Could this mysterious glowing orb have something to do with climate change? Surely not!

http://blogs.telegraph.co...pcc-admits-the-jig-is-up/

Breaking news from the US – h/t Watts Up With That? – where a leaked draft of the IPCC's latest report AR5 admits what some of us have suspected for a very long time: that the case for man-made global warming is looking weaker by the day and that the sun plays a much more significant role in "climate change" than the scientific "consensus" has previously been prepared to concede.

Here's the killer admission:

Many empirical relationships have been reported between GCR or cosmogenic isotope archives and some aspects of the climate system (e.g., Bond et al., 2001; Dengel et al., 2009; Ram and Stolz, 1999). The forcing from changes in total solar irradiance alone does not seem to account for these observations, implying the existence of an amplifying mechanism such as the hypothesized GCR-cloud link. We focus here on observed relationships between GCR and aerosol and cloud properties.

As the leaker explains, this is a game-changer:

The admission of strong evidence for enhanced solar forcing changes everything. The climate alarmists can’t continue to claim that warming was almost entirely due to human activity over a period when solar warming effects, now acknowledged to be important, were at a maximum. The final draft of AR5 WG1 is not scheduled to be released for another year but the public needs to know now how the main premises and conclusions of the IPCC story line have been undercut by the IPCC itself.

Over to you greentards. I look forward to reading your extravagant apologias as to why this is a story of no significance and that it's business as usual for the great Climate Change Ponzi scheme.

Who are the greentards exactly, you (frank)ing clown?

2899 Record cold temps vs 667 record warm temps in U.S. — From July 24 to August 19




http://wx.hamweather.com/...ntemp,snow,lowmax,highmin

2899 Record cold temps vs 667 record warm temps in U.S. — From July 24 to August 19




http://wx.hamweather.com/...ntemp,snow,lowmax,highmin
- Doppleganger

this link does not work for me

The New York Times' Global Warming Hysteria Ignores 17 Years Of Flat Global Temperatures

What Evidence Exists of Human CO2 Influences on Climate?

All IPCC climate models incorporate theory which predicts that “anthropogenic” (human-caused) global warming will be evident in an “amplification” of a surface warming trend that is revealed as an atmospheric “hot spot” in the tropical troposphere. Instead, both satellite data and independent balloon data show a near-zero trend from 1979 to 1997, followed by a well-known 1998 temp “spike” which is universally attributed to a Super-El- Niño. This absence of an observed hot spot suggests that the land-surface temperature warming trend (1979-1997) is greatly overestimated, and should be close to zero in the Tropics.

So where does the evidence needed to support the IPCC’s 95 percent certainty claim come from? The true answer is that there simply isn’t any. None at all. There never was…only totally unproven theoretical climate models.


READ entire article http://www.forbes.com/sit...flat-global-temperatures/

Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

By: Marc Morano - Climate DepotAugust 21, 2013 9:34 PM

Here is a very small sampling of what current and former UN scientists have to say about the UN’s climate claims and its scientific methods.

Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists.” – Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.

“Temperature measurements show that the [climate model-predicted mid-troposphere] hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them!”- UN IPCC Scientist Dr. Steven M. Japar, a PhD atmospheric chemist who was part of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Second (1995) and Third (2001) Assessment Reports, and has authored 83 peer-reviewed publications and in the areas of climate change, atmospheric chemistry, air pollutions and vehicle emissions.

UN IPCC Scientist Kenneth P. Green Declares ‘A Death Spiral for Climate Alarmism’ – September 30, 2009 – ‘We can expect climate crisis industry to grow increasingly shrill, and increasingly hostile toward anyone who questions their authority’ - Dr. Kenneth Green was a Working Group 1 expert reviewer for the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2001

‘The whole climate change issue is about to fall apart — Heads will roll!’ -South African UN Scientist Dr. Will Alexander, April 12, 2009 – Professor Alexander, is Emeritus of the Department of Civil and Biosystems Engineering at the University of Pretoria in South Africa, and a former member of the United Nations Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters.

“I was at the table with three Europeans, and we were having lunch. And they were talking about their role as lead authors. And they were talking about how they were trying to make the report so dramatic that the United States would just have to sign that Kyoto Protocol,” Christy told CNN on May 2, 2007. – Alabama State Climatologist Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, served as a UN IPCC lead author in 2001 for the 3rd assessment report and detailed how he personally witnessed UN scientists attempting to distort the science for political purposes.

“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” – Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.

“The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the natural circulation between air, water and soil… I am doing a detailed assessment of the UN IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science.” – South African Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications.

“The claims of the IPCC are dangerous unscientific nonsense” – declared IPCC reviewer and climate researcher Dr Vincent Gray, of New Zealand in 2007. Gray was an expert reviewer on every single draft of the IPCC reports going back to 1990, author of more than 100 scientific publications. (LINK) & (LINK)

“After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri’s asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it’s hard to remain quiet.” – Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society’s Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.

UN IPCC Lead Author Tom Tripp Dissents on man-made warming: ‘We’re not scientifically there yet’ – July 16, 2009

The UN IPCC’s Kevin Trenberth’s claim that the UN IPCC is an “very open” also needs examining. The IPCC summary for policymakers is used to scare politicians and goad the public into action. The UN is all about politics.

UN special climate envoy Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland declared “it’s completely immoral, even, to question” the UN’s alleged global warming “consensus,” according to a May 10, 2007 article. Sounds scientific, doesn’t it?

Dr. John Brignell, a UK Emeritus Engineering Professor at the University of Southampton who held the Chair in Industrial Instrumentation at Southampton, accused the UN of “censorship” on July 23, 2008. “Here was a purely political body posing as a scientific institution. Through the power of patronage it rapidly attracted acolytes. Peer review soon rapidly evolved from the old style refereeing to a much more sinister imposition of The Censorship. As Wegman demonstrated, new circles of like-minded propagandists formed, acting as judge and jury for each other. Above all, they acted in concert to keep out alien and hostile opinion. ‘Peer review’ developed into a mantra that was picked up by political activists who clearly had no idea of the procedures of science or its learned societies. It became an imprimatur of political acceptability, whose absence was equivalent to placement on the proscribed list,” Brignell wrote.

Research by Australian climate data analyst John McLean revealed that the IPCC’s peer-review process for the Summary for Policymakers leaves much to be desired. (LINK) (LINK) (LINK) & (LINK) McLean’s research revealed that the UN IPCC peer-review process is “an illusion.” McLean’s study found that very few scientists are actively involved in the UN’s peer-review process. The report contained devastating revelations to the central IPCC assertion that ‘it is very highly likely that greenhouse gas forcing has been the dominant cause of the observed global warming over the last 50 years.” The analysis by McLean states: “The IPCC leads us to believe that this statement is very much supported by the majority of reviewers. The reality is that there is surprisingly little explicit support for this key notion. Among the 23 independent reviewers just 4 explicitly endorsed the chapter with its hypothesis, and one other endorsed only a specific section. Moreover, only 62 of the IPCC’s 308 reviewers commented on this chapter at all.” Repeating: Only four UN scientists in the IPCC peer-review process explicitly endorsed the key chapter blaming mankind for warming the past 50 years, according to this recent analysis.

Here is a small sampling of what current and former UN scientists have to say about the UN IPCC’s “very open” process.

(Below are excerpts from various U.S. Senate reports which Climate Depot’s Morano authored during his years at the U.S. Senate’s Environment and Public Works Committee.)

One former UN IPCC scientist bluntly told the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) committee how the UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers “distorted” the scientists work. “I have found examples of a Summary saying precisely the opposite of what the scientists said,” explained South African Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications.

In an August 13, 2007 letter, UN IPCC Scientist Dr. Madhav Khandekar, a retired Environment Canada scientist, lashed out at those who “seem to naively believe that the climate change science espoused in the [UN's] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) documents represents ‘scientific consensus.’” Khandekar continued: “Nothing could be further than the truth! As one of the invited expert reviewers for the 2007 IPCC documents, I have pointed out the flawed review process used by the IPCC scientists in one of my letters. I have also pointed out in my letter that an increasing number of scientists are now questioning the hypothesis of Greenhouse gas induced warming of the earth’s surface and suggesting a stronger impact of solar variability and large-scale atmospheric circulation patterns on the observed temperature increase than previously believed.” “Unfortunately, the IPCC climate change documents do not provide an objective assessment of the earth’s temperature trends and associated climate change,” Khandekar concluded.

Paul Reiter, a malaria expert formerly of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, participated in a past UN IPCC process and now calls the concept of consensus on global warming a “sham.” Reiter, a professor of entomology and tropical disease with the Pasteur Institute in Paris, had to threaten legal action to have his name removed from the IPCC. “That is how they make it seem that all the top scientists are agreed,” he said on March 5, 2007. “It’s not true,” he added.

Hurricane expert Christopher W. Landsea of NOAA’s National Hurricane Center, was both an author a reviewer for the IPCC’s 2nd Assessment Report in 1995 and the 3rd Assessment Report in 2001, but resigned from the 4th Assessment Report after charging the UN with playing politics with Hurricane science. Landsea wrote a January 17, 2005 public letter detailing his experience with the UN: “I am withdrawing [from the UN] because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns.” “I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound,” Landsea added.

In addition, a Greenpeace activist co-authored a key economic report in 2007. Left unreported by most of the media was the fact that Bill Hare, an advisor to Greenpeace, was a lead co- author of a key economic report in the IPCC’s 4th Assessment. Not surprisingly, the Greenpeace co-authored report predicted a gloomy future for our planet unless we follow the UN’s policy prescriptions.

The UN IPCC’s own guidelines explicitly state that the scientific reports have to be “change[d]” to “ensure consistency with” the politically motivated Summary for Policymakers.

In addition, the IPCC more closely resembles a political party’s convention platform battle – not a scientific process. During an IPCC Summary for Policymakers process, political delegates and international bureaucrats squabble over the specific wording of a phrase or assertion.

Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit, one of the individuals responsible for debunking the infamous “Hockey Stick” temperature graph, slammed the IPCC Summary for Policymaker’s process on January 24, 2007.

McIntyre wrote: “So the purpose of the three-month delay between the publication of the (IPCC) Summary for Policy-Makers and the release of the actual WG1 (Working Group 1) is to enable them to make any ‘necessary’ adjustments to the technical report to match the policy summary. Unbelievable. Can you imagine what securities commissions would say if business promoters issued a big promotion and then the promoters made the ‘necessary’ adjustments to the qualifying reports and financial statements so that they matched the promotion. Words fail me.”

Former Colorado State Climatologist Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. also detailed the corruption of the UN IPCC process on September 1, 2007: “The same individuals who are doing primary research in the role of humans on the climate system are then permitted to lead the [IPCC] assessment! There should be an outcry on this obvious conflict of interest, but to date either few recognize this conflict, or see that since the recommendations of the IPCC fit their policy and political agenda, they chose to ignore this conflict. In either case, scientific rigor has been sacrificed and poor policy and political decisions will inevitably follow,” Pielke explained. He added: “We need recognition among the scientific community, the media, and policymakers that the IPCC process is obviously a real conflict of interest, and this has resulted in a significantly flawed report.”

Andrei Kapitsa, a Russian geographer and Antarctic ice core researcher: “The Kyoto theorists have put the cart before the horse. It is global warming that triggers higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not the other way round…A large number of critical documents submitted at the 1995 U.N. conference in Madrid vanished without a trace. As a result, the discussion was one-sided and heavily biased, and the U.N. declared global warming to be a scientific fact.”

Total sea ice extent on the northern hemisphere since 2005. The ice extent values are calculated from the ice type data from the Ocean and Sea Ice, Satellite Application Facility (OSISAF), where areas with ice concentration higher than 30% are classified as ice.

The total area of sea ice is the sum of First Year Ice (FYI), Multi Year Ice (MYI) and the area of ambiguous ice types, from the OSISAF ice type product. However, the total estimated ice area is underestimated due to unclassified coastal regions where mixed land/sea pixels confuse the applied ice type algorithm. The shown sea ice extent values are therefore recommended be used qualitatively in relation to ice extent values from other years shown in the figure. In late 2012 sea ice climatology and anomaly data will be available here.


http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

Sea Level Could Rise 3 Feet by 2100, Climate Panel Finds


“It is extremely likely that human influence on climate caused more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010,” the draft report says. “There is high confidence that this has warmed the ocean, melted snow and ice, raised global mean sea level and changed some climate extremes in the second half of the 20th century.”

The draft comes from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a body of several hundred scientists that won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007, along with Al Gore.

http://www.nytimes.com/20...-panel-finds.html?hp&_r=0
- BingoLady

bump

Separating Science From Spin on the Global-Warming 'Pause'
What's causing a temporary slowdown in planetary warming, and why should anyone worry that more warming is coming?

http://www.nationaljourna...al-warming-pause-20130821

"If the planet is warming, why have temperatures been steady for a decade?"

That question is now the go-to counterpoint for global-warming skeptics, and it has long been a sticking point for scientists as they try to explain their climate conclusions to an increasingly polarized public.

The debate was reborn anew last week when a leaked draft of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change upcoming report conceded that warming has largely paused over the past decade, prompting outcry from skeptics and leading conservative news outlets (including Fox News) to play up the pause in their reporting.

Climate scientists largely agree that warming has paused over the past decade (especially in measurements of surface temperature), but they say that break is temporary, and the near-consensus on human-caused global warming remains unbroken.

"There has been a slowdown or hiatus in the rate of change of global temperature in the 21st century, and that's real," says David Gutzler, an earth- and planetary-sciences professor at the University of New Mexico who contributed to the IPCC report. "Most of us think that this is probably a temporary hiatus as opposed to a cessation of global warming."

So if global warming is still the future, what's causing the temporary pause, and why should anyone worry that more warming is coming?

The IPCC report attributes this hiatus to short-term factors that result in temporary cooling periods, including volcanoes, solar cycles, absorbent oceans, non-greenhouse-gas pollutants, and a string of other temporary-yet-powerful natural forces.

Blame the volcanoes

While greenhouse gases are trapping heat, volcanoes are doing their best to block it out.

Volcanic eruptions send large quantities of sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere, a slice of Earth's atmosphere that begins about eight miles above the earth's surface. These emissions—known as volcanic aerosols—block the sun's light and heat from reaching the lower atmosphere and heating the planet.

The aerosols do not stay in the stratosphere permanently, but they can linger for years. And depending on the frequency and size of volcanic eruptions over a given period, the aerosols' concentration in the atmosphere waxes and wanes. In eras of increasing concentrations, the aerosols form a more effective heat shield around the planet and temporarily work against global warming.

That's exactly what's happening right now, according to a study released in March. Since 2000, volcanic aerosols increased their heat-blocking ability by between 4 percent and 7 percent, according to the study from a team of researchers at NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the University of Colorado, and elsewhere.

But while volcanoes are contributing to a temporary slowdown in global warming, they're not a permanent solution, said Colorado professor Brian Toon. "Overall these eruptions are not going to counter the greenhouse effect," Toon said in a statement accompanying the study's release. "Emissions of volcanic gases go up and down, helping to cool or heat the planet, while greenhouse-gas emissions from human activity just continue to go up."

The sun is dimmer ... for now

During the 20th century, scientists believed that the sun emitted energy steadily enough that it couldn't significantly affect the Earth's climate. In 2001, a Science study found that solar highs and lows coincided with terrestrial climate cycles. It was a long-term trend—the climate of the northern Atlantic Ocean has warmed and cooled nine times in the last 12,000 years. The sun undergoes small-scale changes in strength too, and throughout most of the 1900s, a considerable increase made scientists wonder if short-term hotter output made for a hotter Earth. But then, by the beginning of this century, the sun's strength declined, and warming of the Earth's surface temperature stalled.

"If the sun had been warming the Earth, that should have come to an end, and we should have seen temperatures start to go the other way," space environment physics professor Michael Lockwood told National Geographic in 2007. But that didn't happen; despite the ebb and flow of solar output, Earth steadily continued to heat up.

While both millennial and decadal fluctuations in solar strength can contribute to changes in Earth's climate, scientists say the effects of increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere far outweigh our sun's effects.

Greenhouse gases heat the planet, other pollutants cool it

The production and use of fossil fuels and greenhouse gases often produces soot and ash, pollutants that rise into the air. There, they can change the physical properties of clouds by making them more reflective. Like volcanic aerosols, these cloud-dwelling pollutants block the sun's heat.

The clouds reflect more of the sun's energy back into space, keeping the surface temperature of the Earth from rising. In an interesting twist, programs that aim to reduce air pollution in heavy industrial areas could end up freeing some room for the sun's rays to penetrate the atmosphere.

The oceans have been stockpiling extra heat

As the Earth accumulates heat, that additional energy has to go somewhere—deep inside the high seas. The Earth's oceans have become warmer since 1955, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.

The ocean-atmosphere system works like this: As oceans store heat energy, the rate at which the atmosphere warms slows. Oceans don't always take in heat the same way—changes in currents and temperatures that occur naturally can change the rate of uptake every few decades, said Gutzler, altering the surface temperature of the Earth. In the last decade, the oceans' absorption of heat has contributed to cooling of that temperature rather than warming. But again, this decadal fluctuation can cloud the bigger picture.

It's all really, really complicated

Climate models incorporate vast numbers of dynamic factors, everything from melting permafrost in Russia to coal development in China to deforestation in the Amazon. Scientists are still scrambling to provide a more nuanced understanding of what global warming will look like. Indeed, many of the forces that checked warming over the past decade may accelerate it in years to come.

Within that butterfly-effect-like chaos, Gutzler said it's possible that the predictive climate models scientists use are partially wrong—not about the fact that the planet is warming, but about how, when, and where that warming will occur.

"Just like weather, once you get a month or two out, individual events are unpredictable, like decadal events are unpredictable," he said.

Al Gore compares climate skeptics to anti abolitionists, racists, homophobes, and alcoholic families http://wattsupwiththat.co...s-and-alcoholic-families/

Obama Says Hurricanes Are Getting Worse
Posted on August 20, 2013 by stevengoddard

President Obama has had the fewest US hurricane landfalls (three) of any president, during his five years in office. He says that hurricanes are getting worse, and that he alone has the power to fix it.




As of this date, it has been eight years since a major hurricane struck the U.S.

All the IPCC climate "experts" predicted more hurricanes, not less.

As it turns out, these alarmists were pushing (and still are) a unicorn-type of science, based on fantasy climate change scenarios, which almost all have failed to happen.

Obama Says Hurricanes Are Getting Worse
Posted on August 20, 2013 by stevengoddard

President Obama has had the fewest US hurricane landfalls (three) of any president, during his five years in office. He says that hurricanes are getting worse, and that he alone has the power to fix it.




As of this date, it has been eight years since a major hurricane struck the U.S.

All the IPCC climate "experts" predicted more hurricanes, not less.

As it turns out, these alarmists were pushing (and still are) a unicorn-type of science, based on fantasy climate change scenarios, which almost all have failed to happen.
- Doppleganger

Sandy wasn't a major hurricane???

When somebody hits you with that new ‘IPCC is 95% certain’ talking point on global warming, show them this
Posted on August 20, 2013 by Anthony Watts





The IPCC has announced (via a “leak” campaign only to selected media outlets, such as Reuters, NYT, WaPo) that they are now 95% certain. From Reuters:

Drafts seen by Reuters of the study by the U.N. panel of experts, due to be published next month, say it is at least 95 percent likely that human activities – chiefly the burning of fossil fuels – are the main cause of warming since the 1950s.

I’m glad they pinned down “…since the 1950s”, that’s important.

According to this MotherJones report:

According to Jonathan Lynn, who is head of communications at the IPCC, the organization expects that leaks will occur because report drafts wind up in so many different hands. Lynn cautions that “there’s no question that the final report will not be the same as the drafts.”

I’ve been in touch with IPCC secretariat Mr. Jonathan Lynn, and while he’s glad to point out issues on WUWT, neither he nor any of the media outlets that have the “leaked” report are willing to provide WUWT with a copy. No matter, we’ll simply go with what we know.

Here is the statement again, emphasis mine:

Drafts seen by Reuters of the study by the U.N. panel of experts, due to be published next month, say it is at least 95 percent likely that human activities – chiefly the burning of fossil fuels – are the main cause of warming since the 1950s.

OK, so here’s the 64 thousand dollar questions for IPCC cheerleaders:

Which side is which time period?
What caused the warming before CO2 became an issue to be essentially identical to the period when it is claimed to be the main driver?
How is the IPCC 95% certain one side is caused by man and the other is no

Sandy wasn't a major hurricane???
- BingoLady

worse means more when you're an overstretching retard.

Sandy wasn't a major hurricane???
- BingoLady

No it was not, it was a tropical storm..................But the Left Wing Progressive "Man made Global Warming" cheerleader media called it "Super Storm Sandy" and hyped the crap out of for the sheeple like yourself

http://www.cbsnews.com/83...-status-still-big-threat/

No it was not, it was a tropical storm..................But the Left Wing Progressive "Man made Global Warming" cheerleader media called it "Super Storm Sandy" and hyped the crap out of for the sheeple like yourself
- Doppleganger

Hurricane Sandy was the deadliest and most destructive hurricane of the 2012 Atlantic hurricane season, as well as the second-costliest hurricane in United States history. Classified as the eighteenth named storm, tenth hurricane and second major hurricane of the year, Sandy was a Category 3 storm at its peak intensity when it made landfall in Cuba. While it was a Category 2 storm off the coast of the Northeastern United States, the storm became the largest Atlantic hurricane on record (as measured by diameter, with winds spanning 1,100 miles (1,800 km).

Hurricane Sandy was the deadliest and most destructive hurricane of the 2012 Atlantic hurricane season, as well as the second-costliest hurricane in United States history. Classified as the eighteenth named storm, tenth hurricane and second major hurricane of the year, Sandy was a Category 3 storm at its peak intensity when it made landfall in Cuba. While it was a Category 2 storm off the coast of the Northeastern United States, the storm became the largest Atlantic hurricane on record (as measured by diameter, with winds spanning 1,100 miles (1,800 km).
- BingoLady

but when it hit landfall in the US it was only a tropical storm, as it had weakened .

Sorry.

Hurricane Sandy was the deadliest and most destructive hurricane of the 2012 Atlantic hurricane season, as well as the second-costliest hurricane in United States history. Classified as the eighteenth named storm, tenth hurricane and second major hurricane of the year, Sandy was a Category 3 storm at its peak intensity when it made landfall in Cuba. While it was a Category 2 storm off the coast of the Northeastern United States, the storm became the largest Atlantic hurricane on record (as measured by diameter, with winds spanning 1,100 miles (1,800 km).
- BingoLady

i live in jersey. if for some reason anybody needs another reason to stop listening to this jackass because he just spews one-sided diarrhea every time he opens his mouth just bookmark the page.

by far the worst storm we've ever had here.

calling it a tropical storm is like calling this guy just mildly retarded.

but when it hit landfall in the US it was only a tropical storm, as it had weakened .

Sorry.
- Doppleganger

Carolina's as well?

i live in jersey. if for some reason anybody needs another reason to stop listening to this jackass because he just spews one-sided diarrhea every time he opens his mouth just bookmark the page.

by far the worst storm we've ever had here.

calling it a tropical storm is like calling this guy just mildly retarded.
- kicksave856

i live in jersey. if for some reason anybody needs another reason to stop listening to this jackass because he just spews one-sided diarrhea every time he opens his mouth just bookmark the page.

by far the worst storm we've ever had here.

calling it a tropical storm is like calling this guy just mildly retarded.
- kicksave856

It's not me, I'm just relaying the info from this and other sites

http://www.c3headlines.co...-despite-co2-unicorn.html


http://stevengoddard.word...icanes-are-getting-worse/

It's not me, I'm just relaying the info from this and other sites

http://www.c3headlines.co...-despite-co2-unicorn.html


http://stevengoddard.word...icanes-are-getting-worse/
- Doppleganger

it's you.


apparently fox news showed vacation pictures from atlantic city while reporting on the storm.

It's not me, I'm just relaying the info from this and other sites

http://www.c3headlines.co...-despite-co2-unicorn.html
- Doppleganger

ur being a total ass - 2nd costliest "Hurricane" on record with $68 billion in damage.

It's not me, I'm just relaying the info from this and other sites

http://www.c3headlines.co...-despite-co2-unicorn.html


http://stevengoddard.word...icanes-are-getting-worse/
- Doppleganger

I bet in history a lot of so called hurricanes when they hit land technically cease to be Hurricanes but are still called that since they were named Hurricanes and had winds over sea that necessitated them being called a hurricane.

ur being a total ass - 2nd costliest "Hurricane" on record with $68 billion in damage.
- BingoLady

The IPCC predicted (10 years ago) that there would be an increased number of Hurricanes, that made landfall, in the USA, and there's only been three since Obama been President, and they also predicted the North West Passage would be easily navigable by 2013.............it's not.