Damn lies .....global warming

[JustRalph]

http://www.express.co.uk/news/nature/526191/Climate-change-is-a-lie-global-warming-not-real-claims-weather-channel-founder

Couldn't pass this one up

[hcap]

http://www.express.co.uk/news/nature/526191/Climate-change-is-a-lie-global-warming-not-real-claims-weather-channel-founder

Couldn't pass this one up :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Clocker]

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Much more cogent reply than your usual ransom letter collage of graphs, quotes, and typographical acrobatics. :ThmbUp:

[Tom]

His best graph yet.

[Clocker]

His best graph yet.

A graphical representation of those in the Global Warming Industry rolling over to keep their jobs and research grants.

(1 :lol: = 10,000 jobs)

[Tom]

_EKdnYZPHOQ

[DJofSD]

You know, whenever I hear the liberals "the science is settled" proclaiming from their pulpit the earth's temperature is rising, I want to ask them if they measured that using an oral or rectal thermometer.

[Clocker]

You know, whenever I hear the liberals "the science is settled" proclaiming from their pulpit the earth's temperature is rising, I want to ask them if they measured that using an oral or rectal thermometer.

The problem there, particularly if you opt for the latter, is finding where to insert it. There are so many potential candidates, and they seem to be in perpetual motion, mostly in Washington.

[Tom]

Both. :eek: :p

[Actor]

http://www.express.co.uk/news/nature/526191/Climate-change-is-a-lie-global-warming-not-real-claims-weather-channel-founder

Couldn't pass this one upThis guy says "There has been no warming over 18 years."

meanwhile...
Last week, a NASA update pegged September as the warmest on record. Now, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has concurred — and reported that 2014 is on track to be the be the warmest year since record keeping began in 1880.

NOAA also reports that the January through September period was tied with 1998 as the hottest since 1880.

“If 2014 maintains this temperature departure from average for the remainder of the year, it will be the warmest year on record,” according to NOAA’s report.

Another indication of what’s happening: The past 12 months — October 2013 through September 2014 — was the toastiest 12-month period in the record books.


http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/imageo/2014/10/21/2014-headed-warmest-year/#.VEiHJMmHenk

[hcap]

A graphical representation of those in the Global Warming Industry rolling over to keep their jobs and research grants.

(1 :lol: = 10,000 jobs)More like.......(1 :lol: = 10,000 PA off topic right wing knee-jerking climate change deniers frantically using their 1950's extremely sticky slide rules while profusely greasing them up from their shared sloppy common circle jerk jars of Vaseline)



http://www.toonpool.com/user/589/files/ostrich_tv_777335.jpg

PS: Climate deniers are all tuning in to Faux Noos. No sense not being educated on these issues by Sean Hannity and Bill'O et al, and guest appearances by such experts as Laura Ingraham and Anthony Watts

FTFY :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:







.

[badcompany]

Sorry, Libs.

We don't trust your "Science" :lol:

We know you just use Global Warming, Oops, I meant to say Climate Change, as yet another attempt to bring down Capitalism.

Bring it down to Chinatown.

[HUSKER55]

you do know that plants need co2 to produce oxygen. Any climate problems is caused by over harvesting of trees on both sides of the equator.

[hcap]

you do know that plants need co2 to produce oxygen. Any climate problems is caused by over harvesting of trees on both sides of the equator.Not "Any climate problems" but a fair share of the percentage of Co2 produced comes from Deforestation

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/deforestation-and-global-warming/

From logging, agricultural production and other economic activities, deforestation adds more atmospheric CO2 than the sum total of cars and trucks on the world's roads

By most accounts, deforestation in tropical rainforests adds more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere than the sum total of cars and trucks on the world’s roads. According to the World Carfree Network (WCN), cars and trucks account for about 14 percent of global carbon emissions, while most analysts attribute upwards of 15 percent to deforestation.

That still leaves close to 70% not accounted for by these two......

Generally speaking, it is first all the types of technology and energy that we use to power our industrialized lifestyles, and, second, the way we use our land, that are causing pollution and driving the process of global warming.

“The amounts of these fuels burned to provide society with energy represent the carbon captured by photosynthesis over millions of years. So, by burning them…we have returned carbon dioxide to the atmosphere thousands of times faster than the rate at which it was removed by the early tropical forests.”. .. Barry Commoner

[badcompany]

Maybe the NY Times should finally give up its print edition. I can't think of a single entity responsible for more dead trees.

[hcap]

Maybe the NY Times should finally give up its print edition. I can't think of a single entity responsible for more dead trees.The tabloids that you gents quote, are a close match, however it looks like brain cells are dying at much higher rates among Faux Noos viewers. :lol:

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=117783

[Capper Al]

It's been this way through history. The conservatives don't want to embrace anything that will cost them money if they need to or not. The British parliament refused to accept that sewage control and septic tanks were needed back in the 1800s until one August day when they had to close parliament because they couldn't work with the smell of sewage from the river Themes. Global warming will be dealt with sooner or later. It's just a matter when and if we deal with it in time.

[badcompany]

It's been this way through history. The conservatives don't want to embrace anything that will cost them money if they need to or not. The British parliament refused to accept that sewage control and septic tanks were needed back in the 1800s until one August day when they had to close parliament because they couldn't work with the smell of sewage from the river Themes. Global warming will be dealt with sooner or later. It's just a matter when and if we deal with it in time.

As usual, you have the wrong story. This is what happens when dopey Libs try to save the planet:


http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l142/thinlizzy21/DB34A719-B83B-43A5-B8E0-EBC4764C7CD4_zpsitvxf2ky.png (http://s95.photobucket.com/user/thinlizzy21/media/DB34A719-B83B-43A5-B8E0-EBC4764C7CD4_zpsitvxf2ky.png.html)

[JustRalph]

NASA ?

You mean the agency that has been co-opted by a government and a prez that squeezes them on funding, mission and uses them as a propaganda piece?

Yep, I have faith in NASA..... :bang:

[Tom]

Not
Always
So
Accurate

[FocusWiz]

The biggest problem we face is that the science is being misused by the most vocal groups on both sides. The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere both influences and is influenced by global temperatures. It increases as the Earth heats up and can add to the heat when it increases. You cannot eliminate global warming by only attacking carbon dioxide any more than you can put out a fire using smoke precipitators. The sale of carbon offsets is more akin to the sale of indulgences in medieval times than to any modern science.

The biggest issue is that the focus on carbon dioxide allows both sides to ignore the affects of added heat by human activity. Netting is added around discharge pipes from nuclear power plants to avoid cooking fish. Studies in the 1970s warned that we could release tons of carbon dioxide and, even worse, potentially methane, from the oceans if we did not reduce the heat we add to the environment. Carbon dioxide is an easy target. Heat is not. Imagine if we banned nighttime sports, amusement parks, and air conditioning to reduce heat being unnecessarily added to the environment. It would never happen.

Ignoring the impact of people is another misguided notion. Studies have shown that the bulk of the increase in temperature in northern Europe have been due to the efforts to reduce pollution in the air. This allows more solar energy to reach the ground. The Right blames the warming on the sun and the Left does not want it known that the pollution of the mid twentieth century had slowed our warming trend since our last ice age. To think either side is properly applying science without some ulterior motive is...well...exactly what they want you to believe.

[johnhannibalsmith]

The biggest problem we face is that the science is being misused by the most vocal groups on both sides... ... To think either side is properly applying science without some ulterior motive is...well...exactly what they want you to believe.

I got my ass reamed up and down for posting this a few years ago, despite trying to lend some credibility to the concern without lending any to the crusade.

History is littered with examples of short sighted civilizations ruining themselves by ignoring its effect on resources and ecosystems that support them. Unfortunately, it is "settled science" with no room for conversation and now everyone is lined up on the ideological teams that define them and few care even a bit about the actual problem. It's just another example of something that we probably could and should pay attention to, but it was bastardized into a commercial and political utopia far enough that now we'll just have to suffer through the commercial and political effects without the benefit of considering the problem in earnest.

Oh well. We'll all be dead from ebola or terrorists by then anyway.

[Actor]

NASA ?

You mean the agency that has been co-opted by a government and a prez that squeezes them on funding, mission and uses them as a propaganda piece?

Yep, I have faith in NASA..... :bang:Oh, yeah. They faked the moon landing. Hired Stanley Kubrick to direct.

Alternate story: the moon landing was real but the near disaster of Apollo 13 was scripted and staged to try to draw the public's (and Congress's) interest back to the space program. At no time were the astronauts in any danger.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[mostpost]

John Coleman reported the weather locally here in Chicago for several years. He was widely regarded as a clown. His degree was in journalism although I believe he did get a degree in meteorology sometime later.

Meteorology is not climatology. Coleman does not have a degree in climatology and has never published a scientific paper of any kind.
Here is a line by line rebuttal of Coleman's arguments against global warming.
http://uscentrist.org/platform/positions/environment/context-environment/john_coleman/the-amazing-story-behind-the-global-warming-scam

John Coleman never got the weather right when he was in Chicago and he is not getting the climate right now.

[Tom]

The NASA that landed on the moon is not the pathetic shell it is today, after being destroyed by Obama. Ralph is talking in this century.

[Capper Al]

As usual, you have the wrong story. This is what happens when dopey Libs try to save the planet:


http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l142/thinlizzy21/DB34A719-B83B-43A5-B8E0-EBC4764C7CD4_zpsitvxf2ky.png (http://s95.photobucket.com/user/thinlizzy21/media/DB34A719-B83B-43A5-B8E0-EBC4764C7CD4_zpsitvxf2ky.png.html)

Logical is difficult for you? Just because you found a story on the web doesn't change history or my argument. You righties would still be up in the banana trees if us progressives didn't venture down on to the ground.

[Tom]

Logical is difficult for you? Just because you found a story on the web doesn't change history or my argument. You righties would still be up in the banana trees if us progressives didn't venture down on to the ground.

The progressive who ventured to the ground were eaten by the bears.
History lesson - the people who pushed this country along the path to prosperity, technology, and power were capitalists, polluters, greedy bastards who used up people and threw them away. Rockefeller's, Carnegie's, Morgan's, not your community organizers. We would be nowhere without greed and guns.

[JustRalph]

Oh, yeah. They faked the moon landing. Hired Stanley Kubrick to direct.

Alternate story: the moon landing was real but the near disaster of Apollo 13 was scripted and staged to try to draw the public's (and Congress's) interest back to the space program. At no time were the astronauts in any danger.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Did I say that? If you think today's NASA is anything like the NASA of yesteryear, you are sadly mistaken. Read some of the comments from Buzz Aldrin, and other Astronauts who have retired. They are not polite about it.

[PaceAdvantage]

More like.......(1 :lol: = 10,000 PA off topic right wing knee-jerking climate change deniers frantically using their 1950's extremely sticky slide rules while profusely greasing them up from their shared sloppy common circle jerk jars of Vaseline)What in the world makes you think this is anywhere near appropriate to post on this board?

I was starting to warm to you a bit, especially after our recent private exchange, but this vile, disgusting rant puts you on par with mostpost for one of the most obnoxious posters here in off-topic. And this isn't your first offense.

You disappoint me.

[hcap]

What in the world makes you think this is anywhere near appropriate to post on this board?

I was starting to warm to you a bit, especially after our recent private exchange, but this vile, disgusting rant puts you on par with mostpost for one of the most obnoxious posters here in off-topic. And this isn't your first offense.

You disappoint me.I do not understand. Is the phrase "circle jerk"now outlawed for the left's use, or is an embellishment of that phrase over the limit? I actually thought the use of "their 1950's extremely sticky slide rules" referring to the poor quality science used by the righties here, pretending always as much truth and validity as the 97% of the mainstream scientific community's well established and researched consensus, was much more of a problem for the right.

But if you insist, I will refrain from using those two words. But to be honest I find threads like " The Democratic Party been infiltrated with marxist, socialist and communist ideology?" much more of a problem and many posts by reckless over the top.

[Capper Al]

The progressive who ventured to the ground were eaten by the bears.
History lesson - the people who pushed this country along the path to prosperity, technology, and power were capitalists, polluters, greedy bastards who used up people and threw them away. Rockefeller's, Carnegie's, Morgan's, not your community organizers. We would be nowhere without greed and guns.

It looks like you and your ancestors never made down to the ground. LOL

[hcap]

It looks like you and your ancestors never made down to the ground. LOL
I wonder if simian children were allowed to work in sweatshops or meat packing factories instead of poor human children, if Tom would have taken advantage of lax animal cruelty laws and made a bundle selling his young-ins into slavery?

I suspect every ape has his price of bananas,. :lol:

[badcompany]

This thread is essentially two old men waking up every hour to take a leak and post leftist absurdities on PA. :(

[Tom]

Post of the Year!
Before they retired, they used to work on the Muppet's TV show - the two old guys in the balcony.:lol::lol::lol:

[hcap]

Post of the Year!
Before they retired, they used to work on the Muppet's TV show - the two old guys in the balcony.:lol::lol::lol:One absurd conspiracy after another? Now the Muppet's? :lol:

Are there also at least 2 incompetent senile lefties in every reputable government organization(including NASA ) and every university surveyed, and all of the world's reputable scientific agencies?

For instance NOAA

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/9

Here are the details from NOAA’s September 2014 State of the Climate report.

The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for September 2014 was the highest on record for September, at 0.72°C (1.30°F) above the 20th century average of 15.0°C (59.0°F).
The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for the January–September period (year-to-date) was 0.68°C (1.22°F) above the 20th century average of 14.1°C (57.5°F), tying with 1998 as the warmest such period on record.

Or are we to listen to TV weathermen like John Coleman and Anthony Watts to get our facts? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:



.

[Capper Al]

This thread is essentially two old men waking up every hour to take a leak and post leftist absurdities on PA. :(

Speak for yourself. Are you going back to bed?

[badcompany]

Post of the Year!
Before they retired, they used to work on the Muppet's TV show - the two old guys in the balcony.:lol::lol::lol:

:lol:

Al is on the left and Hcap is on the far left.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_QnMcN6aWjeI/TD-6yUB2Q2I/AAAAAAAABd0/bfiz82854HU/s1600/muppets.jpg

[JustRalph]

I think the article is notable. The guy has a point of view that is a little unique based on his experiences. Basically it's all a damn lie.

[DJofSD]

I think the article is notable. The guy has a point of view that is a little unique based on his experiences. Basically it's all a damn lie.
Coleman?

What I find funny is the politics-trumps-all crowd claims we can not consider his opinion b/c he is not an expert but I'm still waiting for them to show their degrees in climatology and physics and chemistry.

[davew]

Coleman?

What I find funny is the politics-trumps-all crowd claims we can not consider his opinion b/c he is not an expert but I'm still waiting for them to show their degrees in climatology and physics and chemistry.


or experience equivalent to starting and running the weather channel

[DJofSD]

http://www.kusi.com/story/25971119/john-coleman-puts-in-his-two-cents-in-climate-change-conference

[badcompany]

So, the guy who co-founded the Weather Channel isn't an expert in this area, but the PA Marx Brothers who, together, probably would be hard-pressed to operate an umbrella, are beyond reproach. :lol:

[Clocker]

So, the guy who co-founded the Weather Channel isn't an expert in this area

He used to be a weather man on TV who the lefties allege didn't forecast the weather very well. You would think that would create a bond between him and the warming fan boys.

[hcap]

So, the guy who co-founded the Weather Channel isn't an expert in this area, but the PA Marx Brothers who, together, probably would be hard-pressed to operate an umbrella, are beyond reproach. :lol:This Marx brother is telling you : what every reputable government organization(including NASA ) and every university surveyed, and all of the world's reputable scientific agencies is (saying).
And 97% of climatologists and the overwhelming majority of the scientific community is telling you. Fine dismiss ALL of the above as a grand cosmic conspiracy theory. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :eek: :eek: :confused:

That's why you gents watch Faux Noos.
To echo nonsense in unison.

[mostpost]

I do not understand. Is the phrase "circle jerk"now outlawed for the left's use, or is an embellishment of that phrase over the limit? I actually thought the use of "their 1950's extremely sticky slide rules" referring to the poor quality science used by the righties here, pretending always as much truth and validity as the 97% of the mainstream scientific community's well established and researched consensus, was much more of a problem for the right.

But if you insist, I will refrain from using those two words. But to be honest I find threads like " The Democratic Party been infiltrated with marxist, socialist and communist ideology?" much more of a problem and many posts by reckless over the top.
I could not agree more. We (the lefties have to endure constant taunt of socialist and communist and in my case denigrating remarks on my profession. In your case you are belittled because of your avatar. Yet nothing is said about that.

Now I have to agree that the use of the "CJ" phrase is somewhat crude and crass, but it is the best and most descriptive way of describing what goes on among the righties here and nationwide.

[reckless]

This thread is essentially two old men waking up every hour to take a leak and post leftist absurdities on PA. :(

Post of the year.

:ThmbUp:

[mostpost]

So, the guy who co-founded the Weather Channel isn't an expert in this area, but the PA Marx Brothers who, together, probably would be hard-pressed to operate an umbrella, are beyond reproach. :lol:
Make up your mind. Are we Waldorf and Astoria or are we the Marx brothers. The point is that hcap, and Capper and I have all the science on our side. Coleman has none on his side.

[mostpost]

or experience equivalent to starting and running the weather channel
Someone else provided the startup money. Coleman ran it for a year, if he actually ran it.

[DJofSD]

Make up your mind. Are we Waldorf and Astoria or are we the Marx brothers. The point is that hcap, and Capper and I have all the science on our side. Coleman has none on his side.
To the extent you believe you have science on your side, it demonstrates your total lack of understanding of both the science and the scientific process.

[hcap]

To the extent you believe you have science on your side, it demonstrates your total lack of understanding of both the science and the scientific process.Another misguided propagandist who believes the science is on his side. Wrong!

As I have asked many times over the years, please quote one governmental or private scientific agency, or one University that denies climate change is happening and thinks humans are not responsible.

Petrochemical websites or publications not eligible :lol:

[Tom]

This Marx brother is telling you :

Pinko?
Harpo?

[DJofSD]

Another misguided propagandist who believes the science is on his side. Wrong!

As I have asked many times over the years, please quote one governmental or private scientific agency, or one University that denies climate change is happening and thinks humans are not responsible.

Petrochemical websites or publications not eligible :lol:
The issue is not if the temperature is changing but why it is changing and it's cause. There's plenty of evidence of the effect, you just fail to understand the cause has not been proven -- graphs, opinions of politicians and ding-bats aside.

And beyond that, you believe that once a scientific assertion has been made, and, it is one that serves your purpose, no further studies are allowed. Scientific investigation is continuous and agnostic. It's the politicians which chooses to use the results for a purpose while science just seeks to investigate and explain.

[Capper Al]

So, the guy who co-founded the Weather Channel isn't an expert in this area, but the PA Marx Brothers who, together, probably would be hard-pressed to operate an umbrella, are beyond reproach. :lol:


The chorus is singing to protect justRalph. Clocker chimes in after badcompany. PA's SS Nazis.

[Capper Al]

The issue is not if the temperature is changing but why it is changing and it's cause. There's plenty of evidence of the effect, you just fail to understand the cause has not been proven -- graphs, opinions of politicians and ding-bats aside.

And beyond that, you believe that once a scientific assertion has been made, and, it is one that serves your purpose, no further studies are allowed. Scientific investigation is continuous and agnostic. It's the politicians which chooses to use the results for a purpose while science just seeks to investigate and explain.

I'm glad people like you play the ponies. Your logic is that we don't know the cause, but maybe what we do could be the cause. So you're betting that it's not instead of taking the outside chance that we might be able to do something about it. Damn the torpedoes.

[DJofSD]

I'm glad people like you play the ponies. Your logic is that we don't know the cause, but maybe what we do could be the cause. So you're betting that it's not instead of taking the outside chance that we might be able to do something about it. Damn the torpedoes.
In short, correct, I would say there could be a chance that a part of the change in temperature is anthropomorphic, but, I am skeptical. While I'm not from MO, I still want you to show me.

Can we do anything about it? Who knows until we have a better, fuller understanding of the science.

As far as playing the ponies, it's loosely the same situation. There's a lot of beliefs in class, speed, trainer intent, etc., etc., etc., as "proofs" as to why this horse will win. At best they are secondary indicators, loose correlations which completely confuse cause and effect. Just because some one's method can occasionally pick a winner does not prove their system or the so called theory it is based upon is correct.

[Tom]

The chorus is singing to protect justRalph. Clocker chimes in after badcompany. PA's SS Nazis.

And here you are, hcap's flunky.
Ralph doesn't need protection from flunkies.

[Tom]

So you're betting that it's not instead of taking the outside chance that we might be able to do something about it. Damn the torpedoes.

Nothing an be done about it.
Not unless ALL the nations do it together.
YOU got get India, China, and Russia to start, THEN come back here and tak about it. NO WAY we go first.

[fast4522]

You guys are really green here waiting for that big brown turd to fall on you.
This has more to do with what is happening than anything, once a top secret project that now has everyone doing it.

[johnhannibalsmith]

And here you are, hcap's flunky.
Ralph doesn't need protection from flunkies.

What wood a munkey know?

He not hcap flunky. He mine flunky. Me and him, the only two that will stand up for what is write. All you nazi conservatives stick together and me and Al cant even get one person to join us ever. Even wen libs agree with us they are two afraid of truth to associate with uys. So laugh all you went munkey man, it's me and Al the only purvoyeurs of truth.

[fast4522]

johnhannibalsmith

Mike has an open disdain for the use of the word "nazi", this BBS being a conservative bastion your posting in honesty goes a long way with the owner of the BBS. So the question is: "is it not like your more of the provocateur here and your frustration is more your problem than the BBS's?

[johnhannibalsmith]

I think you are a perfect candidate to join me and Al.

[Clocker]

johnhannibalsmith

Mike has an open disdain for the use of the word "nazi" The issue has been raised with the usual suspects before. Some people just like spitting in the soup to get a reaction from the adults.

[badcompany]

The issue has been raised with the usual suspects before. Some people just like spitting in the soup to get a reaction from the adults.

It's no use. Al is on to us.

Let's just admit that we sought out this forum only to talk politics because, armed with the knowledge that the demographic for horseplayers is primarily white males who tend to lean right and conservative, we would have a distinct numbers advantage and could crush any liberal opposition.

[Clocker]

It's no use. Al is on to us.



I guess the secret is out. Too bad.

Are you going to be at the book burning behind the beer hall on Saturday? Auf wiedersehen.

[PaceAdvantage]

I do not understand. Is the phrase "circle jerk"now outlawed for the left's use, or is an embellishment of that phrase over the limit? I actually thought the use of "their 1950's extremely sticky slide rules" referring to the poor quality science used by the righties here, pretending always as much truth and validity as the 97% of the mainstream scientific community's well established and researched consensus, was much more of a problem for the right.

But if you insist, I will refrain from using those two words. But to be honest I find threads like " The Democratic Party been infiltrated with marxist, socialist and communist ideology?" much more of a problem and many posts by reckless over the top.It was the entire mental image you were putting out there...wasn't just about those two words...I think some people especially here on off topic just don't realize how much they push the envelope around here...my fault i guess...

[PaceAdvantage]

The chorus is singing to protect justRalph. Clocker chimes in after badcompany. PA's SS Nazis.You are now officially done here.

And go f u c k yourself....for me...thanks.

[ReplayRandall]

You are now officially done here.

And go f u c k yourself....for me...thanks.


I was able to fry 2 eggs over-easy from the heat of your post.......

[FocusWiz]

All this heat being added to the environment....unnecessarily.

[Clocker]

All this heat being added to the environment....unnecessarily.

Self-inflicted wound. If you keep sticking your hand into the tiger cage, eventually you are going to pull back a bloody stump.

[fast4522]

It was the entire mental image you were putting out there...wasn't just about those two words...I think some people especially here on off topic just don't realize how much they push the envelope around here...my fault i guess...

As one who has, I acknowledge your generosity in the amount of slack you have provided. It is a truly interesting place to vent and view the undercarriage of others.

[reckless]

I could not agree more. We (the lefties have to endure constant taunt of socialist and communist and in my case denigrating remarks on my profession. In your case you are belittled because of your avatar. Yet nothing is said about that.

Now I have to agree that the use of the "CJ" phrase is somewhat crude and crass, but it is the best and most descriptive way of describing what goes on among the righties here and nationwide.

Please close the parenthesis.

If you don't, some know-it-all we-are-smarter-than-everyone-on-here left winger just might criticise you on your poor writing skills.

[Tom]

Are we having a party?
There is a lot of whine here tonight).

[PaceAdvantage]

I was able to fry 2 eggs over-easy from the heat of your post.......I needed to make sure my message got through.

[hcap]

The issue is not if the temperature is changing but why it is changing and it's cause. There's plenty of evidence of the effect, you just fail to understand the cause has not been proven -- graphs, opinions of politicians and ding-bats aside.

And beyond that, you believe that once a scientific assertion has been made, and, it is one that serves your purpose, no further studies are allowed. Scientific investigation is continuous and agnostic. It's the politicians which chooses to use the results for a purpose while science just seeks to investigate and explain.You are using a rather simplistic argument that in fact dismisses the 97% consensus which does answer....

1)That the temperature IS n fact changing
2) and absolutely provides answers to WHY IT IS changing

And there is absolutely no truth to no studies continue.....

Further studies are allowed and going on constantly. But the pathetic fact that climate deniers are only successfully issuing peer reviewed papers at an embarrassing rate as compared to the successful published papers by the aforementioned 97% of the consensus papers, the climate skeptics are only an extreme minority--no matter what folks like Coleman, Watts or Judith Curry claim

What happened to my question asking you to "please quote one governmental or private scientific agency, or one University that denies climate change is happening and thinks humans are not responsible?"

[ArlJim78]

consensus is not part of the scientific method and the "97%" number that is often thrown out is complete fiction. anyone who clings to that like it is something meaningful is not a serious person. the funny thing is the alarmist position that the planet is in peril due to mankind relies on manipulated data, illogical deductions, and a massive PR campaign; the complete opposite of scientific method.
its fun to watch their frantic reactions as the world wakes up to the fact that this was all a giant con game with billions upon billions in wasted dollars. Madoff was a piker compared to this scam.

[hcap]

consensus is not part of the scientific method and the "97%" number that is often thrown out is complete fiction. anyone who clings to that like it is something meaningful is not a serious person. the funny thing is the alarmist position that the planet is in peril due to mankind relies on manipulated data, illogical deductions, and a massive PR campaign; the complete opposite of scientific method.
its fun to watch their frantic reactions as the world wakes up to the fact that this was all a giant con game with billions upon billions in wasted dollars. Madoff was a piker compared to this scam.
http://www.desmogblog.com/2012/11/15/why-climate-deniers-have-no-credibility-science-one-pie-chart

Why Climate Deniers Have No Scientific Credibility - In One Pie Chart

Polls show that many members of the public believe that scientists substantially disagree about human-caused global warming. The gold standard of science is the peer-reviewed literature. If there is disagreement among scientists, based not on opinion but on hard evidence, it will be found in the peer-reviewed literature.

I searched the Web of Science for peer-reviewed scientific articles published between 1 January 1991 and 9 November 2012 that have the keyword phrases “global warming” or “global climate change.” The search produced 13,950 articles. See (http://www.jamespowell.org/methodology/method.html) methodology.

http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/Powell-Science-Pie-Chart.png

[boxcar]

http://www.desmogblog.com/2012/11/15/why-climate-deniers-have-no-credibility-science-one-pie-chart

Why Climate Deniers Have No Scientific Credibility - In One Pie Chart

Polls show that many members of the public believe that scientists substantially disagree about human-caused global warming. The gold standard of science is the peer-reviewed literature. If there is disagreement among scientists, based not on opinion but on hard evidence, it will be found in the peer-reviewed literature.

I searched the Web of Science for peer-reviewed scientific articles published between 1 January 1991 and 9 November 2012 that have the keyword phrases “global warming” or “global climate change.” The search produced 13,950 articles. See (http://www.jamespowell.org/methodology/method.html) methodology.

http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/Powell-Science-Pie-Chart.png

Wrong is wrong no matter how many attempt to say otherwise, and right is right no matter how few refuse to admit it.

But one thing is for certain: An awful lot of believers are on the government's "payroll" or receiving their grants from some liberal foundation. Wonder how many would be flippin' burgers if they were to renounce their faith. :D :D

Boxcar

[DJofSD]

Wrong is wrong no matter how many attempt to say otherwise, and right is right no matter how few refuse to admit it.

But one thing is for certain: An awful lot of believers are on the government's "payroll" or receiving their grants from some liberal foundation. Wonder how many would be flippin' burgers if they were to renounce their faith. :D :D

Boxcar
It's the 10**12 fly argument.

[JustRalph]

he actually thinks we read that shit.........

[Tom]

Do we learn from history or are we doomed to repeat it?

[Clocker]

I searched the Web of Science for peer-reviewed scientific articles published between 1 January 1991 and 9 November 2012 that have the keyword phrases “global warming” or “global climate change.” The search produced 13,950 articles. See (http://www.jamespowell.org/methodology/method.html) methodology.



The methodology makes the study highly suspect. One person, with an agenda, picks out 14,000 articles and personally makes a subjective judgment as to whether each argues for or against global warming.

And the sample population, published peer-reviewed articles, strongly biases the result. Arguments against global warming don't get published in peer-reviewed journals. People that write peer-reviewed articles work for universities and research institutions. People that run those places believe in global warming and don't hire people that don't. The few that do get hired don't get published.

The study doesn't prove that global warming exists, it proves that most peer-reviewed articles that get published believe in global warming. Peer-reviewed articles are highly subject to peer pressure.

[Clocker]

consensus is not part of the scientific method and the "97%" number that is often thrown out is complete fiction.

The 97% number is even more laughable than the one cited here. The methodology is similar, based on a survey of scientific literature, not a survey of scientists. Who conducted the survey, you may ask. Surprise, it was our old friends at Skeptical Science.

And the conclusion was not that 97% said that there was manmade global warming. The conclusion was that, of those that expressed an opinion as to whether or not there was manmade global warming, 97% said there was. But 66% said that it was inconclusive or expressed no opinion.

So the actual result was that 34% of the articles reviewed took a stand on the issue of global warming, and 97% of those said yes, it existed.

Washington Post article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2013/05/17/97-percent-of-scientific-studies-agree-on-manmade-global-warming-so-what-now/)

[DJofSD]

The methodology makes the study highly suspect. One person, with an agenda, picks out 14,000 articles and personally makes a subjective judgment as to whether each argues for or against global warming.

And the sample population, published peer-reviewed articles, strongly biases the result. Arguments against global warming don't get published in peer-reviewed journals. People that write peer-reviewed articles work for universities and research institutions. People that run those places believe in global warming and don't hire people that don't. The few that do get hired don't get published.

The study doesn't prove that global warming exists, it proves that most peer-reviewed articles that get published believe in global warming. Peer-reviewed articles are highly subject to peer pressure.
Right.

A large part of those so called papers have an a priori assumption and they're all blind to it.

[Tom]

So, it appears the Emperor had no clothes?

[hcap]

Unbelievable denial here as usual. You guys have nothing to prove your case, only DENIAL, DENIAL.

It's more than just one study of peer reviewed papers. There have been very comprehensive examinations by more than one scientist.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a7/Climate_science_opinion2.png/800px-Climate_science_opinion2.png


And

http://theconsensusproject.com/
http://www.skepticalscience.com/tcp.php?t=home


And further evidence supporting the overwhelming backing of the scientific mainstream. Remember show just one scientific organization that supports DENIAL. You can't..

.................................................. ................................................

Meanwhile back at reality......

Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,1and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources

AMERICAN SCIENTIFIC SOCIETIES

Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations

"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver." (2009)2
AAAS emblem
American Association for the Advancement of Science

"The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society." (2006)3
ACS emblem
American Chemical Society

"Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem." (2004)4
AGU emblem
American Geophysical Union

"Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes." (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007, 2012, 2013)5
AMA emblem
American Medical Association

"Our AMA ... supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant." (2013)6
AMS emblem
American Meteorological Society

"It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide." (2012)7
APS emblem
American Physical Society

"The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now." (2007)8
GSA emblem
The Geological Society of America

"The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s." (2006; revised 2010)9

SCIENCE ACADEMIES

International academies: Joint statement

"Climate change is real. There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001)." (2005, 11 international science academies)10
USNAS emblem
U.S. National Academy of Sciences

"The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify taking steps to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere." (2005)11

U.S. GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

USGCRP emblem
U.S. Global Change Research Program

"The global warming of the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced increases in heat-trapping gases. Human 'fingerprints' also have been identified in many other aspects of the climate system, including changes in ocean heat content, precipitation, atmospheric moisture, and Arctic sea ice." (2009, 13 U.S. government departments and agencies)12

INTERGOVERNMENTAL BODIES

IPCC emblem
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

“Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.”13

“Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely* due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”14

*IPCC defines ‘very likely’ as greater than 90 percent probability of occurrence.

OTHER RESOURCES

List of worldwide scientific organizations

The following page lists the nearly 200 worldwide scientific organizations that hold the position that climate change has been caused by human action.
http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php
U.S. agencies

The following page contains information on what federal agencies are doing to adapt to climate change.
http://www.c2es.org/docUploads/federal-agencies-adaptation.pdf
References

W. R. L. Anderegg, “Expert Credibility in Climate Change,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Vol. 107 No. 27, 12107-12109 (21 June 2010); DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107.

P. T. Doran & M. K. Zimmerman, "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change," Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union Vol. 90 Issue 3 (2009), 22; DOI: 10.1029/2009EO030002.

N. Oreskes, “Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,” Science Vol. 306 no. 5702, p. 1686 (3 December 2004); DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618.

Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations (2009)

AAAS Board Statement on Climate Change (2006)

ACS Public Policy Statement: Climate Change (2010-2013)

Human‐Induced Climate Change Requires Urgent Action (2013)

Global Climate Change and Human Health (2013)

Climate Change: An Information Statement of the American Meteorological Society (2012)

APS National Policy 07.1 Climate Change (2007)

GSA Position Statement on Climate Change (2010)

Joint science academies' statement: Global response to climate change (2005)

Understanding and Responding to Climate Change (2005)

Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States (2009)

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Summary for Policymakers (2007)

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Summary for Policymakers (2007)

[PaceAdvantage]

Are you that internally insecure about your position that you would waste time continuing to work to convince and defend something you publicly state is "absolute settled science."

Especially to people that you most likely consider sub-par in terms of both judgement and intelligence...

This goes for you and mostpost both.

[Clocker]

Are you that internally insecure about your position that you would waste time continuing to work to convince and defend something you publicly state is "absolute settled science."

Especially to people that you most likely consider sub-par in terms of both judgement and intelligence...

This goes for you and mostpost both.

They remind me of the missionaries (Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc.) perpetually going door to door, trying to get anyone to listen to them.

And the very idea of settled science is anti-intellectual, and also reminiscent of religion and the Dark Ages.

[hcap]

From Scientific American

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/the-curious-wavefunction/2014/01/10/about-that-consensus-on-global-warming-9136-agree-one-disagrees/

"Now I understand as well as anyone else that consensus does not imply truth but I find it odd how there aren’t even a handful of scientists who deny global warming presumably because the global warming mafia threatens to throttle them if they do. It’s not like we are seeing a 70-30% split, or even a 90-10% split. No, the split is more like 99.99-0.01%.

Isn’t it remarkable that among the legions of scientists working around the world, many with tenured positions, secure reputations and largely nothing to lose, not even a hundred out of ten thousand come forward to deny the phenomenon in the scientific literature? Should it be that hard for them to publish papers if the evidence is really good enough? Even detractors of the peer review system would disagree that the system is that broken; after all, studies challenging consensus are quite common in other disciplines. So are contrarian climate scientists around the world so utterly terrified of their colleagues and world opinion that they would not dare to hazard a contrarian explanation at all, especially if it were based on sound science? The belief stretches your imagination to new lengths.

Those who think scientists keep silent on global warming presumably because they fear the barbs of the world demonstrate a peculiar kind of paranoia, especially since what they fear largely does not exist. More prosaically they need to recall Carl Sagan’s words again because the claim that scientist don’t dare to speak out against global warming in the literature is, quite definitely, an extraordinary claim. And it doesn’t seem to stand up to even ordinary evidence."

[hcap]

Are you that internally insecure about your position that you would waste time continuing to work to convince and defend something you publicly state is "absolute settled science."

Especially to people that you most likely consider sub-par in terms of both judgement and intelligence...

This goes for you and mostpost both.You must be joking. :lol: :lol: :lol:

[hcap]

They remind me of the missionaries (Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc.) perpetually going door to door, trying to get anyone to listen to them.

And the very idea of settled science is anti-intellectual, and also reminiscent of religion and the Dark Ages.This thread was started by and supported by righties here who are trying to shore up their mutual feeble paranoid nonsense.

The real Missionaries here are perpetually performing a clown act. (Mutual feeble nonsense is a rough substitute for a "CJ") :lol:

[PaceAdvantage]

You must be joking. :lol: :lol: :lol:Quite sincere actually.

I know that for myself, I wouldn't be wasting my time trying to convince people of something they obviously don't put much stock in...especially if *I* truly believed that what I was saying was factual and honest.

I would try perhaps a couple of times, but as it became apparent I wasn't changing any minds, why would I waste my time continuing? Let them believe what they want. If I know the truth, that's all that counts in the end.

On the other hand, if *I* had my own doubts in the point I was trying to get across, I WOULD be more inclined to continue fighting the good fight, if only because it would help ME solidify the topic in MY mind...

So, I return to the fact that your actions here regarding the whole Global Warming thing shows me you aren't as convinced in the "settled science" as you try and portray to us rubes.

[davew]

Quite sincere actually.

I know that for myself, I wouldn't be wasting my time trying to convince people of something they obviously don't put much stock in...especially if *I* truly believed that what I was saying was factual and honest.

I would try perhaps a couple of times, but as it became apparent I wasn't changing any minds, why would I waste my time continuing? Let them believe what they want. If I know the truth, that's all that counts in the end.

On the other hand, if *I* had my own doubts in the point I was trying to get across, I WOULD be more inclined to continue fighting the good fight, if only because it would help ME solidify the topic in MY mind...

So, I return to the fact that your actions here regarding the whole Global Warming thing shows me you aren't as convinced in the "settled science" as you try and portray to us rubes.


the 'secret' is monetizing the 'truth'. All those great paying jobs subsidized by grants from 'US taxpayer' for 'green energy' jobs. Kickbacks and jobs for relatives of the politicians starting these 'get the cash quick before the money is gone' cash grabs. Books and paid speeches preaching to the disciples of the cult, ....

[hcap]

Quite sincere actually.

I know that for myself, I wouldn't be wasting my time trying to convince people of something they obviously don't put much stock in...especially if *I* truly believed that what I was saying was factual and honest.

I would try perhaps a couple of times, but as it became apparent I wasn't changing any minds, why would I waste my time continuing? Let them believe what they want. If I know the truth, that's all that counts in the end.

On the other hand, if *I* had my own doubts in the point I was trying to get across, I WOULD be more inclined to continue fighting the good fight, if only because it would help ME solidify the topic in MY mind...

So, I return to the fact that your actions here regarding the whole Global Warming thing shows me you aren't as convinced in the "settled science" as you try and portray to us rubes.Quite convinced. Then again why would JR post such obvious garbage from a shoddy tabloid? Then again why would he and others constantly try to show Obama and the Dems and lefties who post here always wrong.

There is much more preaching going on here from the right, and it has been a 24/7/365 wall to wall preaching since Obama announced his candidacy.

Your coming down on me for just sticking to my guns as I have been doing for years and not criticizing the right for equally preaching their point of view and worse parroting unsubstantiated and absurd claims is typical.

[Tom]

Then again why would he and others constantly try to show Obama and the Dems and lefties who post here always wrong.

Low hanging fruit? :lol:

Ya know, the warmer it gets, the more low hanging fruit there will be.
Just saying....

[badcompany]

Jack Bruce is gone and we still have to listen to Hcap.

Truly a sad day.

[DJofSD]

Quite convinced. Then again why would JR post such obvious garbage from a shoddy tabloid? Then again why would he and others constantly try to show Obama and the Dems and lefties who post here always wrong.


It's like being a parent. They're the only ones that truly love you and it is only those people that will point out your errors and shortcomings. Every one else just keeps it to themselves, letting you make a fool of yourself.

[tucker6]

From Scientific American

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/the-curious-wavefunction/2014/01/10/about-that-consensus-on-global-warming-9136-agree-one-disagrees/

"Now I understand as well as anyone else that consensus does not imply truth but I find it odd how there aren’t even a handful of scientists who deny global warming presumably because the global warming mafia threatens to throttle them if they do. It’s not like we are seeing a 70-30% split, or even a 90-10% split. No, the split is more like 99.99-0.01%.

Isn’t it remarkable that among the legions of scientists working around the world, many with tenured positions, secure reputations and largely nothing to lose, not even a hundred out of ten thousand come forward to deny the phenomenon in the scientific literature? Should it be that hard for them to publish papers if the evidence is really good enough? Even detractors of the peer review system would disagree that the system is that broken; after all, studies challenging consensus are quite common in other disciplines. So are contrarian climate scientists around the world so utterly terrified of their colleagues and world opinion that they would not dare to hazard a contrarian explanation at all, especially if it were based on sound science? The belief stretches your imagination to new lengths.

Those who think scientists keep silent on global warming presumably because they fear the barbs of the world demonstrate a peculiar kind of paranoia, especially since what they fear largely does not exist. More prosaically they need to recall Carl Sagan’s words again because the claim that scientist don’t dare to speak out against global warming in the literature is, quite definitely, an extraordinary claim. And it doesn’t seem to stand up to even ordinary evidence."
Where exactly has the warming gone for the last 18 years Cappy? Isn't that the real issue that you hide from explaining? Whether there is 34% consensus, 75% consensus, or 97% consensus, the reality is that there is NO global warming for almost a generation now. Since the last century!!! Awful hard to respect any group of "scientists" that according to you approach 100% agreement on something that isn't even occurring.

[PaceAdvantage]

Quite convinced. Then again why would JR post such obvious garbage from a shoddy tabloid? Then again why would he and others constantly try to show Obama and the Dems and lefties who post here always wrong.

There is much more preaching going on here from the right, and it has been a 24/7/365 wall to wall preaching since Obama announced his candidacy.

Your coming down on me for just sticking to my guns as I have been doing for years and not criticizing the right for equally preaching their point of view and worse parroting unsubstantiated and absurd claims is typical.Let's just stick to Global Warming and the science behind the cause. No need to drag politics back into this...unless you're saying that's the driving force behind BOTH sides... :lol:

[PaceAdvantage]

Jack Bruce is gone and we still have to listen to Hcap.

Truly a sad day.This was NOT a nice thing to write.

[Clocker]

Where exactly has the warming gone for the last 18 years Cappy?

It isn't global warming any more, it is global climate disruption, courtesy of the White House science czar. And the fact that global warming has been disrupted for 18 years is proof that it exists.

Give it up. You can't win when you are playing against the rule makers. :p

[tucker6]

Let's just stick to Global Warming and the science behind the cause. No need to drag politics back into this...unless you're saying that's the driving force behind BOTH sides... :lol:
Global warming is simply one of the war fronts being used by those that want wealth redistribution through carbon taxes on people and industry, as well as environmental impact penalties on wealthy countries.

[tucker6]

It isn't global warming any more, it is global climate disruption, courtesy of the White House science czar. And the fact that global warming has been disrupted for 18 years is proof that it exists.

Give it up. You can't win when you are playing against the rule makers. :p
You know that you're dealing with a religion when those who 'fight' to lower temps scream bloody murder when they do just that. Talk about the feeding trough running dry. A sad joke that many billions of dollars annually go to this fake problem and not to understanding real issues.

[DJofSD]

I wonder how those totals for research related to GW/CC/etc. compare to what could be done in Africa to help contain Ebola?

[Clocker]

I wonder how those totals for research related to GW/CC/etc. compare to what could be done in Africa to help contain Ebola?

The federal government spends $22 billion a year. See page 5. (http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/legislative_reports/fcce-report-to-congress.pdf)

[hcap]

Where exactly has the warming gone for the last 18 years Cappy? Isn't that the real issue that you hide from explaining? Whether there is 34% consensus, 75% consensus, or 97% consensus, the reality is that there is NO global warming for almost a generation now. Since the last century!!! Awful hard to respect any group of "scientists" that according to you approach 100% agreement on something that isn't even occurring.

1-it has not gone anywhere
2- You are denying once again that most of the heat has gone into the oceans.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/9

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/map-percentile-mntp/201409.gif

Global Highlights

The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for September 2014 was the highest on record for September, at 0.72°C (1.30°F) above the 20th century average of 15.0°C (59.0°F).

The global land surface temperature was 0.89°C (1.60°F) above the 20th century average of 12.0°C (53.6°F), the sixth highest for September on record.

For the ocean, the September global sea surface temperature was 0.66°C (1.19°F) above the 20th century average of 16.2°C (61.1°F), the highest on record for September and also the highest on record for any month.

The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for the January–September period (year-to-date) was 0.68°C (1.22°F) above the 20th century average of 14.1°C (57.5°F), tying with 1998 as the warmest such period on record.

And

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/has-global-warming-paused/

"A lot of people ask me: 'Has there been a pause in global warming because, like, temperatures aren't increasing as fast as they were a decade ago?'" Willis says.

"And I always say, you know, paws are for kittens and puppies, because global warming is definitely still increasing," Willis continues, smiling at his wordplay, as graphics of cute baby animals fill the screen.

Willis explain, though, most of the extra heat trapped by greenhouse gases does not warm the Earth's surface anyway.

Why do rising sea levels ignore the pause?
"Over 90 percent of the heat that we trap ... is warming the oceans," Willis said.

....So as a measure of global warming, surface temperatures are not a good yardstick, because the atmosphere can only hold a small percentage of the heat that is trapped, he said.

[hcap]

Let's just stick to Global Warming and the science behind the cause. No need to drag politics back into this...unless you're saying that's the driving force behind BOTH sides... :lol:Almost every post on this thread by your side is insisting there is a Democratic political global conspiracy to put a lie over on true blue Amur-can righties blabbing away their mutually frenzied and paranoid nonsense.

I repeat you must be joking. Politics is thy name Climate Deniers :lol:

[davew]

very impressive data hcap


I am curious if you would happen to know how long they have been recording data in those areas?


I also wonder if you would know how many years (millenia?) the earth has been in existence?

From those previous 2 answers, roughly what percentage of time has data been recorded? is it more than 0.00000000000000000000001% ?


also why would some areas record the coldest?

[hcap]

Jack Bruce is gone and we still have to listen to Hcap.

Truly a sad day.No, you can go watch Faux or listen to Rush. No one is holding you here against your feeble will excpt your own dumb attempt to counter the scientific consensus. Btw, I have to listen to you as well, but if I have nothing better to do, I enjoy deflating your your self-assured bloated egos :D

[tucker6]

You are denying once again that most of the heat has gone into the oceans.

Not only am I denying it, but your Huggy Bear, known also as NASA, agrees with me. Smoke that and get back to me.

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=4321

NASA Study Finds Earth's Ocean Abyss Has Not Warmed

The cold waters of Earth's deep ocean have not warmed measurably since 2005, according to a new NASA study, leaving unsolved the mystery of why global warming appears to have slowed in recent years.


:D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol:

Edit to add that due to the complete genuflection by NASA over global warming, they felt compelled to say that global warming has slowed instead of stopped. Facts are indeed facts. There's been no global warming for 18 years, and even many Alarmists agree with that assertion.

[hcap]

very impressive data hcap

I am curious if you would happen to know how long they have been recording data in those areas? Which areas?


I also wonder if you would know how many years (millenia?) the earth has been in existence? 4.54 Billion years, But I could be off some.
Know what PM boxcar

From those previous 2 answers, roughly what percentage of time has data been recorded? is it more than 0.00000000000000000000001% ?

also why would some areas record the coldest?What is your point?????? Problem is if the consensus is correct we have accelerated falling into deep dreck.

[tucker6]

Willis explain, though, most of the extra heat trapped by greenhouse gases does not warm the Earth's surface anyway.

Why do rising sea levels ignore the pause?
"Over 90 percent of the heat that we trap ... is warming the oceans," Willis said.

....So as a measure of global warming, surface temperatures are not a good yardstick, because the atmosphere can only hold a small percentage of the heat that is trapped, he said.
So by your very post are you proved incorrect. If the oceans are not absorbing heat, then by corollary, there must be no additional AGW heating going on. NASA, who you believe implicitly, says the oceans are not heating. Therefore they are not absorbing more heat because no new heat is entering the system. Thanks for playing, but this is checkmate my friend.

[hcap]

Not only am I denying it, but your Huggy Bear, known also as NASA, agrees with me. Smoke that and get back to me.

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=4321

NASA Study Finds Earth's Ocean Abyss Has Not Warmed

The cold waters of Earth's deep ocean have not warmed measurably since 2005, according to a new NASA study, leaving unsolved the mystery of why global warming appears to have slowed in recent years.


:D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol:Remember The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said "The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for September 2014 was the highest on record for September, at 0.72°C (1.30°F) above the 20th century average of 15.0°C (59.0°F). That was the hottest September in 135 years of record keeping. It was the fourth monthly record set this year, along with May, June and August. However NASA, parent of JPL which measures temperatures slightly differently, had already determined that September was record-warm. Why does NASA apparently contradict itself?
Read the JPL study more carefully.

The Jet Propulsion study said right at the top.."Although the top half of the ocean continues to warm, the bottom half has not increased measurably in temperature in the last decade. ..

As I indicated heat has gone and continues to mostly go into the oceans, I never said anything about the title of th Jet Propulsion piece. Which specifically speaks to the oceans abyss.

NASA Study Finds Earth's Ocean Abyss Has Not Warmed

It specifically says, and I repeat right at the top.."Although the top half of the ocean continues to warm, the bottom half has not increased measurably in temperature in the last decade. .. :lol: :lol: :cool:

[hcap]

So by your very post are you proved incorrect. If the oceans are not absorbing heat, then by corollary, there must be no additional AGW heating going on. NASA, who you believe implicitly, says the oceans are not heating. Therefore they are not absorbing more heat because no new heat is entering the system. Thanks for playing, but this is checkmate my friend.On the contrary, it looks like Fools mate for you. :cool:
Thanks for trying anyway.

[hcap]

The JPL study may miss much that may yet be discovered with the deployment of Deep Argo.

http://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/deep-argo-probes-ocean-abyss-explore-mysteries-global-warming-n223406

"In part of the ocean, that heat is kept up near the surface and in other places the heat is carried deep into the interior of the ocean," Marshall said. "For example, in the Southern Ocean, we think there are pathways from the surface right down to the bottom of the ocean, so the patterns and the timing of global warming are being affected by the ocean taking up heat."

In fact, storage of heat in the deep ocean may help explain what's known as the hiatus – a slowdown in the pace of atmospheric warming over the past 15 years. As it stands now, the paucity of deep ocean observations limits scientists' ability to shore up the theory, he added"

[davew]

NOAA has been around since what? 1970?

my point is the data time frames you are using are insignificant to the earth climate continuum


and anyone can take 2 data points and draw a line through them and say 'see where this line is heading', which does not mean that is where they will be

[JustRalph]

http://im41.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/cooling-300x196.jpg

[hcap]

NOAA has been around since what? 1970?

my point is the data time frames you are using are insignificant to the earth climate continuum

and anyone can take 2 data points and draw a line through them and say 'see where this line is heading', which does not mean that is where they will beGlobal warming tries to use as long a period as possible to examine what is happening. 30 years is meaningful. Again Scientific American

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/oceans-hid-the-heat-and-slowed-pace-of-global-warming/

Oceans Hid the Heat and Slowed Pace of Global Warming

Newly published data suggest that a hiatus in rising global air temperatures in the 21st century is the result of heat sinks deep in the Atlantic and Southern oceans. The trend is likely connected to roughly 30-year global warming and cooling cycles, according to researchers.


But the science of Global warming is not limited to 30 year cycles

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Temperature_Composite_500.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5e/Trends_in_global_average_absolute_sea_level,_1870-2008_%28US_EPA%29.png

[hcap]

Since the parts per million of CO2 is significant, we should pay attention to the sudden increase.

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/the-last-time-co2-was-this-high-humans-didnt-exist-15938

The Last Time CO2 Was This High, Humans Didn’t Exis

The last time there was this much carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Earth's atmosphere, modern humans didn't exist. Megatoothed sharks prowled the oceans, the world's seas were up to 100 feet higher than they are today, and the global average surface temperature was up to 11°F warmer than it is now.

As we near the record for the highest CO2 concentration in human history — 400 parts per million — climate scientists worry about where we were then, and where we're rapidly headed now.

According to data gathered at the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii, the 400 ppm mark may briefly be exceeded this month, when CO2 typically hits a seasonal peak in the Northern Hemisphere, although it is more likely to take a couple more years until it stays above that threshold, according to Ralph Keeling, a researcher at the Scripps Institute of Oceanography.

CO2 levels are far higher now than they have been for anytime during the past 800,000 years.

http://ccentralassets.s3.amazonaws.com/images/made/images/remote/http_assets.climatecentral.org/images/uploads/news/5_2_13_news_andrew_co2800000yrs_500_281_s_c1_c_c.j pg


http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images/indicators/800k-year-co2-concentration.gif

[Tom]

The Last Time CO2 Was This High, Humans Didn’t Exist

And now we do. :sleeping:

[Clocker]

And now we do. :sleeping:

And now we have peer-reviewed publications too, and we all lived happily ever after. :jump:

[hcap]

And now we do. :sleeping:Maybe Orangutangs did? My guess is if there were and a zillion + existed and they had a gazillion+ primitive typewriters, over 800,000 + years, Shakespeare's greatest works would have already been written, as well as ALL your idiotic 60,000 + posts :lol:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f1/Monkey-typing.jpg/450px-Monkey-typing.jpg
Given enough time, a hypothetical chimpanzee typing at random would, as part of its output,
almost surely produce one of Shakespeare's plays (or any other text).


And now we have peer-reviewed publications too, and we all lived happily ever after. And if Climate Change deniers had been attempting to publish their sloppy feeble inaccurate papers over the last 800,000 years,obviously close buddies with all those simians, there would sill only be a scarce few published
ALL of those papers lacking any scientific accuracy..always claiming how awful and wrong the consensus is....

[HUSKER55]

I doubt it. Mosty would find punctuation faults and deny the whole existence.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[hcap]

I doubt it. Mosty would find punctuation faults and deny the whole existence.

:lol: :lol: :lol:What are you talking about??

[DJofSD]

http://climatechangereconsidered.org/
http://heartland.org/media-library/pdfs/One-page-summary-of-CCR-II.pdf

Two major multi-volume reports on global warming were released in 2013 and so far in 2014, one by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and one by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC).

NIPCC is an international network of some 50 independent scientists from 15 countries, many of them distinguished and with no financial stake in the debate. Their new report consists of two volumes, each approximately 1,000 pages long, together citing nearly 6,000 peer-reviewed studies.

Here is what the scientists found:

# There is no scientific consensus on the human role in climate change.

# Future warming due to human greenhouse gases will likely be much less than IPCC forecasts.

# Carbon dioxide has not caused weather to become more extreme, polar ice nd sea ice to melt, or sea level rise to accelerate. These were all false alarms.

# The likely benefits of man-made global warming exceed the likely costs

More at the first link.

[MONEY]

Here's my two cents on climate change?

The earth weighs 13,170,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 pounds.
It's core is somewhere between 9,000 and 13,000 degrees Fahrenheit.
The earth spins at 1038 mph.

Add to the above that the earth is traveling around the sun at
67,000 mph & that our whole solar system is rotating with the
Milky Way Galaxy at 515,000 mph and the Milky Way is speeding through
the Universe at 252,000 mph.

A couple of more things that we can do nothing about are Solar storms
and the effects that gravity from the neighboring planets have on the Earth.

Climate change has been occurring since before ever and will continue
to happen long after the end of forever.

[thaskalos]

Have no fear. Overpopulation will finish us off long before global warming gets a chance to do the job.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Have no fear. Overpopulation will finish us off long before global warming gets a chance to do the job.

Now you're talking.

[Tom]

What are you talking about??

How you an mostie always get backed into corners and then try to get by changing the topic.

If it's too hot in the kitchen, then....oh, wait it IS too hot for you.

Never mind. :lol:

[FocusWiz]

Here's my two cents on climate change?

The earth weighs 13,170,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 pounds.
It's core is somewhere between 9,000 and 13,000 degrees Fahrenheit.
The earth spins at 1038 mph.

Add to the above that the earth is traveling around the sun at
67,000 mph & that our whole solar system is rotating with the
Milky Way Galaxy at 515,000 mph and the Milky Way is speeding through
the Universe at 252,000 mph.

A couple of more things that we can do nothing about are Solar storms
and the effects that gravity from the neighboring planets have on the Earth.

Climate change has been occurring since before ever and will continue
to happen long after the end of forever.Climate change has been occurring since the earth was formed and even the most unscientific of us on both sides of this issue should not realistically ignore that fact. However, the issue in front of us now should not be whether or not it is "normal" but what the current trends indicate and, if the indication is bad, what can be done to mitigate the impact. Unfortunately, here is where the special interest groups pollute the science with political and economic preferences.

We had two of largest storms in recorded history two years ago, the remnants of Sandy and an unnamed storm that kindly stayed out in the mid-Atlantic. These were only exceeded in size by Typhoon Tip in 1979. Can it be a coincidence that these storms occurred during a period of warmer climate? Possibly, and possibly not (we are horse players, and past performances indicated that these storms were wild longshots to ever occur), but the circumstantial evidence points to it being part of a major fluctuation in climate.

Climate change can and has affected humans. Cambodia’s ancient Khmer civilization at Angkor was most likely destroyed by decades of drought and decades of heavy precipitation. These were likely not caused by man, but they affected man. The Sahara Desert was once lush fertile ground. Man did not cause that either, but man was definitely affected.

Human society adjusts to the current climate and thus is disrupted when it changes, regardless of whether the cause is natural or not. Humans generally populate near waterways and coastal areas. Humans generally populate temperate areas more heavily than deserts and arctic regions. We grow crops where crop growing is best supported by nature. The Left is correct when they call for action to investigate the impact of this change and what can be done to mitigate it since (assuming we populate in these logical places) the effects are going to be disruptive. They are wrong when they put the entire wager on carbon dioxide.

The biggest issue is that we disregard heat as a problem and fail to see other alternatives other than the reduction of carbon dioxide as a potential solution. The tendency of people to say, "show me your science" is as sickening here as it was during the debate about cigarettes. There was plenty of "science" supporting cigarette smoking and it was difficult then (as it is now) for the lay person to separate one scientist with an ulterior motive from other scientists with different motives.

Carbon dioxide isn't the only factor, but it seems like our focus on it will head us all to doom. Carbon dioxide is by far the most enduring factor in our atmosphere, but I cannot believe how much we ignore the affects of methane, hydrofluorocarbons, ozone (yes ozone can be a problem in the wrong place), and the affects of plain ordinary soot (often referred to in research as "black carbon"). While heat is the main problem, mitigating the affects of these items (especially soot and methane) could go a long way towards mitigating the overall climate impact.

I am not attacking the folks on this forum for relying on their information sources. It is not you who filters the "knowledge" that comes to you.

I think both sides (not just here) need to stop arguing about whether man caused climate change or not and we need to stop focusing on carbon dioxide reduction as a panacea or fossil fuels as the enemy. For those who rely on nature, yes, the forests of the Amazon soak up an ever-declining amount of carbon dioxide, but so did the exposed mountain faces of the Himalayas during Cenozoic times. Lots of things affect the atmosphere and many things that affect the atmosphere also affect climate.

Climate is complicated. Climate is not just caused by man and not just caused by the Sun. Growth and decline of mountains, volcanic eruptions, expansion of the Atlantic and shrinking of the Pacific, heating and cooling of our oceans all affect climate. We cannot prevent all climate change and we may find some such changes beneficial. However, this nonsensical focus on carbon dioxide versus whether or not humans caused it leaves me hot under the collar.

just another 2¢.

[hcap]

http://climatechangereconsidered.org/
http://heartland.org/media-library/pdfs/One-page-summary-of-CCR-II.pdf

More at the first link.Not so fast

http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2013/09/09/heartland-institute-nipcc-fail-the-credibility-test/

Heartland Institute and its NIPCC report fail the credibility test

The discredited Heartland Institute is attempting to present its new NIPCC report, Climate Change Reconsidered, as a legitimate alternative authority to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). But the NIPCC report is not a credible scientific undertaking, and the Heartland Institute has no credibility, scientific or otherwise.

...However, the Heartland institute is nowhere close to the IPCC in terms of credibility. A few key points show the NIPCC to be a transparent marketing gimmick rather than a legitimate scientific undertaking:

The NIPCC does not follow the same rigorous scientific evaluation process as the IPCC.

The Heartland Institute has a long history of opposing settled science in the interests of its free-market funders, and has used decidedly un-scientific tactics to do so.

The NIPCC vs. IPCC Process

The IPCC is supported by hundreds of scientists, think tanks, and organizations around the world that assess and synthesize the most recent climate change-related science. The IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), published in 2007, involved more than 500 Lead Authors and 2000 Expert Reviewers from more than one hundred participating nations. These authors and reviewers were all unpaid volunteers, and are required to identify and show consideration to theories that differ from conventional wisdom.

...Unlike the IPCC, the NIPCC examines literature published exclusively by climate contrarians who are paid to contribute their findings to NIPCC reports, according to leaked internal documents of the Heartland Institute. The 2009 NIPCC report Climate Change Reconsidered had two lead authors, Fred Singer and Craig Idso, and 35 contributors. Similarly, the 2011 Interim NIPCC report had three lead authors, Fred Singer, Craig Idso, and Robert Carter, and only eight contributors. The NIPCC does not employ the same rigorous standards and approval process used by the IPCC to ensure its assessment reports are accurate and inclusive.

..The Heartland Institute has a long history of valuing the interests of its financial backers over the conclusions of experts. It has campaigned against the threats posed by second-hand smoke, acid rain, and ozone depletion, as well as the Endangered Species Act. With its aggressive campaigning using tools such as billboards comparing climate change “believers” to the Unabomber, Heartland makes no pretense at being a scientific organization.

[hcap]

Does not look unbiased at all. And has been demonstrably wrong on ozone and CRCs and second hand smoke risks

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Singer

Some info about Singer

.. his questioning of the link between UV-B and melanoma rates, and that between CFCs and stratospheric ozone loss,[2] his public denial of the health risks of passive smoking, and as an outspoken critic of the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming.

Singer set up the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) after a 2004 United Nations climate conference in Milan. NIPCC organized an international climate workshop in Vienna in April 2007,[66] to provide what they called an independent examination of the evidence for climate change.[67] Singer prepared an NIPCC report called "Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate," published in March 2008 by The Heartland Institute, a conservative think tank.[66] ABC News said the same month that unnamed climate scientists from NASA, Stanford, and Princeton who spoke to ABC about the report dismissed it as "fabricated nonsense." In a letter of complaint to ABC News, Singer said their piece used "prejudicial language, distorted facts, libelous insinuations, and anonymous smears

[hcap]

http://www.forecastthefacts.org/campaign/heartland/tobacco/

Heartland Institute And Tobacco

Led by president and CEO Joseph Bast, the Heartland Institute has a long and disgraceful track record of misleading the public about the overwhelming scientific evidence that cigarette smoking poses significant health risks. The organization has also consistently argued against health-based regulation of tobacco products. Heartland’s scientifically and morally indefensible advocacy on smoking is no surprise given that a significant portion of its funding has come from tobacco companies. In the past two years, Altria and Reynolds American contributed $90,000 and $110,000 respectively.

[dartman51]

Climate change has been occurring since the earth was formed and even the most unscientific of us on both sides of this issue should not realistically ignore that fact. However, the issue in front of us now should not be whether or not it is "normal" but what the current trends indicate and, if the indication is bad, what can be done to mitigate the impact. Unfortunately, here is where the special interest groups pollute the science with political and economic preferences.

We had two of largest storms in recorded history two years ago, the remnants of Sandy and an unnamed storm that kindly stayed out in the mid-Atlantic. These were only exceeded in size by Typhoon Tip in 1979. Can it be a coincidence that these storms occurred during a period of warmer climate? Possibly, and possibly not (we are horse players, and past performances indicated that these storms were wild longshots to ever occur), but the circumstantial evidence points to it being part of a major fluctuation in climate.

Climate change can and has affected humans. Cambodia’s ancient Khmer civilization at Angkor was most likely destroyed by decades of drought and decades of heavy precipitation. These were likely not caused by man, but they affected man. The Sahara Desert was once lush fertile ground. Man did not cause that either, but man was definitely affected.

Human society adjusts to the current climate and thus is disrupted when it changes, regardless of whether the cause is natural or not. Humans generally populate near waterways and coastal areas. Humans generally populate temperate areas more heavily than deserts and arctic regions. We grow crops where crop growing is best supported by nature. The Left is correct when they call for action to investigate the impact of this change and what can be done to mitigate it since (assuming we populate in these logical places) the effects are going to be disruptive. They are wrong when they put the entire wager on carbon dioxide.

The biggest issue is that we disregard heat as a problem and fail to see other alternatives other than the reduction of carbon dioxide as a potential solution. The tendency of people to say, "show me your science" is as sickening here as it was during the debate about cigarettes. There was plenty of "science" supporting cigarette smoking and it was difficult then (as it is now) for the lay person to separate one scientist with an ulterior motive from other scientists with different motives.

Carbon dioxide isn't the only factor, but it seems like our focus on it will head us all to doom. Carbon dioxide is by far the most enduring factor in our atmosphere, but I cannot believe how much we ignore the affects of methane, hydrofluorocarbons, ozone (yes ozone can be a problem in the wrong place), and the affects of plain ordinary soot (often referred to in research as "black carbon"). While heat is the main problem, mitigating the affects of these items (especially soot and methane) could go a long way towards mitigating the overall climate impact.

I am not attacking the folks on this forum for relying on their information sources. It is not you who filters the "knowledge" that comes to you.

I think both sides (not just here) need to stop arguing about whether man caused climate change or not and we need to stop focusing on carbon dioxide reduction as a panacea or fossil fuels as the enemy. For those who rely on nature, yes, the forests of the Amazon soak up an ever-declining amount of carbon dioxide, but so did the exposed mountain faces of the Himalayas during Cenozoic times. Lots of things affect the atmosphere and many things that affect the atmosphere also affect climate.

Climate is complicated. Climate is not just caused by man and not just caused by the Sun. Growth and decline of mountains, volcanic eruptions, expansion of the Atlantic and shrinking of the Pacific, heating and cooling of our oceans all affect climate. We cannot prevent all climate change and we may find some such changes beneficial. However, this nonsensical focus on carbon dioxide versus whether or not humans caused it leaves me hot under the collar.

just another 2¢.


:ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: Well said.

[hcap]

Climate is complicated. Climate is not just caused by man and not just caused by the Sun. Growth and decline of mountains, volcanic eruptions, expansion of the Atlantic and shrinking of the Pacific, heating and cooling of our oceans all affect climate. We cannot prevent all climate change and we may find some such changes beneficial. However, this nonsensical focus on carbon dioxide versus whether or not humans caused it leaves me hot under the collar.
According to the scientific consensus the current, and relatively sudden accumulation of heat is in fact attributed to man and basically the advent and growth of the industrial revolution. Although you are correct in that yes climate involves an enormous number of variables, those variables have been ruled out in terms of the resent debate as not as significant as human activities. For example...

http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm

Climate Myth...

It's the sun
"Over the past few hundred years, there has been a steady increase in the numbers of sunspots, at the time when the Earth has been getting warmer. The data suggests solar activity is influencing the global climate causing the world to get warmer." (BBC)

Over the last 35 years the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. However global temperatures have been increasing. Since the sun and climate are going in opposite directions scientists conclude the sun cannot be the cause of recent global warming.

The only way to blame the sun for the current rise in temperatures is by cherry picking the data. This is done by showing only past periods when sun and climate move together and ignoring the last few decades when the two are moving in opposite directions.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Solar_vs_temp_500.jpg

[Tom]

those variables have been ruled out in terms of the recent agenda as not as significant as human activities.

Consensus here.....

[tucker6]

We had two of largest storms in recorded history two years ago, the remnants of Sandy and an unnamed storm that kindly stayed out in the mid-Atlantic. These were only exceeded in size by Typhoon Tip in 1979. Can it be a coincidence that these storms occurred during a period of warmer climate? Possibly, and possibly not (we are horse players, and past performances indicated that these storms were wild longshots to ever occur), but the circumstantial evidence points to it being part of a major fluctuation in climate.

Recorded history is since the satellite era some 40 years ago. That's not a large sample size. "largest" as you describe it is in the eye of the beholder. In what sense? geographic area? Winds? Low pressure? Storms like the one you mention in the mid atlantic occurs yearly off Japan, and more rarely in the north atlantic. But they do occur more regularly than you think. Sandy has a return period of approx 700 years according to peer reviewed papers. She was neither the most powerful storm to hit the NE, nor the one with the highest winds or the most rain. Her uniqueness was in the direction of approach. Otherwise, she occurs approx every 50-100 years. Not so fantastic is it. Nor can you compare a typhoon with an extra tropical system. Tip was extra-ordinary in nature, and a one of a kind since the satellite era started. Sandy as it hit NJ and all mid-latitude storms are not of the same variety as Tip, and so the comparison must end there. They are completely different and not comparable.

[ArlJim78]

good article on the current state of "carbon dioxide focused" climate research.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/26/climate-research-needs-re-direction/

The major determinants of surface weather are latitude, earth’s rotation, the seasons, the sun with its variable radiations and orbital changes; and nearness to the oceans which maintain the water cycle, moderate temperatures and house massive volcanic chains.

Earth’s mighty oceans cover 70% of the surface. Evaporation of water and convection in the atmosphere transfer large quantities of solar heat from the surface to the stratosphere. This process creates clouds, rain and snow and also forms low pressure zones which are the birthplace for cyclones and hurricanes. Wind direction and strength are related to sun-generated convection in the atmosphere, the transfer of solar heat from the equator to the poles, and the Coriolis effect of the rotation of the earth. Carbon dioxide plays no significant part in these processes.

[davew]

ArlJim,

they have long given up on the carbon dioxide mantra - it is now 'climate disruption', even though sucking money from companies/people who emit large amounts of carbon dioxide still sounds good to them....

[horses4courses]

or a 3-ringed circus.....take your pick.

Conservatives will also try to convince you that world is flat. :rolleyes:
Their "scientists" will dispute anything to the contrary.

Somebody is going to be very wrong.......

[Tom]

Not a merry go round, but more of a circle.....you get my drift.
Answer me this, why didn't most people who attended Kyoto go there in highly polluting jet planes?

Are you telling me with a straight face that they have an excuse for doing that?
Come on, it is a scam and an obvious one.

[FocusWiz]

Answer me this, why didn't most people who attended Kyoto go there in highly polluting jet planes?I am sure that they are buying carbon offsets to address this.

[Tom]

Carbon offsets - how can these ridiculous libs consider them if GW is as dire as they pretend it is? the same old liberal song sheet - this applies to you, but not to me. How can GW be taken seriously when those leading the charge FAIL to live up to what they demand of us? Libs are afraid to take a stand on anything real, like Ebola or ISIS because these are real threats. Like true libs, they are all talky no walky. You just cannot believe a word a lib says.

[hcap]

ArlJim,

they have long given up on the carbon dioxide mantra - it is now 'climate disruption', even though sucking money from companies/people who emit large amounts of carbon dioxide still sounds good to them....Nonsense. Particularly when CO2 is breaking records going back millions of years for parts per millions collecting in the atmosphere, and therefore uptake in the oceans (http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Ocean+Carbon+Uptake)

Evidence suggests that the past and current ocean uptake of human-derived (anthropogenic) CO2 is primarily a physical response to rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Whenever the partial pressure of a gas is increased in the atmosphere over a body of water, the gas will diffuse into that water until the partial pressures across the air-water interface are equilibrated. However, because the global carbon cycle is intimately embedded in the physical climate system there exist several feedback loops between the two systems. For example, increasing CO2 modifies the climate which in turn impacts ocean circulation and therefore ocean CO2 uptake. Changes in marine ecosystems resulting from rising CO2 and/or changing climate can also result in changes in air-sea CO2 exchange. These feedbacks can change the role of the oceans in taking up atmospheric CO2 making it very difficult to predict how the ocean carbon cycle will operate in the future.

[hcap]

How can GW be taken seriouslyAdd a bush? :sleeping:

[tucker6]

Nonsense. Particularly when CO2 is breaking records going back millions of years for parts per millions collecting in the atmosphere, [I]and therefore uptake
lol. Pure lie.

From your very own Skepical Science site!! Note first graph. CO2 has been higher than today through most of Earth's history. Probably 95% of its history.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=77

[hcap]

lol. Pure lie.

From your very own Skepical Science site!! Note first graph. CO2 has been higher than today through most of Earth's history. Probably 95% of its history.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=77I prefer NOAA

http://sustainabilityconsult.blogspot.com/2013/05/thoughtshower-400-ppm-CO2-climate-change.html

On 2 May 2013, carbon dioxide (CO2) levels in the atmosphere reached 400 parts-per-million (ppm) for the first time in human history. This record was measured by the NOAA/ESRL's Global Monitoring Division in Mauna Loa, Hawaii

[DJofSD]

http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/only_37_days_to_go/

Doomsday draws near:

The planet has just five years to avoid disastrous global warming, says the Federal Government’s chief scientist.

Prof Penny Sackett yesterday urged all Australians to reduce their carbon footprint.

They're on the other side of the date line in Oz, so I guess that means we only have 36 days here.

[ArlJim78]

One day the carbon freakout of the late 20th early 21st century will become a new chapter all to itself when they update Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds. Right next to Tulip mania, alchemy and witch-hunts.

[DJofSD]

One day the carbon freakout of the late 20th early 21st century will become a new chapter all to itself when they update Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds. Right next to Tulip mania, alchemy and witch-hunts.
You left out black boxes that pick winners.

[tucker6]

I prefer NOAA

you can prefer anything you like, doesn't mean that it's meaningful or very true. Parsing words like 'human history' is knowingly fictitious. Try to be above that.

[Clocker]

Try to be above that.

Get a grip, man! Remember where you are!!! :D

[hcap]

you can prefer anything you like, doesn't mean that it's meaningful or very true. Parsing words like 'human history' is knowingly fictitious. Try to be above that.Ok, how about changing "human history to the last 800,000 years? Or back to the Pleistocene (Heidelberg Man) lived from about 800,000 to about 300,000 years ago).


http://rabble.ca/sites/rabble/files/node-images/epica-luthi-nature-2008-crop.jpg

The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, measured over the past 800,000 years. It never came close to 400 ppm. Present day is on the far right.

[tucker6]

Get a grip, man! Remember where you are!!! :D
haha. I'm truly embarrassed at myself. :lol:

[hcap]

Get a grip, man! Remember where you are!!! haha. I'm truly embarrassed at myself. :lol:As you both should be!

Yeah remember you are here
... the 24/7/365 anti

-Obama
-Science
-Democratic party
-Lib
-Al Gore
-International

Mutual stroking right wing loonie bin society. :eek: :eek:





Having said the above, let me apologize for writing CO2 atmospheric content of 400 ppm is now the highest in millions of years, when I should have said million--800,000 to be correct

E-X-C--U-S-E me.

I'm truly embarrassed at myself. :lol: :rolleyes:



http://rabble.ca/sites/rabble/files/node-images/epica-luthi-nature-2008-crop.jpg

[fast4522]

And things are still like that for at least 1/2 the country, when your posts scroll off it will be the same.

[DeltaLover]

Interesting related video:


MIwSUxEKeNk

[badcompany]

Not a merry go round, but more of a circle.....you get my drift.
Answer me this, why didn't most people who attended Kyoto go there in highly polluting jet planes?

Are you telling me with a straight face that they have an excuse for doing that?
Come on, it is a scam and an obvious one.

The changing from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change" was a dead giveaway. Unlike the former, the latter can't be falsified.

Many involved in this type of scam are politicians and entertainers who can't get work their industries. The "cause" becomes their meal ticket.

In the case of an Hcap, it's a way to fill the hours.

[hcap]

How about the change from Fascism to conservative?

[Clocker]

Mutual stroking right wing loonie bin society. :eek: :eek:



Further validating my previous comment. :rolleyes:

[hcap]

Further validating my previous comment. :rolleyes:
Pardon me. I already explained where you are
Yeah remember you are here
... the 24/7/365 anti

-Obama
-Science
-Democratic party
-Lib
-Al Gore
-International

Mutual stroking right wing loonie bin society.

[Tom]

Pardon me. I already explained where you are

You can stop now - he already said you proved it.

[Clocker]

You can stop now - he already said you proved it.

In his inimitable classy manner. :p

[DJofSD]

In his inimitable classy manner. :p
It's more like a misanthrope, you know, like the jihadists: idealistic, intolerant, iconoclastic with the perspective than man is basically evil.

[Clocker]

It's more like a misanthrope, you know, like the jihadists: idealistic, intolerant, iconoclastic with the perspective that non-believers are basically evil.

Fixt.

[tucker6]

You can stop now - he already said you proved it.
It's only 97% settled. Just like the sun revolving around the Earth. The flat earth. Man can never fly a heavier than air machine. Man will never land on the moon. Man cannot support more than 6B people. Oops, make that 7B. Oops, make that 8B and counting. See any trends here? It's all settled.

[davew]

the correlation of this graph is so high, I have to say it is BS
-how can they measure carbon dioxide and average temperatire from 800,000 years ago?
-the obvious implication is antartica temperatire should be 10C

http://rabble.ca/sites/rabble/files/node-images/epica-luthi-nature-2008-crop.jpg

[hcap]

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

The graph posted, is based on the comparison of atmospheric samples contained in ice cores and more recent direct measurements,at NOAA Mauna Loa, provides that evidence

[Tom]

Note self - never live an ice core.
Stay in the REAL world, where is nice and balmy.:cool:

[DJofSD]

You mean you don't believe in global warming? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nq4Bc2WCsdE)

[hcap]

Note self - never live an ice core.
Stay in the REAL world, where is nice and balmy.:cool:But at least your bananas will be nice and cool

http://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/02/29/d0/1e/monkey-with-ice-cream.jpg

[Tom]

I think that is an ice cream cone.
What else on a hot day? :rolleyes:

[DJofSD]

I much prefer these apes. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JDzlhW3XTM) . Sing it, cuz!

[davew]

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

The graph posted, is based on the comparison of atmospheric samples contained in ice cores and more recent direct measurements,at NOAA Mauna Loa, provides that evidence

Although I am sleptical, it could be possible to measure carbon dioxide from an ice core. What I do not understand is how average antartica temperature can be determined from an ice core. But I am guessing they use some sort of 'model' to determine the earth temperature.....

[reckless]

I much prefer these apes. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JDzlhW3XTM) . Sing it, cuz!

The King of Swing voice of the great, very great, and absolutely fantastically great Louis Prima.

Thanks DJ!

[TJDave]

The King of Swing voice of the great, very great, and absolutely fantastically great Louis Prima.

Thanks DJ!

The bear was Phil Harris. All of the characters played by established stars. Great cast!

[hcap]

Although I am sleptical, it could be possible to measure carbon dioxide from an ice core. What I do not understand is how average antartica temperature can be determined from an ice core. But I am guessing they use some sort of 'model' to determine the earth temperature.....I found "ice core" in a minute. I am guessing you could research the hows in a few minutes. Will you become an expert ? No, but you will learn enough.

[hcap]

Start here: 800,000-year Ice-Core Records of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (CO2)

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/ice_core_co2.html

[davew]

it is the bottom half of the graph that is fabricated (IN RED) where they say they know what the average Antartic Temperature is from an ice core


The Great Global Warming Swindle Full Movie
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-m09lKtYT4

[hcap]

it is the bottom half of the graph that is fabricated (IN RED) where they say they know what the average Antartic Temperature is from an ice coreDid you read the link I just posted?

I am have no patience to watch another Al Gore is fat sensualist video claiming all AGW is lies, and wait till you graph pops up. Please find some documentation to link to or quote. Hopefully from a reputable source. The page I linked gives rational answers. Drilling ice and dirt cores has been done for all sorts of geological and gaseous diffusion studies for some time now. What is the problem?

Unless you are referring to the graph I posted.
That should be self explanatory

[fast4522]

it is the bottom half of the graph that is fabricated (IN RED) where they say they know what the average Antartic Temperature is from an ice core


The Great Global Warming Swindle Full Movie
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-m09lKtYT4


Cool post and video link. :ThmbUp:

[davew]

Al Gore explaining his conviction on climate change legislation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbLK4RZDdzI
his body language reminds me of when Clinton said he did not with Monica

interesting talk by Dr Don Easterbrook to WA state committee on global climate change - there are a couple climate change cult followers on the committee
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LkMweOVOOI
big shock is carbon dioxide follows/lags increase in temperatures from release by ocean

[fast4522]

I actually met one of the guys in that video you posted, The Great Global Warming Swindle Full Movie. In the early 80's I was at Dick Lindzen's home in Brookline Massachusetts twice and once over to his office in MIT. This guy impressed me as one of the sharpest and most direct people that I talked with about computers. At the time he was involved with the Boston computer society and helping folks in India get a new Commodore all in one computer into their country and the regulatory mess associated with that. It was nice to see this guy on the video even looking younger and perhaps leaner than he did in the 80's. To close out this post, in this video Dick Lindzen says twice "pure Propaganda". I would urge everyone to watch this video.

[DJofSD]

http://www.weather.com/sports-rec/below-zero/halloween-weekend-snow-first-flakes-northeast-great-lakes-20141027

[JustRalph]

it's snowing in Tn and SC ? Good stuff.......

[tucker6]

snow in TN and SC is weather. A heat wave in TN and SC is global warming.

[OntheRail]

Now the Weatherman talked about the Polar Vortex being driven by a warmer pocket of water setting off the Alaskan Coast. And that trend will continue this year. Now looking at the Ocean Current Map. Makes one wonder if Fukushima nuclear power plants disaster and China Syndrome meltdown over the last 3 years has not contributed to the localize warming of the water and it's being pushed around by the current.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cc/Ocean_surface_currents.jpg

2014/2015 winter weather outlook (http://fox8.com/2014/10/30/bundle-up-looks-to-be-a-consistently-cold-winter-ahead/)


I know it sounds crazy... but is it any crazier then Global Warming.


http://fukushimaupdate.com/japan-in-depth-tepco-measures-fail-to-hold-water/#comment-2758

[HUSKER55]

why are you cursing?

Really?????


polar vortex!!!!!!


I never got past last years. Now you go and predict another?!!!

Nasty Man! :D :D :D

[hcap]

So Al Gore is still fat?
This is the same nonsense trumped last year as though it proves anything.

What is it about "Global" that is not understood?

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/10/27/3584781/australia-spring-heatwave/

Australia’s summer doesn’t start until December, but the country is still baking in a record-breaking spring heat wave.

On Saturday, Australia’s average high temperature of 97.5°F broke the record for the hottest October day since record-keeping began in 1910. According to the Sydney Morning Herald, this weekend’s heat wave set records for daily high temperatures at 20 stations throughout the country. The town of St. George reached a high of 108.6°F on Sunday, and the suburbs surrounding Ipswich and Brisbane hit 106°F.

https://d35brb9zkkbdsd.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Capture-638x380.jpg

[HUSKER55]

as our ozone layer shrinks that would mean the temperature from space is closer to the earth. Why doesn't the temperatures go down?

[hcap]

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/ozone-hole-and-gw-faq.html#bf-toc-2

http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/themes/primary/images/logo-ucs.png

Does the "ozone hole" contribute to global warming?

Stratospheric ozone absorbs energy from the ultraviolet part of the solar spectrum, heating the lower stratosphere. This part of the spectrum accounts for less than one percent of the total solar energy reaching our atmosphere. [1] Stratospheric ozone is important because it prevent dangerous ultraviolet rays from harming plants and animals on Earth's surface, but reductions in the amount of radiation absorbed does not have a measurable impact on temperatures below.
.................................................. ...........

And

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/assessments/ozone/1998/faq9.html

Does Ozone Depletion Cause Climate Change?

Ozone depletion and climate change are linked in a number of ways, but ozone depletion is not a major cause of climate change.

Atmospheric ozone has two effects on the temperature balance of the Earth. It absorbs solar ultraviolet radiation, which heats the stratosphere. It also absorbs infrared radiation emitted by the Earth's surface, effectively trapping heat in the troposphere. Therefore, the climate impact of changes in ozone concentrations varies with the altitude at which these ozone changes occur. The major ozone losses that have been observed in the lower stratosphere due to the human-produced chlorine- and bromine-containing gases have a cooling effect on the Earth's surface. On the other hand, the ozone increases that are estimated to have occurred in the troposphere because of surface-pollution gases have a warming effect on the Earth's surface, thereby contributing to the "greenhouse" effect.
.................................................. .............................................

In any case recent disturbances in the "ozone layer" are caused by man.

Industrialization and pollution caused by humans once again screwing up things

[tucker6]

So Al Gore is still fat?
This is the same nonsense trumped last year as though it proves anything.

What is it about "Global" that is not understood?

Australia’s summer doesn’t start until December, but the country is still baking in a record-breaking spring heat wave.

On Saturday, Australia’s average high temperature of 97.5°F broke the record for the hottest October day since record-keeping began in 1910. According to the Sydney Morning Herald, this weekend’s heat wave set records for daily high temperatures at 20 stations throughout the country. The town of St. George reached a high of 108.6°F on Sunday, and the suburbs surrounding Ipswich and Brisbane hit 106°F.


What is it about weather versus climate that you do not understand?

[hcap]

What is it about weather versus climate that you do not understand?What is it about early snowfall that most of you don't understand?



"Many scientists compare average global temperatures, precipitation, and other variables for the 20th and 21st centuries with the 30-year averages for 1870 to 1899, before major industrialization produced large quantities of greenhouse gas."

[fast4522]

Guess what, we do understand. :lol:

[DJofSD]

Guess what, we do understand. :lol:
Ya, but, ya know, for some the mental elevator does not go to the top.

[Clocker]

What is it about early snowfall that most of you don't understand?




What is it about people jerking your chain that you don't understand? :p

[tucker6]

"Many scientists compare average global temperatures, precipitation, and other variables for the 20th and 21st centuries with the 30-year averages for 1870 to 1899, before major industrialization produced large quantities of greenhouse gas."
No reputable scientists or organizations do that. Not even Alarmists as far as I've seen.

[DJofSD]

What is it about people jerking your chain that you don't understand? :p
Damn, dude, you let the cat out of the bag.

[Clocker]

Damn, dude, you let the cat out of the bag.

Naw, I was just jerking his chain. :p

[hcap]

What is it about people jerking your chain that you don't understand?

Naw, I was just jerking his chain.

Culprit # 1 JustRalph it's snowing in Tn and SC ? Good stuff.......
#2 tucker6 snow in TN and SC is weather. A heat wave in TN and SC is global warming.
#3 DJofSD......earliest snowfall

Sounds to me like each of you are jerking each others' chain.
WHOLE LOT OF JERKIN' GOING ON :lol:

[hcap]

No reputable scientists or organizations do that. Not even Alarmists as far as I've seen.That's from National Center for Atmospheric Research.

https://www2.ucar.edu/climate/faq/whats-difference-between-climate-and-weather

I'm sorry but they are not bogus TV weathermen who refuse to disclose their university credentialshttp://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Anthony_Watts

Willard Anthony Watts (Anthony Watts) is a blogger, weathercaster and non-scientist, paid AGW denier who runs the website wattsupwiththat.com. He does not have a university qualification and has no climate credentials other than being a radio weather announcer.

Watts attended Purdue University from 1975 to 1982 but left without graduating.[2] A number of direct queries to Watts to find out if he graduated from college were rebuffed,[3] but a direct query to Purdue revealed that he did not obtain a degree from the university.[2]

[DJofSD]

So, what are your university, weather, climate, chemical and physics credentials?

[fast4522]

I think he was very clear, he is the only one incapable of doing any JERKIN.

[hcap]

So, what are your university, weather, climate, chemical and physics credentials?NO ONE HERE HAS ANY including superior than thou jackassian mental elevator analysts. And guys that call themselves fast but are rather slow

The point is the organizations I quote from or link to, do have credentials and write peer reviewed papers. Not so for Willard

[Clocker]

So, what are your university, weather, climate, chemical and physics credentials?

You mean beyond posting random data and charts on an internet forum?

I have never spent any time at wattsupwiththat, but it appears he does the same thing on his blog. I'm not aware that Watts claims to be an expert or to have done any original work.

The difference is that Watts has a large audience and a lot of people take him seriously.

[Clocker]

I think he was very clear, he is the only one incapable of doing any JERKIN.

But he likes to watch. :eek:

[hcap]

More crappola from the Clock that is not correct at least 2 x's a day :lol:

[davew]

I hope the global warming east coast snowstorm doesn't keep people from voting.

[Tom]

It's the liberal snow job we are voting against.

[Clocker]

It's the liberal snow job we are voting against.

Watch out where the Huskies go,
And don't eat yellow Kool Aid snow. :p

[DJofSD]

http://www.weather.com/sports-rec/below-zero/record-early-snow-south-carolina-first-flakes-appalachians-new-england-great-lakes-20141101

[boxcar]

http://www.weather.com/sports-rec/below-zero/record-early-snow-south-carolina-first-flakes-appalachians-new-england-great-lakes-20141101

Not only that but the temp in South Florida dipped down to about 50 Friday night -- in October yet!. Truly, the end is near. :rolleyes:

[Tom]

Watch out where the Huskies go,
And don't eat yellow Kool Aid snow. :p

Whooooo could have imagined, that they'd freak out in Kansas.

[DJofSD]

Kansas. Kansas! Kansas. -- Frank Zappa, "It can't happen here." (not Brown Shoes as I had originally posted in error)

[classhandicapper]

I'd like to get an "IF" bet down.

If global temperatures start to drop, we will be bombarded by a slew of new peer reviewed studies and models that argue global cooling is part of the same CO2 phenomenon and that we have a limited amount of time to change to cleaner energy or else. There will also be a load of new theories to explain away why the original predictions were wrong.

[Clocker]

There will also be a load of new theories to explain away why the original predictions were wrong.

It's not global warming any more. It's global climate disruption. So if it starts getting cooler, it's because the warming is being disrupted. The new theories will explain how the cooling is man-made.

[hcap]

Snowfall(s) in November is no biggie.

This is

https://www2.ucar.edu/sites/default/files/news/2014/201301-201312.png

Global average temperature since 1880. This graph from NOAA shows the annual trend in average global air temperature in degrees Celsius, through December 2013. For each year, the range of uncertainty is indicated by the gray vertical bars. The blue line tracks the changes in the trend over time. . (Image courtesy NOAA's National Climatic Data Center.)

https://www2.ucar.edu/climate/faq/how-much-has-global-temperature-risen-last-100-years

Averaged over all land and ocean surfaces, temperatures warmed roughly 1.53°F (0.85ºC) from 1880 to 2012, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (see page 3 of the IPCC's Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis, Summary for Policymakers - PDF). Because oceans tend to warm and cool more slowly than land areas, continents have warmed the most. In the Northern Hemisphere, where most of Earth's land mass is located, the three decades from 1983 to 2012 were likely the warmest 30-year period of the last 1400 years, according to the IPCC.

[Tom]

It's always snowing somewhere.
It's always hot somewhere.
Not as much snow as we've ever had, and nt as hot as it's ever been.

Unless you are a paranoid chicken little afraid of the sky. :lol::lol::lol:

[hcap]

It's always snowing somewhere.
It's always hot somewhere.
Not as much snow as we've ever had, and nt as hot as it's ever been.

Unless you are a paranoid chicken little afraid of the sky. :lol::lol::lol:
Once again we have ALMOST a demonstration that occasionally ....

Given an infinite number of monkeys and an infinite amount of time, eventually one of them would type Hamlet


OOPS!!. It is not yet an infinite amount of time :lol:

[hcap]

http://media.npr.org/assets/img/2013/12/10/istock-18586699-monkey-computer_brick-16e5064d3378a14e0e4c2da08857efe03c04695e-s4-c85.jpg

Now that's cool.

[Tom]

So how ya coming on getting China on board? :lol:

[davew]

So how ya coming on getting China on board? :lol:

plenty of coal train traffic on the west coast, going to Canada where it gets put on a boat to China...

[hcap]

The very first idfiotic post that started this thread by who else but JR, claimed this:

Climate change PROVED to be 'nothing but a lie', claims top meteorologist

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

An interview with Coleman

http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/bestoftv/2014/11/01/global-warming-storm-at-weather-channel.cnn.html

The distancing:

http://money.cnn.com/2014/11/02/media/weather-channel-global-warming-john-coleman/index.html

The Weather Channel is distancing itself from one of its co-founders who publicly disavows the dangers associated with man-made climate change.

John Coleman, the co-founder, and David Kenny, the current CEO of The Weather Company, both spoke on CNN's "Reliable Sources" on Sunday after Coleman published an open letter and appeared on a prime time Fox News program voicing his opinion.

Kenny said he decided to publish his own letter clarifying the channel's belief in global warming because "some people were confused" by Coleman's comments.

"We're grateful that he got us started 32 years ago. But he hasn't been with us in 31 years. So he's not really speaking for The Weather Channel in any way today," Kenny said.

And the details on why Coleman who has no credentials or scientific background, (he’s been a TV weatherman for over 50 years, but his degree is in journalism), is wrong

Gee, Willard Anthony Watts redux again :sleeping:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/nov/03/weather-channel-founder-not-credible-on-global-warming

So the initial post by JR, ...........

PROVED NOTHING EXCEPT PA OFF TOPIC CLIMATE DENIERS ARE EXTREMELY GULLIBLE :lol: :lol:

[DJofSD]

Once again, you attempt to diminish and discredit the opinions of some one by saying they do not have any credentials. At this point I think not even Einstein or Feynman would qualify -- especially if they expressed doubts or contrary opinions.

But Coleman does have credentials, but you choose not to accept them.

I doubt you have any yourself and are not in a position to even understand the science let alone the opinions of those that do.

To paraphrase Monty Python, posting links is not an argument.

[hcap]

Coleman HAS NO credentials as none of us here do. But some of us know who does and who to quote and link to.

[tucker6]

Coleman HAS NO credentials as none of us here do. But some of us know who does and who to quote and link to.
LOL. You have no shame. I guarantee that that if Coleman was spouting pro-AGW garbage, you'd be sitting on your hands about his 'credentials'.

[hcap]

So, tell me WHAT are his credentials and be done with this nonsense that started this dumb thread about a "Weather Channel bigshot" claiming climate change IS PROVED WRONG? :sleeping: :sleeping:

This thread's original post sucks as the early snow crappola and it's constant meaningless "it's been warma, been coola" chimp insights

[Tom]

Originally Posted by hcap
Coleman HAS NO credentials as none of us here do. But some of us know who does and who to quote and link to.


And just what are your credentials to decide this? :lol::lol::lol:

[hcap]

And for all you climatologists on PA off topic who claim I am not qualified, whereas all of you certainly are :sleeping: :sleeping: :sleeping:

/qZzwRwFDXw0?


And just what are your credentials to decide this?
Tom, what are your credentials to decide who I can quote and link to?
I know you graduated with a PHD in IBWIBC(It''s been warma, it's been coola).....But you have not written any peer reviewed papers om who and what can be quoted and linked to here on off topic :lol: :lol:

[Tom]

Tom, what are your credentials to decide who I can quote and link to?

RIF.
I did not say that.
YOU made a statement, I asked what credentials you had to do that.
Obviously, none.

Thank you for playing.

[hcap]

You are not paying attention

[Clocker]

You are not paying attention

No one is, but don't let that stop you. :D

[Tom]

So warm in here, I can't keep my eyes open.

[hcap]

No one is, but don't let that stop you. :DThat is the case, NOW that all PA off topic denier's assertions have fallen flat. Particularly JR's lame John Coleman post........................
aka, "The Undereducated TV Weatherman" :sleeping: :sleeping: :sleeping:

[hcap]

So warm in here, I can't keep my eyes open.Who cares? Have you written any Shakespearean sonnets yet? :lol:

[Clocker]

So warm in here, I can't keep my eyes open.

Open a window. I hear it is getting cooler out there. :p

[tucker6]

That is the case, NOW that all PA off topic denier's assertions have fallen flat. Particularly JR's lame John Coleman post........................
aka, "The Undereducated TV Weatherman" :sleeping: :sleeping: :sleeping:
What assertions? You make claims without facts, and when we prove the fallacy of those claims, you make various ad hominem attacks to divert attention from it. Wash, rinse, and repeat. Honestly these AGW threads are getting boring. You're bringing nothing to the table but recycled graphs.

All we really need to know is that the temps haven't risen in 18 years and that the ocean isn't hiding your missing heat. Hello, maybe the missing heat isn't missing. Maybe it isn't real !!!!!!!!!!!!

[horses4courses]

Ice packs continue to to shrink at each Pole.
Ocean levels gradually keep rising.

Yet, conservatives feel that rising debt
is of more concern to future generations.

There is no convincing them that their priorities are screwed up.
Some of us have to keep trying, though.

[Tom]

You ain't gonna stop it.
Period.

Move inland.
The Earth changes - always has, always will.
To think you can change is.....stupid.

Rising debt can be controlled.
The planet can't.

[tucker6]

Ice packs continue to to shrink at each Pole.
Ocean levels gradually keep rising.

This is unadulterated BS. The Antarctic is at an ALL TIME record level for sea ice. The Arctic is rebounding nicely. I suggest you refrain from posting in this thread if this is the sort of drivel you're going to post.

[fast4522]

Ice packs continue to to shrink at each Pole.
Ocean levels gradually keep rising.

Yet, conservatives feel that rising debt
is of more concern to future generations.

There is no convincing them that their priorities are screwed up.
Some of us have to keep trying, though.

Put your head between your legs and kiss your ass goodbye, you can die trying.
We will not buy into your fairy tale, when it is your last day on this green earth there will still be at least half of the country who will not believe your bullshit. You are not significant to alter what the earth does or does not do.

[horses4courses]

This is unadulterated BS. The Antarctic is at an ALL TIME record level for sea ice. The Arctic is rebounding nicely. I suggest you refrain from posting in this thread if this is the sort of drivel you're going to post.

Since when are you a moderator on this forum?
Must have escaped my notice...... :rolleyes:

Don't take my word for it, Einstein.
It's no secret - you just refuse to believe that man can cause it.

http://ocean.nationalgeographic.com/ocean/critical-issues-sea-level-rise/

http://images.nationalgeographic.com/wpf/media-live/photos/000/166/cache/article-sea-level-rise_16648_600x450.jpg

[tucker6]

Since when are you a moderator on this forum?
Must have escaped my notice...... :rolleyes:

Don't take my word for it, Einstein.
It's no secret - you just refuse to believe that man can cause it.

http://ocean.nationalgeographic.com/ocean/critical-issues-sea-level-rise/

http://images.nationalgeographic.com/wpf/media-live/photos/000/166/cache/article-sea-level-rise_16648_600x450.jpg
I note you don't refute my statement calling your claims of sea ice reductions BS. My accusation stands. As for your sea level change argument, you fail to separate true sea level rise from land subsidence. Get back to me when you figure that out.

[hcap]

I note you don't refute my statement calling your claims of sea ice reductions BS. My accusation stands. As for your sea level change argument, you fail to separate true sea level rise from land subsidence. Get back to me when you figure that out. horses4courses, tucker6 (Einstein :lol: ) will only take Willard A. Watts word for it. And now I would not be surprised if John- the uneducated weatherman-Coleman's word for it as well. Our friend tucker6 is notorious for believing all sorts of bogus data and listening to irresponsible climate denier "experts" leading him to concoct massive conspiracy theories up the kazoo :lol:

http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Observing_the_Earth/CryoSat/CryoSat_finds_sharp_increase_in_Antarctica_s_ice_l osses

19 May 2014

Three years of observations from ESA’s CryoSat satellite show that the Antarctic ice sheet is now losing 159 billion tonnes of ice each year – twice as much as when it was last surveyed.

The polar ice sheets are a major contributor to the rise in global sea levels, and these newly measured losses from Antarctica alone are enough to raise global sea levels by 0.45 mm each year.

These latest findings by a team of scientists from the UK’s Centre for Polar Observation and Modelling show that the pattern of imbalance continues to be dominated by glaciers thinning in the Amundsen Sea sector of West Antarctica.

"We find that ice losses continue to be most pronounced along the fast-flowing ice streams of the Amundsen Sea sector, with thinning rates of 4-8 m per year near to the grounding lines – where the ice streams lift up off the land and begin to float out over the ocean – of the Pine Island, Thwaites and Smith Glaciers,” said Dr Malcolm McMillan from the University of Leeds, UK, and lead author of the study.

...This area has long been identified as the most vulnerable to changes in climate. Recent assessments say its glaciers may have passed a point of irreversible retreat.
.................................................. ...................

Antarctica (http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice-intermediate.htm) is a continent with 98% of the land covered by ice, and is surrounded by ocean that has much of its surface covered by seasonal sea ice. Reporting on Antarctic ice often fails to recognise the fundamental difference between sea ice and land ice. Antarctic land ice is the ice which has accumulated over thousands of years on the Antarctica landmass through snowfall. This land ice therefore is actually stored ocean water that once evaporated and then fell as precipitation on the land. Antarctic sea ice is entirely different as it is ice which forms in salt water during the winter and almost entirely melts again in the summer.

Importantly, when land ice melts and flows into the oceans global sea levels rise on average; when sea ice melts sea levels do not change measurably but other parts of the climate system are affected, like increased absorbtion of solar energy by the darker oceans

So tucker, sea ice melting is not what matters. LAND ICE IS WHAT MATTERS

Seas rising are due to 2 main factors

1-Land Ice and glaziers melting. And
2Abnsorption (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/what-ocean-heating-reveals-about-global-warming/) of heat into the oceans expanding density

The heat content of the oceans is growing and growing. That means that the greenhouse effect has not taken a pause and the cold sun is not noticeably slowing global warming.

NOAA (http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/) posts regularly updated measurements of the amount of heat stored in the bulk of the oceans. For the upper 2000 m (deeper than that not much happens) it looks like this:

http://www.realclimate.org/images//heat_content2000m.png

[Tom]

People adapt.

[HUSKER55]

and yet the weathermen are forecasting a polar vortex again for this winter.

[hcap]

and yet the weathermen are forecasting a polar vortex again for this winter.And?

What happened? The midterms must have convinced righty climate deniers here they were correct all along?. I guess you gents could not deal with the loss of this debate on substance?

It's ok with me to let you deniers bow out and rest on your laurels now that you think the mid-terms can replace your feeble rebuttals :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[tucker6]

And?

What happened? The midterms must have convinced righty climate deniers here they were correct all along?. I guess you gents could not deal with the loss of this debate on substance?

It's ok with me to let you deniers bow out and rest on your laurels now that you think the mid-terms can replace your feeble rebuttals :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
lol. I noticed you weren't man enough to show your face here yesterday. As for this debate, I'm frankly tired of it. It's obvious that AGW is a contrived message to sell wealth redistribution. As time goes by the facts support you less and less, which simply escalates your rhetoric. Boring really.

[hcap]

lol. I noticed you weren't man enough to show your face here yesterday. As for this debate, I'm frankly tired of it. It's obvious that AGW is a contrived message to sell wealth redistribution. As time goes by the facts support you less and less, which simply escalates your rhetoric. Boring really.So? I commented this morning.

Of course it's boring if you are getting an ass whooping.

It''s fine with me if there was never another thread on AGW and idiotic slogans like "Global Warming has been proved wrong". Just thought you guys are giving up because of an a priori assumption that every righty POS position is now beyond a shadow of a doubt correct because of a blanket "mid-term certification" :eek:

[boxcar]

Good morning, 'cap. In your zeal to preach The Ice Apocalypse, you forgot to remind us that the sky is falling, as well. :rolleyes:

[tucker6]

Just thought you guys are giving up because of an a priori assumption that every righty POS position is now beyond a shadow of a doubt correct because of a blanket "mid-term certification" :eek:
Yeah, that's exactly why.