# Global Cooling Chills Summer



## Sinatra (Jul 16, 2009)

BAM!  Check out all those cold temps!

Cold June in Manhattan well below normal.

Among coldest Junes in Pheonix since 1913.

LA came in at 5 degrees below normal.

Boston almost 5 degrees below normal.

New Zealand climate center releases headline - Temperatures: Lowest ever for May in many areas, colder than normal for all.

Two South African vagrants froze to death.

Chicago had the COLDEST July 8th since 1891.

Yonkers received a snow storm - in JULY.

In Melbourne Australia, temps have been 10 degrees BELOW normal.


Global Cooling Chills Summer 2009 by Deroy Murdock on National Review Online

By the way, the earth's temperature has dropped .74 degrees since Al Gore released an Inconvenient Truth in 2006...


----------



## Barb (Jul 16, 2009)

And climate change doesn't include abnormally colder temps in what are supposed to be warm areas / seasons. Go back to sleep, everything is just fine.


----------



## Oddball (Jul 17, 2009)

Right.

Global warming is responsible for global cooling.

Good thing ya have all the bases covered.


----------



## hjmick (Jul 17, 2009)

Sinatra said:


> BAM!  Check out all those cold temps!
> 
> Cold June in Manhattan well below normal.
> 
> ...





Dude said:


> Right.
> 
> Global warming is responsible for global cooling.
> 
> Good thing ya have all the bases covered.



Didn't you guys get the memo? Ya see, when the alarmists realized that it wasn't always getting warmer, that it sometimes got cooler, and when they realized that there were no more or less hurricanes than in seasons prior and that the were no stronger or weaker, and when they recognised that what they thought were patterns and proof no longer fit their talking points, they changed their mantra. Now they call it...

<insert booming voice with echo for effect here>

*GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE*


----------



## Barb (Jul 17, 2009)

Dude said:


> Right.
> 
> Global warming is responsible for global cooling.
> 
> Good thing ya have all the bases covered.



 You need a nap too. Sweet tea and sugar cookies when you wake up.


----------



## Oddball (Jul 17, 2009)

No thanks....But if you come up with a white Russian and a coherent line of reasoning, I might stay awake for them.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 17, 2009)

One sure prediction of global warming is wider and wilder swings in the weather, with an overall warming trend. Which we are sure getting.


----------



## Oddball (Jul 17, 2009)

hjmick said:


> Didn't you guys get the memo? Ya see, when the alarmists realized that it wasn't always getting warmer, that it sometimes got cooler, and when they realized that there were no more or less hurricanes than in seasons prior and that the were no stronger or weaker, and when they recognised that what they thought were patterns and proof no longer fit their talking points, they changed their mantra. Now they call it...
> 
> <insert booming voice with echo for effect here>
> 
> *GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE*


----------



## elvis (Jul 17, 2009)

Dude said:


> hjmick said:
> 
> 
> > Didn't you guys get the memo? Ya see, when the alarmists realized that it wasn't always getting warmer, that it sometimes got cooler, and when they realized that there were no more or less hurricanes than in seasons prior and that the were no stronger or weaker, and when they recognised that what they thought were patterns and proof no longer fit their talking points, they changed their mantra. Now they call it...
> ...



Now, now.  you're gonna get Roxy all riled up.  He's gonna throw his bedpan in a minute.


----------



## Barb (Jul 17, 2009)

Dude said:


> No thanks....But if you come up with a white Russian and a coherent line of reasoning, I might stay awake for them.



 You can have all the liqueur and milk you like. I'm done with talking to anyone here about the science. I've quoted respected texts and had them called hacks, and honestly it just isn't worth the effort here. Eat, drink and be merry. Nap early and often. 



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faU-SK0pHCI]YouTube - Deteriorata (Fluke of the Universe)[/ame]


----------



## Oddball (Jul 17, 2009)

Barb said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > No thanks....But if you come up with a white Russian and a coherent line of reasoning, I might stay awake for them.
> ...



Honesty schmonesty. 

What you've quoted is only "respected" by you and the rest of the enviro-Luddites.....Any contravening evidence is and will continue to be  poo-pooed by them, with ad hominems (amongst the litany of other logical fallacies) attacking the source rather than the contravening data.

I've been at this so long that I used to be on your side.


----------



## Barb (Jul 17, 2009)

Dude said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...




 Oh, don't be a sore "winner." I'd have thought you would have at least enjoyed the vid. It had pictures and stuff. Its all about entertainment, isn't it?


----------



## Oddball (Jul 17, 2009)

Barb said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Barb said:
> ...



Are you entertained by being patronized??

I'll bet the farm not.


----------



## Barb (Jul 17, 2009)

Dude said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



 That little letter opener cuts both ways, doesn't it? Maybe it does. I apologize for sending back some of the same I've received. And yes, from you. Still, turnabout is not much of an excuse for rude behavior. So maybe next week when I'm done with my last term paper and have more patience for summary dismissal I'll have something more substantive for you to scoff at and tell me I'm "off my meds" about.


----------



## Sinatra (Jul 17, 2009)

Sinatra said:


> BAM!  Check out all those cold temps!
> 
> Cold June in Manhattan well below normal.
> 
> ...




Global warming is a lie...


----------



## Epsilon Delta (Jul 17, 2009)

You guys must be stuck in some sort of time warp. Nobody... and I do mean, NOBODY [but the most dense] pretend to say that the Earth isn't warming. What the debate is about is whether it is natural or whether it is "anthropogenic." Seriously guys, EVEN Bill O'Reilly accepts that. EVEN Him. You guys must've missed the memo, or in any case be dumb enough to think that you can stick your finger in the air and say "Uhhh yup it's colder hyuck hyuck guess global warming is a lie!".


----------



## Oddball (Jul 17, 2009)

> You guys must be stuck in some sort of time warp. Nobody... and I do mean, NOBODY [but the most dense] pretend to say that the Earth isn't warming.


The planet has been slowly cooling since '98.

The numbers from even the most fervent AGW moonbats have shown this.



> Seriously guys, EVEN Bill O'Reilly accepts that. EVEN Him.


Bill O'Liely is an asswipe in any language.


----------



## editec (Jul 17, 2009)

Surely you cannot be as stupid as you're pretending to be online, Sinatra.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 17, 2009)

I thing that Sinatra, Dude, and Elvis are in a three way contest to see who can post the stupidist, most vapid screed. A dead heat so far, all showing signs of over acheivement.


----------



## KMAN (Jul 17, 2009)

Thank you Al Gore for saving our planet!  It's going to about 80 degrees here in Nashville for the next 3-4 days where the normal for July is 91 degrees!!!!

Thanks again Al!!!!!!


----------



## Sinatra (Jul 17, 2009)

KMAN said:


> Thank you Al Gore for saving our planet!  It's going to about 80 degrees here in Nashville for the next 3-4 days where the normal for July is 91 degrees!!!!
> 
> Thanks again Al!!!!!!



It is shaping up to be yet another lower temps summer/winter across the globe.

Gore is scheduled to visit Melbourne for a climate change conference - Melbourne's temps are about 10 degrees below normal.

Al can't catch a break!


----------



## Sinatra (Jul 17, 2009)

Sinatra said:


> BAM!  Check out all those cold temps!
> 
> Cold June in Manhattan well below normal.
> 
> ...




Earth has been cooling folks...


----------



## KMAN (Jul 17, 2009)

All you need to know right here....   ICECAP


ICECAP, International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project, is the portal to all things climate for elected officials and staffers, journalists, scientists, educators and the public. It provides access to a new and growing global society of respected scientists and journalists that are not deniers that our climate is dynamic (the only constant in nature is change) and that man plays a role in climate change through urbanization, land use changes and the introduction of greenhouse gases and aerosols, but who also believe that natural cycles such as those in the sun and oceans are also important contributors to the global changes in our climate and weather. We worry the sole focus on greenhouse gases and the unwise reliance on imperfect climate models while ignoring real data may leave civilization unprepared for a sudden climate shift that history tells us will occur again, very possibly soon. 

Through ICECAP you will have rapid access to our experts here in the United States and to experts and partner organizations worldwide, many of whom maintain popular web sites or insightful blogs or newsletters, write and present papers, have authored books and offer interviews to the media on climate issues. We spotlight new findings in peer-review papers and reports and rapidly respond to fallacies or exaggerations in papers, stories or programs and any misinformation efforts by the media, politicians and advocacy groups.

ICECAP is not funded by large corporations that might benefit from the status quo but by private investors who believe in the need for free exchange of ideas on this and other important issues of the day. Our working group is comprised of members from all ends of the political spectrum. This is not about politics but about science.

We are an open society that welcomes your membership and appreciates your endorsement and support.  Icecap is now a 501C3 corporation. As such, contributions are tax exempt under section 170 of the Internal Revenue Code. Any bequests, transfers or gifts are also exempt under sections 2055, 2106 and 2522 of the code. For your records, we are ICECAP US.


----------



## code1211 (Jul 17, 2009)

KMAN said:


> Thank you Al Gore for saving our planet!  It's going to about 80 degrees here in Nashville for the next 3-4 days where the normal for July is 91 degrees!!!!
> 
> Thanks again Al!!!!!!



In Indy, the average High for July is about 84.  It's 71 right now.  Tomorrow's high is forcast for less than 70.  On Sunday, we get back into the 70's anyway.

I grew up in northern Minnesota.  I don't see much of a difference.


----------



## Oddball (Jul 17, 2009)

Coolest summer in International Falls in recorded history.


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 17, 2009)

Dude said:


> Right.
> 
> Global warming is responsible for global cooling.
> 
> Good thing ya have all the bases covered.



Except LOCAL cooling is not GLOBAL cooling!!!


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 17, 2009)

Dude said:


> > You guys must be stuck in some sort of time warp. Nobody... and I do mean, NOBODY [but the most dense] pretend to say that the Earth isn't warming.
> 
> 
> *The planet has been slowly cooling since '98.*
> ...



1999 to 2008 was the WARMEST decade in the history of direct instrument measurement on both land and sea.


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 17, 2009)

edthecynic said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Right.
> ...



Here's June's measurements.

Climate of 2009
June in Historical Perspective
National Climatic Data Center
16 July 2009

Global Analysis / Global Hazards / United States / U.S. Drought / Extremes 
Use these links to access detailed analyses of Global and U.S. data.
Global Highlights:
Based on preliminary data,* the globally averaged combined land and sea surface temperature was the second warmest on record for June* and the January-June year-to-date tied with 2004 as the fifth warmest on record.
*Large portions of each inhabited continent were substantially warmer than average during June 2009. The warmest anomalies were most notable in parts of Africa and most of Eurasia.* The most notable cooler-than-average temperatures were present from the southwestern U.S. to the Northern Plains, the Canadian Prairie Provinces, central Asia, and across the boundary of northeastern China and southeastern Russia.


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Jul 17, 2009)

Epsilon Delta said:


> You guys must be stuck in some sort of time warp. Nobody... and I do mean, NOBODY [but the most dense] pretend to say that the Earth isn't warming


Nobody you've ever heard, because their dissenting voices are squelched.

One example:

*&#8220;For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?"* - Geologist Dr. David Gee, the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.

Another scientist opines, on the squelching of dissenting voices:

*&#8220;It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don&#8217;t buy into anthropogenic global warming.&#8221;* - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.

Another, ties it all together:

*&#8220;Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense&#8230;The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.&#8221; *- Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.

Two more opine:

*&#8220;CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another&#8230;.Every scientist knows this, but it doesn&#8217;t pay to say so&#8230;Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver&#8217;s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.&#8221;* - Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.

*&#8220;The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.&#8221;* - Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata.

Science? Or religion? Faith-based:
*
&#8220;I am a skeptic&#8230;Global warming has become a new religion.&#8221;* - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.   

There are thousands more. You never hear their voices.

Why does the AGW Church fear debate and dissent?


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Jul 17, 2009)

Excerpt from a pretty good analytical article:

Climate change knows three realities: science reality, which is what working scientists deal with every day; virtual reality, which is the wholly imaginary world inside computer climate models; and public reality, which is the socio-political system within which politicians, business people and the general citizenry work.

The science reality is that climate is a complex, dynamic, natural system that no one wholly comprehends, though many scientists understand different small parts. So far, science provides no unambiguous evidence that dangerous or even measurable human-caused global warming is occurring.

The virtual reality is that computer models predict future climate according to the assumptions that are programmed into them. There is no established Theory of Climate, and therefore the potential output of all realistic computer general circulation models (GCMs) encompasses a range of both future warmings and coolings, the outcome depending upon the way in which they are constructed. Different results can be produced at will simply by adjusting such poorly known parameters as the effects of cloud cover.

The public reality in 2008 is that, driven by strong environmental lobby groups and evangelistic scientists and journalists, there is a widespread but erroneous belief in our society that dangerous global warming is occurring and that it has human causation.

It remains a matter of faith whether reductions in carbon dioxide emissions, should they occur, will have any measurable influence on climate. My conclusion is that&#8212;irrespective of McCarthyist bludgeoning, press bias, policy-advice corruption or propaganda frenzy&#8212;it is highly unlikely that the public is going to agree to a costly restructuring of the world economy simply on the basis of speculative computer models of climate in 100 years time. Attempting to &#8216;stop climate change&#8217; is an extravagant and costly exercise of utter futility. Rational climate policies must be based on adaptation to climate change as it occurs, irrespective of its causation.


----------



## Oddball (Jul 17, 2009)

Outstanding piece!


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Jul 17, 2009)

Dude said:


> Outstanding piece!


Quadrant is a great publication.

That article by the way, opens with this quote which I'm sure you saw:





> *The idea that human beings have changed and are changing the basic climate system of the Earth through their industrial activities and burning of fossil fuelsthe essence of the Greens theory of global warminghas about as much basis in science as Marxism and Freudianism. Global warming, like Marxism, is a political theory of actions, demanding compliance with its rules.
> 
> Marxism, Freudianism, global warming. These are proofof which history offers so many examplesthat people can be suckers on a grand scale. To their fanatical followers they are a substitute for religion. Global warming, in particular, is a creed, a faith, a dogma that has little to do with science. If people are in need of religion, why dont they just turn to the genuine article?
> *
> Paul Johnson


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 17, 2009)

*The American Geophysical Union's 2008 statement concerning global warming.*

AGU: Earths Climate Clearly Out of Balance; 50% Reduction in GHG Required 
25 January 2008
The Earths climate is now clearly out of balance, according to a revised position statement by The American Geophysical Union (AGU), and net annual emissions of greenhouse gasses must be reduced by 50% this century to avoid disruptive warming. 

The AGU is a global scientific society with a membership of 50,000 researchers, teachers, and students. It hosts one of the largest scientific conferences in the world each yearthe AGU Fall Meeting in December. The new position statement revises the statement on the human impact on climate issued in 2003.

Many components of the climate systemincluding the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasonsare now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century.

...During recent millennia of relatively stable climate, civilization became established and populations have grown rapidly. In the next 50 years, even the lower limit of impending climate changean additional global mean warming of 1°C above the last decadeis far beyond the range of climate variability experienced during the past thousand years and poses global problems in planning for and adapting to it. Warming greater than 2°C above 19th century levels is projected to be disruptive, reducing global agricultural productivity, causing widespread loss of biodiversity, andif sustained over centuriesmelting much of the Greenland ice sheet with ensuing rise in sea level of several meters. If this 2°C warming is to be avoided, then our net annual emissions of CO2 must be reduced by more than 50 percent within this century. With such projections, there are many sources of scientific uncertainty, but none are known that could make the impact of climate change inconsequential. Given the uncertainty in climate projections, there can be surprises that may cause more dramatic disruptions than anticipated from the most probable model projections.

With climate change, as with ozone depletion, the human footprint on Earth is apparent. The cause of disruptive climate change, unlike ozone depletion, is tied to energy use and runs through modern society. Solutions will necessarily involve all aspects of society. Mitigation strategies and adaptation responses will call for collaborations across science, technology, industry, and government. Members of the AGU, as part of the scientific community, collectively have special responsibilities: to pursue research needed to understand it; to educate the public on the causes, risks, and hazards; and to communicate clearly and objectively with those who can implement policies to shape future climate.

Green Car Congress: AGU: Earths Climate Clearly Out of Balance; 50% Reduction in GHG Required


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 17, 2009)

This has been the second warmest June on record, worldwide. But, at present, we are in a neutral time as far as the La Nina, El Nino cyle goes. We are also coming out of a solar minimum. As we go toward the peak of another solar cycle, and we get a couple of El Ninos, I expect to see the temperature records of 1998 and 2005 shatttered. And the myth of the present "cooling" to suffer the same fate. And then you wingnuts will be back to "its the sun making it so hot". You silly fellows haven't a clue.


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Jul 17, 2009)

Faith-based evangelical dogma from one of the Church members does not an argument make.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 17, 2009)

Midnight Marauder said:


> Faith-based evangelical dogma from one of the Church members does not an argument make.



I'll call you on that, old man, when the records are broken.


----------



## k2skier (Jul 17, 2009)

Dude said:


> Coolest summer in International Falls in recorded history.



Pay more attention to the winters, and let go of summer for all your talking points, you delusional fools get on a one track regurgitation event.


----------



## elvis (Jul 18, 2009)

k2skier said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Coolest summer in International Falls in recorded history.
> ...



Fine.  We had near-record cold temperatures here last winter.


----------



## Epsilon Delta (Jul 18, 2009)

Midnight Marauder said:


> Epsilon Delta said:
> 
> 
> > You guys must be stuck in some sort of time warp. Nobody... and I do mean, NOBODY [but the most dense] pretend to say that the Earth isn't warming
> ...



All of your opininos except the first one talk about *A*GW, which is exactly what I'm saying: The debate is whether there is *A* global warming [as in ANTHROPOGENIC] or whether it is NOT *A* GW, as in NOT-ANTHROPOGENIC global warming. The fact is the earth is warming and the climate is changing, the debate is whether these changes are ANTHROPOGENIC [man-made] or NOT anthropogenic [non-man-made]. The notion that you can post the temperature in Florida or Virginia or any bumble-fuck place in America does not suffice to silence the GIGANTIC majority of everyone who watches WORLD-WIDE WEATHER. 

If you think that the warming of the earth's WORLD-WIDE ATMOSPHERE [not just your fucking idiot bumblefuck american neighborhood] is warming because of NATURAL causes and NOT because we've been pumping the big majority of stored carbon inside the earth's crust into the aforementioned atmosphere, feel free to post and debate. To debate that worldwide temperature trends have shot up for the past 50 years is just stupid. I would guess you would take the latter; arguing that the rise in temperature WORLD-WIDE is a product of naturally occuring phenomena, and NOT man-made phenomena. So start with those threads, and don't waste our time trying to deny the reality of things.


----------



## Annie (Jul 18, 2009)

Right now my outdoor thermometer reads 56F. I went and checked what Tom Skilling has regarding our temps this summer:

Skilling Central - WGN



> First July 17 in 53 years to reach no higher than Friday's 70 degrees
> What a summer! Many Chicago area residents are just shaking their heads -- some pleased by the lack of heat, others disappointed at the failure of hot weather to gain a foothold here. Extremely rare mid-summer lake-effect rains were pouring down on sections of La Porte and Berrien Counties in Indiana and Michigan Friday evening -- just the latest meteorological twist in a summer of topsy-turvy weather across the region.
> July has slipped to the coolest to date here in 42 years -- its 68.7 degree average temperature running nearly 5 degrees behind the long-term (138-year) average. Friday's 70-degree high was the first time in 53 years a July 17 temperature failed to rise above 70 -- you'd have to travel back to a 64-degree high 85 years ago to find a July 17 that was cooler.  In Rockford, Friday's 67-degree high broke the record for the date, becoming the coolest July 17 high on the books. The reading was Rockford's fourth record-low daytime maximum to fall since June 30.
> 
> ...


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Jul 18, 2009)

Epsilon Delta said:


> Midnight Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > Epsilon Delta said:
> ...


:yawn:

First of all, since reading comprehension doesn't seem to be your strong suit, I will point out to you again that I intentionally addressed the "warming" issue with only one quote, then went on to other points. The one quote belied your statement that _"Nobody... and I do mean, NOBODY [but the most dense] pretend to say that the Earth isn't warming."_ The scientist I quoted clearly isn't dense. And he says the earth is NOT warming.

Now...

Evidence continues to mount that the planet is NOT warming at all, it has been in fact COOLING.

I present to you, the Argo Buoys for a start. You probably never heard of them, since they did not give the desired data. They showed the oceans -- the great heat sink of the planet --  have been COOLING. However, had they shown even the slightest little bit of warming, they would have been hailed as the greatest measuring instrument mankind has ever invented. They would be rock stars. There would be tee-shirts, bumper stickers, bobble-head dolls, Saturday morning Argo Adventures cartoons for the kids, you name it. But because these 3000 nifty little robots didn't follow the script, few have ever heard of them.

The Mystery of Global Warming's Missing Heat : NPR



> In fact, 80 percent to 90 percent of global warming involves heating up ocean waters. They hold much more heat than the atmosphere can. So Willis has been studying the ocean with a fleet of robotic instruments called the Argo system. The buoys can dive 3,000 feet down and measure ocean temperature. Since the system was fully deployed in 2003, it has recorded no warming of the global oceans.
> 
> "There has been a very slight cooling, but not anything really significant," Willis says.


Of course, this _scientifically gathered data_ has been pretty much dismissed, a unpicked cherry left on the tree of facts, because it didn't look sweet to the AGW disciples. Cooling measured accurately over five years by 3000 robots who dive down, come back up, dive down again, taking measurements all along the way 24/7/365 for five freaking years, is "not anything really significant?" The hell it's not.

You're simply dishonest if you believe the jury isn't still out on whether the planet has been actually cooling instead of warming, no matter the supposed cause.

The FACT is, _we don't really know_.

And that's how science begins, by saying "I do not know" instead of what we see here, "We DO know so let's cherry-pick data, rig models, come up with bogus "hockey sticks," and of course play the emotional guilt and blame game -- and like Goebbels -- continue to lie louder and longer against the truthful opposition -- in hopes that the AGW lie will become accepted as truth."

And meanwhile, demonize naysayers and doubters, call them "deniers" trying to pigeonhole them with Holocaust deniers and flat-earthers, try to baffle with bullshit because they cannot dazzle with brilliance, because the truth isn't on their side. And they freakin know it isn't.


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 18, 2009)

Midnight Marauder said:


> Epsilon Delta said:
> 
> 
> > Midnight Marauder said:
> ...



Here's the Argo chart and take note that the last point on the chart is the very highest point on the whole chart at a little above 14, and if you count back 5 years the starting point is at a little above 12. The first of those 5 years is up and the second year is down but not as low as the starting point, the third is up again just a little more than the starting year, the fourth year is down again but again not as low as the second year's low.  And the fifth year is up again even higher than the third year's high. The most you pathological liars could honestly say is the continued long term warming trend has slowed, but it is still warming. 

This Argo chart has been posted SEVERAL times in this thread already, but you continue to lie about it. You deniers think because the Argo floats are not well known you can LIE with impunity. It's like deniers saying that the warmest decade in the history of direct instrument measurement is a decade of cooling. But not everyone is as deliberately MISINFORMED  and as STUPID as a CON$ervative.


----------



## cbi0090 (Jul 18, 2009)

OMG!  The argument, to me, is just not so complicated. 

1) The earth has been warming since the last ice age (fact)
2) It has done so in the past (see ancient tree stumps coming to view from under receding glaciers)
3) The weather does not behave linearly.  (never has, never will, will always be up and down)
4) Man is contributing to/accelerating the change (Maybe, it hasn't been proven, we don't know, it's a hunch that seems logical)
5) Can we do something about it?  (See 4)
6) Do we want to destroy our economy in the process of trying to do something about it? (Absolutely not, the country would revolt if the politicians tried)
7) Do we want to become energy independent (Absolutely, our dependence on oil is destabilizing)
8) Are alternative energy sources good? (See 5 and 7)


----------



## code1211 (Jul 18, 2009)

edthecynic said:


> Midnight Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > Epsilon Delta said:
> ...



Ed, this chart goes back in time for a long term, but the Argo Buoys were only activated in the early 2000's.  Here's a decent article on them and they do in truth reveal that there is oceanic cooling.

Perhaps The Climate Change Models Are Wrong

When they were first deployed in 2003, the Argos were hailed for their ability to collect information on ocean conditions more precisely, at more places and greater depths and in more conditions than ever before. No longer would scientists have to rely on measurements mostly at the surface from older scientific buoys or inconsistent shipboard monitors.

So why are some scientists now beginning to question the buoys' findings? Because in five years, the little blighters have failed to detect any global warming. They are not reinforcing the scientific orthodoxy of the day, namely that man is causing the planet to warm dangerously. They are not proving the predetermined conclusions of their human masters. Therefore they, and not their masters' hypotheses, must be wrong.


----------



## Sinatra (Jul 18, 2009)

Midnight Marauder said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Outstanding piece!
> ...




Fantastic quote.

As many others have said, science long ago took a backseat to dogma regarding the man made global warming agenda...


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 18, 2009)

code1211 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Midnight Marauder said:
> ...



You gotta just love how deniers will continue to lie in the face of the facts. The Argo chart clearly shows a RISE in temperature from 12 to 14 over the last 5 years which deniers say  "scientists" say is cooling. And CON$ wonder why they have no credibility. 



> What is Argo?
> 
> Argo is a global array of 3,000 free-drifting profiling floats that measures the temperature and salinity of the upper 2000 m of the ocean.  This allows, for the first time, continuous monitoring of the temperature, salinity, and velocity of the upper ocean, with all data being relayed and made publicly available within hours after collection.
> 
> ...


----------



## code1211 (Jul 18, 2009)

edthecynic said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Ed, Ed, Ed...  Vascillation within a range over a very short period of time is hardly cause for any conclusion.

However, when a widely flung network of data gathrering devices like Argo defies the results of years of data gathering from obviously flawed systems, it would make a rational person question the results of the previous data.

Only those with an agenda would not question this.  

Is it your position that the best technology of orbital and oceanic research is wrong and the ridiculously innnaccurate and endlessly adjusted readings of the Earth stations is right?

I suppose if we cannot find the desired answer in the best research, we should seek any research that supports the conclusions we desire.


----------



## Oddball (Jul 18, 2009)

code1211 said:


> Ed, Ed, Ed...  Vascillation within a range over a very short period of time is hardly cause for any conclusion.
> 
> However, when a widely flung network of data gathrering devices like Argo defies the results of years of data gathering from obviously flawed systems, it would make a rational person question the results of the previous data.
> 
> ...


And that pretty much 'splains it all.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 18, 2009)

I see. Then these people know so much less than yourself;

Climate Change: NASA's Eyes on the Earth

NOAA 200th Top Tens: Breakthroughs: Warming of the World Ocean

And here is the defining article on what really happened to the "ocean cooling".

Correcting Ocean Cooling : Feature Articles


----------



## Oddball (Jul 18, 2009)

Logical Fallacy: Appeal to Misleading Authority


----------



## elvis (Jul 18, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> I see. Then these people know so much less than yourself;
> 
> Climate Change: NASA's Eyes on the Earth
> 
> ...



they don't know what causes it.  so get off your high horse, fuckface.


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 18, 2009)

code1211 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > code1211 said:
> ...



Yet you deniers concluded that 5 years of Argo data was enough to say the oceans were COOLING even though the data showed warming, not to mention choosing 2003 to start rather than 2000. And your own link admits that satellite data shows warming too!!!!!

From your own link:
"In nearly 30 years of operation, the satellites have discovered a warming trend of just 0.14 C per decade"

It's my position that the satellite and Argo data confirms the surface data.


----------



## jreeves (Jul 18, 2009)

Dude said:


> Right.
> 
> Global warming is responsible for global cooling.
> 
> Good thing ya have all the bases covered.



Don't you know when global temps raise its a result of global warming.

Then when global temps drop its a result of global warming.

Oh yeah, if global temps stay the same, then that also would be a result of global warming.

Good God, you guys really need some education on the effects of man made global warming.

If we get more rain in the year that is also a result of AGW.
If we were to get less rain in the year...you guessed it, a result of AGW.


----------



## Oddball (Jul 18, 2009)

A rather comprehensive list of the things that have been blamed on gullible warming:

warmlist


----------



## code1211 (Jul 18, 2009)

edthecynic said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



There is not much disagreement on whether or not there has been warming up to the year 2000 or so.  The question is always as to what is the cause.

All of the CO2 that is the cause cited by the AGW proponents is still there plus the amounts accumulated since 2000.

The globe has cooled since 2001.  

What does that prove about the cited cause?


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 18, 2009)

code1211 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > code1211 said:
> ...



It proves you are not telling the truth about cooling since 2001.


----------



## code1211 (Jul 18, 2009)

QUOTE]

There is not much disagreement on whether or not there has been warming up to the year 2000 or so.  The question is always as to what is the cause.

All of the CO2 that is the cause cited by the AGW proponents is still there plus the amounts accumulated since 2000.

The globe has cooled since 2001.  

What does that prove about the cited cause?[/QUOTE]

It proves you are not telling the truth about cooling since 2001.[/QUOTE]

*sigh* 

All of the data except the adjusted figures from NOAA say we are cooling.  That you feel that all of the science is wrong cannot adjust the data that is collected and presented without adjustment.

Have you ever wondered why, if the Earth station data is so good, why it must be adjusted?  Have you ever wondered why it is in varience with the data that is collected with technology that is about 500 years more recent?

Have you wondered why you prefer that outdated data to the data collected by satelites?

It's a little like sailing the oceans and choosing to use charts from Amerigo Vespucci over satelite images when both are available.


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 18, 2009)

code1211 said:


> There is not much disagreement on whether or not there has been warming up to the year 2000 or so.  The question is always as to what is the cause.
> 
> All of the CO2 that is the cause cited by the AGW proponents is still there plus the amounts accumulated since 2000.
> 
> ...



It proves you are not telling the truth about cooling since 2001.



			
				code1211 said:
			
		

> *sigh*
> 
> *All of the data except the adjusted figures from NOAA say we are cooling.*  That you feel that all of the science is wrong cannot adjust the data that is collected and presented without adjustment.
> 
> ...



None of the data says we are cooling. After being caught lying about the Argo data saying the oceans have been cooling the last 5 years when it actually showed warming, and your own link admitted the satellite data showed warming, why do you think repeating the same lies will make them any more believable rather than you less credible.

Here's the latest satellite data from Ditto-Dopers Christy and Spencer and even THEY admit this decade has been WARMING:



> Information from Global Hydrology and Climate Center, University of Alabama - Huntsville, USA The data from which the graphs are derived can be downloaded here.
> Temperature Variation From Average:&#8232;Lower Troposphere:&#8232;Global:&#8232;June 2009: +0.01 °C&#8232;Northern Hemisphere: +0.04 °C&#8232;Southern Hemisphere: -0.02 °C
> Peak recorded anomaly:&#8232;February, 1998: +0.76 °C&#8232;Current relative to peak recorded: -0.75 °C
> *DECADAL TREND:&#8232;Global: +0.12 °C*&#8232;Northern Hemisphere: +0.19 °C&#8232;Southern Hemisphere: +0.06 °C
> Last update: July 7, 2009


----------



## code1211 (Jul 19, 2009)

edthecynic said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > There is not much disagreement on whether or not there has been warming up to the year 2000 or so.  The question is always as to what is the cause.
> ...



"This decade" started with a deep temperature depression in 2000.  Not quite the anamoly that 1998 was in the opposite direction, but still, it was an outlier.

That the folks you cite use this as a start point point further demonstrates the the legitimacy of their presentation and that you edit the presentation further illustrates the calliber of yours.  That they avoid the use of 1998 as a starting point, which can be supported as the start of a ten year cycle, their integrity is further bolstered.

Starting in 2001, which is a year with results more in line with the norm, we see a pretty dramatic fall off to today.

The amount of CO2 is ever increasing.  The temperature is not.  What does this do to your theory?

Your prediction is that warmning will occur with added CO2.  The data shows that the warming you predict is not happening.  Do you accept the new data and re-examine your conclusion or stick with your conclusion and adjust that data?

For a guy with "Cynic" in your name, it's odd that you seem to have a hook, line and a sinker in your throat.

http://rankexploits.com/musings/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/rss_may_2009.jpg


----------



## code1211 (Jul 19, 2009)

Here's the latest satellite data from Ditto-Dopers Christy and Spencer and even THEY admit this decade has been WARMING:



> Information from Global Hydrology and Climate Center, University of Alabama - Huntsville, USA The data from which the graphs are derived can be downloaded here.
> Temperature Variation From Average:&#8232;Lower Troposphere:&#8232;Global:&#8232;June 2009: +0.01 °C&#8232;Northern Hemisphere: +0.04 °C&#8232;Southern Hemisphere: -0.02 °C
> Peak recorded anomaly:&#8232;February, 1998: +0.76 °C&#8232;Current relative to peak recorded: -0.75 °C*DECADAL TREND:&#8232;Global: +0.12 °C*&#8232;Northern Hemisphere: +0.19 °C&#8232;Southern Hemisphere: +0.06 °C
> Last update: July 7, 2009


[/QUOTE]


Woopsie!  Forgot to highlight this in the original response, but I suppose this does desrve its own response:

+.76 down to -.75 seems to be about a point and a half reduction.

By the by, our high in Indy yesterday was about 67 degrees compared to an average high of about 84.

Brrrrrrrr!


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 19, 2009)

code1211 said:


> Here's the latest satellite data from Ditto-Dopers Christy and Spencer and even THEY admit this decade has been WARMING:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Woopsie!  Forgot to highlight this in the original response, but I suppose this does desrve its own response:

+.76 down to -.75 seems to be about a point and a half reduction.

By the by, our high in Indy yesterday was about 67 degrees compared to an average high of about 84.

Brrrrrrrr![/QUOTE]

And here in Portland, Oregon, our temps have been running from 85 to 95 for the last five days. 

The last 13 years have seen 11 of the warmest years on record. But, using 1998 as a base, you claim cooling. It appears that we are going into an El Nino. Now if the El Nino produces record temperatures, exceeding 1998 and 2005, your whole hypothesis will be falsified. For if a moderate El Nino produces record temperatures during a period of low solar activity, there is nothing else to attribute the increase to but GHGs. I am quite confident that is what is going to happen.

I am also quite confident that you will find some other reason why it just isn't so. This denial of reality is quite amazing. And to see the denial politisized, to the point of the two parties in this nation coming down polar opposite on the subject is just amazing. Especially since the party that got handed their asses in the last election reached that situation by denial of reality in other spheres.


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 19, 2009)

code1211 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > code1211 said:
> ...





code1211 said:


> Temperature Variation From Average:&#8232;Lower Troposphere:&#8232;Global:&#8232;June 2009: +0.01 °C&#8232;
> Peak recorded anomaly:&#8232;February, 1998: +0.76 °C&#8232;Current relative to peak recorded: -0.75 °C*
> DECADAL TREND:&#8232;Global: +0.12 °C*&#8232;Northern Hemisphere: +0.19 °C&#8232;Southern Hemisphere: +0.06 °C
> Last update: July 7, 2009
> ...



Thank you for showing how deniers can rationalize anything as well as violate their own rationalizations as well as can't do math or understand english.

First of all, the start of the last 10 year cycle would be 1999 or 2000 not 1998. (1999 to 2008 or 2000 to 2009 depending on whether you are using the last full year of data or June's monthly data)

Second, you admit 1998 was a greater outlier than 2000 and that it would be more honorable not to use it, but then you used it underlined in red for emphasis, when you exaggerated the difference by changing the month of June 2009 from +.01 to -.75 by using the -.75 deviation of June 2009 from the outlier FEBRUARY 1998 as now the June 2009 temperature. Are you just that stupid that you can't do math or understand english, or are you sooooo motivated to twist any data to support you preconception that your bias makes you that stupid? 

Thirdly, I never made any "prediction" about warming and CO2, I have only challenged your claims about global cooling for the short recent times you deniers cherry-pick.

And finally, every year after 2001 was warmer than 2001 except 2008 using the combined land and ocean data. If you use only the ocean data, only 2007 and 2008 were slightly cooler than 2001 (2007 and 2008 had a strong La Nina), and every year after 2001 was warmer than 2001 if you use only the land data.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 19, 2009)

Yes, it is Old Rocks that is making the predictions. And I am confident enough from what I have seen since the mid-60s to make that prediction. So we will see who is validated by events.


----------



## jreeves (Jul 19, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Yes, it is Old Rocks that is making the predictions. And I am confident enough from what I have seen since the mid-60s to make that prediction. So we will see who is validated by events.



BTW, have you stopped eating meat to save 1.5 billion tons of CO2 emissions yet? OR are you still living the life of a hypocrite?


----------



## Sinatra (Jul 20, 2009)

Sinatra said:


> BAM!  Check out all those cold temps!
> 
> Cold June in Manhattan well below normal.
> 
> ...





Brrrrrr...


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 20, 2009)

Sinatra said:


> BAM!  Check out all those cold temps!
> 
> Cold June in Manhattan well below normal.
> 
> ...



CON$ never tire of repeating the same lies no matter how many times their lies are exposed!!! 

From your link:

 The latest global averaged *satellite temperature data for June 2009 reveal yet another drop in Earths temperature*. . . .Despite his dire warnings, the Earth has cooled 0.74 degrees F since former Vice President Al Gore released An Inconvenient Truth in 2006. 

From the UHA data your link cites:

Information from Global Hydrology and Climate Center, University of Alabama - Huntsville, USA The data from which the graphs are derived can be downloaded here.
*Temperature Variation From Average:&#8232;Lower Troposphere:&#8232;Global:&#8232;June 2009: + 0.01°C*

But in spite of your link's misrepresentation of June, I bet you STILL really believe the Earth has cooled .74 degrees F from 2006 to 2008!  



> Climate Monitoring
> Global Temperature Highlights - 2008
> The combined global land and ocean surface temperature from January-December was 0.88 degree F (0.49 degree C) above the 20th Century average of 57.0 degrees F (13.9 degrees C).
> 
> ...



57.97 - 57.88 = .09 which to deniers = .74


----------



## code1211 (Jul 20, 2009)

edthecynic said:


> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> > BAM!  Check out all those cold temps!
> ...



The temperatures in your graphs are all adjusted.  Why were they adjusted?


----------



## Sinatra (Jul 22, 2009)

Summer 2009 is shaping up to be a colder than average summer across the US - just like 2008.  Winter 2009-2010 could be even worse than the last one.

Yikes!


----------



## FactFinder (Jul 24, 2009)

In New England this morning it is in the 60's in mid July. 

We have never seen so many rainy days. I blame it on the real grand master of climate. The sun. The self centered egotists are not nearly as powerful as they would like to imagine.

SpaceWeather.com -- News and information about meteor showers, solar flares, auroras, and near-Earth asteroids

Sunspot number: 0 
What is the sunspot number?
Updated 23 July 2009

Spotless Days
Current Stretch: 13 days
2009 total: 155 days (76%)
Since 2004: 666 days
Typical Solar Min: 485 days


----------



## Sinatra (Jul 24, 2009)

FactFinder said:


> In New England this morning it is in the 60's in mid July.
> 
> We have never seen so many rainy days. I blame it on the real grand master of climate. The sun. The self centered egotists are not nearly as powerful as they would like to imagine.
> 
> ...



It is incredibly amusing to now see the global warmers scream that the lower temps are due to decreased sunspot activity - but when that same arguement is applied for the higher temps in the 1990s due to increased sunspot activity - they say NO - it was caused by man made CO2 emissions.

They grow increasingly silly in their assertions, and thankfully a majority are now waking up to the fact that humankind, while having an impact on the environment, has minimal impact on the climate when compared to the sun, the oceans, etc.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 24, 2009)

Hmmmm.........    Well here we go again, the usual suspects lying out both sides of their mouths to prove a falsehood. June, 2009, was the second warmest on record. That is the fact that shows what disengenous idiots these fools be.

NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - NOAA: Global Ocean Surface Temperature Warmest on Record for June
July 17, 2009

The world&#8217;s ocean surface temperature was the warmest on record for June, breaking the previous high mark set in 2005, according to a preliminary analysis by NOAA&#8217;s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. Additionally, the combined average global land and ocean surface temperature for June was second-warmest on record. The global records began in 1880. 

Global Climate Statistics 
The combined global land and ocean surface temperature for June 2009 was the second warmest on record, behind 2005, 1.12 degrees F (0.62 degree C) above the 20th century average of 59.9 degrees F (15.5 degrees C). 
Separately, the global ocean surface temperature for June 2009 was the warmest on record, 1.06 degrees F (0.59 degree C) above the 20th century average of 61.5 degrees F (16.4 degrees C). 
Each hemisphere broke its June record for warmest ocean surface temperature. In the Northern Hemisphere, the warm anomaly of 1.17 degrees F (0.65 degree C) surpassed the previous record of 1.12 degrees F (0.62 degree C), set in 2005. The Southern Hemisphere&#8217;s increase of 0.99 degree F (0.55 degree C) exceeded the old record of 0.92 degree F (0.51 degree C), set in 1998. 
The global land surface temperature for June 2009 was 1.26 degrees F (0.70 degree C) above the 20th century average of 55.9 degrees F (13.3 degrees C), and ranked as the sixth-warmest June on record. 
Notable Developments and Events
El Niño is back after six straight months of increased sea-surface temperature anomalies. June sea surface temperatures in the region were more than 0.9 degree F (0.5 degree C) above average. 
Terrestrial warmth was most notable in Africa. Considerable warmth also occurred in Siberia and in the lands around the Black and Mediterranean Seas. Cooler-than-average land locations included the U.S. Northern Plains, the Canadian Prairie Provinces, and central Asia.


----------



## Sinatra (Jul 24, 2009)

Sinatra said:


> BAM!  Check out all those cold temps!
> 
> Cold June in Manhattan well below normal.
> 
> ...





Brrrr....


----------



## elvis (Jul 24, 2009)

Sinatra said:


> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> > BAM!  Check out all those cold temps!
> ...




it's been cold here this summer, that's for sure.


----------



## code1211 (Jul 24, 2009)

[quote

I am also quite confident that you will find some other reason why it just isn't so. This denial of reality is quite amazing. And to see the denial politisized, to the point of the two parties in this nation coming down polar opposite on the subject is just amazing. Especially since the party that got handed their asses in the last election reached that situation by denial of reality in other spheres.[/quote]

End quote

I'm not sure that is exactly right.  Obama said he would end the war.  Turns out he simply continued the plan in progress.  He said he would close Gitmo.  Seems like it's still open and he is having troubles figuring out how to close it in the face of reality.  The economy went south at about the time of the election.  It's continuing south.

Universal Health Care is a wonderful idea.  So are allot of Utopian models.  Turns out it costs money to spend money.  Who would have guessed?

In October, Obama said that this was the worst economy since the Great Depression.  Now he says he didn't know how bad it was.  In which statement was he lying?

Obama said the economy was bad.  Under his leadership, it's getting worse.  Close Gitmo?  No no.  Out of Iraq?  Ain't got the knack.  Fight the _right_ war?  Just can't seem to score.  Heal the sick?  Can't do the trick.  

Just pass the bill,  you don't need to read the bill.

Dems who don't pay taxes get appointed.  Dems can't seem to tell the truth.  They're pretty clear on bribes, graft, paybacks and favoritism.  

The Prez accuses the cop until the polls go south.  Now he wants to have a beer with the cop who acts stupidly.  You have to wonder if having a beer with the accuser is also stupid... 

This guy is a menace and his handlers in the Senate and the House are true believers.

Is anybody else asking what's wrong with this picture?


----------



## code1211 (Jul 24, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Hmmmm.........    Well here we go again, the usual suspects lying out both sides of their mouths to prove a falsehood. June, 2009, was the second warmest on record. That is the fact that shows what disengenous idiots these fools be.
> 
> NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - NOAA: Global Ocean Surface Temperature Warmest on Record for June
> July 17, 2009
> ...



Sounds like you're sticking with the various staions that have been shown to be innaccurate both by the skeptics who point to many flaws and by the proponents who regularly adjust the readings to gain accuracy.  They then adjust the adjusted readings to gain more "accuracy".

Two things do remain certain, though:

1.  The amount of warming has fallen far short of the predicted warming.
2.  The predicted warming was based on the best projections of what CO2 would cause the climate to do.

From this we may assume either that the experts do understand our climate system or they don't.  I'm guessing that if they did, the predictions would be accurate.

They're not.  They don't.


----------



## code1211 (Jul 25, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Hmmmm.........    Well here we go again, the usual suspects lying out both sides of their mouths to prove a falsehood. June, 2009, was the second warmest on record. That is the fact that shows what disengenous idiots these fools be.
> 
> NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - NOAA: Global Ocean Surface Temperature Warmest on Record for June
> July 17, 2009
> ...




Here's a temperature tracking record from the technology of today as opposed to the technology of the days of Vasco de Gama:

The Reference Frame: UAH: June 2009: anomaly near zero

Global mean temperature according to UAH MSU for the first 8.5 years i.e. 102 months of this century. Linear regression gives a cooling trend by a hefty -1.45 °C per century in this interval. So if someone tells you that the trend is "of course" positive as long as we omit the year 1998, you may be very certain that he or she is not telling you the truth.

UAH MSU has officially released their June 2009 data. This time, they're faster than RSS MSU. The anomaly was +0.01 °C, meaning that the global temperature was essentially equal to the average June temperature since 1979. June 2009 actually belonged to the cooler half of the Junes since 1979.


----------



## editec (Jul 25, 2009)

It completely astounds me that as yet science still cannot tell us with certainty if the globe is warming or cooling.

This leave this layman no alternative to assume that either science isn't all its cracked up to be or some so called scientists are just flat out fools or liars.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 25, 2009)

Since I have seen the glaciers in the mountains I walk in lose anywhere from 30% to 60% of their mass in the last 40 years, and am told in peer reviewed journals that this is the case world wide, I would have to say that the globe is warming.

But then there are those for whom any action would be to their economic detriment, and they will do or say anything to prevent any measure being taken, untill the situation is beyond redemption. Then they will try to put the blame elsewhere.

The globe is warming, and dangerously so. We are closer to the tipping point, perhaps even past it, than most of the scientists believe.

'Enjoy life while you can' | Environment | The Guardian

In 1965 executives at Shell wanted to know what the world would look like in the year 2000. They consulted a range of experts, who speculated about fusion-powered hovercrafts and "all sorts of fanciful technological stuff". When the oil company asked the scientist James Lovelock, he predicted that the main problem in 2000 would be the environment. "It will be worsening then to such an extent that it will seriously affect their business," he said.

"And of course," Lovelock says, with a smile 43 years later, "that's almost exactly what's happened."

Lovelock has been dispensing predictions from his one-man laboratory in an old mill in Cornwall since the mid-1960s, the consistent accuracy of which have earned him a reputation as one of Britain's most respected - if maverick - independent scientists. Working alone since the age of 40, he invented a device that detected CFCs, which helped detect the growing hole in the ozone layer, and introduced the Gaia hypothesis, a revolutionary theory that the Earth is a self-regulating super-organism. Initially ridiculed by many scientists as new age nonsense, today that theory forms the basis of almost all climate science. 

For decades, his advocacy of nuclear power appalled fellow environmentalists - but recently increasing numbers of them have come around to his way of thinking. His latest book, The Revenge of Gaia, predicts that by 2020 extreme weather will be the norm, causing global devastation; that by 2040 much of Europe will be Saharan; and parts of London will be underwater. The most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report deploys less dramatic language - but its calculations aren't a million miles away from his.

As with most people, my panic about climate change is equalled only by my confusion over what I ought to do about it. A meeting with Lovelock therefore feels a little like an audience with a prophet. Buried down a winding track through wild woodland, in an office full of books and papers and contraptions involving dials and wires, the 88-year-old presents his thoughts with a quiet, unshakable conviction that can be unnerving. More alarming even than his apocalyptic climate predictions is his utter certainty that almost everything we're trying to do about it is wrong.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 25, 2009)

Tracking sea ice analomies;

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/sea.ice.anomaly.timeseries.jpg


----------



## elvis (Jul 25, 2009)

Roxy can see Mount St. Helens from his house.  That makes him an authority on this subject.


----------



## Sinatra (Jul 25, 2009)

Sinatra said:


> BAM!  Check out all those cold temps!
> 
> Cold June in Manhattan well below normal.
> 
> ...




Brrr....


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 25, 2009)

code1211 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Sinatra said:
> ...



As you well know, they were adjusted because Ditto-Dopers Christy and Spencer at UAH got CAUGHT using the WRONG SIGN when they "corrected" for Dinural Drift of satellites. 



> Should you believe anything John Christy and Roy Spencer say? « Climate Progress
> 
> First off, they were wrong  dead wrong  for a very long time, which created one of the most enduring denier myths, that the satellite data didnt show the global warming that the surface temperature data did.  As RealClimate wrote yesterday:We now know, of course, that the satellite data set  confirms that the climate is warming , and indeed at very nearly the same rate as indicated by the surface temperature records. Now, theres nothing wrong with making mistakes when pursuing an innovative observational method, but *Spencer and Christy sat by for most of a decade allowing  indeed encouraging  the use of their data set as an icon for global warming skeptics. They committed serial errors in the data analysis, but insisted they were right and models and thermometers were wrong. They did little or nothing to root out possible sources of errors, and left it to others to clean up the mess*, as has now been done.​Amazingly (or not), the serial errors in the data analysis all pushed the (mis)analysis in the same, wrong direction. Coincidence? You decide. But I find it hilarious that the deniers and delayers still quote Christy/Spencer/UAH analysis lovingly, but to this day dismiss the hockey stick and anything Michael Mann writes, when his analysis was in fact vindicated by the august National Academy of Sciences in 2006 (see _New Scientist_s Climate myths: The hockey stick graph has been proven wrong).


Which is why deniers use only their old erroneous data to claim global cooling. Once the proper sign is used even the two Ditto-Dopers had to admit their satellite data matched the surface readings and the climate models. Of course CON$ always leave that part out. The CON$ervative web of deceit only works on those who DON'T know what CON$ leave out.



> Satellite show little to no warming in the troposphere
> 
> An "Executive Summary" by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program, co-authored by John Christy of UAH concludes:*"Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of human induced global warming. This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected.* While these data are consistent with the results from climate models at the global scale, discrepancies in the tropics remain to be resolved.
> 
> This difference between models and observations may arise from errors that are common to all models, from errors in the observational data sets, or from a combination of these factors. The second explanation is favored, but the issue is still open."​In other words, according to UAH, satellite measurements match the models apart from in the tropics. This error is most likely due to data errors. According to RSS, satellites are in good agreement with models.


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 25, 2009)

code1211 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Hmmmm.........    Well here we go again, the usual suspects lying out both sides of their mouths to prove a falsehood. June, 2009, was the second warmest on record. That is the fact that shows what disengenous idiots these fools be.
> ...



And if someone uses the UHA data, COOKED by Ditto-Dopers Christy and Spencer, you may be very well certain that he or she is not telling the truth and is too STUPID, lazy or deceitful to find out the truth.


----------



## jreeves (Jul 26, 2009)

edthecynic said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


----------



## DavidS (Jul 26, 2009)

Sinatra said:


> BAM!  Check out all those cold temps!
> 
> Cold June in Manhattan well below normal.
> 
> ...



As much as I like to debunk global warming, this entire post is completely off.

1: Temperatures are below "AVERAGE" not below "NORMAL." Many people consistently intermix the terms, and they shouldn't. The "AVERAGE" temperature is a mean. It is an average of temperatures that day for the past 30 or so years. If we are below average or above average, it does not mean anything except that we were below average or above average. 

2: Our temperatures will INCREASE this winter and next Summer because of El Nino. I would not doubt we will have an ABOVE average winter in terms of temperature. 

If you look at meteorology and climatology as a whole, you can see micro weather patterns, the ones that last days/weeks and you see macro weather patterns, the ones that last for decades. 1995 - 2005 was one of the warmest decades on average, but we have since cooled down. I think 2006 - 2016 will be one of the coolest decades on record because of the lack of strenght from El Nino and how strong La Nina and neutral negative ENSO events are. We see the sign of the end of the warm decade and the beginning of the cool decade through the type of hurricane season we had in 2005. It was sort of a grand finale, like in fireworks. But in reality, and this again is a completely hypothetical meteorological term, but the Earth has a system of checks and balances. The Earth warms from the sun, so it cools itself down by releasing energy. Since the Earth can't hop onto a treadmill or catch frisbees all day long, the biggest way it releases energy is through hurricanes. Except in 2005 it released TOO MUCH energy and thus we have the cooling we've seen over the past 3 years. I suspect we have 5-7 more years of slight cooling and then by 2015-2016, we'll start warming again. This happens every 7-13 years or so. So when people say "omigosh, the 1930s were very cold and we're much warmer today than we were back then" they're only half right. We are not "much" warmer today than we were in the 1930s, but 2 degrees means the difference between a cold rainstorm and a blizzard.

There are also, and this is completely hypothetical, super-Macro weather patterns that last hundreds of years. Right now we're in an inter-glacial phase, meaning we're warming. But this is only because we just came out of a mini ice age 150 years ago. These interglacial phases last hundreds of years... so while one decade might be warm and another cold, overall for the next 150-250 years, we'll be warming. That idea is based upon the length of the medieval warm period - the first record we have of this phenomenon. This is completely natural and normal for the Earth to do and man is not causing it.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 26, 2009)

David, we are on the down cycle of the Milankovic Cycles. We should have started a gradual cooling 6000 years ago. 

Now you think 2006 to 2016 will be one of the coolest decades on record. That will be a stretch, as we have already had the eighth warmest year on record in 2008. Not only that, but I will state that I think that we will have at least two years in that period that will exceed 1998 and 2005. 2010 may be one of those years.


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 26, 2009)

jreeves said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > code1211 said:
> ...



A prefect twofer!
A perfect example of the gullibility of CON$ and the technique of deception the programmers use by rationalizating the most deceptive starting points.

The poster is gullible enough to think that chart supports Christy's and Spencer's UAH claim that "this" century's "102 months" (even though this century is 114 months old, a whole year suddenly disappeared from the UAH data ) [obviously a cold year ]  is -1.45 degrees C below last century's average. 
First of all, the chart doesn't even show the last century!!!
Even starting the century at 2001 as thy do, they STILL don't show any -1.45 loss!!!! 
The most anti Global Warming argument you could make about that cherry-picked segment is temps have leveled off, but there is no -1.45 loss. 
The 102 months start in Jan 2001 at .5 degrees C and every year after that except 2004 averaged warmer than 2001, as well as warmer than every year before it except 1998.
But the brainwashed SEE the -1.45 degree C loss.  

This chart will show why the last century was deliberately left out by the poster.


----------



## Sinatra (Jul 26, 2009)

DavidS said:


> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> > BAM!  Check out all those cold temps!
> ...


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 26, 2009)

Yup, Sinatra is complete rubbish. 

Sheesh, go argue with the scientists.


----------



## code1211 (Jul 26, 2009)

Code asked:

The temperatures in your graphs are all adjusted.  Why were they adjusted?[/quote]

Ed answered:

As you well know, they were adjusted because Ditto-Dopers Christy and Spencer at UAH got CAUGHT using the WRONG SIGN when they "corrected" for Dinural Drift of satellites.

Code responds to Ed:

Not just that series of weeks.  Every temperature since 1880 has been adjusted and not by anyone outside of the NASA NOAA group.  Every temperature since that time it seems will continue to be adjusted.  Based on what, I do not know.

Strangely, the temperatures before the late 60's all have been adjusted cooler while the ones after the late 60's have all been adjusted warmer.  Is it possible that an Indiana Jones type search has unearthed a cache of temperature readings previously unknown to NOAA?

If they are working with exactly the same data set, it makes one wonder why recorded temperatures would be adjusted post record.  Of course, maybe it wouldn't make some wonder...

GISS for June &#8211; way out there « Watts Up With That?


----------



## Oddball (Jul 26, 2009)

code1211 said:


> Strangely, the temperatures before the late 60's all have been adjusted cooler while the ones after the late 60's have all been adjusted warmer.  Is it possible that an Indiana Jones type search has unearthed a cache of temperature readings previously unknown to NOAA?
> 
> If they are working with exactly the same data set, it makes one wonder why recorded temperatures would be adjusted post record.  Of course, maybe it wouldn't make some wonder...
> 
> GISS for June  way out there « Watts Up With That?


----------



## code1211 (Jul 26, 2009)

This is an interesting discussion among folks with knowledge of the topic and who seem to be well enough informed to be off the scale of anyone's geek detector:

http://rankexploits.com/musings/2009/gisstemp-warmest-june-since-1998/

tetris (Comment#16279) 
July 15th, 2009 at 9:45 am 
Lucia,
In my experience [you know my background] there comes a point where a given source of information, regardless of subject matter, crosses a line where it loses basic credibility, and as a very minimum should be treated as a curious outlier or more appropriately, as suspicious and its data discarded. As I have posted before, GISS wandered into that realm quite some time ago [as evidenced at CA] and this latest data concoction puts it firmly over the edge. 

There is a crucial difference between adjusting data on re-calibration grounds [as RSS and UHA have done] and blatantly cooking the books. Nylo&#8217;s observation says it all and I think you&#8217;re making a mistake in continuing to include GISS data in your calculations. Doing so in the face of what we know might start to affect your credibility

Eric (Comment#16281) 
July 15th, 2009 at 10:13 am 
re: #16279

I disagree. Lucia does us all a service by posting tends and standard analysis of all the main data sources. If she didn&#8217;t do this I, for one, would not know that GISS was such an outlier. Continuing to include it, IMO, only adds to the cred of this blog.

thanks & keep up the good work.

Eric (Comment#16284) 
July 15th, 2009 at 10:32 am 
oh, and&#8230;

This is not my field, but where I come from any data set that becomes such an outlier has some &#8217;splainin to do.

Is it reasonable to expect an explanation from the GISS folks now?

lucia (Comment#16286) 
July 15th, 2009 at 10:39 am 
Eric&#8211;
I don&#8217;t think GISSTemp is an &#8220;outlier&#8221;. GISS and NOAA have higher recent trends than Hadley, RSS and UAH which are similar to each other. But, we need to remember that
* RSS and UAH measure slightly different things than GISSTemp, NOAA and HadCrut,
* RSS and UAH just process the same information differently.
* NOAA, HadCrut and GISSTemp all select from similar raw sources and then process a little differently.

So, we can&#8217;t know what the differences mean. If one ends up way out of whack relative to others over the long haul, then we&#8217;ll begin to know. But the difference in short term trends&#8230;well.. that tells us something about measurement noise!

MikeN (Comment#16287) 
July 15th, 2009 at 10:50 am 
OK, I thought you were doing trends from June to June.

lucia (Comment#16290) 
July 15th, 2009 at 10:54 am 
MikeN&#8211;
I nearly always start trend in January. That convention at least minimizes the total range of possible cherry picking! (Imagine if we could just run a script hunting for the start month and end month that give the &#8220;right&#8221; answer! On top of that, define the filter width M that we like and so on.)

Eric (Comment#16299) 
July 15th, 2009 at 12:28 pm 
Lucia - 

Thank you for setting me straight. I appreciate the education.

hunter (Comment#16351) 
July 15th, 2009 at 9:39 pm 
Is there any reason, considering the political activity of GISS and the demonstrated warming bias of their data sources, to give this any real credibility? Especially since this product is now an outlier?

David Gould (Comment#16352) 
July 15th, 2009 at 9:50 pm 
Except &#8230; it&#8217;s not an outlier. And, given that el nino conditions starting during June, warming for that month is to be expected.

tetris (Comment#16356) 
July 15th, 2009 at 10:46 pm 
Hunter [16351]
This goes to the heart of the question: whereas the satellite data [UHA, RSS and e.g Argos] and other metrics show an absence of warming over the past +/- decade, GISS and HAD data series have without exception and invariably been &#8220;adjusted&#8221; upwards to show not only warming but an increased rate of warming, the latest &#8220;adjusted&#8221; GISS anomaly data being par for the course. A number of observers [yours truly included] have commented that given our growing understanding of natural variations in weather/climate, this accelerating upward set of &#8220;trend adjustments&#8221; [the June anomaly being an order of magnitude out relative to the satellite data] is quite simply impossible, and that therefore, by extension the credibility of the GISS and HAD data series has become singularly suspect. I am not alone in thinking that it is the GISS data series as a whole that should be treated as the true anomaly, and not as our host continues to do, as a legitimate basis for trend calculations.


----------



## Sinatra (Jul 26, 2009)

code1211 said:


> This is an interesting discussion among folks with knowledge of the topic and who seem to be well enough informed to be off the scale of anyone's geek detector:
> 
> http://rankexploits.com/musings/2009/gisstemp-warmest-june-since-1998/
> 
> ...



GREAT POST!


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 26, 2009)

edthecynic said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



UAH gets caught using the WRONG SIGN among other things FOR YEARS, no problem for deniers, just call years "weeks," and completely ignor UAH's claim of -1.45 degrees C cooling the last 8.5 years.

The GLOBAL temps show warming, no problem for deniers, just cite US only temps being adjusted in your "Whatts Up With That" link, and use them as if they were GLOBA temps which didn't shift. 

UAH's current numbers are out of line again after Christy and Spencer have come up with a new way to fudge the numbers down, no problem for deniers, call UAH's positive reading for June "negative" in your same link using the US data as global and claim everyone agrees with UAH except GISS/GISTEMP and nobody outside the NOAA group agrees with GISTEMP even though the British Hadley satellite temp data is much much closer to GISTEMP than UAH.

From your own favorite junkscience.com web site comes the below data and this quote from UAH. As was shown in my earlier post, the Dinural Drift gives cooler data but UAH deceptively and defiantly continues to use the wrong sign in their corrections:


> "[FONT=arial, verdana, helvetica][FONT=arial, verdana, helvetica]As noted below, the diurnal drift of NOAA-15 is becoming more obvious. *We       are still working on a correction scheme to remove* this spurious *warming       effect.*"[/FONT][/FONT]
> 
> UAH MSU 6-2009: *+0.01 °C.* Rank: 17/31
> Warmest June in this series was in 1998.
> ...


----------



## jreeves (Jul 26, 2009)

edthecynic said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Dipshit....

The chart I posted is for the last 13 years, 1996-2009. If CO2 emmissions have been exploding then why isn't there a direct correlation between CO2 emmissions and the rise in temperature. The chart shows that AGW is a crock of shit....


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 26, 2009)

jreeves said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > jreeves said:
> ...



Typical CON$ervative deception, when caught making a fool of oneself, try to change the subject. 

The post you replied to was about UAH falsely claiming that the last 8.5 years cooled by -1.45 C compared to the last century's average.


----------



## jreeves (Jul 26, 2009)

edthecynic said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Typical chicken little lunacy when you can't explain why temperature and CO2 emmissions aren't directly correlated you claim the chart is false.


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 26, 2009)

jreeves said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > jreeves said:
> ...



Again, rather than admit UHA lied about a -1.45 C drop in temp the last 8.5 years as compared to the last century's average just continue to try to change the subject even though the chart YOU posted does not have anything to do with CO2, but somehow gives permission to UHA to lie about 102 months of global cooling. Brilliant rationalization.


----------



## jreeves (Jul 26, 2009)

edthecynic said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Ok genius post where I listed UHA as a source?


----------



## jreeves (Jul 26, 2009)

jreeves said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > jreeves said:
> ...



Btw...look at CO2 emmissions over the same period 1996-2009 hmm....no correlation

http://photos.mongabay.com/07/co2_country_area_2030-max.jpg


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 26, 2009)

jreeves said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > jreeves said:
> ...



For CON$, when changing the subject fails, play dumb.

So you are saying you are too STUPID to know what's in the posts you reply to.


----------



## jreeves (Jul 26, 2009)

edthecynic said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Post it dumbass or STFU


----------



## Sinatra (Jul 26, 2009)

jreeves said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Keep it up - you are blowing the global warmers right out of the water.

They are getting increasingly shrill in their vain attempts to continue progressing  a failed political agenda that had little to do with science, and far more to do with profit...


----------



## jreeves (Jul 26, 2009)

Sinatra said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > jreeves said:
> ...



They are hypocritical bullshitters, how many AGW cultist are vegans....

I have seen exactly zero on this board.

They ask expensive and cumbersome regulations be set on everyone else. All the while they could save 1.5 billion tons of CO2 emmissions a year by going vegan, that's according to the IPCC.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 26, 2009)

And when the next El Nino results in a year or two warmer than either 1998 or 2005, you are going to answer that with more meaningless yapping?


----------



## jreeves (Jul 26, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> And when the next El Nino results in a year or two warmer than either 1998 or 2005, you are going to answer that with more meaningless yapping?



Of course you would latch onto the El Nino effect that happens every 3 to 8 years to try and verify AGW....


----------



## jreeves (Jul 26, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> And when the next El Nino results in a year or two warmer than either 1998 or 2005, you are going to answer that with more meaningless yapping?



BTW speaking of hypocritical AGW cultist...


----------



## Sinatra (Jul 26, 2009)

jreeves said:


> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> > jreeves said:
> ...



Correct - that is a good example of hypocrisy by these dimming bulbs...


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 27, 2009)

jreeves said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > jreeves said:
> ...



Again with the dumb act. 
And for the record, you feebly DEFENDED UAH by stupidly posting a chart that didn't support the false UAH claim that the Earth had cooled by -1.45 C in the last 8.5 years or 102 months as compared to the previous century's average, when I attacked UAH as a credible source. So nowhere did I say you listed UAH as a source. Does that refresh your memory???

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1369933-post84.html

This is another typically dishonest technique of CON$ervatism, changing what actually was said or posted. 
Just as I have not said anything about CO2 on this thread, but you choose to pretend I have, although one graph I posted from code's favorite right-wing denier's source, junkscience.com, did include a plot of CO2 levels along with the British Hadley data and they DID correspond quite nicely, but I only posted it for the Hadley data as code's link falsely claimed only the NOAA group supported the higher GISS/GISTEMT June 2009 data over the cooked UAH data and I said nothing about CO2. You probably don't remember that either. 

UAH MSU 6-2009: *+0.01 °C.* Rank: 17/31
Warmest June in this series was in 1998.
Average last 12 months: 0.15 °C

GISTEMP 6-2009: *+0.63 °C*. Rank: 2/130
Warmest June in this series was in 1998.
Average last 12 months: 0.51 °C.

NCDC Anomaly 6-2009: *+0.62 °C.* Rank: 2/130
Warmest June in this series was in 2005.
Average last 12 months: 0.54 °C.

HadCRUT3 6-2009: *+0.50 °C.* Rank: 3/160
Warmest June in this series was in 1998.
Average last 12 months: 0.40 °C

HadAT 6-2009: *+0.40 °C*


----------



## Sinatra (Jul 27, 2009)

Sinatra said:


> BAM!  Check out all those cold temps!
> 
> Cold June in Manhattan well below normal.
> 
> ...




Remarkable!


----------



## jreeves (Aug 1, 2009)

edthecynic said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Again no post that I ever used UAH as a source....


----------



## jreeves (Aug 1, 2009)

jreeves said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > jreeves said:
> ...



For your consumption dumbass...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGquwwoQfVY]YouTube - CO2 is Life: Global Warming Consensus Myth Busted[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKhnUqrqVqQ&feature=related[/ame]


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 1, 2009)

jreeves said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > And when the next El Nino results in a year or two warmer than either 1998 or 2005, you are going to answer that with more meaningless yapping?
> ...



LOL. OK, idiot. We'll go real slow, maybe you can understand. We had a strong and persistant La Nina that coincided with a unussualy quiet solar minimum. A solar minimum that is still with us, as the sun is still  very quiet. And you fellows have been trumpeting that as proof that we are rapidly cooling. So rapidly that 2008 tied 2001 as the eighth warmest year on record. Yet June was the second warmest June on record in 130 years. And the El Nino is just starting. 

So, when we were supposed to be getting fast and hard cooling, it was still warming. And now, when we have an El Nino, with a quiet sun, we may well have a year that exceeds 1998 and 2005. No one has to latch onto the El Nino to prove AGW, the fact that we are still in an accelerating warming is obvious to all but the most politically motivated or dense.


----------



## elvis (Aug 1, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Riggght.  and this hysteria that Al whore has perpetuated isn't politically motivated at all.


----------



## edthecynic (Aug 1, 2009)

jreeves said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > jreeves said:
> ...



Again, you provided no post where I said you used UAH as a source!!!
Why should I have to provide a link to something I never said???

I did provide the link to the post where you stupidly tried to DEFEND UAH with a chart that exposed UAH as lying Ditto-Dopers, and I shot you down for your DEFENSE of UHA.
If you weren't defending UAH's lie, why did you post your chart????


----------



## code1211 (Aug 1, 2009)

edthecynic said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Can you produce one citation of a quote that I have posted here from Junk Science.com?


----------



## edthecynic (Aug 2, 2009)

code1211 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > jreeves said:
> ...



You forget I remember you from the AOL messageboards, and it was there that I found out about the junk science site from your links.


----------



## Againsheila (Aug 2, 2009)

Sinatra said:


> BAM!  Check out all those cold temps!
> 
> Cold June in Manhattan well below normal.
> 
> ...



In Seattle we reached an alltime high of 103 degrees, just south, where I live, it was 104.  You really don't think something is going on with our weather patterns?


----------



## KittenKoder (Aug 2, 2009)

Againsheila said:


> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> > BAM!  Check out all those cold temps!
> ...



Um ... no ... it's not an "all time high", as a matter of fact this was "normal" weather 25 years ago.


----------



## Sinatra (Aug 2, 2009)

Againsheila said:


> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> > BAM!  Check out all those cold temps!
> ...



Seattle average temps for 2009 are lower than the Seattle temps of 40 years ago.

While it is easy to conform some warm summer days around your desire to believe in man made global warming, it simply doesn't work when confronted with easily discovered facts...


----------



## code1211 (Aug 2, 2009)

edthecynic said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



We all, check that, most of us grow and mature through experience.  On the old A Oh Hell boards, I was just starting to dig into this stuff and was instructed by yourself and Rocks and others on sourcing.

Within the evolution I've gone through is my view on the overall topic from an AGW proponent to a doubter.  Also, my approach is less of an attack dog and more of a fact checker.  When a particular source, like GISS, is in varience to all of the other sources, it makes me wonder why. 

As a result, I try to avoid sites that are obviously political.  Junk Science is one.  Real Climate is another.  I notice that not all try to avoid these sites.  The best sites are those that actually present data and present views not on the predictions but rather on the methodology which expose distance from the majority of the data collectoer's ranges.

When a series of experts review the various data sources and site GISS an outlier, it is telling.

Those who say that the world is ending from ocean rise, temperature rise, atmoshpere change and all the rest but scrupulously avoid any attempt to put any of their rhetoric into perspective are suspect.  At least to me.

A 0.7 degree change in temperature across 2000 years is hardly the stuff of panic.


----------



## edthecynic (Aug 2, 2009)

UAH MSU 6-2009: *+0.01 °C.* Rank: 17/31
Warmest June in this series was in 1998.
Average last 12 months: 0.15 °C

GISTEMP 6-2009: *+0.63 °C*. Rank: 2/130
Warmest June in this series was in 1998.
Average last 12 months: 0.51 °C.

NCDC Anomaly 6-2009: *+0.62 °C.* Rank: 2/130
Warmest June in this series was in 2005.
Average last 12 months: 0.54 °C.

HadCRUT3 6-2009: *+0.50 °C.* Rank: 3/160
Warmest June in this series was in 1998.
Average last 12 months: 0.40 °C

HadAT 6-2009: *+0.40 °C

*


code1211 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > code1211 said:
> ...



BALONEY!!!
You were ALWAYS a denier using junkscience as long as I debated you on AOL.

And being a denier does not make someone a "series of experts" and GISS is not the outlier, UAH is clearly the outlier so why don't apply your suspicions to them???

Finally, you yourself in this very thread spun a +.01 June reading from your UAH outlier into a point and a half drop in your "woopsie" post!!!!
Now that puts YOUR "rhetoric into perspective!"

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1351892-post60.html


----------



## jreeves (Aug 2, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


From your post...
"OK, idiot"

"We had a strong and *persistant *La Nina that coincided with a *unussualy* quiet solar minimum."

Persistent Definition | Definition of Persistent at Dictionary.com
* persistent-*
1. 	persisting, esp. in spite of opposition, obstacles, discouragement, etc.; persevering: a most annoyingly persistent young man.
2. 	lasting or enduring tenaciously: the persistent aroma of verbena; a persistent cough.
3. 	constantly repeated; continued: persistent noise.
4. 	Biology.
a. 	continuing or permanent.
b. 	having continuity of phylogenetic characteristics.
5. 	Botany. remaining attached beyond the usual time, as flowers, flower parts, or leaves.


Unusually Definition | Definition of Unusually at Dictionary.com
*un&#8901;u&#8901;su&#8901;al*
&#8194;

&#8211;adjective
not usual, common, or ordinary; uncommon in amount or degree; exceptional: an unusual sound; an unusual hobby; an unusual response.
Origin:
1575&#8211;85; un- 1 + usual

Related forms:
*un&#8901;u&#8901;su&#8901;al&#8901;ly, adverb*
un&#8901;u&#8901;su&#8901;al&#8901;ness, noun 

Idiot...

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/hadat2_june2008.png


----------



## code1211 (Aug 2, 2009)

edthecynic said:


> UAH MSU 6-2009: *+0.01 °C.* Rank: 17/31
> Warmest June in this series was in 1998.
> Average last 12 months: 0.15 °C
> 
> ...



I didn't spin anything.  I highlighted something that was said by someone else.

This source that you revile so often is what it is.  It reflects all of the other sources except GISS in it's variences.  GISS shows rising temperatures COMPARED TO TEMPERATURES IN ITS OWN SEQUENCE while the outher sources show declining temperatures COMPARED TO TEMPERATURES IN THEIR OWN SEQUENCES.  We have had this discussion before and you immediately change the subject.

This is not to say that they all have the same starting or ending points, but most very within a range and GISS is outside of that range of varience.

The plus .1 degree that you seem to ignor, iI can't really determine what it is that you are citing in that link, indicates that the measured month is only .1 degree above the average established for the baseline.

This means that the measured month was less warm than many others that were measured.  It was.  Only GISS departs from this conclusion.  After Hansen adjusts the readings, it will be less cool than it actually was by whatever factor he cooks.

The temperature listed is important only as a comparator within the given series.  If the calibration for any particular series is consistant to itself, there will be consistant variation.  For all of the major data collectors, except GISS, the variations are roughly equal.  This is what makes GISS the outlier.

The anomoly graphs are interesting in that they equalize all of the months of any year and show whether there is warming month by month.  That was why the .1 was important and why I returned to that post to highlight it.

By the by, I had thoughts prior to posting on message boards.  It was before I started digging into this stuff that i was a proponent.  The more I learned, the less convinced i became.  That same process goes on.


----------



## Sinatra (Aug 2, 2009)

Sinatra said:


> BAM!  Check out all those cold temps!
> 
> Cold June in Manhattan well below normal.
> 
> ...



,,,


----------



## code1211 (Aug 2, 2009)

Sinatra said:


> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> > BAM!  Check out all those cold temps!
> ...




Hmmm...  The Globe has cooled.  Has the rhetoric also cooled?


----------



## Sinatra (Aug 2, 2009)

code1211 said:


> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> > Sinatra said:
> ...



Hardly - the warmers are ramping up the GW stories big time during the summer - like clockwork...


----------



## edthecynic (Aug 2, 2009)

code1211 said:


> > Information from Global Hydrology and Climate Center, University of Alabama - Huntsville, USA The data from which the graphs are derived can be downloaded here.
> > Temperature Variation From Average:&#8232;Lower Troposphere:*&#8232;Global:&#8232;June 2009: +0.01 °C&#8232;*Northern Hemisphere: +0.04 °C&#8232;Southern Hemisphere: -0.02 °C
> > Peak recorded anomaly:&#8232;February, 1998: +0.76 °C&#8232;Current relative to peak recorded: -0.75 °C*DECADAL TREND:&#8232;Global: +0.12 °C*&#8232;Northern Hemisphere: +0.19 °C&#8232;Southern Hemisphere: +0.06 °C
> > Last update: July 7, 2009
> ...





code1211 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Finally, you yourself in this very thread spun a +.01 June reading from your UAH outlier into a point and a half drop in your "woopsie" post!!!!
> ...



Well, let's see whether you quoted UAH or or spun their cooked numbers even more than they do.

You took the +.01 June 2009 and changed it to -.75 by using the difference between June 2009 and February 1998 as the June 2009 temp. You then compared your cooked -.75 June 2009 creation to the +.76 February 1998 temp to get your point and a half reduction. 

That is not highlighting "something that was said by someone else" by any standard except to a CON$ervative spin doctor.


----------



## jreeves (Aug 2, 2009)

edthecynic said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > > Information from Global Hydrology and Climate Center, University of Alabama - Huntsville, USA The data from which the graphs are derived can be downloaded here.
> ...



Of course the University of Alabama at Huntsville cooks their numbers...

Because they don't agree with the minions of hypocrites. You are aware that CH4 has a higher global warming potential than CO2 correct? Are you a vegan?


----------



## Annie (Aug 2, 2009)

I was saying to EZ that our temps here are whacked. Aug 2nd, 77F. Warmer than in days. I don't know that we've hit 90F this summer. I do know that most days we've been in low 80's or high 70's. Most nights into low 60's and even low 50's. Chicago is NOT MN.


----------



## edthecynic (Aug 2, 2009)

code1211 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > UAH MSU 6-2009: *+0.01 °C.* Rank: 17/31
> ...



Well there you go again code, lying in the face of the facts. There are three other sources listed at the top of the post that agree with GISS including the British Hadley Center which has nothing to do with Hansen. And it is Christie and Spencer at UAH who got caught deliberately using the wrong sign to "correct" for diurnal satellite drift to get their low numbers.

Satellite show little to no warming in the troposphere

By the way, they are up to version 5.2 of their "correction" standard and they have announced that they are working on another version to get the numbers even lower, so why don't you question all their changes to get their cooked numbers if you are so fair and balanced???? 



> [FONT=arial, verdana, helvetica][FONT=arial, verdana, helvetica]From UAH Update 19 Dec 2007 *****************************
> 
> As noted below, the diurnal drift of NOAA-15 is becoming more obvious.* We       are still working on a correction scheme to remove this spurious warming       effect. *Through comparison with other AMSUs, the warming drift by Oct and       Nov is on the order of 0.2 C* (i.e. the values of v5.2 are too warm for TLT       by that amount.)* This has been a long ordeal because we want to create a       correction that will stand the test of time. *End update*[/FONT][/FONT]


----------



## jreeves (Aug 2, 2009)

edthecynic said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


Methane - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The abundance of methane in the Earth's atmosphere in 1998 was 1745 parts per billion, up from 700 ppb in 1750. *Methane can trap about 20 times the heat of CO2.* In the same time period, CO2 increased from 278 to 365 parts per million. The radiative forcing effect due to this increase in methane abundance is about one-third of that of the CO2 increase.[2] In addition, there is a large, but unknown, amount of methane in methane clathrates in the ocean floors. The Earth's crust contains huge amounts of methane. Large amounts of methane are produced anaerobically by methanogenesis. Other sources include mud volcanoes, which are connected with deep geological faults, and* livestock (primarily cows) from enteric fermentation.*


Are you a vegan?


----------



## edthecynic (Aug 2, 2009)

jreeves said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > code1211 said:
> ...



No, their numbers are cooked because they got caught using the opposite sign in their "correction" for diurnal satellite drift.

I notice you have not addressed your point and a half exaggeration, but instead try to change the subject. But just for the record, I've been a vegetarian since 1968, not that it's relevant to your exaggeration.



> Methodology & Error Correction
> 
> The Effect of Diurnal Correction on Satellite-Derived Lower Tropospheric Temperature
> CA Mears and FJ Wentz. _Science_, published online 11 August 2005
> ...


----------



## jreeves (Aug 2, 2009)

edthecynic said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


Then you would understand the difference between a vegetarian and a vegan....liar and hypocrite.


----------



## edthecynic (Aug 2, 2009)

jreeves said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > jreeves said:
> ...



I don't eat meat of any kind, not even fish or chicken. But what does that have to do with the undeniable fact that UAH cooked their numbers by calling the cooling effect of diurnal drift a warming effect and deliberately using the opposite sign in their "correction," other than to change the subject from the fact that the only cherry-picked data deniers have has been proven to be cooked?!!!


----------



## jreeves (Aug 2, 2009)

edthecynic said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



I don't know, maybe to show the whole crux of your side's argument is hypocritical, unless you are a *vegan*. Considering that CH4 has 20 times more heating potential than CO2.


----------



## edthecynic (Aug 2, 2009)

jreeves said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > jreeves said:
> ...



Again, I have made no claims about CO2 or CH4. I have merely pointed out that deniers are lying when they claim Global Cooling for the last decade. Obviously I have proven my argument so thoroughly that deniers have no choice but to change the subject. 
Your white flag is accepted. Thank you.


----------



## jreeves (Aug 2, 2009)

edthecynic said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



a Liar and a hypocrite....your concessions are duly noted. No one has stated that at some points in history the earth has cooled and warmed. I think the point of disagreement is to do with the relevance of man's role in said heating and cooling.


----------



## edthecynic (Aug 2, 2009)

jreeves said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > jreeves said:
> ...



Again, if you look at the posts I replied to, you will see the deniers claimed that either there was global cooling for the last decade even though the decade of 1999 to 2008 was the warmest in the history of direct instrument measurement, or we've been cooling since 2001 even though every year after 2001 has been warmer than 2001. Deniers then went on to challenge the accuracy of the measurements and I pointed out the flaws in their arguments. It was you and code who were trying to change the debate over the accuracy of the UAH data to veganism, not me.


----------



## jreeves (Aug 2, 2009)

edthecynic said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


Deniers of what? AGW correct?
Disproving The Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) Problem « Watts Up With That?
AGW
A theory has been proposed that human activity over about the last 150 years has caused a significant rise in Earth&#8217;s average temperature. *The mechanism claimed is based on an increased greenhouse effect caused by anthropogenic increases in CO2* from burning of fossil fuels, deforestation, cement manufacture, and also from increases in CH4 from farm animals and other causes.


Veganism would have a lot to do with this debate, since CH4 is 20 times more likely to trap heat. Unfortunately, you being the hypocrite you are, would like to play stupid that you alone could eliminate 1.5 billion tons of CO2 emissions a year by becoming a vegan, according to the IPCC. But do continue to focus on others its entertaining...


----------



## elvis (Aug 2, 2009)

jreeves said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > jreeves said:
> ...



Maybe he could just put his head up a cow's ass?


----------



## Sinatra (Aug 2, 2009)




----------



## code1211 (Aug 2, 2009)

edthecynic said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Try this one on.  This is a good article about the predictions by the IPCC, GISS and the revered Dr. Hansen on the warming of the oceans.  They made projections that can be measured against the Argos Buoys.

Their projections showed warming and plenty of it.  The data from the argo buoys showed cooling.  See graph here:

http://climatesci.org/wp-content/uploads/dipuccio-2.jpg

See the whole article here:

The Global Warming Hypothesis and Ocean Heat « Watts Up With That?

The problem with data is that it's pretty unforgiving in its simplicity.  GISS continues to wander further from the reality that is revealed by the data.  The land stations are thick in their density, but only about 20% of them are acceptable by the standards that GISS sets for themselves.  The readings of all continue to be used.

The ocean readings which you seem to adore are contradicted by the Argos Buoys, but the adoration continues.

I suppose it's a shame to waste a good misconception.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 2, 2009)

Does ocean cooling prove global warming has ended?


Willis 2008 shows a cooling trend since 2004, while Leuliette shows a warming trend. The primary difference between the two is found early in the Argo record, when there were fewer Argo buoys deployed. Leuliette 2009 suggests the discrepancy between the two seems to be due to poor sampling and differences in how the data was handled. But which dataset is more accurate?

When confronted with two papers offering different results, a useful referree is an independently determined dataset. As well as using Argo data, Cazenave 2009 creates two independent estimates of ocean heat. Sea level rise is comprised of two components: mass change due to melting ice and steric sea level rise due to changes in ocean density. Thermal expansion is the main driver of steric changes (salinity is also a minor factor) so steric sea level rise is another measure of total ocean heat. 

The first reconstruction uses satellite gravity measurements to calculate the change in ocean mass. They then subtract ocean mass sea level rise from total sea level rise to calculate the steric sea level rise. The second reconstruction uses satellite gravity measurements to calculate the change in mass of land ice and land water. The sea level rise from this contribution is subtracted from the total sea level rise to obtain another estimate of steric sea level rise. Both reconstructions show a statistically significant warming trend.

Argo offer two data streams - real time where the data is available almost instantaneously and delayed which undergoes more rigorous checks. Cazenave uses only measurements with the highest quality control settings (an approach the folk at Surfacestations would surely approve of). The Argo trend closely matches the other two reconstructions.


Figure 4: Three reconstructions of steric sea level, with seasonal element removed. Blue curve estimated from the difference between altimetry and GRACE-based ocean mass. Green curve estimated from the difference between satellite altimetry and total land ice plus land waters contribution. Red curve: ARGO-based estimate (Cazenave 2009).

In climate discussions, the most common error is focusing on a single piece of the puzzle while ignoring the big picture. The ocean cooling meme commits this error twofold. Firstly, it scrutinises 6 years worth of data while ignoring the last 40 years of ocean warming. Secondly, it hangs its hat on one particular reconstruction that shows cooling, while other results and independent analyses indicate slight warming.

The bottom line is there is still uncertainty over the reconstruction of ocean heat. Generally, the various reconstructions show the same long term trends but don't always agree when it comes to inter-decadal variability. The uncertainty means one cannot conclude with confidence that the ocean is cooling. Independent analysis seem to indicate that over last half dozen years, the ocean has shown less warming than the long term trend but nevertheless, a statistically significant warming trend.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 2, 2009)

Jennifer Marohasy » Correcting Ocean Cooling: NASAChanges Data to Fit the Models Adjusts Data from Buoys


The devices are manufactured to free-fall through the water at a known rate; scientists infer the depth of the temperature measurements by the time lapsed after the sensor hits the water. They have been used by the U.S. Navy and oceanographers since the 1960s.

&#8220;Basically, I used the sea level data as a bridge to the in situ [ocean-based] data,&#8221; explains Willis, comparing them to one another figuring out where they didn&#8217;t agree. &#8220;First, I identified some new Argo floats that were giving bad data; they were too cool compared to other sources of data during the time period. It wasn&#8217;t a large number of floats, but the data were bad enough, so that when I tossed them, most of the cooling went away. But there was still a little bit, so I kept digging and digging.&#8221;

The digging led him to the data from the expendable temperature sensors, the XBTs. A month before, Willis had seen a paper by Viktor Gouretski and Peter Koltermann that showed a comparison of XBT data collected over the past few decades to temperatures obtained in the same ocean areas by more accurate techniques, such as bottled water samples collected during research cruises. Compared to more accurate observations, the XBTs were too warm. The problem was more pronounced at some points in time than others.

The Gouretski paper hadn&#8217;t rung any alarm bells right away, explains Willis, &#8220;because I knew from the earlier analysis that there was a big cooling signal in Argo all by itself. It was there even if I didn&#8217;t use the XBT data. That&#8217;s part of the reason that we thought it was real in the first place,&#8221; explains Willis.

But when he factored the too-warm XBT measurements into his ocean warming time series, the last of the ocean cooling went away. Later, Willis teamed up with Susan Wijffels of Australia&#8217;s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Organization (CSIRO) and other ocean scientists to diagnose the XBT problems in detail and come up with a way to correct them.

So the new Argo data were too cold, and the older XBT data were too warm, and together, they made it seem like the ocean had cooled,&#8221; says Willis. The February evening he discovered the mistake, he says, is &#8220;burned into my memory.&#8221; He was supposed to fly to Colorado that weekend to give a talk on &#8220;ocean cooling&#8221; to prominent climate researchers. Instead, he&#8217;d be talking about how it was all a mistake.

A scientist could hardly be expected to be happy about finding a mistake in his work after he published it. But if you have to watch your research go down in flames, it may help to regard it as an offering on the sacrificial fire of scientific progress. In the case of &#8220;ocean cooling,&#8221; Willis has plenty of reasons to consider the sacrifice worth it.

The first payoff for finding and fixing the XBT errors was that it allowed scientists to reconcile a stubborn and puzzling mismatch between climate model simulations of ocean warming for the past half century and observations. The second was that it helped explain why sea level rise between 1961-2003 was larger than scientists had previously been able to account for.

Much of what scientists know about how ocean heat content has changed over the past half century comes from the work of Sydney Levitus, the director of NOAA&#8217;s Ocean Climate Laboratory in Silver Spring, Maryland, and his colleagues. In the early 1990s, the United Nations Education and Scientific Organization (UNESCO) asked Levitus to undertake a scientific rescue mission.


----------



## Sinatra (Aug 2, 2009)

Sinatra said:


>




Brrr...


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 2, 2009)

I am predicting, within 5 years, two years of tempertures that will exceed those of 1998 and 2005. By all your graphs and other nonsense, this cannot happen. So when it does, I will remind you of your foolishness.


----------



## elvis (Aug 2, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> I am predicting, within 5 years, two years of tempertures that will exceed those of 1998 and 2005. By all your graphs and other nonsense, this cannot happen. So when it does, I will remind you of your foolishness.



except you'll be in the Alzheimer's unit in five years, and even more senile than you are now.


----------



## KittenKoder (Aug 2, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > I am predicting, within 5 years, two years of tempertures that will exceed those of 1998 and 2005. By all your graphs and other nonsense, this cannot happen. So when it does, I will remind you of your foolishness.
> ...



Not to mention that when it doesn't happen he will deny ever making this statement.


----------



## elvis (Aug 2, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



or won't remember making it.


----------



## Chris (Aug 2, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> I am predicting, within 5 years, two years of tempertures that will exceed those of 1998 and 2005. By all your graphs and other nonsense, this cannot happen. So when it does, I will remind you of your foolishness.



The ice cap and the glaciers continue to melt, and CO2 level continues to rise. 

When the Sun becomes active again the temps will rise even more.

And if the arctic methane kicks in, watch out.


----------



## KittenKoder (Aug 2, 2009)

Chris said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > I am predicting, within 5 years, two years of tempertures that will exceed those of 1998 and 2005. By all your graphs and other nonsense, this cannot happen. So when it does, I will remind you of your foolishness.
> ...



*What is the purpose of the glacial ice?*


----------



## Sinatra (Aug 3, 2009)

Sinatra said:


> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...



Put on a sweater folks...


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 3, 2009)

LOL.  Going to remind you of this crap, old boy.


----------



## ozzmdj (Aug 3, 2009)

More for you kooks........Global Cooling Chills Summer 2009 by Deroy Murdock on National Review Online


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 3, 2009)

Ozzy, old boy, for your benefit, I will repeat my prediction of two years in the next five that exceed 1998 and 2005. When that happens, you who deny reality will have to come up with another bloody lie to cover your asses.

And June, 2009 was the second hottest june on record.


NCDC: Second hottest June on record &#8212; and once El Nino really kicks in, expect global temperatures &#8220;to threaten previous record highs&#8221; « Climate Progress


NCDC: Second hottest June on record &#8212; and once El Nino really kicks in, expect global temperatures &#8220;to threaten previous record highs&#8221;
July 16, 2009 
Fast on the heels of the fourth warmest May on record, NOAA&#8217;s National Climatic Data Center reports:

Based on preliminary data, the globally averaged combined land and sea surface temperature was the second warmest on record for June, and the January-June year-to-date tied with 2004 as the fifth warmest on record.

NCDC notes that the ocean temperature was the warmest on record.  In fact, it was a full 0.11°F warmer than the 2005 record.  This is almost certainly the new El Niño on top of the long-term warming trend (see NOAA says &#8220;El Niño arrives; Expected to Persist through Winter 2009-10&#8243; &#8212; and that means record temperatures are coming and this will be the hottest decade on record).

And no, I don&#8217;t think the monthly data tell us much about the climate.  But I know reporting it annoys the deniers.  Also, the deniers have been touting the supposedly cool June temperatures over parts of this country (although the lower 48 in fact had the 49th warmest June on record, and Alaska had the 21st warmest).  &#8220;Across parts of Africa and most of Eurasia,&#8221; however, &#8220;temperatures were 3°C (5°F) or more above average.&#8221;  Such warming may be coming to the US later in the year.  It typically takes several months for the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) to impact global temperatures.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 3, 2009)

ozzmdj said:


> More for you kooks........Global Cooling Chills Summer 2009 by Deroy Murdock on National Review Online



By the way, the National Review has about as much credibility on scientific subjects as the National Enquirer, or better yet, the Weekly World. Wingnut fruitcakes ignoring science to make political points.


----------



## edthecynic (Aug 3, 2009)

jreeves said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > jreeves said:
> ...



You CON$ just make this crap up completely out of the blue! 
Please provide a link to where strict vegetarians produce 1.5 billion tons more CO2 per year than vegans.   And you deniers wonder why you have no credibility with honest people!!!  

And as far as your link goes, they link to a chart and under the chart is a link to the source of the chart and the source of the chart includes this disclaimer about the chart, but the dishonest author of your link deliberately left out the disclaimer preserving the misleading nature of the chart.



> _We have recently changed the way that the smoothed time series of data were calculated.  *Data for 2008 were being used in the smoothing process as if they represented an accurate esimate of the year as a whole.  This is not the case and owing to the unusually cool global average temperature in  January 2008, it looked as though smoothed  global average temperatures had dropped markedly in recent years, which is misleading.* _


----------



## Sinatra (Aug 3, 2009)

ozzmdj said:


> More for you kooks........Global Cooling Chills Summer 2009 by Deroy Murdock on National Review Online




The warmers are not gonna like that!!


----------



## edthecynic (Aug 3, 2009)

jreeves said:


> *No one has stated that at some points in history the earth has cooled and warmed. I think the point of disagreement is to do with the relevance of man's role in said heating and cooling.*





Sinatra said:


> ozzmdj said:
> 
> 
> > More for you kooks........Global Cooling Chills Summer 2009 by Deroy Murdock on National Review Online
> ...



Careful, you are making a liar of jreeves with that link! 

BTW, the last decade is the warmest decade since the direct instrument measurement of temperature began over 100 years ago. Some "chilling trend!"


----------



## KittenKoder (Aug 3, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> ozzmdj said:
> 
> 
> > More for you kooks........Global Cooling Chills Summer 2009 by Deroy Murdock on National Review Online
> ...



Yet you assume that your own sources are not doing the same thing ... odd that hypocrisy is so strong in you.


----------



## Sinatra (Aug 3, 2009)

Sinatra said:


> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> > Sinatra said:
> ...



And the beat goes on...


----------



## KittenKoder (Aug 3, 2009)

Want to know a truly strange thought that the environuts won't even consider, but any good capitalist should have:

Oil companies want the threat of "global warming" to be true so they can raise the prices of gas and then rationalize it to the government by saying that they still have a responsibility to earn a profit for their shareholders. Essentially, environuts could give the oil companies a legitimate reason to raise their prices.


----------



## code1211 (Aug 3, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Ozzy, old boy, for your benefit, I will repeat my prediction of two years in the next five that exceed 1998 and 2005. When that happens, you who deny reality will have to come up with another bloody lie to cover your asses.
> 
> And June, 2009 was the second hottest june on record.
> 
> ...




Satelite measurements of the Global Climate recorded an anamoly of +.001 degrees centigrade.  The GISS Eath Stations were a tad different, apparently, from you descrtiption of the data.  Use the link below to try to figure out the methodology of the GISS data collection.

Below the link, I'll post a cut & paste from the atrticle just to high light the frustration experienced by true scientists trying to unravel the maze of confusion which is GISS.

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1956

Scraping "Combined" Sources
There are 3 different data sets at GISS: dset =0 gives different versions for stations; dset=1 is said to be "after combining sources at the same location" and dset=2 is their adjusted version. Using the 7364 unique station ID numbers, I scraped the dset=1 ("after combining sources at the same location") data versions which took about a day on a high-speed network. The resulting file size is about 8.5 MB, giving some idea of how crappy Hansen's system is for providing data in an organized form for data analysis. 

I was only able to download values for 7249 out of 7364 stations in a first pass. I cross-checked one of the 115 unavailable stations (MOSTAGANEM) on the manual NASA data retrieval system data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/ and did not get a value here either. I identified one read failure as due to the fact that one of two Irgiz series (211355420003) has no values in it - why, I don't know. I patched this by reading only 211355420000 - every step is a struggle with NASA, leaving 114 unavailable stations. Maybe a few of them are Irgiz types rather than Mostaganem types, but even I got weary with this crap.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 3, 2009)

I see. And I am to trust you more than NOAA?


----------



## elvis (Aug 3, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> I see. And I am to trust you more than NOAA?



Put your faith in the Lord Gore....

and have no gods before him, eh Roxy?


----------



## jreeves (Aug 4, 2009)

Chris said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > I am predicting, within 5 years, two years of tempertures that will exceed those of 1998 and 2005. By all your graphs and other nonsense, this cannot happen. So when it does, I will remind you of your foolishness.
> ...



The only methane that is kicking in, resides inside your head.


----------



## code1211 (Aug 4, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> I see. And I am to trust you more than NOAA?



I think you were responding to the post I put up.  What I said was that I was going to post a link and a quote.  You can trust me that I did what i said i would do.

The thoughts and the frustration were posted by a scientist that is unsure how to prove or disprove what GISS represents as facts because it is so garbled and inconsistant as to be menaingless.

This could be what makes it the outlier that it is.

As opposed to clinging to a stone age process of gathering data that is ridiculed by most and heavily adjusted by those who conduct the process, why not join those who question both the system and the process.

If every GISS conclusion must be adjusted because the GISS knows that the data is wrong, what does this tell you about the data.  Hint:  It should tell you that the data is wrong.


----------



## Chris (Aug 4, 2009)

code1211 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > I see. And I am to trust you more than NOAA?
> ...



Atmospheric CO2 has risen by 40% in the last 200 years and we are adding 10 BILLION TONS of CO2 to the atmosphere every year. Soon we will have DOUBLED the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

The glaciers and the polar ice cap are melting.

Wake up to the reality of the situation, my friend.


----------



## edthecynic (Aug 4, 2009)

code1211 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > I see. And I am to trust you more than NOAA?
> ...



This is what I love about CON$, no matter how many times you show them UAH, who got caught deceitfully using the wrong sign to "correct" for diurnal satellite drift, is the "outlier" they STILL discredit themselves by claiming GISS/GISTEMP is the outlier based on UAH's cooked data.  

And blogger Steve McIntyre is NOT a scientist!!! He has a BS in mathematics. And for some reason this self anointed "watchdog" has no problem with UAH deliberately using the wrong sign to "correct" for diurnal drift. 

UAH MSU 6-2009:* +0.01 °C*. Rank: 17/31
Warmest June in this series was in 1998.
Average last 12 months: 0.15 °C

GISTEMP 6-2009: *+0.63 °C*. Rank: 2/130
Warmest June in this series was in 1998.
Average last 12 months: 0.51 °C.

NCDC Anomaly 6-2009: *+0.62 °C.* Rank: 2/130
Warmest June in this series was in 2005.
Average last 12 months: 0.54 °C.

HadCRUT3 6-2009: *+0.50 °C.* Rank: 3/160
Warmest June in this series was in 1998.
Average last 12 months: 0.40 °C

HadAT 6-2009: *+0.40 °C*


----------



## jreeves (Aug 4, 2009)

edthecynic said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > *No one has stated that at some points in history the earth has cooled and warmed. I think the point of disagreement is to do with the relevance of man's role in said heating and cooling.*
> ...



I guess by calling someone else a liar without a leg to stand on, must make you feel better about being a hypocrite.


----------



## edthecynic (Aug 4, 2009)

> Quote: Originally Posted by *ozzmdj*
> 
> 
> _More for you kooks........Global Cooling Chills Summer 2009 by Deroy Murdock on National Review Online
> " Earths temperatures continue *a chilling trend that began eleven years ago*."_


_

_





jreeves said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > jreeves said:
> ...



Well, you DID claim the disagreement was not over the present warming trend but man's role in it. 
But there are your fellow deniers claiming the warmest decade in the history of direct instrument measurement is a "chilling trend." That seems like a pretty strong leg to stand on. It sure seems like deniers are disagreeing with more than man's role in the present global warming.


----------



## jreeves (Aug 4, 2009)

edthecynic said:


> > Quote: Originally Posted by *ozzmdj*
> >
> >
> > _More for you kooks........Global Cooling Chills Summer 2009 by Deroy Murdock on National Review Online
> ...



You do realize that there is more than one source for temperature readings. Some are more reliable than others....

I find it astounding that you and others claim to know that AGW is taking place based on a 100 years of temperature measurements on record, yet the earth is millions of years old. If your only contention is that the earth heats up and cools off, I concede that point. If that isn't your contention then please state it clearly.


----------



## edthecynic (Aug 4, 2009)

jreeves said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > > Quote: Originally Posted by *ozzmdj*
> ...



But those cycles suggest we should be well into a new Ice age by now. So this 100 year warming trend flies in the face of the natural cycle of the last 400,000+ years.


----------



## jreeves (Aug 4, 2009)

edthecynic said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Hmm...so you were alive the entire 400,000 + years? Just wondering since you know what the natural cycle has been for that time frame.


----------



## Sinatra (Aug 4, 2009)

The earth will warm and cool of its own accord.

Warmers are sooooo arrogant regarding their own importance to climate!  Laughable!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arbpu1xKAow]YouTube - George Carlin The Planet Is Fine[/ame]


----------



## Chris (Aug 4, 2009)

Increasing atmospheric CO2 by 40% is warming the planet.

George Carlin doesn't change that.


----------



## elvis (Aug 4, 2009)

Chris said:


> Increasing atmospheric CO2 by 40% is warming the planet.
> 
> George Carlin doesn't change that.



You're a douchebag.  NOTHING can change THAT.


----------



## Chris (Aug 4, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Increasing atmospheric CO2 by 40% is warming the planet.
> ...



The sock puppet!


----------



## edthecynic (Aug 4, 2009)

jreeves said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > jreeves said:
> ...



Well then by that same MORONIC "logic" you were alive millions of years ago!!!


----------



## jreeves (Aug 4, 2009)

edthecynic said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Really I got a link to show the age as being several millions of years old...
The Age of the Earth
The generally accepted age for the Earth and the rest of the solar system is about 4.55 billion years (plus or minus about 1%). This value is derived from several different lines of evidence.

Unfortunately, the age cannot be computed directly from material that is solely from the Earth. There is evidence that energy from the Earth's accumulation caused the surface to be molten. Further, the processes of erosion and crustal recycling have apparently destroyed all of the earliest surface.

The oldest rocks which have been found so far (on the Earth) date to about 3.8 to 3.9 billion years ago (by several radiometric dating methods). Some of these rocks are sedimentary, and include minerals which are themselves as old as 4.1 to 4.2 billion years. Rocks of this age are relatively rare, however rocks that are at least 3.5 billion years in age have been found on North America, Greenland, Australia, Africa, and Asia.

While these values do not compute an age for the Earth, they do establish a lower limit (the Earth must be at least as old as any formation on it). *This lower limit is at least concordant with the independently derived figure of 4.55 billion years for the Earth's actual age.*


Got a link for your assumption?


----------



## edthecynic (Aug 4, 2009)

Sinatra said:


> The earth will warm and cool of its own accord.
> 
> Warmers are sooooo arrogant regarding their own importance to climate!  Laughable!
> 
> YouTube - George Carlin The Planet Is Fine





> The best liar is he who makes the smallest amount of lying go the longest way.
> Samuel Butler



CON$ are sooooo predictable. No matter what the topic they use the same techniques of deception. One of their favorites is tell just enough and then shut up. The bit is considerably longer than 1 minute. The whole bit is The Planet Is Fine, THE PEOPLE ARE FUCKED! The gist of the bit is the planet will survive any abuse from us, but WE won't.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eScDfYzMEEw]YouTube - George Carlin - Saving the Planet[/ame]


----------



## edthecynic (Aug 4, 2009)

jreeves said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > jreeves said:
> ...



Of course, but you knew that before you made your stupid post. How else would you have known the Earth cooled and warmed in the past!!!
Ice core data have shown that the interglacial warm periods have been 10,000 years or less but this warm period is already 12,000 years long. So the next Ice Age, which probably should have begun with the "Little Ice Age" is clearly overdue according to the natural cycle of the last 400,000+ years.

SEED - Temperature Change History


----------



## sparky (Aug 5, 2009)

well one can pick/choose from a variety of _naturally_ occuring cycles..........


Info on the earths magnetic reversal and/or fading....

From Nova
If all the compasses in the world started pointing south rather than north, many people might think something very strange, very unusual, and possibly very dangerous was going on. Doomsayers would have a field day proclaiming the end is nigh, while more rational persons might head straight to scientists for an explanation. 
Fortunately, those scientists in the knowpaleomagnetists, to be exactwould have a ready answer. Such reversals in the Earth's magnetic field, they'd tell you, are, roughly speaking, as common as ice ages. That is, they're terrifically infrequent by human standards, but in geologic terms they happen all the time. As the time line at right shows, hundreds of times in our planet's history the polarity of the magnetic shield ensheathing the globe has gone from "normal," our current orientation to the north, to "reversed," and back again.
The Earth is not alone in this fickleness: The sun's magnetic shield appears to reverse its polarity approximately every 11 years. Even our Milky Way galaxy is magnetized, and experts say it probably reverses its polarity as well. Moreover, while a severe weakening or disappearance of the magnetic field would lay us open to harmful radiation from the sun, there's little evidence to date that "flips" per se inflict any lasting damage (see Impact on Animals).
It might sound as if scientists have all the answers regarding magnetic reversals. But actually they know very little about them. Basic questions haunt researchers: What physical processes within the Earth trigger reversals? Why do the durations and frequencies of both normal and reversed states seem random? Why is there such a disproportionately long normal period between about 121 and 83 million years ago? Why does the reversal rate, at least during the past 160 million years, appear to peak around 12 million years ago?
All these questions remain unanswered, though experts like Dennis Kent, the Rutgers University geologist who supplied NOVA with updated figures for the time line, are hard at work trying to answer them. In the meantime, not to worry. Reversals happen on average only about once every 250,000 years, and they take hundreds if not thousands of years to complete. 
Even the weakening currently under way may be a false alarm. The field often gets very weak, then bounces back, never having flipped. As Ron Merrill, a magnetic-field specialist at the University of Washington remarked when asked whether we're in for a reversal: "Ask me in 10,000 years, I'll give you a better answer." So hang on to your compass. For the foreseeable future, it should work as advertised





Magnetic reversals from Nova (interactive computer based flick there)





Magneticosphere - Earth's Magnetic Field
The earth's magnetic field strength was measured by Carl Friedrich Gauss in 1835 and has been repeatedly measured since then, showing an exponential decay with a half-life of about 1400 years. This could also be stated as a relative decay of about 10% to 15% over the last 150 years. 




Earth's Magnetic Field Is Fading
Without our planet's magnetic field, Earth would be subjected to more cosmic radiation. The increase could knock out power grids, scramble the communications systems on spacecraft, temporarily widen atmospheric ozone holes, and generate more aurora activity. 
A number of Earth's creatures, including some birds, turtles, and bees, rely on Earth's magnetic field to navigate. The field is in constant flux, scientists say. But even without it, life on Earth will continue, researchers say. 
 According to Earth's geologic record, our planet's magnetic field flips, on average, about once every 200,000 years. The time between reversals varies widely, however. The last time Earth's magnetic field flipped was about 780,000 years ago.



info on the Mayan calendar....

THE HOW AND WHY OF THE MAYAN END DATE IN 2012 A.D.
How: Long Count and Seasonal Quarters
Long Count katun beginnings will conjunct sequential seasonal quarters every 1.7.0.0.0 days (194400 days). This is an easily tracked Long Count interval. Starting with the katun beginning of 650 B.C.: 
Long Count Which Quarter? Year 
6.5.0.0.0 Fall 650 B.C. 
7.12.0.0.0 Winter 118 B.C. 
8.19.0.0.0 Spring 416 A.D. 
10.6.0.0.0 Summer 948 A.D. 
11.13.0.0.0 Fall 1480 A.D. 
13.0.0.0.0 Winter 2012 A.D.
Note that the last date is not only a katun beginning, but a baktun beginning as well. It is, indeed, the end date of 2012.6 
The Long Count may have been officially inaugurated on a specific date in 355 B.C., as Edmonson suggests, but it must have been formulated, tried, tested, and proven before this date. This may well have taken centuries, and the process no doubt paralleled (and was perhaps instigated by) the discovery of precession. The Long Count system automatically accounts for precession in its ability to calculate future seasonal quarters - a property which shouldn't be underestimated. 
Summary
This has been my attempt to fill a vacuum in Mayan Studies, an answer to the why and how of the end date of the 13-baktun cycle of the Mayan Long Count. The solution requires a shift in how we think about the astronomy of the Long Count end date. The strange fact that it occurs on a winter solstice immediately points us to possible astronomical reasons, but they are not obvious. We also shouldn't forget the often mentioned fact that the 13-baktun cycle of some 5125 years is roughly 1/5th of a precessional cycle. This in itself should have been suggestive of a deeper mystery very early on. Only with the recent identification of the astronomical nature of the Sacred Tree has the puzzle revealed its fullness. And once again we are amazed at the sophistication and vision of the ancient New World astronomers, the decendants of whom still count the days and watch the skies in the remote outbacks of Guatemala. 
This essay is not contrived upon sketchy evidence. It basically rests upon two facts: 
1) the well known end date of the 13-baktun cycle of the Mayan Long Count, which is December 21st, 2012 A.D. and 
2) the astronomical situation on that day. Based upon these two facts alone, the creators of the Long Count knew about and calculated the rate of precession over 2300 years ago. I can conceive of no other conclusion. To explain this away as "coincidence" would only obscure the issue.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BeE-3BBqG58&mode=related&search=]U tube Mayan Calendar[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6wI3Pbolbw&mode=related&search=]2012 Mayan Prophecy from the Hx channel[/ame] 
note the 26,000 yr alingment of the sun with the galaxy's core with the earth's presesonal cycle, and onto yet another positional oddity associated with the same date...
Jupiter's Dance correlates sunspots with gravitational influences, noting the Mayan date;
So what then is happening between the Sun and Jupiter to create the sunspots; a combined tidal effect, a focussing of magnetic fields on the Sun with the inner planet acting as a lens at the time of each synchronised pass of Jupiter and Earth, a shadow effect allowing the Sun's energies to rise to the surface. Let's look at the sky of December 21st 2012, mmmm. Jupiter, Earth, Sun in a line, Saturn, Venus, Sun in a line and Neptune, Mars, Sun in a line, auspicious wouldn't you say. It couldn't be they're all beaming their energy at our Sun simultaneously as a prelude to a mega rash of sunspots which in turn lead to...uulp!






info on an axial flip or pole shift.....
Pole shift theory
Recent work by scientists and geologists Adam Maloof of Princeton University and Galen Halverson of Paul Sabatier University in Toulouse, France, indicates that Earth indeed rebalanced itself around 800 million years ago during the Precambrian time period.[10] They tested this idea by studying magnetic minerals in sedimentary rocks in a Norwegian archipelago. Using these minerals, Maloof and Halverson found that the north pole shifted more than 50 degrees  about the current distance between Alaska and the equator  in less than 20 million years. This reasoning is supported by a record of changes in sea level and ocean chemistry in the Norwegian sediments that could be explained by true polar wander, the team reports in the SeptemberOctober 2006 issue of the Geological Society of America Bulletin.[11]


Charles Hapgood
In 1958 Hapgood published his first book, The Earth's Shifting Crust. The Foreword to this was written by Albert Einstein, shortly before his death in 1955. In this book, and two successive books, Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings (1966) and The Path of the Pole (1970), Hapgood proposed the radical theory that the Earth's axis has shifted numerous times during geological history. This theory is not widely accepted by orthodox geologists.
Hapgood's Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings used numerous archival maps, including the Piri Reis Map, which he claims show a vast southern continent roughly similar to Antarctica in shape, to propose that a 15 degree pole shift occurred around 9,600 B.C. (aprox. 11.600 years ago), and that a part of the Antarctic was ice-free at that time. By implication an ice-age civilization could have mapped the coast at that point in time.


When North Becomes South: New Clues to Earth's Magnetic Flip-Flops
In the past 15 million years, there have been four reversals every 1 million years, or about one shift each 250,000 years, Clement explained. The last one, however, was 790,000 years ago. That might suggest we're overdue for a big change. Not necessarily so, Clement says. The flips are not periodic, meaning they don't adhere to a schedule of even intervals. 
Yet the intensity of the magnetic field has been dropping for the last 2,000 years, and "it has dropped significantly" during the past two decades, Clement said. One recent study shows the decline in strength amounts to 10 percent over the last 150 years.




Pole Shifts
A pole shift theory is a hypothesis based on geologic evidence that the physical north and south poles of Earth have not always been at their present-day locations; in other words, the axis of rotation had been "shifted". Pole shift theory is almost always discussed in the context of Earth, but other solar system bodies may have experienced axial reorientation during their existences. 
Theory of Crystal Displacement - Hapgood 
One early popular proponent of a pole shift theory was Charles Hapgood in his books The Earth's Shifting Crust (1958) (which includes a foreword by Albert Einstein) and Path of the Pole (1970). Hapgood speculated that the ice mass at one or both poles over-accumulates which destabilizes the Earth's rotational balance, causing slippage of all or much of earth's outer crust around the earth's core, which retains its axial orientation. This happens either slowly (conservative version) or quickly (radical version). The results of the shift occurring every 12,000 to 20,000 years or so results in dramatic climate changes for most of the earth's surface as areas that were formally equatorial become temperate, and areas that were temperate become either more equatorial or more arctic.
Other theories which are not dependent upon polar ice masses include: 
A high-velocity asteroid or comet which hits Earth at such an angle that the lithosphere moves independent of the mantle 
An unusually magnetic celestial object which passes close enough to Earth to temporarily reorient the magnetic field, which then "drags" the lithosphere about a new axis of rotation. Eventually, the sun's magnetic field again determines the Earth's, after the intruding celestial object "returns" to a location it cannot influence Earth.

Theory of Crustal Displacement
The theory of Crustal Displacement states that the entire crust of the Earth can shift in one piece like the lose skin on an orange. 
By studying the carcasses of the woolly mammoth and rhino found in the northern regions of Siberia and Canada one can see the land these animals gazed on was suddenly shoved into a much colder climate. Their stomachs reveal food found in warm climates where they grazed just prior to their deaths. This was found frozen along with them suddenly. 
Thousands of animals were found to be frozen in a brief moment of geological time. Ancient maps of Antarctica suggests that it too was 'frozen over' in a brief moment in time. 
It has been suggested that approximately 12,000 years ago there was a displacement of the Earth's crust. The entire outer shell of the earth moved approximately 2,000 miles. When the Earth's crust shifted all of Antarctica was encapsulated by the polar zone. At the same time North American was released from the Arctic Circle and became temperate. 
This is based on the theory of Continental Drift - the continents of the earth have been slowly drifting apart over millions of years. This is possible because the outer crust of the Earth floats upon a semi-liquid layer. 



Info the scientific community has on planetary cycles, orbital forcing & ice ages...
Milankovitch cycles
Milankovitch cycles are the collective effect of changes in the Earth's movements upon its climate, named after Serbian civil engineer and mathematician Milutin Milankovi&#263;. The eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession of the Earth's orbit vary in several patterns, resulting in 100,000 year ice age cycles of the Quaternary glaciation over the last few million years. The Earth's axis completes one full cycle of precession approximately every 26,000 years. At the same time, the elliptical orbit rotates, more slowly, leading to a 21,000 year cycle between the seasons and the orbit. In addition, the angle between Earth's rotational axis and the normal to the plane of its orbit changes from 21.5 degrees to 24.5 degrees and back again on a 41,000 year cycle. Currently, this angle is 23.44 degrees.
Orbital forcing
Orbital forcing describes the effect on climate of slow changes in the tilt of the Earth's axis and shape of the orbit (see Milankovitch cycles). These orbital changes change the total amount of sunlight reaching the Earth by up to 25% at mid-latitudes (from 400 to 500 Wm-2 at latitudes of 60 degrees). In this context, the term "forcing" signifies a physical process that affects the Earth's climate.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4K6CxpmyHIo]U-tube Animation showing the three Milankovitch Cycles[/ame]


----------



## KittenKoder (Aug 5, 2009)

Zero major hurricanes this year ... they predicted an increase (those stupid environut peer pressured scientists) and we have had zero. They dropped their prediction from 11 to 4, we are having a cold wave here now, it's 60 in the beginning of August for the first week ... Global Warming is bullshit with moving goal posts.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Aug 5, 2009)

Sinatra said:


> BAM!  Check out all those cold temps!
> 
> Cold June in Manhattan well below normal.
> 
> ...



The sun isn't as active and hasn't been over the last few years thats why the earth is cooler now than it was then.   Well thats a big part of it but not all of it.

Yes I just said it...the globe is cooler not because of man but because of the sun, which means when its warmer....yup same logic.


----------



## KittenKoder (Aug 5, 2009)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> > BAM!  Check out all those cold temps!
> ...



WTF are you babbling about?


----------



## sparky (Aug 5, 2009)

*KittenKodder scratches out a reply.....*



> Global Warming is bullshit with moving goal posts.



and is this _ your _assessment of _my_ offerings into the debate as well KK...?


----------



## keee keee (Aug 5, 2009)

Stratagy change it is now global cooling that is going to kill us we need to raise your taxes to save us all!!!!


----------



## sparky (Aug 5, 2009)

well would you expect anything less than a_ capitalist _response keee keee?


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 5, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Zero major hurricanes this year ... they predicted an increase (those stupid environut peer pressured scientists) and we have had zero. They dropped their prediction from 11 to 4, we are having a cold wave here now, it's 60 in the beginning of August for the first week ... Global Warming is bullshit with moving goal posts.



Ah, sweet little kitty, it was Gray, a skeptic of warming, that made the predictions of hurricanes. Doesn't make him any less wrong, so far. But the season does not end until November, and the oceans are very warm.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 5, 2009)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> > BAM!  Check out all those cold temps!
> ...



The "cooling" is well within the natural variation. And the "cooling" is a rather strange cooling as nearly every year in that "cooling" has been in the top ten recorded. Now that we have an El Nino on the way, watch what happens to next year. Probably warmer than 1998 and 2005. 2008 tied with 2001 for the eighth warmest on record. With that in mind;


Top 11 Warmest Years On Record Have All Been In Last 13 Years

Top 11 Warmest Years On Record Have All Been In Last 13 Years
ScienceDaily (Dec. 13, 2007)  The decade of 1998-2007 is the warmest on record, according to data sources obtained by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). The global mean surface temperature for 2007 is currently estimated at 0.41°C/0.74°F above the 1961-1990 annual average of 14.00°C/57.20°F.


----------



## KittenKoder (Aug 5, 2009)

sparky said:


> *KittenKodder scratches out a reply.....*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The simple fact that not one of my points have been addressed by the GW hoax supporters, yes. Until my points are actually countered instead of avoided like hot coals by idiots who buy into it, you are just ... idiots.

Global Warming is bullshit. Keep moving the goal posts though, more of us are seeing through the scam.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Aug 5, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> WTF are you babbling about?






I dunno now that i'm reading it.   WTF it was very hot working on cars today, i'm blaming heatstroke


----------



## KittenKoder (Aug 5, 2009)

What purpose does the glacial ice serve?

Why is plant growth too low to absorb CO2?

How is .01% (the total sum of change, less than half of that total due to humans) atmospheric content change going to effect the global climate so drastically?

Why isn't Seattle underwater yet? (by combining the "slide" toward the Sound with the estimated water level increase predicted from 20 years ago the waterfront should be submerged completely)

I have asked many more, yet not one of you morons has addressed them, all you do is post more irrelevant data that you can't prove is accurate.


----------



## KittenKoder (Aug 5, 2009)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > WTF are you babbling about?
> ...



 I didn't think you meant to put those words together, it just didn't make any sense to me.


----------



## sparky (Aug 6, 2009)

*KittenKoder yowls...][*quote=sparky;1397342]*KittenKodder scratches out a reply.....*



> Global Warming is bullshit with moving goal posts.



and is this _ your _assessment of _my_ offerings into the debate as well KK...?[/QUOTE]



> The simple fact that not one of my points have been addressed by the GW hoax supporters, yes. Until my points are actually countered instead of avoided like hot coals by idiots who buy into it, you are just ... idiots.
> 
> Global Warming is bullshit. Keep moving the goal posts though, more of us are seeing through the scam.


[/QUOTE]

my purpose in posting it was to portray a number of natural cycles , some of which are scientifically_ proven_, some of which are_ not_

this is very much in step with the _current_ GW debate btw

what you _can_ count on is _something_ occuring _sometime_ along the way, just ask any paleo indian......

you can _also _count on it being jerked around by politics, as well as prostituted by the market

so, inasmuch as you may choose to sit about ignoring it all as a _joke_, it would seem the joke is on _you_

(enter the alleged photshopped goodies via evil libs.....)












one needs to _understand _the kaos theory of weather patterns _vs,_ the misnomer of global WARMING.....the implications are apparent, not manufactured or contrived.....






we may ignore _it_, but it quite likely will not ignore _us_.....


----------



## KittenKoder (Aug 6, 2009)

Sparky, what purpose does the ice serve in nature?


----------



## elvis (Aug 6, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Sparky, what purpose does the ice serve in nature?



To add variety to Chris and Roxy's sex life together.


----------



## jreeves (Aug 6, 2009)

edthecynic said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Notice on your graph, how temperatures fluctuated up and down over the last 400k or so years? Isn't it funny how consistent the peaks and valleys are all throughout that time, even the current time. Wow, that would be just a tad contradictory to the whole notion of AGW.


----------



## sparky (Aug 6, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Sparky, what purpose does the ice serve in nature?


----------



## sparky (Aug 6, 2009)

> Notice on your graph, how temperatures fluctuated up and down over the last 400k or so years? Isn't it funny how consistent the peaks and valleys are all throughout that time, even the current time. Wow, that would be just a tad contradictory to the whole notion of AGW.



and you may take your pick of _many_ similar anomolies jreeves.........


----------



## edthecynic (Aug 6, 2009)

jreeves said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > jreeves said:
> ...



Quite the opposite. The consistant nature of the cycles would indicate that we should be well into a new Ice Age by now, but we are measuring a 100 year warming trend which is contrary to the established cycle shown in the chart implying something unnatural is involved which therefore does not rule out the possibility of AGW. It doesn't prove AGW but it does not rule it out either as you have done.


----------



## sparky (Aug 6, 2009)

well that's just _one _of a number of co-existing cycles ED.....



> with the independently derived figure of 4.55 billion years for the Earth's actual age.



careful, the fundies will come stampeeding in, and have their pet dinosaur bite you....


----------



## code1211 (Aug 6, 2009)

edthecynic said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...




Who is better qualified to analyze numbers than a mathematician?  If the mathematics expert is challenging the math of the guy with his finger wetted in the wind, maybe that math is wrong.

Does the site that you post this stuff from have the YTD rank of 2009?  I see that you posted June as a single month.  Does it show all of the months to date this year?


----------



## edthecynic (Aug 6, 2009)

code1211 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > code1211 said:
> ...



It was YOU who exaggerated him to the level of a scientist, and if you really believed it was more impressive that he was a mathematician you would not have changed him to a scientist.

I posted June because you were using June, which you exaggerated UAH's .01 to .001, among other exaggerations I have already pointed out. And as you can see the list gives the last 12 months in all but one and UAH is STILL the outlier not GISS/GISTEMP.


----------



## KittenKoder (Aug 6, 2009)

sparky said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Sparky, what purpose does the ice serve in nature?



Good to see you environuts are still avoiding the questions I ask, this one is probably the scariest since it's not found online or in your environut sources, you actually have to have studied the related science to know it.

What purpose does glacial ice serve in nature?


----------



## keee keee (Aug 6, 2009)

the north pole isn't big enough if it all melted to raise the ocean level to the levels they predict. maybe an inch or two at the most!  what a total crock of shit this whole global warming is. Go get some more data real data and get back to us in say 500 to a 1000 years. all this iis, is make believe solutions to a make believe problem, but raising taxes will solve the problem!!!


----------



## KittenKoder (Aug 6, 2009)

keee keee said:


> the north pole isn't big enough if it all melted to raise the ocean level to the levels they predict. maybe an inch or two at the most!  what a total crock of shit this whole global warming is. Go get some more data real data and get back to us in say 500 to a 1000 years. all this iis, is make believe solutions to a make believe problem, but raising taxes will solve the problem!!!



Considering they are completely ignoring water displacement formulas, ice displaces a lot more water. So when it thaws there is more room than when it's frozen. There is so much science they are ignoring to make this con more believable.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Aug 6, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> keee keee said:
> 
> 
> > the north pole isn't big enough if it all melted to raise the ocean level to the levels they predict. maybe an inch or two at the most!  what a total crock of shit this whole global warming is. Go get some more data real data and get back to us in say 500 to a 1000 years. all this iis, is make believe solutions to a make believe problem, but raising taxes will solve the problem!!!
> ...



First time i've heard that argument guys.   I'll have to go look into it but it makes sense on the surface.


----------



## KittenKoder (Aug 6, 2009)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > keee keee said:
> ...



When H2O molecules are frozen they form crystaline structures with a LOT of air trapped, smaller molecules. Since the molecule itself doesn't change size liquid H2O can't fill in the empty space, and the ice itself becomes 30% (somewhere around there) larger in volume. It's why when you take a bottle of water and freeze it it explodes (or expands if it's stretchable enough).


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Aug 6, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...



I know thats why it makes sense on the surface.

I was just trying to look up the volume of ice that is above sea level and all i am finding are global warming sites.   I'm not googliing properly tonight


----------



## KittenKoder (Aug 6, 2009)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> ...



Look up "glacial ice" ... 

Most of it is actually below the surface, when you see the tip of an iceberg on the water, it's already too late to avoid it. It's also where the coined phrase "tip of the iceberg" came from.


----------



## L.K.Eder (Aug 6, 2009)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > keee keee said:
> ...




when a floating iceberg melts the water level remains about the same. 

frozen water is less dense, that's why the ice is floating. ice does not displace more water than liquid water, unless you apply force to keep it down.

imagine pushing an inflatable ball underwater, stop pushing, it will pop up. same happens with icebergs. if not trapped they will pop up and about 10 percent of its volume will be above sea level. that accounts for the density gradient between the solid and liquid phase.

you should worry about the greenland ice field melting and the patagonian and antarctic ice fields melting, that will have an influence on the sea level.

and don't pay attention to KittenKoder.


----------



## Chris (Aug 6, 2009)

L.K.Eder said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...



Nice post.


----------



## KittenKoder (Aug 6, 2009)

L.K.Eder said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...



Um ... wow ... you are clueless to science. Put an ice cube in a bowl of water, it's that simple to see, most of the cube is under the surface. You environuts really don't know much about science. I mean, that's fucking fourth grade science.


----------



## KittenKoder (Aug 6, 2009)

Aside from obviously not knowing fourth grade science, none of you enviro-morons have even tried to answer the one most important question:

Why are we worried about the ice, what purpose does it serve in the natural world?


----------



## L.K.Eder (Aug 6, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> ...



yes, kittenkoder, most of the ice cube will be under water, i'd say about 90%. what would you say?

did you even read my post, you little bullshitting moron?

ETA: since i try to pay less attention to the bullshit artist i missed that you labeled me an "environut", well done.


----------



## KittenKoder (Aug 6, 2009)

L.K.Eder said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > L.K.Eder said:
> ...



You equated it to a balloon, which is not even close to the same principle. You really over simplified it and mislead with your analogy, which means you know nothing about the subject, or you are lying. Which is it?


----------



## L.K.Eder (Aug 6, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...



read the post again. it is not hard to understand.

well fuck it, you are beyond reach anyway, but for anyone else.

ever played with the ice cubes in your drink, dunked them with the straw? they pop up again.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 6, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...



No, sweet little kitten, the figure is much more like 9%. And how would water get air into it if it is not in contact with air, as in when in a bottle? I suggest the you look up basic science before you start blathering and making a fool of yourself.

WikiAnswers - Why does water expand when it freezes


Molecular Geometry and Polarity 
Water expands when it freezes due to molecular geometry and the fact that it is a very polar molecule. The water molecule is shaped like an upside-down "v". Due to this shape, when water freezes it make a hexagonal shape such that the slightly negatively charge oxygen atoms are aligned with the slightly positively charge hydrogen atoms -- this is the most stable configuration. (Less polar molecules do not configure themselves in this way because there is less of a reduction in energy if the molecule is not as polar) This orientation leaves space in the middle of the frozen water molecules. That is why water expands when it freezes.


----------



## L.K.Eder (Aug 6, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> ...



yeah, ice traps the little bitty air molecules in its crystaline structure, hehe.

the air is trapped when snow is pressed to ice. but that is just basic science, something KittenKoder read about somewhere and is now an expert in, but can't find the bookmark to take a refresher.


----------



## KittenKoder (Aug 6, 2009)

Fourth grade science fails the environuts again, air condenses when it cools.


----------



## L.K.Eder (Aug 6, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Fourth grade science fails the environuts again, air condenses when it cools.



sooner or later you will drown in your own bullshit.


----------



## KittenKoder (Aug 6, 2009)

L.K.Eder said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Fourth grade science fails the environuts again, air condenses when it cools.
> ...



Naw, I won't be joining you any time soon. 

Now, address the more important question:

What purpose does the ice serve in nature?


----------



## jreeves (Aug 6, 2009)

edthecynic said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Look back at about 125,000 years ago on your graph, higher temperatures than are being recorded currently....hmm...

I'm sure that just proves the AGW theory though...
If you look at the warming periods over time they look pretty consistent with the current trend.


----------



## KittenKoder (Aug 6, 2009)

jreeves said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > jreeves said:
> ...



What they are using is the amount of time the heat is up ... but if you go back to the completely opposite end, extend it a bit more, you will see a pattern that makes this "trend" normal actually.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 6, 2009)

jreeves said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > jreeves said:
> ...



Like hell they are. But you will deny reality even when it starts killing your children.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 6, 2009)

What purpose does sweet little kitten serve on this board, other than to demonstrate her deplorable lack of scientific knowledge.


----------



## KittenKoder (Aug 6, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> What purpose does sweet little kitten serve on this board, other than to demonstrate her deplorable lack of scientific knowledge.



If you had any scientific knowledge you would have answered the question instead of failing at flaming me.

What purpose does the ice serve in nature?


----------



## jreeves (Aug 6, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



I guess you have failed to look at the right end of the graph which shows the current trend of being -delta temperature? But it doesn't surprise me that you would have overlooked that 'complex' detail...


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 6, 2009)

Oh my, here we go again, asking such deep and penetrating questions. 

I answered this already. Nature has no purpose. Nature follow physical laws, ice is formed when the local conditons of temperature and pressure reach the freezing point of water for those conditions. No purpose, just simple laws of physics.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 6, 2009)

jreeves said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > jreeves said:
> ...



Yes, I would expect a dumb fuck like you to repeat that idiocy.


----------



## KittenKoder (Aug 6, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Oh my, here we go again, asking such deep and penetrating questions.
> 
> I answered this already. Nature has no purpose. Nature follow physical laws, ice is formed when the local conditons of temperature and pressure reach the freezing point of water for those conditions. No purpose, just simple laws of physics.



Everything in nature does serve a purpose, the ecology is a balance (the only part environuts got right but you deny this when it doesn't suit you, how odd). So again I ask:

What purpose does the ice serve in nature?


----------



## jreeves (Aug 6, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Who's the dumb fuck that doesn't understand a simple graph? -temp=a drop in temperature for the brain deficient....


----------



## Chris (Aug 7, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Oh my, here we go again, asking such deep and penetrating questions.
> ...



Why is the ice melting?


----------



## KittenKoder (Aug 7, 2009)

Chris said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Why do we need it? If we don't need it then there is no concern at all.


----------



## Chris (Aug 7, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...



Why is the ice melting?


----------



## KittenKoder (Aug 7, 2009)

Chris said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



You don't have the answer to your own question, but even if you did it's meaningless without knowing the one simple fact:

Why is the ice important in nature?

Science is steps, if you skip steps then you are not using science, you are just being a politician. Now, if you like science so much, answer this question and give anyone a reason to care, otherwise there is no need to care.


----------



## Chris (Aug 7, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...



Why is the ice melting?


----------



## KittenKoder (Aug 7, 2009)

Chris said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



*yawn* Reread my post. I already addressed your question in it.


----------



## Chris (Aug 7, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...



Why is the ice melting?


----------



## KittenKoder (Aug 7, 2009)

Chris said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



*You don't have the answer to your own question, but even if you did it's meaningless without knowing the one simple fact:*

Why is the ice important in nature?

Science is steps, if you skip steps then you are not using science, you are just being a politician. Now, if you like science so much, answer this question and give anyone a reason to care, otherwise there is no need to care.


----------



## Chris (Aug 7, 2009)

What effect will increasing atmospheric CO2 by 40% have on the earth's climate?


----------



## KittenKoder (Aug 7, 2009)

Chris said:


> What effect will increasing atmospheric CO2 by 40% have on the earth's climate?



Let's see, changing 40% of less than 1% of the atmosphere, that's a .4% change ...


Now, why does nature "need" the ice? What purpose does it serve?


----------



## KittenKoder (Aug 7, 2009)

I know exactly why your sources have not given you this bit of information. There is a reason why they won't publish it with the facts that hinge on it, because if they did, their whole hoax would sink like the Titanic.


----------



## Chris (Aug 7, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > What effect will increasing atmospheric CO2 by 40% have on the earth's climate?
> ...



The scientists at MIT predict that there is a 90% chance that the increase in CO2 will increase the earth's temperature between 4-7 degrees by 2100.


----------



## KittenKoder (Aug 7, 2009)

Chris said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



Predictions based on incomplete science is flawed science. Why does nature need the ice in the first place?


----------



## L.K.Eder (Aug 7, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...



nature does not need ice. 

what is your next brilliant question?

how is babby formed?


----------



## code1211 (Aug 7, 2009)

Chris said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



The IPCC predicted that warming would be .2 to .4 degrees more then it has been OVER THE LAST 8 YEARS.  They have been wrong.

Warming as predicted by your source for MIT would be in variance to anything that has happened in the history of the world.  This warming is also in variance to what another group of MIT Scietists predicted for the same period.

The IPCC is wrong.  One of the groups of MIT Scientists will be wrong and probably both will be wrong.

A prediction that is based on fear mongering is worthless.  A prediction that is already shown to be wrong is worthless.  When the best minds in the field predict something and it is shown to be wrong by events, perhaps it is time to question the predictions rather than the events.

As a doubter, all I require is proof.  Show me how the "CO2 raises temperature correlation" is proven by every example in nature or as often as gravity for instance, and my doubts will be less firm.

Saying that natural law works now but not then, here but not there, is not science.  It's superstition.


----------



## KittenKoder (Aug 7, 2009)

L.K.Eder said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



Really? You think nature has no use for the ice ... okay, we'll take it from there.

If this is true  then why are we worried about it melting? If there is no use for the ice then why should we care?


----------



## L.K.Eder (Aug 7, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...



maybe you start learning how to pose a scientific question, then maybe you will get better answers.

no, nature has no use for ice. ice is part of nature. nature is not some girl sitting around worrying about the purpose and use of ice. that would be you.


----------



## KittenKoder (Aug 7, 2009)

L.K.Eder said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > L.K.Eder said:
> ...



As I said, let's assume you are right and nature has no use for the ice, then it's existence has no meaning to nature one way or the other. So why would it be important to "save" the ice?


----------



## L.K.Eder (Aug 7, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...



no, let's not assume.

come up with a serious question and maybe i will answer.


----------



## elvis (Aug 7, 2009)

Chris said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



does al whore know?


----------



## KittenKoder (Aug 7, 2009)

L.K.Eder said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > L.K.Eder said:
> ...



I did ask a serious question, and you gave an assumption for the answer, so anything after that could only be an assumption.


----------



## L.K.Eder (Aug 7, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...



i can't help you if you think this was a serious question.

i and another poster even took it like it was serious and gave it the answer it deserved. now you have another "serious" question.

now i have a serious question:

are you stupid or a troll or a stupid troll?


----------



## KittenKoder (Aug 7, 2009)

L.K.Eder said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > L.K.Eder said:
> ...



Really? So we are suppose to worry about something that has no meaning, purpose, or reason for existing?

The question was serious: What purpose does glacial ice serve in nature?

Your answer is an assumption that it serves no purpose, so the logical conclusion is, why should we worry about keeping it? 

However, you assumption is wrong, it does serve a purpose, as does everything in nature, a very scientific purpose actually. But the reason I asked this question, in spite of knowing the answer myself, is because if you look through all your environut science, the information is omitted. The reason they won't tell you, is because the answer negates concern for the environment and places the concern on human survival, something which your scientists and corporations cannot profit from.


----------



## L.K.Eder (Aug 7, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...



what purpose do the rocky mountains serve?

what purpose does the continent of antarctica serve?

what purpose does a grain of sand serve?

why am i existing?

what the fuck is this shit?


----------



## KittenKoder (Aug 7, 2009)

L.K.Eder said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > L.K.Eder said:
> ...



I can answer all those questions, and they all serve a purpose in nature.

For Antarctica ... you do realize that's pretty much the same question I asked, right?

Nature is a big picture system, not a tiny fragment of one. Like the data environuts use, there is a lot you are ignoring to scare people who know too little on the subject.


----------



## L.K.Eder (Aug 7, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...



sure, darling.

come on, answer those awesome questions.


----------



## KittenKoder (Aug 7, 2009)

L.K.Eder said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > L.K.Eder said:
> ...



Nice spin, you would have succeeded if you hadn't dodged my question so much. But until you can come up with a big picture answer to your con, you have no ground to stand on.


----------



## L.K.Eder (Aug 7, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...



you have no idea what i am doing here.

are you a creationist?


----------



## KittenKoder (Aug 7, 2009)

L.K.Eder said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > L.K.Eder said:
> ...



No, but that isn't the issue. You are spreading fear through flawed science and incomplete data. I am a realist, plain and simple, on such matters. Every aspect must be considered, every possibility looked at, and blindly following one answer is stupid. Feeding off the primal fears of people is dishonest and vile.


----------



## L.K.Eder (Aug 7, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...


#

why are you asking for *purpose*?

and no i am spreading nothing. you however spread disinformation disguised as facts, but you got nothing. that's why you deflect and dodge and dance.

do you ever acknowledge your mistakes on the open forum?


----------



## KittenKoder (Aug 7, 2009)

L.K.Eder said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > L.K.Eder said:
> ...



You spread it when you post the data you have. I am not spreading disinformation, I am asking for a big picture, of which environuts ignore. I have not dodged, it was you who did, I have proven that you don't know the science, and with your return question you have shown you know even less of the science involved than I had originally thought. I made no mistake here, if I had I would have acknowledged it as I normally do. What I have done it made you and other environuts look more ignorant with a simple question.


----------



## KittenKoder (Aug 7, 2009)

Fact is, if one simple question with an easy answer can unravel a "theory" easily, the theory is based on incomplete and faulty science.


----------



## L.K.Eder (Aug 7, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...



i did not post data. you have no clue who i am and what i did post, right?

you labeled me an environut for what?

because i called you out on your bullshit? stop talking about science, you have demonstrated that you have no idea what science is.

you have proven that and nothing else.

your "purpose" question implies that someone or something created or put the ice or the rockies where they are for a PURPOSE. i told you to rephrase the question.

i asked you to give the answer to your great question. why didn't you do it?

after all, you claim you could put all this to rest. why aren't you famous and rich already by demonstrating your awesomeness to peer review?

because you are an unteachable, inflated, insecure, little pretender. and you are boring to boot.

kthxbye


----------



## KittenKoder (Aug 7, 2009)

L.K.Eder said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > L.K.Eder said:
> ...



Hmm ... someone has a serious personality complex, and my problem isn't related to that. It is you who has no knowledge of science. You think mountains don't serve a purpose in nature, let me guess, you also don't think deserts have a purpose in the ecosystem as well. You accuse me of not knowing anything, yet you have demonstrated your lack of knowledge quite clearly. As for lumping you with the environuts, yes I did and will continue to do so, because you are defending their flawed and incomplete science, a friend of mine enemy is mine enemy.


----------



## Chris (Aug 7, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...





Feeding off the primal fears of people is dishonest and vile?

You just described FoxNews!!!


----------



## jreeves (Aug 8, 2009)

Chris said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > L.K.Eder said:
> ...



This coming from a chicken little disciple. Omg, we are going to covered by the ocean and boil in a cesspool because of GW....


----------



## KittenKoder (Aug 9, 2009)

jreeves said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...



It's already 10 years late.


----------



## AllieBaba (Aug 9, 2009)

I just got off the phone with a friend who is a farmer in Eastern Oregon...cold temps killed them off this harvest.


----------



## AllieBaba (Aug 9, 2009)

He was like, it was great because I got to plow the fields...but it is a terrible blow.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 9, 2009)

AllieBaba said:


> I just got off the phone with a friend who is a farmer in Eastern Oregon...cold temps killed them off this harvest.



Cold temperatures killed what off?


----------

