# Coldest Winter in 100 Years



## Sinatra (Jan 2, 2010)

Britain facing one of the coldest winters in 100 years, experts predict

*Britain is bracing itself for one of the coldest winters for a century with temperatures hitting minus 16 degrees Celsius, forecasters have warned. *

They predicted no let up in the freezing snap until at least mid-January, with snow, ice and severe frosts dominating. 

And the likelihood is that the second half of the month will be even colder....

____


Britain facing one of the coldest winters in 100 years, experts predict - Telegraph


----------



## rdean (Jan 2, 2010)

It's cold in Great Britain, therefore, global warming is a lie.  

Well, the way it was explained to me is that when there is a lot of ice cover, the white ice reflects the light and heat back into the atmosphere which makes the world seem a little warmer, because the atmosphere is being heated.

With the ice gone, the heat is being absorbed by the dark ocean, which is up to 7 miles thick, which means a temperature increase will take time.  Since heat is not being reflected back into the atmosphere, it seems colder, but over time, with the ocean absorbing the heat, the planet heating up will be more apparent.  Conservatives just assume you take some kind of temperature indicator outside and "take a temperature".  For them, it's just that simple.  Everything is "just that simple".

Now for conservatives, considering their lack of interest in anything that involves data or proof, it's no wonder they don't "believe".  To them the entire world is a "belief".  If you believe it, it's true.  Doesn't matter the facts.  Look at their foreign policy.  Nothing has happened the way they "believed it should  have happened.  Rather than question their "beliefs", they just assume others are wrong, no matter the evidence.  Some describe that as "delusional".


----------



## Sunni Man (Jan 2, 2010)

As an Obamabot, I will wait to see what my leader says about this new development.


----------



## Sinatra (Jan 2, 2010)

Now for *LIBERALS*, considering their lack of interest in anything that involves what is not spoon-fed them, it's no wonder they don't "believe".  To them the entire world is a "belief".  If you believe it, it's true.  Doesn't matter the facts.  Look at their foreign policy.  Nothing has happened the way they "believed it should  have happened.  Rather than question their "beliefs", they just assume others are wrong, no matter the evidence.  Some describe that as "delusional".[/QUOTE]
____


----------



## elvis (Jan 2, 2010)

rdean said:


> It's cold in Great Britain, therefore, global warming is a lie.
> 
> Well, the way it was explained to me is that when there is a lot of ice cover, the white ice reflects the light and heat back into the atmosphere which makes the world seem a little warmer, because the atmosphere is being heated.
> 
> ...



you have no proof, you stupid fuckhead.


----------



## rdean (Jan 2, 2010)

elvis3577 said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > It's cold in Great Britain, therefore, global warming is a lie.
> ...



Well, um, once it's explained, it seems pretty obvious.  Take a piece of white paper and a piece of dark paper outside into the sun.  After a minute, which one feels warmer?  

So if a dark ocean was covered with white ice and a dark ocean had no ice cover, which ocean would absorb heat from the sun?  Come on now.  Think it through.  Remember the paper.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 3, 2010)

Sometimes under extreme AGW, it's gets cooler before it gets warmer hence the recent decline in temperature, but far and away the greatest change caused by AGW is that it mutated the term "Global Warming" into "Climate Change" or "the Great Climatic Googly Moogly"

Warmers are fucking morons, they long for the day when everything north of the Ohio River is once again under a mile of ice.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 3, 2010)

> It's cold in Great Britain, therefore, global warming is a lie.



No, these are both true statements, not an if/then statement.
It currently IS cold in Great Britain.
Anthropogenic Global Warming is a lie.

Even if Great Britain was not cold, AGW would STILL be a lie.


----------



## Liability (Jan 3, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Sometimes under extreme AGW, it's gets cooler before it gets warmer hence the recent decline in temperature, but far and away the greatest change caused by AGW is that it mutated the term "Global Warming" into "Climate Change" or "the Great Climatic Googly Moogly"
> 
> Warmers are fucking morons, they long for the day *when everything north of the Ohio River is once again under a mile of ice*.



. . . everything north of the Ohio River is once again under a mile of ice -- which will someday inevitably *melt*, thereby proving that the Great Climatic Googly Mooglers were right all along!


----------



## Si modo (Jan 3, 2010)

17F right now with a wind chill to -8F.






I blame Canada.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOzG7bBylRo"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOzG7bBylRo[/ame]


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 3, 2010)

Good choice.  LOL


----------



## rdean (Jan 3, 2010)

Republican conservatives.  What can you say?  They are in a class all by themselves.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 3, 2010)

Um, isn't it supposed to get warmer with Global Warming?

Bueller? McFly? Bueller? Anyone? Anyone?


----------



## elvis (Jan 3, 2010)

rdean said:


> Republican conservatives.  What can you say?  They are in a class all by themselves.



liberal socialist Gore-bots.  What can you say?  They are in a class by themselves.


----------



## Liability (Jan 3, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Um, isn't it supposed to get warmer with Global Warming?
> 
> Bueller? McFly? Bueller? Anyone? Anyone?



Vee haff dat coffered!  The PARADOXICAL EFFECT is our answer to any such contrary data (when vee are not buzy hiding or altering ze data, that is).

The Paradoxical Effect means, simply, that if it gets warmer, that's proof of AGW!  Ah, but eef it getz COLDER?  That is the paradoxical effect of AGW, and thus constitutes proof that AGW exists!   See?  It iz zimple!

And don't giff us any of zat jazz that says "so your theory is, by design, not falsifiable." Ve vill NOT tolerate such blasphemy!  Ve vill SCHMERE you!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 3, 2010)

Liability said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Um, isn't it supposed to get warmer with Global Warming?
> ...



I have peer reviewed this post and found it 100% accurate.


----------



## Baruch Menachem (Jan 3, 2010)

A single penguin does not an ice age make.

While it is true that this is a very cold year pretty much throughout the northern hemisphere, this one data point does not disprove the theory.

But it should be noted that according the the models of the great climate scientists, this is not supposed to be happening.   I do think it is a good idea that if the observed data fails to match the model, the model must have flaws and should be reviewed.   But I fear that for many, they will still stand in their parkas atop the snowdrifts in august (were such a thing to happen) and claim the earth is getting hotter, direct evidence of their own eyes to to the contrary.

Several things were supposed to happen this year, among them several force 5 hurricanes.  We didn't get any.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 3, 2010)

Earth has a fever and...wait, no it dosen't


----------



## elvis (Jan 3, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Earth has a fever and...wait, no it dosen't



I was mistaken earlier.  I thought it was 17 degrees here.  I just went out to get some pop and it's 8.


----------



## Sarah G (Jan 3, 2010)

rdean said:


> It's cold in Great Britain, therefore, global warming is a lie.
> 
> Well, the way it was explained to me is that when there is a lot of ice cover, the white ice reflects the light and heat back into the atmosphere which makes the world seem a little warmer, because the atmosphere is being heated.
> 
> ...




Yes to all that an in addition, the claim Sinatra brings once again as fact is only a mere prediction.

Real scientific.


----------



## GHook93 (Jan 3, 2010)

rdean said:


> It's cold in Great Britain, therefore, global warming is a lie.
> 
> Well, the way it was explained to me is that when there is a lot of ice cover, the white ice reflects the light and heat back into the atmosphere which makes the world seem a little warmer, because the atmosphere is being heated.
> 
> ...



Let me get this right. The everything gets colder on the planet, but the solar ice caps they get warmer! They are the exception. 

Therefore what we are getting now is some of the cold years on record, because the planet is heating up?


----------



## elvis (Jan 3, 2010)

GHook93 said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > It's cold in Great Britain, therefore, global warming is a lie.
> ...



He'll have to check with Al Whore and Old Rockhead and get back to you.


----------



## Polk (Jan 3, 2010)

Climate =/= weather.


----------



## Chris (Jan 3, 2010)

The Sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years, so we should expect a cold winter.

The effect of CO2 is always within the context of the Sun's activity.

But the right will ignore any fact to make a political point.


----------



## B L Zeebub (Jan 3, 2010)

make sure you feed the Blue Tits, and for that matter Tits in general.

I knew it was going to be cold this winter for two reasons, the first  clue is in the name Winter, the second is my berries are bright red and shiny.


----------



## elvis (Jan 3, 2010)

Chris said:


> The Sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years, so we should expect a cold winter.
> 
> The effect of CO2 is always within the context of the Sun's activity.
> 
> But the right will ignore any fact to make a political point.



fuck off, Osama.


----------



## Baruch Menachem (Jan 3, 2010)

Sarah G said:


> Yes to all that an in addition, the claim Sinatra brings once again as fact is only a mere prediction.
> 
> Real scientific.



The main complaint I have with the climate goofs these days is that their feeling that if the data don't fit the model, then the data have to be changed, rather than the model.  Sinatra and I just have the anti scientific idea that if the model and the data don't agree, it is the model that needs to be changed, rather than the data.


----------



## Chris (Jan 3, 2010)

Baruch Menachem said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> > Yes to all that an in addition, the claim Sinatra brings once again as fact is only a mere prediction.
> ...



CO2 causes the earth to warm within the context of the Sun's activity.

How hard is that to understand?


----------



## Baruch Menachem (Jan 3, 2010)

Chris said:


> Baruch Menachem said:
> 
> 
> > Sarah G said:
> ...



I don't mis understand your point, I just don't agree with it.
Asserting it to be so does not make it so.  
If it were the case that an n% increase in resulted in a change of y% in temperature, then I could give the idea credit.  But what the climate folks have not been able to do is demonstrate that correlation.  Carbon has not increased that much as a percentage, the percentage has been mostly flat over the years and they want us to believe that a very small change in carbon (Which is a very small portion of the earth's atmosphere anyway) is supposed to cause a huge change in temperature.  And the change in temperature does not track the change in carbon.

It does track the change in solar activity very well though.  Which is what skeptics have been saying all along.


----------



## elvis (Jan 3, 2010)

Baruch Menachem said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Baruch Menachem said:
> ...


Don't bother trying to reason with Chrissy.


----------



## Chris (Jan 3, 2010)

Baruch Menachem said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Baruch Menachem said:
> ...



No, actually that is what I have been saying all along.

And yes increasing atmospheric CO2 by 40% does warm the earth. 

That is a scientific fact.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 3, 2010)

Sinatra said:


> Britain facing one of the coldest winters in 100 years, experts predict
> 
> *Britain is bracing itself for one of the coldest winters for a century with temperatures hitting minus 16 degrees Celsius, forecasters have warned. *
> 
> ...



As evidenced by the idiotic posts in this thread , you forgot the basics.  Global WARMING causes EVERYTHING to happen. Including male hair loss and impotence. Just remember in the future when your buried in 5 feet of snow IT REALLY is getting warmer. We are all doomed by either a new ice age or deserts everywhere, the global warming believers will let you know in 40 or 50 years which it will be.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 3, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Um, isn't it supposed to get warmer with Global Warming?
> 
> Bueller? McFly? Bueller? Anyone? Anyone?



Well, Frank, that is exactly what is happening;

November 2009 UAH Global Temperature Update +0.50 deg. C « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

YR MON GLOBE NH SH TROPICS
2009 1 +0.304 +0.443 +0.165 -0.036
2009 2 +0.347 +0.678 +0.016 +0.051
2009 3 +0.206 +0.310 +0.103 -0.149
2009 4 +0.090 +0.124 +0.056 -0.014
2009 5 +0.045 +0.046 +0.044 -0.166
2009 6 +0.003 +0.031 -0.025 -0.003
2009 7 +0.411 +0.212 +0.610 +0.427
2009 8 +0.229 +0.282 +0.177 +0.456
2009 9 +0.422 +0.549 +0.294 +0.511
2009 10 +0.286 +0.274 +0.297 +0.326
2009 11 +0.496 +0.418 +0.575 +0.493


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 3, 2010)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> > Britain facing one of the coldest winters in 100 years, experts predict
> ...



Sarge, are you attempting to prove yourself as stupid as possible?


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 3, 2010)

Baruch Menachem said:


> A single penguin does not an ice age make.
> 
> While it is true that this is a very cold year pretty much throughout the northern hemisphere, this one data point does not disprove the theory.
> 
> ...



Stated by whom? Links please, otherwise, it is just more bullshit posting.


----------



## mudwhistle (Jan 3, 2010)

rdean said:


> It's cold in Great Britain, therefore, global warming is a lie.
> 
> Well, the way it was explained to me is that when there is a lot of ice cover, the white ice reflects the light and heat back into the atmosphere which makes the world seem a little warmer, because the atmosphere is being heated.
> 
> ...



You make assumptions that are not based in fact. 

Just because someone feels Global Warming [MMGW] is a hoax it doesn't mean they don't care about the planet. We don't have to believe the same nonsense to show proper concern.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 3, 2010)

Baruch Menachem said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> > Yes to all that an in addition, the claim Sinatra brings once again as fact is only a mere prediction.
> ...



Once again, show where this is the case? Ever bother to actualy read what real scientists are saying? At the AGU Conferance a lot of scientists showed much data and evidence. Have you even bothered to review what was said? 

All too many people here that seem otherwise intelligent seem to desire to ignore reality to the point of making themselves seem among the willfully ignorant.


----------



## Liability (Jan 3, 2010)

Chris said:


> Baruch Menachem said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



No.  It's not.  It's still JUST a theory.  And it is not an especially compelling theory, either.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 3, 2010)

mudwhistle said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > It's cold in Great Britain, therefore, global warming is a lie.
> ...



Anybody that cannot look at the evidence and data and see that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger is not intelligent enough, or is so driven by ideology, that their opinions on any matters is suspect.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 3, 2010)

Liability said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Baruch Menachem said:
> ...



Only compelling enough that all the Scientific Societies in the world, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities state that it is a fact.

But fucking dummies that cannot accept reality do not accept it. Which changes the reality not one whit.


----------



## mudwhistle (Jan 3, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Baruch Menachem said:
> 
> 
> > Sarah G said:
> ...



There will always be arguments for and against.

I don't believe in it primarily because people that push this hoax are getting rich off of it.

There is too much money being passed around for it to be believable.

The Copenhagen conference turned into an argument on how to split the spoils not on how to save the planet.


----------



## Liability (Jan 3, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



The vaunted scientific consensus you cite doesn't actually mean jack shit, of course.  Between being "based" on falsified and deliberately distorted data, and the fact that real science is not at all dependent on "consensus" in the first place, I am always amused by your religious devotion and abiding faith in "science."  You remain the fucking dummy, Olde Fossil, but you are too fucking much of a dummy to glean that fact.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 3, 2010)

rdean said:


> It's cold in Great Britain, therefore, global warming is a lie.
> 
> Well, the way it was explained to me is that when there is a lot of ice cover, the white ice reflects the light and heat back into the atmosphere which makes the world seem a little warmer, because the atmosphere is being heated.
> 
> ...





You dopey moron..........20 degrees below normal in Orlando Florida tonight with a chance at breaking the all time record low!!!

Only those with the common sense level of a handball dont know this global warming thing is a hoax............always will be a hoax!!! LOL......Ive been saying it for ten years without batting an eyelash and finally, the worm has turned and a good majority KNOW its a fcukking hoax!!! Even some scientists that were once on this absurd bandwagon have jumped shit because they dont want to be associated with fcukking k00ks.............

The only believers now are the true believing k00ks or people who just are not paying attention. Thats it...........nobody else.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 3, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...




Geez........another fcukking k00k.

s0n...........well over 30K scientists from around the world would say, "All??? WTF s0n>??????????






epic fail.................


----------



## mudwhistle (Jan 3, 2010)

Liability said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



As with all science...it is not fact.....that's why they continually call them *Theories* 

Relativity, the Theory of Evolution.....if it is accepted as fact then it is called law....like Dalton's Law, Boyle's Law, Charle's Law. But still they may not be fact because nothing in science is a certainty.

We have an entire bureaucracy installed to deal with CFCs, HFCs and ozone depletion. Now they want one to control ozone release. All of the bureaucracy costs money. Any countries that don't agree to installing the bureaucracy will benefit and those who do will suffer.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 3, 2010)




----------



## Si modo (Jan 3, 2010)

Chris said:


> Baruch Menachem said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...


Care to back that up? Just 'cause Chrissy says so doesn't count.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 3, 2010)

Chris said:


> The Sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years, so we should expect a cold winter.
> 
> The effect of CO2 is always within the context of the Sun's activity.
> 
> But the right will ignore any fact to make a political point.


Who's trying to install global fascism to save the polar bears again?


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 3, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...


Well, Seig Heil to you too, sport.


----------



## rdean (Jan 3, 2010)

Hmmm, wow, on one hand you have thousands of scientists who have been doing research for years with scientific equipment and gathered data.

On the other, you have Republicans who believe "Noah's Ark" was a historical event and the earth is only a few thousand years old.  People who believe science is a religion and evolution is a lie.

Who to believe?  Wow, that's a hard one.  Look that the choices.  It's really difficult knowing who to believe.


----------



## mudwhistle (Jan 3, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > The Sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years, so we should expect a cold winter.
> ...



The same assholes that took over GM.

When is GM getting their next bailout?

I hear it's just around the corner.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 3, 2010)

> mmm, wow, on one hand you have thousands of scientists who have been doing research for years with scientific equipment and gathered data.



You mean like the ones who have been LYING about it for 13+ years?

How about all the ones who predicted that we'd be in an ice age by now in the 1970's.  Or the Population Bomb?  Or Mass Starvation?  Or that we'd be out of oil in 1980?

Please.  You have just as much attachment to 'fantasy' as you accuse anybody who believes in the Bible.  

Sanctimonious hypocrite.


----------



## Liability (Jan 3, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> > mmm, wow, on one hand you have thousands of scientists who have been doing research for years with scientific equipment and gathered data.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Amen.

This is why I have called the AGW crew "Faithers."

They have a religion based on pure faith, they wrap a thin veneer of "scienctific research and theory" around it, congratulate each other in a huge circle jerk, then proclaim that they are men and women of science.  And if you doubt what they say?  You are classified as a HERETIC!  They don't use that word, of course.  But, what they do amounts to exactly the same thing.


----------



## edthecynic (Jan 3, 2010)

Sinatra said:


> *Britain facing one of the coldest winters in 100 years, experts predict*





GHook93 said:


> Let me get this right. *The everything gets colder on the planet*, ...


You're wrong already.

I love it, someone makes a PREDICTION about one small place and to the deniers that means "everything gets colder."


----------



## rdean (Jan 3, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> > mmm, wow, on one hand you have thousands of scientists who have been doing research for years with scientific equipment and gathered data.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ice age?  Link?  Oh, you mean when they first started studying Global Warming?

The ones who have been lying?  Does that mean all of them lied?  No?  What percentage?  50%, 30%, 0.000002%?

Out of oil in 1980?  Well, we are idiot child, that's why we buy foreign oil.  Duh!  Middle Eastern Oil isn't ours.

------------------------

'Double food output to stop world starving,' say scientists - Science, News - The Independent

They cite the original green revolution of the 1960s when new crop varieties, greater use of agro-chemicals, and a change in farming practices led to a dramatic increase in food production: it leapt from 1.84 billion tonnes in 1961 to 4.38 billion tonnes in 2007. But scientists accept that this increase came at great environmental cost, and the Royal Society report warns that a second green revolution has to be based on a sustainable increase in global food production without a significant expansion in the area of land turned over to farming.

-------------------------

It was scientists who stopped mass starvation, NOT Bible thumpers.  Actually, it's the Bible thumpers who have added to the problem.

Jesus, do you guys have to "practice" dumb?  That much dumb can't possibly be "natural".


----------



## Liability (Jan 3, 2010)

rdean said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > > mmm, wow, on one hand you have thousands of scientists who have been doing research for years with scientific equipment and gathered data.
> ...



How stupid can you be, rdean?  Jeez.  You are one  truly ignorant tool.

We are not buying Arab oil because WE are "out" of it.   rdean = 

"We" have plenty of it.  But due to moronic liberoidal "policies," "we" can't drill for it or refine it.

Some studies have suggested that "we" may have more oil reserves than exist in all of the Arab world.


----------



## Baruch Menachem (Jan 3, 2010)

You folks were predicting the world would be out of oil by 1980, not just the US.

The US has lots of oil left.  We have to import more than half, but that is because the oil is either in some inaccesable because of its location (North slope of alaska (ANWAR)) or because of NIMBY problems (Off the florida East coast, off the California coast,  or other nature preserves)   Just because we choose not to use it does not mean it is not there.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 3, 2010)

rdean said:


> Hmmm, wow, on one hand you have thousands of scientists who have been doing research for years with scientific equipment and gathered data.
> 
> On the other, you have Republicans who believe "Noah's Ark" was a historical event and the earth is only a few thousand years old.  People who believe science is a religion and evolution is a lie.
> 
> Who to believe?  Wow, that's a hard one.  Look that the choices.  It's really difficult knowing who to believe.





*meh*


30 thousand scientists saying global warming is a hoax convinces everybody except the k00ks that glowbal warming is a myth.

Oregon Petition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 


Oh ummmm...........over 10,000 of them are phD level!! So what? Are all of them being paid off by the oil industry!!!!!



Dean s0n...........you have the political IQ of a small soap dish!!!!


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 3, 2010)

Hey Dean..........I gotta give you credit s0n...........I pop into this forum once in a blue moon and invariably, you have posted up about 1,000 posts within a weeks time = you're a fcukking ocd moron with this environmental sh!t OR you're getting paid off by some spin-off Gore group. One or the other..........no other options.


Anyway...........I come on here and school your sorry ass every time and yet come back here a few months later and you're still posting up your OCD shit.


Dude...........they have stuff. Its called Effexor XR. Stops the perseverative thinking stuff. You should look into it............I swear, you may feel re-born s0n..............


----------



## Chris (Jan 3, 2010)

Si modo said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Baruch Menachem said:
> ...



CO2's heat absorbing properties were proven experimentally in 1859.

Where have you been?


----------



## Chris (Jan 3, 2010)

skookerasbil said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Hmmm, wow, on one hand you have thousands of scientists who have been doing research for years with scientific equipment and gathered data.
> ...



Are you 15?

The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine is a right wing nut group and their "petition" is totally bogus.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 3, 2010)

Chris said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...




















Thats right............all 30,000 of these scientists are right wing wingnuts ALL being paid handsomely by Big Oil!!!!!


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 3, 2010)

Yo Chris..............................


----------



## mudwhistle (Jan 3, 2010)

Liability said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...



I think it has more to do with we can't make enough money buying our own oil from the oil companies.

They sell most of the oil they produce in Alaska to other countries. I don't think it's because we have more then everyone else. I think it has more to not wanting to sell what we have and leave ourselves with no reserves.


----------



## Liability (Jan 3, 2010)

edthecynic said:


> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> > *Britain facing one of the coldest winters in 100 years, experts predict*
> ...



You place a whole lot of FAITH in that "data," edthesickdick. 



What time was the data cooked?  Who cooked it?  At what temperature was the data cooked?  For how long?  Does somebody have to buy a carbon offset for using that much energy? What data got withheld?  Does it come with desert or dessert?


----------



## Baruch Menachem (Jan 3, 2010)

Liability said:


> What time was the data cooked?  Who cooked it?  At what temperature was the data cooked?  For how long?  Does somebody have to buy a carbon offset for using that much energy? What data got withheld?  Does it come with desert or dessert?



First you put your data in a sauce pan with a lot of palm grease.  Slowly raise the temperature, but don't let it get burnt.

the stove should be electric, with energy supplied by wind.  Large amounts of wind can be harvested in Washington DC or in NYC along the East River, so carbon offsets won't be necessary. 

The dessert option is Baked Alaska.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 3, 2010)

edthecynic said:


> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> > *Britain facing one of the coldest winters in 100 years, experts predict*
> ...



So the USA is colder because it produces more than its fair share of Earth Warming CO2...gotcha

More CO2= Mo' Cold.


----------



## edthecynic (Jan 3, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


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


A perfect example of the MORONIC "logic" of a denier.
Gases don't circulate around the Earth, they sit in one place and one place only. 
BRILLIANT, absolutely BRILLIANT!


----------



## Sinatra (Jan 3, 2010)

What is being missed by those reviewing that NCDC graphic is that it entails a comparative time period of 30 years, starting in 1971 when dire warning of an impending Ice Age were being sounded.  These warning continued throughout the 1970's as did lower than "normal" temps.

So you have a "norm baseline" that was constructed from a decade of below normal temps, thus we see yet more sleight of hand being performed by the flat-earth global warmers.

Now satellite data is a bit more accurate than the surface temps that are open to manipulations to coordinate a predetermined outcome - aka, "Hide the Decline."  (satellite data can be manipulated as well though - so proceed with caution!)

This data only goes back about 30 years though, so its use is relatively short term in overall global temperature comparisons.  That being said, the satellite data trends do not show a current crisis in global temps...













1998 is clearly an outlier. Remove that one year of temperature readings from the 30 year satellite record and we see global temps that remain relatively stable.

Man-Made Global Warming is utter bullshit...


----------



## edthecynic (Jan 3, 2010)

Sinatra said:


> What is being missed by those reviewing that NCDC graphic is that it entails a comparative time period of 30 years, starting in 1971 when dire warning of an impending Ice Age were being sounded.  These warning continued throughout the 1970's as did lower than "normal" temps.
> 
> So you have a "norm baseline" that was constructed from a decade of below normal temps, thus we see yet more sleight of hand being performed by the flat-earth global warmers.
> 
> ...


Well, there you go again, using the discredited cooked UAH satellite data where deniers Christy and Spencer got caught using the opposite sign to correct for Diurnal Satellite Drift. CON$ never use the RSS satellite data or the UAH data using the correct sign for Diurnal Satellite Drift, they only and exclusively use data they KNOW to be cooked. You got caught with your phony charts on another thread, only to post what you know to be lies on this thread.

In reality, the uncooked satellite data matches the surface temp data, so the "more accurate" satellite data CONFIRMS the surface temp data.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 3, 2010)

skookerasbil said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



Links, dumbass?


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 3, 2010)

skookerasbil said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Hmmm, wow, on one hand you have thousands of scientists who have been doing research for years with scientific equipment and gathered data.
> ...



30,000 what?

Oregon Petition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In 2001, Scientific American reported:

 Scientific American took a random sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition - one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers  a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community.[23]  

In a 2005 op-ed in the Hawaii Reporter, Todd Shelly wrote:

 In less than 10 minutes of casual scanning, I found duplicate names (Did two Joe R. Eaglemans and two David Tompkins sign the petition, or were some individuals counted twice?), single names without even an initial (Biolchini), corporate names (Graybeal & Sayre, Inc. How does a business sign a petition?), and an apparently phony single name (Redwine, Ph.D.). These examples underscore a major weakness of the list: there is no way to check the authenticity of the names. Names are given, but no identifying information (e.g., institutional affiliation) is provided. Why the lack of transparency


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 3, 2010)

Liability said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...





> Out of oil in 1980? Well, we are idiot child, that's why we buy foreign oil. Duh! Middle Eastern Oil isn't ours.



We've capped hundreds if not thousands of wells all over the US because we interfere with the oil companies doing it cheaply, and it is far easier to pull it out of the sand in Canada, Mexico and the Middle east.  You do realize that our biggest 2 suppliers of Oil are in this hemisphere right?  A Hemisphere is one half of the globe BTW.

We have put political obstacles in the way of doing this efficiency, taxed profit into oblivion to prevent the energy companies from growing more, and have done lots of different bureacratic and legislative protectionism to protect inefficient and wasteful forms of energy and industry due to political bribes... I mean lobbying.

I was told in the 1970's by dim bulb peakers that we'd be out of oil by 1990.  Strange, every time I turn around a bigger deposit is found, or the reserves go up, yet these nattering nabobs of nincompoopery keep saying we're going to run out of oil tomorrow and yet suffer no consequences when they are wrong... yet again.

So, you're still a sanctimonious hypocrite and now doubly the idiot.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 3, 2010)

> A perfect example of the MORONIC "logic" of a denier.
> Gases don't circulate around the Earth, they sit in one place and one place only.
> BRILLIANT, absolutely BRILLIANT!



So... there's a ton of human development in northern Canadian Provinces?  Who knew that Nunavut and the Eskimo tribes there would be polluting so much.  And that economic powerhouse of Siberia!  Wow... look at them dump CO2 into the atmosphere.

Shoehorn the findings much?


----------



## uscitizen (Jan 3, 2010)

Umm and winter has been going on for what?  2 weeks?


----------



## Sinatra (Jan 3, 2010)

Sinatra said:


> What is being missed by those reviewing that NCDC graphic is that it entails a comparative time period of 30 years, starting in 1971 when dire warning of an impending Ice Age were being sounded.  These warning continued throughout the 1970's as did lower than "normal" temps.
> 
> So you have a "norm baseline" that was constructed from a decade of below normal temps, thus we see yet more sleight of hand being performed by the flat-earth global warmers.
> 
> ...




The above stands.

Nothing the flat-earther warmers have stated disputes it...


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 3, 2010)

It's like Ian Malcolm on the Jurassic Park ride, "Um John, there are dinosaurs on the dinosaur ride, right?"

"Um, Warmers, it's supposed to be warmer during Global Warming, right?"


----------



## Polk (Jan 3, 2010)

Sinatra said:


> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> > What is being missed by those reviewing that NCDC graphic is that it entails a comparative time period of 30 years, starting in 1971 when dire warning of an impending Ice Age were being sounded.  These warning continued throughout the 1970's as did lower than "normal" temps.
> ...



Just a few posts after yours (and before you posted this) someone pointed out you're using a faulty data set. Instead of engaging in debate, you just run around and shout victory.


----------



## rdean (Jan 3, 2010)

skookerasbil said:


> Hey Dean..........I gotta give you credit s0n...........I pop into this forum once in a blue moon and invariably, you have posted up about 1,000 posts within a weeks time = you're a fcukking ocd moron with this environmental sh!t OR you're getting paid off by some spin-off Gore group. One or the other..........no other options.
> 
> 
> Anyway...........I come on here and school your sorry ass every time and yet come back here a few months later and you're still posting up your OCD shit.
> ...



Nasty.


----------



## rdean (Jan 3, 2010)

Liability said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...



Oh, that's right.  We have "plenty" of oil.  Uh, where exactly is it?  "Offshore"?


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 3, 2010)

Sinatra said:


> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> > What is being missed by those reviewing that NCDC graphic is that it entails a comparative time period of 30 years, starting in 1971 when dire warning of an impending Ice Age were being sounded.  These warning continued throughout the 1970's as did lower than "normal" temps.
> ...



Look at the UAH MSU graph. Go to the 0.4 line. Follow it across. The temperature does not cross it until 1998. And crosses in again 7 times between 1998 and 2009. That is cooling?

As usual, you cannot even comprehend your own evidence.


----------



## Sinatra (Jan 3, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


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



___________

So the years following 1998 were warmer????


----------



## Sinatra (Jan 3, 2010)

+



Sinatra said:


> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> > What is being missed by those reviewing that NCDC graphic is that it entails a comparative time period of 30 years, starting in 1971 when dire warning of an impending Ice Age were being sounded.  These warning continued throughout the 1970's as did lower than "normal" temps.
> ...


----------



## edthecynic (Jan 4, 2010)

Polk said:


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


Not only that, but after Christy at UAH was caught using the opposite sign to correct for Diurnal Satellite Drift, he co-authored a paper where he admits that after his errors were corrected even his UAH data matches the surfact temp data. But deniers never use the corrected data sets.

http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/sap1-1-final-execsum.pdf

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 humaninduced
global warming.* Specifically, surface data showed substantial
global-average warming, while early versions of satellite and radiosonde
data showed little or no warming above the surface.* This significant
discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and
radiosonde data have been identified and corrected.* New data sets
have also been developed that do not show such discrepancies.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 4, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



ABSOLUTE HOGWASH. There is no evidence that warming is a danger at all. In fact you lying asshole, there has been no noticeable warming since 1998. The temperature rise that occurred from approximately 1980 to 1998 STOPPED. So after about 17 years of a warming trend that raised the temperature by about a 1/3 of a degree or so there has been NO WARMING in 11 years. Telling evidence of the theory that , GASP, the earth operates in CYCLES.

Once again for the slow, stupid and misinformed, the Earth only increased its base global temperature by a little over 1 degree from 1900 to 2000, as was PREDICTED would happen in the early 1900's.

And as a further condemnation of the lying assholes that want to sell us this doomsday bullshit they INSISTED from 1980 to present that the SUN had NOTHING to do with the rise in temperature AT ALL. YET INSIST now that the reason no temperature rise has occurred since 1998 is BECAUSE of the sun.

IF the rise was caused by CO2 then EXPLAIN why from 1998 to present as CO2 rose the temperature did NOT.


----------



## edthecynic (Jan 4, 2010)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...


Another mindless boob stupid enough to believe the lies of GOP hate media.

If warming STOPPED after 1998, why was the decade from 1999 to 2008 the WARMEST in the history of direct instrument measurement????????????


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 4, 2010)

edthecynic said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Are you just naturally STUPID? If one KNOWS that the base temperature has risen over the last 100 years by just over 1 degree, would not that same person understand that NOW temperatures being warmer that the daily temperatures for the average year will, GASP, be warmer then before? I suggest you ask for a refund from what ever school system claimed to have taught you grades 1 through 12.


----------



## edthecynic (Jan 4, 2010)

RetiredGySgt said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...


How exactly does that explain how the decade from 1999 to 2008 was the WARMEST in the history of direct instrument measurement if warming stopped 11 years ago????????

That means the decade from 1999 to 2008 was warmer than the decade from 1989 to 1998, not just the average of the last 100 years.
Get it???


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 4, 2010)

edthecynic said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Are you still being stupid. IF the temperature raised by 1 degree, then the NEW baseline will NATURALLY be HIGHER with the new BASE LINE. Temperatures were unnaturally cooler in the 70's so not only do we have a 1/3 over all increase from thetotal century for 1980 to 1998 bu when one uses temperatures from the 70's it SEEMS even larger because the cooling that OCCURRED that decade and previous.

Pretty simply concept. IF the temperature was 30 20 years ago and now it is 30.1/3 the AVERAGE temperature and the actual temperature will NORMALLY be higher this year then 20 years ago.

None of the years you keep pointing to have very much higher temperatures then the previous years EXCEPT during the KNOWN cooling periods. Your argument is disingenuous to say the least and if you honestly belief it, it proves you are to stupid for basic math.


----------



## edthecynic (Jan 4, 2010)

> Originally Posted by RetiredGySgt
> 
> ABSOLUTE HOGWASH. There is no evidence that warming is a danger at all. In fact you lying asshole, there has been no noticeable warming since 1998. The temperature rise that occurred from approximately 1980 to 1998 STOPPED. So after about 17 years of a warming trend that raised the temperature by about a 1/3 of a degree or so *there has been NO WARMING in 11 years.*





RetiredGySgt said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...


Again, that has nothing to do with the fact that the last 10 years were WARMER than the previous 10 years which would have been impossible if warming stopped 11 years ago.


----------



## Sinatra (Jan 4, 2010)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...



___

And it should be noted that the temp increases from roughly 1980-1998 could be seen as a correction of the lower than average temps the preceeded that time period.  Or perhaps the lower than average temps following the warming of the 1930s and 1940s was a correction...or perhaps...

You see folks, the temps have risen and fallen and will continue to do so.  Recent reports suggest the CO2 concentrations have actually been overestimated - that CO2 itself is a minor player in overall climate, and that this whole thing has been a psuedo-science house of cards from the outset...


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 4, 2010)

> How exactly does that explain how the decade from 1999 to 2008 was the WARMEST in the history of direct instrument measurement if warming stopped 11 years ago????????



Simple, it's a lie created by Jones, Hansen and Mann.  

The Medieval Warm Period was much warmer than we are today, yet this is ignored by Mann, Jones and Hansen because it fucks their desired result to hell and gone.  If you want to stick to instruments the 1930's were as warm as well as having the hottest year on record once you ignore the triad of liars you worship so.

And if you say mankind's CO2 output back then far exceeds that of the modern industrialized world, you're an unmitigated liar as well.


----------



## mal (Jan 4, 2010)

elvis3577 said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > It's cold in Great Britain, therefore, global warming is a lie.
> ...







peace...


----------



## edthecynic (Jan 4, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> > How exactly does that explain how the decade from 1999 to 2008 was the WARMEST in the history of direct instrument measurement if warming stopped 11 years ago????????
> 
> 
> 
> ...


As I said, when CON$ are caught lying, they just keep on lying, while accusing everyone else of lying.

The 1930s are not even close to the hottest years of direct instrument measurement.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Jan 4, 2010)

Bottom line.. only a complete fucktard buys any of this shit anymore.  Period.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Jan 4, 2010)

The ice caps are melting on Mars... I guess it is all the cow farts and vehicles.  Geeze Louise, how fucking stupid are these folks?


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 4, 2010)

edthecynic said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > > How exactly does that explain how the decade from 1999 to 2008 was the WARMEST in the history of direct instrument measurement if warming stopped 11 years ago????????
> ...


Son, you don't know whether you're shot, fucked, powder-burned or snake bit.

You keep pimping that graph as if it's an proof of something.  Imma tell you AGAIN...

IT DOES NOT PROVE MANKIND IS THE CAUSE EVEN IF IT *IS* TRUE!!!

mmkay???


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Jan 4, 2010)

> IT DOES NOT PROVE MANKIND IS THE CAUSE EVEN IF IT IS TRUE!!!



Don't waste your time... these folks believe what they want to blieve.. remember, these are the tards that voted for "Hope and Change" only to put a man in office who is owned by the banking industry and labor unions.


----------



## mal (Jan 4, 2010)

edthecynic said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > > How exactly does that explain how the decade from 1999 to 2008 was the WARMEST in the history of direct instrument measurement if warming stopped 11 years ago????????
> ...



So what was the Technology they were Using in 1880 over the Ocean?... Over the Land?... In 1920?...

Can you Compare it to Today for us?



peace...


----------



## Sinatra (Jan 4, 2010)

tha malcontent said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...



____

Yes indeed!  So easy to manipulate those #s because they are so often "estimates".

And when we ask for the raw data well guess what - it's been thrown away!!!!


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 4, 2010)

Soggy in NOLA said:


> > IT DOES NOT PROVE MANKIND IS THE CAUSE EVEN IF IT IS TRUE!!!
> 
> 
> 
> Don't waste your time... these folks believe what they want to blieve.. remember, these are the tards that voted for "Hope and Change" only to put a man in office who is owned by the banking industry and labor unions.


I know, they voted for hoax and spare change.  They're now pushing the big lie theory in hopes it changes reality.  That's why we must refute it vocally because you never know who may be watching, and if there is no "shut the fuck up, stupid", response, they may assume it's true.

It's not for their benefit, but to prevent others from falling victim to them.


----------



## edthecynic (Jan 4, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...


Child, it does prove you lied about the 1930s.

mmkay???


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 4, 2010)

Uhhhh no.  Many credible (aka not suckers for AGW) climatologist believe this.  Look in your enemies roladex and you will find a few.


----------



## edthecynic (Jan 4, 2010)

Sinatra said:


> tha malcontent said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


As I said, when caught lying CON$ just keep on lying.

The only "estimates" are the margins of error, the gray lines on the chart. If you are observant, you will see the gray lines are longer on the older data.


----------



## mal (Jan 4, 2010)

edthecynic said:


> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> > tha malcontent said:
> ...



You don't want to Deal with my Question, do you... 



peace...


----------



## Sinatra (Jan 4, 2010)

_*But far more reliable and relevant is the satellite data on atmospheric temperatures, which is not distorted by the location, coverage, and surrounding activities of land-based weather stations (highly unreliable outside the U.S. and Europe). The satellite data starts in 1979 and shows no increase in global temperature trends until 1998, when the El Niño that year caused a sharp temperature spike. The most recent temperature declines have now apparently completely offset that 1998 increase, leaving the satellite record with no net increase in global temperature for the past 30 years&#8212;or maybe even a slight decline. 

Global temperatures were also warmer than today during the Medieval Warm Period, a period of several hundred years around 1000 AD. Even higher temperatures prevailed during a period known as the Holocene Climate Optimum, which ran roughly from 8,000 years ago (6000 BC) to 4,000 years ago (2000 BC). In fact, temperatures were higher than today during most of the period from 9000 BC to the birth of Christ. Yet there was no significant human burning of fossil fuels during these periods.*_

..._*ALL SCIENTISTS AGRE that if man-made global warming is real, it would leave a fingerprint in the form of temperatures increasing with altitude in the tropical troposphere portion of the atmosphere up to a hotspot about 10 kilometers above the surface, reflecting the pattern of CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Warming due to solar variations or other natural causes would not leave such a fingerprint pattern. Recently, higherquality temperature data from balloons and satellites now enables us to settle the man-made global warming debate definitively. 

The data from weather balloons shows the opposite pattern: no increasing warming with altitude, but rather a slight cooling, with no hotspot. The satellite data shows the same result: no increasing temperature with altitude, no hotspot, no fingerprint, maybe again a slight cooling with altitude. Game over. QED. The global warming empire is rattling around but has not and cannot come up with an effective response. The data is the data. The science is the science. Man-made global warming is a hoax developed to serve powerful special interests. *_



Full article here:


The American Spectator : Why the World Is Getting Warmer, Even Though It Is Getting Colder


----------



## edthecynic (Jan 4, 2010)

tha malcontent said:


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


Your question is a moronic dodge to avoid explaining how the last decade could be warmer than the previous decade if warming stopped 11 years ago, but I'll humor you.

They used thermometers in 1880, the difference with today is there are more measuring stations today than in 1880, hence the greater margin of error for the 1880s.

Now back in the medieval warm period they use PROXY data from even fewer locations, so that data is highly suspect, but you deniers put absolute faith in it over direct instrument measurement.


----------



## edthecynic (Jan 4, 2010)

Sinatra said:


> _*But far more reliable and relevant is the satellite data on atmospheric temperatures, which is not distorted by the location, coverage, and surrounding activities of land-based weather stations (highly unreliable outside the U.S. and Europe). The satellite data starts in 1979 and shows no increase in global temperature trends until 1998, when the El Niño that year caused a sharp temperature spike. The most recent temperature declines have now apparently completely offset that 1998 increase, leaving the satellite record with no net increase in global temperature for the past 30 years&#8212;or maybe even a slight decline.
> *_


_*
As I said, whenever CON$ are caught lying they just keep on lying. As I have already posted, only the cooked UAH satellite data showed no warming. Christy and Spencer accomplished this by using the opposite sign for correcting diurnal satellite drift. After the correct sign was used even the UAH data shows warming and matches the ground measurements, and Christy even admitted it in the below report he co-authored.

http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/sap1-1-final-execsum.pdf

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 humaninduced
global warming. Specifically, surface data showed substantial
global-average warming, while early versions of satellite and radiosonde
data showed little or no warming above the surface. This significant
discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and
radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. New data sets
have also been developed that do not show such discrepancies.




*_


----------



## Sinatra (Jan 4, 2010)

+



Sinatra said:


> _*But far more reliable and relevant is the satellite data on atmospheric temperatures, which is not distorted by the location, coverage, and surrounding activities of land-based weather stations (highly unreliable outside the U.S. and Europe). The satellite data starts in 1979 and shows no increase in global temperature trends until 1998, when the El Niño that year caused a sharp temperature spike. The most recent temperature declines have now apparently completely offset that 1998 increase, leaving the satellite record with no net increase in global temperature for the past 30 yearsor maybe even a slight decline.
> 
> Global temperatures were also warmer than today during the Medieval Warm Period, a period of several hundred years around 1000 AD. Even higher temperatures prevailed during a period known as the Holocene Climate Optimum, which ran roughly from 8,000 years ago (6000 BC) to 4,000 years ago (2000 BC). In fact, temperatures were higher than today during most of the period from 9000 BC to the birth of Christ. Yet there was no significant human burning of fossil fuels during these periods.*_
> 
> ...


----------



## edthecynic (Jan 4, 2010)

edthecynic said:


> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> > _*But far more reliable and relevant is the satellite data on atmospheric temperatures, which is not distorted by the location, coverage, and surrounding activities of land-based weather stations (highly unreliable outside the U.S. and Europe). The satellite data starts in 1979 and shows no increase in global temperature trends until 1998, when the El Niño that year caused a sharp temperature spike. The most recent temperature declines have now apparently completely offset that 1998 increase, leaving the satellite record with no net increase in global temperature for the past 30 yearsor maybe even a slight decline.
> ...


_*



Sinatra said:



			+



Sinatra said:



But far more reliable and relevant is the satellite data on atmospheric temperatures, which is not distorted by the location, coverage, and surrounding activities of land-based weather stations (highly unreliable outside the U.S. and Europe). The satellite data starts in 1979 and shows no increase in global temperature trends until 1998, when the El Niño that year caused a sharp temperature spike. The most recent temperature declines have now apparently completely offset that 1998 increase, leaving the satellite record with no net increase in global temperature for the past 30 yearsor maybe even a slight decline. 

Global temperatures were also warmer than today during the Medieval Warm Period, a period of several hundred years around 1000 AD. Even higher temperatures prevailed during a period known as the Holocene Climate Optimum, which ran roughly from 8,000 years ago (6000 BC) to 4,000 years ago (2000 BC). In fact, temperatures were higher than today during most of the period from 9000 BC to the birth of Christ. Yet there was no significant human burning of fossil fuels during these periods.

...ALL SCIENTISTS AGRE that if man-made global warming is real, it would leave a fingerprint in the form of temperatures increasing with altitude in the tropical troposphere portion of the atmosphere up to a hotspot about 10 kilometers above the surface, reflecting the pattern of CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Warming due to solar variations or other natural causes would not leave such a fingerprint pattern. Recently, higherquality temperature data from balloons and satellites now enables us to settle the man-made global warming debate definitively. 

The data from weather balloons shows the opposite pattern: no increasing warming with altitude, but rather a slight cooling, with no hotspot. The satellite data shows the same result: no increasing temperature with altitude, no hotspot, no fingerprint, maybe again a slight cooling with altitude. Game over. QED. The global warming empire is rattling around but has not and cannot come up with an effective response. The data is the data. The science is the science. Man-made global warming is a hoax developed to serve powerful special interests. 



Full article here:


The American Spectator : Why the World Is Getting Warmer, Even Though It Is Getting Colder

Click to expand...



Click to expand...

You prove my point. Thank you.*_


----------



## Sinatra (Jan 4, 2010)

+


Sinatra said:


> Britain facing one of the coldest winters in 100 years, experts predict
> 
> *Britain is bracing itself for one of the coldest winters for a century with temperatures hitting minus 16 degrees Celsius, forecasters have warned. *
> 
> ...


----------



## mal (Jan 4, 2010)

edthecynic said:


> the difference with today is there are more measuring stations today than in 1880, hence the greater margin of error for the 1880s.



Understatement of the New Decade... 

Now tell me about how Denver and other Urban Areas have Changed since the 1880's regarding Temperature Readings?...

Not just the Number of Readings... That's a Fucking Given.



peace...


----------



## edthecynic (Jan 4, 2010)

tha malcontent said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > the difference with today is there are more measuring stations today than in 1880, hence the greater margin of error for the 1880s.
> ...


I've already answered your dodge. If you want another dodge, you have to explain how the last decade could be warmer than the previous decade if warming stopped 11 years ago. 

The oceans have warmed, and the land has warmed whether measured by satellites or ground stations. There are no heat islands in the ocean or in satellite readings, so you can't use the urban heat islands canard.


----------



## mal (Jan 4, 2010)

edthecynic said:


> tha malcontent said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Assuming your Data (and I haven't seen it) isn't Warped by the WANT that there is Warming as has been Illustrated by some of the "Experts" recently, what is 11 Years in Relation to this Planet's Existence?...

And then tell me about Cycles...



peace...


----------



## edthecynic (Jan 4, 2010)

tha malcontent said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > tha malcontent said:
> ...


Well, if you want to use cycles as a dodge, the natural cycle of Ice Age and interglacial warm period says we should be well into the next Ice Age, so this 100 year warming period is outside the natural cycle.


----------



## Sinatra (Jan 4, 2010)

_*On Wednesday, scientists from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration released a new report that said there was greater certainty that aerosols -- the material more commonly known as "haze," the tiny airborne particles from pollution and burning of biomass -- are leading to a net cooling of the atmosphere that is in competition the green house gases causing warming.

Today, NOAA's climate arm, the National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C., announced that the average June-August 2009 summer temperature for the contiguous United States was below average -- the 34th coolest on record.

The preliminary analysis is based on records dating back to 1895. *_



Summer 2009 colder than normal, NOAA says | Metro - cleveland.com - cleveland.com


----------



## Sinatra (Jan 4, 2010)

Guest post by Richard Keen, Ph.D.

_*To paraphrase Led Zeppelin, &#8220;It&#8217;s been cooling, I ain&#8217;t fooing&#8230;&#8221;

December was a chilly month across much of the U.S., and at my site (the NWS co-op station for Coal Creek Canyon, Colorado, NW of Denver at an elevation 8950 feet, or 720 millibars, December was the coldest December (and the coldest month of any name) in 27 years of record.  The average of 16.5 was 0.8 degrees colder than December 1983.  Over the entire record, nine months averaged colder than 20F; of these, five occurred during 1983-1990, none during 1991-2005, and four during 2007-2009.  It appears that he warm spell of the 1990&#8217;s and early 2000&#8217;s has ended.

Here&#8217;s a chart of the past decade of annual temperatures*_







http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/04/coal-creek-redux/


----------



## Sinatra (Jan 4, 2010)

According to the IPCC models, greenhouse gas warming should be greatest over continental interiors and in the middle troposphere, so Coal Creek Canyon is an ideal global warming monitoring site.  How, then, is the projected 0.7F per decade warming coming along?

Since 1985, the overall trend has been +0.3F per decade, about half of the IPCC projection.  Since 2000, the trend has been -3F per decade  four times greater than the IPCC projection, and in the opposite direction!

This is an example of how one stations data can be significant for assessing climate change, but only if the station is carefully installed and maintained, is in a location relatively free of non-climatic influences, has records that are diligently kept, and, above all, does not have its records mysteriously altered.  It would be instructive to see records from other observers who have quality records of long duration.

Richard Keen, Ph.D.

Coal Creek Canyon, Colorado


Coal Creek Redux « Watts Up With That?


----------



## Colin (Jan 4, 2010)

Yaaaawwwwnnnnnn.

So we are set for a really cold winter. So what. The climate change fanatics will once again make something out of nothing and governments will rub their hands with glee as they see more opportunity to impose the con of green taxes to fill their depleted coffers.

Climate change is not a new phenomena in the history of the last thousand years. There has always been catastrophic weather from time to time. People have always been afraid of it, and remembered it. The last time the Thames froze over was in 1963 and it has frozen over many times prior to that. It's what weather does!


----------



## mal (Jan 4, 2010)

Sinatra said:


> According to the IPCC models, greenhouse gas warming should be greatest over continental interiors and in the middle troposphere, so Coal Creek Canyon is an ideal global warming monitoring site.  How, then, is the projected 0.7F per decade warming coming along?
> 
> Since 1985, the overall trend has been +0.3F per decade, about half of the IPCC projection.  Since 2000, the trend has been -3F per decade  four times greater than the IPCC projection, and in the opposite direction!
> 
> ...



I Live in Colorado... It's Fuckin' Cold!



peace...


----------



## Ringel05 (Jan 4, 2010)

edthecynic said:


> tha malcontent said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Talk about a dodge.  Cycle projections are relative averages not concrete occurrences.
(I think I'll go sacrifice a vestal virgin to the weather gods.)


----------



## Sinatra (Jan 4, 2010)

tha malcontent said:


> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> > According to the IPCC models, greenhouse gas warming should be greatest over continental interiors and in the middle troposphere, so Coal Creek Canyon is an ideal global warming monitoring site.  How, then, is the projected 0.7F per decade warming coming along?
> ...



You guys are getting frozen to death by all that global warming...


----------



## mal (Jan 4, 2010)

Sinatra said:


> tha malcontent said:
> 
> 
> > Sinatra said:
> ...



And it's NOT just this Season... A Couple of Years ago we had 10 Weeks Straight of Snow on the Ground in D-Town...

Historically we have over 300 Days a Year of Sun and our Average Temps are not that Cold in the Winter...

We get Big Snows and they Melt in the 50 Degreeish Weather that Follows...

This Season we have seen so MANY 30 and 40 Degree BELOW Average Days that it's Concerning...

The Blizzard of Halloween was Unprecedented in 2009, not only for Snow Depth but for Temperatures.

Combine these things with what you are Seeing around the Country and the Globe, from "The Summer that Wasn't" in Chicago, to Snow in Vegas to Snow in Baghdad... To the Return of Year Round Snow in the Colorado Rockies from South to North.

These are not Examples of a "No Ice by 2012"... Or whatever Year aglore is Screaming now as he Ignores Antarctica...

Anyway...



peace...


----------



## Sinatra (Jan 4, 2010)

tha malcontent said:


> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> > tha malcontent said:
> ...




Ah yes, the always dire predictions of the flat-earth global warmers.

The end is near!!!  

Time passes...

The end is near!!!

Yet more time passes...

The end is still near!!!!  Really!!!!  And only a world-wide tax system can save us!!!!!

Yet more time passes and we are getting buried in snow...


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 4, 2010)

I laugh harder and harder every day I go over to DRUDGE and read the headlines........................and think about the hopeless dolts still being the true belivers in the biggest fraud ever perpetuated upon mankind = "mad made" global warming................

Right now over at DRUDGE..........................




Winter Could Be Worst in 25 Years for USA...
CHILL MAP...
3 Deaths Due To Cold in Memphis...
PAPER: GAS SUPPLIES RUNNING OUT IN UK...
Vermont sets 'all-time record for one snowstorm'...
Iowa temps 'a solid 30 degrees below normal'...
Seoul buried in heaviest snowfall in 70 years... 
Historic ice build-up shuts down NJ nuclear power plant...
Beijing -- coldest in 40 years...
Miami shivers from coldest weather in decade... 



each and individual link............................



Fcukking hysterical..............if anything you fcukking morons, its a fcukking ice age coming!!!!


----------



## Sinatra (Jan 4, 2010)

3 deaths in MEMPHIS due to the cold??

Good Lord!!!!


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 4, 2010)

Anyone else get the feeling that Edthecynic is actually an Apple Basic program?

10 Start
20 Make post
30 Say "As I said, when caught lying CON$ just keep on lying."
40 If responded to, then 30
50 If not responded to, declare victory
60 Print "Victory! I have proven Anthropogenic Global Warming true!"
70 End


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 4, 2010)

Sinatra said:


> 3 deaths in MEMPHIS due to the cold??
> 
> Good Lord!!!!


But it's a cold heat.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 4, 2010)

Ringel05 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > tha malcontent said:
> ...


Rather sacrifice 1000 Warmists to make sure that summer comes back.  Think it'll work?

But when in Caligula's Rome...


----------



## Sinatra (Jan 4, 2010)

It appears the cynic has limped off with his proverbial tail between his knock-kneed legs...


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 4, 2010)

Sinatra said:


> It appears the cynic has limped off with his proverbial tail between his knock-kneed legs...


No... he's just recharging as to keep parroting.

Brawk!  The earth is warming, it's man's fault, Brawk WHISTLE!!


----------



## Foxfyre (Jan 4, 2010)

Headlines lined up on the Drudge Report at 7:53 PM MST Jan 4, 2009

Winter Could Be Worst in 25 Years for USA...
CHILL MAP...
3 Deaths Due To Cold in Memphis...
PAPER: GAS SUPPLIES RUNNING OUT IN UK...
Vermont sets 'all-time record for one snowstorm'...
Iowa temps 'a solid 30 degrees below normal'...
Seoul buried in heaviest snowfall in 70 years... 
Historic ice build-up shuts down NJ nuclear power plant...
Beijing -- coldest in 40 years...
Miami shivers from coldest weather in decade... 

And we have set several records for cold here on the high desert in New Mexico already this last 30 days with no relief in sight.  Our heating bill was the highest it has ever been this last 30 days even adjusting for rate increase.

Maybe those predicting an approaching ice age are on to something?


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 4, 2010)

We need lots of global warming in New York at the moment.................


----------



## Ringel05 (Jan 4, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Yup.  We'll keep up the sacrifices till April, May at the latest.  That should do the trick.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 5, 2010)

Ringel05 said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > Ringel05 said:
> ...


Just to make sure.... eh, Vern?


----------



## Ringel05 (Jan 5, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...



Hey Vern. I found the problem under your hood.  looks like it's your catastrophic converter.  Here, let me fix it, Pzzzzzzzzttttttttttt!


----------



## Yukon (Jan 5, 2010)

FOOLS, NAY SAYERS, UNBELIEVERS, DOUBTERS ! Global warming is here. Do not be fooled by the right-wing zealots who are manipulating the weather reports. The POLAR ICE CAP is melting..oh woooooooooooo is me ! The end is near.


----------



## edthecynic (Jan 5, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> Anyone else get the feeling that Edthecynic is actually an Apple Basic program?
> 
> 10 Start
> 20 Make post
> ...





Sinatra said:


> It appears the cynic has limped off with his proverbial tail between his knock-kneed legs...


See the first quote in my sig.


----------



## edthecynic (Jan 5, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> Anyone else get the feeling that Edthecynic is actually an Apple Basic program?
> 
> 10 Start
> 20 Make post
> ...


If you CON$ don't like having your lies exposed, then you CON$ should stop lying.

And please show where I have said anything about AGW. The closest I have ever come is to point out that the present 100 year warming trend is outside the natural cycle of the last 450,000 years. But I never said the cause.
I have gone after the deniers spreading their "global cooling" hoax, so you are caught lying yet again.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 5, 2010)

edthecynic said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone else get the feeling that Edthecynic is actually an Apple Basic program?
> ...



And yet it was forecast long before anyone claimed man was causing global warming that there would be about a 1 degree raise during the century. And Guess what? That is about what we had.


----------



## Sinatra (Jan 5, 2010)

*Winter of 2009-2010 Could Be Worst in 25 Years*
Posted 2010-01-04

_*Nearly the entire eastern half of the United States is enduring bitterly cold temperatures not experienced since 1985. Even Florida, which has been hovering around freezing le
By Jon Auciello
AccuWeather.comNearly the entire eastern half of the United States is enduring bitterly cold temperatures not experienced since 1985. Even Florida, which has been hovering around freezing levels overnight recently, is also feeling the almost-nationwide chill. 

"It'll be like the great winters of the '60s and '70s," said AccuWeather.com Chief Meteorologist and Expert Long Range Forecaster Joe Bastardi. 

The last time a large swath of severely low temperatures struck the nation was in January 1985. That historic arctic outbreak had below-zero temperatures Fahrenheit stretching from Chicago eastward to New York City, and all the way south to Macon, Ga.

While Bastardi says the upcoming days will bring cold not seen since 1985 or 1982, he believes this winter is shaping up much that of like 1977-78. That winter, nearly all of the United States east of the Rockies had a cold October followed by a warm November, with the cold returning in December. 

What is most interesting in this case is what followed, where the months from January through March can all be classified as very cold, relative to normal.*_


AccuWeather.com - Weather Blogs - Weather News


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 5, 2010)

edthecynic said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone else get the feeling that Edthecynic is actually an Apple Basic program?
> ...


You do realize that is a quote of Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals".  Nice of you to quote Rush out of context.  But what else should we expect from a Lie-beral?  Your whole signature is nothing but rule 13 on parade.  If it weren't for the fact you believe in this tripe, it'd be funny.


----------



## edthecynic (Jan 5, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...


You do realize LimpBoy, like Reagan, is a devout Alinskyite. And I never quote your MessiahRushie out of context, that is just your knee-jerk programming.

And a perfect example of the first quote in my sig, is you accusing me of using rule 13. It is LimpBoy who has programmed you to hate Reid and Pelosi by using rule 13, for example.

Below is LimpBoy in full Alinsky mode.

Everything we did about Clinton was humorous. It had a political point. * We were making fun of and laughing.  *
Rush Limbaugh May 14, 2007

O*ne of the techniques that Alinsky has advocated be used against people you need to destroy is ridicule*[5. Ridicule is man's most potent weapon.], because there's no response to it.  When you get *ridiculed and made fun of*, that's the toughest thing to have a response because *everybody's laughing at you*... *In order to execute the strategeries and the policies of Saul Alinsky, you cannot have a soul, you cannot have a conscience*, because your sole objective is to destroy people and ruin them.
Rush Limbaugh January 24, 2007

Ronald Reagan said, *"Just laugh at 'em, just laugh at 'em and just ridicule it,"*
Rush Limbaugh June 23, 2008


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 5, 2010)

Alinsky's methods work.  The question is, what they work for?

But you're still wrong about global warming. LOL


----------



## Liability (Jan 5, 2010)

edthecynic said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



There is nothing wrong in ridiculing the ridiculous.  Of course edthesickdick objects.  He knows what a ridiculous lying loser he is.


----------



## edthecynic (Jan 5, 2010)

Liability said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...





Big Fitz said:


> Alinsky's methods work.  The question is, what they work for?


So now being an Alinskyite is good when CON$ are, but evil for anyone else! 

And that is the ELITIST philosophy of CON$ervatism in full display, one set of rules for everyone else and none for themselves.


----------



## Liability (Jan 5, 2010)

edthecynic said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



No.  What is actually on display is the massive hypocrisy of you whining liberoidals.

You commit the Alinsky fallacies as your primary stock in trade on a regular (daily, hourly) basis.

But when anybody ridicules the absolutely absurd and ridiculous crap you idiots spew, you cry to the heavens.

Go change your panties, edthesickdick.  I think you crapped in them this time.


----------



## Coyote (Jan 5, 2010)

Coldest winter in 100 years....sounds like a good time to go swimming


----------



## Foxfyre (Jan 5, 2010)

I wonder how the doomsdayers are getting along with their arctic ice cap is melting and we're all going to drown prophecy?   This looks pretty dang close to normal to me:






Polar Sea Ice Cap and Snow - Cryosphere Today


----------



## saveliberty (Jan 5, 2010)

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg

The anomaly even shows the red line above the norm many times during the "hotest period since modern instrumentation".


----------



## Sinatra (Jan 5, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
> 
> The anomaly even shows the red line above the norm many times during the "hotest period since modern instrumentation".




Yes indeed!  And the flat-earth warmers should arrive soon to gnash their little yellow teeth at your impudence for suggesting their God does not exist!!!


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 5, 2010)

> So now being an Alinskyite is good when CON$ are, but evil for anyone else!
> 
> And that is the ELITIST philosophy of CON$ervatism in full display, one set of rules for everyone else and none for themselves.



Quit trying to play martyr.  It looks like a silly hat on you.  Although that hypocrisy gown is FABulous!

It's funny how you have a problem with Alinsky only when his methods are used against you.

Hmmmmmm....


----------



## Sinatra (Jan 5, 2010)

Alinksy did not corner the market on sarcasm or parody, and being a leftist, likely lacked any real talent for either.

Such "logic" would willingly state Aristophanes was a pupil of Alynski as well...


----------



## Foxfyre (Jan 5, 2010)

Sinatra said:


> Alinksy did not corner the market on sarcasm or parody, and being a leftist, likely lacked any real talent for either.





Okay that was good.


----------



## edthecynic (Jan 5, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> > So now being an Alinskyite is good when CON$ are, but evil for anyone else!
> >
> > And that is the ELITIST philosophy of CON$ervatism in full display, one set of rules for everyone else and none for themselves.
> 
> ...


Back to the first quote in my sig, I see. 

And you were the one playing the victim card for poor little Stuttering LimpBoy with the other 2 MessiahRushie quotes which exemplify the first quote. You wrongly attributed it to rule 13, when if anything it would be closer to rule 4.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 5, 2010)

> You wrongly attributed it to rule 13, when if anything it would be closer to rule 4.



Awww, you got nothing to defend yourself with so you go and attack trivialities.  Saul likes you.  Likes you so much he'd let you sleep with his sister.  I can see that now.


----------



## edthecynic (Jan 5, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> > You wrongly attributed it to rule 13, when if anything it would be closer to rule 4.
> 
> 
> 
> Awww, you got nothing to defend yourself with so you go and attack trivialities.  Saul likes you.  Likes you so much he'd let you sleep with his sister.  I can see that now.


Rule 2. Never go outside the experience of your people.


----------



## Chris (Jan 5, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> I wonder how the doomsdayers are getting along with their arctic ice cap is melting and we're all going to drown prophecy?   This looks pretty dang close to normal to me:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## saveliberty (Jan 5, 2010)

The end of the global warming hoax is near.  When the government has to delay the Census due to cold weather this spring, they'll have to come clean.


----------



## Sinatra (Jan 5, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> The end of the global warming hoax is near.  When the government has to delay the Census due to cold weather this spring, they'll have to come clean.



I believe your are right!!!


----------



## Chris (Jan 5, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> The end of the global warming hoax is near.  When the government has to delay the Census due to cold weather this spring, they'll have to come clean.



Except that global warming is not a hoax anymore than this cold winter is a hoax.

The Sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years.

CO2 causes the earth to warm, but its warming effect must always be considered within the context of the Sun's activity. 

Ignoring one fact or another because it doesn't meet your political views doesn't work.


----------



## Sinatra (Jan 6, 2010)

+



Sinatra said:


> Britain facing one of the coldest winters in 100 years, experts predict
> 
> *Britain is bracing itself for one of the coldest winters for a century with temperatures hitting minus 16 degrees Celsius, forecasters have warned. *
> 
> ...


----------



## saveliberty (Jan 6, 2010)

Chris said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > The end of the global warming hoax is near.  When the government has to delay the Census due to cold weather this spring, they'll have to come clean.
> ...



Does anyone keep tract of the Sun's radiant, or heat energy output as a function of time? Most global warming models I have looked into use the Sun's energy output as a constant or a sine wave cycle. One scientist informed me that the Sun's energy output has increased over the past 100 years, but I have not seen any data to support that contention. I would like to see a plot of the Sun's heat energy output over the past 100 years.

"...the Sun's output changes so slowly and solar variability is so slight (less than 0.00425% of the total energy per year on time scales of days), that continuous monitoring by state-of-the-art instrumentation is necessary to detect changes with climate significance. Scientists theorize that as much as 25% of the 20th century anticipated global warming of the Earth may be due to changes in the Sun's energy output. Systematic changes in irradiance as little as 0.25% per century can cause the complete range of climate variations that have occurred in the past, ranging from ice ages to global tropical conditions. For example, scientists believe the "Little Ice Age" that occurred in Europe in the late 17th century could have been related to the minimum in sunspot activity (and a correlated minimum in total solar irradiance) that occurred during the same period."

NASA's Cosmicopia -- Ask Us -- Sun

Therefore sunspot activity should be lower in order for your statement to be true.

climate4you Sun sunspot activity

We are below 1996 levels just slightly.  Glad to see you recognize the sun is a bigger influence on global warming than CO2 levels.  I am making progress with you.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 6, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> The end of the global warming hoax is near.  When the government has to delay the Census due to cold weather this spring, they'll have to come clean.



OK, we now have one of the dingbats committed to a real prediction. You state that 2010 is going to be a cold year. 

I say that it will be a warm year, not only in the top ten, but possibly exceeding 1998. 

At the appropriate time, I will remind you of your prediction.


----------



## del (Jan 6, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > The end of the global warming hoax is near.  When the government has to delay the Census due to cold weather this spring, they'll have to come clean.
> ...



how good of you to fit it in to your busy schedule.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 6, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...



2008. Lowest sunspot activity in the last century, same for TSI. Strong and persistant La Nina. It should have been a very cold year. 

Instead, it was the 8th or 9th warmest on record. The amount of GHGs in the atmosphere more than made up for the simultaneous occurance of an ENSO low and a TSI low. 

Now think what that says concerning the coming years.


----------



## saveliberty (Jan 6, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



You are not disracting me with a CO2 hoax oldrocks.  I understand the real threat is from the Democrats and Obama.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 6, 2010)

No, Berty, the only thing that you understand is stupid ass Repub lies and talking points.


----------



## saveliberty (Jan 6, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



Faked data plain and simple.  You want to believe lies go ahead.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 6, 2010)

By God, you are as stupid as Elvis, Dude, and Sinatra. Next you will be telling me that it is a worldwide conspiracy among 99% of the scientists in the world.


----------



## saveliberty (Jan 6, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> By God, you are as stupid as Elvis, Dude, and Sinatra. Next you will be telling me that it is a worldwide conspiracy among 99% of the scientists in the world.



Yes, because 99% of the scientists in the world are climatologists, dumbass.


----------



## Yukon (Jan 6, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> Yes, because 99% of the scientists in the world are climatologists, dumbass.



You have NO credability. Saying that 99% of the worlds scientists are climatologists proves my point - you and your kind are IDIOTS !


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 6, 2010)

Every Scientific Society in the world, every National Academy of Science, and every major Univesity in the world all state that global warming is happening, that it is anthropogenic in origin, and that it is a clear and present danger. That does represent about 99% of the scientists in the world.

While people like yourself represnt the majority of the fruitcakes in the world.


----------



## saveliberty (Jan 6, 2010)

Yukon said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, because 99% of the scientists in the world are climatologists, dumbass.
> ...



Actually old rocks made that implication, you are correct, only an idiot would make that comment.  I'm sure old rocks will dispute he's an idiot.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 6, 2010)

> Every Scientific Society in the world, every National Academy of Science, and every major Univesity in the world all state that global warming is happening, that it is anthropogenic in origin,



Bullshit.  

Oh wait!  Is this like the same crap unions state when they say their members all agree with the few radical socialists who've wormed their way to the top of the organziation and are using it for personal power and wealth?  In that case, yeah, those handful of political opportunists back at the office who aren't really scientists all agree and say it's anthropogenic.  Not to mention they lack the ethics enough to say that their memberships MAY OR MAY NOT AGREE.

BTW, are all these scientists liars and or not part of this 99% who support AGW?  If so how many scientists are out there?

Anti-Global Warming Scientist Petition


----------



## saveliberty (Jan 6, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Every Scientific Society in the world, every National Academy of Science, and every major Univesity in the world all state that global warming is happening, that it is anthropogenic in origin, and that it is a clear and present danger. That does represent about 99% of the scientists in the world.
> 
> While people like yourself represnt the majority of the fruitcakes in the world.




You mean those groups where only the leadership fruitcakes vote on policy that is endorsed?  I see the word about creeping into your posts.  What is the matter?  Getting a little unsure of your percentages?


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 6, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> By God, you are as stupid as Elvis, Dude, and Sinatra. Next you will be telling me that it is a worldwide conspiracy among 99% of the scientists in the world.


No.  We're just calling you a congenital liar.


----------



## mal (Jan 6, 2010)

Sinatra said:


> Britain facing one of the coldest winters in 100 years, experts predict
> 
> *Britain is bracing itself for one of the coldest winters for a century with temperatures hitting minus 16 degrees Celsius, forecasters have warned. *
> 
> ...



As U.K. shivers, hundreds of cars stuck in snow - Europe- msnbc.com

And More...



peace...


----------



## Sinatra (Jan 6, 2010)

And yet more...

*Army rescues 1,000 drivers stranded in cars for 12 HOURS as UK is paralysed by heavy snow (with more on its way)*


At the mercy of the deep freeze: Schools shut, firms hit... now another 6 inches of snow | Mail Online


----------



## Sinatra (Jan 6, 2010)

And Still More...


*Longest Stretch of Cold Weather in 15 to 25 Years Possible This Week

&#8230;Longest Stretch of Much Below Normal Temperatures in 15 to 25 Years Possible&#8230;*

_*Temperatures are expected to remain much below normal over all of south Florida this week, with the possibility of even colder temperatures this upcoming weekend. For detailed information on expected temperatures, please follow the indicated links for our textual and graphical forecasts. For freeze/wind chill watches and warnings, please check our hazards page.*_


The frigid hit parade &#8211; over 1200 new cold and snow records set in the last week in the USA, more in progress « Watts Up With That?


----------



## Sinatra (Jan 6, 2010)

*877 new snowfall records set or tied in the USA in the last week

 And that&#8217;s not all, for the week ending Dec 13th, there were 815 new snowfall records set. December 2009 is shaping up to be quite the snowmaker.*






877 new snowfall records set or tied in the USA in the last week « Watts Up With That?


----------



## saveliberty (Jan 6, 2010)

Just do me a favor.  On any day this winter that sets a new low for your area, go outdoors in shorts and a t-shirt for twenty minutes and repeat, "this is an effect of global warming" over and over out loud.  Loud enough for anyone walking by to hear you.


----------



## edthecynic (Jan 6, 2010)

Sinatra said:


> *877 new snowfall records set or tied in the USA in the last week
> 
> And thats not all, for the week ending Dec 13th, there were 815 new snowfall records set. December 2009 is shaping up to be quite the snowmaker.*





saveliberty said:


> Faked data plain and simple.  You want to believe lies go ahead.


----------



## Sinatra (Jan 6, 2010)

Sinatra said:


> And Still More...
> 
> 
> *Longest Stretch of Cold Weather in 15 to 25 Years Possible This Week
> ...



That's a lot of cold and snow records being set!


----------



## saveliberty (Jan 6, 2010)

edthecynic said:


> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> > *877 new snowfall records set or tied in the USA in the last week
> ...



This is what we call raw data Ed.  By the time climatologists get through with it, the temp. will be 34 degrees.  Amazing considering it snowed and all.


----------



## edthecynic (Jan 6, 2010)

saveliberty said:


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


You may dishonestly call it "raw" data, but honest people would call it CHERRY PICKED data.

Two years, three record heat waves in southeastern Australia « BraveNewClimate


----------



## saveliberty (Jan 6, 2010)

Ed, your mixing temp data with snowfall data.  I would expect that type of activity in a global cooling trend.  Things tend to be in extremes during such a period.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jan 6, 2010)

I could be wrong, but it does seem that most qualified scientists hanging on to the AGW religionist doctrine are those who are dependent on that doctrine for their funding.  And it seems that very few, if any, qualified scientists who are not dependent on AGW for their funding are jumping on that band wagon.

Going with the scientific theory that the Earth/universe is somewhere between four and five billion years old, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that we have been keeping weather/climate records for a period of time almost too small to measure within that incredibly long time span.  That is probably why there is record cold and record heat reported somewhere in the USA as well as elsewhere in the world every single year.  Such records cannot be proved to be records except for the very brief period that we have been keeping such records.

Also most credible scientists acknowledge that there have been dramatic spikes in global heat and global cooling from time to time both as recorded and as determined from the fossil records, but there has been an overall warming trend that has been occurring since the last ice age and will continue until we start the normal cycle into the next one.

All credible scientists agree that warm periods are much better for humankind and most wildlife than are cool periods.   It is uncertain whether CO2 creates the warming periods or if there is increased CO2 because of the warming periods.  There are accounts of much cooler periods where the CO2 was much higher than it is right now.  There is a great deal of disagreement whether human generated CO2 has much effect on the overall climate at all, and even more disagreement whether we should be trying to do anything about it even if it is.  If we are slowing the time to the next ice age, that would be a very good thing for us.

For me the bottom line is that I am as dependent as the rest of you on what I read and hear re global warming and I don't know whether humankind can significantly affect global climate.  I think the preponderance of the evidence so far is that it cannot, but I do try to keep an open mind.

That open mind does not include rolling over and accepting without question a consensus from politicians who want to take greater control over our lives and assets or from scientists who are dependent on human created global warming for their funding.

If I am going to willingly give up my freedom, choices, options, opportunities for AGW, I want to know that it is based on credible solid science and not some junk science being manipulated for less than noble reasons.  And I will need solid evidence that the AGW theories are correct before I will agree to dooming millions of the world's poorest to more generations of crushing poverty all in the name of an AGW religion.


----------



## edthecynic (Jan 6, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> Ed, your mixing temp data with snowfall data.  I would expect that type of activity in a global cooling trend.  Things tend to be in extremes during such a period.


No, it is you who is trying to equate record snowfall with record cold. You don't have to have record cold to get snow. Record snowfall in winter only equates to the moisture in the air.

Despite record drought, Australian farmers refuse to buy into climate change - washingtonpost.com

Australians are on the front lines in experiencing the life-altering consequences of climate change, which is the subject of global scrutiny this week at the international climate summit in Copenhagen. Brush fires killed 173 people earlier this year during the most severe heat wave in the history of southeast Australia. Rising temperatures and declining rainfall are, with increasing frequency, transforming the Outback into a crematorium for kangaroos, livestock and farm towns.


----------



## saveliberty (Jan 6, 2010)

edthecynic said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Ed, your mixing temp data with snowfall data.  I would expect that type of activity in a global cooling trend.  Things tend to be in extremes during such a period.
> ...



Actually it does equate just fine, if the snow fall is in the southern half of the map.


----------



## saveliberty (Jan 6, 2010)

NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - NOAA: Summer Temperature Below Average for U.S.

NOAA: Summer Temperature Below Average for U.S.
September 10, 2009

The average June-August 2009 summer temperature for the contiguous United States was below average &#8211; the 34th coolest on record, according to a preliminary analysis by NOAA&#8217;s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. August was also below the long-term average. The analysis is based on records dating back to 1895


----------



## Foxfyre (Jan 6, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - NOAA: Summer Temperature Below Average for U.S.
> 
> NOAA: Summer Temperature Below Average for U.S.
> September 10, 2009
> ...



The big picture view continues to be enlightening:



> D.C. resident John Lockwood was conducting research at the Library of Congress and came across an intriguing Page 2 headline in the Nov. 2, 1922 edition of The Washington Post: "Arctic Ocean Getting Warm; Seals Vanish and Icebergs Melt."
> The 1922 article, obtained by Inside the Beltway, goes on to mention "great masses of ice have now been replaced by moraines of earth and stones," and "at many points well-known glaciers have entirely disappeared."
> 
> "This was one of several such articles I have found at the Library of Congress for the 1920s and 1930s," says Mr. Lockwood. "I had read of the just-released NASA estimates, that four of the 10 hottest years in the U.S. were actually in the 1930s, with 1934 the hottest of all."
> Inside the Beltway - Washington Times



I hunted up the above source after receiving an unsourced e-mail today that reports part of that 1922 article as this:



> The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in
> some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a
> report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consul Ifft, at
> Bergen , Norway . Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers
> ...


----------



## edthecynic (Jan 6, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - NOAA: Summer Temperature Below Average for U.S.
> 
> NOAA: Summer Temperature Below Average for U.S.
> September 10, 2009
> ...


Again, cherry picking the USA, one of the very few cool spots on the globe this summer.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jan 6, 2010)

edthecynic said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - NOAA: Summer Temperature Below Average for U.S.
> ...



What's your opinion that at least some scientists were predicting in 1922 what they are predicting now?


----------



## saveliberty (Jan 6, 2010)

edthecynic said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - NOAA: Summer Temperature Below Average for U.S.
> ...



North America and most of the Antarcia regions, where 80% of the ice cap was growing.


----------



## Sinatra (Jan 6, 2010)

*You chart states a "1971 - 2000" base period.

Now satellite data has only been available since about 1979.


Hmmm...perhaps this base period is based upon highly selective temp. data?


....hide the decline!!!!!  *



edthecynic said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - NOAA: Summer Temperature Below Average for U.S.
> ...


----------



## saveliberty (Jan 6, 2010)

Sinatra said:


> *You chart states a "1971 - 2000" base period.
> 
> Now satellite data has only been available since about 1979.
> 
> ...



Another interesting thing about the map is NO DATA for Antarctia or Arctic regions.  This is satellite based correct?  Why the missing data?


----------



## The T (Jan 6, 2010)

Indeed. Here in Florida...a good portion of the State has been waking up to temps in the low-mid 20's, and not making it much above 40 during the day.


----------



## Sinatra (Jan 6, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> > *You chart states a "1971 - 2000" base period.
> ...




Not sure how they came up with this "map" as satellite data was not available prior to 1979.

What it is more likey was a hastily put together graphic with a pre-determined outcome that is then released en masse to the press to further push the flat-earth warmer agenda.  Much like the "2009 to be among warmest years ever" press release where "scientists" "projected" that 2009 was gonna be a real warm year and this release came right before the start of Copenhagen.

Of course Copenhagen bombed due in part to the very cold temps that surrounded the conference and the publics' increasing willingness after climategate to call bullshit to the whole crackpotter theory.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 6, 2010)

edthecynic said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Ed, your mixing temp data with snowfall data.  I would expect that type of activity in a global cooling trend.  Things tend to be in extremes during such a period.
> ...


Still can't prove it's man's fault.  Particularly since droughts happened and heat waves and cold snaps before man was even here and far worse.

So quit screaming the sky is falling, and let go of the green swastika,  Global enviro-fascism will not save you.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 6, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> > *You chart states a "1971 - 2000" base period.
> ...


It was thrown out because it doesn't comply with the predetermined conclusion.


----------



## Sinatra (Jan 6, 2010)




----------



## Maple (Jan 6, 2010)

Sinatra said:


> Britain facing one of the coldest winters in 100 years, experts predict
> 
> *Britain is bracing itself for one of the coldest winters for a century with temperatures hitting minus 16 degrees Celsius, forecasters have warned. *
> 
> ...



No kidding, what happened to all that global warming that Al Gore promised us.? I am freezing my ass off.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 6, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> > *You chart states a "1971 - 2000" base period.
> ...



What? You mean to tell me that Siberia and Alaska and the northern tier of Canadian Provinces are not in the Artic? Possibly you incapable of reading a simple map?


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 6, 2010)

Sinatra said:


>



It is winter time in North America. Amazing that it is cold, correct?


----------



## saveliberty (Jan 6, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


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



No, but you are.  Note the complete lack of satellite data for Antarctia and the northern parts of the Arctic.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 6, 2010)

Maple said:


> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> > Britain facing one of the coldest winters in 100 years, experts predict
> ...



Stupid people fail to plan for winter. Al Gore never stated, nor have any scientists that winter would cease as we warm.

In fact, one of the major predictions of global warming is wider and wilder swings in the weather, with an overall warming trend. That is exactly what we are seeing.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 6, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...



*I note that you are an ignorant fuck. *

Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis

January 5, 2010
Extreme negative phase of the Arctic Oscillation yields a warm Arctic

Arctic sea ice extent at end of December 2009 remained below normal, primarily in the Atlantic sector of the Arctic. Average air temperatures over the Arctic Ocean were much higher than normal for the month, reflecting unusual atmospheric conditions. Finally, we provide a review of 2009 Arctic sea ice conditions.

Figure 1. Arctic sea ice extent for December 2009 was 12.48 million square kilometers (4.82 million square miles). The magenta line shows the 1979 to 2000 median extent for that month. The black cross indicates the geographic North Pole. Sea Ice Index data. About the data. 
Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center

High-resolution image Overview of conditions 

Arctic sea ice extent averaged over December 2009 was 12.48 million square kilometers (4.82 million square miles). This was 920,000 square kilometers (350,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average for December, but 210,000 square kilometers (81,000 square miles) above the record low for the month, which occurred in December 2006. Ice extent was less than normal over much of the Atlantic sector of the Arctic, including the Barents Sea, part of the East Greenland Sea, and in Davis Strait. 

*This data is from satelites.*


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 6, 2010)

Figure 3. Monthly December ice extent for 1979 to 2009 shows a decline of 3.3% per decade. 
&#8212;Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center

http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20100105_Figure3.png


----------



## edthecynic (Jan 6, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


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


It's there al right, but you two are toooooooo blind to see it. Those areas are white to signify that they have no anomalous deviation from the 30 year average.

Below is another chart from the spring. If you notice in the first chart there is an area in central Africa with no dots also indicating no deviation, but there are dots in the other chart in most of the same area.


----------



## OregonStream (Jan 6, 2010)

I thought global warming and other aspects of _climate_ change were about long-term trends in the _annual_ averages compared to a multi-decadal base period, like this:
tamino.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/smooth.jpg

That is, not just a few months or a few selected regions. Apparently, that trend also wouldn't preclude some fluctuation from things like variability in ocean-atmosphere heat exchange. Seems that those arguing against a trend, or _for_ "global cooling", cherry-pick individual years for comparison (when climate isn't just about individual years), or regional events (which can also be related to movement of heat within the climate system, rather than Earth's "energy budget"). And once temperatures dip below freezing, does "heavy" snowfall necessarily mean exceptionally low temperature, or is moisture availability the main factor?


----------



## Sinatra (Jan 7, 2010)

+



Sinatra said:


>


----------



## Sinatra (Jan 7, 2010)

+



Sinatra said:


> Britain facing one of the coldest winters in 100 years, experts predict
> 
> *Britain is bracing itself for one of the coldest winters for a century with temperatures hitting minus 16 degrees Celsius, forecasters have warned. *
> 
> ...


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 7, 2010)

OregonStream said:


> I thought global warming and other aspects of _climate_ change were about long-term trends in the _annual_ averages compared to a multi-decadal base period, like this:
> tamino.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/smooth.jpg
> 
> That is, not just a few months or a few selected regions. Apparently, that trend also wouldn't preclude some fluctuation from things like variability in ocean-atmosphere heat exchange. Seems that those arguing against a trend, or _for_ "global cooling", cherry-pick individual years for comparison (when climate isn't just about individual years), or regional events (which can also be related to movement of heat within the climate system, rather than Earth's "energy budget"). And once temperatures dip below freezing, does "heavy" snowfall necessarily mean exceptionally low temperature, or is moisture availability the main factor?



And yet your buddies can not grasp the concept that if the average temperature has risen over a 1/3 of a degree and stayed that way since 1998 that the temperatures for 2000 through 2010 would all be higher then the previous years. So maybe you can explain to your brain dead buddies that telling us the last 10 years have been warmer then any other 10 years means nothing since, obviously , the temperature is 1/3 of a degree higher.


----------



## L.K.Eder (Jan 7, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


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



next you will tell the board that it was dark at night, too. what is up with that?


----------



## OregonStream (Jan 7, 2010)

RetiredGySgt said:


> And yet your buddies can not grasp the concept that if the average temperature has risen over a 1/3 of a degree and stayed that way since 1998 that the temperatures for 2000 through 2010 would all be higher then the previous years...


Well, if you'll bear with my leanings toward the "brain-dead" positions of NOAA, NCAR, MIT's Global Change Program, and the world's scientific academies:  Why? Who ever said atmospheric temperature would rise continuously, un-modulated by things like the 11 year solar cycle and ocean heat exchange cycles (at least two of which have been in their cool phases)? 

1998 was biased to the upside by a strong el niño (yet barely holds the record, and only in the CRU surface dataset that excludes representation of much of the Arctic). Hence the problem with using a single year as a basis for comparison: The still-young atmospheric trend (think thermal inertia) is mixed with short-term variability that has little to do with Earth's radiative state. But last I read from the WMO and NOAA, the decade of 2000-2009 is the warmest on record (global average, with North America experiencing a relatively coolish period).


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 7, 2010)

OregonStream said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > And yet your buddies can not grasp the concept that if the average temperature has risen over a 1/3 of a degree and stayed that way since 1998 that the temperatures for 2000 through 2010 would all be higher then the previous years...
> ...



It is warmest you dumb as a rock fuck because the average temperature rose over a 1/3 of a degree from 1980 to 1998. Since then there as been little if any raise in global temperature. BUT since 1998 was end year anything after it would be with the higher average temperature. OF course 2000 to 2009 is warmer, a 5 year old could grasp the math on this one.


----------



## saveliberty (Jan 7, 2010)

OregonStream said:


> I thought global warming and other aspects of _climate_ change were about long-term trends in the _annual_ averages compared to a multi-decadal base period, like this:
> tamino.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/smooth.jpg
> 
> That is, not just a few months or a few selected regions. Apparently, that trend also wouldn't preclude some fluctuation from things like variability in ocean-atmosphere heat exchange. Seems that those arguing against a trend, or _for_ "global cooling", cherry-pick individual years for comparison (when climate isn't just about individual years), or regional events (which can also be related to movement of heat within the climate system, rather than Earth's "energy budget"). And once temperatures dip below freezing, does "heavy" snowfall necessarily mean exceptionally low temperature, or is moisture availability the main factor?



Actually, a trend of any type only has meaning if the data is accurate.  Since the climatologists have artificially inflated the data to meet their needs, the results you see have no meaning.  I find it very interesting that reports of warming in the media occur all the time, yet the cooling trend in the US was for the most part not reported.  This is a political crisis, not a climate one.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 7, 2010)

RetiredGySgt said:


> OregonStream said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



Now Sarge. You are once again proving your lack of intelligance. 

Of course the last decade is the warmest on record because in spite of having a strong and persistant La Nina, and a long solar minimum, the AGW has built enough inertia to completely override those forcings.

A five year old can grasp that, you seem incapable of doing so.

And in the next five years, unless we have a Pinotubo or better volcanic eruption, I think we will see one or even two years exceed 1998.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 7, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> OregonStream said:
> 
> 
> > I thought global warming and other aspects of _climate_ change were about long-term trends in the _annual_ averages compared to a multi-decadal base period, like this:
> ...



As usual, you are totally full of shit. 

What you are stating is that the ESA, NASA, NOAA, and all the nations that have weather monitoring stations are in on a conspiracy to lie about the weather


----------



## saveliberty (Jan 7, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > OregonStream said:
> ...



No that is not what I am saying at all.  We have already determined the climatologists have commited a conspriacy by changing the data.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jan 7, 2010)

OregonStream said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > And yet your buddies can not grasp the concept that if the average temperature has risen over a 1/3 of a degree and stayed that way since 1998 that the temperatures for 2000 through 2010 would all be higher then the previous years...
> ...



But even setting aside the fact that we have been keeping records for a very short time in the grand scheme of things, and even suggesting that urbanization of many of the areas where weather monitoring equipment is located has not made a significant difference, there still remains the opinion of many credible scientists that weather anomalies occur, reoccur, are not unusual etc. and that human activity has had negligible effect on what would happen anyway.

Humans can and do affect their immediate environment in positive ways and negative ways, but I don't think there is any conclusive evidence that humans have had much, if any, effect on overall global climate.

Rather than give in to political plots to take more and more control of the world's population and move us closer to a one-world government that may or may not value life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, why not keep studying global climate trends toward an end of learning the truth, not what will enrich certain opportunistic small groups?   And what will not empower people who may or may not have our best interests at heart?

And why not focus our attention on how to better help populations prepare for and adapt to inevitable climate change and utilize it to their best advantage?


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 7, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> OregonStream said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



First, we are going to have to deal with some pretty rapid and extreme changes in weather. We do need to plan to adapt to that.

Second, we do know that the GHGs that we have created are the basis of the present rapidly rising temperatures. Here is a site from the American Institute of Physics outlining the knowledge we have developed concerning GHGs from Fourier in the 1820s to the present;

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Third, what makes you think that we are not intensively studying the climate at present? If you go to this site, you can get the lectures from the American Geophysical Union that tell you of many of the finding from that communty of scientists.

2009 AGU Fall Meeting: Featured Lectures


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 7, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > OregonStream said:
> ...



And yet you can not explain how as CO2 continued to rise from 1998 to present temperatures did not. Nor can you explain why historically CO2 does not precede temperature increases.


----------



## Sinatra (Jan 7, 2010)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...


----------



## Foxfyre (Jan 7, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > OregonStream said:
> ...



I think we are studying climate at present and should and will continue to do so.  I am also convinced that some are desperately looking for clues, however skimpy, that there is anthropogenic global warming so that they can justify their grant monies and some have already admitted that they have skewed the data so as not to cast doubt on the AGW doctrine.

I think others are seriously studying climate to find out the real deal and have no interest in manipulating the outcome of their study.

Even the IPCC report, prepared by scientists, is far less conclusive re AGW than is the "Summary for Policymakers" that is used by those who are making policy based on the data.  The 'Summary' however is not prepared by scientists but is written by politicians, lobbyists, and others who have a vested interest in perpetuating the AGW doctrine.

I think nobody should come to any conclusion on this without considering ALL the data and scientific opinion out there.  Those who depend on religionists to tell them what to think about it are not going to get the whole picture.

For instance, the Independent Summary for Policy Makers arrives at quite different conclusions that the "Summary for Policy Makers" that world leaders favorable to AGW theories are using to guide them.  Why not include the Independent Summary in the mix?  Because it doesn't provide confidence that the proposed power grabs and control of the people is necessary to combat global warming.

For the life of me, I can't understand why some are so gung ho to give up their freedoms, choices, options, and opportunities to authorities who may be basing their justification on what very well may turn out to be pure junk science.


----------



## saveliberty (Jan 7, 2010)

I agree Foxfyre.  Unfortunately, the global warmers will not even consider a review.  Getting them to an open study by independent sources would be a real reach.  My conclusion is, this whole subject cannot be about climate.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 7, 2010)

Are you kidding? A review of what? 

Are you saying that the data from all the nations have been faked? Most of it is already on sources open to the public.

Do you honestly think it is not getting warmer? 

Independent study? We have studies by climatologists worldwide. We have studies and observations by geophycists and geologists worldwide. We have satellite observations from the ESA, NASA, Russia, China and Japan. You are claiming all of these people are in a conspiracy?

And what of the evidence that is straight observational? Such as almost all of the alpine glaciers in recession. The icecaps both in Greenland and Antarctica melting at the rate of giga-tons a year? The ocean rise level right at the upper boundry of the IPCC predictions. The reduction of the North Polar Ice right off of the chart in it's decline.


----------



## saveliberty (Jan 7, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Are you kidding? A review of what?
> 
> Are you saying that the data from all the nations have been faked? Most of it is already on sources open to the public.
> 
> ...



Get off your global warmer talking points oldrocks.  I have posted data showing Antarctia has a net growing ice cap this year several times.  The ocean should be about six inches higher than normal.  Nowhere near that.  You talk about raw data, but the scientists take that and manipulate it.  For the umpteenth time, climatologists have given us false results, because they benefit from continued funding.  Politicans support them, because they gain power.  If you are that concerned, crank up your ice maker and mail them north.


----------



## OregonStream (Jan 7, 2010)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...


----------



## Sinatra (Jan 7, 2010)

OregonStream said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


----------



## OregonStream (Jan 7, 2010)

Sinatra said:


> OregonStream said:
> 
> 
> > Sinatra seems to agree with you on this. But again, 1998 was an _exceptionally_ warm year (according to CRU) that _combined_ the anthropogenic influence with the strongest el niño of the century. So how is it legit to pick that as a starting point when we're supposed to be talking about climatic averages? *It's like me picking the coldest la niña-biased year on record to assert incredibly rapid warming.*
> ...


Is it? Did you see the graph I posted before? That's a trend based on a multi-decadal baseline average. I'd love to see any official graphic that uses a single cold year (or even several) as a baseline.



> The late 1800s saw the earth just starting to come out of a "Mini Ice Age"


I've yet to see any study successfully assert that the LIA was a globally-synchronous event with a large impact on the global averages. There were some strong regional effects, yes, and along with those some anecdotal half-truths about the Thames in England etc. It is interesting, though, how some people diss the surface temperature and proxy records, but then try to use them for highlighting cool periods.



> The late 1970s again saw the earth coming out of a colder period.
> 
> And yet, BOTH those time periods are utilized by the flat earth warmers as starting points to show "warming".
> 
> ...


Well, you can keep telling yourself that, but there's plenty of out-of-context nonsense out there regarding temperature records and the "climategate" emails. And despite it all, nobody has successfully presented evidence in the scientific literature of a natural cycle, or that the observed trends (also supported by physical changes in the environment) don't exist. And the 1970's were moderately cool on a global scale, with the help of high sulfate loads, but where is that used scientifically as a basis for claiming a warming trend? Even satellite records seem to begin after that cool period.


----------



## Sinatra (Jan 7, 2010)

OregonStream said:


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


----------



## saveliberty (Jan 7, 2010)

Sinatra said:


> See:  Ice Age
> 
> 
> As for the satellite data, is BEGINS, when we were coming out of a cooling period - thus we SHOULD BE warming as part of a natural warming and cooling cycle.
> ...



Simmer is setting two on my stove, if that helps.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jan 7, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> I agree Foxfyre.  Unfortunately, the global warmers will not even consider a review.  Getting them to an open study by independent sources would be a real reach.  My conclusion is, this whole subject cannot be about climate.



Your conclusion I think is absolutely correct.

If the subject was climate change, there wouldn't be any talk of cap and trade which any idiot knows will not do anything to curb greenhouse gas emissions but will redistribute wealth in a major way. 

If the subject was climate change, the proponents would have long ago condemned the hypocrisy of 'rock stars' like Al Gore or James Hansen or practically any of the scientists who arrogantly talk the talk but do not personally walk the walk and who rake in millions of personal dollars by promoting the propaganda.

f the subject was climate change, the participants would be doing their conferences on line and not jetting all over the world while conspiring ways to restrict the people's freedom, power, options, and opportunities while increasing their own power and ability to control the people.

Whether or not the Earth is significantly warming or whether or not humankind has anything to do about it, I am quite convinced that most of those demanding militant and sometimes draconian controls and restrictions are far more concerned about their own power, prestige, and personal wealth than they are concerned about climate change.

Of course I feel the same way about most in the U.S. Congress these days too.

Maybe I just need more convincing than the average bear before I willingly give up my freedoms, opportunities, choices, and options.


----------



## OregonStream (Jan 7, 2010)

Sinatra said:


> See:  Ice Age


You know what I'm talking about: A natural cycle that can account for the trend of recent decades. Glacial cycles begin and end with subtle changes in Northern hemisphere insolation over thousands of years.



> As for the satellite data, is BEGINS, when we were coming out of a cooling period - thus we SHOULD BE warming as part of a natural warming and cooling cycle.


Actually, I think it begins in a year that had a slightly positive global-scale anomaly. Even if it included all of the 1970's (as the surface records do), that would have modest effect on a multi-decadal baseline. 



> Please show me the scientific consensus study regarding what earth's optimal temperature is.
> 
> Thank you!


That might depend on your perspective. Earth's prehistoric hot periods were certainly fine for big lizards and some tiny mammals. But the issue is more about rate of change than optimal temperature. Today's ecology and populous civilizations have arisen during a relatively stable and mild interglacial period. A couple degrees in a century (global average) may not be a widespread disaster, and may even have some regional benefit. We seem to be plotting a course for much more than that. Atmospheric temperatures will keep rising on average for decades after fossil CO2 emissions are cut, just from thermal inertia. That's even assuming we don't reach the point of inducing strong long-term feedback.

And I wonder what the deny & delay camp thinks might happen if they're wrong, and we start seeing a significant acceleration of climate change. Do they not think the masses will be more inclined to accept more regulation? Seems to me that delay could enhance the degree to which government gets involved in matters of energy consumption. We'll be playing catch-up rather than trying to transition to greater efficiency and renewables.


----------



## Sinatra (Jan 7, 2010)

_That might depend on your perspective. Earth's prehistoric hot periods were certainly fine for big lizards and some tiny mammals. But the issue is more about rate of change than optimal temperature. Today's ecology and populous civilizations have arisen during a relatively stable and mild interglacial period. A couple degrees in a century (global average) may not be a widespread disaster, and may even have some regional benefit. We seem to be plotting a course for much more than that. Atmospheric temperatures will keep rising on average for decades after fossil CO2 emissions are cut, just from thermal inertia. That's even assuming we don't reach the point of inducing strong long-term feedback_.[/QUOTE]

_____

*See- you make huge assumptions based upon near-complete projection.

Those are the shifting sands upon which the flat-earth man-made global warming industry is based upon.

So now that we have cleared up you highly speculative perspective on the subject (which failed to answer the question as to what earth's optimal temperature is)

now proceed to tell us how a Carbon Credit program will actually reduce CO2 emissions?


Thank you!!!*


----------



## edthecynic (Jan 7, 2010)

Sinatra said:


> The late 1970s again saw the earth *coming out of a colder period.*
> 
> And yet, BOTH those time periods are utilized by the flat earth warmers as starting points to show "warming".
> 
> ...


No, the Earth is warming then leveling off not cooling, and then warming again.


----------



## OregonStream (Jan 7, 2010)

Sinatra said:


> _See- you make huge assumptions based upon near-complete projection.
> 
> Those are the shifting sands upon which the flat-earth man-made global warming industry is based upon.
> 
> ...



Sorry I didn't provide the simple answer you were looking for, but it's a straw man argument. Most of the discourse at this point isn't about an "optimal temperature" (although it still seems that the optimal _range_ is the one that civilization has prospered in). The primary consideration now is the effect of accelerated change on things like perennial watersheds, established patterns of agriculture, severe weather, rates of ice sheet decay, and the ecosystems that benefit hundreds of millions of people. 

As for cap & trade/cap & dividend, I doubt any system would be perfect. But the idea is to set a declining cap on emissions (as was done with sulfur dioxide) and _phase_ fossil carbon prices upward (reflecting by-product mitigation costs), while incentivizing efficiency and alternative energy. That would mean no longer using the atmosphere as a free carbon sewer, and applying revenues to implementing improved technologies (several of which will save money). It's not like it would be cold-turkey.


----------



## Sinatra (Jan 7, 2010)

OregonStream said:


> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> > _See- you make huge assumptions based upon near-complete projection.
> ...


____

So what then is the "Optimal Range" for earth's temps?  Would it be the warmer days of the Medieval Warm Period?  The colder temps of the Mini Ice Age?  The warming days of the 1930s and 40s?  What of the colder days of the 1960s and 70s?  The warmer days culminating in 1998?  Or perhaps the rather stagnant temps experienced for the last decade?

And as for Cap n Trade, you state "doubt any system would be perfect".  That is not what I asked you - and you then danced around how it will actually reduce overall CO2 emissions.  It is far more likely the added cost will simply be passed along to consumers.

No, Cap n Trade is far from "perfect".  In fact, it could prove downright disastrous to our economy, and will most certainly be largely ignored by the emerging economies of the world.


Keep coming back though - it is good you are willing to educate yourself on the issue!


----------



## Foxfyre (Jan 7, 2010)

OregonStream said:


> That might depend on your perspective. Earth's prehistoric hot periods were certainly fine for big lizards and some tiny mammals. But the issue is more about rate of change than optimal temperature. Today's ecology and populous civilizations have arisen during a relatively stable and mild interglacial period. A couple degrees in a century (global average) may not be a widespread disaster, and may even have some regional benefit. We seem to be plotting a course for much more than that. Atmospheric temperatures will keep rising on average for decades after fossil CO2 emissions are cut, just from thermal inertia. That's even assuming we don't reach the point of inducing strong long-term feedback.



You simply don't know that.  Nobody does.  You are not looking at the several periods of global climate in which temperatures were much lower than now while CO2 levels were much higher.  You aren't looking at the evidence that there were many period of global warming in which the higher CO2 level didn't occur until decades or a century or more later.  Nobody can even make educated guesses about what has triggered massive climate change in the past, or what the future holds other than in blocks of time spanning eons.   A silly and destructive cap and trade policy to enhance the power of some and the fortunes of others really is like peeing in the ocean and then boldly announcing that every little bit helps.

Here on the high desert of New Mexico we have true desert, rich farmland, alpine zones and lush forests, bitter cold and near tropical conditions all of which were much different some thousands of years ago.  We have been lush rain forest and we were once ocean floor.  To presume that humankind is powerful enough to have altered any of that happening to me is the height of arrogance; yet, I think there are some sciientific dingbats who probably would have tried had the signs of it happening occurred in their lifetime.

Whether or not humankind has ability to affect the world climate simply by living our lives, civilization is here to stay, there will be a lot more of us and a lot more of it and our efforts will be much more productively spent in focusing on adapting to inevitable climate change instead of pretending that we can play God and control it.  I suspect if we ever get to the point where we do figure out how to control it, we'll botch it so badly that we will certainly be doomed.


----------



## mal (Jan 7, 2010)

About 30 BELOW Average again here in Denver Today...

They say we MIGHT Warm "up" to Average by Sunday...

Carry on.



peace...


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 7, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


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


And it's summer in Australia and they're experiencing heat waves and drought.  And?

It's STILL not man's fault.


----------



## saveliberty (Jan 7, 2010)

Today would have ben an excellent day to go out in your front yard and yell, this is all part of global warming.  How did your neighbors take that?  Remember twenty minutes and loud enough for passers by to hear.


----------



## keee keee (Jan 7, 2010)

Where is all this global warming. Send some to me cause I'm freezin to death and we are expecting 10-12 inches of snow.


----------



## OregonStream (Jan 8, 2010)

Sinatra said:


> So what then is the "Optimal Range" for earth's temps?  Would it be the warmer days of the Medieval Warm Period?  The colder temps of the Mini Ice Age?  The warming days of the 1930s and 40s?  What of the colder days of the 1960s and 70s?  The warmer days culminating in 1998?  Or perhaps the rather stagnant temps experienced for the last decade?...



At least the entire mid-holocene range seems to have been pretty favorable to civilization. Why risk pushing it much further, into abrupt climate change territory, in which (among other things) mountain glaciers that provide water to millions of people stop seasonally replenishing and melt away entirely? We see lots of predictions of economic doom from certain industry segments, just as we did before the clean air act. The ones I've seen ignore the long-term benefits and assume huge costs throughout the process. And I recall proposals for providing energy rebates or tax credits to consumers. The EPA estimated the average cost at around $100/year per household, while the CBO estimated around $175, without considering cost savings. Lower income folks would get an additional offset.

Although the details are still a matter of contention, the basic concept seems pretty straightforward: A cap is set for a given period and emission credits equal to that cap are allocated. Large emitters would need to stay at or below their permit amounts for a given period, or buy credits from those successfully reducing their emissions. Big emitters pay more for polluting while technology implementation is rewarded, and the cap amount is reviewed every few years. The only other method I'm aware of that can use market forces to spur a transition is the revenue-neutral carbon tax, but that's little more than a (probably modest) disincentive with no real targets.


----------



## OregonStream (Jan 8, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> You simply don't know that.  Nobody does.  You are not looking at the several periods of global climate in which temperatures were much lower than now while CO2 levels were much higher.


You mean like this:
skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past.htm
Nobody has ever said that CO2 accumulation is the only climate forcing in the history of the planet. It's just the increasingly dominant one today.



> You aren't looking at the evidence that there were many period of global warming in which the higher CO2 level didn't occur until decades or a century or more later...


Such as? If you're referring to CO2 spikes at the end of glacial periods, read back in the thread a bit. Otherwise, please educate me.

As for the rest, paleoclimatology looks at past events, both regional and global. Most global ones seem to have been much slower, while disruptive regional ones required ancient civilizations to either migrate or perish. The issue now is the speed at which we're overloading the carbon cycle, and the potential impacts on holocene ecology and much larger populations. I'd love to see any successfully reviewed study suggesting 3+ degrees C will be easy & cheap to adapt to once the ball gets rolling. And this isn't about "controlling" climate: All we're doing is pressuring the system (_it_ takes care of the rest), and all we can do with any measure of safety and economy is reduce that pressure.


----------



## Sinatra (Jan 8, 2010)

OregonStream said:


> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> > So what then is the "Optimal Range" for earth's temps?  Would it be the warmer days of the Medieval Warm Period?  The colder temps of the Mini Ice Age?  The warming days of the 1930s and 40s?  What of the colder days of the 1960s and 70s?  The warmer days culminating in 1998?  Or perhaps the rather stagnant temps experienced for the last decade?...
> ...


----------



## uscitizen (Jan 8, 2010)

Back to the OP.  I did not read all the posts in the middle.

Using an "experts predict" event to try and discredit another "experts predict" event.

Pretty funny.

We are what 3 weeks into winter?


----------



## OregonStream (Jan 8, 2010)

Sinatra said:


> What do base the concept of "pretty favorable" on given that period occurred thousands of years ago?  You best look up that information more so you can pretend to know what you are talking about!
> 
> You also know of course that the time period you cite was considerably warmer than the temperatures of today? Same for the medieval warm period - both periods of time that saw NATURAL temperature increases, followed by cooling, following by less extensive increases...etc.
> ___


I guess you mean the "mid-holocene warm period", presumably so-named before it was realized that the holocene has a lot more life left in it:
tinyurl.com/yayfo52

Unfortunately, the Naurzbaev and Vaganov reconstruction stops in the _mid_-20th century (before human influence became clear against a background of natural variability - oops), and the Esper reconstruction "was from mid to high latitude northern hemisphere sites only":
uow.edu.au/content/groups/public/@web/@arts/documents/doc/uow039118.pdf
There are multiple other proxy studies (including tree rings from other regions) suggesting that warming of recent decades is stronger (in terms of the global average) than the MWP. Even if it weren't, no proxy can disprove a growing human influence on today's climate (despite the unsurprising interpretations of "CO2science"):
skepticalscience.com/How-do-we-know-CO2-is-causing-warming.html


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 8, 2010)

Sites like CO2 Science are shit sites. Funded by groups like the Summit Power Group to manufacture doubt exactly in the same manner that the people hired by the tobacco companies cast doubt on the medical studies concerning the harm that cigarettes do to the body. In spite of the fact that cigarettes have been known for generations in accurate slang as 'coffin nails'. 

Sure, you buy into it, Sinatra. You buy into anything to avoid facing reality.


----------



## saveliberty (Jan 8, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Sites like CO2 Science are shit sites. Funded by groups like the Summit Power Group to manufacture doubt exactly in the same manner that the people hired by the tobacco companies cast doubt on the medical studies concerning the harm that cigarettes do to the body. In spite of the fact that cigarettes have been known for generations in accurate slang as 'coffin nails'.
> 
> Sure, you buy into it, Sinatra. You buy into anything to avoid facing reality.



My reality is 17 degrees with a wind chill taking it lower.  Your example isn't too far off, except the people trying to make a living from a lie are the global warmers.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 8, 2010)

It is winter. North America gets cold every winter. But it was 6 to 8 degrees warmer in central Alaska in December than normal. I think they hit -30 during that time. How many times does it hit 17 where you live?


----------



## saveliberty (Jan 8, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> It is winter. North America gets cold every winter. But it was 6 to 8 degrees warmer in central Alaska in December than normal. I think they hit -30 during that time. How many times does it hit 17 where you live?



Normal for today is 30 degrees.  Our high is suppose to be 22 degrees, but it is currently dropping, who knows?  We usually hit a stretch where it is below zero over night for a week or two.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 8, 2010)

"From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: FOIA
Date: Fri Jan 21 1506 2005
Cc: Ben Santer <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

Tom,
I'll look at what you've said over the weekend re CCSP.
I don't know the other panel members. I've not heard any
more about it since agreeing a week ago.
As for FOIA Sarah isn't technically employed by UEA and she
will likely be paid by Manchester Metropolitan University.
I wouldn't worry about the code. *If FOIA does ever get
used by anyone, there is also IPR to consider as well.
Data is covered by all the agreements we sign with people,
so I will be hiding behind them*. I'll be passing any
requests onto the person at UEA who has been given a post to
deal with them.
Cheers
Phil"

East Anglia Confirmed Emails from the Climate Research Unit - Searchable

Why would  a real scientist not comply with a FOIA request?  Why?

What is he hiding?

Oh, right, he's hiding the decline in temps!


----------



## L.K.Eder (Jan 8, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> "From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
> To: Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
> Subject: Re: FOIA
> Date: Fri Jan 21 1506 2005
> ...



and why did he write "cheers"? is phil jones a raging alcoholic?


----------



## mal (Jan 8, 2010)

A Balmy ZERO as I Left for Work this Morning...



peace...


----------



## Foxfyre (Jan 8, 2010)

In researching another issue, I ran across this:



> *A recent study from the University of Bristol (UK) by Wolfgang Knorr suggests that the airborne fraction of man-made carbon dioxide (CO2) has not increased during the past 150 years. *
> 
> Knorr reanalyzed atmospheric CO2 and emissions data since 1850 and considers uncertainties in the data, according to ScienceDaily.
> 
> ...



How do you guys read that?   If I am reading it correctly, the climate models used to promote global warming are possibly not reflecting reality?


----------



## Foxfyre (Jan 8, 2010)

OregonStream said:


> > You aren't looking at the evidence that there were many period of global warming in which the higher CO2 level didn't occur until decades or a century or more later...
> 
> 
> Such as? If you're referring to CO2 spikes at the end of glacial periods, read back in the thread a bit. Otherwise, please educate me.



Here ya go.  Not precisely a discussion of when or why CO2 increased in the atmosphere, but very close:

Climate during the Carboniferous Period

If this is accurate, and it seems to be as authoritative as most of the other stuff being posted as 'evidence', then our fearless leaders should be urging us to pump a whole bunch more CO2 into the atmosphere than we are.


----------



## Sinatra (Jan 8, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> OregonStream said:
> 
> 
> > > You aren't looking at the evidence that there were many period of global warming in which the higher CO2 level didn't occur until decades or a century or more later...
> ...




There are credible scientists who believe just that - the earth would benefit from MORE CO2 in the atmosphere, not less.

Not a lot of money for the GO GREEN INDUSTRY in that though...


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 8, 2010)

L.K.Eder said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > "From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
> ...



Are you absofuckinglutely sure you want to delve further into Phil Jones attitude to FOIA?


----------



## L.K.Eder (Jan 8, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



it think it is outrageous that a raging alcoholic is trying to dictate how i waste my energy. 

but i have to stay another 15 minutes, my SUV is not warm enough yet. and the ice is not yet gone from the windshield.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 8, 2010)

Sinatra said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > OregonStream said:
> ...


It means control is slipping, and science, not dogma is happening on the subject again.

4 years.  That's my prediction. 2014

In 4 years "Green" will be the next "Disco".


----------



## Sinatra (Jan 8, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


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



God I hope so...


----------



## saveliberty (Jan 8, 2010)

Sinatra said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > Sinatra said:
> ...



There's always fallout from this type of crap.  Save a tree, use plastic bags.  Now we are up to our eyeballs in plastic bags.  How bad are they?  Even China is limiting their use.  Oh, but they're recycleable.  Yeah?  So are paper bags.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jan 8, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...



Here my friend, while you and I are generally on the same page and mostly share a common sense ideology, I'll have to gently quarrel with you just a tad on this one.

While trees absorb tremendous amounts of CO2 and are a 100% renewable resource, using plastic instead of paper bags is a no brainer.  Foregoing plastic bags is just one of those urban myths perpetuated by environmental religionists.

Using plastic bags is more economical and efficient than paper bags and we should not feel the least bit guilty when we ask for plastic.  For certain we should not be trying to shut down one of the few profitable manufacturing industries we have left.

We should however be recycling when it makes sense to do so, and recycling plastic bags does make sense.  We should be encouraging our local markets to use recyclable plastic.




> *RECYCLABLE PLASTIC BAGS*
> 
> Plastic grocery bags are an extremely resource-efficient disposable bag choice.
> &#8226;
> ...


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 8, 2010)

Hmmm......   Let's see. Winter officially began on December 21, 2009. It is not yet January 21, 2010. With only about a sixth of the winter gone, you are declaring it the coldest in 100 years?


----------



## Foxfyre (Jan 8, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Hmmm......   Let's see. Winter officially began on December 21, 2009. It is not yet January 21, 2010. With only about a sixth of the winter gone, you are declaring it the coldest in 100 years?



Yes, a major heat wave could strike next week and moderate all those record cold temperatures.  But I just had a conversation with a friend in South Dakota where it was minus 20 something degrees when they got up this morning with blizzard conditions and something like minus 50 windchill.  Even for up there, I believe that is unprecedented, and forecasters are seeing no immediate serious relief in sight.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 8, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Hmmm......   Let's see. Winter officially began on December 21, 2009. It is not yet January 21, 2010. With only about a sixth of the winter gone, you are declaring it the coldest in 100 years?
> ...



Hardly unprecedented. -58 is the record for South Dakota. And Blue Northers are a priarie legend for both North and South Dakota.

UNITED STATES EXTREME RECORD TEMPERATURES & RANGES


----------



## Foxfyre (Jan 8, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Well you could be right, but she is pretty sure it is several degrees below the previous record for where she is.  Your map doesn't specify where the readings were taken.  We get three different weather forecasts for Albuquerque alone most days because of the sharp variance in terrain and proximity to the mountains and river basin.

At any rate, they are unable to keep water liquid in the horsetank long enough for the stock to get a drink and their pipes are frozen and they are not taking global warming real seriouslike this week.


----------



## saveliberty (Jan 8, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


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



Thanks for sharing.  I liked the ones in bold especially.  Though making more CO2 emissions with paper is tempting.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 8, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



I grew up in mountain country in Oregon. -54 the record there. Have personally seen it freeze mercury. And worked in -30 degrees. Yes, the mountain country has very variable weather. However, only a small portion of South Dakota is Mountain country. And that is the Black Hills. The kind of cold that you are posting just was not uncommon half a century ago. And very common in the 1880s.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 8, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Hmmm......   Let's see. Winter officially began on December 21, 2009. It is not yet January 21, 2010. With only about a sixth of the winter gone, you are declaring it the coldest in 100 years?
> ...


It's not unprecedented for January.  It just sucks.  Every January, as sure as shit flies out of a greenie's mouth, you get a cold snap, and some REALLY horribly cold weather.  I remember the winters of 1993 through 1996.  January in Wisconsin had a MINIMUM of one week where the high did not break 0 degrees.  In 1996, we had a January where we spent about 20 days at -10 or colder for a high!  The air felt so cold it felt like water.  THAT was a crappy January.

But you know what?  In spite of all this, nobody, and I mean NOBODY said it was because mankind was screwing up the climate.  We blamed things like La Nina, Mount Pinatubo and just really crappy luck to draw the short straw from nature that year.

Cycles of weather happen, this we agree.

Where we sane people and Ole' Crocks part company is believing that man is powerful enough to do this... which he is patently not.

I wonder if Crocks and Co. has any solution to this 'threat' to all life that doesn't involve massive global government control?  I doubt it, but it would be very interesting to hear what non-governmental, non-coersive methods he has to deal with this issue.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jan 9, 2010)

Headed for my warm bed as the temperature drops like a stone here tonight. But I wanted to leave you guys with a beautiful poem received in my email to day.

THOUGHTS ON A WINTER DAY

by Evelyn Anderson Gunthorpe






Shit it's cold!

The end.


----------



## Sinatra (Jan 9, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> Headed for my warm bed as the temperature drops like a stone here tonight. But I wanted to leave you guys with a beautiful poem received in my email to day.
> 
> THOUGHTS ON A WINTER DAY
> 
> ...


----------



## sboyle24 (Jan 9, 2010)

It's not even cold on the west coast right now. In fact, this would be a relatively warm winter.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 9, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



*At this point, I doubt that anything we do will change what is down the road. And, since most governments, ours included, is far more at the beck and call of the oligarchs, don't worry about it. Nothing is going to be done that will alleviate the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere until there are major amounts of people dying in the wealthy nations.*


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 9, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> Headed for my warm bed as the temperature drops like a stone here tonight. But I wanted to leave you guys with a beautiful poem received in my email to day.
> 
> THOUGHTS ON A WINTER DAY
> 
> ...



brought a tear to my eye


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 9, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Maybe the Big Yellow Thing in the Sky can counter the current cooling trend?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 9, 2010)

From Phil Jones. To: Michael Mann. Date: May 29, 2008
"Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise." 

Don't all real scientists delete emails and destroy data?


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 9, 2010)

> And, since most governments, ours included, is far more at the beck and call of the oligarchs,



Awesome!  Ole', we have a point we agree with!  Just picturing Baldrick shouting "Death to the Aristos!"



> Cycles of weather happen, this we agree.
> 
> Where we sane people and Ole' Crocks part company is believing that man is powerful enough to do this... which he is patently not.
> 
> *Blue green algea, far smaller than we completely changed the composition of the atmosphere of the Earth. All man has done is to change the per centage of GHGs so far. And, yes, that does change the climate.*



Please don't insert statements into my quotes making it look like I said them. Thank you.



> Nothing is going to be done that will alleviate the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere until there are major amounts of people dying in the wealthy nations.



And even then...  Nothing CAN be done because mankind cannot change climate.  Climate is a planetary scale event that are often symptomatic responses from SOLAR SYSTEM level events.  We can barely get into space, how are we going to change that?  

Every change we will attempt will be far worse than just adapting to the changing world.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 9, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...




Big with the emphatic post humiliating the climate k00ks!!!! Bravo sir...........how astute!!!!

Indeed..........if you take a real close look at these religious fanatic global warming mental cases, very often you find people who go out of their way to embrace hysteria because they have little meaningful sh!t going on in their lives!!! They fall all over themselves to embrace hysteria.............the more hysterical, the more they embrace it. The same people are frequently moved to this "cause" or that "cause"............and its quite simply because there is a gigantic void of anything meaningful in their world................



Hey Big.........you know when I'll take "man-made" global warming seriously? When they come up with a way to control tornado's or a way to redirect hurricanes..............and not a moment sooner. "Climate change" and "weather phenomenon" is only brought as "science" to the hopelessly duped!!

I could go out and make a "science" about throwing darts and there would be plenty enough k00ks out there to accept it without a second thought, just like there are milllions and millions of p[eople out there that would buy a bag of dog doo for $1,000 a pop if it was packaged just right!!!!!


----------



## Sinatra (Jan 9, 2010)

*Pew: Global Warming Dead Last Among Public Priorities*

Pew: Global Warming Dead Last Among Public Priorities : Framing Science


----------



## edthecynic (Jan 9, 2010)

skookerasbil said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...


Obviously, you've bought a lot of shit. 

"Why, this is nothing but a bag of SHIT!"
"But it's really GREAT shit, Mrs. Presky."
- Firesign Theater


----------



## Sinatra (Jan 9, 2010)

_*FREEZING WEATHER brought further disruption across vast swathes of northern Europe as the death toll from the unusually severe cold snap, mainly among homeless men, continued to climb.

As forecasters warned of dangerous conditions continuing today, commuters and air travellers bore the brunt of the cold, snow and ice, while demand soared for home-heating energy.

The bad weather is expected to last for another two weeks, draining European gas supplies. Britain&#8217;s national grid warned that record gas demand might exceed supply for the second time this week after a drop in supplies from Norway, as dozens of big industrial users switched to other fuels to ensure heating for households.

The deaths from the cold include 122 people in Poland, 22 in Britain, nine homeless men in Germany, and 22 people who were killed by avalanches in the Swiss Alps.

Yesterday thousands of schools closed and thousands of homes were left without electricity in Britain, while 17 rail service providers said they were hit by delays or cancellations.

A Eurostar passenger train travelling between Brussels and London was stuck in the Channel Tunnel. The train, which was carrying 236 passengers, had to be dragged from the tunnel by a rescue locomotive, leading to a suspension of services.*_


Cold snap death toll rises across Europe - The Irish Times - Fri, Jan 08, 2010


----------



## OregonStream (Jan 9, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> If this is accurate, and it seems to be as authoritative as most of the other stuff being posted as 'evidence', then our fearless leaders should be urging us to pump a whole bunch more CO2 into the atmosphere than we are.


If the geocraft piece were accurate, and assuming things would pan out that way with a different continental configuration. Of course, there's still the rate and process of moving a world of holocene ecology and 6 billion people to a new regime. I for one am not convinced that eons of carbon uptake, and the climate moderation that helped set the stage for what we see today, was a mistake in Earth's history, and something we should reverse in a geologic minute. If that were widely considered beneficial (considering both climate and ocean pH), there'd be nothing stopping fossil fuel interests from using their lobbying power to encourage such geo-engineering, using their good-for-you product.

A couple things they don't tell you in the geocraft piece, though, is that there's a large range of uncertainty about CO2 levels that far back, and that the Scotese temperatures are considered unreliable/of little resemblance to the latest compiled paleoclimate data.


----------



## Sinatra (Jan 9, 2010)

OregonStream said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > If this is accurate, and it seems to be as authoritative as most of the other stuff being posted as 'evidence', then our fearless leaders should be urging us to pump a whole bunch more CO2 into the atmosphere than we are.
> ...



All of which points to the fallacy of the man-made global warming mantra.

"We" simply do not know what earth's "optimal" temperature is, nor what its optimal CO2 level is, nor to what extent CO2 actually plays in the overall climate.

The entire premise for CO2 controlls is based upon greed, ignorance, and arrogance -- not a healthy combination in any sense...


----------



## OregonStream (Jan 9, 2010)

Sinatra said:


> All of which points to the fallacy of the man-made global warming mantra.
> 
> "We" simply do not know what earth's "optimal" temperature is, nor what its optimal CO2 level is, nor to what extent CO2 actually plays in the overall climate.
> 
> The entire premise for CO2 controlls is based upon greed, ignorance, and arrogance -- not a healthy combination in any sense...



Personally, I think that applies more to the misleading arguments against any CO2 control, bankrolled by fossil fuel interests. There's plenty of reviewed and assessed research on climate sensitivity to CO2. Nobody claims uncertainty doesn't remain (uncertainty that can cut both ways) - that's why it's often expressed as a range, but one that's been narrowed down over the decades. And we've already been over the "optimal" temperature straw man.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jan 9, 2010)

OregonStream said:


> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> > All of which points to the fallacy of the man-made global warming mantra.
> ...



A good idea is a good idea no matter where it originates.  And a bad idea is a bad idea no matter what its motive.

Based on the testimony of a high level production person, a family member in the oil business:

The fossil fuel industry, most specifically the oil companies, have profited enormously from some of the energy policy that was supposed to slow global warming, and that profit came at a cost to those of us not in the industry.  The oil companies are universally in agreement that such initiatives accomplished nothing, have most likely consumed more energy than they will ever save, and generally were all a fools' errand, but hey if the government was going to pay the oil companies to do them based on recommendation of pinhead bureaucrats, they weren't going to turn down the money.

Cap and trade, however, is another matter.  Anybody with any sense at all knows that this had nothing whatsoever to do with reducing carbon emissions or combating global warming in any other way, but what it will do is cost each and every oil company hundreds of millions of dollars each and every year, and much of that will also be passed on to the rest of us, even as we are denied freedoms, choices, opportunities, and options.

Doesn't common sense dictate to anybody that we should back off and assess every factor of this whole scheme, follow the money, assess the motives, and know the consequences before we buy into it?


----------



## saveliberty (Jan 9, 2010)

OregonStream said:


> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> > All of which points to the fallacy of the man-made global warming mantra.
> ...



I think we are approaching an optimal temperature.  With more than what we have had in melting ice caps, this moisture is now available as preciptation.  With the slight cooling of 2009 and possibly 2010, combined with more rain, we could see some great growing conditions this year.  The global warmers love to focus on the sea level rise, but a good portion of that moisture can be much needed rain too.


----------



## OregonStream (Jan 9, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> I think we are approaching an optimal temperature.  With more than what we have had in melting ice caps, this moisture is now available as preciptation.  With the slight cooling of 2009 and possibly 2010, combined with more rain, we could see some great growing conditions this year.  The global warmers love to focus on the sea level rise, but a good portion of that moisture can be much needed rain too.



Maybe you can explain that mechanism. Other than the fact that we'd have no control over where or when this extra rain would occur, most disintegrating ice and meltwater are going into the oceans. How does that increase precipitation over what would already occur in some regions due to higher temperature-driven moisture availability? Temperature is what determines how much water vapor is held in the atmosphere at any given time, regardless of how much liquid water is on the surface.

And if we are approaching what you think is optimal temperature, now would be a good time so start easing off, considering the oceans and ice sheets induce a multi-decadal lag between a forcing and the full atmospheric response. Climate change doesn't stop on a dime any more than a train does.


----------



## saveliberty (Jan 9, 2010)

OregonStream said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > I think we are approaching an optimal temperature.  With more than what we have had in melting ice caps, this moisture is now available as preciptation.  With the slight cooling of 2009 and possibly 2010, combined with more rain, we could see some great growing conditions this year.  The global warmers love to focus on the sea level rise, but a good portion of that moisture can be much needed rain too.
> ...



Does the water cycle just end when it enters the oceans?  Which holds more moisture, cold air or warm?  Think about it a little, you can figure this out.


----------



## OregonStream (Jan 9, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> OregonStream said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...


Um, yeah - I think I said that, didn't I? But unless I misunderstood, you seemed to suggest that melting ice is good because it adds extra water for precipitation. Point is, that extra water means squat when atmospheric temperature is the ultimate determinant. Even if the ice somehow stayed intact, there's already plenty of water in the oceans for a warmer atmosphere to take up. Of course, how much of it will actually condense at those higher temps and fall as gentle, convenient rain will depend on regional factors.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 9, 2010)

Sinatra said:


> OregonStream said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



But we do know that sudden climate change has proved disastrous for all of nature in the past.

And we know what is the optimum climate for our agriculture.

We know damned well what part CO2 plays in the climate. It was laid out in detail in the last AGU conferance.

A23A


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 9, 2010)

saveliberty said:


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



Do you have any idea of what melting polar caps imply? Nothing in nature happens in a vacuum. Consequences have consequences.

C24A


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 9, 2010)

I love it.  All these different MASSIVE factors all playing a part in the climate, yet mankind which cannot really even change one without a concentrated effort is thought to be able to disrupt them all.

What hubris.


----------



## OregonStream (Jan 9, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> I love it.  All these different MASSIVE factors all playing a part in the climate, yet mankind which cannot really even change one without a concentrated effort is thought to be able to disrupt them all.
> 
> What hubris.



So what "massive factors" are changing Earth's energy balance? Man may not be making a concentrated effort, but billions of people, heavily dependent on fossil fuels, are having a cumulative effect. What's hubris to me is the assumption that pumping out gigatons of fossil CO2 annually over decades will have little effect on a climate and biosphere that's apparently carbon-sensitive, in both positive and potentially negative ways.


----------



## mal (Jan 9, 2010)

Supposed to be "Average" Finally tommorow in D-Town... That's about 48.

Global Warming FINALLY Fucking Returning?...



peace...


----------



## Liability (Jan 9, 2010)

OregonStream said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > I love it.  All these different MASSIVE factors all playing a part in the climate, yet mankind which cannot really even change one without a concentrated effort is thought to be able to disrupt them all.
> ...



We don't create carbon.  We relocate it.

Might there be some possible effect of those "gigatons" of "fossil" CO2 (as opposed ot some other CO2 we are putting out there??) ??  Nobody really knows.  Lots of the AGW Faithers "believe" it firmly, "for so it is written."  But the likelihood that the virtually TRACE amounts we release into the atmosphere has the kind of effect the Faithers claim is minimal.  

Putting out "gigatons" of CO2 into the atmosphere sure sounds dramatic.  But what PERCENTAGE of the atmosphere does it amount to?  For all the years since the start of mankind's industrial revolution, taking into account the fact that the Earth reclaims a lot of the CO2 OUT OF the atmosphere, what would you tell us about how much we have "put into" the atmosphere as a percentage of ALL the gasses that constitute our atmosphere?


----------



## Sinatra (Jan 9, 2010)

OregonStream said:


> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> > All of which points to the fallacy of the man-made global warming mantra.
> ...



Yes - you pointed out a time period as "optimal" that was considerably warmer than it is today.

So, not only would you like to see it warmer, but you also gave an example of how the earth's temps have cycled from warmer to colder long before man-made CO2 was an issue.

Once again, your own arguement shows the fallacy of widespread CO2 "CAPS".

We should be utilizing our own nation's resources far more fully.  Increase domestic drilling, increase cleaner coal production, increase natural gas production and expanding its use in vehicles, increase nuclear production - all of which is technology that works NOW, and can provide many many high paying and longer-term jobs.

Continue to look into alternative energy as well, but don't cap the nation's economic capability for a theory that you yourself has proven as highly speculative and utterly bereft of historical certainty.

Well done!


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 9, 2010)

OregonStream said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > I love it.  All these different MASSIVE factors all playing a part in the climate, yet mankind which cannot really even change one without a concentrated effort is thought to be able to disrupt them all.
> ...



Significant composition of atmosphere changes
We produce less than 0.4% of all CO2 production which composes .3% of the entire atmosphere.  This is the equivalent of bonfire in a blizzard altering the temperature of the surrounding 20 miles enough to affect the storm.  Don't forget, Water Vapor is a much more significant percentage of atmosphere than CO2.  About 10 TIMES more and yet we can't figure out how to see it's influence because well.  IT PRECIPITATES COOLING THE ATMOSPHERE!  Refrigeration 101.

Sea Water Salinity changes interfering with ocean currents.
Since the polar icecaps grow and shrink at the control more of the solar output than greenhouse gases, I doubt that we can even come close to affect the 'salinity conveyor' if it even exists, which is still to be proven from what I've seen, and what I remember from my courses in Oceanography and Geology as taught pre-AGW hysteria.

Volcanic Eruptions exceed all of mankind's pollution every time.
You do realize that all it takes is 1 moderate sized volcanic eruption to equal ALL of mankind's pollution in its entire history, right?  Not just one year.  All years.  And this is supposed to alter the weather when we can't do even a fraction of a percent of a single volcanic eruption of pollution?  How many times a year does Mt. Kilhuea erupt?  and yet, huh... our weather doesn't collapse every time that happens.

Mars is experiencing similar climate changes as Earth and at the same rates.
Wow, our rovers and the Viking probe are sure polluting a lot.

Hubris.  Egotism.  Megalomania.  Delusional.

Take your pick, they're all apropos.


----------



## mal (Jan 9, 2010)

Saturday, January 9, 2010 | Savannah, GA 21° Feels Like: 15° Clear

DAMN... I'm Sure that's just a Glitch...



peace...


----------



## Liability (Jan 9, 2010)

tha malcontent said:


> Saturday, January 9, 2010 | Savannah, GA 21° Feels Like: 15° Clear
> 
> DAMN... I'm Sure that's just a Glitch...
> 
> ...



It's time for another rousing chorus of the AGW Faither's Hymn!  Old Susannah!

"The sun so hot I froze to death !!!!"


----------



## mal (Jan 9, 2010)

Liability said:


> tha malcontent said:
> 
> 
> > Saturday, January 9, 2010 | Savannah, GA 21° Feels Like: 15° Clear
> ...



ON IT!... As usual... Counselor.



peace...


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 10, 2010)

Liability said:


> tha malcontent said:
> 
> 
> > Saturday, January 9, 2010 | Savannah, GA 21° Feels Like: 15° Clear
> ...


With a banjo on your knee?  A good surgeon can remove that as an outpatient procedure.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 10, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> OregonStream said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...



*Now here is how proper posting concerning science is done.*

Volcanic Gases and Their Effects

Comparison of CO2 emissions from volcanoes vs. human activities.
Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1991). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 27 billion tonnes per year (30 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 2006) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than CO2, through 2003.]. Human activities release more than 130 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of more than 8,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 3.3 million tonnes/year)! (Gerlach et. al., 2002)

*Tell me again about the geology classes that you took in college? Did you sleep through them?*


----------



## FactFinder (Jan 10, 2010)

Global warming has been doing its trick here. In the last 2 hours the temp has rapidly escalated from 1 degree to 4 degrees. Noticed we got into the plural (degree..s). What a relief.

Despite have a pretty good wood stove my oil belcher was firing off. I hope my account is in good standing with Gore's carbon credit company. I surely don't need the carbon cops coming down on me. Now if I can find a large enough dog to waste I may generate enough credit to offset an SUV purchase.


----------



## edthecynic (Jan 10, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> Mars is experiencing similar climate changes as Earth and at the same rates.
> Wow, our rovers and the Viking probe are sure polluting a lot.
> 
> Hubris.  Egotism.  Megalomania.  Delusional.
> ...


I choose CHERRY-PICKING.

Martian climate is primarily driven by dust and albedo and there is little empirical evidence that Mars is showing long term warming.

Only 6 planets or moons out of the 100+ bodies in the solar system have been observed to be warming. On the other hand, Uranus is cooling.


----------



## CurveLight (Jan 10, 2010)

Sinatra said:


> Britain facing one of the coldest winters in 100 years, experts predict
> 
> *Britain is bracing itself for one of the coldest winters for a century with temperatures hitting minus 16 degrees Celsius, forecasters have warned. *
> 
> ...




Is this some way of claiming global warming isn't happening?  I don't know what conclusion is best but I do know it's pretty fucking stupid to cite one small part of the earth and use that to extrapolate global theories.  Stuff like this is why even if there are intelligent life forms in other galaxies that they would take one look at us and say "Wowzza!  They way to fucked up to deal with!"


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 10, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> OregonStream said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...



Warmers are religious fanatics


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 10, 2010)

edthecynic said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > Mars is experiencing similar climate changes as Earth and at the same rates.
> ...



You may be right because according to East Angelia, Earth is not experiencing any warming at present.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 10, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > OregonStream said:
> ...



So, the suv must be 18,000 years old!  how else could the Wisconsin glacier have receeded?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 10, 2010)

So what do the ice core samples tell us about water vapor as a component of the atmosphere has it never varied by even 1ppm in a billion years?

oh, right i see the problem


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 10, 2010)

oh another thing, real scientists don't destroy data or tell colleagues to purge email because they might have to be disclosed under a foia request, unless they have something to hide


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 10, 2010)

When in doubt, blame the thermometer.

Now, since you've obviously failed Posting 101, THIS is how you quote someone else, pinhead.



> Pure bullshit. We have increased the CO2 in the atmosphere from 280 ppm to 385+ ppm. That is as large of an increase as made the differance between continental glaciers and the present climate.



Still can't get past the 0.3% of 0.4% of atmospheric composition means diddlyshit can you?  Too many other producers of CO2 far exceed our production... like ohhh I dunno... THE OCEANS?!?  Ummmmm VOLCANOES?  

Also, can you explain to me why you hate plants so much?  Greenhouses jack their CO2 contents up to around 1400ppm because it's good for the plants, encouraging them to grow faster.  

So, why do you hate Gaia?  



> Yee Gods and little fishes. Meaningless talking points right out of the mouth of a wooly headed sheep. Look, dumbass, the residence time for H2O in the atmosphere is less than 10 days, that of CO2, about two centuries. Yes, water vapor is the primary greenhouse gas, and it is a feedback effect of an atmosphere warmed by CO2.
> 
> Instead trying to extrapolate climatology from a repair manual on refrigerators, how about reading some basic texts on climate?



First off, I find it funny that you worship little fishes as God.  Explains a lot. 

Second of all, I didn't realize that physics wasn't scalable to planetary levels.  You know... compression of gas, release of pressure causing temperature change.  Water vapor is more prevalent in the atmosphere by a factor of 100 and yet it's impact on the climate is largely ignored because it is too hard to predict in computer models.  They just "assume" most of it's action therefore can we REALLY take the computer models seriously?

Not to mention that CO2 is being shown by non-manipulated evidence to be the trailing indicator, not the causational of a warming climate.



> From my courses in Geology, a rapid decrease in the salinity of the arctic did shut down the thermohaline circulation during the Younger Drayas.
> 
> Will the melting of the arctic, Greenland, and the artic permafrost and yedoma, by rapid enough to affect the circulation? We do not know.



Except 15 years ago, it wasn't being taught because it was not even close to accepted science.  It wasn't till after it was popularized by causeheads in Hollywood looking for a disaster movie hook to push the bullshit in "The Day After Tomorrow".  They latched on to this spurious theory and pushed it as fact.  And one thing I have noticed about lots of environwhackos, they believe fiction quite well.  Defining characteristic it seems.

Unlike you though, I didn't attend the Algore Online Community College.  My former university didn't offer courses in Politi-Geology, and Socialist Oceanography.  



> Did you fail your geology course? USGS figures, the anthropogenic CO2 exceeds the volcanic CO2 by a factor of 130 to 150.
> 
> ...
> 
> That is simply not true. Not even nearly true.



Well, according to a Dr. of Vulcanology that is a family friend, it is quite true.  We discussed this years ago about mankind's pollution versus volcanic production.  So, no.  You're out of touch.  We still don't equal one volcanic eruption from all our history.



> OK, now you have made a whole series of fallicious statements.
> 
> Back them up with some science!



Be your own research monkey, bitch.  I've better things to do than look shit up for you that you won't believe anyway.  You've sold your soul to the greens and for what?  Thinking they'll make you someone significant when the fascists control the world?

Although I will say that calling bullshit on your crazy theories is entertaining enough to keep me coming back for now.


----------



## edthecynic (Jan 10, 2010)

crusaderfrank said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > big fitz said:
> ...


baloney!


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 10, 2010)

edthecynic said:


> crusaderfrank said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


You complain of cherry picking yet Mann, Jones and Hansen based their research off of 3 cherry picked trees in Siberia.

I refer you to the case of Pot v. Kettle


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 10, 2010)

edthecynic said:


> crusaderfrank said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


You complain of cherry picking yet Mann, Jones and Hansen based their research off of 3 cherry picked trees in Siberia.

I refer you to the case of Pot v. Kettle


----------



## Sinatra (Jan 10, 2010)

+


Sinatra said:


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


----------



## edthecynic (Jan 10, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > crusaderfrank said:
> ...


More BALONEY!


----------



## mal (Jan 10, 2010)

Uh-oh... It's going to be 58 in D-Town on Tuesday!...

algore was Right!



peace...


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 10, 2010)

My impression of Edthecynic:

:::fingers in ears::::

La La LA!  I can't hear you!  La la la!

:::eyes squeezed shut:::

You can't make me believe!  You can't make me believe!  You can't make me believe!  You can't make me believe!  You can't make me believe!  You can't make me believe!  You can't make me believe!  You can't make me believe!  You can't make me believe!  You can't make me believe!  You can't make me believe!  You can't make me believe!  You can't make me believe!  You can't make me believe!  You can't make me believe!  You can't make me believe!  You can't make me believe!  You can't make me believe!


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 10, 2010)

My impression of Edthecynic:

:::fingers in ears::::

La La LA!  I can't hear you!  La la la!

:::eyes squeezed shut:::

You can't make me believe!  You can't make me believe!  You can't make me believe!  You can't make me believe!  You can't make me believe!  You can't make me believe!  You can't make me believe!  You can't make me believe!  You can't make me believe!  You can't make me believe!  You can't make me believe!  You can't make me believe!  You can't make me believe!  You can't make me believe!  You can't make me believe!  You can't make me believe!  You can't make me believe!  You can't make me believe!


----------



## Liability (Jan 10, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> My impression of Edthecynic:
> 
> :::fingers in ears::::
> 
> ...



Edthesickdick is special.

From his park bench igloo in midtown Atlanta, someday, Edthesickdick will be worried to death that the Global Warming -- errr -- the MANMADE Global Warming is someday going to make these glorious mid-summer Southern days almost above freezing!


----------



## saveliberty (Jan 10, 2010)

edthecynic said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Need some bread with that?  Ketchup?  Maybe a little mustard?  Try to keep your lunch meat out of science discussions.


----------



## Chris (Jan 10, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> My impression of Edthecynic:
> 
> :::fingers in ears::::
> 
> ...



No, that would be you.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 11, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > crusaderfrank said:
> ...



Really? 

Yet all of the studies after Mann confirmed the essentials of his graph. Even those scientists that condemned his methods got the same results using their preferred methods.

Dr. James Hansen is simply the most respected climatologist in the world today. As much as you ideologues hate that, it will not change.

Instead, you cling to people that have never published a peer reviewed paper, and that have been shown time and again to be shameless liars, like Watt and pretend Lord Monkton.


----------



## concept (Jan 11, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Mann has been outed as a lying sack of shit. 

And Hansen is too interested in saving what's left of his fearmongering warming legacy.


----------



## saveliberty (Jan 11, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



The peer review groups are stacked with warmers.  Protecting their interests as usual, means the results are going to be negative regardless.  Having my paper reviewed by people who admitedly supress information and other views really is a waste of time.  I respect Lord Monkton way more than Hansen.


----------



## Maple (Jan 11, 2010)

Chris said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > My impression of Edthecynic:
> ...



Chris, would you please explain this little fact. Mars temperatures are changing too at the same rate as Earth. Put that intellectual brain of yours to work on this problem and explain how this could be, because I just don't beleive that there are martians who are driving around the planet, polluting mars with all that C02.

Climate change hits Mars - Times Online

From The Sunday Times April 29, 2007

Climate change hits Mars
Recommend? (26) 
Mars is being hit by rapid climate change and it is happening so fast that the red planet could lose its southern ice cap, writes Jonathan Leake. 

Scientists from Nasa say that Mars has warmed by about 0.5C since the 1970s. This is similar to the warming experienced on Earth over approximately the same period.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 11, 2010)

Chris said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > My impression of Edthecynic:
> ...


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 11, 2010)

> Yet all of the studies after Mann confirmed the essentials of his graph. Even those scientists that condemned his methods got the same results using their preferred methods.



Would this be using the deliberately corrupted model that included data in it's number set CAUSING the hockey stick?  Aka 'doing the trick'?

It's strange.  Since outed, nobody can seem to make the data 'do the trick' anymore in honest investigation after they pull out the fraudulent data.


----------



## Sinatra (Jan 11, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> > Yet all of the studies after Mann confirmed the essentials of his graph. Even those scientists that condemned his methods got the same results using their preferred methods.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Great point!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 11, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> > Yet all of the studies after Mann confirmed the essentials of his graph. Even those scientists that condemned his methods got the same results using their preferred methods.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Warmers need to be deprogrammed, you can't reason with them


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 11, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > > Yet all of the studies after Mann confirmed the essentials of his graph. Even those scientists that condemned his methods got the same results using their preferred methods.
> ...


Someone go fetch Groundskeeper Willie and a trio of Hoverbikes!


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 11, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> > Yet all of the studies after Mann confirmed the essentials of his graph. Even those scientists that condemned his methods got the same results using their preferred methods.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



*Another willfully ignorant ass.*

Novel Analysis Confirms Climate "Hockey Stick" Graph: Scientific American

The hockey stick graph has been both a linchpin and target in the climate change debate. As a plot of average Northern Hemisphere temperature from two millennia ago to the present, it stays relatively flat until the 20th century, when it rises up sharply, like the blade of an upturned hockey stick. Warming skeptics have long decried how the temperatures were inferred, but a new reconstruction of the past 600 years, using an entirely different method, finds similar results and may help remove lingering doubts.

The hockey stick came to life in 1998 thanks to the work of Michael Mann, now at Pennsylvania State University, and his colleagues (and many other climate scientists who subsequently refined the graph). Reconstructing historical temperatures is difficult: investigators must combine information from tree rings, coral drilling, pinecones, ice cores and other natural records and then convert them to temperatures at specific times and places in the past. Such proxies for temperature can be sparse or incomplete, both geographically and through time. Manns method used the overlap, where it exists, of recent proxy data and instrument data (such as from thermometers) to estimate relations between them. It calculates earlier temperatures using a mathematical extrapolation technique [see Behind the Hockey Stick, by David Appell, Insights; Scientific American, March 2005].


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 11, 2010)

Maple said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...



Why don't you explain that while Mars is warming, Neptune is cooling? What is the why of that? And tell me, since you yapping fools have been saying that we are in a cooling trend because of a solar minimum, why the hell Mars is warming? 

Have you ever considered going to google and checking on what scientists are saying on the subject?


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 11, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Maple said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...


Better still.  Explain how human kind is causing Mars to warm and Uranus to cool.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 11, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > > Yet all of the studies after Mann confirmed the essentials of his graph. Even those scientists that condemned his methods got the same results using their preferred methods.
> ...


Quotes taken directly from the model's code:



> ; Plots 24 yearly maps of calibrated (PCR-infilled or not) MXD reconstructions
> ; of growing season temperatures. Uses "corrected" MXD - but shouldn't usually
> ; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to
> ; the real temperatures.



and



> ; Computes regressions on full, high and low pass Esper et al. (2002) series,
> ; anomalies against full NH temperatures and other series.
> ; CALIBRATES IT AGAINST THE LAND-ONLY TEMPERATURES NORTH OF 20 N
> ;
> ...



and



> ;mknormal,yyy,timey,refperiod=[1881,1940]
> ;
> ; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
> ;
> ...



For a huge chunk of the data being hidden by the Hadley CRU, go here.

Hide the Decline

Oops, fucking oops oops OOPS!


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 11, 2010)

And for those who wish to peruse the Hadley CRU emails to see what Jones, Hansen, Mann, et all were saying while hiding the truth of their fraud.  Go here.

Searchable East Anglia Emails

Cue Ole Crocks, Chris and others saying "but they don't mean anything!"

Trust them or trust your own lying eyes.  Your choice.


----------



## OregonStream (Jan 11, 2010)

Mars isn't Earth. With a thinner atmosphere and no oceans, it would probably be more sensitive to even modest solar flux. But it also has different orbital parameters, strong seasonal variation, rapid changes in polar ice, and hemispheric dust storms that make for a less stable climate. More on the "other planets warming" meme here.


----------



## OregonStream (Jan 11, 2010)

Problem is, Fitz, you still don't seem to have explained what any of that stuff in red means (or why it's nefarious). Here are a few clues to what they were talking about.


----------



## Maple (Jan 11, 2010)

Florida- record cold- has not gone above 50 degrees for the last 10 days, a low of 38degrees in Miami- Tallahassee 13 degree's, there goes the orange crop.


----------



## Maple (Jan 11, 2010)

I think the whole point is that we can all agree that climate change exists, it existed back in the 20's when we thought we were going through another warming trend, then in the 40's the return of the ice age. There is no clear evidence on what causes climate changes to happen, but that does not mean that we jump to conclusions, make drastic changes in the hopes of correcting something that we could very well have NO possibility of correcting. It very well could be natural or God created climate changes.


----------



## OregonStream (Jan 11, 2010)

Maple said:


> I think the whole point is that we can all agree that climate change exists, it existed back in the 20's when we thought we were going through another warming trend, then in the 40's the return of the ice age. There is no clear evidence on what causes climate changes to happen, but that does not mean that we jump to conclusions, make drastic changes in the hopes of correcting something that we could very well have NO possibility of correcting. It very well could be natural or God created climate changes.



I haven't seen scientific evidence that the natural variation of the 20's through the 40's was strong on a global scale. But today we have an absence of the kind of solar flux that produced apparently modest change in the global averages back then (with stronger regional effects associated with oceanic heat distribution). These give some idea:


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 12, 2010)

Maple said:


> Florida- record cold- has not gone above 50 degrees for the last 10 days, a low of 38degrees in Miami- Tallahassee 13 degree's, there goes the orange crop.



Wider and wilder swings in weather with an overall warming trend.

The danger is not a few degrees warmer, but  increasingly unpredictable weather patterns that negatively impact the world's agricultureral production.


----------



## saveliberty (Jan 12, 2010)

Notes on the charts:

1.  Data on Antarctia is almost nonexistent.
2.  Data for Antarctia that does exist suggests a cooling trend.
3.  I question the reliability of any chart (last one lower left), that shows no data right next to a very cool spot right next to a very warm spot.  Paticularly when the really hot spot is where scientist have a research center.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 12, 2010)

OregonStream said:


> Problem is, Fitz, you still don't seem to have explained what any of that stuff in red means (or why it's nefarious). Here are a few clues to what they were talking about.


Uhhh.... Essentially, I've shown you comments of the Warmists saying "yeah, we're committing fraud." and you say... you're not showing us anything.



So, what proof WOULD you believe, since you're being extremely stringent in what you believe as to protect your faith?


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 12, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Maple said:
> 
> 
> > Florida- record cold- has not gone above 50 degrees for the last 10 days, a low of 38degrees in Miami- Tallahassee 13 degree's, there goes the orange crop.
> ...


Ah yes.  the "If there's weather, it proves Global Warming" argument.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 12, 2010)

OregonStream said:


> Problem is, Fitz, you still don't seem to have explained what any of that stuff in red means (or why it's nefarious). Here are a few clues to what they were talking about.


Sooooo... you send me to the Warmist coverup page.

These are not the smoking guns you are looking for....

... you will go into the bedroom and smack dad in the face....

... go get me a cookie....

Hey!  Why not send me to a Boston Red Socks website to PROVE why the Yankee's suck?  That'd be non biased, won't it?  Better yet, I'd like to invest in the Bernie Madoff Appeal fund?

How blind do you think people are?


----------



## saveliberty (Jan 12, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> OregonStream said:
> 
> 
> > Problem is, Fitz, you still don't seem to have explained what any of that stuff in red means (or why it's nefarious). Here are a few clues to what they were talking about.
> ...



His whole program is global warmist talking points Big Fitz.  The lemming just goes and goes.  The cliff of reality can't slow him down.  Jump OregonStream jump.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 12, 2010)

Sighhh... true.


----------



## OregonStream (Jan 12, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> Notes on the charts:
> 
> 1.  Data on Antarctia is almost nonexistent.
> 2.  Data for Antarctia that does exist suggests a cooling trend.
> 3.  I question the reliability of any chart (last one lower left), that shows no data right next to a very cool spot right next to a very warm spot.  Paticularly when the really hot spot is where scientist have a research center.



Somehow it's not surprising that you have unsubstantiated suspicions, but I doubt a scientific encampment can correlate with the patterns of anomaly, including off the coast. The surface data for Antarctica is limited, yes, but the more the situation there is researched, the less of an icon it becomes for the cooling gang. And climate models have long projected relative stability in Antarctica as a whole for this century (here). It has some unique regional traits, including the high heat uptake of the Southern ocean.


----------



## OregonStream (Jan 12, 2010)

Fitz, even if you aren't willing to consider inconvenient details from those involved in the research, you still haven't answered my question. All you guys can do is stays stuck in repeat about vague conspiracies and "warmists" following a religion (speaking of talking points), but you've presented nothing of substance. What do the parts in red refer to, Fitz?


----------



## saveliberty (Jan 12, 2010)

OregonStream said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Notes on the charts:
> ...



So we take hard verifiable data and are unscientific.  You use manipulated data and deception and it is science.  Okay.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 12, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Maple said:
> 
> 
> > Florida- record cold- has not gone above 50 degrees for the last 10 days, a low of 38degrees in Miami- Tallahassee 13 degree's, there goes the orange crop.
> ...



So sometimes it get cooler when its warmer?

Is this like all those Cat 5 hurricanes that haven't appeared in 5 years?

The Great Climatic Googly Moogly is indeed a puzzlement


----------



## OregonStream (Jan 12, 2010)

Still waiting for that proof of deception/manipulated data. Frank, I don't know why fluctuation within a trend is so hard to grasp. It's not perfect, but I used a stock market analogy in another post. Over time, the trend has been up, despite shorter-term ups and downs. And sometimes it does get _regionally_ much cooler when heat distribution changes (as happened recently with an Arctic air incursion). If you heat up a room in your house and then open the door into a cooler hallway, does the average temperature of your house fall?

The hurricane argument is also about longer-term trends, mixed with the usual variability. No scientist I'm aware of has ever said the only influence on tropical storms is sea surface temperature. Other conditions need to be favorable too (like low wind shear). But of the storms that do occur, ocean heat content is expected to at least affect average strength.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 12, 2010)

OregonStream said:


> Fitz, even if you aren't willing to consider inconvenient details from those involved in the research, you still haven't answered my question. All you guys can do is stays stuck in repeat about vague conspiracies and "warmists" following a religion (speaking of talking points), but you've presented nothing of substance. What do the parts in red refer to, Fitz?


They are notes by the programmers showing that the program has been deliberately designed to provide a false warming after 1960.  Personally, that was clear as day to me.  I provided also the data set that they added INTO the model to keep the warming on their theorized basis rather than reflect the REAL results.

I dunno.  Call me old fashioned, but that just seemed dishonest.


----------



## Sinatra (Jan 12, 2010)

*Miami's First Cold Weather Death Confirmed 
Cold temps and no heat led to hypothermia for an elderly man*

Miami's First Cold Weather Death Confirmed | NBC Miami


"_*algore and his scientist pals tell us global temperature increases track/follow CO2 increases - CO2 Causes Global Warming. I assume, since we're still running our SUV's CO2 has not diminished and is in fact increasing every moment.
Now we've got algore and his scientist pals telling us we're experiencing the "Global cooling effect of Global warming".

Wasn't there a line in some movie where the guy says "Don't p1ss on my head and tell me it's raining" ?*_"


----------



## Foxfyre (Jan 12, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> OregonStream said:
> 
> 
> > Fitz, even if you aren't willing to consider inconvenient details from those involved in the research, you still haven't answered my question. All you guys can do is stays stuck in repeat about vague conspiracies and "warmists" following a religion (speaking of talking points), but you've presented nothing of substance. What do the parts in red refer to, Fitz?
> ...



Not only that but they are also dishonest in that their models cannot take the verifiable data that we have, feed it into their equations, and arrive at the climate we have NOW.  Yet they continue to insist that their models are reliable to forecast the climate that will exist if we do not employ draconian measures now to curb anthropogenic generated greenhouse emissions.

This is just nuts.


----------



## Chris (Jan 12, 2010)

A lot of foolishness in this thread.

It is cooler now because the Sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years.

CO2 has increased by 40%, so we are still warming the earth within the context of the Sun's activity.

The overall trend for the last 60 years has been toward warming. 

One of the reasons that Antarctica hasn't warmed as much is because we created a hole in the ozone with CFCs.


----------



## Sinatra (Jan 13, 2010)

Miami folks dying from the cold.

Global warming indeed...



Sinatra said:


> *Miami's First Cold Weather Death Confirmed
> Cold temps and no heat led to hypothermia for an elderly man*
> 
> Miami's First Cold Weather Death Confirmed | NBC Miami
> ...


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 13, 2010)

Chris said:


> A lot of foolishness in this thread.
> 
> It is cooler now because the Sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years.
> 
> ...



EXCEPT for the 15 years between 1984 and 1999 the warmers have INSISTED the Sun had nothing to do with the warming. Now all of a sudden it DOES have an effect and it is cooling the planet?

Further dumb ass CO2 is still rising and we have seen no increase in temps worldwide since 1998. And then there is that matter of historical record that shows CO2 does not lead temperature rise it FOLLOWS it.


----------



## edthecynic (Jan 13, 2010)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > A lot of foolishness in this thread.
> ...


Well there you go again, telling the same lie you got caught lying about on another thread.

When CON$ get caught lying they just keep on lying. The decade from 1999 to 2008 was WARMEST decade in the history of direct instrument measurement.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 13, 2010)

edthecynic said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



Average wise stupid fuck. Even Old Rocks will admit that there has been no temperature rise on average since 1998. You are not to good with math are you?


----------



## saveliberty (Jan 13, 2010)

edthecynic said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



Why is it the warmest decade?

1.  Scientists took raw data and increased the temperature results.
2.  Assuming you can believe any data at this point, it peaked in 1998 and has been on a cooling trend since then.
3.  ALL of the consequneces we are suppose to be suffering from due to warming are not happening.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 13, 2010)

Chris said:


> A lot of foolishness in this thread.
> 
> It is cooler now because the Sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years.
> 
> ...



Chris, you mentioned the Sun in a Warmer post, that's a big fucking no-no and is going to get you excommunicated from the East Anglia Glee Club.


----------



## Liability (Jan 13, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > A lot of foolishness in this thread.
> ...



The symbol for the East Anglia G*L*ee Club is a giant letter "L."

Those AGW Faithers *do* tend to all be a bunch of brainwashed *Losers*, so the symbol is appropriate.

Thank me.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 13, 2010)

RetiredGySgt said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



*Whoa, back up!!!!!*

There has not been a warmer single year, although 2005 was very close.

The running 5 year mean is still rising. So one has a good case for the 'average' rising.

And watch what happens in 2010.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 13, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



Proof? 

So you are stating that the scientists in Australia, South Africa, Russia, Europe, the US, Canada, Japan, China, Brazil, Argentina, and every other nation that has scientists, are falsifing information?

I have some nice tin hats that you might want to buy.


----------



## Claudette (Jan 13, 2010)

I'm down here in Central Florida and I could sure use a little GW. Its been in the 20's every night for the last week. Way unusual for Florida baby.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 13, 2010)

One major prediction of global warming is wider and wilder swings in the weather, with an overall warming trend.


----------



## Sinatra (Jan 13, 2010)

Ah yes - the global warming will cause cooling mantra.

They got ALL the bases covered!!


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 13, 2010)

Chris said:


> A lot of foolishness in this thread.
> 
> It is cooler now because the Sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years.
> 
> ...


And 40% of 0.03% is significant how?

Oops, I dropped an extra grain of salt in the ocean!  It's too salty!  We're all gonna dieeeeeee!!!


----------



## Liability (Jan 13, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> One major prediction of global warming is wider and wilder swings in the weather, with an overall warming trend.



Such a "trend" can only be observed upon closely examining the cooked data and suppressing contrary data, however.

Meanwhile, a man died of hypofuckingthermia in FLORIDA this week, in fact, it was in MIAMI!  http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local-beat/Miamis-First-Cold-Weather-Death-Confirmed-81248747.html

Yeah, overall, it sure helped _him_ to live during these roasting days of Global Warming.

There is a REASON nobody with a functioning brain takes you Global Warming Faithers seriously anymore.

You brought it on yourself.

Tell algore to fuck off, please.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 13, 2010)

> So you are stating that the scientists in Australia, South Africa, Russia, Europe, the US, Canada, Japan, China, Brazil, Argentina, and every other nation that has scientists, are falsifing information?



John is a scientist.
John believes in Global Warming
All Scientists believe in Global Warming.

Tis a crock o shit... and it stinketh.
...
Tis NOT a container of fertilizer that will promote growth.

Your hyperventilating at us calling your crackpot mad scientists who bought into the hoax liars doesn't change the fact... you're still lying.


----------



## saveliberty (Jan 13, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



What kind of idiot owns multiple tin hats?  I am stating that all your scientist buddies were using the same manipulated data set.  See how that causes a problem?


----------



## Liability (Jan 13, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...



It is a form of *heresy* and *blasphemy* to the AGW Faithers to suggest that their religion is based on a fraud.

Either Edthesickdick and Olde Fossil are too obtuse to grasp the fact that manipulated data sets provide no rational basis for ANY valid scientific conclusions OR, if they are smart enough to grasp that obvious fact, then they are revealed as simply being too dishonest to admit it.


----------



## Sinatra (Jan 13, 2010)

*Observations of Global Energy Budget Changes
The following graph shows the variations in the Earth&#8217;s global-average radiative energy balance as measured by the CERES instrument on NASA&#8217;s Terra satellite. These are variations in the imbalance between absorbed sunlight and emitted infrared radiation, the most fundamental quantity associated with global warming or global cooling. Also show (in red) are theoretically calculated changes in radiative forcing from increasing carbon dioxide as measured at Mauna Loa.*








Spencer: Clouds Dominate CO2 as a Climate Driver Since 2000 « Watts Up With That?


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 13, 2010)

Anthony Watt?  Why don't you just post it under Exxon would have you believe?


----------



## Liability (Jan 13, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Anthony Watt?  Why don't you just post it under Exxon would have you believe?



Suddenly Olde Fossil is *concerned* about the integrity of reported data.

Wow.

This appears to be a first!


----------



## OregonStream (Jan 13, 2010)

Spencer & Christy seem to have a record of questionable analyses. See the "How to Cook a Graph" link here. What he calls a "global cooling event" caused by low clouds is usually thought of as a fluctuation from at least two ocean cycles being in their cool phases, and solar minimum. How does he know the low cloud effect (if it exists) isn't just a response to that? But I'd love to see a version of this in the peer reviewed literature. Is there one? That would be a greater test of his confidence in this stuff. It's easy to post supposition on a blog.


----------



## Sinatra (Jan 13, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Anthony Watt?  Why don't you just post it under Exxon would have you believe?



I suggest you educate yourself Old Rocks - you yourself have utilized the works of Dr. Roy Spencer in your own posts!!  

You grow more glaringly ignorant with each failed attempt in here.  C'mon now, you can do better.

Here is a start on who Dr. Roy Spencer is.  It appears he might know just a bit more on this subject than you...


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

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


About Dr. Roy Spencer « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.


----------



## saveliberty (Jan 13, 2010)

OregonStream said:


> Spencer & Christy seem to have a record of questionable analyses. See the "How to Cook a Graph" link here. What he calls a "global cooling event" caused by low clouds is usually thought of as a fluctuation from at least two ocean cycles being in their cool phases, and solar minimum. How does he know the low cloud effect (if it exists) isn't just a response to that? But I'd love to see a version of this in the peer reviewed literature. Is there one? That would be a greater test of his confidence in this stuff. It's easy to post supposition on a blog.



Peer review?  You mean the global warmers who try to exclude this type of thing from being published?  Gee, what type of review would that yield?  Starting the denial phase already OregonStream?  You sound more like Old Rocks all the time.


----------



## Sinatra (Jan 13, 2010)

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Three-cases-global-forcing-feedback.jpg


----------



## edthecynic (Jan 13, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...


The only people who were actually caught manipulating the data set were deniers Christy and Spencer at UAH. They were caught red-handed using the opposite sign to correct for diurnal satellite drift.

You deniers are claiming CRU manipulated the data set by using REAL TEMP DATA.


----------



## Sinatra (Jan 13, 2010)

+


Sinatra said:


> http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Three-cases-global-forcing-feedback.jpg


----------



## OregonStream (Jan 13, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> OregonStream said:
> 
> 
> > Spencer & Christy seem to have a record of questionable analyses. See the "How to Cook a Graph" link here. What he calls a "global cooling event" caused by low clouds is usually thought of as a fluctuation from at least two ocean cycles being in their cool phases, and solar minimum. How does he know the low cloud effect (if it exists) isn't just a response to that? But I'd love to see a version of this in the peer reviewed literature. Is there one? That would be a greater test of his confidence in this stuff. It's easy to post supposition on a blog.
> ...



Show me one _proven_ case of peer review obstruction, not just _talk_ of pressuring certain journals into more diligently honoring their basic scientific standards.


----------



## OregonStream (Jan 13, 2010)

Sinatra said:


> _*Dr. Spencer&#8217;s research has been entirely supported by U.S. government agencies...*_



According to at least one member here, government funded research isn't trustworthy. Or is it only trustworthy when it appears convenient? And as noted at the RC link, Spencer may have published some interesting peer-reviewed work, but there seems to be some disconnect between that and occurs in his press releases and blogs.


----------



## OregonStream (Jan 13, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> Not only that but they are also dishonest in that their models cannot take the verifiable data that we have, feed it into their equations, and arrive at the climate we have NOW.  Yet they continue to insist that their models are reliable to forecast the climate that will exist if we do not employ draconian measures now to curb anthropogenic generated greenhouse emissions.
> 
> This is just nuts.



There's plenty of model code and validation data on the web. And "draconian measures"? Not yet. Only if dedicated contrarians succeed in further delaying a transition. Then you'll see much more support for tighter restrictions. For now, an ounce of prevention is still worth something.


----------



## Sinatra (Jan 13, 2010)

OregonStream said:


> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> > _*Dr. Spencer&#8217;s research has been entirely supported by U.S. government agencies...*_
> ...


___

No real disconnect at all.

The earth's climate is incredibly complicated, and so much of what has been deemed "fact" by the global warmers is mere conjecture - and Spencer is among those in the scientific community who remarks on that.

His work, which includes many years among various and highly credible scientific institutions, is to top notch - even the stuff I may not agree with is well done, and unlike the Global Warmer Junta that has spent years attempting to promote their own agenda, Spencer has no ties to Big Oil, no ties to GE, no ties to United Nations grants, etc.

He is the real deal.


----------



## OregonStream (Jan 13, 2010)

Sinatra said:


> His work, which includes many years among various and highly credible scientific institutions, is to top notch - even the stuff I may not agree with is well done, and unlike the Global Warmer Junta that has spent years attempting to promote their own agenda, Spencer has no ties to Big Oil, no ties to GE, no ties to United Nations grants, etc.
> 
> He is the real deal.


Not sure any of the above means he couldn't be ideologically biased in any way. But are allowing serial errors to persist in their satellite data analysis and shameless cookery "top notch"?


----------



## saveliberty (Jan 13, 2010)

OregonStream said:


> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> > _*Dr. Spencers research has been entirely supported by U.S. government agencies...*_
> ...



Talk about convenient, you discredited this person before you even checked the references.  That is far more telling than whether it was a government source or not.


----------



## OregonStream (Jan 13, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> Talk about convenient, you discredited this person before you even checked the references.  That is far more telling than whether it was a government source or not.



Who said "_Your studies are funded by government sources that want the benefits of power derived from this lie_". I think that's more of a blanket discrediting than referencing serious specific issues.


----------



## saveliberty (Jan 13, 2010)

OregonStream said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Talk about convenient, you discredited this person before you even checked the references.  That is far more telling than whether it was a government source or not.
> ...



Since the environment wasn't important enough to save at the climate conference and most of the discussions were about payments, I draw the logical conclusion power is the reason for the issue.  Is it not true that the studies you cited were government funded?  Data is being hidden and opposition silenced, I consider that a lie in the world of science.  The statement is accurate.


----------



## Sinatra (Jan 13, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> OregonStream said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...



Exactly!!!!

When people come in here and say they support Cap n Tax - they are simply supporting the international shake down - which is what it really is.

If the climate was in such dire condition, why the private planes, limos, etc. that created a HUGE carbon footprint?  Nope - it was about money and power.  The movement uses feeble minded do-goodism liberals who wish to make their small lives account for something "bigger" - the same ones who run around saying "We can save the planet!"

No, you cannot save the planet - but you can help to initiate the transfer of wealth in the TRILLIONS of dollars to corrupt governments around the globe who will give empty promises of producing less carbon.

Jobs will be lost in America, quality of life goes down, and future opportunities diminish as the corrupt UN attempts to diminish the U.S. and "redistribute" to other parts of the world.

Fuck that.


----------



## OregonStream (Jan 13, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> Since the environment wasn't important enough to save at the climate conference and most of the discussions were about payments, I draw the logical conclusion power is the reason for the issue.  Is it not true that the studies you cited were government funded?  Data is being hidden and opposition silenced, I consider that a lie in the world of science.  The statement is accurate.



So because a bunch of politicians couldn't get their act together and make commitments regarding their responsibilities (despite the scientific conference leading up to the political one), then the whole issue is about power and money? The fact that no government is stepping up and taking the lead is pro-"warmist"? Are those "logical" inferences? And unless I missed something, you've yet to show any proof of inappropriate data manipulation.


----------



## Sinatra (Jan 13, 2010)

+


Sinatra said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > OregonStream said:
> ...


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 13, 2010)

When in doubt, trust the ones who aren't being paid, first.

Can I bill Madame Botox and her entourage for taking that trip on my dime?  I think I deserve to be repaid.


----------



## edthecynic (Jan 13, 2010)

Sinatra said:


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


"Top notch" for someone presented as an "expert" on satellite data who has no idea what sign to use to correct for diurnal satellite drift and just happened to guess the sign that made the data colder. 
An "honest" mistake any unbiased "expert" would make.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 13, 2010)

LOL. But do they get excited when you point out figures that he publishes that support the obvious warming.


----------



## Sinatra (Jan 13, 2010)

Spencer has never denied warming - or cooling.

Where he departs from the global warming religion is humankind being made into the great Satan.

There are far too many unanswered questions regarding climate, and Spencer appears willing to connect the dots as to what is really motivating the global warming agenda.

He does a great service to the scientific community for having the courage to do so...


----------



## Chris (Jan 14, 2010)

Sinatra said:


> Spencer has never denied warming - or cooling.
> 
> Where he departs from the global warming religion is humankind being made into the great Satan.
> 
> ...



There is a hole in the ozone larger than Antarctica.

There is a patch of garbage in the Pacific the size of Texas.

We have almost doubled atmospheric CO2 in the last 200 years. 

You are the one who can't connect the dots.


----------



## Sinatra (Jan 14, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> When in doubt, trust the ones who aren't being paid, first.
> 
> Can I bill Madame Botox and her entourage for taking that trip on my dime?  I think I deserve to be repaid.



___

Yes you do - utter hypocrisy.

Save the earth from CO2 by belching a bunch of it into the atmosphere to fly over there to smile and nod and then return back to the States.

Copenhagen was a total BUST.

Global Warming is on its last legs folks - if you support its speculative theory, you are on th wrong side of truth - and history


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Jan 14, 2010)

Sinatra said:


> The earth's climate is incredibly complicated, and so much of what has been deemed "fact" by the global warmers is mere conjecture - and Spencer is among those in the scientific community who remarks on that.



Please list said claimed "facts" which are mere "conjecture".

This guy Roy Spencer is also a creationist, so I doubt any word that comes from his mouth


----------



## elvis (Jan 14, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> > The earth's climate is incredibly complicated, and so much of what has been deemed "fact" by the global warmers is mere conjecture - and Spencer is among those in the scientific community who remarks on that.
> ...



appeal to ignorance.  good plan.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Jan 14, 2010)

elvis3577 said:


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



I asked that a list of facts which are mere conjecture be provided. I don't see how that appeals to ignorance. Please explain.


----------



## elvis (Jan 14, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > SpidermanTuba said:
> ...



Sorry. I didn't mean ignorance.  You are saying that since an individual does not believe in evolution, he cannot be correct about anything else.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Jan 14, 2010)

elvis3577 said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> > elvis3577 said:
> ...





No, I'm saying that since this individual believes in Creationism as scientific theory, he is not to be trusted.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Jan 14, 2010)

elvis3577 said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> > elvis3577 said:
> ...





No, I'm saying that since this individual believes in Creationism as scientific theory, he is not to be trusted.


----------



## elvis (Jan 14, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > SpidermanTuba said:
> ...



poisoning the well?  what the hell does the fact he believes in creationism have to do with him being correct or incorrect about anything else?  Try setting aside your hatred of Christians for a minute.


----------



## elvis (Jan 14, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > SpidermanTuba said:
> ...



poisoning the well?  what the hell does the fact he believes in creationism have to do with him being correct or incorrect about anything else?  Try setting aside your hatred of Christians for a minute.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Jan 14, 2010)

elvis3577 said:


> poisoning the well?  what the hell does the fact he believes in creationism have to do with him being correct or incorrect about anything else?  Try setting aside your hatred of Christians for a minute.





I'm not sure what this has to do with Christianity, because that's a religion. Anyone who thinks Creationism is a viable _scientific theory_ has a few screws loose.


----------



## FactFinder (Jan 14, 2010)

You are correct. Creationism is way beyond the capabilities of science which can't even get a handle on climate.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 14, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> One major prediction of global warming is wider and wilder swings in the weather, with an overall warming trend.



But that's what I've been trying to tell you!! It gets cooler when its warmer so the proper name is: GlobalWarmerCoolering or GlobalCoolerWarmering!


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 14, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > One major prediction of global warming is wider and wilder swings in the weather, with an overall warming trend.
> ...



There is no over all warming trend, it has not gotten warmer since 1998. No increase in temperatures world wide since 1998. 11 years of no warming trend versus the previous 15 years of a small one.


----------



## edthecynic (Jan 14, 2010)

RetiredGySgt said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


No matter how many times you mindlessly parrot that LIE, it will never be true!!!!!!!


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 14, 2010)

edthecynic said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Have you had your vision checked recently? The only part of your graph that RGS is referring to is from about 2000 and on. Now my vision isn't the greatest. I'm about half blind in one eye, but I'm pretty sure I can see that on all three of those graphs that the bar at 2000 is higher than the very last bar on the graph.


----------



## edthecynic (Jan 14, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...


Better get your vision checked! 
Or at least click on the chart to make it full size before you make a fool of yourself again. For the last 10 years, 2000 is the lowest point on the land and combined charts, and second lowest on the ocean chart.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Jan 14, 2010)




----------



## saveliberty (Jan 14, 2010)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


>



Easily the equivalent of 5,000 words.


----------



## OregonStream (Jan 14, 2010)

This might better represent the situation:


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 14, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > SpidermanTuba said:
> ...


If someone believes in A, and it is untrue

Then if they believe in B, and it IS true

they cannot be right in B because they believe in A.

Not to mention the fact that A is not necessarily untrue, but only thought to be untrue by another who may or may not be wrong themselves.

Love the logic.


----------



## saveliberty (Jan 14, 2010)

OregonStream said:


> This might better represent the situation:



Self portrait of a young global warmer.  He's trying to cut CO2 and methene emissions at the same time.  Way to go trooper!


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 14, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> OregonStream said:
> 
> 
> > This might better represent the situation:
> ...


Till he dies and his body decomposes.  well at least he's composting.  Quick, throw him in with the rest of the garbage!


----------



## sboyle24 (Jan 14, 2010)

Conservatism is just another word for idiocy.


----------



## saveliberty (Jan 15, 2010)

sboyle24 said:


> Conservatism is just another word for idiocy.



You know, they have online dictionaries.  Find one, you need it.


----------



## sboyle24 (Jan 15, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> sboyle24 said:
> 
> 
> > Conservatism is just another word for idiocy.
> ...



My point is now proven. Thank you.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 15, 2010)

sboyle24 said:


> Conservatism is just another word for idiocy.



Hide the decline


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 15, 2010)

OregonStream said:


> This might better represent the situation:



Nah, but this does

http://www.usmessageboard.com/humor...glia-climate-research-unit-entrance-exam.html


----------



## saveliberty (Jan 15, 2010)

sboyle24 said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > sboyle24 said:
> ...



Look up ignorant.  You probably hear people call you that frequently.  It isn't a good thing.


----------



## edthecynic (Jan 15, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> sboyle24 said:
> 
> 
> > Conservatism is just another word for idiocy.
> ...


OUT OF CONTEXT!


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 15, 2010)

sboyle24 said:


> Conservatism is just another word for idiocy.


You need to stop channeling your avatar.

Picture at the East Anglica University 'office cat' as Dr. Jones quickly works to hide the decline.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Jan 15, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> If someone believes in A, and it is untrue
> 
> Then if they believe in B, and it IS true
> 
> ...



Of course you love the logic, you came up with it. Congrats!


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 15, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > If someone believes in A, and it is untrue
> ...







That don't make *no *sense!

The funny part is, you still think that way.  If someone believes in a supernatural source of creation, they can't be right in their assessment of Global Warming is a hoax.

What next?  Disliking green beans will disqualify you from being a philosopher?


----------



## saveliberty (Jan 15, 2010)

Green beans, a can of mushroom soup and french fried onions will get you a great side dish.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Jan 15, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> The funny part is, you still think that way.  If someone believes in a supernatural source of creation, they can't be right in their assessment of Global Warming is a hoax.



No, I don't actually think that way. You have decided I think that way. And you are wrong.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 15, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> Green beans, a can of mushroom soup and french fried onions will get you a great side dish.


Layer that on top of browned hamburger and cover with tatertots bake for 1 hour and you have Green Bean Hot Dish.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 15, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...



If someone claims to be a scientist, then states that evolution is has not happened, his claim is invalid. 

From the fossils in the rocks, to the shared genetics of all life, the evidence is simply overwhelming that evolution has happened, is happening, and will continue to happen as long as there is life.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 15, 2010)

> If someone claims to be a scientist, then states that evolution is has not happened, his claim is invalid.



Nope.  It is not.  There is no proof of macro-evolution.  It is a THEORY and subject to being proven to this day.  That's what it still is... the THEORY of Evolution, not the LAW of Evolution.

But of course, to you warmists... the science is settled isn't it?

What we CAN show is that micro-evolution, meaning mutation can be proven quite clearly.

Fast and loose with the scientific method again, I see.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 15, 2010)

Total crock of shit, Fitz. There is not micro and macro evolution. Enough micro and you have macro. No differance at all.

How many Biologists claim that evolution did not happen? 

And how do you square up what we have learned since 1953 about the genetics of life with creationism?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 15, 2010)

The peppered moth moved evolution into the realm of "settled science"

"Another common criticism involves well-known pictures of moths resting on trunks, used in many textbooks. These photos were prepared (dead moths pinned to branches), which has been conflated into the idea that all the studies were staged, ignoring the point that professional photography to illustrate textbooks uses dead insects because of the considerable difficulty in getting good images of small, relatively fast moving, animals, and that the studies actually consisted of observational data rather than using such photographs. The photographs in Michael Majerus's 1998 book Melanism: Evolution in Action are unstaged pictures of live moths in the wild, and the photographs of moths on tree-trunks, apart from some slight blurring, look no different than the "staged" photographs.[19]"

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

Rather hockey stick like


----------



## Sinatra (Jan 15, 2010)

I do love a peppered steak.

Damn I wish it was a wee bit warmer so I could fire up the grill!!!

Damn global cooling...


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 15, 2010)

> There is not micro and macro evolution.



Shows what you know numbnuts.



> And how do you square up what we have learned since 1953 about the genetics of life with creationism?



Read "Darwin's Black Box".  Life is too complex to have been spontaneously generated.  The laws of Thermodynamics itself speaks against the possibility as even astronomical odds to GETTING astronomical odds. To have even created a single cellular flagellum by random chemical connections... well to call it impossible is being kind. 

The only RATIONAL response is that although the mechanism may be quantifiable, there must have been some INTELLIGENT force out there, whatever it may be, that created life.  It could be aliens, or God, or robots, or this is an incredibly powerful dream or simulator... it doesn't matter.  The point is, that it is more likely a supernatural (read, not natural and therefore unproven as of now) method for life to exist than there is the happenstance of victory in the galactic Keno game of random chance chemical concoctions.

To close yourself off to this mathematically MOST PROBABLE possibility, is foolishness.

But you've already proven yourself the fool, so, I doubt you'll get this either.


----------



## edthecynic (Jan 15, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> > There is not micro and macro evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You know nothing about science and even less about the Laws of Thermodynamics.

Creation VIOLATES the First Law of Thermodynamics!!!

Chemical "concoctions" do not form "random chance" molecules!!!!


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 15, 2010)

> Creation VIOLATES the First Law of Thermodynamics!!!



What the FUCK does the word "SUPERNATURAL" mean to you?

Paralyzed from the neck UP I see.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 16, 2010)

Supernatural, invoked for a physical process which we have enough understanding of to see how it works, and even engineer new species, means dumbass ignorance in this context.

We cannot engineer with what we know of gravity. 

We cannot exceed the speed of light with what we know of Relitivity.

But we can now engineer the basic elements of life, creating new abilities in species. Our understanding of life and evolution is great enough we do not need myths and fairy tales from an illiterate agrarian past for explanations of abiogenisis or the evolution of life as we know it today.


----------



## FactFinder (Jan 16, 2010)

Who is the 'we' Rocks? 
Some think a bit more highly of themselves then they ought, heh?


----------



## edthecynic (Jan 16, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> > Creation VIOLATES the First Law of Thermodynamics!!!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


NONEXISTENT, FICTITIOUS, MADE UP, UNREAL, IMAGINARY, PHONY
There is no such THING as the "supernatural" it is merely a word and nothing more!!!!!
NATURE is SUPREME

I notice you could not deny the absolute truth of this statement, 
Chemical "concoctions" do not form "random chance" molecules!!!!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 16, 2010)

edthecynic said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > > There is not micro and macro evolution.
> ...



Um, no it doesn't. 

E=mc^2 tells us otherwise


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 16, 2010)

Hmmm.....  The mass energy equation and the chemistry of abiogenisis. A bit of a stretch there, old man.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 16, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Hmmm.....  The mass energy equation and the chemistry of abiogenisis. A bit of a stretch there, old man.



Yeah, I know, that realization is what fucked Einstein up in the end, it blew his mind


----------



## edthecynic (Jan 16, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...


And you know less about special relativity than thermodynamics.

The FLoT says you can't get SOMETHING from NOTHING.
Special relativity says energy and matter are THINGS that are related to each other.
Creation says NO THING (God) created EVERY THING from NOTHING.
Get it?????????


----------

