001; editor:A.P.Baede) Climate change is a variation of average weather. There are 2 causes of climate change. The first is human activity which includes deforestation, burning fossil fuels, agriculture, transportation and infrastructure. The second is natural causes which include volcanic eruptions and variations in solar outputs. These causes have negative effect on the natural environment which leads to increasing of temperature, increasing in sea level, changing of precipitations, extremely weather, killing species of animals, birds, fish and plants. This essay will show that the causes of climate change have different effects on the environment. Atmospheric carbon dioxide variations, volcanic eruptions and solar outputs, have negative impacts on animals, plants, and environment.
Climate is always changeable. One winter can be early, another late; one summer wet, another dry (Carter 2000,34). For the last century climate has dramatically changed. Consequences of climate change may manifest itself as rapid and through the long period of time. Climate change could lead to number of catastrophic disasters as droughts, earthquakes, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes and volcanic eruptions. For example earthquakes in New Zealand, China, Chilie, and Haiti, floods in Australia, Pakistan and India, volcanic eruption in Iceland, tornado in Dakota in the USA, Montana supercell thunderstorm and recent disasters in Japan. By climatologists’ evidence there are two causes with several factors that have a response for the Earth’s climate. They are: human activity which includes deforestation, burning fossil fuels, agriculture, transportation and infrastructure, and natural causes which include volcanic eruptions and variations in solar output. (Pidwirny. 2006).
Human activity affects on greenhouse gases, which has negative consequences on many things. Currently the concentration of greenhouse gases increases. Carbon dioxide(CO2 ), nitrous oxide(N2O), sulfur dioxide(SO2) and methane(CH4) are the main greenhouse gases (Berrou et al. 2010, 217). Agriculture and energy activities make the concentration of methane to rise. Land use changes, agriculture and industrial process influence on nitrous oxide concentration. Agriculture, deforestation and burning of fossil fuels for energy affect on the concentration of carbon dioxide. Coal burning, power stations and burning of biomass emit sulfur dioxide (Carter 2000, 34). All of these greenhouse gases have dramatically increased because of the industrial revolution which took the last 200 years (Carter 2000, 34).
Comparing with other gases carbon dioxide is more responsible for the greenhouse effect (Pidwirny. 2006). Carbon dioxide is emitted from such processes like deforestation, the burning of coal, oil, gas, and through the carbon cycle. One more important greenhouse gas is methane. Animals used in agriculture such as horses, sheep, pigs, dairy cows, camels and goats emit methane into the air. The process of coal mining and oil drilling also release methane. Greenhouse gases regulate the Earth’s climate. If the concentration of greenhouse gases increases, the temperature will increase; and if greenhouse concentration decreases, the temperature will also decrease. Currently the average global temperature all over the world is 15˚ Celsius, and it could be – 18˚ Celsius without greenhouse gases (Pidwirny. 2006). Earth could have been a frozen planet without greenhouse gases which makes the Earth habitable. In outline, climate change coincides with exchange of momentum, chemicals, and energy between the atmosphere, the ocean and land surfaces. The UK Government estimates that 65% of carbon emission comes from the burning of fuels, 21% from transport, 7% from agriculture, and 4% from industrial processes. The period from 1700s to 2005 carbon dioxide has increased from 280 parts per million to 280 parts per million. Computer indicators show that the weather temperature will increase by 1,5 – 4,5 Celsius, if carbon dioxide is increased to 600 parts per million by the year 2050 (Pidwirny. 2006).




Figure 1 Source: Neftel, A., H. Friedli, et al. 1994

The graph shows that the concentration of carbon dioxide steadily increased approximately from 1745 to 1960s and dramatically increased from 1960 to 2005. The new IPCC report claims: “There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities” (Tremberth, Houghton, Meira Filho. 1995).
The next cause which has substantial affect on climate change are natural causes. It includes volcanic eruptions and solar outputs. “Volcanic eruption is the ejection of the molten rock, or lava with ash, hot water, rock fragments, gases, and cliff soil through an opening in the Earth’s surface”.( IPCC Third Assessment Report - Climate Change 2001; editor:A.P.Baede) Volcanic eruption is one of the hazardous disasters which has negative impacts on environment. There are a few inconsiderable factors that could affect on cause of volcanic eruption, but in general it is a natural process. For example, there were 3 largest volcanic eruptions that occurred in period of 1950 – 2000 years: Mount Agung in Bali, Indonesia, El Chichon in Chiapas, Mexico and Mount Pinatubo in the Luzon, Philippines. Millions of tons of sulfur dioxide were released into the air by these eruptions (McCormick and Veiga 1992). Volcanic eruptions can affect both warming and cooling of weather. An increase of temperature caused due to the volcanic eruptions fact that volcanoes release more carbon dioxide than human activity. Volcanic eruptions in the Earth’s atmosphere release a large amount of various gases, including greenhouse gases: СО2 , CO, SO2, H2S, CS2, OCS, NO. The concentration of СО2 varies from 1 to 10% from all mass of volcanic gases, and 0.1 – 0.7% is CO (Gerlach N.M, 1980). Volcanic eruptions release carbon dioxide on land and underwater. It was estimated that the annual emission of carbon dioxide of underwater volcanoes is between 66 - 97 million tons, and on land 282 million tons (Morner, 2002). Scientists’ evidence indicates that volcanic eruptions release ash into the atmosphere which leads to thickness of aerosol leading to cooling of weather.

Table 1 shows the major volcanic eruptions over the last 250 years. It can be seen that most of the volcanic eruptions were in Indonesia. Each of these volcanoes has significant affect on the environment. As well as warming, volcanic eruptions can also cause cooling of weather. For example Mount Pinatubo which was the largest eruption in the 20th century erupted in 1991. It emitted 20 million tons of sulfur dioxide which caused a cold period. Scientists ensure that Tambora eruption in Indonesia that covers the period from 1810 – 1819 which was the coldest period during the last 500 years responsible for extreme weather during that period. (Cole‐Dai, et al 2009) Scientists ‘evidence indicates, that the role of volcanic activity in the Earth's global climate change significantly higher than assumed. The main cause of global temperature changes is an increase in the number and power of volcanic eruptions during periods of maximum cycles of volcanic activity. This leads to an increase in revenues in greenhouse gases of volcanic origin. So from 1850 to the present index of volcanic activity has increased by 80-85%. Consequently, it is logical to assume that the amount of volcanic gases emitted during volcanic eruptions, also increased during this period by 80-85%. Scientists estimate that the global increase in average temperature on Earth on a background of minor variations will be observed until 2050. During this period, the average annual temperature will rise due to volcanic activity, about 0,7-0,80 C . Recognizing the significant role of volcanic activity in the global warming Earth will allow more objective approach to assessing the real effects of global climate change. Periods of increased volcanic activity followed by periods of decline.

The next natural cause is solar outputs. Solar outputs is the variation in the amount of radiation released by the Sun.( IPCC Third Assessment Report - Climate Change 2001; editor:A.P.Baede) The sun is the main source of heat of the climate system. It is one of the important and main sources for humanity. When solar energy varies, climate of the earth varies at the same time. The Sun has its 11-year solar cycle. It means that radiation of the Sun varies over a certain period of time. There are many factors which have the influence on solar energy such as variations in earth orbit, in albedo and in energy output. In 1978 scientists have made measurement in total solar irradiance(TSI), which showed difference in conjunction. There was variation, reaching approximately 0.1%.
Figure 2: Annual global temperature change (thin light red) with 11 year moving average of temperature (thick dark red). Temperature from NASA GISS. Annual Total Solar Irradiance (thin light blue) with 11 year moving average of TSI (thick dark blue). TSI from 1880 to 1978 from Solanki. TSI from 1979 to 2009 from PMOD.
Second graph shows the ratio of total solar irradiance and temperature changes on years. It can be seen that the total solar irradiance increased from period of 1880 to 1960 and from 1960 to2010 it was fluctuated. Average temperature slowly increased from 1880 to 2010. Owing to some evidence coming from stars as the Sun, it can be seen that total solar irradiance has higher variation. Climate and total solar irradiance variation have a strong connection. If research is correct, there are three main solar variables, including total solar irradiance, solar ultraviolet radiation and solar wind. (Pekarek, Alfred 2000)



All causes of climate change have its consequences. Firstly, one of the striking manifestations of global warming has been an increase in sea level. Increasing of temperature can cause melting of the polar ice caps, raising of the sea level, and flooding of the coastal areas of the world. Over the past 100 years sea level has risen by 10-20 cm (Pekarek, Alfred, 2000). Such rapid growing (1-2 mm per year) have been observed during the last 3000 years (Pekarek, Alfred, 2000). The main reasons for this phenomenon have become the increasing of sea surface temperatures, melting of sea and coastal glaciers. Scientists estimate that sea level continues to rise. Forecasts for 2100 predict the average of sea level could rise by 88 cm, which is associated with an increased thermal extension of water and a large influx of fresh water caused by melting glaciers and ice cover. Melting of ice caps could also lead to variations in ocean circulation. However, it is worth noting that the pace, scope and direction of change in sea level will vary by regions of the world and depending on the characteristics of the coastal strip, the changes ocean currents, differences in tidal systems and the density of sea water, as well as vertical movement of the land. Most vulnerable to flooding and destruction are coastal zones and small islands. This applies to both developed and developing countries. Scientific evidence indicates that over the past 100 years, 70% of sandy shorelines have retreated deeper. (Tremberth, Houghton, Meira Filho. 1995). The onset of salty sea water affects the quality and reduces the supply of fresh water. Growth in sea level would increase the number and intensity of extreme events, such as high tides, stormy surges and seismic sea waves (tsunami)( Pekarek, Alfred, 2000).
Precipitation and agriculture
Secondly, it caused on variation and frequency of precipitations and natural disasters. The temperature of the Earth increased to a 0.93°C since 1900. Comparing with summer days, temperature in winter days increased more, and it seems that precipitation could mostly come in heavy downpours (Pidwirny. 2006). The period from 1900 to 2000 shows that the annual precipitation of northern part of the Earth became 10-40 percent wetter while southern part became 20 percent dryer.(Pidwirny. 2006) The number of cold days has significantly decreased and the number of hot days increased with temperature more than 25°C. All of these changes lead to increasing of number of natural disasters. There are some evidence that the frequency of winter storms will increase.(Carter 2000) Since 1966 the snow cover in northern part of the Earth has decreased by about 10 %.
Animals
The next effect of climate change is extinction of animals and plants. Millions of species – animals, birds, fish and plants have already disappeared from planet. Climate change could be dangerous almost for all animals and plants, because they depend on climate of particular place. Due to melting of ice caps, polar bears become homeless, and they should go to another place. Mostly from climate change suffer ocean and sea habitats. Over the last century the average global sea surface temperature increased by 0.6±0.1°C (McNeil et al 2004). In the last few decades quarter of the world’s coral reefs died from warm waters.(McNeil et al 2004) One more cause of disturbance on tropical reefs is storm events.(Solomon et al., 2007) It has direct impact not only on corals, but also on sessile macrofauna.(Puotinen, 2007)

The last effect of climate changes is catastrophic events. Several decades ago, having heard some events about natural disaster and their effects, people could possibly be shocked. But currently analytics estimated that people perceive it normally. It was estimated that number of catastrophic events increased in period from 1975 to 2001.(……….) One of the main disaster which has significant impact on environment is flooding.

Between 1975 and 2001, 238 flood events were recorded in Europe. Over this period, the annual
number of flood events clearly increased.
Fatal casualties caused per flood event decreased significantly, likely due to improved warning
and rescue measures.
In Europe, 64% of all catastrophic events since 1980 are directly attributable to weather and climate extremes: floods, storms, and droughts/heatwaves.
The average number of annual disastrous weather and climate-related events in Europe doubled
over the 1990s, as compared with the previous decade, while non-climatic events (e.g.,
earthquakes) remained stable.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it seems that causes of climate change have effects on nature which covers almost everything. Climatologists’ estimate that there are two causes with several factors that have a response for the Earth’s climate. They are: human activity and natural causes which include volcanic eruptions, variations in solar output.

October 3
Snow in Chicago

October 3
Snow in Chicago
- Crimsoninja

nice

October 3
Snow in Chicago
- Crimsoninja

Some parts of Manitoba are waking up to white this morning.

The white stuff has already been falling in parts of the province's north and there's more on the way. Environment Canada has issued a snowfall warning for Island Lake, Oxford House, Gods Lake, Lynn Lake, Leaf Rapids, Pukatawagan, Brochet and Tadoule Lake.

"Some of these regions have already received 5-10 cm of snow overnight and another 5-10 cm is possible today," said CBC weather specialist Marilyn Maki.

The snow is coming from an intense low pressure system in northern Ontario, according to Environment Canada. Conditions are expected to gradually improve from east to west today but will linger into to tonight for the extreme northwestern portions of the province.

Meanwhile in the south, it will be a wet, windy start to the week and daytime highs will sit below the seasonal norm of 13 C all week long.

Showers will be off and on throughout Monday with strong northwest winds gusting 30-50 km/h. The winds will diminish overnight but the spotty showers will stick around through Tuesday.

A chilly high of just 8 C is expected for both days before sunshine returns Wednesday and warms the daytime high to about 10 C.

"Now, you might be surprised to learn that the amount of warming directly caused by the extra CO2 is, by itself, relatively weak. It has been calculated theoretically that, if there are no other changes in the climate system, a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration would cause less than 1 deg C of surface warming (about 1 deg. F). This is NOT a controversial statement…it is well understood by climate scientists. (As of 2008, we were about 40% to 45% of the way toward a doubling of atmospheric CO2.)The case for natural climate change I also present an analysis of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation which shows that most climate change might well be the result of….the climate system itself! Because small, chaotic fluctuations in atmospheric and oceanic circulation systems can cause small changes in global average cloudiness, this is all that is necessary to cause climate change. You don’t need the sun, or any other ‘external’ influence (although these are also possible…but for now I’ll let others work on that). It is simply what the climate system does. This is actually quite easy for meteorologists to believe, since we understand how complex weather processes are. Your local TV meteorologist is probably a closet ‘skeptic’ regarding mankind’s influence on climate.

Climate change — it happens, with or without our help."


Roy W. Spencer



Dr. Spencer received his Ph.D. in meteorology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1981. Before becoming a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville in 2001, he was a Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, where he and Dr. John Christy received NASA’s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for their global temperature monitoring work with satellites. Dr. Spencer’s work with NASA continues as the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite. He has provided congressional testimony several times on the subject of global warming.

Dr. Spencer’s research has been entirely supported by U.S. government agencies: NASA, NOAA, and DOE. He has never been asked by any oil company to perform any kind of service. Not even Exxon-Mobil.

Guys, going forward could we please highlight in bold the important sections of the posts we submit?

I feel it would help us cut to the chase

Thanks!

“The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot,” according to a Commerce Department report published by the Washington Post.

“Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers. . . all point to a radical change in climate conditions and . . . unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone . . . Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones . . . while at many points well-known glaciers have entirely disappeared.”


-Washington Post Nov. 2, 1922










"The climate of New-York and the contiguous Atlantic seaboard has long been a study of great interest. We have just experienced a remarkable instance of its peculiarity. The Hudson River, by a singular freak of temperature, has thrown off its icy mantle and opened its waters to navigation.” – New York Times, Jan. 2, 1870












“Is our climate changing? The succession of temperate summers and open winters through several years, culminating last winter in the almost total failure of the ice crop throughout the valley of the Hudson, makes the question pertinent. The older inhabitants tell us that the winters are not as cold now as when they were young, and we have all observed a marked diminution of the average cold even in this last decade.” – New York Times, June 23, 1890








Professor Gregory of Yale University stated that “another world ice-epoch is due.” He was the American representative to the Pan-Pacific Science Congress and warned that North America would disappear as far south as the Great Lakes, and huge parts of Asia and Europe would be “wiped out.” – Chicago Tribune, Aug. 9, 1923

Here is partial list of products made from Oil & Petroleum



Agriculture
•
plastic ties
•
row cover
•
irrigation piping
•
polyethylene
•
polypropylene
•
bags and packaging
•
pesticides and herbicides
•
food preservatives
•
fertilizers
Clothing and Textiles
•
ballet tights
•
nylon cord
•
everything polyester: blouses, pants, pajamas etc.
•
everything permanent press: shirts, dresses etc.
•
beads
•
bracelets
•
pantyhose
•
nylon zippers
•
plastic hangers
•
purses
•
thongs and flip flops
•
earrings
•
ribbons
•
fake fur
•
windbreakers
•
sandals
•
garment bags
•
shoe laces
•
rain coats
•
iron-on patches
•
sneakers
•
sweaters
•
sofa pillow material
•
tote bags
•
umbrellas
Around the Office
•
ball point pens
•
diskettes
•
thermometer
•
Ink
•
computers
•
business card holders
•
copiers
•
waste baskets
•
calculators
•
printer cartridges
•
microfilm
•
name tags
•
binders
•
erasers
•
rulers
•
scotch tape
•
magic markers
•
telephones
Sports, Hobbies and Games
•
backpacks
•
fishing lures
•
air mattresses
•
cameras
•
beach balls
•
fishing poles
•
hang gliders
•
vinyl cases
•
footballs
•
glue containers
•
puzzles
•
darts
•
Frisbees
•
golf ball and golf bags
•
shotgun shells
•
ear plugs
•
knitting needles
•
waterproof clothing
•
stadium cushions
•
earphones
•
yarn
•
kites
•
tennis racquets
•
fabric dye
•
decoys
•
lifejackets
•
nylon strings
•
face protectors
•
volley balls
•
model cars
•
plastic water guns
•
fishing bobbers
•
soccer balls
•
oil paints
•
parachutes
•
fishing cylume
•
light sticks
•
earphones
•
playing cards
•
photographs
•
monofilament fishing lines
•
diving boards
•
poker chips
•
goggles
•
rollerskate and skateboard wheels
•
whistles
•
guitar strings
•
picks
•
rafts
•
ice chests
•
tents
•
sleeping bags
•
pole vaulting poles
•
motorcycle helmets
•
skis, water skis
•
rubber cement
•
plastic flowerpots
•
hot tub covers
•
sails
•
snorkels
•
monkey bars
•
photo albums
•
wet suits
•
flippers
•
tennis balls
•
boats
•
insulated boots
Infants and Children
•
acrylic toys
•
baby oil
•
laundry baskets
•
waterproof pants
•
baby aspirin
•
bath soap
•
mittens
•
pacifiers
•
baby blankets
•
bibs
•
rattles
•
doubleknit shirts
•
baby bottles
•
disposable diapers
•
baby shoes
•
teething rings
•
nipples and binkies
•
dolls
•
stuffed animals
•
baby lotion
Sports, Hobbies and Games
•
allergy medication
•
cotton-tipped swabs
•
inhalers
•
liquid Pepto-Bismol
•
aspirin
•
first aid cream
•
lancets
•
pill cases
•
band aids
•
first aid kits
•
latex gloves
•
prescription bottles
•
burn lotion
•
glycerin
•
mosquito spray
•
rubbing alcohol
•
chap stick
•
heart valve replacement
•
nasal decongestant
•
surgical tape
•
syringes
•
Vaseline
•
antiseptics
•
hearing aids
•
anesthetics
•
artificial limbs
•
eyeglasses and sunglasses
•
antihistamines
•
cortisone
•
vaporizers
•
denture adhesives
•
laxatives
•
Bactine
•
oxygen masks
•
stethoscopes
•
prescription glasses
•
cough syrup
•
hearing aids
Kitchen and Household
•
vinegar bottles
•
egg cartons
•
meat trays
•
trash bags
•
breadboxes
•
freezer containers
•
melamine dishware
•
tumblers
•
cake decorations
•
jars
•
microwave dishes
•
utensils
•
candles
•
freezer bags
•
milk jugs
•
vacuum bottles
•
coasters
•
gelatin molds
•
nylon spatulas
•
wax paper
•
coffee pots
•
ice cream scoops
•
oven bags
•
mops
•
drinking cups
•
ice trays
•
plastic containers
•
fabric softener
•
detergent bottles
•
plastic table service
•
drain stoppers
•
dish drainers
•
lunch boxes
•
pudding molds
•
sponges
•
dish scrubbers
•
brushes
•
baggies
•
drinking straws
•
Styrofoam
•
paper cup dispensers
•
measuring cups
•
Teflon coated pans
•
table cloths
•
refrigerator shelves
Beauty
•
cologne
•
hair brushes
•
lipstick
•
permanent wave curlers
•
perfume
•
hair color
•
mascara
•
petroleum jelly
•
comb
•
foam rubber curlers
•
shampoo
•
contact lenses and cases
•
hair spray
•
hand lotion
•
shaving foam
•
hair dryers
•
shoe inserts
•
dentures
•
body lotion
•
face masks
•
skin cleanser
•
deodorants
•
moisturizing cream
•
soap holders
•
disposable razors
•
leather conditioner
•
mouthwash
•
sunglasses
•
facial toner
•
lens cleanser
•
nail polish
•
sunscreen
•
tooth brushes
•
toothpaste tubes
•
vitamins
•
synthetic wigs
•
bubble bath
•
soap capsules
Furnishings
•
carpet padding
•
Naugahyde
•
Venetian blinds
•
TV cabinets
•
extension cords
•
picture frames
•
flocked wallpaper
•
shower doors
•
Formica
•
refrigerator lining
•
vinyl wallpaper
•
curtains
•
kitchen carpet
•
shag carpet
•
welcome mats
•
fan blades
•
lamps
•
shower curtain
•
patio furniture
•
swings
•
linoleum
•
upholstery
•
rugs
Building and Home
•
caulking material
•
light switch plates
•
plungers
•
faucet washers
•
clotheslines
•
measuring tape
•
polyurethane stain
•
water pipes
•
electric saws
•
paintbrushes
•
propane bottles
•
wood floor cleaner/wax
•
vinyl electrical tape
•
plastic pipe
•
shingles (asphalt)
•
light panels
•
garden hoses
•
plastic wood spackling paste
•
awnings
•
glazing compound
•
Plexiglas
•
spray paint
•
enamel
•
epoxy paint
•
artificial turf
•
folding doors
•
floor wax
•
glue
•
house paint
•
paint rollers
•
toilet seats
•
water pipes
•
putty
•
solvents
•
roofing material
•
plywood adhesive
•
sockets
•
propane
Automotive
•
antifreeze
•
flat tire fix
•
street paving (asphalt)
•
car battery cases
•
coolant
•
motor oil
•
tires
•
loud speakers
•
bearing grease
•
sports car bodies
•
traffic cones
•
car enamel
•
brake fluid
•
dashboards
•
windshield wipers
•
visors
•
car sound insulation
•
oil filters
•
car seats
•
convertible tops
•
fan belts
•
gasoline
Miscellaneous
•
ash trays
•
dog food dishes
•
toolboxes
•
CDs and DVDs
•
balloons
•
dog leashes
•
tape recorders
•
synthetic rubber
•
bubble gum
•
dog toys
•
flashlights
•
nylon ropes
•
bungee straps
•
flight bags
•
disposable lighters
•
cassette player
•
flea collars
•
flutes
•
lighter fluid
•
cigarette cases
•
electric blankets
•
tool racks
•
name tags
•
cigarette filters
•
ammonia
•
newspaper tubes
•
calibrated containers
•
insect repellent
•
phonograph records (vinyl)
•
crayons
•
ice buckets
•
dyes
•
pillows
•
credit cards
•
flashlights
•
fly swatters
•
plastic cup holders
•
dice
•
movie and camera film
•
k-resin
•
rain bonnets
•
luggage
•
video cassettes
•
charcoal lighter
•
rayon
•
safety glasses, gloves, hats
•
shoe polish
•
signs
•
cassette tapes
•
toys
•
watch bands
•
waterproof boots
•
shopping bags
•
bedspreads
•
checkbooks
•
covers
•
tobacco pouches
•
clothes hangers
•
flea collars
•
flavors
•
masking tape
•
safety flares
•
flags
•
butane
- Doppleganger


kicksave856
Philadelphia Flyers
Location: sometimes you find a pig hair or two inside.
Joined: 09.29.2005


Friday @ 3:55 PM ET

When will the Summer Arctic be Nearly Sea Ice Free? James E. Overland,1,3 and Muyin Wang 2 1Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, NOAA, Seattle, WA

The observed rapid loss of thick, multi-year sea ice over the last seven years and September 2012 Arctic sea ice extent reduction of 49 % relative to the 1979-2000 climatology are inconsistent with projections of a nearly sea ice free summer Arctic from model estimates of 2070 and beyond made just a few years ago. Three recent approaches to predictions in the scientific literature are: 1) extrapolation of sea ice volume data, 2) assuming several more rapid loss events such as 2007 and 2012, and 3) climate model projections. Time horizons for a nearly sea ice free summer for these three approaches are roughly 2020 or earlier, 2030, and 2040 or later. Loss estimates from models are based on a subset of the most rapid ensemble members. It is not possible to clearly choose one approach over another as this depends on the relative weights given to data versus models. Observations and citations support the conclusion that most Global Climate Models results in the CMIP5 archive are too conservative in their sea ice projections. Recent data and expert opinion should be considered in addition to model results to advance the very likely timing for future sea ice loss to the first half of the 21st century, with a possibility of major loss within a decade or two. 1. Introduction
The large observed shifts in the current Arctic environment represent major indicators of regional and global climate change. Whether a nearly sea ice free Arctic occurs in the first or second half of the 21st century is of great economic, social, and wildlife management interest. There is a gap in understanding however, in how to reconcile what is currently happening with sea ice in the Arctic and climate model projections of Arctic sea ice loss. September 2012 showed a reduction in sea ice extent of 49 % relative to the 1979-2000 baseline of 7.0 M km2 (Figure 1 and 2a). Further, the extent of thick multiyear sea ice has been reduced by the same percentage (roughly a reduction from 4 M km2 for 2000 through 2005 to 2 M km2 in 2012; Kwok and Untersteiner, 2011-updated, Comiso 2012). It is difficult to reconcile this current rate of loss with climate model projection dates of summer sea ice loss of 2070 (IPCC 2007) or 2100 (Boe et al. 2009a) made just a few years ago. The question, however, is not as straight forward as simply comparing data timeseries with model results. Global Climate Models (GCMs) are often run several times, referred to as ensemble members, with slightly different initial conditions to simulate a possible range of natural variability in addition to steady increasing greenhouse gas forcing. Data, in contrast, is a single realization of a range of possible climate states. Observations confound signal (global warming forcing) and noise (natural variability). Thus it is not completely valid to compare the ensemble mean of a model or several models, which could be considered the expected value of the climate state, with the single data realization. A better approach is to look at the range of ensemble members and to determine if the data timeseries could be considered a possible member of the population of ensemble members. Unfortunately, there are seldom enough ensemble members to test this hypothesis. The science question becomes: is the observed rapid loss of sea ice in the real world consistent with model ensemble members with the fastest rate of loss? Multiple Groups (AMAP, WCRP, various national programs), as well as the climate research community and the general public, are interested in this question for adaptation planning and as a popular indicator of climate change. When will the summer Arctic be nearly sea ice free? A first issue is the phrase, gnearly.h It is expected that some sea ice will remain as a refuge north of the Canadian Archipelago and Greenland at the end of summer. Thus the practical limit for sea ice loss is arbitrary, but several sources have converged on 1.0 M km2 as a minimum transition point. There are three scientific approaches to the posed question in the scientific literature. The first is based on extrapolation of sea ice volume data. The second considers that it will take several more rapid loss events such as the losses in 2007 and 2012 to reach the minimum. The third approach is to base predictions on fast track model ensemble member projections. We refer to the three approaches as, trendsetters, stochasters, and modelers. Time horizons for summer sea ice loss of these three approaches turns out to be roughly 2020, 2030, and 2040, as discussed below. At present it is not possible to completely choose one approach over another, as it depends on the weight given to data, understanding of Arctic change processes, and the use and purpose of model projections. The next sections address these three approaches. 2. Trendsetters
Two groups are most active in this approach which extrapolates sea ice volume (Schweiger et al. 2011, Maslowski 2012). Their main points are that sea ice volume is decreasing at a rate that is faster than sea ice extent, and that volume is a better variable than extent to use for sea ice loss. Schweiger and Zhangfs group uses the Pan-Arctic Ice Ocean Modeling and Assimilation System (PIOMAS), which assimilates sea ice concentration and sea surface temperature and hindcasts using NCEP Reanalyses into a high resolution sea ice model. PIOMAS results have recently been confirmed by satellite ice thickness measurements (Laxon et al. 2013). PIOMAS monthly averaged ice volume for September 2012 was 3,400 km3 (Figure 2b). This value is 72% lower than the mean over 1979-2012 and 2.0 standard deviations below the 1979-2012 trend line. September 2012 ice volume was about 800 km3 less than the prior minimum in September 2011. In contrast to the dramatic reduction in 2012 sea ice extent, the 2011 to 2012 change in sea ice volume was similar to the volume losses that occurred in the previous two years. The long term trend is about -3.1x103 km3 decade-1. While the PIOMAS team does not directly extrapolate, the already major volume loss of 70-80 % and recent losses suggest that extrapolation into the future from the current volume amount shows that Arctic sea ice is vulnerable within the next decade. Monthly mean Arctic sea ice volumes from the NAME model and recent satellite estimates show sea ice volume changed little during the 1980s through the mid-1990s (Maslowski et al. 2012). After 1995 one can estimate a negative trend of -1.1x103 km3 yr-1 from combined model and most recent observational estimates for October.November 1996.2007. Given this estimated trend and the volume estimate for October.November of 2007 at less than 9,000 km3, one can project a nearly ice-free summer Arctic Ocean before 2020 (Maslowski et al. 2012). 3. Stochasters
In the recent half decade young, melt-prone sea ice has come to dominate the Arctic sea ice pack which supports the arguments of the trendsetters. However, the paper of Kay et al. (2011) suggests that there can be a modifying influence from natural variability especially for the timing of sea ice loss. They show a widening of the distribution of possible ten and twenty year trends in sea ice extent in the Community Climate System Model 4.0 (CCSM4) model due to increased vulnerability of sea ice to large meteorological or oceanic events. Kay et al. (2011, their Figure 3) show that over a future 20 year period, sea ice loss can vary over a range of 0-80 %. Both CCSM3 and CCSM4 models show rapid ice loss events with different timing in different ensemble members (Holland et al 2006, Vavrus et al. 2012). The key argument of the Stochasters is that it will take several rapid loss events such as occurred in 2007 and 2012 to reach the 1.0 M km2 sea ice extent threshold. If we select the 5 yr interval that occurred between the 2007 and 2012 sea ice loss events as an expected value, then three more events puts a nearly sea ice free timing at 2028. Serreze (2011) states that we should be looking at sea ice-free summers only a few decades from now. Holland et al. (2006) and Wang and Overland (2009, 2012) show a large range of timing of sea ice loss for different ensemble members of the same GCM. Based on a subset of available GCMs, Wang and Overland (2012) estimated the time for a nearly sea ice free summer Arctic to be reached starting from a value of 4.5 M km2 (the observed 2007 value) ranged from 14 years to 36 years with a median of 28 years based on individual ensemble members, which puts the loss event in the 2030s with a large range Given that most sea ice trends in models are slower than observed trends for 1979-2011 (Stroeve, et al. 2012, their Figure 3, see next section), we should select a value at the earlier end of this range, i.e. 2030
Stochasters are further supported by recent papers that suggest that there is no tipping point associated with sea ice loss, again based on modeling studies (Amstrup et al. 2010, Armour et al. 2011, Ridley et al. 2011). Tietsche et al. (2011) suggest that anomalous loss of Arctic sea ice during a single summer is reversible, as the ice.albedo feedback is alleviated by large]scale recovery mechanisms. That is, continued sea ice loss requires continued increases in green house gases. However, consensus is not universal, as adequately representing cloud feedbacks in GCMs may be placing too much faith in them (Lenton 2012). Thus it is suggested that the stochasters would require 20 years or more after 2007 or around 2030 with a wide range of uncertainty to have several rapid ice loss events occur and to reach nearly sea ice free conditions. While not unreasonable, stochasters is the most ad hoc of the three approaches. 4. Modelers GCMs are major quantitative tools available to provide future climate projections based on physical laws that control the dynamic and thermodynamic processes of the atmosphere, ocean, land and sea ice. Recently, modeling groups around the world have improved their GCMs and made their results available to the wider scientific community through the archive at the Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison (PCMDI). This constitutes the fifth phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5) following the successful third phase (CMIP3). Typically, results from more than twenty models are available. All models show loss of sea ice as greenhouse gas concentrations increase and that Arctic warms faster than lower latitudes. Multiple models simulations are particularly useful in assessing uncertainty due to differences in model structure, natural variability, and different greenhouse gas emission scenarios (Hodson et al. 2012).
A first major difficulty is the wide spread of model hindcast results; they vary by model, location, variable and evaluation metric (Figure 3, Overland et al. 2011, Kwok 2011). Figure 3 is based on the high greenhouse gas emission RCP8.5 scenario (Moss et al. 2010). A second major difficulty is that 80 % of 56 CMIP5 ensemble members have trends for 1979-2011 that are of less magnitude than the two standard deviation bound for the observations (Stroeve et al. 2012, their Figure 3). Thus, there is no ideal all purpose model for the Arctic. It is difficult to pin down the reasons for these two difficulties (Walsh et al. 2008). For example DeWeaver et al. (2008) , Eisenman et al. (2008), Hodson et al. (2012) and Holland et al. (2012) note that the Arctic radiation budget results from complex balances and tradeoffs between sea ice amounts, albedo parameterization, and cloud properties. Another issue is that real world Arctic conditions (sea ice, snow cover) are evolving substantially faster than ensemble means of models (Stroeve et al. 2012, Dirksen et al. 2012). The time series of the grand mean of CMIP5 ensemble members based on the high greenhouse gas emission RCP8.5 scenario for September sea ice (yellow line in Figure 3) never reaches the nearly sea ice free definition of 1.0 M km2 by 2100. Winton (2011) shows that climate models underestimate the sensitivity of Arctic sea ice cover to global temperature change. Further, Boe et al. (2009b) conclude that GCMsf Arctic response to anthropogenic forcing is generally too small. Thus there is ground to consider that models provide a range of projections based on their individual assumptions, rather than providing a collective definitive Arctic climate prediction.
Pavlova et al. (2011) note that the multi-model ensemble mean is closer to the data curve for the late 20th and early 21st centuries for CMIP5 relative to CMIP3 results. However the spread of hindcasts and future trajectories remains large in CMIP5 models (Figure 3, also see Figure 1 in Massonnet et al. 2012). Boe et al. (2010), Hodson et al. (2012) and Massonnet et al. (2012), among others, note that the rate of sea ice loss in models depends on the amount of sea ice present. Thus there is concern with projections from models that do not simulate the amount of observed sea ice near the end of the 20th century. There are four major evaluations of sea ice projections in the set of CMIP5 GCMs: Pavlova et al. (2011), Stroeve et al. (2012), Wang and Overland (2012), and Massonnet et al. (2012), and one detailed review for the CCSM4 model (Vavrus et al 2012) and the EC-Earth model (Koenigk et al 2012). The median value for each year of all available CMIP5 ensemble members (blue line in Figure 3) reaches the nearly sea ice free condition near 2060 based on a nearly sea ice free definition of 1.0 M km2. But given the large observed rate of sea ice loss, we are primarly interested in those model ensemble members with the most rapid sea ice loss. The ensemble members of seven models which track closely to recent observed sea ice extents (Wang and Overland 2012) had their earliest nearly sea ice free dates occurring in 2027, 2033, 2035, 2045, 2048, 2049, and 2060, with a mean of 2042. Some individual ensemble members in Figure 3 reach the nearly sea ice free threshold at earlier dates, but many of these ensemble members start with unrealistic low sea ice extents for the late 20th century. Several of the ensemble members of CCSM4 reach the sea ice loss threshold near 2060; this was ten years later than their previous model CCSM3.The EC-Earth model also becomes nearly sea ice free near 2060, but the authors suggest shifting this to 2040 based on the modelfs overestimate of the amount of sea ice in the twentieth century. Thus we put the early limit for sea ice loss based on GCM projections near 2040
This paper should not be used as an argument against further modeling, but quite the opposite. The Arctic community needs credible quantitative climate projections with multiple ensemble members. As noted above, the spread in Figure 3 is not only due to sea ice physics but is related to treatment of clouds, radiation, and atmospheric and ocean dynamics. For the next round of model results, CMIP6, the major goal should be reduction of model uncertainty. Perhaps more model intercomparisons would be a way forward, rather than results provided from a large number of modeling centers produced under short time schedules. 5. Discussion and conclusions We have investigated three approaches to predicting 21st century summer Arctic sea ice loss as represented by trendsetters, stochasters, and modelers. At present it is not possible to completely choose one approach over another, as all approaches have strengths and weaknesses. Models are quantitative, based on physical understanding, and can provide estimates of uncertainty. They all predict an eventual sea ice free Arctic based on increases in greenhouse gas forcing. Modelersf projections for a nearly sea ice free Arctic summer, are mostly in the range of 2030-2060 or later, with a composite of earliest removals near 2040. Yet it is not clear that the observed rapid sea ice loss is represented in the range of model GCM results. Extrapolating current sea ice volume trends seems to capture the influence of the recent rapid loss of multi-year sea ice, yet it will be hard to remove the last sea ice near the North Pole; in 2007 removal of this sea ice required a strong atmospheric and sea ice advection event (Zhang et al. 2008).
Direct extrapolation of sea ice volume, by trendsetters, gives loss projections of 2016 (Maslowski et al 2012, Peter Wadhams 2012, personal communication), which may be minimizing the potential effects of year to year variability. Stochasters acknowledge current conditions and the range of projections suggested by model results, yet point to the lack of being able to forecast the next rapid sea ice loss event. They are saved in part as it will possibly take several such events to reach the nearly sea ice free threshold, thus adding some averaging to the final date prediction (hence stochastic). Observations and citations in this article support the conclusion that current rapid Arctic change, especially loss of multiyear sea ice, is likely out of sample for most CMIP5 models. Thus time horizons for summer sea ice loss of these three approaches turns out to be roughly 2020, 2030, and 2040 respectively for trendsetters, stochasters, and modelers. Predictions depend on the weight given to data, understanding of Arctic change processes, and the use of model projections. It is reasonable to conclude Arctic sea ice loss is very likely to occur in the first rather than the second half of the 21st Century, with a possibility of loss within a decade or two. The title of this paper is certainly one of the major questions of interest to Arctic and non-Arctic science and management communities. Large shifts in the Arctic environment represent major observed indicators of global climate change. Available evidence suggests that scientists have been conservative in their climate projections, with a late bias in dates for change (Brysse et al. 2012). Ignoring the rate of observed loss of multi-year Arctic sea ice in favor of multi-model results primarily from GCMs may be a further example. The possibility of a nearly sea ice free Arctic within the next three decades, in addition to the precautionary principle, supports the Duarte et al. (2012) conclusion that society should start managing for the reality of climate change in the Arctic.
Acknowledgment. The work is supported by NOAA Arctic Research Project of the Climate Program Office and by the Office of Naval Research, Code 322. Impetus for this article came
Accepted Article
- the_cause2000


List of Stanley Cup championsFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the latest accepted revision, accepted on 21 April 2014.Jump to: navigation, search
The Stanley CupSee also: Stanley Cup Winning players
The Stanley Cup is an ice hockey club trophy, awarded annually to the National Hockey League (NHL) playoffs champion at the conclusion of the Stanley Cup Finals. It was donated by the Governor General of Canada Lord Stanley of Preston in 1892, and is the oldest professional sports trophy in North America.
- BingoLady[1] Originally inscribed the Dominion Hockey Challenge Cup, the trophy started out as an award for Canada's top-ranking amateur ice hockey club in the Amateur Hockey Association of Canada. In 1915, the two professional ice hockey organizations, the National Hockey Association (NHA) and the Pacific Coast Hockey Association (PCHA), reached a gentlemen's agreement in which their respective champions would face each other for the Stanley Cup. After a series of league mergers and folds, it became the de facto championship trophy of the NHL in 1926. The Cup later became the de jure NHL championship prize in 1947.

Since the 1914–15 season, the trophy has been won a combined 95 times by 18 teams now active in the NHL and five defunct teams. Prior to that, the challenge cup was held by nine different teams. The Montreal Canadiens have won the Stanley Cup 24 times and made the finals an additional ten times. There were two years when the Stanley Cup was not awarded: 1919, because of the Spanish flu epidemic, and 2005, because of the NHL lockout.


Contents [hide]
1 Challenge Cup era (1893–1914)
2 NHA/NHL vs. PCHA/WCHL/WHL champions (1915–1926)
3 NHL champions (Since 1927)
4 Appearances
4.1 Challenge Cup era (1893–1914)
4.2 Stanley Cup Finals era (Since 1915)
4.2.1 Active teams
4.2.2 Defunct teams
5 See also
6 References
7 External links

Challenge Cup era (1893–1914)[edit]
The first Stanley Cup Champions: The Montreal Hockey ClubSee also: List of Stanley Cup challenge games
The origins of the Challenge era come from the method of play of the Amateur Hockey Association of Canada prior to 1893. From 1887 to 1893, the league did not play a round-robin format, but rather challenges between teams of the association that year, with the winner of the series being the 'interim' champion, with the final challenge winner becoming the league champion for the year. The Stanley Cup kept the tradition going, but added league championships as another way that a team could win the trophy. If a team in the same league as the current champion won the league championship, it would then inherit the Cup, without a challenge. The only time this rule was not followed was in 1904, when the Ottawa Senators club withdrew from its league, the CAHL. The trustees ruled that the Cup stayed with Ottawa, instead of the CAHL league champion.

During the challenge cup period, none of the leagues that played for the trophy had a formal playoff system to decide their respective champions; whichever team finished in first place after the regular season won the league title.[2] A playoff would only be played if teams tied for first-place in their leagues at the end of the regular season. Challenge games were played until 1912 at any time during hockey season by challenges approved and/or ordered by the Stanley Cup trustees. In 1912, Cup trustees declared that it was only to be defended at the end of the champion team's regular season.[3]

In 1908, the Allan Cup was introduced as the trophy for Canada's amateurs, as the Stanley Cup became a symbol of professional hockey supremacy.[4]

This table lists the outcome of all Stanley Cup wins, including successful victories and defenses in challenges, and league championships for the challenge era.

Date Winning team Coach Losing team Playoff format Score Winning goal
March 17, 1893 Montreal Hockey Club (AHAC) Harry Shaw (mgr.) 1893 AHAC champions, no challengers
March 22, 1894 Montreal Hockey Club (AHAC) Harry Shaw (mgr.) Ottawa HC (AHAC) Single-elimination
(1894 AHAC championship playoff) 3–1 Billy Barlow (9:00, third qtr)
March 8, 1895 Montreal Victorias (AHAC)[A] Mike Grant (capt.) 1895 AHAC Champion
March 9, 1895 Montreal Hockey Club (AHAC)[A] Harry Shaw (mgr.) Queen's University(OHA) Single-elimination 5 – 1
February 14, 1896 Winnipeg Victorias (MHA) Jack Armytage (capt.) Montreal Victorias (AHAC) Single-elimination 2–0 Jack Armytage (10:00, first half)[5][6]
February 29, 1896 Winnipeg Victorias (MHA) Jack Armytage (capt.) 1896 MHA champion[7]
December 30, 1896 Montreal Victorias (AHAC) Mike Grant (capt.) Winnipeg Victorias (MHA) Single-elimination 6–5 Ernie McLea (28:00, second half)
March 6, 1897 Montreal Victorias (AHAC) Mike Grant (capt.) 1897 AHAC Champion
December 27, 1897 Montreal Victorias (AHAC) Mike Grant (capt.) Ottawa Capitals (CCHA) Single-elimination[B] 15–2
March 5, 1898 Montreal Victorias (AHAC) Frank Richardson 1898 AHAC Champion
February 15–18, 1899 Montreal Victorias (CAHL) Frank Richardson Winnipeg Victorias (MHA) Two-game total goals 5–3 Robert MacDougall (second half)
March 4, 1899 Montreal Shamrocks (CAHL) Barney Dunphy 1899 CAHL Champion
March 14, 1899 Montreal Shamrocks (CAHL) Barney Dunphy Queen's University (OHA) Single-elimination 6–2 Harry Trihey
February 12–15, 1900 Montreal Shamrocks (CAHL) Barney Dunphy Winnipeg Victorias (MHA) Best-of-three 2–1 Harry Trihey (second half)
March 7, 1900 Montreal Shamrocks (CAHL) Barney Dunphy Halifax Crescents (MaPHL) Best-of-three 2–0 Joe McKenna
March 10, 1900 Montreal Shamrocks (CAHL) Barney Dunphy 1900 CAHL Champion
January 29–31, 1901 Winnipeg Victorias (MHA) Dan Bain (capt.) Montreal Shamrocks (CAHL) Best-of-three 2–0 Dan Bain (4:00, OT)
February 19, 1901 Winnipeg Victorias (MHA) Dan Bain (capt.) Winnipeg HC (MHA) Single-elimination
(1901 MHA championship) 4–3[8]
January 21–23, 1902 Winnipeg Victorias (MHA) Dan Bain (capt.) Toronto Wellingtons (OHA) Best-of-three 2–0 Fred Scanlon (9:00, second half)
March, 1902 Winnipeg Victorias (MHA) Dan Bain (capt.) 1902 MHA Champion
March 13–17, 1902 Montreal HC (CAHL) Clarence McKerrow Winnipeg Victorias (MHA) Best-of-three 2–1 Jack Marshall (first half)
January 29–31,
February 2–4, 1903 Montreal HC (CAHL) D. Browne Winnipeg Victorias (MHA) Best-of-three 2–1[C] Tom Phillips
March 7–10, 1903 Ottawa HC (CAHL) Alf Smith Montreal Victorias (CAHL) Two-game total goals
(1903 CAHL championship playoff) 9–1 Suddy Gilmour (4:34, first half, second game)
March 12–14, 1903 Ottawa HC (CAHL) Alf Smith Rat Portage Thistles (MNWHA) Two-game total goals 10–4 Frank McGee (8:20, first half)
Dec 30, 1903, January 1–4, 1904 Ottawa HC (CAHL) Alf Smith-playing Winnipeg Rowing Club (MHA) Best-of-three 2–1 Frank McGee (11:00, second half)
February 23–25, 1904 Ottawa HC[D] Alf Smith-playing Toronto Marlboros (OHA) Best-of-three 2–0 Arthur Moore (9:38, first half)
March 2, 1904 Ottawa HC[D] Alf Smith-playing Montreal Wanderers (FAHL) Two-game total goals [E]
March 9–11, 1904 Ottawa HC[D] Alf Smith-playing Brandon Wheat Cities (MNWHA) Best-of-three 2–0 Frank McGee (18:00, first half)
January 13–16, 1905 Ottawa HC (FAHL) Alf Smith-playing Dawson City Nuggets Best-of-three 2–0 Harry Westwick (12:15, first half)
March 3, 1905 Ottawa HC (FAHL) Alf Smith-playing 1905 FAHL Champion
March 7–9-11, 1905 Ottawa HC (FAHL) Alf Smith-playing Rat Portage Thistles (MHL) Best-of-three 2–1 Frank McGee
February 27–28, 1906 Ottawa HC (ECAHA) Alf Smith-playing Queen's University (OHA) Best-of-three 2–0 Harvey Pulford (10:00, second half)
March 6–8, 1906 Ottawa HC (ECAHA) Alf Smith-playing Smiths Falls HC(FAHL) Best-of-three 2–0 Frank McGee (17:45, first half)
March 14–17, 1906 Montreal Wanderers (ECAHA) Cecil Blachford-playing Ottawa HC (ECAHA) Two-game total goals
(1906 ECAHA championship playoff) 12–10 Lester Patrick
December 27–29, 1906 Montreal Wanderers (ECAHA) Cecil Blachford-playing New Glasgow Cubs (MaHL) Two-game total goals 17–5
January 21–23, 1907 Kenora Thistles (MPHL) James Link Montreal Wanderers (ECAHA) Two-game total goals 12–8 Roxy Beaudro
March 16–18, 1907 Kenora Thistles (MPHL) James Link Brandon Wheat Cities (MPHL) Best-of-three
(1907 MPHL championship) 2–0 Fred Whitcroft (19:00, first half)[9]
March 23–25, 1907 Montreal Wanderers (ECAHA) Lester Patrick (capt.) Kenora Thistles (MPHL) Two-game total goals 12–8 Ernest "Moose" Johnson
January 9–13, 1908 Montreal Wanderers (ECAHA) Cecil Blachford (capt.) Ottawa Victorias (FAHL) Two-game total goals 22–4 Frank Glass (25:00, first half, first game)[10]
March 7, 1908 Montreal Wanderers (ECAHA) Cecil Blachford (capt.) 1908 ECAHA Champions
March 10–12, 1908 Montreal Wanderers (ECAHA) Cecil Blachford (capt.) Winnipeg Maple Leafs (MPHL) Two-game total goals 20–8
March 14, 1908 Montreal Wanderers (ECAHA) Cecil Blachford (capt.) Toronto (OPHL) Single-elimination 6–4 Ernest "Moose" Johnson
December 28–30, 1908 Montreal Wanderers (ECAHA) Cecil Blachford (capt.) Edmonton Hockey Club (AAHA) Two-game total goals 13–10
March 6, 1909 Ottawa HC (ECAHA) Pete Green 1909 ECAHA champions
January 5–7, 1910 Ottawa HC (CHA) Pete Green Galt HC (OPHL) Two-game total goals 15–4 Bruce Ridpath (second half)
January 18–20, 1910 Ottawa HC (NHA) Pete Green Edmonton Hockey Club (AAHA) Two-game total goals 21–11 Bruce Stuart (23:45, first half)
March 9, 1910 Montreal Wanderers (NHA) Frank "Pud" Glass (capt.) 1910 NHA Champion
March 12, 1910 Montreal Wanderers (NHA) Frank "Pud" Glass (capt.) Berlin Dutchmen (OPHL) Single-elimination 7–3 Harry Hyland (22:00, first half)
March 10, 1911 Ottawa HC (NHA) Pete Green 1911 NHA Champions
March 13, 1911 Ottawa HC (NHA) Pete Green Galt HC (OPHL) Single-elimination 7–4 Marty Walsh (5:00, third)
March 16, 1911 Ottawa HC (NHA) Pete Green Port Arthur Bearcats
(New Ontario Hockey League) Single-elimination 13–4 Marty Walsh (4:30, second)
March 5, 1912 Quebec Bulldogs (NHA) Charles Nollan 1912 NHA Champions
March 11–13, 1912 Quebec Bulldogs (NHA) Charles Nolan Moncton Victorias (MaPHL) Best-of-three 2–0 Joe Malone (18:00, first)
March 5, 1913 Quebec Bulldogs (NHA) Joe Malone (capt.) 1913 NHA Champions
March 8–10, 1913 Quebec Bulldogs (NHA) Joe Malone (capt.) Sydney Millionaires (MaPHL) Two-game total goals 20–5
March 7–11, 1914 Toronto Hockey Club (NHA) Scotty Davidson (capt.) Montreal Canadiens (NHA) Two-game total goals
(1914 NHA championship playoff) 6–2 Scotty Davidson (2:00, third)
March 14–17-19, 1914 Toronto Hockey Club (NHA) Scotty Davidson (capt.) Victoria Aristocrats (PCHA) Best-of-five 3–0 [F] Harry Cameron (6:00, third)

Notes
^ A. Although the Montreal Victorias won the AHAC title in 1895, the Stanley Cup trustees had already accepted a challenge from the 1894 Cup champion Montreal HC and Queen's University. As a compromise, the trustees decided that if the Montreal HC won the challenge match, the Victorias would become the Stanley Cup champions. The Montreals eventually won the game, 5–1, and their crosstown rivals were awarded the Cup.

^ B. Intended to be a best-of-three series, Ottawa Capitals withdrew their challenge after the first game.

^ C. The January 31 (a Saturday) game was tied 2–2 at midnight and the Mayor of Westmount refused to allow play to continue on the Sunday. The game was played on February 2 (a Monday) and the January 31 game was considered to be void.[11]

^ D. For most of 1904, the Ottawa Senators were not affiliated with any league.

^ E. The Montreal Wanderers were disqualified as the result of a dispute. After game one ended tied at the end of regulation, 5–5, the Wanderers refused to play overtime with the current referee, and then subsequently refused to play the next game of the series in Ottawa.

^ F. During the series, it was revealed that the Victoria club had not filed a formal challenge. A letter arrived from the Stanley Cup trustees on March 17, stating that the trustees would not let the Stanley Cup travel west, as they did not consider Victoria a proper challenger because they had not formally notified the trustees.[12] However, on March 18, Trustee William Foran stated that it was a misunderstanding. PCHA president Frank Patrick had not filed a challenge, because he had expected Emmett Quinn, president of the NHA to make all of the arrangements in his role as hockey commissioner, whereas the trustees thought they were being deliberately ignored. In any case, all arrangements had been ironed out and the Victoria challenge was accepted.[13][14]

Sources
Coleman, Charles L. (1964). The Trail of the Stanley Cup, vol. 1, 1893–1926 inc. Sherbrooke, Quebec: Sherbrooke Daily Record Company Limited.
Montreal Gazette
Ottawa Citizen
Ottawa Journal
Winnipeg Tribune
NHA/NHL vs. PCHA/WCHL/WHL champions (1915–1926)[edit]Several days after the Victoria Aristocrats challenge of the Toronto Hockey Club, Stanley Cup trustee William Foran wrote to NHA president Emmett Quinn that the trustees are "perfectly satisfied to allow the representatives of the three pro leagues (NHA, PCHA, and Maritime) to make all arrangements each season as to the series of matches to be played for the Cup."[15] One year later, the NHA and the PCHA concluded a gentlemen's agreement in which their respective champions would face each other for the Cup. Under the new proposal, the Stanley Cup championship finals alternated between the East and the West each year, with alternating games played according to NHA and PCHA rules.[16] The Cup trustees agreed to this new arrangement, because after the Allan Cup became the highest prize for amateur hockey teams in Canada, the trustees had become dependent on the top two professional leagues to bolster the prominence of the trophy.[17] After the Portland Rosebuds, an American-based team, joined the PCHA in 1914, the trustees issued a statement that the Cup was no longer for the best team in Canada, but now for the best team in the world.[16] Two years later, the Rosebuds became the first American team to play in the Stanley Cup championship final.[17] In 1917, the Seattle Metropolitans became the first American team to win the Cup.[18] After that season, the NHA dissolved, and the National Hockey League (NHL) took its place.[16]

In 1919, the Spanish influenza epidemic forced the Montreal Canadiens and the Seattle Metropolitans to cancel their series tied at 2–2–1, marking the first time the Stanley Cup was not awarded.[19]

The format for the Stanley Cup championship changed in 1922, with the creation of the Western Canada Hockey League (WCHL). Now three leagues competed for the Cup and this necessitated a semi-final series between two league champions, with the third having a bye directly to the final.[20] In 1924, the PCHA folded and only the Vancouver and Victoria teams entered the WCHL. With the loss of the PCHA, the championship reverted to a single series.[21] After their win in 1925, the Victoria Cougars became the last team outside the NHL to win the Stanley Cup.[22] For the 1925–26 season the WCHL was renamed the Western Hockey League (WHL). With the Victoria Cougars' loss in 1926, it would be the last time a non-NHL team competed for the Stanley Cup.

Year Winning team Coach Losing team Coach Games Winning goal
1915 Vancouver Millionaires (PCHA) Frank Patrick-playing Ottawa Senators (NHA) Frank Shaughnessy (mgr.) 3–0 Barney Stanley (5:30, second)
1916 Montreal Canadiens (NHA) Newsy Lalonde-playing Portland Rosebuds (PCHA) Edward Savage (mgr.) 3–2 George Prodgers (17:20, third)
1917 Seattle Metropolitans (PCHA) Pete Muldoon Montreal Canadiens (NHA) Newsy Lalonde-playing 3–1 Bernie Morris (7:55, first)
1918 Toronto[23] (NHL) Richard Carroll Vancouver Millionaires (PCHA) Frank Patrick-playing 3–2 Corb Denneny (10:30, third)
1919 Montreal Canadiens (NHL) vs. Seattle Metropolitans (PCHA) – Series cancelled after the fifth game because of the flu epidemic – Stanley Cup not awarded
1920 Ottawa Senators (NHL) Pete Green Seattle Metropolitans (PCHA) Pete Muldoon 3–2 Jack Darragh (5:00, third)
1921 Ottawa Senators (NHL) Pete Green Vancouver Millionaires (PCHA) Frank Patrick-playing 3–2 Jack Darragh (9:40, second)
1922 Toronto St. Pats (NHL) George O'Donoghue Vancouver Millionaires (PCHA) Frank Patrick-playing 3–2 Babe Dye (4:20, first)
1923 Ottawa Senators (NHL) Pete Green Edmonton Eskimos (WCHL) Ken McKenzine 2–0 Punch Broadbent (11:23, first)
1924 Montreal Canadiens (NHL) Léo Dandurand Calgary Tigers (WCHL) Eddie Oatman-playing 2–0 Howie Morenz (4:55, first)
1925 Victoria Cougars (WCHL) Lester Patrick Montreal Canadiens (NHL) Léo Dandurand 3–1 Gizzy Hart (2:35, second)
1926 Montreal Maroons (NHL) Eddie Gerard Victoria Cougars (WHL) Lester Patrick 3–1 Nels Stewart (2:50, second)

NHL champions (Since 1927)[edit]The WHL folded in 1926, and its assets were bought by the NHL. This left the NHL as the only league left competing for the Cup. Other leagues and clubs have issued challenges, but from that year forward, no non-NHL team has played for it, leading it to become the de facto championship trophy of the NHL.[21] In 1947, the NHL reached an agreement with trustees P. D. Ross and Cooper Smeaton to grant control of the cup to the NHL, allowing the league itself to reject challenges from other leagues that may have wished to play for the Cup.[24][25] A 2006 Ontario Superior Court case found that the trustees had gone against Lord Stanley's conditions in the 1947 agreement.[26] The NHL has agreed to allow other teams to play for the Cup should the league not be operating, as was the case in the 2004–05 NHL lockout.[25]

Since 1927, the league's playoff format, deciding which teams advanced to the Stanley Cup Finals, has changed multiple times. In some systems that were previously used, playoff teams were seeded regardless of division or conference. Since 1982, the Finals have been played between the league's conference playoff champions.

Year Winning team Coach Losing team Coach Games Winning goal
1927 Ottawa Senators (C) Dave Gill Boston Bruins (A) Art Ross 2–0–2 Cy Denneny (7:30, second)
1928 New York Rangers (A) Lester Patrick-playing Montreal Maroons (C) Eddie Gerard 3–2 Frank Boucher (3:35, third)
1929 Boston Bruins (A) Cy Denneny-playing New York Rangers (A) Lester Patrick 2–0 Bill Carson (18:02, third)
1930 Montreal Canadiens (C) Cecil Hart Boston Bruins (A) Art Ross 2–0 Howie Morenz (1:00, second)
1931 Montreal Canadiens (C) Cecil Hart Chicago Black Hawks (A) Richard Irvin 3–2 Johnny Gagnon (9:59, second)
1932 Toronto Maple Leafs (C) Richard Irvin New York Rangers (A) Lester Patrick 3–0 Ace Bailey (15:07, third)
1933 New York Rangers (A) Lester Patrick Toronto Maple Leafs (C) Richard Irvin 3–1 Bill Cook (7:34, OT)
1934 Chicago Black Hawks (A) Tommy Gorman Detroit Red Wings (A) Jack Adams 3–1 Mush March (10:05, second OT)
1935 Montreal Maroons (C) Tommy Gorman Toronto Maple Leafs (C) Richard Irvin 3–0 Baldy Northcott (16:18, second)
1936 Detroit Red Wings (A) Jack Adams Toronto Maple Leafs (C) Richard Irvin 3–1 Pete Kelly (9:45, third)
1937 Detroit Red Wings (A) Jack Adams New York Rangers (A) Lester Patrick 3–2 Marty Barry (19:22, first)
1938 Chicago Black Hawks (A) Bill Stewart Toronto Maple Leafs (C) Richard Irvin 3–1 Carl Voss (16:45, second)
1939 Boston Bruins Art Ross Toronto Maple Leafs Richard Irvin 4–1 Roy Conacher (17:54, second)
1940 New York Rangers Frank Boucher Toronto Maple Leafs Richard Irvin 4–2 Bryan Hextall (2:07, OT)
1941 Boston Bruins Cooney Weiland Detroit Red Wings Jack Adams 4–0 Bobby Bauer (8:43, second)
1942 Toronto Maple Leafs Hap Day Detroit Red Wings Jack Adams 4–3 Pete Langelle (9:48, third)
1943 Detroit Red Wings Jack Adams Boston Bruins Art Ross 4–0 Joe Carveth (12:09, first)
1944 Montreal Canadiens Richard Irvin Chicago Black Hawks Paul Thompson 4–0 Toe Blake (9:12, OT)
1945 Toronto Maple Leafs Hap Day Detroit Red Wings Jack Adams 4–3 Babe Pratt (12:14, third)
1946 Montreal Canadiens Richard Irvin Boston Bruins Dit Clapper 4–1 Toe Blake (11:06, third)
1947 Toronto Maple Leafs Hap Day Montreal Canadiens Richard Irvin 4–2 Ted Kennedy (14:39, third)
1948 Toronto Maple Leafs Hap Day Detroit Red Wings Tommy Ivan 4–0 Harry Watson (11:13, first)
1949 Toronto Maple Leafs Hap Day Detroit Red Wings Tommy Ivan 4–0 Cal Gardner (19:45, second)
1950 Detroit Red Wings Tommy Ivan New York Rangers Lynn Patrick 4–3 Pete Babando (8:31, second OT)
1951 Toronto Maple Leafs Joe Primeau Montreal Canadiens Richard Irvin 4–1 Bill Barilko (2:53, OT)
1952 Detroit Red Wings Tommy Ivan Montreal Canadiens Richard Irvin 4–0 Metro Prystai (6:50, first)
1953 Montreal Canadiens Richard Irvin Boston Bruins Lynn Patrick 4–1 Elmer Lach (1:22, OT)
1954 Detroit Red Wings Tommy Ivan Montreal Canadiens Richard Irvin 4–3 Tony Leswick (4:20, OT)
1955 Detroit Red Wings Jimmy Skinner Montreal Canadiens Richard Irvin 4–3 Gordie Howe (19:49, second)
1956 Montreal Canadiens Toe Blake Detroit Red Wings Jimmy Skinner 4–1 Maurice Richard (15:08, second)
1957 Montreal Canadiens Toe Blake Boston Bruins Milt Schmidt 4–1 Richardie Moore (0:14, second)
1958 Montreal Canadiens Toe Blake Boston Bruins Milt Schmidt 4–2 Bernie Geoffrion (19:26, second)
1959 Montreal Canadiens Toe Blake Toronto Maple Leafs Punch Imlach 4–1 Marcel Bonin (9:55, second)
1960 Montreal Canadiens Toe Blake Toronto Maple Leafs Punch Imlach 4–0 Jean Beliveau (8:16, first)
1961 Chicago Black Hawks Rudy Pilous Detroit Red Wings Sid Abel 4–2 Ab McDonald (18:49, second)
1962 Toronto Maple Leafs Punch Imlach Chicago Black Hawks Rudy Pilous 4–2 Richard Duff (14:14, third)
1963 Toronto Maple Leafs Punch Imlach Detroit Red Wings Sid Abel 4–1 Eddie Shack (13:28, third)
1964 Toronto Maple Leafs Punch Imlach Detroit Red Wings Sid Abel 4–3 Andy Bathgate (3:04, first)
1965 Montreal Canadiens Toe Blake Chicago Black Hawks Billy Reay 4–3 Jean Beliveau (0:14, first)
1966 Montreal Canadiens Toe Blake Detroit Red Wings Sid Abel 4–2 Henri Richard (2:20, OT)
1967 Toronto Maple Leafs Punch Imlach Montreal Canadiens Toe Blake 4–2 Jim Pappin (19:24, second)
1968 Montreal Canadiens (E) Toe Blake St. Louis Blues (W) Scotty Bowman 4–0 J. C. Tremblay (11:40, third)
1969 Montreal Canadiens (E) Claude Ruel St. Louis Blues (W) Scotty Bowman 4–0 John Ferguson (3:02, third)
1970 Boston Bruins (E) Harry Sinden St. Louis Blues (W) Scotty Bowman 4–0 Bobby Orr (0:40, OT)
1971 Montreal Canadiens (E) Al MacNeil Chicago Black Hawks

Here is partial list of products made from Oil & Petroleum



Agriculture
•
plastic ties
•
row cover
•
irrigation piping
•
polyethylene
•
polypropylene
•
bags and packaging
•
pesticides and herbicides
•
food preservatives
•
fertilizers
Clothing and Textiles
•
ballet tights
•
nylon cord
•
everything polyester: blouses, pants, pajamas etc.
•
everything permanent press: shirts, dresses etc.
•
beads
•
bracelets
•
pantyhose
•
nylon zippers
•
plastic hangers
•
purses
•
thongs and flip flops
•
earrings
•
ribbons
•
fake fur
•
windbreakers
•
sandals
•
garment bags
•
shoe laces
•
rain coats
•
iron-on patches
•
sneakers
•
sweaters
•
sofa pillow material
•
tote bags
•
umbrellas
Around the Office
•
ball point pens
•
diskettes
•
thermometer
•
Ink
•
computers
•
business card holders
•
copiers
•
waste baskets
•
calculators
•
printer cartridges
•
microfilm
•
name tags
•
binders
•
erasers
•
rulers
•
scotch tape
•
magic markers
•
telephones
Sports, Hobbies and Games
•
backpacks
•
fishing lures
•
air mattresses
•
cameras
•
beach balls
•
fishing poles
•
hang gliders
•
vinyl cases
•
footballs
•
glue containers
•
puzzles
•
darts
•
Frisbees
•
golf ball and golf bags
•
shotgun shells
•
ear plugs
•
knitting needles
•
waterproof clothing
•
stadium cushions
•
earphones
•
yarn
•
kites
•
tennis racquets
•
fabric dye
•
decoys
•
lifejackets
•
nylon strings
•
face protectors
•
volley balls
•
model cars
•
plastic water guns
•
fishing bobbers
•
soccer balls
•
oil paints
•
parachutes
•
fishing cylume
•
light sticks
•
earphones
•
playing cards
•
photographs
•
monofilament fishing lines
•
diving boards
•
poker chips
•
goggles
•
rollerskate and skateboard wheels
•
whistles
•
guitar strings
•
picks
•
rafts
•
ice chests
•
tents
•
sleeping bags
•
pole vaulting poles
•
motorcycle helmets
•
skis, water skis
•
rubber cement
•
plastic flowerpots
•
hot tub covers
•
sails
•
snorkels
•
monkey bars
•
photo albums
•
wet suits
•
flippers
•
tennis balls
•
boats
•
insulated boots
Infants and Children
•
acrylic toys
•
baby oil
•
laundry baskets
•
waterproof pants
•
baby aspirin
•
bath soap
•
mittens
•
pacifiers
•
baby blankets
•
bibs
•
rattles
•
doubleknit shirts
•
baby bottles
•
disposable diapers
•
baby shoes
•
teething rings
•
nipples and binkies
•
dolls
•
stuffed animals
•
baby lotion
Sports, Hobbies and Games
•
allergy medication
•
cotton-tipped swabs
•
inhalers
•
liquid Pepto-Bismol
•
aspirin
•
first aid cream
•
lancets
•
pill cases
•
band aids
•
first aid kits
•
latex gloves
•
prescription bottles
•
burn lotion
•
glycerin
•
mosquito spray
•
rubbing alcohol
•
chap stick
•
heart valve replacement
•
nasal decongestant
•
surgical tape
•
syringes
•
Vaseline
•
antiseptics
•
hearing aids
•
anesthetics
•
artificial limbs
•
eyeglasses and sunglasses
•
antihistamines
•
cortisone
•
vaporizers
•
denture adhesives
•
laxatives
•
Bactine
•
oxygen masks
•
stethoscopes
•
prescription glasses
•
cough syrup
•
hearing aids
Kitchen and Household
•
vinegar bottles
•
egg cartons
•
meat trays
•
trash bags
•
breadboxes
•
freezer containers
•
melamine dishware
•
tumblers
•
cake decorations
•
jars
•
microwave dishes
•
utensils
•
candles
•
freezer bags
•
milk jugs
•
vacuum bottles
•
coasters
•
gelatin molds
•
nylon spatulas
•
wax paper
•
coffee pots
•
ice cream scoops
•
oven bags
•
mops
•
drinking cups
•
ice trays
•
plastic containers
•
fabric softener
•
detergent bottles
•
plastic table service
•
drain stoppers
•
dish drainers
•
lunch boxes
•
pudding molds
•
sponges
•
dish scrubbers
•
brushes
•
baggies
•
drinking straws
•
Styrofoam
•
paper cup dispensers
•
measuring cups
•
Teflon coated pans
•
table cloths
•
refrigerator shelves
Beauty
•
cologne
•
hair brushes
•
lipstick
•
permanent wave curlers
•
perfume
•
hair color
•
mascara
•
petroleum jelly
•
comb
•
foam rubber curlers
•
shampoo
•
contact lenses and cases
•
hair spray
•
hand lotion
•
shaving foam
•
hair dryers
•
shoe inserts
•
dentures
•
body lotion
•
face masks
•
skin cleanser
•
deodorants
•
moisturizing cream
•
soap holders
•
disposable razors
•
leather conditioner
•
mouthwash
•
sunglasses
•
facial toner
•
lens cleanser
•
nail polish
•
sunscreen
•
tooth brushes
•
toothpaste tubes
•
vitamins
•
synthetic wigs
•
bubble bath
•
soap capsules
Furnishings
•
carpet padding
•
Naugahyde
•
Venetian blinds
•
TV cabinets
•
extension cords
•
picture frames
•
flocked wallpaper
•
shower doors
•
Formica
•
refrigerator lining
•
vinyl wallpaper
•
curtains
•
kitchen carpet
•
shag carpet
•
welcome mats
•
fan blades
•
lamps
•
shower curtain
•
patio furniture
•
swings
•
linoleum
•
upholstery
•
rugs
Building and Home
•
caulking material
•
light switch plates
•
plungers
•
faucet washers
•
clotheslines
•
measuring tape
•
polyurethane stain
•
water pipes
•
electric saws
•
paintbrushes
•
propane bottles
•
wood floor cleaner/wax
•
vinyl electrical tape
•
plastic pipe
•
shingles (asphalt)
•
light panels
•
garden hoses
•
plastic wood spackling paste
•
awnings
•
glazing compound
•
Plexiglas
•
spray paint
•
enamel
•
epoxy paint
•
artificial turf
•
folding doors
•
floor wax
•
glue
•
house paint
•
paint rollers
•
toilet seats
•
water pipes
•
putty
•
solvents
•
roofing material
•
plywood adhesive
•
sockets
•
propane
Automotive
•
antifreeze
•
flat tire fix
•
street paving (asphalt)
•
car battery cases
•
coolant
•
motor oil
•
tires
•
loud speakers
•
bearing grease
•
sports car bodies
•
traffic cones
•
car enamel
•
brake fluid
•
dashboards
•
windshield wipers
•
visors
•
car sound insulation
•
oil filters
•
car seats
•
convertible tops
•
fan belts
•
gasoline
Miscellaneous
•
ash trays
•
dog food dishes
•
toolboxes
•
CDs and DVDs
•
balloons
•
dog leashes
•
tape recorders
•
synthetic rubber
•
bubble gum
•
dog toys
•
flashlights
•
nylon ropes
•
bungee straps
•
flight bags
•
disposable lighters
•
cassette player
•
flea collars
•
flutes
•
lighter fluid
•
cigarette cases
•
electric blankets
•
tool racks
•
name tags
•
cigarette filters
•
ammonia
•
newspaper tubes
•
calibrated containers
•
insect repellent
•
phonograph records (vinyl)
•
crayons
•
ice buckets
•
dyes
•
pillows
•
credit cards
•
flashlights
•
fly swatters
•
plastic cup holders
•
dice
•
movie and camera film
•
k-resin
•
rain bonnets
•
luggage
•
video cassettes
•
charcoal lighter
•
rayon
•
safety glasses, gloves, hats
•
shoe polish
•
signs
•
cassette tapes
•
toys
•
watch bands
•
waterproof boots
•
shopping bags
•
bedspreads
•
checkbooks
•
covers
•
tobacco pouches
•
clothes hangers
•
flea collars
•
flavors
•
masking tape
•
safety flares
•
flags
•
butane
- Doppleganger


kicksave856
Philadelphia Flyers
Location: sometimes you find a pig hair or two inside.
Joined: 09.29.2005


Friday @ 3:55 PM ET

When will the Summer Arctic be Nearly Sea Ice Free? James E. Overland,1,3 and Muyin Wang 2 1Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, NOAA, Seattle, WA

The observed rapid loss of thick, multi-year sea ice over the last seven years and September 2012 Arctic sea ice extent reduction of 49 % relative to the 1979-2000 climatology are inconsistent with projections of a nearly sea ice free summer Arctic from model estimates of 2070 and beyond made just a few years ago. Three recent approaches to predictions in the scientific literature are: 1) extrapolation of sea ice volume data, 2) assuming several more rapid loss events such as 2007 and 2012, and 3) climate model projections. Time horizons for a nearly sea ice free summer for these three approaches are roughly 2020 or earlier, 2030, and 2040 or later. Loss estimates from models are based on a subset of the most rapid ensemble members. It is not possible to clearly choose one approach over another as this depends on the relative weights given to data versus models. Observations and citations support the conclusion that most Global Climate Models results in the CMIP5 archive are too conservative in their sea ice projections. Recent data and expert opinion should be considered in addition to model results to advance the very likely timing for future sea ice loss to the first half of the 21st century, with a possibility of major loss within a decade or two. 1. Introduction
The large observed shifts in the current Arctic environment represent major indicators of regional and global climate change. Whether a nearly sea ice free Arctic occurs in the first or second half of the 21st century is of great economic, social, and wildlife management interest. There is a gap in understanding however, in how to reconcile what is currently happening with sea ice in the Arctic and climate model projections of Arctic sea ice loss. September 2012 showed a reduction in sea ice extent of 49 % relative to the 1979-2000 baseline of 7.0 M km2 (Figure 1 and 2a). Further, the extent of thick multiyear sea ice has been reduced by the same percentage (roughly a reduction from 4 M km2 for 2000 through 2005 to 2 M km2 in 2012; Kwok and Untersteiner, 2011-updated, Comiso 2012). It is difficult to reconcile this current rate of loss with climate model projection dates of summer sea ice loss of 2070 (IPCC 2007) or 2100 (Boe et al. 2009a) made just a few years ago. The question, however, is not as straight forward as simply comparing data timeseries with model results. Global Climate Models (GCMs) are often run several times, referred to as ensemble members, with slightly different initial conditions to simulate a possible range of natural variability in addition to steady increasing greenhouse gas forcing. Data, in contrast, is a single realization of a range of possible climate states. Observations confound signal (global warming forcing) and noise (natural variability). Thus it is not completely valid to compare the ensemble mean of a model or several models, which could be considered the expected value of the climate state, with the single data realization. A better approach is to look at the range of ensemble members and to determine if the data timeseries could be considered a possible member of the population of ensemble members. Unfortunately, there are seldom enough ensemble members to test this hypothesis. The science question becomes: is the observed rapid loss of sea ice in the real world consistent with model ensemble members with the fastest rate of loss? Multiple Groups (AMAP, WCRP, various national programs), as well as the climate research community and the general public, are interested in this question for adaptation planning and as a popular indicator of climate change. When will the summer Arctic be nearly sea ice free? A first issue is the phrase, gnearly.h It is expected that some sea ice will remain as a refuge north of the Canadian Archipelago and Greenland at the end of summer. Thus the practical limit for sea ice loss is arbitrary, but several sources have converged on 1.0 M km2 as a minimum transition point. There are three scientific approaches to the posed question in the scientific literature. The first is based on extrapolation of sea ice volume data. The second considers that it will take several more rapid loss events such as the losses in 2007 and 2012 to reach the minimum. The third approach is to base predictions on fast track model ensemble member projections. We refer to the three approaches as, trendsetters, stochasters, and modelers. Time horizons for summer sea ice loss of these three approaches turns out to be roughly 2020, 2030, and 2040, as discussed below. At present it is not possible to completely choose one approach over another, as it depends on the weight given to data, understanding of Arctic change processes, and the use and purpose of model projections. The next sections address these three approaches. 2. Trendsetters
Two groups are most active in this approach which extrapolates sea ice volume (Schweiger et al. 2011, Maslowski 2012). Their main points are that sea ice volume is decreasing at a rate that is faster than sea ice extent, and that volume is a better variable than extent to use for sea ice loss. Schweiger and Zhangfs group uses the Pan-Arctic Ice Ocean Modeling and Assimilation System (PIOMAS), which assimilates sea ice concentration and sea surface temperature and hindcasts using NCEP Reanalyses into a high resolution sea ice model. PIOMAS results have recently been confirmed by satellite ice thickness measurements (Laxon et al. 2013). PIOMAS monthly averaged ice volume for September 2012 was 3,400 km3 (Figure 2b). This value is 72% lower than the mean over 1979-2012 and 2.0 standard deviations below the 1979-2012 trend line. September 2012 ice volume was about 800 km3 less than the prior minimum in September 2011. In contrast to the dramatic reduction in 2012 sea ice extent, the 2011 to 2012 change in sea ice volume was similar to the volume losses that occurred in the previous two years. The long term trend is about -3.1x103 km3 decade-1. While the PIOMAS team does not directly extrapolate, the already major volume loss of 70-80 % and recent losses suggest that extrapolation into the future from the current volume amount shows that Arctic sea ice is vulnerable within the next decade. Monthly mean Arctic sea ice volumes from the NAME model and recent satellite estimates show sea ice volume changed little during the 1980s through the mid-1990s (Maslowski et al. 2012). After 1995 one can estimate a negative trend of -1.1x103 km3 yr-1 from combined model and most recent observational estimates for October.November 1996.2007. Given this estimated trend and the volume estimate for October.November of 2007 at less than 9,000 km3, one can project a nearly ice-free summer Arctic Ocean before 2020 (Maslowski et al. 2012). 3. Stochasters
In the recent half decade young, melt-prone sea ice has come to dominate the Arctic sea ice pack which supports the arguments of the trendsetters. However, the paper of Kay et al. (2011) suggests that there can be a modifying influence from natural variability especially for the timing of sea ice loss. They show a widening of the distribution of possible ten and twenty year trends in sea ice extent in the Community Climate System Model 4.0 (CCSM4) model due to increased vulnerability of sea ice to large meteorological or oceanic events. Kay et al. (2011, their Figure 3) show that over a future 20 year period, sea ice loss can vary over a range of 0-80 %. Both CCSM3 and CCSM4 models show rapid ice loss events with different timing in different ensemble members (Holland et al 2006, Vavrus et al. 2012). The key argument of the Stochasters is that it will take several rapid loss events such as occurred in 2007 and 2012 to reach the 1.0 M km2 sea ice extent threshold. If we select the 5 yr interval that occurred between the 2007 and 2012 sea ice loss events as an expected value, then three more events puts a nearly sea ice free timing at 2028. Serreze (2011) states that we should be looking at sea ice-free summers only a few decades from now. Holland et al. (2006) and Wang and Overland (2009, 2012) show a large range of timing of sea ice loss for different ensemble members of the same GCM. Based on a subset of available GCMs, Wang and Overland (2012) estimated the time for a nearly sea ice free summer Arctic to be reached starting from a value of 4.5 M km2 (the observed 2007 value) ranged from 14 years to 36 years with a median of 28 years based on individual ensemble members, which puts the loss event in the 2030s with a large range Given that most sea ice trends in models are slower than observed trends for 1979-2011 (Stroeve, et al. 2012, their Figure 3, see next section), we should select a value at the earlier end of this range, i.e. 2030
Stochasters are further supported by recent papers that suggest that there is no tipping point associated with sea ice loss, again based on modeling studies (Amstrup et al. 2010, Armour et al. 2011, Ridley et al. 2011). Tietsche et al. (2011) suggest that anomalous loss of Arctic sea ice during a single summer is reversible, as the ice.albedo feedback is alleviated by large]scale recovery mechanisms. That is, continued sea ice loss requires continued increases in green house gases. However, consensus is not universal, as adequately representing cloud feedbacks in GCMs may be placing too much faith in them (Lenton 2012). Thus it is suggested that the stochasters would require 20 years or more after 2007 or around 2030 with a wide range of uncertainty to have several rapid ice loss events occur and to reach nearly sea ice free conditions. While not unreasonable, stochasters is the most ad hoc of the three approaches. 4. Modelers GCMs are major quantitative tools available to provide future climate projections based on physical laws that control the dynamic and thermodynamic processes of the atmosphere, ocean, land and sea ice. Recently, modeling groups around the world have improved their GCMs and made their results available to the wider scientific community through the archive at the Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison (PCMDI). This constitutes the fifth phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5) following the successful third phase (CMIP3). Typically, results from more than twenty models are available. All models show loss of sea ice as greenhouse gas concentrations increase and that Arctic warms faster than lower latitudes. Multiple models simulations are particularly useful in assessing uncertainty due to differences in model structure, natural variability, and different greenhouse gas emission scenarios (Hodson et al. 2012).
A first major difficulty is the wide spread of model hindcast results; they vary by model, location, variable and evaluation metric (Figure 3, Overland et al. 2011, Kwok 2011). Figure 3 is based on the high greenhouse gas emission RCP8.5 scenario (Moss et al. 2010). A second major difficulty is that 80 % of 56 CMIP5 ensemble members have trends for 1979-2011 that are of less magnitude than the two standard deviation bound for the observations (Stroeve et al. 2012, their Figure 3). Thus, there is no ideal all purpose model for the Arctic. It is difficult to pin down the reasons for these two difficulties (Walsh et al. 2008). For example DeWeaver et al. (2008) , Eisenman et al. (2008), Hodson et al. (2012) and Holland et al. (2012) note that the Arctic radiation budget results from complex balances and tradeoffs between sea ice amounts, albedo parameterization, and cloud properties. Another issue is that real world Arctic conditions (sea ice, snow cover) are evolving substantially faster than ensemble means of models (Stroeve et al. 2012, Dirksen et al. 2012). The time series of the grand mean of CMIP5 ensemble members based on the high greenhouse gas emission RCP8.5 scenario for September sea ice (yellow line in Figure 3) never reaches the nearly sea ice free definition of 1.0 M km2 by 2100. Winton (2011) shows that climate models underestimate the sensitivity of Arctic sea ice cover to global temperature change. Further, Boe et al. (2009b) conclude that GCMsf Arctic response to anthropogenic forcing is generally too small. Thus there is ground to consider that models provide a range of projections based on their individual assumptions, rather than providing a collective definitive Arctic climate prediction.
Pavlova et al. (2011) note that the multi-model ensemble mean is closer to the data curve for the late 20th and early 21st centuries for CMIP5 relative to CMIP3 results. However the spread of hindcasts and future trajectories remains large in CMIP5 models (Figure 3, also see Figure 1 in Massonnet et al. 2012). Boe et al. (2010), Hodson et al. (2012) and Massonnet et al. (2012), among others, note that the rate of sea ice loss in models depends on the amount of sea ice present. Thus there is concern with projections from models that do not simulate the amount of observed sea ice near the end of the 20th century. There are four major evaluations of sea ice projections in the set of CMIP5 GCMs: Pavlova et al. (2011), Stroeve et al. (2012), Wang and Overland (2012), and Massonnet et al. (2012), and one detailed review for the CCSM4 model (Vavrus et al 2012) and the EC-Earth model (Koenigk et al 2012). The median value for each year of all available CMIP5 ensemble members (blue line in Figure 3) reaches the nearly sea ice free condition near 2060 based on a nearly sea ice free definition of 1.0 M km2. But given the large observed rate of sea ice loss, we are primarly interested in those model ensemble members with the most rapid sea ice loss. The ensemble members of seven models which track closely to recent observed sea ice extents (Wang and Overland 2012) had their earliest nearly sea ice free dates occurring in 2027, 2033, 2035, 2045, 2048, 2049, and 2060, with a mean of 2042. Some individual ensemble members in Figure 3 reach the nearly sea ice free threshold at earlier dates, but many of these ensemble members start with unrealistic low sea ice extents for the late 20th century. Several of the ensemble members of CCSM4 reach the sea ice loss threshold near 2060; this was ten years later than their previous model CCSM3.The EC-Earth model also becomes nearly sea ice free near 2060, but the authors suggest shifting this to 2040 based on the modelfs overestimate of the amount of sea ice in the twentieth century. Thus we put the early limit for sea ice loss based on GCM projections near 2040
This paper should not be used as an argument against further modeling, but quite the opposite. The Arctic community needs credible quantitative climate projections with multiple ensemble members. As noted above, the spread in Figure 3 is not only due to sea ice physics but is related to treatment of clouds, radiation, and atmospheric and ocean dynamics. For the next round of model results, CMIP6, the major goal should be reduction of model uncertainty. Perhaps more model intercomparisons would be a way forward, rather than results provided from a large number of modeling centers produced under short time schedules. 5. Discussion and conclusions We have investigated three approaches to predicting 21st century summer Arctic sea ice loss as represented by trendsetters, stochasters, and modelers. At present it is not possible to completely choose one approach over another, as all approaches have strengths and weaknesses. Models are quantitative, based on physical understanding, and can provide estimates of uncertainty. They all predict an eventual sea ice free Arctic based on increases in greenhouse gas forcing. Modelersf projections for a nearly sea ice free Arctic summer, are mostly in the range of 2030-2060 or later, with a composite of earliest removals near 2040. Yet it is not clear that the observed rapid sea ice loss is represented in the range of model GCM results. Extrapolating current sea ice volume trends seems to capture the influence of the recent rapid loss of multi-year sea ice, yet it will be hard to remove the last sea ice near the North Pole; in 2007 removal of this sea ice required a strong atmospheric and sea ice advection event (Zhang et al. 2008).
Direct extrapolation of sea ice volume, by trendsetters, gives loss projections of 2016 (Maslowski et al 2012, Peter Wadhams 2012, personal communication), which may be minimizing the potential effects of year to year variability. Stochasters acknowledge current conditions and the range of projections suggested by model results, yet point to the lack of being able to forecast the next rapid sea ice loss event. They are saved in part as it will possibly take several such events to reach the nearly sea ice free threshold, thus adding some averaging to the final date prediction (hence stochastic). Observations and citations in this article support the conclusion that current rapid Arctic change, especially loss of multiyear sea ice, is likely out of sample for most CMIP5 models. Thus time horizons for summer sea ice loss of these three approaches turns out to be roughly 2020, 2030, and 2040 respectively for trendsetters, stochasters, and modelers. Predictions depend on the weight given to data, understanding of Arctic change processes, and the use of model projections. It is reasonable to conclude Arctic sea ice loss is very likely to occur in the first rather than the second half of the 21st Century, with a possibility of loss within a decade or two. The title of this paper is certainly one of the major questions of interest to Arctic and non-Arctic science and management communities. Large shifts in the Arctic environment represent major observed indicators of global climate change. Available evidence suggests that scientists have been conservative in their climate projections, with a late bias in dates for change (Brysse et al. 2012). Ignoring the rate of observed loss of multi-year Arctic sea ice in favor of multi-model results primarily from GCMs may be a further example. The possibility of a nearly sea ice free Arctic within the next three decades, in addition to the precautionary principle, supports the Duarte et al. (2012) conclusion that society should start managing for the reality of climate change in the Arctic.
Acknowledgment. The work is supported by NOAA Arctic Research Project of the Climate Program Office and by the Office of Naval Research, Code 322. Impetus for this article came
Accepted Article
- the_cause2000


List of Stanley Cup championsFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the latest accepted revision, accepted on 21 April 2014.Jump to: navigation, search
The Stanley CupSee also: Stanley Cup Winning players
The Stanley Cup is an ice hockey club trophy, awarded annually to the National Hockey League (NHL) playoffs champion at the conclusion of the Stanley Cup Finals. It was donated by the Governor General of Canada Lord Stanley of Preston in 1892, and is the oldest professional sports trophy in North America.
- BingoLady
- BingoLady[1] Originally inscribed the Dominion Hockey Challenge Cup, the trophy started out as an award for Canada's top-ranking amateur ice hockey club in the Amateur Hockey Association of Canada. In 1915, the two professional ice hockey organizations, the National Hockey Association (NHA) and the Pacific Coast Hockey Association (PCHA), reached a gentlemen's agreement in which their respective champions would face each other for the Stanley Cup. After a series of league mergers and folds, it became the de facto championship trophy of the NHL in 1926. The Cup later became the de jure NHL championship prize in 1947.

Since the 1914–15 season, the trophy has been won a combined 95 times by 18 teams now active in the NHL and five defunct teams. Prior to that, the challenge cup was held by nine different teams. The Montreal Canadiens have won the Stanley Cup 24 times and made the finals an additional ten times. There were two years when the Stanley Cup was not awarded: 1919, because of the Spanish flu epidemic, and 2005, because of the NHL lockout.


Contents [hide]
1 Challenge Cup era (1893–1914)
2 NHA/NHL vs. PCHA/WCHL/WHL champions (1915–1926)
3 NHL champions (Since 1927)
4 Appearances
4.1 Challenge Cup era (1893–1914)
4.2 Stanley Cup Finals era (Since 1915)
4.2.1 Active teams
4.2.2 Defunct teams
5 See also
6 References
7 External links

Challenge Cup era (1893–1914)[edit]
The first Stanley Cup Champions: The Montreal Hockey ClubSee also: List of Stanley Cup challenge games
The origins of the Challenge era come from the method of play of the Amateur Hockey Association of Canada prior to 1893. From 1887 to 1893, the league did not play a round-robin format, but rather challenges between teams of the association that year, with the winner of the series being the 'interim' champion, with the final challenge winner becoming the league champion for the year. The Stanley Cup kept the tradition going, but added league championships as another way that a team could win the trophy. If a team in the same league as the current champion won the league championship, it would then inherit the Cup, without a challenge. The only time this rule was not followed was in 1904, when the Ottawa Senators club withdrew from its league, the CAHL. The trustees ruled that the Cup stayed with Ottawa, instead of the CAHL league champion.

During the challenge cup period, none of the leagues that played for the trophy had a formal playoff system to decide their respective champions; whichever team finished in first place after the regular season won the league title.[2] A playoff would only be played if teams tied for first-place in their leagues at the end of the regular season. Challenge games were played until 1912 at any time during hockey season by challenges approved and/or ordered by the Stanley Cup trustees. In 1912, Cup trustees declared that it was only to be defended at the end of the champion team's regular season.[3]

In 1908, the Allan Cup was introduced as the trophy for Canada's amateurs, as the Stanley Cup became a symbol of professional hockey supremacy.[4]

This table lists the outcome of all Stanley Cup wins, including successful victories and defenses in challenges, and league championships for the challenge era.

Date Winning team Coach Losing team Playoff format Score Winning goal
March 17, 1893 Montreal Hockey Club (AHAC) Harry Shaw (mgr.) 1893 AHAC champions, no challengers
March 22, 1894 Montreal Hockey Club (AHAC) Harry Shaw (mgr.) Ottawa HC (AHAC) Single-elimination
(1894 AHAC championship playoff) 3–1 Billy Barlow (9:00, third qtr)
March 8, 1895 Montreal Victorias (AHAC)[A] Mike Grant (capt.) 1895 AHAC Champion
March 9, 1895 Montreal Hockey Club (AHAC)[A] Harry Shaw (mgr.) Queen's University(OHA) Single-elimination 5 – 1
February 14, 1896 Winnipeg Victorias (MHA) Jack Armytage (capt.) Montreal Victorias (AHAC) Single-elimination 2–0 Jack Armytage (10:00, first half)[5][6]
February 29, 1896 Winnipeg Victorias (MHA) Jack Armytage (capt.) 1896 MHA champion[7]
December 30, 1896 Montreal Victorias (AHAC) Mike Grant (capt.) Winnipeg Victorias (MHA) Single-elimination 6–5 Ernie McLea (28:00, second half)
March 6, 1897 Montreal Victorias (AHAC) Mike Grant (capt.) 1897 AHAC Champion
December 27, 1897 Montreal Victorias (AHAC) Mike Grant (capt.) Ottawa Capitals (CCHA) Single-elimination[B] 15–2
March 5, 1898 Montreal Victorias (AHAC) Frank Richardson 1898 AHAC Champion
February 15–18, 1899 Montreal Victorias (CAHL) Frank Richardson Winnipeg Victorias (MHA) Two-game total goals 5–3 Robert MacDougall (second half)
March 4, 1899 Montreal Shamrocks (CAHL) Barney Dunphy 1899 CAHL Champion
March 14, 1899 Montreal Shamrocks (CAHL) Barney Dunphy Queen's University (OHA) Single-elimination 6–2 Harry Trihey
February 12–15, 1900 Montreal Shamrocks (CAHL) Barney Dunphy Winnipeg Victorias (MHA) Best-of-three 2–1 Harry Trihey (second half)
March 7, 1900 Montreal Shamrocks (CAHL) Barney Dunphy Halifax Crescents (MaPHL) Best-of-three 2–0 Joe McKenna
March 10, 1900 Montreal Shamrocks (CAHL) Barney Dunphy 1900 CAHL Champion
January 29–31, 1901 Winnipeg Victorias (MHA) Dan Bain (capt.) Montreal Shamrocks (CAHL) Best-of-three 2–0 Dan Bain (4:00, OT)
February 19, 1901 Winnipeg Victorias (MHA) Dan Bain (capt.) Winnipeg HC (MHA) Single-elimination
(1901 MHA championship) 4–3[8]
January 21–23, 1902 Winnipeg Victorias (MHA) Dan Bain (capt.) Toronto Wellingtons (OHA) Best-of-three 2–0 Fred Scanlon (9:00, second half)
March, 1902 Winnipeg Victorias (MHA) Dan Bain (capt.) 1902 MHA Champion
March 13–17, 1902 Montreal HC (CAHL) Clarence McKerrow Winnipeg Victorias (MHA) Best-of-three 2–1 Jack Marshall (first half)
January 29–31,
February 2–4, 1903 Montreal HC (CAHL) D. Browne Winnipeg Victorias (MHA) Best-of-three 2–1[C] Tom Phillips
March 7–10, 1903 Ottawa HC (CAHL) Alf Smith Montreal Victorias (CAHL) Two-game total goals
(1903 CAHL championship playoff) 9–1 Suddy Gilmour (4:34, first half, second game)
March 12–14, 1903 Ottawa HC (CAHL) Alf Smith Rat Portage Thistles (MNWHA) Two-game total goals 10–4 Frank McGee (8:20, first half)
Dec 30, 1903, January 1–4, 1904 Ottawa HC (CAHL) Alf Smith-playing Winnipeg Rowing Club (MHA) Best-of-three 2–1 Frank McGee (11:00, second half)
February 23–25, 1904 Ottawa HC[D] Alf Smith-playing Toronto Marlboros (OHA) Best-of-three 2–0 Arthur Moore (9:38, first half)
March 2, 1904 Ottawa HC[D] Alf Smith-playing Montreal Wanderers (FAHL) Two-game total goals [E]
March 9–11, 1904 Ottawa HC[D] Alf Smith-playing Brandon Wheat Cities (MNWHA) Best-of-three 2–0 Frank McGee (18:00, first half)
January 13–16, 1905 Ottawa HC (FAHL) Alf Smith-playing Dawson City Nuggets Best-of-three 2–0 Harry Westwick (12:15, first half)
March 3, 1905 Ottawa HC (FAHL) Alf Smith-playing 1905 FAHL Champion
March 7–9-11, 1905 Ottawa HC (FAHL) Alf Smith-playing Rat Portage Thistles (MHL) Best-of-three 2–1 Frank McGee
February 27–28, 1906 Ottawa HC (ECAHA) Alf Smith-playing Queen's University (OHA) Best-of-three 2–0 Harvey Pulford (10:00, second half)
March 6–8, 1906 Ottawa HC (ECAHA) Alf Smith-playing Smiths Falls HC(FAHL) Best-of-three 2–0 Frank McGee (17:45, first half)
March 14–17, 1906 Montreal Wanderers (ECAHA) Cecil Blachford-playing Ottawa HC (ECAHA) Two-game total goals
(1906 ECAHA championship playoff) 12–10 Lester Patrick
December 27–29, 1906 Montreal Wanderers (ECAHA) Cecil Blachford-playing New Glasgow Cubs (MaHL) Two-game total goals 17–5
January 21–23, 1907 Kenora Thistles (MPHL) James Link Montreal Wanderers (ECAHA) Two-game total goals 12–8 Roxy Beaudro
March 16–18, 1907 Kenora Thistles (MPHL) James Link Brandon Wheat Cities (MPHL) Best-of-three
(1907 MPHL championship) 2–0 Fred Whitcroft (19:00, first half)[9]
March 23–25, 1907 Montreal Wanderers (ECAHA) Lester Patrick (capt.) Kenora Thistles (MPHL) Two-game total goals 12–8 Ernest "Moose" Johnson
January 9–13, 1908 Montreal Wanderers (ECAHA) Cecil Blachford (capt.) Ottawa Victorias (FAHL) Two-game total goals 22–4 Frank Glass (25:00, first half, first game)[10]
March 7, 1908 Montreal Wanderers (ECAHA) Cecil Blachford (capt.) 1908 ECAHA Champions
March 10–12, 1908 Montreal Wanderers (ECAHA) Cecil Blachford (capt.) Winnipeg Maple Leafs (MPHL) Two-game total goals 20–8
March 14, 1908 Montreal Wanderers (ECAHA) Cecil Blachford (capt.) Toronto (OPHL) Single-elimination 6–4 Ernest "Moose" Johnson
December 28–30, 1908 Montreal Wanderers (ECAHA) Cecil Blachford (capt.) Edmonton Hockey Club (AAHA) Two-game total goals 13–10
March 6, 1909 Ottawa HC (ECAHA) Pete Green 1909 ECAHA champions
January 5–7, 1910 Ottawa HC (CHA) Pete Green Galt HC (OPHL) Two-game total goals 15–4 Bruce Ridpath (second half)
January 18–20, 1910 Ottawa HC (NHA) Pete Green Edmonton Hockey Club (AAHA) Two-game total goals 21–11 Bruce Stuart (23:45, first half)
March 9, 1910 Montreal Wanderers (NHA) Frank "Pud" Glass (capt.) 1910 NHA Champion
March 12, 1910 Montreal Wanderers (NHA) Frank "Pud" Glass (capt.) Berlin Dutchmen (OPHL) Single-elimination 7–3 Harry Hyland (22:00, first half)
March 10, 1911 Ottawa HC (NHA) Pete Green 1911 NHA Champions
March 13, 1911 Ottawa HC (NHA) Pete Green Galt HC (OPHL) Single-elimination 7–4 Marty Walsh (5:00, third)
March 16, 1911 Ottawa HC (NHA) Pete Green Port Arthur Bearcats
(New Ontario Hockey League) Single-elimination 13–4 Marty Walsh (4:30, second)
March 5, 1912 Quebec Bulldogs (NHA) Charles Nollan 1912 NHA Champions
March 11–13, 1912 Quebec Bulldogs (NHA) Charles Nolan Moncton Victorias (MaPHL) Best-of-three 2–0 Joe Malone (18:00, first)
March 5, 1913 Quebec Bulldogs (NHA) Joe Malone (capt.) 1913 NHA Champions
March 8–10, 1913 Quebec Bulldogs (NHA) Joe Malone (capt.) Sydney Millionaires (MaPHL) Two-game total goals 20–5
March 7–11, 1914 Toronto Hockey Club (NHA) Scotty Davidson (capt.) Montreal Canadiens (NHA) Two-game total goals
(1914 NHA championship playoff) 6–2 Scotty Davidson (2:00, third)
March 14–17-19, 1914 Toronto Hockey Club (NHA) Scotty Davidson (capt.) Victoria Aristocrats (PCHA) Best-of-five 3–0 [F] Harry Cameron (6:00, third)

Notes
^ A. Although the Montreal Victorias won the AHAC title in 1895, the Stanley Cup trustees had already accepted a challenge from the 1894 Cup champion Montreal HC and Queen's University. As a compromise, the trustees decided that if the Montreal HC won the challenge match, the Victorias would become the Stanley Cup champions. The Montreals eventually won the game, 5–1, and their crosstown rivals were awarded the Cup.

^ B. Intended to be a best-of-three series, Ottawa Capitals withdrew their challenge after the first game.

^ C. The January 31 (a Saturday) game was tied 2–2 at midnight and the Mayor of Westmount refused to allow play to continue on the Sunday. The game was played on February 2 (a Monday) and the January 31 game was considered to be void.[11]

^ D. For most of 1904, the Ottawa Senators were not affiliated with any league.

^ E. The Montreal Wanderers were disqualified as the result of a dispute. After game one ended tied at the end of regulation, 5–5, the Wanderers refused to play overtime with the current referee, and then subsequently refused to play the next game of the series in Ottawa.

^ F. During the series, it was revealed that the Victoria club had not filed a formal challenge. A letter arrived from the Stanley Cup trustees on March 17, stating that the trustees would not let the Stanley Cup travel west, as they did not consider Victoria a proper challenger because they had not formally notified the trustees.[12] However, on March 18, Trustee William Foran stated that it was a misunderstanding. PCHA president Frank Patrick had not filed a challenge, because he had expected Emmett Quinn, president of the NHA to make all of the arrangements in his role as hockey commissioner, whereas the trustees thought they were being deliberately ignored. In any case, all arrangements had been ironed out and the Victoria challenge was accepted.[13][14]

Sources
Coleman, Charles L. (1964). The Trail of the Stanley Cup, vol. 1, 1893–1926 inc. Sherbrooke, Quebec: Sherbrooke Daily Record Company Limited.
Montreal Gazette
Ottawa Citizen
Ottawa Journal
Winnipeg Tribune
NHA/NHL vs. PCHA/WCHL/WHL champions (1915–1926)[edit]Several days after the Victoria Aristocrats challenge of the Toronto Hockey Club, Stanley Cup trustee William Foran wrote to NHA president Emmett Quinn that the trustees are "perfectly satisfied to allow the representatives of the three pro leagues (NHA, PCHA, and Maritime) to make all arrangements each season as to the series of matches to be played for the Cup."[15] One year later, the NHA and the PCHA concluded a gentlemen's agreement in which their respective champions would face each other for the Cup. Under the new proposal, the Stanley Cup championship finals alternated between the East and the West each year, with alternating games played according to NHA and PCHA rules.[16] The Cup trustees agreed to this new arrangement, because after the Allan Cup became the highest prize for amateur hockey teams in Canada, the trustees had become dependent on the top two professional leagues to bolster the prominence of the trophy.[17] After the Portland Rosebuds, an American-based team, joined the PCHA in 1914, the trustees issued a statement that the Cup was no longer for the best team in Canada, but now for the best team in the world.[16] Two years later, the Rosebuds became the first American team to play in the Stanley Cup championship final.[17] In 1917, the Seattle Metropolitans became the first American team to win the Cup.[18] After that season, the NHA dissolved, and the National Hockey League (NHL) took its place.[16]

In 1919, the Spanish influenza epidemic forced the Montreal Canadiens and the Seattle Metropolitans to cancel their series tied at 2–2–1, marking the first time the Stanley Cup was not awarded.[19]

The format for the Stanley Cup championship changed in 1922, with the creation of the Western Canada Hockey League (WCHL). Now three leagues competed for the Cup and this necessitated a semi-final series between two league champions, with the third having a bye directly to the final.[20] In 1924, the PCHA folded and only the Vancouver and Victoria teams entered the WCHL. With the loss of the PCHA, the championship reverted to a single series.[21] After their win in 1925, the Victoria Cougars became the last team outside the NHL to win the Stanley Cup.[22] For the 1925–26 season the WCHL was renamed the Western Hockey League (WHL). With the Victoria Cougars' loss in 1926, it would be the last time a non-NHL team competed for the Stanley Cup.

Year Winning team Coach Losing team Coach Games Winning goal
1915 Vancouver Millionaires (PCHA) Frank Patrick-playing Ottawa Senators (NHA) Frank Shaughnessy (mgr.) 3–0 Barney Stanley (5:30, second)
1916 Montreal Canadiens (NHA) Newsy Lalonde-playing Portland Rosebuds (PCHA) Edward Savage (mgr.) 3–2 George Prodgers (17:20, third)
1917 Seattle Metropolitans (PCHA) Pete Muldoon Montreal Canadiens (NHA) Newsy Lalonde-playing 3–1 Bernie Morris (7:55, first)
1918 Toronto[23] (NHL) Richard Carroll Vancouver Millionaires (PCHA) Frank Patrick-playing 3–2 Corb Denneny (10:30, third)
1919 Montreal Canadiens (NHL) vs. Seattle Metropolitans (PCHA) – Series cancelled after the fifth game because of the flu epidemic – Stanley Cup not awarded
1920 Ottawa Senators (NHL) Pete Green Seattle Metropolitans (PCHA) Pete Muldoon 3–2 Jack Darragh (5:00, third)
1921 Ottawa Senators (NHL) Pete Green Vancouver Millionaires (PCHA) Frank Patrick-playing 3–2 Jack Darragh (9:40, second)
1922 Toronto St. Pats (NHL) George O'Donoghue Vancouver Millionaires (PCHA) Frank Patrick-playing 3–2 Babe Dye (4:20, first)
1923 Ottawa Senators (NHL) Pete Green Edmonton Eskimos (WCHL) Ken McKenzine 2–0 Punch Broadbent (11:23, first)
1924 Montreal Canadiens (NHL) Léo Dandurand Calgary Tigers (WCHL) Eddie Oatman-playing 2–0 Howie Morenz (4:55, first)
1925 Victoria Cougars (WCHL) Lester Patrick Montreal Canadiens (NHL) Léo Dandurand 3–1 Gizzy Hart (2:35, second)
1926 Montreal Maroons (NHL) Eddie Gerard Victoria Cougars (WHL) Lester Patrick 3–1 Nels Stewart (2:50, second)

NHL champions (Since 1927)[edit]The WHL folded in 1926, and its assets were bought by the NHL. This left the NHL as the only league left competing for the Cup. Other leagues and clubs have issued challenges, but from that year forward, no non-NHL team has played for it, leading it to become the de facto championship trophy of the NHL.[21] In 1947, the NHL reached an agreement with trustees P. D. Ross and Cooper Smeaton to grant control of the cup to the NHL, allowing the league itself to reject challenges from other leagues that may have wished to play for the Cup.[24][25] A 2006 Ontario Superior Court case found that the trustees had gone against Lord Stanley's conditions in the 1947 agreement.[26] The NHL has agreed to allow other teams to play for the Cup should the league not be operating, as was the case in the 2004–05 NHL lockout.[25]

Since 1927, the league's playoff format, deciding which teams advanced to the Stanley Cup Finals, has changed multiple times. In some systems that were previously used, playoff teams were seeded regardless of division or conference. Since 1982, the Finals have been played between the league's conference playoff champions.

Year Winning team Coach Losing team Coach Games Winning goal
1927 Ottawa Senators (C) Dave Gill Boston Bruins (A) Art Ross 2–0–2 Cy Denneny (7:30, second)
1928 New York Rangers (A) Lester Patrick-playing Montreal Maroons (C) Eddie Gerard 3–2 Frank Boucher (3:35, third)
1929 Boston Bruins (A) Cy Denneny-playing New York Rangers (A) Lester Patrick 2–0 Bill Carson (18:02, third)
1930 Montreal Canadiens (C) Cecil Hart Boston Bruins (A) Art Ross 2–0 Howie Morenz (1:00, second)
1931 Montreal Canadiens (C) Cecil Hart Chicago Black Hawks (A) Richard Irvin 3–2 Johnny Gagnon (9:59, second)
1932 Toronto Maple Leafs (C) Richard Irvin New York Rangers (A) Lester Patrick 3–0 Ace Bailey (15:07, third)
1933 New York Rangers (A) Lester Patrick Toronto Maple Leafs (C) Richard Irvin 3–1 Bill Cook (7:34, OT)
1934 Chicago Black Hawks (A) Tommy Gorman Detroit Red Wings (A) Jack Adams 3–1 Mush March (10:05, second OT)
1935 Montreal Maroons (C) Tommy Gorman Toronto Maple Leafs (C) Richard Irvin 3–0 Baldy Northcott (16:18, second)
1936 Detroit Red Wings (A) Jack Adams Toronto Maple Leafs (C) Richard Irvin 3–1 Pete Kelly (9:45, third)
1937 Detroit Red Wings (A) Jack Adams New York Rangers (A) Lester Patrick 3–2 Marty Barry (19:22, first)
1938 Chicago Black Hawks (A) Bill Stewart Toronto Maple Leafs (C) Richard Irvin 3–1 Carl Voss (16:45, second)
1939 Boston Bruins Art Ross Toronto Maple Leafs Richard Irvin 4–1 Roy Conacher (17:54, second)
1940 New York Rangers Frank Boucher Toronto Maple Leafs Richard Irvin 4–2 Bryan Hextall (2:07, OT)
1941 Boston Bruins Cooney Weiland Detroit Red Wings Jack Adams 4–0 Bobby Bauer (8:43, second)
1942 Toronto Maple Leafs Hap Day Detroit Red Wings Jack Adams 4–3 Pete Langelle (9:48, third)
1943 Detroit Red Wings Jack Adams Boston Bruins Art Ross 4–0 Joe Carveth (12:09, first)
1944 Montreal Canadiens Richard Irvin Chicago Black Hawks Paul Thompson 4–0 Toe Blake (9:12, OT)
1945 Toronto Maple Leafs Hap Day Detroit Red Wings Jack Adams 4–3 Babe Pratt (12:14, third)
1946 Montreal Canadiens Richard Irvin Boston Bruins Dit Clapper 4–1 Toe Blake (11:06, third)
1947 Toronto Maple Leafs Hap Day Montreal Canadiens Richard Irvin 4–2 Ted Kennedy (14:39, third)
1948 Toronto Maple Leafs Hap Day Detroit Red Wings Tommy Ivan 4–0 Harry Watson (11:13, first)
1949 Toronto Maple Leafs Hap Day Detroit Red Wings Tommy Ivan 4–0 Cal Gardner (19:45, second)
1950 Detroit Red Wings Tommy Ivan New York Rangers Lynn Patrick 4–3 Pete Babando (8:31, second OT)
1951 Toronto Maple Leafs Joe Primeau Montreal Canadiens Richard Irvin 4–1 Bill Barilko (2:53, OT)
1952 Detroit Red Wings Tommy Ivan Montreal Canadiens Richard Irvin 4–0 Metro Prystai (6:50, first)
1953 Montreal Canadiens Richard Irvin Boston Bruins Lynn Patrick 4–1 Elmer Lach (1:22, OT)
1954 Detroit Red Wings Tommy Ivan Montreal Canadiens Richard Irvin 4–3 Tony Leswick (4:20, OT)
1955 Detroit Red Wings Jimmy Skinner Montreal Canadiens Richard Irvin 4–3 Gordie Howe (19:49, second)
1956 Montreal Canadiens Toe Blake Detroit Red Wings Jimmy Skinner 4–1 Maurice Richard (15:08, second)
1957 Montreal Canadiens Toe Blake Boston Bruins Milt Schmidt 4–1 Richardie Moore (0:14, second)
1958 Montreal Canadiens Toe Blake Boston Bruins Milt Schmidt 4–2 Bernie Geoffrion (19:26, second)
1959 Montreal Canadiens Toe Blake Toronto Maple Leafs Punch Imlach 4–1 Marcel Bonin (9:55, second)
1960 Montreal Canadiens Toe Blake Toronto Maple Leafs Punch Imlach 4–0 Jean Beliveau (8:16, first)
1961 Chicago Black Hawks Rudy Pilous Detroit Red Wings Sid Abel 4–2 Ab McDonald (18:49, second)
1962 Toronto Maple Leafs Punch Imlach Chicago Black Hawks Rudy Pilous 4–2 Richard Duff (14:14, third)
1963 Toronto Maple Leafs Punch Imlach Detroit Red Wings Sid Abel 4–1 Eddie Shack (13:28, third)
1964 Toronto Maple Leafs Punch Imlach Detroit Red Wings Sid Abel 4–3 Andy Bathgate (3:04, first)
1965 Montreal Canadiens Toe Blake Chicago Black Hawks Billy Reay 4–3 Jean Beliveau (0:14, first)
1966 Montreal Canadiens Toe Blake Detroit Red Wings Sid Abel 4–2 Henri Richard (2:20, OT)
1967 Toronto Maple Leafs Punch Imlach Montreal Canadiens Toe Blake 4–2 Jim Pappin (19:24, second)
1968 Montreal Canadiens (E) Toe Blake St. Louis Blues (W) Scotty Bowman 4–0 J. C. Tremblay (11:40, third)
1969 Montreal Canadiens (E) Claude Ruel St. Louis Blues (W) Scotty Bowman 4–0 John Ferguson (3:02, third)
1970 Boston Bruins (E) Harry Sinden St. Louis Blues (W) Scotty Bowman 4–0 Bobby Orr (0:40, OT)
1971 Montreal Canadiens (E) Al MacNeil Chicago Black Hawks

you were supposed to bold the important parts.

Why Florida’s record-setting hurricane drought portends danger

Florida has gone 3,270 days without a hurricane – nearly nine years and, by far, the longest stretch on record (the next longest streak is 5 seasons from 1980-1984, in records dating back to 1851). Meanwhile, the Sunshine state’s population and development have boomed.

http://www.washingtonpost...-drought-portends-danger/

Atlantic Hurricane Season Among Weakest in Decades

This year's Atlantic hurricane season is shaping up to be one of the weakest in decades with only five named storms in the region so far this year.

That is the fewest named storms since the full Atlantic season of 1983, when there were four. The 1994 season also had only five named storms into October, then two hurricanes formed in early November of that year.

Al Gore and his hoaxer cohorts called for an increase in Hurricanes 20 years ago.........another in a long list of false predictions for the sheeple, that has not come true.

Lock this

Afraid of the truth?

Truth = twenty years of measured data vs PC model predictions from 20 years ago that have not been close to accurate





Record Antarctic ice, on a planet warming due to human activity? Sound confusing? Sound “weird”? Sure, but only because it is.

We’ve been told for more than a quarter century that human activity is causing the Earth to warm, which would lead to a melting of ice everywhere and coastal cities under water. It was a foregone conclusion — it was “SCIENCE!”

As the old joke goes, “If you want to make God laugh, make a plan.”

Science, of course, is not faith. Or, at least, it didn’t used to be.

The Washington Post had a story Tuesday entitled, “Scientists explain why record-high Antarctic sea ice doesn’t mean global warming isn’t happening.” With a title like that, you’d think it would contain, you know, an “explanation.” But it doesn’t.

Maybe they forgot to add the words “attempt to” in their headline…

They quote Claire Parkinson, a senior scientist with NASA, as saying, “There hasn’t been one explanation yet that I’d say has become a consensus, where people say, ‘We’ve nailed it, this is why it’s happening.’” That’s kind of the exact opposite of the headline, if you’re playing along at home.

The Antarctic has more ice than ever before (again, for those of you playing along at home, you don’t make ice cubes in the oven) and scientists are scrambling to figure out why. This scramble is doubly curious since we’ve been told repeatedly that we’re dealing with “settled science.”

Curiously, in a field where “the debate is settled,” debate rages as to why the opposite of what they said would happen is happening. Never fear, the Post says: “But while it might seem that this record throws into question the validity of global warming, scientists say this just isn’t the case.” Then they start one paragraph with, “One possible explanation” and the next with “Another possibility,” then quote Parkinson…

A journalism student would be embarrassed to write that, and this is the Washington Post.

“The increase we’re seeing in the Antarctic extent is a little bit of a mystery,” says NASA research scientist Walt Meier (in the Post’s video). He says the Earth’s poles are “kind of the canary in a coal mine of global warming,” which just adds to the confusion.

Never fear, the Post reports, “scientists say that more research is needed to understand the observations.”

Just so we have this straight, this is “settled science” which is “beyond debate,” and we are expected to relinquish even more control of our lives, money, and property to government because self-appointed experts on their payroll assure us something bad will happen in 100 years if we don’t. Meanwhile, the exact opposite of what our learned betters told us would happen is happening, but that does not cause pause, it requires more study (READ: money).

Science used to require proof — now it only requires a show of hands. It would be interesting to see what would happen if pro-lifers flooded the field of biology, then took a vote on when life began. It’s a near-guarantee the “science as majority vote” crowd as currently constituted would have a “come to Gaia” moment and commit heresy in the new Church of Science.

Afraid of the truth?

Truth = twenty years of measured data vs PC model predictions from 20 years ago that have not been close to accurate





Record Antarctic ice, on a planet warming due to human activity? Sound confusing? Sound “weird”? Sure, but only because it is.

We’ve been told for more than a quarter century that human activity is causing the Earth to warm, which would lead to a melting of ice everywhere and coastal cities under water. It was a foregone conclusion — it was “SCIENCE!”

As the old joke goes, “If you want to make God laugh, make a plan.”

Science, of course, is not faith. Or, at least, it didn’t used to be.

The Washington Post had a story Tuesday entitled, “Scientists explain why record-high Antarctic sea ice doesn’t mean global warming isn’t happening.” With a title like that, you’d think it would contain, you know, an “explanation.” But it doesn’t.

Maybe they forgot to add the words “attempt to” in their headline…

They quote Claire Parkinson, a senior scientist with NASA, as saying, “There hasn’t been one explanation yet that I’d say has become a consensus, where people say, ‘We’ve nailed it, this is why it’s happening.’” That’s kind of the exact opposite of the headline, if you’re playing along at home.

The Antarctic has more ice than ever before (again, for those of you playing along at home, you don’t make ice cubes in the oven) and scientists are scrambling to figure out why. This scramble is doubly curious since we’ve been told repeatedly that we’re dealing with “settled science.”

Curiously, in a field where “the debate is settled,” debate rages as to why the opposite of what they said would happen is happening. Never fear, the Post says: “But while it might seem that this record throws into question the validity of global warming, scientists say this just isn’t the case.” Then they start one paragraph with, “One possible explanation” and the next with “Another possibility,” then quote Parkinson…

A journalism student would be embarrassed to write that, and this is the Washington Post.

“The increase we’re seeing in the Antarctic extent is a little bit of a mystery,” says NASA research scientist Walt Meier (in the Post’s video). He says the Earth’s poles are “kind of the canary in a coal mine of global warming,” which just adds to the confusion.

Never fear, the Post reports, “scientists say that more research is needed to understand the observations.”

Just so we have this straight, this is “settled science” which is “beyond debate,” and we are expected to relinquish even more control of our lives, money, and property to government because self-appointed experts on their payroll assure us something bad will happen in 100 years if we don’t. Meanwhile, the exact opposite of what our learned betters told us would happen is happening, but that does not cause pause, it requires more study (READ: money).

Science used to require proof — now it only requires a show of hands. It would be interesting to see what would happen if pro-lifers flooded the field of biology, then took a vote on when life began. It’s a near-guarantee the “science as majority vote” crowd as currently constituted would have a “come to Gaia” moment and commit heresy in the new Church of Science.
- Doppleganger

Afraid of the truth?

Truth = twenty years of measured data vs PC model predictions from 20 years ago that have not been close to accurate





Record Antarctic ice, on a planet warming due to human activity? Sound confusing? Sound “weird”? Sure, but only because it is.

We’ve been told for more than a quarter century that human activity is causing the Earth to warm, which would lead to a melting of ice everywhere and coastal cities under water. It was a foregone conclusion — it was “SCIENCE!”

As the old joke goes, “If you want to make God laugh, make a plan.”

Science, of course, is not faith. Or, at least, it didn’t used to be.

The Washington Post had a story Tuesday entitled, “Scientists explain why record-high Antarctic sea ice doesn’t mean global warming isn’t happening.” With a title like that, you’d think it would contain, you know, an “explanation.” But it doesn’t.

Maybe they forgot to add the words “attempt to” in their headline…

They quote Claire Parkinson, a senior scientist with NASA, as saying, “There hasn’t been one explanation yet that I’d say has become a consensus, where people say, ‘We’ve nailed it, this is why it’s happening.’” That’s kind of the exact opposite of the headline, if you’re playing along at home.

The Antarctic has more ice than ever before (again, for those of you playing along at home, you don’t make ice cubes in the oven) and scientists are scrambling to figure out why. This scramble is doubly curious since we’ve been told repeatedly that we’re dealing with “settled science.”

Curiously, in a field where “the debate is settled,” debate rages as to why the opposite of what they said would happen is happening. Never fear, the Post says: “But while it might seem that this record throws into question the validity of global warming, scientists say this just isn’t the case.” Then they start one paragraph with, “One possible explanation” and the next with “Another possibility,” then quote Parkinson…

A journalism student would be embarrassed to write that, and this is the Washington Post.

“The increase we’re seeing in the Antarctic extent is a little bit of a mystery,” says NASA research scientist Walt Meier (in the Post’s video). He says the Earth’s poles are “kind of the canary in a coal mine of global warming,” which just adds to the confusion.

Never fear, the Post reports, “scientists say that more research is needed to understand the observations.”

Just so we have this straight, this is “settled science” which is “beyond debate,” and we are expected to relinquish even more control of our lives, money, and property to government because self-appointed experts on their payroll assure us something bad will happen in 100 years if we don’t. Meanwhile, the exact opposite of what our learned betters told us would happen is happening, but that does not cause pause, it requires more study (READ: money).

Science used to require proof — now it only requires a show of hands. It would be interesting to see what would happen if pro-lifers flooded the field of biology, then took a vote on when life began. It’s a near-guarantee the “science as majority vote” crowd as currently constituted would have a “come to Gaia” moment and commit heresy in the new Church of Science.
- Doppleganger

Afraid of the truth?

Truth = twenty years of measured data vs PC model predictions from 20 years ago that have not been close to accurate





Record Antarctic ice, on a planet warming due to human activity? Sound confusing? Sound “weird”? Sure, but only because it is.

We’ve been told for more than a quarter century that human activity is causing the Earth to warm, which would lead to a melting of ice everywhere and coastal cities under water. It was a foregone conclusion — it was “SCIENCE!”

As the old joke goes, “If you want to make God laugh, make a plan.”

Science, of course, is not faith. Or, at least, it didn’t used to be.

The Washington Post had a story Tuesday entitled, “Scientists explain why record-high Antarctic sea ice doesn’t mean global warming isn’t happening.” With a title like that, you’d think it would contain, you know, an “explanation.” But it doesn’t.

Maybe they forgot to add the words “attempt to” in their headline…

They quote Claire Parkinson, a senior scientist with NASA, as saying, “There hasn’t been one explanation yet that I’d say has become a consensus, where people say, ‘We’ve nailed it, this is why it’s happening.’” That’s kind of the exact opposite of the headline, if you’re playing along at home.

The Antarctic has more ice than ever before (again, for those of you playing along at home, you don’t make ice cubes in the oven) and scientists are scrambling to figure out why. This scramble is doubly curious since we’ve been told repeatedly that we’re dealing with “settled science.”

Curiously, in a field where “the debate is settled,” debate rages as to why the opposite of what they said would happen is happening. Never fear, the Post says: “But while it might seem that this record throws into question the validity of global warming, scientists say this just isn’t the case.” Then they start one paragraph with, “One possible explanation” and the next with “Another possibility,” then quote Parkinson…

A journalism student would be embarrassed to write that, and this is the Washington Post.

“The increase we’re seeing in the Antarctic extent is a little bit of a mystery,” says NASA research scientist Walt Meier (in the Post’s video). He says the Earth’s poles are “kind of the canary in a coal mine of global warming,” which just adds to the confusion.

Never fear, the Post reports, “scientists say that more research is needed to understand the observations.”

Just so we have this straight, this is “settled science” which is “beyond debate,” and we are expected to relinquish even more control of our lives, money, and property to government because self-appointed experts on their payroll assure us something bad will happen in 100 years if we don’t. Meanwhile, the exact opposite of what our learned betters told us would happen is happening, but that does not cause pause, it requires more study (READ: money).

Science used to require proof — now it only requires a show of hands. It would be interesting to see what would happen if pro-lifers flooded the field of biology, then took a vote on when life began. It’s a near-guarantee the “science as majority vote” crowd as currently constituted would have a “come to Gaia” moment and commit heresy in the new Church of Science.
- Doppleganger

Afraid of the truth?

Truth = twenty years of measured data vs PC model predictions from 20 years ago that have not been close to accurate





Record Antarctic ice, on a planet warming due to human activity? Sound confusing? Sound “weird”? Sure, but only because it is.

We’ve been told for more than a quarter century that human activity is causing the Earth to warm, which would lead to a melting of ice everywhere and coastal cities under water. It was a foregone conclusion — it was “SCIENCE!”

As the old joke goes, “If you want to make God laugh, make a plan.”

Science, of course, is not faith. Or, at least, it didn’t used to be.

The Washington Post had a story Tuesday entitled, “Scientists explain why record-high Antarctic sea ice doesn’t mean global warming isn’t happening.” With a title like that, you’d think it would contain, you know, an “explanation.” But it doesn’t.

Maybe they forgot to add the words “attempt to” in their headline…

They quote Claire Parkinson, a senior scientist with NASA, as saying, “There hasn’t been one explanation yet that I’d say has become a consensus, where people say, ‘We’ve nailed it, this is why it’s happening.’” That’s kind of the exact opposite of the headline, if you’re playing along at home.

The Antarctic has more ice than ever before (again, for those of you playing along at home, you don’t make ice cubes in the oven) and scientists are scrambling to figure out why. This scramble is doubly curious since we’ve been told repeatedly that we’re dealing with “settled science.”

Curiously, in a field where “the debate is settled,” debate rages as to why the opposite of what they said would happen is happening. Never fear, the Post says: “But while it might seem that this record throws into question the validity of global warming, scientists say this just isn’t the case.” Then they start one paragraph with, “One possible explanation” and the next with “Another possibility,” then quote Parkinson…

A journalism student would be embarrassed to write that, and this is the Washington Post.

“The increase we’re seeing in the Antarctic extent is a little bit of a mystery,” says NASA research scientist Walt Meier (in the Post’s video). He says the Earth’s poles are “kind of the canary in a coal mine of global warming,” which just adds to the confusion.

Never fear, the Post reports, “scientists say that more research is needed to understand the observations.”

Just so we have this straight, this is “settled science” which is “beyond debate,” and we are expected to relinquish even more control of our lives, money, and property to government because self-appointed experts on their payroll assure us something bad will happen in 100 years if we don’t. Meanwhile, the exact opposite of what our learned betters told us would happen is happening, but that does not cause pause, it requires more study (READ: money).

Science used to require proof — now it only requires a show of hands. It would be interesting to see what would happen if pro-lifers flooded the field of biology, then took a vote on when life began. It’s a near-guarantee the “science as majority vote” crowd as currently constituted would have a “come to Gaia” moment and commit heresy in the new Church of Science.
- Doppleganger

Afraid of the truth?

Truth = twenty years of measured data vs PC model predictions from 20 years ago that have not been close to accurate





Record Antarctic ice, on a planet warming due to human activity? Sound confusing? Sound “weird”? Sure, but only because it is.

We’ve been told for more than a quarter century that human activity is causing the Earth to warm, which would lead to a melting of ice everywhere and coastal cities under water. It was a foregone conclusion — it was “SCIENCE!”

As the old joke goes, “If you want to make God laugh, make a plan.”

Science, of course, is not faith. Or, at least, it didn’t used to be.

The Washington Post had a story Tuesday entitled, “Scientists explain why record-high Antarctic sea ice doesn’t mean global warming isn’t happening.” With a title like that, you’d think it would contain, you know, an “explanation.” But it doesn’t.

Maybe they forgot to add the words “attempt to” in their headline…

They quote Claire Parkinson, a senior scientist with NASA, as saying, “There hasn’t been one explanation yet that I’d say has become a consensus, where people say, ‘We’ve nailed it, this is why it’s happening.’” That’s kind of the exact opposite of the headline, if you’re playing along at home.

The Antarctic has more ice than ever before (again, for those of you playing along at home, you don’t make ice cubes in the oven) and scientists are scrambling to figure out why. This scramble is doubly curious since we’ve been told repeatedly that we’re dealing with “settled science.”

Curiously, in a field where “the debate is settled,” debate rages as to why the opposite of what they said would happen is happening. Never fear, the Post says: “But while it might seem that this record throws into question the validity of global warming, scientists say this just isn’t the case.” Then they start one paragraph with, “One possible explanation” and the next with “Another possibility,” then quote Parkinson…

A journalism student would be embarrassed to write that, and this is the Washington Post.

“The increase we’re seeing in the Antarctic extent is a little bit of a mystery,” says NASA research scientist Walt Meier (in the Post’s video). He says the Earth’s poles are “kind of the canary in a coal mine of global warming,” which just adds to the confusion.

Never fear, the Post reports, “scientists say that more research is needed to understand the observations.”

Just so we have this straight, this is “settled science” which is “beyond debate,” and we are expected to relinquish even more control of our lives, money, and property to government because self-appointed experts on their payroll assure us something bad will happen in 100 years if we don’t. Meanwhile, the exact opposite of what our learned betters told us would happen is happening, but that does not cause pause, it requires more study (READ: money).

Science used to require proof — now it only requires a show of hands. It would be interesting to see what would happen if pro-lifers flooded the field of biology, then took a vote on when life began. It’s a near-guarantee the “science as majority vote” crowd as currently constituted would have a “come to Gaia” moment and commit heresy in the new Church of Science.
- Doppleganger

please bold the important parts

please bold the important parts
- the_cause2000

he did.

he did.
- kicksave856

lol

Satellite Data Shows September Was NOT The Warmest On Record


Media outlets have been tirelessly reporting new data claiming that September 2014 was the hottest on record, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

But satellite data shows that last month was far from the hottest September ever recorded. University of Alabama, Huntsville satellite datasets show that September was the seventh warmest on record and Remote Sensing Systems datasets show last month was only the ninth warmest ever recorded.http://dailycaller.com/20...ot-the-warmest-on-record/

http://www.weather.com/ne...eak-luck-run-out-20140801